named.conf file in xml

[Matt - DigiPanel]

If your saying that the reason Microsoft is as big as it is and linux is where
it is now is because of XML config files or XML itself, then you need a serious
HEAD CHECK my friend.

Got to be the most ridiculous claim EVER made.

However, M$ operating systems tend to stick to GUI based methods of
manipulation where Linux is primarily Console or text based.

I believe this reflects on the config files.

GUI - maybe you want to use XML as most likely a GUI tool will change something
in it.

Console - Using plain, easy to read text config files parm = value format is
easier this way.

Just stop for a seconds, give it a LONG thought before getting your panties all
twisted up in a knot.
-matt


--- Kevin Darcy <kcd at daimlerchrysler.com> wrote:

> Bit of a non sequitur there IMHO. If your point is "humans shouldn't be 
> fiddling with text files directly anyway, the 'Microsoft way' is to have 
> some fancy GUI as the human/config interface", then if said GUI is in 
> place, what does it matter whether the underlying config is a plain text 
> file, an XML file, or a bunch of registry keys? Or, did you have some 
> other point, and if so, what is it?
> 
> - Kevin
> 
> Tom Jones wrote:
> 
> >IMHO, It's this kind of thought and denial which allows Microsoft to  
> >grow and become more widely used and accepted.
> >
> >tom
> >
> >
> >On Mar 10, 2006, at 3:40 AM, tsar.peter at gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>"XML is a standard" ???   Well, in the small context of 2005 - 2007
> >>maybe XML
> >>might qualify as "observed in the wild".   But surviving into a  
> >>distand
> >>future ?
> >>Allow me to doubt.
> >>
> >>Text files on the other hand will always be readable by humans and
> >>manipulated by
> >>computers.  Don't forget that the most importent issue with any
> >>configuration file
> >>format is to be understandable by the human reader ( who has to
> >>understand it)
> >>
> >>
> >>Request not granted. :-)
> >>
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
>