Slashdot Mirror
WinFS to be available in WinXP
ScooterMcGoo writes "According to a Microsoft Watch blog, WinFS is being back ported for Windows XP.
From TFA: WinFS isn't dead, Tom Rizzo, Microsoft's director of product management for SQL Server, recently told Microsoft Watch. In fact, Microsoft is planning to provide an update on the technology at this year's Professional Developers Conference (PDC) in September, he said.
Rizzo said that Microsoft is busily back-porting the WinFS file-system technology to Windows XP.
It's unclear if Microsoft also is porting WinFS to Windows Server 2003, but such a move would be likely, given that the Redmond software vendor is doing so with Avalon and Indigo."
I thought the Bill-Gates-as-borg icon had a slightly wider smile today ...
I'll believe it when I see it... my sources inside MS (and no, I ain't giving any proof, so believe me or not, I don't give a shit), say that there are very hard deadlines for Longhorn, with features being left out if they don't meet certain benchmarks, etc... so to hear that they are now taking something, and wasting resources back porting it? Especially when they first said it would be dropped from longhorn? I call Bull..
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
I'd love to be able to use a filesystem that can be seen in a dual-boot environment; that's better than FAT32 or FAT16; but those are really the only choices now.
I don't know about you, but NTFS is fine for me. I mean, jesus, its a file system, not a damn search engine.
WinFS announcements are one of Microsoft's most popular products. Thanks for the upgrade!
--
make install -not war
If everything will be back-ported to XP and Windows 2003, how does Microsoft plan to make any money off Longhorn, which has cost the company a lot in development time and money?
Do they plan on back-porting the first versions of Avalon, Indigo and WinFS, and then providing feature updates to Longhorn only, forcing customers to update? Or is Longhorn really just XP SP3?
It seems to me that every major component that Microsoft has promoted for Longhorn is eventually being backported to Windows XP. What's going to be new in Longhorn?
ext2 and ext3 are supported by third-party drivers; I imagine the same is true for reiser.
They STILL haven't figured out how to write to NTFS, they will never even figure out how to read now.
And now what reason do I have to upgrade to longhorn?
Oh Wait
1. Slower Performance. Why would I acctually want free system resources?
2. DRM, Who doesn't want their rights managed by M$
3. Spending More Money. Who doesn't want to give their money to M$, really?
Frankie Avalon and The Indigo Girls?
It's important to Microsoft as a way of preventing Google Desktop Search and Copernic from gaining mindshare and installed base before they introduce their final version in Longhorn
Incidentally, Copernic 1.5 beta now supports Mozilla Thunderbirds email and contacts and Firefox history and bookmarks - and does it well. This is a double threat to Microsoft, as their vision sees WinFS as a factor which ties people to Outlook and IE6/7
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
I don't remember them ever saying it would be dropped from longhorn. They did say the WinFS file searches would not be supported across network shares. But that was it.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
After all, they probably want to give people an incentive to migrate their servers, but realize that servers with WinFS will be adopted more quickly if the large installed base of WinXP clients can work with it. But if Server 2003 can support it as well, then there goes one reason to migrate.
Could we please stop using the word "technology" when "component" or "chunk o' software" would do fine. It's Microsoft speak.
It would the first major file system upgrade since including FAT32 in Win95C.
They can also use WinXP people to do unpaid beta testing of thier file system, before they include support on a server platform such as Win2003.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Not for Reiser4. Reiser4 is still pretty bleeding-edge.
Windows Server 2003
WinXP
Different products. What's the issue?
The article also says (on the first line):
Microsoft is back-porting its WinFS file-system technology to Windows XP.
Maybe WinFS is only being ported to WinXP, and not to Server 2003.
Perhaps this means that Longhorn will be delayed for a far greater period than initially expected. Microsoft can make some brownie points by releasing this hyped file system for free, heading off the negative press over the postponment of longhorn or allow them to abandon it (by saying the majority of features will be backported to XP) in favor of another OS.
It stores meta data along with all your files, so ... you have to spend more money on a bigger hard drive! Yay!
