Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gartner: Linux Servers Booming

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the all-the-rage-with-the-kids-these-days dept.

Tarantolato writes "According to a recent Gartner report, low-end Linux server shipments grew significantly in the first quarter of 2004. Part of this may be due to the comeback of the relational database market in 2003, where Linux growth was especially strong, while Windows growth was weaker. There is mixed news for Sun, who saw growing shipments but declining revenues in Q1 of 2004."

12 of 205 comments (clear)

  1. Great news, but is there a typo? by coupland · · Score: 4, Insightful

    According to Gartner, revenue of Linux-based server hardware rose 57.3 percent over the first quarter, while commercial Unix server revenue fell 2.3 percent.

    Is it just me or does 57.3 percent growth genuinely impress you as well? I can only assume the article contains a mistake since it claims 57.3 percent revenue growth for linux-based servers over the first quarter which means "in three months". This strikes me as unlikely, unless Linux is actually destroying everything in its path. Shouldn't this read year over year in which case the 57.3 percent growth happened in 12 months, not 3. Can anyone confirm for sure? Regardless this is fantastic news, it's been a many, many years since we've seen genuine competition in the OS market.

    1. Re:Great news, but is there a typo? by 0racle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Percent increase isn't impressive without hard numbers. Were there 100 or 50,000 shipments of linux servers the year before? Shipping an extra 57 this year isn't much, but an extra 28,650 is. So try not to wet yourself over this, there are no actual numbers, just some nice sounding percentages.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    2. Re:Great news, but is there a typo? by j0hndoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Regardless this is fantastic news, it's been a many, many years since we've seen genuine competition in the OS market.

      Really? I've been reading articles for YEARS about how Linux was Microsoft's biggest threat. Starting with those insane "Linux IPOs" in 1999/2000. And Microsoft pointed at Linux in the anti-trust trial. (ok, that was self-serving, but it ended up being true anyway). This isn't really anything new at this point. The numbers are just confirming it.

  2. Oracle versus SQL Server by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This isn't Linux versus Windows -- it's SQL Server versus Oracle. Shops are choosing Oracle and then choosing Linux as the platform (given that it's largely irrelevant what platform it runs on). The submission implies that it was a toss up between Windows and Linux, and after choosing Linux they started looking around for a RDBMS.

    1. Re:Oracle versus SQL Server by flinxmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wish my company would do this. They chose Oracle on Linux a couple years back with a single (mediocre at best) developer as the admin. The resulting and expected crappy experience resulted in a decision to go with Sun.

      But instead of going with serious Sun hardware we now have a whole slew of entry level sun servers that routinely sweat under even moderate loads. Even then, they just incrementally buy small servers for *every* function. (It's like NT shops used to be, except twice as expensive).

      The server admins have, at this point, kind of a glazed humorous look in their eyes. If we'd made an intelligent choice between Linux and Solaris (even if it resulted in a hybrid situation), we could have saved thousands and thousands of dollars and have a managable situation. Instead, it's insanity.

      Word to the wise: Don't believe the hype and TEST THE SETUP WITH COMPETENT ENGINEERS!. You'd think this would be common sense...but alas...we seem to be made to suffer. It's our lot in life.

    2. Re:Oracle versus SQL Server by iabervon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It doesn't matter to most customers. Most customers don't plan to interact much with the OS on their database servers, and want to use whatever Oracle says will be best. They just want the best-supported configuration, which means that they'll use exactly what Oracle installs (or has Red Hat install), and won't change anything. Of course, it's a significant milestone therefore that Oracle is pushing Linux (and moving to it internally), because that means that it actually has the best TCO for that kind of system, because Oracle knows that they get all the money that doesn't go into the customer's TCO on the database.

    3. Re:Oracle versus SQL Server by fritz1968 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most customers don't plan to interact much with the OS on their database servers, and want to use whatever Oracle says will be best.

      I believe that there is another reason that Oracle is "recommending" the linux platform and I am a little surprised that no one has yet to metion it: Oracle CEO Larry Ellison.

      I thought that it was common knowledge that Ellison hates MS. Or at the very least, he wants his company to be better than MS. If that is the case, then why would Oracle want to "recommend" that their customers use the Windows platform to run oracle? That is just more money into MS's pockets. By "recommending" linux, then there is less money going to Microsoft.

      Another thought is that by keeping MS out of the picture and recommending Linux, the less likely that their client will be stolen away by MS in favor of the MS SQL server. I wonder how many times (if any) that Oracle lost a client to MS SQL server because the consultant who setup the server suggested SQL Server?

      just a thought...

      --
      It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
  3. Re:Meh, statistics by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder what sort of increase the MacOS server market showed? It also means little if servers are being shipped with XP or even no OS, and being loaded with Debian after delivery. I doubt it takes into account systems built in-house either. Statistics show only what gatherer wants them to show.

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  4. Is because competitors are not free market by argoff · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Copyrights have nothing to do with free market property rights, but are rather like government regulations about what people can do with information. But the GPL, has found a 'loophole' in these restrictions - and is far more accountable to free market forces. People who have closed software are going to continue to pay huge opportunity costs as the market takes off again.

  5. Re:Gartner by NonSequor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis
    (I do not trust the Greeks, even bearing gifts)
    --Vergil, The Aeneid

    --
    My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
  6. I have 2 servers that were stripped of Windows. by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They were initially purchased to run Windows apps. When the Windows servers were upgraded, I grabbed these two and put Linux on them.

    So, four sales for Windows (two initial servers and the two replacement servers)
    -and-
    No sales for Linux
    -but-
    Actual deployment is 2 servers for Windows and 2 for Linux.

    (That isn't 50% of our servers. We have almost 20 Windows servers because the apps don't play well with each other.) I expect there are a lot more installations like mine out there. The sales percentages (particularly the $$$) will not tell you the real picture.

  7. Re:Meh, statistics by Vengeful+weenie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You really haven't seen much if you think that all data is housed only on enterprise class servers. I often have the distinct impression that most data is stored on old dekstop machines that never get backed up, and rarely get patched.