Re: Reticule redux
Ted Zlatanov <tzz <at> lifelogs.com>
2010-11-03 11:09:49 GMT
On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 23:40:23 +0000 (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.duncan <at> cox.net> wrote:
D> There's a reason *ix strongly prefers plain text (tho possibly structured
D> as XML in particular cases, but that too has strong resistance) config and
D> text-data storage, to some binary format like the MS Windows Registry, or
D> various databases.
(This feels like a lecture, so I'll respond. Lars' point about
convenience is valid and I won't argue with that, but you're preaching
from a tilted soapbox IMO.)
Configuration, yes. General text data storage, no. When efficiency
matters, Unix uses whatever works. There are quite a few solutions
build on BerkeleyDB and all the *DB* file formats, MySQL, SQLite,
PostgreSQL, etc. that would have been much harder with a file spool.
D> Text files are simply easier to work with and easier to recover in
D> case of disaster, because if it comes to it, they're human readable
D> and editable with simple text management tools (text editors, grep,
D> sed, etc).
Yes, but they are terribly inefficient in other ways. For instance,
it's hard to store metadata about a file. Or a checksum. Or compress
it. Or encrypt it. Or insert text in the middle of a file without
rewriting the whole thing. So they are simple at first, but as features
are needed they tend to either hold development back or become the
foundation for arguments why features should be rejected.
D> For *ix admins, that tends to trump all the supposed better
D> efficiencies of whatever human unreadable database or other format