[monster]

What functionality is it specifically that is setting up Windows as a Ferrari and Linux as a 1963 Dodge for you?

The open source debate rages, but for non partisans (people who just want things to _work_, and don't care which camp the product is from) there are some hard facts about both OS's:

Linux:
- More stable than Windows, Linux still crashes of course, however this is more often than not due to hardware failure not an operating system issue.
- Free. The operating system is free, and most applications are free. Major commercial software costs are comparable to Windows (in a true apples to apples comparison test).
- Hiring a Linux admin and programmer's is the same cost as hiring Windows counterparts, pro-rated with experience of course. Unfortunately poor management, research, and decisions are often repackaged as "Linux costs more to roll out".
- Multi tasking is much (much much) better in Linux.
- More secure when configured properly. This is a particularly sticky issue with caveat's for both sides, but at the end of the day Windows claims top position for most vulnerable to (and least recoverable from) dangerous remote exploits.
- Easier to manage remotely. Windows has RDC and a host of other similar tools, but nothing on Windows comes close to the speed and power of the unix shell. Any and every aspect of a Linux system can be configured remotely from the shell. RDC is fast on a LAN, but very slow over the net, and GotoMyPC is _not_free_.
- Ironically enough, in some environments Linux is a better NetBIOS server than Windows is, for example when dealing with some versions of MacOS (not necessarily the ones based on FreeBSD).
- Allows admins to utilize older/out of date hardware. A 300mhz pc will make a great DNS server with stripped down Linux as compared to the performance of a comparable Windows DNS server.


Windows:
- Much better for enterprise database deployment (aka large scale servers). For example; Windows fares better on the big TPC database performance tests than Linux does in tests where the only difference is the OS.
- Easier to manage as a desktop OS for end users (if you configure all users as restricted users so Outlook can't infect their PC with viruses).
- The GUI is easier, especially for end users, to manage and navigate in Windows. KDE and Gnome have come a long way, but, for example, the "Start Menu" and application naming conventions, as well as installing new applications are all still harrowing experiences to non-technical end users. I wish they had (a secure) IE for Linux.
- More hardware and software are supported directly from the vendor.
- Easier for less technical people (end users and admins) to accomplish tasks, not more efficient, but easier. Most everything has a GUI app that can be found within a few clicks.
- Much more commercial software available.
- Ubiquitous and familiar.
- Becoming more reliable as time passes...in some areas. Windows 2000 is still a great server.


Of course all these points are hotly contested and Windows and Linux zealots will tout their software as more powerful. I find that the most reliable opinions when researching this debate are to be gleaned from department managers that used to be, and still are, bitheads - they have a solid conception of the technology and its capabilities, but they also have a global perspective of implementation considerations such as overhead, point of diminishing returns, install/mainte*****/migration issues. A tech head will often ignore "the bottom line", and a sales person is influenced by his peers without having an understanding of the technology (forgive my over generalization).

I personally use Linux, because it suits my needs and I'm technical. We use windows and Linux servers based on the role of the server. But my non-technical end user's use Windows, and I wouldn't have that any other way.