Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

CNet on WinFS

michael posted about 11 years ago | from the ronco-vegematic dept.

Windows 466

Weston writes "CNet has posted an article about WinFS, or more specifically, what Bob Muglia (a VP at Microsoft) said about it in a recent interview. According to Muglia, the new filesystem will not replace NTFS, but will incorporate feratures of NTFS, SQL, and XML all into a filesystem which, accoring to Microsoft, will open up a whole new world of information availability. He goes on to describe such a filesystem as the 'holy grail' that is sought by developers. WinFS is slated for release in 2005/06 as part of the Longhorn OS."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

My Docuement into My Database (1)

ericspinder (146776) | about 11 years ago | (#7239851)

Instead of having "My Documents" Windows users will have "My XML-based Database". A nice GUI for making queries and they'll remove the "My Computer" icon (or at least hide it more than XP.

I suspect little other changes, perhaps they'll also make it the "next registry", and that is why it will take so long or may it they are waiting for 5ghz chip so it won't seem so slow.

TIMOTHY is a "make out animal"!!!!!!!!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7239930)

Saw him last night at the "Leather and Lather" swillin' beers with a cute boi said to be "boy friend material"!!!! Hey Timmy! Ain't it good to be open? Now you don't have to explaine the cum stains!

Been saying it for years (1)

Perianwyr Stormcrow (157913) | about 11 years ago | (#7239852)

Filesystems are just inefficient, shitty databases.

Re:Been saying it for years (2, Insightful)

Frymaster (171343) | about 11 years ago | (#7239986)

Filesystems are just inefficient, shitty databases.

if by efficiency, you mean "speed of read and write" then i don't think this is going to be an improvement. the article makes it sound (although it's short on details) like winfs is just a front-end for ntfs and sqlserver - another layer your read-and-or-write has to go through before it gets to the disk.

but, hey, it's got xml for buzzword compliance!

Re:Been saying it for years (1)

uberdave (526529) | about 11 years ago | (#7240022)

Instead of just saying it, you should have done something about it. Imagine the riches you could be rolling around in if you had sold a revolutionary new filesystem to BillyBoy. Or imagine your name spoken with the same respect and awe as Torvalds, etc, if you open sourced it.

Re:Been saying it for years (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7240031)

Timmy Boi has a "file system"! Cut and uncut! And he files them in the "over 14" cat and "under 14" cat! Timmy likes a little "fur" if you know what I mean, but a full "bush" is not required! Last I heard, old Timothy was lappin' up the virgen cum like a real trooper! Get down there and take care of business, Tim! One thing! I know picken' up street bois is new for you, one word! STDs! Use latex!

And common USENET wisdom state that (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7240038)

Perianwyr Stormcrow is so fucking stupid he has to be a troll!

SOLUTION BASED MANAGEMENT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7240050)

Timmy Boi has a "file system"! Cut and uncut! And he files them in the "over 14" cat and "under 14" cat! Timmy likes a little "fur" if you know what I mean, but a full "bush" is not required! Last I heard, old Timothy was lappin' up the virgen cum like a real trooper! Get down there and take care of business, Tim! One thing! I know picken' up street bois is new for you, one word! STDs! Use latex!

Re:Been saying it for years (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7240116)

then M$ sql server should be just perfect for it then. At least it's one way of selling the worlds worst database system. And now we can hike the price of windows too cause you need a license for sql server too!!! ;-)

Worst? You don't know how bad things can get! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7240143)

"At least it's one way of selling the worlds worst database system"

I take it you don't consider MS Access a database system.

Developers, developers, developers! (1)

Scoria (264473) | about 11 years ago | (#7239853)

He goes on to describe such a filesystem as the 'holy grail' that is sought by developers.

These "developers" compose fluent VBS, I presume? ;-)

Re:Developers, developers, developers! (1)

inteller (599544) | about 11 years ago | (#7239886)

yes, and more quickly than python and perl developers.

my language can kick your languages ass.....whatever.

Re:Developers, developers, developers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7240002)

That's a good one. VBS is unstructured and has no concept of strong data types. It's written for morons would couldn't find work with their DeVry degrees and/or their BAs in English. Sorry to break it to you but you are not a developer and real developers laugh at at your inability to grasp anything resembling a structured programming language.

Re:Developers, developers, developers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7239966)

All languages are equal on .net

Re:Developers, developers, developers! (1)

RevDobbs (313888) | about 11 years ago | (#7240130)

Hmm, the holy grail that I seek will not loose any data on a suprise power-down.

Nor will it overwrite important data just because I told it to.

If it was really kick-ass, my file system of choice would also debug my code for me and produce valid HTML & CSS documents. And hide pr0n from my girlfriend.

FULL NUDITY! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7240138)

Rock on SLASHMOD TIMOTHY! You finally came out! Ain't it cool to be free? I seen your BOYFRIEND, he looks a bit young! You know, 14 might be OK for jackin' off with, but it's a bit young for full frontal nudity! But hey, whatever turns yur crank! Stroke and repeat!

Corrupt filesystems faster, (4, Funny)

Trigun (685027) | about 11 years ago | (#7239856)

easier and more irrevocably!

Yay!

Re:Corrupt filesystems faster, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7239883)

dont forget the bloat of XML will finally allow the minimalist computer user to fill better than 10% of their 100GB hard drives.

Re:Corrupt filesystems faster, (1)

Trigun (685027) | about 11 years ago | (#7239905)

And create the need to upgrade to a Pentium 7! Gotta keep Intel happy and that replacement cycle chugging along.

Would you like to supersize that, fatass? (0, Flamebait)

Thud457 (234763) | about 11 years ago | (#7240071)

If I can't run it on a 386 from a floppy, I don't want it!

Re:Corrupt filesystems faster, (0, Troll)

Interruach (680347) | about 11 years ago | (#7239919)

On the contrary my good man. It would seem the idea is to have the filesystem *so slow* that corrupting it would take a good afternoon to do, thus allowing someone the chance to realise what is happening and reboot their server / pc. Actually, it's probably just another way to enforce DRM at a low level. Everything Microsoft Does can be interpreted as a sneaky new way to enforce DRM.

Re:Corrupt filesystems faster, (2, Funny)

NivenHuH (579871) | about 11 years ago | (#7239938)

Heh.. fastest way to corrupt the filesystem:

drop database winfs;

Re:Corrupt filesystems faster, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7240006)

BZZZT WRONG, with a DB you can have TRANSACTIONS, so you can rollback.

Re:Corrupt filesystems faster, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7240107)

Maybe he's used to MySQL.

ATTENTION RED SOX FANS, COWBOY UP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7239869)

YOUR ASSES!! THE CURSE LIVES ON, ASS TONGUERS.

