The database for a filesystem is an classic. WinFS, the filesystem that should have been a key feature of Longhorn/Windows Vista is based on a relational database.
The "death of text configuration files" is the idea behind the Windows registry.
Powershell (Windows, again) is based on structured data rather then text streams.
For the "programs as a collection of addressable code blocks", when we think about it, we are almost there. An ELF executable for instance is not just a blob that is loaded in memory. It is a collection of blocks with instructions on how to load them, and it usually involves addressing other blocks in other ELF files (i.e. dynamic libraries), with names as keys. We could imagine splitting the executable apart to be saved in a database-like filesystem, that would work, but if wouldn't change the fundamentals.
The problem I have with structure is that it implies a schema. And without that schema there is nothing you can do. And of course, because we all have different needs, there are going to be a lot of schemas. So now you turn one problem into two problems: manage the schemas and manage the data. With a UNIX-style system, even if you need some kind of structure to actually process the data, the system is designed in such a way that for common operations (ex: copy), you don't need an application-specific schema.
Microsoft Microsoft'ed configuration management with the way they implemented the registry. The Apple PList way sort-of goes there but doesn't quite master it.
A better way would've been is configuration via code and command-line that's easy to interface for all purposes. It's important to:
- be able to transactionally backup and restore all settings
- have multiple instances of the same program with different settings
- wipe out settings to default
- enumerate all settings within a program or within the whole system
- subscribe and be notified of setting changes
- ACLs or privileges to separate users and processes from each other (similar to the Windows Registry)
- audit and undo setting changes
- hide secrets that are provided from dynamic providers
- allow dynamic providers for values of settings
I would love to be able to see and manage a Linux system's configuration in an analogous way. Obviously there's a lot more to a modern general purpose OS than a simple network device, so I'm not sure, maybe it wouldn't work very well?
No, they don't. It's N editors + M parsers (where M=programs) I suppose if you want really smart editors that are also developed completely independently, such that each require it's own parser, its N+M parsers plus N editors.
> Furthermore, what people really want is universal progmatic and CLI access to configuration
I'm fairly certain most people don't want anything CLI anything.
The other bits describe a whole configuration management system, which gets into the realm of questions like "For version X of software Y, value Z can be between A and B, but this changes when using version X+1", which is extremely difficult logic to encode into an external data store. Even worse are relational consistency issues that come up across structures.
Having a "fail if invalid" results in people setting values and then being frustrated at the system.
BTW, this all existed in a language neutral way in the early 2000's with XML parsing and validation leveraging RelaxNG and Schematron. Unfortunately those were deemed ugly and hard to use, and thrown out in exchange for the half baked JSON/YAML solutions.
When I think about it, this is basically what the various “keychain” daemons provide, which IMO are underused despite their terrible ergonomics.
This seems to completely ignore the fact that we are already managing schemas right now in the form of ad-hoc parsers and serializers which are arguably much worse than a more formally specified alternative.
We go back and forth on this because tightening the schema only works when you can adequately define the requirements of both ends up front, and there isn't a vendor battleground happening in your standard. Developers end up escaping into an unstructured-but-working zone. Classics like "it's such a hassle to get the DBA to add columns, so we'll add a single text column and keep all the data in there as JSON".
I always wondered why Unix never added record-based files, in addition to stream-based files...like mainframes have. That would have simplified many things.
You can implement record-based files (RAX, ISAM, etc) on top of stream-based files. The Unix philosophy was like Lego: small parts that do simple things that can be put together in combinations to build greater things. If you can build it from the basic blocks, it's not a basic block.
There are plenty of more advanced storage systems available for Unix. You don't need the OS vendor to supply The One.
that statement seems heavily draw on the idea that success is the result of a meritocracy. But 'how good something is' often plays a small part in the selection of winners and losers.
Registry and Powershell are integral parts of being a Windows administrator.
I might be leading a little, but just because nix didn't choose to use these things doesn't imply they are bad. Just nix is "different".
It really is the file systems as well. If allocation tables are highly optimized databases, they're not the kind of safe and robust database we're used to:
Along comes Unix and dispenses with all of that. Files? Bytes only. Devices? Accessible as files in the file system. Etc. This became popular for a reason.
What UNIX gave the world was maximum flexibility: an os that only really cared about streams and got out of your way.
Similarly, think how useful memcpy() is: Because it can be applied anywhere.
On the other hand, it would take quite a lot of effort to reach a parity of capability for a new OS these days.
(Too bad the replacements aren't always better...)
..
What’s interesting about the Unix File System is that it’s a general abstraction: a hierarchical namespace that can be mapped to a wide range of resources; not just “files” in secondary storage but also IO devices, IPC communication points, etc. And that’s all it did: mount resources at locations and define a common API for reading/writing/inspecting all resources, without getting bogged down on the internal details of each resource. Nice high cohesion, low coupling design.
Plan 9 made much fuller use of the namespace idea than Unix did, but the core concept was there for the start and it is excellent… except for one MASSIVE mistake: individual resources are neither typed nor tagged.
Without formal type information there is no way for a client to determine the type of data that a given resource represents. Either there is a common informal agreement that a resource mounted at location X is of type Y (e.g. /dev/*), OR there is an informal resource naming convention (typically DOS-style name extensions), OR the client has to guess (e.g. by sniffing the first few bytes for “tells” or by assuming ASCII).
Formally tagging each resource with, say, a MIME type (as in BeFS, or properly implemented HTTP) would’ve made all the difference. THAT is K&R’s million-dollar mistake mistake, because without that key metadata it is impossible to ensure formal correctness(!) or implement intelligent helpers for data interchange (e.g. automatic coercions).
Arguments over the pros and cons of alternative namespacing/association arrangements (e.g. relational vs hierarchical) are all secondary to that one fundamental cockup.
..
Unix became popular not because it was Good, but because it was Just Good Enough to entertain the cowboys who built and used it, who enjoy that sort of pants-down edge-of-the-seat living. And because a lot of them were in education, they spread it; and so made cowboy coders the status quo for much of this profession and culture. And while I admire and largely approve of their Just Do It attitude, I abhor their frightening disregard for safety and accountability.
And while I’m heartened to see some signs of finally growing up (e.g. Rust), there is a LOT of legacy damage already out there still to be undone. And retrofitting fixes and patches to endemic, flawed systems like Unix and C is and will be infinitely more pain and work than if they’d just been built with a little more thought and care in the first place.
--
† If/When memristors finally get off the ground, the primary vs secondary storage split can go away again and we finally get back to single flat storage space, eliminating lots of of complex bureaucracy and ritual. And when it does, there’ll still the need for some sort of abstract namespace for locating and exchanging data.
Even today you don't have enough primary storage to keep your data. And even then it would require a structure when data outlives the process / application.
Most times there are no best solution, but only tradeoffs. Anyone who has done a bit of systems work knows this. And Hierarchical file system was a Ok-ish trade-off to make. Perfect is enemy of good.
> MASSIVE mistake: individual resources are neither typed nor tagged.
It comes with its own set of tradeoffs. I am a huge proponent of static typing when it comes to PLs. But in a system where multiple actors operate on shared resources, it is easy to get illusioned into a false sense of correctness. Also it imposes some extra complexity in the programming model. I am no experienced systems engineer. But someone here can address it better.
> .... entertain the cowboys who built and used it ....
You are going beyond HN standards to justify your anger against a particular methodology or people that embrace it in programming.
The universally accepted point is that Unix succeeded due to political factors (low cost and easy modification compared to proprietary counterparts), simplicity of the API, and being arguably better than others despite lacking some features people love to lament these days. But in many cases, that simplicity is a desirable thing to have. It is nice to objectively point out faults in systems. But what you did is totally dismissing some people's contributions.
It is easy to see some hyped thing and think that's the Next Big Thing(TM) after reading two fanboys preaching on Reddit, while being totally ignorant of tradeoffs.
I disagree very strongly with these insults directed at programmers from 50 years ago because now, in retrospect, half a century later what they did doesn't live up to some flawless system written in Rust that exists only in one's imagination.
Doesn't is seem a little bit like calling Thomas Edison a cowboy that made the terrible mistake of giving us electric lighting through filament bulbs when LED lights would have been so much better.
In these early days of computer science I read virtually every important published article on programming languages and operating systems, the field was still that small. MIT didn't even think it warranted a separate department, it was just a subsidiary branch of EE like say communications. Researchers like Edsger Dijkstra, Tony Hoare, Niklaus Wirth, Per Brinch Hansen, Leslie Lamport, David Gries, Donald Knuth, Barbara Liskov, and David Parnas were all trying to figure out how to structure an operating system, how to verify that a program was correct, how to solve basic problems of distributed systems, and how to design better programming languages. Practitioners working on operating systems would have been familiar with almost everything written by these giants.
It's easy to insult C, I myself wouldn't choose it for work today. But in 1989, 20 years after the birth of Unix, I did choose it for my company's development of system software--it still made sense. And back in the 1960's what alternatives were there? Fortran? PL/1? Pascal? Lisp? We were still programming on keypunch machines and relational databases hadn't been invented. The real competition back then for system programming was assembly language.
That gives you a "global naming of things" problem, which is surprisingly hard. Who controls the namespace? Who gets to define new identifiers? Do they end up as intellectual property barriers where company A can't write software to work with files of company B?
> without that key metadata it is impossible to ensure formal correctness(!)
That seems irrelevant - even with the metadata you have to allow for the possibility of a malformed payload or simple metadata mismatch. I don't believe this alone would prevent people from sneaking attack payloads through images or PDFs, for example.
> THAT is K&R’s million-dollar mistake mistake
K&R wrote UNIX before MIME. Not only that, but before the internet, JPEG, PDF, and indeed almost all the file types defined in MIME except plain text.
Refusing to choose also prevented UNIX from being locked into choices that later turned out to be inconvenient, like Windows deciding to standardise on UCS-2 too early rather than wait for everyone to converge on UTF-8.
Even the divergent choice of path separators and line endings has turned out to be a mess.
> cowboys
The "cowboy" system is the one that beat the others, many of which never launched (WinFS, competing hypertext protocols) or were commercially invisible (BeOS, Plan9 etc).
Both Windows and MacOS have alternate file streams which can be used for metadata, but very rarely are.
Memristors aren't going to save you either. Physical space ultimately determines response time. You can only fit so much storage inside a small light cone. We're going to end up with five or six different layers at different distances from the CPU, plus two or three more out over the network, getting cheaper and slower like Glacier.
We probably are going to move to something more content-addressable, in the manner of git blobs or IPFS, and probably a lot closer to immutable or write-once semantics because consistency is such a pain otherwise. It would be interesting to see a device offering S3-style blob interface plus content-addressable search ... over the PCIe interface.
Oh, and there's a whole other paper to be written on how access control has evolved from "how can we protect users from each other, but all the software on the system is trusted" to "everything is single-user now, but we need to protect applications from each other".
The system outlined here seems to purposefully avoid it! Some sort of ACID compliant database analogy to a filesystem sounds nice until 20 years down the line when ACIDXYZABC2.4 is released and you have to bend over backwards to remain compatible. Or until Windows has a bug in their OS-native YAML parser (as suggested here) so now your program doesn’t work on Windows until they patch it. But when they do, oh no you can’t just tell your users to download a new binary. Now they have to upgrade their whole OS! Absolute chaos. And if you’re betting on the longevity of YAML/JSON over binary data, well just look at XML.
The proposed improvement as I understood it would be future proof. It seems trivial to build a rock-solid YAML/XML/JSON/EDN parser on OS level, and since it would be so crucial part of OS the mistakes would be caught and fixed quickly. It shouldn't even matter if structured data syntax is replaced or expanded in future, as long as it is versioned and never redacted. Rich Hickey's talk "Spec-ulation" has much wisdom about future-proofing the data structure.
Yes! I really hope I keep hearing more of this sentiment and that eventually we collectively take action. What would be the first practical step? There's a lot of effort duplicating the same functionality across different languages and frameworks. Is reducing this duplication a good first goal? Should we start at the bottom and convince ARM/x86/AMD64 to use the same instruction set? After that, should we reduce the number of programming languages? It seems there's still a lot of innovation going on, would it be worth stifling that?
That is literally what Microsoft does.
Actually, it doesn't. It is extremely hard to properly return to 16-bit userspace code from a 64-bit kernel, so Windows removed support for it entirely, and it's not enabled by default on Linux.
And if they're inclined to upgrade my app, I mean, nothing stops me from using a third party library to parse yaml. It sounds like we're talking about an app from three operating systems and 20 years ago so it's likely I'm doing that anyway - maybe not in the current Windows version, but in a recent enough version on some other operating system.
Many a novice programmer has no doubt made the mistake of thinking that you could, for instance, do this to deliver a C/C++ struct across a socket:
writer: write (socketfd, &struct, sizeof(struct));
reader: read (socketfd, &struct, sizeof(struct));
Same observation could be made about filesystems used to store "structured data". We serialize and deserialize it because the in-memory representation is not inherently portable.
Since there's no standard API (blessed by the OS) and the lowest common denominator is byte streams, we're seeing all these ad-hoc solutions and a hodgepodge of formats and libraries to deal with. That's lots and lots of time and money spent on rather basic stuff.
The approach you're describing only works for POD-style "structured data". Once you start using OOP of almost any type (though not every type), you no longer have ... well, POD that you can move to/from a storage medium. You have objects whose in-memory format IS important and compiler dependent.
