[Halfmanhalfamazing]

I've found this to be true myself. Though I wasn't managing servers, I can manage more linux machines than I can windows machines. They just don't arbitrarily have software issues as much, nor are they as prone to malware.

I've never managed a mac network, but I'd imagine the end result would be about the same. Windows machines require babying. Linux doesn't.

[Michael Goldsberry]

Unix in general measures uptime in months or years, not days or weeks as Windows does.

[ShadowAce]

[antiRepublicrat]

Largo, Florida switched to Linux and had six admittedly underworked guys (counting the head of IT) running 400 systems and 800 users. They also had some Windows machines left, and those took up much of their time.

[RayChuang88]

While Linux is great as a server operating system, the serious lack of full-function support for many PC hardware components makes them not yet completely suitable for desktop machines just yet.

[Doohickey]

Every shop I've ever worked in that has separate Windows and *nix teams has double or triple the ratio in the Windows environments. Windows servers run 90:1 - 120:1, while the *nix boxes run 25:1 - 40:1.

[Bush2000]

The employees of over 200 companies that run Linux were interviewed for the Get the Truth on Linux Managementstudy, which was sponsored by pro-Linux organisation the Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) and Linux management software vendor Levanta.

Gee, I'm shocked that a report sponsored by pro-Linux orgs would reflect favorably on their products...

This is marketing drivel. Pure and simple.

[Golden Eagle]

Says who? Some foreign rag quoting the Linux lab itself? Gimme a break!

Linux is a major pain to install and especially update. I saw a Red Hat system - supposedly the best - take six hours to complete up2date. It sat there for three of them saying "searching for headers to resolve dependencies" or some other nonsense.