Why Linux Dominates Servers: 7 Key Reasons from History to Containers

Historical Context: Windows Server's Early Popularity and Security Flaws

Around 20 years ago, the Windows Server + IIS + ASP + Access stack was popular for small business sites with low content update frequency. A notable example was the Dynamic Network Forum (动网论坛) , an ASP+Access application that installed easily without ODBC configuration. Later, the same company released Dynamic News (动网新闻) on ASP.NET and Dvbbs (动易) which encapsulated code into DLLs to prevent theft. Hosting providers would explicitly advertise "supports Dvbbs components." Meanwhile, PHPWind rose quickly due to Zend acceleration.

A problematic pattern emerged: Windows hosting required Dvbbs components, while Linux hosting required Zend. Many hosting providers were irresponsible, simply partitioning a rented server's disk and selling virtual hosts without proper configuration. They often only prohibited "resource-heavy Jianghu games" in contracts. MIME types were ignored, and web/FTP shared the same root directory. Novice ASP developers commonly placed index.asp and data.mdb side by side, allowing anyone to download the database via http://xxxx.xxx/data.mdb. Opening the MDB revealed plaintext passwords. The workaround was renaming data.mdb to data.asp. By contrast, Linux virtual hosts quickly adopted Zend support, while Windows Server gained a reputation for low ASP efficiency, insecurity, and fragile MDB files (the author personally experienced data loss after MDB corruption).

IIS vs. Apache/Nginx: Performance and Ecosystem Gaps

Zhihu user Sental Cristar argues IIS bears major responsibility. In the early 2000s, Windows Web Server had advantages: built-in FTP, ASP required no extra deployment, and a GUI suited junior admins. However, Windows' closed nature soon became a liability. IIS was outmatched by Apache, Nginx, and Lighttpd . First, IIS poorly supported emerging languages like PHP and Ruby; it was over-coupled with ASP.NET, causing deployment issues for other runtimes. Around 2005, during a language boom, Apache compatibility surpassed IIS. IIS's complex permissions and lifecycle management made language runtimes difficult to adapt. Second, IIS performance was crushed by Nginx and Lighttpd , which used poll and epoll to achieve several times higher concurrency due to their lightweight design. IIS's overly complex, hard-to-debug configuration prevented users from optimizing performance. These two factors handed the web server market to Linux.

Real-World Game Server Deployment: Windows Overhead vs. Linux Simplicity

User Kero shares practical experience: setting up a Palworld server on Windows Server required VC Runtime and DirectX Runtime, with suitable installers hard to find. Switching to Ubuntu reduced setup to apt install steamcmd and running server.sh. For a 4-5 player Minecraft server, typical configs are 2C2G/2C4G; 2GB RAM is nearly impossible for Windows, and 4GB wastes too much on the OS. Lightweight scenarios favor Linux.

Licensing Costs

User hyu jj notes: Windows Server licenses per CPU core, costing ~100,000 RMB per server; Linux is free.

Ecosystem, Lightweight Distros, and Containerization

User Sven , an infrastructure developer, lists Linux advantages: Ecosystem — Microsoft entered server-side late; by the time .NET Core appeared, Java, Go, and Node.js already dominated. Lightweight — Not just Ubuntu/CentOS, but distros like Alpine Linux enable minimal containers, making deployment more flexible and efficient. Containers — Containerization is now unavoidable in server architecture/operations; Windows and macOS have limitations preventing bottom-up container support, while Linux supports it natively.

Microsoft vs. Open Source: Ideological Conflict

User 水雷 highlights Microsoft's early opposition to open source. Bill Gates' 1976 Open Letter to Hobbyists expressed hatred for hobbyist piracy and questioned who would do professional work without pay. Microsoft's revenue relied on Windows/Office licenses, peaking in 1999 as the world's most valuable company. The "hobbyists" were largely academia, which seeded open source. Microsoft won the first phase (desktop) by efficiently delivering a complete OS/software suite. But in the second phase (servers), Microsoft's belief that "using code requires payment" clashed with the open-source model that leveraged the internet to build a new ecosystem/industry. The two sides were mutually hostile. Microsoft eventually embraced open source.

Path Dependence and the Matthew Effect

User 没有人 warns against confusing correlation with causation (like studying Zhang Xueliang's longevity by copying his smoking/drinking). The question must distinguish "why servers use Linux now" from "why history chose Linux." The former: mature solutions, abundant tools, easy maintenance. The latter: to save money, but the competitor was Unix, not Windows. Linux (1991) was just a kernel, but its userland was Unix-compatible, enabling seamless, free migration. Windows NT for servers arrived in 1993, with widespread adoption around 2000 — by then Linux already had an ecosystem. Analogy: learning Red Hat led to ops jobs; learning Windows Server left no servers to practice on. The Matthew effect cemented Linux's position.