*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_o_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_
g_______________________________________________g_ _
o_/_____\_____________\____________/____\_______o_ _
a|_______|_____________\__________|______|______a_ _
t|_______`._____________|_________|_______:_____t_ _
s`________|_____________|________\|_______|_____s_ _
e_\_______|_/_______/__\\\___--___\\_______:____e_ _
x__\______\/____--~~__________~--__|_\_____|____x_ _
*___\______\_-~____________________~-_\____|____*_ _
g____\______\_________.--------.______\|___|____g_ _
o______\_____\______//_________(_(__>__\___|____o_ _
a_______\___.__C____)_________(_(____>__|__/____a_ _
t_______/\_|___C_____)/_FUCK_\_(_____>__|_/_____t_ _
s______/_/\|___C_____)__THE__|__(___>___/__\____s_ _
e_____|___(____C_____)\_SOX__/__//__/_/_____\___e_ _
x_____|____\__|_____\\_________//_(__/_______|__x_ _
*____|_\____\____)___`----___--'_____________|__*_ _
g____|__\______________\_______/____________/_|_g_ _
o___|______________/____|_____|__\____________|_o_ _
a___|_____________|____/_______\__\___________|_a_ _
t___|__________/_/____|_________|__\___________|t_ _
s___|_________/_/______\__/\___/____|__________|s_ _
e__|_________/_/________|____|_______|_________|e_ _
x__|__________|_________|____|_______|_________|x_ _
*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_o_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_


Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

So basically (1)

Sir Haxalot (693401) | about 11 years ago | (#7239871)

According to Muglia, the new filesystem will not replace NTFS, but will incorporate feratures of NTFS
It's an 'update' of NTFS, like FAT32 is an 'update' of FAT16.

Re:So basically (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7240029)

Its an NT service that provides access and handling of the data, searches and views.

NTFS is still very much the storage medium underneath it, you just may not see it, but later they will do a complete DB core. Once they do that, you still see the same views, you dont notice the change.

They are phasing it out hence NTFS is used still and placing a DB layer on top, then later, the NTFS = paf.

2006? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7239873)

WinFS is slated for release in 2005/06 as part of the Longhorn OS.

That's OK, I'll be using the OSX implementation by this time next year.

Re:2006? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7239928)

With apple's track record of getting bug free working products out the door, you'll be using an effective noncrashworthy version of said filesystem somewhere in 2010

Re:2006? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7239964)

Excellent! However, we still haven't received this year's $129 subscription fee, and feel free to pre-pay next year's inevitable $129 service pa^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hupgrade fee for OS-X 10.4 "Ocelot" today.

Re:2006? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7239976)

Ah but then I'll get features that Longhorn will have in 2008!

Re:2006? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7240069)

True, but you have to consider that they'll be features that have been in Windows 2000, XP, and Longhorn right from the beginning, and maintained in an unbroken fashion from the beginning, without a $129 anual service pack. Oh, other than BRUSHED METAL. Nobody else has that. INNOVATION!

You'll be scooping up OS-X 10.7 "Tabby" because Photoshop 9 won't run on any previous version of OS-X, nor will any other program for that matter. Meanwhile, all the PC apps (and MS themselves) will barely be considering dropping support for 2K, which has had everything you've been whining about from OS-X 10.4, 10.5, 10.5.1 (and the installer that erases your hard drive and disables it like 10.2.8), 10.5.2.1.....

$129+$129+$129+$129.....for old technology that Windows has had for years, but with NEW! SHINY! GUI.

Re:2006? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7239972)

Or use the Be implementaion by this time five years ago.

Translation: (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7239876)

You don't need to buy oracle anymore! ...Just use the windows filesystem!

Didn't they buy a ReiserFS license? (1)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | about 11 years ago | (#7239881)

Cf. "mystery donators".

Isn't this what Hans Reiser is doing? (1)

Captain Kirk (148843) | about 11 years ago | (#7239887)

I thought all this was where reiserfs was going?

Excellent! Now my file system will be infected (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7239892)

Excellent! Now my filesystem can get infected by all of the SQL worms.

It's probably... (1)

Ianoo (711633) | about 11 years ago | (#7239893)

It's probably just a metadata and VFS system built on top of NTFS. By the time Longhorn comes out Reiser4 will have had this for three years.

Re:It's probably... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7239939)

By the time Longhorn comes out Reiser4 will have had this for three years.
I'm sure both of Reiser's users will be pleased.

Re:It's probably... (1)

lederhosen (612610) | about 11 years ago | (#7240156)

Yes, it is MS SQL Server (a lite version of it)
on top of NTFS, i.e. the filesystem will be the
same.

It is more like a service on top of the filesystem.
I think GNOME is developing something similar.

the 'holy grail' that is sought by developers. (2, Funny)

3.5 stripes (578410) | about 11 years ago | (#7239895)

They should have a look in the castle ARGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH, then.

Reminds me of a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7239897)

A canibal walked in to the canibal resturant and was looking at the menu...

Windows Administrator $2
Windows Developer $2
Solaris Administrator $2
GNU Hippie $16

The canibal asked the waiter, "Why is the GNU Hippie so fucking much?"

The waiter replied, "You ever tried cleaning one of those things?"

What about those of us (3, Insightful)

Zelet (515452) | about 11 years ago | (#7239898)

who like the filesystem the way it is. I can find any file in my system within 3 or 4 clicks of a mouse because I keep my files organized. How is the new system going to be faster than that? I don't understand how searching for files every time you need them is faster than a file system hierarchy.

Re:What about those of us (1)

Cyclops (1852) | about 11 years ago | (#7240048)

who like the filesystem the way it is. I can find any file in my system within 3 or 4 clicks of a mouse because I keep my files organized. How is the new system going to be faster than that? I don't understand how searching for files every time you need them is faster than a file system hierarchy.

Maybe not for us, but many people don't have that kind of hierarquical organization, and thus searching is faster.

I would suspect that XML will be used to store metadata from files, and not the files by themselves, and that the SQL database will just be yet another way to store file information, leaving the _real_ files in a normal way.

That said, this is very terrible news. Longhorn is Microsoft's NGSCB (previously known as Palladium, aka Treacherous Computing Platform Alliance software complement to the hardware lockout) and that they're making this huge changes to their file system coupled with Treacherous Computing, that doesn't sound like good news to the world of Free Software.

My only hope is that by the time Longhorn gets here, the world is Free enough so that it flunks.... utterly and completely.

Re:What about those of us (1, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | about 11 years ago | (#7240065)

I doubt they're going to drop that interface and "logical" way of locating files, but this is going to still make your files appear faster.

See, C:\Foo\Bar1.txt and C:\Foo\Bar2.txt right now do not have to live next to each other on the hard disk. In order to display the contents of C:\Foo\ the system has to search the entire File Allocation Table to look for files that reside in C:\Foo\. This is why a directory that has 1000 entries can sometimes take nearly forever to display in Windows, and even longer if a networking situation is involved.

The basic idea here to replace the simple FAT, or even NTFS, with a database that has a lot of indexes, so that any time you make a request of the file system, the answer is either already ready or very close to being so. So yes, even you should see a speed improvement.

