5 ms·

GNOME has dconf[1], but it's only usable through D-Bus, which probably annoys the anti-systemd people [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dconf https://en.wikipe

GNOME has dconf[1], but it's only usable through D-Bus, which probably annoys the anti-systemd people [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dconf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dconf

MichaelCollins 4y ago
It probably annoys most people who are accustomed to using their preferred text editor to configure their software, and it probably also annoys all the other users who are accustomed to using typical GUI preference windows accessed through the menus to change their configuration. Things like dconf and about:config exists in no man's land, where neither generic GUI skills nor generic unixy skills are applicable.
- forgotpwd16 4y ago
  >and it probably also annoys all the other users who are accustomed to using typical GUI preference windows accessed through the menus to change their configuration How is this a problem with dconf? GNOME Settings for example is typical GUI preferences and works as a front-end to the dconf database.
  - enduser 4y ago
    It's not exactly a feature to have several layers of abstraction, when a text editor could suffice.
    - overlisted 4y ago
      Unix will never to achieve true user-friendliness and wide adoption if we treat settings like this. The reality is that most people need a graphical, hard to break way of changing their settings to use your software. Edit: Although I agree that some situations may require a readable text format, like a dotfiles repo. I personally use the `dconf-editor` program to find the right keys and the `dconf load` command to sync them from a regedit-like file format
      - likeclockwork 4y ago
        Plenty of users find editing configs in a text editor very friendly. Changing away from that would be LESS friendly to those users. Which users are most important to be friendly to?
        stormking 4y ago
        The problem here are UI designers who adore Apple but cannot afford a Macbook. So they target the Linux desktop.
        kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
        I find text configs very friendly up until the point that a package manager blows away my changes. This system harks from an era before fully automated software updates when a full time employed sysadmin was expected to manually oversee every single update. It's far easier to automate incremental changes to a binary database than to non-destructively modify a free form text file.
        pxc 4y ago
        > I find text configs very friendly up until the point that a package manager blows away my changes. Neither of these is a complete answer, but 1. Distros like NixOS and GuixSD address this successfully by emitting the config files themselves. They don't statefully edit your configs but instead store them in their own language and then translate them as wholes. 2. You can mitigate much of the pain of this with something like etckeeper, which essentially gives you version control for /etc.
      - School-Cotton 4y ago
        > Unix will never to achieve true user-friendliness and wide adoption if we treat settings like this. I don't care. They can use OSes designed for their needs, like macOS and Windows. Not sure why there is such a persistent idea that "everyone using Linux, including entirely non-technical users who just want an appliance" is actually a desirable or realistic goal.
    - Quekid5 4y ago
      That text file and your editor is two layers of abstraction (at least, because there's parsing involved, e.g. how to i specify timouts? sizes? Can I use "MiB", "s", "ms", etc?). The thing we want to optimize for is "how easy is to change a setting". Firefox's "about:" seems like a reasonable approach for expert users.
      - nequo 4y ago
        But the abstraction that is the text editor is shared across many programs. You can use your favorite text editor to edit any of the plain-text configs that you need. Firefox’s about: and the way to edit it are specific to Firefox.
        Quekid5 4y ago
        Well, yes, but we were imagining a world with a sort of universal "about:", I think? You wouldn't even need that many basic types to cover about 90%+ of the state space. Of course, there would be bonus points if applications could define their own types in a UI-meaningful way.
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        > how to i specify timouts? sizes? Can I use "MiB", "s", "ms", etc? These issues neither disappear nor improve when you hide the settings in a mystery binary.
        Quekid5 4y ago
        I agree, which is why I mentioned the "about:" thing. It would be nice to have a base level of types that all programs could agree on.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    Last time I tried to use it, "GNOME Settings" (or whatever it was calling then) was woefully incomplete and I had to figure out that dconf-editor existed (which wasn't in the menus.) Same problem with Firefox; hamburger->settings will take you to a GUI that contains maybe 0.01% of all the settings Firefox actually has. You have to be "in the know" to know that about:config exists. I think the first time most firefox users find out about about:config is when they're angrily searching the web for a solution to their problems, which is basically how I discovered dconf-editor too. You don't find either of these by searching through the GUIs like a normal computer user, nor will you find them by poking around in your dotfiles like a seasoned console jockey.
    - sillystuff 4y ago
      And, once you have more than a trivial number of changes in about:config, you search for something that will allow you to have sane configuration management, and discover, the 'user.js' file. Any setting in about:config can be set in user.js and your user.js file can be diffed, grepped, version controlled, edited with your favorite editor, and copied between profiles/machines. Sadly, Mozilla is moving a lot of config out of about:config/user.js and into multiple random sqlite files, so sane config management is getting harder with each new release.
- amarshall 4y ago
  Almost all of the things that get written to dconf settings are in some typical GUI preference window in whatever application. Firefox’s about:config can be somewhat controlled through a user.js file.

