Steve Ballmer sent out an executive e-mail today that discusses a number of independent analyst reports and customer case studies that compare the cost of deployment and maintenance of Windows vs. Linux and UNIX.
Some of the studies were commissioned by Microsoft, while others were initiated and funded by the analysts. In each case, the research methodology, findings and conclusions were the sole domain of the analyst firms.
One of the interesting facts from the Microsoft get the facts web site (a non sponsored report by Forrester) is the number of security vulnerabilities found on Windows vs Linux, not only did Linux have more security vulnerabilities than Windows, but Microsoft produced patches or updates quicker than the Linux community - so what does this mean? - There's a common perception that Linux is a reliable/secure operating system, if there are more security vulnerabilities in Linux then how can that be the case ?
Related to this is the myth surrounding Linux and real-time support - it's interesting to note that Linux is not a real-time operating system - this from the guy that wrote the book on Building Embedded Linux Systems.