There are certainly practical differences between "conventional" relational databases and hierarchical filesystems, without having to get into implementation details. I'm sure at least a few people on this list are familiar with the BeOS filesystem, which acted much more like a relational DBMS than most filesystems do... over a decade later, we've now got hacked-on DBMS-like functionality in the form of (e.g.) Spotlight, but most users are stuck with the little walled-off databases presented by their media library and email application software. Once again, it's not a technical issue so much as a matter of perspective.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/03/29/windows_on_a_database_sliced/ -- Max On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:31 PM, BGB <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/20/2011 9:19 PM, Julian Leviston wrote: > >> Hi... (see below)... >> >> On 21/06/2011, at 3:42 AM, BGB wrote: >> >> On 6/20/2011 3:22 AM, Julian Leviston wrote: >>> >>>> On 20/06/2011, at 8:06 PM, BGB wrote: >>>> >>>> hmm... S-Expression database?... >>>>> sort of like a hybrid between a database and a persistent store. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> or such... >>>>> >>>> I'd like to know if you think there's a difference between a filesystem >>>> and a database... conceptually... >>>> >>>> or such... >>>> >>> interesting thought... >>> >>> Note that I asked if you think there's a difference not how they differ. >> I'd be surprised if there were any people on this list who didn't know how >> they differed. >> >> I don't consider there to be much of a difference between the two, >> conceptually - they are both concerned with the retrieval and storage of >> data (I'm using the term 'data' here to mean any form of raw information at >> all, useful or otherwise, including programs). >> >> > (I got sidetracked and forgot to answer earlier...). > > > but, well, I consider them as different, as they serve different roles... > > filesystems serve a very narrowly defined role, so possible variation is > limited before one risks compromising compatibility with existing software > (both WRT removing features, or adding too many fundamentally new ones). > compromising this compatibility would also severely compromise the general > usability of the system. > > > however, one could argue that filesystems are probably a fairly narrowly > defined subset of databases, so in this sense there is overlap. > > for example, humans are mammals, but not all mammals are humans (tigers > aren't hosting TV shows, there are no cities of bears, elephants aren't > doing construction work, ...). > > so, it seems a similar level of difference... > > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/**listinfo/fonc<http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc> >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
