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."

Comments

ZDnet = page hit whores

[SethJohnson]

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.

Re:Interesting....

[MC Negro]

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

This raises an interesting point. If pricepoint is genuinely what is the deciding factor for these predictions, what will happen when OpenSolaris is release?
From the article -

Sales of servers using Linux will grow faster than the overall market at least through 2008, when customers will spend $9.1 billion for machines using the open-source operating system, market researcher IDC forecast Monday

The results highlight the spread of the operating system, a relatively new competitor to Unix versions such as Sun Microsystems' Solaris and to Microsoft Windows. The top four server sellers--IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Sun Microsystems and Dell--all support Linux, though Sun steers customers to Solaris.

This is not a troll, but I have never understood the wide-spread embracing of Linux to be a direct result of anything but price-point and community support. I hate near everything about the way Linux is structured when compared to other flavors of UNIX, and I am not a fan of the kernel internals, yet I keep going back to it because of the aforementioned reasons. To be fair, I was introduced to UNIX with SunOS and the BSD family before being introduced to Linux, and lately I've been sharpening my skills with AIX and some of their enterprise solutions, so I may be totally missing the point of Linux.

Let's talk hypothetical here - Let's say Sun releases Solaris under a nice license that satisfies everybody - the BSD nuts, the Stallman-worshipers, and the corporate players [bear with me here; I realize I'm treading fairytale water], and let's say the community loves it and starts hacking away at it like a hillbilly with a hatchet. Right there, the Linux pricepoint and community support is matched.

I predict in the future we will see some more UNIX versions opened up, specifically, AIX. This is based entirely on speculation and the late-night readings of IBM papers, but I wholeheartedly believe in the next 10 years, IBM will either completely open the source or share a great portion of it (barring a SCO victory).

I myself have always preferred commercial UNIX to community efforts (although the *BSDs are near and dear to my heart) and have used Linux out of necessity, not out of direct superiority to commercial UNIX. My point is that if (or when) commercial versions of UNIX (such as Solaris and AIX) match the benefits of Linux, Linux may be the kid without a gimmick. But again, this is based entirely on the premise that Linux's gimmick is limited to the two previously mentioned, so if I am totally missing something, would some more-informed Linux guru clarify :-)?

Eh, it's late. Too much RPG IV.

Short term memory

[rseuhs]

I think it's ironic how short the memory of the public is.

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:

• debian, Gentoo and Fedora don't create revenue, so as far as IDC is concerned, they just don't exist
• If you actually buy a computer without Linux and buy a boxed Linux distro afterwards (or if you use a disk image), your installation doesn't exist either, because it wasn't shipped with Linux.
• If you buy a computer with Linux preloaded, but that computer isn't classified as "server" and you use it as a server - again it doesn't count because they only count computers are sold as servers.
• And last but not least, if you aren't some fortune something buerocracy, all your Linux installations don't count either, because IDC doesn't care about you and will not ask you.

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.

Re:Interesting

[rseuhs]

Yes, go Linux:

• First Linux does eat up Microsoft's marketshare, no matter how often MS sais otherwise. Just look at this for an idea, or even at this Yes, that's right, Linux has already marginalized Windows in some markets. In Germany it's hard to find a webhoster even offering Windows (and when they do, they charge about twice the usual fees). Windows is doomed in central and eastern Europe, all the usual network effects (it's established! the people know it!) work against it there and there are no more advantages left.
• Then what Linux does is what we all wanted, right? Unify Unix. What's the point of having similar but slightly incompatible systems from IBM, HP and Sun? Linux unifies Unix in a way that even if you don't run Linux, it will be compatible to Linux (compatibility layers for Solaris and AIX). Of course a unified Unix is also a lot stronger versus Windows than a balkanized one. "Unix is incompatible to itself" and "Unix needs overpriced hardware" were the 2 biggest pro-Windows sales arguments. No more.

Re:Interesting....

[pyat]

The parent post is maybe not so far off the mark, though i'd like to posit a slightly different way of looking at things. I believe the situation would be clearer (for once!) if we wrote GNU/Linux instead of Linux.

Linux is just a kernel. Another child post mentioned it has good hardware support compared to solaris, i'm sure there are some other good points (e.g. a lot of architectures supported, embedded apps, a formidable base of experienced open-source developers, etc.,) that could mean Linux wouldn't just die if Solaris became free/Free.

But what most people think of as Linux, and what is in fact the largest part of, GNU/Linux is the set of userland tools we use. From the basics like bash, tar, grep, sed, awk, etc., to the compilers (gcc, etc.,), and up to the desktop level tools (KDE-family, Gnome-family, mozilla, openoffice, and so on).

Many of these tools can/are(!) ALSO be used on Solaris systems as appropriate/preferred.

If the Solaris licence is as free as the parent post hypothesizes, then this future is great! We can have a GNU/Solaris system if we want, Debian could offer a Debian-Solaris option (in the same vein as the Debian-NetBSD port), we can use bits of Solaris to improve Linux... All grist to the Free-Software mill.

I havent been counted...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.