With all due respect, Watchdog, I'm gonna have to disagree with you on one or two things:
Linux, well, it's okay and more popular on the desktop than FreeBSD because there's more desktop apps for it.
This is untrue. BSD has 90% binary compatibility with Linux, meaning it can use Linux apps as well as iits own native applications.
FreeBSD, Win2000 and WinXP have the same levels of stability and reliability.
Also untrue. The BSD's, as well as the other Unix clones, have a reputation for being much more stable than that of Microsoft's offerings which is why they tend to be used more in mission-critical systems as well as on servers. Afterall, how many IRC servers do you know that run atop of Windows boxes? I imagine the number to be very small.
No amount of Bill Gates bashing will prove otherwise.
You don't need to bash Gates to prove that BSD, and other Unix clones alike, are way more reliable and stable than Windows. The proof is all around you in the form of various servers, shell providers... etc...
...what can run for 1 year will probably run for four...
Whilst Windows 2000/XP could probably manage an uptime of a year (without system updates (replace a system file and it wants to reboot. Windows Update being a prime example.)) I highly highly doubt it could manage 4 years.
Maybe if the system was under little stress and performed just one task it
MIGHT manage four years but I remain skeptical. BSD and other Unix clones have proven they can stay up for years at a time under varying system loads performing multiple tasks. 'Google' being an excellent example.
Anyway, the purpose of this post is not to flame (so plz don't take it to heart) but just to make a couple of points. Oh... and to help this thread stray even FURTHER off topic :P
