🚀 go-pugleaf

nnb@haven.ios.com (Nikolai Bezroukov) writes:

>: 5. File sysem
>:    -Hierarchy (of course)
>:    -Multi-gigabyte support
>:    -Encryption
>:    -long file name support
>:    -Suggestions Please (I don't know much abour file systems)

>I would add:

>  - File aliases. They are very important and should be implemented directly 
>    (UNIX-like are OK)
>  - Decent set of file attributes for multi-level storage is a must 
>    (last_acess, no_of_access, etc with user defines EA (with OS2-like))
>  - ZIP-files should be consided as psoudo-directories (with 
>    limitations) with native support for basic op (view, copy, move,
>     rename delete).  
>  - mountable external subsystems (FAT and HPFS)

I really think alot of this discussion is aimed in the wrong direction.
My observation is that whenever "Dream OS" is mentioned, everyone comes up
with vastly different criteria, as is expected. As a result, I personally
find that my "dream os" is not one which implements them all, but rather
ALLOWS one to implement them all.

For example, "Zip files should be considered as psudo directories"? Why
build "zip" support into the OS and not any other? Why not instead look
at operating systems where users can run their OWN translators for files
and mount them into the pathnamespace themselves? This is the approach of
several OSs which include: VSTa, Plan9 The Hurd.

In the "file attributes" line up there, you mentioned "EA"s from OS2,
this is a good example of the kind of thinking I'm talking about. Why
make arbitrary decisions in the OS wabout what kind of information can be
stored per file? Why not let that be a little more flexible than it is
today? The obstacle which much be overcome for this to be practical is
the issue of compatability, what if the file you access does not have
the attributes you want. I believe this can easily be overcome in most
cases. Many operating systems take different approaches to this, one of
the most interesting is the Mac style of just having different resource
forks within the file, allowing arbitrary expansion of what is stored
per-file.

Again, in the case of Encryption. Why build a specific encryption
feature into the OS? IMHO it would be much better to design an OS to
allow arbitrary layers to be added to suit the needs of the user with
the best ease and performance.

For those who have not heard of VSTa, Plan9, or the Hurd. 

VSTa is a GPLed research based OS which borrows from Plan9 and QNX
ideas and has several twists of it's own.
(http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/~jeske/VSTa/)

Plan9 is a OS from AT&T which was designed after UNIX. I forget
the homepage pointer, but check my homepage below for a link.

Hurd is the OS from the FSF based on Mach. Again, a link should
be available from my homepage somewhdre. 
--
David Jeske(N9LCA)/CompEng Student at Univ of Ill at Cham-Urbana/NeXT Programmer
   CoCreator of the GTalk Chat Software System  - online at (708)998-0008
                   jeske@uiuc.edu  (NeXTMail accepted)