It's somewhat unfortunate that the following quote, from here, sums up the feelings of many companies.

Might I please kindly request in advance that you do not suggest using Linux instead of Windows 2003. Yes, I concede that Linux is 'more secure,' but not when I'm the one pushing the buttons. Last time a flaw was discovered in Windows, it took me two clicks to patch it. Last time a flaw was discovered in SSH, it took me four hours of compiling and messing around to patch it. I apologize but I don't have the skilz to keep a Linux box secure, so please, let's talk about how to make this particular configuration reliable, not about whether Linux is a better OS than Windows.

Even more importantly, it's time Linux lubbers stepped up and made Linux easier to use in practice than Windows. This is a pretty Herculean effort, however. In many ways, what's going on in Linux really is (ie, doesn't just seem to be) more esoteric. You can eliminate a lot of overhead in "slick" (read "easy to follow GUI") when you substitute esoteric cmd-line know-how.

I'd say that OS X is helping get rid of that, but too many helper apps that overlay a GUI onto cmd lines are written in Objective C or REALbasic to be much help to a Linux hacker. The apps simply don't port. If anyone reading cares and has the option, try writing your OS X helpers in Java or at least code the backend in as much ANSI C as you can stand so that anyone can lay a quick GTK+ GUI on top. (Note that I'm not advocating much X11-based jive for OS X; usually that means you've eleminated 90% of your OS X user base, and then you're almost by defn not shooting for the people who say things like what's quoted, above)