See the way that the "servers" element can contain *any number of* "server" elements? *That* is why XML beats ini files for all but the most trivial configuration files.
Of course, all applications start out with simple files. But as they grow, the files get more complex, and the programmer inevitably ends up kludging together their own ways to extend their ad-hoc format.
Since the feature creep in the ad-hoc configuration file format is occurs gradually over time, the programmers who implemented it don't notice that they have wasted so much time writing their own lexers, parsers, preprocessors, processors and so on. Nor do they care that their configuration language now requires a newbie to invest quite some time in learning all its ins and outs.
Wait a second, this sounds familiar... ah yes, Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming: "Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden and slow implementation of half of Common Lisp."
Speaking of which, I'd be just as happy if the above config file contained:
And ini files are nowhere near good enough. Read "The Art of Unix programming" for a good description of the subtle ways in which ini sucks.
Plus the not-so-subtle ways: as soon as you want to make your config file format support repeating data (eg, >= 2 mail servers where you only had one before) you have to resort to ugly hacks like:
We'll stop bringing it up when it stops being true.
> Microsoft HAVE designed a proper multi-user operating system that CAN be operated from a non-priveledged user account.
I know. I even use it sometimes.
If you actually read what I wrote, you would have read "MS missed the boat on that one".
The right time to make Windows a proper multi user system was with the release of Windows 95, along with all the legacy Win16 crap. But they didn't do it then. They delayed, and delayed, and delayed; now it's ten years later and we are still waiting, still paying for it.
Yup. The only solution is to design the OS correctly in the first place. Unfortunatly MS missed the boat on that by about 11 years, and we're all still paying for it.
That just escalates you into an arms race that the malware authors will always win.
The only real solution is to design the OS correctly in the first place. Unfortunatly MS missed the boat on that one, and we are stuck with shitty software that won't run except as an Administrator.
I don't see your point. If you're not happy with RHCE, don't buy it... it's pretty simple. The fact that your laptop dies when you use RHCE doesn't change the fact that no one is going to spend time and money coming up with a decent regression test suite, etc etc, without being compensated!
Linus doesn't give a crap what goes on in user space. The Linux system calls have been kept stable since 2.0, I think (can't speak from personal experience since I only came in around 2.4.18).
Frankly, it's your responsibility to do some research before you buy hardware.:)
I was bitten by Wifi too, I saw that prism54 was in the kernel so I bought an SMC 2802W. Unfortunatly, it turns out that the 2802W was silently replaced everywhere with the 2802Wv2 (same model number, FCC ID, no way to tell the cards apart).
Of course, the 2802Wv2 is of course totally different on the inside, and was produced after Conexant; they seem to have used the same shitty design as they did for their Winmodems; apparantly the 2802Wv2 offloads all the work to the host CPU, which means the driver has to be a lot more complicated. And asking Conexant for hardware specs is about as likely to work as is building a space elevator out of cheese.
To get back on topic: if you want a low quality driver you can probably use ndiswrapper + whatever hunk of shit your card's manufacturer supplied you with for use in Windows.
I was reading the comments posted to the GCC 4.0 announcement story yesterday, and I have just been struck with how similar Linus' and RMS' attitudes are on the subject of stabilising the subsystems of Linux and GCC.
RMS gets so much flack, enough to significantly reduce the signal:noise ratio of the story. But no one takes a similar view when Linus doesn't want to stabilise kernel APIs for the same reason.
I guess the moral of the story is that ACs are hypocrittical twats, and that Slashdot should disable AC posting. It would probably eliminate 99% of the bullshit posted here.:)
Linus has explained why a HAL is a stupid idea several times.
The way Linux driver development works is: release your driver under the GPL. Show that you are capable of maintaining it. Once it works well enough, get it merged into the Kernel. Continue to maintain it.
If you don't like it, fork it, and leave the developers with a development model that actually works.
If Linux had a HAL, we would have the Windows situation: hundreds of drivers that were written, worked for a while, and then were dumped as soon as the company that produced them decided they could make more money by forcing us to upgrade to their next product.
I would like to leave such cargo-culting of drivers for Windows chumps. This way we get fewer drivers, but the ones that are written are of much higher quality--and are actually maintained, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering how stupid most people are, I'm not too worried.
From your example I can see you don't know much about XML. Or about config files.
:host "foo" :username "bar") :host "baz" :username "qux"))
<servers>
<server>
<host>foo</host>
<username>bar</username>
</server>
<server>
<host>baz</host>
<username>qux</username>
</server>
</servers>
See the way that the "servers" element can contain *any number of* "server" elements? *That* is why XML beats ini files for all but the most trivial configuration files.
Of course, all applications start out with simple files. But as they grow, the files get more complex, and the programmer inevitably ends up kludging together their own ways to extend their ad-hoc format.
Since the feature creep in the ad-hoc configuration file format is occurs gradually over time, the programmers who implemented it don't notice that they have wasted so much time writing their own lexers, parsers, preprocessors, processors and so on. Nor do they care that their configuration language now requires a newbie to invest quite some time in learning all its ins and outs.
