Linux becoming a threat to Windows in the enterprise

The Linux Foundation released a report today that shows Linux implementations growing within large companies over the next five years. According to PC World, the full report included data from 1900 respondents. Among the full set of 1900 companies, 76% said that they would be adding more Linux servers in the coming year. Only 41% claimed that they would be increasing their Windows server implementations. If that isn’t impressive enough, the five-year view looks even better for the open source operating system. While 79% of the surveyed said that they would be adding Linux servers over the next five years, only 21% are going with Windows. Of the companies growing their Linux infrastructure, 37% of them would be migrations from Windows products.

Before everyone jumps on the obvious sample bias argument – it is The Linux Foundation, after all – Amanda MacPherson, VP of marketing and developer programs at The Linux Foundation, believes that the open source nature of Linux helps provide a data set that isn’t marred by sales data. Since Linux can be slapped on a server free of charge, you can’t link OS adoption data to server sales. It therefore gives a clearer view of what companies are really looking for in their server software.

Surprisingly enough, the aforementioned lack of price has not been a key factor in the growth evidenced by the survey. The main reason companies are looking to Linux is technical superiority. Cost came in second, and security came in third.  

While Linux may not be as popular on the desktop these days, this survey confirms that Linux in the enterprise is growing, and it doesn’t seem to be stopping any time soon. 

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Copy and Paste coming to Windows Phone 7 in early 2011

Next Story

Microsoft Office for Mac 2011: Home and Business Edition: Review

81 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I have Windows Server 2003 and it works perfectly fine. Not a single BSOD or freezing, and thinking about upgrade it to 2008

I'd be pretty damn worried if a server machine was BSODing or freezing. But really, windows on good hardware doesn't BSOD or freeze.

daniel_rh said,
I have Windows Server 2003 and it works perfectly fine. Not a single BSOD or freezing, and thinking about upgrade it to 2008

Most of the time, Linux is the unique alternative for example, it is possible to create a virtual linux server with only 256mb of ram and less than 1 gb of hd. Instead, it is hard (if not impossible) to do it using windows server.

In any case, *Linux is not cheaper*, in fact Linux is more expensive than Windows Server. Is easy to find a expert in Windows Server that mount and configure a windows server in a couple of days, but in Linux, it can take weeks to proper configure a system (server-class configuration) and most Linux expert charge high per worked hours.

I don't really understand all the anti-linux feelings that everyone seems to have.
I've got a ubuntu server set up at work. It does all of our web stuff, serves files to all our computers and handles pretty much everything else we need to do in-house.
At home I've got another ubuntu server set up, its got rtorrent set up with a nice looking web UI, it's a media server for my htpc and it serves files to all of my computers to access.
Both servers haven't missed a beat since I got them set up and I hardly have to touch them unless there is a hardware problem. I don't think I've even had to restart them.

Windows servers on the other hand, everyone I've seen come into work has some how stuffed up and failed beyond belief. They seem to require lots of attention to run smoothly and they also seem to require someone to have to interact with a gui just to get anything done.

From what I've seen they don't compare.
Sure, in the enterprise market they might be good if you need active directory and exchange. But I'm willing to bet that most people could get away with using a linux server.

Windows Servers should really work to reduce their reboot frequency. Having anything above a 60 day uptime on a Windows Server is almost impossible if you are installing critical updates. Linux can go a while, unless a crazy kernel patch is needed.

If Windows fixes this one thing, it will go a long way to maintaining at least some share. High Availability solutions with Windows just isn't as easy.

Mike Frett said,
Nice fanboy attitude guys. Free your minds.
Its not a fanboy attitude. Nothing sofar has been able to replace group policy for managing and locking down machines. especially public machines.

i do use linux for other uses like firewalls, routers, webservers and things like that.

majortom1981 said,
Its not a fanboy attitude. Nothing sofar has been able to replace group policy for managing and locking down machines. especially public machines.

i do use linux for other uses like firewalls, routers, webservers and things like that.

+1

People who don't actually work in large environments with public and power users, numerous custom apps, etc. Really have absolutely no clue.

majortom1981 said,
Its not a fanboy attitude. Nothing sofar has been able to replace group policy for managing and locking down machines. especially public machines..

didn't you know filesystem ACLs is all you need in *Nix?

I'll believe it when I see it. Report on it all you want, but I need to see this actually happen.

