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?"

Comments

Jump ship?

[Neophytus]

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.

Re:Jump ship?

[Fred IV]

Maybe we should all start to think about jumping ship?

Hmm... -1 Flamebait in the story summary?

Doh.

[Sesse]

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 */

Re:Doh.

[coolmacdude]

Exactly. Which means of those that switched to Server 2003 from something else, only a very small number decided to give up Linux. Not hard to guess why.

The heading should read "Only 5% of Windows Server 2003 users switched from Linux."

Re:Doh.

[kinnunen]

Also maybe someone should point out that Apache actually gained 0.54% relative market share in the past month, while Microsoft lost 0.21%. In fact, September 2003 looks like it was the Best month ever for Apache so far.

Re:Doh.

[Karamchand]

Certainly one can interpret - or at least phrase - it in many different ways. Some important questions:

• What about those 5%? What did they dislike about Linux, why did they switch (back?) to Windows? - We need to get in touch with folks who switched from Linux to Windows and ask them these questions.
• What about these other 95%? Why didn't they switch to Linux instead of switchting to the - probably much more expensive - Windows 2003? What features is Linux missing Windows 2003 can offer?

Re:Doh.

[Karl Cocknozzle]

Certainly one can interpret - or at least phrase - it in many different ways. Some important questions:

What about those 5%? What did they dislike about Linux, why did they switch (back?) to Windows? - We need to get in touch with folks who switched from Linux to Windows and ask them these questions.

In our case, we switched our Samba servers over to Windows 2000 about 18 months ago because a new CIO was installed, and he commanded from the ivory tower that we would be all Microsoft within one year from his start date. No, we aren't using 2003--yet. But it seems conceivable to me that other companies are in similar situations... Their linux machines run great, like toy cars on Christmas morning, but somebody somewhere in authority gets a pitch from an MS salesman, and the next thing you know, bye-bye Samba and Apache, hello IIS and Windows 2003 file servers. (Ugh!)

So in our case, it was an arbitrary decision by somebody higher up. We never had ANY problems with the Samba servers, but because he used to work at Microsoft (in Redmond, y'all!) it was done.

Or perhaps they decided they wanted to re-write their whole web-site in ASP.net. I know a job I applied for recently was mine until we started talking about their web-site, and I recommended they not go ASP but implement their new site in HTML/PHP on apache using a low-cost database like mysql or postgres. As a one-man band, I would prefer to spend my time patching the parts of apache/php/mysql that need patched, rather than having to test and verify the twice per afternoon stuff that has been out from MS lately.

Re:Doh.

[JayBlalock]

Well, Linux doesn't need to worry about *marketing* in the strict sense right now so much as making it more accessible to Average Users. Spend some time in tech support, that'll teach you a lot about how your average user thinks.

There are a LOT of geekisms that simply HAVE to be weeded out of Linux if it's going to be more widely popular. I know, every open-source programmer LOVES to give their project a cute acronym for a name. But they are often completely non-descriptive and even confusing for a user.

Imagine installing Linux for your mother or grandmother, and right there on the desktop is a big icon that says THE GIMP. ... Riiiiight.

Also, while choice is a good thing for geeks, a Linux install that dumps hundreds and hundreds of programs on the computer is just going to overwhelm a newbie. I think Linux installers should have two user modes selectable upon installation, Basic and Advanced. (with Basic having a big SELECT THIS IF YOU'RE NEW TO LINUX on it) Advanced does the usual 2-gig program dump we're all used to, with all the usual options about Gnome or KDE and all that. Basic goes through and pre-selects everything for the user. Arbitrarily picks a desktop, and then installs *1* example of each type of application with a clear, understandable name.

I know Linux people are highly resistant to the idea of forcing program choices on users, but your Average Joe just isn't up to coping with that much information being dumped on them at once. He wants one big button that says "Word Processor" he can click on.

But anyway, things like that. That's where, I think, Linux needs to focus now - getting away from the geekiness and being more accessible to normal users.

Re:Doh.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't run GNU/linux because I'm lazy.

I love the politics and ideas behind the free software movement, I think its an incredibly important issue. I've just been running my Win2000 system for 2 years, have got it set up pretty much exactly to my liking, have my neuro-system accostomed to accomplishing everything i want to accomplish without having to think about it. Know how to use all the applications I use without having to think about it. And really dont have any problems with instability (except trying to access a CD with a scratch on it, fucking I cant believe my CDRom can crash my computer)

My experiances with linux (I set up an old PII i had to be a router/nat box on my home network) proved to be somewhat of a bitch. Yes, it was usually possible to get what I wanted to get accomplished , but it was just a pain in the ass. I spent probably about 3 weeks trying to figure out how to get port forwarding to work (i wound up downgrading my kernel)

Linux has an inherant disadvantage to Windows because of the current proprietary nature of the computer industry. End users want their computers to work with the applications that they have been using, and their friends are using, and have them have all the features that the windows versions have. I am incredibly impressed and amazed by the community's ability to reverse engineer these protocols and drivers, but the fact is, I KNOW that if I switch over the GNU/linux, I'm going to be spending a bunch of time figuring out how to get various things working that I currently take for granted.

Gnu/Linux is also incredibly intimdating in regards to the vast amount of choice you are given. Picking a distrobution, picking what desktop you want to use. I don't want to spend a shitload of time installing and tweaking my operating system to work the way I want, only to realize that it isn't really the best option for me, and to learn the subtle differences between the distrobutions once I've become accostomed to one.

Another issue for me is that I simply dont have much of my windows software installations lying around. Trying to get my system back to the state its currently at will require me to hunt down a bunch of shit. I'm considering just buying a new harddrive to put gnu/linux on, so I can just switch back to windows if i feel like I have to, but I'm broke.

I think the real question tho, is why does it matter whether I am using gnu/linux or not. Gnu/linux exists, and that in and of itself is an incredible achievement. I think the adoption of gnu/linux on the desktop is incredibly unimportant. I am not a developer so I cant contribute to the community. I didnt even give microsoft any money (as we all know many many windows users dont). Even the adoption of GNU/linux in the buisiness world is a double edged sword. Buisiness will always do what it can to subvert truly radical technology. IBM has flat out refused to refer to linux as gnu/linux most likely because they do not want to associate themselves with the radical philosophy behind free software. Reap the profit, but ignore the philosophy. Subvert the philosophy.

The Gnu/linux community should be proud of what it has accomplished, and dedicate itself to continuing the development of the operating system instead of being worried about destroying microsoft or getting your mom to use it. If you cant connect to MSN messanger, so fucking what. What matters is that people who want to use it can.

I see a new troll coming on..

[Anonymous Coward]

Netcraft now confirms: Linux is dying...

Uhhm, so companies are trying out the new

[Trigun]

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.

Data is Waaaaaay Off

[Merry_B.Buck]

Well, since Sitefinder is running Linux, wouldn't Linux now be running an infinite number more sites than Windows Server 2003?

Apache != Linux

[KalvinB]

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

Re:Apache != Linux

[blixel]

You better have said: I do not use Linux because
i do not get it. I do not understand its power and capabilities.

Being a (relatively) long time Linux user, I can tell you this comment is just Zealotism (Linux elitisism). And that type of attitude is what drives people away from Linux in the first place. It's really getting old and if you would like to see Linux improve, you need to come down off your high horse and realize that not everyone is as interested in the details of the Operating System as you are. A lot of people just want the O/S to work. And the funny thing is, so do all the Linux Zealots. 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.