3 ms·
There's a solid chance that the schema gives away what DBMS is being used. But even if it didn't, I'd still call it a file layout in this context.
by hot_gril 2y ago
There's a solid chance that the schema gives away what DBMS is being used. But even if it didn't, I'd still call it a file layout in this context.
- tptacek 2y agoSo?
- hot_gril 2y agoSo if you have the schema and the DBMS, you probably know how data is arranged in the files ("files" in the filesystem sense).
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- hyperpape 2y agoThe parent asks "how is it not a file layout" not "can you guess the file layout?" given it. I am a human, you know I have a kidney, but I am not a kidney.
- hot_gril 2y agoIf you send a copy of the code, is that sending the code? If it is, what about sending a copy of the code with a Caesar Shift?
- chaps 2y agoIs your argument that government agencies should also withhold the names of filing cabinet manufacturers? :)
- hot_gril 2y agoJust that it's a file layout. Or even if you strictly define a file layout as say an ext4, NTFS, or FAT file tree, that revealing the schema is revealing the file layout. I don't know why they don't want to reveal file layouts, but for whatever reason, they decided it was "per se" exempt regardless of the security implications.
- tptacek 2y agoIt's obviously not a file format. The same SQL schema can generate N different files, with N different layouts, for N different databases. By the logic you're using ("schema" + "database vendor" = "file format"), a Word document outline is also a file format.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- chaps 2y agoThe DBMS is almost definitely going to be mentioned in RFP or specification documentation. As it was in this lawsuit.
- darkarmani 2y agoThe gov't releasing the hardware and software licencing used in CANVAS already gives that away.