Large coprorations will struggle with this conversion. Typically, the people who make the money are not technical people and they have a repeatable pattern. Mess with this pattern and it adds seconds to their routine. Seconds are minor to you and I, but seconds can be worth thousands or higher to a company. I've been through this, upgrades to apps in a call center seem simple but they have a chance to be a complex and costly process if they don't go smoothly. That's just an app, replace and OS and their apps... make sure you're on PTO the day off and for a week or two after.

I love Linux for Apache HTTPD, Game Servers, MySQL etc. But its far from replacing Windows Servers for business.

I can't see Microsoft being scared of Linux like Apple aren't scared about all these "iPhone killers".

Especially here in the UK, the military relies heavily on Windows Server, although we're still on Windows Server 2003. I will add though, that several of the Airfield Landing Aid machines, run on Linux.

Although our main Radars run on Windows NT 4.0, which is depressing. It took the damn things 25 minutes to copy 100kb of data to a Floppy Disk.

I honestly think linux and microsoft willl be used to work together. We run windows for our domain controlelrs. So far nothing beats Group policy.

Our firewall,nas devices, and filter/antivirus gateway server runs linux. The only time we upgrade our domain controllers is when the hardware dies.

The thing that is happening with microsoft is that the better there server os's get the less you will upgrade it.

I honestluy think most businesses are doing what we are doing.

majortom1981 said,
I honestly think linux and microsoft willl be used to work together. We run windows for our domain controlelrs. So far nothing beats Group policy.

Our firewall,nas devices, and filter/antivirus gateway server runs linux. The only time we upgrade our domain controllers is when the hardware dies.

You have groups in Linux too for that stuff. Didn't you know that?

The thing that is happening with microsoft is that the better there server os's get the less you will upgrade it.

I honestluy think most businesses are doing what we are doing.

From my experience it's like this. Windows is only used for server when you are working with some Microsoft technologies (.NET, ASP.NET, MS SQL, SharePoint, etc.), but everything else it's Linux. Haven't seen Windows in banks, database server, super computer centers, etc. And Linux is kinda the first platform you would choose if you need latest technology. The first support mostly comes to Linux.

But still Windows is high quality operating system too.

david13lt said,
From my experience it's like this. Windows is only used for server when you are working with some Microsoft technologies (.NET, ASP.NET, MS SQL, SharePoint, etc.), but everything else it's Linux. Haven't seen Windows in banks, database server, super computer centers, etc. And Linux is kinda the first platform you would choose if you need latest technology. The first support mostly comes to Linux.

But still Windows is high quality operating system too.

I really can't speak for super computer centers but it's hard for me to take the "haven't seen Windows in banks, database servers" seriously.

david13lt said,
From my experience it's like this. Windows is only used for server when you are working with some Microsoft technologies (.NET, ASP.NET, MS SQL, SharePoint, etc.), but everything else it's Linux. Haven't seen Windows in banks, database server, super computer centers, etc. And Linux is kinda the first platform you would choose if you need latest technology. The first support mostly comes to Linux.

But still Windows is high quality operating system too.

You can use .NET and ASP.NET in Linux on Apache (mod_xsp?). Who cares about MSSQL. IF you used something more available, it wouldn't hurt you, but due to people locking in to platform specific crap, you end up with having a pain to have higher options choices.

MorganX said,

I really can't speak for super computer centers but it's hard for me to take the "haven't seen Windows in banks, database servers" seriously.

I am only talking from my experience and I am talking about server-side. For client side definitely Windows is gonna be used. But on the main frame, I don't except to see Windows.

Um, for Exchange and Active Directory, you're NOT going to replace Windows until Linux can give a perfect 1:1 experience.

"Free" gets you a lot, but even small-ish companies can afford a few grand for a server running Windows.

For web servers, Linux is preferred. Windows "works" there, but Linux gives a an experience that is considered "better" by many, and it is free.

Companies are willing to deal with all the crap that goes on with Open Source, simply because of the cost.

If these companies could go back to square one and get a Windows product at the same cost as their Open Source product the you can bet that's where they would be. Most of these companies are so heavily embedded with these open source programs, and administrators that it would be a nightmare to use anything else.

For every single qualified Unix administrator there are 10 qualified windows administrators. There is way more money to be made on the administration side by using an open source product.

Night Prowler said,
....

+1

Unfortunately, only 1 out of every 10 qualified unix administrators is truely qualified and cares about the users. Most are just elitists who will lock down your WAN for your own good.

Lovely to see how in every GNU/Linux thread/post/news there are always Microsoft-fanboi's claiming Microsoft is so much better. But the other way around, it's way more quiet. Are you afraid of something, guys?

