6 Reasons Why Linux is Better than Windows For Servers

If You Appreciate What We Do Here On TecMint, You Should Consider:

  1. Stay Connected to: Twitter | Facebook | Google Plus
  2. Subscribe to our email updates: Sign Up Now
  3. Get your own self-hosted blog with a Free Domain at ($3.45/month).
  4. Become a Supporter - Make a contribution via PayPal
  5. Support us by purchasing our premium books in PDF format.
  6. Support us by taking our online Linux courses

We are thankful for your never ending support.

Aaron Kili

Aaron Kili is a Linux and F.O.S.S enthusiast, an upcoming Linux SysAdmin, web developer, and currently a content creator for TecMint who loves working with computers and strongly believes in sharing knowledge.

Your name can also be listed here. Got a tip? Submit it here to become an TecMint author.

RedHat RHCE and RHCSA Certification Book
Linux Foundation LFCS and LFCE Certification Preparation Guide

You may also like...

23 Responses

  1. MikeOh Shark says:

    I installed Linux on a flash drive with ext4 and disabled the journal. I then installed zram and made some tweaks to reduce disk writes. My default download directory is a tmp ramdrive with limited rights. After installing the programs I needed I ran prelink, installed preload, and the result is I can unplug the Sandisk Cruzer Fit and plug it in on my work PC or my laptop and no hardware complaints. It just works.

    I have a script to launch an https server if I want to share files. My default document viewer, multimedia viewer, image viewer, etc open in a firejail. Iptables is pretty well locked down and I view the logs when necessary. I can backup and boot from DVD or USB and have everything I need.

    Try that with Windows.

    • Aaron Kili says:


      This clearly explains some of the amazing things one can do with Linux, which shades more light on the above points. Many thanks for adding your thoughts and experience to the debate.

  2. Jasen says:

    I am doing windows and Linux admin server support and the times I need to address windows servers is far more often then Linux. There are consistent patches and fixes that you have to address with windows and don’t forget the stuff they break. As of security if you don’t know that Linux is better you never supported windows and Linux. Most Linux server don’t need an external firewall like all windows server I have dealt with.

  3. Tomas says:

    These are all valid reasons until you start working in a mixed prod environment and realise that you’ve been living a lie.

    OpenSource isn’t always seen as a benefit since anyone can read the code and write an exploit, this is harder to achieve when you don’t have the code (proprietary).

    Stability, security and hardware support are all debatable and really depend on your project.

    • Aaron Kili says:


      This is a well-thought-out concern. First, its true that any one having access to the code can analyze vulnerabilities and write exploits for them. The power of open source comes in giving a user power of the system, to build from the ground up. This implies that a skilled and technically inclined user can easily enhance system stability and deal with potential security issues.

      And as you have said, i need to test a mixed production environment to draw a more valid conclusion. However, Linux has been at the forefront in exposing the benefits of free and open source software(FOSS), which the world is getting to understand. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.

      • Tomas says:

        I’m not arguing the benefit that OpenSource provides, surely you can build from the ground up (e.g. Gentoo) your whole home lab (been there, done that). But this will not happen when your run production servers. You will need something that comes with SLA and support. You have to draw a line between your home lab and production.

        The fact that Linux is OpenSource is a two-edged sword really. There were over 400 Linux kernel security vulnerabilities published in 2017, with Blueborne topping the chars I believe. How many have been published for a Windows kernel?

        We all remember OpenSSL HeartBleed, don’t we? Although not directly related to Linux but rather OpenSource, the vulnerability was present for over two years. TWO YEARS. It’s false sense of security to say that OpenSource (hence Linux) is more secure because the source is open and everyone can read it unless someone actually does read it. How many people do read it? A handful.

        • Aaron Kili says:


          There are several Linux distros that come with remarkable premium support, such as Red Hat Enterprise Linux, SUSE Linux and so much more.

          Secondly, Linux being OpenSource is a “two-edged sword” is true. However, even if over 400 Linux kernel security vulnerabilities were published in 2017, according to the latest usage statistics and market share of server operating systems, nearly 70% of websites out there are running on servers powered by Unix operating systems with Linux distros taking a bigger percentage.

          This alone should help us understand the fact that a lot of companies/businesses or individuals out there find Linux more reliable and stable or even more secure than Windows, especially in production environments or data centers.

          • Tomas says:

            I was challenging your statement about “building Linux from the ground up” saying that such deployment will come without SLA and support. Your response to this is that “some Linux distros come with remarkable premium support”. I am well aware of that as I use RHEL in prod, but this is not the point. You are mixing different things.

