Slashdot Mirror
Windows 2003 takes 5% away from Linux
ZuperDee writes "According to Netcraft, the number of Windows 2003 servers has doubled since July, and 5% were running Linux before, which is consistent with the trends they've been observing for some time. This doesn't look good for Linux, in my opinion. Maybe we should all start to think about jumping ship?"
Jump ship? Why jump ship? Because others have done so? If I decide to jump off a cliff and fall to my microsoft death will you follow just because you can? Jeez, whats up with people these days.
The article heading is rather misleading. It's not like 5% of all Linux servers converted to Windows Server 2003, or 5% of all servers in the world suddenly run Windows Server 2003. No, of all new Windows Server 2003 installations (which still isn't that many), five percent used to run Linux. It is definitely not time to "think about jumping ship" yet...
/* Steinar */
(This comment is of course GPLed.)
Statistics
holy shit no, why would i dump linux in favor of a company who's only goal is to make money?
You think the number of Linux servers has dropped in the same time period?
... for all good men to come to the aid of their free, open sourced, highly configurable and powerful *nix operating system.
I'd guess that the 5% of Windows 2003 users that used to be Linux users are people that were primarily using Linux because it was free and that managed to get their hands on a pirated or otherwise free copy of Windows 2003 and decided to try it out.
And the muscular cyborg German dudes dance with sexy French Canadians
IMHO, if these viruses keep coming around, one is BOUND to attack 2003 servers. Then the 5%'ll feel bad and then revert back.
It's only a matter of time (and trial and error).
"Maybe we should think about jumping ship?"
How about, "No."
You don't leave a battlefield just because the enemy takes some ground.
dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
Windows Server 2003 Website
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
Windows eventually gets good enough so linux et al won't be needed anymore.
Everybody wins.
Netcraft now confirms: Linux is dying...
I, for one, welcome our new 2003 server overlords.
Maybe we should all start to think about jumping ship?
Why?
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
Perhaps some Linux servers were deployed which were destined to be replaced once Win2003 was released, like as an interim measure. Personally, I think anybody running a website on anything other than Apache on some *nix like OS should be shot. IIS... ugh .
Like tinyurl, but one letter less! http://qurl.co.uk/
"Perhaps we should all think about jumping ship", eh?
What bollocks. Linux's worth as a server is not judged by its popularity, or its market share. It is, however, judged by how well it performs as a web server, and as a matter of fact it performs very well.
If you're happy and you know it read my blog
What about switching to windows 2003 to be able to switch to linux again for the next netcraft study?
...why there have been more serious windows spreading Virus attacks recently.
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
And they're replacing the old. No big deal. This is one of the same reasons that Linux got big into the market. Big claims about cost savings, more with less, etc.
If MS new server is a good product, then it should keep the 5% and grow. If it doesn't live up to the hype (replacing 200 servers with 20, saving millions of dollars per annum), its marketshare will dissappear. Initial cost doesn't figure entirely into this either. The software costs for some customers have been subsidised by Bill, and the hardware costs for the upgrades are both minimal, and bugetted because some equipment is becoming EOL'ed by companies three-year plans.
I was on the elevated the other day, and a guy next to me was reading a magazine in English, so I was peeking at him reading an article about VB.net. I lost interest until he turned the page to another article, but that was about .Net servers. I felt like asking him snidely if it was a .Net magazine or what, but it was too early to quip, so I just stayed quiet. Imagine my suprise when he finished the mag and closed it, revealing the Asia.Net cover!
Tears welled up...
Put identity in the browser.
-1 Troll
The sky is falling! So what I say, I happen to host on both FreeBSD and Windows, I even run both at home. Windows 2003 with .NET is a killer hosting platform, I love it. Seeing more of this is great in my opinion, don't hate it just because it is Windows, it is quite good. Fast, powerfull, and .NET is awesome for some projects.
Actually all this is just a play on numbers and percentages... Truth be told, it doesn't really matter for the home users or those not operating a web server.
BTW, are you (article submitter) really that fickle? Then I'll try to find some articles stating that x% of Windows users are now migrating to GNU/Hurd... I'll sure as hell would like to see you jump that ship!
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
To me the Overall Trend Looks very very good for Apache ( + linux assuming most apache installs run linux )
Its like a new toy, Every new OS gets to be played around with a bit. We have a few 2000/nt4 boxes that are in production that we are slowly moving to 2003. While the move is going on (2 months per box) that means we have a 2003 server and a nt4/2000 server doin the same thing. Lets see what the numbers state after the rollout cycles are complete, and lets not jump to any conclusions (like jumping ship).
Besides if SCO didnt convince you to jump ship yet (we cant afford 700$ per copy can you?) then your a lifer!
Hey SCO I guess that means im using the WaReZ copy of linux!
I don't understand why anyone would switch from linux (or anything that works) to Windows 2003.
I can understand going with A instead of B on a new installation, but actually going through the trouble of switching from a, presumably, working solution to one which is largely unknown?!
Is this people who implemented linux as a stop-gap, but the whole time hoping or even intending to switch back to comforty old MS as soon as possible?
Well, since Sitefinder is running Linux, wouldn't Linux now be running an infinite number more sites than Windows Server 2003?
Oh yes, I can hear it now. This was a Microsoft sponsored Slashdot article. Let the flames begin.
On the other hand, how many (desktop) Linux converts used to run Windows?
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
As with Internet Explorer, users will stick with what they know (MS), and what's good enough: Life's got too many choices already.
As to the switches from Linux, how many of those involve pointy-haired bosses (who want to go for the "professional" rather than the "hobbyist" option), or simply those wanting to tap the market of programmers with MS experience?
Good enough plus pointy hair is as good as a made decision in many firms. SCO FUD can't help either.
Wikileaks, no DNS
FABRICATOR!!
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
CIOs and CTOs don't know whether they have to pay 699 buck per server to SCO. And that's just introcutionary pricing and might rise in the future.
While it's unlikely that SCO will succeed, MBA owners usually hate to take any risks which might damage their carreer and thus they'll stick to Windows. Nobody gets fired for using Windows.
But you also have to blame the US open source community. Unlike in Europe they failed to enforce a gag order to SCO stopping effectively their FUD.
I you really think lobbying and uniting intrest groups is a socialist agenda, than OSS will be dead in US very soon.
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
Maybe we should all start to think about jumping ship?
I realize this is sarcasm, but the sentiment of potential trouble should be genuine, regardless of whether or not trouble actually exists.
One obtains and maintains dominance by being absolutely paranoid. Microsoft watches everyone else like a hawk -- and if Linux wants to erode Windows market share and shove immutable roots into the ground, its developers must be equally vigilant, if not more so, as it is in some circles the perceived underdog.
And vigilance in this case means not just observation, but implementation. What reasons of technical merit are there for Windows' consumption of Linux market share, and, if you don't believe the consumption exists, what reasons would potentially exist, and how can they be pre-emptively corrected?
The coolest voice ever.
I've been swashdotted -- Elmer Fudd
--
I think that it is about time to start a moderation system for articles displayed on front page.
Personally, I consider this news item on
In a related story, Microsoft purchased Netcraft for 10 Million in stock...
Why jump ship? This article is misleading, as the September 2003 Netcraft survey shows an increase in the number of Apache sites, and decrease in IIS sites. So a few Linux sites migrated; not all managers will support Linux. Overall, Apache on UNIX is going strong.
Wait 'til they all run it for awhile-and pay their "dues" the proof of the pudding..
Note the advertising campaign: go ahead and fire your employees, because you don't need them.
Ask your IT department to explain what they do, but keep tapping your watch so you can be sure to publically remove every shred of their dignity and make them perform like a trained animal.
Only respond when they mention money, thereby reinforcing greed and pettiness as business virtues.
Look at people quizzically and with a slight element of fear when they get excited about anything, especially something they accomplished at work.
It is not necessary to understand. Just point and click and the money appears.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
5%
Are you serious!? 5%!?
Kandel : "Quick! Squire, how many percentages are in 100?"
Squire : "5 sir"
Kandel : "ARGH!!! Abandon Ship!"
fools
What the Microsoft spin doctors do not mention is the continuing market share loss to Apache overall.
Due to the incompetence of PHB's who like '.NET', thats why theres a change, its not becuase 2003 is a more attractive operating system, its becuase there isnt a choice for .NET applications.
-Gwala
#!/bin/csh cat $0
This isn't a site that advertises microsoft's products. We do not need marketing people like you on here ok? Thanks. Leave. Now.
Why would you jump ship?
First off, I chose to run Linux and FreeBSD because I enjoy choice, not because it exists to dissolve Microsoft. If people want to run Microsoft's Windows, that's fine, it's their choice. I run Linux and FreeBSD because I enjoy many choices.
This new came at such a good time. I'm tired of playing lemmings now, I think I'll try being one for a change. Quick, which way to the cliff.
This was covered by Linux Today about two weeks ago.
Worst case scenario, about 4500 servers may have switched from Linux to Win2003. I can easily see that as a result of statistical noise, or of pointy-haired management thinking, "Ooooh! Shiny new toy! Microsoft says it's secure! I want one! I wonder what's in the cafeteria for lunch."
File this one as being from the "So what? Me, worry?" department.
Someone you trust is one of us.
When your boss told you to replace your Debian webserver with Win2k3 server, did you...
1[] Capitulate to the microwenie with pleasure.
2[] Change the ID strings and pocket the money.
3[] Install Win2k3 but leave Linux doing the real work (dynamic pages etc).
4[] Tell him to f**k off.
5[] Electrocte the boss with a waffle iron.
So... only 5% chose 1, although some may have done 2 or 3 instead - so call it 2%. Me? My boss knows better than to tell me to install Win2k3 - the previous electrical burn marks attest to that.
Beep beep.
The reason more and more people are using Windows for a server is because they are lazy. Windows is much easier to install. Watch that number go down the next time all of them are subject to an attack on a windows exploit. Code Zero
The 5% switching figure only has meaning in the context of marketshare numbers. If Linux is less that 8.6% marketshare (= (5%)/(100%-42%) of the existing servers, then this switching rate suggests that Linux switchers are over represented and that Linux is declining. If Linux has more than 8.6% marketshare, then it suggests that Linux switchers are underrepresented. Moreover, without corresponding data on new sites hosted by Linux, numbers of switchers from Windows, we really have no idea what is happening to Linux marketshare.
This is just another example of meaningless garbage statistics.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Take a look at all of the great GPL web projects using LAMP. The applications will dictate the platform. MS always talks about intergration but linux apache provides the most powerful integrated platform for web applications, period. MS developers work in a closed loop system and have no pride for a product that they do not own. Keep building linux solutions and they will come.
Got Code?
Interesting to note though, the Netcraft article seems to imply that the largest percentage of these switches are through myhosting.com. Who; according to Netcraft are the biggest ISP Hosting provider.
myhosting.com only seem to support one platform Microsoft.. So it stands to reason, as myhosting.com continue to grow it will continue to increase the share of microsoft servers.
Another point to note, is that this 5% swap is based on hostnames and not physical machines running the operating system.
just my thoughts...
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
So, there are five new Windows 2003 servers, one of which used to run linux?
To extrapolate anything from 185K installs is silly.
Further, the opposite statistic should be considered...the number of Win 98, Win NT, Win 2000, and Win XP boxes being converted to Linux. I'm pretty sure the rate will end up much higher than 5%. ;-) And that will be applied to the hundreds of millions of existing machines out there.
Certainly not time to cut and run, Taco. :-P
(Maybe I should set my house on fire today...nah.)
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Maybe we should all start to think about jumping ship?
HaaaHaaaHaaa....Okay, I'm alright...gasp ...
HaaHaaaaaaHaa...gasp....gasp...
Haaaaa,HaaaaaHaaaaa...Gasp, give me just a
HaaaaaHaaaaa...Okay seriously....Haaaaa...Haaaa
HaaaHaaaHaaa....HaaaHaaaHaaa....Gasp
STOP I CAN"T BREATH!!!!!
HaaaHaaaHaaa....HaaaHaaaHaaa....Gasp
"You don't need a weatherman/ To know which way the wind blows" -Bob Dylan: Subterranean Homesick Blues
That's why they do them.
/. article didn't mention - look at Top Hosting Locations and Longest Uptimes. The figures do the talking.
Well, that's great news for the Windows OEM staff being put under intense pressure by their Directors to make inroads in the Linux market.
There's another interesting statistic which the
As Vic Reeves says, "82% of statistics are made up on the spot."
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
I think we need to discuss what the next k3w1 31337 0$ is.
I think it's torn between OpenBSD for the 31337 factor and M@c$ for the "golly what pretty gadets" g33k crowd.
So, which one will win out? Given teh g33k perception that m@c$ are gh3y, I am betting on B$D.
and yes, before you ask, I submitted a story about it but it got rejected before this netcraft story passed. so mod me down, because this /is/ a rant.
