After reading the article last week and responding to the discussions I was ripped left and right for defending Microsoft. I still say that while open source is great, Linux is no where near developed enough for a “Enterprise Solution” and most of the people claim it is have never worked in a very large corp where you need a vast amount of software that can work together without any critical problems and an incredible learning curve. I myself perfer Linux for a web server (Apache) but that is the only place I have found it useful and when you consider the increase in salary for a admin of has knowledge of MS and Linux I starting to wonder if it is worth the money. I’m still favoring Apache for security reasons but I am thinking budget and all.
So here is my question:
For all you Pro-Linux Admins and those who claim to know something here is your chance. What do you think the real advantages of Linux are when compared to Windows 2000 server? The truly technical stuff. Not better security, cheaper and the typical say nothing crap you can read anywhere.
So, lets rule out Apache and price. Why did I rule out Apache. I think any Admin knows for security Apache is better than IIS even if IIS is easier to use. There would be no real point mentioning Apache it is common knowledge.
Here is two examples of what I mean:
Microsoft – Many applications (written by MS and third party) are able to share information (and remain stable) under one log in. This ones is one of Microsofts strongholds on the Corp world and is hardly ever mentioned.
Linux- The ability to write “Custom in house” code to use in applications can be very valuable IF you have a good employee you can rely on. I feel this was the backbone of Unix and why many very large corps still have Unix systems running. It is also why Mainframes are making a come back in some areas.