Slashdot Mirror
Linux Server Sales to Reach $9.1 Billion by 2008
dunric writes "ZDNet is reporting that sales of servers using Linux will reach a whopping $9.1 billion by 2008. Annual revenue for Linux servers is expected to grow by a healthy 22.8 percent, compared to just 3.8 percent for the overall server market. Additionally, Linux servers will account for nearly 26% of all server shipments."
of a free program. From this we can conclude unit sales of Linux to be about Infinity Times 9.1. That's pretty good.
From those numbers, it seems like Linux is having its main growth because of it's price, rather than the OS itself. Numbers were ~50% of blades, ~20% of rack-mounts, and ~10% of free standing.
Ironic... since linux is free :)
I think that Microsoft will take a big blow from this news, since even though linux is free, it's raking in $9.1bn...
- dshaw
i just wiped the last linux server in my shop. they're all running openbsd now, and all the new ones will too.
somehow i doubt there's that many people running obsd though, so there goes my fleeting idea of selling servers. oh well it's not like i've got any free time anyway right now. back to coding, *sigh*
As can be confirmed by simply going to Netcraft, Slashdot actually runs on the crushed hopes, dreams and spirits of thousands of self-proclaimed, social-anxiety-disorder-afflicted "nerds".
Just wait for more FUD coming from MS in response to this.. any bets.. hours, days, weeks?
Methinks ZDnet published this prediction simply to exploit the predictable slashdot-effect response to such a story. I am projecting a 22% increase in ad revenues from their banner ads featured with this story at the tail end of 2004.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
This news is interesting but what would be interesting to see is which markets Linux servers are eating up. People of /. are going to assume "FINALLY THE DOWN FALL OF MICROSOFT!". But the truth of the matter is Linux is probably eating up the markets of AIX, HP-UX, SunOS, Alpha, etc. Look at Sun's stock.... Down over 30% from last year? Even if this statistic is true I don't think Microsoft is probably losing any business but rather our fellow UNIX brothers. Go Linux!?
"After a double-digit decline in worldwide factory revenue in 2002, to $44.3 billion in server sales, the server market has stabilized, and preliminary 2003 results show the server market growing 2.2% to $45.3 billion," said Lloyd Cohen, research director of IDC's Global Enterprise Server Solutions group. "Much of the excess server inventory generated by the thousands of dot-coms going out of business has been absorbed, and the demand for additional IT equipment has returned." -from http://www.mindbranch.com/listing/product/R104-145 56.html
So in essence, people got smart. Linux servers cut costs. Companies need to keep costs down to prevent themselves from imploding, as they all did in the boom. So, with the industry back on the upswing, they choose the cheaper and wiser option.
In Soviet Russia, it fails you.
The last eight Intel servers I installed were all assembled from good quality motherboards, fans and better quality ATX power supplies into run of the mill whitebox full/mid tower cases.
If space is not an issue then I find that taking time to assemble a well laid out PC case delivers better reliability than Intel based 1U or 2U rackmounted servers.
"A whooping $9.1 billion by 2008", or so it is reported.
But what about the Windoze servers ?
"A whimper $18.2 billion by 2008" ?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Seriously, saying "Linux Server" to a CEO has one of two effects. One, they glaze over and continue using their familiar "Windows Server". Two, they think you're really smart and give you lots of money. Sure, there's the rare third case where they'll realize "Linux = OS, Server = Hardware", but chances are they're the CIO.
Does this mean I should open a "Servers The Run Linux" eBusiness? Amazonux.com, perhaps?
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Oh, now that's a GOOD trolling effort. Made me laugh. There should be a +1 for good and witty trolling.
Everybody knows that people buy Linux servers just so they can install pirated versions of Windows on them!
Linux may be sitting high and pretty on the desktop market, but it has to create a usable UI to break on thru to the server market.
Those who wish to use their computer for recreational purposes are also out of luck, for almost all of the most popular games are unavailable for Linux.
