3 ms·
Ok, so that's less restrictive than you made it sound in your article. I'm not sure you want to kill files or filesystems at all. In fact, all you want is a f
by abstractbill 16y ago
Ok, so that's less restrictive than you made it sound in your article. I'm not sure you want to kill files or filesystems at all. In fact, all you want is a filesystem that enforces the restriction that files of a given type should always live under a directory that holds only files of that type.
Ok, reasonably interesting. I'm not completely sold, but I can see it has a lot of advantages - it might work! One open question for me: Where do things like zip archives live? They don't seem to have a logical place to be.
You also seem to want to rename "filesystem" to "database". I'm not sure why. A filesystem is already a (specialized) database.
- dmoney 16y agoIf you are catering to non-technical users, I would hope they wouldn't have to deal with zip files. Compression could be treated more like metadata, rather than a type of file (i.e. the filesystem transparently compresses them based on usage patterns or preferences). But in general, I think there are two types of files: files needed by a user and files needed by programs. A good solution would make it so that the non-technical user doesn't need to know that the latter kind exists.