stupid question about etc/profile.d

Declan Moriarty declan.moriarty at
Wed Dec 22 01:17:10 PST 2004

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:10:06 +0000, Jeremy Henty <jeremy at> wrote:

> > One problem is that packages can (and will) arbitrarily override
> > common settings (such as extension/application assignments in
> > Windows)
> That certainly sucks, but I don't see that it's a problem with the
> registry.  I see it as a symptom of a fundamental flaw in Windows
> design: the "*only* one application for any one file type"
> foolishness.  That principle makes it *inevitable* that installing any
> new application will probably screw things up since it *has* to meddle
> with the extension/application assignments in order to be useful, and
> therefore *must* kick in the teeth of any existing application that
> uses the old assignments.  In other words, if there's only room for
> one King on the hill, expect perpetual civil war.

You guys are going st this discussion all wrong. You ignore the
pressing realities.

Windows was designed for a market. Unix was designed to ve usable for
sysadmins and programmers.

Windows therefore needs planned obsolescence, ease of use, copyright, 
compatability with previous versions(notably MSDOS system
limitations),  quick setup/install/modify processes. As well as the
registry, windows also uses by .ini files, .pif files as well as
optional program config files. Not one windows user has the competence
to fiddle with these except under instruction. As the market expands
and m$ reaches lower down the intellectual strata, people who can't
tie their shoelaces can use windoze.

The fact is, sadly, that windows plug'n'play and ease of basic
configuration leaves unix behind. Sad, but true. Linux is gaining
ground, but will not catch up, imho, _nor_should_it_, because it stops
being what it wants to be - a secure reliable infinitely variable and
coinfigurable environment.

Why compare chalk with cheese?

     All the Best


More information about the blfs-support mailing list