Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Phantom OS, the 21st Century OS?

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the more-ways-to-shoot-your-foot dept.

553

jonr writes "Phantom OS doesn't have files. Well, there are no files in the sense that a developer opens a file handle, writes to it, and closes the file handle. From the user's perspective, things still look familiar — a desktop, directories, and file icons. But a file in Phantom is simply an object whose state is persisted. You don't have to explicitly open it. As long as your program has some kind of reference to that object, all you need to do is call methods on it, and the data is there as you would expect."

cancel ×

553 comments

Doubt it. (5, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758017)

Yes, yes, very interesting.

Is it volatile? If it is, then no thanks. If it isn't then it must be written to disk, in which case it's simply a regular file with a spiffy interface. Does that interface take up memory? How does it handle locking conflicts? How does it handle paging?

FTFA it's more like a virtualization system that takes constant snapshots of the system states, and reverts to them if there is a power loss or a shutdown or whatever. Fine. Cool.

But TFA skips over (in true Register style) any possible downsides to that. I'm a typical geek. I have 20 things running at any given time. Over time, with a traditional software system, there are enough page faults that when I roll back around to something I opened yesterday, the performance is extremely slow while all the states are being loaded back into active memory (and the states of something I'll need in 5 more hours are being written to disk).

If I'm persisting my whole filesystem in that fashion, there are quickly going to be issues. If I'm not, then there is some bullshit in there somewhere. They may have a fancy file allocation table, they may have some fancy I/O tricks, but their stated abilities are frankly contradictory, because the state is not being maintained, it is simply being preserved, and the difference is only subtle linguistically.

In short, the Phantom OS sounds more like the Phantom game console than anything I'd want to run on my computer.

Re:Doubt it. (2, Funny)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758141)

Also, how they send something via e-mail? Is FedEx involved in process?

Re:Doubt it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26758537)

Since it is a Russian OS, I'd guess they they'd use their army of bots to send email.

The Extension To Common Lisp With Persistence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26758145)

AP5 [ap5.com]

Re:Doubt it. (4, Informative)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758161)

Frankly you are thinking like an old operating system.

How does it handle locking conflicts? Well, think about it, how do you handle locking conflicts in your program? That is your answer.

The idea from this Phantom OS is that you don't need to think about "paging", or "locking conflicts" etc. You only need to think about your objects that are serialized to the system. Contention? Well create a server process. Think Erlang...

Here is I think his link...

http://www.dz.ru/en/solutions/phantom/ [www.dz.ru]

Re:Doubt it. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26758343)

How does it handle locking conflicts? Well, think about it, how do you handle locking conflicts in your program? That is your answer.

You try, fail, and your program crashes.

At least, that's how most programmers handle anything to do with locking.

Re:Doubt it. (2, Informative)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758521)

You say that as if you have some better idea. What exactly can you do if you are regular unprivilaged process. You try, you fail, ideally sleep your I/O thread for a little while and then try again. That is all you can do; after some number of revolutions you might as well abort and tell the user sorry.

Re:Doubt it. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26758713)

While this is both amusing and true, the operating system is far worse placed to manage these locks than the application.

Re:Doubt it. (5, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758441)

I still don't buy it. They're throwing an abstraction layer on top of a regular system and calling it something different, but all the underlying structures are the same.

Except they're not because you're basically forbidden direct access to any system resources! Any gains that you would traditionally expect to be able to make through use of C or assembly are right out the window, and that is acknowledged right up front.

Hardware abstraction is going to have a cost. All virtualization has a cost, and I'm not sure that this is the way to handle the problem. It seems more like a pipe dream than a practical application.

Sounds lucrative.. (4, Insightful)

mr_stinky_britches (926212) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758221)

Sounds lucrative.. not!

At first, when I read the OP's post, I thought he was being harsh. Then I actually read TFA, and here are some highlights:

Q: Is Phantom a POSIX-compliant system?
A: No. It is possible to layer POSIX subsystem above the Phantom native environment, but it is not an idea per se.

Q: OS is based on VM â" does it mean that not all the possible programming languages will be supported?
A: Yes. Say goodbye to C and Assembler. On the other side, everything is in Java or C# now, or even in some even more dynamic language, such as Javascript or even PHP. All these languages will be supported.

Then it also has a special ASM language called "Phantasm". Looking over the example code, the question "Why?" kept flashing in my brain.

Ah, then we come to Why a new os? [www.dz.ru] :

The most obvious questions: why new operating system? Isnâ(TM)t Linux enough? Of course, Linux is not enough. Being a clone of Unix, Linux conceptually is a dinosaur. Donâ(TM)t be happy, Windows guys, Windows is not really far away. Lets see, what is wrong with todayâ(TM)s popular operating systems.
    >> OO-Friendly? No!
    >> Network friendly? No!
    >> Simple? No.
    >> Communication friendly? No!
    >> Future friendly? No!

Okay, so according to the guy who created it, OS's should be simple, oo-friendly (my mom always says "Hey, stinky, why isn't my computer more object oriented?" (wtf?no), and future friendly? The guy must be just another cracked out developer..

Thanks but no.

Read About Face... (4, Interesting)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758381)

About face is a very old book written by Alan Cooper. And in the book he was very critical of things that have been completely ignored by the computing mainstream.

One of the things he critiques is the notion of files that need to read and written. That is not how people expect things to happen.

I actually think this guy is not a crackpot, but understands completely what is going on. What I think bothers people is that he is not following current dogma.

Having the OS as a virtual machine sounds very attractive because as we all know now, the virtual machine can do things that C, C++, assembler cannot.

For example with a virtual machine you have all of the metadata that you need to serialize, and transport data. With C, C++, and assembler you must explicitly say I have four bytes that need to go to point a. A big big difference in my mind.

We are already writing this code today, and it is called ORM, persistance frameworks, etc... He is just saying why not make this an operating that is part of the operating system?

