From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christian Iversen Subject: Re: The argument for fs assistance in handling archives Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 21:02:02 +0200 Message-ID: <200409022102.03314.chrivers@iversen-net.dk> References: <20040826150202.GE5733@mail.shareable.org> <14260000.1094149320@flay> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: reiserfs-list@namesys.com On Thursday 02 September 2004 20:38, Christer Weinigel wrote: > "Martin J. Bligh" writes: > > > For 30 years nothing much has happened in Unix filesystem semantics > > > because of sheer cowardice > > > > Or because it works fine, and isn't broken. > > I've heard the same argument a lot of times. People complaining that > Unix is so seventies because it sticks to the old boring philosophy of > everything is a file and that a file is a stream of bytes, nothing > more. Modern operating systems such as VMS with basic database > handling in the OS itself, or MacOS or NT with named streams is so > much more modern. Why don't we get with the times? > > It may be because just because of the simplicity it's fairly easy to > use, harder to break och does one thing well. If you want structured > storage, use a database, on top of the low level primitives, or use > multiple files in a directory. Why complicate things? Sounds very much like the reason for using only triangle primitives on modern 3D-graphics hardware. And that works :) -- Regards, Christian Iversen