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

ManofGod

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,755
Short of the professional field, where what you use as a host OS, why should someone else care so adamantly about what someone else uses. Now, I can understand if someone thinks Linux is the best for certain things and wants to convey that in a way that gets someone such as myself to think but, why should it matter if the other person does not agree?

Heck, I have used just about every OS out there except for mainframe OS's and just enjoy the fact that even here in 2017, there is more than one choice. Some of the best that once was, like OS/2 and Amiga, are pretty much dead but at least there are 3 choices to be made still.
 
Oh, that is right, I just remembered as I was sitting on the toilet, there is the increased privacy and security. (The privacy may be better but, I do not think the security is better than anything else because, at least from my perspective, security is more about PEBKAC than anything else, even with me. :D ) However, it was built with multi user and better standard user access from the start.
 
It's just a matter of preference.., that and some people feel as though they need to force their beliefs on others.

Ultimately, the only person who should really care what host OS you use, is you.
 
Why does someone else care so much if Linux is not used as a host OS?
Click to expand...
The question can be boiled down from Linux specificity to - Why does anyone passionately share their beliefs with someone? Evangelism or advocacy.
It could be what the best NFL team is, best car (domestic/foreign is classic), best beer, charity work, religion, blah blah.. Whatever it is, people get enjoyment if you share the sentiment.
 
Frobozz said:
The question can be boiled down from Linux specificity to - Why does anyone passionately share their beliefs with someone? Evangelism or advocacy.
It could be what the best NFL team is, best car (domestic/foreign is classic), best beer, charity work, religion, blah blah.. Whatever it is, people get enjoyment if you share the sentiment.
Click to expand...

I have to agree but, it seems to me the best are those who are simply sharing the sentiment without putting others down in the process, on purpose, anyways. I personally do not find Linux as a desktop host OS to be worth it since everything I do is Windows related anyways, at least on a daily, professional basis. I installed Linux on my main machine and then found I had to install Windows as a VM anyways because there was just a ton of stuff I could not do otherwise on a daily basis.

That above is one of the biggest reasons I use Windows as my host OS. having a second computer right beside my first one is not worth it anymore, I just do VM's of Linux now and they work great.
 
ManofGod said:
I have to agree but, it seems to me the best are those who are simply sharing the sentiment without putting others down in the process, on purpose, anyways. I personally do not find Linux as a desktop host OS to be worth it since everything I do is Windows related anyways, at least on a daily, professional basis. I installed Linux on my main machine and then found I had to install Windows as a VM anyways because there was just a ton of stuff I could not do otherwise on a daily basis.

That above is one of the biggest reasons I use Windows as my host OS. having a second computer right beside my first one is not worth it anymore, I just do VM's of Linux now and they work great.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you finally found something that works for you. Now you can focus on doing things instead of having to debate on what OS to use.
 
AmigaOS is far from dead. There was an update for AmigaOS 3.1 about twelve months ago and new hardware and associated drivers are still being released for AmigaOS.

Since my recent experience with Windows 98, which I dumped for 2000 as driver support for Windows 98 is non existent, I can assure anyone out there that Windows 98 is as dead as PPC under the Apple platform.
 
Frobozz said:
I'm glad you finally found something that works for you. Now you can focus on doing things instead of having to debate on what OS to use.
Click to expand...

Nah, I prefer to discuss stuff, computer stuff and Operating Systems are some of that stuff. :) Linux is one of them and I have been using it and learning it practically from the beginning, or at least once X was released. I love the fact that computer hardware has advanced so much that you can now run Linux just as fast in a VM as you do on straight up hardware, except for gaming, unless you can use hardware pass through to do it.

Oh, and I did not "finally" find something, I use everything and simply know what works best for me at this time.
 
ManofGod said:
Short of the professional field, where what you use as a host OS, why should someone else care so adamantly about what someone else uses. Now, I can understand if someone thinks Linux is the best for certain things and wants to convey that in a way that gets someone such as myself to think but, why should it matter if the other person does not agree?

