VMS vs. UNIX file system

[Dave Arnold]

samperi at marob.MASA.COM (Dominick Samperi) writes:
> [...] stuff deleted
> ...comment on the
> advantages and disadvantages of the file systems used by these operating
> systems? My experience is mostly with the UNIX file system, so I was a
> little surprised when I discovered recently that VMS text files, object
> code files, and executable files all have different record structures.
> What does the added complexity of having to deal with RMS, FDL, CONVERT,
> etc., buy?

The VMS file system doesn't buy you anything, unless your application
requires ISAM---However, how often do you need ISAM?

I think the VMS filesystem is overly complicated, and one of the major
downfalls of VMS (but can be tolerated).  If the original DEC designers
had it to do over again, I suspect they would have stuck with a
Stream-only based filesystem (Like UNIX), and provided ISAM libraries.
The FORTRAN record format, FIXED SIZE RECORDS, VARIABLE LENGTH,
CARRAIGE RETURN CARRIAGE CONTROL... Oh, don't forget the VFC record
format...  These are all completely archaic, and date the VMS
operating system.

I feel very strongly about this.  Anyone disagree?

VMS's stengths?

AST's, Timer queues, condition handling, exit handling, message
facility.

In regards to the above, VMS was way ahead of it's time circa 1978,
and life would be difficult without the above.

Other VMS pitfalls?

The resource quota system!!!!!!!

How often have you written a program, and got the famous:

%SYSTEM-F-EXCEEDED QUOTA

message?  Isn't it fun trying to figure out which bloody quota
was exceeded?!  Stupid!
-- 
Dave Arnold
dave at arnold.UUCP	{cci632|uunet}!ccicpg!arnold!dave