||I have both Linux and Windows 2000 Server. I have been using both for some time now, and I still think that for my purposes, Linux works a great deal better amd is more stable. Yes, windows 2000 is probably the best operating system Microsoft has produced thus far, and it can at least be compared to Linux, in the roles of acting as a server of any kind, Linux out performs Windows 2000 in so many ways it's insane. I agree that Windows 2000 does have it's strong points in that it is very stable, has a functional web server and ftp server, and it does meet C2 requirements. Also, it can nearly match the security level of Linux. In the end, my personal opinion, which has been formulated from experience, is that Linux does work a great deal better in the role of a server.
However, the argument of which one is better is not as easily decided when comparing the two in terms of home use. It really depends on what the home user uses the computer for. The only thing that I use windows 2000 for at home is to play games and use Kazaa, since Kazaa isn't for Linux anymore. I have found, for my uses, that Linux is far superior for playing MP3's, watching DVD's, programming, web design, graphic design, and acting as a firewall for my network. My final conclusion is that while Windows 2000 is the inferior operating system, it is still a logical choice of OS, because most home users do not need the advanced capabilities that Linux offers. Most home users could care less about having their own Qmail server, running apache from their house, programming in LISP, or playing with GIMP.