Heck, I have used just about every OS out there except for mainframe OS's and just enjoy the fact that even here in 2017, there is more than one choice. Some of the best that once was, like OS/2 and Amiga, are pretty much dead but at least there are 3 choices to be made still.
Click to expand...
You are describing a people issue a technical one.
 
That is one of the reasons I have been attracted to FreeBSD as an alt OS - the FreeBSD communities attitude pretty much is - a computer is a tool, and the OS is a tool. Use the right tool for the job. If Linux it the right tool - use it. If OSX is the right tool - use it. If Windows is the right tool - use it. If FreeBSD is the right tool - we'd love for you to use it!
 
jardows said:
That is one of the reasons I have been attracted to FreeBSD as an alt OS - the FreeBSD communities attitude pretty much is - a computer is a tool, and the OS is a tool. Use the right tool for the job. If Linux it the right tool - use it. If OSX is the right tool - use it. If Windows is the right tool - use it. If FreeBSD is the right tool - we'd love for you to use it!
Click to expand...
Ya i've kinda bent this way too. You pick the tool you need to use.
 
Romale23 said:
Ya i've kinda bent this way too. You pick the tool you need to use.
Click to expand...

Ditto! There are a few times when Linux just makes sense for some things that I am doing. However, between just having one computer at home, one at work and not being able to justify spending more on a third, I am very grateful that Linux runs really well in a VM.
 
ManofGod said:
Ditto! There are a few times when Linux just makes sense for some things that I am doing. However, between just having one computer at home, one at work and not being able to justify spending more on a third, I am very grateful that Linux runs really well in a VM.
Click to expand...

This makes absolutely no sense.

You can run Linux as the host OS and Windows as the client OS and you still don't have to purchase another machine?!

In fact, running Windows as the host OS makes no sense to me due to the fact that it's more vulnerable than Linux - And it is more vulnerable than Linux.

What's the point of this thread?!
 
Last edited:
Put unraid or similar on your puter and run both at the same time. It's the [H] thing to do...
 
KarsusTG said:
Put unraid or similar on your puter and run both at the same time. It's the [H] thing to do...
Click to expand...

Quite well priced also, surprising these days when everyone wants some outrageous form of annual subscription!
 
BulletDust said:
This makes absolutely no sense.

You can run Linux as the host OS and Windows as the client OS and you still don't have to purchase another machine?!

In fact, running Windows as the host OS makes no sense to me due to the fact that it's more vulnerable than Linux - And it is more vulnerable than Linux.

What's the point of this thread?!
Click to expand...

A Christian made it.
 
BulletDust said:
This makes absolutely no sense.

You can run Linux as the host OS and Windows as the client OS and you still don't have to purchase another machine?!

In fact, running Windows as the host OS makes no sense to me due to the fact that it's more vulnerable than Linux - And it is more vulnerable than Linux.

What's the point of this thread?!
Click to expand...

That makes total sense, you just have to be willing to drop your why or the highway attitude. (At least that is the way I am reading your response.) Windows is incredibly secure, especially Windows 10, 8.1 and 7, although it is not perfect. The obvious thing with Linux is that a big portion of it's security is security through obscurity. (Desktop Linux, anyways.) Of course, that does not mean it is not secure since it runs by default in a standard user account but, it also started that way well Windows had to support so much more stuff and be far more backwards compatible than Linux. UAC is a step in the right direction and does make the user a standard user with elevation privileges when needed.

For me, running Linux as the host and then running Windows in VM is not worth it. (I do run Windows 7 in a VM when I need it, though.) As for being more "vulnerable" than Linux, that is a PEBKAC issue and security through obscurity issue.
 
