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

The operating system: should there be one? (2013) [pdf]

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–208 of 208 posts

Re: The operating system: should there be one? (2013) [pdf]

#201

Post by yencabulator »

Koshkin wrote: post #111
amelius wrote: post #67

Related question: do we need device drivers?

In the (post)modern world, every device should have its driver built-in (along with a CPU to run it on). The communication protocol (the command language) should be standardized for each given class of devices. The protocol should support the ability to upload custom “shaders,” whenever this makes sense, to tweak or extend the default behavior.

> In the (post)modern world, every device should have its driver built-in (along with a CPU to run it on). The communication protocol (the command language) should be standardized for each given class of devices.

We are currently in this world. NVMe, USB, etc. NVMe for example is "just" DMA'd ringbuffers of requests and responses.

One challenge is that vendors tend to want to have "special features" that go beyond the standard command set. SCSI and SMART are examples of that pain.

> The protocol should support the ability to upload custom “shaders,” whenever this makes sense, to tweak or extend the default behavior.

This part is crazy complex and not very likely to happen. "Shaders" in the context of GPUs can work because it's a very large & expensive component and very vendor-specific already. That approach won't work for a chip that costs $2, with the additional burden of needing to have the same programming interface for competing vendors.

Re: The operating system: should there be one? (2013) [pdf]

#202

Post by selestify »

slx26 wrote: post #109
qPM9l3XJrF wrote: post #77

"an operating system is a collection of things that don’t fit inside a language; there shouldn’t be one" I've wondered the same thing about databases. Just like an OS, a database has to manage data on disk and figure out when to cache it. The files & folders metaphor is arguably a relic of pre-computer times--instead of searching through folders, it is easier to search and sort based on particular attributes, somethi…

This is basically the problem of organizing knowledge and setting up rules to easily interface with it through computational systems. There was an interesting article that discussed the topic some time ago, but can't find it right now. Neither hierarchical organization nor tags nor databases work. You need a mix of everything, and you need to make it nice enough for the user to be able to select the best option at th…

I've never heard of that meta-rational problem before. What is it called? I'd like to read up on potential solutions to it

Re: The operating system: should there be one? (2013) [pdf]

#203

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

the_only_law wrote: post #195
otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> with vt100 and an improved twm That's in no way a "classic Unix desktop". This is hipster nostalgia, like those indie "retro" pixel art videogames.

What is a classic Unix desktop then? Workstation running CDE/Motif?

> Workstation running CDE/Motif?

Yes. "CDE" itself stands for "Common Desktop Environment". (Wikipedia says it was "part of the part of the UNIX 98 Workstation Product Standard", and if you remember the 1990's like I do, it was, indeed, supposed to be the "standard" desktop for Unixes.)

P.S. Linux isn't a Unix.

Re: The operating system: should there be one? (2013) [pdf]

#204

Post by projektfu »

spaetzleesser wrote: post #127
raxxorrax wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MS .NET burned me hard with WPF. After finally looking into it, it more or less was cancelled for greener pastures. I don't think the newer Windows UI-Frameworks are loved that much and UWP is not really convincing for desktop applications. Just too much hassle for too little gain and the threat of vendor lock-in.

“I don't think the newer Windows UI-Frameworks are loved that much and UWP is not really convincing for desktop applications. Just too much hassle for too little gain and the threat of vendor lock-in.” I used to be a desktop dev but after the mess with Winforms, WinRT, WPF, Silverlight, UWP and WinUI I would never bet again on an MS GUI framework. Most likely it will be abandoned soon and put into maintenance mode. I…

I briefly looked into UWP when it was being promoted with such fanfare, and the only thing I could see were the gross incompatibilities with WPF, basically requiring you to maintain two guis if you wanted to use the app store and support two versions of Windows, let alone Xamarin. Then they basically dumped the app store model they were going to use and started allowing anything on there. It's https://xkcd.com/927/ all over again, except in this case it's all just Microsoft!

