General > General Technical Chat

When will MS replace the NT-kernel in windows?

<< < (8/25) > >>

Nominal Animal:

--- Quote from: tooki on January 21, 2024, 11:56:02 am ---
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on January 21, 2024, 03:01:38 am ---As we all know, Apple replaced its original kernel(s) with XNU (for Mac OS X).  It has an interesting history, but the key point regarding the discussion at hand is that they still had to revamp the userspace-kernel interface completely.

--- End quote ---
Are you referring to replacing the Mach kernel in NeXTStep with XNU for Mac OS X (which is directly descended from NeXTStep), or replacing the classic Mac OS kernel with XNU?
--- End quote ---
The latter.  They did do quite large changes between Mac OS 7.5 and 8, too.


--- Quote from: tooki on January 21, 2024, 11:56:02 am ---in the latter, the kernel was replaced by replacing the entire operating system. I don’t think either of those is really comparable to replacing the NT kernel with the Linux kernel.
--- End quote ---
You cannot simply replace the NT kernel with the Linux kernel.  If you could, then Wine would run perfectly.  Plus there is the large number of vendors providing binary-only Windows drivers, who would be impacted.

My point was that even Apple couldn't just switch to a better kernel; they had to revamp the userspace-kernel interface and APIs as well.

nightfire:
Yes, Apple made a deep cut to get rid of lots of heritage by going OSX.

But seriously, from what we are already see in the cloud business of SaaS and other services, operating systems do not matter as much as some maybe 10 years ago. Nowadays the question is which API are available between pieces of software and how to configure them.

So with a timeline of say 2030 it should be quite possible for M$ to bring an operating system to market, like Windows ng (next gen), which basically serves as a launcher for cloud services and desktops and only allows installation of specially certified software. Professional Users then can rent the special Pro edition, where the basic desktop services are provided by cloud ressources (VDI/VDA). Installation of 3rd party software costs extra.
For manufacturers nothing will change in a big way, most of the good manufacturers are already providing some linux drivers for their stuff or the out-of-the-box drivers work.
Such a move also could bring driver development on linux to a better world,  because now some real commercial money is put into it.
 

nctnico:

--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on January 22, 2024, 10:03:09 am ---You cannot simply replace the NT kernel with the Linux kernel.  If you could, then Wine would run perfectly.

--- End quote ---
The kernel is not the problem for Wine. It is the dozens upon dozens of layers of software (userspace libraries) that sit between the application and the kernel. That is where the problem is for Wine; it is such a mess that it is next to impossible to emulate correctly. And I doubt Microsoft can re-create these libraries to a satisfactory level. Some backwards compatibility got broken in Windows 10 for example. Remember the guy from Sysinternals? He got hired by Microsoft because he understood more about the internals of Windows than the people working at Microsoft.

tooki:

--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on January 22, 2024, 10:03:09 am ---
--- Quote from: tooki on January 21, 2024, 11:56:02 am ---
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on January 21, 2024, 03:01:38 am ---As we all know, Apple replaced its original kernel(s) with XNU (for Mac OS X).  It has an interesting history, but the key point regarding the discussion at hand is that they still had to revamp the userspace-kernel interface completely.

--- End quote ---
Are you referring to replacing the Mach kernel in NeXTStep with XNU for Mac OS X (which is directly descended from NeXTStep), or replacing the classic Mac OS kernel with XNU?
--- End quote ---
The latter.  They did do quite large changes between Mac OS 7.5 and 8, too.

--- End quote ---
Well they really just swapped out the entire OS. Other than the Carbon compatibility library (which required changes in application code, too) they couldn’t even run the same software. I don’t really think one can call this a kernel replacement, since it required replacing everything below it and above it too.

Not saying Apple’s achievement wasn’t important, but it’s nothing like the (nonsensical) “replace NT kernel with Linux kernel” posited by the OP.


--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on January 22, 2024, 10:03:09 am ---

--- Quote from: tooki on January 21, 2024, 11:56:02 am ---in the latter, the kernel was replaced by replacing the entire operating system. I don’t think either of those is really comparable to replacing the NT kernel with the Linux kernel.
--- End quote ---
You cannot simply replace the NT kernel with the Linux kernel.  If you could, then Wine would run perfectly.  Plus there is the large number of vendors providing binary-only Windows drivers, who would be impacted.

--- End quote ---
I’m not saying one could; that was the OP’s idea. With that said, Microsoft likely could make it work; they’ve moved the Win32 APIs to multiple disparate kernels over the years.



--- Quote from: tooki on January 21, 2024, 11:56:02 am ---My point was that even Apple couldn't just switch to a better kernel; they had to revamp the userspace-kernel interface and APIs as well.

--- End quote ---
”Revamp” makes it sound like they just did an update or refurbishment of those things, but what they really did was to dump the entire old OS and APIs overboard and replace them all with new ones. (Even Carbon was short-lived in practice, insofar as Carbon apps ran comparatively poorly and it was clear from the start that Cocoa, the native APIs from NeXTstep, were the future.)

SiliconWizard:
Yes, it again wouldn't make any sense whatsoever, and if ever decided, would be a very bad move both for MS and for Linux. MS would get into this downwards spiral of never getting it right, and Linux would suffer enormously from this sudden too big influence of MS in its development, and then the lack of diversity, that others have also pointed out. Having options is good, even, and especially when some of the options look worse/better than others to *you*.

It wouldn't even be motivated by the need to target other architectures, as Windows is already there for ARM, and they probably have at least a side project to target RISC-V.

Then there's the licensing thing, I don't see how they could ever do with Linux's license.

I think some people also have an idealized view of Linux (and saying this while I have quit using Windows almost entirely) and an inaccurate view of what the Windows kernel is.

But anyway, I'm not sure what the OP's point really was. Maybe he also wants macOS to use a Linux kernel? The question was also "interesting", it was a "when", not even a "what if".
Back to point 1: having options is a good thing and drives improvements and innovation. Willing to corner everything to a single unified solution is never a good idea. And one reason Linux is great (while not without its deficiencies either) is that while being widely used, it's still independent. How can you ever imagine Linux (or any other project) staying independent while becoming a core part of their business? Knowing MS, it's, uh, hard to believe.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod