[starspangled]

I don't find "we should do that because that's what we're supposed to do" a compelling argument. If you rephrase the assertion that just leads to a rephrased question, why is the OS supposed to do that?

There are many layers and components, and functionality can be implemented in many different ways in different levels of these things.

[rramadass]

> why is the OS supposed to do that?

Definition and Purpose of an OS - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system#Definition_an...

I am not sure what you are arguing here. The above definition + the previous link to distributed OS where the motivations for the same are listed establish the "reason". If you find other approaches more palatable that is fine (provided you know what you are doing) but the original blanket statement you made viz. "This type of thing always seemed to be in the very cool but pointless basket, to me ... I think a lot of effort was wasted chasing that dragon. Wasted is probably the wrong word because research into cool things is good and probably created useful things along the way. I don't feel there was ever enough justification put into it and it could possibly have been better spent though." is wrong.

> There are many layers and components, and functionality can be implemented in many different ways in different levels of these things.

All implementations are not equivalent w.r.t. all parameters; hence the various tradeoffs in competing designs.

[starspangled]

Operating system purpose on some website is vague and not some canonical truth. It doesn't even necessarily say what you think it does, and doesn't justify itself if it did anyway.

> I am not sure what you are arguing here.

I'm not sure why you're replying then.

> All implementations are not equivalent w.r.t. all parameters; hence the various tradeoffs in competing designs.

I know, and not all are equally good.

[rramadass]

> Operating system purpose on some website

Some Website? It's Wikipedia and curated; short of handing you a book (i recommend Tanenbaum) that is a good place to start from and then branch out of.

> It doesn't even necessarily say what you think it does,

That means you have not understood it.

> I'm not sure why you're replying then.

Because you made a untenable blanket statement that Distributed OS research was all wrong which cannot go unchallenged.

> I know,

I doubt it based on this conversation.

[starspangled]

> Because you made a untenable blanket statement that Distributed OS research was all wrong which cannot go unchallenged.

You definitely didn't understand the first thing I wrote, or you're deliberately misrepresenting it because you're intellectually incapable of addressing it.

[rramadass]

Weasel words and Ad hominem attacks are not arguments; I had quoted your own words to you which leaves no doubt as to your position.

[starspangled]

"Because you made a untenable blanket statement that Distributed OS research was all wrong which cannot go unchallenged."

That was not my direct quote, so you can dismount your high horse now.

And it's telling that responding to the question of why an OS should do these things, you finding a definition of an OS and asserting (falsely, I might add) that transparent distributed systems and only those meet that definition.