ISTM the argument has to be at the application level - what do they need to do, and how do existing solutions in both spaces address them?
In the .NET space they're looking most likely at licensing fees, with us they're not. Both probably involve development fees.
MS is widely known for offering secure and trouble-free infrastructure. Their ability in this area offers relief to those of us who suffer from e-mail, webserver, and default install viruses and worms that would, of course, be much worse if we used something other than NT/2K/IIS.
After all, when we compare crack-in ratios of aol.com and mapquest.com vs. IIS deployed solutions including MS's own websites, it's obvious that aol.com and mapquest.com are easy to crack.
NOT!
If you can't sell MS's proven horrible track record in regard to security issues as a basis for showing that they just don't get it ... then you're not trying hard enough.
In my mind that's the first step. Feature-by-feature comparisons must follow, of course, but I feel we're getting to the point where we have a strong statement to make.
And chanting "nimda" should make them wonder about undiscovered holes in MS software ...
This is truth ... not merely an anti-MS rant.
