The thing about today's Unix Philosophy, epitomized by both the BSDs and Linux is that it's backward-looking. There's a Garden of Eden myth and everything. Look at the reaction to systemd.
I remember getting fairly excited when Apple OSX first came out and quite a few of the configuration files were XML-based. Finally, a consistent format, but it wasn't pervasive enough. Even Apple couldn't see fit to break with the past.
I've even contemplated rewriting some core utils as an experiment to spit out XML (because I didn't know about typed objects at the time), but I lack the skillset.
I know we can't (and maybe we shouldn't) change Unix and its derivatives. There's too much invested in the way things work to pull the rug out. But, when a new OS comes along that wants to do something interesting, I hope the authors will take a look at designing the interface between programs rather than just spitting out or consuming whatever semi-structured ball of text that felt right at the time.
Wouldn't it be neat, for example, if instead of 'ls' spitting out lines of text, which sometimes fit the terminal window, sometimes not, which contain a date field which is in the local user's locale format, which is in a certain column which is dependent on the switches passed to the command, instead you get structured, typed information, ISO-formatted date and time, etc. On the presentation side, you can make it look like any old listing from ls if you like, rather than mashing the data and presentation layer together. I'd like to imagine such a system would be more robust than one where we could never change the column the date was in for fear of breaking a billion scripts.
I would be so excited to see new operating systems which depart from POSIX completely and introduce new abstractions to replace the dated notions of hierarchical filesystems, terminals, shells, shared libraries, IPC, etc. The sad truth is that everyone targets POSIX because there is so much software that can be ported in order to make the system usable.
I agree. The "Unix compatibility layer" has killed so many interesting projects over the years. If systems research were still an academic pursuit, maybe there would be some interest in bringing a system like this to fruition. It would require a long-term investment in the design of the system foremost.
I remember getting fairly excited when Apple OSX first came out and quite a few of the configuration files were XML-based. Finally, a consistent format, but it wasn't pervasive enough. Even Apple couldn't see fit to break with the past.
I've even contemplated rewriting some core utils as an experiment to spit out XML (because I didn't know about typed objects at the time), but I lack the skillset.
I know we can't (and maybe we shouldn't) change Unix and its derivatives. There's too much invested in the way things work to pull the rug out. But, when a new OS comes along that wants to do something interesting, I hope the authors will take a look at designing the interface between programs rather than just spitting out or consuming whatever semi-structured ball of text that felt right at the time.
Wouldn't it be neat, for example, if instead of 'ls' spitting out lines of text, which sometimes fit the terminal window, sometimes not, which contain a date field which is in the local user's locale format, which is in a certain column which is dependent on the switches passed to the command, instead you get structured, typed information, ISO-formatted date and time, etc. On the presentation side, you can make it look like any old listing from ls if you like, rather than mashing the data and presentation layer together. I'd like to imagine such a system would be more robust than one where we could never change the column the date was in for fear of breaking a billion scripts.