We've recently...found that Linux--if you look at the overall cost of ownership including the hardware, software, staffing, and purchasing and retirement costs--ends up being significantly less expensive than Unix over a three-year period for things like Web serving
But there are hidden costs to Linux, Microsoft argues. "I think a lot of customers are lured by the apparent low price of Linux," said Doug Miller, director of competitive strategy for Microsoft's Windows division. "They don't have a real issue with Linux, but it ends up costing them in the long run."
With Linux, customers "end up being in the operating systems business," managing software updates and security patches while making sure the multitude of software packages don't conflict with each other," Miller said. "That's the job of a software vendor like Microsoft."
* LINUX ADOPTION STORIES NOT WHAT THEY SEEM Some high-profile Linux adoption stories have circulated lately that feature companies such as Amazon and Intel espousing the wonders of the open-source solution. One crucial fact these stories don't reveal, however, is that these Linux adoptions are replacing proprietary and expensive versions of UNIX, not Windows. And as both Amazon and Intel are quick to point out, neither company has even considered replacing Windows boxes with Linux.
>>>>And as both Amazon and Intel are quick to point out, neither company has even considered replacing Windows boxes with Linux.
That just seems to strengthen the argument that Windows is a self-contained, PC workstation platform and that *nix is a workhorse server platform for a networked world. Therefore it stands to reason that Windows should remain as an interface workstation and the enterprise class computing power and internet application servers should remain *nix.