Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Jun 1999 02:47:58 +0000 | From | Steve Underwood <> | Subject | Re: If we cannot change file system semantics, we must concede that Bill Gates is right that Linux cannot innovate (was Re: (reiserfs) File systems are semantically impoverished compared) to databases -- I think the only serious weakness of the plai |
| |
Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Richard Gooch wrote: > > Secondly, we haven't seen a convincining argument as to why putting a > > FS into a file provides a significant benefit. > > You know, you're right... > > It is said that editing _huge_ files where only small part changes is > really slow (if you move things in the file) or really inefficient (if > you leave gaping holes like MS Word "Quick Save"). > > This apparently happens when you edit compound documents, like the > component-based KOffice documents (containing a figure which contains a > spreadsheet which contains a database etc.) > > A fair point, though I haven't seen a convincing argument why a plain > old directory isn't adequate for holding a compound document. > > -- Jamie
I think the only serious weakness of the plain old directory is the one NextStep has - lack of discipline. Anyone can put irrelevant files in the document directory, and make a mess. A slight modification of the file system, so that only component files for the document can be created/modified/deleted in the document directory, sounds a good idea to me. I think the difficulty could be devising a solution that imposes such discipline, but still lets the directory be tar'ed, untar'ed, and so on for easy transmission.
Steve
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |