Comparison of Windows and Linux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.

Microsoft Windows and Linux (also known as GNU/Linux) are two major competing computer operating systems. Their comparative advantages and disadvantages, design approaches, and differing philosophies make the comparison of the two an archetypal debate in the computing world.

Windows is the most commonly used proprietary operating system, while Linux is the most commonly used open source operating system. Both can serve similar functions in both the desktop and server areas.

Contents 1 Problems comparing Windows and Linux 2 License and history 2.1 Windows 2.2 Linux 2.3 The "Get the Facts" campaign and the cost of Linux 3 Desktop PCs 3.1 Installation 3.2 Accessibility and Usability 3.3 Consoles and desktops 3.4 Stability 3.5 Support 4 Servers and workstations 5 Programs 5.1 Gaming 6 Hardware support 7 Security 7.1 Security implications of open source code 7.2 Permissions 7.3 Software 8 See also 9 References 10 External links

[edit] Problems comparing Windows and Linux

Although the name "Linux" technically refers only to the Linux kernel, the term "Linux" is often also applied to the system as a whole, including the desktop environment, and the free software applications that is frequently provided in Linux distributions.

There is similar confusion with references to "Windows". "Windows" is a generic name for any of Microsoft's various operating systems over the years, from Windows 1.0 to Windows Vista. Different versions of Windows can have vastly different capabilities.

It is therefore of importance to specify the particular Linux distribution and Windows version in any comparison, though some generalizations can be carefully drawn.

Further, the software packaged within a Linux distribution or within Windows can vary greatly. Both operating systems have a vast array of free software to expand their core functionalities. Major OEM vendors of new computers with Windows preinstalled may also choose to bundle additional useful software, prepaid or otherwise, like Microsoft Works and Nero. Direct feature comparisons are somewhat difficult as a result.

[edit] License and history

[edit] Windows

Main article: History of Microsoft Windows

Windows is the trade name for a series of Microsoft operating systems, starting most significantly with Windows 3.1 in 1992. More recently, it refers to Windows XP, Microsoft's primary desktop product that was superseded by Windows Vista in late 2006.

Windows XP is installed on over 80% of all desktop computers. Various other flavors of Windows, including Windows 98 and 2000, comprise an additional 10%. All large computer manufacturers that target the desktop PC space, save for Apple, install it by default. Though the cost of an independent license of Windows XP Home is $189.99^[1], bulk discounts^[2] given by Microsoft to large OEMs mitigate the actual cost to those buying a new computer to half that or less.

Microsoft provides security updates for Windows customers for some 4-8 years after the product's release.^[3] Users are required to agree to a End User License Agreement (EULA) before installing Windows. Also, the source code for Windows is available to some Microsoft employees and selected other individuals who agree to sign a non-disclosure agreement, as part of their Shared Source Initiative.^[4]

[edit] Linux

Main article: Linux

Linux is a combination of several different technologies. The Linux kernel was started in 1991 (based on earlier kernels), while the X Window System, which provides graphics in Linux, and the GNU project, which includes a set of libraries and command-line based tools used with the Linux kernel, were both started in 1984.

Linux is an open source operating system, so source code is available for anybody to view, distribute, use, and edit. Since Linux is free software, anyone is free to give it away or adapt the source to their own needs.

[edit] The "Get the Facts" campaign and the cost of Linux

Main article: Get the Facts

Linux is generally available as a free download, or sold on a CD for a small fee. The CD may even be available for free, as with Ubuntu's distribution ^[5]) There are also commercial Linux distributors, such as Red Hat and Novell, who charge either for their distributions or for technical support.

Microsoft claims that acquisition costs are a very small component of the total cost of ownership (TCO) for business users^[6], and that most of the cost lay in staff training, website downtime and system security. Staff training could be an important factor as most desktop computers are running Windows.

In 2004 Microsoft launched a campaign named "Get the Facts", for people to "Get The Facts on Windows Server System and Linux."^[7] This cites sources claiming that Microsoft's products have a lower TCO overall than open source and Linux programs. Microsoft claims that savings are made by its ease of use, resulting in less work and lower staff wages.^[6].

Microsoft's figures are disputed by a variety of organisations, notably Novell and The Register.^[8] Pro-Linux websites suggest that some common inaccuracies in Microsoft's figures come from including figures for Unix and Solaris with figures for Linux.^[9] Higher staffing costs may result from the expense of employing Linux administrators, but they tend to more efficient and able to handle more servers.^[9]

In 2004, The Advertising Standards Authority warned Microsoft that an advertisment using research that claimed "Linux was ... 10 times more expensive than Windows Server 2003", was "misleading", as the hardware chosen for the Linux server was needlessly expensive.^[10] Linux, in fact, has a much lower requirement for modern hardware than Windows. Most modern versions of Linux will still run on a Pentium 1 with 128 MB ram.

[edit] Desktop PCs

	Windows	Linux
			footnotes
Market Share	Estimated 89.2%	Estimated 3.3%	according to W3C may 2006, judged by web traffic on a technology site. it is very difficult to estimate the number of Linux users as they are not required to register their copies
bundled software	pre-installed by default in most new desktop PCs	pre-installed by default in some new desktop PCs. Most often used in dual-boot computers.

For most desktop PCs, the pre-installed operating system is Microsoft Windows. Windows has by far the largest market share and comes included by default for most new PCs. It is quite difficult to get an accurate picture of the proportion of Windows and Linux users, as Linux users do not need to register or buy their software, plus some users use a dual-boot computer. However, W3C Schools suggests from web traffic that Linux has about a 3%-4% share, while Windows has about 90%.^[11]

[edit] Installation

	Windows	Linux
			footnotes
install	Can take longer to install than most Linux distributions	Some major distributions like SUSE and Ubuntu are easy to install, but many distributions are very involved and difficult for the average user to install.
live CD	WinPE and BartPE offer watered down versions of Windows that boot from CD they may be used to install an image of Windows onto a hard drive.	Knoppix and many other Linux live CD's include a full operating system on CD Many linux distributions support install through live CDs, like Ubuntu
pre-packaged	Extra software, such as photo, music, or office software, is often bundled by computer OEMs before the computer is purchased.	majority of Linux distributions include a wide variety of applications such as GUIs, window managers, internet browsers, and multimedia players
accessibility	Both Windows and Linux offer accessibility options[12], such as high contrast displays and larger text/icon size, text to speech and magnifiers.

In a comparison between Windows XP and most Linux distributions, neither operating system excels at installation.

Linux distributions have been criticized as being very involved and difficult for the average user to install ^[13]. Recently, many of them, such as SUSE, Ubuntu attempt to simplify the installation of applications through more intuitive package management systems than traditionally available with Linux. More recently, some Linux distributions (e.g. Ubuntu, Knoppix, etc.) offer a "LiveDistro"; allowing users to boot Linux directly from a downloaded ISO image burned to a CD or DVD. Many distributions also support installation this way.

Windows XP's installation routine, while not overly difficult, is antiquated and inflexible. The initial setup is done through a low-resolution wizard. The user must choose and partition a drive for Windows to install itself on; by default, no version of Windows offers the ability of certain Linux distributions to run as a 'Live CD'. Additionally, the Windows partition manager cannot resize or change partition information without destroying pre-existing data on the disk. Those who are reinstalling Windows must therefore either overwrite a previous install or format the drive and erase all data.

However, because the installer is so old, the number of confusing options is minimal. After that brief initial setup and a reboot, a simple, more aesthetic GUI appears and the user can enter basic information like the appropriate timezone and additional usernames. The entire install process takes 30-60 minutes, depending on the speed of the computer.

The software required for Linux to function does not include much software useful to desktop end-users. The majority of Linux distributions include a wide variety of applications; such as GUIs, window managers, internet browsers, and multimedia players. The selection and installation of these applications can complicate the installation process. Windows offers a similar array of applications, though many of the built-in tools offer only a base level of functionality. OEMs often bundle additional software before the computer is purchased.

[edit] Accessibility and Usability

The primary reason Windows continues to dominate in the desktop space is usability. Not necessary inherent usability, however. Windows usability is the result of over 10 years of consistent conventions that users have become comfortable with, as well as a strong emphasis on abstraction. Microsoft, and Apple to an even larger extent, make a concerted effort to hide the underlying technical traits of their operating systems to a degree that few Linux distributions even attempt.

The result is a capable operating system, but one restricted to the Microsoft view of how a computer should be used.

To many Linux users, this is a grave disadvantage. The degree of customization possible in Linux far exceeds what Windows users have at their disposal, even with aftermarket utilities like WindowBlinds. Because Linux users tend to be more technically inclined, they can more easily change, and adapt to changes, in their operating system experience.

The same consistency that Microsoft offers is also their ball and chain; while a Linux distributer can configure Linux however they please, Microsoft's obligation of support and massive install base prevent them from making wholesale changes, or even improvements, without extraordinary scrutiny. As a result, Windows 95 looks and operates like Windows XP, which looks and operates like Windows Vista.

However, as Apple's success with an even more constrained operating system suggests, the ability to customize is not a prerequisite for success. While the open source community is tremendously potent at programming, their usability testing with a nontechnical audience lags behind Microsoft's.

Further, because much of the software that comes with a Linux distribution is sourced from elsewhere, and because there isn't a single set of guidelines that dictate how application GUIs should be configured, there is GUI inconsistency even within a single distribution. Much of the software that ships with Windows was either programmed by Microsoft, or converted to their particular set of usability conventions. The Windows experience is thus more consistent across the board.

In light of this emphasis on convention, the strongest argument against Linux, from the perspective of many nontechical Windows users, is that it is not Windows. Any change, beneficial or not, harms apparent usability. A recipe for success would therefore be to mimic Windows. Some of the more successful distributions, like Kububtu and Linspire, have carved out a niche doing precisely that.

Both Windows and Linux offer accessibility options^[14], such as high contrast displays and larger text/icon size, text to speech and magnifiers.

[edit] Consoles and desktops

	Windows	Linux
			footnotes
system consoles	text-based console, called cmd.exe (the Command Prompt), which is based on MS-DOS (Microsoft's operating system before Windows). limited in its abilities , there are only few console-based programs. Microsoft is developing a command line environment similar to that provided in Linux and other Unix-like operating systems called PowerShell. Currently, a Linux-style terminal for Windows is provided by Cygwin.	strongly integrated with system console, and has a large collection of console based software (most if not all of which also has GUI front ends).
desktop environment	only the windows standard	GNOME and KDE are the most popular, but there are many more.

Both Windows and Linux include system consoles. A console, or terminal, allows users to tell the computer to perform tasks ranging from the simple (for example, copying a file) to the complex (compiling and installing new software). Consoles are powerful but can be confusing to new users.

Linux is strongly integrated with the system console, and has a large collection of console-based software; some of these programs also have graphical interfaces available. Users of desktop software do not need to use the console for everyday tasks, but some complex tasks are more easily accomplished "on the command line", such as piping, or redirecting, the output of one program to use as input for another.

Windows XP has a text-based console, called cmd.exe (the Command Prompt), which is based on MS-DOS (Microsoft's operating system before Windows). This console is more limited in its abilities than the Linux console, and Windows computers also have significantly fewer console-based programs. Most Windows users use the console rarely or not at all, as they can accomplish most tasks using the GUI.

Microsoft is developing a command line environment similar to that provided in Linux and other Unix-like operating systems called PowerShell. Currently, a Linux-style terminal for Windows is provided by Cygwin.

Microsoft Windows and Linux have different approaches towards the desktop. In Windows, the desktop is a key part of the operating system, and is integrated tightly into the system. On Linux the desktop environment is optional and can be chosen from many different options. GNOME and KDE are the most popular desktop environments for Linux.

[edit] Stability

	Windows	Linux
			footnotes
general stability	Windows variants based on the NT kernel (Windows NT, 2000, XP, Vista) are considered quite stable. Earlier versions (95, 98, 98 SE, ME) were not.	inherited the stability of UNIX, acknowledged to be stable.	instability can be caused by poorly written programs
Device Driver stabilty	device drivers are written by the hardware manufacturer.	are often reverse engineered to work for Linux.	Crashes can be caused by hardware problems or poorly written device drivers
down time	Reboots are usually required for driver/software updates	Linux itself only needs to restart for kernel updates.	In terms of potential uptime, lists of the highest web server uptimes show Linux and Windows to be level[15]. These lists only include extremely well-configured servers, which does not necessarily reflect average performance.
misc.	may have problems with memory management and instability in the API	Linux forums report X crashes, sometimes because of a badly written GUI program or because of network problems

For an operating system to be subjectively 'stable', numerous components must operate in sync. Not all of these components are under the control of OS vendor; while Linux and Windows kernels may be stable, poorly written applications and drivers can hamstring both. Much of stability, then, is the extent to which the operating system is architected to thwart the consequences of bad behavior by third party installations.