ManofGod said:
That makes total sense, you just have to be willing to drop your why or the highway attitude. (At least that is the way I am reading your response.) Windows is incredibly secure, especially Windows 10, 8.1 and 7, although it is not perfect. The obvious thing with Linux is that a big portion of it's security is security through obscurity. (Desktop Linux, anyways.) Of course, that does not mean it is not secure since it runs by default in a standard user account but, it also started that way well Windows had to support so much more stuff and be far more backwards compatible than Linux. UAC is a step in the right direction and does make the user a standard user with elevation privileges when needed.

For me, running Linux as the host and then running Windows in VM is not worth it. (I do run Windows 7 in a VM when I need it, though.) As for being more "vulnerable" than Linux, that is a PEBKAC issue and security through obscurity issue.
Click to expand...

Ok it really really really annoys me when seemingly semi sane people continue to spread fud that Linux is only secure because its obscure. That is simply BS >.<

One its not obscure at all... it runs every major server in the world which have far more important information on them then your little windows gaming machine. The majority of mobile devices in the world are also running googles Linux running mobile OS Android. So its not in anyway obscure.

Two let me detail for you why exactly its more secure then windows.... I say more cause sure Linux isn't perfect either but its a hell of a lot better then the alternative.

First privileges and account settings. By default windows users have access to everything on their machines. Linux users do not. Linux does not setup its users with root access. Linux has properly setup file privileges. -rwx r-x r-x .... in comparison windows malware injected under a user account has no issues messing with files including system files.

Second proper kernel level firewall nat protection running kernel level VMs... iptables has now given way to nftables.
https://wiki.nftables.org/wiki-nftables/index.php/Main_Page

SELinux and AppArmor sel was developed by redhat apparmor by suse. The two jobs that are very much the same... one advantage to Sel is that it identifies files by their inode listing which for sure makes things a bit more secure imo.

INODE system. The way linux and any unix system really stores its files is also more secure.

Of course no system is perfect... but to suggest windows is as secure is nothing more then wishful thinking. BSD is probably more secure yet.

If I was building a machine that was required to be stupid secure my choices would go this way...
BSD>Linux>OSX>Windows MS OS has foundation security issues, they have done an admirable job of trying to fix them over the years bottom line is however I have yet to meet a windows power user not using an admin level account. Most also turn UAC and such protections off... cause there annoying I guess. Windows is just not secure by design and every change MS makes to fix those main design flaws is resisted by the windows user base.
 
ChadD said:
Ok it really really really annoys me when seemingly semi sane people continue to spread fud that Linux is only secure because its obscure. That is simply BS >.<
Click to expand...

Show me where I said that it is only secure because it is obscure? Or show me where I did not reference desktops? Clearly, you are getting annoyed at something I did not say.
 
BulletDust said:
This makes absolutely no sense.

You can run Linux as the host OS and Windows as the client OS and you still don't have to purchase another machine?!

In fact, running Windows as the host OS makes no sense to me due to the fact that it's more vulnerable than Linux - And it is more vulnerable than Linux.

What's the point of this thread?!
Click to expand...
Who told you windows is more vulnerable than Linux? I point you to here: https://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php?year=2016
You will notice that linux is the top 3 last year, and out of the top 10 linux represents half and windows isn't even on the list. If you use the so far this year, windows is on the list, behind linux. You might disagree with using it as a measurement because it doesn't disclose severity, but what you can't dispute is that linux has had more vulnerabilities, which unfortunately is probably the only objective thing to look at.

This isn't a pro windows thing either overall i think the bsds have it right. I give linux a little more shit than windows because windows was originally insecure by design, the security in windows was 100% related to network attached resources and not the local machines until very recently in the windows life span. Linux has a huge set a problems all its own both security performance and community related.
 
Romale23 said:
Who told you windows is more vulnerable than Linux? I point you to here: https://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php?year=2016
You will notice that linux is the top 3 last year, and out of the top 10 linux represents half and windows isn't even on the list. If you use the so far this year, windows is on the list, behind linux. You might disagree with using it as a measurement because it doesn't disclose severity, but what you can't dispute is that linux has had more vulnerabilities, which unfortunately is probably the only objective thing to look at.

