4 ms·
Anyone else feel that a hierarchical 'bytearray' file system isn't really a great base for organizing an operating system? Some limitations are that you have to
by shalabhc 9y ago
Anyone else feel that a hierarchical 'bytearray' file system isn't really a great base for organizing an operating system? Some limitations are that you have to share everything as 'sequence of bytes', requiring every reader to re-implement the parsing logic, and not everything fits well into a file metaphor, for instance socket style stream IO.
- emmelaich 9y agoOther organisations (isam, sparse, ...) can be laid on top of sequences. Not so much the away around. Almost every criticism of the Unix fundamentals* puts me in awe of the original design. It is so hard to maintain simplicity. Regarding parsing, yes. That would be nice but I believe you'd some isolation to ensure that. Re sockets -- shrug. * (rather than say the user space / shell)
- shalabhc 9y agoI wasn't thinking about another data storage system but more about what core abstractions should be provided by an OS? For example, could the Erlang model be an OS? Say the OS provides a namespace for a constellation of communicating processes. You still have freedom to implement various languages and configuration systems but you submit your code to a process rather than store it in a 'file system'. Storage is accessed via a process and can be switched out with another process with a different implementation, etc.