General > General Technical Chat

When will MS replace the NT-kernel in windows?

<< < (20/25) > >>

Karel:

--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on January 25, 2024, 09:07:27 am ---I did not realize it before, but this alone should be sufficient indication of how different the Windows and Linux kernels are, making it unfeasible to replace one with another.

--- End quote ---

If one can run Linux programs on windows, one can also run windows programs on Linux. Shouldn't be too hard for MS.
Imagine a new windows OS based on a Linux kernel with some translator or virtualizer for classic windows programs.
If the cost of implementing such a solution is below the cost of keeping and maintaining the NT kernel, I wouldn't be surprised
if they would do that. Everything to please the shareholders...

Karel:
[conspiracy mode on]
MS enforces the TPM  >=2.00 so that, in the future, nobody can tamper with the Linux kernel
(despite being open source, remember the term "Tivoization"?) used by future versions of windows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization?useskin=vector

[conspiracy mode off]

magic:
I'm starting to grow concerned that this isn't a joke thread and you might actually believe it :palm:

This paragraph is all you need to know about why no attempt at interoperability with Windows has ever succeeded fully, and none ever will.
Indeed, even Windows NT can't run all software that Windows 9x would run.


--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on January 25, 2024, 06:36:44 am ---As to say Microsoft's ability to refactor or rewrite their libraries and services to work with a completely different kernel, one with a different set of assumptions and expectations and approaches, I'd like to point to the content of the OOXML standard and its attribute definitions (for example, autoSpaceLikeWord95, useWord97LineBreakRules, useWord2002TableStyleRules).  No, there is no documentation as to what these actually mean, other than their name: they mean exactly what the name says, nothing more.  Sure, this is a completely different business unit, but I do believe it is indicative of the culture of how quiet knowledge (like the internal design approaches of services and libraries) is segregated and likely often documented only as the implementation itself.  I could be wrong, though, never having worked for Microsoft myself.
--- End quote ---

Nominal Animal:

--- Quote from: nctnico on January 25, 2024, 09:13:18 am ---Still, I think the fact that Apple has changed OS and platforms several times already (as pointed out by others), shows that it is possible to radically change what is under the hood of a computer without the users objecting to it to an extend that they buy something else.

--- End quote ---
That's what I pointed out too, noting that changing the entire OS is more feasible than just changing the kernel to a completely different one.


--- Quote from: Karel on January 25, 2024, 09:49:23 am ---If one can run Linux programs on windows, one can also run windows programs on Linux.

--- End quote ---
Sure you can –– in a VM, running Windows in a virtual machine, like WSL2 does for Linux.  The main difference is that the Linux kernel runs happily headless, without any kind of display or input devices.

Note that MSYS2 and Cygwin are not binary-compatible, only support libraries and services that one can use to compile POSIXy/Linuxy C sources to work in Windows.  There are many quirks from devices to filesystem name case insensitivity that differs from typical POSIXy systems at runtime.


--- Quote from: Karel on January 25, 2024, 09:49:23 am ---Imagine a new windows OS based on a Linux kernel with some translator or virtualizer for classic windows programs.
If the cost of implementing such a solution is below the cost of keeping and maintaining the NT kernel, I wouldn't be surprised
if they would do that. Everything to please the shareholders...
--- End quote ---
I've tried to show the reasons why I believe the cost of implementing such a solution would be immense, unrealistic.

Creating a new Windows OS based on a microkernel or a BSD-derived kernel, capable of running older Windows binaries (including all current OS APIs/ABIs and services) via virtualization (a derivative of the existing Windows kernels designed for backwards compatibility), now that would be interesting, and technically at least somewhat feasible.

However, it would require a deep change within Microsoft culture, though, making it unfeasible from a practical point of view.  If you look at Apple and early OS X, their attempts at making many things open source, they basically failed; I believe the underlying reason is that the open source approach was simply not compatible with the Apple company culture, costing more than it benefited the shareholders.  (We can discuss CUPS and whether it is an exception to this, but we'd need to look at its history to correctly assess it.)

What I believe would kill such efforts, is Microsoft's dependency on keeping major proprietary software houses and hardware vendors (developing their own drivers) on board.  Switching to a more POSIX-like kernel and interfaces would mean they'd have to port their code to that, which would lead to porting to additional systems like Linux (and obviously Mac OS, too) much easier, risking Windows' market share on the desktop in the future.

It would be too risky for the shareholders, I believe, no matter how interesting such a solution would be technically.

Karel:

--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on January 25, 2024, 10:38:36 am ---What I believe would kill such efforts, is Microsoft's dependency on keeping major proprietary software houses and hardware vendors (developing their own drivers) on board.  Switching to a more POSIX-like kernel and interfaces would mean they'd have to port their code to that, which would lead to porting to additional systems like Linux (and obviously Mac OS, too) much easier, risking Windows' market share on the desktop in the future.

--- End quote ---

And this is the first argument in this thread that makes sense from a business perspective.
All the rest is only about how difficult it is (technically). MS has done many big and costly changes,
either under the hood or above and some of them weren't welcomed by the users.
I believe this is really something that they could do. I'm not sure if it would make sense to me but I
wouldn't be surprised if they do it. All the signs are written on the wall.

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