There are other concerns too. His WAV example (I write pro-audio software for a living) doesn't even begin to touch on the actual complexities of dealing with substantial quantities of audio (or any other data that cannot reasonably be expected to fit into memory). Nor on the cost of changing the data ... does the entire data set need to be rewritten, or just part of it? How would you know which sections matter? Oh wait, the data fundamentally IS a byte stream, so now you have to treat it like that. If you don't care about performance (or storage overhead, but that's less and less of a concern these days), there are all kinds of ways of hiding these sorts of details. But the moment that performance starts to matter, you need to get back the bytestream level.
And so yes, there's no standard API and yes the lowest common denominator is byte streams ... because the __only__ common denominator is byte streams. Thinking about this any other way is a repeat of a somewhat typical geek dream that the world (or a representation of the world or part of it) can be completely ordered and part of a universal system.
Having that high-level knowledge of data structure enables all sorts of intelligent automation.
In the event that the client uses a different memory layout, it could look up a coercion handler that converts the supplied data from its original layout to the layout required by the client. This is, for instance, how the Apple Event Manager was designed to work: all data is tagged with a type descriptor:
typeSInt16, typeSInt32, typeSInt64 typeUInt16, typeUInt32, typeUInt64
typeIEEE32BitFloatingPoint, typeIEEE64BitFloatingPoint, typeIEEE128BitFloatingPoint
typeUTF8Text, typeUnicodeText (UTF16BE), typeUTF16ExternalRepresentation (UTF16 w. endian mark)
typeAEList (ordered collection) typeAERecord (keyed collection)
and so on. (The tags themselves are encoded as UInt32; nothing so advanced as MIME types, but at least they’re compact.)
The AEM includes a number of standard coercion handlers for converting data between different representations, and clients may also supply their own handlers if needed. Thus the server just packs data in its current representation, and if the client uses the same representation then, great, it can use it as-is. Otherwise the client-side AEM automatically coerces the data to the form the client as part of the unpacking process.
There are limits in the AEM’s design, not least the inability to describe complex data (arrays and structs) with a single “generic” descriptor, e.g. `AEList(SInt32)`. That would vastly simplify packing and unpacking—in best case to simple flat serialization/deserialization, at worst to a single recursive deserialization—instead of two recursive operations with lots of extra mallocs and frees for interim data. But the basic principle is sound, and adheres well to the “be liberal in what you accept” principle.
I believe Powershell does something similar when connecting outputs to inputs of different (though broadly compatible) types, intelligently coercing the output data to the exact type the input requires. No manual work required; it “Just Works”.
Or, if you don’t mind the extra overhead then content negotiation is also an option, which is something HTTP does very well (though web programmers very badly). That is advantageous when communicating with “less intelligent” clients as it permits the server, which best understands its own data, to pre-convert (e.g. via lossy coercion) its data to a form the client will accept.
Lots of ways that Unix’s “throw its hands up and dump the problem all over the users” non-answer can be massively improved on, in other words, without ever losing the lovely loose coupling that is a Unix system’s strength. It only requires a single piece of essential—yet missing—information: the data’s type.
Typed data streams were not invented by Apple. Back in the 1980s, there was (for example) Sun's RPC mechanism, which gave you "seamless" remote procedure call, including transfer of arbitrary structures over a network.
But the original post is much more about filesystems. I used the socket example merely to illustrate the problem, not the actual topic.
No, it is not a so big problem. And no it will not do our life easier. Also author did not mention about the real problem of semantic. How client should interpret a structure to compose a valid request.
OS should not know about userspace structures because OS don't do anything with it. It stores and transfers chunks of bytes and its semantic is defined by userspace. And forcing current popular serializing format on OS level is the most dumb idea ever.
The idea is that you take the common elements of all of those serialization formats and when you take a good look you notice that the lowest common denominator isn't actually raw bytes on a disk.
One of the undersold features of plain text is being able to exist in "invalid" states while it's being edited. Structured data UI needs to have a least that level of malleability to have a chance over the current paradigm.
Comments should actually be independent of the underlying structure they're documenting. I'd like them to be an independent layer of annotations that can be applied to any data.
Seriously though, the question of "why isn't it done this way" is answered a couple times: "it's all just bytes in the end". Bytes & arrays-of-bytes are really the only thing that you can trust that all systems and all languages interpret the same (even 2-byte integers can be interpreted differently by different systems). Presumably the author just wants to be able to memcpy structures between programs or from disk, or maybe with some high efficiency pre-allocated heap stuff, but you really need to have code to validate the bytes, essentially requiring the parsing of your data-structure which the author is trying to avoid.
Running programs with some common argument notation does sound really nice, but ideally that's just calling a function from your language's binding to their library (as their executable should do, right?).
I was actually describing something more close to the Smalltalk (http://pharo.org) / Self (http://blog.rfox.eu/en/Series_about_Self.html) image.
They are not. They are sending a HTTP message, which consists of just octets and has to be parsed. The parsers have to have a ridiculous complexity for various reasons. The HTTP header contains sublanguages such as RFC 7231 §5.3.1 or RFC 8288 §3.
JSON meanwhile has amassed at least six incompatible specifications with the same exact media type, so there is not even a theoretic hope of parsing all messages correctly. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20736665
It links to several RFCs. RFC-7158 and RFC-7159 differ only in (a) that one is RFC-7158 and the other is RFC-7159 (b) that one is dated in March 2013 and the other is March 2014 (c) that one obsoletes RFC-7158 in addition to RFC-4627 which they both obsolete. It appears that 7159 was pushed only to handle an error in the dating of 7158, given that the irrelevant RFC-7157 is dated March 2014.
So to say that there's more that five incompatible specs is just a cruel disregard of the facts. No implementation can differ in its parsing of a text based on the metadata of the spec. There needs to be a substantive difference in the spec.
As to the current RFC 8259, it makes no substantial differences from the previous version. There are a few typos that have been fixed ("though" becoming "through", when "though" was not a possible interpretation). It eliminates the obligation to parse public texts not coded in UTF-8. Previously, documents SHALL be UTF-8 - that's barely a change, but it is a change. It has specified more concretely its relationship with ECMA-404. It's possible that someone reading earlier RFCs would have concluded "a valid RFC 7159 json parser can parse and only the documents produced by ECMA-404". If there were any discrepancies between ECMA-404 and RFC-7159, therefore, an interpretation along these lines would lead a person to conclude you cannot parse a document according to RFC-7159, so the spec doesn't really count as an incompatible spec. Under the current spec, it identifies that there are possible discrepancies, and RFC-8259 is intended to accept fewer documents that ECMA-404.
The first RFC did not permit the json documents "true", "false" and "null", accepting only json documents that comprise an object or an array. It permitted any Unicode encoding, defaulting to UTF-8, and non-Unicode encodings as well (so a Latin-1 document is valid RFC-4627, but not valid RFC-7158+). It also included some incorrect statements about its relationship to javascript. These were reduced in later versions and eventually eliminated. They do not affect the specification of the language, but merely how you may handle data in the language.
