5 ms·

That is also problematic - and if I recall correctly partly one of the reasons behind why windows requires restarts so frequently when software updates are on t

That is also problematic - and if I recall correctly partly one of the reasons behind why windows requires restarts so frequently when software updates are on the table.

mjevans 6y ago
Yes, that is indeed the major pain. Unix-likes have an actual VFS as an API and it happens (at least on every unix-like I've worked on for any bit of time, which is mostly Linux but I expect BSD has it as well) to allow for comparatively wondrous workflows. Windows programs also often only support 'CDs' (ISO9660 / UDF), FAT, NTFS, and maybe SMB/CIFS (Samba / CIFS) network shares. Since Windows lacks (or at least historically lacked) a general VFS they could target. That's why any actual VFS that ever gets made, due to all the legacy software, is either going to directly support one of those interfaces, or have a compatibility mode which does.
- Tsiklon 6y ago
  I do wonder why they've not chosen to make progress in that regard to advancing the state of the system. Surely these are known good ideas that would improve the customer experience and the system from a technical level. I only speak as a very casual windows user, there is nuance I will miss with Microsoft's attitudes to it. I would have thought that even a separation between OS and User applications could allow them to implement features like a VFS, while still maintaining compatibility. Are they not part of the way there with Hyper-V + WSL?
  - naikrovek 6y ago
    Microsoft would love to do these things, but backwards compatibility guarantees prevent advancement a lot of the time. You would not believe some of the business critical software out in the field. They rely on very obscure bugs being present in order to function, and they sometimes can't be fixed because the source code is missing. Apple has chosen the opposite path, which is to give the middle finger to long-term backwards compatibility, and advance their operating systems technically. You can't run an OSX game from 2002 on the Macs of today, but you almost always can run a Windows game from 2002 on the Windows 10 PCs of today.
- userbinator 6y ago
  The Windows equivalent is IFS, and that has been around since MS-DOS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Installable_File_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Installable_File_System
naikrovek 6y ago
It has more to do with Windows services and applications (and even the kernel) only reading file contents on initialization which always happens on a reboot. Sometimes you can simply log out and log back in, and the requirement to reboot is nowhere nearly as frequent as it used to be, believe it or not, but yes you still have to reboot for kernel patches and core service updates, and there are a lot of those things these days.

That is also problematic - and if I recall correctly partly one of the reasons behind why windows requires restarts so frequently when software updates are on the table.

mjevans 6y ago

Yes, that is indeed the major pain. Unix-likes have an actual VFS as an API and it happens (at least on every unix-like I've worked on for any bit of time, which is mostly Linux but I expect BSD has it as well) to allow for comparatively wondrous workflows. Windows programs also often only support 'CDs' (ISO9660 / UDF), FAT, NTFS, and maybe SMB/CIFS (Samba / CIFS) network shares. Since Windows lacks (or at least historically lacked) a general VFS they could target. That's why any actual VFS that ever gets made, due to all the legacy software, is either going to directly support one of those interfaces, or have a compatibility mode which does.

Tsiklon 6y ago
I do wonder why they've not chosen to make progress in that regard to advancing the state of the system. Surely these are known good ideas that would improve the customer experience and the system from a technical level. I only speak as a very casual windows user, there is nuance I will miss with Microsoft's attitudes to it. I would have thought that even a separation between OS and User applications could allow them to implement features like a VFS, while still maintaining compatibility. Are they not part of the way there with Hyper-V + WSL?
- naikrovek 6y ago
  Microsoft would love to do these things, but backwards compatibility guarantees prevent advancement a lot of the time. You would not believe some of the business critical software out in the field. They rely on very obscure bugs being present in order to function, and they sometimes can't be fixed because the source code is missing. Apple has chosen the opposite path, which is to give the middle finger to long-term backwards compatibility, and advance their operating systems technically. You can't run an OSX game from 2002 on the Macs of today, but you almost always can run a Windows game from 2002 on the Windows 10 PCs of today.
userbinator 6y ago
The Windows equivalent is IFS, and that has been around since MS-DOS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Installable_File_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Installable_File_System

naikrovek 6y ago

It has more to do with Windows services and applications (and even the kernel) only reading file contents on initialization which always happens on a reboot. Sometimes you can simply log out and log back in, and the requirement to reboot is nowhere nearly as frequent as it used to be, believe it or not, but yes you still have to reboot for kernel patches and core service updates, and there are a lot of those things these days.