"So there he is, risen from the dead. Like that fella, E. T." - Father Ted Crilly
Depending on when this arrives, this could possibly be an attempt to take the wind out of the sails of Apple's Tiger release-- probably to arrive sometime before midyear-- which lists as one of its major selling points a new feature called "spotlight". Spotlight is a system service that has been described as offering similar functionality to WinFS, but does it without filesystem changes. I don't know exactly how accurate this description is, of course, since though Microsoft seems to talk an awful lot about WinFS and talk about its hypothetical technical capabilities, they never seem to give specifics on exactly how it works for the end user and what it means for the end user...
Of course, the above assumes Microsoft still actually cares about what Apple does, which isn't all that likely.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I think that the most important Question here is ... is microsoft going to provide an specification for the fs?, and, in case they do, will it be licensed in a GPL-compatible way?
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
There's another File System structure Microsoft worked on: WebDAV. They built a couple of file management suites on it. It's gone, largely, nowhere.
It's JUST enough to make the things that aren't supported a royal pain to implement. Dropping another filesystem in your OS just Must Always Work. Otherwise, no one will use it. We've got a Sharepoint Portal Server that sits largely idle because it didn;t have 100% backing from Microsoft.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
WinFS is not actually a filesystem. It's basically NTFS+ (compare to HFS+). If a computer that only understands NTFS reads the disk, it'll look like an NTFS disk. If WinFS is enabled, the indexes become avaliable. Basically, it's the Indexing Service on steriods. Or, at least, that's how I'm understanding it. Correct me if I'm wrong.
And if I am right, this will be one feature I'm turning off. The Indexing Service already pisses me off.
Apple releases Tiger with Spotlight
MS adds WinFS to XP, says "Hey, we can do that too, you don't need to wait for Longhorn!"
...and that's all there is to it.
After seeing how completely incompetent and pants-wetting funny awful Microsoft is at file searching with the little doggie, I can't wait to experience having a few more unnecessary, superfluous, extravagant, and bloated layers HELPING me.
That's not what they're saying. For one thing, WinFS won't even be in Longhorn but will apparently be avaiable for WinXP as well as Longhorn when they do finish it.
Despite the unforutnate name, WinFS is a service that runs above the filesystem. The data is still stored on a plain old NTFS partition(s).
source: Microsoft's WinFS developer page
The data is still just as (in)accessible as it's always been. The meta data is locked away in the WinFS store but we haven't been using that all this time so it's not like we're going to be any worse off.
as for writting NTFS, I suggest you take a look at captive NTFS which lets you read and write your NTFS partitions in Linux with the same confidence that you do in Windows.
Longhorn won't come out until 2010 or so, and Microsoft will be able to charge for "Windows 98^K^KXP Special Edition".
Not a bad idea.
If you have the ability to put off the release of another OS for years, you can save loads of money on development, but still have a steady income stream from copies bundled with computers (every dell, etc from 2001 to 2006, and those of us who had beta copies of windows 97 all know how the 2006 date will work) and the occasional consumer retail purchase.
Look, I'm not saying that MS isn't innovating anything, but compared to everyone else, they move at a glacial pace.
Since there really isn't any competition (and I use this word as "an OS that could hurt significantly MS financially", so please, no flames), they can sit back and release stuff whenever they feel like, but still have a pretty much guaranteed income stream.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
The main problem with NTFS isn't figuring it out, it's finding someone who wants to finish re-implementing a complex Microsoft file system for free. Moreover, if Linux (and other free operating systems) could fully support NTFS, including appropriate use of NT SIDs/ACLs, it would make a fine base file system. That might potentially give it the kind of universal acceptance FAT (a very simple file system) once had, which is something a good many Linux supporters would rather avoid.
Yes, I'm a UNIX-type person but keeping files in a logical directory structure along with copious use of find and grep commands seems to be good enough on most of the systems I work on. I even use WinGrep on Windows for that level of text searching...
The Registry is a database and definitely a weak point of Windows when it comes to resilience. NTFS seems to do a reasonable job of keeping the filesystem intact, why add a risk of introducing resilience problems into the filesystem by linking it to a database? Unless it's just a marketing ploy to sell you an MSSQL license at the same time.
Whatever anyone says about UNIX/Linux, the concept of keeping operating system tools simple and doing a good job of one specific task has allowed it to earn the stability and resilience reputation. Sure, you've got to spend time shell-scripting to unleash its full power but that's half the fun of it.
