So the essential argument I'm geting here is this You should use Microsoft server solutions because 1. Microsoft servers work well managing linux solutions 2.

So the essential argument I'm geting here is this You should use Microsoft server solutions because 1. Microsoft servers work well managing linux solutions 2. Linux systems can't handle microsoft solutions themselves 3. We are uncertain what Linux is capable of/how secure it is 4. Therefore, you should go Microsoft (QED) Ignoring how blatantly misleading these points might be given that linux is quite mature and we now live in a work of system virtualization (Wine anyone?), the argument here only serves to convince me that I should be using linux solutions instead of Microsoft solutions in my company. If a given solution works for linux (which, despite calling out Active Directory, they don't seem to have ruled out as a possibility) and can also be managed through Azure, then Why on earth would I create an inflexible system that can only be managed through Microsoft branded tech? Am I supposed to be convinced by their skepticism on linux? I'm perfectly capable of researching linux server solutions myself. Am I supposed to be amazed at the flexibiliy of Microsoft servers while simultaneously scared away from the flexibility of using linux solutions? Outside of server use, this doesn't seem like a good argument to use Microsoft solutions at all.