NT is basically OpenVMS.

So it's about a decade more advanced than UNIX. Put like that, moving to UNIX would be a regression, but not a huge one.

The Linux kernel is of about the same vintage as NT, though. And it's had a lot more work and public review done on it.

>NT is basically OpenVMS.

Well, that explains the PowerShell syntax.

Source?

Personally, I wonder how long it takes before redmond realizes that they are wasting shareholder money by maintaining/developing a proprietary kernel. It's not like they could not sell windows/linux as a perfectly good OS with copyrighted components on top of the kernel.

Or then I have missed something significant.

It sounds like you have minimal exposure to low-level NT primitives. Is that a fair assessment?

I would think "non existent" would be even more fair assessment of my exposure to NT internals.

Which is exactly why I asked some kind of source for the question why NT is so much more advantaged than bsd or linux kernels.

And if someone has somewhere written some analysis why it would be impossible/difficult/easy to swap windows kernel to unix, I would be curious to read.

This might interest you: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/framework-benchmarks...

And https://speakerdeck.com/trent/pyparallel-how-we-removed-the-....

how can they sell GPL OS? I mean they can try, but people will just download for free if they can.

Google has no trouble having an important proprietary layer on top of open android linux kernel.

So, then how do you explain Red Hat's $11.5B valuation?

Well they don't sell OS, they sell service contracts.