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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