You lie. WINE can emulate most PC games. It only takes 3-4 years to make them compatible
That's what the adverts on Slashdot say, anyway
Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters only to them
Whenever I see words like forecast and prediction buried, I wonder what the motivation of the writer is. I dug around a very little bit and found this link to an IDC ress release that this is based on (I think). IDC - Press Release http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=pr2004_1 1_02_093312
Reading the press release, I could only think to myself "uhm, duh, who couldn't see that coming."
I do wonder how they came up with the time frame though. Four years seems like a long time to predict anything in the IT business with any accuracy.
the dollar amont is not as important as the number of units. 9.1 billion is like, what, 100 sun servers? seriously though, the numbers of servers shipped is more important. because alot of that will be replacing NT servers. and alot of that will be new server infrastructure. every linux server sold is one less windows server, regardless whether it replaces a sun/ibm or not. dollar sales are a relative figure. what matters if the total number of servers, or market share. and what matters is what they're used for. are they just serving up web pages or are they running the backbone of business web applications? if linux is relegated to the periphery, it won't matter a whole lot.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
I would have liked to see what percentage of servers OS's like Solaris, Microsoft, and other *nix made up of the total "internet".
This troll posts the same thing in comp.os.linux.advocacy. Flatfish is that you?
Troll? Typical slashdot reaction to anything remotely critical of linux. You can have your baby linux. Go ahead, edit a text file or load a kernel module so you feel superior to non-linux users. The truth is, after many years of linux use I am tired of jumping through the same damn hoops over and over again. Linux had me for a while, but I got over it. I used to enjoy tinkering with the beast to get it to work, now I just want to get some work done. Linux stands in my way most of the time, and frankly I am tired of watching it chase Windows in terms of usability and consistency.
You worship it if you want, I will likewise point out it's flaws when I want. I have used ( endured ? ) it since 97, I think I have the qualifications to bitch about if I want to.
And on that note, goodbye to Slashdot. Yet another project that is terminally out of date and tired. Full of grousing geeks who cannot stand to have their precious criticized.
Who will be able to predict the market in 2008? With spam, viruses and hacker attacks escalating, and Longhorn due to be released... who really knows what the market will be like then?
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
This is sales of Linux *SERVERS*, not the OS itself.
Good point as we all know these servers now run pirated copies of the superior Microsoft(C) Windows(TM) Server 2003(C)(TM)(R).
PS: Don't forget to click the banner on top of
Bill.
I don't need a signature.
ZDNET is just another publishing company that generally have b grade IT writers. Just look at the spam software show down. Hangon.. where is spamassassin.. maybe they didnt pay zdnet enough money to advertise thier product so it wasnt included.
Got a question about UNIX ask it here : Unix/xBSD Forum
Don't forget that FreeBSD is stealing in on MS and the other UNIXes as well.
Here, we're winding down Solaris and replacing it with FreeBSD.
(although patch management on BSD is an absolute PITA... portupgrade my ass. Give me Debian anyday)
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Mm.. if I raise the price of Linux servers by 20% , will there be a predictable 20% rise in revenue for Linux ?
Statisticians say "YES" . Economists "Supply and Demand equality fundamentals suggest that the profits would increase but not upto the 20% mark". Of course this brings up a number of "Simplest answer is often right" idiots babbling about growth.
Strangely, Managers have a wierd rationale built into their head that says "You get what you pay for". So if an employee draws 6 times the salary of another , he's 6 times more "valuable" , which sucks when you compare an European programmer to a Indian one. Similar cost inversions are happening in the Operating Systems world, where the more costly version of the current "trendy OS to have" are likely to increase in popularity over cheaper versions doing the same thing.
Costly != State of the Art and Revenue != Popularity . But Managers do read it that way often, so it's a good thing to say. So a reasonable price increase might actually increase the popularity of Linux in the corporate world.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
Dell has a pretty healthy selection of Linux options these days and of course there's always Penguin Computing
Where do you buy your Linux servers?
Get it straight! It's lower TC0 - Total Cost of 0wnership.
Around 2000, Linux was already reported at over 30% and to rise even more.
How is it possible that it is expected to account for only 26% of shipments in 2008?
Easy: IDC changed their counting methods in the meantime, while the earlier numbers are about shipments, the current numbers are about revenue and only for server-hardware that actually ships with Linux.