Much of the reputation Windows has for instability can be traced to Windows 95, 98, and ME. Inevitably, at some point, a user of any of them would experience a Blue Screen of Death. Three weaknesses with these particular Windows versions increased the likelihood such a crash would occur:

• Full 16-bit compatibility. When memory management of the DOS subsystem failed, it would often prompt a BSOD. Windows XP has no true 16-bit support; it emulates it in a virtual sandbox.

• Direct hardware access. Unlike Windows XP, Windows 9x had no hardware abstraction layer. A program or driver that attempted to access protected memory, or interfaced poorly with the hardware, could cause a BSOD.

• Poor DLL management. DLLs are external libraries of functions that prevent unnecessary repetition in a program. Windows 9x had no protections on system DLLs, and poorly written programs would often overwrite them at will with incorrect versions. Over time, the general stability of the system would decrease. Windows XP and later versions have a routine called Windows File Protection that prevents the replacement of important system files.

These are not the exclusive causes of instability, but their correction in the Windows NT codebase has dramatically improved the stability of all subsequent Windows variants. Windows 2000 and XP are considered quite stable, as indeed is Linux.

Poor device drivers are problematic for both operating systems. Devices from small companies often ship with badly written drivers. Linux device drivers can also fail, as they are often reverse engineered to work for Linux.

Recovery methods differ between operating systems, but Linux tends to have the upper hand. If a severe software crash ruins the display driver in Linux, it's always possible to get a console with the keyboard shortcut Ctrl+Alt+F1 and up. From there, the failing application can be killed and restarted without affecting other services in the background. In a worst case scenario, Linux has a 'hack' called Magic SysRq that allows for low-level system manipulation and crash recovery in most cases. Nevertheless, this can be puzzling for most novice users.

Windows has more integration between components. While most offending programs can be closed in Task Manager, summoned by CTRL-ALT-DEL, it is sometimes necessary to close Explorer, the Windows shell, as well. Severe program crashes may necessitate a full reboot, though these are rare. Blue screens are even more unlikely in absence of hardware problems.

Because Linux has a more modular architecture than Windows, it has the additional advantage of requiring full reboots only for kernel updates^[16]. In Windows, various security patches and programs require the entire operating system to restart. Measurements of desktop uptime tend to limited less by stability than these forced reboots.

In terms of potential uptime, lists of the highest web server uptimes show Linux and Windows to be level^[17]. These lists only include extremely well-configured servers, which does not necessarily reflect average performance.

[edit] Support

Windows support comes from:

• The Windows community, such as MSDN
• Phone support by Microsoft or manufacturers
• Extensive help files and online documentation

Linux support comes from:

• The Linux community, such as discussion boards, email lists and USENET
• Phone support, from vendors such as Red Hat, where paid for
• Extensive help files and online documentation

As the learning curve of Linux is sometimes higher than Windows, support can be necessary, but can also be more difficult to come by as there are fewer users to get help from. Sometimes, the Linux community can give a somewhat brusque impression if they tire of novice questions or questions easily answered from the help files.

[edit] Servers and workstations

In contrast to the desktop market, for servers Linux has the overwhelming majority.^{[citation needed]} Some of the most popular sites on the internet, such as Google and BBC News use Linux for their web servers.

Linux is frequently used for supercomputing, with over 70% of the top 500 supercomputers using Linux, against 0.4% using Windows.^[18].

[edit] Programs

While some computer programs are written for both Windows and Linux, most are written with Windows as the primary target. Even many open-source projects originally designed for Linux or other Unix-like operating systems also include Windows support.

It is possible to run Linux programs on Windows, although they must be recompiled with Cygwin. There are two approaches to running Windows software on Linux. The first is through a compatibility layer like Wine, though this is not always successful. The second way is use Win4Lin or VMware to emulate a full Windows installation. Compatibility is higher, but they require a Windows license.

Linux distributions come with a great deal of software which can be installed for free, with an especially large collection of computer programming software.^[19] Debian Linux comes with more than 15,000 software packages. ^[20] There are substantial numbers of free compilers available for Windows as well. Many are based on GNU compilers such as GCC, as well as IDEs for sale such as Microsoft's Visual Studio.

