peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (11/26/87)
In article <1570@bsu-cs.UUCP>, jdh@bsu-cs.UUCP (John Hiday) writes: > Reading about protecting me from myself has reminded me of a VMS > feature which I sorely miss on my Amiga -- version numbers on files. Please. No. I have never used a system with version numbers where their main contribution hasn't been to fill up the disk (or your disk quota). On a system where the main magnetic media consists of floppies, it'd be even more of a loss. Just *maybe*, if you did it for hard disks only it'd be OK. $ TYPE LOGOUT.COM * Command not quite remembered from a year ago. $ PURGE /KEEP=1 [...] $ Which kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it? A much better solution is for people to do frequent backups. Version numbers won't help you deal with a disk crash. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.
jdh@bsu-cs.UUCP (John Hiday) (11/28/87)
In article <586@trwspf.TRW.COM> dragon@trwspf.UUCP (Roger Vossler) writes: >In article <1570@bsu-cs.UUCP> jdh@bsu-cs.UUCP (John Hiday) writes: >*Reading about protecting me from myself has reminded me of a VMS >*feature which I sorely miss on my Amiga -- version numbers on files. >* >[deleted explanation of how version numbers worked] >* >*To keep things tidy (so that you don't fill an entire disk with every >*version of a file made in the past 10 years) the number of backup >*versions that the system should retain is a user controllable file >*attribute. > >The trouble was that users tend not to delete anything until forced >to do so at gunpoint. The result was that disks filled up quickly >and systems administrators went mad trying to stem the tide. I >sincerely hope I never see a version number on a file again. But >that's only my opinion - no flames, please. > > [stuff about version numbers invented to sell more disks deleted...] In article <1120@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > >Please. No. I have never used a system with version numbers where their >main contribution hasn't been to fill up the disk (or your disk quota). >On a system where the main magnetic media consists of floppies, it'd be >even more of a loss. Just *maybe*, if you did it for hard disks only >it'd be OK. Like it or not, the Amiga is slowly moving away from floppy only, towards hard disks (at least for advanced users). I currently do not have a hard disk, but I would still find it useful. As I said before, IT IS USER CONTROLLABLE. > >$ TYPE LOGOUT.COM [ I think he means something like EDIT, not TYPE] >* Command not quite remembered from a year ago. >$ PURGE /KEEP=1 [...] >$ >Which kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it? Sure, but who told you to do the PURGE? EDIT GOODFILE.DAT followed by DELETE GOODFILE.DAT kind of defeats the purpose too, but who would be stupid enough to do that (at least on purpose). Don't PURGE the file right away unless you are positive that you haven't screwed up. >A much better solution is for people to do frequent backups. Version >numbers won't help you deal with a disk crash. This is certainly not a replacement for good backups, but you tell me which is faster -- going through a stack of backup floppies hoping that a good version is there or doing a DELETE OOPS.DAT; and going back to the previous un-botched version? I can't believe this stuff! I consider most of the Amiga users on the net to be power-users and here I get two semi-flames about how the users would be too stupid to be able to handle a nice feature like this. It's very simple. If you think that this concept is over your head simply do: $ SET DIR [TOPDIR...]/VERSION_LIMIT=1 $ SET FILE [TOPDIR...]*.*;*/VERSION_LIMIT=1 and you are back in Unix(tm) land with only one copy of each file. I am one of the systems programmers on a large VAXcluster. On this system we have 17,000 accounts and over 6Gb of disk space. About 1500 people use the system on any given day. I would say that 99.9% of our users are far from power-users in any sense of the word, yet most can comprehend the proper use of the PURGE command when it is explained to them. It is a very simple operation for the system administrators to keep people from filling up disks with old versions. When the account is created simply create their default directory with a small version limit on it (here we use 2, good copy plus one backup). This limit then propagates to all directories and files created in that tree unless the user explicitly changes it. This seems to work with even those people who think there is a VAX in each and every terminal :-) If that fails their diskquota will always catch them long before they come anywhere near filling a disk. Well enough of this VMS talk. Just add the feature and make the default be /VERSION_LIMIT=1. That way all the "stupid" users won't fill up their disks while the people who can handle it have the capability. I'm sorry if this offended anyone, but this type of response seems really out of character in a group which is usually so high on the guru scale, especially since at least one of the respondents is a main contributor of guru type posts. -- == John Hiday UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!jdh == Ball State University / University Computing Services GEnie: JDHIDAY == Muncie, IN 47306
pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte) (12/01/87)
Version numbers can be VERY useful. They have saved me a lot of time on several occasions. But they DO take up a lot of space. So why not do the sort of thing SCCS does: store previous versions as a set of differences from the following versions. Thus getting back (or looking at) old versions (which you wouldn't do very often) would be pretty slow, but the disk space cost would be drastically reduced. SCCS uses line-by-line diffs, which isn't very good, but you could easily use a byte-by-byte diff scheme, which would be more general, and sometimes smaller. The code to compute the differences and reconstruct old versions from newer ones plus a set of diffs could be incorporated into the kickstart or workbench. Remember, multiple versions are good for more than backup, they also let you ask questions like: what have I done to this file lately? -- -Peter
karl@sugar.UUCP (Karl Lehenbauer) (12/01/87)
In article <1604@bsu-cs.UUCP>, jdh@bsu-cs.UUCP (John Hiday) writes: > I can't believe this stuff! I consider most of the Amiga users on the > net to be power-users and here I get two semi-flames about how the users > would be too stupid to be able to handle a nice feature like this. Hey pal, just because some of don't like version numbers doesn't mean we're not power users. Also, I don't think either person said users are too stupid to use the capability. I recall that they questioned the usefulness of the capability, particularly on the (by far prevalent) floppy-based systems. I'm not sure what problem version numbers are trying to solve. Version numbers are just too crude for tracking program changes and too indiscriminate to use as a backup tool. They don't do enough for tracking changes on multiuser development projects; you'd want something like sccs or rcs for that. As far as keeping the file when I delete it by accident, sort of do it, as long as you did a "DELETE FOO" rather than "DELETE FOO;*" There are VMS equivalents to "rm *" that will waste your files - including older versions. No, the trashcan solves the problem much better than version numbers, and more appropriately given the machine. I may want backup copies of my source but I sure don't want it for object files and binaries when I'm developing. Even though high-end users are getting hard disks doesn't mean even half the Amigas will ever have hard disks. Indeed, the vast majority will not. > It's very simple. If you think that this concept is over your head > simply do: ... Oh, give me a break. This whole argument is ad hominum; that is, you assert that anyone who disagrees with the concept is just too stupid to understand it. I think you'll find a lot of thoughtful, conscientious, reasonable people who don't like version numbers, but in Muncie - maybe not :-) :-) :-) --
dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (12/01/87)
>Version numbers can be VERY useful. They have saved me a lot of time >on several occasions. But they DO take up a lot of space. So why not >do the sort of thing SCCS does: store previous versions as a set of >differences from the following versions. Thus getting back (or looking But not as part of the operating system. YES I've used VMS, and NO I don't think it is worth it, especially considering such issues as diskspace and slowing down an already slow DOS. -Matt