Re:What about those of us (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7240129)

> In order to display the contents of C:\Foo\ the system has to search the entire File Allocation Table to look for files that reside in C:\Foo\

If you're speaking of FAT you may want to check your facts.

Re:What about those of us (1)

Dun Malg (230075) | about 11 years ago | (#7240090)

What about those of us who like the filesystem the way it is. I can find any file in my system within 3 or 4 clicks of a mouse because I keep my files organized. How is the new system going to be faster than that? I don't understand how searching for files every time you need them is faster than a file system hierarchy.

Well, a file system is already a database, albeit a fairly poor one. Directories and sub-directories are essentially just fields attached to the record for each file. The new one will still look like the current file systems do, with nested directories and such, because people like it that way. The only difference is, instead of keeping only a few pieces of info in the main directory (filename, size, directory/folder, etc.), there'll be room to add fields. Using these fields, one can create "index" directories containing files with value 'X' in a particular field. It's just an improved way of doing things, not really a different one.

NTFS + SQL + XML + buzzword compliance? (4, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 11 years ago | (#7239903)

Why not a little Java thrown in? Or DRM? or TCPA? Or (insert hot new technology here) ?
This seems classic MS-predictive-FUD, where people hold their breath for the Next Release, which is a 1.0 version that sucks. Meanwhile, support people and PHBs have committed to it, so its Too Important To Let Fail. Ultimately, it becomes a time and resource sink the likes of which is only matched by /dev/null, all the while funding MS and driving them to an eventual 3.0 or 4.0 release, which will be Decent, Yet Still Subtly Lacking.
All of this won't help the average user find files easier, and will be massively more bloated and complex (read: too many moving parts, read: Service Pack Hell), and probably REQUIRE that Athlon-64 system we've been drooling over.

Re:NTFS + SQL + XML + buzzword compliance? (1)

MoxCamel (20484) | about 11 years ago | (#7239977)

Don't forget to throw some .NET in there too.

I'm actually surprised it's not being called .NETFS. I suppose it's because you'd have to use ls -a to see it. :)

Re:NTFS + SQL + XML + buzzword compliance? (1)

mordejai (702496) | about 11 years ago | (#7240080)

Well, that's because after saying '.NET' every two lines for three years, they realized nobody got the idea...

Re:NTFS + SQL + XML + buzzword compliance? (1)

neildiamond (610251) | about 11 years ago | (#7240042)

"Ultimately, it becomes a time and resource sink the likes of which is only matched by /dev/null, all the while funding MS and driving them to an eventual 3.0 or 4.0 release, which will be Decent..."

Wow that's how they made the game Decent? I have to hand it to Microsoft there. If 1.0 is a cruddy filesystem and by 3.0 or so you have a good game, that's what I call innovation.

Re:NTFS + SQL + XML + buzzword compliance? (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | about 11 years ago | (#7240125)

Sweet virgin Mary! You... are... stupid.

Adjective: decent
Enough to meet a purpose
... and not the name of a popular game series.

Noun: descent
A movement downward
... also the name of a popular game series.

I can't tell whether you were trying to be funny, or trying to be critical; at any rate, you failed on either attempt. The original poster was correct, and you still tried to 'correct' him. Pathetic.

Re:NTFS + SQL + XML + buzzword compliance? (1)

anonymous loser (58627) | about 11 years ago | (#7240157)

Why not a little Java thrown in? Or DRM? or TCPA?

I'd we willing to wager that TPCA (and indirectly DRM) will be fully supported by this new filesystem. However, they have to introduce it in such a way that consumers don't realize they made a new file system just so they could more fully control the contents of people's hard drives. So, instead they tell you how fast and efficient it is.

Thoughts on XML (4, Interesting)

I8TheWorm (645702) | about 11 years ago | (#7239916)

I use XML quite a bit in my data-based programs. But I've seen it used WAY too often and in applications where XML just doesn't make any sense (like parsing 1GB files, for instance). XML is a nice tool, but isn't the fastest way to get to data.

That being said, does anyone else think using XML in a filesystem is a horrible way to go? Especially given the hard drive capacity we're seeing today... number of files that can be stored, folders/subfolders, etc...

Unless I misread the article, I just don't see this being a smart move.

Re:Thoughts on XML (1)

gregarican (694358) | about 11 years ago | (#7240030)

Good point. Things have changed since the days of 640KB ceilings. Back then programmers had to be inventive and ingenious to fit programming tasks under strict hardware limitations. Look at the old video games programmed into 4 KB of space.

Nowadays Microsoft's answer to things is just throw more hardware at a problem. Rather than have lean, mean programming just double the RAM, double the hard drive capacity, double the processing speed, double the bus speed, ad nauseum. Look at some of their recent OS'es. God knows if you could run them on a computer that's more than a year old judging from the minimum requirements list.

The XML observation is true. Parsing through tons of informatation like file system would have isn't the most efficient implemenation for XML. But I'm sure throwing more hardware at the problem will be their answer. Fat, bloated methods doesn't seem to matter to them since hardware prices have dropped so over the last several years.

embrace. extend. destroy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7240089)

All your files belong to us.

Re:Thoughts on XML (1)

_xeno_ (155264) | about 11 years ago | (#7240168)

Everything I've heard about XML and WinFS has been so vague that what I'm hoping they mean is the file system information is going to be exported as XML and the underlying system for storing it won't be XML.

This makes an amount of sense - if you want to send a file and maintain the metadata about it, you package it into something that contains the XML file to make it future proof (supposing the format changes, say, because another OS comes too close to being able to read/write WinFS) and the actual data stream. The system on the other end can then restore the XML metadata and then the file data.

Unfortunately, this is wild speculation. I have no idea what they really mean when the say stuff about it being based on a RDBS or XML. So I could be way off - they might be storing XML resource forks for each file or something like that. I have no idea of what they're really doing, but "XML support" could actually be a good idea if it's for data transport and not actually used to store the data on the system. XML was really intended to offer data transport between systems as a kind of Lingua Franca, and this would be a good use of that.

But, as before, this is wild speculation, and we're talking about Microsoft. Every WinFS thing I've heard so far makes it sound like someone's playing Buzzword Bingo. Longhorn is still three years away, so we'll just have to wait for more details as the system actually gets implemented to find out where XML fits into WinFS.

gnome-storage (1)

joejg (633973) | about 11 years ago | (#7239920)

This is an interesting turn of events. When discussing the gnome-storage project [gnome.org] with people, they mentioned that M$ would be incorporating WinFS as an actual file system. And they wondered how the gnome-storage dev's were going to create a database upon a filesystem. But as it turns out M$ isn't making a new file system and for all we know they are lagging behind the great work done by Seth Nickell and crew.

Tom's hardware (1)

Sir Haxalot (693401) | about 11 years ago | (#7239933)

has a similar artical [tomshardware.com] , but with the Tom's Hardware you have this quote: 'He indicated that there are also plans to include Win FS in the Windows Server 2003 generation.'
This certainly interested me, because if it's any good, this could completley change the Server market, providing much need competition.

