OSNews

"I'm not so sold on this one. Maybe you can convince me? People are scared of a "registry" sometimes, though obviously gconf isn't a big binary blob, but rather XML. I'm still not convinced that XML is the greatest way to store settings (as opposed to a more easily human readable flatfile). Instant Apply is nice, but one doesn't change settings all that often. Leaving aside my preference for flatfiles, what's the benefit of two DEs with mostly unrelated programs using the same config backend? Enlighten!"

I agree with you, XML is not always the best way to store configuration. Also, I certainly am not a huge fan of gconf. Although I've never really come up with a better idea for an alternative myself.

Nonetheless, I think the answer to your question about unrelated programs is that several linux users, myself included, tend to mix and match applications accross DE's. Personally, while I do try and maintain consistancy of my applications, it's more important to me to use the best o0f breed software. So while I run Gnome I use K3B because, in my opinion, it's leaps and bounds above Gnome-Baker.

In terms of configuration, different programss may suit different configuration formats better. But, sometimes it's better to think of the greater good of the whole, ie the complete ecosystem of Open Source software. It's better if all things may be configured in the same way. This will allow DE agnostic configuration schemes that can be managed centrally. Unfortunately this may hurt more for some applications than others but it is for the greater good of the entire DE and even will promote cross DE pollination that will help to improve everything. Whether a gconf style XML format is the best option is another matter. But I think at some point the community will decide to suck it up and adopt a single configuration standard for all software.

It may be a pipe ream but it's my pipe dream

G