3 ms·

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 qu

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.

rramadass 2y ago
> why is the OS supposed to do that? Definition and Purpose of an OS - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system#Definition_and_purpose 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.
- starspangled 2y ago
  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.
  - rramadass 2y ago
    > 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 wrong which cannot go unchallenged. > I know, I doubt it based on this conversation.
    - starspangled 2y ago
      > 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.
      - rramadass 2y ago
        Weasel words and Ad hominem attacks are not arguments; I had quoted your own words to you which leaves no doubt as to your position.
        starspangled 2y ago
        "Because you made a untenable blanket statement that Distributed OS research was all wrong which cannot go unchallenged." That was not my direct quote, so you can dismount your high horse now. And it's telling that responding to the question of why an OS should do these things, you finding a definition of an OS and asserting (falsely, I might add) that transparent distributed systems and only those meet that definition.
        rramadass 2y ago
        > That was not my direct quote, so you can dismount your high horse now. You apparently can't follow a chain of comments in a thread nor understand what is written down. My comment pointing out yours is here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40784174 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40784174 > And it's telling that responding to the question of why an OS should do these things, you finding a definition of an OS and asserting (falsely, I might add) that transparent distributed systems and only those meet that definition. Again, you have not read/understood what has been written down nor the sources to which i linked to elaborate my points. And also i never said "that transparent distributed systems and only those meet that definition". In my comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40766810 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40766810 i explicitly say "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." and then link to the distributed OS Wikipedia page for further details. If you had cared to even read that page you would have understood the key "Design Considerations" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_operating_system#Design_considerations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_operating_system#D...) driving the approach. It is the "User Experience" that makes a distributed OS approach so compelling; though its realization can be more complex/difficult compared to other approaches w.r.t. certain parameters eg. Scaling. To summarize, i would advise you to read up on Distributed OS research before making silly blanket claims which can be easily disproved. Just because today the Cloud model has established itself as the industry standard doesn't mean that is the correct approach. You have to know both sides before you can argue for/against.

rramadass 2y ago

> why is the OS supposed to do that? Definition and Purpose of an OS - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system#Definition_and_purpose 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.

starspangled 2y ago
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.
- rramadass 2y ago
  > 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 wrong which cannot go unchallenged. > I know, I doubt it based on this conversation.
  - starspangled 2y ago
    > 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.
    - rramadass 2y ago
      Weasel words and Ad hominem attacks are not arguments; I had quoted your own words to you which leaves no doubt as to your position.
      - starspangled 2y ago
        "Because you made a untenable blanket statement that Distributed OS research was all wrong which cannot go unchallenged." That was not my direct quote, so you can dismount your high horse now. And it's telling that responding to the question of why an OS should do these things, you finding a definition of an OS and asserting (falsely, I might add) that transparent distributed systems and only those meet that definition.
        rramadass 2y ago
        > That was not my direct quote, so you can dismount your high horse now. You apparently can't follow a chain of comments in a thread nor understand what is written down. My comment pointing out yours is here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40784174 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40784174 > And it's telling that responding to the question of why an OS should do these things, you finding a definition of an OS and asserting (falsely, I might add) that transparent distributed systems and only those meet that definition. Again, you have not read/understood what has been written down nor the sources to which i linked to elaborate my points. And also i never said "that transparent distributed systems and only those meet that definition". In my comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40766810 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40766810 i explicitly say "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." and then link to the distributed OS Wikipedia page for further details. If you had cared to even read that page you would have understood the key "Design Considerations" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_operating_system#Design_considerations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_operating_system#D...) driving the approach. It is the "User Experience" that makes a distributed OS approach so compelling; though its realization can be more complex/difficult compared to other approaches w.r.t. certain parameters eg. Scaling. To summarize, i would advise you to read up on Distributed OS research before making silly blanket claims which can be easily disproved. Just because today the Cloud model has established itself as the industry standard doesn't mean that is the correct approach. You have to know both sides before you can argue for/against.