I just hope the slashdot folks will modify slashcode and make registered users able to see rejected stories soon.
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
This doesn't look good for Linux, in my opinion. Maybe we should all start to think about jumping ship?
Newsflash: I use linux because I like linux. I like the way it organizes things, and I like compiling my own programs. Its my primary desktop, not running on some rackmounted datacenter box. 2k3 doesn't help me. Oh and I'm a broke ex-university student so unless someone is going to give me enough to cover a copy of 2k3, I'm not going to run it.
The last two lines of this submission are nothing but flamebait and add nothing to the story. At least he said it was his opinion.
Well, seems to me that the linux crown has been chanting about how much IIS (4.0) sucks and how good Apache / Linux is that they forgot how to improve on the quality of their product(s). IIS 6.0 is a huge improvement from previous versions of IIS and that is probably why many choose to run on IIS 6.0/2003 than some linux distro.
:-)
+ a hundred zillion $'s in marketing.
My company upgraded from NT 4 -> 2003 for the entire organization (700 servers) and its a big improvement (and we are now down to 400 servers due to consolidation).
// instant - "I for one welcome our new Decaff Coffee-Flavoured-Coffee Overlords"
IMHO, and for someone who has been running Windows 2003 server beta on a dev workstation for the last 9 months, I been extremely happy with it.
I have got tons of tools/utils that could bring an XP box to its knees and outright destroy the damn thing. 2003 server has so far been gracefully handling the pressure with no blue screens till last week.
Last week, I came across from first core dump when I was playing around with the Cisco VPN tool and it core dumped (it was due to bad drivers, couldnt find native ones) giving a BAD_POOL_CALLER error a bunch of times.
I thought Xp was way decent than the shitty 98SE and the unbelievably piece of crap ME, but 2003 server has proved that theres a lot of room for improvement. I think they still have a long way to go to capture the server market.
Disclaimer : I have been running a server operating system on a workstation, I admit. Theres guides available to tune the OS to make it run as a workstation and for gaming.
Also, Microsoft has finally shipped an OS with most of its services disabled (including sound) rather than running in to a "gotcha" moment down the line.
Rapid Nirvana
Don't think for a minute that MS would not feed someone alot of money to make the transition free if not totally paid for plus perks.
Got Code?
Looks like one of Netcraft's major clients is Microsoft!
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/09/01/septe mber_2003_web_server_survey.html
Apache gained, IIS lost, please drive through. I guess netcraft needed to drum up some hits to boost their ad revenue so they created this other non-story to get Slashdotters riled up.
rooooar
I belive that this stat is very missleading.
1 /septe mber_2003_web_server_survey.html
if you have a look at the current netcraft Survey you will see that is still making gains in the webhosting area.
the Stats (below) show taht Microsoft has LOST market share in the last month not gained. so how ever many moved from linux to Windows 2003.
Sites will change os from time to time as new developers take over new sites etc etc..
Developer August 2003 Percent September 2003 Percent Change
Apache 13325183 67.28 13371621 67.45 0.17
Microsoft 4839624 24.44 4804550 24.23 -0.21
Zeus 265011 1.34 266220 1.34 0.00
SunONE 213943 1.08 211234 1.07 -0.01
for the full report see:
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/09/0
Maybe we should all start to think about jumping ship?
Why don't you run what you like and I'll run what I like and the other people can run what they like. That will give us a lot more time to concentrate on important things like calling each other up & asking "so, what are you going to wear to the party?"
-- MarkusQ
Please do jump off a ship -- I'm serious, and hit the prop on the way down. Call me before you do so I can watch... and film... and call your parents so they can watch... and film... and laugh...
:)).
Congratulations -- more people using Microsoft servers -- does that mean MS servers are better? They may or not be -- I'd say no. I'll tell ya they're easier to admin and develop for. These stats tell me that more people/businesses are taking the easier, but maybe not better route... that's all. If you're running Linux servers right now, then good job -- you probably understand a lot more about the system than the new Windows server admins.
Don't listen to the stats - use what you want. If that's Windows, then fine -- if it's Linux, then fine (IMO -- better
omg, this post makes me so angry. sorry to rant. i just hate lemurs.
> Maybe we should all start to think about jumping
> ship?
Why should we be influenced by what some yuppie with more money than brains chooses to hang on his cable modem?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
For those of you in denial, Windows products are steadily getting better. And you are getting scared. The mighty Linux is not holding its ground quite like it used to.
Windows 2000 is a good OS. Much more stable and usable than the junk that was Windows 95. I see a lot of 2k servers (including my own) that don't need the old constant reboots and such. They run just fine. Just as good as Linux in many respects.
For those that argue the virus/worm route - I hate to tell you, but there are just as many vulnerabilities on Linux as Windows. You say Windows updates are always coming out? Well, are you paying attention to rpm (or whatever you use) updates and security advisories for Linux? I guess not, because you would not say things like Windows is less secure. It all depends on the administrator's competence on getting that system secured. A Windows machine can be just as secure as a Linux machine.
And for those who would think I am a pro Microsoft weenie - think again. My background is solid in Unix. *BSD, Linux, IRIX, AIX, etc etc. I'm a Unix geek...big time. I run an OpenBSD firewall at home. I use Linux at work all the time. I use FreeBSD for other servers I run.
If it were not for some special functions of the Linux kernel and a couple of specialized applications under Linux, there would be no need for me to run it at all at the office. And Windows seems poised to be providing those capabilites in the near future.
It all comes down to how the OS performs the function you need it for. For some purposes, Windows is better, for others Unix is. Anyone who blindly says one OS is better than another is not looking at the big picture. No single OS provides superior functionality in all areas of computing.
Linux distributors need to take a long hard look at the products they provide, or one day soon they will be looking at job listings in the newspaper.
Please note that the graph referred to represents data almost entirely about Windows users switching to a new version of Windows. So, the dramatic increase in Windows 2003 servers is not surprising since Windows users are willing to try anything to achieve some kind of stability and performance.
As of September, for which the numbers were similar, Apache was still rising in overall marketshare and Microsoft was falling. The numbers quoted do not say anything about the number of Windows sites that moved to Linux. But, it is probably higher given the total marketshare changes.
Yeah, and when the Germans were rolling across Europe everyone should have just surrendered.
"Geez, 5% of the continent fell to Hitler last week, lets turn ourselves over without a fight".
Yeah Riiight...
wbs.
Huh?
If it ain't broke don't fix it. OK so Windows 2003 might be making ground but what about security of the server. AFAIK nothing major has hit 2003 yet prehaps the blaster worm. There is always a jump when new technology is realeased. Anyway give it another 6 months to see where things are
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
Of all those upgrading to windows 2003, 5% previously used linux. So what?
Compare that to all those upgrading _to_ linux, and look how many of those were previously running other versions of windows? It could easily by a lot more than 5%.
This all looks like a pretty desperate attempt to discredit linux and make win 2003 look more popular than it really is.
Oh, and it's old news anyway.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
Nice that trolls get posted in the headlines now. "Maybe we should start to think about jumping ship" ... heh, yeah.
Why do people care so much about how many people use Linux? Who gives a rat's behind if the Linux server market shrinks by 5 %. It's not like the people who really drive the innovation, the coders, are going to switch to Windows 2003. I'll bet those 5 % were just regular users who never contributed anything back to the source code, so what's the loss really?
Outside of PHB-style statistics, why should we care how many people use Linux?
As others mentioned before, the message is completely misleading. To have a look at easier to interpret data, look at this:
m l
news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.ht
Win2003 is a new environment. It's typical for new OS's to capture the early adopters of technology. MacOS X saw a large spike when it came out, I even remember the OS/2 spikes when Warp and 4 came out.
Also, Netcraft shows trends but over a long term not so much over the short term. Their information is largely based on a skewed data set - people who volunteer the server information. Plus the things like the Verisign's new DNS wildcard "feature" and major hosting sites and alter the stats highly.
Let's all just hope the best product for the best solution wins. If the best product is Windows - we should use it. (although, the doubter in me highly doubts that)
Popularity and money is not the reason why I use Linux. It's a solid development platform, a free commercial quality server. Vendor lock in is not present. The average distro comes with $5500+ (of M$ money) which can be downloaded and used for free.
"It just doesn't seem to be a good business practice in giving the off switch to another company."
5% of What?
The netcraft web survey shows that there are about 42 million domains, 28 million of which are hosted on Apache systems, 10 million on Windows.
Of that 42 million, 325 thousand are now running Windows 2003. Of that 325 thousand, 5% were running Linux, or about 16 thousand. Now that 16 thousand actually accounts for a transition to Windows 2003 for 1 out of every 2,000 Apache domains.
What is doesn't show is what the overall change in Windows vs Apache is - in the same time frame that Windows 2003 was growing to 385,000 sites, Windows overall actually lost 3% domain share to Apache, or 1.2 million domains. So the transition of ex Apache sites to Server 2003 is equal to about 1% of the switch away from Windows to Apache that occurred during this same time period.
On a global basis Windows is losing market share to Apache based web serving at a rate 100 times greater than this supposed switch from Linux to Windows 2003.
This drives me nuts, on a daily basis.
Linux is NOT out to compete with anything. It's just a kernel.
Be specific. Did it take from certain COMMERCIAL distros? Okay fine, so say so.
God. We're technical people, saying "Linux" is too vague.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
There's a missing statistic here -- in the same time period, how many people switched from Windows to Linux?
Saying that there's flow back and forth is pretty expected. It *would* be shocking if the net flow were towards Windows.
May we never see th
So... 5% of the new Win2k3 servers since January came from Linux. Considering there's around 180k Win2k3 servers, that amounts to an amazing 9000 servers in 9 months! Wow! :)
OTOH, between August and September, there was only a 0.17% increase in apache servers (here)... Since last month there were 13325183 Apache servers, that means a mere 46438 sites increase in a single month period. Hell, yeah! Unix is dying! Call the coroner!
AC comments get piped to
No wonder we're getting spammed to holy hell, its because of all the new Windows 2003 servers put up with no configuration and security.
The W2003 server installations come mainly from colos and dedicated colo sites. These guys have considerable monthly turnover of customers and can redeploy a server at whim. All this number shows is that the servers at these sites are *fluid* and some got redeployed. There is nothing meaningful in this data unless you can correlate it with more meaningful data. On the other hand, it is bad news for Solaris because these big colo sites don't normally offer Solaris so the Solaris conversions are more likely a true conversion.
Actually, it's something like 16,000+ sites that have switched from Linux to Windows Server 2003 in July and August in the commercial hosting environments that Netcraft tracks. Combine that with over 131,000 Windows Server 2003 website installations that Netcraft reports were not upgrades from anything and you end up with almost 150,000 new non-Linux websites in two months.
Now, considering that hosting companies are notorious about not switching underlying systems until they're sure they can support the new product, your "statistical noise" or PHB analysis is, at best, wishful thinking.
Windows 2003 does so badly that it runs only about 0.4% of webservers half a year after release.
Overall IIS loses about 0.2%/month to other webservers.
And now 8500 domains (= 0.002% !) throughout about half a year (= 0.0003%/month) switch from Linux to Windows and people start to get wet their pants.
And then the FUD gets modded as insightful...
Maybe we should all start to think about jumping ship?
What, into the raging sea? But I can't swim!
A better idea: let's all hang ourselves.
-kgj
bhahaha
fuck them all.
This is similar to newpapers in China quoting articles from the Onion as the truth.
Must be attributable to hangovers!
Just imagine a Beowulf cluster of those.
No, wait...
Now lets all be good microsoft lemmings!
Probably more FreeBSD/OpenBSD also, so no big deal, right ?
How much does this have to do with the recent virus attacks? Businesses suddenly switched over to temporary linux servers just so they could keep their websites online and virus free, now that they have a new, unaffected version, they're bringing their windows servers back up with the upgrades?
*There's Klingons on the starboard bow, scrape em off Jim!*
Now why would someone say something that silly? I think this post was written by some PR flunky at Microsoft.
Jump ship and land on the MS Titanic?
Please...
What the heck. 5% of a market switched to something, so it's time to jump switch.
Guess that means everyone using linux on the desktop should go apple with that twisted logic.
Any given day 5% of a given market will try something different for various reasons. This is not something that was front page news.
5% of Windows NT servers aren't Windows NT any more. Stop the presses.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
to me this is jost more evidence of america's rightward plunge.
myhosting is the site that is doing most of the switching.
we just say a guy get fired the other day for critisizing windows at a different company, where i work there is increasing pressure to downsize r&d and use cots wherever possible, even if there are free solutions.
saying the "L" word or mentioning "free software" is being increasing frowned upon.
yet if you make a webpage that no one can access from home without downloading 70 mb. of controls under IE and then having in fail in odd ways anyway that's good enough for an employee of the month award.
