This is actually a really old post that never made it to my webpage, but I'm going to post it now.

Well, as some people know, Microsoft has released a Get the Facts on Windows and Linux advertising campaign explaining why Microsoft Windows is better than Linux in the server arena.

(Please note that said servers - a lot of people have managed to misunderstand that and keep on bringing Internet Explorer into the conversation, which as absolutely nothing to do with Microsoft Windows as a server platform. From now on, whenever anyone talks about Internet Explorer security holes when talking about Linux vs. Windows as a server platform, I'm going to bring up spatial Nautilus and explain how that proves that Apache sucks.)

Anyway, they offer a free Windows vs. Linux Evalutation Kit. That's what this is about, the evaluation kit.

To sum up: it's useless. It was a waste of free. If you work in a UNIX shop that has no Microsoft Windows in it, then I suppose you might find the 180-day evaluation copy of Microsoft Windows Server 2003 useful. However, I have a non-expiring MSDN copy sitting next to me since any development shop that does any work with Windows worth anything will have a subscription to MSDN.

The "kit" comes with a nice folder labeled "Essential Facts about Windows and Linux." This folder contains two documents within it, along with the evaluation CDs for Windows Server 2003. (It includes a "resources" CD, I have no idea what's on that, and the actual Windows Server 2003 disc.)

The first document describes how Safeway moved away from SCO UNIX to Windows Server 2003. (Which seems kind of strange at first, since we're really talking about Windows vs. Linux here, not Windows vs. SCO UNIX.)

(Since I didn't know, Safeway appears to be one of those "super-centers" where you can buy practically anything from groceries to computer parts to car parts to gas. According to their store locator, there are none within 100 miles of me, so I've never actually been to one.)

It turns out that Safeway considered a number of options before settling on Windows Server 2003. One of those option was, not surprisingly, Linux.

The document doesn't really get into the requirements for the system, but it looks as though one of the requirements for the new system they were building was this it support certain enterprise applications. Linux didn't support these (not overly surprisingly, really) whereas Windows Server 2003 does.

The end result is that, based on the document, Safeway managed to find a place where Windows Server 2003 is, indeed, the best solution and Linux is not. Possibly because they wanted to allow user interaction with the servers, something that Linux makes, uh, difficult. Ultimately Safeway has thin clients connected to a server in each store to provide access to the applications their employees need to use.

I would hope no Linux zealot would argue that Linux makes a better choice for a thin client backend, especially given the recent termoil involving the X server that various X distrobutions are using. (Nothing says "stable operating system" like watching the entire layer the user uses to interact with the machine be forcibly changed due to people's egos.)

Ultimately, though, the document doesn't tell enough information to properly guage what Safeway's requirements were and how Linux compares to Windows Server 2003 based on this document. Overall it would not surprise me if Safeway does indeed have a far better solution with Windows Server 2003 than they would with Linux. The only problem is that they expect this to jump from the specific case to the general case, and that's a leap of faith I don't want to take.

Next up we have a nice glossy document that actually compares Windows Server 2003 to Linux, instead of talking about a successfully Windows Server 2003 roleout. (Until the end, when it talks about Maidenform moving from an undisclosed UNIX system to a Windows-based system.)

The first major point that Microsoft makes in this document is that if you want support for a Linux environment, you'll have to pay for it. This should not come as a surprise to anyone. Yes, you have to pay for support.

The next point is the often repeated cost of staffing. Staff that can support Linux systems cost more than staff that can support Windows systems. I haven't heard any Linux user discredit this; in fact, almost every Linux supporter I've ever heard agrees with this. (Possibly because it would be like requesting a pay cut?)

Linux supporters argue that Linux requires less support staff to maintain than Windows solutions. Microsoft disagrees, which hardly comes as a surprise.

So who's telling the truth? I honestly have no idea. I haven't run any real Windows servers or Linux servers. My experience with both has been limited to running the Apache web server, which really doesn't offer any insight. (The two seem to be neck-in-neck when dealing with a massive 0 average page views per day.)

I'd honestly love to run a study on Windows Server 2003 vs Linux based on some set of requirements. Maybe some day I can find a buisness reason to allow me to research Linux compared to Windows myself.

Anyway, they then compare a Windows solution to a Linux solution is each of five very nebulously defined areas. Windows comes out a good 10% in the lead on four of the five ("file," "print," "security," and "networking"), while Linux is ever-so-slightly cheaper at "web."

My ultimate conclusion from that package? Meh. It shows quite clearly that there are specific cases where Linux is more expensive than Windows. This, honestly, does not surprise me, since I've run into many situations where it was far cheaper to run the Windows software on Windows than attempt to reimplement it under Linux. Amazing thing, that.

It fails, however, to really make the leap from specific case to general case. It shows that a specific study (although it doesn't give enough details to even determine what study) suggests in very vagues terms that a Windows-based solution is cheaper than a Linux based solution.

Even after reading the articles, I'm not convinced that Windows is any cheaper than Linux. In fact, I'm fairly convinced that, as always, the cost is almost entirely determined by the applications you need to run. And, that being the case, I expect that Microsoft Windows-based solutions really do beat Linux for the most part; soley because there are more Windows applications available than counter-parts under Linux.

Microsoft, Windows, and Windows Server 2003 are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries. Linux is apparently a copyright of Linus Torvalds.