No document that is accepted by the current RFC will be rejected by any RFC other than the first. The only such documents to be rejected by the first are those which consist entirely of "true", "false", or "null". No UTF-8 document that is accepted by the first RFC will be rejected by subsequent RFC parsers, unless a person reads a paragraph called "security considerations" that says "you can kinda do this but it's insecure" as somehow trumping the clear statements of the grammar in earlier sections.
I have not investigated the other specs and I probably won't. But the idea that there are 6 incompatible specs is false. There is not more than 5, and it is almost trivial to accept documents according to 3 of 5 or 4 of 6 specs at once by ignoring the restrictions on character coding.
Solution: Create a new, unified, universal way of serializing data.
Problem: There are N+1 different ways of serializing data and it's a lot of work to support them all.
Problem: the computer systems we use are insufficiently flexible/too flexible, encouraging the use of N different ways of serializing data.
Solution: make a computer system which encourages centralizing the mechanism by which data is serialized.
Even from the simple, non programmer user (or a "power user") perspective I don't actually want the files the way they are. A file usually needs a name (which is not good for anything) and stores both the data and the metadata inside, a metadata correction automatically changes the file hash and the file system doesn't consider the fact most of my files (or at least the data part of them) are never meant to change (taking this fact in account could provide extra optimization and protection). Ideally a file should only store data (e.g. a pure sound stream for an audio file) + a collection of metadata fields (including tags!) I can query to find the files I need. AFAIK something like that was supposed to be implemented in WinFS but it was cancelled.
In fact you can use extended attributes/streams or even use SQLite as a file system (or a file format). But nobody does that. I feel interested in implementing a file manager to store all my files in SQLite and provide a convenient GUI to work with them but it seems too much work (I don't even have an idea of the UI) and its usefulness is going to be questionable as no application developed by others is going to be able to open files directly from that database anyway. Nevertheless it can be a good idea to use SQLite as a file system for particular projects like those you have described.
Inserting data A into B, serializing it into C, storing it as D then morph it back into C, turn it back into B again so that you can read A from it???
If A is 10 bytes, B is 10 GB OR we don't know if A exists in C? The ease of use and/or performance gain would be substantial even without memorizing 1000 manuals worth of exotic formats.
Don't most operating systems provide for some kind of vfs nowadays? So you can indeed expose it as a legacy hierarchical filesystem if you want.
I guess the reason every extended database type filesystem has failed is the same one: basically, you need legacy support. Otherwise the user agents don't exist to access your data. Several older operating systems had support for attributes of various type and purpose, but they roughly died as the web became popular, because HTTP has no way to handle that problem.
The nearest exception is on handheld devices that run non-legacy operating systems, but then power users complain they don't have adequate control.
They wouldn't if they were actually given adequate control. The problem of iOS is not the fact it doesn't expose a traditional file system, it's the fact it doesn't expose any and won't let you control the apps beyond the level Apple likes nor to sideload custom apps you or the free software community might have developed (which certainly isn't a 100% evil policy - it actually protects you from evil agents like the Chinese TSA which is known to install hidden apps on Android phones it searches). I couldn't even find a way to play OPUS audio files on a recent iPhone (despite the fact iPhone supports OPUS in hardware). As a power user I can be pretty well-satisfied without access to the file system if only the UIs and APIs above it provided the level of control and functionality I want.
I mean, everything would be stored and transmitted one time or another. Word document, sqlite database, an email and it's attachment. Imagine you could not send something as simple as word document because ip protocol assumes stream of bytes, and your operating system talks custom storage format. Imagine you cannot store, use sqlite database efficiently because operating system does not present you with efficient, fast, compatible byte storage.
As I’ve noted above, the problem isn’t transmittability; the problem is never knowing what the bytes being transmitted represent.
I mean, C is hardly renowned for the robustness or expressivity of its “type” system, but untagged untyped byte streams are tantamount to declaring all data as void*. That is a ridiculously shaky foundation to build on, yet could have been entirely avoided by simple addition of one more piece of metadata and an ftype() API.
K&R were brilliant, but also kinda dumb. I certainly wouldn’t want to eat chicken cooked by either one.
I think looking back we can be thankful that structured databasey stuff has been decoupled from OS interfaces and has been allowed to evolve on its own.
I would argue that you can't really call this a (ascii) database, because it isn't (no transactions, no data types, no query language, no parallel write, nothing). It's what you get with unix - shitty stream of bytes.
Take /etc/passwd. It does have a query language. getpwent(), login, passwd
It has data types -- again getpwent() (man getpwent) needs pwd.h
It has "parallel writes". Multiple users can use passwd at the same time. It has "transactions" -- mostly because of inodes.
Similar comments apply to utmp and wtmp (note that utmp and wtmp are not ascii -- they are binary records). /etc/services is ALSO structured but is ascii. Less controlled, because it is almost always "read-only".
Of course, in a very strange sense, you are correct. Any structure imposed is NOT by the kernel -- this is "post init", or user level.
FredW
So I think there's definitely some truth to what he is saying. However I'm not sure if we can climb down from our local optimum long enough to all climb up there together. I think even at google where it's pretty restricted you still might have two ways to do some things (the deprecated way and the not yet ready way).
You're missing the point of the article. Most people and organizations have written libraries and services that make common development tasks much easier when developing within their own software ecosystems. Google is just one of many.
The question this article is getting towards is solving those problems in a pattern that transcends individual implementations and the conceptual model becomes as ubiquitous as the filesystem hierarchy.
Dumping a "this works for $DAYJOB" solution onto the public by publishing a standard isn't the answer. If that worked, those problems would be solved and this article wouldn't exist.
It's reasonable to say that "google implements some of those ideas" counts as evidence for "those ideas are right", which is mostly what I wanted to say.
Solution: The OS should do it.
Ehhh... Why is that the obvious solution? We can't decide on the right way to do it in user space, why does moving the problem to the OS help? This seems to be based on the whimsical idea that having the OS do it would somehow fix the varied problems of structured communication. Are we enforcing WSLDs in the OS? One size fits all structures defined by the OS? I don't think the rambling thoughts really made it back to the thesis.
That said, I suggest to anyone interested in this stuff to try Powershell...no really! I don't use it often but it is a window into another world where everything has a structured definition behind the text output.
The article is indeed ridiculous. An OS should not do everything. Hardware storage resources are generally the memory, disk, and network connection (and if you're getting really deep, the cache and registers). A good OS should only provide access to those resources as efficiently as possible across a wide variety of hardware.
There is a vast myriad of ways of utilizing those resources, and it would be a fools errand to implement a one-size-fits-all approach. The better approach is to provide access to the resources, and let higher level software developers build on top of them.
A disk only database is far different than a disk database with a memory cache, is far different than a memory only database, is far different than any collection of the above coordinated via a network connection. Further, storing text is different than storing images, which is different from storing video, which is different from storing JSON or XML.
Pushing everything to the OS will often give you worse performance, locks you into a single OS vendor, and slows down innovation from third parties. Bad idea.
It sounds like you're talking about kernel only. So I guess your OS of choice is something like LFS?
