Unix servers up 2.7%, Linux servers up 35.6%

Who is still selling UNIX? by jimbro2k · 2005-03-01 05:03 · Score: 5, Funny

We know it's not SCO

--
There is not nearly enough love in the world, but there is far too much trust.

Re:Who is still selling UNIX? by owlstead · 2005-03-01 05:15 · Score: 4, Informative

Well, for starters:

IBM has AIX
Sun has Solaris
HP has HPUX (waiting to be retired in all probability)
SCO - oh forget SCO, they are pretty much a non-player

You'd be amazed how many proprietary Unix systems are still out there. Don't forget that a lot of servers are running a specific software suite or on specific hardware. But the server itself needs to be updated once in a while.

And a lot of businesses like an OS that is very stable, if not that cool or up to date. The one time that I saw Solaris crash was due to hardware errors (and there were quite some Solaris workstations situated at university). Yes, I've seen Linux crashes, before you ask.
Re:Who is still selling UNIX? by kyrre · 2005-03-01 05:39 · Score: 1, Informative

Apple does sell a server with a UNIX* default install. It is called xserve

*(UNIX as in not Linux)
Re:Who is still selling UNIX? by delirium+of+disorder · 2005-03-01 05:42 · Score: 3, Informative

Add to that list:
On the desktop there is MacOS.

On the super high end there is Cray with UNICOS and Sgi with IRIX. Sgi probably sells more Linux systems then IRIX ones now days.

I think HP still sells True64 systems but they were putting lots of True64 code into HP-UX.

I'm sure people still resell used Ultrix, NEXTStep, etc systems too.

--
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
Re:Who is still selling UNIX? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 05:50 · Score: 0

No they're still selling it. Didn't you hear that SCO just upped its suit against IBM by 32.9%?
Re:Who is still selling UNIX? by johnnnyboy · 2005-03-01 05:59 · Score: 2, Informative

And a lot of businesses like an OS that is very stable, if not that cool or up to date. The one time that I saw Solaris crash was due to hardware errors (and there were quite some Solaris workstations situated at university). Yes, I've seen Linux crashes, before you ask.

It's true those sun sparc boxes are very stable.

--
"If a show of teeth is not enough, bite ... but bite hard!"
Re:Who is still selling UNIX? by tu_holmes · 2005-03-01 06:03 · Score: 1

Actually, HP was trying to put a lot of Tru64 code into HP-UX.

Last I heard, that wasn't going to well for them.
Re:Who is still selling UNIX? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 06:10 · Score: 2, Informative

(UNIX as in not Linux)

Huh? Most things that aren't Linux are also not UNIX. BSD certainly isn't UNIX*

* UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group.
Re:Who is still selling UNIX? by PygmySurfer · 2005-03-01 07:12 · Score: 1

WAS. They seem to have pretty much abandoned this idea, in favour of licensing some technology from Veritas instead.

Here's one link, there's several articles out there floating around about it.

Another interesting tidbit is that HP at one point was apparently planning on acquiring Veritas, but that didn't pan out either.
Re:Who is still selling UNIX? by Bnonn · 2005-03-01 11:57 · Score: 1

MacOS (or, at least, Darwin), is not UNIX; it's BSD. A minor difference, to be sure, but we are talking about proprietary, "actual" UNIX.
Re:Who is still selling UNIX? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 12:04 · Score: 0

The BSDs are certainly genetic UNIX, even if they are not UNIX(TM). Linux is neither, it's just a terminal emulator.
Re:Who is still selling UNIX? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 13:55 · Score: 0

SGI has Irix
Re:Who is still selling UNIX? by delirium+of+disorder · 2005-03-01 18:08 · Score: 1

BSD is unix...the codebase seperated from systemV in the 80s, but BSD started as a restribution of the original AT&T UNIX source. Since then, all the propritary Unix (and Linux) distributions have incorporated some BSD code, in particular sockets/networking related stuff. Its codebases that matter, not certification. Only one product seams to have the Open Group's latest UNIX '03 certification.

http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/xy.h tm

All you need is cash to get certified, but to "be" UNIX, you need to be made of UNIX code. BSD qualifies.

--
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.

wait by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 05:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

Didn't MS claim their server was up in the market as well?
Are these numbers the same (due to more servers being shipped) or are they actually due to increased market share?