That is correct:
So to make a long story short, most Linux server installations do not exist for IDC.
Isn't it funny that Windows always looks good in heavily distorted studies (TCO "studies", market share studies, etc.) while they no longer look so good in not-so easily distorted studies (like Netcraft)?
Of course IDC is quite smart, they talk about "sales" and they know that people will think about shipments/units and not revenue.
While the older numbers had some touch with reality, the current numbers are just nonsense. In reality Linux already accounts for a lot more than IDC wants us to believe.
Lookit here - slashdot.org
Unless, they do a very elaborate setup whereas it is actually WinNT but presenting it as *nix.. It can be done you know..
But if it is running IIS, somehow or rather, I doubt slashcode can be run on IIS with ActivePerl, stably I mean..
Regards
Will sys-admin for food
Christ, if you're going to paste in something like this, at least figure out how to utilize paragraph tags or something.
The fact that you are no longer a loser doesn't mean that you should leave slashdot right away. Obviously, there is a lot of educating about Linux that needs to be done here, and it's your moral obligation as a **free man to do so. So get your ass in gear and start "trolling" Linux stories.
**free as in evenings and weekends free from tinkering, reading piles of useless documentation and newsgroup posts, etc. And free to get some real work done for a change.
Where I work, we all have servers as desktop development machines (typing this on a dual xeon, etc). We get our machines from Dell, and usually default to the Windows XP setup. As soon as we get them we reformat and install RedHat Enterprise or Fedora. I guess that means we arent counted in the stats, but instead are counted in the 'Windows Server' statistics, even though we are all using Linux servers. So I would think the Linux server stats are probably higher than stated.
Businesses tend to be risk adverse, which is generally a good thing. This means also that they are afraid of change. So this slows down Linux quite a bit.
Home users tend to stick with what they use at work. So until Linux takes over on the corporate workstation, it will be a slow tough fight.
All that being said, I think that Linux will kill windows. It will just be a slow process until a certain market share is reached. At this point application compatibility will be less of an issue. But progress is occuring much faster than some people realize: Linux is certainly killing proprietary UNIX (as is Windows), and the fate of OS X is uncertain, though I suspect that it will slowly be open sourced bit by bit, and they may slowly subsume eachother.....
Consider that 5% of the PC's which shipped last year ran Linux (mostly Linspire and Mandrake). Even after you count those where Windows was later installed, that was still up to three percent of *new* PC sales. Yes, Microsoft's monopoly has begun to collapse already. This year, maybe, it will be more.
Linux is already causing Microsoft real headaches in a few very key markets such as internet server and embedded system markets. The real beacheads are business web application development, desktop, and groupware now. But it is a slow process at the moment and will be for some time. I do predict though that it will be a fierce war for the desktop by the time Longhorn ships.
Also, Microsoft's last year of record profits was the year XP was launched. This is to be expected. But their market share is another question-- how do you measure market share? In dollars? If so then the slow demise of proprietary UNIX and Netware gives Microsoft greatly inflated numbers. If in deployments, then the simple answer is: we don't really know what real numbers are because we have no good way of measuring them.
Now, is there a tipping point? You bet. At a certain point, people won't write their business web tools for IE only (as Safeco does). Vertically targetted tools will be available for Linux, etc. and all basic productivity tools will be open source. At this point, I expect Linux useage to take off much faster.
ZDNet is reporting that sales of servers using Linux will reach a whopping $9.1 billion by 2008...
Considering Linux (and OSS in general) makes money via support offerings, shouldnt this be added to the overall $$$ amount ? Does 9.1. billion include support charges or simply the cost of hardware ?
Another thing I routinely keep hearing about is that hardware is going to keep become VERY cheap (as a matter of fact there were some articles suggesting it might even become free in the long term). If one cant sell hardware, and cant sell the OS, where the hell does 9.1 billion come from ? "Voluntary donation" ??
Linux conquering the desktop? Any year now.
(sorry, couldn't resist. It was this or a Beowulf cluster remark...)
I think, therefore I am...I think.
