First off, here's a bit of irony: Microsoft is making their software free in certain cases. (
Now, to respond to Slighthaze: I did not move from Windows to Linux to FreeBSD for my webservers because of any personal vendetta against Microsoft. Nor did I do it because it was cheap. (It wasn't cheap: I had to put a lot of time in to really learn how to run FreeBSD, and time == money). I did it precisely for these reasons:
1. frustration with the constant little annoyances and problems I was having with every Microsoft product. With a Linux machine-- and even more so with FreeBSD-- I am in control of
every aspect of the system, and am not left in total confusion when something goes wrong (which it almost never does with FreeBSD).
2. Investment in my future. While FreeBSD takes more time to learn, the return value is that you can manage many more servers more quickly and easily than with Windows NT/2000. In fact, the past few years have shown that Microsoft's own staff are quite happy with FreeBSD for many tasks (
Essentially, the scope of what one person can accomplish with FreeBSD (and Apache/PHP/PostgreSQL, in my case) is simply mind-blowing, precisely because of the power it places in your hands, instead of in the software maker's hands. Running Windows servers feels like enslavement to me, now.
3. Personal preference. I prefer to work with a system that is "open", as is the whole philosophy and architecture of Unix. There is nothing "hidden away" in there. I have access to the system at any level, up to and including the capability to edit the source and recompile. I understand that the thought of this is like speaking in Martian, to most Win32 users, but you have no idea the power it gives you. And you don't have to be a C/Assembly hacker for this to be useful. There are quite a few settings in the source code that are well-documented and easy for any admin to change, in order to tweak the OS for different situations.
4. Security -- I was sooo tired of constantly living in fear that my Windows system would be hacked in some new way, and I would be powerless to stop it. Yes, Linux has had it's share of security problems, but even then, the problems are
never as severe as the Windows show-stoppers, and FreeBSD, which I use, has even less problems by far. I'm sorry, but once you really study the security of systems from the ground up, you will realize that there is a
big difference, from the ground up. Microsoft's only solution has been a series of band-aids (because the original OS was never intended for the network), while Unix-type systems were designed from the ground up to be multi-user, networked, and to have the openness and flexibility to adapt to new security threats.
While I agree there have been unsavory things about Microsoft in business, my reasons had
nothing to do with Microsoft-bashing. I simply made a practical decision, based upon willingness to sacrifice in the short term, for long-term gain. (What a thought) I feel that Microsoft constantly encourages users to seek instant gratification, in return for eventually being very restricted in choices later.
My other main annoyance with Microsoft is their tendency to try and do everything, and accomplish a mediocre job of it, rather than concentrate on what they do best and do it
right. As was shown in recent SEC filings, Microsoft makes
far more money from Office and Windows (desktop, not server) than anything else. In fact, Microsoft operates at a loss in almost every other area. If they just were willing to put some of that R&D money into making the top products work better, and stop wasting everyone's time in other areas, I would be very happy. I don't mind Windows as a desktop (although Unix graphic environments can be a lot more fun sometimes ;-)). -------------------------------------------
Big Brother: "War is Peace" -- Big Business: "Suspicion is Trust"
(
