SEO

Has any form of UNIX (ignoring POSTIX compliant OS's that have an internal
structure unrelated to Linix / BSD / Mach / ... like OS2 / etc..) ever had
any kind of registry (for the core OS, not the applications; system daemons
may be tracked by such a structure -- but not user daemons)?

The Apple OSX (but not really AIX) and RTOS variant QNX, as well as BEos are
about the only substantial deviations from Unix in the modern era.

Not a one has any kind of registry data structure that I am aware of.

With respect to modern Plug and Play issues, and some aspects of booting
up -- a very limited registry would have some utility. There may even be
some IEEE or ACM papers on variants of Unix that have tried this. I am not
suggesting the concept be applied to Unix (non Intel) workstations or
minicomputers.

I am not suggesting any design like anything in the Microsoft mold, just
something to make storing and recovering (if necessary) core OS states more
robust.

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc.]
On 2008-02-03, Max Power <mikehack@washington.edu> wrote:
>
> Has any form of UNIX (ignoring POSTIX compliant OS's that have an internal
> structure unrelated to Linix / BSD / Mach / ... like OS2 / etc..) ever had
> any kind of registry (for the core OS, not the applications; system daemons
> may be tracked by such a structure -- but not user daemons)?

Define registry.

Sysctl comes close:

- You can make settings changes to the system,
- read values from the system
- is is hierarchical.
- however it is not persistent, but built up from a script or config file.
OTOH, if you would allow only an editor for the config (that sets both
config and sysctl state) it would be pretty equivalent.

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 04:03:11 -0800, Max Power wrote:

> The Apple OSX (but not really AIX) and RTOS variant QNX, as well as BEos are
> about the only substantial deviations from Unix in the modern era.

Say what? Apple OSX *is* UNIX.

http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/

> Not a one has any kind of registry data structure that I am aware of.

True.

> With respect to modern Plug and Play issues, and some aspects of booting
> up -- a very limited registry would have some utility.

Bullshit.

> I am not suggesting any design like anything in the Microsoft mold, just
> something to make storing and recovering (if necessary) core OS states more
> robust.

Do you mean something as "robust" as that piece of shit you used to post
this nonsense?

Max Power wrote:
>
> Has any form of UNIX (ignoring POSTIX compliant OS's that have an
> internal structure unrelated to Linix / BSD / Mach / ... like OS2 /
> etc..) ever had any kind of registry (for the core OS, not the
> applications; system daemons may be tracked by such a structure -- but
> not user daemons)?
>
> The Apple OSX (but not really AIX) and RTOS variant QNX, as well as BEos
> are about the only substantial deviations from Unix in the modern era.
>
> Not a one has any kind of registry data structure that I am aware of.
>
> With respect to modern Plug and Play issues, and some aspects of booting
> up -- a very limited registry would have some utility. There may even be
> some IEEE or ACM papers on variants of Unix that have tried this. I am
> not suggesting the concept be applied to Unix (non Intel) workstations
> or minicomputers.
>
> I am not suggesting any design like anything in the Microsoft mold, just
> something to make storing and recovering (if necessary) core OS states
> more robust.

Microsoft's "registry" is a largely undocumented nightmare! You touch
it at your peril!! A mistake can render your system unusable!!!

Other O/Ss manage to get along without anything called a registry. They
tend to store parameters and settings in scattered files. They also
tend to document both the names, functions, and the format of these
files, a thought that evidently never occurred to Microsoft.

Might I suggest that regular backups are a great way to start making
your system "more robust"? Not tinkering, as root, with things you
don't fully understand also increases "robustness"!

I've never had a Solaris system crap all over itself and render itself
inoperable. Sadly, I can't say the same for any flavor of Windows.

If I could get Quicken, TurboTax, Bridge Baron, Street Atlas USA, and a
few other apps for Solaris, I might never run Windows again!

Max Power wrote:
>
> Has any form of UNIX (ignoring POSTIX compliant OS's that have an
> internal structure unrelated to Linix / BSD / Mach / ... like OS2 /
> etc..) ever had any kind of registry (for the core OS, not the
> applications; system daemons may be tracked by such a structure -- but
> not user daemons)?

