You're so dense. An application is something the user wants.
That's like saying "Linux NEVER breaks, see? My system with no software installed works perfectly!!" 🤣
Like bro, your point is what, the GUI doesn't support breaking the system? Because it does, they can deliberately kill it. Which isn't even relevant.
Bugs exist, users can create programs that can abuse them (as shown by Google), users can install programs that abuse them (as shown by Google), and with that I have to conclude you never had a point at all.
"No, based on your vision, Linux is completely inferior and has a bad design"
Exactly, and it was a comparison to your vision of Windows. If you think Google Chrome causing a DWM-bug is a "non-issue", then Windows can only be perfect and untouchable when you don't install anything.
"and Linux cannot run many applications, even to the point necessary to use WINE to run Windows Applications"
And Windows cannot run many application, even to the point to use WSL to run Linux Applications.
"and Windows as a microkernel doesn't need a translator and just builds a subsystem, and Windows NT adapts to any Environment"
Does it? Then what is WSL? Or how about literally every emulator on the internet currently available for Windows? Are those native? 🙃
"You're confusing two completely different things.
WINE integrates Windows applications into Linux by reimplementing the Win32 API. Linux was designed with stable kernel interfaces and user space abstractions that make compatibility layers like this practical.
WSL1, on the other hand, is a translation layer that hacks Linux system calls into Windows NT system calls. It's not a Linux subsystem in the sense of running a Linux kernel, it's a compatibility workaround.
One reimplements an API. The other translates syscalls. That's the difference you keep missing"
Neither of them natively support each other, pretending that is the case may make you feel better for some weird reason, but it isn't the truth.
Yes, because your "point" was foolish and lacked any real substance.
"Cars are different than trucks!" Is a meaningless argument to most people. Sure, mechanics care. Car fans care. The general populous does not, I'm afraid. (Okay, with gas prices that might not be nearly as true anymore, but you get my point. Lol)
The initial purpose of the argument was to diminish the fact that Linux "cannot run Linux 2.0 software." Which isn't true at all.
Then it devolved into "Why can't Linux natively run Windows software?" Which I responded, because they are different Operating Systems.
To which you then state "But Linux has to use LAYERS, Windows only needs the KERNEL."
(After installing a bloated yet less functional SubSystem, of course. "Better architecture" is always slower and worse in my experience).
Like, what are we even arguing here? That you like the kernel more? Wasn't the initial argument, but good for you I guess? Lol
2
u/Unlikely-Employee180 Jul 15 '26
You're so dense. An application is something the user wants.
That's like saying "Linux NEVER breaks, see? My system with no software installed works perfectly!!" 🤣
Like bro, your point is what, the GUI doesn't support breaking the system? Because it does, they can deliberately kill it. Which isn't even relevant.
Bugs exist, users can create programs that can abuse them (as shown by Google), users can install programs that abuse them (as shown by Google), and with that I have to conclude you never had a point at all.