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?"
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.
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.