3 ms·
By 'invert the computing paradigm' they seem to mean 'reinvent IBM MVS and CICS from the 1970s'. Of course, it's still around and dominates some industries, but
by bregma 2y ago
By 'invert the computing paradigm' they seem to mean 'reinvent IBM MVS and CICS from the 1970s'. Of course, it's still around and dominates some industries, but hey, where's the marketing spin in that?
- 082349872349872 2y agoIf current OS's are large enough that it makes sense to put an entire DBMS under them, that sounds like one of the best arguments I've heard for microkernels since the 1980s (1970s?). (one might imagine that a microkernel schedules cores [time] and provides block access/mapping to storage layers [space]; while the DB layers would build first locking and tables, and then transactions, on top of that; after which come applications...)
- bregma 2y agoThat's exactly how QNX works today, except all drivers (eg. block device access, storage space) are just userspace processes, as is the database layer. But in that case, the OS is not layered on top of the database, they're all peers.
- cootercharger 2y agoThe OS currently known as "IBM i" (fka os400) is in essence "DB2 OS". DB2 is available as a "standalone" RDBMS also, and they rename it every decade or so for marketing
- karmakaze 2y agoThe way it could be different this time is that we have arrived at "The Network is the Computer" age. A datacenter running Facebook can look like one giant computer, so it could make sense to have a distributed operating system to run that on with a distributed database under it. Of course this effort may be unrelated to this view.