[syn0byte]

Everything is a nail.

Whenever developer sorts get all starry eyed over "DB as an FS", they never consider data exchange between applications vendors and platforms. Their applications always exist alone in a digital vacuum.

Example: Imagine trying to attach an MS Word document stored in this DBFS to an email from a Thunderbird client. What does that look like to the user? What does it look like to the Thunderbird developer?

Abstract and encapsulate so that each application can use their own container format that includes schema and encoding details? Other applications can read this metadata directly from each containerized db object? Cool, we just reinvented the filesystem again.

[smilliken]

You're right, any viable replacement for a filesystem must be compatible with existing filesystem APIs. That doesn't mean you can't implement the storage layer differently, or add additional APIs.

Look at ZFS. It's a filesystem, but internally looks like a database. If you try to define the terms "database" and "filesystem" generally, you'll realize how difficult it is to separate the concepts.