retardware wrote:

Windows 2000 was partly NT based, and we all know what "Windows NT" actually means: "Windows? Not There!". The need to deal with […]
Show full quote

keenmaster486 wrote:

Because why not? Windows 2000 is a great server OS. It's familiar, stable, and convenient, not to mention guaranteed to be compatible with everything retro PC-related.

Other OS's may be "better", but if Win2K does the job sufficiently, it's a lot more fun, imho.

Windows 2000 was partly NT based, and we all know what "Windows NT" actually means: "Windows? Not There!".
The need to deal with undocumented obscure registry entries is telltale.

I can only second @LuckyBob, FreeBSD (which FreeNAS is based on) is way better in server things.
ZFS, developed by Sun Microsystems, has many advantages that NT users can only dream of: snapshots, checksumming, deduplication, speed, automated hotswap support and much more.

I suspect these things can all be possible in NT using proprietary addons. In my case, I wanted a filesystem with the resiliency of a RAID system and the features of an LVM without having to deal with DeviceMapper (which should have been replaced years ago). If BtrFS had been further along, staying with Linux might have been a viable option for my file servers.