GNOME has dconf[1], but it's only usable through D-Bus, which probably annoys the anti-systemd people [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dconf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dconf

MichaelCollins 4y ago

It probably annoys most people who are accustomed to using their preferred text editor to configure their software, and it probably also annoys all the other users who are accustomed to using typical GUI preference windows accessed through the menus to change their configuration. Things like dconf and about:config exists in no man's land, where neither generic GUI skills nor generic unixy skills are applicable.

forgotpwd16 4y ago
>and it probably also annoys all the other users who are accustomed to using typical GUI preference windows accessed through the menus to change their configuration How is this a problem with dconf? GNOME Settings for example is typical GUI preferences and works as a front-end to the dconf database.
- enduser 4y ago
  It's not exactly a feature to have several layers of abstraction, when a text editor could suffice.
  - overlisted 4y ago
    Unix will never to achieve true user-friendliness and wide adoption if we treat settings like this. The reality is that most people need a graphical, hard to break way of changing their settings to use your software. Edit: Although I agree that some situations may require a readable text format, like a dotfiles repo. I personally use the `dconf-editor` program to find the right keys and the `dconf load` command to sync them from a regedit-like file format
    - likeclockwork 4y ago
      Plenty of users find editing configs in a text editor very friendly. Changing away from that would be LESS friendly to those users. Which users are most important to be friendly to?
      - stormking 4y ago
        The problem here are UI designers who adore Apple but cannot afford a Macbook. So they target the Linux desktop.
      - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
        I find text configs very friendly up until the point that a package manager blows away my changes. This system harks from an era before fully automated software updates when a full time employed sysadmin was expected to manually oversee every single update. It's far easier to automate incremental changes to a binary database than to non-destructively modify a free form text file.
        pxc 4y ago
        > I find text configs very friendly up until the point that a package manager blows away my changes. Neither of these is a complete answer, but 1. Distros like NixOS and GuixSD address this successfully by emitting the config files themselves. They don't statefully edit your configs but instead store them in their own language and then translate them as wholes. 2. You can mitigate much of the pain of this with something like etckeeper, which essentially gives you version control for /etc.
    - School-Cotton 4y ago
      > Unix will never to achieve true user-friendliness and wide adoption if we treat settings like this. I don't care. They can use OSes designed for their needs, like macOS and Windows. Not sure why there is such a persistent idea that "everyone using Linux, including entirely non-technical users who just want an appliance" is actually a desirable or realistic goal.
  - Quekid5 4y ago
    That text file and your editor is two layers of abstraction (at least, because there's parsing involved, e.g. how to i specify timouts? sizes? Can I use "MiB", "s", "ms", etc?). The thing we want to optimize for is "how easy is to change a setting". Firefox's "about:" seems like a reasonable approach for expert users.
    - nequo 4y ago
      But the abstraction that is the text editor is shared across many programs. You can use your favorite text editor to edit any of the plain-text configs that you need. Firefox’s about: and the way to edit it are specific to Firefox.
      - Quekid5 4y ago
        Well, yes, but we were imagining a world with a sort of universal "about:", I think? You wouldn't even need that many basic types to cover about 90%+ of the state space. Of course, there would be bonus points if applications could define their own types in a UI-meaningful way.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      > how to i specify timouts? sizes? Can I use "MiB", "s", "ms", etc? These issues neither disappear nor improve when you hide the settings in a mystery binary.
      - Quekid5 4y ago
        I agree, which is why I mentioned the "about:" thing. It would be nice to have a base level of types that all programs could agree on.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  Last time I tried to use it, "GNOME Settings" (or whatever it was calling then) was woefully incomplete and I had to figure out that dconf-editor existed (which wasn't in the menus.) Same problem with Firefox; hamburger->settings will take you to a GUI that contains maybe 0.01% of all the settings Firefox actually has. You have to be "in the know" to know that about:config exists. I think the first time most firefox users find out about about:config is when they're angrily searching the web for a solution to their problems, which is basically how I discovered dconf-editor too. You don't find either of these by searching through the GUIs like a normal computer user, nor will you find them by poking around in your dotfiles like a seasoned console jockey.
  - sillystuff 4y ago
    And, once you have more than a trivial number of changes in about:config, you search for something that will allow you to have sane configuration management, and discover, the 'user.js' file. Any setting in about:config can be set in user.js and your user.js file can be diffed, grepped, version controlled, edited with your favorite editor, and copied between profiles/machines. Sadly, Mozilla is moving a lot of config out of about:config/user.js and into multiple random sqlite files, so sane config management is getting harder with each new release.
amarshall 4y ago
Almost all of the things that get written to dconf settings are in some typical GUI preference window in whatever application. Firefox’s about:config can be somewhat controlled through a user.js file.