News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why the Windows Registry sucks technically (2010) by 5e92cb50239222b on Friday July 29, 2022 @11:26AM (#32278175)
It's a great thing about etc. If your application `foobar` wants to write something to /etc and doesn't have root privileges (which it probably shouldn't), create a subdirectory /etc/foobar with owner `foobar:foober`, and write there all you want. Many applications do that and it works fine.
Re:Why the Windows Registry sucks technically (2010) by throw0101a on Friday July 29, 2022 @11:46AM (#32278449)
Strictly speaking /etc should be relatively static, and dynamic data should go into /var, so you (or the package installation) would create /var/lib/foobar with proper ownership.
Re:Why the Windows Registry sucks technically (2010) by ElectricalUnion on Friday July 29, 2022 @03:15PM (#32280725)
> Strictly speaking /etc should be relatively static

I really wish that was true but nasty stuff like wpa_supplicant/, resolv.conf (now usually a systemd-resolved managed symlink), NetworkManager/ and X11/ lives there, very mutable and often constantly changing under the hood.

Re:Why the Windows Registry sucks technically (2010) by vimsee on Friday July 29, 2022 @12:07PM (#32278681)
I have not seen any applications creating a user with the applications name. How can one avoid a naming conflict? Kate (a text editor) might be installed on a system by Kate (a person). What I have noticed however is that there are daemons running as root and is used as a "middle man" whenever an application running as a normal user needs some extra privilege.
Re:Why the Windows Registry sucks technically (2010) by pmontra on Friday July 29, 2022 @05:10PM (#32281819)
Desktop applications no, because they must run as the user (let's leave containers and sandboxes alone.) Servers yes, for example PostgreSQL creates the postgres user and runs as such.