3 ms·

BeOS only actually had a "database like filesystem" in very early versions, so most likely you're thinking of BeFS, the filesystem used in BeOS R5 (which was gi

BeOS only actually had a "database like filesystem" in very early versions, so most likely you're thinking of BeFS, the filesystem used in BeOS R5 (which was given away free) and in Haiku. But all BeFS has in the way of being "database like" is arbitrary named & typed btree indices, chosen by the owner. You can have a btree of filenames, a btree of "sent by" email addresses, maybe one of file types for example. If enabled (which is the default) you pay for this feature with a significant perf overhead on operations because those tree indices must be updated, but if it's disabled (common for disks with lots of small files) you lose the facilities enabled by having such an index. Compared to full text indexing, which was also popular on some systems at about the same time, this doesn't produce very impressive results, yet you're paying for it everywhere. No surprise then that even the text indexing remains a niche feature, I know people who care about it a lot and others who've never been interested. It's probably one of those niche features like wall switches for floor lamps (a socket is run off the lighting circuit and switched just like ceiling lights, but a floor lamp is plugged into that socket). A few people love it, most people aren't bothered, so, it's usually not done.

ab5tract 1y ago
I don’t recall any real sluggishness with BeOS, in any category. Come to think of it, I haven’t used an OS that could match the accuracy, speed, or most importantly utility of BeOS’ active queries since 2001.
- tialaramex 1y ago
  Yes there are UI and UX choices which make it feel less sluggish, which is an important thing to do and e.g. Windows could certainly stand to improve there. But in terms of wallclock time "less sluggish" just translates to it takes longer but you don't notice as much. Maybe the file copy takes 18 seconds but feels butter smooth, in contrast to this alternative where it took 14 seconds but wasn't nice - so for 4 extra seconds you get buttery smooth delay. Those seconds add up.
bigstrat2003 1y ago
It may be a US/UK difference, but wall switches for floor lights are actually quite common in my experience. Most houses I've been in have had them. Of course I could just be getting uncommonly lucky to find so many.
lproven 1y ago
Several important details are wrong in your comment. > BeOS R5 (which was given away free) No, BeOS 5 Professional was paid proprietary software. However, there was a free demo version, BeOS 5 Personal. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2000/06/beosr5/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2000/06/beosr... $69.95 > full text indexing, which was also popular on some systems at about the same time [[citation needed]] I think this is incorrect. The first mainstream OS with full-text indexing and searching was Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" launched in 2005, 5 years of fast-paced development and tech change after BeOS 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Tiger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Tiger The feature was called Spotlight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotlight_(Apple) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotlight_(Apple) "Tiger" was $129.95 and needed a PowerPC G3, 256MB of RAM and 3GB of disk. A G3 meant minimum of 233MHz. BeOS 5 was half the price, and needed 32MB of RAM, 150MB of disk, and a PowerPC 603 or better -- meaning a starting speed of 75MHz. https://asleson.org/public/mirrors/www.be.com/support/guides/beosreadylist_ppc.html https://asleson.org/public/mirrors/www.be.com/support/guides... You are not comparing like with like here.
- p_l 1y ago
  Windows Indexing Service was bundled by default with Windows 2000 and integrated in search interface (it was available before as option for NT 4.0). The main difference is that it was way less known, and early on it required considerable time to process things because of less powerful computers being norm.
  - lproven 1y ago
    All right, valid point. It was intended for indexing IIS websites, although by W2K it could handle MS Office files. Was it directly visible from Explorer? The first Windows I personally remember with file search in the desktop – for instance, in the Start menu – was Vista, which came out in 2006 and which has a totally different indexing and search tool which replaced Indexing Service.
    - p_l 1y ago
      Yes, the default windows search boxes utilized indexing service if it was enabled. Windows 2000 also shipped with a ton of IFilter modules to enable indexing of various files. It was also first shipped for indexing IIS, but originally was part of Cairo as whole-OS indexer. Vista introduced "next generation" implementation and used it by default, though you could still use the old one. IFilter remained the same for both. What really changed was how it was more visible and less performance impacting with newer computers - most people I knew disabled indexing because performance and there was no real culture of using built-in windows search.
em-bee 1y ago
the performance issue sounds like an implementation/design problem rather than a feature issue. most linux filesystems have extended attributes, and i am sure feature wise, the fields could just be mapped onto those. indices are a standard feature in databases, and yes, they can slow down some queries while speeding up others, so you should use them judiciously. maybe BFS has an issue there, but that does not negate the concept. practically speaking, what i want is a gui filemanager that lets me set arbitrary keys and values on files, display them and filter for them. indexing them is not required. btw: UK style power sockets all have individual switches to turn them off or on. maybe elsewhere people aren't bothered because they are not used to the idea.
- tialaramex 1y ago
  I live in the UK, so I'm aware our power sockets have switches. However, if I walk into a darkened room I certainly don't want to crawl around in the dark looking for a switch - so better that (as I believe a friend's home has in some of their guest bedrooms when I had reason to visit) there's an ordinary light switch, near the entrance door at a good height - to activate the distant socket. Since you live in the UK you may also be aware that, unlike ordinary appliances, smaller low power (5 amp) connectors are authorised for lighting, so in that particular house because of its age the floor lamps literally can't plug into a conventional socket, the plugs are the wrong size, this has the further advantage that you can't accidentally plug an appliance such as a vacuum cleaner or television into a socket controlled from a light switch.
  - DougMerritt 1y ago
    Since the topic arose, FWIW, here in the U.S. it's common to have one power socket in a room (e.g. living room, bedroom) controlled by wall switch, and multiple other power outlets lacking such a switch. I'm not in the industry, but I think the idea is that, in the absence of built-in lighting, one should be able to add lamps to a room that can be turned on/off by a handy power switch next to the room's entrance.
kriro 1y ago
For me, one of the lasting contributions of BeOS ist the filesystem book: https://archive.org/details/fsdesign https://archive.org/details/fsdesign
- pstuart 1y ago
  Any cherished nuggets of wisdom to share from it for those of us too lazy to read it?
Gabrys1 1y ago
I for one, love the wall-switched sockets

ab5tract 1y ago

I don’t recall any real sluggishness with BeOS, in any category. Come to think of it, I haven’t used an OS that could match the accuracy, speed, or most importantly utility of BeOS’ active queries since 2001.

