Slashdot Mirror
WinFS Gets the Axe
commander salamander writes "Over at the WinFS Team Blog, Quentin Clark states that Microsoft no longer plans to ship WinFS as a standalone software component. Instead, portions of the underlying technology will be included with the next release of SQL Server (codename Katmai) and ADO.NET. Does this spell the end for the true relational storage paradigm that Microsoft has been promising since Windows 95?"
How long has the promise of WinFS been on the table? Microsoft has dragged this teaser on 10-lb test in front of drooling long-time loyalists as the newest and amazingly innovative piece of their "best OS ever". Aside from the fact it really wasn't amazingly innovative (well, in vernacular maybe it was), now they're close to closing the door on this. I wonder how many sales they've pulled off with these lies?
HINT: Here's a snippet from an October 2003 PC World article:
Microsoft may not have thought they were lying at the time but they must have had an idea they not only weren't on target but they weren't even close! It's amazing a company can get away with this -- call it genius marketing, I call it deception at all costs to keep their customer base intact.
Sometimes these outcomes seem to say more about the Microsoft loyalists than Microsoft.
Yes.
Maybe it was supposed to be "WhenFS?" (FP?)
If they didn't put back WinFS, they couldn't use it as vapo^W a feature of their next product. And when that product comes out, they'll push it back to the product after that, just like they've been doing for the past seven or eight years or so.
WinFS is the perpetual motion machine of vapourware. They are constantly promising it for their next product, but they never seem to deliver. That doesn't stop $NEXT_PRODUCT from being compared favourably with the competition because of WinFS by PHBs though.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Their structured, indexed filesystem that operates much like a database, will be released with their database software!
Is it just me, or does that sound slightly redundant?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
a. WinFS had difficulty functioning over a network
b. Microsoft's target customer is business
c. Businesses use networks
Therefore, WinFS would not be suited for business usage, making it unimportant.
Hey, if everyone wants to bag on Microsoft not making a next generation file system, what is stopping Linux and the Open Source community from doing it? Oh, that's right- it's easier to just complain about MS than to actually get your hands dirty. Nevermind then, carry on.
Yes. As Mini-Microsoft puts it:
WinFS now joins a series of other broken promises from Microsoft. Interesting that just two weeks ago, they were demoing WinFS at TechEd. At this point, I'm really surprised customers don't treat this as flat-out lying on the part of Microsoft. Overpromise and never deliver. This company is a sinking ship.
"Sufferin' succotash."
"Does this spell the end for the true relational storage paradigm that Microsoft has been promising since Windows 95?""
Were's the F/OSS equivalent?
Simply call it what it is, fraud, from a company that knowingly engages in deceptive business practices.
To be fair, I would call this a failure rather than a fraud. They probably believed their own claims about WinFS at the time that they made their promises.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
And meanwhile ReiserFS on Linux provides much of the functionality today that WinFS only promised for the future.
Shh.
On the contrary, plenty of corporations might lie, but how many companies can get away with telling the same lie over and over and over again?
"Yeah, sure, WinFS will be in this one. It's not like last time, or the time before that, or the time before that. We mean it this time."
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
From what I remember the funky file system was the last piece of the Cario product/suite of technologies to need to ship since Allchin announced it in 1991. Sadly for Allchin, they were unable to deliver on the last great promise of Cario before he leaves, and the poor guy waited 15 years for it too.
$2B OR NOT $2B = $FF
Windows Vista has now been renamed Windows XP Service Pack 3. More at 11!
What's really sad is that BeOS had a woking usable dbFS TEN YEARS AGO!!!! I bet Visa idles more RAM and CPU resources than an BeBox had to begin with.
Why do microsoft bods keep using the term 'rich' to descibe their technology?
Most notably, how is it that they seem to apply it to technology that never gets to the production stage.
It's almost as if they feel it aboo to admit that their technology is untested, nay imaginary.
I don't care if they have some in house code. If it isn't in circulation, it's not technology, it's a unproven concept, and definatelly not 'rich'
Duke Nukem WinFS Edititon
BeOS had an implementation of a fully relational filesystem. They dropped it in early versions and replaced it with a hybrid. It worked. And it worked amazingly well.
Microsoft could only hope to accomplish what BeOS/BeFS did.
"Copland is to Mac OS 8 as Longhorn is to Vista" seems to be becoming more true every day.