It's not a war folks, it's an Operating System. Use whatever suits you, I know for a fact that there's no such thing as Active Directory on Windows only. Same goes for mail, file, web, mysql, postgresql or oracle servers. I also know that it's a lot easier to maintain a Windows server... choose whatever suits you best.

Don't worry, you don't have to replace your configure-by-clicking servers just yet.. ;-)

Kyentei said,
Lovely to see how in every GNU/Linux thread/post/news there are always Microsoft-fanboi's claiming Microsoft is so much better. But the other way around, it's way more quiet. Are you afraid of something, guys?

You're always going to get this, especially on a website devoted to windows (neoWIN, at least that's my understanding due to the windows zealousness around here)

Kyentei said,

Don't worry, you don't have to replace your configure-by-clicking servers just yet.. ;-)

Does doing everything with Terminal make you cool or something? What's funny is that can do everything in Windows Server from the command window like you can in Terminal on Linux. But why bother typing all the nonsense when a mouse click does it for you? Maybe that isn't as cool to dorks, but at least Windows administrators can spend more time doing non-dorky sh*t.

Kyentei said,
Don't worry, you don't have to replace your configure-by-clicking servers just yet.. ;-)

Yes I did, upgraged to 2008R2 and POWERSHELL!!!!

Now I'm just as 1337 as all you CLI guys.

No bias.

Linux, as a server, is a good and definitely useful tool in the Enterprise. Linux, as a client-side OS, is just not useful to the vast majority of users. I say that with Linux running in a VM on my machine right now.

Fortunately, it's too useful to go away. Unfortunately, it's too user unfriendly to care about for anything except specifically useful cases.

I'm not surprised, there's really no big reason, other than your experience with a platform, to put Windows servers ahead of Linux.

In fact, there are many reason TO use it, such as: faster development, more stable, less malicious nonsense, cheaper, not tied to a specific company, open source, etc.

Tpiom said,
I'm not surprised, there's really no big reason, other than your experience with a platform, to put Windows servers ahead of Linux.

In fact, there are many reason TO use it, such as: faster development, more stable, less malicious nonsense, cheaper, not tied to a specific company, open source, etc.

Time to crank down the FUD machine.
Your arguements are not valid today. Microsoft have the best tools for faster development, is more stable, and with the newest OSes have less malicious nonsense than ever before.
If an enterprise wants support for their OS then they are tied to a specific company.
Open source rarely factors into the enterprise. I do not know how many kernel level fixes my organization have contributed to the global source tree, but I bet it's less than the number of issues that were identified and subsequently fixed using the problem reporting infrastructure set up by my business partner, MS. As far as the cost goes, up front is cheaper, but in the long run, linux costs more.

I think you hit the nail on the head there, it's too costly to re-engineer all the MS solutions for most companies, not to mention skill sets, etc. MS today is not the MS of 2000, their products are vastly superior now and quite stable too, not toe mention the excellent dev tools.

tmaxxtigger said,
I think you hit the nail on the head there, it's too costly to re-engineer all the MS solutions for most companies, not to mention skill sets, etc. MS today is not the MS of 2000, their products are vastly superior now and quite stable too, not toe mention the excellent dev tools.
You're right this argument dates back to the late 90s and early 00s when fat beardy guys argued that the penguin was best, whilst weedy guys with big glasses argued bill was best - it does not work like that anymore!

Whenever I see or hear "Linux", I think of two things: servers and Ubuntu. Not once could I ever imagine a Microsoft product outperforming a Linux server. On the desktop, however, it seems that Linux in the one playing catch-up.

Educated Idiot said,
Whenever I see or hear "Linux", I think of two things: servers and Ubuntu. Not once could I ever imagine a Microsoft product outperforming a Linux server. On the desktop, however, it seems that Linux in the one playing catch-up.

In terms of time and maintenance and actual performance/system power? Windows Server regularly kicks Linux's ass. It is, however, very expensive especially in large scale environments which is how over-zealous IT employees convince their untrained and illiterate bosses to buy into Linux servers, then wonder why the Tech department's billing 2X the overtime the following year

Educated Idiot said,
Whenever I see or hear "Linux", I think of two things: servers and Ubuntu. Not once could I ever imagine a Microsoft product outperforming a Linux server. On the desktop, however, it seems that Linux in the one playing catch-up.

With cheap hardware performance is rarely on the top 10 list of requirements for an OS. Not that I think Linux is significantly faster than Windows, if at all.

