5 ms·
Pretty neat stuff. I think that MS should just create their own Linux Distribution & port all MS products. Get rid of the Windows NT Kernel. I believe it's o
by l3m0ndr0p 10y ago
Pretty neat stuff. I think that MS should just create their own Linux Distribution & port all MS products. Get rid of the Windows NT Kernel. I believe it's outdated & doesn't have the same update cycle that the Linux Kernel has.
Why run a Linux Application/binary on a windows server OS? When you can just run it on Linux OS and get better performance & stability.
- serge2k 10y ago> Get rid of the Windows NT Kernel. I believe it's outdated & doesn't have the same update cycle that the Linux Kernel has. Curious why you claim this? What's outdated about the NT Kernel?
- l3m0ndr0p 10y agoHere are some, or maybe this is not part of the NT Kernel... 1. The use of drive letters A-Z for file system access. 2. Creating symbolic links to files and folders, like you can in Unix/Linux. You have to set a setting somewhere to enable this, but there's a security risk. 3. Standard functional/usable non-gui terminal application like Unix/Linux ssh. PowerShell doesn't come close. 4. Ability to SUDO or su Admin like Unix/Linux. Maybe these are not kernel related above, but the OS specific layer.
- slededit 10y agoYou are confusing the win32 subsystem with the NT kernel. They are not the same, the win32 layer acts as a translation. Also symbolic and hard links are supported by NTFS, they are just not exposed in the UI. There are utilities to create them if you really want to. The shell itself and the rest of userland has very little to do with the kernel. It seems its the userland you are upset with. Swapping out the kernel won't fix that.
- asveikau 10y ago> 1. The use of drive letters A-Z for file system access. NT has a root directory like Unix does. Drive letters are symbolic links inside a directory called \DosDevices. Granted, this is not user-visible but an implementation detail. The needs of Win32 applications dictate a lot of user-visible behavior. > 2. Creating symbolic links to files and folders, NT supports symbolic links. Open cmd and type "mklink".
- jdmichal 10y ago1. The use of a multi-root hierarchy vs. a single root hierarchy is pretty arbitrary. Drive letters in turn are just an arbitrary way to define the multi-root hierarchy. 2. `mklink` [0] has existed since Windows Vista for NTFS file system. No settings toggling required. 3. What is your argument against PowerShell? In what ways does it fall short? I have been pretty successful with using it for various tasks. 4. This is about the only legit claim. Windows always requires full credentials to execute as another user. Windows does provide `runas.exe`, but you must provide the target user's full credentials. [0] https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc753194%28v=ws.11%29.aspx https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc753194%28v=ws....
- wtallis 10y ago> 3. What is your argument against PowerShell? In what ways does it fall short? I have been pretty successful with using it for various tasks. Powershell is an acceptable scripting language. It's a horrible interactive shell. They shoudn't have made "shell" part of its name if they weren't going to at least include basic interactive features like readline compatibility and usable tab completion.
- jdmichal 10y agoI'm not familiar with what you mean by readline compatibility. I see a GNU Readline library with history functions, but I'm not sure what that means being integrated into a shell, and what features you would expect to see. My experience with tab completion in PowerShell is great. It completes file paths, command names, command parameter names, and even command parameter values if they're an enumeration. Could you describe what else you would expect to see?
- ygra 10y agohttps://github.com/lzybkr/PSReadLine https://github.com/lzybkr/PSReadLine perhaps. Personally I find it nice, but it requires a bunch of tweaking to feel comfortable, but maybe less so to people who are used to readline.
- 10y ago
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- sz4kerto 10y agoNone of these are kernel-related. You can create hard and soft links. PowerShell is great, just different. UAC is not sudo, but works very well. It's a different OS.
- tremon 10y agoUAC is not sudo, but works very well. For some values of well. If you logon interactively and start a powershell session, you do not have administrative powers and cannot get them without opening a new shell. If you logon via PS remoting, you have administrative powers by default and cannot lose them. UAC is a GUI kludge, and is very grating especially in Powershell.
- detaro 10y ago2. Filesystem feature, supported by NTFS for quite a while in differen styles. It has a security policy because a lot of userland software doesn't know about them. I use them all the time and they work, even if you move things like /Users/. 3. Userland issue. You can compile bash and an ssh server for Windows if you want. PowerShell is quite different, yes. 4. exists, both in GUI and commandline.
- UK-AL 10y agoA-z drive letter is just a win32 thing. Symbolic links is supported by NTFS, just not exposed to normal users. That's just your opinion about powershell... UAT, and runas?
- yread 10y ago4. Shift+Right click or CPAU http://www.joeware.net/freetools/tools/cpau/ http://www.joeware.net/freetools/tools/cpau/ for command line
- wfunction 10y ago> or maybe this is not part of the NT Kernel > 1. The use of drive letters A-Z for file system access. Indeed it is not. The kernel sees a single root for the object namespace, not drive letters.
- bigger_cheese 10y agoMy biggest pet Peeve about Windows is the way it accesses files I'm not sure if this is a kernel or filesystem issue. But when a remote user has a file open as long as that file is open other users are prevented from updating or replacing the file. It happens all the time at my work and I know of no obvious way to work out who has the file open because as far as I can tell nothing like lsof exists. This is probably the number one cause of me banging my head against the desk and wishing Windows behaved more like Linux.
- asveikau 10y agoWhat you can do while it's open is partially defined by the dwShareMode parameter in CreateFile. Unfortunately a lot of people look at the daunting documentation, shrug, and put 0 there, which is the least permissive mode. A lot of libraries do that too. OTOH there are other limits that are not dictated by dwShareMode. Such as deleting files while handles are open - this blocks a new file with the same name from being created until all handles are closed. That's probably the worst one. There are some other crappy ones involving directory handles that I don't care to enumerate.
- pjmlp 10y agoSane OSes don't let people modify files without permission from other users. Windows isn't the only OS having file locking implemented at kernel level.
- JdeBP 10y ago> I'm not sure if this is a kernel or filesystem issue. It's neither. It's a common misconception. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11415366 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11415366 .
- stordoff 10y ago> 1. The use of drive letters A-Z for file system access. Why is this a problem? As a user, I've always preferred to have drive letters - it makes it immediately clear if, for example, I'm moving files between different physical drives.
- ygra 10y agoConsidering mount points, reparse points, and things like subst, I doubt you can ever really know that. Granted, the deviations from the normal scheme are your own making as a user, but so are the places where you mount volumes from different physical drives in a single root hierarchy.
- jjtheblunt 10y agoWhat makes you believe it's outdated?
- zxcvcxz 10y agoCan you show me the source so I can check?
- UK-AL 10y agoActually there was a leak for 2000, most critics said it was surprisingly good.
- trentnelson 10y agoThere are leaks galore. NT4, 2000, and more recently, the Windows Research Kit. Just google something like 'apcobj.c' and see. (Hah, first link was a github repo!)