[Info-vax] HP wins Oracle Itanium case

[Bob Koehler]

In article <zCQYr.12412$7h.10088 at fx23.am4>, ChrisQ <meru at devnull.com> writes:
> On 08/21/12 17:33, Bob Koehler wrote:
>> In article<b9NYr.4322$3p2.4259 at fx03.am4>, ChrisQ<meru at devnull.com>  writes:
>>>
>>> As for RMS, a file system is to store bytes and any imposed structure on
>>> the data should be layered on elsewhere. So yes, you will have to write it
>>> yourself :-)...
>>
>>     "a file system is to store bytes"
>>
>>     Nope.  Meaningless hype.
> 
> ymmv, but the ideal file system really doesn't want to know about 
> various data
> formats. It's main function is to store and retrieve data.

   Nope.  Disks are made to store and retrive data, filesystems to
   organize it.

   Does not your favorite filesystem organize your files into
   directories?

   Does not your favorite filesystem organize your data into files?

   So why can it not organize the data withing files?

   There is no data supporting your contention, only circular reasoning.
   And hype.

   Arguing against the option of organizing the content of files is
   similar to arguing that the data not be in separate files, nor the
   files in separate directories.

   I've worked with applications where it did make sense to treat an
   entire disk as one collection of bytes.  But only a couple of
   applications.

   I've worked with OS wehre there was no directory structure for
   files.  I don't want to do that again.

   Don't we organize our software systems into programs?  Our programs
   into modules, routines, or classes?  Our routines into blocks of
   code, our blocks into lines or statements?

   At every other level we see that organization is a good thing to have
   for a majority of cases.