[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases

• To: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>
• Subject: Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
• From: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>
• Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 14:46:48 +1000
• Cc: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>, "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <cc159a4a050504210256e9b1@m...>
• Organization: Zenucom Pty Ltd
• References: <cc159a4a0505042022472ff99@m...> <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0505042341130.2654-100000@s...> <cc159a4a050504210256e9b1@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (X11/20040502)

Peter Hunsberger wrote:

>On 5/4/05, Rich Salz <rsalz@d...> wrote:
>  
>
>>>management, but then again, I was only peripherally aware of the
>>>Microdata.  How is that you stumbled across it?
>>>      
>>>
>>They were all over the small business market in the early 1980's.
>>Look for Pick operating system.
>>    
>>
>
>I recall Pick (though I wouldn't have made the connection); if I
>remember correctly they had implementations on various pieces of
>hardware, including IBM BM which was where I mainly worked at the
>time. ..
>
>The real question was the possibility of  hardware/microcode assist ?
>
>  
>
when i was at unsw in the late 70's there was a lot of work being done 
on associative memory as a different way to organise disks. the 
microcode in the drive was programmed. i didn't hear much about it after 
i left, but as far as i know it did work and quite well.

i think the real problem, and the same problem beset efforts at 
non-turing cpu architectures (also tried extensively at the time) and 
probably caused the ultimate demise of things like pick etc is that the 
world became a place where general purpose computing was needed more 
than any other sort. why dedicate parts of the hardware to one software 
paradigm when a good general purpose os like unix could make it possible 
for many paradigms to exist on the one machine?

non-turing architecures went the way of non-binary switches - people 
just can't think well enough that way, so we go back to the comfort zone.

xml must derive some of it's success from the fact that it can sit on 
top of many architectures and therefore coexist with many things (like 
databases).  i'd suggest the way forward is more of the same, not an 
architecural shift.

rick

begin:vcard
fn:Rick  Marshall
n:Marshall;Rick 
email;internet:rjm@z...
tel;cell:+61 411 287 530
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard

• References:
  • Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
    • From: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>
  • Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
  • Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
    • From: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
• Next by Date: Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
• Previous by thread: Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
• Next by thread: Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread