But that said, I didn't say either were "good", I said that NT is "arguably better".
ETA: I reread my comment; you're right, I actually said that NT "isn't bad at all". I stand by what I said mostly though; that doesn't imply it's "good" necessarily, just that it's arguably better than Linux.
I also don't get why people claim NT is "better." Linux is a modern kernel under very active development.
There are a few interviews of Dave Cutler (NT's architect) around where he explains this far better than I am here.
Overall, you have classic needs and if you don't care about OSS (either for auditability, for customizability or for philosophical choice about open source), it's a workable option with its strength and weaknesses, just like the Linux kernel.
Because it does do some things "better". All I/O is async. No stupid OOM. Personality support. Stable ABI.
> Linux is a modern kernel under very active development.
As is NT, on both accounts.