Re:wait by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 05:08 · Score: 0, Insightful

Probably more servers being shipped, people with an agenda (like MS) tend to use tricky language. Look at the GOP
Re:wait by RealAlaskan · 2005-03-01 05:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Didn't MS claim their server was up in the market as well?
If the whole market is growing, then Linux could be gaining market share and MS could be losing market share, but MS could still be shipping more than ever.
That (i.e., the whole market is growing) is what we see happening, though that doesn't mean that MS is actually losing market share: thay may simply be gaining more slowly than before.

--
See what I've been reading.
Re:wait by dtfinch · 2005-03-01 05:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

You can say anything with numbers, especially by omitting some of them. Those numbers are probably adjusted for inflation, but we don't really know because it doesn't say.
Re:wait by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 05:26 · Score: 0

Yes, only deeply wicked people like Microsoft would tend to use tricky language like "revenue up 35.6%". WTF do you think the story here is?
Re:wait by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2005-03-01 05:33 · Score: 0

That (i.e., the whole market is growing) is what we see happening, though that doesn't mean that MS is actually losing market share: thay may simply be gaining more slowly than before.

At whose expense? If Linux and Unix are both up, and MS is also up, who's down? IBM mainframes?

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Re:wait by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 05:35 · Score: 1, Informative

EVERYBODY is up! The market is GROWING!

The article was not about market SHARE which is a fixed number. It was about volumes.
Re:wait by YankeeInExile · 2005-03-01 05:55 · Score: 5, Funny

At whose expense? If Linux and Unix are both up, and MS is also up, who's down? IBM mainframes?
At the expense of shops who were using no computer at all. Or abacuses.

--
How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
Re:wait by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2005-03-01 06:08 · Score: 1

The article was not about market SHARE which is a fixed number. It was about volumes.

The post i was responding to appeared to be speaking about share, not volume.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Re:wait by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 06:12 · Score: 0

The post i was responding to appeared to be speaking about share, not volume.

Yes, but the post you were responding to did not say that Linux marketshare was up and did not say that UNIX marketshare was up. If you didn't take that from the article, which was NOT talking about marketshare, then where did you get it from?
Re:wait by Mercano · 2005-03-01 06:33 · Score: 1

Everyones growing by canibalizing BSD sales. Everyone knows its dead, anyway.

--
#include <signature.h>
Re:wait by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 06:56 · Score: 0

Okay, you asked for it! My political party can beat up your political party... nana, nana... nanerrrrr.
Re:wait by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 07:01 · Score: 0

Okay, you asked for it! My political party can beat up your political party... nana, nana... nanerrrrr.

'Cause yours is the one with all the guns!

... and large Austrian actors.
Re:wait by ch-chuck · 2005-03-01 07:35 · Score: 0

Yep, growth is not a zero-sum-game.

--
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Re:wait by grammar+fascist · 2005-03-01 08:06 · Score: 1

Probably more servers being shipped, people with an agenda (like MS) tend to use tricky language. Look at the GOP

Let's talk about Kerry's "misery index," next, okay? Just to make it fair.

I can't believe this is modded up.

--
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
Re:wait by jbplou · 2005-03-01 09:10 · Score: 1

From the article.
When it comes to operating systems, Unix and Windows servers continued to grow. Unix server revenue was $5.2 billion in the fourth quarter of 2004 while the corresponding figure for Windows was $4.6 billion.
Re:wait by cold+fjord · 2005-03-01 09:11 · Score: 2, Funny

At the expense of shops who were using no computer at all. Or abacuses.

I would laugh if the situation weren't so serious for my company. We are on the verge of a disaster.

Chisembop manual sales have been flat for 5 years.

Adding machine sales are down 38%.

Calculator sales are down 52%, including the newest hand held models.

Slide rule sales are down 79%.

Analytical engine sales are down 93%.

Tabulator sales are down 98%.

Our abacus miniaturization project is running into problems with prior art by a "major" competitor.

To top it off, our hope for a Multitronic breakthrough appears to have dangerous side effects after four models that were outright failures.

Unless we can pump up our mentat outsourcing service, or complete development of our Make me a Rainman! kit, we're doomed! Doomed I tell you! :(

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:wait by jbplou · 2005-03-01 09:12 · Score: 1

All can be up, since the global economy is starting an upswing, more IT investment.

Idiotic windows users... by eggoeater · 2005-03-01 05:04 · Score: 5, Funny

up 500%.

--
$7.95/mo, 200 GB disk, 2TBxfer, MySQL, PHP, RoR.