Wait a second, this sounds familiar... ah yes, Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming: "Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden and slow implementation of half of Common Lisp."
Speaking of which, I'd be just as happy if the above config file contained:
(servers
(server
(server
By the way, any XML parser would have told you the exact row and column in which you screwed up your XML.
And security issues... :)
The two are totally different you prat.
That's what a DTD is for.
And ini files are nowhere near good enough. Read "The Art of Unix programming" for a good description of the subtle ways in which ini sucks.
Plus the not-so-subtle ways: as soon as you want to make your config file format support repeating data (eg, >= 2 mail servers where you only had one before) you have to resort to ugly hacks like:
[servers]
server1.host = foo
server1.username = bar
server2.host = baz
server2.username = qux
or
[server1]
host = foo
username = bar
[server2]
host = baz
username = qux
More like, "it's a single, consistent format and therefore inherently better than anything else".
http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/quiet.j pg
> Oh Jesus not this old chestnut again.
We'll stop bringing it up when it stops being true.
> Microsoft HAVE designed a proper multi-user operating system that CAN be operated from a non-priveledged user account.
I know. I even use it sometimes.
If you actually read what I wrote, you would have read "MS missed the boat on that one".
The right time to make Windows a proper multi user system was with the release of Windows 95, along with all the legacy Win16 crap. But they didn't do it then. They delayed, and delayed, and delayed; now it's ten years later and we are still waiting, still paying for it.
Yup. The only solution is to design the OS correctly in the first place. Unfortunatly MS missed the boat on that by about 11 years, and we're all still paying for it.
That just escalates you into an arms race that the malware authors will always win.
The only real solution is to design the OS correctly in the first place. Unfortunatly MS missed the boat on that one, and we are stuck with shitty software that won't run except as an Administrator.
Any malware that wanted raw sockets turned on would then be able to turn it on itself.
If you haven't already, check out apt-build. :)
I don't see your point. If you're not happy with RHCE, don't buy it... it's pretty simple. The fact that your laptop dies when you use RHCE doesn't change the fact that no one is going to spend time and money coming up with a decent regression test suite, etc etc, without being compensated!
Linus doesn't give a crap what goes on in user space. The Linux system calls have been kept stable since 2.0, I think (can't speak from personal experience since I only came in around 2.4.18).
I hear polarised thinking is a symptom of alcoholism. Are you an alcoholic? :)
Frankly, it's your responsibility to do some research before you buy hardware. :)
I was bitten by Wifi too, I saw that prism54 was in the kernel so I bought an SMC 2802W. Unfortunatly, it turns out that the 2802W was silently replaced everywhere with the 2802Wv2 (same model number, FCC ID, no way to tell the cards apart).
Of course, the 2802Wv2 is of course totally different on the inside, and was produced after Conexant; they seem to have used the same shitty design as they did for their Winmodems; apparantly the 2802Wv2 offloads all the work to the host CPU, which means the driver has to be a lot more complicated. And asking Conexant for hardware specs is about as likely to work as is building a space elevator out of cheese.
To get back on topic: if you want a low quality driver you can probably use ndiswrapper + whatever hunk of shit your card's manufacturer supplied you with for use in Windows.
I was reading the comments posted to the GCC 4.0 announcement story yesterday, and I have just been struck with how similar Linus' and RMS' attitudes are on the subject of stabilising the subsystems of Linux and GCC.
:)
RMS gets so much flack, enough to significantly reduce the signal:noise ratio of the story. But no one takes a similar view when Linus doesn't want to stabilise kernel APIs for the same reason.
I guess the moral of the story is that ACs are hypocrittical twats, and that Slashdot should disable AC posting. It would probably eliminate 99% of the bullshit posted here.
Linus has explained why a HAL is a stupid idea several times.
The way Linux driver development works is: release your driver under the GPL. Show that you are capable of maintaining it. Once it works well enough, get it merged into the Kernel. Continue to maintain it.
If you don't like it, fork it, and leave the developers with a development model that actually works.
If Linux had a HAL, we would have the Windows situation: hundreds of drivers that were written, worked for a while, and then were dumped as soon as the company that produced them decided they could make more money by forcing us to upgrade to their next product.
I would like to leave such cargo-culting of drivers for Windows chumps. This way we get fewer drivers, but the ones that are written are of much higher quality--and are actually maintained, too.
If you want to use a tested kernel, buy RHCE. There's no way to do decent regression testing, etc, without paying someone for their time and effort.
> That quote never made any sense. Which client alternates between asterixing the
:)
> "hunter2" and not asterixing?
See, it's funny because Cthon98 tricked AzureDiamond into giving up their password.
> It's clearly a fabricated quote
Like 99% of the quotations on bash.org aren't made up.
Traitors can't hide!
Hey, System 7 looked great damnit!
Why else would you think they bought the license to use SCO technologies? :)
Metro appears to be MS' attempt to kill PDF.
You can bet that parts of the format are patented, and the patents will not be licensed to creators of open source implementations.
So you're saying it's less ugly than Windows XP? :)