For years, Linux has been formidable competitor to Windows - for some good reasons, but sometimes from folks who speak out of un-education (typically religious positions). In years past, I've pointed out resources to clarify this (from my first blog pushing the Get the Facts campaign back in 2003, last year pointing out vulnerability reports), and obviously others on my team do the same (Beth talking TCO of Linux vs. Windows in 2006).

So, here's an update: there's new content on our Windows Server Compare site. To go along with customer stories, case studies, pointer to UNIX and mainframe comparisons, the new pieces are:

1) Comparing Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Hypervisor
2) Windows Hyper-V compared to Linux Hypervisor
3) Virtual Map Video Case Study

Also on this site are two studies of curiosity. Although they are using Windows Server 2003, they were published in May 2008. I can only imagine that the story is better with Windows Server 2008.

Web-Based Database -Driven Application comparision on Windows and Linux - Sponsored by Microsoft, Wipro Technologies performed a lab-based comparison of key reliability scenarios for contemporary web-based, database-driven applications. The results of the study show that applications hosted on Windows Server 2003 Enterprise servers outperform Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 servers across almost all of these scenarios, demonstrating the potential for twenty two and a half fewer minutes of combined planned and unplanned downtime per application over a year.

A Lab-based Comparison Study of Windows and Linux Enterprise Servers - Wipro Technologies has performed a lab-based assessment of the reliability, availability and manageability of enterprise servers in a variety of patching and update scenarios. The results of this Microsoft sponsored study show that Windows Server 2003 Enterprise servers incur 63% less unplanned downtime and 33% less overall downtime during patching and updating than similarly sized Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 servers.