Slashdot Mirror
Operating Systems of the Future
An anonymous reader writes: "'Imagine computers in a group providing disk storage for their users, transparently swapping files and optimizing their collective performance, all with no central administration.' Computerworld is predicting that over the next 10 years, operating systems will become highly distributed and 'self-healing,' and they'll collaborate with applications, making application programmers' jobs easier."
Tanenbaums Amoeba is way ahead of the game then.
Grumble, grumble...
Farsite
Butler Lampson, for papers on Byzantine reliability, mostly based on the work of
Leslie Lamport
http://www.computerworld.com/computerworld/records /images/story/Farsite.gif
Was it just me or does the notion of a "Centralized file server" NOT sound like distributed computing to you?
Not being in possesion of any moderator points I am forced to respond to your comment....
If you were to have read the caption on the image, you would see that it says Logically: a centralized file server, but then it goes on to say Physically distributed among clients.
When I want your opinion I will beat it out of you.
That's why it's research. I've met and talked to Bill Bolosky (Farsite project lead); he's very clueful wrt scalability in general, and well aware of the problems that networks like Gnutella (an unusually naive protocol, BTW) have run into. However, like the folks working on OceanStore or CFS or many other projects, the Farsite folks have a fairly formidable arsenal of innovative techniques they can apply to the problem. The details are still being worked out, of course, because that's what research is all about, but the people working in this area do seem to be making real progress toward solutions that could scale to such levels.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
The first statement above makes perfect sense if you consider the second as axiomatic. However, the people working on these types of systems don't accept that axiom. Instead, they believe that cryptography-based security is just as strong as physical security...the odds that someone will factor a couple of hundred-digit numbers (or accomplish some equally difficult mathematical feat) are no higher than that they'll break into your home/office and steal your hardware. If they're right then there should be no problem with storing your files on some Iowa farmhand's computer (so long as you also have other replicas elsewhere for availability purposes), because Iowa Farmboy still can't access or modify your data without the right keys.
That's a big "if" you say. Well, yes it is. But if you want to make an argument that hardware security is the only real security, you'll need to show that cryptographically based systems aren't as secure as skilled and experienced implementors of such systems seem to think. Good luck.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
Eros components arent just small and work exactly as documented like your assembly example- that would be enough if every programmer were an anal retentive computer scientist maybe.
in eros everything is orthogonally persistant meaning that every object, without doing anything on its own, has it's state saved by the system.
the other neat feature that makes it more reliable even in the face of bad application level code is that instead of access list based security ala unix, there are fine grained permissions called capabilites that govern what any object may do to any other.
these features coupled with transparent distribution could guarantee that even if the terminal in front of you is struck by lightning you'll be able to move to the nearest working one and pick up *exactly* where you left off!
check it out- there are a lot of kewl os level ideas that could make life better if adopted by more mainstream oses.