I liked WinFS, and I think I'm a geekLarry Osterman said:blowdart said:*snip*
blowdart, you're sort-of right. However there's a huge difference between the AD and WinFS.
The AD is centrally deployed and managed and where the only applications allowed to modify the AD schema are those that are deployed by the system administrators, who have presumably tested and ensured that all applications deployed interoperate fully.
WinFS was going to be deployed on desktop computers and any application installed by the end-user would presumably be allowed to modify the schema. The end-user would have essentially no ability to verify the interoperability between applications. And the vendors wouldn't necessarily either - there are a LOT of applications out there.
At the core, you're right: This could be solved with an extensible schema. But IMHO it would turn into a freaking nightmare for the customers. You know how some geeks hate the registry? Let me tell you, every failing the registry has (and I don't think there are tat many of them, to be honest) would have been several orders of magnitude worse in WinFS. Geeks would absolutely despise WinFS.
But even with the AD analogy you can only extend the base objects by adding attributes. However even then you can get multiple attempts to extend in the same way; somewhere where a namespace equivalent would be useful.
I do take your point about a nightmare to admin though.