Oh. Well then I apoligize. English isn't my first language and its possible that I misjudged you :) But my point still stands. Installation is not the crucial part of server comparison, except if it totally fails, IMHO. Desktop installation would be totally different thing, there installation procedure is something that Just Must Work.

"So... the *stable* OS let a petty little AV to crash the whole system " I've yet to see OS which survives from crashing kernel driver. Well, maybe some micro-kernel system could. I don't really understand your attack. Did I say somewhere that $YOUR_FAVORITE_OS is buggy or bad compared to Windows? No, I didn't. I said that the comparison (which is the topic here) is odd.

No, I don't. Every Windows server I've seen has been stable. Well except for one, which unfortunately had a broken version of F-Secure AV software which BSODed every time I tried to copy files over RDP.

And besides, this is a strange comparison. It is not a comparison between Linux and Windows 2003. It is a comparison between installation procedures, which is done once a month (for testing purposes) at most where I work. What does it matter if it takes hour or day from IT staff? What matters is a) does it handle the load b) is it stable.