5 ms·

This was a very interesting point. It sounds like there are some serious architectural limitations on Windows, and this makes me believe the same might be true

This was a very interesting point. It sounds like there are some serious architectural limitations on Windows, and this makes me believe the same might be true for the NT kernel, and that MS might not be interested in doing heavy refactoring of it. I'm not a frequent Windows user, or a Windows dev at all. Does anyone know of any consequences that MS's decision might mean, if this hypothesis is true?

planteen 9y ago
Google also uses a single giant repo...
- cwyers 9y ago
  And Facebook.
- monksy 9y ago
  Why is that a "good reason" to do it?
  - sateesh 9y ago
    Not really :) and I am not the OP. This article [1] provides a very good overview of the repository organization Google has and the reasons behind it. I think the reason that this works for well Google is the amount of test automation that is in place which seems to be very good at flagging any errors due to dependency changes before it gets deployed. Not sure how many organizations have invested and have an automated test infrastructure like Google has built. 1. https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/7/204032-why-google-stores-billions-of-lines-of-code-in-a-single-repository/fulltext https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/7/204032-why-google-stor...
  - yesiamyourdad 9y ago
    I think this is like the "your data isn't big enough for HDFS" argument earlier this week. The point I take away is that at some stage of your growth, this will be a logical decision. I don't think it implies that the same model works for your organization.
  - cromwellian 9y ago
    It radically simplifies everything. Every commit is reproducible across the entire tool chain and ecosystem. It makes the entire system kind of pure-functional and stateless/predictable. Everything from computing which tests you need to run, to who to blame when something breaks, to caching build artifacts, or even sharing workspaces with co-workers. While this could be implemented with multiple repros underneath, it would add much complexity.
Analemma_ 9y ago
It seems presumptive to say that "If you can't use multiple repos, your architecture must be bad". I could just as easily counter with, "If you're using multiple repos, it must mean you have an unnecessarily complex and fragile microservice architecture"
- cosinetau 9y ago
  I'm sorry that was implied. I simply want better insight into the kernel from people who have experience developing large kernels, and the decisions that are made as a consequence of architectural choices. I feel like that those questions are valid, and are important in this field, not just kernel development. As someone who desires to continue learning, I will not yield to your counter.
RUTHLESS_RUFUS 9y ago
hey chummer, show me your elegant repos will ya?
nxc18 9y ago
The NT kernel is surprisingly small and well-factored to begin with - it is a lot closer to a 'pure' philosophy (e.g. Microkernel) than something like Linux to begin with. If you have a problem with Windows being overcomplicated or in need of refactor it is almost certainly something to do with not-the-kernel. If you look at something like the Linux kernel its actually much larger than Windows. It needs to have every device driver known to man (except that one WiFi/GPU/Ethernet/Bluetooth driver you need) because internally the architecture is not cleanly defined and kernel changes also involve fixing all the broken drivers.
- GlobalServices 9y ago
  Yes! Windows Kernel is a much more "modern" microkernel architecture than any of the circa-1969 Unix-like architectures popular today. We use Windows 10 / Windows Serve for everything at our company, and we have millions of simultaneously connected users on single boxes. No problems and easy to manage.
- andrey_utkin 9y ago
  Could you please share a link to NT kernel sources so that I take a look? It is not true that internal architecture of Linux drivers is not clearly defined. It is just a practical approach to maintenance of drivers (as an author of one Linux hardware driver I'm pretty sure the best possible). Reasoning is outlined in famous "Stable API nonsense" document http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/latest/source/Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/latest/source/Documen... I don't think Windows approach is worth praising here. It results in a lot of drivers stopping working after few major Windows release upgrades. In Linux, available drivers can be maintained forever.
  - nxc18 9y ago
    If you are sufficiently motivated, NT 4 leaked many years ago and you could find it; it even has interesting things like DEC Alpha support & various subsystems still included IIRC. Perhaps you could find a newer version like 5.2 on GitHub or another site, but beware, as a Linux dev/contributor, you probably don't want to have access to that. FWIW, I've stumbled upon both of those things in my personal research while I had legitimate access to the 5.2 sources as a student. It turns out Bing will link you directly to the Windows source code if you search for <arcane MASM directive here>. Yes, I'm in the process of reporting this to Microsoft and cleansing myself of that poison apple.

