[HN Gopher] BSD on Windows: Things I wish I knew existed
___________________________________________________________________
BSD on Windows: Things I wish I knew existed
Author : 6581
Score : 206 points
Date : 2023-12-10 21:55 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (virtuallyfun.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (virtuallyfun.com)
| ianai wrote:
| Talk about things I'd want to bring back if I were suddenly a
| mega millionaire or billionaire.
| deviantbit wrote:
| You really wouldn't. I developed code for Coherent, if anyone
| remembers that UNIX clone. I honestly never want that to come
| back.
| macintux wrote:
| You should chime in on this Coherent (nascent) thread.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38594866
| scruffyherder wrote:
| I dont suppose you have coherent 8086/80286 at all? I should
| have ordered it as a kid but I'd been told so many times to
| never trust mailorder. It still bugs me I didn't send in the
| $99.99
| deviantbit wrote:
| We had it on 286, but most of where I lived was on the 68k.
| I never bought a personal license. We had a license w/
| source. I had an Amiga at home back in those days.
| frutiger wrote:
| Doesn't this sort of exist today with Cygwin/MSYS2/Git
| Bash/etc?
| scruffyherder wrote:
| not really, the exe's are a.out so it's more like EMX. It's
| broken up like services more like HURD, and extended to 32bit
| on Win16.
|
| It's far more cooler being able to run on Windows 3.1
| frutiger wrote:
| Sure, but from a user perspective? It says you could run
| vi/gcc/etc. in BoW, which you can easily do. I don't know
| why GGP would want to spend millions (surely would cost way
| more than millions) nor billions recreating something that
| already exists?
| ianai wrote:
| Really, to do something different and that might move the
| needle to new possibilities. The *BSDs and Linux seem
| like they permanently miss just a few core elements to be
| mass adoptable. Mass adoption would benefit everyone
| through things like competition but also just different
| features. Like imagine being able to zfs send incremental
| backups of your daily drivers and gaming boxes. Or if
| plan9 had really taken off and had real market share.
| Idk, just feels like we've been stuck in a place for the
| last few decades.
| anthk wrote:
| You are using plan9's UTF8 and 9p in lots of products.
| scruffyherder wrote:
| You're looking too close to the trees gcc/vi instead of
| the BSD forest.
|
| BOW's only weakness is its single user mode, more so a
| limitation of being a Win16. If it'd been pushed harder
| to a NT service/client/server DLL it'd have been a much
| bigger player.
|
| It's all moot, Pink/taligent died, Virtual Machines is
| where everyone runs their stuff these days, OS/2 had the
| driver/disk/filesystem stuff done right.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| I think cygwin has been around for 30 years now
| doublerabbit wrote:
| This is where we should be, native support of Linux on Windows
| and native support of Windows on Linux. Executables should be
| cross-compatible, we somehow ended up in a reality of
| monopolistic -- 1v1. I would enjoy it to break free at some
| point but I doubt it.
|
| Just about everything now is it's own garden with a tiny API
| gate to allow you access to the minor features of the whole
| collection.
|
| I am aware of WSL and the likes but, it's taken many years to
| get that far.
| Grimburger wrote:
| > Executables should be cross-compatible
|
| So cosmopolitan? https://github.com/jart/cosmopolitan
| Dalewyn wrote:
| As mentioned in a thread yesterday (and justifiably memed
| often in general)[1], Win32 is the most stable environment to
| target in Linux.
|
| [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38585729
| partomniscient wrote:
| But they should all break on MacOS and refuse to be cross-
| compiled for Windows/Linux?
|
| I agree with your idealism, but I think the best we're going
| to get is more or less what we have now, otherwise we end up
| in the space where program x works with o/s y version z
| subsystem q, but not the other combinations you'd hope for.
|
| I'm still annoyed that we don't design enough for the future
| that when a new O/S version/architecture gets released there
| isn't more effort to save the past. We have a perfectly
| serviceable relatively recent printer (4-5 years old?) that
| my wife now can't use because her new Mac which replaced her
| 12 year old mac, now doesn't have a driver for it, because
| there are no Sonoma versions of it.
|
| I think we err on the wrong side of creating waste at the
| expense of not doing (admittedly annoying) work.
|
| To get back on topic, this was the point of subsytems - you
| managed to hold onto and get access to the past you liked
| from within your walled garden.
| prmoustache wrote:
| No. What should be is that everything is open source and
| proptietary code is illegal.
| Teever wrote:
| Totally.
