Hmmm, Giving it a read:

Oh! That's nice! They are trying to compare big fixes! When you consider that "redhat had more than Microsoft"....Well, Redhat comes with literally thousands more software packeges than Windows 2000. And they icluded apache I'm sure. Howabout they unclude IIS into that test. IIS has enough holes to qualify as the Moon's surface area, or a form of swiss cheese.

Wait.....He compared Redhat 6 with Windows server 2003....Redhat six has been around longer than I have even owned a computer... This is nothing but social engineering style marketing to make Windows look like a window is something other than a hole in your house with clear glass covering it.

Nice name for an OS.

*Some where in redmond*

Bill: I have it! We will call our OS Windows! It will have the same amount of security too! People can look right inside your house and see all of your private things, and then break in with nothing but a rock!

Steve: Yes! Then after you are a billionair and some woman would actually want your geek ass and you get married, we can let your wife be the one behind two TERRIBLE peices of software know an BOB and Windows ME!

Bill: Let's do it! First things first though. Let's steal the Mac OS look and feel.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now let's compare the REAL Windows vs. Linux:

Windows, when defaulted to install comes with:

The kernel,
An email reader,
A command prompt,
Wordpad,
Notepad,
Internet Explorer...Which has more bugs than any *NIX kernel,
Windows explorer,
Paint,
...Running low, someone help me here.

Now, Linux comes with, on average, enough to fill 3 GBs of HD space.

Now, let's strip Linux down to just what Windows comes with:

The Kernel
Mutt
Bash Shell
Emacs
Vi
Links
Konq
Kpaint
Hmm...Yea, can't you just imagine how secure a system would be this way? Just because I'm atill waking up and slightly cranky, I'm going to be a bastard and throw an IRC client into that too.

Irssi....My absolute favorite client.

Point being, if Linux came with the same amount as Windows 2000 did, I doubt there would be as many fixes as that article states. And as for cost..... I can download and use Linux or BSD easily. And throw it on as many boxes as I want. How exactly is this less money?

I know what TCO is, but WIndows costs more just to buy the OS, not including hardware. LLinux is free.

So far:

Linux: $0.00
Windows: About $3,000.00

Now, hardware:

Windows server 2003 recommended requirements:

550 MHz or higher processor speed
256 MBs RAM
1.25 -2 GBs space on HD
Looking at the MINIMUM requirements is like looking at running Windows 98 on a 386.

Linux:

I'll be fair here and use SuSe as an example because it is a more GUI intence distro:

At least Pentium speed processor
128 MBs RAM
HD space: Honestly it depends. You can use as little as 500 MBs or so. And since 2003 is a SERVER OS, it would not need X.
The MINIMUM for SuSE is less than the RAM I stated. It may run a bit slower if you use X but ****, it isn't 256 MBs RAM and a 550 processor either.

I should have been an ******* and said Slackware. You could damn near run that on a talking wiz kid.

I think I will stick with Tux while they figure out how to reglass the Windows again.