MOD PARENT DOWN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7239984)

this article was posted on /. long time ago, and the above poster has a known history of karma whoring and posting articles in other formats / Google cache / and article text as a comment.
Just check his/her/its posting history, and then mod down.
thank you.

MOD GRANDPARENT UP, MOD PARENT DOWN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7240062)

Re:Tom's hardware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7240043)

First of all, it's "article". Second, you have mastered the fine art of karma-whoring - providing a link and having no opinion at all.

Cheers.

Re:Tom's hardware (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7240112)

Jesus, sir haxalot is a more tiresome troll than phyiscs genius!

WebDAV??? (1)

stonebeat.org (562495) | about 11 years ago | (#7239934)

Sounds like WebDAV [webdav.org] + Catacomb [webdav.org] to me.

Do you guys really think (2, Insightful)

rhinoX (7448) | about 11 years ago | (#7239937)

that the NT and NTFS teams would allow the SQL Server group to take such a huge chunk of control from them? You've got to be kidding me! The filesystem will not be anything new. The SQL guys at MS have been trying to move to a DB FS for a while, but let's face it - the performance will absolutely SUCK. At most, this is SQL server for metadata slapped "on top of" NTFS, period.

Uh huh (1)

xaoslaad (590527) | about 11 years ago | (#7239947)

According to Muglia, the new filesystem will not replace NTFS, but will incorporate feratures of NTFS, SQL, and XML all into a filesystem which, accoring to Microsoft, will open up a whole new world of information availability

Yep, the first SQL vulnerbaility after WinFS will make the whole disk available rather that just the database.

(joking aside it does seem interesting...)

great (1)

pizza_milkshake (580452) | about 11 years ago | (#7239952)

...an XML-based filesystem; i can imagine the speed now

Single storage system. (1)

Interruach (680347) | about 11 years ago | (#7239955)


For nearly a decade, the company has touted the vision of a single storage system that would break down barriers between applications and serve up stored information quickly and accurately

So they're just kicking themselves that they haven't moved from drive letters to a unix style mount-anywhere style filesystem?
If they've wanted that for 10 years, they should have done it in '95

Does this mean that Bill Gates represents ... (1)

burgburgburg (574866) | about 11 years ago | (#7239968)

Merlin: "Uther, say the words."

Uther: "ONE LAND, ONE KING!"

Cool (1)

Pedrito (94783) | about 11 years ago | (#7239974)

Look, I hate to say it, but I've kind of been looking for this capability in a file system. So much so that recently I had been thinking of writing software to do something along these lines.

In particular what I'm looking for (and maybe other people are too), is a file system where it's easy to find files. I don't mean finding them by the name, but by content, and not just text, but graphics, executeable, you name it. For example, I have tons of pictures from my digital camera, scattered into different directories, on different drives. I'd like to be able to query for example, "photo me sophie" and get back all pictures of Sophie and myself.

Now, admittedly, this would also add on some responsibility to tag keywords to the files, and I've thought of ways of doing that as well (for example, applying keywords associated with a directory automatically to files placed in the directory).

I haven't worked out all the kinks, but to me, being able to find stuff quickly in file systems that are continually growing would be a huge bonus.

Price of admission is a full disk comprimise (1)

Ars-Fartsica (166957) | about 11 years ago | (#7240067)

Yes it is cool, but in version 1 you have to take on an enormous risk - virii, bugs, other issues crippling your entire OS is a more sophisiticated way than you can conceive a defense against. The more complex the system the more complex the attack. MS users do not require such complex systems - I don't know why MS is risking exposing them to more sophisiticated attacks.

Re:Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7240159)

Go buy an iPod. It has those features.

he said, (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | about 11 years ago | (#7239975)

"NTFS does what it does incredibly well."

Which is what, exactly? In my experience, NTFS has been nothing but slow, unreliable, and utterly unscaleable. Ever try running an NTFS volume as a cache or some other-small file storage device? Utterly unuseable.

So if WinFS is to augment NTFS, my prayers go out to you Windows administrators.

feh (1)

syle (638903) | about 11 years ago | (#7239980)

More like the holy grail of buzzwords.

Was The Apollo Moon Landing Fake? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7239988)

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

Did man really set foot on the moon?

Shocking : See what NASA has done (Long but worth reading)

Did man really walk on the Moon or was it the ultimate camera trick, asks David Milne?

In the early hours of May 16, 1990, after a week spent watching old video footage of man on the Moon, a thought was turning into an obsession in the mind of Ralph Rene.

"How can the flag be fluttering?" the 47 year old American kept asking himself when there's no wind on the atmosphere free Moon? That moment was to be the beginning of an incredible Space odyssey for the self- taught engineer from New Jersey.

He started investigating the Apollo Moon landings, scouring every NASA film, photo and report with a growing sense of wonder, until finally reaching an awesome conclusion: America had never put a man on the Moon. The giant leap for mankind was fake.

It is of course the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories. But Rene has now put all his findings into a startling book entitled NASA Mooned America. Published by himself, it's being sold by mail order - and is a compelling read.

The story lifts off in 1961 with Russia firing Yuri Gagarin into space, leaving a panicked America trailing in the space race. At an emergency meeting of Congress, President Kennedy proposed the ultimate face saver, put a man on the Moon. With an impassioned speech he secured the plan an unbelievable 40 billion dollars.

And so, says Rene (and a growing number of astro-physicists are beginning to agree with him), the great Moon hoax was born. Between 1969 and 1972, seven Apollo ships headed to the Moon. Six claim to have made it, with the ill fated Apollo 13 - whose oxygen tanks apparently exploded halfway being the only casualties. But with the exception of the known rocks, which could have been easily mocked up in a lab, the photographs and film footage are the only proof that the Eagle ever landed. And Rene believes they're fake.

For a start, he says, the TV footage was hopeless. The world tuned in to watch what looked like two blurred white ghosts throw rocks and dust. Part of the reason for the low quality was that, strangely, NASA provided no direct link up. So networks actually had to film man's greatest achievement from a TV screen in Houston - a deliberate ploy, says Rene, so that nobody could properly examine it.

By contrast, the still photos were stunning. Yet that's just the problem. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred.

As Rene points out, that's not all: The cameras had no white meters or view ponders. So the astronauts achieved this feet without being able to see what they were doing. There film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless. They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized suits. It should have been almost impossible with the gloves on their fingers.

Award winning British photographer David Persey is convinced the pictures are fake. His astonishing findings are explained alongside the pictures on these pages, but the basic points are as follows: The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and,in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was the sun.

The American flag and the words "United States" are always Brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow. Not one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.

The pictures are so perfect, each one would have taken a slick advertising agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed it repeatedly. David Persey believes the mistakes were deliberate, left there by "whistle blowers" who were keen for the truth to one day get out.