This isn't a pro windows thing either overall i think the bsds have it right. I give linux a little more shit than windows because windows was originally insecure by design, the security in windows was 100% related to network attached resources and not the local machines until very recently in the windows life span. Linux has a huge set a problems all its own both security performance and community related.
Click to expand...

Linux / Android / BSD are always going to have more listed vulneratblities vs windows. They are open source and the code is in the open. Windows and to a smaller extent osx have lots of closed source code which means vulnarbilites will be listed after someone exploits them.

Listed issues isn't a bad thing it means they are being worked on and machines like servers in banks ect can be secured properly if the person securing it knows what needs to be avoided worked around ect. Not every company is as stupid as equafax.
 
Romale23 said:
Who told you windows is more vulnerable than Linux? I point you to here: https://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php?year=2016
You will notice that linux is the top 3 last year, and out of the top 10 linux represents half and windows isn't even on the list. If you use the so far this year, windows is on the list, behind linux. You might disagree with using it as a measurement because it doesn't disclose severity, but what you can't dispute is that linux has had more vulnerabilities, which unfortunately is probably the only objective thing to look at.

This isn't a pro windows thing either overall i think the bsds have it right. I give linux a little more shit than windows because windows was originally insecure by design, the security in windows was 100% related to network attached resources and not the local machines until very recently in the windows life span. Linux has a huge set a problems all its own both security performance and community related.
Click to expand...

People always post these vulnerability databases, completely missing the point of what the database is highlighting in the first place! That database is highlighting vulnerabilities found and patched, if they weren't found and patched we wouldn't know about them now, would we?

Now considering that Linux owns the enterprise/corporate server market it stands to reason that vulnerabilities are found and patched in a far more efficient manner than they are under Windows. Furthermore, due to the fact that there's more people working on Linux than Windows it stands to reason that vulnerabilities are found and patched faster than they are under Windows - For all we know Windows is more vulnerable for this very reason.

What you've posted there highlights Windows in a negative light, not a positive light. Hell, even UAC doesn't really provide any real form of permissions elevation, it's designed to be more of an inconvenience to the end user forcing developers to code software that doesn't need to run as administrator - This is admitted by MS themselves and I have posted links highlighting this fact in the past. The simple fact that there is software packages out there in Windows land that insists on running as administrator is flat out ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
ManofGod said:
That makes total sense, you just have to be willing to drop your why or the highway attitude. (At least that is the way I am reading your response.) Windows is incredibly secure, especially Windows 10, 8.1 and 7, although it is not perfect. The obvious thing with Linux is that a big portion of it's security is security through obscurity. (Desktop Linux, anyways.) Of course, that does not mean it is not secure since it runs by default in a standard user account but, it also started that way well Windows had to support so much more stuff and be far more backwards compatible than Linux. UAC is a step in the right direction and does make the user a standard user with elevation privileges when needed.

For me, running Linux as the host and then running Windows in VM is not worth it. (I do run Windows 7 in a VM when I need it, though.) As for being more "vulnerable" than Linux, that is a PEBKAC issue and security through obscurity issue.
Click to expand...

Security through obscurity is a bullshit cop out excuse made up by insecure Windows users supported by nothing - By design, from conception, Linux is a more secure OS than Windows. People can argue that point, I don't give a shit.

Linux owns the corporate server market not to mention IoT devices, Linux forms the backbone of the Internet and UAC is downright useless as admitted by MS themselves - If anything was going to be attacked it would be a Linux machine based on sheer importance alone. User statistics and number of installs have nothing to do with the cesspool that is Windows at this point in time and overall Linux is the more popular operating system in it's various forms. I've said it in another thread and I will state it here, at the moment Windows is unusable for many people for this very reason, hence the need to switch to purely mobile devices.

