Why Switch From Windows to Linux

If your company is running Windows in its data center, you face the inevitable decision: Do you upgrade to the latest version of Microsoft's operating system or stick with what you're currently running? For corporate users of Windows NT 4.0, the choice is particularly important as full support for that network operating stopped at the end of 2004. That means organizations are more or less forced to make a change to their computing environment sooner or later - either to Windows Server 2003 or to Windows Vista (formerly called Longhorn), the next version of the operating system, which isn't expected to ship until late next year.

The problem with moving to newer versions of Windows is primarily the cost. These operating systems will almost certainly require you to purchase new, more powerful hardware to run them, and new software licenses as well. Since the changes to the operating system are significant, the upgrade is actually more like a wholesale migration.

Given the likely cost and work involved in moving to a new Windows platform, it's certainly worth considering other options that may be available.

The most obvious alternative to consider is Linux. That's because it runs on the same hardware as Windows, and because it requires far less processing power, it's almost certain that existing Windows boxes will be able to run Linux without requiring costly hardware upgrades. And since Linux requires no client access licenses, there are no extra fees to pay as your organization expands

In fact, this is not the whole story as costs go beyond the initial outlay. According to research by the IT consultant group Cybersource, the total cost of ownership of a Linux solution over a three-year period is 36 percent lower than a Windows solution, when existing hardware is used.

Over the longer term, these savings are likely to become even more marked. That's because Windows upgrades frequently require new hardware purchases, and if upgrades are skipped then support for the existing software may have to be purchased as an extra. Ultimately, the total cost of ownership is up to Microsoft, because companies that commit themselves to Windows lock themselves in to a single vendor and have no choice but to accept the terms that Microsoft dictates. In contrast, many major vendors support Linux. The competitive market that has been the result of this means that costs are—to a large extent—dictated by market forces, not by a single company.

However, there are other reasons to consider Linux as an alternative to Windows besides cost. Perhaps the most important is security. Experienced administrators are used to seeing daily reports of vulnerabilities regardless of platform. But when vulnerabilities are identified, Windows-based organizations are totally dependent on Microsoft to produce patches—assuming that it still supports that particular version of the operating system. Applying patches is an inevitable drain on productivity, and, more markedly, so are the server reboots that are required in order for the patches to take effect.

Better Security
Many of these problems simply do not apply to Linux. It is arguable that Linux is an inherently more secure operating system than any of the Windows versions, but leaving that question to one side it is certainly true that there are far fewer Linux security vulnerabilities highlighted in a given period than there are for Windows.

More importantly, Linux is open source software, so security is achieved by transparency: Everyone can see and check the underlying code, and any vulnerabilities that do come to light can immediately be dealt with by the global open source software community as a whole. Patches are therefore typically produced in a matter of days—sometimes in just a few hours. And whereas viruses and worms that target Windows platforms abound on the Internet, malicious code of these sorts that affects Linux is rarely seen. Although patching Linux systems also has an impact on productivity, patching is less frequent, and Linux systems don not require reboots for patches to take effect (unless the Linux kernel itself is updated.)

Higher Reliability
Reliability is also an important point to consider, and Linux is well-known for its stability. This stems from the architecture of the operating system as a whole. The Linux kernel was specifically designed to keep each application component, and the kernel itself, as isolated as possible so that in the event that a particular application terminates unexpectedly, it has no effect on other applications or the operating system as a whole. As a result, servers can be expected to run continuously for months or years rather than days, and reboots to restore performance to machines that have slowed after application crashes are almost unheard of.

This compares extremely favorably with Windows servers, which normally require booting frequently, either due to unexpected application terminations, or as a result of patches. Linux systems generally require rebooting only after a bad software download, or if a critical piece of hardware fails. And when a Linux system does crash badly, the Linux kernel can usually be rebooted from a floppy quickly with little loss of functionality. A Windows system, by contrast, will often have to be reinstalled from CD—usually with total loss of functionality.

Propriatary vs Open Source
A number of other benefits that stem from the open source nature of Linux. Whereas the Windows license covers the operating system only, most Linux distributions include a large library of extra tools, utilities and other software including the Apache Web server, MySQL database, Samba (for file and print services) and the GNU compiler. In the Windows world, you would have to purchase equivalent products separately. And since Linux source code is readily available, Linux applications can be customized or tailored either in-house or by consultants whenever required.

Support
Finally, a common misconception about Linux is that whereas Microsoft "owns" Windows and can therefore support it, organizations using open source software have nowhere to turn to for professional support. In fact, many organizations—from Linux distributors to independent companies—support Linux implementations, and, as mentioned earlier, the TCO of Linux ownership— including support, is lower than with Windows.

Linux may not be suitable for all organizations, and other, more costly options such as UNIX also exist. But any organization running Windows—especially Windows NT—would be wise to evaluate Linux before committing themselves to another round of Windows upgrades.