On Thursday, August 7, 2014 7:40:02 PM UTC+5:30, Steve Litt wrote: > I don't necessarily disagree, but I very strongly believe its first > step should be to go to a text file with one line per event, or perhaps > some sublines. If that text file were designed correctly, perhaps with > field separators, it would be trivial to write a C or Python program to > input it into Postgres. I just want to make sure that I can read that > log on any Linux, BSD, or even (ugh) Mac and Windows.
Two examples come to mind 1. Firefox sometime (around version 4??) switched from storing bookmarks in a half-cooked html file to sqlite. There was a riot. The devs however went ahead and switched not just bookmarks but history and other stuff also. Has firefox been the worse for it?? 2. 10-15 years ago windows was famous for 'corrupted registry' The linux fan-boys of the time would proclaim: 'Aah! Windows! In linux theres no such problem!' Now whats the linux equivalent of the registry? Its /etc -- nics, nacs, bits, pieces and random stuff thrown around [Just hear the word 'etc'] But the windows devs did not listen. Instead in XP they tightened the bolts on the registry -- multi-levelled backups and what not. When is the last you've heard of a windows registry corrupted? So no speaking as a CS-ist, structuring is good unstructured is bad. and text is the limit of unstructured. Hear Alan Perlis: | The string is a stark data structure and everywhere it is passed | there is much duplication of process. | It is a perfect vehicle for hiding information. However speaking as an ordinary user my machine is quasi broken right now thanks to systemd :-) [No time/leisure to chase that right now] Is it bad design or teething troubles??? We shall see... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/a11a6899-6b37-41b6-a803-2d3c6caf6...@googlegroups.com