Amen, fucktard.
They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further! I will not lose the Enterprise! Not to the Microsoft Borg, not while I'm in command!
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
We all know Who else jumped ship...to Linux :D
If you're happy and you know it read my blog
I cannot believe you would even consider "jumping ship." You are obviously a n00b or you don't even use *NIX at all. Please in the future refrain from stupid posts like that one. -Sorry about bad english-
-=[infernus]=-
I recently attended a technology conference with my CEO. We're a typical medium-sized company, running one mainframe (VMS), some IBM stuff, and quite a few Windows servers. We're in the financial services industry.
My CEO has known for a long time that I'm an Open Source advocate, and he expresses interest in getting away from Microsoft. He enjoys seeing what I can do with Linux and older hardware that would otherwise be mothballed, and he even consented to purchasing Redhat ES 2.1 at full fare recently. He has been amazed at the uptimes achieved on "worn out" servers running various flavors of Linux.
At the conference, our core processing company briefly touched on Open Source software and the remote possibility that they might, one day, port their software to, say, Linux. At lunch that day, I listened closely as various CEO's, CIO's, and other higher-ups discussed this possibility. Overall, I am sad to say that the overwhelming reaction was one of disbelief and/or fear. I saw clearly that Linux is still considered by many, if not most executives, to be unproven and unsupported technology. The same people who speak disparagingly of the Microsoft monopoly and the high cost of proprietary software still would rather pay ransom than go into uncharted waters. Those having a more technical understanding were quick to point out that Linux still does not scale as true enterprise-OSes are expected to. These people expressed the view that, while such Open Source software as Linux and MySQL were "interesting" and "have potential," no one was remotely interested in seeing their core software ported to a non-proprietary operating system.
I came away feeling a little depressed, but I resolved to continue, one server at a time, showing my CEO what Linux, Apache, PHP, Open Office, etc., can do and ARE already doing. Those of us who advise executives MUST continue with this kind of approach if we want to see better software running on our core servers.
It's only funny until someone gets hurt. Then, it's hilarious.
When you say "Maybe we should all start to think about jumping ship?" you make a rather critical error in punctuation. The period (that's the thing that looks like a comma, except it has no tail) belongs immediately after the word think.
Think you, think you very much.
The purpose of counting the number of web servers deployed, by type, is to reflect server mind share, but it most likely reflects the number of users running locked-in applications like Quickbooks, and Office. It doesn't reflect the number of "useful" or professional websites, that serve more than vanity pages. It would be more useful to count how many total page views per server type, enabling the discounting of vanity sites.
One would expect such a statement to come from a plant and not someone deeply engaged in the development, deployment or management of any system.
We should also have some stats on how many of those IIS servers were 0wn3d in the last three months by the worms running around the 'net. Or, better yet, percentage of Admins pissed at having a weekend ruined by having to patch up IIS and Win2k boxes. Those would be some good stats.
I've seen this "free as in beer not speech" thing a lot at /. (along with a lot of other things, you silly conformists) but I have no idea what it's supposed to mean. Wherever I go, beer is pretty darn expensive!
5% of what? didn't you asked that yourself? Let's see...
The article says that:
(a) win2k3 it has 185k sites total now.
(b) it has doubled the number of sites.
(c) 5% of the new sites were taken from Linux.
The article does not say:
(a) how many web sites exists now (so you can't now that is actually nearly nothing...)
So, that impresive 5% is: the 5% of the 50% of the (nearly nothing) 185k... Not so impressive, really...
Moreover, having a big delta on a little number is not that difficult, because any little modification is a big percentage of the previous quantity.
Conclusion: please, be serious...
I don't use Linux because it's an unneccessary pain in the ass to do things with it. I use Win2K Pro. However, all the software running the server components are Open Source (Apache, GuildFTPd) or just well respected freeware like Mercury Mail.
Using Apache just demonstrates what a great product Apache is. It has nothing to do with Linux. I'm not going to abandon the simplicity and stability of Win2K just because Apache can faithfully serve up HTTP requests.
Nobody is debating that IIS is feature bloated hacker friendly piece of garbage. But that has nothing to do with Windows.
I have better things to do with my time (like actually building up the web-site) than dicking around with an OS.
The high quality of one open source product has zero to do with the quality of another.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
"This doesn't look good for Linux, in my opinion. Maybe we should all start to think about jumping ship?"
Um, no. Maybe you should think about creating a user friendly product that both novices and experts can use instead of relying on a small segment of the market to support your product. Maybe you should even think about creating a solid core of developers that insures Linux's ability to run common software instead of having to cobble individual drivers together or hope to God somebody has already done it for you.
Of course, if the Linux community isn't willing to conceed those minor details, by all means jump ship.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
This is just FUD. After all, Windows 2000 has been responsible for spewing the worms around the internet lately. What netcraft does not show is server consolidation. Linux server consolidation has been on the increase.. especailly with the high end hardware that's been coming out lately. I consolidated 6 servers myself into a new Compaw DL 580 with 4 processors. So Netcraft does not catch that. Consolidation is going on. I consult for a state agency. And we plan to consolidate further.
...100% of web servers run Apache on Linux, thanks to VeriSign's DNS wildcard being hosted on Apache/Linux.
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
I have all flamebait posts set to +5. Ahh, +5 flamebaits are why I come to this site.
Of my two application servers one is Win2003 and one is Linux. The Windows Box has required rebooting every two or three weeks since we deployed it. The event log remains chocked full of warnings.
The Linux box by contrast rebooted once - b/c of a power failure.
So far I see the Linux box as superior.
The shop I worked at "finally got rid of" the linux box we had doing hosting/nat/dialup, replaced it with 2003. Of course now all the 2003 box does is NAT for the lan, everything else is off site.. Reason? Boss didn't like that they had to rely on outsiders to maintain something that no-one full-time in house understood. Can't blame them I guess. Sometimes people don't have time to learn alternatives, they just want the nail hit with the most convenient hammer. - Paul
JUMP SHIP? When ever was the movement toward freedom and equality abandoned for a more popular brand of slavery? Odysseus never said, "screw it, death is easier than this." George Washington never said, "You know what guys, freedom is good and all, but boy do those Brits have snappy uniforms." So why should our fight for freedom be abandoned because the latest version of Windows may be a little more appealing? Open Source will improve Linux ad infinitum, but proprietary development hinders the betterment of Windows. Where is your faith?
Esoteric reference.
This number is deliberately misleading.
- Of all new Win2003 servers, 5% used to run Linux.
- Of all new Linux servers, __% used to run Windows.
- There has been a __% increase in Windows Servers.
- There has been a __% increase in Linux Servers.
Fill in the blanks to get a complete picture of what is happening. I bet you will find that more than 5% of new Linux servers used to run Windows and that Linux is growing while Windows is declining.
"Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
Seriously, this is -1 flamebait. Not so much because of the "microsoft is on a PR bullshitting spree again" angle, that has gotten old. More along the lines of "Maybe we should all start to think about jumping ship?" that makes it flamebait. It's akin to saying;
"Hey, microsoft is giving us bullshit again, we should accept that bullshit, trust microsoft as a responsable, upstanding corperation and buy whatever they want us to hook+line and sinker!"
Slashdot is indeed filled to the brim with windows lovers and, more often than not, outspoken linuxlubbers. There is a duality to this situation, namely, if Redhat came out with a study saying that since their release of xyz package that sales have skyrocketed and gave us the same kind of statistics, we'd probably buy it and the windows users would be annoyed especially if at the end of the article it said the same thing.
Mod me into oblivian if you must, but that's the truth.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
Don't believe that. I'm into Presales Consulting & Marketing for a major IT service provider, mostly doing Linux projects (about 110% of my work ;-). None of our customers so far have been saying they were particularly impressed by the SCO crusade, and they will continue evaluating Linux potentials for their IT. The value proposition weighs far heavier than SCO's FUD.
open (SIG, "</dev/zero"); $sig = <SIG>; close SIG;
If you ever worked at an ISP that hosted both Windows ASP/Front Page sites and UNIX PHP/CGI/DreamWeaver sites you know first hand how much of a royal pain in the ass managing the Windows sites is. Windows accounted for only 10% or so of our hosted sites but consumed about 65% of our support budget. It's simply too hard or even outright impossible to automate administrative tasks.
I've heard from several sources that Windows 2003 makes this *much* easier, so it's very possible that the major hosting companies that have to deal with all of these ASP/Front Page sites that once moved as many sites as possible to a Linux platform to cut their costs have moved back now that they have Windows 2003.
And it only took Microsoft 6 years to start addressing this market, and of all of the people who said Windows 2003 was way better, they still have a lot of complaints.
If anything, there are a lot more mid-sized business dumping Windows for Linux. In fact, even with all the improvements in .NET companies are moving off windows to proven reliable Java based architecture. The small companies are by and large moving to .NET and upgrading to win2K3. But they were windows shops to begin with. That's my experience in the financial software industry. Go ask Thompson, fidelity, and merril why they kicked windows based mid-tier systems out and only use windows stuff for front end. This is one of the reasons why Microsoft is working with IBM to show .NET can integrate with Java. Fleet homelink used to use ASP and boy it sucked hard. Last year, homelink used to unresponsive during peak hours. Now they are using JSP and the sucker is 3x faster and hasn't had any problems. Chew on that for a thought. Fleet also happens to be a large financial institution with banking, investments and so on.
Not only is the heading and article deceptive because it appears to highlight a small exodus from linux to Windows, but to me there is a greater deception.
Perhaps the article is meant to stir up some controversy, but to really be informative there should have been more complete information. i.e. What is the current total market share in the server arena for each OS and how has it changed over time.
I seem to recall this information being available on netcraft but I can't to find it anymore.
I suspect that there is a small percentage that is always moving back and forth between OSs, however, I am confident from what we are reading the world over that linux is gaining market share much faster than Windows. Note that I did not say Windows 2003 because I don't find it to be big news if older Windows servers are swapped out for the latest release. If that's the point of the article all I can say is "so?".
burnin
It really took me more than 10 s of trying to figure out how you were thinking when you said that IIS is hacker friendly (as in easy to extend, modify and bend to do what you want it to do) before I realised that you were talking about the other type of "hacker".
-- Free speech is only free if your time is worth nothing.
First, as noted by others the statistic sited in the headline grossly overstates what the actual number really is (Actual - 5% of new Windows Servers used to run linux vs reported - 5% of all new servers).
Who runs Windows Servers anyway?
The arguments for getting as far away from Microsoft as fast as possible are still far more compeling which are 1) you are financing a competitor (sooner or later they will come after your business) 2) MS is trying to become an fortified island that allows no one in and no one out. This is why governments around the world are insisting on open source standards and formats. 3) Security, need I say more. 4) Quality, when open source came out people predicted that only those most concerned with price would use it. Now it turns out that those most concerned with quality and reliability use it. 5) Innovation, a favorite MS term; but really, can you name a single thing that MS has ever invented?
4) ????
5) Profit
Help fight continental drift.
He's being facetious.
:)
It's a joke.
Laugh.
What's up with people these days
It took M$ this long to get a decent OS out and to actually start listening to people, however if Windows were to suddenly fail and linux became the server of choice, then it would be shown that Linux is a bug ridden hackers delight that may well be less secure than a M$ product.
At any rate windows is easier to use.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
If I were to "jump ship" that would mean a long transition period, changing the way we do things now, a huge period of debugging and adjusting.
In order to do it I would have to spend all the money to purchase 2003 Server, rewrite and debug all my apps for it. Even if I contracted out for most of it a lot of my time would be spent on the phone with the hardare vendors prying (and paying for) propriatary information out of them to get the equipment to work with computers running a different OS.
Sorry but you're going to have to give me, and my managers, a better reason to "jump ship."
In the real world, doing something just because someone else does doesn't make business sense.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
As for BSD, it was very well designed to work as a server, but then BSD zealots decided that two load balanced servers are better then a cluster or SMP. For years they were living in their small world thinking that the "server" == "firewalling router" || "static web server" ignoring Java and commercial databases. I doubt they have a chance to fix their historical mistakes. And if they do - it's too late, they are laready to far behind.
Commercial Unix systems as well Qnx will never get back their shares - having Linux (AND still BSD!) nobody wants to pay for a proprietary binaries.
Potentially there could be some chance for a system like Plan/9. I like how it's designed in concepts. Although I don't like how it is implemented in terms of how broad its support of applications and hardware platforms. But I think it's coming to slow to get any momentum enough to attract an avalanche of application developers and hardware driver vendors.
As for Hurd, it's been designed too many years ago and doesn't reflect any requirements for a modern OS.
