 So apparently I need to explain this because some people don't get it. I switched away from Linux on one machine. One machine. A network gateway. That's it. That's it. Just because it was easier to set up the firewall. My development has always been and will remain primarily for Linux and that mostly has to do with Linux being generally the higher user base out of the next systems. Followed up very shortly by FreeBSD. Try in to target Solaris a bit better, but the quality of the NAT compiler there is notoriously lacking. Never really considered Windows a primary target for the development, mostly because of the absolutely terrible situation the Windows console host is in. It doesn't support a lot of the escape sequences, but also doesn't have a good alternative to the escape sequences either. There's some APIs you can hook into to do some basic things like 16 bit. The 16 color support. Not 16 bit, but just 16 colors. You know, just the eight dull and eight bright colors. That's basically it. It's crap. It's a crap text environment. But also the Windows console host has some pretty big problems with handling Unicode stuff. Windows internally does UTF-16. It has a UTF-8 code page, but there's all this weird stuff that you have to do to actually get it to generate properly in the console host. Inside of a normal program, it works fine. But for things like the test logs or whatever, I don't want to have all these hooks into the Win32 API just to get it to print properly. So Windows support is definitely an afterthought. Now, I set up the video this specific way basically to bait people because I wanted to talk a little bit about this ridiculous fanboy stuff that happens in computing and it's bizarre to me how you'll get these camps, the Linux camp, the Windows camp, the BSD camp, and I feel like most system administrators are not like this, but there are definitely very vocal individuals within each of these, you know, camps. People who say like in the Linux camp who hear somebody uses a different system and basically get triggered. I find it hilarious, but totally why? Why? But it's not like it's just Linux users who are like this. You have Windows users who do the same thing. You bring up Linux to them and they get triggered. It's such a bizarre thing because there are so many real problems still going on in the world, but no, no, no, they freak out about the system that somebody is using and it's always really easy to spot these individuals because they have completely incorrect views about the other system or like very cherry-picked things, misunderstanding of statistics, stuff like that. A great example of that was something that happened last year. The WannaCry stuff had to do with a vulnerability in a protocol, a protocol that was primarily developed for and used on Windows systems, but totally existed for others that was taken advantage of to do remote code execution stuff used to, in that specific case, was ransomware. It was a vulnerability in the SMB v1 protocol or back when it was also known as CIFS. Linux machines got hit by it. You can even find YouTube videos on people seeing if you could run it within wine and it would break out of wine and start to infect the rest of the Linux system. It was really interesting to see. In most cases, especially the early cases, it was not capable of running anything outside of the wine environment, so it would like dump the little notice that you then had all your stuff encrypted, but it couldn't actually do anything outside of the little wine domain. Later revisions of it would hit Linux, though. That's just one example. There's plenty of others where the sort of fanboy attitude that it's Windows that gets all the viruses, and Linux is pretty much immune to things. No, it's not. Most vulnerabilities are in regards to like a protocol or a specific language's way of doing things. An example of that, a more abstract example, but say you're running a web server with PHP. Vulnerability within the PHP runtime is going to affect anything that is running that. As long as it's not like using the vulnerability to upload a specific executable and execute that, because that's operating system-specific. But if you're capable of hijacking the PHP runtime and sending direct PHP commands to it, that'll affect anything. It's just that specific machine. I've got other machines I've got to set up soon and picking out parts for and everything that are going to be purely Linux anyways. Like in no way I am abandoning the system. I just set that video up just to draw attention to this thing that I consider ridiculous, because if you look at the benchmarks of any of these things, or real-world things, like what the IT administration is like for them, you find that nothing is outright better. That each one does something, better than the others, but that they also do something worse than the others. Solaris is a great example of that. Performance of the databases and for Java VM are really good, but holy crap, that system takes forever to boot up. Solaris is insane with boot times. It's so bad. I think the only thing I've seen that was worse than the others was Mac OS 9, which was an abomination. NetBSD, absolutely wonderful security, almost no application support. You'd never want to run OpenBSD on an office workstation, because it's terrible for that. But it's wonderful for a network gateway, as long as you don't mind putting in a little bit of extra administration into it, to get it set up, because it's not super easy, but once you've got that set, you're basically good. Just terrible for a workstation, though. I'm of the mindset that everything, every system, just a tool, each one does something well. Pick it based on the things that it does well and knows specific needs. Pretty simple to me. You can hammer in a screw, but you're an idiot for doing so. Windows is the right choice for that gateway? Not the right choice for a lot of other systems.