Re:Read About Face... (4, Insightful)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758667)

Biggest problem I see with this, is the whole persistent process thing. There have been similar things tried in the past, for instance PalmOS had a behavior very similar to this, but it tends to be more trouble than it's worth. There's also a very good reason why we use files in some instances, such as for storing documents that parallel physical ones (that is, most things that come out of Office type products). A file represents a very convenient discrete packet of information separate from the application that produced it, and that is easily transferable, archiveable, and processable, without adding the overhead of bundling a particular instance of an application along with it. Other problems this introduces include how to handle a crashed program, or one that has managed to get itself into an inoperable state. How difficult is it to "rollback" a process to an initial state, particularly without doing the same to every other process in the system. Does doing so wipe out your configuration options? What if those options are the reason the process isn't working?

For an embedded device in certain specialized environments this sort of thing might work very well, but it's certainly not a good idea as a primary OS in your typical desktop or work environment.

Re:Read About Face... (5, Interesting)

mabinogi (74033) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758727)

The only real problem with this guy's concept is that he's effectively going to rewrite the concept of a Smalltalk Image in Java.

If you read his FAQ, every point can be answered by Smalltalk. (And could be 30 years ago).
Unfortunately I have a feeling he's never seen Smalltalk, so he's going to re-implement it poorly.

It's just a game of names (5, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758325)

From what I read, these "objects" are nothing but a fancy new name for files. For instance, if you are writing a program in Python you don't save a file, you pickle an object. Oh, wait, that's exactly what Python is able to do right now, in any OS that implements Python! Doh....

FTFA:

does it mean that not all the possible programming languages will be supported?
A: Yes. Say goodbye to C and Assembler. On the other side, everything is in Java or C# now, or even in some even more dynamic language, such as Javascript or even PHP. All these languages will be supported.

Think of that: you cannot program in C, but you can write programs in PHP or Javascript. How cute! I suppose it supports Logo, right?

the idea's worked in practice before (5, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758637)

IBM also took the approach of ditching files, and just having persistence of objects (which yes, presumably somewhere in the bowels of the OS got written to disk). It was efficient enough to run on 1980s hardware, so I don't see a reason it couldn't be done today.

From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :

In most computers prior to the System/38, and most modern ones, data stored on disk was stored in separate logical files. When data was added to a file it was written in the sector dedicated to this, or if the sector was full, on a new sector somewhere else. In the case of the S/38, every piece of data was stored separately and could be put anywhere on the system. There was no such thing as a physically contiguous file on disk, and the operating system managed the storage and recall of all data elements.

Great (1)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758023)

I can't wait to handle the consistently changing data in my DB applications.

Hmm... (2, Interesting)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758033)

Two questions:

  • Is it self-hosting yet?
  • How is it licenced?

Re:Hmm... (2, Funny)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758453)

You probably have "phantom" ownership of the OS so I would assume you can just get a license. ;)

phantom comments as well... (-1, Troll)

ZERO1ZERO (948669) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758055)

Frist post0r.

Opera of the phantom (5, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758057)

I skipped the Register article and went to the Phantom site, and I'm still puzzled. Somehow I get the idea that somebody's trying to snow somebody.

Q: [does phantom have] separate address spaces?

A: No. No! At this point you thought to yourself something like "than Phantom can not protect one application from another", and were wrong. Phantom is one big address space. But, nevertheless, everything inside is protected. Protection is based on a simple idea. Phantom is a big virtual machine. And this VM has no means to convert integer to pointer - due to this it is impossible to scan through address space and gain access to anything you have no pointer to. That's simple. And - yes, due to the absence of separate address spaces IPCs are really cheap in Phantom. And there are no context switches, which add effectiveness to the system. One can argue that VM makes system run slowly, but nowadays this problem is solved with effective JIT compilers, so we don't expect real degradation due to the VM. Moreover, the result of JIT compilation can be stored so usual Java-like startup penalty won't exist in Phantom either.

Memory in all computers is mapped to address space. I get the idea that these guys are programmers who don't really understand how the hardware works.

Q: File system?
A: Nope. Sorry. Nobody needs files in Phantom. All the operating system state is saved across shutdowns. Phantom is the only global persistent OS in the world, AFAIK. All the state of all the objects is saved. Even power failure is not a problem, because of the unique Phantom's ability to store frequently its complete state on the disk. The most unusual Phantom property is its hybrid paging/persistence system. All the userland memory is mapped to disk and is frequently snapped. Snapshot logic is tied with the common paging logis so that snapshots are done cheap way. From the application point of view it means that all the user documents or any other program state doesn't have to be squished into the linear filespace with the help of the serialization code, as it is in classic operating systems. Anything is kept in its internal, "graph of objects" form. This means that Phantom programs are much simpler and more efficient also. Opening text document in classic OS means reading file (transferring its data to specific place in process memory) and then converting its contents to program internal form (decoding and once more moving data), and just then - showing it to a user. Opening text document in Phantom means just executing some object's printMe() method - all the data is ready and available directly without conversion.

Nobody needs files? How, exactly, can I retrieve a document then? This FA is damned short on details.

Q: OS is based on VM - does it mean that not all the possible programming languages will be supported?

A: Yes. Say goodbye to C and Assembler. On the other side, everything is in Java or C# now, or even in some even more dynamic language, such as Javascript or even PHP. All these languages will be supported.

I really don't think I'm interested in this OS. TFA didn't point to a single thing about it that would lead me to want it, except for the state saving on shutdown, and I doubt seriously that's going to work. If your data are in memory and not the hard drive when it quits, you'll lose your data. If data are all written instantly to the HD, your PC will be slower than molasses in january.

It's appropriately named (4, Insightful)

halivar (535827) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758181)

M'thinks it shares much in common with its gaming namesake, the Phantom Console.

Not that much simpler... (4, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758215)

Anything is kept in its internal, "graph of objects" form. This means that Phantom programs are much simpler and more efficient also.

In many languages, you can easily serialize objects or trees of objects. I'm not sure how this differs much in the Phantom OS except that it is choosing when to serialize out to disc for you, but I don't really see that as being much simpler.

