S3 is not even files, and definitely not a filesystem. The thing I would expect from a file abstraction is mutability. I should be able to edit pieces of a fi

S3 is not even files, and definitely not a filesystem. The thing I would expect from a file abstraction is mutability. I should be able to edit pieces of a file, grow it, shrink it, read and write at random offsets. I shouldn't have to go back up to the root, or a higher level concept once I have the file in hand. S3 provides a mutable listing of immutable objects, if I want to do any of the mutability business, I need to make a copy and re-upload. As originally conceived, the file abstraction finds some sectors on disk, and presents them to the client as a contiguous buffer. S3 solves a different problem. Many people misinterpret the Good Idea from UNIX "everything is a file" to mean that everything should look like a contiguous virtual buffer. That's not what the real Good Idea is. Really: everything can be listed in a directory, including directories. There will be base leaves, which could be files, or any object the system wants to present to a process, and there will be recursive trees (which are directories). The directories are what make the filesystem, not the type of a particular leaf. Adding a new type of leaf, like a socket or a frame buffer, or whatever, is almost boring, and doesn't erode the integrity of the real good idea. Adding a different kind of container like a list, would make the structure of the filesystem more complex, and that would erode the conceptual integrity. S3 doesn't do any of these things, and that's fine. I just want a place to put things that won't fit in the database, and know they won't bitrot when I'm not looking. The desire to make S3 look more like a filesystem comes from client misunderstanding of what it's good at/for, and poor product management indulging that misunderstanding instead of guarding the system from it.