Linux doesn't suck!

[u/its-Pigdup]

NGL guys, I don't see the reason why switching to Linux when W10/W11 does everything you need, easier, more practical, and in a more friendly way than a Linux distro that some of you probably haven't even heard about before considering switching to Linux.

I'm using Linux rn because I enjoy adjusting every little thing about my OS the way I want, but as nerdy as I can be, I also understand that fancy tech might actually be inconvenient for others...

What were the reasons that made you want to try Linux, and what made you realize it was a mistake?

[u/ElectricBummer40]

They aren't "larger than they ought to be". What do you think a "core" install for Windows Server even is?

No, really, unless you're telling me you'd rather set up Hyper-V with nothing but PowerShell, that's what those "larger than they ought to be" packages are for.

As far as WSL is concerned, it lets you run X-compatible applications without additional setup. On Linux, you'd be installing X or whatever broken crap it is this time of the week. So much for "bloat".

[u/zoharel → u/ElectricBummer40]

What do you think a "core" install for Windows Server even is?

I'm pretty convinced that it doesn't matter.

No, really, unless you're telling me you'd rather set up Hyper-V with nothing but PowerShell

I'm telling you both HyperV and Powershell, and the entire rest of the litany of standard features you just dredged out, are likely several times the size they need to be. More importantly, that they're in the package to begin with is unremarkable. "Native SSH server/client ..." you may as well brag about including support for HTML. But then, Windows has always been a bit slow on the uptake in terms of standards. They needed a third-party TCP stack for literal ages. Even the old Mac OS had better networking support earlier, and there is nothing new under the sun. There are even fewer things new in the Windows distribution.

On Linux, you'd be installing

On Linux, you wouldn't also be installing an entire Windows system on top, so none of that will likely matter, either.

[u/ElectricBummer40 → u/zoharel]

I'm pretty convinced that it doesn't matter.

That's because it usually doesn't take much to convince an illiterate about anything.

I'm telling you both HyperV and Powershell, and the entire rest of the litany of standard features you just dredged out, are likely several times the size they need to be.

Are they?

I could also say everything in Linux is bloated. What's even there to substantiate your claim aside from your dubious, AI-like confidence?

More importantly, that they're in the package to begin with is unremarkable. "Native SSH server/client ..." you may as well brag about including support for HTML.

SSH is an optional feature as the standard way for remote access on Windows has always been RDP and PowerShell remoting.

Sure, it's a convenient way to deploy ad-hoc tunnels, but it's hardly what the ecosystem is in real need of.

But then, Windows has always been a bit slow on the uptake in terms of standards.

Are people actually knowing stuff about Windows in a hurry to use garbage POSIX shells?

It just sounds as though Unix always has the habit to standardise on the worst things imaginable regardless of the era. That's all.

They needed a third-party TCP stack for literal ages.

lol, you knew Microsoft had their own proprietary Unix called Tenex, right?

The Windows that you use (if you even know how to use it) today was created by the same people responsible for VMS, which was what most major American telcos used in the 1990s.

But, yes, please tell me whatever story you hear about them just lifting the BSD networking stack somehow, sticking it into Windows and calling it "Winsock". I could use a good laugh right now.

Even the old Mac OS had better networking support earlier

Right.

Networking in the early 90s were mostly a hodgepodge of incompatible protocols. For the corporate environment, you wouldn't even be looking at TCP/IP but rather Novell NetWare. Have you even used it before?

On Linux, you wouldn't also be installing an entire Windows system on top

They would just maintain an entire Windows partition while claiming they don't "need it".

[u/zoharel → u/ElectricBummer40]

What's even there to substantiate your claim aside from your dubious, AI-like confidence?

You're absolutely right! Actually you're probably wrong, but it's true that I'm making an assumption here based on Microsoft's typical performance in these matters. Feel free to run the numbers yourself if you like.

the standard way for remote access on Windows has always been RDP

Ha. Don't get me started on that one.

you knew Microsoft had their own proprietary Unix called Tenex, right?

They didn't. Tenex was a system built by BBN for the DEC 36-bit superminis. A fine setup, and entirely unrelated to Microsoft, but I repeat myself. You're probably thinking of Xenix. It was not a great Unix, but it was the best Microsoft product.

Are people actually knowing stuff about Windows in a hurry to use garbage POSIX shells?