What happens when a Phantom user runs out of disc space? What if they attach an eternal disc and want some things there, or in both places for safe-keeping? All of the sudden you find you need something that looks and awful lot like Finder or Explorer to manage graph persistence locations...

And what happens when you have one file, er, object you may want to open with multiple apps? It didn't seem from the description like it would attach a single object to multiple app object graphs, just that it had easy IPC. So what happens when I want to open a JPG in my photo management app and then Photoshop?

Re:Opera of the phantom (4, Interesting)

OG (15008) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758267)

Nobody needs files? How, exactly, can I retrieve a document then? This FA is damned short on details.

I think he's talking about programmer-land, not user-land here. Sure, users can do File->Open and see the documents they've created. As a programmer, though, you don't need to worry about creating a handle to a file, populating that file, closing the file, etc. Instead, you would just create a new object of whatever document class you need. Because EVERY object on the system is automatically persisted, your document objects are automatically persisted and you don't have to worry about file i/o, autosave, etc. It's built into the OS for all objects.

I think there are many interesting ideas behind this OS, but from an actual usability perspective, I'll believe it when I see it.

Re:Opera of the phantom (3, Insightful)

Rary (566291) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758411)

I think he's talking about programmer-land, not user-land here.

That's the problem. Everything about this appears to be designed for developers, not users. There's absolutely nothing that indicates anything that would make a user want to use this OS.

So, basically, if you're a developer, and want an OS that makes it cool, easy, and fun to develop applications that no one will use, then this is for you.

Re:Opera of the phantom (5, Insightful)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758669)

So there's something wrong with a dude scratching an itch and having a little fun with it? There was a time when Linux was a niche system that had no real purpose aside from the fun of making it. That seems to have worked out well.

In any case, there are interesting concepts in here that deserved to be explored, and the best way to explore programming concepts is the program them.

Re:Opera of the phantom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26758771)

"So, basically, if you're a developer, and want an OS that makes it cool, easy, and fun to develop applications that no one will use, then this is for you."

So, this is the new Amiga?

Re:Opera of the phantom (1)

mabinogi (74033) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758789)

Users aren't the target market of any operating system.
The point of an operating system is to provide a convienient programming environment to make a computer do stuff. It's the kernel plus a set of APIs and frameworks.

The parts a user care about are the programs written on top of that operating system.

So when introducing a concept for a new operating system, it makes no sense to hype it up to users until you have the developers on side. In fact, it never makes sense to hype it up to users, save the hype for the flashy user interface that one of the developers will have to write.

Re:Opera of the phantom (3, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758275)

Yea, I'm there with you. Power failures are a problem for one reason and one reason alone: RAM I/O is faster than disk I/O. If disk I/O was faster, we wouldn't even need RAM...RAM would be useless because it has a huge disadvantage: its volatility.

Now Phantom wipes that problem out by "...storing its complete state on disk". Either this is bullshit, or this OS will have serious performance issues.

Then, then it starts talking about C vs Java. WTF is that about? Regardless of how cool the OS' underpinings are, you could write C for it with an OS-specific compiler. That's no different from the output of Java's intermediate compiler.

It's not like Java is outputting some sort of magical instructions that are different from the output of compiled C. The difference is that C doesn't abstract the hardware layer in the user code like Java does, and that Java is compiled to be interpreted on the fly by an intermediate virtual runtime environment. Get right down to the hardware and there isn't a lot of difference.

I'd want to see some real specifics that they could deliver anything resembling what they're promising, and frankly, I think that'll never happen.

Re:Opera of the phantom (3, Insightful)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758293)

>Memory in all computers is mapped to address space. I get the idea that these guys are programmers who don't really understand how the hardware works.

No I think they know what they are talking about. Instead what they are saying is that if you look at the VM concept (eg .NET with AppDomains) you can run everything into a single address space.

Of course underneath there is an address space, but remember that each process has its own address space that the CPU has to maintain. There is quite a bit of legwork that the CPU does that he thinks is probably not necessary.

>Nobody needs files? How, exactly, can I retrieve a document then? This FA is damned short on details.

Have you read About Face from Alan Cooper? He explains in that the concept of a file is horrible from a user perspective. Files are added as a concept because it is a hack and makes it easier for the programmer. A user in fact does not want to have say, "oh I have to save this?"

Thus the idea is that you have an entity that you can manipulate. And whatever changes you make are immediately persisted. This is what users expect.

>I really don't think I'm interested in this OS.

I am extremely interested in this OS because he is simplifying things. Remember one thing that we learned with Jit'ing is that "slower" apps can actually be very fast. C++ is not the fastest game in town. And that should make us all think.

Re:Opera of the phantom (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758535)

That's simple. And - yes, due to the absence of separate address spaces IPCs are really cheap in Phantom

Just like Windows 3.1. Separate address spaces are a good thing, for process security. This is a bit like Apache running all virtual hosts under the same user account, everyone can trash all over any other user's space, unless protected from doing so in some way. Unfortunately, there's always a way round it - especially if you're allowing IPC to take place in a fast and cheap manner.

I think he's simplified things... back to an 80s OS.

As for files being memory mapped to disk storage, that's not that big a deal given that all modern OSs can do this. That they don't is just custom; that and the fact that you don't want to write to disk continually 'cos that'll kill performance in a huge way.

Still, I hope there are good ideas in there that do bubble up, maybe they will be incorporated into mainstream OS design.

PS. JIT can be faster that natively optimised code - but only in benchmarks.

Re:Opera of the phantom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26758681)

It is protected in some way -- by running in a VM. Erlang has multiple threads running in the same address space without protection and is rock solid.

agreed: persistence, not files (4, Insightful)

dazedNconfuzed (154242) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758551)

I'm inclined to agree.

Linux is, indeed, based on what is now a very old paradigm - approaching half a century. Concepts have advanced since, and much of what we do is just to retain that backwards compatability.