My view of an operating system is very different; it's supposed to be a complete system ready for productive work as well as a programming environment and platform for additional third party software.
> Pushing everything to the OS will often give you worse performance, locks you into a single OS vendor, and slows down innovation from third parties. Bad idea.
Pushing everything to third parties will often give you massive duplication of effort and dependencies, excessively deep stacks that eat performance and make debugging harder, locks you into a clusterfuck of dependency hell, and slows innovation from first party because now they must be very sure not to break the huge stack of third party stuff that everyone critically depends on. There'll be no cohesion because third parties invent their own ways of doing things as the stripped-to-the-bones OS has no unified vision, documentation is going to be all over the place, there's nothing holding back churn... development of third party applications is slow and frustrating because the lowest common denominator (underlying OS) is basically magnetic needle. Bad idea.
This is largely why I prefer BSD over Linux, but I share the author's frustrations with Unix in general.
Structured data passing between programs instead of just text is part of Powershell concept.
Calling of other programs to request specific actions with smooth UI called Android intents.
If you want to store structured data, you should use well, a database.
So, part of critique of author is Linux specific.
But generally I agree with author: OS are poor abstractions and really need to be improved.
dbus, CORBA and COM would like to have couple words with you
How would versioning of the data structures work? Would it be append only? I'm pretty sure part of the reason abstractions are hard is because we don't know exactly how to model the domain the first couple of times around. So if these data structures in the OS aren't right the first time, we end up lugging it around and it'd be more expensive than the parsing that we currently do. When I look at the EDI spec, it just has a lot of cruft I don't need.
And lastly, I'm afraid when we invoke meaning in a stream of bytes, different groups with different interests will have different ontologies they want to enforce. We see these in format wars and internet working groups. I'm not sure we can easily agree what these data structures are, and how to evolve them. Maybe there's a good way and I just haven't seen it.
Dude, we all know the supposed theoretical ideal state of things. And yet it almost never happens.
> It's probably the reason the OS has had such a long staying power of decades.
Or the fact that without an OS your hardware is a simple paperweight? Not sure what is your point here, can you clarify?
> It seems to be the same strategy of IP (internet protocol)--that it's a narrow waist architecture--so the layers above and below it can evolve independently.
We don't have that much choice there either. Networks have to be streams of bytes due to the physics and realities of our network hardware -- which aren't likely to change anytime soon. So I don't think yours is a transferable analogy.
> How would versioning of the data structures work? Would it be append only?
Yes. That's how FlatBuffers work and every single team I talked with are grateful that they moved to it and no longer use JSON. Has to mean something.
(FlatBuffers also allows you deprecate and thus ignore parts of the structure you are transmiting. But indeed and as you alluded to, anything new can only be appended at the end of the byte stream.)
> I'm pretty sure part of the reason abstractions are hard is because we don't know exactly how to model the domain the first couple of times around.
Sure, agreed. But as an area IT already has a lot of experience and can tap into some past lessons already.
Configuration: zero programming language constructs inside it, please! You need config with programming? Here's that small subset of LISP or Lua, you can only use that.
I see nothing wrong with an approach like that. People will grumble a lot and will adapt to it as they always do. It's not like Ansible's YAML programming language is better, no?
> And lastly, I'm afraid when we invoke meaning in a stream of bytes, different groups with different interests will have different ontologies they want to enforce. We see these in format wars and internet working groups. I'm not sure we can easily agree what these data structures are, and how to evolve them. Maybe there's a good way and I just haven't seen it.
I also haven't seen it and I am sure most people don't as well but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Stuff like RDF were pretty good for describing many types of data, for example. And if somebody needs something drastically different, well, they shouldn't use that format.
---
IMO the author's point isn't that tomorrow we can have the one ultimate programming language and data format to rule them all -- of course not. Their point is that nobody is even trying. And we actually have a lot of low-hanging fruit, the "everything is a string on the shell" being one of the best examples.
When you start dealing with 500,000 files in one directory and you try to do a files->getname(10)->size->to_string(). You are bound to run out of physical memory. This is probably why newer operating systems are so slow. Caching will only save you for so long.
Also your example is weird and you won't run out of memory if you use generators.
If an operating system supports fundamentally different APIs, old code won't run. You can build an abstraction layer, but if the OS is different enough inside to be simpler, lighter, and higher performance running native apps, the abstraction layer would run code with awful performance and terrible reliability.
I think there's a market for an OS for systems that don't have a traditional MMU, getting rid of the TLB could save a lot of die area and make memory access more predictable. Smaller systems could live comfortably in a 24-bit address space, but 32-bits and no MMU would also be good.
I have dreamed about stripping down a Linux kernel and distro to the point where it has just a very simple root filesystem and everything is services offered through unix domain sockets (e.g. when you want to access files you use 9P in user space)
When I work it out I start realizing that you lose the benefits of the page cache, some IPC applications really take advantage of memory mapping, and pretty soon you're back to the "not-so-micro" microkernel.
So far as structured serialization, it's a tough nut.
Whenever it is tried, people tend to hate it. Back in the 1980s and 1990s people were obsessed with performance and made inscrutable systems like Sun's RPC and Microsoft's COM based on C. More recent systems are easier to understand, except for the notorious Protocol Buffers from Google. I love the idea of Apache Arrow but like all the others it has no real answer for text (e.g. variable length fields, unicode, etc.)
"Database as part of the OS" was common in mainframe operating systems (which have a filetype which looks like a single SQLlite table) and in minicomputer operating systems (Pick, AS/400) that have something like a relational and/or object db built in.
Running a single program from a single vendor for a single user?
You can do memory protection by having registers that limit memory access to a certain range. Segmentation isn't fashionable these days, but it could implement something just a bit better than that. System/360 had memory protection without an MMU.
Other options would be something like the Java virtual machine or Rust that let you statically check that code is safe.
The worst problem for MMU-less systems is memory fragmentation. This was a problem throughout much of the history of Classic MacOS. An MMU lets you "move" memory without the application knowing anything moved. Without an MMU you either have to live with fragmentation or have some kind of moving garbage collector (possibly quite coarse-grained)
Other advantages of MMU are paging (less popular these days, not viable for real-time) and being able to map the same pages into multiple address spaces.
It's like critiquing a master craftman's tools by observing how a master craftman uses his tools, and then critiquing how the apprentice uses those tools. Sure, some of that criticism of the concepts is valid, but they picked the worst implementation of those concepts to critique.
One of the things mentioned in the critique is how the filesystem in question communicates the changes back to the user, and how the user is expected to know what parts of the filesystem to alter. While in the examples given, it does seem relatively obscure, the decry the fact that they had to check the manual for the position to write to.
However, both of those would still be the case for the system that they talk about. Let's talk about object orientated systems, which already exist, in limited (compared to the operating system) forms. You still have to pick up a manual to figure out what keys and functions are relevant to you. In Pharo (which is more or less the system they're after!), you can inspect objects that exist and the methods that exist for them -- however -- often, similarily-named functions do different things, which also requires reading a manual. In addition, using these tools as a first-time user, I was overwhelmed by the number of functions available, most of which I could only guess at what their purpose was. Pharo integrates the manual into the system, but the manual is still there!
