--------------------

~A

--------------------

[ 09-02-2005: Message edited by: Flux ]

--------------------

--------------------

“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by RoGuEBiTcH:
*giggles*

---

But seriously, "..It will revolutionize the way we store information. It will revolutionize computing."

"How, exactly?"

"..It'll revolutionize..."

Riight.

--------------------

--------------------

“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”

I don't see a file system that does that. Not even in one of your precious *nixes. Sounds pretty revolutionary to me.

AW - I haven't seen much info about it either, but I doubt MS would take a step backward from what they already have. That's my guess anyway. I don't know about file encryption tho.

[ 09-03-2005: Message edited by: Flux ]

--------------------

--------------------

“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”

--------------------

--------------------

“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”

--------------------

--------------------

“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”

Dumbass.

--------------------

--------------------

Windows is NOT like that, it uses, (more or less) one filesystem and you are pretty well stuck with it.

Am I right RB?

--------------------

“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”

*nixes usually refers to Unix-like systems, which are operating systems (not kernels). Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. Ext2/3 is a file system used in many unices. Each of these is its own component.

"Unix-like" is also abuse of the trademark UNIX, according to WikiPedia. Sorry 'bout that.

Furthermore, Apple's MacOS X the latest has a "spotlight" feature, which I understand can do much of the above, though it's a layer running above the filesystem.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by FS:
Wow, I can't believe I'm agreeing with FS on this one

---

Fess, I won't tell about your violation, if you don't.

[ 09-07-2005: Message edited by: AcidWarp ]

--------------------

“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”

[ 09-07-2005: Message edited by: Flux ]

--------------------

Flux, ;*

--------------------

--------------------

So its there. And always will be.

--------------------

“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”

I *really* did not mean for this thread to turn into an OS discussion. Filesystems are plenty-fun to debate on their own. Flux just doesn't understand the difference.

It is my opinion (and I'm not alone) that meta-data belongs in a database. That's what they're for. I feel that, for performance, simplicity, and interoperability's sake, advanced indexing and searching should be provided in an on-demand model by a system service or VFS layer. But since MS doesn't care about any of those things, they'll create an atrocious beast of a filesystem that probably won't even play well with their own [older] software. Sign me up!

--------------------

Language defines access. Filesystem implements storage.

Perhaps Broch was referring to some software vendor's implementation of a database engine capable of accepting queries formatted in the SQL language? One of those could I guess be hardcoded to require a FAT filesystem...

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by FS:
Wow, I can't believe I'm agreeing with FS on this one

---

I was referring to the structure of the MDF/LDF files.

MDFs internally store TABLES, INDEXES, BLOB (BINARY/LARGE TEXT),SP,VIEWS like FAT stores files. A master record in the file contains a list of all the aforementioned stuff and a pointer (file position) to their first cluster in the file.

Each cluster has a size of 8K, unlike FAT, there are no sectors, data is read in 8K hunks.

To be simple, a TABLE with 10 rows would have 10 clusters regardless of the structure (only 1 field, etc).

Now here is where the fun begins. WinFS will have its own table say "BrochsFiles" with a structure like ID(4Byte), FileName(BigFuckingVarchar), Description(BigFuckingVarChar), FileType(64b), TheFile(BLOB pointer). Now let's say I have 10 files stored on my WinFS drive, this will end has 12 hunks in the MDF. 1 for the TABLE "BrochsFiles", 1 for TABLE FileType and 10 BLOB hunks for the files themselves in the MDF

So now I can say: SELECT THEFILE FROM BROCHSTABLES, FILETYPE WHERE FILETYPE.TYPE = "MP3" AND BROCHTABLES.DESCRIPTION LIKE "%BAD MUSIC%" AND BROCHTABLES.FILETYPE=FILETYPE.ID

BTW, MDFs are tad better than FAT since its closer to what NTFS does with compression/encryption (of the clusters), but the process is still them same.

In any event, the reason its being held up in longhorn I'll bet you is now you will need 512M of memory for the "file system" so we can have fancy search and nifty relational OLE like crap.

Microsoft say WinFS replaces FAT/NTFS whatever is just marketing bullshit. It's another layer.

Which is why microsoft's attempt at FAT patents (other than small details of it) fail since its such a obvious technolgy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RoGuEBiTcH:
It is my opinion (and I'm not alone) that meta-data belongs in a database.

---

That's how WinFS stores it. In a database. Did you not read the article? Who gives a shit where its stored anyway? Its still searchable, whether its in a database, or in each file's header, or in an indexed store (Google Desktop Search).

quote:

---

I feel that, for performance, simplicity, and interoperability's sake, advanced indexing and searching should be provided in an on-demand model by a system service or VFS layer.

---

Windows Search. Also, its in the Windows API, also available in .NET for anyone to use.

quote:

---

But since MS doesn't care about any of those things, they'll create an atrocious beast of a filesystem that probably won't even play well with their own [older] software.

---

Beta 1 already runs on Windows XP right alongside NTFS.

But since you know everything, i guess that whole post was in jest, right? Would you please stop talking out of your ass.

--------------------

You hop right in line with your money in your hand. Now hold it out and hand it over. Good little drone. You can point and click your way right into mind control. Turd.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by RoGuEBiTcH:
...because it doesn't seem as tho you'd have much to contribute to such a discussion... *unjustified insults*

---

Hey, pot. sup?

--------------------

--------------------

You are far more than arrogant. I sure am glad I don't have to work with you.

--------------------

Oh now I'm just being mean. I'm sorry.

--------------------

--------------------