[0xbadcafebee]

Those who don't learn their history are doomed to find new and innovative ways to repeat history.

If you're older than 40, you remember that there did exist an aeon, long, long ago, when people did not use data object serialization formats as config files. When config files were written not to be easy to parse, but to make it easier for human beings to configure software. When nobody believed there was one single good way to do everything. When software was written not to aid computers, but to aid humans.

[bonzini]

> When config files were written not to be easy to parse, but to make it easier for human beings to configure software

Config files have always been a variant of key-value or section-key-value, except that we used to have ad hoc (and probably buggy, inconsistent, incomplete or all three) rules for quoting; array items separated by a mix of spaces, commas or something else; comments (semicolon, percent, sharp) different for each program. Case sensitivity was also a crap shoot, sometimes different between keys and values.

These days TOML (which more or less just works) just works. I have mixed feelings about YAML but certainly I would not swap it with endless variants of sendmail's m4 madness.

[0xbadcafebee]

There's a universe of config files out there that are not key-value. Most exist for specific applications. It can be hard to configure specific functionality, so developers gave users a particular way to express it.

Again with the TOML vs YAML? Ya'll can't come up with anything but another version of the same old thing? You don't need to do the same thing everyone else does with a tiny twist. Think outside the box. Expand your mind!

Sure, Sendmail/M4 was a pain in the ass. Postfix was more along the lines of key-value. But Exim had its own rule format, and Qmail took simplicity to the extreme by creating a different file for all the different options.

How about an X11 config file? Nginx? Puppet? Bind? Fstab? Vimrc? Rsyslog? Netrc? Cups? Pppd? Iptables? Apt? Cron? Sysctl? SSH? Just name a program on Linux that wasn't created in the last 15 years and it will have a different config file format, tailored to the users and use cases of that application. And none of them are JSON, YAML, or TOML.

You don't have to make yours completely unique, but you also don't have to go "oh well, there's only 3 formats to choose from, I guess I will have to settle for one of those". DO YOUR OWN THING! It's your program! Don't be a slave to convention!

[bonzini]

> How about an X11 config file? Nginx? Puppet? Bind? Fstab? Vimrc? Rsyslog? Netrc? Cups? Pppd? Iptables? Apt? Cron? Sysctl? SSH?

X11, ssh, Cups are 100% section-key-value or key-value and could be served by TOML easily.

Some of these are just programming languages (vimrc, udev, nginx) or shell scripts (iptables) in disguise. By all means keep those.

Some are tables (cron, fstab, apt, netrc, syslogd are the ones I recognize). I suppose that's a third category but in the end they're also section-key-value (see systemd timer and mount units) and the bespoke format for the user is just one possible tradeoff between readability and conciseness. A lot of the formats you mentioned do have quoting issues, that would go away with a standardized configuration format.

[0xbadcafebee]

You're missing the point, man. Can you replace these configs with TOML, or JSON, or YAML? Sure. With enough key-values you could replace anything.

But what's the user experience like? Those generic formats are not designed for a great user experience, they're designed to be generic. So they end up being at best mildly irritating, and at worst wildly frustrating.

Here's an SSH config:

  Include ~/.ssh/my-org/*
  
  Host *.co.uk
    ProxyCommand ssh [e-mail] nc %h %p 2> /dev/null

  Host newServer
    HostName newServer.url
    User adminuser
    Port 2222
    IdentityFile ~/.ssh/id_rsa.key
  
  Host anotherServer.tld
    HostName anotherServer.url
    User mary
    Port 2222

Now write that as TOML:

  [global]
    include-files = ~/.ssh/my-org/*
  
  [host.match-co-uk]
    host-match = *.co.uk
    proxy-command = ssh [e-mail] nc %h %p 2> /dev/null
  
  [host.match-new-server]
    hostname-match = newServer
    hostname = newServer.url
    user = adminuser
    port = 2222
    identityfile = ~/.ssh/id_rsa.key
  
  [host.match-another-server]
    host-match = anotherServer.tld
    hostname = anotherServer.url
    user = mary
    port = 2222

The SSH config can be read easily, written easily, is easy to understand, and the functionality and format are tied together so you can do more complex things easier. On top of that, the SSH file can be changed around to load includes before or after other lines, to change how they match.

The TOML one not only takes longer to write, but it lacks the kind of functionality that the SSH config has to both declare a new block, define its internal name, and specify a config glob, all with the same string. And you can't change how or when includes are loaded or what they overload without adding some kind of "priority" key-value, and then having to read each entry, do some math, change all the values to load different things at different places. (and looking back, I actually screwed up the TOML config, because it was so confusing!)

