On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 12:23:27AM -0600, Sam MacDonald wrote:
> I have a related question about symlinks or "symbolic links" for the group.
>
> One of the things about NT that makes it easy to understand is the use
> of the registry. The registry links objects to what the object is used
> for or to objects it uses. It organizes everything in a central Hierarchy.
> No central registry exists in Linux that I have found, it feels
You make the registry sound so clean and neat, I've always considered
it a vast dumping ground for unrelated, unused configuration settings.
I kinda preferred INI files, I'm a simple person.
Maintaining the register is like dumpster diving.
> scattered to me at this point. I can't go to one place and find the
> guts of everything.
Yes you can, its called "/etc" and it's easy enough to use. All the
system configuration settings are in etc. Personal configurations
are in home directories in a somewhat less organized way.
(A home/person/etc might have been nice)
> The essence of Linux is the File System and Symlinks if I'm not
> mistaken, "Yes"?
Yes, I think you are right.
But not symlinks, symlinks is just a semi-useful trick that some
file systems support. I doubt that a basic unix system requires
them.
> I need to be sure I'm understanding "in the Linux world" what I
> understand in the NT world.
>
> Could it be said (without opening a can of flames) that,
> symlinks do something similar to registry entries by pointing to
> other objects.
They are a secondary reference(or link) to files or folders,
they can be used to organize(or disorganize) a file system.
> I'm trying to take my NT registry knowledge that is the guts of the OS
> and translate Linux in to that understanding. Remember NT was designed
> by VAX guys, they took the guts of VAX and translated it in to the NT
> registry. Kinda like what Compaq did with the PC BIOS ;-)
I would not consider NT registry as the guts, its just a massive
configuration file in binary format to save some space and provide
some control(that perhaps the file system didn't provide).
I don't know anything about VAX, did it have a registry?
The guts in my opinion are the kernel and drivers that make up the system.
> I don't know why but I need to know the lowest levels of the OS first
> and learn up. I also need to learn from the desktop down at the same
> time. It works for me.
I've found that once you get used to it, the unix file system is
logically organized. You can easily distinguish the various components
and work with them. I can't say the same for the Windows system.
It seems to change from year to year, today its tele-tuby land with
"My music" and My programs", tommorrow it will be something else
("Our musac" and "Our Video", with "Your digital rights management").
NT/XP is an improvement over 95/98. I kinda wonder
if people will find a way to hose it up as bad as 95/98. You know,
your neighbor says, hey my computer is running really slow and crappy
and has all these pop-ups. Then you have to go run msconfig and turn
off dozens of useless "in your face" crapware that has accumulated.
Hmm, I think I coined a new term here, "crapware". :)
_______________________________________________
TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
http://www.mn-linux.org tclug-list at mn-linux.org
https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list