Though it was promised as a fundamentally ground up re-invention (Pink, Copland, System 8), the Mac OS 8 product that was actually shipped was mostly a cosmetic upgrade with the bits of the promised technologies that could be made to work. The new graphics architecture became a new font subsystem. The new document archicture (without developed parts making use of it) became a built-in web architecture. System wide document content searching became better file finding. The goal became to try to keep whatever anticipation was already built but jettison the "hard problems" of making it actually work in the ways that were promised. Tell everyone that Feature X has evovled into something beyond what we had ever anticipated rather than the world passed us by while we were shooting for an old target.
It may be that Microsoft still has the inertia to pull off an almost completely cosmetic update, but it's going to get pretty ardurous environment on the development teams. After all, the goal isn't going to be to even ship a feature reduced product. It's going to be to ship cosmetic filler that covers up the need for what was really promised. Maybe Blackcomb or Fiji or whatever it's called now, will become a stage for the proper solution, but that's a very big IF.
I hope Vista will come with some serious eye-candy
If the betas are any indication, you'll be disappointed.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
They all laughed at HFS+ with it's resource forks and meta data and built in filesystem execution hooks. Aw that backward little OS. But now look, those little hook, now allow it to do content indexing without changing anything about the FS structure. And that meta-dat solves an awful lot of problems with filesystem extensions. And let's not forget the non-consecutive node list layout makes it easy to detect fragmentation and auto-defragment. Hmmm....looking pretty good.
Of course, one can point to ext3 or ReiderFS and say, hey these have cool features too. But the reality is this, windows could not get these into NTFS without junking the whole FS and it killed them Likewsie ext3 and reiser are both clean sheet re-dos an FS so they naturally can have whatever feaatures they wanted. Thus the miracle of HFS+ is that is got all those nifty features without having to toss out the old FS and invent a new one. it was upgradable.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Fraud? So you lost a lot of money due to this whole WinFS thing? Did it kill your children or something?
WinFS = Windows Future Storage. It was always an SQL service layer on top of regular NTFS.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Does this spell the end for the true relational storage paradigm that Microsoft has been promising since Windows 95?"
Absolutely not! Apple will someday invent it and Microsft will copy it.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
I'm really curious now if OS X Leopard will utilize CoreData/SQLite to create their own relational database filesystem in "Spotlight 2.0."
No, they won't.
What Spotlight demonstrates is that it's not necessary to shoehorn everything into rows in a DB to index it. When you write an app for OS X, you decide what's significant to index, and write an importer for your file types.
I think the main thing we'll see in Spotlight for Leopard is just increased speed, both in initial indexing and searching. When it comes to features, Spotlight is pretty much done. The only thing on my wish-list is for it to work with XSan volumes.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Linux already has different filesystems that have implemented the "features" of WinFS for decades. Take ReiserFS, JFS, EXT3... they are all journaled database-like systems. Even some engines in MySQL can do what WinFS wants to do. What Windows REALLY needs is native support for said filesystems, so they can go on with the rest of the world.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Anyone remember BeFS it came out in 1996, supported most of the "difficult and innovative" features WinFS was advertized to have, and WORKS. Its not quite relational, but it has extensive indexed metadata that makes it act as if it were. There's an open-source reimplimentation . Be, Inc. really did have some great technology, pity they couldnt make a buisness of it.
Always thought this would happen. Not only was the original concept of WinFS pretty difficult from a technology point of view, but people at Microsoft suddenly thought: "Hang on. If we deliver a rich database storage engine integrated into Windows then that threatens the existence of SQL Server." This is confirmed quite adquately by this:
"We are choosing now to take the unstructured data support and auto-admin work and deliver it in the next release of MS SQL Server, codenamed Katmai. This really is a big deal - productizing these innovations into the mainline data products makes a big contribution toward the Data Platform Vision we have been talking about."
Notice the word 'productising' (productizing for you yanks). Productising here means "Why give this away for free in Windows where it would actually threaten the existance of SQL Server when we can just bundle it into the next release of SQL Server and charge people more for the *new* features?!". This is confirmation, if ever it were needed, that WinFS is totally dead as a Windows component. You're not going to be able to tag your files, or 'objects, with metadata and search for it seamlessly along with new integrated and built-in Windows file management support out of the box in Windows. Unless of course, you cough up for SQL Server and maybe even some client license add-ons into the bargain.
