What would be a truly relational operating system ?

From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 04:19:30 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <57bca595-1711-4dae-9391-4e8c42162c59_at_v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>

The current hypes about operating systems (Windows, Unix, Mac OS Linux) gave to think about how RM main principles could be implemented to extend the possibility of having a TRDBMS being implemented at a lower physical layer (I mean on current disks, RAM, and CPU architectures). That said, I am curious onto which prerequisites should be respected on a lower level to respect independence between the data layer and the physical layer when thinking of an operating systel that would manage the relationship between thethe two layers. I came up with the following ideas I would glad to exchange upon:

> The operating system should be IO relation-aware (for a lack of a better word) meaning that it should implement a physical storage mechanism that minimizes the number of logical operations required to represent a in memory relation and relation operation logical .
> The operating system should not be a direct image system, meaning that all information(files, file groups) should only be a result of a logical relation operation at runtime. As a consequence, the information can not be physically stored on an as-is basis. In other words, a traditional file would be a relation that would not exists before user interpretates it.
> The mechanism by which a file would be represented at runtime would be as a particular case of presentation of a relation, the same way an RTable could be one presentation.

Here are few ideas that came up but it brings other questions:
> Can current CPU architectures, RAM and disks adressing schemes sustain such model.
> What would be benefits ? The threats ?

Regards... Received on Mon Nov 09 2009 - 13:19:30 CET

Original text of this message