4 ms·
I think you're assuming a level of opacity to the OS that is true theoretically, but not realistically. Conceptually we can treat the computer as a black box wh
by Cushman 14y ago
I think you're assuming a level of opacity to the OS that is true theoretically, but not realistically. Conceptually we can treat the computer as a black box which does the same thing, eventually, whether it's using cache, RAM, HDD, or the network, but realistically the limitations leak out all over the place and are embedded all over user-facing workflows in the form of opening, saving, uploading, and such things. They may always be happening in some sense, but there is no intrinsic need to involve the user in them.
Assuming that NVRAM becomes dense enough to replace storage in practice -- which is a big assumption, but it's happened to tape and is happening to hard drives right now -- concepts like launching a program, opening and closing a file, even booting will become mostly academic. Certainly they'll be of no crucial interest to users, to whom the distinction between what something is and what it does has never made that much sense.
Sure you could apply all the same abstractions over the top, but if you were designing your OS from a blank slate, why on Earth would you? And it will only be a matter of time before one of those blank-slate OSes is compellingly superior enough to the old-school paradigm, and users will start switching en masse.
- ajross 14y agoFine fine. Let's just say that the last "blank-slate" OS to acheive commercial success did so, what, 35 years ago? If I'm assuming too much transparency in the NVRAM technology (and honestly, I don't think I am -- DRAM is hardly transparent already, c.f. three levels of cache on the die of modern CPUs), then you're assuming far more agility in the OS choice than is realistic in the market.
- Cushman 14y agoWell, there hasn't been a major upset in the PC paradigm in 35 years :) Really, I agree with that bit-- marketing the thing would be a nightmare. But whether it's the first company to try it or the tenth, at some point the utility benefits will become too great for users to ignore. > DRAM is hardly transparent already, c.f. three levels of cache on the die of modern CPUs Keep in mind I'm talking about interface, not implementation. My code might care about cache misses, but my users have no reason to (except in the very, very aggregate). We leak a user-facing distinction between storage and memory because the difference is too significant to pretend it doesn't exist.
- snprbob86 14y agoI think that OS choice agility is increasing rapidly. Consider the number of people whose primary computers are mobile phones (replaced every 1 to 3 years) and whose secondary computers are glorified web browsers. This is rapidly becoming true for businesses as well, as they adopt more web-based tools.
- ajross 14y agoAll mobile phone OSes are still based on a filesystem. If you want to claim that the user's perspective of the computer is going to move away from a "file", then I agree. If you think the underlying software is going to do so simply because it got no-power-to-maintain memory, I think you're crazy.
- snprbob86 14y agoStraw man. I said nothing of my opinion on non-volatile memory. I was only pointing out that more and more users are less and less tied to any particular operating system.
- ajross 14y agoUh... the whole subthread was about NVRAM and the likelihood of it replacing the filesystem with different storage models. You'll have to forgive me for inferring an opinion about the subject we were discussing; I just don't see how that can be a straw man. It's just what happens when you inject a non sequitur into an existing discussion.
- snprbob86 14y agoNot a non sequitur at all. You wrote "you're assuming far more agility in the OS choice than is realistic in the market" which was a point to support your case about NVRAM. I was merely stating that point was weak because, realistically, the agility in OS choice is increasing within the market. I actually wrote in defense of the traditional filesystem model in another post on this thread. Just because I don't agree with your reasoning doesn't mean I don't agree with your conclusion.