I also really, really love how every Microsoft employee has it drilled into them from an early age that any decision made, in reality for the pure benefit of Microsoft, is actually a decision made for the benefit of customers and as a result of extensive customer feedback! This is so deeply embedded in them I'm sure they believe it themselves now:
Today I have an update about how we are delivering some of the WinFS technologies. It represents a change to our original delivery strategy, but it's a change that we think that you'll like based on the feedback that we've received....It's great technology and we are super-excited to be productizing this way. And most importantly, it's what people have been asking for - as we work with customers, we're constantly hearing that they want many of the technologies to be more broadly available in the data platform products. That feedback was taken seriously."
Yer. Especially where it means more money for us.......
The fact is, what they are trying to do hasn't really been done before. AND, they're trying to tack it onto the enormous pile of legacy code that is Windows.
I wonder if the problem of integrating it into Windows itself stems from the fact that next to ZERO file formats that are currently in widespread use by the computing world know anything about "metadata", which is kind of key to the whole "SQL as a filesystem" concept.
Plus, I've always wondered how they thought all that metadata was going to get there in the first place. Most users don't even bother to name their files properly (e.g., every folder is named New Folder), and now they're expected to *decribe* them, too? Doesn't seem likely.
I thought "WinFS" meant "Windows File System", but I just checked Wikipedia and it actually means "Windows Future Storage". Well, if it is ever released, it is no longer in the future, right? It's like "Duke Nukem Forever": if it ever gets released, you're no longer waiting forever...
Circumcision is child abuse.
From the almighty Wiki:
* WinFS is the codename for a planned relational database layer built on top of NTFS, and is loosely based on SQL Server 2005. In August 2004, Microsoft announced that WinFS would not be included in Windows Vista. This was due to time constraints in developing the technology. Microsoft has been working on this technology since the mid 1990s. For a time, Microsoft had said that WinFS would be released separately of Vista, but on June 23, 2006, Microsoft announced that they decided to integrate some of the developed features into the next versions of ADO.NET and SQL Server, effectively cancelling the WinFS project. .NET managed code), the Next-Generation Secure Computing Base architecture was abandoned for Windows Vista.[14] Some aspects of the NGSCB initiative, such as support for Trusted Platform Module chips, are still present, though its role is now limited to being a provider of cryptographic functions which will support BitLocker Drive Encryption.
* Due to scheduling issues, the Windows PowerShell, code-named Monad will not be included in Windows Vista. However, Microsoft has announced that it will be available as a separate download in the fourth quarter of 2006
* Owing to significant difficulties in getting third-party developers to support the system (particularly due to the lack of support for writing for the Trusted Operating Root using
* Support for Intel's Extensible Firmware Interface was originally slated to be included with Vista, but has been removed due to what Microsoft has described as a lack of support on desktop computers.[15] The UEFI 2.0 specification (which replaces EFI 1.10) wasn't completed until early 2006, and as of mid-2006, no firmware manufacturers have completed a production implementation. Microsoft has stated that it intends on incorporating 64-bit UEFI support into a future update to Vista, but 32-bit UEFI will not be supported.
* PC-to-PC Sync, a Peer-to-peer technology for synchronizing folders on multiple computers running Vista, was removed due to quality concerns. It may arrive sometime in the future in some form.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#XP_feat ures_dropped
Well, all I know is, everytime I think of cutting up my partition for Vista Beta, I end up in the shower sobbing Unclean, Unclean. Still haven't tried it, Would be nice to skip this whole OS cycle.
Still a proud debian pc.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
Not that I'm blaming them -- all software designs have limits, past which they can't be stretched any further and still be made to work. But perhaps Microsoft should be looking at starting over with a fresh new OS design (with backwards compatibility provided via virtual machine emulation only, a la MacOS Classic running in MacOS/X)?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I was really wondering exactly how they had implemented that. It looked rather ugly, since it (by looking at the path) appeared to go to a specially named SMB share at localhost (and I'm not very surprised either -- Microsoft doing something in an ugly manner? No way!), but even so, it definitely was there. I've been looking for details about it, but found none. Does anyone know how it is implemented?
Then they should have designed it better, managed the project better, etc. Again, they were just demoing WinFS two weeks ago! What you're saying is that there's nothing wrong in your book with promising a major feature for almost half a decade and then going back on the promise.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I would be happy to have a relational file system. Hierarchies grow into big messes over time because one cannot group by multiple orthogonal factors very easily. You can't willy-nilly add and subtract factors/attributes without rewiring large branches, busting bookmarks and path references in the process.
Every file server more than 5 years old is usually a tangled mess, and I've seen many. However, it takes time to get used to a relational file system such that people may not want to change. They want to stick with the devil they know.
