Xref: utzoo comp.os.vms:8977 comp.unix.wizards:11348 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bu-cs!encore!bzs@xenna From: bzs@xenna (Barry Shein) Newsgroups: comp.os.vms,comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: VMS vs. UNIX file system Message-ID: <3716@encore.UUCP> Date: 25 Sep 88 00:48:15 GMT References: <411@marob.masa.com> <178@arnold.uucp> <3442@crash.cts.com> <13608@mimsy.uucp> <3453@crash.cts.com>Sender: news@encore.UUCP Reply-To: bzs@xenna (Barry Shein) Followup-To: comp.os.vms Organization: Encore Computer Corp Lines: 25 In-reply-to: eric@snark.UUCP (Eric S. Raymond) If I can be permitted to summarize this discussion: VMS's RMS can be useful in many situations and amounts to an added application library bundled in with VMS which Unix folks would have to go out and purchase separately (I've seen similar libraries for Unix advertised in trade mags, they do exist.) Presumably one can add a similarly useful access methods library to Unix, the biggest question being the desirability of true asynchronous I/O (it's possible that, from a pure performance standpoint, Unix wouldn't benefit that much from this due to its buffer cache although some would still like it.) VMS's biggest drawback, in regards RMS, is that there wasn't much more discipline on the part of the applications designers to use (preferably) one access method for most applications so utilities could work together more smoothly. Having one utility produce a text file which cannot be read in and manipulated by another seems to violate "the law of least astonishment" in a major way. Simply handling all the permutations is not as reliable as agreeing on one format except where carefully justified. This is particularly true when changing between programming languages (at least one reader claims this.) I think it's safe to say this was a constructive discussion. -Barry Shein, ||Encore||