planteen 9y ago

Google also uses a single giant repo...

cwyers 9y ago
And Facebook.
monksy 9y ago
Why is that a "good reason" to do it?
- sateesh 9y ago
  Not really :) and I am not the OP. This article [1] provides a very good overview of the repository organization Google has and the reasons behind it. I think the reason that this works for well Google is the amount of test automation that is in place which seems to be very good at flagging any errors due to dependency changes before it gets deployed. Not sure how many organizations have invested and have an automated test infrastructure like Google has built. 1. https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/7/204032-why-google-stores-billions-of-lines-of-code-in-a-single-repository/fulltext https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/7/204032-why-google-stor...
- yesiamyourdad 9y ago
  I think this is like the "your data isn't big enough for HDFS" argument earlier this week. The point I take away is that at some stage of your growth, this will be a logical decision. I don't think it implies that the same model works for your organization.
- cromwellian 9y ago
  It radically simplifies everything. Every commit is reproducible across the entire tool chain and ecosystem. It makes the entire system kind of pure-functional and stateless/predictable. Everything from computing which tests you need to run, to who to blame when something breaks, to caching build artifacts, or even sharing workspaces with co-workers. While this could be implemented with multiple repros underneath, it would add much complexity.

Analemma_ 9y ago

It seems presumptive to say that "If you can't use multiple repos, your architecture must be bad". I could just as easily counter with, "If you're using multiple repos, it must mean you have an unnecessarily complex and fragile microservice architecture"

cosinetau 9y ago
I'm sorry that was implied. I simply want better insight into the kernel from people who have experience developing large kernels, and the decisions that are made as a consequence of architectural choices. I feel like that those questions are valid, and are important in this field, not just kernel development. As someone who desires to continue learning, I will not yield to your counter.

RUTHLESS_RUFUS 9y ago

hey chummer, show me your elegant repos will ya?

nxc18 9y ago

The NT kernel is surprisingly small and well-factored to begin with - it is a lot closer to a 'pure' philosophy (e.g. Microkernel) than something like Linux to begin with. If you have a problem with Windows being overcomplicated or in need of refactor it is almost certainly something to do with not-the-kernel. If you look at something like the Linux kernel its actually much larger than Windows. It needs to have every device driver known to man (except that one WiFi/GPU/Ethernet/Bluetooth driver you need) because internally the architecture is not cleanly defined and kernel changes also involve fixing all the broken drivers.

GlobalServices 9y ago
Yes! Windows Kernel is a much more "modern" microkernel architecture than any of the circa-1969 Unix-like architectures popular today. We use Windows 10 / Windows Serve for everything at our company, and we have millions of simultaneously connected users on single boxes. No problems and easy to manage.
andrey_utkin 9y ago
Could you please share a link to NT kernel sources so that I take a look? It is not true that internal architecture of Linux drivers is not clearly defined. It is just a practical approach to maintenance of drivers (as an author of one Linux hardware driver I'm pretty sure the best possible). Reasoning is outlined in famous "Stable API nonsense" document http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/latest/source/Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/latest/source/Documen... I don't think Windows approach is worth praising here. It results in a lot of drivers stopping working after few major Windows release upgrades. In Linux, available drivers can be maintained forever.
- nxc18 9y ago
  If you are sufficiently motivated, NT 4 leaked many years ago and you could find it; it even has interesting things like DEC Alpha support & various subsystems still included IIRC. Perhaps you could find a newer version like 5.2 on GitHub or another site, but beware, as a Linux dev/contributor, you probably don't want to have access to that. FWIW, I've stumbled upon both of those things in my personal research while I had legitimate access to the 5.2 sources as a student. It turns out Bing will link you directly to the Windows source code if you search for <arcane MASM directive here>. Yes, I'm in the process of reporting this to Microsoft and cleansing myself of that poison apple.