[Info-vax] Anyone interested in another public access system

[Richard B. Gilbert]

FredK wrote:
> "Bill Gunshannon" <billg999 at cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message 
> news:741fk5F11d01iU1 at mid.individual.net...
>> In article <v9DhRs3z$Ghu at eisner.encompasserve.org>,
>> koehler at eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
>>> In article <grdimo$dh0$00$1 at news.t-online.com>, Michael Kraemer 
>>> <M.Kraemer at gsi.de> writes:
>>>> Bob Koehler schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    UNIX is still a two-mode system which forks new processes every time
>>>>>    it turns around, and has no concept of files beyond stream of bytes.
>>>> And ? So what. Essentially it *is* a sack of bytes.
>>>> Records grouped in blocks (as in MVS and VMS) are relics
>>>> from the era of slow tape and disk drives which had to be accessed
>>>> at a rather low level.
>>>    What's wrong with having the right tool for the job?
>> What's right with making everyone carry around a 40 lb. toolbox when
>> the only tool they really needed was a screwdriver?
>>
>>>                                                          Sometimes a
>>>    stream of bytes is the right tool, sometimes it's not.  Generally
>>>    adding data structures and organization helps solve a problem.
>> But why make everyone put up with the additional overhead when one
>> person needs more than a stream of bytes?
>>
>>>    Which means having records and blocks, which are NOT in any way tied
>>>    to the low level storage, is a good option, and an enhancement of the
>>>    file system, not a relic.
>>>
>>>    Only having one way to do things is a relic of the late 1960's.
>> Forcing people to buy and constraining them with all this overhead
>> which they have no need for is even more a relic of the 60's.
>>
> 
> I continue to see this criticism, and yet do not understand it - since the 
> actual problem with VMS file IO isn't RMS per-se but the file system (ODS).
> 
> Yes, RMS is a large toolbox, but it's cost in general is minimal - mostly in 
> file open semantics. Ultimately neither UNIX or VMS see disks as a "sacks of 
> bytes" they see them as a collection of disk blocks - and RMS can read/write 
> disk blocks just fine - and the semantics of accessing those blocks as 
> "sacks of bytes" is trivial (ignoring cluster/stream locking semantics).
> 
> The real problem with VMS disk IO isn't RMS - you don't need to use RMS you 
> could use QIO and layer anything you want as an access method.  The real 
> problem is ODS which is an antique from a different era which can't compete 
> with the performance of moden file systems, and cached file systems.
> 
> 
> 

Isn't there an ODS-5 now?  ISTR reading about the new file system that 
allows all kinds of special characters in filenames.

I've been using ODS-2 for a bit more than 23 years now.  It does just 
about everything I need in a file system.  Needless to say, I do NOT 
need files named #@!$$xqb.|\23^@# or any other such frippery!

I know, I know, I'm hopelessly old fashioned.