[OT] Re: Unix Files (was Re: Xerox

From: Eric Smith <eric_at_brouhaha.com>
Date: Fri Dec 18 13:18:44 1998

Hans wrote:
> That's it so simple, that it's only a covered disk driver.

No, even a file system supporting only a byte-stream model still provides
much more service than a disk driver.

> From
> an OS I want OS services for common jobs and common solutions
> to avoide the millionth invention of the weel. Take the simple
> Apple DOS and their relave files - Within Unix not even this
> simple kind of optimization is available - From a _real_ OS
> I like to have services like SAM/ISAM fileslibrary management
> etc. not just stupid, slow and clumbsy byte streams

Why do you think it's better to put this functionality into an
already-bloated monolithic kernel, rather than implementing it as
a shared library in user space?

By keeping as much stuff as possible out of the kernel, you will
generally end up with a more robust system.

> - If you
> do it to simple, you miss the chance of geting high level
> optimizations.

I'm at somewhat of a loss to understand what optimizations
the kernel could do better than a shared library with regard to
fixed-length record access (as done by Apple DOS).

Eric
Received on Fri Dec 18 1998 - 13:18:44 GMT