It seems like Windows Server 2003 is stealing a lot of market share in the small business server market. When I browse for sys admin jobs on monster.com it seems like Windows Server 2003 positions out number Linux admin positions 20 to 1.

I've always been a fan of the LAMP platform, and I definitely think it is the more secure and more stable platform. But it seems like businesses/integrators aren't as focused on security, as they are manageability. Before I get flamed for that, what I mean is, businesses seem to be aware that Unix and Linux have a better reputation when it comes to security. But that's why you have hardware firewalls, software firewalls, anti virus programs etc. Once these network enhancements are put into place, then the security of the actual server OS itself isn't as much of an issue.

I've asked at least a dozen IT Managers why they use Windows Server SBS 2003 instead of Linux for a small business environment. They basically all say the same thing. It's the easiest way to manage the clients' network environments. Once configured, many admin tasks can be done remotely via remote desktop, and if need be, the client usually has an employee on site that is tech savvy enough to do easy tasks like add a user, or reset a password.

Maybe I'm way off on all of this. But I don't know a single admin (I know about 20) that would recommend Linux to a small business over SBS 2003.

What are your thoughts on this? Is Windows Server 2003 gaining market share? Should Linux distros focus more on a free alternative to Active Directory and the manageability of Exchange, instead of gaining ground on the desktop? Will MS eventually eliminate Linux from the small business segment all together? Will Linux be pushed to the medium sized business that can afford to pay a full time linux admin to be on site to support their environment?

Edit: sorry i had to do some re-wording.

I very much doubt it.
I can imagine small businesses won't even bother upgrading to vista and the vista server, since there is more than just a simple OS upgrade involved: New liences, brand-new hardware with features a small business will probably never use, retraining staff.
Lots of money indeed....so Linux/Unix does present itself as a very appealing alternative.

I can say that it is about perception. The company I work for at the moment is a Windows/Linux/Unix/Solaris shop, with linux clusters doing large amount of data processing, we have linux email servers, fileshares, firewalls etc. Desktops are running XP. However, if there is a problem, the same comment is always the same I recently helped set up a startup and I was asked to install Windows 2003 SBE, and that is no if or buts, because they believe that linux is complicated and unreliable. As the startup has no sys admin, they are comfortable with what they use on the desktop. Even though we know that Windows server is bloated, complicated and about as stable as a three legged rocking horse!

As the startup grows I can say that they will stay with windows server, until they get large enough to employ a sys admin. Only then will the possibility be that they will start using linux, but that will depend on that admin and their sales technique, to the managers of the business.

Personally, I think linux is an outstanding server OS for small business, there are enough projects and applications out there, where a little knowledge is all thats needed to set up. IPCOP is an excellent example of making firewall setup easy. Openexchange for an email server and there are many more.

I believe that Windows server will almost be a default for small businesses that are not technically focused, as it is something that they are used to using. Linux for the time being, will always be a hard sell but as linux is getting more publicity, and large organizations are using linux (IBM etc) then linux will start to appear in the small business environment.

It takes 20 Windows admins to perform the job of 1 *nix Admin..

You can say that again... trying to sort out AD problems on a windows cluster, took 5 admins to try and fix, that was before we called MS to fix the problem...

We're still trying to fix it... ahh give me linux any day!

That's another good point. It always feels like a sales pitch when you talk to a business or user about Linux. The problem then is "if" it doesn't work they don't yell at MS (or the distro) but instead point the finger at you. You, you were the one that talked us in to this, this is all your fault!

So really pushing a company to adopt linux requires a lot of personal accountability if something goes wrong. Even though we know that they'd probably face just as many difficulties if they went with a Windows Server.