From: Dumas Patrice (dumas@centre-cired.fr)
Date: Fri Oct 25 2002 - 18:56:02 CEST
> But nobody care it, we never will have a better
> system on Linux, since only the kernel, KDE, GNOME and other few projects
> have a kind of standardized development policy.
That's because they are just one project, and not a set of projects.
> And we know why: to have an API is the minor problem. To have the same
> set of keys, is the true problem!
> (think about minor/major number assignment in /dev)
Your example isn't that good. To have it, just mail the maintainer/assigner
of kernel. It is just one project, thus not decentralized.
> If we even accept TUCS as configuration API, how to agree on the names
> of a key? IP? IPADDR? IP_ADDR? IP_ADDRESS?
Why agree on a name of a key ? The name of a key is local to the application
using it. I don't think that it is recommended to have applications share
the same configuration information. Sharing runtime information is done by
using the appropriate api.
Sometimes, yes, it could help having applications share the same information
but I don't think there is a need of a central authority for that,
developpers communication could suffice.
> So, not only we need of a registry API, but we need of a central
> authority (oh, Bill Gates ...)
>
> <joke target=KHZ>
>
> Otherwise, will can adopt the mechanism called "Web of Trust", used in
> order to sign and introduce digital key signatures.
> We meet periodically in some place and exchange beetwen us the
> proposed names for the keys :-)
>
> </joke>
Only if there are keys which are to be used by any application, it would
make sense to have a authority registering them. Maybe the lanana or
something approaching.
Pat
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mulinux-unsubscribe@sunsite.dk
For additional commands, e-mail: mulinux-help@sunsite.dk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Sat Feb 08 2003 - 15:27:23 CET