Oh, here we go, yet another “is Linux better than windows”. The internet is full of this discussion, but sick of reading biased opinions I thought it was time to make an unbiased one!

Draw the line in the sand! It's the showdown the tech world has feared: Microsoft's upstart Windows 7 versus Linux. We've seen plenty of volleys back and forth from both camps over the past few days, thanks to the beta launch of the Windows 7 operating system.

Linux versus Windows is the stuff of near endless controversy. Linux lovers trash Windows for being slow, unreliable, insecure and overpriced, whilst Windows bigots accuse Linux of being hard to use and clunky.

Over the years, I’ve developed a generalized theory about the relative cost of getting things done in Windows versus that of Linux, and as something of a corollary, the reason a lot of people say Linux is too hard, or “not ready for the desktop.”

I went to a Win7 party, the host agreed to install copies of Win7, Fedora, openSUSE, and OSX. And yes, they were more impressed by how fast and how many programs that were ready to run, but because it didn't run Photoshop - they were willing to pay the $320 for Windows.

HTC is betting big on Android in 2010 and most other mobile makers are following suit. Forget Linux versus Mac OS X versus Windows 7. The real battle in 2010 is going to be on mobile phones. And most players, with HTC leading the pack, are betting on Android.

Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control.

Thanks to Mike Dailey a very interesting discussion has been sparked on Linux and open source in the enterprise. For anybody wanting to follow the entire discussion here's how it goes.

It started here:

After my previous post, "Cloud to boost proprietary software use?," Tim Bray questioned whether the pricing comparison of "WebSphere/SUSE vs. JBoss/RHEL on EC2 was a transient anomaly." Let me try again with Windows versus Linux.