Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:A Windows-like UNIX (Score 1) 809

by fisted (#47780713) Attached to: Choose Your Side On the Linux Divide
How is that a point? Yes, it's a design decision, obviously it's one. So what? Weren't you trying to point out why in your opinion database-stored configuration is superior over text files -- i.e. why you think the design decision should be done in favor of binary files?
BTW in the unix-like world, the UNIX philosophy gives a pretty definite rationale behind the design decision made in this context.
Please, take the time and read this

Comment: Re:A Windows-like UNIX (Score 1) 809

by fisted (#47773047) Attached to: Choose Your Side On the Linux Divide
Your arguments still don't make sense at all, therefore this will be me last reply.
At first, you claimed a replicated database was more reliable than a non-replicated hard disk. Note how your argument is replication vs no replication, not files vs database files.
Now you're arguing that manual configuration editing is inferior to a configuration server, again it's not about text files vs database files, but manual vs automatic.

Please try to become a little more competent.

Comment: Re:A Windows-like UNIX (Score 1) 809

by fisted (#47771355) Attached to: Choose Your Side On the Linux Divide

People talk about text files like they're magical and more robust. The fact is that in order to access a text file you need about 14 pieces of software, and for one of them you have a lot of options as to which piece of software you use. If it is in a binary format you need about 14 pieces of software, and you have less choice about that one piece.

Are you trying to disprove your own point now?

Your reply addresses zero of my arguments. Try again.

Comment: Re:A Windows-like UNIX (Score 2) 809

by fisted (#47770921) Attached to: Choose Your Side On the Linux Divide

I've yet to see a standard text file editor which is able to view a text file in /etc without the aid of a very non-standard filesystem driver.

What kind of retarded straw-man or obvious troll is that? Where do you think databases store their data? In the magic data cloud? Besides, what does the 'non-standard' part even *mean*?

Besides, when your hard drive crashes it is pretty hard to read the text files on it. On the other hand, when the configuration is stored in a replicated database, your cluster can keep on chugging along.

If the hard drive crashes, data may be lost. If the data is stored redundantly, data may be safe. News at 11. Seriously, where to you *think* databases store their data?
On a side point, /if/ your hard drive crashes, the odds of recovering text files from the mess are way better than recovering database data files, as they are /way/ larger and more complicated.

Even most admins who love text files in /etc stick them in non-text repositories like git just to manage things.

Really, it's beyond embarrassment. Git by its very nature *deals with* text files.

But yes, I am a systemd proponent. :)

Of course you are.

You'll be happy that it [tl;dr]

I really don't care. I abandoned Linux in favour of the BSDs when it started to smell, and you're the perfect example of why it does that nowadays

Bus error -- please leave by the rear door.

Working...