On Wednesday 29 March 2006 00:59, Shane Stixrud wrote:
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> dhcp snippet (dhcp is not on here so hopefully this snippet is valid):
> default-lease-time 21600;
> subnet 10.202.46.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
> use-host-decl-names on;
> option log-servers 10.202.46.2;
> host ws001 {
> hardware ethernet 00:11:22:33:44:55;
> fixed-address 192.168.0.1;
> default-lease-time 10000
> filename "/lts/vmlinuz-2.4.26-ltsp-1";
> }
> }
>
> Here's the same thing in .ini style:
[snip]
> I'd argue that as the number of subnets and special case workstations
> goes up, the ability of a system administrator to read and understand
> the flat file is going to be markedly harder than for the admin to read
> the custom-crafted dhcp-config syntax.
And I would agree for the .ini format.
Really?
How does .ini format give you containers beyond the first level? By numbering
the keys? ugh.
The dhcp config file format is a much better match for a) the way people
think if they know the problem domain b) allows *hierarchy*. XML at least
gets that right (and I *don't* think xml is the answer).
But things change considerably
when instead we deal with all configuration elements as keys and their
values in a filesystem like structure.
And this is the issue. Look at the mess that is SNMP MIBs. Can you read
those? Can you?
I can now do:
"cfg_prog -export .ini/dhcpd/xml/etc.. /system/dhcpd/subnet 10.202.*"
where my default editor may be emacs, vim, gedit or a super config editor.
Word.
That's the first actual argument I've seen on the opposing side ;)
Shane.