← Back to context

Comment by josephg

15 hours ago

If you're going to make apps in windows, you need to call their proprietary API somehow. Maybe you do it via a wrapper library, or via electron or something. But that's the same thing, just with more indirection.

9 comments

josephg

Reply
rfgplk  8 hours ago

> If you're going to make apps in windows, you need to call their proprietary API somehow. Maybe you do it via a wrapper library, or via electron or something. But that's the same thing, just with more indirection.

Not even close to being true. You can invoke syscalls directly, just needs a bit of reverse engineering. I wrote a bare metal libc library, with (not a whole lot of) effort I'm fully able to interface with the kernel/open windows etc. Fully statically linked, no libc, no win32, compiled on Linux executed on Windows.

The problem is this isn't really well documented _at all_, and I even ended up attempting to get in touch with the Windows kernel dev team to give me the actual internal syscalls/endpoints, but they refuse to cooperate. Which is why writing anything for Windows is entirely pointless.

  • drdexebtjl  2 hours ago

    That’s insane. Windows does not have a stable syscall ABI. The way you’re supposed to interact with the kernel is through the userspace library. Of course the kernel team refuses to cooperate.

    Do you want to keep reverse engineering the syscall ABI for every Windows edition and update ever? Do you want to ask your users to disable Windows Update?

    Regardless, I don’t even understand how that’s relevant, since you’re still introducing a dependency on a proprietary ABI.

  • miki123211  7 hours ago

    The problem is much deeper than that. Most OSes' syscall ABIs are not stable and could change without warning. What is stable is the dynamically-loaded libraries, shipped as part of the system. Linux is the notable exception here; the Linux kernel project doesn't ship a libc, and Linus is very famously opposed to "breaking userspace."

    There's nothing that can stop you from using syscalls in theory, but if you want your app to be portable across different OS versions, past and future, you'd better not.

    Incidentally, syscalls would also break Wine. The way Wine works is basically by shipping their own versions of Windows DLLs, which express their operations in terms of Linux APIs. Because Windows programs don't rely on syscalls, and call all system functions via the system-provided libraries, the Wine loader can just link Wine's version and let the program work normally.

  • vhiremath4  6 hours ago

    > This isn’t even close to being true. Here’s a thing I did that made things way more complicated than is worth it for 99% of developers when there is a proprietary solution made so I do not need to worry about these things. Because it is so hard to work around it, it is entirely pointless to develop for one of the most used operating systems in the world.

    Just being totally honest this is how I read this comment when I insert context that seems important to me. I respect having principles but at some point there needs to be more value in practicality over your codebase not being locked into a proprietary framework at all.

  • josephg  4 hours ago

    > Not even close to being true. You can invoke syscalls directly,

    The windows syscall API is yet another proprietary windows API. Sure - you can call it without loading any DLLs. But you're still calling into a proprietary windows API.

    If you really hate calling proprietary windows APIs that much, maybe stop developing for windows? Develop software for linux. Or make your own kernel, or whatever. But if you keep developing software for windows, stop fighting it. Unless you have a very good reason, your software should try to fit in on its host platform. It should behave well, and work like other windows software.

    It's like travel. If you fly to France, try to fit in. Maybe learn a bit of French before you go. If you hate France, don't go.