XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy   
   From: OFeem1987@teleworm.us   
      
   Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote this post by blinking in Morse code:   
      
   > On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 05:29:27 -0000 (UTC), Gremlin wrote:   
   >   
   >> Binary configuration files have the benefit? of typically being   
   >> smaller and quicker for the program to access as necessary which   
   >> also typically required less code to parse vs that of a human   
   >> readable text file where additional code was required to parse the   
   >> configuration information. Not exactly a benefit from the human   
   >> perspective though.   
      
   You should take a gander at the GNU code for working with .po and   
   .mo files :-D   
      
   Seriously, though, the time taken to parse a number of textual   
   configuration files with lots of commenting is almost unnoticeable   
   to a user.   
      
   > Anything that a human user (i.e. sysadmin) is supposed to maintain   
   > should normally be in text format, not binary format. So much easier   
   > to keep track of changes that way. Also many formats allow comments,   
   > so you can make your setup self-documenting.   
   >   
   > Something stopped working since last week? User insists “nothing has   
   > changed”? Just do a diff against the previous configuration snapshot,   
   > and there’s your culprit. “But I didn’t think that change was   
   > important!” insists the user.   
   >   
   > “You were right as far as ‘didn’t think’” responds the sysadmin,   
   > before leaving work for a nice, soothing beverage.   
      
   Why leave work to drink the (adult) beverage?   
      
          
      
       Ballmer Peak   
      
   --   
   British education is probably the best in the world, if you can survive   
   it.  If you can't there is nothing left for you but the diplomatic corps.   
       -- Peter Ustinov   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)