On Mon, 15.07.13 15:14, Eric Smith (brouhaha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Lennart Poettering > <mzerqung@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 15.07.13 14:53, Eric Smith (brouhaha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > >> If we go to having only binary logs by default, maybe we should also > >> go to having only binary configuration files by default. It's > >> basically the same arguments: there's more information available; it's > >> easier for software to parse; it can be made more reliable; special > >> tools are OK and people don't really need to open it in a text editor. > >> We've seen how well that works on Windows. Blech. > > > Nobody is proposing this. > > Nobody is seriously proposing it, yet no one has given much > explanation of why binary-only logs are better than text logs that > isn't essentially the same as the arguments for the Windows Registry. Well, indexing, structure, sealing are some reasons for using binary journal files. The registry isn't particularly good at any of this. (But really, the comparison is just wrong, since the registry is a configuration store, and not a log store.) But I mean, honestly, in all fairness, even if the Registry might be an awful mess, there actually are valid reasons for the existance of the registry too, regardless whether they might be convincing or not. Just because something is a reason for having a binary configuration store it doesn't invalidate the reason for having a binary index log store... And again, nobody is talking about introducing binary configuration stores, that's another straw-man of yours. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
