Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 23rd Aug 2008 15:37 UTC
Editorial Earlier this week, we ran a story on GoboLinux, and the distribution's effort to replace the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard with a more pleasant, human-readable, and logical design. A lot of people liked the idea of modernising/replacing the FHS, but just as many people were against doing so. Valid arguments were presented both ways, but in this article, I would like to focus on a common sentiment that came forward in that discussion: normal users shouldn't see the FHS, and advanced users are smart enough to figure out how the FHS works.
Permalink for comment 327892
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The problem is RDBMS requires types.
by axilmar on Mon 25th Aug 2008 17:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Relation and Abstraction"
Member since:

In order to turn a raw file system to a RDBMS, the raw file system must be informed about the types of entities and their relations.

That's something that clearly belongs to the application domain, not the operating system domain. No two applications can agree on the binary schema of things in a file system.

And that's the reason WinFS has never materialized: even Microsoft applications could not agree between themselves on what schema each file should have.

For example, Word may require doc files to have schema X, whereas Excel may require doc files to have schema Y, for interoperating with Word.

Edited 2008-08-25 17:25 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1