91–100 of 104 posts
Err, perhaps I'm missing something, but if the ACM Software System Award is presented to an institution or individual(s) recognized for developing a software system that has had a lasting influence, how come Linus hasn't got his yet?
I wonder if they simply don't want to reward his toxicity.
It's kind of sad systems research pretty much stopped at this point. I really was hoping that by 2024 I'd be running a distributed operating system where processes could be be freely migrated between my phone, desktop, laptop and NAS without too much of a hitch.
No, it has not.[0]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you really wanted to do this, it would be fairly trivial to implement with Erlang/Elixir. We have thr technology - just no motivation (i.e. no profit in it)
Hey! Don't let out the secrets :-) This is something i have been long thinking about (but have done nothing practical so far). The problem is how to bridge/shim between Erlang and those platforms which do not support it eg. Android (though some people seem to have done it - https://github.com/JeromeDeBretagne/erlanglauncher ). Joe Armstrong actually called the Erlang/OTP System as a AOS (Application Operating System)…
I imagine in an alternative universe were interoperability is more profitable than walled gardens, this technology exist and was standardized and not just a preserve of a few services on iDevices that can "hand-off" to each other (without process migration)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We should have had a distributed OS like Amoeba/Plan9/Inferno/etc. allowing us to manage all our chosen set of devices using a single uniform interface i.e. "A Namespace" (in Plan9/Inferno speak). Such namespaces can themselves be connected into "Hierarchical Namespaces" and so on. This is a natural and easy way to let users keep their control over their devices while still being connected to the "Greater Internet"…
> Why should we have? Because that is what an OS is supposed to do viz. provide a uniform interface and transparent access to various Compute, Storage and Network resources wherever they might be. A Distributed OS ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_operating_system ) is a natural extension to a Single Node OS. Note that we have in a sense realized our distributed OS in the IaaS and PaaS layers of a Cloud net…
There are many layers and components, and functionality can be implemented in many different ways in different levels of these things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why should we have? Because that is what an OS is supposed to do viz. provide a uniform interface and transparent access to various Compute, Storage and Network resources wherever they might be. A Distributed OS ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_operating_system ) is a natural extension to a Single Node OS. Note that we have in a sense realized our distributed OS in the IaaS and PaaS layers of a Cloud net…
I don't find "we should do that because that's what we're supposed to do" a compelling argument. If you rephrase the assertion that just leads to a rephrased question, why is the OS supposed to do that? There are many layers and components, and functionality can be implemented in many different ways in different levels of these things.
Definition and Purpose of an OS - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system#Definition_an...
I am not sure what you are arguing here. The above definition + the previous link to distributed OS where the motivations for the same are listed establish the "reason". If you find other approaches more palatable that is fine (provided you know what you are doing) but the original blanket statement you made viz. "This type of thing always seemed to be in the very cool but pointless basket, to me ... I think a lot of effort was wasted chasing that dragon. Wasted is probably the wrong word because research into cool things is good and probably created useful things along the way. I don't feel there was ever enough justification put into it and it could possibly have been better spent though." is wrong.
> There are many layers and components, and functionality can be implemented in many different ways in different levels of these things.
All implementations are not equivalent w.r.t. all parameters; hence the various tradeoffs in competing designs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't find "we should do that because that's what we're supposed to do" a compelling argument. If you rephrase the assertion that just leads to a rephrased question, why is the OS supposed to do that? There are many layers and components, and functionality can be implemented in many different ways in different levels of these things.
> why is the OS supposed to do that? Definition and Purpose of an OS - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system#Definition_an... I am not sure what you are arguing here. The above definition + the previous link to distributed OS where the motivations for the same are listed establish the "reason". If you find other approaches more palatable that is fine (provided you know what you are doing) but the original bl…
> I am not sure what you are arguing here.
I'm not sure why you're replying then.
> All implementations are not equivalent w.r.t. all parameters; hence the various tradeoffs in competing designs.
I know, and not all are equally good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> why is the OS supposed to do that? Definition and Purpose of an OS - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system#Definition_an... I am not sure what you are arguing here. The above definition + the previous link to distributed OS where the motivations for the same are listed establish the "reason". If you find other approaches more palatable that is fine (provided you know what you are doing) but the original bl…
Operating system purpose on some website is vague and not some canonical truth. It doesn't even necessarily say what you think it does, and doesn't justify itself if it did anyway. > I am not sure what you are arguing here. I'm not sure why you're replying then. > All implementations are not equivalent w.r.t. all parameters; hence the various tradeoffs in competing designs. I know, and not all are equally good.
Some Website? It's Wikipedia and curated; short of handing you a book (i recommend Tanenbaum) that is a good place to start from and then branch out of.
> It doesn't even necessarily say what you think it does,
That means you have not understood it.
> I'm not sure why you're replying then.
Because you made a untenable blanket statement that Distributed OS research was all wrong which cannot go unchallenged.
> I know,
I doubt it based on this conversation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Operating system purpose on some website is vague and not some canonical truth. It doesn't even necessarily say what you think it does, and doesn't justify itself if it did anyway. > I am not sure what you are arguing here. I'm not sure why you're replying then. > All implementations are not equivalent w.r.t. all parameters; hence the various tradeoffs in competing designs. I know, and not all are equally good.
> Operating system purpose on some website Some Website? It's Wikipedia and curated; short of handing you a book (i recommend Tanenbaum) that is a good place to start from and then branch out of. > It doesn't even necessarily say what you think it does, That means you have not understood it. > I'm not sure why you're replying then. Because you made a untenable blanket statement that Distributed OS research was all wr…
You definitely didn't understand the first thing I wrote, or you're deliberately misrepresenting it because you're intellectually incapable of addressing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Operating system purpose on some website Some Website? It's Wikipedia and curated; short of handing you a book (i recommend Tanenbaum) that is a good place to start from and then branch out of. > It doesn't even necessarily say what you think it does, That means you have not understood it. > I'm not sure why you're replying then. Because you made a untenable blanket statement that Distributed OS research was all wr…
> Because you made a untenable blanket statement that Distributed OS research was all wrong which cannot go unchallenged. You definitely didn't understand the first thing I wrote, or you're deliberately misrepresenting it because you're intellectually incapable of addressing it.