Re:Idiotic windows users... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 05:44 · Score: 0

"60% Funny 40% Troll" However, staistics still show that 2 in 5 are blind Windows users that think Microsoft is the only option out there. "Fahr fox? Get on outta here, troll, else I be getting mah shotgun!"
Re:Idiotic windows users... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 08:14 · Score: 0

Because a fake southern accent is the epitome of stupidity, closed-mindedness and calling all Windows users idiots is not trolling.

Slashdot has really turned into a trolling commuity.
Re:Idiotic windows users... by Who_else_but_me · 2005-03-01 08:21 · Score: 1

hey, don't dis windows! it's great at keeping my sister off the computer!
Re:Idiotic windows users... by shaitand · 2005-03-01 08:41 · Score: 1

Any accent is a sign of stupidity. Educated individuals train accents from their voice.

There is nothing closed-minded about not liking windows. Since windows has a monopoly it is unlikely anyone has not had an opportunity to try it before a system like linux. It is windows users who are generally too closed-minded to try linux.

And calling windows users idiots without a basis for comparison is trolling. Calling all windows users idiots because they are not intelligent enough to learn to use a superior system (read anything other than windows) or worse lack the intelligence to drive the curiousity needed to try another system is not trolling at all. There is of course the class of user who is not aware that there are other systems besides windows, but again intelligence implies curiousity and a drive to learn. That drive would lead the intelligent to discover there are other options.
Re:Idiotic windows users... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 09:14 · Score: 0

why is it that windows is inferior to any other OS than?
Re:Idiotic windows users... by gripped · 2005-03-01 11:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

Any accent is a sign of stupidity. Educated individuals train accents from their voice.
That statement must be as one of the surest signs of stupidity I've ever seen.

There is no such thing as no accent.
Re:Idiotic windows users... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 11:08 · Score: 1, Interesting

Claiming that your own accent represents the lack of an accent is a sign of even greater stupidity (and pomposity), I'm afraid.
Re:Idiotic windows users... by shaitand · 2005-03-02 06:29 · Score: 1

You will find that those who have gone to a speech Therepist and "army brats" (or who share the characteristic of moving to numerous locations during early childhood) have no accent. The closest to no accent I have seen is those raised in a midling population outside the south.

Technically everyone has an accent but MOST do not have a severe or even discernable accent. In the United States the severe accents come from the South and from the New York megalopolis. There are also some traces of accent left in the West among the ten gallon hat types and immigrants, but most of the western population has shed it's accent. The Northwest has little sign of accent.

If you live in one of the areas I mentioned having an accent. Yes, it is you who has the accent. No, it is not acceptable, and no, not everyone has one.
Re:Idiotic windows users... by shaitand · 2005-03-02 06:33 · Score: 1

To the anally speaking yes. In reality 90% of the US has what could reasonably be termed as no accent.

Unless you are from an area that is extremely rural, part of the New York Megalopolis, or in the deep south; you can say that within reasonable tolerance you have no accent.
Re:Idiotic windows users... by gripped · 2005-03-02 11:17 · Score: 1

What then of the 95% percent of the worlds population that aren't, believe it or not, from the USA ?

How must we sound to maintain a semblance of intelligence ?

You americans all have an accent from my perspective.
Re:Idiotic windows users... by shaitand · 2005-03-02 15:24 · Score: 1

You speak a different language. There are many languages in the world, among them you have a couple variations of English.

One is British English and it is spoken in many places throughout the world as a first or second language. The other is American English, and to the best of my knowledge the only place it is taught is in the US. Whether or not you have an accent when speaking British English is something to debate with the brits. :)
Re:Idiotic windows users... by gripped · 2005-03-02 16:23 · Score: 1

1. There are far more than two variations of English.

2. Whether you like it or not you have an American accent. Some stupid people around the world will judge you, solely on that basis, the first time they hear it.

Just as you would judge people based on on that same criteria.

The fact that a lot, or indeed the majority, of your peers may be judging people in this fashion does not make it right.

Sensible people judge others on there deeds and contributions not their voices.

Luckily in the UK the days are long gone when some folk (quaint Northern English word, I must be backward) unfortunately felt the need 'lose' an accent to get on in life.

It really doesn't matter any more. Even the Newsreaders can have accents here now.

Sounds like many of you over there still have a long way to go before you can shake off what is just one of many prejudices.