I'd love someone to give me a definitive answer as to why the concept of WinFS is so good - I genuinely don't understand all the hoohah about it.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
If you manage to sucker enough people to get your mac mini, you'll be happy to find out that Spotlight, which will be in the next version of OS X, does all this stuff except better. Like you don't haat to "attach XML metadata to files" (and seriously, who wants to query XML with SQL anyway?). http://developer.apple.com/macosx/tiger/spotlight. html
From my understanding, WinFS is not a file system at all just a database API sitting on top of what is essentially NTFS http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=winfs+ntfs
Linux already has the technologies that comprise WinFS: generic metadata (e.g., ReiserFS 4), file alternation monitoring (e.g., FAM, dnotify), and higher level functionality being built on it (e.g., rlocate, Beagle, Dashboard, etc.).
Which of these "stick" on the Linux platform in the end will be decided by users. I think indexing and search will be popular, but more complex metadata schemes won't be.
It beats me why it is taking Microsoft so long to get their act together on this one.
Getting WinFS out there means they can work out more kinks before release of Longhorn and at the same time provide the "benefits" of WinFS to people earlier. Separating out key pieces of the OS is always good for the still changing OS. Similar to the Linux/UNIX FSes, after all. This will make the transition to Longhorn "smoother".
WebDAV is used by .Mac iDisks.
Considering that iDisks are used for backups and hosting Web sites by a large number of people, I don't think the technology has "gone no where."
There's even an iDisk client for Windows XP.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
Well, considering that Linux does not officially support Reiser 4 yet, I'd say you can cross that off the list of filesystems you could access from Windows.
Any such system has to be powerful indeed. With peoples habits of keeping old copies around - alternating which copy they update - poorly naming things - and misspelling half of their document...
It's a wonder if we can find anything at all. Throw an abstraction on top - searching will just take longer.
cyn, free software and *nix operating systems enthusiast.
Not Reiser4, but there are some tools to access Reiser3 from Windows: RFSTool, and YAReG, a graphical frontend for RFSTool.
One major problem with NTFS is the fact that it's still prone to fragmenting. Every so often I have to run a defragmenter or my system just starts churning when I need to do any disk access. I've never had to do this on a Linux box becaue the filesystem is designed to avoid that.
So, will WinFS finally get this figured out or are they just going to make something more complex and bug prone without fixing a fundamental design issue from their previous filesystem?
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I'd love to be able to use a filesystem that can be seen in a dual-boot environment;
The "captive NTFS" driver that was easily installable in a kanotix environment seemed to work well enough, even for writing. I am not spending much time on intel linux so YMMV.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
I don't think that Microsoft is concerned about users wanting to upgrade Win XP and Server 2003.
What Microsoft is concerned about, I think, is to evolve their product to remain competitive with the alternatives, such as Linux, so that the new desktop or server that someone buys, will run windows.
The days when people upgraded the OS on their servers and desktops because a new version was out are over.
So they don't need to motivate why a user should upgrade from XP to Longhorn, with the cost that that entails. What they need is a product that is sufficiently more attractive than Linux for most users.
So, assuming that they can keep the market share, their second priority comes to focus. Which I believe is to have features which are attractive, and will attract developers, but which won't work on Linux.
So, spending an enormous amount of money on a file system which is unique to windows. And lock in applications to Windows is very important.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
AFAIR, WinFS' killing feature was searching files faster. Please note, it is _searching_, and not accessing, faster!
Now with a bunch of desktop search tools available for the same including one from MS, do they still need WinFS?
This, along with Avalon being ported back to XP and IE7, is interesting - MS is responding to consumer demand for new features instead of doing the usual: forcing people to upgrade operating systems for them.
One thing though - I would hope that MS allows us ambitious types to activate a new XP installation so that we can try this out on a different machine. Otherwise most people like me will adopt a real "wait and see" attitude when it comes out.