Not that I've ever seen. Various tools have tried to present something like one, but the various components of a modern UNIX come from too many widely divergent programming models to merge into a single registry this way. Modern UNIX's, and especially Linux, are founded on having discreet, manageable components rather than a central registry of settings. This makes them *VASTLY* easier to keep in modular, manageable, and upgradable components rather than in a monolithic integration nightmare of doom.

> The Apple OSX (but not really AIX) and RTOS variant QNX, as well as BEos
> are about the only substantial deviations from Unix in the modern era.
>
> Not a one has any kind of registry data structure that I am aware of.
>
> With respect to modern Plug and Play issues, and some aspects of booting
> up -- a very limited registry would have some utility. There may even be
> some IEEE or ACM papers on variants of Unix that have tried this. I am
> not suggesting the concept be applied to Unix (non Intel) workstations
> or minicomputers.

Seriously, you don't need what the Windows folks would call a registry for that. You need to set some minimal standards for open source software authors to follow, such as the use of chkconfig for init scripts and the use of /etc/sysconfig for package specific system defaults.

> I am not suggesting any design like anything in the Microsoft mold, just
> something to make storing and recovering (if necessary) core OS states
> more robust.

Unfortunately, the concept of a "core OS state" falls apart. My OS does not care about the state of my DNS server, nor of my mail server, nor should it beyond the fact that it's installed and running. Or at least that is current open source approach.

Użytkownik "Max Power" <mikehack@washington.edu> napisał w wiadomości
news:fo4ajp$kfp$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>
> Has any form of UNIX (ignoring POSTIX compliant OS's that have an internal
> structure unrelated to Linix / BSD / Mach / ... like OS2 / etc..) ever
> had any kind of registry (for the core OS, not the applications; system
> daemons may be tracked by such a structure -- but not user daemons)?

AIX does have it. It's called ODF.
The common wisdom is it's the less unixy unix product created.

> I am not suggesting any design like anything in the Microsoft mold, just
> something to make storing and recovering (if necessary) core OS states
> more robust.

I'd use some kind of version control system.
Also, look at the OBSD's "mtree".

Cheers

On 2008-02-03, Michał Kurowski <mkur@gazeta.pl> wrote:
> Użytkownik "Max Power" <mikehack@washington.edu> napisał w wiadomości
> news:fo4ajp$kfp$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>>
>> Has any form of UNIX (ignoring POSTIX compliant OS's that have an internal
>> structure unrelated to Linix / BSD / Mach / ... like OS2 / etc..) ever
>> had any kind of registry (for the core OS, not the applications; system
>> daemons may be tracked by such a structure -- but not user daemons)?
>
> AIX does have it. It's called ODF.
> The common wisdom is it's the less unixy unix product created.
>
ODM--"Object Data Manager". Yes, to all intents and purposes, it's a
registry. I'm an old AIX jockey from way back, and it's probably my
least favorite part of AIX, although in general I like AIX a lot
(LVM is the single best disk management system I've ever seen, and
it ships with the OS!).


--
Christopher Mattern

NOTICE
Thank you for noticing this new notice
Your noticing it has been noted
And will be reported to the authorities

Chris Mattern wrote:
> On 2008-02-03, Michał Kurowski <mkur@gazeta.pl> wrote:
>> Użytkownik "Max Power" <mikehack@washington.edu> napisał w wiadomości
>> news:fo4ajp$kfp$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>>> Has any form of UNIX (ignoring POSTIX compliant OS's that have an internal
>>> structure unrelated to Linix / BSD / Mach / ... like OS2 / etc..) ever
>>> had any kind of registry (for the core OS, not the applications; system
>>> daemons may be tracked by such a structure -- but not user daemons)?
>> AIX does have it. It's called ODF.
>> The common wisdom is it's the less unixy unix product created.
>>
> ODM--"Object Data Manager". Yes, to all intents and purposes, it's a
> registry. I'm an old AIX jockey from way back, and it's probably my
> least favorite part of AIX, although in general I like AIX a lot
> (LVM is the single best disk management system I've ever seen, and
> it ships with the OS!).
>
>

I don't know... it wasn't until very recently that you could
enter filesystem sizes in something larger than blocks... which
was a real pain.