Therefore, there is no way I would use Windows as a host OS, the idea is ridiculous. Get out more, go into people's homes and see just how dire the situation really is regarding Windows and infections.
 
Last edited:
BulletDust said:
Security through obscurity is a bullshit cop out excuse made up by insecure Windows users supported by nothing
Click to expand...

So basically, you are straight up saying if the Linux desktop had 100% of the market share, it would not suffer from socially engineered scams, malware and worms, yeah, ok. :LOL::rolleyes: That stuff is a money maker and the only reason that it is done, or at least the only reason that means anything. If the Linux desktop had majority market share, it would be the top attack vector, period. :geek::smuggrin: The fact that you are unwilling to see that causes more concern for me than someone who at least sees things the way the actually are. Heck, you probably consider yourself invulnerable because you use Linux, forgetting the fact that most of the data taken is not from your computer but almost always after it leaves it. :D
 
ManofGod said:
So basically, you are straight up saying if the Linux desktop had 100% of the market share, it would not suffer from socially engineered scams, malware and worms, yeah, ok. :LOL::rolleyes: That stuff is a money maker and the only reason that it is done, or at least the only reason that means anything. If the Linux desktop had majority market share, it would be the top attack vector, period. :geek::smuggrin: The fact that you are unwilling to see that causes more concern for me than someone who at least sees things the way the actually are. Heck, you probably consider yourself invulnerable because you use Linux, forgetting the fact that most of the data taken is not from your computer but almost always after it leaves it. :D
Click to expand...

I'm saying that the damage caused by such infections wouldn't be anywhere near as severe as the damage such malicious software causes under Windows, furthermore the sheer number of infections wouldn't be as overwhelming.

In most cases, the meatbag in front of the machine would be the far greater weakness, under Windows this isn't necessarily the case as Windows has to provide a measure of 'convenience' for the average moron.

Compare macOS to Windows considering malware. In nine out of ten cases a simple malware scan will remove about eight malware and PUP infections in total and the OS remains completely undamaged, under Windows that number rises to about 8000 malware and PUP infections in many cases and the OS is damaged to the point where the networking stack is screwed beyond repair even after the malware and PUP's have been removed.

Furthermore, I'm not talking about simple data harvesting performed by the likes of Google and Microsoft.
 
BulletDust said:
Security through obscurity is a bullshit cop out excuse made up by insecure Windows users supported by nothing - By design, from conception, Linux is a more secure OS than Windows. People can argue that point, I don't give a shit.
Click to expand...
As Linux becomes more like Windows than like Unix, the concept and design of Linux is becoming less secure

BulletDust said:
Linux owns the corporate server market
Click to expand...

I'd like to see some sources for that statement. I have not worked for, or personally outside of Internet forums known anyone who has worked for an organization that is using Linux for their corporate server. All Windows Server based. Anecdotal, I know.

BulletDust said:
If anything was going to be attacked it would be a Linux machine based on sheer importance alone. User statistics and number of installs have nothing to do with the cesspool that is Windows at this point in time and overall Linux is the more popular operating system. I've said it in another thread and I will state it here, at the moment Windows is unusable for many people for this very reason, hence the need to switch to purely mobile devices.
Click to expand...

This argument only holds water when compared to Windows server installed. I would certainly hope that Linux server admins would be taking a greater care to secure the servers than the average Windows desktop user. Windows Server is more secure OOB than Windows Home/Pro, so not exactly apples to apples comparison.

BulletDust said:
Therefore, there is no way I would use Windows as a host OS, the idea is ridiculous. Get out more, go into people's homes and see just how dire the situation really is regarding Windows and infections.
Click to expand...
Yep, real dire. That's why I don't have any viruses or malware, my wife doesn't have any viruses or malware, my parents, sisters, in-laws all have no viruses or malware. They are all using Windows machines!