Schnapple
I'm intrigued by the idea, but I'm very sceptical that Microsoft can ever deliver this product in a form people will want to use. Consider their previous attempt to deliver hierarchical data management: the Windows Registry. In order to get it to do what you want, you have to deal with all kinds of obscure APIs and specifications. And even you can figure out how it's supposed to work, you run into problems because somebody in Redmond has kludged in some undocumented functionality that conflicts with what you're trying to do. If WinFS is at all similar, developers will spend a few months banging their heads against it, then decide it's not worth the trouble.
If that's the case, then it's just Extended Attributes ala OS/2. You could store all sorts of things in EAs, customized fields, information on what programs could open the file (overriding system defaults). I really miss that in the Windows products, and it's a big reason why I've always felt the Chicago GUI and its successors were nothing more than stunted cousins of OS/2's Workplace Shell.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Y'all seem surprised at this move, but IIRC many of the features that were new in Win95 were also back-ported to Win3.1. I know that for a long time I was able to run pretty much any Win95 app on Win3.1 after I installed the win32 dlls (complete with FreeCell as a demo).
On a bit of a smaller scale, I also remember most of the new 98 features being back-ported to 95. Most of the magazine articles at the time, in fact, were touting 98 as 95 with a bunch of patches.
I can't comment on 98 <->XP - I was a heavy linux user during that changeover.
Yes, Windows most likely can support that. I mean, it does support ext3, ReiserFS, and even ext2 with write support. So I think there's nothing technically in the way. The problem is probably being lack of driver developers. ;-)
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Is WinFS covered by patents? MS can't get Longhorn out over the short term and is starting to feel a little competitive heat, so rushing this out may be an effort to break Linux compatibility with Windows filesystems.
Sue anyone who codes WinFS for Linux, and then declare that switching to Linux means compatibility headaches.
Why upgrade in the first place? I have a WindowsME sitting at my folk's home, used for e-mailing, chatting and little else. I think it's been lucky in the spyware dept, cos nobody surfs around much and most of the spyware would be targetting XP now ... but it does everything that "needs to be done".
...
When my present WinXP laptop wears off, I'll either hunt down a 100% Linux compatible laptop (this one has winmodem) or just get whatever's top edge when I'm buying the next one. Either way, I get a hardware/software combination that works. Then I don't even think about upgrading until it wears out in its turn
Okay, if you need to use software which has compatibility issues, but are there that many around any more? Not trolling, just wondering if there *is* a good reason to keep up with the Joneses.
If you manage to sucker enough people to get your mac mini, you'll be happy to find out that Spotlight, which will be in the next version of OS X, does all this stuff except better.
How can you tell when Microsoft has basically not released any details yet?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Ahahahaha. Let's review.
1) Run a file search on Windows. Go get a coffee and then see the results. Realize that you can only search on basic attributes of the file, like name/dates/raw content.
2) Run a file search on OS X. Click your heels twice and then see the results. Still, you're limited to some basic attributes.
Some months (or years) from now...
3) Run a file search on WinFS. In theory you get hits pretty damn quickly, if they ever finish this technology. I'm not sure yet what extra file info you'll be able to search on.
4) Run a file search on OS X Tiger. Not only is your search blindingly fast, but you can search on arbitrary file metadata. Also, you can save stock searches which will automatically update when new matches appear in the FS. I believe this technology was brought over with BeOS coders.
I am so used to the OS X file search speed and Mail.app search speed that on my work Windows laptop I was forced to buy X1.com's search tool to get around the incredibly annoying (when you're not desensitized to it) delay when searching in either Windows Explorer or Outlook. The market for this utility should frankly not even exist. It should be the responsibility of the OS to help you find things as quickly as possible, and it should have been done YESTERDAY. I mean Jesus, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to embed something like a SQLite engine in your email client code.
I'm glad that Microsoft is finally getting around to this (someday) but in the meantime I will be quite happy when Apple's Tiger shows up on my doorstep early this summer.
Ahahahaha. Let's review.
1) Run a file search on Windows. Go get a coffee and then see the results. Realize that you can only search on basic attributes of the file, like name/dates/raw content.
2) Run a file search on OS X. Click your heels twice and then see the results. Still, you're limited to some basic attributes.
Some months (or years, in the case of WinFS) from now...
3) Run a file search on WinFS. In theory you get hits pretty damn quickly, if they ever finish this technology. I'm not sure yet what extra file info you'll be able to search on, but I imagine it's more than the basics.
