Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mira.net.au!news.vbc.net!alpha.sky.net!winternet.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.sojourn.com!news.eecs.umich.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!nntp.coast.net!col.hp.com!sdd.hp.com!hamblin.math.byu.edu!park.uvsc.edu!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Ideal filesystem
Date: 1 Apr 1996 22:22:04 GMT
Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <4jpkuc$77c@park.uvsc.edu>
References: <4hptj4$cf4@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu> <3140C968.20699696@netcom.com> <4ilgto$861@floyd.sw.oz.au> <4j6if4$15gk@news.missouri.edu> <315834CD.7C4DA6C7@netcom.com> <4jeui7$f12@park.uvsc.edu> <315C9FE8.33EABA82@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.system:20817 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:16788
Adam Megacz <kalessin@netcom.com> wrote:
] > I don't believe I've been advocating any of your three options.
] >
] > I advocate a variable granularity block store, with the concepts
] > "object hierarchy", "object naming", and "object content
] > attribution" being layered sperately on top of the underlying
] > block store.
] >
] > Please see my other posts in this thread for clarification.
]
] Look, maybe you enjoy using collegiate, supercomplicated vocabulary, but there are some of us out here
] that REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. It would help us all if you could explain your position in plain
] english, in a *single* posting. Then you might gain more supporters for your idea.
There are ideas which can not be easily expressed in non-technical
English. This is why technical English variants ("Jargon") exist
in the first place.
This is why doctors don't talk 'in plain English'. Hell, plumbers
and auto mechanics don't talk 'in plain English', as far as I can
tell.
I have the following choices:
1) Explain everything; assume no prior knowledge.
This is unstaisfying, because it drags the rest of us
down; our purpose here is to discuss file system design,
not educate people to the point that they could discuss
file system design, and never get around to actually
discussing anything.
2) Limit our discussion to concepts expressable in plain
English without technical terms.
This is unsatisfying, since it would prevent us from
discussing anything new. I refuse to limit my ability
to discuss ideas in this way. It has shades of Harlan
Ellison's "Handicappers", dragging everyone down to
the lowest common denominator in the name of "fairness".
3) Discuss topics using the correct, appropriate terms,
including the use of "Jargon".
This is satisfying. It allows me to concisely express
complex topics so that we can spend our time thinking
about them instead of pushing them over the limited
bandwidth of non-technical English.
I choose option #3.
This may mean that I will have to refer you to one or more of
the thousands of papers which have been published on file
system design for you to be able to participate in what is,
after all, a discussion of file system design.
I'll be more than happy to point you at papers, all you have to
do is ask. I have to warn you that most of them use exactly
the same terms I do.
Regards,
Terry Lambert
terry@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.