Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:29:45 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> I won't link to MSDN, so here is the blurb (or gist):
>>
>> WinFS is Dead
>
> Yep. Here's the chance for all you "I told you so" types to sit around
> and cackle with glee while rubbing your hands together in anticipation of
> how much milage you get from this.
>
Hell... I've gotten more milage out of bashing windows than anything else
under the sun. Each time a new virus runs through a windows network,
eachtime a microsoft sanctioned patch screws up something else, each time a
windows box crashes or needs a reset to "straighten things out", each time
microsoft puts forth a new version of windows and hen publicly denigrates
the current version...
Yup, the cackles never end... I wish Bill would stick around long enough to
see it all collapse, instead of jumping shipo and running away from the
problems...
> The simple fact is, after years of development, The WinFS team just
> couldn't create a workable product. It's not like we haven't seen this
> before from others, such as the Taligent system between IBM and Apple.
>
You got to be kidding. Microsoft was never on the same level of ANYTHING
that IBM did or does...
> It looks like they're canibalizing it for the technologies they've created
> and rolling them into other parts of the OS.
>
If that were true, it'll be just more cruft that they will have to patch and
work around in tomorrows code base. Will they ever learn?
> The thing is, I don't really see this as a huge issue anyways. Oh, it's
> certainly a bellwether mark, but frankly it's become clear WinFS was a
> solution in search of a problem.
>
Funny, I remember you saying how pivotal and important winfs "was going to
be" and that Linux and others could only dream of anything remotely
similar... that was you, wasn't it? Now that it's a failed project, it's
not so important... Spin... spin... spin... and what you weave is useless
drivel...
> Other search technologies have proven to be effective, without the huge
> overhead that WinFS was likely to require. You don't get the nice
> queryability of what WinFS was promising, but Apple and others seem to be
> getting by without this pretty well. Vista will contain search indexing
> services similar to Spotlight and Beagle, but it will not have WinFS.
>
> So, by all means, let the "I told you so's" begin.
You missed it... we've been saying that for a long time now...
--
Thanks for your time, Jerry.
|
|
