>> It undoubtedly does some things better

> Like what exactly? Do you have examples or just feel this way?

Idk, like maybe letting you actually wait for a process to exit (until Linux finally added it in recent months), IOCP, not doing stupid things like overcommitting memory... I could go on...

And then there's the documentation which is like infinitely better than Linux's...

It makes me wonder, what information drives your skepticism? It seems pretty unfounded to me.

> And then there's the documentation which is like infinitely better than Linux's...

I am 100% unexpert in systems programming. I am not challenging this sentence.

When I look through Linux's source code, I read documentation files like Documentation/x86/exception-tables.txt and filesystems/ntfs.txt. I can also read the source code and its notes - for instance kernel/cpu.c or kernel/panic.c.

Where do I find analogous documentation or source code for NT 10? Lack of systems documentation pushed me away from Windows, and I would love to learn I was wrong.

Vertical integration of the OS and kernel means that users can use the UI to respond to running out of memory where Linux just kills using heuristics.

I've heard of other things but don't know enough to verify them.

Honestly, running out of memory isn't the best example for vertical integration of the OS. While it can behave reasonably on Windows, OOM is still the one thing that that can still sometimes bring down every OS to an unusable state, including Windows. But barring that, best of luck trying to bring down the GUI on Windows. Whereas with Linux, you always gotta be ready to drop out of your GUI and into a terminal to rescue stuff.

IOCP and HANDLE objects in general. You can await on anything in NT, you can't even sanely wait on a mutex or socket at the same time in linux.

Two Words: Group Policies.

SELinux + ansible.

group policies are user mode

How would you implement a group policy like "Audit the access of global system objects" in user-mode on Linux?

Hmm interesting. I thought that guy meant the whole group policy system, which can change settings in user mode programs (such as explorer) and is akin to /etc files or in the kernel (like the one you mentioned) and is akin to sysctl

The entire value of group policy is in the whole thing, not the individual pieces. The group policy system would be almost useless without the actual group policies it comes with; the actual policies and their vertical integration through the kernel and all the way to the UI are what bring in pretty much all the value. Viewing it as a glorified regedit or dconf-editor that's basically decoupled from the rest of the OS kind of misses the larger picture.