So, yes, Linux is dying. As well as all other OSes. But somehow I am feeling it will die longer then all other OSes as we know them. Unless some developers will drammatically change design and implementation of a Linux rival. Well, and if Linux developers will ignore new concepts, which is unlikely gonna happen. As for now Linux developers "steal" other's ideas faster then rival's developers do and thus it seems that Linux still get the highest momentum on the market of server (and in a long term - desktop) installations.
Less is more !
Microsoftistas should put that in their crack pipe and smoke it!
Found this at security focus. "Dave Aucsmith, Microsoft's Security Business Unit CTO said back on April 18, 2003 if Windows 2003 was as vulnerable as previous versions of Windows, it meant that the company's security improvements approach "was wrong." Well, guess what, Microsoft was wrong. Dead wrong in the case of network administrators who've seen Server 2003 go down from one security exploit after another." - Eweek
> I don't use Linux because it's an unneccessary pain in the ass to do things with it.
Maybe this would be a good time to get specific about what's hard to do on Linux when you're using it for your Web server.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
One important thing to remember about netcraft stats is that they are basically percentages, it doesn't necessarily mean that there are less linux servers or that people are switching from linux to windows, it just means that overall, there are more servers running windows than there was before. This includes all of the casual webservers that people with dsl or cable are running.
A piddlingly small percentage of the even more pathetic percentage of sites that chose to try .Not ... er, I mean 2003 Server, we previously using Linux. The meat of the story (such as it is) is that so few sites are even bothering to try 2003 Server.
And I wouldn't be surprised if the story behind the switches from Linux to .Not are mostly cases where a company had their site done by a hosting service (who, sensibly, used Linux) that had grown enough that some twit manager decided they should bring their web presence "in house". Their internal IS people only know Windows, so their obvious choice was 2003 Server (it being perhaps the least bad of the Microsoft stable of shite).
<sigh>
The overall quality of GNU/Linux distributions has been sinking lately: everything is marketing-driver, and debian is always obsolete. No wonder that people run away from promises that do not deliver.
Also, the license doesn't help the embedded market.
Must've been all those commercials with the office execs line dancing, because supposedly they "saved" money with 2003. Although I do think the second part of their slogan is correct: "...with less." Anyone got a better replacement for the "Do more" part?
I've had exactly the opposite experience. Once I got rid of all MS servers and moved to Debian, life has been, comparatively, a breeze. I'll take apt-get over hfnetcheck any day! And in comparison, Linux is way, way, way simpler than Windows. Oh, yeah -- and have fun running around to every server in you site to do updates because Windows doesn't support remote admin!
The worst thing that microsoft has done for our industry is to breed a whole generation of check-box programmers and admins -- if they can't tick off some checkbox to perform a task, they don't want to be bothered! What they don't realize is that you can only get 90% of the way there, then you're stuck.
Since this survey does not seem to compare all versions of windows to all versions of Linux/Unix it is not an accurate measure of how many servers are on each platform. Nothing to get excited about.
MS has been running this Try Windows Server 2003 FREE for 6 months. Those stats probably reflect people using the free trial. Linux has always been free. The stats will be very different in 6 months. Some will actually kepp Windows Server 2003, some will crack it and keep it, but hopefully, most will return to Linux. Just my 2 bits.
If it can go wrong it wnetscape: Segmentation Fault, Core dumped
Or should it say that sometimes Linux is used with out management knowing - and when they find out they switch back.
The bias on this site is amazing... and so, so stupid.
A single story about a single company moving from Windows to Linux warrants a few hundred messages in the vein of "This is it, Windows is dying, Linux is king" but a story that goes the other way is immediately "Poor journalism", "The figures are wrong", "It's troll bait".
It's this lack of attention to THE REAL WORLD that has already doomed Linux to a niche market a la Mac.
God's sakes... you people are pathetic.
It is bad enough that there are a legion of m$ kiddies posting marketing spots here but to allow mr softy to run propaganda on /.? Too much.
I don't use Linux because it's an unneccessary pain in the ass to do things with it ...since I primarily use Windows and don't know quite as much about Linux.
Append that, and your statement makes more sense.
From: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_surve y.html
Following on from last month, Microsoft continued to lose sites as Network Solutions migrated the rest of their domain parking system back to Solaris from a Windows based system hosted at Interland. This is primarily responsible for Microsoft's 2.2% fall, with a net loss of 810,597 sites.
So, what was that again about Linux losing market share? Maybe it is actually going to Mac OS X!
While Linux community has been beleaguered by the fights like "Which fonts to include in the default distribution?" and "How do we make KDE/Gnome closer to MS Windows?", Microsoft has been investing and taking over the market share.
The company is focused as ever on keeping control of the computer market. You want the truth? Well, if you can handle it - Windows has more than 90% of the Tablet PC market. And that, remind you, is a market that just popped up few years ago.
How many Linux vendors did you see struggle for footprint in the Tablet PC market? How many of them announced R&D budgets to develop digital ink and writing recognition? Well, no wonder that Microsoft owns this market within a year, and soon enough as it gets big everyone will yell a monopoly. I guess the biggest Linux vendor was just way too busy with Bangalore job opportunities springing up.
Never played with RDC or MMC have you?
Windows doesn't support secure remote shells (Out of the box), but it certainly has remote admin capabilities. In some ways (RDC especially) they are better than anything Linux has, in others (MMC), I'll take SSH and vi instead.
"You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
email us an update when the next worm comes out...oh wait a minute, you won't be able to email when the next worm comes out. mainly because it will be on your new servers.
----- "It's all fun and games 'til somebody puts an eye out, then it's just funny."
And, as runners will tell you, 90% is only halfway.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
I upgraded from Apache to IIS a few months ago. I hav to say I love it. It has a wonderful feature set that seems to get bigger with version. So long as you stay on top of patching it regularly (which now can be done automagically!!!) you're good to go. Might I also add, that Outlook Web Access is DAM DOM!!!!
Just my two cents worth,
-- Jason Sturges
-- MCSE+I
Windows does support remote admin. Windows 2000 Server can support up to two RDP connections without having to have a extra Terminal Services License. You just have to enabe RPD for admin mode. I would think that Windows 2003 probably has this as well, but I would never know cause I am not giving MS another cent. I would like to see a RDP server service on Linux. They day that comes out I will be switching all our servers from NT Terminal Server to Linux. Probably never going to happen. :( Maybe WYSE can start making Winterms that can connect to Linux? Doubtful.
~werd~
Big furry deal. None of those that switched would have contributed one line of code, so what's the loss?
Sooner or later, running linux is going to be a no-brainer. But it will happen when it happens. What's the big rush? Linux (and all other OS projects) aren't going anywhere. Microsoft can't market them out of existence, SCO can't sue them into submission.
All we're seeing here is a temporary rally, as Microsoft discounts their crack. Traditionally, the first one is free, but they're in the unenviable position of having to give freebies to retain and attract their bitches back. When you consider that they have tens of thousands of engineers working in their crack labs, it should be clear that they can't sustain that.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Its RDP. Remote Desktop Protocol.
~werd~
Another often overlooked point of view: m$ is relatively good at inflating those figures by marketing that m$ frontpage for exactly that purpose, to serve the front page & nothing more (except maybe few other static pages and some bloated linenoise made by the marketing department).
I'd really like to know how many of those m$ "sites" actually use other archs for everything actually involving logged-in users.
Just my 0.02€€ -suxx*@#&!.
Let it go. Linux is big enough. The primary problem with Windows is, in fact, that it tries to be everything to everybody. Let's not have Linux fall into that same trap.
.NET goodness, they can click on dialog boxes all day long, and us UNIX/Linux users don't have to live through that.
If you don't see the benefits of Linux and want to pay Bill Gates for Windows 2003, go right ahead--I really don't care. But I certainly don't want Linux to become any more like Windows 2003 in order to grab a little more marketshare.
If you are irrationally obsessed with driving Microsoft out of business through open source, I think a much better competitor for Windows 2003 than Linux would be ReactOS running Mono/.NET. The Windows nerds can wallow in all that GDI+, MFC,
There really isn't a single right answer for everybody. Let's not make the same mistake Gates is making. We need a lot more variety in operating systems. Linux taking over everything would be just as bad as Windows taking over everything.
Maybe, or maybe not.
What are the circumstances behind the change? Could it be something as simple as people parking domains on a server running Linux, then converting to a live system hosted on Windows 2003 because that's what they know best? Since Windows 2003 still has relatively lwo market penetration, it would show high but really meaningless growth and predation rates.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
1. Hosting companies are losing money. ...
2. Switch to w2k3
3. Fire all sysadmins, owner will no run everything.
4.
5. Profit
Sounds like more FUD from the M$ tribe.
"Begone you demons of stupidity" - Saint Dogbert
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
The 5% is coming from business gained by running Microsoft advertisements on slashdot.
One future, two choices. Oppose them or let them destroy us.
Umm.. is everybody on this site retarded?
.. I know several major DSL companies which have done the same, they've also blocked nearly everything heading out directly from port 25 (SMTP).. now I *used* to Run a linux box with Apache at home but after my ISP shut down my mail I am no longer counted by Netcraft. I didn't go anywhere, I just ain't counted. It's just that simple.
Think about it, several *major* cable providers (e.g. Cox 24.x.x.x) have been blocking port 80 to customers.
All the numbers a bullshit when looked at without considering the external forces acting on them.
Man, can this guy spin numbers... I'm assuming that these are these M$ ONLY hosting providers - MYHosting.com
...
First, 32,810 customers is not all that much when you consider the 5th largest hosting co in the world has 150,000-200,000 (CI Host. Where I believe hosting.com is around 500,000.
Then lets go into these numbers a little deeper...
49% (153K) to be upgrades from other Windows platforms (.49*32810) 16,077 (15.7K), 5% (16.5K) to be migrations from Linux (.05*32810) 1640 (1.6K), and 1% from FreeBSD (3K) (.01*32810) 328(0.3K),
The guy either missed a decimal place, or was thinking in terms of kilo bits...
Also, from being in this industry for a while - of the 1600 people migrating from linux, I can tell you from experience that a lot of people love this frontpage thing but it IS a pain to support and administer. Since myhosting.com is NOT a linux shop and does not seem to offer linux - those 1600 people would have to come from another hosting co - why did they leave???? Also, what kind of churn rate does this place have? 42% of there customers are from the last 3 months - no hosting company grows like that...
Put simply - these numbers dont mean squat. They are surveys (bought by M$) from company's forcing an upgrade on there customers - most likely shared, who doesnt know any better. Ill bet you ten to one, that the remaining 2% are bigger clients that WILL not move to 2003.... From my experience in the hosting world - the ONLY reason you find customers on M$ boxes are because of frontpage/ASP, everyone else uses Linux.
I wonder what these numbers would like with the big guys (cihost,hosting,yahoo,etc..). Oh - and lets not forget that these are meer hosting customers - NOT general company's like the headline elluded...
Linux needed 10 years of its history to convince people of its superiority, and most IT professionals still fear to switch to it as they were embarking in a dangerous mission.
It's sad noting how easy is for Microsoft to spend some big bucks airing commercials on the new 2003 server that has absolutely neither history nor records about robustness and reliability.
People who switched to Win 2003 because they watched the Microsoft ad are the same who previously switched to Linux because they watched the IBM ad. They're more bandwagon followers than technical skilled professionals and won't be missed.
Does anyone worry that we may actually reach a monoculture situation with Apache?
I have worked with both Apache and IIS, and I _agree_ with almost all the arguments claiming that Apache is more robust and easier to work with than IIS, but monoculture is clearly a problem.
Apache is good software, but no programmer or software is perfect - if Apache controls 90% of the market, and one serious flaw is found in it, then you have the kind of virus an patch problems that Windows faces now.
How do we avoid the same fate as Windows?
What all you guys seem to be forgetting is this. It's not the "site" per say that's probably the issue. Most people who own sites don't know what OS their site is on. Once more, they don't care as long as it's out there.
Designers that can only code in Frontpage is a problem. The lack of really good and inexpensive shopping carts for Linux is another. As a hosting company myself, I have a mix of both for the users that have special requirements. I run into situations where the user creates a database in Access and wants it integrated into their site and things of that nature, for example.
You'll also note that there's no mention of winNT/2k servers being switched to Linux or Win2k3. All it says is that sites that were previously on linux are now on Windows. That could be someone switching hosting companies, or could be someone switching designers. Believe me designers don't really understand the world around them. I once had one designing a site and in the folder of the user there was the URL and that's how they uploaded it instead of in the "root" of the folder as it should have been since it was on IIS and with frontpage. They told our customer that our servers weren't setup right (which we are an MS web presence provider...they have to be setup right to be listed) and talked them into moving their hosting elsewhere after they had been with us and working without interruption for 4 years. Because Frontpage is suppose to be so easy to design with and it comes with office professional, so many people think "Well, I have the program to do it now...let's design our own page".