AtriusNY said,
Linux is a threat to Unix, not Windows.

IBM and Oracle (Sun) should worry more about this rather than Microsoft.


IBM doesn't have to worry. They more or less already killed AIX and moved features from there to Linux...

- Kaboose - said,
its this time of the season again eh... the whole "ooh no, linux is growing, quickly size up linux"

I keep on hearing about Linux since 1995. Every year since 1995 is always declared as what they call "The Year Of Linux". Well good for them, if it makes them happy calling each year "The Year Of Linux" despite them having a tiny market share compared to Apple's OS (we're not even comparing it to Windows here!).

Active directory and domain memberships make Windows a lot more affordable for us... too much hassel in the linux environment to accomplish the same stuff we can do in AD

neufuse said,
Active directory and domain memberships make Windows a lot more affordable for us... too much hassel in the linux environment to accomplish the same stuff we can do in AD
This is pretty much the story for any small/large/public sector organisation.

Wasn't there once that studie, that showed that Linux is not getting stronger (in terms of adoption) by making Windows weaker, but by "absorbing" the old Unices?

ahhell said,
IT'S THE YEAR OF LINUX...FINALLY!!!

Oh wait, nevermind.

lol

And I thought Linux IS ALREADY a threat to Windows. Then this article came up. *YAWN*

ahhell said,
IT'S THE YEAR OF LINUX...FINALLY!!!

Oh wait, nevermind.

lol

There have been many news headlines proclaiming that it is the year of Android. And since Android is Linux...

Shadrack said,

There have been many news headlines proclaiming that it is the year of Android. And since Android is Linux...

Though Android is based on Linux, it is made by Google. Which makes it viable.

Well, we have 10 CentOS Servers and 250 Ubuntu 10.04 Client Machines where I work. We now only have 20 Windows based Machines. So, yeah, in the business world things are changing independently of the mainstream home users.

Vegetunks said,
Well, we have 10 CentOS Servers and 250 Ubuntu 10.04 Client Machines where I work. We now only have 20 Windows based Machines. So, yeah, in the business world things are changing independently of the mainstream home users.

My works considering such a switch to. I personally hate using Linux UI's and dealing with its limitations, but in terms of cost its a HUGE difference.

Neoauld said,

in terms of cost its a HUGE difference.

Yes it is. It has been documented time and time again that Windows Server has a lower total cost of ownership (TCO) than Linux.

C_Guy said,

Yes it is. It has been documented time and time again that Windows Server has a lower total cost of ownership (TCO) than Linux.

Linux' costs are pretty much all back-end loaded (it costs nothing initially; however, the additional costs in terms of support pile up later); however, the mere fact that those costs *ar4e* all on the back end is proving to be critical (for now) in the enterprise bewcause front-end costs *elsewhere* are so uncertain (such as payroll taxes). Therefore, in some enterprises, being able to move the costs to the back end, even if those costs are higher, is enough.

Neoauld said,
I personally hate using Linux UI's and dealing with its limitations.

Can you explain what limitations Linux has compared to Windows Server?

Personally I prefer Gnome over anything windows offers, but that's just me.

Vegetunks said,
Well, we have 10 CentOS Servers and 250 Ubuntu 10.04 Client Machines where I work. We now only have 20 Windows based Machines. So, yeah, in the business world things are changing independently of the mainstream home users.

There are many environments where it makes sense. Particularly in environments that run one or two custom apps and that's about it. With OpenOffice basic productivity is covered too.

In our "experiments" users are just less productive with Linux. All that MS usability testing does work. Just using a text editor or terminal screen is not something most business users we have can or are willing to try to deal with using Linux.

Eh? This has been known for years now. Linux is more popular in the server sector.

Hell even if Windows Server was as good as Linux, the cost would make a massive difference. Why have to pay thousands upon thousands when you can get the same product for free?

Also is there a lists of these 1900 companies? Because

To understand Linux trends among the world's largest companies and government organizations, Yeoman and The Linux Foundation focused in particular on responses from a subset of close to 400 respondents representing organizations with annual revenues of $500 million or more or greater than 500 employees. Participants included members of The Linux Foundation End User Council and other select organizations.

/- Razorfold said,
Eh? This has been known for years now. Linux is more popular in the server sector.

Hell even if Windows Server was as good as Linux, the cost would make a massive difference. Why have to pay thousands upon thousands when you can get the same product for free?

