How the Windows Subsystem for Linux Redirects Syscalls
blogs.msdn.microsoft.com
How the Windows Subsystem for Linux Redirects Syscalls
1–10 of 274 posts
Re: How the Windows Subsystem for Linux Redirects Syscalls
#2It's too bad that x86 hardware doesn't do virtualization as well as IBM hardware. You can't stack VMs. That's exactly what's needed here - a non-kernel VM that runs above NT but below the application.
Re: How the Windows Subsystem for Linux Redirects Syscalls
#3It's too bad that x86 hardware doesn't do virtualization as well as IBM hardware. You can't stack VMs. That's exactly what's needed here - a non-kernel VM that runs above NT but below the application.
You can have nested VMs.
https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/virtual/kvm/nested-...
Re: How the Windows Subsystem for Linux Redirects Syscalls
#4[deleted]
Re: How the Windows Subsystem for Linux Redirects Syscalls
#5Funny they don't mention ioctl.
Re: How the Windows Subsystem for Linux Redirects Syscalls
#6It's too bad that x86 hardware doesn't do virtualization as well as IBM hardware. You can't stack VMs. That's exactly what's needed here - a non-kernel VM that runs above NT but below the application.
Looking at the way mainframes work, with their higher level languages, JIT compilers at kernel level, object databases, type 1 hypervisors, ....
It is quite interesting to see mainstream OSes increasingly get adopting all those features.
Re: How the Windows Subsystem for Linux Redirects Syscalls
#7Excellent post, Jack.
Re: How the Windows Subsystem for Linux Redirects Syscalls
#8It's too bad that x86 hardware doesn't do virtualization as well as IBM hardware. You can't stack VMs. That's exactly what's needed here - a non-kernel VM that runs above NT but below the application.
Looking at the way mainframes work, with their higher level languages, JIT compilers at kernel level, object databases, type 1 hypervisors, .... It is quite interesting to see mainstream OSes increasingly get adopting all those features.
Very, very slowly. Microprocessors still have DMA instead of mainframe-like "channels", although we're starting to see MMUs on the I/O side. With channels, devices can't blither all over memory and neither driver nor device need be trusted.
Re: How the Windows Subsystem for Linux Redirects Syscalls
#9Pretty neat stuff. I think that MS should just create their own Linux Distribution & port all MS products. Get rid of the Windows NT Kernel. I believe it's outdated & doesn't have the same update cycle that the Linux Kernel has.
Why run a Linux Application/binary on a windows server OS? When you can just run it on Linux OS and get better performance & stability.
Re: How the Windows Subsystem for Linux Redirects Syscalls
#10Pretty neat stuff. I think that MS should just create their own Linux Distribution & port all MS products. Get rid of the Windows NT Kernel. I believe it's outdated & doesn't have the same update cycle that the Linux Kernel has. Why run a Linux Application/binary on a windows server OS? When you can just run it on Linux OS and get better performance & stability.
> Get rid of the Windows NT Kernel. I believe it's outdated & doesn't have the same update cycle that the Linux Kernel has.
Curious why you claim this? What's outdated about the NT Kernel?