There's sooooooooo many reasons why this stuff happens. However, let's not neglect the fact that there's information left out. As I mentioned earlier, what about the switches from NT/2k to Linux? When I went to work for the company I now own, it was 100% WinNT, it's now 1 win2k server and the rest are Linux. So what's up with that?
That chart does not count intRAnets. I suspect that MS is bigger there because mass public hosting companies will probably find open-source cheaper and more secure. But, intranets are more driven by internal preferences and existing machines. IOW, Windows.
Table-ized A.I.
X windows has provided this for well over 10 years. In the oldest form, you set the environment variable DISPLAY to the hostname where you want your apps to show up. I used this all the time in 92-95, when computers were slower you actually got better performance this way since one machine ran the app and the other did all the graphic display.
SSH provides for text login AND X11 graphics, so in recent history you can have this secure (try that with Microsoft).
Over the years, there have been several low bandwidth extensions for X... and people are still working on them. However, these don't seem to come "out of the box" on many distributions, so it does require installing some extra stuff. Sorta like installing remote admin tools for windows.
However, having used unix since the late 80's and linux since 94 (just before the 1.0 kernel), the time spent learning the command line and a good scripting language (awk/sed/sh in the old days, perl in these modern times) is a significant investment that will pay itself back many times over and over again. Yes, I know it seems hard, especially if you've "learned" about computers based on a gui-only system like windows, but it does open up a whole new world of possibilities.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
I roared and reared with laughter.
:-)
Well done Taco, it was totally hilarious how almost everyone in this subthread completely missed the point of your comment, simply because you didn't give them the visual cue of a wink smiley.
Hahaha, I still can't stop giggling.
Just because the 5% decided to jump off a cliff doesn't mean we need to follow them. You related to the Pied Piper?
I say this constantly and get modded down for it because I'm not supposed to criticize a "volunteer effort." That attitude right there is problem #1. I don't care if it's a volunteer effort, and neither do most users. We just care about what's sitting in front of us on our screen, the net output.
My point all along has been that people really need to get out of this hobbyist volunteer mindset and realize it's time to create actual results. There's no need to become corporate-minded slaves, but I do wish people would be more professional about things, from project names to interfaces to--and this is the major one--the ridiculous mindset, which you must admit, Slashdot contributes to on a daily basis (usually through "Microsoft hole" articles, when meanwhile my sig shows that distros have more exploits per month anyway...it's all ridiculous).
Professional people admit faults and correct them. We still have some of the same Linux desktop problems as we had five years ago, and people are still complaining about them. Heck, real professional people would zero in on problems before the users even notices them. Professional communities have friendly and courteous tech support, newsgroups, and so on. They have to, because it's all about the customer, i.e., the user. Linux has zealots, trolls, and fanboys. It's not all about the user when it comes to Linux. Mostly, it seems to be about adding enough cool features to be able to take great-looking screenshots for the back of distro boxes, but when you actually grab the mouse to use the thing, it is a disappointing experience (I still remember when GNOME under Red Hat 9 had a stuck taskbar that wouldn't stop moving around with the mouse, and when all else failed and I killed X, of course, that screwed up the boot sequence for some reason...and it was a completely stock install!).
I'm tired of Linux being a hobby OS. Let's face it, outside of the server market (where it is still considered an "alternative OS" despite the fact it has the slight majority), Linux is a hobby OS. The desktop environments are just attempts to SIMULATE a desktop. They don't feel like real, seamless, responsive desktops, but they are written to LOOK like real, responsive desktops, so that people can pretend that they're cool because they use Linux in that way. I wish someone would come out with something so slick and professional that people would have no choice but to switch because of its uber-coolness and usability. This, of course, would call for a complete rewrite, because it would demand things like hardware acceleration, a sane programming API, and so on. I won't hold my breath for it, though. As a matter of fact, the only real uber-cool thing I've seen is Slicker. Its card idea is unique and innovative. Too bad it's tied in with the godawful KDE, but maybe in another few years we'll see things really shine.
But I know that won't happen because people are too busy making yet another toolkit for X or another extension or another weird project with a weird name written all in lower-case on Sourceforge. Meanwhile, in August of 2005, Longhorn is due out, with hardware acceleration, vector-scaled widgets for resolution-independent resizing, a yet-to-be-revealed photorealistic user interface, and even the ability to add and remove RAM without rebooting. I'm sorry, but I don't see all that coming in two years, because two years ago I thought we'd have stuff like that, and two years before that, and so on. It just never comes. And if you request it and wish for it, you get flamed because you're not "doing it yourself." Sometimes it's really easy to despise this community because they refuse to listen unless you're some hero programmer like Linus or Stallman. If you're a user or designer, forget it.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I think anybody running a website on anything other than Apache on some *nix like OS should be shot.
:)
Hell, if I run several different servers on a 16M RAM 486, I really don't need the super-cow of Apache eating up half of my resources. I use something lightweight like Boa, thttpd or mathopd for that!
Of course if the system resources allow that, I'd be the first one to hand you a gun
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
This really just points to the continued commoditization of software infrastructure. As one commenter points out. Microsoft is letting people run a free trial of Windows Server 2003 for six months.
To actually run Linux in an organization actually costs money. You can use the price of support contracts as a proxy to figure out average costs.
Given the availability of sofware that runs across the two platforms (apache, tomcat, open office) and the use of open file formats available on either, at some point your choice between the two just becomes a question of costs.
Sounds like Microsoft may be bringing their offerings down near enough to the commodity price point that people do not perceive a difference.
5% of what looks like 180,000 on the graph is about 9,000 active servers.
A merger or two in hosting companies with the major company requiring one OS, a decision to switch by one large company, whatever, would cause that 5% figure.
Moroever we do not know how many might have switched the other way.
Much ado about little in my opinion.
RDP is the protocol, RDC is the client app.
"You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
Yes, let's dismiss all pro-Windows statistics and worship all pro-Linux statistics. Because that seems to happen with every story posted.
For intelligent, engineering-minded, logical people, there sure is a lot of religious bias. I mean, really. Sometimes you sound like Scientologists. That's not a troll.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I seems that alot of people would love to understand why people arnt moving in the linux direction. While I personally think linux is great and all i just cant switch over the company i work for to linux at the moment. It has NOTHING to do with ease of use. I could easily configure linux to be easy to use. I do all the installs and config not the actual user.
The reason is that i just cant get the commercial software i need for Linux. For example AutoCad, our accounts system.
It would be nice to be running on linux, for stability etc. However the continuing problem is that our company is developing custom software for use only in house, on windows platforms. We cant afford to have users running two platforms. This will of course increase our reliance on MS.
I think the linux community needs to focus on making applications easy to port. And perhaps encourage 3rd party commercial software. I think the recources of open source programmers would be better used creating NEW and inivative products rather than making copies of existing software.
It is possible that there will be less reason to switch to linux in the future as MS is definatly getting their act together with stability etc. For example time spent doing general maintenance etc, would now be about one quater since moving from a win98 to XP enviroment. (our company did not suffer from any of the recent virus issues either). Moving to win2003 is a very real prospect for us in the coming months, perhaps even dumping our linux mail/file servers.
Well thats just our real reason for sticking with MS at this stage. I hope that in the future our company will be operating exclusivly on linux. But this really seems to depends on weather the community embraces 3rd party developers or scares them away because they, heaven forbid, are trying to make money.
Boy, mods must be smoking some good stuff today. For those who don't speak troll, I'll try to translate a bit.
I don't use Linux because it's an unneccessary pain in the ass to do things with it. I use Win2K Pro. However, all the software running the server components are Open Source (Apache, GuildFTPd) or just well respected freeware like Mercury Mail.
I'm a clueless noob who maybe installed Mandrake once but when I realized that I might actually have to have a clue on how computers really work I went back to windows. Windows is so pretty.
Using Apache just demonstrates what a great product Apache is. It has nothing to do with Linux. I'm not going to abandon the simplicity and stability of Win2K just because Apache can faithfully serve up HTTP requests.
Win2K is ereet. I'm ereet for knowing it. Unless you know how to, cough, admin Win2k your a loozer.
Nobody is debating that IIS is feature bloated hacker friendly piece of garbage. But that has nothing to do with Windows.
I show my total ignorance again because Windows and IIS come from the same company, IIS can't be run on anything *but* Windows, and not to mention if say a court that convited MS for being a monopoly tried to make them seperate them they would manufactor evidence to say that the two products are so "tied in" that they can't be seperated.
I have better things to do with my time (like actually building up the web-site) than dicking around with an OS.
Ahhh, the truth comes out. I'm really just a webmonkey. The scary things that computers do make me cry so I would much perfer to tinker with my nice little web page.
The high quality of one open source product has zero to do with the quality of another.
And of course the high quality, cough cough!, of MS producs have nothing to do with the oh so high quality of other MS products. Oh, and Windows is cool. So is IIS and Outlook. And don't you forget it!
Wow, that was harsh even for me. Ah well, I'm bored and that was so begging for it.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
In order for you to be able to draw useful conclusions about the impact on Linux server use, you'd need to know, at least:
Percentage of Linux server users switching to Windows Server 2003
Percentage of Windows Server 2003 users switching to Linux
Percentage of other server users (or new server users) adopting Linux
Percentage of other server users (or new server users) adopting Windows 2003
One number to watch is the comparison of those who drop Linux for Windows versus those who drop Windows for Linux. Anecdotally at least, the latter is by far the bigger group. Anyway, it would be misleading to show those who dropped the new release of Windows Server for Linux, since there hasn't been time for recent WS2003 adopters to have gained enough hands-on experience to decide not to use it, or to have planned and budgeted a cutover. For a meaningful comparison, it would be necessary either to show recruitment/defection statistics for all Windows server releases together relative to Linux, or to segregate Linux servers by (say) kernel dot release (2.2. 2.4, 2.6).
Even then, you're measuring deltas, so you wouldn't have a good handle on overall market size or relative market share. I think that those numbers might be of greater interest. They'd have to be measured in some other way.
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
CmdrTaco obviously wanted a lot of Linux fanboy trolls to post, flaming Microsoft. Look at his tongue-in-cheek remarks, particularly the "we're-just-a-flash-in-the-pan-dept." subtitle.
However, it backfired and people are seriously discussing it.
The real reason to be taking this seriously is because conversions like this can easily gain momentum. Windows Server 2003 is a GREAT operating system. I'm sure many of you haven't even tried it, but I have and it is the best Windows product Microsoft has ever put out. With the widespread popularity of Windows elsewhere (i.e., the workstations and corporate networks), now that they have a sane server OS to run them, this could be the beginning of a trend. I wouldn't be surprised if word-of-mouth causes even more conversions to Windows, and it continues to grow.
"Sufferin' succotash."
No...five new Windows 2003 Servers, one of which used to run GNU/Linux!
"Sufferin' succotash."
Microsoft's Ad campaign: "We saved a nickel!" make people think they can save 5% with an XML transaction system on Windows Server 2003.
Result: Steve Ballmer shakes the foundation of Microsoft's headquarters, jumping and screaming through the halls, yelling "We gained a nickel!"
Microsoft scouting report: Latest word has it that Microsoft is going to release Windows ME Server on 2/2/2004. Looks like linux is on its way out now!
RackShack/EV1Servers recently started offering Windows 2003 servers in addition to their RedHat servers. $10 cheaper for some reason, too. :/
Cuz I can't imagine him posting this obvious bit of trollbait. Neil Stephenson should be more (in)famous for a paper he did called "In the Beginning was the Command Line", which does a better job of explaining the social factors driving the contemporary O/S "Religious Wars" than anything else I have ever seen. Go read it and and come back with a clear head. As for "jumping ship", well, I think I mentioned trollbait...
Death Dances Only With The Living
I agree with the initial statement that Apache itself doesn't always indicate Linux. However, I'm rather curious as to how many Apache installations are running on Windows servers. It is certainly possible. But I would suspect the combination is rather rare.
Apache installations are just, if not more, likely to indicate some Unix style environment. In public facing server farms, that tends to mean Linux, BSD, or Solaris.
Like Windows, an apache server could mean other Unixes also. Heck - I maintain an apache server on a legacy DEC Alpha platform. But its not public-facing and I would have to believe rather uncommon.
Now - as to the ease of use of Linux... to each their own. If Win2K is your comfort level, great. I personally find Linux very easy to use. In fact, I tend to have more trouble getting things done with Windows - but that has more to do with my experience with one platform over the other. Except for those instances where Windows just can't do what I need it to do (without seeking 3rd party software at least).
Linux has only failed if Linus measures success through sales, overall market, or other commericial meters. The fact that he doesn't own his own Linux company supports my hypothesis, that commercial success is not a goal of Linus's. If his desire was to build an operating system, and to learn how modern ones work, then there is no question that he has overwhelmingly succeeded.
