On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 7:56:08 AM UTC-8, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Lewis Cole <l_c...@juno.com> writes:
> >>On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 7:50:08 AM UTC-7, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >>> On 10/4/22 21:58, Lewis Cole wrote:=20
< snip >
>>>>>
>>>>> Why on earth would you think that?
>>>>
>>>You mean, aside from the fact that what I said is true?
>>>
>>> Given that mainframe systems had no such constraints
>>> in the periods before, during and after the mini
>>> era, and most people using minicomputers in those
>>> days were familiar with one or more mainframe
>>> families, I'm not sure why you think that is true.
>>
>>I think it's true because the "givens" you think applied at the time, didn't.
>
> Well, I was "messing" with mini's (HP2k, PDP-8, in particular) in the middle
> of the 1970s. They had disks, and both hosts were basically obsolete at that time.
> I was also messing with HP-3000's during the same timeframe, which had many disks,
> and I spent 14 years at Burroughs writing mainframe operating systems (which
> supported multivolume filesystems since the 1960s).

As I said with Mr. Gunshannon, that's nice.

>> Eventually, disk prices did drop and you could have more than one hard
>> drive in your PC, but as I indicated before, the very structure of FAT
>> rules out the possibility of files that span more than one disk.
>
> DOS was never the only operating system, nor was FAT the only filesystem
> on disks for personal computers even in the early days.

No, it wasn't. Nor did I say it did. But let's not try to dismiss it as if it weren't influential either and therefore relevant, shall we?

>> Yes, many OSs use a list of allocated granules to keep track of the
>> parts of a file, but for a single disk system, you can also use bit
>> maps to keep track of what records are allocated and to who[m].
>
> In generally, you can divide filesystems into two fundamental types:
> - extent-based allocators
> - fixed-block-size allocators.>>>
>
> Both have their advantages and both have their disavantages, based on
> workload.
>
> In Unix filesystems, the 'inode' encapsulated filesystem metadata, including
> addresses of the sectors (or groups of sectors) containing file data. This
> should not be confused with a 'directory entry', because it was not such.
>
> This was no different than the Burroughs filesystems other than the terminology
> changed; there the 'inode' was called a 'file header'. Both contained the
> same metadata, and in both cases, the 'directory' was just a file of tuples
> <filename, metadata-pointer>.
>
> The Sperry/Univac systems were similar to the Burroughs systems in that the
> device addresses in the file metadata included a device identifier and a
> device relative sector address.
>
> The Univac filesystem structure and access methods however, are quite different
> from the Burroughs, Unix or microsoft OS methods.

Thank you for the historical background.
Seriously. I actually do appreciate it.

But (yes, there's a "but") now, please go back and re-read what I originally wrote. Why? Because in it, you'll hopefully note that I wrote "many/most?" people.
That wasn't a typo.

With all due respect to you (and even Mr. Gunshannon), I would submit that you are *NOT* "many/most?" people.
Instead, "many/most?" people are those people who are more represented by those who view you as their unpaid go-to guy when they are looking for "tech support" for their PCs (where again, by "PC" I mean "Personal Computer" rather than a particular brand or type).
What is their view of what constitutes a disk and whether or not it contains one and only one file system?

Rather than trying to argue with me over what constitutes a disk versus a partition, or whether or not a file system keeps track of things with bit maps, record numbers, or tuples or whether or not an inode is the same as file item, may I humbly suggest that you just ask them.
I suspect that you already have enough personal experience with them (as I do with mine) that you don't really even need to bother, but if you want to re-affirm what you believe, then I am fairly certain that you can do so fairly quickly and without much effort.

I suggest that you start by asking them if they have any idea what's on their "C:" drive.
I suspect that you'll know right away from their answer whether or not they have a Windows based system because they will know what you are talking about even if they say something like, "How the hell should I know"?
I suspect that you'll get an answer well in excess of 50% if the people you ask are fairly representative of "many/most?" people because Windows is still the dominant OS in the desktop field despite its decline relative to other mostly Unix based or Unix inspired OSs.
(According to a quick Wikipedia search as I just did, their market share is still greater than 75%.)

I then suggest that you ask them if they have a "D:" drive.
Again, I suspect you'll know almost right away from their answer whether or not they think of any extra partitions on their "C:" drive are "just a partition of a real physical drive" or as a separate "drive" in its own right.

Finally, I would suggest that you ask them if they can look for/show you a file -- any file -- on "C:" and then a file -- any file -- any other "drives" they might have.
Again, I suspect that you'll know almost right away whether they think that there's one file system on each "drive" or not by how they do the search.
(For example, if they enter "C:" before "DIR" and "D:" before "DIR" from a command terminal, then as far as they are concerned, each drive contains a separate file system.)

If you do this, I think you will be faced with a dilemma.
You will know about the gory details that lies below the surface when it comes to computers, not just PCs, and you will therefore know that a disk partition is *NOT* really a separate disk, but you will be faced with empirical evidence that shows that as far as "many/most?" people, a "virtual disk" is still a "disk", and that, one "disk" equals one file system and vice versa.
You will know about all the great history you gained from personal experience from before commercial PCs even hit the fan, and yet "many/most?" people don't, in no small part because they didn't have the exposure you did and instead were driven by cost of putting together their own small systems.

I'm not sure what you'll do at that point (if you reach it), but I'd like to think that maybe, just maybe, you'll come to realize that my comments were not the ranting of some completely clueless idiot who doesn't know shit about anything who just happened to wander into this group.
Maybe, just maybe there's a chance you'll realize that there's a chance that I too lived through those times as well, and that thanks to be lucky enough to work 15 years in the group responsible for the care and feeding of Exec8/OS1100/OS2200, I too might just also know a bit about what's under the surface.
Then maybe, just maybe, you might understand why I am not particularly appreciative of responses that do not seem to be based a careful reading of what I actually wrote, and even worse, seem to be used as just an excuse for posting a "correction" that in effect lets the poster say, "Well Unix can do that too".

If you want to talk about file systems, great.
I really would welcome/appreciate it.
But if you want to talk/argue about what I wrote, can we please stick to what I wrote?

I know it's been longer than I intended, but I have my OS 2200 Express license renewed (though unfortunately Unisys did let me know that the program is over for new users) and will be working on continuing the series in the coming weeks.

On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 14:18:35 -0800 (PST), Kira Ash
<hpeintegrity@gmail.com> wrote:

>I know it's been longer than I intended, but I have my OS 2200 Express license renewed (though unfortunately Unisys did let me know that the program is over for new users) and will be working on continuing the series in the coming weeks.

I, for one, am still looking forward to seeing what you write in the
future...

Regards,

David W Schroth

On 12/5/2023 9:56 AM, David W Schroth wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 14:18:35 -0800 (PST), Kira Ash
> <hpeintegrity@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I know it's been longer than I intended, but I have my OS 2200 Express license renewed (though unfortunately Unisys did let me know that the program is over for new users) and will be working on continuing the series in the coming weeks.
>
> I, for one, am still looking forward to seeing what you write in the
> future...
>
> Regards,
>
> David W Schroth

Ditto. I find it interesting to see the reactions of someone coming new
to this system without the "prejudice" of "It is very different from
whatever system that I am used to and therefore it is bad."

--
- Stephen Fuld
(e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)