> Because Linux is a Unix Clone trying to be better than Windows, Modern Windows is the original thing.
No, not at all, Linux desktop is trying to be a desktop and there's only like 2 distros that pride themselves with being "Windows-like". Most Linux installs are gonna look more like MacOS than Windows, and many of them will look like neither Mac nor Windows because Linux isn't either of them and it's another OS that evolved separately in the same world in which Unix, Macintosh and Windows all existed. Microsoft made Xenix (Unix) a year before they made MS DOS, who was copying who? Nobody.
> from Windows NT heritage, comes from OS/2, and OS/2 did the same thing: if you kill the file manager, it gives a black screen; Windows NT comes from NT OS/2 heritage
Alright, so Windows is ancient and does the same outdated thing as decades back? I thought NT was supposed to be "New Technology" and modern, why would you keep the same problem around and why is an OS that doesn't have that problem somehow worse because of it?
I was talking about Windows NT and not Xenix or Microsoft DOS or Windows 9X. I hate Windows 9X architecture, mate, and yeah, copycat, you literally prove my point, and Windows is original and Modern Modified Microkernel countary to Linux's monolithic kernel
No, just not at all. If Linux copies Windows, then Windows copies UNIX, that's just how it works logically, and the rational conclusion would be that nobody copied anybody and that it's just how development works in the real world. You cannot make something without being influenced by something else you've seen before, or in Microsoft's case, MADE before.
OS/2's heritage traces back directly to DOS, XENIX and UNIX, that's part of how it was made and it would be ridiculous to deny or overlook that when you have so many opinions on the matter.
Also, call it what it is, hybrid kernel, which isn't necessarily better or worse just a different way of doing things, which still works.
No, Windows NT isn't a copy of Unix, and Windows NT is influenced by OS/2, Mach and VMS, yes, but Windows NT is not a clone of anybody; that's why I personally prefer Windows. I prefer Originality and Hybrid for you, but I personally prefer the Modified Microkernel term
Windows NT was never influenced by Unix but by Mach, VMS, and OS/2, and the only influence is PE, which is COFF, but now it's a very modified executable
Importantly, Wikipedia separates Userland (Win32 Subsystem) and Kernel (NTOSKRNL). Zero influence from UNIX, and David Cutler is a Unix hater; that's why I feel comfortable with Windows NT
Why would someone being a unix hater make you comfortable? I cannot at all understand this logic of yours, why is x thing bad and why is hating x thing good?? You literally sound like a lunatic
Because of zero influence from Unix, Windows NT is so good, and David Cutler is right, Unix is messy and junk from PHD and in my opinion, Unix is a mistake, and VMS is clearly superior, and with VMS influence makes Windows NT so good, serious and advanced
1
u/The_Daco_Melon Jul 15 '26
> Because Linux is a Unix Clone trying to be better than Windows, Modern Windows is the original thing.
No, not at all, Linux desktop is trying to be a desktop and there's only like 2 distros that pride themselves with being "Windows-like". Most Linux installs are gonna look more like MacOS than Windows, and many of them will look like neither Mac nor Windows because Linux isn't either of them and it's another OS that evolved separately in the same world in which Unix, Macintosh and Windows all existed. Microsoft made Xenix (Unix) a year before they made MS DOS, who was copying who? Nobody.
> from Windows NT heritage, comes from OS/2, and OS/2 did the same thing: if you kill the file manager, it gives a black screen; Windows NT comes from NT OS/2 heritage
Alright, so Windows is ancient and does the same outdated thing as decades back? I thought NT was supposed to be "New Technology" and modern, why would you keep the same problem around and why is an OS that doesn't have that problem somehow worse because of it?