Re: What would be a truly relational operating system ?

On 12 nov, 00:38, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
> 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.
I never undesrtood the hierarchical obsession. It is like a bad natural habit. Received on Thu Nov 12 2009 - 20:54:57 CET