Table-ized A.I.
right, but did Microsoft have you beleive you believe that WinFS was in each version at the time you bought it, only to find upon installation that Windows did not provide a file system at all? That would be fraud. Continually failing to provide a new file system, and announcing it months before the release of a new version, maybe stupid and annoying, but it is not fraud.
I'm a supporter of open source software as much as the next guy, and I wish what you said were true, but it simply isn't.
Reiser, JFS, and EXT3 are definitely journaled, and they do allow metadata to be stored with files, but they're NOTHING like what was intended with WinFS. And in all actuality WinFS doesn't really count as a filesystem per se, at least not like the ones you mentioned.
WinFS sits on top of NTFS, and is nothing more than an abstraction layer. It lets you do potentially crazy things like (and I'm making this up, purely for example purposes): "SELECT * FROM documents WHERE type IS image AND SOUNDSLIKE ohhhyeaahh"
If you're curious what WinFS is all about give the wikipedia entry a read.
The closest comparison (I can think of) to WinFS in the open source world (which one would argue is already better since it's not total vaporware) is Gnome Storage. There's also GnomeVFS, and the creators of the now defunct BeOS had a wonderfully similar BFS that supported relational style queries. There's probably tons more that I'm not aware of as well.
I predict we'll begin to see more and more of these abstracted file system layers in the future, but they're no replacement for (and will be useless without) an underlying filesystem architecture like Reiser, XFS, NTFS, etc, etc.
A relational file systems is the next generation of OS design and a necessary evolution of the concept.
Put it this way, your computer stores hundreds of thousands of files, the current paradigm of treating them as files stored in a folder tree is absolutely antiquated and ridiculous.
I should be able to ask my operating system, "Show me all my picture files", and it simply can list ALL the image files on my computer, regardless of how or where they are stored. Features like Spotlight in OS X or Google Desktop are "nice" ways of trying to deal with this problem in a folder tree, but they are just an expensive to generate index file and it takes way too much time to return a result. Spotlight not only has to return if the index entry for a file matches, but it also has to verify if the file still exists on disk. I could take minutes for spotlight or Google desktop to return ALL image files on your computer. You will also notice that these systems often display something like (and 5000 more) link, this means that in order to have the search return results quick enough, it didn't REALLY find all 5000 files, it just says that according to its index file, there appears to be 5000 more image files, when you click on the link, it take more time to finally list all these files. Indexing a folder based tree structure is a solution, but its not an ideal solution. It is limited by the limitations of an antiquated file tree structure.
In a relational file system, if I ask for all image files stored on my computer, the result should be instantaneous, or near to it, as the fact that the file exists as a database entry means the file exists in reality. The time required for the results is simply the time required to build a query and return a result from a database.
Also, why do we even have to name files? Why do we have to give them a file extension. These are all antiquated file system concepts which are completely meaningless for a modern OS. A relational file system stores more then just a file name and a file type, I should be able to search for a file by date, description, keyword in the file, etc, etc, etc. I should not only be allowed to name the file, but provide any meta tags I want to help me locating that file quickly. An extension was a cheap way to get the OS to launch or open a file related to a specific program, but it would be completely unnecessary if the file itself embedded its type or had an entry in a database record. The name of a file would purely be a description and only one of many ways to identify a file.
Ultimately, a relational file system will allow such concepts as "Show me the letter about taxes I wrote to Bob Smith last week." and it will return the email or document you wrote, period. You don't care what the file name is. You don't care what type of file it may be, whether it was an email or text document. A file system should know that a file exists on your computer that is a texted based document, including keywords taxes and Bob that was generated within a week of the current date. This is a sorely needed concept in ANY OS, no OS to date has anything near that powerful a concept. There is no reason for a file system not to be able to handle these requests, and if we EVER want something like what we have seen in Star Trek, where people can ask a computer real language queries, we NEED a relational file system.
Relational files systems will bring a whole new level of superior storage capability to computers that will eventually start storing millions of files. We can't just keep a "lean and mean" tree based folder structure, that paradigm was never intended to manage millions of files.
I applaud Microsoft for at least trying, because unlike Google or Apple, they realize that the future is in a database driving relational file system and not stop gap pseudo-solutions like indexing. Its obviously a difficult concept to implement, but once anyone is able to implement the idea, it will be a VERY welcomed concept and improve the functionality and usability of an operating system. I for one would switch to and swear by ANY OS that implements this idea properly, whether its Linux, OS X, or yes, even Windows.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Google: "volume shadow copy".
