> File systems aren't "bad" and don't need to be changed or replaced
The complaint is specifically about UNIX filesystem. And yeah, it's bad. It needs to be replaced, not wrapped in another layer of duct tape.
The examples of layers you described come not from any kind of sound design that evolved to be better. It was bad, design without foresight and much design at all. Historically, it won because it was first to be ready, and the audience was impatient. And it stayed due to network effect.
The consistency guarantees, the ownership model, the structure of the UNIX filesystem objects are conceptually bad. Whatever you build on top of that will be a bad solution because your foundation will be bad. The reason these things aren't replaced is tradition and backwards compatibility. People in filesystem business knew for decades that the conceptual model of what they are doing isn't good, but the fundamental change required to do better is just too big and too incompatible with the application layer to ever make the change happen.
The complaint is specifically about UNIX filesystem. And yeah, it's bad. It needs to be replaced, not wrapped in another layer of duct tape.
The examples of layers you described come not from any kind of sound design that evolved to be better. It was bad, design without foresight and much design at all. Historically, it won because it was first to be ready, and the audience was impatient. And it stayed due to network effect.
The consistency guarantees, the ownership model, the structure of the UNIX filesystem objects are conceptually bad. Whatever you build on top of that will be a bad solution because your foundation will be bad. The reason these things aren't replaced is tradition and backwards compatibility. People in filesystem business knew for decades that the conceptual model of what they are doing isn't good, but the fundamental change required to do better is just too big and too incompatible with the application layer to ever make the change happen.