It is this last statement that I think encapsulates the sentiment of this thread. You and other Linux evangelists on this board like to make it seem like we are all going to burn up in flames of crashes and computer viruses simply because we are using Windows on our computers. Reality goes against this "dire" prediction, as anyone who spends the tiniest bit of effort to protect against viruses and malware stay happily "healthy" on their computers.
 
jardows said:
As Linux becomes more like Windows than like Unix, the concept and design of Linux is becoming less secure
Click to expand...

What?!

You mean "As Windows becomes more like Linux"?

jardows said:
I'd like to see some sources for that statement. I have not worked for, or personally outside of Internet forums known anyone who has worked for an organization that is using Linux for their corporate server. All Windows Server based. Anecdotal, I know.
Click to expand...

Very anecdotal, and chances are those Windows machines are VM's running under some form of Linux based hypervisor. You may be running Windows servers in the offices, but the backbone will most likely all be Linux.

Bear in mind that I'm not talking about little HP Windows SBS machines running Exchange here, I'm talking servers that are predominantly web facing.

jardows said:
This argument only holds water when compared to Windows server installed. I would certainly hope that Linux server admins would be taking a greater care to secure the servers than the average Windows desktop user. Windows Server is more secure OOB than Windows Home/Pro, so not exactly apples to apples comparison.
Click to expand...

We're talking in terms of numbers here, not what server admins are doing to secure their machines. There is a vast number of Linux servers out there performing very important roles, if anything was going to be targeted based on numbers alone, those servers would be the target. The argument that Windows is a cesspool based on sheer user numbers holds no merit whatsoever.

jardows said:
Yep, real dire. That's why I don't have any viruses or malware, my wife doesn't have any viruses or malware, my parents, sisters, in-laws all have no viruses or malware. They are all using Windows machines!

It is this last statement that I think encapsulates the sentiment of this thread. You and other Linux evangelists on this board like to make it seem like we are all going to burn up in flames of crashes and computer viruses simply because we are using Windows on our computers. Reality goes against this "dire" prediction, as anyone who spends the tiniest bit of effort to protect against viruses and malware stay happily "healthy" on their computers
Click to expand...

Do what I do, go into people's homes and rectify their infection issues. Your Windows sample group is proportionally a piss in the ocean.
 
Last edited:
It's actually difficult to find hard statistics on server OS usage, especially considering that many statistical measurements are based on Windows server shipments on OEM devices - There's nothing to state that that device won't be wiped for a Linux install and there's a fairly high chance that will be the case even if it's to install a Linux based hypervisor. However, here's some information that I have been able to find:

https://news.netcraft.com/archives/category/web-server-survey/
 
BulletDust said:
What?!

You mean "As Windows becomes more like Linux"?
Click to expand...

I meant exactly what I said. See systemd for exhibit A. LInux distribution development has been focused on making it easier to use, less "nerdy" and more compatible. This has made it much more "like windows" and less "like unix." At the same time, introducing instabilities and vulnerabilities, increasing the installation footprint, and slowing down the system. Sure, a custom tailored experience can overcome those, but that is not what "mass linux adoption" for the desktop looks like.

BulletDust said:
It's actually difficult to find hard statistics on server OS usage, especially considering that many statistical measurements are based on Windows server shipments on OEM devices - There's nothing to state that that device won't be wiped for a Linux install and there's a fairly high chance that will be the case even if it's to install a Linux based hypervisor. However, here's some information that I have been able to find:

https://news.netcraft.com/archives/category/web-server-survey/
Click to expand...

Without numbers or statistics, your arguments are as valid as mine. Sure the netcraft survey shows web facing servers, but says nothing of actual corporate servers.

Oh, and I'm not talking about "little HP Windows SBS machines running Exchange here" either, I am talking about servers being used to make the entire corporation operate. You know, corporations that have tens of thousands of users all logging in to a Microsoft AD domain.
 
jardows said:
I meant exactly what I said. See systemd for exhibit A. LInux distribution development has been focused on making it easier to use, less "nerdy" and more compatible. This has made it much more "like windows" and less "like unix." At the same time, introducing instabilities and vulnerabilities, increasing the installation footprint, and slowing down the system. Sure, a custom tailored experience can overcome those, but that is not what "mass linux adoption" for the desktop looks like.
Click to expand...