Unless you count the new start menu
How is this fundamental? Stardock's WindowBlinds has been offering the ability to create a custom start-menu for years.
the "everybody's a user" security model,
Microsoft had the ability to implement this in Windows XP. They've supported Limited User Accounts since Windows 2000. Its a change in default user settings, not an earthshaking new security model.
the sidebar
Does Google Desktop ring a bell? How about ObjectDock?
the bundle of included apps
Oh, you mean new skins for Minesweeper, Wordpad, and Solitaire? Or do you mean 3-d chess? Last I heard they weren't even including a basic office suite. For a 7-gig disc, I expect more.
Face it, Vista includes little that's especially new, even for Microsoft.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
Since when do people buy windows?
They'll just go along buying computers with windows pre-installed.
Certainly some of their competitors have been impacted financially. Microsoft's decade of promises, vaporware and FUD surrounding Cairo/OFS/Storage+/RFS/WinFS has been used to help persuade their customers to not migrate to other platforms. "Stay with us and you'll benefit from this wonderful new filesystem we're developing that will solve all your problems!"
Well, it turns out that most of those statements were false. Nevertheless, Microsoft retained those customers who were tempted by the promises, and other vendors lost out on the corresponding revenues.
The original announcement then was that WinFS would not ship in the RTM of Microsoft Windows, and instead, it'll be offered at a later date, as either a seperate download or part of a service pack.
The new article says that they won't ship it at all, not even as a seperate download.
So lets recap, it goes from being included to shipping seperately to not shipping at all.
and must cut out features from Vista in order to ship it. There are too many features in Vista that Microsoft cannot make a release deadline unless they cut some features out of Vista. WinFS can be added in later, or be part of a service pack.
Actually Microsoft might have better luck with EXT2/EXT3/JFS etc file system support that is superior to NTFS/FAT16/FAT32 and the standards are already well published and should be easier for Microsoft to adopt than the WinFS system. Microsoft should look out because ReactOS is planning for EXT2/EXT3/JFS file system support and it is starting to run some Windows applications without problems (most Windows programs have issues, but ReactOS is slowly improving) and while ReactOS is not ready for Prime-Time, in a few years, who knows? Once it adds Windows driver support, DirectX support, sound card support, and other features, possibly by a 1.0 release (now in 0.30 RC1 release) it might steal some thunder from Microsoft Windows and Vista, if it runs on systems that Vista won't run on.
Vista is a resource hog anyway, it needs 512M of RAM just to run, and still the swap file keeps growing. You will find many effects will be disabled by some systems just to get a decent performance out of Vista. I think the public release Beta ISO was like almost 4 gigs in size, showing how huge Vista really is. I figure it is like Microsoft stuffing 15 pounds of manure into a 5 pound bag.
Me I am going to stick with Windows XP and ignore Vista until the service packs fix Vista to be stable enough on hardware I can afford to run it on. I'll use Linux until then as well. I am keeping my eye on ReactOS to see if it reaches XP level success, and then I might switch over to it.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
There are some fishy things here.
One is that WinFS was not promised for now: it was promised for, say, 15 years ago. MS Access was said by Microsoft to be a first step towards a totally relational OS really soon then. Just as Cairo (MS Windows NT 4) was supposed to be totally OO, and now we are told native code will still be with us for several years yet.
But the worst thing is that they don't understand what they intend to ship. WinFS is not relational, not it can ever be, since being based on (a bastardised version of) ISO SQL it violates the basic fundaments of the relational model. Incidentally, this non-relationalness makes it much larger, less performant, more complex, less powerful than it should be. Coincidence?
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
The idea of making file systems more database-like has been around for as long as there have been databases. There have been dozens of implementations. The upshot? It doesn't seem to work well for general purpose computing.
Where it does work is some niche areas of business computing. Integrating WinFS into SQL Server makes sense. Of course, other database vendors have had equivalent technology for a long time.
All in all, with WinFS and SQL Server, Microsoft has retraced the evolution of the industry--only a few decades late. So, it's business as usual.
Too many people I talk to (and read) have the wrong idea of what the latest WinFS iteration was and what it was supposed to do. WinFS was intended to provide sql query like filtering to files on unstructured file metadata. While this is certainly 'file search' for those who know how to make it work, it was not a consumer friendly mechanism. It was intended to be the underlying API that a consumer friendly search like desktop search would use.
