Linux use much less memory than NT, NT come with a GUI which eats your
RAM like crazy.
Peoples tend to think than NT is easier to maintain. It's wrong.
A good sys admin should be able to understand any flavor of unix.
If a sys admin is only able to maintain a NT system, let's face it,
he is just not able to understand what is a computer.
Reliability. I crashed NT 3.51 many times simply by using buggy
software (Netscrap 1.1 and 2.01). I crashed stable linux (even minor version
number) only when tweaking video modes under XFree86.
Reliability, part II. Mainstream PC hardware just sucks. I'm especially
tninking about memory error. Real computers have ECC (error correction code)
on the RAM. Recent studies [1] shows that cosmic rays (not kidding) could cause
up to 200 bit error/year on a computer with a 365 day uptime/year.
If you want
reliable hardware, buy a SparcStation and put SparcLinux on top of that.
Linux = open system, NT = proprietary system.
When your facing a bug with NT, you'll be in a really bad situation,
since commercial company seem reluctant to admit the fault is on their
sides. Reporting
a bug to linux is as simple as your email, and tend to be corrected quickly
if it is really a bug. Furthemore, you have full source code if you
mind looking yourself into it.
Security. NT claim to be C2 compliant. A joke. A NT box, to be C2
certifiable, must not have a network connection, no floppy, etc..
C2 is just impraticable in a networked situation. Linux is no more
C2 certifiable, but security issues tend to be better understood under
UN*X system than with NT, simply because UN*X is there since quite a while.
and so on...
[1] Science et Vie #951, p. 13. Studied by James F. Ziegler at IBM
research center, NY.
-- Philippe Strauss, ingenieur en telecommunications.Email: <philippe.strauss@urbanet.ch> Homepage: http://sicel-home-1-4.urbanet.ch