Comments by "Lawrence D’Oliveiro" (@lawrencedoliveiro9104) on "The Worst Anti Linux Desktop Blog Post" video.

Back in the 1990s, there were these things called “Unix workstations”. What made them “workstations” rather than “desktops”, besides the higher-end hardware, was that they included both client and server functionality together in one box. Somehow, Microsoft managed to persuade users that they didn’t need such a wide range of capability. Windows NT “Workstation” had its server functionality deliberately crippled (and being a bit cheaper also helped), and yet it still managed to wipe out the Unix workstations. So now what users had on their desktops was just a “desktop” OS. If they wanted server-style functionality, they would have to pay extra for a separate product: Windows Server. And not just that, but they would have to pay even more on top of that, for “CALs”, one for each user of a server function. So really the “desktop” segment could be seen as a creation of Microsoft’s marketing department, as an excuse for nickel-and-diming its customers to death. And somehow that has come to be accepted as the way things should be. Linux, on the other hand, is essentially the last standing “workstation” OS. It doesn’t play by the “desktop” rules. It offers full server-side functionality in the same box, with no “CALs” limits. Think of it as Usain Bolt, and the “desktop” market as a three-legged race; would you really complain that an Olympic-class runner would do so badly in such a pointless and trivial competition?
13
@marloelefant7500 How many network shares does desktop Windows allow? Last I checked, it was 4 for the regular version, or 10 if you paid extra for Windows Pro. Samba is a standard package on most Linux distros, fully compatible with Windows SMB file service. That has no inbuilt limit on how many shares clients can mount: the only limit is what your hardware can stand. It can even act as a domain controller, if you want.
2
@marloelefant7500 Linux/BSD/Unix systems could run Samba, which is a full-featured SMB-compatible server with no restrictions. Where was there the equivalent of Samba for Windows?
2
@marloelefant7500 It doesn’t exist because it can’t. Samba came into existence because there was an incentive to bypass Microsoft’s revenue model; it was implemented for *nix systems because they can handle it. Another workstation feature Windows doesn’t support is multiuser remote shell access.
2