If you read the article(s) you will understand that a) it grew into something more / bigger that overlaps with ORM mapping (and what was ObjectSpaces) b) it will exist in the not too distant future (next SQL server version) and c) consumer friendly desktop searches and apps you probably haven't even thought of will be able to use it. For example, why not search SNMP trap data, html log data etc. the same way you search for a file? You will be able to.
Obligatory MS bash - the fact that it has taken so many iterations does worry me as to how much longer it might take before I can actually use the technology. We are probably talking at least the next version of office - 4 years away? Thinking back, that was obvious even from the last public WinFS CTP, so I guess this whole 'WinFS is dead' (which it's not) announcement is no surprise, just a re-packaging of what I already knew.
It is not the end of the WinFS concept - it is the end of the WinFS stand alone product and the beginning of the concept's availability as an enabling technology.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
Undoubtedly you meant,
"It sounds as though you have been too near the bogon flux"
or perhaps
"you sound like a Vogon".
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Google: "volume shadow copy".
Yep, we use it on our Win2003 file server at work. It has numerous limitations. See if I can remember the salient points (apologies for inaccuracies but it's been a year since we configured it):
- You have to schedule when the snapshots occur. Because you're versioning the entire file system. We schedule ours for 7am and noon.
- Have to use a WinXP (maybe Win2000) machine to get to the older revisions. Win9x or non-MS O/Ss need not apply.
- There's a limit of 64 shadow copies at any point in time, even if you would've had disk space to allow for more. So with 2 snaps per day, you get 32 days of history... more if you don't snapshot on the weekends.
All that being said, we've turned it on. Figure it might save us from loading the backup tapes and restoring if the user screws up an individual file. It doesn't seem to cause enough of a load (for our office) but I don't know that we've ever used it either to recover files.
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
This announcement makes more sense than I think people recognize, particularly if you posit that they ran into performance difficulties.
Remember that they were going to put it all into the filesystem? Then they put it into a layer above the FS. Bet you a bitflip that they found performance problems resulting from mixing large files and small files in the same filesystem. It is very easy to have such problems, you have to get quite clever to avoid them, and expend a lot of effort on it. Rather than take the extra time, they pulled the enhanced semantics out of the filesystem. That was the wrong thing. Then, look at the descriptions of how some of the queries they supported took too long. It is really easy to design things in that area wrong, and get unacceptable performance impacts. Rather than solving the deeply challenging problems, they punted and put the stuff into SQL server. Why? Because people who don't want things to be slow can just not use the feature until they figure out how to make it not cost performance. Of course, that means no OS integration but..... it is so nice to not be designing Reiser4 by committee.
I see Microsoft responding to difficult technical problems not by solving them, but by running from them, and that explains the entire trajectory of WinFS.
Another consideration you can see between the lines is that they don't want to lose the revenue from SQL Server by doing everything that it does in the OS and doing it better. Marketers will do things like make the first release of something only available at a higher price. They do that a lot. They'll do it even if it robs Vista of most of its excitement to do it.
Large corporations often have real problems handling tough research projects.
Reiser4 took 5 years to get into working at all (v3), and 10 years of sustained development to get right (reiser4), and it is just the storage layer. You can't do that in a large corporation.
In a large corporation you are thinking that you need 3 years to do a project that is a paradigm change, and you go talk to management, and you sense that they have patience for 9-18 months, and you really want to do the project, so you tell them you can do it in 9-18 months.
18 months go by, and you are 1/2 of the way through the first version (you think you are 90% of the way through), and the first version is going to suck badly and take years to be well optimized. Now, if your product is the first in its market, you can make it even though it sucks, and get the money for the version 2. If you are going into a mature market, well, things are tough. Very tough. WinFS is going into a mature market.
Now, into this reality throw corporate managers. They think that if they intimidate the programmers a lot, products ship sooner. So, technical shortcuts get taken. Only problem is, in a product like WinFS, going into a mature market, taking technical shortcuts kills things. Especially since for a product like WinFS the technical shortcuts affect DEEP decisions that you will never be able to reverse out of. Like, whether the enhanced semantics are in the FS layer. Or whether the whole OS is designed around using the enhanced semantics in every component. Then, managers feel the need to prove they are tough about schedules, and they cancel for being late projects that everyone should have known were going to take a long long time because they were hard. There is some very interesting recent research suggesting that if you want an accurate project length forecast, you don't ask for an estimate, you create a betting pool.