Windows, is, well, Windows. This being /., no more be said of that.

Grokking object-oriented programming, and users' mindsets as well, I agree that it would be worth at least examining the concept of a "file-less OS", one that simply keeps a live OO system persistent. I'd like to write software knowing that when an object is instantiated, it persists until explicitly deleted - without having to awkwardly save state to something as non-orthoganal as a file. I want to be able to manipulate & transport objects as such, not as files. Obviously the prime issues are performance (storage vs. RAM consistency) and recovering from shutdown; resolving these is simply a geeky engineering challenge, not an impossibility. The concept of "files" is archaic. Storing/transferring what we call a "file" would be better served by persistence & portability of objects.

A prime example is the notion of "restarting" a computer. Why, these days, should a computer startup time be so long? it should simply resume, but more robustly than "sleep" or "hibernate" - restoring the state of objects as they were, not restarting from practically scratch every time.

Could be that the OS ultimately does store data as "files", but that is an implementation abstraction, not a core of the paradigm. Users do not intuitively think of "files", and programmers should not force them to due to ancient rock-and-chisel backwards compatability.

"Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it."
- Chinese proverb

Re:Opera of the phantom (1)

inviolet (797804) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758621)

Have you read About Face from Alan Cooper? He explains in that the concept of a file is horrible from a user perspective. Files are added as a concept because it is a hack and makes it easier for the programmer. A user in fact does not want to have say, "oh I have to save this?"

We saw a similar paradigm-shift when we went from landlines to cellphones. The process of dialing a number went from instant-persistent (touch-tones that the exchange listened to as you typed) to a compose-save process (enter number then hit 'send'). Humans are obviously capable of understanding both paradigms and they both have benefits and costs.

I for example love being able to mess with a file in a memory buffer, save it when I see fit, make further adjustments, discard them and reload, and so forth. Sure, I usually always commit to disk, in fact my left hand hits Alt+Z to save almost automatically... except when I don't. Same with landlines and cellphones -- I don't always hit 'send' after typing in a number, and there is very little mental CPU load expended in remembering whether or not I have or should.

Re:Opera of the phantom (4, Informative)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758743)

Have you read About Face from Alan Cooper? He explains in that the concept of a file is horrible from a user perspective. Files are added as a concept because it is a hack and makes it easier for the programmer. A user in fact does not want to have say, "oh I have to save this?"

Heard of this idea, and disagree completely with it.

Continous autosave isn't a technically difficult problem. It could be implemented quite easily. But it would take one minor inconvenience, and replace it with several more difficult ones.

Ok, so you don't have to save anymore. Great. But now you have to deal with that you went to make tea, and your document now has your cat walking on the keyboard saved in it. You can't simply choose not to save, you have to figure out how many changes to undo to get the document to its pre-cat state. How many times do you have to press the undo button?

Same goes for extensive modificatons. Maybe you decided to drastically reformat the document, but then decide the idea doesn't look good after all. You can't choose not to save, you've either got to undo 50 times, or have created a copy before starting making the changes.

Here's another issue: since there's no save operation, the undo history has to be kept forever. This means that whoever you're sending the document to, if they're so inclined, can replay your writing process backwards to see if there was anything you changed your mind on. Or if using another document as a starting point, what was there before.

It also removes safety: I spend much time telling people that they can't easily break anything. With this system they can. Somebody who accidentally selects and overwrites the whole document will find out that even pulling the plug won't bring the document back. Now there's one excellent way of making a newbie really freak out. What if you intentionally or by accident write something insulting in the document? How do you make the program remove the record of it?

Here's another one: Imagine this sequence of commands: I type a long document, decide I didn't like the last changes, undo too much, and then press a single letter. Does in this moment the undo history become a tree, or do I lose the ability to redo the excessive undo?

Resuming: You remove one small thing, the need to explicitly save, and add the requirement of eternal undo (potential issues with embedded images here), requirement for the user to understand the undo system, requirement to design it in such a way that hours of work can be undone without getting RSI, add potential problems with disclosure of things that the user doesn't want to disclose, make it harder to do large experimental changes, and remove a way for an user to completely revert a change.

IMO this is too much of a mess for so little benefit.

Re:Opera of the phantom (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758295)

Be waery of anyone who acn't completly and clearly explain what they are developing. It means they don't understand it.

Re:Opera of the phantom (2, Insightful)

hal9000(jr) (316943) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758393)

I am not affiliated with these guys, but from the faq and the site, here is what I get.

Memory in all computers is mapped to address space.

Right, but you, the programmer, don't worry about memory allocation or de-allocation in the same way. You don't do pointer math or any of that shit. The OS does it for you (which is what an OS should do). Think how Java manages memory is different than now C does. Hopefully, the OS manages memory well.

Nobody needs files? How, exactly, can I retrieve a document then? This FA is damned short on details.

Well, yes, there are "files" managed by the OS, but not directly reachable by a program. You treat a file like an object and just use it. No open, no close, no worrying about the proggie crashing and losing the unwritten data. The OS handles it.

Same with processes. It seems cool. Not sure it has legs, but seems cool indeed.

Re:Opera of the phantom (3, Interesting)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758519)

The thing is, it's only pushing the work down a level, it's not that the work doesn't still have to be done. The "file" still has to be saved, the memory still has to be loaded and unloaded.

And it doesn't truly fix the problem of crashes and failed writes. If my program shits itself and dies before it's complete, how is that going to result in complete data? It may be complete up to the point where it died, but for many things that's not sufficient.

Smalltalk? (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758399)

This all sounds like what Smalltalk was trying to do. Basically there are no files, just one big VM where everything resides.

Believe me the absence of the file notion is a pain in the butt, since it is not clear where one thing starts and stops, and by the time you have tried making things clear to people, you are probably best representing a file.

Re:Opera of the phantom (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758417)

It may be one big address space, but nothing says that everything has permission to access the whole thing. It might also be handled through x86(_64) style segmentation. As to no context switching, I'm not so sure about that. Unless it's cooperatively tasked (yuck), it must be doing something context switch like.