/. has outgrown its heritage), on so small a budget says something. There are other Operating Systems out there, many Open Source, many not. But we're not talking today about them. And why not? Because linux matters in some way that these others do not, despite the failure (perhaps failure is an inappropriate word here) of the market to adapt Linux. Clearly commercial success is not all that matters.
That the operating system has become a concern for the monopolists, deployed in markets worldwide, and has a community capable of taking down arbitrary web servers (although one might argue that
Even if Linux has failed as a competitor to MSOS, its existance has put the market on alert, and rexamined its own focus. This in part drives MS to examine and secure the software it buys and then resells to the world. In the meantime, Linux has not died, nor has BSD, nor QNX. They have not failed yet. But they're all in ill health.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Dawn of the Dead
is the mentality that has driven microsoft so well for the past decade.. wow... 5% and people are freaking out..
how accurate is this survey anyways? was it funded by microsoft by any chance?
seriously, if humans had that attitude every time they saw some thorn bushes in their way, way back when humans started migrating to new lands, we'd all still be stuck in africa.
I wrote a short C program that generates random domain name queries for netcraft and wgets them.
Why C? Because I don't have Perl or Python installed.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Instead of being bad news, I think those stats speak volumes about how good Linux really is. That means a bunch of those Wintel techs discovered Linux is really pretty good. 5% could also be the SCO effect, giving the gutless CIO's and convenient excuse to justify the expense of 2003 servers. Again, a surprise only because the number is so low. I don't know what some of you are chomping at the bit about anyway. Look at the stock market: It's not the occasional up or down tick you're concerned about, it's the average over time. And over time Linux is going to stomp all over everything else, not just Windows. There are going to be a lot of proprietary casualties burning in the ditch of the Operating System Highway in the future.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Wow, not only do we have trollers in the comments section, one actually got to post an article on the front page.
"Maybe we should all start to think about jumping ship?" That reminds me of a alternative power generation suggestion in The Dilbert Future. Basically it involves setting up some small windmills at a Mac user's group, then suggesting they all switch to Windows PCs.
Perhaps the editor has re-routed the line going to the Slashdot's hosting service, so the incoming packets are rerouted through the coils of a large electrical motor.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
There are lies, damn lies, and then statistics.
I don't know about anyone else, but the box I usually use for testing a new OS from any vendor or distro often sits for months on my internal net until I get around to trying something else. I sure wouldn't be buying new hardware to test a beta release!
Given the market for server-class OS is pretty small compared to the desktop, 5% of those boxes being test systems is not unreasonable. Betcha those same boxes have run different flavours of Win32, Linux, OS/2, etc, depending on what was available while they've existed.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Diese Unterschrift ist durch German Kopie-kontrolliert. Ubersetzung zu Englisch ist eine DMCA-Verletzung.
Your implementation of the German Signature Encoding (GSE) is broken. It should read:
Diese Unterschrift ist durch das deutsche Urheberrecht geschuetzt. Die Uebersetzung ins Englische verstoesst gegen den DMCA.
"maybe we should all start to think about jumping ship"
Why? Are ya'll cowards? Why not just increase the intensity and try to make it better? MS didn't jump ship becasue because a small OSS crowsd started to tread their territory. I hope such remarks doesn't sum up the community.
Give up and Linux has not chance. Band together even tighter and up the intensity and it has a great chance. Try to be a leader, not a follower, the results will be better.
Thanks,
Leabre
of soon not being.
"that need patched"
You wouldn't happen to be from a rural, or at least still somewhat countrified, part of the south-eastern US would you? I've heard this sort of abomination uttered more times than I can count in the last couple of years.
"that need >> TO BE patched"
Shakespeare is lucky he's dead.
>when IIS makes it very, VERY easy to administer > a server. Why do you think IIS is popular?!
It's kind of funny you should mention that.
Because according to netcraft statistics,
IIS WAS NEVER POPULAR! IIS never had
a majority of servers out there, and in fact
it's share of the web servers has been
dropping while apache has continued to climb.
judging by the sarcasm.
Switching to Linux is Hard(TM)....
It's kind of difficult to explain why, but it has something to do with the documentation being difficult to use.
There is plenty of Linux documentation, man pages, HowTos, and all kinds of other stuff in newsgroups/forum postings.
But often times, it is very difficult to find a simple, step-by-step instruction list to accomplish a task that I know LOTS of other people have done.
For example-----I do not know how to make my own initrd. I run Suse 8.2, and wanted to test the 2.6.0-test5 kernel. Couldn't get it installed properly. I was running Grub, and the make install script was not configuring Grub correctly. For some reason, the mkinitrd script was not producing the right file either (quite possibly I was not using it correctly).
All sorts of little issues like this, that thousands of you power users out there have been able to do correctly, I have not be able to get around, since the documentation is often indicipherable.
Maybe I'm an idiot, but I spent hours, and hours, looking through man pages and searching on google. I didn't bother posting to a newsgroup, instead, I gave up, and started using Lilo.
2.6 couldn't find my root filesystem. Don't know why (probably mis-configured my initrd). Don't care. 6 hours invested? Better off reverting to 2.4.
I have similar problems---My fonts in mozilla are not anti-aliased properly, and I can't figure out why. I've configured it the same exact way as I did in Mandrake, but the fonts are butt ugly.
All sorts of other minor, nagging issues too. I won't go into them now, but it pisses me off the way forum posts will refer to man pages which refer to man pages which refer to 'common' knowledge, which I'll have to google for, and which won't apply to my distribution.
Perhaps, what needs to happen is more and better contextual help. Maybe an interactive --help switch in most programs? Or just redesigning man pages---This is a project that I would definitely love to participate in, but I just don't have the knowledge---If other people were willing to contribute suggestions, I would love to help organize an 'alternative' comprehensive man page set.
Not that I'm going to switch to Windows anytime soon---I only use Windows 2000 for eve-online, 'cause WineX doesn't support directx 9 yet, and i'm an addict (savage battle for newerth is native linux, though).
I just will have to keep fighting the nagging issues (easier than fighting the giagantic issues that Windows has (more sort of inconsistency and instability problems))
Cheers,
WhiteWolf
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
>Being a (relatively) long time Linux user,...
I've been a Linux user since Spring, 1997 and
Billy Free since 1999. I've gone through
Slackware 96, Redhat 5.0,5.2,6.0,6.2,
Mandrake 7.0,7.2,8.0-8.2,9.0-9.1
Currently my box has 3 distros:
Mandrake 9.1+cooker
RedHat 9 + apt-get + yum
FrankenDebian (Knoppix v. 3.3 + apt-get )
I'm a very satisfied Linux user.
>Every time something new and grand happens with
>the Linux kernel, all the Zealots come flying
>out of the woodwork to praise how mighty and
>wonderful Linux is. Funny how that when Windows
>or Mac OS brought in that same feature 4 or 5
>years ago that all those same people laughed
>about how dumb and needless it was. The
>hypocracy with you Linux Zealots is truly
>pathetic.
Could you please give an example of a Linux kernel feature appropriated from
either Windows or Mac OS in the last 5 years?
Honestly, I can't recall a single example.
I do know that Windows "file explorer" looks
an awful lot like nautilus. And the screenshots
of their next office looks an awful lot like
Open Office + ximian theme.
As for MacOS X: It's BSD based and the Linux
and BSD communities have a documented history of borrowing
the best ideas from each other. (Look at the
copyright notices on the various packages installed on your Linux box for example in the
man pages of apps.)
-- Johnny.
P.s. Are you SURE you're a long
time Linux user? You don't seem to fit
the profile of a long time Linux user:
Someone very familiar with his OS,
both the good and not yet good features,
someone very happy with the ability to
customize their OS environment to suit
their tastes.
Maybe you're a Windows user who occasionally
uses a Linux partition for a few minutes
once in a while?
P.p.s. What high horse are you referring to?
it's not at all about "why did they switch from Linux to MS?" they don't even know why. the upper management in these corporations that decide to go with MS do so that they can play golf with Bill or Steve, or for some other idiotic reason like that. upper management is totally fucking clueless.
Of course these are marketing numbers from a marketing report, so I find it ironic that Windows Server is on the increase with such an awful marketing message.
"Do More With Less"
Since the competeition is free, the slogan can't be talking about price so what does the "less" apply to? Quality is the only thing that comes to my mind. In other words, MS is saying "Hey, our product really IS inferior, but you should make more use of it."
They certainly won't be nailed for false advertising, but I find it hard to believe anyone who sees this ad would buy the software at all.
SSH supports X tunneling - so you already have remote desktop capability and have had for some time. X itself allows remote administration, ssh adds the encrytpion and security.
- The version you're running is more than five weeks old! Upgrade!
- You wouldn't have this problem if you were doing everything exactly like I do it.
- It's open source. Get hacking!
All perfectly valid, yet equivalent to "Go away".*look of utter horror!*
Next we'll be seeing MP3s distributed on RIAA servers or something...
This doesn't look good for Linux, in my opinion. Maybe we should all start to think about jumping ship?"
It's fud like this, and the SCO fud, that ensures that further fud will again be tried.
I'm quite sure those 5% can be explained by the SCO "event" and it's ties to Microsoft.
I'm sure Mr. Ballmer is very happy at you right now
I'm using WinXP Pro but get all the Linux I want by using Virtual PC. This is *the* solution.
I get all my games and don't have to worry about hardware (though I am Linux-conscious when buying new stuff) and whenever I want I have my Linux desktop only a mouse click away.
With a fast CPU, the performance is excellent. Moreover, when I screw things up it's easy to fix, I simply discard the changes to the session. This encourages experimentation, which is really most of the fun in using Linux I think.
My next step is going to be adopting Linux as my main system (probably SuSE) and using VMWare for my Windows needs, and this might be as soon as my next box. Games are really the linchpin here. XP is very nice in that I no longer have to keep booting into different partitions to do the stuff I want. With 1.5G of RAM I can have all kinds of development shit open, decide I need a break, and launch Unreal Tournament 2003 with no fuss, play my heart out, and then immediately resume where I left off, regardless of whether I was working on Linux or Windows stuff.
I can't recommend this solution enough.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
I guess they pulled them out of there ass to make microsoft feel better.. I'm pretty damn positive more users convert to linux from windows daily then linux users convert to windows. It's the people buying computers with windows pre-installed that make these statistics.. otherwise I'm sure it would be OS X vs Linux. =)
I know I'm jumping ship. But since we run a bit behind the times, my IT department ship jumping is Win to Linux.
We'll watch this new trend closely, and perhaps several years from now, we'll jump back after all you early adopters of the unstable versions of MS operating systems have finished working out the bugs.
Thanks for your bravery.
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
Companies who bring their functions in house with a new system have to have been on *something* before. Most would have been on a virtual/shared hosting facility, which are dominated by Linux. So if only 8% were new company web server installations, it would seem to make sense that 5% "switched" from Linux.
They are NOT talking about the number of servers that have switched over, they are talking about the number of WEB SITES that are being hosted on a Windows 2003 server. A single server could hold hundreds if not thousands of sites. One company myhosting.com has 32,000 sites. If they are running small business and personal websites that could be run on a few large Windows 2003 servers. NO BIG DEAL.
When they start talking about the number of LARGE CORPORATE E-COMMERCE websites that switch off a *nix server please get back to me...
Just a "Ghost {tm of symantec} in the Machine", is all.
Move along.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
On both Netcraft and /. the news is presented as a loss for Linux. Anyone with any statistics knowledge and most without will recognize that the absolute numbers are insignificant, plain and simple.
Poor journalism that should never have made it's way to Slashdot.
That the 'News' is 4 weeks old (or 8 if you count the first time Netcraft ran it) adds insult to injury - this thing is not newsworthy - it's not even news at all.
I'm in a Unix state of mind.
but I would have thought that you could have added something to the debate since you are the target audience for such an "Ask Slashdot" question.
For myself. Before I was recently retrenched, at work I worked on a Win2K box, with X sessions to a Redhat server and a Linux test machine. The Win2K was because the mail network used Lotus Notes, marrying Linux and the Notes stuff just didn't work. I would guess for many people it is the groupware that keeps them on Windows, I would once have also said Office but I find that OOo is now pretty good ... well good enough for developers.
At home I have a box running a Win2K partition and a RH9 partition. I use Win2K for games (mostly BF42) and one other closed software proggy that I occasionally use to fit in with other people. On the desktop for me Win2K is a secondary system.
Bitter and proud of it.
The long term trends you can see from the Netcraft September 2003 Web Server Survey tell a totally different story from the article they have on their front page. Apache which is mostly (or though not always) run on free operating systems is at an all-time high. By comparison Microsoft is at a two year low.