If Persey is right and the pictures are fake, then we've only NASA's word that man ever went to the Moon. And, asks Rene, "Why would anyone fake pictures of an event that actually happened?"

The questions don't stop there. Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. Standard astronauts orbiting earth in near space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the earth's Van Allen belt. But the Moon is to 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1,485 such flares.

John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said shielding at least two meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA, about the thickness of heavy duty aluminum foil.

How could that stop this deadly radiation? And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why didn't rescue workers use such protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose astronauts would encounter? Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer - not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the Moon when a big flare started. "They should have been fried", says Rene.

Furthermore, every Apollo mission before number 11 (the first to the Moon) was plagued with around 20,000 defects a-piece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions. Just one effect could have blown the whole thing. "The odds against these are so unlikely that God must have been the co-pilot," says Rene.

Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin "the second man on the Moon" was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. "It strikes me he's suffering from trying to live out a very big lie," says Rene. Aldrin may also fear for his life.

Virgil Grissom, a NASA astronaut who baited the Apollo program, was due to pilot Apollo 1 as part of the landings build up. In January 1967, he hung a lemon on his Apollo capsule (in the US, unroadworthy cars are called lemons) and told his wife Betty: "If there is ever a serious accident in the space program, it's likely to be me."

Nobody knows what fuelled his fears, but by the end of the month he and his two co-pilots were dead, burnt to death during a test run when their capsule, pumped full of high pressure pure oxygen, exploded.

Scientists couldn't believe NASA's carelessness - even a chemistry students in high school know high pressure oxygen is extremely explosive. In fact, before the first manned Apollo fight even cleared the launch pad, a total of 11 would be astronauts were dead. Apart from the three who were incinerated, seven died in plane crashes and one in a car smash. Now this is
a spectacular accident rate.

"One wonders if these 'accidents' weren't NASA's way of correcting mistakes," says Rene. "Of saying that some of these men didn't have the sort of 'right stuff' they were looking."

NASA wont respond to any of these claims, their press office will only say that the Moon landings happened and the pictures are real. But a NASA public affairs officer called Julian Scheer once delighted 200 guests at a private party with footage of astronauts apparently on a landscape. It had been made on a mission film set and was identical to what NASA claimed was they real lunar landscape. "The purpose of this film," Scheer told the enthralled group, "is to indicate that you really can fake things on the ground, almost to the point of deception." He then invited his audience to "Come to your own decision about whether or not man actually did walk on the Moon."

A sudden attack of honesty? You bet, says Rene, who claims the only real thing about the Apollo missions were the lift offs. "The astronauts simply have to be on board," he says, "in case the rocket exploded. It was the easiest way to ensure NASA wasn't left with three astronauts who ought to be dead." he claims, adding that they came down a day or so later, out of the
public eye (global surveillance wasn't what it is now) and into the safe hands of NASA officials, who whisked them off to prepare for the big day a week later.

And now NASA is planning another giant step - Project Outreach, a 1 trillion dollar manned mission to Mars. "Think what they'll be able to mock up with today's computer graphics," says Rene Chillingly. "Special effects was in its infancy in the 60s. This time round will have no way of determining the truth."

9 SPACE ODDITIES:

1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.

2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?

3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?

8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?

9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.

The Moon or a Studio in the Nevada Desert!

From: Patrick Kilcullen - pkilcull@roanoke.edu
17 April 2001

I was reading about the supposed moon hoaxs (I'm not yet sure that they
were faked) on your web site when I came across an excellent point in your
arguments. You said that during the videos of the lunar landings the astronauts
replied instantly to Mission Control in Houston. Yet light, radio waves, and
all energies of the electromagnetic spectrum travel at roughly 186,000 miles
per second, meaning the response time of the astronauts to comments made
by Mission Control should have been a little over two seconds since the
moon is over 200,000 miles from the Earth. Excellent point! I was stumped
here for a minute, until I considered this: we're only hearing the astronauts
transmission. Okay, that explanation obviously needs an explanation. First
off, like you said, NASA didn't establish a direct link with televison stations
for the broadcast. Instead, the video we saw was actually filmed as it
happened on the huge television screen in Mission Control, which accounts
for the poor quality of the film. What does this mean? It means that the
video and audio in the broadcasts of the Apollo missions were both time
delayed. You didn't hear people speaking inside Mission Control, you heard
their transmission to the astronauts. The audio we heard from Mission Control
was actually several seconds old. In other words, the landings transmitted
back to Earth video and audio feed of their landing, audio including messages
from Mission Control that the astronauts had just received. To make this
easier to picture, image it this way: Mission Control transmitts a message to
Apollo 11 on the lunar surface saying Neil and Buzz can get out of the LM
and walk around (with suits on, of course.) This message travels just over a
second to the moon, where Neil and Buzz receive it and reply "Finaly!" This
message is transmitted all the way back to Earth, where it is received and
broadcast on the huge monitor in Mission Control. So you see, Mission
Control spoke first and then the astronauts replied, only the audio transmitted
to us contained both messages with no time lapse in between. Confused?
Don't worry, you'll get it soon. I've looked over the arguments used by
believers of a moon landing hoax and they are rather solid and rooted fairly
well in logic, so I can safely assume you're all pretty smart guys, so this
shouldn't be to hard for you to understand. I would appreciate it if you
would respond to this email with your thoughts on my explanation of this
lunar quandary that is now solved (hopefully.)
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&ar ticle=748

===
Watcher's Opinion RE:
Orion/Giza Correlation and Mars/Moon/Masonic Connection

Hoagland, West, Hancock and Bauval are on to something. What they collectively have implied is nothing less than a PERFECT set up for the advent of the Antichrist. With the idea that Isis was the Egyptian god of "returning" and resurrection, it is uncanny that NASA has been engaged in a type of worship of this god from the beginning of the space program. Even the name Apollo is the Greek derivitive of Isis. The landing sites, the dates for landing and the incredible connection with Giza concerning the moon missions all fit together. There is even evidence that the US astronauts were closely watched by the aliens while on luna firma.

We agree completely with Bauval that the Giza pyramids are an earthly analogue for Orion and Sirius. I do not however agree with His conclusion that this analogue addresses the Egyptian cult of Isis and Osiris. The Egyptians recorded a degraded form of the true meaning of the Giza complex. The Cydonia region IS in complete correlation to Giza, but again, its original meaning was not intended for reverence to "aliens" or the so called proginators of the human race. This conclusion will be the driving force behind the uniting of all nations under the Antichrist. Antichrist will appear as a bringer of peace in Israel along with a worldwide manifestation of aliens claiming a Mars\Earth connection (the fake saviour will appear with his fake holy ones).