Also is there a lists of these 1900 companies? Because

It's the other way around. Windows Server products are arguably better, but they have a cost associated with them, whereas (most) Linux distros are free. Given that one is free, and one is rather expensive, it's a rather telling tale when departments choose to spend a pile of money on something instead of recieving the free (but inferior) product.

MS Pandya said,

It's the other way around. Windows Server products are arguably better, but they have a cost associated with them, whereas (most) Linux distros are free. Given that one is free, and one is rather expensive, it's a rather telling tale when departments choose to spend a pile of money on something instead of recieving the free (but inferior) product.

I have to agree, where it counts, Windows is the winner, and always will be

You may have 200 Ubuntu servers and 20 Windows server, but I bet those Windows servers run Active Directory, unified/follow-me print servers, MS SQL etc... products that are Windows only or that Windows does better, that are a necessity in large companies.

MS Pandya said,
Windows Server products are arguably better

It really depends on function. Linux servers are superior in some tasks (such as web, database, etc), while Windows servers are superior in other tasks (file, mail, etc).

MS Pandya said,

It's the other way around. Windows Server products are arguably better, but they have a cost associated with them, whereas (most) Linux distros are free. Given that one is free, and one is rather expensive, it's a rather telling tale when departments choose to spend a pile of money on something instead of recieving the free (but inferior) product.


Well it really depends on the task that you're doing. But I was just saying that even if both products were the same in every way, Linux being free gives it an advantage. Windows Server is licenses in CALs or per cpu, so the costs for it massively skyrocket if you say own a datacenter or a large server mainframe.

/- Razorfold said,
Eh? This has been known for years now. Linux is more popular in the server sector.

That's not what this article is talking about though.

Northgrove said,

That's not what this article is talking about though.

Um yes it is:
Among the full set of 1900 companies, 76% said that they would be adding more Linux servers in the coming year. Only 41% claimed that they would be increasing their Windows server implementations.

/- Razorfold said,
Eh? This has been known for years now. Linux is more popular in the server sector.

Hell even if Windows Server was as good as Linux, the cost would make a massive difference. Why have to pay thousands upon thousands when you can get the same product for free?

This has not been known for years because it is not correct. If Linux was "better" than Windows then it would have a larger market share but it does not. Do some research and you will find that Windows owns about 75% of the server OS market share whereas Linux makes up about 20% and Unix about 5%.

To add further, it takes a Linux trained and literate IT professional to properly use Linux and that in itself is not common compared to the wealth of Windows trained and literate IT professionals. Whatever the reasons behind are is irrelevant but it does have an impact on the OS choice said IT professionals use.

/- Razorfold said,

Well it really depends on the task that you're doing. But I was just saying that even if both products were the same in every way, Linux being free gives it an advantage. Windows Server is licenses in CALs or per cpu, so the costs for it massively skyrocket if you say own a datacenter or a large server mainframe.

You need to get your arguments straight. Windows owns the server OS market share. End of story. Linux owns the MAINFRAME market share. End of story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U..._share_of_operating_systems

Xenosion said,

You need to get your arguments straight. Windows owns the server OS market share. End of story. Linux owns the MAINFRAME market share. End of story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U..._share_of_operating_systems


Server market share of software sold through commercial channels can be measured by two methods - market share by units sold or market share by revenue. For example, according to IDC, Unix shipped only 4.4% of total server units in Q1 2010, but accounted for 22.2% of revenue at the same time. Microsoft Windows server operating systems increase their lead over Linux and Unix by both of these measures.[23]. However, these methods may undercount the share of open source operating systems currently in use, since such operating systems may be obtained for free with or without a support plan and may be loaded onto machines that did not ship preloaded with them.

And you might want to take a mean of those numbers, and not just read the highest And what I was saying for datacenters and mainframes was an EXAMPLE.

Thank you for quoting a source I provided. That was truly eye opening. Could you be a bit more specific in taking the average of what numbers? Because really, if you are going to dispute what the International Data Corporation's research states, with the argument being Linux doesn't have a way to properly document their usage or sales then the debate really hits a dead end there.

And btw, mainframe is a completely different market than servers so no, it's not a relevant example of anything related.

Xenosion said,
And btw, mainframe is a completely different market than servers so no, it's not a relevant example of anything related.

It was an example of how Windows server costs could skyrocket, thats it.

And btw I like Microsoft and Windows Server, so I'm not biased against anything.

Xenosion said,

You need to get your arguments straight. Windows owns the server OS market share. End of story. Linux owns the MAINFRAME market share. End of story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U..._share_of_operating_systems

Maybe i got something wrong but from the link you provided ...