Nobody needs files? How, exactly, can I retrieve a document then? This FA is damned short on details.

There is an object that points to a bunch of document objects.

I don't see why C wouldn't work just fine in a system like that, it's just libc that would need some changes since there are no files.

Re:Opera of the phantom (2, Interesting)

hackerjoe (159094) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758649)

Actually the idea makes sense. When they say VM, they mean like Java VM, or .NET runtime VM. The quote you pasted has the goods: "this VM has no means to convert integer to pointer". So you can't make a pointer into your neighbour process' data unless that neighbour process gives you such a pointer, because the only way to get pointers in the first place is from malloc().

This is the basis of security in sandboxed Java applications, it's not controversial or new. IIRC MS Research is working on a similar operating system that uses the .NET runtime -- ah yes, Singularity OS [wikipedia.org] .

The state save on shutdown, far from being the best thing about this OS, as far as I'm concerned is the worst thing. Even if the software written for this thing is bug-free and never corrupts its own state, hardware is not 100% reliable -- memory gets corrupted, disks get corrupted, drivers end up wedged in unexpected states due to flaky hardware.

Imagine if a BSOD-equivalent occurs due to something that got corrupted 30 seconds ago, and that state got persisted to disk. From now on, every time you turn the machine on, you have less than 30 seconds before that exact same BSOD happens. Congratulations, your computer is now useless until you reinstall your OS! Brilliant.

The obvious workaround is, of course, to save program state out regularly as files in a constrained, standard format, which is independent of your program's implementation. Other reasons you might want to do this include upgrading software and interoperation between different applications.

But of course, as soon as you admit that, you admit that the new paradigm is not actually going to be a programming revolution at all, from an application perspective. You have to be able to save your state to a file and restore it: the only difference is that now that code will get executed less. As a programmer, though, it makes no difference to me whether the code is executed once or a million times, it's exactly the same effort to write it.

The filesystem is an ugly anachronism in a lot of ways, but it's also really, really technically practical.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised either if we were using VM-based operating systems in 10 years or so. There are some really interesting things you can do with JIT compilation when the OS and application code are not divided by a giant wall. But I do think they'll have filesystems of some sort.

Re:Opera of the phantom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26758721)

Memory in all computers is mapped to address space. I get the idea that these guys are programmers who don't really understand how the hardware works.

The question was whether programs have separate address spaces. The answer is that no, they do not. All processes share a single global address space. Process isolation is managed and achieved by the VM.

There are (real-life, currently existing) systems which can work this way. It's called capability-based addressing [wikipedia.org] .

Nobody needs files? How, exactly, can I retrieve a document then? This FA is damned short on details.

I would speculate that you start a program, create your document or whatever, and then save the state of the program (which naturally contains the document as part of it). Then, to load your document, you restore your program's state, which will, as a side effect, restore the document you were editing. This is pretty much directly analogous to suspend-to-disk (aka hibernation) implemented at a program level.

If you look at it this way, their comments about not needing a filesystem also begin to make sense. You simply map your hard disk (and other devices) straight into your global address space. So now it's utterly trivial to save a program's state: you just copy it from one memory location (which is backed by RAM) to another (which is backed by disk). All the heavy lifting is handled by the virtual memory manager.

Now of course, saying they won't need a filesystem is more than a little disingenuous. They need to keep track of all the saved states for a program so they can be retrieved later. This mapping will also need to be stored to disk so that it can be retrieved after rebooting the box. Most people would call that a filesystem. And while you could make it more lightweight in some ways, you also make your virtual memory manager much more complicated because that disk is nothing more than a giant swap file. Which means you're going to end up journaling your swap file, writing an fsck equivalent for it, etc etc. Still, it's a different angle on an old problem, which makes it interesting.

It's also worth mentioning that this has all been done before -- as early as 1979 -- in the IBM System/36 (which became the AS/400, though it lost some of these features at the name change; now it's the System i). I encourage anyone who, like me, is interested in weird approaches to common problems to check out some of IBM's old iron. (Not just IBM, the others too; but it's easiest to find lots of information on IBM because they are actually still making some of the things.)

Re:Opera of the phantom (1)

laddiebuck (868690) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758725)

Exactly. Plus we already have an OS keeps data on disk and merely uses memory as a checkpoint -- Coyotos. You can unplug it and boot it again and everything will be exactly the same, it's just slower.

Plus, it is actually a good thing to serialise/unserialise data sometimes. First of all, the serialised representation is much, much more compact. Second, what if the program crashes or gets into some undefined state? You can't share the data between processes, so whatever you were editing is lost. Imagine a system where the persistence of any piece of data is guaranteed only so long as the program that created it is still running and able to access it! Now imagine just one program in the system with a memory leak...

Sorry, but this is a horrible idea.

Re:Opera of the phantom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26758787)

"I get the idea that these guys are programmers who don't really understand how the hardware works."
They never did, they don't want to.

Old idea (1, Redundant)

pondermaster (1445839) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758063)

SASOS's have been doing this for decades (AS/400).

Re:Old idea (1)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758557)

The AS/400 was the first thing that came to my mind too.

Phantom OS....? Where have I heard this before... (1)

gapagos (1264716) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758065)

Oh yeah [wikipedia.org] . Right.

Not an OS of the 21st century (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758419)

I don't think we will be quite ready for such an advanced OS until the 26th century [wikipedia.org]

IBM already did it (5, Informative)

ebunga (95613) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758077)

The S/38 and AS/400 have done this since like 1980 in COMMERCIALLY PRODUCED systems.

Re:IBM already did it (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758259)

Also in KeyOS (used in a number of embedded systems). ErosOS as well, but I don't think it's even been used commercially.

Yes, well known idea. (2, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758611)

Right. "Persistent object store" machines have been around for years. In addition to the ones listed above, the Go Computer (the first tablet machine) had a persistent object system.