|
| I don't want to derail the conversation too much but when I
| look at what Notch has become since he became a billionaire
| it's frankly pathetic.
|
| Princes & Kings
|
| Isn't it strange how princes and kings, and clowns that caper
| in sawdust rings, and common people, like you and me, are
| builders for eternity?
|
| Each is given a list of rules; a shapeless mass; a bag of
| tools. And each must fashion, ere life is flown, A stumbling
| block, or a Stepping-Stone. -- R. Lee Sharpe
| minton wrote:
| What happened to Notch?
| low_tech_love wrote:
| Nothing special, I think that's what he/she meant.
| SuperNinKenDo wrote:
| I assume his tendency to say things that upset a
| particularly sensitive political milieu, but I can't say
| that's what they meant for certain.
| Teever wrote:
| Is that really how you interpreted my comment?
|
| My critique of Notch is that he doesn't do cool stuff
| anymore.
|
| Stuff like that weird space game that he was talking
| about making, or something like BSD on windows.
| SuperNinKenDo wrote:
| Ah OK. I guess I interpreted it differently because I
| don't follow him as a person. So my exposure to him is
| usually people complaining about something he said, or
| someone saying what he said was based. I know very little
| of his projects after Minecraft, so I just used the info
| I have.
|
| I dunno why you'd be sore about it, the guy already paid
| his dues? Again though, bot familiar eith what he goes
| around promising.
| twisteriffic wrote:
| Bit down on about every right wing conspiracy theory you
| can come up with.
| speed_spread wrote:
| Bought a big house on the Hills, throws big parties with
| superficial people, tweets shit as if the political
| opinions of an instant billionaire suddenly mattered.
| rnd0 wrote:
| I'd go for a full-fledged BSD subsystem, myself. From what he
| wrote on the blog it sounds like this would be a pain in the
| butt to use for anything substantial.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Another interesting thing to explore would be colinux which was a
| bit similar to WSL but third party.
| scruffyherder wrote:
| probably too mainstream, there was other hacked ways of running
| linux on windows using debuggers and other memory map hacks...
| exikyut wrote:
| I honestly wouldn't mind learning what these looked like! I
| wasn't really aware of the long tail of the scene back in the
| day.
| pram wrote:
| There was also SFU which was a first party "BSD on Windows"
|
| I had to use it in the past and it's genuinely awful. MobaXterm
| was the best before WSL (imo)
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX
| scruffyherder wrote:
| SFU replaced the posix subsystem with an OpenBSD port and more
| capable thing for NT/2000 etc.
|
| SFU was so much later to the game, while BOW ran on Windows 3.1
| which would have been great had it had far bigger appeal as you
| could just run it on such lesser machines. The best part being
| no formatting, no device drivers, or changes to the OS at all.
| I just copied over to my PS/2, and was playing hack 1.03 in no
| time.
| toast0 wrote:
| Hey. Microsoft's SFU[1] is alive and well, back when I was
| running servers getting DDoSed by chargen reflection, as far as
| I can tell, most of the reflectors were running chargen from
| SFU.
|
| [1] Well, Microsoft published it, but IIRC, another company
| developed it.
| pram wrote:
| You mean like a botnet installed SFU on peoples machines? lol
| toast0 wrote:
| Well, I don't know how it got installed, just that it was
| installed, so when the DDoS origin spoofed requests to the
| SFU hosts with my server's IP as the source, the SFU hosts
| were happy to send me garbage.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| I had good luck compiling and running command line apps on SFU
| (nee Interix) back in the early 2000's. GNU autoconf had (has?)
| support for Interix as a target.
|
| I always wanted a distribution of Windows that booted character
| mode and ran the Interix userland.
| mise_en_place wrote:
| Back in those days I often used coLinux and Interix. Cygwin
| was also an option, but I found that MinGW was just a way
| better option when it came out.
| tssva wrote:
| There was also UWIN which came from David Korn and ATT. It is
| available as open source at https://github.com/att/uwin/.
| gafage wrote:
| What's that irc client?
| scruffyherder wrote:
| I just cobbled together IRC 2.9. I don't see why anything else
| more useful could build. Ive also built Apache 1.3.1 and gotten
| it to run.
|
| https://archive.org/details/apache131_for_BOW
|
| It's really cool how BOW can totally use winsock, and bridge
| that gap of Unix networking tools on Windows 3.1
| User23 wrote:
| And here I thought Blue Screen of Death and hints for how to
| handle it.
