Linux

[[vL]Kp]

The biggest problem with Unix that I see is the mindset of Unix afficianado's that think vi is a good editor.  GUI's are easier to use than command line interfaces(CLI).  Windows errs on the former, and Unix errs on the later.  More vendors are offering administration in GUI form, but as an example it takes me a day to build and Oracle server, and 30 minutes to build a SQL Server server.  The difference is not the OS, just the difference in Oracle vs SQL Server.

vi is a great editor, blasphemer! I suppose you could be forgiven as long as you don't start promoting emacs.

On a more serious note, GUI administration can be a good thing if you're doing the configuration once or just a few times, but when you need to do the same operation several dozen times, an easily automated interface is far preferable. That's one of the things I find desirable when trying to manage a Unix network of any size: I don't need to go sit at each individual console and click through a bunch of prompts just to upgrade a service. Instead, I can remotely shell to the hosts from a central system and start the upgrades in parallel. Applying any serious Windows patch will either require extra software to automate it (e.g. PC Anywhere type stuff (which still forces you to use a GUI) or a custom remote shell (at which point you've just duplicated the Unix advantage at the price of extra work for you)) or a lot of hiking to go visit each of the terminals and start the patch, or a lot of users who you can trust to patch their own systems. None of those prospects appeal to me. :P

Also, Unix systems have a much lower rate of infection (when was the last time you heard of a worm that infects Apache?). Being able to trust that stupid users won't compromise my network by reading their e-mail is good peace of mind, which I just can't get with Outlook. :)