The reason that the King's chamber ventilation shaft is open to the star "Al Naith" in Orion's belt is because that star, whose meaning is "The Wounded One", describes the God who has come. This God manifested in human flesh, died and rose again. The ventilation shaft in the Queen's chamber which points to Sirius is CLOSED. This is symbolically accurate because Sirus represents the same God who died and lives, but has not as of yet returned. Sirius is not the consort of Isis (the degraded meaning), but the symbol of the God who remains to come as the King of Kings. Sirius means, "THE EXALTED KING"--the ruler of the whole earth. When He returns He will set up a kingdom that will never end.

If a man were to "force" this shaft open, he would in effect usher in the sequence of events that surround the working of the counterfeit-messiah, the antichrist.

A close look at Orion reveals a warrior, holding the skin of a lion, treading his enemy. His upheld club is poised to smash his enemy. The river of fire, Eridanus, which issues from before him, flows out to consume Leviathan, or Cetus, the sea monster to whom the cords of Pisces are fastened.

Sirius is properly the embellishment of Pullox, second of the twins, or correctly, the sign of second advent of the Messiah. Procyon embellishes Castor, the first advent of the Messiah as the redeemer, which is the actual translation of Procyon.

The Giza complex, as well as the Cydonia region, were designed to reveal Jesus Christ.

However, the Antichrist will of course try very hard to usurp the meaning for himself. The forces behind antichrist's coming were builders of the monuments (pre-rebellion). They are not presently alligned with the God which these structures describe.

http://www.mt.net/~watcher/sirius.html

===

THIS SUBJECT WON'T GO AWAY....

I STILL WONDER WHY WE HAVE NEVER GONE BACK AND WHY WE DO NOT
HAVE A BASE ON THE MOON NOW?

Subject: Why NASA DID land on the moon.
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:47:17 -0400
From: "Kyle Connolly"
Reply-To:
Organization: Point Of View Productions
To:

I am writing to argue that NASA really did put men on the moon. Here
are my 9 responses to your nine "space oddities".

1. "Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front
of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the
ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the
ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air."
The functional word here is "teased". Mission control was, as you said,
merely teasing him. There is no way for anyone to be able to tell
exactly which way the ball went. And even if you could, maybe he wasn't
holding the club straight, so the head hit the ball on an angle.

2. "A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off
the Moon. Who did the filming?"
Mission Control. If you watched the miniseries "From the Earth to the
Moon", you would know that there was a guy in mission control,
controlling the pan/tilt functions on the tv camera tripod. If you want
to bring up the 7 second radio delay due to distance, he actually sent
the command to tilt up with the ascending lander 7 seconds before it
happened, and it all worked out.

3. "One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong
about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have
been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the
Moon, then who took the shot?"
You really ought to learn more about the missions before you start
attacking them like this. There was an arm attached to the lander that
was deployed just before Neil Armstrong opened the hatch. This arm had
a television and a still camera mounted to it.

4. "The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football.
The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but
were seen freely bending their joints."
Did you really think that they just sent them up there in an airtight
jumper? OK. I'm gonna make this real easy for you. Here is a quote from
the NASA KIDS website. so you should be able to understand it. "The
space suit is made of hard materials with jointed sections to allow
movement. The upper and lower torso sections are put on separately. The
two pieces are connected at the waist to allow the flow of water and gas
lines. Gloves and helmet create a sealed protection against meteoroids
and radiation. On Earth, the space suit weighs about 100 pounds. In
space, the suit weighs much less. Under normal conditions, a space suit
should last about 8 years." So. assuming you can read. you have just
learnt about an American space suit. There is a hard layer of plastic,
among many other things, protecting the astronauts from the vacuum of
space.

5. "The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America
make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would
have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium
flares."
That's like saying 'Why don't the ISS astronauts light up the sky with
millions and millions of flares?' CAUSE THERE'S NO POINT!!!! What
you're saying is. because they didn't put a massive flare on the moon.
they never actually went. (Oh.. and by the way. have fun igniting a
magnesium flare without oxygen).

6. "Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on
the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in
the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?:

As you can see from this photo of Pete Conrad on Apollo 12, astronauts
didn't hold cameras like you do whn you're taking a picture of your
grandmother, the camera was attached to their suit at the chest. Most
small tools used by astronauts were attached to their suits, so they
would not be lost.

7&8. "The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark
line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to
the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow?
And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon? &
How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And
where, in all of these shots, are the stars?"

Do you honsetly mean to tell me that you believe that this photo hasn't
been played with? Somebody (no.. NOT NASA) has doctored this photo
really badly to make people like YOU think that you have a stronger case
against NASA. That astronaut was copied and pasted into that photo.
And as for the flag.. that shadow goes to the side with the face clearly
lit because it's not exactly parallel to the sun's rays! It's on a bit
of an angle, which anybody will tell you, is enough to clearly light the
flag. And as for the fluttering.. less drugs for you, man. it's not
moving at all. Do you know what happens when a flag is stowed for
several weeks, all folded up? You guessed it.. It gets wrinkled! Look
at getting some better glasses. As for the stars. in photography, to
prevent an over-exposure (phonetically: Ovur-ekspojur) you must close
the iris a bit, or in this case, a lot. The sun is much brighter here
than the brightest day on earth. Whith the iris down far enough to
prevent over-exposure, there is no way you would ever, EVER see ANYTHING
in the sky other than the sun and the earth.

9. "The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made
a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of
the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it
has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have
created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been
fired."
A few things you're forgetting.. It's mas was 17 tonnes, yes, however
since weight is relative to gravity, and the moon has 1/6th the earth's
gravity, the WEIGHTof the lunar lander was only 17/6 tonnes (2.833
tonnes). Now I'm not saying that this is light, there was dust stirred
up when it landed, but no more that when a chopper landes here on earth.

Some of your points (which I'm sure you didn't come up with on your own)
were ALMOST valid. Please e-mail me back when you read this. I'd love
to read your defending points.

-Kyle Connolly
(P.S. Your spelling sucks)
Kyle Connolly
phone: (613) 220-2532
fax: (613) 727-3849
email: pointofview@rogers.com

===
Nasa pulls Moon hoax book
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2424927. stm

Not heroes but actors, claim the theorists

By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor

The US space agency (Nasa) has cancelled the book intended to challenge the conspiracy theorists who claim the Moon landings were a hoax.
Nasa declined to comment specifically on the reasons for dropping the publication, but it is understood the decision resulted from the bad publicity that followed the announcement of the project.

Criticism that Nasa was displaying poor judgement and a lack of confidence in commissioning the book caused it to abort the project, agency spokesman Bob Jacobs said.

Oberg will still write the book

Nasa had hired aerospace writer Jim Oberg for the job on a fee of $15,000.

He says he will still do the work, although it will now be an unofficial publication with alternative funding.

The book will deliver a point-by-point rebuttal of the theory that the Apollo landings were faked in a movie studio, to convince the world that the US had beaten the Soviets to the Moon.

It will explain why in still and video footage of the landings, no stars can be seen in the Moon sky, why a flag appears to ripple on the atmosphere-free satellite and why shadows fall in strange directions - all "facts", conspiracy theorists say, point to a hoax.

