::scr Ramblings of a Classic Refugee or How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love OS X

[David Cantrell]

On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 01:33:24PM +0000, Alaric Snell wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 February 2002 13:15, you wrote:
> 
> > > BER is pretty universally accessible... you can download free tools to
> > > decode it for display
> > I don't need to download a tool to use ASCII.  I don't need to learn a new
> > tool. 
> You just need to learn a new syntax for every file instead :-)

Files seem to cluster around a small number of syntaxes.

> > I can send the file to anyone anywhere and they'll be able to use
> > it too.  Using BER is wrong for the same reasons that using CP/M formatted
> > floppy disks is wrong.  Yes, there are free tools available to manipulate
> > them, but it is erecting unnecessary barriers.
> But there's no good reason for using CP/M formatted disks; it's not that they 
> can express things that a tarfile dumped onto that disk can't.

Actually I think they can - I don't think tarballs handle sparse files.
GNU tar does, but not standard tar.

> > Actually it is.  It is reasonable for me to trust tools such as vim on
> > servers, and let's not forget, you've got it already, you need it already,
> > and everyone knows it. 
> Eheh. I had to install vim at a user's request on love!

Well, s/vim/vi/ :-)

> > It is not, IMO, reasonable to use some odd tool
> > designed for use with a complex data format, which would not be needed
> > were it not for that weird format, which no-one knows, and which requires
> > seventeen gigabytes of libraries just so it can load a file.
> 
> Now that's just *not* true :-(
> 
> Explain why people *aren't* using text for everything. Where is the big push 
> to use textual encoding for images?

This is so obvious as to not be worth explaining.  My beef is with people
trying to use something other than text when text is sufficient for the
job.

>          The same with filesystems. I can't think of *any* filesystem that 
> uses an ASCII format for its control data. Filesystems are the most crucial 
> data formats we have... likewise with various forms of database.
> 
> I suppose you wouldn't use filesystems or SQL engines on your servers, then, 
> because if they go wrong you would have to install a *special tool* or 
> *download documentation and go at it with a hex editor*, right?

No, I try to avoid relational databases because they're slow and expensive.

>                                                                 Rather than 
> just trusting the fecking thing to work and fix itself

I most assuredly do *not* trust them to work and fix themselves.  

> Being able to edit something in a text editor is *not* all that useful. We've 
> got by fine for years without requiring it. As time passes and more layers of 
> abstraction get built up the need for it should be *lessening*.

Perhaps we are talking about different things.  I am talking about the
unnecessary use of complex formats.  I'm not at all sure what you're
talking about any more.

-- 
David Cantrell | david@cantrell.org.uk | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands,
 hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -- H. L. Mencken