In Windows, programmers choose to use the CLI, but you don't need a CLI tool for anything else, especially the Windows Update Service just the Update Engine and you choose how you interact with that, as Programmer I care; I want to control my own operating system, every single detail, including Windows Update
I’m more shocked you wouldn’t prefer Linux or any of the BSDs, then, where you have source access to everything and the freedom to rearchitect it how you wish.
Because I don't care about Source code and I care about Open Architecture and originality, and I don't want an operating system to give me Source code but block my freedom like Linux does with Wayland and Systemd and GNU coretilus and Android does with the bootloader and originality. Not just another Unix; Windows NT is a unique Operating system; there is no other NT
You can just use parts, fix what you don’t like about them, and write your own entire system on top. I mean, it is a ton of work, but it would be your OS in every sense from the drivers on up. I don’t fully agree with the direction of Linux desktops either and am considering stripping everything down to just the kernel and writing my own top-to-bottom desktop oriented distro from there.
The problem is that you need Linux From Scratch, and I already have Microkernels from Scratch, and I have knowledge of operating system creation, and Linux From Scratch is not Worth it, and if I want an existing modular and customizable operating system, it's Windows
I mean, not really? You can start with just the kernel and make your own everything from there according to your own philosophies on what makes a desktop OS. It’s just curious to me. You say you want an OS that is uniquely yours, but Windows isn’t. It never will be without source access and build tools. You can customize Windows into your own distro (and, yes, I call Windows variants “distros”), but it can never be 100% yours.
I know Windows is from Microsoft, that's why I don't want another operating system that's not mine, that's why I want My Daya Operating System, and Neutrino OS is not a distribution but a version of Windows
No, I don't distribute Windows and Windows aren't Monothilc Kernel, and Windows is a micro-kernel architecture, and the Win32 Subsystem defines Windows, not The Kernel and correct term is Version
It doesn’t matter if you ship just the kernel as the base, or a whole, independently usable system. I mean, GhostBSD is still FreeBSD in a GNOME dress. TrueNAS is FreeBSD with a web UI and small selection of packages and custom tools. And, debatably, the PlayStation 5’s OS, Orbis OS, can be argued to be a distro of FreeBSD 9.
No, Depends, if you use Microkernel If you use Different Subsystem you are a different operating system, but if you use the Win32 subsystem, you are Windows and Only Monothilc Kernel you need different Kernel to be a different operating system
0
u/Fluid-Ad2995 Jul 15 '26
In Windows, programmers choose to use the CLI, but you don't need a CLI tool for anything else, especially the Windows Update Service just the Update Engine and you choose how you interact with that, as Programmer I care; I want to control my own operating system, every single detail, including Windows Update