Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.databases.ms-access > #9045

Re: Access 2010: Is /INI Back?

Show key headers only | View raw

I always liked the ease of using .INI, and detested (still do) the 
Registry -- as with most well-intentioned improvements to our security, what 
it did was complicate the life of the legitimate user/developer, and was but 
a temporary barrier, if any, to the malicious hacker. There was a promise 
somewhere along the way, that the Registry would soon be gone, installation 
not required, just copy and execute -- but it seems someone 'thought better' 
of that or, more likely, it was an empty promise from someone to whom it 
sounded good, but who didn't realize the complexities of windows would make 
it impossible to accomplish.

  -- 
  Larry

"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in message 
news:h2rcg9toj0hbh4puob6nmv1043fvsjkqej@4ax.com...
> Per Access Developer:
>>Pete, if I recall correctly, .INI files were the Windows 3.1 and >earlier 
>>precursor to the Registry that made its debut, also IIRC,
>> in Windows 2000.
>>It was Microsoft's intent that developers use the Registry for the
>>purposes for which .INI files were intended, but maintained .INI
>>for backward compatibility. .INI, being text files, were easy for
>>even amateur hackers to use for mischief. Of course the hacker
>>community is so clever that they not only figured out the Registry,
>>but were able to make use of new features it provided.
>>
>>I suspect it would take a groundswell of demand from
>>enterprise customers for .INI files to be brought back,
>>and my cloudy crystal ball does not indicate that groundswell of
>>demand.
>
> .INI files are alive and well.  It's just that the developer has to add
> a little code to parse the UNC from the command line instead of having
> it conveniently delivered via the .INI property.
>
> Regarding "...the purposes for which .INI files were intended..", I
> don't know what the intent of the DOS developers was, but things become
> useful even though their creators had not imagined that utility.
>
> To the extent that using the registry means an Access app has to be
> "Installed" on each users PC while using a shared .INI files obviates
> that, I'd say that the registry is dysfunctional for those particular
> purposes and the .INI file is functional.
>
> The concept will never go away...maybe just the API calls that make it
> more convenient.
> -- 
> Pete Cresswell 

Back to comp.databases.ms-access | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Access 2010: Is /INI Back? "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2014-02-18 17:14 -0500
  Re: Access 2010: Is /INI Back? "Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOSpamkallal@msn.com> - 2014-02-19 16:02 -0700
    Re: Access 2010: Is /INI Back? "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2014-02-20 09:27 -0500
      Re: Access 2010: Is /INI Back? Neil <xxx@gmail.com> - 2014-03-12 21:24 -0500
    Re: Access 2010: Is /INI Back? Neil <xxx@gmail.com> - 2014-03-12 21:07 -0500
  Re: Access 2010: Is /INI Back? "Access Developer" <accdevel@gmail.com> - 2014-02-20 13:27 -0600
    Re: Access 2010: Is /INI Back? "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2014-02-20 16:02 -0500
      Re: Access 2010: Is /INI Back? "Access Developer" <accdevel@gmail.com> - 2014-02-20 15:35 -0600
      Re: Access 2010: Is /INI Back? "Joan Wild" <joanwild@xplornet.com> - 2014-02-20 21:56 +0000
      Re: Access 2010: Is /INI Back? "Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOSpamkallal@msn.com> - 2014-02-20 23:48 -0700
        Re: Access 2010: Is /INI Back? "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2014-02-21 10:03 -0500
          Re: Access 2010: Is /INI Back? "Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOSpamkallal@msn.com> - 2014-02-21 15:57 -0700

csiph-web