Some commentators had said that in making the Oberg book an official Nasa publication, the agency was actually giving a certain credibility to the hoax theory.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2424927. stm

====

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon.
http://www.moonmovie.com/

Why the Americans NEVER landed on the moon.
http://thepeoplesrevolution.tripod.com/moon landing .htm

WERE THE MOON LANDING SHOTS FAKED?
http://www.mohammedi.freeserve.co.uk/moons hots.htm l

NASA Masonic Conpsiracy
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/mason apo.htm#NASA %20Masonic%20Conpsiracy

American Patriot Friends Network

"....a network of net worker's...."

MOD PARENT UP!!! THERE'S VERY GOOD POINT THERE!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7240075)

From: Patrick Kilcullen - pkilcull@roanoke.edu
17 April 2001

I was reading about the supposed moon hoaxs (I'm not yet sure that they
were faked) on your web site when I came across an excellent point in your
arguments. You said that during the videos of the lunar landings the astronauts
replied instantly to Mission Control in Houston. Yet light, radio waves, and
all energies of the electromagnetic spectrum travel at roughly 186,000 miles
per second, meaning the response time of the astronauts to comments made
by Mission Control should have been a little over two seconds since the
moon is over 200,000 miles from the Earth. Excellent point! I was stumped
here for a minute, until I considered this: we're only hearing the astronauts
transmission. Okay, that explanation obviously needs an explanation. First
off, like you said, NASA didn't establish a direct link with televison stations
for the broadcast. Instead, the video we saw was actually filmed as it
happened on the huge television screen in Mission Control, which accounts
for the poor quality of the film. What does this mean? It means that the
video and audio in the broadcasts of the Apollo missions were both time
delayed. You didn't hear people speaking inside Mission Control, you heard
their transmission to the astronauts. The audio we heard from Mission Control
was actually several seconds old. In other words, the landings transmitted
back to Earth video and audio feed of their landing, audio including messages
from Mission Control that the astronauts had just received. To make this
easier to picture, image it this way: Mission Control transmitts a message to
Apollo 11 on the lunar surface saying Neil and Buzz can get out of the LM
and walk around (with suits on, of course.) This message travels just over a
second to the moon, where Neil and Buzz receive it and reply "Finaly!" This
message is transmitted all the way back to Earth, where it is received and
broadcast on the huge monitor in Mission Control. So you see, Mission
Control spoke first and then the astronauts replied, only the audio transmitted
to us contained both messages with no time lapse in between. Confused?
Don't worry, you'll get it soon. I've looked over the arguments used by
believers of a moon landing hoax and they are rather solid and rooted fairly
well in logic, so I can safely assume you're all pretty smart guys, so this
shouldn't be to hard for you to understand. I would appreciate it if you
would respond to this email with your thoughts on my explanation of this
lunar quandary that is now solved (hopefully.)
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cg i?id=149495&ar ticle=748

When was the last time... (1)

1WingedAngel (575467) | about 11 years ago | (#7239993)

your 'holy grail' turned out to be filled with urine?

New Filing Cabinet System Announced (3, Funny)

doppleganger871 (303020) | about 11 years ago | (#7239999)

According to sources close to industry experts, a new filing cabinet will be brought to market sometime in the next year or two. Instead of having files, labeled with what their contents are, you will have a master file cabinet, with thousands of records that will give you a map on how to open a drawer and decipher a complex set of instructions to find the paper you're looking for. The system will revolutionize the way papers are stored in folders. Previously, there was no large, cryptic system for shuffling papers around, now there is a standard way to misplace items. No longer will you have to look just in drawers, but you may not be able to even find the cryptic instructions to lead you to the drawer to start looking in. Details are sketchy, but some have eluded to possible bookworm attacks, that could corrupt the cryptography and therefore render your whole filing cabinet useless. Industry experts suggest that an anti-bookworm product could be available shortly to help protect from this.

Re:New Filing Cabinet System Announced (1)

zasos (688522) | about 11 years ago | (#7240078)

now that's funny AND insightfull!!!! mod the parent up!

Twp thought occur (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7240004)

One. It will be hardware resource intensive.
Two. It will be massive overkill for home and SOHO users.

Oh and a third. Given Microsoft's past record in announcements verses delivery it will be largely vaporware for at least the first two to three iterations of this announced feature, work in a compleatly incompatiable way and require masive changes and administrator time to impliment usefully. And the cost for the OS will be astronomical!

Holy Grail??!?!?! (1)

kldavis4 (585510) | about 11 years ago | (#7240007)

As a developer I am a bit surprised by this statement? I don't believe I am seeking any such holy grail. What is he talking about? Are there any programmers out there who actually believe they might benefit from such a thing?

Why risk it? (1)

Ars-Fartsica (166957) | about 11 years ago | (#7240008)

While I applaud new thinking from any OS vendor, this type of re-architecting will mean little to the core home/business user. Are files really that hard to find on your computer? Are people really ready to throw their data into a virtual bucket and use pattern matching to find it later? Maybe, but consider the risks:

1. It is discivered to be broken shortly after release. This would cripple the entire OS and require a huge mae culpa from MS.

2. It is insecure. Once again, the whole OS would be undermined, users would revolt.

3. No one "gets it". The R&D cost and time spent will be for naught, people will keep on thinking like they always have - organizing files through Windows Explorer.

Considering the huge installed base and relatively low requirements of MS users (cruise the web, listen to music, read email), it just doesn't seem worth the risk. I would offer that secure, reliable mediocrity is what they should shoot for, they already own the market for desktop OSs and can't possibly convert the 5% who use Apple/linux etc.

SQL, XML not a Holy Grail: relational would be. (1)

leandrod (17766) | about 11 years ago | (#7240010)

SQL is just a corruption of the relational model, loosing power and simplicity. XML is just markup, and perhaps a nice programming convenience, but attempts to force feed it into databases and filesystems are bound to fail as miserably and costly as the similar attempts to force feed OO.

On the other hand, even SQL would be better than the current hierarchical file systems. And a truly relational database system such as Alphora Dataphor as a filesystem would be my technical Holy Grail, yes -- just not in MS-WNT. Make that work in GNU and I'd be happy as happy can be.

Re:SQL, XML not a Holy Grail: relational would be. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7240088)

Uhh...Alphora Dataphor runs on top of a relational database like Microsoft SQL Server. What are you talking about when you say "SQL is just a corruption of the relational model"?

It's a simple question of weight ratios... (1)

davidstrauss (544062) | about 11 years ago | (#7240017)

Well, it isn't, but the overhead of such an inplementation has to be balanced with performance. NTFS is already fairly high overhead. I would rather see a small NTFS OS loader partition that initializes a main database partition. That way, there wouldn't be the overhead of NTFS on the main partition. I would hate to have my media library stored fully in NTFS and described by a database. It would be no different than using a modern media player.