| epcoa wrote:
| "OS/2 is the dominant workstation product"
|
| In what universe other than maybe some banks was that the case?
| 1995 was the era of the commercial UNIX workstation.
| Gabrys1 wrote:
| This is answered in the comments section of the article. It was
| dominant in the place the author worked. Had 15k OS/2
| workstations.
| RachelF wrote:
| Windows NT 3.x and 4 were Posix complaint. In the mid-1990's
| there were a few vendors that sold products that let you run full
| X11 apps on NT.
|
| Microsoft bought and extinguished the largest one:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interix
| a-dub wrote:
| this. it was pretty straightforward to port to NT modulo a few
| quirks around shared memory, mmap and fork/exec.
|
| edit. oh yeah, line endings. that sucked. that said, nt had way
| better multithreading support.
| pjmlp wrote:
| During university days, had NT really properly supported POSIX,
| I probably would never bothered with that "Linux Unleashed with
| Slackware 2.0 CD-ROM" book.
|
| If Microsoft could tell the future, they would have improved
| POSIX, instead of killing it, and then briging a Linux VM into
| the OS.
| vkazanov wrote:
| Microsoft did everything, like everything and more, to kill
| every alternative platform on the planet. Hedging their bets
| with half-hearted posix support was part of that effort.
|
| If not for that MSN vs Internet fiasco, they would succeed.
| pjmlp wrote:
| I never liked that point of view, because while it is true
| they did their part, the OEMs and consumers also did
| theirs.
|
| Also as seen nowadays by many FAANG efforts, "do no evil"
| marketing stunts, Playstation and Nintendo with their
| exclusive deals, they are not alone in the desire to
| achieve that goal.
|
| Ironically, while UNIX won the server room, the Linux wars
| replacing the UNIX wars, is kind of what killed the desktop
| for most consumers, now enjoying the Linux kernel via
| Android, ChromeOS, and the free beer version of them,
| versus what OEMs make available isn't the same anyway.
|
| Or one pays what is seen as the Apple tax in countries
| where wages aren't at the same level as North America.
| vkazanov wrote:
| Well, the problem with world domination plans (Microsoft
| included), is that every actor has one, and they don't
| necessarily, ehm, align.
|
| So the non-desktop part was lost by Microsoft, and this
| resulted in the world we have now, Linux derivatives and
| all. But for a while, sometime around 1996-2006, it
| definitely felt like they almost had it. This is when I
| began my official dev career and that summer I could
| barely find a non-MS stack shop.
|
| And yes, the OSS movement didn't manage to unify the
| desktop. And Microsoft has nothing to do with it.
|
| I still like the landscape much better.
| simonh wrote:
| Many US government contracts required any operating systems
| purchased to be POSIX compliant, so MS had to be able to
| tick that box.
| sydbarrett74 wrote:
| I guess WSL/WSL2 is Microsoft's _mea culpa_. :D
| rollcat wrote:
| Notice how Windows, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and (removed in 6.0)
| OpenBSD all have Linux emulation/compat layers. This is in
| fact incredibly sad, for multiple reasons:
|
| - This is what POSIX was meant to address; there aren't all
| that many Linux-specific APIs that ordinary applications
| actually need. Proof: browse the ports/packages on any BSD;
| all the apps (with extremely few notable omissions) are there
| and working fine.
|
| - Vocal FOSS enthusiasts are ready, every day of the week, to
| preach to you about open standards; you must use Jitsi and
| not Zoom, Matrix and not WhatsApp, heck I've been told to
| play Mindustry instead of Factorio. I don't know if these are
| the same people who write "#ifdef linux" in their code, but
| I've sent out enough one-line patches to fix the build on
| OpenBSD to wonder.
|
| - The Linux userland is one hell of a horror, in terms of
| being a viable target for others to aim at; try running
| literally _any_ precompiled binary on Alpine or Void(musl) to
| get a feel. The glibc seems to be introducing new versioned
| symbols and other backward incompatible changes every release
| - just for the sake of it; and many open source libraries
| resist static linking with every inch of their autohell
| existence. (I 've tried making a static build of Love2d for
| Linux, and it was an exercise in futility.)
|
| Yeah guys, unless you're writing a container runtime, please
| stop targeting Linux. You don't need to strictly adhere to
| POSIX, just please at least try to compile your program in a
| VM with any BSD; it will flush out 99% of the non-portable
| stuff.
