Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 11th May 2013 21:41 UTC
Windows "Windows is indeed slower than other operating systems in many scenarios, and the gap is worsening." That's one way to start an insider explanation of why Windows' performance isn't up to snuff. Written by someone who actually contributes code to the Windows NT kernel, the comment on Hacker News, later deleted but reposted with permission on Marc Bevand's blog, paints a very dreary picture of the state of Windows development. The root issue? Think of how Linux is developed, and you'll know the answer.
Thread beginning with comment 561252
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: makes sense
by Valhalla on Sun 12th May 2013 14:55 UTC in reply to "RE: makes sense"
Valhalla
Member since:
2006-01-24


Two nobody is gonna care about speed and innovation if you just broke $30k worth of office software and left an entire company's products broken so the risk isn't worth it in many cases.

How would Linux the kernel suddenly break office software? The userland API/ABI is extremely stable, add to that the fact that no company would be running their business on bleeding edge kernels to begin with, they will most likely use a tried and tested LTS kernel version.


Third Linux pays for this "speed and innovation" with one of the worst driver models in the history of computing, a driver model so messed up that to this very day a company can't just put a penguin on the box and a driver on the disc because thanks to Torvalds laughingly bad driver model there is a good chance the driver WILL be broken before the device even reaches the shelves.

Your old tired bullshit again, first off Linux (while just being a kernel) supports more hardware devices than any other operating system out there, and it does it straight out of the box.

A company wanting to 'put a Linux sticker' on the box doesn't need to put a driver on a disc, they can have the driver be part of the actual kernel tree and be shipped with all Linux distros and maintained against ABI changes by the kernel devs.

ABI changes doesn't break these drivers inside the kernel (if the kernel devs change the source interface they update the drivers), it only breaks those very few external proprietary drivers that exist for Linux, and no it's not as if those drivers have to be rewritten, typically they have to be slightly modified and re-built against the new ABI.

And those few proprietary driver vendors do continously update their drivers against the new ABI versions, so it's not even a practical problem even when it comes to proprietary drivers, you just get the new driver from your package manager.

By comparison when Microsoft update their driver ABI like with Windows Vista, tons of perfectly functional hardware is made obsolete because the hardware companies won't release new drivers for older hardware (they want you to buy new hardware).

And it's not as if a Windows ABI version is in reality stable during it's own lifetime, as shown by the Vista SP1 service pack driver malfunction debacle.


you can give me your OS for free but if my wireless is toast on first update and my sound goes soon after? Well into the trash it goes.

Again unless (and even if you do) run a bleeding edge distro any problem such as this is extremely unlikely to be caused buy the Linux kernel, ABI change or not.

and Linux is STILL flatline...doesn't that tell you something?

The only area in which Linux 'flatlines' is on the end user desktop, an area where no one has been able to challenge Microsoft, not even OSX riding the 'trendy/hipster' wave with massive marketing, in every other area in computing Linux either dominates or is doing extremely well. And guess what, those areas ALSO USE DRIVERS, how can this be? According to you they just keep crashing due to your imagined ABI problem.

A non-stable ABI means no cruft, no need to support crappy deprecated interfaces and functionality because some driver out there may still use it (hello Windows), instead you modify and re-compile the drivers to work against the new improved ABI, and this is something the kernel devs do for you if you keep your driver in the kernel.

Again for those few instances of proprietary driver holdouts, yes they need to do this themselves, and they do. The result is that all Linux drivers improve as they make use of new/enhanced functionality provided by the kernel.

Reply Parent Score: 15

RE[3]: makes sense
by lucas_maximus on Sun 12th May 2013 17:35 in reply to "RE[2]: makes sense"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Well this bullshit comes up time and time again, because stuff breaks. How many times has someone's video goes tits up after a kernel upgrade ... and don't give me this "it should be in the kernel" bullshit ... when you are stuck at a command prompt having to use another machine to google the solution it isn't a lot of fun.

Stable API/ABIs are good engineering like it or not.

Edited 2013-05-12 17:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: makes sense
by Valhalla on Sun 12th May 2013 18:31 in reply to "RE[3]: makes sense"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Well this bullshit comes up time and time again, because stuff breaks.

No, this shit comes up time and time again from guys like you and bassbeast who doesn't even run Linux.

How many times has someone's video goes tits up after a kernel upgrade

Yes tell me, how many times? I've used a bleeding edge distro for 5 years, my video drivers (I use NVidia cards) have never caused breakage, only time I had problems with a kernel update which forced me to downgrade was a instability caused by my network driver during a major network driver rewrite.

And this is because I run a bleeding edge distro, Arch (kernel 3.9.2 went into core today), had I been using a stable distro then I would not have been bitten by that bug either.

... and don't give me this "it should be in the kernel" bullshit

What bullshit is that? It works for a goddamn gazillion of hardware drivers, right out of the goddamn box. And unlike Windows which relies on third party drivers, this means that Linux can support all this hardware on ALL the numerous architectures it runs on, which is of course a huge advantage of Linux.

... when you are stuck at a command prompt having to use another machine to google the solution it isn't a lot of fun.

Beats a blue screen of death, see I can play this game of BS too.

Stable API/ABIs are good engineering like it or not.

Yes in a perfect world, in reality there's always a cost like that of poor choices you have to live with in order to ensure backwards compability, the Linux devs went with a middle way, anything inside the kernel can be changed at any time, hence you either put your code in the kernel were it will be maintained against changes, or you do the labour yourself.

Meanwhile breaking kernel to user space interfaces is a big NO.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: makes sense
by lemur2 on Tue 14th May 2013 11:35 in reply to "RE[3]: makes sense"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Well this bullshit comes up time and time again, because stuff breaks. How many times has someone's video goes tits up after a kernel upgrade ... and don't give me this "it should be in the kernel" bullshit ... when you are stuck at a command prompt having to use another machine to google the solution it isn't a lot of fun.

Stable API/ABIs are good engineering like it or not.


Just use the open source drivers ... so use a system with Intel or AMD graphics. "Problem" solved.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: makes sense
by matthekc on Thu 16th May 2013 15:02 in reply to "RE[3]: makes sense"
matthekc Member since:
2006-10-28

I think that when you install a proprietary driver the kernel, Xorg, and that driver should only upgrade in sync when the driver allows.
More specifically what I'm trying to say is if the package for the driver recommends a certain kernel or Xorg that is where those packages stay until an upgraded driver that supports the upgraded kernel and Xorg comes out.
This is a package management issue that could have been fixed ages ago and in fact you can manually lock down these packages and achieve stability.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: makes sense
by zima on Sat 18th May 2013 22:55 in reply to "RE[2]: makes sense"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

A company wanting to 'put a Linux sticker' on the box doesn't need to put a driver on a disc, they can have the driver be part of the actual kernel tree and be shipped with all Linux distros and maintained against ABI changes by the kernel devs.
[...]
you modify and re-compile the drivers to work against the new improved ABI, and this is something the kernel devs do for you if you keep your driver in the kernel.

Seems that, in practice, this can also mean the driver often languishes; especially when it's for some older piece of hardware (for example http://www.osnews.com/permalink?562009 )

Reply Parent Score: 2