Why does someone else care so much if Linux is not used as a host OS?

[BulletDust]

Windows 10 is not adopting linux features, it is running a virtual linux kernel. That is a big difference.

The Ubuntu bash feature was tongue in cheek.

We have the points raised by naib plus a few others:

- The ability to support multiple users as introduced with Windows 2000 (and still not implemented as well as Linux).
- Windows Powershell.
- UAC (defiantly not implemented as well as sudo, not to mention other security features present in Linux, as highlighted by MS themselves.

Linux is not adopting Windows features, Windows has been adopting Linux (hell, you can go as far back as UNIX) features for years.

 

[Romale23]

The Ubuntu bash feature was tongue in cheek.

We have the points raised by naib plus a few others:

- The ability to support multiple users as introduced with Windows 2000 (and still not implemented as well as Linux).
- Windows Powershell.
- UAC (defiantly not implemented as well as sudo, not to mention other security features present in Linux, as highlighted by MS themselves.

Linux is not adopting Windows features, Windows has been adopting Linux (hell, you can go as far back as UNIX) features for years.

Microsoft's 1st operating system was unix prior to dos and it was in-fact the most popular unix of its day, just as an interesting FYI.

and just as an FYI i think linux is trash, but most of what people argue about with linux vs windows vs anything else is crap i don't care about and i dont mind using linux, i just don't prefer it, its flaws don't come with offsets for me personally. That said, i do understand why other people like it and why its as popular as it is and to bring it back to this conversation i dont' see an inherent advantage in having linux as a host os specifically vs anything else, including windows. I could be overlooking something though.
edit: and i just incase it didn't come across this way, i'm saying i dont see an inherent advantage of any OS as a host os.

 

[ManofGod]

Microsoft's 1st operating system was unix prior to dos and it was in-fact the most popular unix of its day, just as an interesting FYI.

and just as an FYI i think linux is trash, but most of what people argue about with linux vs windows vs anything else is crap i don't care about and i dont mind using linux, i just don't prefer it, its flaws don't come with offsets for me personally. That said, i do understand why other people like it and why its as popular as it is and to bring it back to this conversation i dont' see an inherent advantage in having linux as a host os specifically vs anything else, including windows. I could be overlooking something though.
edit: and i just incase it didn't come across this way, i'm saying i dont see an inherent advantage of any OS as a host os.

Exactly, if most of the work I did was in Linux and only used Windows for a hand full of things, then I would be using Linux as my host OS. However, I use Windows for most of the things I do which is why it is best for me to use that as the host OS. Doing a VM with Linux is more than good enough for the things I do with it on a daily basis.

 

[whatevs]

The GNU Bash Shellshock (2014) and friends exploits were there in some shape or form since Bash 1.03 from 1989 according to simple Google search.

Windows 10 Defender Security Center and friends had those crazy super amateur hour security mistakes just a short while a go.

 

[BulletDust]

Microsoft's 1st operating system was unix prior to dos and it was in-fact the most popular unix of its day, just as an interesting FYI.

and just as an FYI i think linux is trash, but most of what people argue about with linux vs windows vs anything else is crap i don't care about and i dont mind using linux, i just don't prefer it, its flaws don't come with offsets for me personally. That said, i do understand why other people like it and why its as popular as it is and to bring it back to this conversation i dont' see an inherent advantage in having linux as a host os specifically vs anything else, including windows. I could be overlooking something though.
edit: and i just incase it didn't come across this way, i'm saying i dont see an inherent advantage of any OS as a host os.

Who cares if Microsoft's first OS was UNIX, fact is Linux is not copying Windows in any area whatsoever.

Furthermore, I share your OS sentiments, but in relation to Windows 10 and I know that Windows as a whole was flawed from conception and many of those flaws are still present and causing issues today - Hence I would never use, or recommend anyone use Windows as a host OS, unless the point is to 'dabble' in Linux in which case there's no reason to start a thread about your preferred host OS.

You'll note that while I believe there isn't a whole lot in the way of positives relating to Windows 10, nowhere in there did I state that I hate Windows as a whole. I'm a PC user, and PC user does not = Windows user.

 

[ChadD]

Who cares if Microsoft's first OS was UNIX, fact is Linux is not copying Windows in any area whatsoever.

I'm not sure its really accurate to say their first OS was UNIX when it was simply a AT&T licenced distro. Saying Xenix was a MS os is sort of like saying Linux is Red Hats OS. MS sent changes to AT&T... and in 87 AT&T sold xenix to SCO. MS was already well into their OS/2 development and moving away from it anyway, but that happened just as IBM/MS was shipping os/2. It really is to bad IBM and MS partnered up for OS/2 though. Had they not I'm sure MS would have instead bought the rest (or a larger chunk) of SCO (they owned a quarter or something as I remember) and further developed xenix... its funny they had an OSX like os before Job got canned from apple. Instead MS let Business rule their decisions and stuck the world with shit windows operating systems based on their single user DOS os. (that is how they described DOS when they where still working with Xenix, dos for single users... xenix for mult-tasking / multi user needs).