4) Run a file search on OS X Tiger. Not only is your search blindingly fast, but you can search on arbitrary file metadata (it will index things like EXIF data, ID3 tags etc). Also, you can save stock searches which will automatically update when new matches appear in the FS. I believe this technology was brought over with BeOS coders.
I am so used to the OS X file search speed and Mail.app search speed that on my work Windows laptop I was forced to buy X1.com's search tool to get around the incredibly annoying (when you're not desensitized to it) delay when searching in either Windows Explorer or Outlook. The market for this utility should frankly not even exist. It should be the responsibility of the OS to help you find things as quickly as possible, and it should have been done YESTERDAY. I mean Jesus, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to embed something like a SQLite engine in your email client code.
I'm glad that Microsoft is finally getting around to this (someday) but in the meantime I will be quite happy when Apple's Tiger shows up on my doorstep early this summer.
You can install WinXP on FAT32.
If everything will be back-ported to XP and Windows 2003, how does Microsoft plan to make any money off Longhorn, which has cost the company a lot in development time and money?
Maybe finally selling upgrades to all the people who never upgraded from Windows 2000 because there was no reason?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Please mod parent down. My browser fucked up and this became a double-post (see following post that is nearly identical but not quite). My bad (and terrible form on my part!)
What all of these press releases are leaving out is the fact that MS is going into the litigation business, and right this minute Bill himself is in negotations with Darl McBride to form a software-litigation firm known as MSCO. Also, Longhorn was originally code-named "big long horn right up yer you-know-what", but that was thrown out because it had too many words & was difficult for the top execs to remember.
"Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix"- Kieren O'Shaughnessy
They were rather useful, and a big part of the OO nature of WPS.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'd love to be able to use a filesystem that can be seen in a dual-boot environment
Well now you can as long as you're dual booting Longhorn and WinXP.
Now with 20% MORE Clippy!
Can someone give me the short answer as to why we can't support filesystems like ext3 or reiser under windows?
I imagine the problem is that it can't plug in to the windows kernel well enough but I'm still curious. Seems like it would be a really neat idea if it were possible.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
What about Windows shares? Since WinFS is a database that stores metadata about each file, this means that each copy of XP must serve up this metadata for anyone trying to share the file. I read somewhere that performance problems with this is one of the reasons for the delays....
I don't understand how this is a good decision for Microsoft. Sure WinFS would be a nice feature on XP - but why would they backport the only thing that makes Longhorn worthwhile to XP? Don't they want Longhorn to stand out?
or else!
NT4 SP5 (or maybe SP4, I don't remember exactly which one) brought support for NTFS5, which was new to Windows 2000. And no, NTFS5 partitions aren't readable in NT4 otherwise.
In other words, there isn't a single reason to upgrade to Longhorn.
.NET? Available for XP.
1.)
2.) Avalon? Available for XP.
3.) Indigo? Available for XP.
And now...
4.) WinFS? Available for XP.
Apparently, the only thing Longhorn will offer over Windows XP is a Direct3D interface that requires you to upgrade your computer in order to run it.
Perhaps Longhorn always should have been just a collection of technologies released for existing versions of Windows rather than a whole upgrade. Because I don't see many people upgrading with all of Longhorn's technologies being made available for Windows XP anyway.
http://blog.hackedbrain.com/archive/2004/12/13/277 .aspx
One of the monumental problems organizations face today is aggregating information that's stored in disparate formats. Knowledge workers have long wanted to be able to search for content independent of format. WinFS allows the user to perform searches based on the metadata of the stored item, regardless of what type of file it is or which application created it.
Being a GNU/Linux user with a light well-organised Gentoo system at home, I often wondered about statements like this. But in the last few years I have had to use M$ Windoze systems at work, so I begin to understand the search requirement: it is because Windoze systems are horrendously organized! The directory structure resembles a junk yard. Writable system files, sloppy application installations, bizarre naming conventions, the scourge of the Windoze registery. It is no wonder M$ feels the need to add a search capability. Navigating a Windoze file system is next to impossible.
an ill wind that blows no good
You should really check into 'locate'. I pretty much forgot how to use 'find' after discovering it.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Sorry buddy, but there's no file system upgrade here. WinFS is a Windows Service that runs on top of NTFS - the same version of NTFS, incidentally, that is present in Windows XP.
