Windows 2003 server is quite stable, just like any OS, it will crash if you can't set it up properly. M$ has gotten better, it's not like NT server anymore. It sounds like you guys are just judging base on your reading? I see nothing wrong with that though, I mean you have your opinions but have you ever tried it before?
All machines run on a stripped-down Linux kernel. The distribution is Red Hat (Quote, Chart), but Hoelzle said Google doesn't use much of the distro. Moreover, Google has created its own patches for things that haven't been fixed in the original kernel.
No but why is Windows and Unix almost tied, that means a lot about Windows don't you think? The reason Windows isn't so popular in some category of server is because it took M$ to long to mature, and Unix has been around before M$ was ever invented so Unix was already successful and grap the market in the web servers, dot-com era before Windows server.
The best os for a server is the one you are most competent with, a well setup win 2003 box will outperform a badly setup FreeBSD box. If you have or are prepared to learn the required skills then FreeBSD is rated as the most reliable.
Yes it does, in 1993 what was Unix competition with Windows? Windows 3.0, 3.1 LOL. NT server at that time, was a joke and no way near Unix. So when did the Internet exploded? Just about that time or earlier. So who already had the market, Unix.