| ▲ | windowssuperfi 2 days ago |
| Yeah cause windows is amazing
Or maybe macos? Ignore their freebsd parts of course. |
|
| ▲ | DowsingSpoon 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yes. As far as kernels go, NT was pretty damn good. So is Mach, by the way, if you can afford the microkernel performance overhead. |
| |
| ▲ | johncolanduoni 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Mach is not a very good microkernel at all, because the overhead is much higher than necessary. The L4 family’s IPC design is substantially more efficient, and that’s why they’re used in actual systems. Fuchsia/Zircon have improved on the model further. Someone will of course bring up XNU, but the microkernel aspect of it died when they smashed the FreeBSD kernel into the codebase. DriverKit has brought some userspace drivers back, but they use shared memory for all the heavy lifting. | | |
| ▲ | saagarjha 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > Mach is not a very good microkernel at all, because the overhead is much higher than necessary. The L4 family’s IPC design is substantially more efficient, and that’s why they’re used in actual systems. As opposed to Mach, which is not used in any actual systems | | |
| ▲ | johncolanduoni a day ago | parent [-] | | I mentioned XNU below. It doesn’t really count as a microkernel if you, you know, don’t actually use the microkernel part. At least for the 30 years between the FreeBSD collision and the introduction of DriverKit, which does most of its IPC through shared memory (because the mach ports are not efficient enough, I would assume). |
|
| |
| ▲ | heavyset_go 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | XNU monolith-ized itself over time, even over some microkernel-esque boundaries. | |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | dundarious 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you include all the drivers too (which surely makes the comparison more accurate), is that still the case? | | |
| ▲ | nobodyandproud 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Windows NT 3.x was a true microkernel. Microsoft ruined it but the design was quite good and the driver question was irrelevant, until they sidestepped HAL. The Linux kernel was and is a monstrosity. | | |
| ▲ | pjmlp 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This is outdated since Windows Vista, and even more so in Windows 11. | | |
| ▲ | nobodyandproud a day ago | parent [-] | | Windows Vista isn't Windows NT 3.x. In the internal versioning, it's not even 4.0. | | |
| ▲ | pjmlp a day ago | parent [-] | | Indeed, it is something better, Windows NT 6.0. And it is irrelevant anyway, given that this comment was written from 10.0.26100. | | |
| ▲ | nobodyandproud a day ago | parent [-] | | Oh, I see. You’re saying they improved the design. I know they added user-privilege device driver support for USB (etc).; did they revert the display compromise/mess as well? | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | WalterGR 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What do you meant by them sidestepping the HAL? | | |
| ▲ | avadodin 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I think the biggest one is that the whole GDI library was moved into the Kernel in 3.5x because the performance was terrible at the time. I don't think they ever intended to keep all drivers strictly userland, though. Just the service side. | |
| ▲ | nobodyandproud a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Mind you I don't have access to Microsoft code, so this is all indirect, and a lot of this knowledge was when I was fledgling developer. The Windows NT code was engineered to be portable across many different architectures--not just X86--so it has a hardware abstraction layer. The kernel only ever communicated to the device-driver implementation through this abstraction layer; so the kernel code itself was isolated. That doesn't mean the device drivers were running in user-land privilege, but it does mean that the kernel code is quite stable and easy to reason about. When Microsoft decided to compromise on this design, I remember senior engineers--when I first started my career--being abuzz about it for Windows NT 4.0 (or apparently earlier?). |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | cosmic_cheese 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Apple at least has been making a concerted effort to kick more macOS/iOS functionality out into userland in the past several years. |
| |
|
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | lifetimerubyist 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| NT is actually a pretty good kernel. NTFS and the userland is what is shit. |
| |
| ▲ | IcePic 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I think NTFS get a bit of crap from the OS above it adding limitations. If you read up on what NTFS allows, it is far better than what Windows and the explorer allows you to do with it. | |
| ▲ | speed_spread 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | NTFS is a beast of a filesystem and has been nothing but solid for 25+ years. The performance grievances ignore the warranties that NTFS offers vs many antiquated POSIX filesystems. | | |
| ▲ | johncolanduoni 2 days ago | parent [-] | | What warranties? I assume you’re comparing it to ext4 and not e.g. ZFS? | | |
| ▲ | speed_spread 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Here are a few - mandatory byte-range locks enforced by the kernel - explicit sharing modes - guarantees around write ordering and durability - safe delete-on-close - first-class cache coherency contracts for networked access POSIX aims for portability while NTFS/Win32 aims for explicit contracts and enforced behavior. For apps assuming POSIX semantics (e.g. git) NTFS feels rigid and weird. Coming the other way from NTFS, POSIX looks "optimistic" if not downright sloppy. Of course ZFS et al. are more theoretically more robust than EXT4 but are still limited by the lowest common denominator POSIX API. Maybe you can detect that you're dealing with a ZFS backed volume and use extra ioctls to improve things but its still a messy business. | | |
| ▲ | johncolanduoni a day ago | parent | next [-] | | These are pretty much all about mandatory locking. Which giveth and taketh away in my experience. I’ve had substantially fewer weird file handling bugs in my Linux code than my Windows code. POSIX is very loosey-goosey in general, but Linux’s VFS system + ext4 has a much stronger model than the general POSIX guarantees. `FILE_FLAG_DELETE_ON_CLOSE`’s equivalent on Posix is just rm. Windows doesn’t let you open new handles to `FILE_FLAG_DELETE_ON_CLOSE`ed files anyway, so it’s effectively the same. The inode will get deleted when the last file description is removed. NFS is a disaster though, I’ll give you that one. Though mandatory locks on SMB shares hanging is also very aggravating in its own right. | |
| ▲ | pjmlp 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Also to point out that outside UNIX, surviving mainframe and micros, the filesystems are closer to NTFS than UNIX world, in regards to what is enforced. There is also the note that some of them are more database like, than classical filesystems. Ah, and modern Windows also has Resilient File System (ReFS), which is used on Dev Drives. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | edoceo 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Userland peaked in Windows 2000 |
|
