Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: The argument for fs assistance in handling archives | From | Christer Weinigel <> | Date | 02 Sep 2004 20:38:19 +0200 |
| |
"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com> 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?
/Christer
-- "Just how much can I get away with and still go to heaven?"
Freelance consultant specializing in device driver programming for Linux Christer Weinigel <christer@weinigel.se> http://www.weinigel.se - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |