Re: What would be a truly relational operating system ?

Casey Hawthorne wrote:
> Are you talking about a truly relational file system?
> As opposed to a truly relational O/S.
> The O/S knows where it's data structures are and what they are used
> for, so I don't see the advantage of the overhead of a RDBMS for O/S
> files.
> Although, the Windows registry could benefit from having an RDBMS
> version copy of itself, since it would be easier to do ad-hoc queries
> on this important structure.
> --
> Regards,
> Casey

Since the first Windows NT, I've scratched my head over what could possibly have been the motivation behind making that registry a tree. If it had come from unpaid amateur volunteers maybe I wouldn't, but it didn't. No comment about the functionality but I'm very suspicious about its overhead. I'd be grateful if anybody could point to a design rationale. Received on Thu Nov 12 2009 - 01:38:14 CET