Alright everyone... I know this is a touchy subject, but I would like to know everyone's opinions. MS just recently put out a report showing that MS products have a cheaper TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) compared to linux. There are a lot of people who feel that it is biased because it was funded by MS. Costs are determined not only by cost to purchase license agreements, but also support. Focus on the support side of things. Some people say that "You get what you pay for." I would like to see if that is really true. Of course this is a Windows forum, but we do still have a fair amount of Linux users who frequent the site. There are a lot of users who probably use both. The ones I am interested in hearing from are the IT professionals who use these programs not at home, but in a true corporate environment. I respect the opinions of everyone but I feel that a lot of times you do not see the true picture of things when using a PC in a home network or with a broad range of products. If you feel I am wrong with this opinion you are welcome to sound off about it. There are some people who may have a certain expertise yet not work in such an environment. I would hope that we can keep this thread respectful and without flame wars. This is meant to be a discussion of fact, not opinion. I would like to hear what tasks people complete in their every day lives that they feel may be unavailable in the rival OS. I would like to know what tools are available using one OS compared to another. Please try to keep this thread intelligent. "I hate MS/Linux" is not a good arguement. Back everything up with fact please. Thank you.