VMS vs. UNIX file system

[Barry Shein]

Last things first...

>> It's all a balancing act.
>
>Tightrope.
>
>> 	-Barry Shein, ||Encore||
>
>I appreciate your points, Barry, but don't agree.
>-- 
>Dave Arnold

Not sure what you don't agree with, I assume it's the following:

>> The problem with the Unix "unstructured" approach is that either you
>> use some of the (very few) library routines (dbm is a major one, so
>> are the object deck readers in SYSV) or you roll your own, each
>> application will have its own way of storing data (compare termcap
>> with passwd with inittab with crontab with ...) often not terribly
>> well documented or efficient (agreed, often efficiency is a poor
>> excuse for obscurity.)
>
>This is not a problem.  It's not often that your application requires
>you to "Roll your own".  And you get a very simple filesystem.
>When you try to design a filesystem that will attempt to please
>everyone under all circumstances, you over build---A real mess.

It's a problem if you have the problem.

"It's not often" might be true in your world, I doubt you could
convince the people I know trying to store their library catalogues
(eg) that efficient keyed storage and lookup is an uncommon problem.
Or business types trying to keep payroll or customer lists etc.

I agree it's hard to design a general filing system which pleases
everyone.  I'm not sure it's a law of nature that one cannot. In fact,
Unix might be quite close, just missing some application level
standards in regards to file storage libraries (from which, perhaps,
interested people could investigate tuning the system a little, the
buffer cache probably does most of what they want anyhow.)

	-Barry Shein, ||Encore||