| zlg_codes wrote:
| This is relevant to my interests. What roadblocks did you
| run into when you attempted to build statically? I assume
| your goal was to have a single binary of Love2D so you can
| swap it around and not worry about glibc version? (As God
| intended imo; not religious but games should be one
| contained thing imo)
|
| Am curious to see what it does to avoid a static build.
| rollcat wrote:
| The love2d static build story was a tangent to my 2016
| challenge to ship one game every month of the year. The
| tangent ended up delaying the March game indefinitely,
| and thus ending the challenge... My memory is a bit hazy,
| so apologies for the scarce/imprecise details.
|
| I really, really wanted to ship binary builds for the
| three major platforms: Windows, Mac, and Linux; so that
| my friends and strangers could actually play the games,
| without dicking around downloading some framework. Love2d
| uses the relatively well-known hack of opening "argv[0]"
| as a ZIP file (the ZIP header starts at the end of a
| file, so this usually[0] just works).
|
| Creating and testing the builds for Windows was trivial -
| even though I didn't even have Windows on any of my
| computers; I borrowed a friend's laptop to verify that
| "cat love.exe game.love > game.exe" just works, and
| indeed it did. They got some scary warnings about
| binaries downloaded from the Internet, but the game ran
| well.
|
| The Mac needed a bit more fiddling, and I didn't have a
| Mac back then to sign or test the build. But I followed
| the instructions and someone reported success (modulo
| scary warnings). Woohoo.
|
| On to Linux... I already knew it was going to be the most
| "fun", despite being the only platform among these three
| that didn't do code signing or scary warnings. I didn't
| even realize at the time, how much of a clusterfuck glibc
| actually is; my primary motivation was that Love2d kept
| breaking their Lua APIs, and I've already found that lots
| of older (and even recent) Love2d games simply couldn't
| cope. My game had to be bound to a specific version of
| Love2d, and many distributions shipped different
| versions, so the only reasonable path forward was to
| bundle, just like on Windows/Mac.
|
| I started by downloading the Love2d sources, verifying
| that I can make a standard/dynamic build, and then "cat
| love game.love > game && chmod +x game && ./game". Indeed
| that was easy, but "ldd game" revealed several dozen
| shared libraries for things like PNG, Vorbis, etc, etc.
| I've looked at the .so numbers, and realized Love2d
| breaking is gonna be the lesser of my worries - judging
| by how high these numbers were, I was signing up for DLL
| hell. I didn't even want PNG or Vorbis - all of my
| graphics were 100% procedural, and I was yet to try
| adding sound to any game. So I've disabled most options,
| and this is where the easy part ended.
|
| I don't recall where exactly I gave up... I managed to
| find & download the sources for a whole bunch of these
| libraries, make the ".a" archives for static builds, and
| so on... I think at some point I've ran into Mesa (Love2d
| actually requires GPU acceleration) and decided that this
| is enough insanity.
|
| I still firmly believe in static linking on Linux! I only
| changed my approach: just use Go (with CGO_ENABLED=0).
| Unfortunately, Go is not without its own share of
| problems[0]; while XGB allows cgo-less X11, Mesa remains
| elusive.
|
| [0]: https://flak.tedunangst.com/post/the-three-line-
| single-binar...
| zlg_codes wrote:
| Thanks for sharing this journey! I've been considering
| Love2D for a while so it's important to read about the
| challenges others run into. You should definitely _not_
| have to package Mesa to ship a game! I wonder why it
| hooks so far deeply..
|
| Coming from PICO-8 myself, I'm wondering if I should just
| skip the frameworks to babystep and just jump into C+SDL,
| or pygame or something. I like the different ways that
| games can be made -- like your procedural graphics not
| needing a graphics library.
| rollcat wrote:
| The "can I link Mesa statically" journey was futile, I
| had much less understanding how things worked back then
| (not that I'm any kind of an expert now, but you
| shouldn't be one to ship a f.in game). See, a pretty big
| chunk of the graphics driver stack on Linux sits in the
| .so's provided by Mesa: the i915_dri.so, r600_dri.so,
| nouveau_dri.so, libvulkan_intel.so, libvulkan_radeon.so,
| etc are ALL exactly what it says on the package. It's not
| just 50+MB of x86-64 code, it's also your peace of mind
| that whenever AMD/Intel/NVidia/Apple/RPi/etc drop a new
| GPU model, or whenever the kernel changes things on their
| end, you don't need to relink and re-release.