            You can buy RHEL support, but try compiling your own kernel afterwards and you’re on your own. When you buy RHEL premium support you have to deploy things in a RHEL way (they tell you what is is supported and what isn’t), meaning that your options for “building from the ground up” become extremely limited. I hope this clarifies it to you.

            About those 70% of websites running on *nix OS which you mentioned, you are simply assuming that companies “find Linux more reliable and stable” and even go further to call it a fact. Although I agree that your assumptions may be correct, the quantity does not automatically imply reliability, stability nor security. I could say that companies find *nix cheaper to run.

  4. Yirnick says:

    I use Linux server software for a long time. My network is not that big but it is useful for game stream or kodi stream, file sharing and Web sharing. In short, Linux is everything you need to run stable and flexible.

  5. Stephen W says:

    After a long time building and supporting Windows systems. I bought an old PowerMac to learn and explore Linux. After my wife became ill I built a mediaserver and now run an old HP Workstation which now runs Ubuntu Server, Plex, Docker and ZFS.

    The reduction is the amount of maintenance a Linux server requires compared to Windows is astounding. And when I have experienced downtime it’s usually because I did something stupid. I now don’t have a single Windows machine in the house and it’s the best decision I’ve ever made.

    If your unsure about it buy a pi3 and play with it. There’s lots of help available online. You will try things and they may not work but stick at it, you’ll get there. I found omgubuntu and webupd8 sites helpful.

    • Aaron Kili says:


      Many thanks for sharing your experience with us. And by the way Tecmint.com is Linux oriented and you will find it even more useful because we comprehensively cover two of the most popular parent Linux distributions: Debian and Red Hat Enterprise Linux(RHEL) as well as their well known derivatives Ubuntu and CentOS/Fedora respectively. We are trying our best to bring in other distros as well.

  6. Tim says:

    Its the same garbage reasons from 20 years ago. Windows Server 2016 is worth the money, and is much better than Linux and I have used both of them.

    • Aaron Kili says:


      May be mentioning to us factors that you think make Windows Server 2016 better than Linux server software, would make things more clear. And thanks for the feedback.

  7. Matt says:

    The only thing that’s true here is the total cost of ownership. It’s as if the author’s knowledge is based on things clueless OS fan boys say.

    Coming from a Linux drivers developer.

    • Aaron Kili says:


      The other reasons also apply, Linux is known to be more stable and secure than Windows. The flexibility of Linux is remarkable and can’t be matched by Windows. And above all, it’s free and open source meaning you can setup a custom server from the ground up.

      Thanks for the feedback.

    • Archer says:

      @Matt, @Tim — Not to denegrate your input but can you provide concrete examples of your points so as to enlighten the readership here? Without such, such responses just come as nefarious and unfounded denegrations. Not saying you’re wrong (or correct) just that blah blah statements do no-one any justice.

      • Tomas says:

        @Archer Your question could very well apply to the author of the article. There is a line that says:

        “Linus implements a variety of security mechanisms to secure files and services from attacks and abuses.”

        So does Windows. Unless you provide comparison of some sort it’s not helpful.

        • dragonmouth says:


          You have not answered Archer’s question. Either you cannot provide concrete examples or you think that if you repeat baseless alegations often enough, they will become the truth.

          And please, do not reply with “The author did not provide any examples, either” because that sounds very sophomoric, like you have no arguments to back up your case. Man up and be the first to provide examples.

          • Tomas says:


            What was Archer’s question that he asked me which I didn’t answer? Please clarify, because as far as I can tell, Archer didn’t ask me anything. For concrete examples, please see my responses above.

        • dragonmoputh says:


          “For concrete examples,”
          Therein lies the problem. Neither you not Tim not any other Windows proponent provides any concrete examples why Windows is better than Linux.

          “OpenSource isn’t always seen as a benefit since anyone can read the code and write an exploit, this is harder to achieve when you don’t have the code (proprietary).”

          A typical Window Fan logic. Security by obscurity. Because it is Open Source, it is just as easy to remove an exploit as it is to write one. With proprietary code, a hacker can insert an exploit and nobody is the wiser because so very few can see and check the code.

          • Tomas says:

            First of all, you didn’t answer my question.

            Second of all, I didn’t say that Windows is better than Linux, thus feeling no obligation to support such statement. I challenged the author’s statements – this is a constructive discussion.

            I do Linux support for a living. I know how flexible the kernel is. For the most part Linux OS is rock solid when it comes to stability. But Linux is not better than Windows, nor the other way around – it all depends on your requirements. This is what I was trying to highlight.You would notice that if you read my comments.

            Perhaps a rhetorical question, I sense that everyone whose point of view is different compared to yours is labelled “A typical Window Fan”? You may want to refrain from doing so.

Got something to say? Join the discussion.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.