There are some good points and some bad points to this. On the plus side, one of the big problems today is that support for "big objects", things one calls across a protection boundary, is lacking in many operating systems. There's no standard way to talk to protected middleware, like a database. (Notably UNIX/Linux, which still has at best mediocre interprocess communication.) This problem has been addressed many times, usually badly. OLE, CORBA, etc. are attempts in that direction, as are the ways the DLL concept is abused to create "big objects" with some autonomy. Many middleware apps have their own custom approach to talking across a protection boundary; MySQL is an example. Phantom at least is trying.

Major downsides are 1) it's weird, 2) you have to trust the compiler and storage manager to manage pointers properly, 3) it can lead to excessive paging I/O, and 4) if anything gets screwed up in a persistent-state machine, it's hard to unscramble the mess.

The last item is important. Databases, with all their elaborate interlinking and indexing, have the same problem, and database developers put vast effort into maintaining the integrity of the database even when applications go bad. Phantom has to do that too, at a finer-grained level. To some extent, so do applications. Memory leaks or uncontrolled object growth in persistent object systems are, well, persistent. Restarting doesn't help.

It's not a stupid idea; good systems have been built on this approach.

How is a reference different from a file handle (1)

immakiku (777365) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758095)

Article fails to distinguish between a reference and a file handle. Instead of opening a file handle, you can just use the object reference! But wait... how do you GET an object reference? Can anyone elucidate?

Re:How is a reference different from a file handle (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758501)

A file handle is a special case of a reference to a special case of an object and requires a strict handling of methods. You have to open it first, you have to write to it to create persistance and you have to close it after usage.

The references are just pointers to an object, and it is automatically persistent due to the Phantom OS underneath. So opening, writing and closing are no longer required, but they are done implicitely if necessary.

Re:How is a reference different from a file handle (1)

RedK (112790) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758571)

In case you didn't get what the OP was saying, how is fopen(); fprintf(); fclose(); any different from GetReference(); Reference.addData(); Referance.dealloc();... On the surface, it doesn't seem to simplify a whole lot.

It know what evil lurks in the hearts of men? (1)

SputnikPanic (927985) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758097)

Oh wait, I think that's The Shadow. When does that OS come out?

Re:It knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? (1)

SputnikPanic (927985) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758119)

Oops. And now all Slashdot knows what typos lurk in my hastily-typing fingers.

(Yes, bad form, I know...)

Re:It know what evil lurks in the hearts of men? (4, Funny)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758235)

If you open the CD case and your OS comes out and sees it's shadow, it means 6 more years of Linux.

Re:It know what evil lurks in the hearts of men? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26758553)

Somehow i have to thing of sonny&cher

Sounds like a Raskin project (1)

JBMcB (73720) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758103)

More specifically, this sounds just like a Canon Cat.

OS vs lib (4, Interesting)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758109)

So, what's the basic difference between what we have in phantom and what can already be done with a library/framework in, say, linux?

Screenshots... (1)

_Hellfire_ (170113) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758113)

Or it didn't happen.

Re:Screenshots... (5, Informative)

mrjb (547783) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758219)

Screenshots can be faked: user@phantom$ But according to this page, [www.dz.ru] it's about 90% unimplemented. Someone please tag the article 'vaporware'.

Re:Screenshots... (1)

_Hellfire_ (170113) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758327)

...it's about 90% unimplemented. Someone please tag the article 'vaporware'.

Precisely my point. It sounds like a wishlist for a new OS and I don't think it has any business being a news article. Maybe if there were a solid technical roadmap and proof of concept code available for people to work with it would be worth discussing. As it stands it looks like a bunch of cool ideas that someone has leapt into implementing without thinking through.

Soviet Russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26758123)

Cue the Soviet Russia jokes...

Re:Soviet Russia (1)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758203)

In Soviet Russia, Phantom does not save state from harm; only presents good image.

Re:Soviet Russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26758211)

In Soviet Russia, jokes cue YOU!

What the hell? How does that get published? (1)

ThisIsAnonymous (1146121) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758137)

Umm...this isn't a summary of the article...it's copied directly from the article. I'd prefer a summary that explains what the article is about, why I might be interested in reading it etc. Not just some regurgitated crap...

WinFS all over again? (1)

Amadodd (620353) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758139)

Isn't this what Microsoft wanted to do with WinFS [wikipedia.org] ? Bold idea, but little difficult to implement?

Re:WinFS all over again? (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758603)

I thought MS wanted to store files in a DB instead of a filesystem. Think of SQLServer as your file store, and instead of opening a file, you'd run a query to find it and operate on the blob of data you get back.

I think this is more like a 64-bit address space where every file actually resides in memory (even though they're mapped to disk storage and probably retrieved on-demand) so to work on a file, you just need to know the pointer to its memory location.

Cairo is finally here! (1)

Old97 (1341297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758151)

The file system sounds like the one promised for Microsoft's Cairo version of Windows - and XP and Vista.

OMG POINTERS! (3, Funny)

scubamage (727538) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758153)

POINTERS! POINTERS EVERYWHERE! OH MY GOD POINTERS! *runs around like a lunatic*POINGERSPOINTERSPOINTERSPOINTERSPOINTERS *head explodey*

Yeah, I think the development will go something along those lines.

Re:OMG POINTERS! (1)

box4831 (1126771) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758499)

POINTERS! POINTERS EVERYWHERE! OH MY GOD POINTERS! *runs around like a lunatic*POINGERSPOINTERSPOINTERSPOINTERSPOINTERS *head explodey*

I would die a happy man if I could see that happen in real life

Vaporware? (1)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758163)

Besides the fact that this is vaporware, it simply sounds like a high-end RTOS running on a PC desktop... which isn't really a great place for it.

Call me conservative, but I am a bit skeptical about this.

Oh really? (4, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758175)

But a file in Phantom is simply an object whose state is persisted.

Persisted to a file?

You don't have to explicitly open it. As long as your program has some kind of reference to that object, all you need to do is call methods on it, and the data is there as you would expect.