The sad thing is, since everyone copies Microsoft, now there will be more people saying that Reiser4 shouldn't do what WinFS backed away from. We can do it. We solved the hard storage layer design problems, our stuff works. Now we can finally go after the enhanced semantics. It took 10 years, but we got the storage layer into the shape we want it in, and one plugin at a time the enha
Hey, a guy says 16-bit 486 and you people pick on him for a bunch of other shit?
/. goons give a hard time over spelling, vocabulary, grammar, and anything else they can find but miss the geeky details.
A little news for all of you know-it-all teeny Omega geeks out there who don't pay attention to us geezers talk about processor history... the last 16 bit chip in PCs was the 286.
The 386sx was a 32-bit chip on a 16-bit bus. The 386dx was a 32-bit chip on a 32-bit bus. The 486sx and 486dx were both 32bits internally and externally, the latter having a built-in math coprocessor. The 486dx2 series were chips with the core running at twice the bus speed. The dx4 series usually ran at 3x the bus, but could be run at 4x a slower bus. The first Pentiums were monstrous 5-volt parts with no MMX. Then there were the Intel Pentium Pro and the AMD k5. Then the Pentium MMX and Pentium II vs. AMD k6/k6-2/k6-3, while Cyrix actually looked threatening for a while with the 6x86 series. Then the Athlon and Athlon XP took off, the Pentium 3 and Celeron lost a little ground, and the Cyrix M2 was a laughing stock. For a while Via and Transmeta had some somewhat promising offering in the mobile/low power embedded space (where AMD has the Geode positioned).
That brings us to the current chips. In case you're still lost, that includes Pentium 4 / P4EE / Celeron / Pentium D / Celeron D / Pentium M vs. the Athlon XP / Athlon 64 / Athlong 64FX / Sempron / Athlon 64 x2 / Turion / Turion x2.
Damn, it's a sad day when
Being able to tag files would rock with (ideally?) unlimited tags or specifying our own tags for the database of files.
NTFS can already do that. Almost nobody uses this feature. This shows well that the feature is not wanted.
So what's left after all this stuff has been removed? Taking account of stuff that's not available for download for other OS's (such as IE 7) and not already in XP by default in some other form (e.g. Outlook Express/Windows Mail):
- Higher system requirements
- "updated" GUI
- Windows DVD maker and some other small utilities
- Lowered privileges (welcome to the new millenium, Microsoft)
- Parental controls
- Speech recognition
- That flash/disk thing
- Drive encryption
To me, that looks like stuff that most people have available to them in one form or another and which, if they don't, they wouldn't ever use. GUI changes are ten-a-penny for Windows, DVD software is bundled with every PC that's capable of doing it or available free, parental controls are widely available for free or quite cheaply (and hardly EVER used anyway because they are just NOT reliable... I speak as a primary school technician who's had to explain that if you google for "Little Red Riding Hood", it's quite possible to find unpleasant stuff that will bypass a filter), speech recognition? Hell, my browser's done it for at least two versions, the libraries are installed with no-end of utilities and it still doesn't work very well at all - most people don't even HAVE a microphone on their computer because there's no practical use for it. There are also dozens of decent voice-recognition programs out there that tie into Windows just fine. Drive encryption is, again, easily available. However, it's not something I'd recommend a newbie to turn on until they were sure they had ten backups of their key or some kind of recovery disk.
It really bugs me that Windows, in every previous incarnation, has missed out "obvious" features, tweaks and utilities and instead bundled stuff that nobody wants/uses. Now they seem to be finally taking that cue and putting stuff that's easily available as freeware into Windows and releasing it as a new OS. A previous example would be Windows Firewall (which came along just after software firewalls had established themselves as a necessity). Unfortunately, they are still missing the obvious things that both ordinary people and the average tech NEEDS in an OS, mainly concerning control over what programs can and can't do.
A fully-installed Windows system has always needed some freeware to prop it up. Let start with "choosing which programs can run at startup". I install Startup Control Panel and StartupMonitor because I WANT to know when a program deigns itself so important that it should want to run at startup without asking me first. I get a pop-up dialog and a choice of whether to allow it to do so, EVERY time it tries. That's useful. That's simple. Complete IT-incompetents realise what it's asking and say no unless they think they need it - it instantly stops computers slowing because of accumlated startup/taskbar icons like RealPlayer, QuickTime, Adobe Acrobat etc. that DO NOT NEED to be loaded at all until I decide to load a RM, MOV or PDF (ARRGHH! What a stupid idea to "preload" these sorts of apps! Anyway...). Where was the OS facility to do that? You could regedit. You could go into some obscure menu in later versions of MS System Information (if you even KNEW how to find it, which most people don't). But nowhere did you EVER get a choice of "do you want to allow this program to run at startup?" or not.