Standardized error codes are given in structures passed back (As in Erlang) or in Exceptions, but there are problems with those too. You still have to figure out what those exceptions or errors mean, and there isn't necessarily a standardized format for those errors. As a developer I've been recently been working on writing a Python api. As someone who has little experience with the intimate details of the Python language, I do not always know of the exceptions that exist that I am able to throw, I do not always know of which exceptions would be most appropriate. The same problem exists (obscure error values), but in a different form. There are existing libraries that I rely on that implement more exceptions, sometimes these aren't documented, and even with the venerable Requests library, I have still had to crack open the objects that exist to find easier methods of passing data that the Requests library has, and uses, but does not document for external use.
Let's look at the windows hive database. That's a database of keys for values in the operating system. As a random developer, would you be able to open it and figure out what it does? I wouldn't. As a windows power user I often relyied on articles from howtogeek without really fully understanding what the keys were doing (Although because of my experience an a systems developer, I could guess, but only after the fact). Again, the same problem ("I know what I want to do, but I do not know how to do it") is exposed in a different form, and the methods and practices of the Microsoft organization make that difficult hard to reach. Yet again, the same problems are there, but in a different form.
I do agree that the shell should handle program arguments, a program could expose keys and values and a shell could read that and tell the user about it. I would be interested to see the problems that the Oil shell encounter in their implementation of an object-orientated shell.
Oberon is on my todolist, Inferon is new for me.
> They say Plan9 is a step in the right direction, but rather than attacking a specific aspect of Plan9, they critique how the concepts were imported into Linux, which seems inherently silly to me.
Well, I've played with Plan9 several times, but I don't really feel like criticizing it, because I don't really know it that much. Only thing worth of criticizing is that it almost feels like objects, but not implemented fully.
I agree, that criticism of Plan9 would make more sense from philosophical point of view, but it wouldn't be authentic.
> However, both of those would still be the case for the system that they talk about. Let's talk about object orientated systems, which already exist, in limited (compared to the operating system) forms. You still have to pick up a manual to figure out what keys and functions are relevant to you. In Pharo (which is more or less the system they're after!), you can inspect objects that exist and the methods that exist for them -- however -- often, similarily-named functions do different things, which also requires reading a manual. In addition, using these tools as a first-time user, I was overwhelmed by the number of functions available, most of which I could only guess at what their purpose was. Pharo integrates the manual into the system, but the manual is still there!
Thats true, but you can also do a type-checking and infer a lot only from the proper naming of the objects and methods in the "Clean code" (book) style.
> Let's look at the windows hive database. That's a database of keys for values in the operating system. As a random developer, would you be able to open it and figure out what it does? I wouldn't.
One of the things that is not strongly captured in this article and which I since consider increasingly important is ability to use reflection on the system. Database that you can't open and figure out what it does is not worth using.
I wish sites wouldn't try annoying tricks like this.
Still, there appears to be a lot of conflation of concepts here, and I don't see anything approaching crystallization of a coherent solution.
What do I gain by telling the OS that I want a JPG rather than a sequence of bytes that I know is a JPG? I'm probably already using a library to deserialize this for me, unless I'm a masochist, so the heavy lifting has already been done. And that object/struct/whatever is going to be represented somewhat differently in memory for Java than for C++ than for Python. There is no way to reconcile those differences without creating even more problems. So a programming language would need to either be written or adopted to standardize on.
Most application-specific data is already stored in a database of some sort anyway, which is itself (potentially) platform agnostic. To assert that applications should instead rely on the OS and filesystem to provide this persistence layer is to assert that there is a universally appropriate choice of database -- a bold claim.
Moreover, if structure can (must?) be defined by the application which is interfacing with the OS, then nothing is gained but overhead. Every object would need a description of itself, so we either end up with redundant structural information for every file, or else we have some centralized table of "object types" that the OS has to look at every time we request something.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the appeal here. I understand the desire to reduce overhead, but as far as I can see, this just creates more.
Experienced people can often do non-trivial things in shell by combining a tools, regular expressions, and manually filtering out false positives. I.e. using grep foo | grep bar for that one email you are looking for.
But as a result things that need more structure require significant coding and create a sandbox that doesn't work well with other systems. Like say thunderbird (an email client).
Now imagine something different that has some higher level of abstraction. Maybe every file gets by default a list of functions to help the OS understand it. How about dump (raw byte encoding), list, add, view, delete, and search. Each file type supported by the OS would get those features, one of those might be jpeg. So of you created an address book, you'd define a record type called person, and a list of fields. One of those fields might even be a JPEG for a image of the person. In a GUI (like thunderbird) you'd just wrap a function called addressbook.insert much like just about every GUI platform has a file picker.
Ideally every application on this OS would make use of these function calls so every app that needed an addressbook could share the OS calls to interact with the addressbook. But also instead of being frustrated at thunderbird you could use your addressbook for new and different things. Like say a map viewer might put icons up for every home address in your addressbook. Or you could query you addressbook for the home address nearest you... from the command line.
Ideally this files are actually objects that include data and code. Said code could inherit based on primitives from the OS like records and fields. That would enable things like extending the addressbook to handle a new field like your keybase ID, PGP key, 3D representation of your face or whatever.
Similarly any image viewer, or even a pipeline using standard image tools could iterate over all your JPEGs and extract geo tags.
The object aware "find" replacement could access records/fields for all file types so you could find photos within a distance of a long/lat.
By combining the above with a relational database instead of a filesystem you could mix and match and create virtual folders for things like the top 1000 newest images on your "filesystem". Suddenly replacements awk, sed, wc, less, etc would understand email message metadata.
Or make a directory that contains the newest email messages you haven't replied to. Running ls --fields=From,To,Date,subject would give you a summary of email in a folder.
The code replication for understanding a file format, serialization, communication, etc would be greatly reduced and moved largely from the application space to the OS space and result in significantly increased compatibility between applications. Imagine instead of a zillion files under ~/.thunderbird that instead it was all in a database compatible with any email client that's supporting the new record/field standard.
Unix utilities sound like a great thing, because how universal they are. Want to find something in text? Just use grep, or maybe with regexp. But what this really say is "use a parser made from simple condition", or "create parser using single character pattern matching language". And ok, this would be fine, if it really worked, but it can't really handle the structure. It may be great for admin, who just wants to quickly find something, but it is horrible and broken by design for anyone who really want to make something more permanent. So you end up with writing better parser / using library. And you are not working with text anymore, but with typed graphs / trees. And this happens every single time you actually do something even slightly complicated with "just text".
Yes, creating a parser with grep isn't usually desired. But, "plain text" is quite useful. And, with JSON and sqlite3 in easy reach, I don't see the massive issue.
