I know this issue is controversial, but here is what I found in 25 years of experience. I use Windows, Linux, Unix, OpenVMS, FreeBSD and other operating systems all day, and I have experience with IIS and Apache. My conclusions are based on actual tests and benchmarking report, rumors and articles by others.

Stick with brand names for mission-critical systems. Open source is fine for many things, but excluding the “great products” such as Mozilla, Apache, etc. I am suspicious of it.

Not even consider open source for the important things such as payroll, general accounting, bookkeeping, warehouse operations, and SCADA. These are the applications that companies actually use and need to stay in business.

I’ve never found anything that even approaches the Office XP feature for feature. Office XP is rock solid, no failure and is very safe. I can not say that about StarOffice, WordPerfect and other competitors.

Windows 2000 and Windows XP are unmatched in quality in terms of its market is concerned. Windows Server 2000 is rock solid stable, has an incredible amount of features and, most importantly of all, supported and well documented.

Windows 2000 also has a security model that is unmatched in the industry. This model emerged from the VAX (Digital Equipment) and Novell, which were (and are) excellent. Linux and Unix do not really have a security model in comparison (I’m referring, of course, Active Directory and NTFS).

Of course, Windows has the problem well-known security exploits (a different issue than the security model). I currently manage a large estate of all IIS servers, and have found that not much work to keep these systems fully up to date. We just have to do our job as administrators.

IIS and Apache are equivalent in functionality.

IIS performs better than Apache (which I myself have done tests on the same machine) to HTML pages directly. IIS also has a security model better than the Apache, by far, (based on NTFS as it is). IIS is also a heck of a lot easier to use than Apache, although you can certainly buy GUI for apache to make it useful for the average person. And the first serious problems (including security) with Apache 2.0 have begun to appear, and are as nasty as anything found in IIS.

The way I think the main reason to prefer Apache over IIS (a) the initial cost, and (b) knowledge of its people. If you and your group will know apache, then that is the best option for you. If you know IIS, which is probably the best option.

Browsers? IE won the browser wars for a good reason (besides the cruelty) – is far superior to Netscape 6 and earlier. Now that Mozilla and Opera have had a couple of years, it seems that could give IE a run for their money. Even now, however, I found the IE is superior to the competition and I’m sure there’s a new version of the work.

But this is not as relevant as the cost of modifications. I found the initial cost of the software, regardless of what it is, is negligible compared to the cost of modifications. I did not even consider hiring programmers, for example, to modify the operating system, browser, or web server, so the availability of sources is irrelevant. As an application system is concerned, I am interested in changing the business rules, not the application itself. In fact, if my accounting system forces me to change its primary code just to change a business rule, I will find something else.

There are many companies that provide good systems for applications including SAP, UltiPro and hundreds of others. To date, no open source version of these (the really important things) has even reached the first request for proposals.

I can find the “religious wars” about this fascinating subject. Ask managers and they will tell Apache Apache is the best and death to all believers. Ask IIS administrators and get the same story. the same with Windows, Linux and OpenVMS and anything similar. Personally I think we all like what we like and are accustomed to. What I personally like to do is to ignore the publicity and rumors, etc., and do my own analysis. And yes, I ignore hype Microsoft, well … have more public relations skills hundred other organizations. But PR does not have a good product.

The decision to use or not use a product should depend on the rational facts, not opinions and noise. Apache is in many ways better than IIS, IIS and is in many ways better than the Apache. Which is better? Depends on what you are using, the objectives of your organization and many other things. The same with Windows vs. Linux, or any other argument.

Our experience and be aware that this is for corporate intranet servers on the Internet, is that the cost of Windows and IIS on a long term (5 years) is much, much less than the cost of Linux and Apache. We conducted our own internal review and consider the cost of software, maintenance costs, upgrades, support time, training and so on. Windows Server 2000 came out well ahead of Linux (even with all the patches) and IIS went in front of Apache. I just installed Apache 2.0 on a Windows platform and therefore have not formed an opinion on this product yet. In a few months, maybe, I’ll have some solid data on what appears to be a major new release of Apache.

The cost, however, should never be the main criterion for this type of decision. The cost is the least important of many different factors that will make a decision. I found in my career that when I chose something based on cost as a primary factor that resulted in feeling the pain behind. However, when I chose something based on the characteristics and needs and a good analysis, and then picked the product that fit best, then and only then you feel comfortable.

I found that Apache (with a good front end graphical user interface) is higher for a hosting solution. I like Apache in this environment because it gives users (webmasters for small and medium enterprises shared hosting web sites) greater flexibility without the need for server administration involved.

Linux is a great server platform, although we found the cost of supporting, training and retention is superior to Windows 2000. As a desktop, but Linux is not even on the same planet as Windows XP. Linux has a long way (and I mean light years) to go before it’s anywhere close to Windows XP as a desktop solution for businesses.