Re: Why not XML based configurationfiles?

From: Mats (spamenot.mog.pettersson_at_telia.com)
Date: 07/04/04

  • Next message: Mats: "Re: Why not XML based configurationfiles?" 
    Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 12:14:35 GMT

    Michael Heiming wrote:
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    > NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
    >
    > In comp.os.linux.misc Alexander Skwar <from@alexander.skwar.name> suggested:
    >
    >>It was Sat, 03 Jul 2004 21:11:06 -0500 when Dave Uhring wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 01:21:53 +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote:
    >
    > [..]
    >
    >
    >>>The proper interface to system configuration files is vi.
    >
    >
    > Yup, the only portable way, there are more *nix systems then a
    > bunch of Linux distro. Where one or another tries to lock people
    > in a vendor trap.;(

    Why isn't XML portable? You must really hate apache's configfiles if you
    don't like tags.

    >
    >
    >>Jup, it's so easy to run vi on a hand of remote machines in a loop. I
    >>forgot.
    >
    >
    > While I'd use sed/awk/perl/whatever through ssh-agent for
    > single-sign-on, you can do it easily with vi, just that you are
    > not knowledgeable enough doesn't mean it wouldn't be possible.
    >

    Yeah, why make it easy and use one app when you have sed/awk/perl/ssh
    just collecting dust in the corner? That's also more impressive and
    gains higher eLit3 status.

    Mats

  • Next message: Mats: "Re: Why not XML based configurationfiles?"

    Relevant Pages
    • Quantcast