"An alternative method is to survey publicly accessible servers, such as web servers on the Internet, and determine the operating system powering such servers by inspecting response messages. This method gives better insight into market share of operating systems actually installed on those servers, as opposed to the ones sold."


Netcraft Jan 2009 Units (Web) windows : 41.59% - linux : 41.02%
Security Space July 2009 Units (Web) windows : 20.36% - linux : 74.29%
W3Techs September 2010 Units (Web) windows : 33.7% - linux : 63.7%

From my own personal experience having worked in the it dept of 4 companies linux is really popular for web servers.

Xenosion said,
if you are going to dispute what the International Data Corporation's research states, with the argument being Linux doesn't have a way to properly document their usage or sales then the debate really hits a dead end there.
Ways of getting Windows:
-Buy Product on a disc, +1 sale
-Pre-installed, +1 sale

Ways of getting Linux:
-BitTorrent, +?? sales*
-Download from project website, +1 sale*
-Download from mirrors, +?? sales*
-Buy on a disc?, +1 sale
-Pre-installed, +1 sale
* not limited to doing this once, you could do it a hundred times for the same machine if you really wanted, and it'd only cost you in bandwidth.

Because most Linux distributions don't have a (complete) trail of money when it comes to sales, this is a really bad way to calculate market share.
Best way of doing it would be to inspect response messages. I'm sure many web crawlers and search engines have this data somewhere, maybe someone can get a hold of Google's statistics for it.

LaP said,

From my own personal experience having worked in the it dept of 4 companies linux is really popular for web servers.

From my own personal experience there are more than just web servers. If you want to say Linux is better at web serving than Windows, then fine, but that's not what this is specifically about.

shhac said,
Ways of getting Windows:
-Buy Product on a disc, +1 sale
-Pre-installed, +1 sale

Ways of getting Linux:
-BitTorrent, +?? sales*
-Download from project website, +1 sale*
-Download from mirrors, +?? sales*
-Buy on a disc?, +1 sale
-Pre-installed, +1 sale
* not limited to doing this once, you could do it a hundred times for the same machine if you really wanted, and it'd only cost you in bandwidth.

Because most Linux distributions don't have a (complete) trail of money when it comes to sales, this is a really bad way to calculate market share.
Best way of doing it would be to inspect response messages. I'm sure many web crawlers and search engines have this data somewhere, maybe someone can get a hold of Google's statistics for it.


Thanks for summarizing that which has already been stated. The IDC has done research, what have you statistically gathered? Give me some proof that IDC's statistics of Windows' shares are incorrect by a margin of over 50%. Until then, Windows is still leading the server OS market according to those who care about proof statements.

/- Razorfold said,

Well it really depends on the task that you're doing. But I was just saying that even if both products were the same in every way, Linux being free gives it an advantage. Windows Server is licenses in CALs or per cpu, so the costs for it massively skyrocket if you say own a datacenter or a large server mainframe.

Being that this post says "Enterprise" Linux is NOT FREE. Red Hat Enterprise is expensive, just as expensive. Good Linux trained IT resources are more expensive since there are fewer of them.

Linux being a better SQL server? maybe maybe not. SQL2008R2 on Windows 2008R2 is very nice.

MS Pandya said,

It's the other way around. Windows Server products are arguably better, but they have a cost associated with them, whereas (most) Linux distros are free. Given that one is free, and one is rather expensive, it's a rather telling tale when departments choose to spend a pile of money on something instead of recieving the free (but inferior) product.

Good to see some real Administrators in this thread who aren't just anti-MS open source people who actually user Windows Server in large Enterprises and Datacenters ank know that Windows is actually a supeior product.

The problem with Windows perception is that it is so easy to implement at a rudimentary level, uskilled admins get it up and runnig quite reliably for their needs but fail to optimize or implement it securely, whereas these same people don't have time or enough skill to get Linux to do the simple things they need.

Edit: With Windows 7 & what we do with GPOs, Linux isn't even a consideration for us anymore.

Edited by MorganX, Oct 12 2010, 6:53pm :

MorganX said,

Good to see some real Administrators

MS Pandya is 21 yo.
+Xenosion is 23 yo.

Dunno about USA but here in Canada nobody is server admin at this age. They sound more like fanboys than admins to me ...

I'm not admin i'm just a tech but i've been working for 10 years and from my own exp big web and db servers are never windows based.

Oracle, Teradata, Datacom ect from my exp are never installed under windows servers. Of course it's from my exp only.