Microsoft has had a longstanding emphasis on backwards compatibility. In general, the Windows API is consistent over time; those programs designed for earlier versions of Windows often run without issues on later versions. For the sake of progress, however, Microsoft sometimes draws a line precluding support of very old programs. That first happened with Windows 95, where some purely 16 bit Windows 3.1 applications would not work, and again with Windows XP, where certain mixed-bit applications would not work. It will happen a third time when 64 bit operating systems become common. In general, however, these are exceptions. 16 bit emulation and the enormous array of application-specific tweaks within new Windows versions ensure that compatibility with old applications remains very high.

Linux can suffer from some backward compatibility problems, but as most Linux applications are open-source, newer versions usually become freely available which fix these problems, or can be recompiled for a different architecture.

[edit] Gaming

A major attraction of Windows is the library of games available for purchase. All major games natively support Windows and inevitably come out first for the Windows platform. With the rise of hardware acceleration, and particularly in the last three years, Microsoft's DirectX has presented a strong incentive to develop for the Windows platform.

Some of these games can be run on Linux with a compatibility layer like Wine or Cedega. Others, and especially more modern games that rely on proprietary delivery systems, copy protection, Windows dependencies, or advanced acceleration features, may fail.^[21] Moreover, those that run often have quirks that are not present on the Windows platform. The ones that run properly suffer a 10-25% performance hit, although as Wine development progresses, performance improves for all such games.^[22]

There are notable exceptions, such as iD Software's Doom and Quake series, and Blizzard's World of Warcraft. When a developer chooses to write graphics code in OpenGL instead of DirectX, Linux ports become much easier.

There are also numerous open-source games designed first for Linux.^[23] While most of these are small games like Kolf or Pingus, there are also bigger games, such as Nexuiz and Freeciv. Many have been ported to work on Windows as well.

[edit] Hardware support

Hardware support is dictated by the availability of drivers for a particular platform. Much like the situation with games, hardware manufacters write drivers for Windows first. Linux comes second, or not at all. This is particularly true with hardware by smaller companies.

Microsoft does not create drivers except for their own hardware. All drivers that ship with Windows are submitted by the manufacturer and must pass Microsoft's WHQL program, which ensures a minimum level of stability and compatibility.

If a piece of hardware does not ship with Linux drivers, drivers must be created from scratch by the Linux community. This is easier if the manufacturer has released complete specifications for their product. If they have not, the Windows drivers must be reverse-engineered. The reverse-engineering process is inherently time-consuming and prone to mistake, so Linux occasionally has problems with hardware detection and functionality. If no compatible drivers have been written, the device will not work.

Today, Linux has support for most devices, but still has problems with new technologies. As the Linux user base has grown, there is now more mainstream driver support from companies such as ATI and Nvidia.^[24] A new technology named NdisWrapper also allows Windows networking drivers, such as wireless drivers, to be run on Linux.

[edit] Security

Microsoft Windows is the target of many viruses, spyware, and other forms of malware. Windows users are generally advised to install and run anti-virus or anti-spyware programs. Significant security problems have especially been seen with ActiveX technology^[25], which is embedded into a wide range of applications, including MSN and Internet Explorer.

Microsoft argues that its platform is nevertheless more secure because the Microsoft developers can respond to security issues more quickly and efficiently than the Linux developer community^[26]. This has been hotly disputed^[27], as Linux users are often more technologically oriented than users of Microsoft Windows, and past Linux security alerts (such as the Ping of Death attack) have had patches available within hours^[28].

Microsoft claims the reason Windows is often subject to more vulnerabilities is because Windows runs on a greater percentage of computers, making it a more appealing target for attackers. It also claims that because their operating system is closed-source, it provides a certain level of security by obscurity, as any flaws in the code are not easily visible for crackers to take advantage of.

[edit] Security implications of open source code

Linux advocates claim that their openness means that code can be reviewed by many people, who can submit bug fixes or new features.^{[citation needed]} Microsoft suggests that Linux's openness is its weakness, as bad or sloppy code can be added to projects, and that it is easier for hackers to craft exploits when the source code can be seen.^{[citation needed]}

Linux developers refute this, saying that mainstream projects have a small, trusted core of people who review code samples submitted to the project, and that the software is more secure and problems are corrected more quickly.^{[citation needed]} Information on security exploits are regularly kept secret by the trusted core until a patch is available.^[29] Linux proponents claim that this system allows for a fast response to security threats.

