f7fcab81_eeBSD_vs_Linux_vs_Windows_2000__Linux
[0] Reliability [FreeBSD] FreeBSD is extremely robust. There are numerous testimonials of active servers with uptimes measured in years. The new Soft Updates1 file system optimizes disk I/O for high performance, yet still ensures reliability for transaction based applications, such as databases. [Windows 2000] All Windows users are familiar with the "Blue Screen of Death". Poor reliability is one of the major drawbacks of Windows. Some of the major issues have been fixed in Windows 2000, but "code bloat" has introduced many more reliability problems. Windows 2000 uses a lot of system resources and it is very difficult to keep the system up for more than a couple of months without it reverting to a crawl as memory gets corrupted and filesystems fragmented. [Linux] 
Linux is well known for its reliability. Servers often stay up for years. However, disk I/O is non-synchronous by default, which is less reliable for transaction based operations, and can produce a corrupted filesystem after a system crash or power failure. But for the average user, Linux is a very dependable OS.
FreeBSD vs Linux vs Windows 2000
Linux