Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A dream of an ultimate OS (1995)

okmij.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 188 posts

Re: A dream of an ultimate OS (1995)

#31

Post by mirimir »

GordonS wrote: post #21
mirimir wrote: post #8

> But it does not have to be this way. If a database engine is implemented as a core system service, along with simple tools to browse and modify database records, the gordian knot of system configuration files disappears. MacOS comes very close to this ideal, with ResEdit as this universal database editor. Or AS/400, which is more or less a SQL database.

I used to work with an AS/400, and never once thought of it as a database - sure, it had DB2 pre-installed, but I don't see how that makes the OS itself a database?

I only knew it only as the source of SQL-like data dumps. And people told me that it was more than an OS with DB2 as the default database. But maybe they were wrong.

Re: A dream of an ultimate OS (1995)

#32

Post by mirimir »

skissane wrote: post #20
mirimir wrote: post #8

> But it does not have to be this way. If a database engine is implemented as a core system service, along with simple tools to browse and modify database records, the gordian knot of system configuration files disappears. MacOS comes very close to this ideal, with ResEdit as this universal database editor. Or AS/400, which is more or less a SQL database.

> Or AS/400, which is more or less a SQL database. People keep on saying that, but how really true is it? Many operating systems come with bundled relational databases–e.g. most Linux distributions come with more than one relational database implementation bundled. Does that make Linux "more or less a SQL database"? How deeply integrated is DB2/400 into the OS/400 kernel (or equivalent term, such as "System Licensed…

People who used it characterized it that way.

Re: A dream of an ultimate OS (1995)

#34

Post by skissane »

mirimir wrote: post #32
skissane wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or AS/400, which is more or less a SQL database. People keep on saying that, but how really true is it? Many operating systems come with bundled relational databases–e.g. most Linux distributions come with more than one relational database implementation bundled. Does that make Linux "more or less a SQL database"? How deeply integrated is DB2/400 into the OS/400 kernel (or equivalent term, such as "System Licensed…

People who used it characterized it that way.

I know they did/do. But when they characterise it that way, are they just repeating IBM marketing assertions without challenging them?

Re: A dream of an ultimate OS (1995)

#35

Post by joosters »

Why not to trade a multitude of "custom" database managers for a single well-designed distributed database manager?

It's not clear whether the author is arguing that all existing OS data structures should be replaced with a single database system, or if they simply want all OS data to be capable of being queried/updated via a standard database style interface.

The former is simply hubris ("I know the perfect data structure for EVERYTHING!") while the latter is pretty much implementable as an interface layer on top of an existing OS.

Re: A dream of an ultimate OS (1995)

#37

Post by alexisread »

ridaj wrote: post #2

At "ultimate", I thought the author was going to aim for consciousness... But what, databases?!

Likewise. TBH this has all been done with NewtonOS: http://preserve.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.09/09.11/Ne...

It uses soup unions to manage removable storage, and worked really well for the 512k memory available.

These days I'd recommend an embedded SQLite database for program configuration and data - somewhat standard, easily recoverable, backups are easy, uniform access from a program's API etc.

Lastly, I'd say the ultimate OS would have a bit more than this surely - minimal formally verified TCB, Arrow datastructures, Managed (but not GC'd) memory, native scripting language that blurs the distinction between users and developers, fully scalable auto-generative but skinnable UI, just to name a few.

I guess the trick with all of this is a suitable language which forms the OS base (think LISP OSes, Micropython, Squeak, AOS, NewtonOS), you get that correct and the rest can be layered on top.

Re: A dream of an ultimate OS (1995)

#38

Post by mirimir »

skissane wrote: post #34
mirimir wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who used it characterized it that way.

I know they did/do. But when they characterise it that way, are they just repeating IBM marketing assertions without challenging them?

That's a good point. And as you say, it's hard to know with closed-source stuff.

Re: A dream of an ultimate OS (1995)

#39

Post by simonh »

echelon wrote: post #7
blablabla123 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually Microsoft tried this idea themselves with WinFS. It was planned for Vista but eventually the project was stopped because it was too much effort. I could imagine this to be really useful if it was possible to add arbitrary custom attributes.

Does anyone have the story on why this project was actually halted? It reportedly sounded like it would have been a giant leap at the time, had it actually landed.

It was very slow and resource hungry, and also very time consuming to develop things on. Imagine if you were only allowed to write or run applications that ran on top of Oracle. Even if you try to write a program that works on text files, those text files are stored as blobs in an Oracle database.

Re: A dream of an ultimate OS (1995)

#40

Post by miltondts »

joosters wrote: post #35

Why not to trade a multitude of "custom" database managers for a single well-designed distributed database manager? It's not clear whether the author is arguing that all existing OS data structures should be replaced with a single database system, or if they simply want all OS data to be capable of being queried/updated via a standard database style interface. The former is simply hubris ("I know the perfect data str…

That's the beauty of the relational model, it doesn't specify data structures. Those can be added later by indexes.

For more info check https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2364452_Data_Struct...

Post reply on HN