Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site alberta.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!alberta!bjorn
From: bjorn@alberta.UUCP (Bjorn R. Bjornsson)
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: Re: Re: RMS {SHORT}
Message-ID: <431@alberta.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 23-Mar-85 16:06:20 EST
Article-I.D.: alberta.431
Posted: Sat Mar 23 16:06:20 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 25-Mar-85 02:10:08 EST
References: <130@stl.UUCP> <290006@acf4.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB
Lines: 29

> 
> 	3) this is not from the above
> 	article, but it is clear that users that don't need indexed files are
> 	paying for them involuntarily (and unnecessarily) since they are in the
> 	lowest level file handler.
> 
> 	J. Giles
> 
> Sure they pay for it.  It costs a couple of pages of physical memory.  Not zero,
> but not a lot at current memory prices.

How often does this have to be repeated: RMS/indexed files, et. al.
are not in the lowest level VMS file handler.  The real problem with
RMS is the profusion of "file types".

Since RMS is in the RTL (RunTime Library), which happens to be
shared by all images running under VMS, the cost in memory is
as follows:

	1) If indexed files are being used: a few pages physical memory.

	2) If no indexed files are used, the code will eventually be
	   paged out, cost: a few disk blocks.

I'm of the opinion that we could save a lot of grief in this newsgroup
as well as others, if people who know absolutely nothing about VMS
would cease their flaming about it's shortcomings. VMS does have
shortcomings (as does UNIX), but that doesn't change the fact that
imaginative fiction about VMS, appears with astounding regularity.