Hosting on Windows vs Linux

Familiarity is a big one.

• If you are familiar with Windows, licensing considerations, phoning for support, working in a GUI - then use windows

• If you are more familiar with opensource values, using forums and wikis for support, working at a command line console - then use Linux.

In general:

• Linux doesn't have to run a GUI. This is a major resource saver. However, some versions of Windows run without GUI overhead (check out Windows Server Core 2008).

• Linux is the dominant hosting platform. Just as Windows rules the desktop and therefore has many apps for it, Linux has many apps, support communities and documentation targeted for it.

• Linux has proven its stability as a mission critical server solution overtime. Windows can be stable too but it isn't free which leads to...

• Linux is cost effective. Need to scale out? With Windows solutions you'll need to expand the budget much more due to additional licensing costs. However, Linux can incur support costs if in-house knowledge, communities, books and other documentation resources fall short of solving administration problems.

• Linux's ease of maintenance has improved drastically over the years with things like packages and yum.

I doubt that there is a single answer to this "Linux" hosts offer a very broad range of services as do "Windows" hosts. Then you have the Apache(on windows or linux) v IIS discussion then SQL server v MySQL v Oracle (The second two on windows or linux...).

I think you need to specify your requirements/ needs / desires as precisely as you can. Eg if you think you are going to need a lot of support, look for a hosting package that offers it irrespective of the OS.

Choosing a host by the OS is like choosing a car by the make of the wheels.