I've written countless classes that work the same way. When I want to read the settings file for my app for example, I just instantiate my settings object and start reading the settings, the object handles actually opening the file (creating it if necessary), opening it if necessary, etc. If I set new settings, the object handles persisting them.

So all they've done is taken my (and anyone else who does any OO programming) model, and moved it into the OS API?

I'm not usually one to say, "no big deal, this has been done before" but seriously... this time it really is no big deal, its been done before. Hell, lots of API's for this sort of stuff even already exist, some of them even come with OSes.

The only thing that might be novel is if this phatomOS goes whole hog, and forces you to use that api and actually denies you all access directly to files using more traditional methods. But I have my doubts... that would make it needlessly incompatible with a lot of existing software.

Re:Oh really? (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758523)

Persisted to a file?

For instance yes. It could also be a blob in a data base. Or just the page of memory the object lives in gets written bit by bit to the hard disk. A file is just a special method to make a sequence of data persistent.

How much do you like inventing wheels? (5, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758191)

Oh boy, I can't wait for every application to have to invent it's own directory system to store saved state in, since it can't just use the filesystem to save the file to like in the old days. I bet it will be all kinds of fun to try to get your data from one application into another, especially competitors applications. Not to mention the pure joy that making an incremental backup on this system must be.

This seems like a throwback to old IBM mainframes and PalmOS. It's fine if your users don't mind being more or less locked into their applications and don't want to move data around very much, but it's crappy when they want to do more sophisticated things like compressing and emailing the document they're working on.

In short: This is a compatibility nightmare. There is a good reason full fledged systems don't use it.

Re:How much do you like inventing wheels? (1)

smellsofbikes (890263) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758449)

I'm not going to argue with you since you probably know 908376 times more about this than I do.
But I'm wondering: why have a directory system in which you store your saved state? If you stored it as, essentially, an image -- this is what's on the screen -- that would get rid of the directory system (and substitute a single monster humongous file: a dubious improvement.)
Likewise, you could communicate data between files either with cut-and-paste or by including some sort of scripting hooks that allowed you to build pipes between applications. The Amiga had something similar to this, using an implementation of the rexx scripting languate, that allowed you to move arbitrary code or data between well-written apps. That, of course, relies on 'well-written' and your various app suppliers' willingness to adhere to your standards.
Essentially I wonder if they're talking about something sufficiently different that many of the problems people are listing are mostly irrelevant to their environment.

Re:How much do you like inventing wheels? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26758671)

What happens if you have objects that are children of other objects and they are all having data changed in them? (by one or more apps?)

Heck imagine one or more objects been changed by one particular process (app), and the another process (app) also holds references to it. Do you get a notification "Has changed outside the app, do you want to reload?". If you say no how does the system square two differing versions of the same object (aka file?)

Expand this from files just on your machine to files on a central server/internet... cool idea, but then chaos reigns supreme!

+Isn't all this just a fancy way of saying on construction of the object de-serialise it from this file, and on destruction serialise back?
(Side note, how do you as a programmer cancel any changes in memory changes from been persisted?)

Nice idea, but a bit to restrictive I feel.

IBM already has this sorta.. (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758207)

In AS/400. Dr. Frank Soltis, you are the original god. The whole OS runs in a virtual layer. That way, they were able to host legacy System/36 stuff up along side more "modern" OS/400. Everything is an object... yep..

Multics had it even earlier (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26758525)

Multics had segments - not files. Segments moved between main memory and disk, but they were always just segments.

Re:IBM already has this sorta.. (1)

clem.dickey (102292) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758565)

Yes, everything sounds like AS/400. And System/38 before that. Which was sometimes known as "baby FS," where FS was IBM's Future System project. In order to contains every object in a single address space, FS was to have an 80-bit address space. FS was canceled in 1975 (per Wikipedia). System/38 had a 48 address space (or rather, object space), and AS/400 increased it to 64, or maybe 65. System/38 had two layers of microcode: Horizontal (like other IBM machines) and Vertical (which was the VM interpreter for the instruction set exposed to end users). But few customers used the VM directly. They just programmed in RPG or COBOL, or bought program suites written in RPG or COBOL.

EROS OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26758319)

This is an old idea and it has been done before.

http://www.eros-os.org/

Another story with no mention of Australia! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26758347)

What's going on here?

The New Slashdot isn't The New Slashdot when it doesn't focus upon promoting Australia.

This is what happens when kdawson isn't around to firmly guide things back onto the Outback track.

Solution to the wrong problem... (3, Interesting)

pongo000 (97357) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758391)

...now, if they gave me a desktop that no longer had files, file directories, links, and other archaic throwbacks that map directly (in a fashion) to the hardware, then I'd be impressed. Give me a "semantic" desktop like my desktop at home: The ability to quickly, and visually, rifle through documents stacked on my desk so I can find that recent copy of my dissertation I made. I don't need a filename -- just give me the document based upon some quantifiable characteristic about the document, such as keywords, format, or even the visual layout. Folders? I don't keep the stuff on my real desktop in a file cabinet, so why the hell would I want to use folders on my virtual desktop?

Re:Solution to the wrong problem... (3, Insightful)

ReeceTarbert (893612) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758779)

I don't need a filename -- just give me the document based upon some quantifiable characteristic about the document, such as keywords, format, or even the visual layout.

Maybe a long shot and not quite what you have in mind, but I think that Spotlight [apple.com] is close enough -- and it's fast too. So fast, in fact, that's also my application launcher of choice.

Reece

Anyone ever hear of Multics? (3, Informative)

DutchUncle (826473) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758407)

Once upon a time, in the 1960s, in the dawn of the multitasking OS concept, there was Multics. It had no distinction between files and data; after all, a file is just a backing store for a piece of data currently mapped into RAM. Since RAM was expensive and small, and paging had to handle everything anyway, the data object that we think of as a file just gets paged in as it is accessed.

Unix was inspired by Multics.

