> 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 compar

> 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.