While that may be true, it has nothing to do with Linux - gnu tools worked fine on Solaris and BSD (and many other os's) before Linus was in secondary school.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Hey, Mr. Techfocus.org and slashdot journal writer: A sentence does not make a paragraph.
Yes, but... can they run Linux?
Oh wait...
But Wine Is Not an Emulator... :)
Everybody who uses "the programmers deserve to get paid" as a reason why open-source won't work, please post your objections here. Remember to explain why none of these companies value the software side of things enough to contribute any resources.
Corporate purchasing has as much to do with IT directors furthering their careers by riding the trends than pure economics. With constantly increasing bangs per buck you can always do what you did 3 years ago for a fraction of the cost, but no-one gets that corporate promotion by doing the same thing as the last IT manager did. You've got to rip out UNIX and replace it with NT, showing the millions you saved ('96 to '00) or rip out proprietry UNIX and replace it with Linux ('01-'05?). People may see through the ripping out what you've got, replacing it with the new version of what you've got and claiming to save millions. Just leaving what you've got there and replacing it with newer, cheaper stuff when needed is for nerds with no ambition.
I think this article misses the fact that not only are people in the corporate world finally getting the issues with Linux in the enterprise, but by 2006 there should be an established new new new thing: Rip out your big ol' SPARC systems and downsize to Solaris x86. Save those zillions, get the promotion, and still get the warm fuzzies of a familiar and manageable enterprise platform.
Don't get me wrong: No OS other than Linux (well, maybe a couple of bsds a few years back) have crossed the threshold of my home, but (a) 15 years corporate infrastructure experience says Solaris is easier to deal with with mixed-ability staff in a massive corporate environment and (b) NEVER underestimate corporate politics and the requirement for the climber to have a ready response to the "what's your XYZ strategy, Bob?" question at the CIO's golf club. beats cost-benefit analysis every time...
Microsoft has the unparalleled advantage of a single vision driving their platform and software. Right now, the babbling bazaar that is Linux has too many voices and too many chefs to spoil the soup.
While the great many voices working on Linux insure diversity and provide a wide range of choice, I, for one, think we can benefit from just a little less chocie and a little more standardization.
RPM is pretty much the standard now (also defined in the LSB), so while different distributions might have different methods of installing a RPM, there is a unified packaging format.
n/t
It's 3am.
Shit, the server's doing some weird shit. Where that support contract? What you just downloaded it and instelled it well I'm going to pay you the standard support call cost and you'd better come round and sort the fucking thing out then.
TCO Just went through the roof.
True most small companies don't want to fork out for support, the medium ones can't afford full time support staff but the bigger ones always seem to outsource (supporting PC's ain't our business!).
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
How much is $9.1 billion going to be worth in 2008 compared with today's money?
Except that a whole lot of newish distros are based on debian and use .deb , eg Knoppix, Mepis, Lindows, Xandros, Ubuntu, Libranet, Progeny. They aren't getting less popular - but alien generally works for rpms. The real problem is that generally what is inside these packages is infact very tightly coupled to everything else about a distro. This is where the LSB has failed, and needs more work.
.msi which does whatever it wants, or a sicko .exe which does whatever it wants. Any vaguely standard system is a step up from that.
Tbh, package formats is not a level of integration that matters. Lets face it, on windows, you either get a sicko
I think it's good to keep an eye on the horizon and all, but this is still 2004. That's quite a way off when you think about it... a lot can change; a lot can go on between now and then. As much as I'd like to say "Hoo-yeah! My team's gonna win!" I think it's just too early to say.
There are a number of admins out there that won't buy a shrinkwrapped linux server because the prices are just insane. IBM and HP/Compaq think that you'll pay 3 times the going rate for memory, storage, processors, etc...just for the perk of having a "big name" badge on the computer.
So I've just resigned myself to rolling my own 1RU and 2RU server systems. Then I throw CentOS http://www.centos.org/ , a RHEL clone, on them. That saves me a couple thousand per server.
I used to be a big fan of the Proliant line, but the prices just got to be so ridiculous. They haven't figured out that this is a commodity market yet. Oh well.