As for eliminating languages to prevent bad code, it's been done too - by Pr1mos, on Pr1me Computers, which you may notice doesn't exist any more. So it's not so much "we prevent you from doing bad things" as "we make it hard for you to describe bad things to do so we don't have to work hard to prevent you."

Those who will not learn from history have to make their own mistakes at their own cost. History matters.

Time to play Spin The Wheel, Techie edition... (4, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758425)

Oh gee, look... Someone has changed the description of something and now it's completely new. It's not a file anymore, it's a persistent object. You know, I remember the day when they just called them files. Nice, simple. You could almost visualize it in your head. Files, you know, like what you put in cabinets. And there were folders too, and it made sense. Then Macintosh came along and, in order to make their mark in the world, we stopped talking about files and started talking about Resources. Well, they've added four more letters, bit harder to understand, a few more tech support calls to explain it. And then along comes the next iteration of this naming game, a persistent object. Now we're at five constants, we've added seven more letters, tech support can't explain it, and although everything looks the same, by golly it isn't. Next they'll be calling it a post-operation management data structure.

See, here's a problem in our community in plain sight but nobody's going to talk about it, and it's this: We make things unnecessarily complicated. And we buy into these complications, because we want to impress our other geek friends and cohorts with our impressive cutting-edge knowledge. So companies sell us an ever-enlarging and increasingly dense lexicon to obscure what are really simple, fundamental concepts. You know, it has taken me decades to learn even a tenth of what computers can really do. It's what has drawn me to them my whole life -- they are based on such amazingly simple principles but yet can so such incredibly complex things. Learning information technology is like peeling an onion. I never finish. And you know, truth be told I like the challenge.

But what I don't like is having to learn an ever-changing lexicon just to have a conversation with someone, when we both understand the concepts and principles already. Why should we, as a community, constantly have to re-learn the same things over and over and over again? We need to stop doing this. We are wasting more and more of our time just trying to keep up with the language, instead of actually working the problems. And before I get the petty intellectuals to jump on my case for "dumbing things down", I'd just like to say anyone can make things more complicated but it takes true genius to make things simple. So there, I've said my peace. Bring on the rebuttals.

Re:Time to play Spin The Wheel, Techie edition... (1)

sirlatrom (1162081) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758587)

... Learning information technology is like peeling an onion. I never finish. ...

Onion peeling analogy fail. ;) Or parent never finishes cooking a meal with onions in it.

Re:Time to play Spin The Wheel, Techie edition... (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758783)

Onion peeling analogy fail. ;) Or parent never finishes cooking a meal with onions in it.

I actually like onions and cook with them frequently. But it's the best analogy I could come up with. Besides, it's just slashdot...

Smalltalk-80, anyone? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758427)

Smalltalk did this in the '70s, and the idea goes back to APL in the early '60s.

I could speculate about the reasons this never seems to become mainstream, but instead I'll just point that out and let other people do that... :)

Multics, anyone? (1)

uid8472 (146099) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758627)

Smalltalk did this in the '70s, and the idea goes back to APL in the early '60s.

And, perhaps more to the point, Multics [multicians.org] , also in the '60s.

DRM? (1)

Fishbulb (32296) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758451)

Sounds like this would be easily adapted so that you can't access a file if you don't have permission due to DRM restrictions (you have paid your monthly access fee!).

Expect to see this on set-top boxes and as a feature of Microsoft Media * (or just Windows generally) as soon as the MPAA/RIAA get wind of it.

These guys'll make a fortune licensing to those asshats.

Re:DRM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26758607)

Wow there's not a single word in your post that is NOT based on minimal comprehension and maximal trolling. There are HUNDREDS of fundamental objections to this thing, and you pick on DRM and somehow Microsoft? Sounds like you must be an IT asshat type...

On the Infinium PC (1)

etherlad (410990) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758583)

Is this the OS that the Phantom console is coming with?

I can't wait to play Duke Nukem Forever!

Phantom OS, OS of Vaporware authors everywhere (1)

Hordeking (1237940) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758589)

Word has it that Duke Nukem Forever is being ported to run on Phantom OS.

Rebooting (4, Insightful)

dmomo (256005) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758631)

What does this model say for Memory Leaks? If the state is persisted... rebooting won't clear the memory. I imagine there must be a "reset state" mechanism. Perhaps this can be done without actually rebooting. I dunno.

Noteworthy curiosity (1)

ztexas (1351217) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758635)

I commend their bravado in creating an OS from scratch, but can't see what need is addressed by this endeavor. Just how often does a truly novel OS gain a significant foothold in the desktop/server market? It took Linux many years, and its feet were firmly planted in Unix tradition. If nothing else, it's an effective way of generating traffic to their consulting site.

Phantom, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26758695)

Does it run on the Phantom Console [wikipedia.org] yet?

Is this just a Ninnle joke in disguise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26758735)

This Phantom OS is just that. I suspect it's just a Ninnle post taken too far.

He dislikes linux? (1)

Noxn (1458105) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758753)

So my system is running a dinosaur?
Sorry, no.

Also, i don't really think this will work good.
Im not an computer expert or anything, but copying everything from RAM to HD could hurt performence and stuff.


I hate how he clearly targets linux here [www.dz.ru]
I think linux is way better then any windows (Thats what I think). Also his stuff is still vaporware and he is talking like he owns the OS market...

I would like this (concept) if it where open source...
Many devs = Succes and a better(?) linux.

Constant disk I/O? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26758797)

From the faq [www.dz.ru] :
"The most unusual Phantom property is its hybrid paging/persistence system. All the userland memory is mapped to disk and is frequently snapped. Snapshot logic is tied with the common paging logis so that snapshots are done cheap way."

From that, it sounds like it constantly snaps what's in RAM to something like a pagefile?
That's got to affect HD performance if it's basically always writing to the disk.

It's nice for powering down your machine, but honestly I'd rather have a "hibernate" button that makes me wait five seconds than making my machine drag while I'm actively using it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...