You are trying to move the goal posts. Both Solaris and QNX are still examples of "superior technology" to Linux, despite both being dead for a long time. Kernel architecture is also highly relevant, ever wonder why Android phones only get a few years of updates?
You were literally wrong given the context of the conversation. It is immaterial which features Solaris got 13 years down the road in its competition with Linux (and Linux wasn't static as well).
> Kernel architecture is also highly relevant, ever wonder why Android phones only get a few years of updates?
I figure in your mind it has to do something with micro-architecture rather than vendors not giving a flying fart, so I'll bite. Can you explain the mechanism by which a monolithic kernel update is any harder than a bunch of services?
> You were literally wrong given the context of the conversation. It is immaterial which features Solaris got 13 years down the road in its competition with Linux.
No, you were wrong with the statement "This also glosses over that commercial Unices weren't superior technology.". The context was Linux killing off the (technically superior) competition, a process that took decades.
There are many other technologies that Solaris had years before Linux, e.g. decent SMP, Zones (containers), ZMF management and many other features that Linux still does not have. QNX had realtime features and a microkernel.
> I figure in your mind it has to do something with micro-architecture rather than vendors not giving a flying fart, so I'll bite.
The situation is more complex than "vendors not giving a flying fart". Linux does not have a stable module ABI, in fact, it doesn't even guarantee a stable API. This is all part of "kernel architecture" and highly relevant. Regarding microkernels, security concerns will eventually force this design on future operating systems (e.g. Google's Fuschia)
Kernel architecture (be it micro or monolithic) per se is no virtue.