What OS do you think would have the easiest time transitioning to your own ideal OS? Meaning if you had complete control over it, you would need the least changes to it in order to make it idea?
My vote is probably for windows, if you got rid of the bloat/ai/telemtry and cleaned up some of the legacy control panel stuff it would probably be the best OS, there is too much bullshit from the UNIX days that has carried over to make it a viable operating system for the future. In 100 years we will not be using UNIX, and will probably be using something more like the NT kernel
You have been asking very stupid questions since past 2 days schizo
>>105682700What are you talking about retard i haven't been on /g/ for a week
kys
Windows and UNIX are for completely different demographics. Microsoft designed their OS to work without needing to understand a computer. For the vast majority of people who want to use computers for email, web browsing, excel, writing, gaming, etc that's perfectly fine. But it's designed to not give control to the user in order to stop people who don't know what they are doing from breaking everything and to limit customer support. UNIX was designed for people who need more control over the computer at the cost of knowing much more about how the computer works. Originally, for researchers who needed to get the OS working on some custom hardware. There's lots of use cases where Windows is not a good option and you would have to really force windows to let you do what you need (like msys2 and cygwin). For this a lot of researchers / developers prefer unix / linux. There is no argument that Windows is better than UNIX because UNIX is old and bloated. They serve different use cases.
>>105682661 (OP)I am triple booting hackintosh 15.5 latest native support for my graphic card, windows 10 and fedora for linux. I prefer macOS the most, then linux, then windows. I love my ayymd 'puter, 5600x and rx 6800 are god tier.
>>105682661 (OP)I suppose Linux could be my ideal OS if you rewrote the directory structure, made all applications utilise the same graphical toolkit, eliminated the need to ever touch the terminal, made the core system immutable, and ran every program sandboxed but without the current issues flatpak has.
Now that I think about it, Linux desktop only failed due to a shitty DE experience. Microsoft has mastered the UI/UX experience for normies. If you had Windows as the "frontend" and Linux as the "backend" I think a lot of people would switch. No amount of KDE ricing makes it even come close to stock Windows.
>>105682810>They serve different use cases.okay but that wasnt the question
anyone if anyone cares look up the L4 kernel
>>105683223It became the question as soon as you started making general arguments that NT is the future and UNIX is going to disappear due to be bloated. This is wrong. There's lots that NT isn't designed for that linux does well
>>105682893This but there's no need to make the core system immutable or sandbox everything. Just put in a "Are you sure?" if an idiot is convinced to type rm -rf /, and you've fully secured the OS.
>>105683171KDE just works like Windows 7 out of the box, something that no Windows since 7 has been able to accomplish.