I would suggest that this is the reason for the article. To try and distract attention from IIS's dwindling market share. How one particular software release is doing is irrelevant to the big picture (especially when it only has 0.4 percent market share anyway). Most of this growth for Windows Server 2003 is present Windows customers upgrading or buying new machines and if the latest version of their software wasn't growing in market share they really would be screwed. You don't see articles about how the latest version of Apache is growing compared to older versions do you.
While 5% of the servers that are now Win2003 may have been Linux, how does that number compare to the number of NEW linux servers on the net?
There's vast grown in the number of Linux servers on the net.
So maybe 100:1 new Linux servers compared to Linux servers that migrated to Win2003.
Duh.
This is the same skewed presentation of facts as the annual "most stolen car" news we see periodically.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
The newness of win2k3 server will wear. The TCO debate will continue. It is quite evident that MS cannot keep up with Linux (security, stability) on the server side. But MS will ALWAYS be more popular for the home user.
OSDN to CmdrTaco: You need more hits -- you're getting further into the red than ever before! Your zero-profit bandwidth hungry behemoth can not contiune at this pace forever!
CmdrTaco to OSDN: Roger that, OSDN, we'll put up a flamebait troll article that will get all our linux geeks knickers in a knot! Then they will all get OS-patriotic and click our Linux banners. Imagine the $ that will roll in!
OSDN to CmdrTaco: Excellent plan! Set the wheels in motion!
I think few people would disagree with what he's saying, though I don't have mod points.
May we never see th
This doesn't look good for Linux, in my opinion. Maybe we should all start to think about jumping ship?
/. and start coding. That's the only way things are going to move faster towards what we all want. Open Source is already exploding in popularity worldwide. The sooner we can move that growth to the US, the sooner we won't even have to think of M$ any more. Get to it!
This is just plain poor journalism. Take a hike CmdrTaco. You're not doing anybody a favor by posting lies and FUD. (or, then again.. Slashdot DOES run a lot of M$ ads these days, doesn't it.. maybe I should take my readership elsewhere, eh?)
Seriously. Why would he post a totally unfounded comment suggesting that geeks "jump ship" from Linux? Folks, write this stuff off as BS and go out there and make a difference. Stop reading
I guess SCO was right after all.
... face it .. Linux is dying.
Linux is dying.
they get tagged with serveral Win2003 viruses.
If that doesn't do it they'll sober up when they realize the total extra cost of re-buying Office and all the other software they used on XP or W2K or Win9X but won't run on Win2003. Oh, and the new client side licenses for their existing WinXXX. They'll especially love those naggling little DRM micropayments that suddenly appear in their mail box each month. Bill said he was movng toward the subscription model. He meant it.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Now I will admit that I still have 2 Linux boxes I host client's web sites on, but most of my boxes now either run FreeBSD or OpenBSD and I have an iBook as my main computer.
Why? It's been my humble opinion that Linux has been a bit of a bastard child. Is it a desktop OS, or a server OS? Its flexablity is its greatest strength and its achellies heel at the same time. With no standards between distros on simple things, like the path to PERL, can cause headaches for software developers. I once work on a project where we had to code three different versions of an app, one for RH, another for Mandrake, and one for Debian. After that expirance, I got fed up with the Linux Platform about the same time as Mac OS X.1 came out.
FreeBSD was/is designed as a server OS first, and if you want to toy with it, it can also make an effective workstation. However this is where Mac OS comes into play: There are companies that are publishing commercial software for the platform. So I can interface wtih 90% of the web design/graphics world that use Photoshop, dreamweaver, QuarkXpress, and other such programs where as due to the pain in the ass Linux is to port across distros, commerical companies WON'T port their products. I will even admit to having MS Office, and I actully LIKE it on mac. It works wonderfully.
While the OSS community has developed some kick ass apps, like the ERP module OSSuite (NOLA I think is the sourceforge project) is what I use to keep track of our business's accounting needs including payroll, W-2's, inventory, etc., there is still a vast void of software needs outthere. GIMP is certianly not a photoshop killer. Back in the days of PS 4 and 5, GIMP looked like it was on the track to possible create a much better product, but as now it seems as though GIMP has made very few improvements over the last two years and it still takes a lot more time and effort to get the same results as Photoshop. Photoshop 7 now blows GIMP away in my book.
The two Linux servers I have still are Sun Cobalt Raq servers and I still use them because of the ease of maintance, but all my ecommerce sites are on FreeBSD machines and I have had very little problems with these boxes. Hell two are still running FreeBSD 3.4 and had uptimes of like 250 days until I patched OpenSSH and several other updates two weeks ago.
RH and SuSE are getting closer to getting Linux from Geekdom to mainstream as SuSE is large in Europe. I used it when I studied over there for semester as the school had a windows lab and a linux lab, but that is mainly a result of GUI installers and KDE & GNOME.
At our new business, I have FreeBSD on both of the terminals (we inheirted two PIII 700 Dells & 3 PIII 550 Gateway's when we bought the business) and instead of paying $2500 for four new computers, I slaped FreeBSD 5 with KDE on there, install mozilla and linked them to the office server which is configured as a local webserver with no outside pipeline and we use OsCommerce as our POS system.
Now this article is a bit trollish about jumping ship. I stats and as Mark Twain wrote, "Lies, Damn Lies, and Stats". Approach with caution. OSS software is starting to get looked at, I work as a independant tech consultant, and Linux gets the press thanks to RH and SuSE providing what Linux needs to get into main stream: commericalization. There is a number you can call for support, if you need it.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Why aren't I switching to Linux? Perhaps because it's virtually unusable.
I am like many people, I don't want to have to learn (too) much to use my computer. I certainly don't want to have to fight with my computer.
Confusing interfaces, appalling (or nonexistant) help, lack of constistancy and lack of (real, not confusing) support are some of the reasons that I don't switch.
Linux is not about mainstream acceptance, it's about geek pride - which is why, in it's current form it will never go anywhere other than servers and geek machines.
The difference between you and the parent poster? Let me guess - number of servers. When the servers are few and physically accessible, Windows is probably a shorter path to the finish line than learning Linux intricacies. Those check-box admins are annoying, but for a lot of basic, unambitious stuff they get the job done.
/. has been shoving Linux down my throat since the first day I found this site, and now you suggest everyone jump ship?!? How dare you sir!
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
I have customers that are using providers for hosting their web site (on Linux) and have been approached by the providers that the Linux servers are old (2.2.X kernels) as such they would like to bring them up to date--MS is giving software away to these providers providing they can convert to Windows--funny many of my customers I have talked to about security and cost and they told the provider either no way or switch to Windows and they leave for another provider. Windows just is not worth the cost to security)
So does PHP, MySQL, Perl, OpenSSL, mod_perl, Apache::ASP, etc...
Check out http://www.devside.net
*I* am in business. I balance what the customer wants against security against their budget against their needs. I can usually talk someone out of using old ass redhat/plesk and switching to either my homegrown FreeBSD/webmin solution that is easy as hell to keep secure or my Gentoo/webmin solution that is easy as hell to keep secure. I offer them a support contract and I keep the machines up to date and patched for a tiny fee monthly. Some customers are SICK of linux/apache because they aren't smart enough to know how to update it, and have no desire to pay someone to do it. They just want it gone. They DEMAND a Microsoft solution because it's what they got rid of in the first place and they miss it. That's when I bring up Windows 2003 Server Web Edition and I mention it's 400 bucks with unlimited license. I bring up the fact that if they are a commercial webhosting provider, they will not be able to get nearly as many customers per machine as they used too. But most of the people in this category aren't. They usually have a single T, and someone thought it would be a great idea to run their own website off of it. Sometimes it's a consortium of business people that are all owned by the same parent company that need something to server about 200 unique domains. Once again, if it simply MUST be Microsoft, it fits the bill nicely here also. I'm sorry, but the price is decent, the product isn't that bad (probably because it's the most UNIXlike Windows to date) and the performance, while still nowhere near *NIXville, isn't too bad either if you take the time to tune it and pick your hardware carefully. The most important thing from my perspective is I offer NO SUPPORT for it so once I set it up I don't have to care anymore. Seriously though. If it simpley HAS to be Microsoft, and it almost never does, you can't beat the licensing and pricing with this particular edition.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
Linux has achieved tremendous actual results already. Your complaint is that these actual results are not the actual results you're looking for.
Well, I'm sorry, but Linux can't be everything to everybody at all times. I use Linux as my primary desktop and server OS, but unlike you I am not under any delusions that Linux will ever stop being a hobby OS. It is largely written by hobbyists, after all.
This so-called hobby OS of yours still beats windows hands down in areas like multiple virtual desktop support and basic features like including a C compiler. Even the third party virtual desktop managers available for windows (e.g. nvidia deskview, winxp powertoys) have much poorer performance than GNOME and KDE because of the limitations of the windows frame manager API.
That attitude right there is problem #1. I don't care if it's a volunteer effort, and neither do most users.
Frankly, I don't care about your attitude either. Volunteers write software for themselves. They don't write for other people. Let's suppose hypothetically for a moment that the volunteer community were to drop all of their work and concentrate on satisfying your expectations. What tangible benefit would that bring the volunteer community? Answer: nothing. In all likelihood the result would be worse than what we have now, because the motivation is just not there when you're scratching someone else's itch instead of your own.
We just care about what's sitting in front of us on our screen, the net output.
That, my friend, is exactly why volunteers write for their own sake instead of your sake. We're just as selfish as you. We want software that fits our needs, not your needs.
You may try to argue with me on the grounds that Linux somehow "needs" non-developer users like you in order to obtain a sustainable userbase, but what you don't understand is that Linux is not like other commercial operating systems. Because Linux is so volunteer driven, it does not need a large userbase or commercial support in order to thrive in its niche role. The fact that a broader audience might find Linux useful is certainly a nice bonus, but it is not so essential to platform survival that we should sacrifice the core hobbyist nature of Linux to attain it.
The leaders of Linux go after the desktop space (whimsically and ridiculously) and ignore the requirements of a server:
Stable, well documented, conservative and performance that is relatively unchanging and characterizable.
Linux has no "LSB." LSB is a crock of shit. Its a random fucking c library, a random compiler, a random half assed rendition of a userland, which is half ass BSD and half ass SYSV, a random fucking compiler, random CPU optimizations, and a random kernel with random changes made to the scheduler so some pimple faced X-using fuckhead doesn't get the mouse jitters when he compiles the latest kernel.
So you pieces of shit go ahead, ignore superior things like FreeBSD. Ignore operating systems with conservatism, like Solaris, because its too old and cramps your style. Never mind it works on machines with 106 processors. Not important. It has to boot on a Dreamcast or a Japanese talking toy dog. I'll bet the mouse doesn't jitter in X either.
It's pigfucking idiots like yourself that makes Linux suck. You cant admit what it is good for and what it isn't.
Get busy, RedHat clone fuckers. Fuckers. You idiots fuckers. Coherent businesses with a unified strategy will fuck your asses. Your loosely knitted shitty framework of unwashed undisciplined poor assholes produces crap that is EXACTLY the quality of a bunch of loosely knitted shitty framework of unwashed undisciplined poor assholes would produce.
Fuckers, you SUCK COCK.
you know, you told a total bullshit story, and your details only reveal what a god damn fucking idiot you are.
you dont even deserve to touch fucking computers because you dont do one god damn useful fucking thing with them.
and you know im right, you are dead weight, a boat anchor, a techno stow-away. flotsam, jetsam, detritus. a stain. a veritable STAIN on this world, and the venue by which you are smearing yourself is your keyboard.
keep smearing the net with your feculent slime through your fake, halfassed bullshit rendition of "unix" redhat fucking 9 is a god damn joke, and if you cant tell that, you're a fucking moron.
and redhat is a bunch of loser fuckers for deprecated 7.x and making users pay for server style versions of redhat. now its a puke desktop OS that sucks big donkey nuts.
FUCK YOU for sucking!
Honestly people, Linux would have to have a pretty tiny share for *new additions* of a *new OS version* to take away ! 5% ! of Linux's market.
In Soviet Russia... ship jumps you!! *ducks*
"Why are you watching the washing machine?"
"I love entertainment, as long as it's clean"
Hello.
My cat has dandruff.
Over at some dedicated server providers I see that linux servers with the same hardware as windows server cost more then the windows version. I just sat there wondering how the hell can windows software be cheaper then free software.
Note that these servers are unmanaged so the provider has no personnel costs related to that at all.
Hmmm... Pie...
...shipments of crack are reported to be up across the continental US...
My FUD and bribary is working.
Oh wait we run on linux
"In some ways (RDC especially) they are better than anything Linux has"
Umm... With RDC being the RDP client, which is basically the same as VNC that uses RFB, which can easily be used over SSH and if you choose so with x0rfb, then the only way how RDC can be better than what is available on Linux is that it does not support Linux.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
I agree with all the posters who say that, basically, the linux desktop leaves something to be desired compared to the windows desktop:
... ctrl-alt-backspace can freeze the whole system when you are in a login screen... don't even talk about the CD player ... or the desktop apps that segfault all the time ...