I've had good luck with http://www.pogolinux.com/ .
I work in a shop that is mixed windows and linux but just a few linux boxes are doing all of the heavy lifting. We keep adding processing to these couple of linux boxes until they absolutely beg for mercy. On the other hand we have a ton of windows boxes that mostly sit idle because the OS is not partitioned enough to handle that type of load and still be reliable.
So 25% means in most cases at least 50% of the data center processing will be linux.
Got Code?
On a point of pedantry, Linus would have started secondary school by 1983 or so. The GNU project didn't even start until 1984.
Solaris didn't have its first real incarnation until July 1992, six months after I personally first installed Linux (January 1992). Unless you're counting SunOS 4.x as Solaris, but even then, Linus was at university by the time SunOS 4.x came out.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
I think a good portion of the growth of Linux has been due to IBM's very successful push to get users to run Linux on IBM's big iron AS/400 and S/390 machines for large-scale computing needs.
:-)
Mind you, I think that's a good thing because IBM gets to sell and/or lease out a lot more hardware in the long run.
Didn't know anyone still used that. I love column programming. Long live /free :)
On Windows there is no system and all the packaging systems on Linux are a lot better than that. - There is absolutely no problem in having an installer in Linux that works on all Linux distributions. (And actually for example skype is offering packages that work on all Linux distros, as an example.) So the whole packaging system is an additional bonus, nobody is forced to use it, neither the users nor the creators of software.
My bet? Solaris and BSD will battle for the same space. Sun needs to shake up the upper management. They have good ppl and good systems. They need to offer Linux as well and mean it. They are using it as a stop gap and hoping to turn the customers to the dark sides (legacy unix and windows).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Emacs and several other tools later brought under the GNU umbrella were around long before the GNU Project was formally started.
I see no way they could accurately predict linux growth over the next five years. I suppose all they are doing is measuring the last five years growth, and basing their future predictions on that.
This reminds of 1999 market analysts predicting that the Nasdaq was going to hit 10000 by 2004.
I am not trying to assert that linux growth will be either faster, or slower, than this study predicts, I just don't see how these sorts of studies can be meaningful.
Back in 1999, IDC had a study that said that Linux would account for about 3-4% of all the web servers by 2004 and that Linux would never make it in the business space.
IDC's studies will ALWAYS go to where their money os coming from, not to where the money is going to.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
We did not know the media makes a living of grabbing eye balls.
Man, what would we do without people like you....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
and mod the one before it down.
I am so sick of this "ITS CALLED GNU?LINUX YOU ASSH*LE!" crap that is going on.
I call it whatever Linus calls it since its his creation. If Debian wants to call it gnu/linux then let them. If Redhat wants to call it just Linux then its fine too.
I bet I could call it Schrawux. Who cares?
Its just flamebait and not all of a Linux distro is gnu so in essence does not pass the gnu test. Debian comes close if you select to only install free software but that is it.
Linux can be built with Possix BSD tools so Gnu is not needed for Linux.
Just end this debate please.
http://saveie6.com/
It's sad that the public is so easily duped by Linux marketing hype, when there are much more useful and GUI-friendly OSes out there, like the BSDs for example and SkyOS. Why must Linux always be the center of attention? I think there is some serious money exchanging hands in the back rooms...
As many have noticed, IDC has changed the way they count linux market penetration. Last year they counted the number of installations and this year it all about revenue. For something that often comes free... Some event suggest that they are pro-microsoft.
/ ms/idc2.html
Well after reading this, you will be sure they are : http://www.theglobeandmail.com/partners/microsoft
I doen't look like the usual anti-linux attack, it's much more subtle this time.
If i'm not mistaken, BillG predicted that the cost of hardware can be neglected to that of software in the future. I assume he meant Microsoft software. Again $9.1 billion in sales of AMD/Intel based server hardware is not, what i would call, a neglectable deal! :)
Robert
...for themselves, as Annie & Co. used to say.
Personally, I like The Register's formulation: "World+dog". Short, sweet, to the point, and non-sexually biased.
...though my cat objects ;-)
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?