Good luck and I hope you make it.
Re:Idiotic windows users... by shaitand · 2005-03-02 19:40 · Score: 1

1. An accent is determined by how you pronounce words, not which words you use. There is a difference between a Southern dialect and a Southern accent.

2. The reason for avoiding an accent has nothing to do with prejudice, it has to do with understanding the words of the person speaking.

"Even the Newsreaders can have accents here now."

That would explain why nobody here in the states can figure out what is being said by UK natives when they speak. People from the UK do not come off as ignorant, just completely unintelligable. Although it is never correct to use a generalization, that has proven true of every american, listening to every British speaker that I can remember. I suppose the difference is expectations, nobody here expects to understand wth a brit is saying and expect him to use a different dialect.

Another big difference I suppose is that you guys are probably used to dealing with peoples of different nationalities. USians have a single country which has a larger populated landmass than any other nation in the world. Most of us never leave the states. Our nation because of it's vast national resources (certainly not because of our trade deficit!) has the bulk of the world's wealth and as a result we produce all the movies and music we listen to. Occasionally we get a martial arts flick from China but rarely anything from an English speaking nation.

Even when we hop onto google and do a search probably 99,990 results out of 100,000 will be from US sites and half the exceptions will not be in English at all.

This website is where I have the most exposure to people of different nationalities and even this is a US website that gets visited by foreigners.

It is very easy as a USian to forget there is another world out there and stay US centric. Sometimes it feels like the US is in reality the way we claim China to be. UKians post links to UK websites, you can't tell me that they type UK into their google searches everytime!

It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by 14erCleaner · 2005-03-01 05:04 · Score: 5, Informative

From the article:

When it comes to operating systems, Unix and Windows servers continued to grow. Unix server revenue was $5.2 billion in the fourth quarter of 2004 while the corresponding figure for Windows was $4.6 billion.

Linux servers represented 9 percent of worldwide server revenue in 2004, which is 35.6 percent growth compared to the year before.

--
Have you read my blog lately?

Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by drinkypoo · 2005-03-01 05:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

That's even better news from a proliferation standpoint, though, because it will lend Linux additional credibility in the eyes of the PHB. "Hey look, other people are buying this Linux thing"...

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by Frankie70 · 2005-03-01 05:10 · Score: 5, Funny

OK - so a free product's revenue is up 35%. That's good news.
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by rtaylor · 2005-03-01 05:14 · Score: 1

You've obviously never purchased anything from IBM if you think Linux is a free product.

--
Rod Taylor
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by Moulinneuf · 2005-03-01 05:30 · Score: 1

GNU/Linux is a free product

IBM dont even sell GNU/Linux they sell solution and service based of GNU/Linux.

There not the only one doing it either.

--
I am a REAL American from Canada , not a wanna-be from the country , self called "last remaining superpower" "of America
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by Quattro+Vezina · 2005-03-01 05:41 · Score: 1

So, the server hardware is created by the Magical Hardware Fairy, then?

Riiiiight.

--
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by DarkMantle · 2005-03-01 05:43 · Score: 1

so a free product's revenue is up 35%. That's good news.

Umm... dude... Not all Linux is free.

Yes, I realize these are all "Enterprise" or "Proffesional" versions. But they are the ones designed for running high demand servers.

--
DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by nalav · 2005-03-01 06:00 · Score: 1

Linux is as free as you want it to be. Nothing says you *have* to use one of the distros.
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by Money+for+Nothin' · 2005-03-01 06:08 · Score: 0, Troll

"Linux is only free if your time isn't worth anything." -- somebody brilliant

--

Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by Lachek · 2005-03-01 06:09 · Score: 1

As opposed to Slackware, Gentoo, Debian, Trustix, Tiny Sofa etc. These are designed for making toast. Why they have everything required for an out-of-the-box LAMP installation is beyond me, I've never had to use PHP to make toast before. Maybe my toaster just has it integrated in firmware?
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by InfiniteWisdom · 2005-03-01 06:42 · Score: 1

Repeat the words "free as in freedom, not free as in beer" over and over again till it sinks in.
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 06:56 · Score: 3, Funny

Repeat the words: "I can get a sense of humor"...the same amount of times. Maybe it will come true!
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by FuzzyBad-Mofo · 2005-03-01 07:06 · Score: 1

"Windows is only free if you don't mind software piracy." - Me
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by DarkMantle · 2005-03-01 07:28 · Score: 1

Wow, point out that linux developers want to get paid too, and see how defensive everyone gets.

Linux developers need to eat too you know.

