Re: Caldera installation - something Debian should learn
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 tho@thomsen.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de wrote:
> > > > I have read it. Keeping data in a text file that needs to be parsed
> > > > is an antiquated notion that needs to be eliminated. The information
> > > > contructs are correct, however.
Note: I have been corrected. The above solution could have an arbitrary
back end.
> > > no no no! keeping data in a text file may be an old notion, but is not
> > > antiquated and *definitely* does not need to be eliminated. quite the
> > > contrary, in fact. text files for configuration information are Very Good
> > > Things (tm) because *text files can be edited however one wants*. forcing
So can a database.
> Right. This is the Unix spirit. Use a small orthogonal set of simple tools
"spirit"? Well if you have some sort of religous attachment to text files
then I can't convince you.
I think we should make the distinction here between *data* and a config
file. sendmail.cf is a language with variables in it(the data).
> together to solve a given Problem. With text files I can grep through them
> or change them with sed on the fly. With binary config files, like on NT, I
With a database you can change the data with SQL or what have you.
> have to use the given tools. Either the problem is solvalble with them or
> you're doomed.
I would never say that windows * registries are the optimal solution.
They are the right idea, though, just a bad implementation.
> > In fact I believe that's their most glaring weakness. Enevitably popular
> > software has more and more parsers that read and write it's config files.
> > Note that they are DIFFERENT parsers(not equivalent ones). For any
> > dataset there should only be one way to access the data(one API for
> > example). This ensures that work is not duplicated. THIS is a good thing.
> How many freeware/shareware/commercial registry editors exist for NT ?
I don't use NT too much. I'll bite: how many?
> > What about differential backups?
> Yes, what's about them?
It should be ovious.
> BTW: text files fit much easier in a version control system like CVS.
All good databases the same mechanism and better performance.
I believe cvs does binary files now as well.
> > > being able to edit the file. you can have some speed savings by building an
> >
> > Who said you cannot dump the database to a text file?
> Text files. The web-admin should be able to edit the config file(s) for the
> httpd, but not necessarily for the MTA. With many files you can exploit
> Unix file permissions for access control, with a central DB you have to
> invent some alternative scheme. And the past shows, that it's non-trivial
> to get security right.
Sure different databases, different permissions.
> PS: Look at SuSE's yast/rc.config for a warning.
Hmm. Don't have a SuSE box around here.
To sum up:
Databases offer:
better speed
smaller size.
other inhereted database properties
text files have:
the "advantage" that they can be edited easily
consider: what if you're logging in remotely and they
only have telnet or it's a slow connection?
ppl are used to them
this I think is the strongest point. Retraining
is a major concern.
they are not NT
Also note the difference bt _data_(uid=0) and a program(sendmail.cf).
+---------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| R Garth Wood | Making waves... |
| Stormix Technologies Inc. | |
| rgwood@stormix.com | |
Reply to: