Japan tried to build an operating system for the entire world: TRON

Ah, Japan’s TRON project – every few years someone discovers it anew and it bubbles back up the surface, and deservedly so, as it’s an incredibly interesting operating system project that, like so many others, deserved a better fate.

There’s a version of computing history where the desktop OS that won wasn’t Windows. Not because the alternative was Unix-based or because Apple pulled off something different, but because an operating system designed at the University of Tokyo in 1984 was ambitious enough to try to replace the file system with a hypermedia document model, run on a custom Japanese CPU architecture, and encode 1.5 million characters, only to have a US trade report single it out as an unfair trade barrier in 1989.

That project was TRON (The Real-time Operating system Nucleus), a real, government-backed Japanese computing initiative whose desktop variant, BTRON, was named in a US trade barrier report and effectively killed before it could reach schools nationwide. Meanwhile, its embedded counterpart, ITRON, quietly became one of the most deployed operating systems in history.

TRON’s history has since attracted some genuinely wild conspiracy theories, including one claiming that Japan Airlines Flight 123 was deliberately crashed in order to target the TRON developers on board, despite there being no evidence that any TRON developers were even on the flight. But the strangest part of the story isn’t even a conspiracy theory: BTRON’s hypermedia desktop was decades ahead of what the market could support, and SoftBank founder Masayoshi Son may have helped sink it from the inside.

↫ Adam Conway at XDA

The most interesting part of TRON for me was the different ways it treated files and documents compared to other operating systems. Instead of focusing on applications and files as the core interaction points for users, it focused on the document. While most operating systems associate specific files with specific applications, TRON associated individual components of documents with individual handlers. If you want to edit a Word document today, you open Word and do all your editing work inside Word, whether you’re editing blocks of text or an image, or you open entirely different applications when Word’s capabilities for a certain component in a document are too limited. In TRON, you’d open a document, and only once you wanted to edit specific components did it “open” an “application” to perform the editing, without actually leaving the document in question.

Want to edit an image inside your document? In most operating systems, you’d have to open a separate image editor, load the relevant image file into it, make your edits, save the image file, and then paste said edited image file back into your document. There’s a considerable amount of overhead here that shouldn’t really exist; a computer is more than smart enough to open up just the editing controls from a different application if need be. In our current paradigm, applications often “solve” this by adding ever more features and controls and tools to cover every possible object or component you might have to deal with, but that just makes applications more complex, more bloated, and more difficult to use.

TRON’s approach has been tried in a variety of times and places, but it never caught on. My personal pet theory is that the application-first model is far better at wealth extraction and concentration than TRON’s model, and as such, that’s what we ended up with. If a user’s document and all of its constituent parts are tied to and wrapped up into a single application from a single vendor, it’s much easier to control said user and extract wealth from them than when that user can just pick and choose whatever handler they want to use for whatever object they happen to run into in a document, without having to open tons of different applications and move, copy, and paste stuff all the time.

In fact, this is also why consistency in user interface design is now all but dead; application developers and vendors use their own weird, non-standard, custom user interfaces for branding purposes. Sticking to a platform’s standards and conventions makes it harder to stand out and put your “brand” in people’s faces. But I digress.

Regardless, I’m not sure if all the stories about the US trying to bury TRON have any real value to them, as even the article itself notes (undoing its own clickbaity headline) that the project already seemed to be in dire straights even before it got a buried mention in some trade document. On top of that, ITRON, the embedded TRON variant, survived and thrives to this very day, powering untold numbers of devices. It seems to have done quite well for itself, supposed US government intervention or no.

This article by Steven J. Searle also takes a look at the workstation-focused variant of TRON.