Again, there's better alternatives in most cases (Win CE, Win Mobile, Symbian, VxWorks, etc), unless up-front price is the big issue (free wins here of course). So what is cheaper between paying $$$ for a better dev platform, or having to write a lot of stuff yourself (costs $$$ too), mostly depends on which kind volume you'll sell (and to some extent your profit margin). We don't use Linux in any of our embedded products, it's just not worth it. Linux works "best" in a small subset of embedded devices with high-volume (like routers or tivo's). Notice how even new shiny devices like the iPhone don't use it? Yep, it was better for them to write their own OS for it (based on another product -- a desktop OS, not quite from scratch, but still). Isn't the iPhone Linux based? iPhone OS = OS9 = FreeBSD ~ Linux Or is it just OSX that is FreeBSD. It sounds good. Microsoft is great at interoperability, but performance is also important. I guess it depends on the size of the organization. With enough developers and technicians to take care of Linux it might be cheaper than licensing from Microsoft after a certain volume. I guess this is why the large corporations prefer Linux.