Whether you are a company that is still planning to deploy servers or currently have servers, Linux has compelling benefits. We will show that aside from costing less, it is also faster and more reliable.

Cost Savings

Save from 50% to 80% by using or switching to Linux. In terms of pesos, a typical Windows setup will cost you at least P150,000.00 for the server alone. For every computer connecting to the server, that is an additional P3,000.00 per Client Access License (CAL). You also need a license for its operating system and will cost you at least P7,000.00 per computer. Let’s say you have ten computers and a server, that is a total of P250,000.00.

And that is not the end of it. Let’s say you want an email server, you have to spend additionally at least P70,000.00. Database server? Add P300,000. And so on and so forth.

By using Linux, you only pay significantly less. Why? Because Linux is free and comes with all the necessary software you need. You only pay for our expertise. A similar setup described above would only cost around P100,000.00.

Performance

Although opinions in the industry vary, there is a general consensus that there is little difference in performance between Linux and Windows. In fact, in most internet-based servers (web, email, etc.), Linux outperforms Windows on most benchmarks.

Stability and Reliability

Linux can run for years without needing to be restarted. In fact, most Internet servers run Linux, and they rarely ever need to restart. Of course, with any major update, it's inevitable that a system should reboot to ensure it is operating properly. The point is, if you use Linux, you could theoretically leave your system running for obscene periods of time and never worry about those spontaneous reboots. The kind you get with Windows.

Security

Myth: Windows only gets attacked most because it's such a big target, and if Linux use (or indeed OS X use) grew then so would the number of attacks.

Fact: When it comes to web servers, the biggest target is Apache, the Internet's server of choice. Attacks on Apache are nevertheless far fewer in number, and cause less damage. And in some case Apache-related attacks have the most serious effect on Windows machines. Attacks are of course aimed at Windows because of the numbers of users, but its design makes it a much easier target, and much easier for an attack to wreak havoc. Windows' widespread (and often unnecessary) use of features such as RPC meanwhile adds vulnerabilities that really need not be there. Linux's design is not vulnerable in the same ways, and no matter how successful it eventually becomes it simply cannot experience attacks to similar levels, inflicting similar levels of damage, to Windows.  

Myth: Open Source Software is inherently dangerous because its source code is widely available, whereas Windows 'blueprints' are carefully guarded by Microsoft.

Fact: This 'inherent danger' clearly has not manifested itself in terms of actual attacks. Windows-specific viruses, Trojans, worms and malicious programs exist in huge numbers, so if one gives any credence at all to this claim, one would do better to phrase it 'Open Source Software ought to be more dangerous'. But the claim itself hinges on the view - rejected by reputable security professionals - that obscurity aids security. Obscurity/secrecy can also make it more difficult for the vendors themselves to identify vulnerabilities in their own products, and can lead to security issues being neglected because they are not widely-known. The Open Source model, on the other hand, facilitates widespread review and makes it easier to identify and correct flaws. Modular design principles support this, while the overall approach is far more in line with security industry thinking than is 'security through obscurity.'