Manage Learn to apply best practices and optimize your operations.

Four reasons a migration from Linux servers to Windows servers happens

It's rare for businesses to move from the successful open source platform to the complex Windows Server platform, but the change can be justified.

What are the benefits of a migration from Linux servers to Windows servers? What are the drivers behind such a migration?

Linux and Windows Server are very different operating systems, and it's rare that a business would choose to replace a successful open source platform like Linux with a complex operating system like Windows Server. But there are numerous situations or business needs that might justify the change. Let's consider four of the most common factors that drive an OS migration from Linux to Windows Server.

There may be incompatibilities or performance problems with Linux applications. The Linux business applications supporting your business may not be compatible with data (or exchange data properly) between applications that might rely on differing file formats or content. Linux is an open source platform, but open source applications can vary radically in their community's development goals and talent levels. Unless you have in-house Linux development talent, you'll need to depend on the Linux ecosystem and developer choices that might not fully reflect your particular needs. There is also no promise that the applications are cleanly developed or optimized for performance. This leads to excessive computing resources provisioned to the workload that a business could allocate to other tasks.

The support costs for Linux may be unreasonably high. Although no single organization definitively "owns" Linux or charges for it, some organizations like Red Hat provide paid services that can be a real life-saver for busy enterprise IT staff. However, support costs can become substantial over time, and the costs may be better allocated to licensing and supporting more comprehensive operating systems like Windows Server.

There may be a lack of Linux expertise. Successful Linux deployments require IT professionals with a modicum of Linux knowledge as well as software development and compiling skills that may simply be too expensive to find in IT professionals. A lack of Linux expertise makes Linux servers and applications much harder to support and troubleshoot, and this increases the difficulty of tasks that might otherwise be relatively straightforward to correct.

Finally, there may be a need to support Windows Server or Windows management. Chances are slim that a business relies 100% on Linux systems and applications. In many cases, some Windows Servers are needed to support Windows applications. This demands heterogeneous operating system support, which makes life far more difficult for IT professionals. When critical applications use Windows Server, it might make more sense to simply put everything on Windows Server instead. Similarly, there may be a need to standardize on Windows-based systems tools like System Center to see and control the entire environment through a single platform, or on tools like Hyper-V for a single ubiquitous hypervisor. Management or virtualization might put a migration from Linux to Windows Server on the fast track.

Dig Deeper on Enterprise infrastructure management

Join the conversation


Send me notifications when other members comment.

Please create a username to comment.

The reasons given in this article for prospective moves "from" a Linux deployment to Microsoft Windows Server are bogus on many levels and have no basis in "facts", only the negative innuendo constantly spewed as here by Stephen J. Bigelow and from other technology blogs that are manned by Microsoft shills.

I challenge Mr. Bigelow to publish "one" example of where Linux OS software or applications are not compatible with industry or Open Standards formats.
None of the Enterprise class Linux distributions - and there are several that are directly interoperable and "well supported" for Microsoft Office and Sharepoint, Active Directory and Exchange formats, and almost every other format. The opposite is not true.

It has reached point in technology publishing in 2013, that outright deception - like this article, and illogical intimations from Microsoft sponsored entities is unacceptable and even despicable - especially in their efforts to totally dupe their low knowledge readerships.
I agree with poster 468584. This article is pure FUD. It's a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and speculation that has little basis in reality. We use Microsoft servers here and, to be honest, the more that I've used Linux on servers and desktops, the more that I enjoy the freedom and versatility that it offers. Not only that, the performance seems to be much better than comparable Windows servers. Either have Mr. Bigelow back up his opinions with facts or find another author, please.