tialaramex 1y ago
Yes there are UI and UX choices which make it feel less sluggish, which is an important thing to do and e.g. Windows could certainly stand to improve there. But in terms of wallclock time "less sluggish" just translates to it takes longer but you don't notice as much. Maybe the file copy takes 18 seconds but feels butter smooth, in contrast to this alternative where it took 14 seconds but wasn't nice - so for 4 extra seconds you get buttery smooth delay. Those seconds add up.

bigstrat2003 1y ago

It may be a US/UK difference, but wall switches for floor lights are actually quite common in my experience. Most houses I've been in have had them. Of course I could just be getting uncommonly lucky to find so many.

lproven 1y ago

Several important details are wrong in your comment. > BeOS R5 (which was given away free) No, BeOS 5 Professional was paid proprietary software. However, there was a free demo version, BeOS 5 Personal. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2000/06/beosr5/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2000/06/beosr... $69.95 > full text indexing, which was also popular on some systems at about the same time [[citation needed]] I think this is incorrect. The first mainstream OS with full-text indexing and searching was Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" launched in 2005, 5 years of fast-paced development and tech change after BeOS 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Tiger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Tiger The feature was called Spotlight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotlight_(Apple) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotlight_(Apple) "Tiger" was $129.95 and needed a PowerPC G3, 256MB of RAM and 3GB of disk. A G3 meant minimum of 233MHz. BeOS 5 was half the price, and needed 32MB of RAM, 150MB of disk, and a PowerPC 603 or better -- meaning a starting speed of 75MHz. https://asleson.org/public/mirrors/www.be.com/support/guides/beosreadylist_ppc.html https://asleson.org/public/mirrors/www.be.com/support/guides... You are not comparing like with like here.

p_l 1y ago
Windows Indexing Service was bundled by default with Windows 2000 and integrated in search interface (it was available before as option for NT 4.0). The main difference is that it was way less known, and early on it required considerable time to process things because of less powerful computers being norm.
- lproven 1y ago
  All right, valid point. It was intended for indexing IIS websites, although by W2K it could handle MS Office files. Was it directly visible from Explorer? The first Windows I personally remember with file search in the desktop – for instance, in the Start menu – was Vista, which came out in 2006 and which has a totally different indexing and search tool which replaced Indexing Service.
  - p_l 1y ago
    Yes, the default windows search boxes utilized indexing service if it was enabled. Windows 2000 also shipped with a ton of IFilter modules to enable indexing of various files. It was also first shipped for indexing IIS, but originally was part of Cairo as whole-OS indexer. Vista introduced "next generation" implementation and used it by default, though you could still use the old one. IFilter remained the same for both. What really changed was how it was more visible and less performance impacting with newer computers - most people I knew disabled indexing because performance and there was no real culture of using built-in windows search.

em-bee 1y ago

the performance issue sounds like an implementation/design problem rather than a feature issue. most linux filesystems have extended attributes, and i am sure feature wise, the fields could just be mapped onto those. indices are a standard feature in databases, and yes, they can slow down some queries while speeding up others, so you should use them judiciously. maybe BFS has an issue there, but that does not negate the concept. practically speaking, what i want is a gui filemanager that lets me set arbitrary keys and values on files, display them and filter for them. indexing them is not required. btw: UK style power sockets all have individual switches to turn them off or on. maybe elsewhere people aren't bothered because they are not used to the idea.

tialaramex 1y ago
I live in the UK, so I'm aware our power sockets have switches. However, if I walk into a darkened room I certainly don't want to crawl around in the dark looking for a switch - so better that (as I believe a friend's home has in some of their guest bedrooms when I had reason to visit) there's an ordinary light switch, near the entrance door at a good height - to activate the distant socket. Since you live in the UK you may also be aware that, unlike ordinary appliances, smaller low power (5 amp) connectors are authorised for lighting, so in that particular house because of its age the floor lamps literally can't plug into a conventional socket, the plugs are the wrong size, this has the further advantage that you can't accidentally plug an appliance such as a vacuum cleaner or television into a socket controlled from a light switch.
- DougMerritt 1y ago
  Since the topic arose, FWIW, here in the U.S. it's common to have one power socket in a room (e.g. living room, bedroom) controlled by wall switch, and multiple other power outlets lacking such a switch. I'm not in the industry, but I think the idea is that, in the absence of built-in lighting, one should be able to add lamps to a room that can be turned on/off by a handy power switch next to the room's entrance.

kriro 1y ago

For me, one of the lasting contributions of BeOS ist the filesystem book: https://archive.org/details/fsdesign https://archive.org/details/fsdesign

pstuart 1y ago
Any cherished nuggets of wisdom to share from it for those of us too lazy to read it?

Gabrys1 1y ago

I for one, love the wall-switched sockets