Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

loss32.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 493 posts

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#331

Post by KerrAvon »

sedatk wrote: post #326
MangoToupe wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...isn't that the point of this entire subthread? The kernel itself doesn't provide the stable ABI, userland code that the binary links to does.

No. On NT, kernel ABI isn't defined by the syscalls but NTDLL. Win32 and all other APIs are wrappers on top of NTDLL, not syscalls. Syscalls are how NTDLL implements kernel calls behind the scenes, it's an implementation detail. Original point of the thread was about Win32, UWP and other APIs that build a new layer on top of NTDLL. I argue that NT doesn't break its kernel ABI.

macOS and iOS too — syscalls aren’t stable at all, you’re expected to link through shared library interfaces.

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#333

Post by rixed »

rep_lodsb wrote: post #129
kccqzy wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s actually an intentional nudge to make the software packaged by the distro, which usually implies that they are open source. Who needs ABI compatibility when your software is OSS? You only need API compatibility at that point.

So every Linux distribution should compile and distribute packages for every single piece of open source software in existence , both the very newest stuff that was only released last week, and also everything from 30+ years ago, no matter how obscure. Because almost certainly someone out there will want to use it. And they should be able to, because that is the entire point of free software: user freedom.

Those users will either check the source code and compile it themself, with all the proper options to match their system; or rely on a software distribution to do it for them.

People who are complaining would prefer a world of isolated apps downloaded from signed stores, but Linux was born at an optimistic time when the goal was software that cooperate and form a system, and which distribution does not depend on a central trusted platform.

I do not believe that there is any real technical issue discussed here, just drastically different goals.

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#334

Post by lillecarl »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #327

I like the idea of it, but Linux hardware support is still crap, and will get worse as ARM becomes more entrenched. What boggles my mind is why Google hasn't gotten more serious about making Android a desktop OS. Pay the money needed to get good hardware support, control the OS, and now you're a Microsoft/Apple competitor for devices. Yes there is the Chromebook, but ChromeOS is not a real desktop OS, it's a toy. Goo…

> I like the idea of it, but Linux hardware support is still crap, and will get worse as ARM becomes more entrenched. Linux arguably has better compatibility than Windows, but it's nuanced as it depends on what devices you're interested in.

> What boggles my mind is why Google hasn't gotten more serious about making Android a desktop OS. Google is seriously working on making Android a desktop OS, Android 16 is only the first steps towards it.

> Yes there is the Chromebook, but ChromeOS is not a real desktop OS, it's a toy. ChromeOS is very much not a toy, it's pretty great if it can facilitate your work.

> But then again that would require listening to customers and providing support, so nevermind Google has consistently provided good support for all their hardware products, listening to customers is not their cup of tea though.

Google is absolutely no saint, I don't like their business model, how they're closing more and more of Android, how they keep killing services, how GCP can nuke AI nuke you, that they "own" web standards, ... But they're not all bad, they've also contributed greatly to much of the web and surrounding technologies.

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#335

Post by [deleted] »

sedatk wrote: post #323
andrewf wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://j00ru.vexillium.org/syscalls/nt/64/ (One example: hit "Show" on the table header for Win11, then use the form at the top of the page to highlight syscall 8c)

Changes in syscall numbers aren't necessarily breaking changes as you're supposed to use ntdll.dll to call kernel, not direct syscalls.

[deleted]

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#336

Post by bitwize »

rep_lodsb wrote: post #315
ogogmad wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might be why OpenBSD looks attractive to some. Its kernel and all the different applications are fully integrated with each other -- no distros! It also tries to be simple, I believe, which makes it more secure and overall less buggy. To be honest, I think OSes are boring, and should have been that way since maybe 1995. The basic notions: multi-processing, context switching, tree-like file systems, multiple user…

> tree-like file systems, multiple users, access privileges, Why should everything pretend to be a 1970s minicomputer shared by multiple users connected via teletypes? If there's one good idea in Unix-like systems that should be preserved, IMHO it's independent processes, possibly written in different languages, communicating with each other through file handles. These processes should be isolated from each other, an…

Indeed.

AmigaOS was the pinnacle of personal computing OS design. Everything since has been a regression. Fite me.

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#337

Post by forrestthewoods »

ben-schaaf wrote: post #224
ok123456 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Versioned glibc symbols are part of the reason that binaries aren't portable across Linux distributions and time.

Only because people aren't putting in the effort to build their binaries properly. You need to link against the oldest glibc version that has all the symbols you need, and then your binary will actually work everywhere(*). * Except for non-glibc distributions of course.

> Only because people aren't putting in the effort to build their binaries properly.

Because Linux userland is an unmitigated clusterfuck of bad design that makes this really really really hard.

GCC/Clang and Glibc make it effectively impossible almost impossible to do this on their own. The only way you can actually do this is:

1. create a userland container from the past 2. use Zig which moved oceans and mountains to make it somewhat tractable

It's awful.

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#338

Post by bitwize »

ogogmad wrote: post #172
senfiaj wrote: post #50

This might offend some people but even Linus Torvalds thinks that the ABI compatibility is not good enough in Linux distros, and this is one of the main reasons Linux is not popular on the desktop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PmHRSeA2c8&t=283s

This might be why OpenBSD looks attractive to some. Its kernel and all the different applications are fully integrated with each other -- no distros! It also tries to be simple, I believe, which makes it more secure and overall less buggy. To be honest, I think OSes are boring, and should have been that way since maybe 1995. The basic notions: multi-processing, context switching, tree-like file systems, multiple user…

OpenBSD—all the BSDs really—have an even more unstable ABI than Linux. The syscall interface, in particular, is subject to change at any time. Statically linked binaries for one Linux version will generally Just Work with any subsequent version; this is not the case for BSD!

There's a lot to like about BSD, and many reasons to prefer OpenBSD to Linux, but ABI backward-compatibility is not one of them!

One of Linux's main problems is that it's difficult to supply and link versions of library dependencies local to a program. Janky workarounds such as containerization, AppImage, etc. have been developed to combat this. But in the Windows world, applications literally ship, and link against, the libc they were built with (msvcrt, now ucrt I guess).

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#339

Post by bigyabai »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #327

I like the idea of it, but Linux hardware support is still crap, and will get worse as ARM becomes more entrenched. What boggles my mind is why Google hasn't gotten more serious about making Android a desktop OS. Pay the money needed to get good hardware support, control the OS, and now you're a Microsoft/Apple competitor for devices. Yes there is the Chromebook, but ChromeOS is not a real desktop OS, it's a toy. Goo…

> but ChromeOS is not a real desktop OS, it's a toy.

ChromeOS is a better development environment than macOS in many ways. When was the last time you actually used one of these things, 2013?

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#340

Post by guerrilla »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #327

I like the idea of it, but Linux hardware support is still crap, and will get worse as ARM becomes more entrenched. What boggles my mind is why Google hasn't gotten more serious about making Android a desktop OS. Pay the money needed to get good hardware support, control the OS, and now you're a Microsoft/Apple competitor for devices. Yes there is the Chromebook, but ChromeOS is not a real desktop OS, it's a toy. Goo…

> but Linux hardware support is still crap

What are you talking about? Everything for desktops work out of the box unless you have something weird and proprietary, and even then most distros have support anyway.

Post reply on HN