Added Feb 21 2010
, Modified Feb 21 2010 - 09:31 PM
Fair enough, you have a point and you could've not explained it better within the context of my original "rant", but you see, this is exactly why I think my point still stands and is valid:
I am not pretending to give my company's "business team", a black console window with pixelated-simulated and usually non-standard buttons all over the place, I will give my business team a perfectly capable "Windows PC" so they can salivate all they want using the easy (brain dead) interface that they've came (force?) to like.
I am talking about the developers, the "hard core" IT folks, I can tell you from personal experience, I am not more productive in Windows that I would be in Unix, sure, deploying a "Hello World" app in windows is a fire-and-forget issue, but is it really?, I mean, once you start interfacing with middle tier, back-end code it becomes a monster, esoteric error messages that 1000's of people have asked in forums and the 3x number of answers usually lead to dead ends, in Linux I have a far greater chance to know exactly where is the problem and fix it without having to consult my "platinum" or "gold" partnership-bound "expert" usually to come up with the exact same "answers" that I originally googled (or should it be "binged") months before coughing up the dough to MS).
Now don't get me wrong, Windows is for businesses, but the business decision-makers need to understand that their "beautiful" programs which they see running on their "PCs" in many cases need a stable platform on the back-end side which does not have to be patched (with multiple reboots), virus-tested, malware-tested and so on, I'd estimate that my company uses about 40% of their ENTIRE resources (personnel, $, etc) in maintaining subsystems in windows which otherwise would require only ONE or TWO (skilled) SysAdmins.