I would like to have a detailed as feasible  report on why a Linux
based web server is better that a Windows based web server.  I know
there is a lot of controversy on the subject so I would like to cut
through the arguments and get down to some solid reasons.
I want to be able to use this research in  both convincing people that
a Linux solution is not only just secure but also a viable option.
Go ahead and leave the Monetary Cost benefits out of the research 
unless they refere to the larger "Total Cost of Ownership".
Mainly I am looking to find LOTS of support backing up the fact that
Linux is very stable, SECURE OS which is very fit to be a Web Server
(with Apache) with from multiple reliable sources.

Oh and I have already looked at the numbers at www.serverwatch.com so
I don't need those.

THanks

Linux users love talking about Linux I guess there are none here.Try
http://groups.google.com.I have read many knowledgable Linux threads
there at alt.comp.freeware that isn't even a dedicated group.Or try
the Linux board at www.computing.net

There are plenty of Linux lovers here, it is just that, with
everything already published, the facts that running Linux/Apache lets
you run ASP and all the other languages, where Microsoft in general,
doesnt'.. speed, the fact that a great deal more high end, high
traffic sites use unix/linux because MS is just to slow, ... has been
said, over and over and over again. At this point, if a customer
simply doesn't want to use Linux, with all the info available, I can't
think of a single new, interesting thing to say which would warrent a
$20.00 answer, and might change someone's mind.

webadept-ga

Is there a Linux equivalent to the .NET Platform?  How about a content
management system that provides the flexibility and ease of use of
Content Management Server 2002?

Hi,

@ Hailstorm

"Is there a Linux equivalent to the .NET Platform?"

There is one in development by Novell (formerly Ximian)[1] called Mono[2].

[1] http://www.ximian.com
[2] http://www.go-mono.com

@ Mtx

The practical benefits depend on what you exactly want. Wether Linux
is a solution for your problem or not therefore depends on
circumstances which _details_ you do not provide.

Apache, including modules, also runs on Win32 so if you insist on
running Apache you are free to chose for MS Windows + Apache over an
open-source operating system like a Linux distribution + Apache, or
FreeBSD + Apache.

If you know someone in your company or as a friend with technical
knowledge and experience about Linux and Apache s/he can easily
replace your (current) MS Windows server or set up such a new server.
Since you do not provide information about this i cannot analyse
futher regarding that.

It is fairly easy to secure such a computer; however keep in mind that
100% secure is impossible. Proper administration and running as less
services as possible will raise your chance to keep bad guys out.

Basically the server only has to run a webserver on port 80 and
eventually a service which allows command-line remote administration,
like OpenSSH, which runs on port 22. All other services can be
firewalled out then since they are not needed; while it is also
possible to allow additional services like FTP, to allow you to upload
new parts of the site. Another additional option is to use Webmin
instead of OpenSSH. Webmin is a webserver which allows you to edit
config files, view logs, and do much more remote administration all
that with a web browser. The one who administrators the thing has to
keep the system up to date because even in these services (OpenSSH,
Apache) programming errors are found sometimes which need to be
patched accordingly.

Regarding security, there are several possibilities to make the Linux
kernel, and Apache. This isn't easy or straightforward but if you
insist i can explain some measures. One i have already explained:
firewalling every service you do not need out; in the example i
pointed out you only need OpenSSH (port 22), Apache (port 80) and
perhaps FTP (port 21).

The same (firewall, webserver, remote command-line, patching the
system) is possible with MS Windows. OpenSSH runs on MS Windows since
it has been ported to it, but the command-line is a nightmare to use.
Your net result will be that you don't have to pay a MS Windows
license anymore while administration is, provided that one with
knowledge about the system does so, is fairly more easier.

What i've recommended to 2 friends who wanted to run a Linux webserver
was that i installed a Linux distribution (Debian GNU/Linux) while i
explained them in detail why exactly i did what. I was a sort of
teacher. After the install i installed OpenSSH, Apache and Webmin.
Then i configured it. After everything was running in our test
environment i deleted the installation and let them install it instead
based on what i learned them. I looked over their shoulder and only
commented after they did something; letting them think theirselves.
While i explained the basics of the command line earlier during my
installation class (knowing so is necessary for ie. remotely patching
the same via OpenSSH) they did not understand everything about that,
and prefered Webmin for that moment. I recommend everyone to see
Webmin as a "bridge" between using Linux and the command line (with
OpenSSH) because the latter is more powerful, in the end easier, and
more secure.

Wether such a solution would work for you or not is something i cannot
comment on. I hope this at least gave you more insight.

OpenSSH homepage: http://www.openssh.org
Webmin homepage: http://www.webmin.com