Hi, "Regedit for Linux" is called "PSGML for Emacs" I think ;-) But XML is what ".ini" Files were for Windows 3.x: The larger the system, the larger the files, and the slower access. Furthermore there was a "locking for updates" problem. Seems we all have it back with XML. I really wonder if there's any benefit of XML compared to ASN.1 BER for the typical applications. An XML line with a length some 10kB isn't really "human- readable". Ulrich On 24 May 2006 at 10:13, Frank-Michael Fischer wrote:
Maybe someone can help me out of some of my bad feelings I am having around putting config data into XML files. One of the striking advantages (and used in day-to-day work almost daily) of linux versus windows was the use of plain text files for basically anything concerning system or application configuration. Putting more and more config data into XML files makes me worry if we are not going the "registry way" where reading, interpreting and changing config data becomes more and more a programmers job. Not that I hate the idea to create more and more higher qualified jobs around linux and the creation of the LCE (Linux Certified Engineer) position for simple system administration tasks. It might just raise the hurdle to switch to linux if the thing gets as confusing in administration as windows.
Yes, XML is a "open" standard, compared to Windows registry. But in real life tasks it does not matter.
FMF
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory-help@opensuse.org