In a series of independent studies by source code auditing firm Reasoning, it was found that the Linux TCP/IP stack contained fewer programming defects than closed source competitors^[30] and that the Apache web server source code was of equivalent quality to closed source competitors.^[31] Likewise, the firm Coverity found that Linux in late 2004 already contained fewer security flaws than commercially developed software and that, despite a 5% increase in the code size over the following six months, the total number of flaws fell over the same period.^[32]

[edit] Permissions

Linux has a well established system for allowing access to files for groups of users, stemming from its multi-user background.

Windows NT-based versions of Windows have a permission system which is more finely grained than the one used by Linux. These use access control lists to protect files. Linux also supports Access Control Lists with SELinux, though that feature is not enabled by default on some distributions. Some, such as Fedora, CentOS, and Red Hat use it out of the box.

Almost all Linux distributions take advantage of file permissions by prompting the user to create a user account which has a lower privilege level during installation, while accounts created during the installation of Windows XP are created with administrative permissions. While Microsoft recommends that users log on during regular computer use with an account that has lower privilege levels, casual users tend to accept default settings, and therefore run their Windows XP computers as administrative users.

In Linux, system tasks like installing new software require a system password (root access). Most programs do not need this access, so unexpectedly asking for the system password is highly suspicious. If a program gets taken over by a virus or hacker, it will not be able to change the whole system. At risk programs, such as web servers, are generally run on a different account to the user's account, if it gets compromised it will then be unable to destroy files in the user's home directory.

Both operating systems offer the ability to log in as a limited-rights user. This prevents the currently logged in user from being able to modify vital settings and potentially ruin their OS installation. However, Linux proponents argue that since many programs available for Windows require administrative rights to use and install, many users run as the administrative user at all times, allowing malware run under their account to manipulate vital system settings.^{[citation needed]} Further, they point out that most Linux distributions make it difficult to log in as the root user, and require a conscious effort to do so.^{[citation needed]} In response, Windows users point out that it is not a flaw of the operating system that causes users to always use the administrator account, but rather poorly designed programs.^{[citation needed]}Then, some people argue that the abundance of software designed to run with administrative privileges is connected to the habits and tools developed when home versions of Windows didn't support permissions (prior to Windows XP).

Most distributions (such as Debian, Ubuntu, SuSE, Knoppix) go as far as preventing root from logging onto the GUI by default, though it can easily be allowed in most distributions like Ubuntu. This can be disturbingly annoying to Windows users who are used to full privileges and find themselves stuck when the installer does not add their account to the sudoers file, not even just to mount disks (which Windows does instantly and automatically, as well as some Linux distros such as Ubuntu). However, distributions like Ubuntu allow a user (at least one by default, and rest if allowed by admin to run super user tasks) to run root tasks by providing his/her own password only.

Microsoft has added a similar feature called User Account Control to Windows Vista where all users, including system administrators, will by default have a lower set of privileges.

[edit] Software

Linux also does not use the file extension to determine if the file should be executed but instead uses a file-system execute bit, which cannot be set by the file's original source; this provides added protection for wetware exploits (tricking the user into running malicious programs).

Many viruses do not take advantage of security vulnerabilities at all, instead relying on social engineering to convince users to bypass security installed on their machine. Other security threats involve fooling the user to give away personal information or passwords (phishing).

[edit] See also

• Comparison of Linux distributions
• Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X
• Comparison of Linux and Mac OS X
• Comparison of operating systems
• Open source vs. closed source
• Linux adoption
• The Cathedral and the Bazaar
• Halloween documents

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• Linux.org: Free downloads of vast variety of Linux distributions
• Microsoft: Get The Facts (Windows Support)
• MSLinux.org: A parody telling you that Microsoft has released their own version of Linux. An amusing read
• Novell's comparison (Linux Support)
• The Register: Get the Real Facts (Linux support)
• The Register: Security Report
• Linux vs Windows
• TCO comparisons:
  • Get the Truth on Linux Management (PDF) - by Enterprise Management Associates in February 2006
  • Total Cost of Ownership for Linux in the Enterprise (PDF) - by Robert Frances Group in July 2002
  • Windows 2000 Versus Linux in Enterprise Computing (Microsoft)
  • Study: Linux Is Still Cheaper Than Windows (PCworld.com)