Re: it's just a BAD idea.
> I hope i'm not paraphrasing other people's comments too much, as a lot of
> valid points that I agree with have been made but this is purely and simply
> a bad idea.
Is it, really?
> As has already been mentioned the current system allows greatest flexibility
> and configurations that are actually well suited to the application they
> partner with. If you want a pointy-clicky-dont-have-to-use-my-brain
This is the kind of mindless bigotry that drives me up the wall..
If you think you have all the time to *learn* (as if the knowledge you
gain from someone's half-baked config solution can be called that),
go ahead; learn all that essentially useless stuff. But, please don't
even attempt to tell us that it is anything but a never-ending workaround.
A config file is a config file is a config file. It is supposed to be
something passive and comprehensible. Not a compilable script (if you
need a script, put it in the compiled code for gods sake), or a symbol
If you want to hold on to your freedom, be my guest: Do it in the
And, what leakage are you talking about?
If you are not supposed to edit config file in between admin sessions
you will not, that's it. Either the config software will not let you do
it, or it will at least warn you. What have better than that at the
About root level access? I believe you can Telnet over SSH etc (as secure
as that is), why can't you think of a similar solution?
And, finally, about storing your config files in one location... I see,
I have finally found someone who mirrors his/her every single byte at
a remote location --not just RAID50 :-)
> Anyway, these are my opinions, for what they are worth ;).
You are definitely not part of the solution ;-)
Re: Why must you kill ASCII?
> I tried to defend ASCII. I love ASCII, all my files are in it.
And I liked my abacus. Though no-one destroyed it, I don't get
to use it anymore ;-)
> I don't like these ideas about unicode, etc. Because not only
would we have to translate everything from ASCII,
If *all* your data is US-ASCII, why are you worried. A simple
conversion tool would do the job.
> So, why can't all the eastern languages define their own
See below, towards the end, for your own contradiction...
> I mean, if we include all 2000 japanese characters,
plus arabic, plus chinese, etc. in one standard, all the chars
would need 4-byte encoding! I know you're going to say: Our
80-gb computers can do that now. But that's just a waste of
space, i mean, everybody wants to make more wasteful program
formats that are wasteful, just so they can make all the
updates in speed worthless.
Real life seems to disagree with you; if we went by your token
we definitely would not need anything better than 4-bit CPUs
(hell, maybe 2-bit would be simpler --a toggle switch ;-)
Have you noticed how compiled code size increased over the
years --take for example Linux kernel, MS Office, or any such
thing which basically does the same thing that it did years ago.
Why? Well, unfortunately we are not all the same, and hence
differing needs which we need taken care of.
> Text is the one standard that has not bloated, and now you
want to mess it up?
'Text', as you call it, *is* already messed up --unless your
world is very constrained or confined to one single codepage
you will find that you will not be able to do much with it.
> Well, before you do, consider this: All the text files would
have to be translated, and that would be a nightmare. We
could never get all of them translated into UCF-4 or UTF-8.
Why is it such a nightmare? I do this almost every time I
open a text that was saved in a different codepage..
> Remember before ASCII was defined? All the word processors
used their own, incomparable formats, and when one word
processor went out, all those files had to be translated
into the new word processors code.
Do you listen to what you're saying? Only a couple of parags
above you were requesting every nation (lang community) to
define *their own* standard. How is it different from your
gloom definition of each word processor having their own
> But then, somebody decided that there should be a lasting
standard, that somebody created ASCII. and then, all the files that were written in ASCII never had to become unreadable.
Luckily, that someone was a lot more foresightful, for his/her
time, than you are now; or else we'd be stuck with millions
of applications using what each thought best and nothing in
> ASCII was meant to last forever.
So was Roman Numerals. Get over it.
> So, if you destroy ASCII, those files are worthless.
No. Data will live on. Only the app that use them have to
> And the dream of having a lasting format is dead, sending
us back into the anarchy of no clear standard.
Dreams... Just that, pipe dream and a very short-sighted one
> Destroy ASCII, and you incite people to keep creating new
standards, until no clear standard exists.
You seem to have missed the point: What prompted the original author was the fact that, as things stand, there is no true standard that takes care of things
> And, all those ASCII text editors, Vi, Emacs, Nedit, Xedit,
etc., to become worthless as well?
emacs... about 50 megs of code for a text editor... was it you
who was complaining about code bloat?
> And why has no one mention'd HTML as a new standard? It has what
you're looking for.
HTML has its uses, but is not what you think it is.
> Please, don't take ASCII away.
No one is going to. Rest assured. Much like the --by now-- proverbial
Roman Numerals, you can have it. But you will want to move
on, the moment you want to do anything universally useful.