Less nerdy?!

So you're essentially claiming that because a handful of neckbeards didn't approve of the transition to systemd, that somehow that makes Linux more like Windows?! I have no idea how you conjured up that concept, but if it's what you wanna run with, go right ahead. I fail to see how systemd makes an OS 'less nerdy' and easier to use? More modern perhaps, but certainly not 'less nerdy' and certainly not 'easier to use' for the most part - Just different. Even Linux has to evolve.

Furthermore, Linux is far from unstable running systemd, far from slow running under systemd, has an installation footprint that's comparable, if not slightly less, than Windows even considering a packaged distro with Office suites, browsers and a dozen or more other software applications installed by default using systemd, and you just admitted that Windows is slow if you think Linux is becoming more like Windows - Which is most defiantly is not.

But meanwhile Windows 10 can run Ubuntu Bash...!

jardows said:
Without numbers or statistics, your arguments are as valid as mine. Sure the netcraft survey shows web facing servers, but says nothing of actual corporate servers.
Click to expand...

Where was I specifically talking about corporate servers? I believe I mentioned corporate as well as web facing servers - You know, the important machines. As stated, you won't find a statistic on the operating systems corporate servers are running, the only statistic you may find is the OS pre loaded onto OEM shipments - Which means bugger all.

Linux and Windows AD environments can be integrated, it may mean the typical gen X 'Winadmin' (ie: Half a tech) might have to step outside his comfort zone though.

"Linux becoming Windows"! Damn pisser! :D
 
Ah, this has been fun. A little criticism of the cherished software package stoking a response that perfectly illustrates my point in post #10, and the OP. But I'm bored with it now.
 
jardows said:
Ah, this has been fun. A little criticism of the cherished software package stoking a response that perfectly illustrates my point in post #10, and the OP. But I'm bored with it now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it does get boring. :D I am going to try out Solus sometime today.
 
jardows said:
Ah, this has been fun. A little criticism of the cherished software package stoking a response that perfectly illustrates my point in post #10, and the OP. But I'm bored with it now.
Click to expand...

Except....Your unfounded comments on Linux becoming more like Windows along with a sprinkling of systemd ranting in no way relates to your comments in post #10 about using the right tool for the job. Such comments don't even relate to the OP.

Once again, Windows 10 is adopting Linux features, it's not the other way around.
 
BulletDust said:
Except....Your unfounded comments on Linux becoming more like Windows along with a sprinkling of systemd ranting in no way relates to your comments in post #10 about using the right tool for the job. Such comments don't even relate to the OP.

Once again, Windows 10 is adopting Linux features, it's not the other way around.
Click to expand...
Windows 10 is not adopting linux features, it is running a virtual linux kernel. That is a big difference.
 
Romale23 said:
Windows 10 is not adopting linux features, it is running a virtual linux kernel. That is a big difference.
Click to expand...
Windows10 is adopting Linux features and this has nothing todo with an elf engine


Ideas Microsoft Copied from Linux

  • The copy dialog introduced with Windows 8 has been around in Linux land for ages.
  • Native OS ability to mount .iso files without the need for 3rd party tools like daemon tools.
  • The Live USB feature that has been around in Linux land for ages was introduced in Windows 8, it is called Windows TO Go and is available to only enterprise users.
  • Microsoft decided to implement a basic package manager with Windows 8, the functionality was improved with Windows 10 but it is still no where near what various Linux distros have had on offer for years.
  • ReFS (Resilient Filesystem), Microsoft’s next gen filesystem which was introduced in Windows Server 2012 is pretty similar to ZFS and Btrfs.
  • The multiple virtual desktops functionality (called Workspaces) introduced with Windows 10.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top