I've been involved in and using Linux for many years now, since somewhere around 1993 I think, and I've been impressed from the very start. I think it is unmatched as a small- to medium-sized server operating system and I have yet to see anything from Microsoft or Apple that can compete at the technical level. It is robust, highly configurable, very fast, stable, reasonably secure out of the whatever box it comes in and very secure when required. IMO, it remains today the OS to beat for typical network server purposes. But it has always lagged behind for the desktop user, until recently that is.

There are a great number of Linux releases available, RedHat, SUSE, Centos, Debian, and Ubuntu just to name a few of the best known. I've chosen Ubuntu for my servers and workstations because of ease of use and the "LTS", or "Long Term Service" series of releases that allow for 3-year planning. The updates, both automatic and manual methods, are easy to use and make administration of the OS almost trivial ... different but overall probably no more difficult than a typical Window's version for lay-person.

The ease of use comes at a price of many updates, however. When I was responsible for creating the kernel for the Linux servers under my control, it wouldn't have to get changed literally for years because it was stripped down to just what was required for the available hardware. Those kernel versions took dozens of hours to create (plus, of course, years of education and experience before I took on the task) and only pay off over the long term.

Where the "kinch kernels" were narrow and focused on the particular hardware used and the services desired, Ubuntu's version is necessarily broad to encompass as many different hardware and service combinations as possible. So I am forced to install many a new kernel even with the LTS versions, almost as many as a Windows platform forces. But such is life, scheduling reboots and performing the upgrades is certainly faster than tracking all the information myself, it is a good trade-off for a small business, but I wouldn't have to be much bigger before I'd again choose to manage without Ununtu's help.

Some things will always work better with a *nix-based Operating System, I think, task scheduling and networking are two really good examples whilst other features will always lag behind primarily for business reasons, like device driver support for the latest and greatest graphics card. But the truth is, for most people, there is no value in the latest and greatest device, no need for the fastest CPU or memory, the largest and fastest hard drive, no use for the fancy graphics adapter.

Gamers, those who use their computer to run video games both standalone and online, and those who'd like to edit HD video or print-quality images and a few other edge-case use of computers are all advised to stay as current as possible with hardware. Those activities require the most resources and computers are still not yet fast enough to keep up with the demands of the heaviest of users. However, such people are much rarer than you might think, most of us require as little as 10% of the available resources. So, my point is that you do not have to pay a premium for the latest (biggest, fastest) thing (CPU, Memory, Graphics card etc) and so you are not limited to Windows.

I do not intend this note as a way of starting up yet another "my OS is better than your OS" discussion, rather I think that the vast majority of people couldn't care less what their OS is, they just want things to be easy. Linux on the desktop is now as easy as running Windows at the desktop. If they are both setup correctly then both should stay current with little interaction with a user/administrator (of course I'd argue that the vast majority are NOT setup correctly for either OS, but that is a different issue) but Linux has two very clear advantages:

1. Cost -- Linux remains free and open, Ubuntu is free and open. Total software cost for me to service all of my servers and workstations and all the applications on them is less than $1,000 (the lone Windows box running financial software but that too may change)
2. Security -- while there are a large number of security related patches for Linux, the vast majority are not a serious concern for either most home use or protected server use. They ARE of importance for computers offering local use (an account on the system) as opposed to using the services of the computer (accessing a web site, DNS, SMTP etc). There are some security issues that affect these services as well, but they are much less frequent AND updating them rarely requires a reboot or even a service outage lasting longer than 10 seconds.

I'm not going to go into the technical aspects but the basic design of Linux/Unix is superior to Windows from a security standpoint, you really will be less likely to have any "virus" issues ... and you will not require anti-virus software. The names of the programs may be different, but everything you want to do is likely possible using free software running on Linux and those applications are typically more robust and often provide more enhancements.

The only reason Linux isn't bundled with the computers you buy today is because the cost of providing it would be greater for software vendors then Windows ... Microsoft continues to offer very good deals to computer vendors to install their OS and spends far more on advertising letting consumers know what a good OS they have (and how are lay-people to know better?) But as much as Windows has improved, it has stayed the same. It is an OS that is designed to keep you working with that OS, an understandable business decision but not a good personal decision in my view. Yet I know that not one person will change based on this note or my endorsement, I'm not really sure why I'm bothering to write about it :-)