From: ctwilson@rock.concert.net (Charles T Wilson -- Personal Account) Subject: Re: VMS Date: 28 Jul 1993 00:33:00 GMT
In article <1265@felix.Sublink.Org> eb@felix.Sublink.Org (Enrico Badella) writes:
>In article <225v7u$d8s@hdxu03.telecom.ptt.nl> arthur@ptt-iat.uucp (Arthur Donkers) writes:
>>In article <1993Jul15.195409.19857@mlb.semi.harris.com> craycrof@rtp.semi.harris.com writes:
>>[stuff deleted]
>>>
>
>more stuff deleted
>
>>>crippled by not being able to do "this | that | something_else >> my.file".
>>>
>>
>>Apart from this _very_ annoying miss, there also is the VMS filesystem (RMS)
>>which is, in my opinion ;-), not really suited for today's use. Have you
>
>I'm not a VMS expert, but I find two problems when using RMS
> 1) how to how big a file is in bytes not blocks.
> 2) when ftp-ing why are the files rounded to a block; in this way
> when I bring them back to a Unix machine gzip complains about
> the trailing garbage.
They're also lots of fun %-b (at least they were a few years ago) when you
do binary reads with fgets, particularly when you'd like to fseek to
some point in the file. The safest thing to do to is to use the unix i/o
emulation, which slows you down :-(. Variable length RMS records are a
bit more liveable than the fixed length ones you're apparently dealing
with, but.....
>
>The only possible critic to the Unix filesystem is that the creation date
>of a file is missing; it could be usefull for security considerations.
I wouldn't mind that one myself...
-- /-----------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Tom Wilson | "I can't complain, but sometimes | | ctwilson@rock.concert.net | I still do." | | | -Joe Walsh |