BuzzwordFS (1)

Ender Ryan (79406) | about 11 years ago | (#7240023)

In other news today, Microsoft announced the successor to WinFS, which is slated to appear in Windows LT(Long Tool) in 2012, BuzzwordFS. BuzzwordFS will not replace WinFS, it will incorporate features of WinFS, as well as every other possible TLA used in the computer industry, for complete buzzword compliance.

A few points (1)

arvindn (542080) | about 11 years ago | (#7240027)

  • Beos poineered the FS as a database concept a long time back
  • ReiserFS already does these things (incorporating metadata into the FS), and does it extremely well (performance wise)
  • If Longhorn implements an intelligent FS it would be a good thing for *nix users as well who would otherwise have a problem transferring files/archives to/from windows machines.
  • The big question is not technical feasibility and not even backward compatibility. Its how to avoid chaos among developers. FS with metadata is such a leap ahead of conventional FSes that a lot of code will have to be rewritten; many programs will have to change their architecture in fundamental ways; in the transition period two trees of code will probably need to be maintained, one for the new and one for the old FSs.
  • We (the OSS community) need to work on a standard API for next gen FSs. Otherwise there would be a whole bunch of similar but mutualy incompatible FSs.

All complex things... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7240044)

All complex things should be constructed at a level of abstraction that makes their construction simple, managable and understandable. Breaking this law dooms the result to failure.

I believe this completely. Never try to do too much in one place, when you can seperate the complexity into simple pieces with the same results while managing complexity.

Does anyone know of any reason why SQL and XML are required at the filesystem level? Can't the same results be achieved by layering these things above the filesystem?

I don't think I could stand... (1)

sniser3 (716918) | about 11 years ago | (#7240046)

... 3 years of "bla bla random feature of longhorn to keep microsoft in the press bla bla". Lots of exciting stuff is availabla right now, in 3 years a lot will have happened, let's ignore MS a bit shall we.

Complete this sentence: (4, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | about 11 years ago | (#7240061)

He goes on to describe such a filesystem as the 'holy grail' that is sought by developers... ...of high end processors, memory manufacturers, and name brand PC makers, who's sales have been down lately due to current software running well enough on previous generation hardware.

*NIX could do a similar thing.. (1)

CooCooCaChoo (668937) | about 11 years ago | (#7240063)

It would require Oracle DB as part of the equation.

The operating system core resides on an un-DB partition which has the basic core plus the Oracle DB engine, the other part is a raw partition. Instead of the information being a partition, the DB can be mounted as a partition in the traditional sense so that to the end user, they will notice no difference. All they will see when they go df is a piddly 200MB partition and the rest mounted under something else.

In otherwords, it is nothing revolutionary. Oracle was promoting this years ago when Larry claimed that "operating systems are dead".

Wrong mythology (1)

Soulfader (527299) | about 11 years ago | (#7240070)

"Holy Grail?" Maybe Pandora's Box would be more apt.

Urgh... Help! (1)

jo42 (227475) | about 11 years ago | (#7240072)


Er, ahm, I just don't get it... Why would I want a filesystem to be like this? How would it "open up a whole new world of information availability"? Mebbe me wee brain doesn't get pablum-based marketing speak. Someone please clarify... How would, or why would, this change the way I store and retrieve my documents, photos, etc.? Would the computer somehow read my mind and keep things organized for me? Or would I still have to type in document, photo, etc. names and keep them organized in categories like Proposals, Invoices, Grand Canyon Rafting Trip, etc.? I already do this using folders, etc. Or is this all much like eye candy that the Longhorn (cowpies!) UI is supposed to have?

Theory only? (1)

countach (534280) | about 11 years ago | (#7240094)

This is a great idea in theory, but the fact is for most people simple == good enough. This thing is sure to be a real tricky thing to use at first, and it will take ages for apps to support it probably. For most people it will be pure bloatware.

On the other hand, maybe Microsoft will pull a beauty out of the hat.... Naaahhhhhhh.

M$'s real holy grail (2, Insightful)

smartin (942) | about 11 years ago | (#7240104)

And of course WinFS will provide them with the ability to enforce DRM down to the file system level. Which is the Holy Grail of squeezing every last penny out of your customers, and making exclusive deals with evil associations.

Three words (1)

sonofasailor (646369) | about 11 years ago | (#7240121)

Trust worthy computing lets go over to cert and count with me then hook this b$%ch into whatever iteration of directory services they come up with I thought M$ was promising more security not less maybe the lawsuits will help was this the massive overhaul of the OS M$ was refering to? Hey Bill FIX the FSCKING kernel!!

JNDI, procfs, unix fs all been there already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7240136)

The problem (which is not a real problem) is that, for ms-dos then windows, the "file" was always a discontiguous lump of data on an alphabetically labelled disk. By not having one fs but one-per disk they were already showing their lack of vision.

Unix programmers realised long ago that a FS is just a hierarchy of informational units that (if you mount-ed one) could contain another file system; could be used to represent streams and pipes, symbolic links to other points in the hierarchy; could have other "filesystem-ish" objects mounted within it like the procfs virtual file system.

Sounds like WinFS is late to the party. Besides, java's JNDI has gone there already - getting objects, files, concievably you could write an XPATH driver for XML objects, etc. Nothing revolutionary at all. Basically being able to marry multiple query options (SQL, xpath, directory traversal) with clever indexing strategies has some mileage, but I'm sure the open source community could cobble something together very quickly.

MS Filesystems are Internet Enabled!!!! (4, Funny)

zulux (112259) | about 11 years ago | (#7240155)

In 1997 Microsoft made a pledge to Internet Enable all of their tehcnologies - and true to their word, even their file-systems are now internet enabled.

It's really easy to administer. Just plug you Windows computer into the internet, wait for a few minuits for a helpfull worm - and PRESTO!!!

You file system is on the Internet Baby!!!

WinFS is an object oriented database (1)

category9 (521982) | about 11 years ago | (#7240158)

WinFS sounds like it is going to be an object oriented database mounted as a file system. It will have standard filesystem object types such as directories and files, but developers will be able to expand on these basic types to create complex media types and intergrate databases with the file system.

I can't wait, although i don't know what its going to do to my business. It looks like its going to do what our object oriented database does plus more. We better start coding catchup. Maybe if we release a similar product to WinFS in say a year we can corner that market before Microsoft does. Wishfull thinking.
I don't want to go the same way at Netscape...

---
Phil Harvey
construct software [constructsoftware.co.uk]
object oriented database solutions

*ahem* Bullshit (1)

sik0fewl (561285) | about 11 years ago | (#7240161)

"Today, applications encapsulate data. In the future, applications will be able to read and write data created with multiple applications," Muglia said. "Information opens up dramatically."

*ahem* Bullshit. Unless you're trying to open a Microsoft document with a Microsoft application I'm thinking you're gonna have a lot of trouble. And of course when he said "applications encapsulate data" he was obviously only referring to Windows applications.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?