Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 3rd Nov 2008 19:25 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 336250
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
MinWin isn't about the kernel (i.e. what runs in ring0) at all. It's mostly about ring3 components that have had lots of contributors and development by a large and diverse set of people (a number of different teams within Microsoft).
Few/no actual syscalls are affected by this.






Member since:
2006-03-18
It struck me, listening to Russinovich, the degree to which the kernel term had to resort to what is effectively OS archaeology - uncovering and documenting the structures that are present, rather taking a top down design approach. To create things like MinWin, the kernel team has had to do a deep dependency analysis, revealing a massive hairball of dependencies that don't easily decompose into neatly separable layers, and then nudge system calls around to retroactively impose structure. The Windows kernel does not appear to be an onion, it's more like an omelet.
Perhaps this is just something that happens when a project gets this complex, but one wonders if perhaps things got a little out of hand in Redmond. There appears to have been no overarching design process in the kernel, at least in the last decade. Hopefully they will do a little better job in the future.