3 ms·

First of all, not really. GNU doesn't do everything. It's important to remember that distros -- BSD or Linux -- are aggregations of software packages from many

First of all, not really. GNU doesn't do everything. It's important to remember that distros -- BSD or Linux -- are aggregations of software packages from many different developers, most of whom have no relationship to each other. Other operating systems including Android, Mac OS, and even iOS use these same open source tools, too, so they can't really be said to include these tools as a result of their own development, either. Second of all, much of the work was still done by Microsoft. The vast majority of NirSoft's tools just use the existing WinAPI. The functionality was already there. Indeed, many of these tools are alternative versions of tools which are already provided by Microsoft.

stonogo 8y ago
you managed to write two paragraphs and the only relevant arguments you made were the words "not really." you conflate GNU with the concept of a distro, pretend that a distro is something other than an operating system, and then bizarrely give microsoft credit for "WinAPI" like other operating systems don't have APIs. What it boils down to is almost all of these tools are readily available as vetted and integrated parts of other modern operating systems and on Windows you get to download this stuff and play with antivirus settings instead. This reminds me of the advent of Windows XP, when Windows finally shipped with the ability to do things other operating systems had for years, such as unzipping files and looking at JPG. Maybe one day, Windows will have this functionality available to the user out of the box... but that day is not today.
- da_chicken 8y ago
  > you managed to write two paragraphs and the only relevant arguments you made were the words "not really." That's because that was the argument. You're comparing apples and oranges. First, none of the NirSoft utilities are core OS features. Those that look like they might be are just alternate versions of what Microsoft provided. So your argument isn't a criticism of operating system design. It's a criticism of software distribution model. You're not saying that Windows isn't capable of doing these things, you're just saying, "Windows doesn't have a universal package manager that allows me to easily install them." If Windows did have a good, universal package manager for free user and system utilities, these utilities would almost certainly be in that repository. However, they don't fit well into the design of NuGet (which is developer focused) or Chocolatey (which is generic, but enterprise focused) or PowerShell Gallery (which is PowerShell exclusive) or the Windows Store (which has no traction). Maybe you're too young to remember when not all distros had package managers and repositories, but having to find your utilities online, having to download them and then compile and install them yourself used to be completely normal. That was standard. It's not an inherently flawed system. The only reason Linux had to go that way from that model was because of dependency hell. There were too many pieces moving in too many different directions and too many breaking changes. In other words, Linux had such a rats nest of incompatible versions that it required someone to create distributions which included vetted package management because it was an absurd amount of work to maintain a system otherwise. That's why even today Linux distros tell their users not to download and install software that didn't pass through their testing process. Windows has never had that problem because Microsoft worked very hard not to break backward compatibility, even between edtions, so it was never considered necessary. That is, until Apple decided to open their own package manager: the Apple store. And it made Apple even richer. And the Google Play store does the same for Google. And now you see why package managers and repositories can also be bad: they can be walled gardens or revenue farms, neither of which are necessarily acting for the benefit of the user. So your argument kind of boils down to, "Microsoft doesn't have a walled garden!" You're right! It doesn't! That's not a bad thing! Windows is an OS. That's all. Linux distributions are an OS and an extremely diverse set of other software components which tells it's users to only use their vetted software unless you're prepared to deal with dependency hell again.
Nextgrid 8y ago
My comment was made from a user's point of view. I explicitly did not care about technicalities or who wrote what code. All I meant is that I can do things with an out-of-the-box Mac that require downloading third-party tools to do on Windows. How Microsoft achieves that is their problem to figure out, whether they license these tools or reimplement their functionality, as long as the functionality is there out of the box. But I guess shoving ads (aka cancer) into the lock screen is higher on their list of priorities.

stonogo 8y ago

you managed to write two paragraphs and the only relevant arguments you made were the words "not really." you conflate GNU with the concept of a distro, pretend that a distro is something other than an operating system, and then bizarrely give microsoft credit for "WinAPI" like other operating systems don't have APIs. What it boils down to is almost all of these tools are readily available as vetted and integrated parts of other modern operating systems and on Windows you get to download this stuff and play with antivirus settings instead. This reminds me of the advent of Windows XP, when Windows finally shipped with the ability to do things other operating systems had for years, such as unzipping files and looking at JPG. Maybe one day, Windows will have this functionality available to the user out of the box... but that day is not today.

da_chicken 8y ago
> you managed to write two paragraphs and the only relevant arguments you made were the words "not really." That's because that was the argument. You're comparing apples and oranges. First, none of the NirSoft utilities are core OS features. Those that look like they might be are just alternate versions of what Microsoft provided. So your argument isn't a criticism of operating system design. It's a criticism of software distribution model. You're not saying that Windows isn't capable of doing these things, you're just saying, "Windows doesn't have a universal package manager that allows me to easily install them." If Windows did have a good, universal package manager for free user and system utilities, these utilities would almost certainly be in that repository. However, they don't fit well into the design of NuGet (which is developer focused) or Chocolatey (which is generic, but enterprise focused) or PowerShell Gallery (which is PowerShell exclusive) or the Windows Store (which has no traction). Maybe you're too young to remember when not all distros had package managers and repositories, but having to find your utilities online, having to download them and then compile and install them yourself used to be completely normal. That was standard. It's not an inherently flawed system. The only reason Linux had to go that way from that model was because of dependency hell. There were too many pieces moving in too many different directions and too many breaking changes. In other words, Linux had such a rats nest of incompatible versions that it required someone to create distributions which included vetted package management because it was an absurd amount of work to maintain a system otherwise. That's why even today Linux distros tell their users not to download and install software that didn't pass through their testing process. Windows has never had that problem because Microsoft worked very hard not to break backward compatibility, even between edtions, so it was never considered necessary. That is, until Apple decided to open their own package manager: the Apple store. And it made Apple even richer. And the Google Play store does the same for Google. And now you see why package managers and repositories can also be bad: they can be walled gardens or revenue farms, neither of which are necessarily acting for the benefit of the user. So your argument kind of boils down to, "Microsoft doesn't have a walled garden!" You're right! It doesn't! That's not a bad thing! Windows is an OS. That's all. Linux distributions are an OS and an extremely diverse set of other software components which tells it's users to only use their vetted software unless you're prepared to deal with dependency hell again.

Nextgrid 8y ago

My comment was made from a user's point of view. I explicitly did not care about technicalities or who wrote what code. All I meant is that I can do things with an out-of-the-box Mac that require downloading third-party tools to do on Windows. How Microsoft achieves that is their problem to figure out, whether they license these tools or reimplement their functionality, as long as the functionality is there out of the box. But I guess shoving ads (aka cancer) into the lock screen is higher on their list of priorities.