Now, hopefully, someone who's run the Beta will tell me if that's in Vista or not. I would hope yes but I haven't heard of it yet. Also, I always install a Print-To-PDF driver of some sort (depending on the client, either freeware or something from Adobe). It turns ANY file (even Publisher) into a usable, transferrable file format that will print out on any machine (so you can transfer the PDF to a computer with any printer that uses the same paper size and it will pretty much work... that is invaluable in my line of work). Now it looks like MS finally caught up and then Adobe said no? I can't say I blame Adobe and I'm actually wondering why
To be more precise, it's the hooks into the VFS layer that allow notification for Spotlight to update. Take a look at bsd/vfs/vfs_vnops.c in xnu (you might need to sign up for a free ADC Online membership in order for that link to work). In particular, take a look at vn_close - in particular the ..._fsevent calls. (NOTE: this is not a published interface, and is subject to change without notice. Don't start using it in your apps unless you're prepared for an app to stop working in a future release; it might continue to work in future releases, or it might not.)
My home directory at work is on an NFS server, and everything under it it's indexed by Spotlight. It happens to be on an HFS+ partition on the server, but Spotlight on my machine has no clue that it happens to be on HFS+, and the indexing of my stuff there is done by Spotlight running on my machine, not on the server, so no hooks into HFS+ were used to do the change notification (because, among other things, no such hooks exist; the hooks are in the VFS layer, above the individual file systems).
Same works for intel. The local computer guy ensured my dads company, that you might have problems with AMD, it is still a clone... So they buy intel, nothing about it.
OTOH, the implementation of such a FileSystem would get the unix world to work on a new (database) filesystem level too. There is just no way that MS has a better ::something:: than unix, right?
--- Above all the frustration, I still feel bad about it
Can store data
Can index meta data
has an oo like storage structure
Can do transactions .Net and add meta data parsers for their own documents, done and one point more for selling .Net.
Basically what Beagle does anyway.
Most modern filesystems can at least do 3 of the four criteria, so all you need normally is an index for meta data. Be recognized that around 92, Apple recognized that upfront around 2002 when they hired the Be Guy, while Microsoft is simply stepping in Bees footprint and in the footprint of many CMS system developers, having failed with such an approach blatantly.
Microsoft could have had it cheaper, get the Lucene search engine, push it into
I really don't get it - are they so out of phase with reality where:
Anybody involved in search application development will tell you that the current systems are in their infancy and that they are inadequate due to the lack of a relational structure and most importantly a query language.
WinFS was Microsoft's chance of actually being ahead with a technology. Given both the bad press that Vista has been receiving as well as the fierce competition they are facing, they really needed this.
A lot of people say they want Microsoft to get a clean start but they don't really understand what that means. Running your legacy support in a VM is a really stupid idea. Remember when Aplpe did that with Classic? It was horrible. Overnight they basically lost all compatibilty with scanners, tons of printers, camera and lots of other products. Not to mention that various production enviornments involving audio recording, video creation, or digital imaging is going to suffer for years to come.
It took Apple about 3 years to get OS X usuable. That's counting from the day 10.0 was released but in reality they had been working on OS X and NeXT for at least 5 years before Panther came out. And Apple had the NeXT code base to draw from. Microsoft would be starting from scratch so it would probably take them much longer and there's no way they could spend time creating "cool" new features because they'd be busy re-implementing basic stuff like DVD burning and file encryption.
Sure, every other Linux kernel can throw backwards compatibilty to the wind because they know everyone will upgrade quickly and all the software is free but Microsoft doesn't have that option. The Windows world would be split between the new and the old for the better part of a decade and the cost of re-buying all your proprietary software (Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Nero, Acid, Office etc.) would be prohibitably expensive.
For some people the move from Win9x to WinNT (XP) was difficult enough and that was after 6 years of transitionary work on the NT platform to make everything as seemless as possible. You guys say you want to see that future but in reality you really don't.
Plug: http://www.osreview.com/ for more commentary
Not true that only Bill Gates wanted it. Ray Ozzie did, too, and he's taking over as Chief Software Architect.
/ stories/2003/11/14/640kbOughtToBeEnoughForAnyone.h tml
See Ray's blog from November 2003 -- before Microsoft bought Groove: http://spaces.msn.com/editorial/rayozzie/old/blog