4 ms·
It sounds you misunderstood at least parts of the article. The ext3 comparison doesn't support or dismiss anything, it's to explain how there can be a filesyste
by iforgotpassword 4y ago
It sounds you misunderstood at least parts of the article. The ext3 comparison doesn't support or dismiss anything, it's to explain how there can be a filesystem in a file. They then go ahead and say how it could be a good single-file format if it were more database-like instead of filesystem-like. Other criticism of the format clearly take into account that it's a historically grown format which explains some of its idiosyncrasies, but that still doesn't mean it's not valid criticism. Especially the mentioned inconsistencies regarding data types and encodings can hardly be attributed to the registry being single-file, as you seem to suggest by saying "The Registry being a single file is a cause of a ton of problems, and is IMHO the root of all the other problems."
- greenthrow 4y agoI didn't misunderstand anything. I read this in 2010 and just re-read it. The ext3 example is used exactly as I describe, to hand wave away "having a file system in a single file" as a criticism and just move on to talking about nitpicks with the Registry's implementation of a filesystem in a file, while ignoring that all of the problems with the registry spawn from the choice to have it be a filesystem in a file. This article is like going to a house that burned down and saying "well yes, the house burned down. But barns also burn down. Now see one problem is that the couch is a pile of ash and cinders. These materials do not make for a good couch. Better couches use foam and fabric."
- Izkata 4y ago> while ignoring that all of the problems with the registry spawn from the choice to have it be a filesystem in a file. The whole point of that paragraph is that the problems it has as a filesystem do not spawn from the choice of having a filesystem in a file.