On 31/08/17 11:36 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
An archive is an structured file that contains files.
Carlos: I suggest that you look at the variety of implementation of file systems, databases and such, since that definition encompasses many of them. I recall when I had to deal with an IBM system where there was a 'dataset that was, a far as the OS was concerned, was a 'file' in IBM's terms, which mean it was a span of sectors on the disk referenced by the disk allocation table. As far as the OS was concerned it was a data blob. But to the VM I was using it was a file system, and one of those was a database that contained messages (lets call it email for convenience sake even though it had nothing to do with SMTP) and those were treated, logically, by the application, as individual files, much the way that when I read email in Thunderbird via my IMAP interface, what's behind could be a similar format MBOX format or a individual files of a MDIR format. I neither know not care. The AS/400 file systems is so close to being a relational database as makes little difference when building database applications. You might think of the OS as a DBMS for file systems :-) Then, of course, there's FUSE (which leads to LUKS). it's a file, in a file system, which might itself be a database, but who knows, that contains a file system. So by your definition it constitutes an archive. But you mount it, just like I mount my backup DVDs. What do you want to bet I can back up my ~anton containing a file that is a FUSE file system onto a DVD, and mount that DVD then mount that file system, and LO!, therein is, well I mad a disk-to-disk copy of my ~anton before creating that FUSE file, then after creating it and mounting it did another disk-to-disk to put all my old ~anton along with all the dot-files into it "as backup" before burning the earlier discussed DVD, so that when I mounted the DVD and mounted the FUSE I could then FUSE mount my ~anton .... and its getting a bit recursive isn't it? If you're confused by this, its because you keep insisting that your above definition is meaningful. It's not. A filesystem *IS* a structured container of files. It can be anything. It could be a cloud server using Avian Carrier TCP that flies to a tower where monks consult ancient parchments and send the Avian Carrier replies back. The performance would suck, but it *IS* a file system. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org