Surely you understand how a data center is different from housing?

> Honest question: Why?

Because it works really well for a corporate environment where you require central management for your devices. Yes, the environments of Linux and Windows are different as you said, and unfortunately that means one will generally be better than the other within certain contexts. The corporate workstation use case is a gigantic one that Windows is currently dominating in, and this is terrible for Linux adoption because it means to get a job at a place that uses Windows you are incentivized to use it yourself so you can learn it. It also means that schools (which are often run like businesses internally) are way more likely to use it, so new students that are just learning how to use a computer are coming up on Windows.

Linux is indeed very different from Windows and that's fine, that isn't a problem at all and it has plenty of upsides. What should be clear is that this particular use case is a remarkable downside for Linux, and the mass adoption of Windows in the majority of businesses should make that self evident. Realistically Linux can and absolutely is used in business contexts in the same way as Windows (hence why France is going ahead with it), but it isn't as optimized for it as Windows is, when it totally could be. Macs have had some robust management platforms made for them that I've found pretty similar to AD for example. If someone developed a straight out AD clone for Linux that functioned more or less the same on the front-end it would be huge for Linux adoption in my opinion. Hopefully that answers your question.

I'm not up on my current windows security, but windows has been dominating for decades, much of which it's security was non existent, being originally a single user system. Linux being a nix is multi user from the ground up.

So you seem to be making a conclusion that isn't warranted.

That isn't to say any of this is wrong per se. Just that being the best does not necessarily lead to success.

Fair enough, but I think many people miss that something can be suboptimal in one way and very optimal in another. As an example, plenty of people here hail ffmpeg as the most optimal way to convert videos between formats, and for the technically inclined it sure is. Despite that, probably 99% of people that have ever needed to convert a video haven't touched it/don't know its name and never will because its interface is totally suboptimal. "It is the best and not successful" can be read as a true statement, but it leaves out that it is the best in this one sense and is far from the best in another sense.

To bring this back to the point I have found that AD is well documented, functions generally the same everywhere, and has an intuitive enough interface that you can get not-super-techy interns on the helpdesk up to speed on reseting passwords in it in short order. I couldn't say the same for any Linux management system I've touched, so even though you could say "system management on Linux is the best" and have that be a true statement, you're still missing where it fails and why that area matters to businesses.

I don't think we disagree. Problem is Linux users, of which I'm one, self selected to reject that ease because it's limiting. There's still a tension now, eg Gnome that is insistent on going all Mac in removing all options.

My personal suspicion is that you aren't going to get Linux to become what the windows users want it to be without it stopping being Linux. We've seen this with Android. So in some ways the rejection of centralisation on the Linux community is the thing that keeps it being Linux, for better or worse.

NT was designed as a multi-user system from the ground up.

Right but windows also aims to be backwards compatible which means it was trying to run things designed for a single user system undermining protections.

That makes absolutely no sense.

'vim' wasn't designed for multi-user use. Nor was emacs.

Applications don't need to somehow be "designed" for multi-user systems. It's up to the underlying system to enforce application isolation in various ways, which NT has and does.

Does vim expect to be able to delete files in /bin?

If vim tried to create, modify and delete files willy nilly It would quickly run into problems. I would guess vim keeps it's temp files in /tmp and config files in ~/.vimrc?

Windows doesn't/didn't have any of this. If you want to be compatible with lotus123 and lotus123 writes it's tmp files to the root directory, you need to keep it writable, or you break lotus123.

Windows handled this via virtualization[0]. What you assume is false because it was specifically planned for by Microsoft.

[0] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/applicati...

Uac is the thing that broke lots of things back in the vista days.

'planned' is a bit strong when it had to be added after the fact.

No, it really just gets like that at the end which is what this chain has been going over.

You must think you're really clever.

In the time it took you to write that comment, you could have pirated something. Something that the original creator will doubtless now steal from future generations.

Let that be upon your head.

Patently false, just look as far as Netflix taking down exclusive shows and movies from their catalog. You would literally not be able to watch them anymore if not for folks putting them up online.

Means there's room for improvement.

This is essentially a port, it was done by transpiling a decompilation.

This is the exception that proves the rule. When you host your own community server, you control how much anti-cheat is built into it, like GP said. That usually meant about none but manual admin bans, but it could also mean lots, like you said.

If it's anything like the Deck, they will eventually announce a more tangible release date (right now it's early 2026) and then announce a date for preorders to open. For the Deck unless you got into the preorder queue within ~1 minute you had to wait several months for it to be delivered to you.