I think if organizations and future admins understand the facts of why Linux is the superior system then they can make the appropriate decisions when choosing an OS to run their business on. For example the following is why Linux is faster than Windows:

• It uses a monolithic kernel (increased boot times since everything the OS needs is loaded when the kernel is loaded) wheras Windows uses a microkernel which only contains the basic necessities and the remaining aspects are loaded separately, thus making it a slower when booting up..

• The package management system is more efficient thus uses less space and RAM when downloading software, and it can do it faster..

• .so files are superior to DLL files because when a Windows programmer wants to write an app he will no idea what version of Windows the end user will have, and so the programmer wont know if the correct DLL will be installed. So he's has to include the DLL with the app which makes the installer much larger, and the C: drive much fuller. (and also more RAM is used)

• Windows doesn't need to be the fastest as it's users don't care as Microsoft's marketing tactics sold them. Linux on the other hand requires itself to be optimized for performance in order to survive.. Even if Microsoft wanted to outperform Linux it cant due to the amount of manpower it has compared to the Linux ecosystem. So instead for Windows to survive their development activities need to be market driven..

Why Linux is more ideal server than Windows:

• It's faster and has an increased level of privacy

• It slim, flexible, and scalable so a company can mix/match various applications depending on the user requirements, whereas with Windows you'll be in a vender lock-in situation.

• It's free and open source (Microsoft licenses cost alot of $$$)

• It can run for years without requiring a reboot as almost all Linux configurations can be changed seamlessly while the system is running

• It can be highly optimized (i.e LFS, Gentoo)

• It can handle a large number of processes at once

• Linux admins always have a clear view of the file system and are always in control

So in essence nothing can touch Linux except maybe GNU's HURD

If not working on Java, the C/C++ is here on Linux standard, which allows faster applications.

IMHO you included evil with - Quote:
Dlackware is not your average “GNOME for Slackware” project but instead aims to take the slack out of Slackware. What you get in return is the latest in “enterprise” technology. Dlackware delivers a fully functional GNOME 3.22 desktop with PAM, Wayland and systemd. UNQUOTE

Wayland might be OK, PAM is a heavy compromise and Gnome has entirely caved in to the ultimate evil - systemd. On it's own it may not be exactly evil but it opens doors that were firmly shut and locked previously. Trust me I am not trying to bring back the old Hyper Flame Wars on systemd but it needs to be recognized that it is a major risk since it takes power away from admins and places it in the hands of system devs. If you doubt this, read what Lennart says regarding unifying Linux and checkout CoreOS.

Maybe -- but they did everything to save their butts from being broken up, including a large infusion of cash for stock in Apple (that was probably at a point where Apple was within weeks or even days of going bankrupt and they realized they had to keep Apple alive to be able to argue that they had any real competition) and forming a separate Macintosh group to ensure most of Microsoft's office titles (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, compatibility with Microsoft Exchange, etc.) were kept up-to-date.

Little did they see the reversal of fortunes, as at least one point, Microsoft's stock price was just about equal to their ownership of Apple, so the market was valuing the entire rest of Microsoft at $0.

It makes no senses to further discuss about SystemD and the linked future of SystemD Linux. Evil and unstable systems are today in most well known Linux distros. Check Debian for instance.

I already moved my machines to FreeBSD, this is Unix and stable. Simple.

"Debian is a dead end", as even Bruce Perens himself wrote just three days ago on one of the Devuan lists.

The problem is that many projects, large and small, are vulnerable to stupid ideas with M$ being the ultimate stupid idea. FreeBSD has been more or less forgotten by M$ until recently, so we have yet to see how it holds up in adversity as Redmond begins to turn a baleful eye in its direction. As much as I like of the technical side that project, I see FreeBSD as being less able to withstand organized efforts at distruption. As an institution it has quite a few factors going for it that give it advantages over Debian and even Linux (the kernel) itself. Specifically, it has survived several rotations of leadership and has a good mechanism for that. But, again, it has been more or less forgotten by M$ until now.

FreeBSD does aim to be for a general, technical audience rather than for just its own developers. Both are things that are advantageous in their own way, but with FreeBSD being more for a general, technical community it makes it more attractive to GNU/Linux people. It even has a distro or two, TrueOS being one I can recall. But can it withstand the influx of systemd refugees might or might not be familiar with the "right" way of doing things. Or can it withstand the attention of M$?

I've got a small project coming up that I will try with FreeBSD because it is best suited for it but am paying more attention to OpenBSD. It is much more insular and that may help it against M$, but if a small number of principles go bad then it may be a disadvantage instead. However for the most part, I am hoping that the same common sense and forethought that vaccinates Devuan against systemd will also hold against M$. In a best case scenario, Devuan can become the basis for the distros that are currently Debian derivatives.

If you have the source code to compile a binary is it evil as the blob?

Try Blag...

A binary without the source code is of course not good at all.... Microsoft can make big business and money from it

The good force lives in the Open Source Obi-Wan !

Would you be so kind as to provide a link to this quote. I tried several permutations of queries in Google and could find nothing even close.

Devuan cannot not follow up alone. Large distribution (Debian, Ubuntu,...) bring the Linux development in a new direction: much different (SystemD Gnome,...). Thus, you never know what can happen to Linux.

FreeBSD or OpenBSD is likely the cleanest and the most reliable operating system today.

<grumble>The general trend is for web sites to be useless. I've run into two major business sites that had broken product inventory/services functions. Even Google etc are kind of useless for finding anything these days. </grumble>

You have to go to the Devuan mailing list archives and browse:

https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bi...n/listinfo/dng

But here is the specific message:

https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/messag...8a5c57.en.html

Yes. But Linux Mint could conceivably sign on to Devuan as a base and abandon its current base of systemd/Linux.

I'd say OpenBSD, but it is not for a general audience. I myself have been using it very productively for a long while but am nevertheless still looking up wistfully at the "you must be this tall to ride" bar for all that time.

The best approximation to a drop-in replacement for GNU/Linux in the BSD world would probably be the FreeBSD distro called TrueOS formerly PC-BSD. FreeBSD actively markets for new people to join them, but I am not sure it is prepared for a big influx of people unfamiliar with its goals and practices.