Ok this may not be a very concrete question, and is perhaps subject to taste, yet I'm struggling to get this right so here it goes.
I have a computer.
This computer has linux on it (thank god). Arch Linux to be specific (with
I am the single user on this computer.
As to good practice I've set up two users: the
root user and the everyday use
romeovs user. This way I only use permissions when needed (using
sudo for example).
Over the years I have been pimping out my software suite, adding a bunch of applications to this computer. Notably:
Now here is the rub: which of these applications' config files do I use? All of these supply an
/etc-based global configuration file, that affects all users, as well as a local
~/.config (or, sadly,
~/) config options.
I've always worked using the local configuration setups, because this felt more natural. But as I grow more familiar with my computer, I feel this somehow lacks elegance. The contra's to this approach are:
dicrepancy when switching to
rootuser, even with
sudo(e.g. when using
will not always work, e.g. when loading deamons from the arch linux
DEAMONSarray they are run by the
rootuser and thus don't pick up local user configs.
$HOMEdirectory clutter. Sadly there are very few apps that adhere to the
stuff is local, which feels more in the lines of the permissions splitting between
quick and easy acces to the files. no need to
sudoto edit them.
gittracking of the config files.
somehow feels safer: a user can screw stuff up without messign with the machine's global settings.
it is more "a-package-update-may-overwite-my-config"-proof
Let's get conrete:
What is the de-facto standard to split configuration on a single user machine, especially for the system maintainer (single-user)?