Re: The operating system: should there be one? (2013) [pdf]

#205

Post by spaetzleesser »

projektfu wrote: post #204
spaetzleesser wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“I don't think the newer Windows UI-Frameworks are loved that much and UWP is not really convincing for desktop applications. Just too much hassle for too little gain and the threat of vendor lock-in.” I used to be a desktop dev but after the mess with Winforms, WinRT, WPF, Silverlight, UWP and WinUI I would never bet again on an MS GUI framework. Most likely it will be abandoned soon and put into maintenance mode. I…

I briefly looked into UWP when it was being promoted with such fanfare, and the only thing I could see were the gross incompatibilities with WPF, basically requiring you to maintain two guis if you wanted to use the app store and support two versions of Windows, let alone Xamarin. Then they basically dumped the app store model they were going to use and started allowing anything on there. It's https://xkcd.com/927/ a…

I looked at UWP when it came out. The only thing I found was that it was different but I didn’t see any improvements over WPF. I still don’t understand why they wouldn’t make it compatible with WPF.

Re: The operating system: should there be one? (2013) [pdf]

#206

Post by stephenrkell »

waynecochran wrote: post #25

I see the paper uses the term "postmodern" multiple times and references a paper "Notes on Postmodern Programming" which begins with a Manifesto. What does this term mean in this context? I don't like what I smell.

As far as this paper goes, the main idea is pluralism. Much software lore leans quite heavily on grand narratives about how things "should be done". The "postmodern" view is a reaction against that: in favour of multiple, coexisting, smaller stories. These do not have to be mutually consistent.

Of course there are lots of other overlaps between software and postmodernism in other culture, and that was the wider observation of the Noble & Biddle essay... true that it is a bit oblique. You might enjoy this a bit better: https://www.se-radio.net/2006/11/episode-38-interview-james-... -- it's now slightly dated, e.g. how "programming by Google / StackOverflow" was a much newer idea then than it is now.

Re: The operating system: should there be one? (2013) [pdf]

#207

Post by slx26 »

selestify wrote: post #202
slx26 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is basically the problem of organizing knowledge and setting up rules to easily interface with it through computational systems. There was an interesting article that discussed the topic some time ago, but can't find it right now. Neither hierarchical organization nor tags nor databases work. You need a mix of everything, and you need to make it nice enough for the user to be able to select the best option at th…

I've never heard of that meta-rational problem before. What is it called? I'd like to read up on potential solutions to it

Sorry, didn't see your reply earlier. Don't have much time to explain, but for context, you probably want to read "a first lesson in meta-rationality" [0]. It doesn't talk much about categorization directly, but it broadly discusses the limits of rationalism, and starts to explore the "solutions" / alternative perspectives (that the author decided to label as "meta-rationalism"). The categorization problem is one of the points where you can see the "limits" of rationalism. It's never discussed to much or too explicitly in these terms, though. I advice you to read the whole thing attentively, and when you are done, go back to review the section on nebulosity, and specially this quote:

>> One has to be able to “bend” concepts, when it is appropriate. Nothing should be absolutely rigid. On the other hand, things shouldn’t be so wishy-washy that nothing has any meaning at all, either. The trick is knowing when and how to slip one concept into another.

And reflect again at this point about what you have read:

>> The point of these examples is that what counts as an “object” depends on the context.

...while thinking explicitly about the categorization problem. In computer science and AI, in particular, this problem might appear even more clearly, specially in symbolic AI. If you try to create a symbolic AI system, or if you are an experienced programmer and have a solid grasp of the limitations of abstraction, it all floats around this main issue of nebulosity / categorization / methodology in rationalism. You might also be reminded of the aphorism "all models are wrong".

Hope this gives you a starting point to keep exploring more deeply if you want to.

[0] https://metarationality.com/bongard-meta-rationality

Re: The operating system: should there be one? (2013) [pdf]

#208

Post by Ygg2 »

pjmlp wrote: post #151
Ygg2 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait a minute, C# doesn't compile that long :)

There are these things called CI/CD and integration tests.

Funny. Worked on few C# projects. Most I have seen was ~10min. My own project takes like 400ms.
Post reply on HN