Please -- I would like examples where you had issues with doing something even slightly complicated with "just text", and had difficulty. I really want to examine this. Either the text toolkits are not adequate, or I will be convinced that I am wrong, and will investigate structured CLI and OS interfaces.
FredW
General purpose editing of structured data. Org-mode is the closest thing I know of but it is still infuriatingly ad-hoc and text-first.
Grepping (search in) and diff/patch of structured data. While many text manipulations are easy to implement in search/replace manner, structured data are more involved.
Errors and other kinds of unexpected input/output. Semantics of unix process failure are clear. State of the system after one process crashes is readily known. We can compare the filesystem before/after.
If we instead throw an exception in object-oriented runtime, the result is not so easy to analyze or compare, there may be dangling references or other complications. I don't know of any language runtime that can dump itself whole in (semi-)readable format for later comparisons.
However how would that help this common consumer scenario? I record a video using my camera (some unknown OS). It's stored on a SD Card as a list of bytes. I guess there is little to do about that. I either send the video to my Android phone over WiFi (my backup strategy when travelling, the camera is an AP) or I insert the SD Card into my computer. When the video is on the phone I syncthing it to my computer, so it always ends up there. Then I could process it or not, send it to friends using several different OSes or upload it to YouTube. Friends could receive the video over Google Driver or via a https link to a server of mine.
A video file definitely has some internal structure, mandated by standards and it must be interoperable across OSes. Maybe a list of byte is all we need here. Probably most YAML files must be cross OS (definitely docker, also ansible). The list of bytes is the minimum common denominator for all OSes so I guess it's here to stay.
Parsing commands should be the responsibility of the shell and all the program should do is check for the existence of flags and values.
bash: keytool -list -keystore keystore.p12
customshell: keytool --list --keystore=keystore.p12
One could convert the above into this JSON Object (or any other format):
["keytool", {"flag": "list"}, {"flag":"keystore", "value":"keystore.p12"}]
I would love to see more consistency in command line parsing, and I think argument splitting has helped add consistency for Unix-likes compared to Windows, but going further has some major challenges:
getopt(3) parsing currently depends on the accepted options. For example, the parsing of `command --option value` depends on whether --option requires an argument. Similarly for `command -cmyfile` which depends on whether -c requires an argument (or -m if -c doesn't, etc.).
For argument, lets say the shell implements the One True CLI Option Syntax™ and passes the parse result to programs. What are the big advantages over the status quo? A stronger encouragement for consistency than getopt(3)? Slightly less work for new option parsing libraries? Unfortunately, most of the code for option handling, which parses and/or validates options and option arguments, prints errors, prints --help, etc. would likely remain largely unchanged.
However, in the same vein, one area that I would love to see more standardization (although probably not at the OS level) is a more expressive way to declare supported options and arguments. There is all sorts of information beyond `struct getopt_long *` which would be useful for parsing/validation, documentation (--help and man pages), and shell autocompletion that is currently ad-hoc.
Are your in-memory formatted structures. Even better, there are libraries in many languages for accessing them. As such you can consider the data almost as an ffi between languages. Metadata can also be attached to the arrow data.
As far as the rest goes, A2/bluebottle defines that standard program unit similar to COM etc, ot has an object shell similar to Oberon or powershell, so looks to be pretty much what the author is looking for.
Having said that, I'd prefer an OS with managed memory but no GC as per Composita.
I'm not sure this situation (devs and admins disagreeing) will ever go away. Is there some future where our opinions will converge?
Anyway, system administrators, outside of BOFH types, and developers generally aren't at odds with each other.
i want to note that Inferno, the other OS that came from Bell-Labs in the 90s did have a typed shell called alphabet:
http://www.vitanuova.com/inferno/man/1/sh-alphabet.html
mayhaps you'll find this interesting.
I wonder if we're past the point of return, though, in terms of technical divergence. It sounds like, in the Ancient Times, there was a handful of great programmers whose work created the world we program in now. But now, there's way more programmers being paid to make slightly different versions of this "next step", and it would require widespread agreement/coordination to implement it on a scale where it's a seamless feature that's taken for granted the way the shell/network/fs are.
This need not be at O/S level though. It can be a bunch of standards, like HTML, and each O/S could provide the appropriate implementations.
And the data format does not need a particular schema, it just needs a structural description.
The same format could be used to describe schemas.
If you need a database, why not just use a database? Why force the solution on the file system?
Microsoft had WinFS 20 years ago that's exactly what you ask for but it never caught on because the complexity in the kernel wasn't worth it.
I started this project several years ago to support live code updates in production systems without sacrificing performance, but I eventually hit the same issues with exchanging structured data: https://github.com/Morgan-Stanley/hobbes
I split out structured logging into a single header-only lib, structured RPC into a single header-only lib, etc. It's not quite the same as having native support in the OS, but because the mechanism is so lightweight (don't even need to link anything special), it's a pretty good substitute.
People love to praise "everything is a file", but the other side of the medal is "every piece of configuration is a byte array".
For nearly every problem encountered here there's a standard people just ignore. You can implement structured logging at OS level, like Windows does, and see random binary data drops and text files appear all over your logging interface and your file system. Linux config should follow the XDG standard so that configuration for applications can be structured into directories except half the programs don't do that. Windows provides an API for this stuff (the registry) and it's near impossible to configure an application using the registry. The registry is also combined with random config files all over the system, of course, to make it extra difficult to modify a program's behaviour.
Most nice modern features are also missing because operating systems are still being made in C, not C++. The OS doesn't have a concept of objects so yes your socket function will have to fall back to calling select(). A lot of these abstractions for basic communications have been solved on Linux using DBUS, which provides a somewhat standardised interface for many OS daemon and GUI features, all not being used because programmers forget that it exists or because programmers want to use their own solution instead.
On Windows there's COM to try and help with that and well, see where that ended up: a versioned mess of pointers and factories to try to make it easier for everyone, where functionality sometimes completely breaks or needs to be emulated because it turned out the high level concept had a design flaw and now programs won't work if you fix it.
I've done some thought experiments about structuring an OS and a file system to store data consistently and easily parsable, with modern bindings for most concepts. In the end I've had to conclude that the only way to keep the system working like intended would be to either convince everyone to do exactly as I say or to only allow me to write software for such a system. Whatever structure I can think off will inevitably be too constrained for someone else and the middleware abstraction problem starts all over again.
My only conclusion is that I want the OS to be as simple as possible with people following common standards when they write applications, such as using YAML/ini/XML configuration with Syslogd logging and XDG directory structures for user data, with the technical abstractions left at the library level. If we can just get that, most of the inconsistency problem would be solved, but even this is too difficult to do in practice as it turns out.
This reminds me of Bluetooth with it's billions of different profiles. Want to send FLAC or opus audio streams over Bluetooth? Tough luck, you better use the blessed profiles or make your own proprietary implementation (aptX).
the primary way of exchanging access is handles. Opening a file is obtaining a handle, which represents both the file and the driver/type behind it.