-looks like a desktop, but not seamless
-too many apps
-did you know? a linux server may be stable... its not so hard to crash a linux desktop and desktop apps!
-thanks everyone for the linux software Im using to write this
In my view, Linux is the only potential competition MS has, and thus the only thing really keeping them honest. If the work on other OS's falters, MS can just get even more evil, and then where will we all be?
I don'nt know if this is the right place to be posting this, but I'm here. I am using XP right now and want to use linux instead. From what I saw, Mandrake and Red Hat both cost money. I am going to try BSD, but I was wondering which company you use, and do you know any free ones?
Regards
So my Datacenter has started offering Windows 2003 dedicated server for application / web hosting. This scares the hell out of me.
/. community feels about it.
Why? Because my datacenter may now sucome to the many many insecurities associated with windows.
This is a problem that has been discussed on many dedicated hosting forums. Here's my stand.
I don't want servers that are prone to security / infection issues adminstered by people who need a point and click interface because they don't read manuals and will most likely not administer their boxes properly destroying the network that is currently in place.
Datacenter's normally do not offer hardware firewalls thus an attack like msblast will most likely completely infect almost every windows machine on this network slowing everything to a crawl.
This is an issue for the Whole Internet! Datacenters like this normal issue up to 65gb's of bandwidth. Imagine 500 machines on this network attacking some point on the internet due to a worm/trojan/virus!
I'm looking for input, I'm not trying to say people should not use Windows 2003 servers. I am worried about the issues I have stated and wonder how the
Slashdot taught me how to use the preview button!
Have you quit using Linux yet?
- Yes
- No
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Apache is gaining, not losing market share. Apache can run on Windows, but it rarely does - the Windows license costs make it rather expensive, and often with no benefit. See Netcraft for more data.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Im gonna say that I run Redhat 9 on my Machine but i also am running windows 2003 Enterprise Edition on another for terminal services. Yes I hear everyone yelling but you can do that with linux. I know you can but when your running it for people who cant tell the diffrence between the monitor and the Tower its better to use something that they may have seen before (Public Access System In A library). From my current expirience 2003 is no more stable or secure then any other version of window$
Wierra
Not having to wonder why the heart of the business finances is constantly bringing up a dialog saying it's going to reboot?
This shows just how much impact the SCO fiasco is having. Whether Microsoft is involved or not, this obviously is working to their advantage. The longer SCO can convince people that they really have something, the worse this will get.
From the following statement:
I can conclude that the following is true:
1) The person is a follower, not a leader.
2) The person has huge self esteem issues.
3) the person is overly concerned with being with the in crowd.
4) the person should jump ship, because they probably cannot think for themselves and I don't want them on any boat I may be on, or floating next to, or in the same ocean with. I have enough superficial people in my life as is.
What is wrong with this guy? Is he so lost in sea of his own drool that he cannot fathom using software that isn't the biggest, best, and latest thing to hit the hype factory? Good god man, use the software that you like, and let other people use what they want to use. Don't let software demographics run your network/IT department/home computer!
My karma can take this, KILL ME MODS!!!!
--Nuintari
slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.
This has been the basic story/problem for linux and other operating systems from day one. This is absolutely nothing new--more software is written for windows. We even rightly make the claim that "our software is better written" but it really doesn't matter. Just like you said: people want to use the software which makes things easiet for them not only on the physical level of using the computer, but on social and business levels which require compatibility.
Open Office is only NOW making some ground with this. I'm sorry, I dont' mean to insult anyone but the GNU and KDE office packages really didn't cut it--they were always behind especially on their file conversions. And how long has Linux been around? You can't expect the common user to write documents with TeX. And for those of you who remember the days of Red Hat 5.2 or before, who was using Linux to write documents? I didn't know anyone.
The way I see it, people need to be developing more for Linux and not just in the gaming department. I think gaming should come last, actually because the return on the amount of work required is so low. Right now, I think Linux needs to concentrate on multimedia: movie file playback, codecs, mp3 players, DVD players, good sound card drivers. And all of this needs to be done WELL: interfaces should be easy to use, clean, attractive, the files played must not skip or be slow, or be difficult to see.
ok I'm done.
"he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
I use Linux becauase I'm lazy. Gentoo because it's so easy to maintain and keep up to date. If you pick Mandrake, installing is easier and quicker than Windows. You don't need to buy a new hard drive, just resize your Windows partition so you have some space and stick in the Mandrake CD. It will automatically turn your maching into a dual-boot machine, so you can choose your OS at start-up. Install Kopete (or similar) and you can connect to MSN messenger (and ICQ etc) instantly. My guess is that you haven't used Linux for a long time.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
This is stupid. No statistic can be interpreted meaningfully without CONTEXT. So, how many Windows servers switched to Linux? Use of the word 'Doubled' is meaningless if it started out as just one person. No context, no meaning. Taco, that is some pretty inflammatory wording you used... Not respectable.
- In a knowledge based industry your main asset will always be people -
I installed the trial just to try some stuff such as .NET. When it expires, I won't buy it. It's simply a desktop for me.
I'm willing to bet that 90% of those who switched from Windows to Linux and back were small time web hosting providers who tried RedHat.
These people are just about the farthest thing from educated computer professionals that exists. These are the people who saw the "make money now-- be a web designer!" ads on late night TV four or five years ago, bought a T1 and a copy of FrontPage and went to work making crappy, overpriced webpages for every uninformed mom-and-pop business in every town in the US. Nevermind the dot com bust; small businesses trail behind the large corporations and follow every trend, even the ones that didn't work out (Windows, e-commerce, etc..) Small businesses wanted webpages. These people provided them.
Since then, these small time providers might have learned a few things about computers and networks. They probably are fed up with patching their W2K or NT server or being hit with worms from leaving their SQL server open to the public net. They see sites like CNET talking about Linux and notice that just about every decent web provider runs Apache, almost always on some sort of Unix.
They think: I'll broaden my horizons. I'll cut costs. I'll eliminate tedious, repetitive work. I'll do it all with my $49.95 copy of RedHat Linux. Best of all, I'll do it myself and save even more money. These are the people who expect industrial-strength software with an idiot-proof interface at a home user price. They don't realize the absurdity of that request because that's what Microsoft has been telling them they're getting all these years.
The fact is that Linux will never appeal to this audience. This audience does not fit into the Open Source model. It doesn't really fit into any software model because it's nigh impossible to appease this type of user.
In the Open Source world, you are one of two things: a power user or a luser. If you are a luser, you get an idiot-proof interface and just enough features to use Linux as a tool for a few specific purposes. You can't mess anything up because you don't have access to anything that you could break. When you need help, you ask a power user and they can fix or provide whatever you need. You might have to actually pay the power user, though, because they don't grow on trees. You don't mind, though, because you have feature-filled, secure software that runs reliably.
If you are a power user, you get everything you could possibly want and more; but you have to work for it. You have to work to learn how to use it. You have to work to learn how to change it to fit your needs. With a little learning, though, there is no limit to what you can achieve with free software.
The only difference between the luser and the power user is the box. There is a box that surrounds the luser and separates him from the power user. It isn't an artificial box, created and maintained by a profit-motivated closed-source corporation. It is a box that the luser creates and that only he can destroy. It is a box borne of the luser's own ignorance and maintained by his refusal to expend any effort to remove it. It is the magic check-box that does everything for the luser and he is completely dependent upon it.
This particular type of user, the 'professional' one-man web hosting provider slash web designer, is also dependent upon the box. He doesn't want to know what the computer does or how it does it. To him, the objective is to use the computer to make money without doing work. Check the box. Don't worry about the rest. Microsoft takes care of that part.
In reality, though, the box is an illusion. The box requires maintenance. Is patching work? Is rebooting work? Are expensive licenses work? Is re-installing programs and operating systems due to viruses work? Is installing a firewall work? Is learning the intricacies of administering your system work? Is paying a qualified Linux power user to configure or admin your system work?
Which requires less 'wo
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Try using Knoppix! Its a bootable CD with Linux, you can test all sorts of programs and see how they work for you without having to touch your Windows partition, it all gets loaded to RAM. There is an option to create a /home directory on your windows drive if you want to, so you can save configurations and not have to do it again every time you reboot.
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
I don't run GNU/linux because I'm lazy.
I love the politics and ideas behind the free software movement, but can be arsed to put my deeds where my heart lays.I enjoy not having to think what I do, that is why MS thinks for me.
Linux is at a disavantage becuse people act like herds. Or lemmings.Choice is intimidating. Give me back my fetal position inducing, womb-like user interface.
Another issue is that I am messy with controling my software and have not hear about Knoppix.
I am a Windows pirate, I am not a programmer, the Linux community should devote themselves to make Linux as niche as possible so neither your mom or the Man use the software.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Nope. I, of course, test rigorously in both environments. It is simply easier to test apache/mysql patches because there are far fewer patches TO TEST for apache/mysql/php than come out for our MS environment. Since I maintain both (MS at work, linux stuff at home,) I think I'm in a pretty good position to compare and contrast.
Not a hypocrite (note correct spelling,) simply guilty of not explaining the painfully obvious to somebody whose only "qualifications" would seem to be an MCSE and three months on the help desk. What's the matter, pissed that you can't ACTUALLY earn $60,000 with no experience and an MCSE?
But thanks for playing.
Who did what now?
[I know, the whole story is a troll in the best traditions of fishing for bottom feeders.]
I'm sure you can look at the entire group of users of any product, even products that might not have the greatest reputation around (eg, Yugo's, Corvairs, old Pinto's, etc.) and find that some small fraction of them that switched from other brands switched from brands with better reputations. Does it imply that a Yugo is a better car than a Mercedes?
It's all part of
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Given the current doubts regarding Microsoft OSs' resistance to viruses or security threats, I personally will not be quaking in my boots at the prospect of the world switching to Micro$oft from linux. If anybody does, then more fool them.
How about the fact that it's significantly more responsive than VNC over the same speed link? The RDP Protocol is simply much more efficient than the very basic RFB protocol.
RDP is a development of Citrix Meta/Winframe, not RFB (Which is a nice, but poor-performing protocol).
So RDC/RDP wins not because of support (I'd kill to have working RDP servers for OS X, Linux and *BSD) but because of clearly superior performance. The truth on this one hurts, but VNC's performance is quite bad, when compared to the competition.
"You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
Never popular?
...let's see...
IIS runs on 23.54% of the sites surveyed as of September 2003, which works out to about...
2,390,790 servers.
So there's almost 2.5 million servers out there indexed by Netcraft that are running IIS, and it's not popular?
You're fucking retarded!
evil adrian
"much more efficient than the very basic RFB protocol."
You're softening your own statements, because you probably know too about tightvnc (the exentions of which I believe are also supported in tridiavnc). Or maybe you don't know about it, since you seem to believe that RDP is better than RFB.
And we haven't even talked about NX yet.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
Normally I wouldn't respond to junk like this, but just to defend myself against the statement "you dont even deserve to touch fucking computers because you dont do one god damn useful fucking thing with them", I will.
First of all, I have contributed to a few open-source projects out there. I am one of the many people that have submitted patches that fix and add new features to X-Chat, for instance.
I have also had my code published in The Perl Journal and in this book.
What have you done?
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Admittedly tightvnc sucks less than basic VNC. It still doesn't match RDP for performance. It's also not as ubitquous as basic VNC (And that's VNC's win, the fact it runs on EVERYTHING)
"You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
Fuckin X-chat. hahahaha. good one, pal. sure you make patches for the oh so important destined to redefine all culture and save the human race program: X CHAT. nice metric.
oh, and having your read-only crap perl published. oh wow. what are you going to do next? show me a poetry book that you got a poem put in?
oh, the gravity of your work is so deep, i cant even fully comprehend it.
what a complete, and total, fucking retard.
Hahahaha.
You're actually PROUD of that. thats even BELOW a poetry contest. HAHAHAHHAA.
Shit im pissing myself. I'm smiling and keyboarding. hahahaha. This is classic. I'm saving this thread. this is great. You show me some complete fucking bullshit book you got a piece of shit read only "code" put into. RICH this s fucking rich!
I like how you "code" in perl. You really think you are the shizznoz. Classic. Mister Slackware Linux lover PERL CODER uber coolness. You know oh soo much I'm sure. I'm sure your so professorly and have underlings following your work.
You self deluded idiot running around telling Trolls on Slashdot your accomplisments, which are shitty and gay, to prove what a man you are to Slashdot. Smart.
Smart.
you dont even deserve to touch fucking computers because you dont do one god damn useful fucking thing with them. AND THATS THE GOD DAMN TRUTH.