|
| I'm torn between "all of this stuff belongs in the kernel
| goddammit" and "these guys probably know better". OpenBSD
| and macOS actually force all syscalls to go through a
| dynamically linked libc, so perhaps it's the latter.
|
| Libraries/frameworks/engines such as PICO-8, Love2d, SDL,
| Allegro, Pygame, Godot, etc exist _precisely_ to abstract
| away these details; you 're not meant to care for
| libGL.so.1, you're meant to care for fixing your physics
| engine's timestep and using cubic splines to interpolate
| animation. Love2d was not a mature choice in 2016, so
| don't take my horror story or my hubris as any indication
| of what it looks like today; do your own research and
| pick the tool for the job ;)
|
| TBH I would love to go back to making games, but recently
| got too absorbed by StarCraft 2 and shitposting.
| zlg_codes wrote:
| Part of my interest is also getting better at Lua, and it
| seems to excel in embedded contexts like making small 2D
| games. So maybe Love2D will still be good for that, and
| maybe the statically linking story is better now. My
| eventual goal is similar to yours -- I want to ship a
| game with a single binary per platform that players don't
| have to get confused about. Completing a game at all
| would be good enough, but I want to do it right!
| pjmlp wrote:
| I was recently surprised that CGO only works on Windows
| with a msys2 compiler, while everyone else works just
| fine with Visual C++, or VS provided clang.
| bheadmaster wrote:
| POSIX only defines source-code level compatibility.
| However, all OSes are free to implement their system calls
| any way they want.
|
| In order to run binaries compiled for a specific OS, you
| need to emulate that OS's (i.e. kernel's) ABI. There's no
| way around that.
|
| The only way to achieve _true_ binary compatibility would
| be to use a system-level virtual machine, ala Inferno [0]
| or PhantomOS [1].
|
| [0] https://www.inferno-os.org/
|
| [1] http://phantomos.org/
| jay-barronville wrote:
| I don't think the point was about ABI compatibility
| across operating systems--that'd be unreasonable. It's
| more so about using POSIX API's as much as possible to
| enable portability rather than relying on Linux-specific
| API's that make compiling the code an unnecessarily
| frustrating experience. Sometimes, using Linux-specific
| API's is inevitable, but in the overwhelming majority of
| cases, POSIX API's work just fine and would make the code
| instantly more portable.
| bheadmaster wrote:
| Even on the source level, there are certain limitations
| to POSIX, e.g. linux uses epoll() which is more
| performant than poll(), but isn't defined by POSIX. So
| application writes sometimes have to choose between
| making code more portable or making it more performant.
| woooooo wrote:
| Anyone know why we can't get a new POSIX with some
| epoll/kqueue equivalent, maybe baking in some of the
| lessons learned from epoll's interface?
|
| It's insane in 2023 that people are typing things like
| EPOLL_ONESHOT and it's actually the best option.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Linux wars replaced UNIX wars, and POSIX moves slow.
| rollcat wrote:
| What's funny is we've tried so many different, "better"
| solutions to build once, run anywhere. I truly love
| Inferno - learned SO much reading the dis VM bytecode
| spec; JVM was and still is a thing; there's even .NET IR
| which was built with the specific, explicit goal of
| getting JIT'ted for the target CPU. The two de-facto
| solutions ended up being:
|
| - win32/wine;
|
| - Linux emulation - the kernel itself has an incredibly
| stable interface, but you basically need to ship an
| entire RHEL/Ubuntu installation on top.
|
| My sincere hope is that APE/Cosmopolitan takes off and
| eats everyone's lunch AND the table. It even recently got
| some funding - turns out it's the easiest way to ship LLM
| models (finally something good may come out of this hype
| cycle).
| AshamedCaptain wrote:
| The kernel does _not_ have an incredibly stable
| interface. It is in the fact part of the reason older
| statically linked versions of glibc no longer work. I
| personally count at least two breaking changes, and only
| one of them got an option in Kconfig (which was related
| to ASLR iirc, so distros rushed to enable the "break
| compatibility" option). . Yet another example dynamic
| linking almost always makes things easier for your future
| users, despite the preconceptions.
|
| Just grep your kernel's Kconfig for "ancient" -- the
| euphemism every developer uses to refer to stuff they
| don't care about and want to break.
|
| Also, stuff in /proc, /sys, or the like is moving every
| other day, and some programs depend on it (sigh).
| pjmlp wrote:
| Cosmopolitan only works for basic C APIs, for example
| working with 3D API, talking to game controllers over LE
| Bluetooth.