Don't choose a generic solution if it's going to give the user a pain in the ass. If you don't care about the user, then you're part of the enshittification of technology.

[networked]

> but [TOML] lacks the kind of functionality that the SSH config has to both declare a new block, define its internal name, and specify a config glob, all with the same string.

This isn't true. TOML allows table names with periods and asterisks. It also supports top-level keys. This is what the TOML may look like for your SSH config:

  include = "~/.ssh/my-org/*"

  # We write `"*.co.uk"` rather than `host."*.co.uk"`.
  # `Host` in ssh_config(5) introduces sections,
  # and TOML has table headers for sections.
  # A more complete design would have something for `Match`.

  ["*.co.uk"]
  proxy-command = "ssh [e-mail] nc %h %p 2> /dev/null"

  [newServer]
  hostname = "newServer.url"
  user = "adminuser"
  port = 2222
  identity-file = "~/.ssh/id_rsa.key"
  
  ["anotherServer.tld"]
  hostname = "anotherServer.url"
  user = "mary"
  port = 2222

(Personally, I am not a fan of indenting TOML.)

> And you can't change how or when includes are loaded or what they overload without adding some kind of "priority" key-value, and then having to read each entry, do some math, change all the values to load different things at different places. (and looking back, I actually screwed up the TOML config, because it was so confusing!)

Right, your TOML is invalid. TOML requires you to quote strings. You might have it mixed up with another INI-derived format.

It could be because TOML is inherently more confusing than ssh_config(5), but I doubt it is actually more confusing to a newcomer. For example, a newcomer might think that indentation in SSH config is semantic when it isn't. I know because I once made this mistake. A newcomer must also remember that `Host` and `Match` are special and introduce new sections despite looking like other declarations. What is more likely is that you learned SSH config by studying the man page or reading a book like SSH Mastery and forgot the effort it took, and now you have "the curse of knowledge" about it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge), but you haven't studied the TOML spec the same way.

A numeric "priority" key would indeed make for a pretty miserable user experience. Don't implement one if you can help it. There are different, better ways to express how an include should only affect certain keys.

The way I would do it in a TOML-based SSH config file is probably with dotted keys for tables. (I wouldn't necessarily choose TOML for this task, but TOML is your example.) For instance:

  [my-org]
  include = "~/.ssh/my-org/*"
  
  [my-org."*.example.com"]
  # Host inherits from `my-org`.
  
  ["*.example.net"]
  # Host doesn't inherit from `my-org`.

> Don't choose a generic solution if it's going to give the user a pain in the ass.

I agree, with a caveat. The caveat is that you probably overestimate how unique your configuration needs are and underestimate the value of picking something standard. Using a standard format means you tap into its network effects. The user gets "free" syntax highlighting and completion in their editor, automatic formatting, and tools like https://github.com/kislyuk/yq to query and modify config files. This is also an important part of user experience. If the format is custom, you will have to implement syntax highlighting for Vim, Emacs, VS Code, etc., and the user will have to install it.

I think the right approach is to sort your concerns into the essential and the inessential, then choose a format based on the essential concerns. (Do you need includes to only apply to subsequent lines, or could you apply them by name or by nesting?) When you choose, prioritize standard formats. And if your needs are complex enough, consider embedding an interpreter like Lua or Starlark for configuration, or have the user write code in non-embedded Python or another language to generate JSON config that your software reads.

[bonzini]

> These days TOML (which more or less just works) just works

The second "just works" should have been "is almost always enough".

[wodenokoto]

40 year old chiming in to say, what the hell are you talking about?

[throwaway150]

+1

Yeah. I've got no idea what your parent comment is talking about.

> When config files were written not to be easy to parse, but to make it easier for human beings to configure software.

*eyes rolling*. All I can remember is the hundreds of hours I've spent trying to figure out how to configure something in Apache httpd, BIND, iptables, and god forbid, Sendmail!!

Config files were written not to be easy to <anything>. There was no rhyme or reason. Every project had their own bespoke config. All from the whims and fancies of the devs of the project.

Good thing that was all in the past and I had no job and no responsibilities. If software today made configuration like they did 40 years ago, I'd just give up!

[Magma7404]

KEY=value, INI files?

[wodenokoto]

That was my initial thought too, but I just don't see how they fit the description.