Originally Posted by MacRulez
That's probably the best place for them.
OS X is a certified Unix, and Linux incorporates most of the strengths of Unix operating systems. Either is going to provide more security and stability for an enterprise than Windows can.
Windows is at its core a single-user system, onto which multi-user capabilities have been grafted. In contrast, Unix is inherently multi-user, and hundreds of thousands of programming decisions have been made throughout all levels of the OS to reflect that, keeping processes and files protected in ways Microsoft won't be able to match without losing backward compatibility, often resorting to bizarre workarounds like directory virtualization which has broken more than a few apps.
Moreover, Microsoft has a long history of prioritizing developer convenience over end-user security, resulting in a great proliferation of apps, but which have a dizzying scope of vulnerabilities.
Unix is the core of computing, and the core of the Internet. Microsoft is currently the last man standing with a non-Unix-flavored OS, but even they offer a modest admission: Enterprise editions of Win 7 come with a Unix shell, as though recognizing the relative lameness of DOS.
Microsoft is popular only because Microsoft has been popular. This has led to an entrenched vendor lock-in unlike anything we've seen before. But as Mac popularity grows, and as Linux continues to dominate the server space, IT staffer arguments favoring Windows become ever more self-evidently self-serving, providing little if any value to the organizations they serve.
Seeing BASH in Windows suggests a dangerous fork in the road ahead for Microsoft: they'll either stay with their inherently brittle kernel and hope that patching it can keep it alive, or they'll switch to a Unix kernel.
I'm not sure which is riskier for them. I'm just glad I don't need to make that decision. I use Mac and Linux here.
That was one of the big reasons for me heading down the Macintosh route. UNIX.
I love Linux but the desktop variants annoy me to no end, but boy how I love to rip the thing apart when setting up a new server.
The biggest issue I have with Microsoft windows is the Registry.
Linux, Unix and the Mac get lovely little package receipts, Windows gets the registry. I'm an educated man, I know my way around a Microsoft Windows environment, but the registry is so flaky that I've managed to brick a couple of computers because of it.
Then you have the abysmal user permissions - or the lack thereof. I used to hack the XP machines in college by doing a couple of exploits, and these were the machines set up by the "Microsoft Certified" IT department. I do wonder how shocked they were to find that all the computers in the upper library terrace had a nice set of tits appear on screen when you started the computer.
(I was 17, sue me
Me and a few friends hacked Quake 2 onto one of the servers to play network games as well. Fun times for all!
The reason for Microsoft's popularity is nothing short of brainwashing, as extreme as that sounds - go into a business with a clueless exec or an IT Manager who practically wears the windows flag on novelty underwear and they will not 'want', but 'need'
MS Office, Windows and Exchange in order to function. I'm the only one in the office with Microsoft Office, everyone else has LibreOffice. No compatibility issues at all - I actually proffer LibreOffice calc when dealing with CSV files - at least there I can choose the damn character set.
What I don't get is why Windows has a termainal shell at all. In a *nix system its the swiss army knife of every possible command you could ever want, need and dream of. In Windows its just... there. Anything useful in the DOS Prompt has a GUI equivalent. Using a command line version, especially with DOS Syntax, just seems like such a roundabout way of completing a given task.
Standards are another issue as well, I don't need to say anymore than that - it is
Microsoft, answer is obvious.