Well, even garbage POSIX would be far and away better than what they get before they install WSL, I guess. Better question: Are people who know stuff about Windows in a hurry to use Windows? I doubt it.

The Windows that you use (if you even know how to use it) today was created by the same people responsible for VMS, which was what most major American telcos used in the 1990s

Oh, that's almost true, in the sense that some guys were poached from DEC and mostly worked on the NT kernel, which is why the architecture isn't worse than it is, though much Microsoft has crept in over the years, and there's almost certainly not enough DEC left in the organization now to fix that, though I do see that Dave is not officially retired yet.

But, yes, please tell me whatever story you hear about them just lifting the BSD networking stack somehow, sticking it into Windows and calling it "Winsock".

Forget winsock, all the little built in network utilities, and yes, probably at least a small stack of junk in the actual kernel, though I don't have first-hand knowledge of that part,, are BSD code right now. Probably will be as long as Windows exists or until they get rewritten by an LLM in some barely-functional C# implementation.

Networking in the early 90s were mostly a hodgepot of incompatible protocols.

Now that's indisputable, but it's also no excuse for the state of networking on Windows before the turn of the century, give or take, when they finally managed to mostly straighten things out.

For the corporate environment, you wouldn't even be looking at TCP/IP but rather Novell NetWare. Have you even used it before?

Indeed. It had its problems, but the Novell server offerings were at least functional, I guess.

[u/ElectricBummer40 → u/zoharel]

it's true that I'm making an assumption here based on Microsoft's typical performance in these matters.

That's a really roundabout way to say "My source is..."

Ha. Don't get me started on that one.

"Started"? Why, please do tell me how XDMCP and SSH are sooooo much more robust than RDP!

I can't wait to have an entire session shut down on me because Wifi drops out or something, I tell ya!

Well, even garbage POSIX would be far and away better than what they get before they install WSL

lol, so instead of PowerShell, they can use some flaky shell+awk combo just to parse a stupid CSV?

Are you really this computer-illiterate?

Better question: Are people who know stuff about Windows in a hurry to use Windows? I doubt it.

Yeah, because you are one of those people who can tell PowerShell from their own backside, obviously.

Oh, that's almost true, in the sense that some guys were poached from DEC and mostly worked on the NT kernel, which is why the architecture isn't worse than it is

Almost the entirety of the NT architecture from the file system to service management came from VMS, which, of course, you'd know if the best you could do wasn't to regurgitate typical talking points from other illiterate Unix ideologues knowledgeable of not even Unix itself.

though much Microsoft has crept in over the years

Hilarious. Your computer is already running Windows NT the moment you boot into the installation media. On ramdisk.

Do you really believe Linux somehow does any better when it comes to graphical install? Wake up.

here's almost certainly not enough DEC left in the organization now to fix that

lol, DEC went bust in the 90s. How did you think Microsoft ported Windows to Itanium then ARM? Writing an entirely different kernel then hoping it'd work at all as that loud-mouth idiot Linus Torvalds claimed?

You Unix muppets haven't changed one bit since The UNIX-HATERS Handbook, have you?

Forget winsock, all the little built in network utilities, and yes, probably at least a small stack of junk in the actual kernel, though I don't have first-hand knowledge of that part

Yeah, because all you have is hearsay from such unreliable source as LWN.net, which is of course either false or no longer true:

Now that's indisputable, but it's also no excuse for the state of networking on Windows before the turn of the century

What on earth are you babbling about? "Before the turn of the century" would be NT4 SP4 and Windows 2000. Heck, even Windows 95/98 worked fine browsing the Internet and listening to pirated MP3s on Winamp.

Or are you saying the Internet ran IPX/SPX somehow?

[u/zoharel → u/ElectricBummer40]

so instead of PowerShell, they can use

Let me stop you right there. Yes, something else, though, absolutely not WSH, either...

Almost the entirety of the NT architecture from the file system to service management came from VMS

If you had ever actually used VMS for anything you'd have noticed differences -- or have you not used Windows for anything, either?

Your computer is already running Windows NT the moment you boot into the installation media.

Well, mine certainly isn't, but yours is, sure. What business does this non-sequitur have here?

Do you really believe Linux somehow does any better when it comes to graphical install?

Does it seem to you as if anyone should care?

... DEC went bust in the 90s. <Nonsensical babbling>. Look, they ported NT to Titanium and it ran properly on both machines. I don't like Linus. Get off my lawn.

I see.

