Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hoptoad!tim
From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: System 7.0
Message-ID: <8381@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: 24 Aug 89 05:46:05 GMT
References: <227700026@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> <483@sunfs3.camex.uucp> <9173@thorin.cs.unc.edu> <13784@shamash.cdc.com> <490@sunfs3.camex.uucp> <8368@hoptoad.uucp> <3214@zeus.unl.edu> <1394@intercon.UUCP>
Reply-To: tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney)
Organization: Eclectic Software, San Francisco
Lines: 60

In article <8368@hoptoad.uucp>, tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) writes:
> On a semi-related note, what is this file id crap?  How are network
> file system implementors supposed to implement yet another
> Mac-file-system-only feature on servers on other operating systems?
 
In article <3214@zeus.unl.edu>, unocc07@zeus.unl.edu (Dave Caplinger) writes:
> Isn't the file-id information just taken straight out of AppleShare?
> (the new format for the Desktop file(s))  If so, it's not really "yet
> another" different thing in the Mac file system.

In article <1394@intercon.UUCP> amanda@intercon.uu.net (Amanda Walker) writes:
>AppleShare & the new desktop interface don't use file IDs; it's something
>new, and something which I think can only encourage bad programming...

I didn't want to hear this -- I saw your message and thought, "Oh boy,
Amanda will have the answer, it's not as bad as I think."  I guess it
really is.  You seem to be reasonably well connected, and if you don't
know of any Apple answer to the network file system issue here, I'm
willing to bet that they haven't even bothered to think about it.

David Oster had a good point about the programming implications.  You
now must save your documents by overwriting the old file.  Never mind
that most people either delete the old file before creating a new one,
or write the new one while the old one is still around for an extra
layer of failureproofing.  Never mind that overwriting the old file
preserves fragmentation even when the disk is capable of laying out
the file in a smarter fashion.  This is a very questionable new feature
in terms of what it delivers (users can rename preferences files for
new applications that use the feature) versus the overhead it imposes
on programmers.  Network programmers are the worst off, but everyone
winds up paying one way or another.

(And for anyone who may think that file ids are required for the new
symbolic link feature, which *is* useful -- think again.  All you need
to store is what UNIX stores, the full path name.)

>As for Tim's note, I'm afraid the people working on the Mac file system
>simply don't care.  It fits into Apple's general attitude towards other
>machines doing things that "could be done with Macs": "Why would you want
>to do that?"  They even take this stand towards some of their own products,
>annoyingly enough :-(.

They've gone beyond "not invented here" to "not purchased here", I
guess.  Is there any sort of "internal RFC" mechanism at Apple so that
the different OS teams can avoid stepping on each other's toes?  Or do
they already have a solution for Appleshare and they're just hoping
that no one else can solve it in time?  The word (unconfirmed, but from
sources with no concrete interests either way) is that TOPS outsells
Appleshare by a factor of five or more, so I wouldn't be surprised if
they played a little dirty pool to try to close the gap.

>Grumble.

Welcome to the club....
-- 
Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com

"Something was badly amiss with the spiritual life of the planet, thought
 Gibreel Farishta.  Too many demons inside people claiming to believe in
 God." -- Salman Rushdie, THE SATANIC VERSES