I think Linux LVM2 is reasonable. Doesn't have the automatic
growth feature that AIX has used in combo with JFS2... but still...

AIX was the first *ix with a good admin interface control over
user constraints.

What a confused question. Responses inline.

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 04:03:11 -0800 "Max Power" <mikehack@washington.edu> wrote:
> Has any form of UNIX (ignoring POSTIX compliant OS's that have an
> internal structure unrelated to Linix / BSD / Mach / ... like OS2 /
> etc..)

huh? First of all a note -- by invoking UNIX you are referring to
only those unices that are certified to carry the UNIX brand. This
goes beyond POSTIX (sic) compliance. So your parenthetical comment,
which as best I can make out says to ignore OS/2 for some reason,
even though it may be POSIX compliant, is curious since, e.g. Mach,
which you seem to want to include, is wildly different than the other
OSes you seem to want to include. By asking about UNIX you are already
excluding OS/2 as well as Linux and Mach.

But I guess that's not really what you mean by UNIX. And why would you
want to include Linux but not OS/2?

> ever had any kind of registry (for the core OS, not the
> applications; system daemons may be tracked by such a structure -- but
> not user daemons)?

huh? what is a system daemon and what is a user daemon?

> The Apple OSX (but not really AIX)

huh? What does AIX have to do with OSX?

> and RTOS variant QNX, as well as
> BEos are about the only substantial deviations from Unix in the modern
> era.

Actually OSX *is* UNIX, i.e. not only is it POSIX but it carries the
UNIX brand, and therefore by definition it is not a deviation,
substantial or otherwise, from Unix.

> Not a one has any kind of registry data structure that I am aware of.

AIX has a registry, as someone else replied. Solaris 10 has a
registry (SMF), although it's not consistently applied across the OS.

> With respect to modern Plug and Play issues, and some aspects of
> booting up -- a very limited registry would have some utility.

How so? Please elaborate. How would a registry possibly be useful
for PnP?

> There
> may even be some IEEE or ACM papers on variants of Unix that have
> tried this. I am not suggesting the concept be applied to Unix (non
> Intel) workstations or minicomputers.

Why would said registry, that you are suggesting might be useful, not
be useful for non-Intel computers? UNIX, and even unix, is not tied
to any specific hardware. Maybe what you are really looking for is
a BIOS alternative?

> I am not suggesting any design like anything in the Microsoft mold,
> just something to make storing and recovering (if necessary) core OS
> states more robust.

More robust? More robust than what?

Registries don't seem to provide robustness as far as I can see, in
fact quite the opposite. What they do provide is a consistent and
OS-provided, and BTW non-portable, interface for storing and
retrieving configuration information. That could be an advantage if
done right, but hardly applies to the "core OS". I would think that
the "core OS" could care less about a registry. It will have a
consistent interface for configuration regardless of what applications
use.

Most unix OS's do have what could be considered a registry for the
"core os", e.g. /etc/system on Solaris or /etc/sysctl.conf on many
others. It's very difficult to tell if that's what you're looking
for though.

-frank

Chris Mattern wrote:
> On 2008-02-04, Chris Cox <notccox@notairmail.net> wrote:
>> I think Linux LVM2 is reasonable. Doesn't have the automatic
>> growth feature that AIX has used in combo with JFS2... but still...
>>
> LVM2 doesn't support any kind of RAID. Fail. (Yes, I know about md.
> Having to have a whole 'nother layer of software and virtual volumes
> in order to get RAID with with your logical volumes is more kinds of
> fail than I can begin to express.)
>
>

LVM2 does support RAID 0 (stripping). Any higher RAID levels,
IMO, are better done in hardware anyway.

-Wayne