Record-access libraries (Was: Re: VMS vs. UNIX file system)

[Frank Mayhar]

In article <258 at cvbnet2.UUCP> aperez at blazer.uucp (Arturo Perez Ext.) writes:
>I guess I am starting to diverge.  However, I do believe that there
>are uses for standard access methods that take these things [record-level
>access, as in database applications, etc.] into 
>account.  What I don't understand is why isn't anyone providing them.
>
>Arturo Perez

I've thought about this myself.  The operating system I help support (Honeywell
Bull CP-6) supports many different kinds of file types, most of which are
record-level (the rest are block types, and some that are unique to CP-6).  I
feel that the major reason that this capability hasn't been (yet) provided for
Un*x is that (1) there hasn't been a great need for it up to now (very few
business-type applications run on Un*x, typically), (2) if you provide the
capability in a library (and you're not AT&T) applications that use it become
non-portable, and (3) providing it in a library is not as efficient as providing
it as part of the operating system, and if you do that what you end up with is
no longer Un*x, as such.  One of the things that I hate most about Un*x is that
it locks you into one way of looking at data:  as a stream of bytes.  While this
is fine for certain applications, it (in a word) sucks for most others.

What I would like to see is some company having the guts to build a Un*x-
compatible system that would allow multiple file types, more flexible file
access controls, decent async terminal handling, etc., etc.  I would prefer it
to be Honeywell Bull, but I really don't think that it will happen at all, and
if it does it certainly won't be soon.

The usual disclaimers.
-- 
Frank Mayhar            UUCP: fmayhar at killer.dallas.tx.us
                        ARPA: Frank-Mayhar%ladc at bco-multics.hbi.honeywell.com
                        USmail: 2116 Nelson Ave. Apt A, Redondo Beach, CA  90278
                        Phone: (213) 371-3979 (home)  (213) 216-6241 (work)