Linked by Mo Mckinlay on Fri 31st Oct 2003 17:35 UTC
There's been much discussion over the past few months about the marriage of databases and filesystems - with Microsoft's Longhorn reportedly sporting the
Yukon integrated SQL Server, and GNOME Storage in heaty debate, if not development, there's been lots to talk about.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
But having used database style filesystems, both under OS/400 and on my own machine thanks to BeOS...
I actually prefer a more conventional filesystem. Maybe it's just the way my brain works, maybe I've just been using the 'old way' for too long, but to me, a normal filesystem with directories and file extensions just works better for me. To my brain it's inefficient use of storage space for information I'm not going to use.
But then, I do this really retarded thing of putting files by subject in their appropriate directories, creating new directories as needed...
Call me old fashioned, but I don't need anything fancier than a three letter extension to a file to tell me what it is. If anything, I would kill to be able to hack explorer under windows to replace 'file type' which is based on the associated program with the ACTUAL FILE EXTENSION.
Let's face it, 90%+ of the viruses transmitted via e-mail or file sharing programs would not ever be communicated if the actual file extension was listed in a separate column, and the default behavior for winblows wasn't to hide file extensions for known types. Oops, bye-bye people falling for .jpg.vbs
What in blazes is so wrong with using file extensions??? I find it a million times more versatile and faster to use than any of these fancy systems programmers seem willing to bend over backwards to implement these days.
But then, I'm the guy who has never EVER had reason to actually use the search feature on any OS.