The file handle has some functions associated with it; write, read, flush, close. You can pass the handle to other processes, either cloned (RO or RW) or as ownership (loosing access to it entirely).
A printer has a different handle and different functions.
Programs can be the source of handles, so you can write a program that wraps a file behind a different set of primitives. Or that wraps the raw printer network socket and allows passing a PDF file handle into a function to print the PDF.
And if the printer goes away, the printer wrapper is notified that it's gone away, so it can queue up any prints. Or exit and notify everyone owning a PDF printer handle that the handle is now invalid.
Device files like on Linux wouldn't exist, you only need handles to operate on devices and you abstract over those, if you need it, you can abstract the filetree handle to provide a simulation of the /dev/lp0 file in it.
The filesystem would be a database, split into various tables ("default-configuration", "system-configuration", "user-configuration", "user-homes", "executables", etc.) with some tables merged into a view ("configuration"), so you can completely forget about where a config file is. Files themselves can either be formatted as a table themselves (key-value, json/nested data, etc.) or used as text or binary files. Of course a program can choose to use the FS transactionally, including SERIALIZABLE for your backup programs, that need a very consistent view of the FS.
Every interface would be malleable, a program with higher privilege can override it and change it for programs of lower privilege. Chroot becomes as simple as prepending the chroot path onto access to the filesystem functions. Going down the scheduler itself being runtime modifiable so a user can swap to a different scheduler at runtime or define a scheduler for a specific subset of programs.
If everything can be used, manipulated and introspected freely, then the programmer will have to do minimal work. Why use JSON configs when there is a perfectly good database system shipped with the OS? Why bother with logging when there is an interface for the system logger that supports structured logging and can ship logs to anywhere you want in any format at any detail level?
Sadly, some of these ideas aren't very efficient or hard to implement. But luckily not impossible. Just not wanted by the greybeards of the industry.
Guess what, they were abandoned. I don't know, maybe they were not flexible enough?
Does the OP suffer from not invented here? Most of the file formats he describes have free (at least to use) libraries available.
Even for sockets there are countless message passing solutions. He just need to research a bit and pick one.
But there is a valid point about data ownership. A lot of current privacy issues and political problems are created by the way that applications own your data. If I want to access a Photoshop file ten years from now, chances are good I'm going to be paying Adobe a fee to do it - likely in the form of a subscription.
This is crippling, because it means Adobe (MS, Apple, Amazon, etc, etc) have a choke point over my own personal access to my work.
Of course I can export documents to some other format, but in principle what I can and can't do with my work is controlled by big corporations.
Open source alternatives don't fix this, because outside of developer tool space they're usually poor competitors and never have the leverage - nor the quality - to become an industry standard.
At some point this data siloing became a "personal" computing principle, which is unfortunate because it undermines the idea of a computer as a personal tool.
OS schematising wouldn't really change this. But forcing open access to the internal file structures used by large corporate applications would be a game changer, because it would allow shell-like automation and composition of data that is currently trapped behind corporate paywalls with either no low-level access at all, or high-friction save/load only import/export features.
= Everything as text - There's a fundamental problem with turning and treating everything as text: N programs having to know M parsing formats. Structured data that is readily usable without de/serializing would be an improvement.
- Logging - logging is broken because of the previous point, because log entries are streams of events poorly serialized to text files, log rotation and loss of structured data.
- Processes - Processes should be pause-able to disk, migrate-able to other systems (as long as I/O and files can be migrated)
- Indexing - there ought to be a tunable Spotlight-like system that doesn't need to constantly reindex because it indexes everything that was changed using file notifications in the background during idle (not on battery)
- Caching - there ought to be a central web cache on a computer that all web browsers and web operations can share
- Hypercard - we need more of this
- Introspection - the system, processes and every variable should be profile-able, inspectable and queryable
- Databases / files - there really shouldn't be any files or database, every program should be able to offer data types and format transformation services that the OS can use to add new functionality to all other programs and services. The notion of a file should be containers of user data that programs can use directly. IOW, a programming language should have a NoSQL/SQL-like query language built-in so there's no need for ORMs... the OS should handle how best to store and index data with the storage allocated.
- Typed memory / VM - it would be much easier to accomplish all of the above if the OS were a lightweight system similar to Erlang BEAM, Pony, LLVM runtime features.
- Kernel security, isolation and performance - something like seL4 but with additional transactional (N > 3)-process support to be able to make a bunch of changes, validate state and commit/rollback on failure.
- Fragmentation - the problem with systems like Linux that are developed as zillions of piece-meal, semi-interchangeable parts that duplicate functionality and have many options are the mess and confusion of trying to integrate them. The BSD's have it right in terms of base system development.
- Complexity - Look at how much stuff is cram-packed into the Linux kernel or OpenSSL.
- Churn - Deprecating and changing APIs creates incompatibilities. An OS should pick one set of APIs for all time and make it very difficult to change them. Heck, every OS should have the same API and same VM opcode format so that there's never again an obsolete or incompatible program. There's no point to re-inventing the same thing over and over and over that doesn't work with anything else that came before.
The whole point of that is simply emulating what the program is expecting to such an extent that it can run as if it was running on a normal file system. Often that means working around many broken assumptions. For example it might expect some configuration in a particular place in the filesystem. However, since the filesystem is immutable, you can't really modify that after you build the docker container. So you work around it by e.g. using dockerize to template the config file and then inject the actual configuration from the environment variables on the docker command line. Likewise, applications produce logs but writing those to an ephemeral file system is kind of pointless; so you instead write to stderr/stdout and leave it to the host OS, Docker, Kubernetes, or whatever is running your container.
These workarounds are something to avoid if you are writing new software. When you ship as a Docker container, you don't care about the host OS. It might be Linux, BSD, Mac, Windows, or whatever else is capable of running docker containers these days. Chances are that the host OS itself is also running in some VM if you are shipping to a cloud environment. The nice thing with Docker is that you (mostly) don't have to care about any of that.
With WASM this is extending to other places. People are running edge computing functions in WASM form, running WASM programs in a browser, or even in operating system kernels. Most of those places don't necessarily even have filesystems, environment variables, or log files that you can access (or should access).
IMHO modern development requires a bit of upfront thinking on how to configure things, where to send logs, and where to store data. Rarely is the answer for any of those things a file on an (ephemeral) disk. Logs need to be aggregated so they can be analyzed. Local storage is not always available/reliable. Configuration gets injected rather than loaded from a file. Files/state gets written to some specialized service (a networked file bucket, some DB, a queue, REST service, etc.). Most of those things are accessed via networking rather than a file system.
This is also true of most frontend development these days. A browser application does not have a filesystem; it has no access to environment variables; and while it has a console, it's considered bad form to actually log to it in production apps. Instead browser apps write to remote services (including logging and analytics data) and get their configuration from things like cookies, in browser databases, and remotely stored user preferences.
Come to think of it, most modern development is kind of detached from the operating system these days.