# a Linux registry?



## jrbuergel (Jan 17, 2004)

Does the recent versions of Ubuntu and or Open SUSE Linux use a system registry such as with windows XP ? Or is there just separate configuration files for each program and piece of hardware for the settings and options ? All right then, thanks for any information on this.


----------



## lotuseclat79 (Sep 12, 2003)

Hi jrbuergel,

The Windows registry idea is not a part of any Unix/Linux system today - thank the Gods for that.

The idea of a Registry happens to be the singlemost important reason that malware targeting Windows exists today. It gives them a place to mess things up and its all in a central location with very little if any security. Worst idea in computing ever IMHO.

-- Tom


----------



## jrbuergel (Jan 17, 2004)

So that is good then that Linux has no big central registry for security and stability. Then the way Linux stores the software and hardware settings is in individual configuration files, right?


----------



## lotuseclat79 (Sep 12, 2003)

The Registry is not for security and stability - quite the contrary. For Windows, the notion of security was as an afterthought, and the idea of a Registry was just a very bad idea that was more of a forethought - a very, very flawed forethought without security or stability or access levels in mind when Windows was first designed, and then it became a legacy flaw in subsequent issues of Windows.

While Linux/Unix may store sw and hw settings in config files, that is not the only notion of security and stability - there is actually an architecture for it.

In order to have security and stability, you must have those goals in mind as design goals when the system is architected initially, otherwise, you end up with afterthoughts which are flawed like Windows.

-- Tom


----------



## jrbuergel (Jan 17, 2004)

I really did not word that the way I meant to. What I wanted to say was that since Linux does not use a system registry, but uses separate configuration files, so that makes Linux more stable and secure as compared to Windows XP. And thanks for the reply.


----------



## saikee (Jun 11, 2004)

Architecturally wise when an user logs in as an ordinary user he/she cannot touch, read and amend any file that does not belong to him/her. Thus if he/she is attacked his/her attacker is also denied access to the whole Linux system and the damage is limited to the user's own files which are of no interest to the attacker. This feature makes Linux not a favourable target for attack. Also Linux is open source and all knowledge is in the public domain. The ability of Linux coming out as a secure system depends how it is being used in practice because everybody knows how to get to it.

It is just one of the many design aspects that makes Linux or any Unix-like system a more stable and secure. For example an user never needs to defrag a Linux partition because a swap is used.

Linux is open source and each program or project develops its own configuration file and is able to add to the system retrospectively That system works well in practice.

All Linux system files require root privilege even to view them and a seasoned Linux user never log in as root. You can also use root privilege in Linux to alter any MS system registry.


----------



## ghostdog74 (Dec 7, 2005)

jrbuergel said:


> I really did not word that the way I meant to. What I wanted to say was that since Linux does not use a system registry, but uses separate configuration files, so that makes Linux more stable and secure as compared to Windows XP. And thanks for the reply.


remember this on security: It is only as strong as its weakest link.
If a linux machine is not configured properly, it is also vulnerable to attacks.


----------

