4 ms·

Yeah they wouldn't just toss away millions of lines of kernel code.

by therein 11y ago

Karunamon 11y ago
I recall reading somewhere (can't find it for beans now) that the Windows kernel was a huge mess codewise since many of the original developers have moved on and poor to nonexistent documentation was left, meaning that the modern employees had to basically reverse engineer a lot of the code. Take this with a grain of salt, of course.
- ocdtrekkie 11y ago
  This isn't super unusual for very old code.
- mlvljr 11y ago
  Here are some comments from the times of the source code leak: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/71552/7795 http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/71552/7795 I'd say, the user experience has improved since then overall (meaning the code quality, too, in one of the most practical senses).
  - UK-AL 11y ago
    Somebody did an actual anaysis of that leak, and the code was considered high quality overall. You get dodgy comments in the Linux kernel to.
    - mlvljr 11y ago
      I never said the Windows source was considered bad :)
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- happycube 11y ago
  There's been a rather effective cleanup effort a few years ago: http://windows-now.com/blogs/robert/mark-russinovich-explains-minwin-once-and-for-all.aspx http://windows-now.com/blogs/robert/mark-russinovich-explain...
SiVal 11y ago
They've done it before, when they replaced the foundation under DOS/Win3/Win95/Win98/WinMe line with WinNT, and Apple did it when they replaced the foundation under MacOS 1-9 with NextStep and called in OS X. Apple's non-unix line endings (CR) changed to LF, their non-unix path delimiter (:) changed to /, and they were suddenly a major force among non-Apple-targeting developers who had always derided the Mac as a "toy" prior to OS X. If MS has similar ambitions, they could do again what both they and Apple have done before: toss away millions of lines of kernel code.
- colejohnson66 11y ago
  > Apple's non-unix line endings (CR) changed to LF... That was because with OS X, they switched from a Mac OS subsystem to a Unix subsystem
- robotresearcher 11y ago
  In both the pre-WinNT and pre-OS X cases, the OS they discarded was seriously dated and lacking important functionality. Whether you like Windows or not, it's neither of those things. It also has spectacular backwards compatibility that would very tough to lose.
- JonathonW 11y ago
  Both Windows 9x and classic Mac OS were fundamentally missing features relative to the alternatives at the time, though-- especially classic Mac OS, which (as of OS 9) still lacked proper preemptive multitasking and protected memory (for those who don't remember that era, this was a huge disadvantage in terms of stability and reliability, even compared to 95/98/Me which were roughly contemporaneous). Current-generation Windows doesn't really have any such flaws-- the underlying kernel seems to be pretty sound, the hardware driver ecosystem around it is the most complete and robust of any mainstream OS, and they seem to be showing now that they can adapt to developer demands without doing something drastic. There's no real compelling reason that I can see for Microsoft to make a transition to Linux (or BSD, if the GPL is too toxic).
based2 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_%28kernel%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_%28kernel%29

Yeah they wouldn't just toss away millions of lines of kernel code.

by therein 11y ago

Yeah they wouldn't just toss away millions of lines of kernel code.

I recall reading somewhere (can't find it for beans now) that the Windows kernel was a huge mess codewise since many of the original developers have moved on and poor to nonexistent documentation was left, meaning that the modern employees had to basically reverse engineer a lot of the code. Take this with a grain of salt, of course.

ocdtrekkie 11y ago
This isn't super unusual for very old code.
mlvljr 11y ago
Here are some comments from the times of the source code leak: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/71552/7795 http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/71552/7795 I'd say, the user experience has improved since then overall (meaning the code quality, too, in one of the most practical senses).
- UK-AL 11y ago
  Somebody did an actual anaysis of that leak, and the code was considered high quality overall. You get dodgy comments in the Linux kernel to.
  - mlvljr 11y ago
    I never said the Windows source was considered bad :)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
happycube 11y ago
There's been a rather effective cleanup effort a few years ago: http://windows-now.com/blogs/robert/mark-russinovich-explains-minwin-once-and-for-all.aspx http://windows-now.com/blogs/robert/mark-russinovich-explain...

SiVal 11y ago

They've done it before, when they replaced the foundation under DOS/Win3/Win95/Win98/WinMe line with WinNT, and Apple did it when they replaced the foundation under MacOS 1-9 with NextStep and called in OS X. Apple's non-unix line endings (CR) changed to LF, their non-unix path delimiter (:) changed to /, and they were suddenly a major force among non-Apple-targeting developers who had always derided the Mac as a "toy" prior to OS X. If MS has similar ambitions, they could do again what both they and Apple have done before: toss away millions of lines of kernel code.

colejohnson66 11y ago
> Apple's non-unix line endings (CR) changed to LF... That was because with OS X, they switched from a Mac OS subsystem to a Unix subsystem
robotresearcher 11y ago
In both the pre-WinNT and pre-OS X cases, the OS they discarded was seriously dated and lacking important functionality. Whether you like Windows or not, it's neither of those things. It also has spectacular backwards compatibility that would very tough to lose.
JonathonW 11y ago
Both Windows 9x and classic Mac OS were fundamentally missing features relative to the alternatives at the time, though-- especially classic Mac OS, which (as of OS 9) still lacked proper preemptive multitasking and protected memory (for those who don't remember that era, this was a huge disadvantage in terms of stability and reliability, even compared to 95/98/Me which were roughly contemporaneous). Current-generation Windows doesn't really have any such flaws-- the underlying kernel seems to be pretty sound, the hardware driver ecosystem around it is the most complete and robust of any mainstream OS, and they seem to be showing now that they can adapt to developer demands without doing something drastic. There's no real compelling reason that I can see for Microsoft to make a transition to Linux (or BSD, if the GPL is too toxic).

based2 11y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_%28kernel%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_%28kernel%29