XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy   
   From: nobody@haph.org   
      
   Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=    
   news:10kfimn$2c5f0$3@dont-email.me Sat, 17 Jan 2026 08:53:43 GMT in   
   comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:   
      
   > On Sat, 17 Jan 2026 08:31:32 -0000 (UTC), Gremlin wrote:   
   >   
   >> I also don't mess the centralized registry concept that MS foisted   
   >> upon us.   
   >   
   > Who is this “us”?   
      
   The typical Windows user. MS was actively discouraging the use of .INI files   
   from Windows 95. They wanted you using the centralized registry instead.   
      
   >> I appreciate human readable text file configurations.   
   >   
   > Funnily enough, Windows had that, in the form of .INI files that were   
   > quite popular among Windows/DOS apps in the days before Windows 95 and   
   > Windows NT.   
      
   I'm well aware. The windows 9x series was a glorified DOS shell though. The   
   NT family wasn't.   
      
   > The trouble is, Windows/DOS never had a standard place to put these,   
   > like the /etc directory in *nix systems. So they ended up scattered   
   > all over the filesystem. Which is why Microsoft brought in the   
   > Registry idea, first in Windows NT and then retrofitted (in a slightly   
   > different, incompatible form, wouldn’t you know) in Windows 95.   
      
   The default was current running directory first for .INI files, then Windows   
   and the system32 folders respectively. Similar to the execution order if for   
   example you had notepad.bat, notepad.com and notepad.exe . The execution   
   order if you just typed notepad from command prompt would be .com then .exe   
   and finally .bat using defaults.   
      
   > In the meantime, the .INI file format that Microsoft created became   
   > quite popular for configuration setups in apps developed for *nix   
   > systems as well, and still remains in wide use on such systems to this   
   > day. Ironic, don’t you think.   
      
   The .INI file format if you will wasn't created by microsoft nor is it a   
   'standard'. It's an ad-hoc implementation. An informal format that wasn't   
   clearly defined well. It was popular in the days of MS-DOS use. But, never   
   really formalized.   
      
      
   >> I've practically fallen in love with the whole .appimage concept. I   
   >> had to obtain a copy of Gimp the other day to work on something. A   
   >> single file to download, right click to grant execute permissions   
   >> and walla; a working copy of the latest version of Gimp. I could   
   >> have also used chmod from terminal to do the same thing, but right   
   >> click permissions table is helpful too.   
   >   
   > All the common Linux distros have a basic app like Gimp already in   
   > their standard package repositories -- no need for these special   
   > “flatimage” or “app-pak” or other self-contained downloads: just   
   > one click on the Install button in your package manager and it’s ready   
   > to go. Leave it to the distro maintainers to package things up properly   
   > to work amicably with the rest of the distro.   
      
   You can't rely on the package repositories to contain the latest version.   
   The version of kicad for example from MXLinux repositories is v6. It's   
   currently at v9. If you prefer the latest and greatest version, the appimage   
   is a decent way to go about getting and using it. I realize that not   
   everyone needs the latest version of an application and some are fine with   
   whatever version is available via the default repositories, but, there are   
   times when using the latest version is a benefit.   
      
      
   --   
   Liar, lawyer; mirror show me, what's the difference?   
   Kangaroo done hung the guilty with the innocent   
   Liar, lawyer; mirror for ya', what's the difference?   
   Kangaroo be stoned. He's guilty as the government   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)