In fact, Microsoft is planning to provide an update on the technology at this year's Professional Developers Conference (PDC) in September, he said.
Meanwhile, I'll actually be USING such technology on my Mac mini.
Seriously, it's taken Microsoft a decade to get this off the ground, and Apple decides to implement it between OS X updates and gets it out the door. What's up at Microsoft?
Just curious...
What color will "long horn" "dye"? Purple? Green?
Since obviously you have all the answers, I figured you'd know better than anyone.
How would this lock it up since WinFS is just a system service running in the background that works on NTFS drives?
WinFS uses NTFS.
This is just a response to kill the buzz on Apple's Spotlight, which is actually shipping. When some competitor starts to make gains, Microsoft just lets loose that they're "working" on things sometime in the future to make the shareholders happy and to keep their name in the press.
Your pal, :)
Comic Book Guy
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Fire up Google and search for something. The results are instant.
Now, pretend you have, like I do, over 200GB of files. Instead of drilling through folders and scrolling endlessly with my mouse, why can't I search my own hard drive as quickly as I search the entire Internet and get the file I was looking for in less than a second?
You're thinking way too closed-minded. Desktop search combined with smart folders will be the new way to fish through your years of files as hard drives increase in size yearly. Go ahead and keep on clicking through your folder heirarchy. The rest of us will just type a search term in a text field and get our file(s) instantly.
WinGZ is being backported to WinQE using XYZ. WinGZ is not dead, IIRC GQRT FLRO JDF lfkhfh lhhdglksd...
I know it might make you seem a little less 1337, but could you give just a tiny bit of background so I know whether or not to read TFA? Like, WTF is WinFS?
I think the traditional concept of a filesystem with data organized within directories is beginning to show its age.
Why bolt on things like DB functionality and version control features (this is coming eventually...) to a traditional filesystem model when these features fit neatly with the concept of a more generalized persistent object store system?
"Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
People were saying the same thing when IE4 came out. Why would you want win98 when win95 + IE4 was the same thing? 98 seems to have done well anyhow.
boldly going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse
The only change that most users will notice is how does it look. And it will the main motivation to some users to upgrade from XP to Longhorn, as it was for many people I know that upgraded to XP.
For most users, the main difference between 2000 and XP is not about the integrated firewall. It's not the damn activation thing. It's the bigger and blueish tittle bar, the candy looking widgets and the wallpaper that looks like it's taken straight from Teletubbyland.
I was really looking forward to this being called "ActiveFS" or "Active File System" or something trendy like that... but then again, that was pretty 90's wasn't it. I think someone suggested it would be called "Logical Search and Structure File System" (LoSS for short) but I haven't heard if they have decided on that or not... so maybe.
I don't see any need for this. And beyond need is want -- who wants this? I can kinda see an "abstraction layer" that could run on top of your existing file system services that could obscure the actual name and location of a file in the system, but I don't see the point in making data recovery that much more difficult.... oh yeah I do... Microsoft keeps moving the target.
The book you're talking about is "Practical File System Design with the Be file system".
Here's the slashdot article on it and here's a pdf of the book direct from the author's site.
It looks interesting, but it's been on my to-read list for a while.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
Ok reading the posts there may be some pro's and cons to the winfs(big surprise there huh?) but my will question is, whose gonna be the brave souls to implement this first when it does finally get released?
So is this the new development plan for Longhorn? Rolling it out in chunks instead of one coherent release?
It kind of makes sense to me. This way, they'll have some field testing of the key technologies and they'll be able to use the longer development cycle to work out more bugs.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
Ew Ew.. both of those sound so unappleaing to me. Besides, that would never happen, microsoft isn't developing an OS for linux geeks. Its much simpler than that, being able to see a description along with an image without downloading a thumbnail. I would like to be able to create arbitrary "pointers" to other files in the system (and have those pointers reconfigured when a file is moved), that way I can say "this photoshop file is associated with this html webpage". Too bad its all gonna be in XML.
Of course not.