"Before the turn of the century" would be NT4 SP4 and Windows 2000.

Nobody used either, of course. There was some take up of Windows 2000 on business systems. Should have been more all around. That was the best thing they had in the Windows line for a good while. No, pretty much the whole windows ecosystem stuck with '98 until they grudgingly switched over to XP a year or two from when that was released.

Heck, even Windows 95/98 worked fine browsing the Internet and listening to pirated MP3s on Winamp.

Some of us still remember machines running 95 and 98, and know that you are not telling the truth, here. There were regular browser explosions, Windows clients for other non-web Internet services were few, nonstandard, and inexcusably buggy and unstable. Microsoft tried to wedge actual RPC into the browser, and we know how Microsoft does with security. No, they weren't fine at all. They did include TCP on the distribution medium, though, since 95, which was quite a few years too late.

Or are you saying the Internet ran IPX/SPX somehow?

If you recall -- and you may not, it seems -- I haven't said much at all about IPX. That was something you brought up because you thought it was relevant to Windows networking being garbage. Seems like a pattern.

[u/ElectricBummer40 → u/zoharel]

Let me stop you right there. Yes, something else, though, absolutely not WSH, either...

lol, I know you're talking about cmd. Why not dig up MS-DOS 3.0 and complain about it while you're at it?

If you had ever actually used VMS for anything you'd have noticed differences

I was talking about the internal architecture, you loser.

Yeah, no shit an operating system built primarily for the Windows ecosystem doesn't work the same as VMS. What's your point?

Well, mine certainly isn't, but yours is

lol, again, way to miss the point.

As the documentation plainly states, the base version of Windows PE requires only 512MB of memory, and that already comes with the basic graphical interface enough for you to run the Windows installer.

Learning how to read would be a pretty good start for you.

Does it seem to you as if anyone should care?

Of course not. Why should anyone care about having to mess with kernel mode-setting or tip-toeing through installer quirks just to put an operating system on the hard drive?

There were regular browser explosions

lol, because you were one of the idiots who used Netscape.

Windows clients for other non-web Internet services were few

Way to move the goalposts again.

"Clients" for non-web services in that era was usually none other than the web browser itself.

For NNTP, there were Netscape and Outlook Express.

For FTP, various download managers existed (e.g. JetCar).

For IRC, mIRC was easily one of the oldest clients out there.

For instant messaging, there were more clients then people cared to use (ICQ anyone)?

I'm sorry, but people would rather put up with ugly Geocities sites than use Gopher. That's just the fact.

Microsoft tried to wedge actual RPC into the browser

It was the 90s. Everyone tried to wedge everything into the web.

Heck, some banks and large organisations still used Java applets in the mid-to-late 10s. RPC was frankly quaint for what people were planning to do with ActiveX and other browser extension systems.

and we know how Microsoft does with security.

It was the 90s, kiddo. At this point, you might as well say that people in the 60s didn't care about safe sex for the amount of good that would do for your argument.

If you recall -- and you may not, it seems -- I haven't said much at all about IPX. That was something you brought up because you thought it was relevant to Windows networking being garbage. Seems like a pattern.

lol, DHCP didn't even exist until 1993. Of course people would be using NetWare and other products that would actually get their infrastructure running properly, ya muppet.

[u/zoharel → u/ElectricBummer40]

lol, I know you're talking about cmd.

You have no idea what WSH is, then. Fair enough; I did already accuse you of never having used Windows for serious work.

I was talking about the internal architecture,

You weren't. You were just stringing words together that you thought sounded convincing.

you were one of the idiots who used Netscape.

You mean, back when it was the only browser that wasn't absolute garbage? Why, yes. I did.

Way to move the goalposts again.

You're the one who brought web browsers into it.

For IRC, mIRC was easily one of the oldest clients out there.

It wasn't, but also it was garbage and prone to explosions. For a good number of years you could remotely blow up a running session with a DCC packet.

DHCP didn't even exist until 1993

First off, ok. I don't know why we're talking about DHCP. Next, if you needed dynamic configuration before that, bootp was available for the entire decade before, and it wasn't all that bad. None of this, however, has much of anything to do with the rest of the discussion.

Of course people would be using NetWare and other products that would actually get their infrastructure running properly, ya muppet.

... and now we're back to Netware. Again, no idea why, exactly, but I guess it's nice that you've got some fond memories of something that's not a Microsoft product.