Because there is nothing inherently different between CentOS on the desktop and on the server for example.
Because there is nothing inherently different between CentOS on the desktop and on the server for example.
Whereas I could install a desktop distro + apache on my server and serve as many requests as the hardware can physically handle. The only difference would be that default settings would probably not be well optimised for that use case, but some reconfiguration would solve that.
I certainly wouldn't recommend any shops currently using Linux servers to switch them out, but Windows Server has come a ridiculously long way from being super sucky to being a good server operating system.
I was surprised when I took a look at Windows Server recently. I'd sort of mentally written it off a decade ago, but Microsoft has done a commendable amount of work in improving it.
Again, I don't think there's anything about it that I'd tell current Linux admins to swap out their servers for (even ignoring the license costs), but they've improved Windows Server enough that I no longer recommend that existing folks abandon it.
Also, for what it's worth, Powershell is quite possibly the best thing Microsoft has come up with in 20 years. Yes, it's embarrassing that it took that long to get Windows command-line administration to what Unix people have been doing since the 70's, but they've implemented it in a genuinely smart way.
Is Apple running OS X in its datacenters? My understanding is that they are not.
A server OS is manageable, can be run headless, and is performant in server workloads.
I have never heard anyone argue that OS X can compete on any performance metric with Linux or FreeBSD.