Thom Holwerda: We have learnt quite a lot about Windows 7 this week, and one of the things was that Windows 7 would not get a new kernel. The call for a new kernel has been made a few times on the internet, but anyone with a bit more insight into Windows' kernel knows that there is absolutely no need to write a new kernel for Windows - the problems with Windows lie in userland, not kernelland. While the authenticity of the Shipping Seven blog is not undisputed, the blogger makes some very excellent points regarding the kernel matter.

I have written numerous times that there is nothing wrong with the Windows NT kernel currently powering about 90% of the world's desktops. It provides advanced security features, it's extremely stable, very portable, and supports just about any piece of hardware in the x86 desktop and server markets. "In conclusion, scrapping Windows NT would be a pointless exercise. It is a mature, stable, and, yes, secure system by design." I wrote a year ago, "Do not make the mistake of thinking that simply because Microsoft refused to enforce proper security policies from the get-go, that NT is an insecure system by design."

The Shipping Seven blog seems to agree with this position. "The 2000/XP/Vista/Windows 7 kernel has evolved quite nicely over the years, and (in my opinion) is one of the best bits of code we have," the blogger writes, "You do not, and should not, do a total rewrite of a kernel in a widely-used OS between releases." He makes a valid point: how often, exactly, has the Linux kernel been rewritten?