[tombert]

Yeah, I was about to say. The NT kernel isn’t bad at all; it’s arguably better than Linux. It’s just that an OS is more than a kernel, and pretty much all the other crap in Windows is terrible.

Honestly, what I would like them to do is make/support a modern Copy on Write filesystem so that System Restore actually works, and so that it’s easy to roll back when Windows Update borks your PC.

You don’t need Linux for either of these things. You need software engineers to build a modern filesystem or make Windows natively support ZFS or something.

[wilsonnb3]

They already have a modern copy on write file system (ReFS), you just can’t use it on desktop Windows for some reason

[p_ing]

Yes, you can use ReFS on desktop Windows.

[tombert]

It's not easy to set up is it? I just installed Windows 11 on a laptop two days ago and I don't remember seeing an option to choose it.

[CuriousSkeptic]

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/dev-drive/

[tombert]

I meant for installing on root though; these look like they're for "side drives"?

[p_ing]

It's possible during setup though I'm not sure how supported it is. Not sure why you'd really want to, writes are much slower than NTFS in general due to journaling.

[dwattttt]

Format C: /DevDrv /Q

EDIT: Just to be clear, if you don't understand when you'd use this command, do not use it. I suddenly realised people might not be familiar with formatting, and don't want to be responsible for the destruction.

[philistine]

Unfortunately the other crap is probably what’s going to get ported. They’ll maintain for a long while a backwards compatible version of Windows that they’ll sell for an arm and a leg, but they’ll try to move their uncaring customers to a Windows userland running on Linux.

That’s my belief, and I’m always looking for clues that it’s what develops into their long-term plan. Right now the only thing we could glean is reduced investments in Windows.

[p_ing]

> Right now the only thing we could glean is reduced investments in Windows.

What "reduced investments"? They just put out 25H2 with numerous changes and many monthly updates bring new features online.

[philistine]

What I mean is that if you see reduced Windows investments then that's a sign. I'm not saying there are any right now.

[vbezhenar]

Does it really matter if NT kernel is good or not? I don't think so. What matters if it's cheaper to use Linux kernel instead of Windows kernel in terms of expenses.

Just an example. Microsoft developed several browser engines: first Trident, then EdgeHTML. Edge wasn't bad, it was on par with Chrome, may be slightly behind, but nothing that couldn't be fixed with time. But Microsoft decided to abandon it and use Blink, because that was cheaper.

I absolutely could see the same scenario in the future, when they would need to cut expenses. Just get Linux, wine, fix enough bugs to make explorer.exe and OneDrive.exe to run smoothly enough and ship it.

[selcuka]

> But Microsoft decided to abandon it and use Blink, because that was cheaper.

True, but you don't generally need backward compatibility with HTML rendering engines. You definitely do with OS kernels.

[topranks]

Just like with browser rendering engines it’s much better if there is variety out there in the ecosystem.

That’s not to say you’re wrong.

[SllX]

There is a world where Microsoft could make yet another soulless decision to kill something good they already have on the theory it would save some money, on the mistaken belief that the kernel is the problem with Windows.

One would like to believe that as far gone as they are on Windows, they’re not that far gone. But hey, anything could happen.

[tsss]

They don't care if Windows is good or not because they don't make any money on it. Today, the only purpose of Windows OS is to advertise (or force) other more profitable Microsoft products as cheaply as possible.

[SllX]

Windows & Devices is still a $14ish Billion/year or so business for Microsoft. I know that doesn’t seem like a lot, but that’s a lot of money they’re apparently not making which would make their most recent 10K filing with the SEC a lie. It’s apparently enough money they’re not making that they keep screwing with Windows in unproductive ways that make their Windows customers resent them every time they release an update.

[codedokode]

No, both NT and Linux kernels are bad because they are monolithic and not sandboxing-first.

[tombert]

NT is hybrid kernel, it has microkernel features, particularly with drivers if I understand correctly.

But that said, I didn't say either were "good", I said that NT is "arguably better".

ETA: I reread my comment; you're right, I actually said that NT "isn't bad at all". I stand by what I said mostly though; that doesn't imply it's "good" necessarily, just that it's arguably better than Linux.

[soraminazuki]

NT is a monolithic kernel and "hybrid kernel" is a pure marketing term. You can move functionality out of the kernel into userspace or not. There is no in-between.

I also don't get why people claim NT is "better." Linux is a modern kernel under very active development.

[kakwa_]

The graphic stack in NT is done in a microkernel fashion, it runs in kernel space but doesn't (generally) crash the whole OS in case of bugs.