Even if Avalon, Indigo and WinFS get backported so new applications built for them can run under XP and 2003, most of the functionality will be restricted to the new applications. Most probably, after Longhorn gets introduced, only a few apps will work under the backported versions (as some APIs will be absent).
If you want a flashy Windows desktop based on Avalon or a smarter Windows Explorer that's WinFS aware, you will have to upgrade to Longhorn. Think Win32s.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
I'm not that Uber-knowledgeable about how it all works, but it seems to me that the end effect will be no different than the current combo of plain old NTFS + Google Desktop Search.
As document many times over, Microsoft long ago sold those Apple shares.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I recall my good ol' DOS times.
J OBG AMES\PLATFORM: \WIN95 -- my custom "WINDOWS" directory.
...
...
...
Here's more or less a list of my directories:
C:\DOCS
C:\DOCS\HOMEWORK
C:\DOCS\
C:\GAMES
C:\GAMES\3D
C:\GAMES\ADVENTUR
C:\
C:\LENG\BC
C:\LENG\TP
C:\PICS
C
C:\WIN98
C:\WP
So I could organize myself. Now, do you know what Microsoft did?
C:\Program Files\app 1
C:\Program Files\app 2
C:\Program Files\app 3
C:\Program Files\app 9,999
C:\Documents and Settings\me\My Documents\doc1
C:\Documents and Settings\me\My Documents\doc2
C:\Documents and Settings\me\My Documents\doc3
C:\Documents and Settings\me\My Documents\docN
C:\Documents and Settings\me\My Documents\My Images\img1
C:\Documents and Settings\me\My Documents\My Images\img2
C:\Documents and Settings\me\My Documents\My Images\imgN
Suddenly, the worst happens. My start menu is erased! Or my config got erased!
*cries* WAH!!! I lost one of my files! Where is it? They were on "My Documents", I swear!!
If Microsoft had ALLOWED the users to specify CATEGORIES for program installations... as in "Create Category", etc and made THIS feature an integral part of the system
("A certified WinXP application will present the "category" dialogue when installing something),
we wouldn't NEED WinFS at all.
Now that I think of it, here's a new motto for Microsoft:
"What do you want to hide today?"
I think asking users to define metadata is a wasted effort. While users can tag data, it's a huge chore...
Spotlight I think has the best compromise. Modules that can define meta-data from document contents themselves. Most document formats that people would want to search already have a means of storing meta-data (like EXIF for pictures) so just let people modify this meta-data as appropriate with tools specific to the format, and encourage new app writers to generate documents with room for meta-data as well.
You don't need to store all files in a DB. Just make it easier for system services to have visibility to the meaningful data in documents across the system.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Ah, the oldest, most familiar chestnut of the OSS "community". It's like my favorite pair of comfortable pants.
-
Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
WinFS is not just some sort of search. They already have that with MSN Search.
WinFS an API to store objects at a file system level, indexing and streaming potential to file-based data. WinFS data can be structured with an XML schema to explain meaning and purpose. Data can also be semi-structured or unstructured. You can extend the FS with your own properties. WinFS come with a set of services such as synchronization, notification, a unified store and a common security model. Data, and files can have types, properties, fields, relationships, even constraints.
You're no longer using files, you're using full blown objects.
Want dual boot to only play games? Install Windows on a bloody FAT32 partition. Dependent on Word / Excel macros, CAD aplication, Access database? Buy Cross Over Office and run apps on Linux if you can or just run Windows.
Wasn't this announced a long time ago? I swear there was an article several months to a year ago, stating that MS was abandoning the WinFS and 3D-Windowing features of Longhorn in order to get it out sooner. There was talk of integrating it into XP at some point instead of holding it off until Longhorn was done, since LH's release date kept being shifted back. There was some other features they were moving to XP too I think.
Insert Sig Here
I believe that's his point -- to get you freaks to crawl out of your android dungeons.
Even if I could run Linux/BSD (well), I'd still probably spend most of my time in Windows, because of Office among other things. When using Linux/BSD, though, it would be nice to have full access to my files on the NTFS partition, especially with proper security mappings.
I'd use a NTFS partition for data exchange only, of course! The Linux system should reside on a filesystem that is better supported like the ones in topic. XFS is working well for me.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
There was a story on theregister.co.uk (I think) a few days ago about XP64 for x86-64 machines being based off of Server 2003 rather than XP. Perhaps this is related somehow?
Either way, it's not like the task is as dramatic as backporting from the NT OS's to the 9x OS's...
Incidentally, Copernic 1.5 beta now supports Mozilla Thunderbirds email and contacts and Firefox history and bookmarks
As does Google Desktop 1.0. Nice work Google! Now get crackin' on that Mac OS X version...
~jeff
Still, I'd love to see anyone develop a functional equivalent of WPS. It would be nice if IBM would even port it over.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
How's the IO speed compare in Windows on reiser compared to NTFS?
I don't know if it's the IO system that's doggedly slow, or just NTFS... either way, it's painful..
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I recently met the somebody from the WinFS product team (a friend of a friend thing).
From speaking with him over the course of an evening I didn't get the impression at all that this was being 'rushed' out the door. In fact, it seems that this is one of the few pending features that acually IS ready for prime time.
Hopefully we won't all turn into beta testers!
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
Why bother? Tiger will be out in 3 to 4 months and will come with Spot Light. From what I've seen Spot Light is basically Google Desktop, but integrated into the OS.
-matt
Now, be fair... you can't really blame WinFS for that
Microsoft is now embracing Apple Computer's
use of the "Data" and "Resource" forks in
their OS, circa 1995? I am so impressed. NOT!
MSFT, as a convicted (and largely unpunished)
monopolist, might well back port the WinFS
support to XP and WS2003, if only for the
following reason:
Between MSFT's huge IP software patent portfolio
(largely bogus due to prior art), and the DMCA
they will be able to leverage their monopoly
OS and FS to short-circuit the advances made
by Kerberos/OpenLDAP/Samba at a time when linux
is gaining corporate mindshare. Expect MSFT to
furnish restricted API's and "MS Open Source"
in order to lock out competition.
Data can also be semi-structured or unstructured. You can extend the FS with your own properties. WinFS come with a set of services such as synchronization, notification, a unified store and a common security model. Data, and files can have types, properties, fields, relationships, even constraints.
That should prove a speedy beast, especially when every third-party vendor starts giving new "properties" to their own files or any others they're concerned with whether you want them or not.
You're no longer using files, you're using full blown objects.
Hmm. That's one way of putting it, I suppose. It sounds as though the "full blown" part would certainly apply to the overhead.
If you want to see what filesystems are like when you add database features, look up some BeFS documentation from BeOS.
An awful lot of stuff [some of it more than a little nefarious] can be accomplished with NTFS streams.
Sadly, they are among the best kept secrets in all of M$FTdom; sometimes I even wonder whether any of the in-house developers at M$FT are aware that they exist.
I'd be more interested in a race; which comes out first, WinFS or ReiserFS plugins?
I'd say they're neck in neck on the OS Vaporware Challenge.
want to get linux a toehold in enterprise? no chance until you can write to (NTFS) shares.
I was setting up a PC at a friends with Windows Media Centre Edition, and the only available formatting for the new hard drive was NTFS !
Didn't FAT also used to be available in XP ?
I sure feel happier accessing FAT partitions than NTFS ones from Linux. Is the write access still experimental ?
It didn't occur to me at the time, but I probably should have formatted the partition in FAT using Linux. Doh!
-- "It's not stalking if you're married!" My Wife.
hmm, WinFS Is Not a FileSystem? Mod me redundant, I care not.
I have freaks! I did something right...
im not some sort of guru but ntfs is fine. i think instead of bill having all his slaves running around trying to make a new file system why dont they research into ntfs more and try to fully implement that, i mean it has functions that are not used when they could be like the Advanced Data Stream for example that has a good way of hiding files but windows just ignores this and treats it almost like a fat partition but with shinny knobs on
...doesn't require a full new filesystem.
The low-tech approach would be an augmented locate service, providing additional metadata. This still requires a periodic filesystem scan as with current locate/slocate.
The high-tech approach would be to add hooks to the filesystem driver allowing metadata (user/group, [ca]time dates, filename, permissions) to be written to an index. Need not change underlying filesystem symantics at all.
Microsoft, of course, prefer the spaghetti solution.
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?