On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 22:06 -0500, Alan Cox wrote: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 04:58:01AM +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote: > > True. /But/ by design, but I've yet to see an XML configuration, that > > isn't 4 times the size of its clear text source. I'd suggest you compare > > GNOME configuration files to their KDE counter-parts. > > For the sake of 4K who cares > > > "only package maintainers do init.d scripts", I also tend to edit > > scripts by hand. > > Use an XML editor. If its got the DTD/schema/etc then it won't let you > make a mistake and it can present the document in a sane manner. Any > document.. > Ummm... which brings us back to square 1. Linux is build around Unix philosophy: You can fix a dead machine from a serial console over a 9600 bps line using a 2K editor. You can fix a machine by issuing a cat /etc/temp.conf | sed 's/HOSTNAME/NEW_NAME/g' > /etc/temp2.conf; mv /etc/temp2.conf /etc/temp.conf; reboot. You don't need special tools or editors. You just need to touch a couple of text lines inside a configuration file. (Be that initab, lilo.conf or grub.conf) Windows is build around the concept of "We know better; we have an uber smart configuration manager (registry) which is build (in most cases) around a schema and uses special tools to manipulate (registry editor)". The idea is all nice and dandy, that, until you have a machine that died due to botched driver upgrade or a minor registry corruption. While using XML is still a couple of steps short of having huge useless registry hives, it is a step in the wrong direction. Gilboa -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