|
| JVM is doing quite alright across desktop, servers,
| embedded and 80% of mobile phones.
|
| .NET less so due to Microsoft's strategy error to bind it
| to Windows. Still nowadays my .NET workflow is exactly
| like my Java one.
|
| Work on Windows, deploy where needed.
|
| I don't think in POSIX since 2006.
| Borg3 wrote:
| Well said, I hate all that autoconf hell really. Most of my
| programs can be compiled pretty much anywhere (or easy
| ported). Not that I write big complicated stuff, but its
| doable. One thing is unavoidable tho, but its ok, because
| its special platform: #ifdef __CYGWIN__
| jay-barronville wrote:
| Nice rant. Upvoted.
| AshamedCaptain wrote:
| I agree with the rant and think that Linux today is overall
| doing a net negative effect to computing. The absolutely
| lack of stable API/ABI efforts and the "cavalier" attitude
| regarding free software are creating terrible precedents
| over the industry.
|
| Linux is today the kernel/operating system with the largest
| hardware support, but my ability to actually use the
| operating system I want with the hardware I want has moved
| nilch. The next free operating system which even supports
| my AMD GPU? It's FreeBSD, and they do that by linking in
| the code from Linux (not even forking: forking would be way
| too much effort). There is _no_ other OS which supports it.
|
| Also, you can forget about DRM support anywhere other than
| Linux. Netflix? Linux-only.
|
| It's a very sad picture and much definitely worse than
| 10-20 years ago.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Definitely.
| speps wrote:
| Just playing devil's advocate here but Interix according to the
| Wikipedia was supported by Microsoft until Windows 7 (1999 to
| 2010). I wouldn't call that "bought and extinguished".
| taspeotis wrote:
| > supported by Microsoft until Windows 7 (1999 to 2010)
|
| The 2022 Extended Security Updates for Windows 7 were
| maintained until 2023:
|
| > Windows 7 Extended Security Updates 2022: January 12, 2022
| - January 10, 2023
|
| [1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/windows-
| clien...
| dtech wrote:
| If something was bought in 1999, and updated and released
| for more than a decade, "bought and extinguished" is
| incredibly misleading.
| taspeotis wrote:
| No argument there? I am pointing out Windows 7 got an
| extra 13 years of support after 2010.
| RachelF wrote:
| True, I was being glib, but the devil's in the details here -
| unfortunately, it was very hard to use after Microsoft bought
| it. It became unreliable, and the licensing was hard to
| understand for customers who wanted to use it.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| The author reached out to Hiroshi Oota on github, who said they
| created it to use emacs on Windows. Not sure why it's not in the
| article, but figure there might be a reason so won't link it.
| scruffyherder wrote:
| yes I was hoping to do an update after I had help finding the
| author, and to see if there was any potential of an update.
| It's late breaking & live. And it seems all the engagement is
| here not on the blog so I didn't see this as I was sleeping.
| sydbarrett74 wrote:
| This is only of historical interest, but still a cool find.
| burrish wrote:
| Those are snowflakes, YOU IDIOT
| eMPee584 wrote:
| are not them who fail to reply to the person they actually
| meant to insult to be called IDIOTs? xD
| burrish wrote:
| Hmmm surely a website error
| ValtteriL wrote:
| Turn off those falling leaves
| burrish wrote:
| haha my dear, those are snowflakes! how silly
| DeathArrow wrote:
| Not sure that NT kernel is inferior to UNIX/POSIX. It was by
| David Cutler modelled after VMS, which was state of the art at
| one point.
| krylon wrote:
| The kernel, I've been told by people more knowledgeable about
| this things than myself, is a work of beauty. But the layers
| and layers of Win32 that sit on top of it do a great job of
| covering that up.
| ladyanita22 wrote:
| Well, the benchmarks don't tell that.
| krylon wrote:
| You know what they say about benchmarks... ;-)
|
| I prefer Linux, but performance is not my main grief about
| Windows.
| crest wrote:
| Maybe after decades we have to accept that batched, concurrent
| I/O with asynchronous notifications is the least bad interface
| that can exploit the potential of modern hardware and let the
| simpler to use default Unix I/O model (blocking, synchronous)
| go. If this happens I hope we'll get a better designed API than
| some hacks around eBPF and io_uring.
| lproven wrote:
| Separate thread here:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38581362
|
| @dang, candidate for merging?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-11 23:02 UTC)