There are a few interviews of Dave Cutler (NT's architect) around where he explains this far better than I am here.

Overall, you have classic needs and if you don't care about OSS (either for auditability, for customizability or for philosophical choice about open source), it's a workable option with its strength and weaknesses, just like the Linux kernel.

[soraminazuki]

Parts of the kernel can be made more resilient against failures, but that won't make it a microkernel. It'll still run in a shared address space without hardware isolation. It's just not possible to get the benefits of microkernels without actually making it one.

Also Linux being OSS can't be dismissed because it means it'll have features that Microsoft isn't interested in for Windows.

[p_ing]

> I also don't get why people claim NT is "better."

Because it does do some things "better". All I/O is async. No stupid OOM. Personality support. Stable ABI.

> Linux is a modern kernel under very active development.

As is NT, on both accounts.

[soraminazuki]

Modern Linux supports asynchronous I/O. It's debatable whether NT's lack of memory overcommitting is a superior choice. OS personalities have never been relevant outside of marketing and might even be technical debt at this point, as virtualization offers a more effective solution with significantly less complexity. Moreover, the Linux kernel maintains a stable ABI.

Much of the discussion surrounding NT's supposed superiority is outdated or superficial at best. Linux, on the other hand, offers several advantages that actually matters. It supports a wider variety of filesystems natively, with FUSE providing exceptional utility. Linux also accommodates more architectures and allows for more creative applications through features like User Mode Linux and the Linux Kernel Library. It also has a more robust debugging ecosystem thanks to its large community and open source nature. All of these things are possible because Linux isn't bound by a single company's commercial interests.

Also, is Microsoft putting as much effort into NT these days? I find it hard to believe they care about NT when they stopped caring about what runs on top of it, leading to articles like this one.

[p_ing]

> Modern Linux supports asynchronous I/O.

Not nearly to the depth and breth of NT. NT is async I/O throughout. Linux has a bunch of libs that ride on top of pretend async I/O with io_uring as a more recent bonus.

> It's debatable whether NT's lack of memory overcommitting is a superior choice.

NT won't randomly kill a process. That's the winning play.

> OS personalities have never been relevant outside of marketing

Until you've used them for non-marketing purposes, then they're invaluable. Personalities existed when virtualization didn't exist on x86.

> Moreover, the Linux kernel maintains a stable ABI.

The only stable ABI on Linux is Win32.

> It supports a wider variety of filesystems natively,

Most distros suggest ext4 out of the box. Sysadmins are going to deploy ZFS where it counts. Some might use XFS. Having access to a ton of file systems is great, but the usage outside of ext4 is going to be comparatively low. ext4 is the only FS I'd want to see as first-party on Windows as a data drive. But that would have been more important before persuasive networking.

> with FUSE providing exceptional utility

FUSE is also on Win32 via https://winfsp.dev/rel/.

> It also has a more robust debugging ecosystem thanks to its large community and open source nature.

This ignores the debugging tools on Win32 by a country mile.

> is Microsoft putting as much effort into NT these days

Yes. Even if you do the bare minimum investigative effort and follow the "what's new" for each version of Windows, you can see the kernel-level investment. Much of this is around security and isolation of kernel components. There is also Microsoft in talks (finally, again) with EDR vendors to isolate their solutions; hopefully game devs are next.

> leading to articles like this one.

This isn't an article. It's an uninformed blog post.

[apexalpha]

The NT kernel misses all modern features like containers though.

[pjmlp]

Windows containers exist since Windows 10.

Containers are hardly modern, they trace back to offerings on 1990's, like HP-UX Vaults.

[tombert]

Even prior to Windows 10, there was Sandboxie to give you something roughly analogous to FreeBSD jails.

Obviously not built into Windows but readily available since 2004.

[viraptor]

Actual lightweight isolated processes? The docs are pretty vague about what the windows containers are and they still indicate that both Hyper-V and a chosen kernel is used - so that smells like a VM. Also, available only in windows 10 pro and higher, so no w10 in general.

[pjmlp]

Yes, there are two modes, Hyper-V isolation and process isolation, which is similar to how Linux does it.

The kernel version has to do with process isolation not being fully there when Windows containers were initially supported, so they had the limitation the container kernel dependency had to match the host version.

Since Windows 11 this has been relaxed.

The namespacing approach is based on Jobs API.

Modern Windows security relies on several sandboxed components, Hyper-V is always running anyway, also one of the reasons of the updated harware requirements, while this configuration is optional on Windows 10, it is always enabled on Windows 11.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/de...

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/b...

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/hardware-...