--
DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by cgrand · 2005-03-01 08:16 · Score: 1

have a look to water industry revenues...
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by Fenris+Ulf · 2005-03-01 08:37 · Score: 1

s/somebody brilliant/jwz/
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by shaitand · 2005-03-01 08:46 · Score: 1

GNU has a linux distribution now? Last I heard there was an operating system called Linux. IBM may or may not bundle it with some apps/utils produced by the GNU project but calling their distribution GNU/Linux is news to me!
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 08:49 · Score: 0

OK. I don't mind software piracy. When will you send me my free Windows?
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by Moulinneuf · 2005-03-01 09:40 · Score: 0

The kernel = Linux
The OS = GNU/Linux

GNU : http://www.gnu.org/

IBM did not create GNU/Linux or the Linux kernel, they are just one solution provider , and service provider among many other.

Linus Torvalds did not create any distribution either he only created the Linux kernel.

IBM dont have a distribution , they use the GNU/Linux distribution from many vendors and the GNU/Linux software to sale service and solutions , they also use the Unix software and Microsoft Windows and Apple OS and OSX software.

Its not news , and the world dont resolve around yourself , or your idea or your conception or missunderstanding of it.

have a nice day

--
I am a REAL American from Canada , not a wanna-be from the country , self called "last remaining superpower" "of America
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by I_am_the_man · 2005-03-01 09:46 · Score: 1

"Its not news , and the world dont resolve around yourself , or your idea or your conception or missunderstanding of it."

Great sentence. You might want to "resolve" your grammar issues before throwing stones regarding the "misunderstanding" of "concept[s]."
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by Moulinneuf · 2005-03-01 11:06 · Score: 0

Thks , I dont have an issue with english I aint trying to write it properly, as far as grammar there is none "official" for english. I dont need to be throwing stone either, aint passing ajudgement but staing fact and making an observations.

--
I am a REAL American from Canada , not a wanna-be from the country , self called "last remaining superpower" "of America
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by shaitand · 2005-03-02 09:14 · Score: 1

The kernel = OS

"GNU : http://www.gnu.org/"
Did not produce linux.

IBM did not produce linux, but they ship a distribution. Linus named his OS Linux, and IBM names their distribution what they wish to. GNU has it's own rules as to how IT"S OWN projects are named. See how that works?
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by Moulinneuf · 2005-03-02 10:00 · Score: 0

The kernel = The kernel
The OS = Kernel + software + development api + GUI (optionnal ) + command line + compiler + x server ( optionnal )

GNU Did produce GNU/Linux and Linux. Created Linux ? NO , But Linux due to Linus Thorvalds decision to change its previous license Joined GNU.

GNU is first an idea.

IBM ship a distribution ? Ok I will give you the benefit of the doubt , its probably false but then who knows , they have the finance and man power to pull it off in one day , all you have to do is show me the "IBM made" Linux distribution that they ship ...

"Linus named his OS Linux"

Linus named is "Kernel" Linux , to this day Linus make no OS or Distribution.

http://www.kernel.org/

"and IBM names their distribution what they wish to."

IBM as no distribution of there own , feel free to provide the link to the IBM GNU/Linux distribution.

"GNU has it's own rules as to how IT"S OWN projects are named. "

GNU is an Idea ...

Yes , there his a GNU project but its not the start and end of everything GNU.

"See how that works?"

Yes , of course I must stop making my stuff GNU/GPL and say to the 98% developper of the GNU/Linux software inside every distribution that they are wrong in the way they do things because Shitand on /. said so ( sarcasm )

Reality check : We won a long time ago , we keep people like you around for fun.

I will add two things people like you forget :

Gnu/Linux is the Legal way to talk about GNU/Linux and its enforceable in court , where it already won in numerous past cases. We dont enforce it because we have better thing to do with our money then to pay lawyer on thing which we already won.

Linus Thorvalds as creator of the kernel can choose to change the license of the Linux kernel
anytime anyday or even double license it , he dont. Why is that ? He know from real life experience why that GNU/GPL is the best.

If you feel the need for a judge to explain it to you whats the reality in details , just ask me for my full identity and adress , I will be more then happy to provide it for you by e-mail and then sue me. I like making tons of money out of people like you.

Have a nice day.

--
I am a REAL American from Canada , not a wanna-be from the country , self called "last remaining superpower" "of America
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by shaitand · 2005-03-02 15:11 · Score: 1

"The OS = Kernel + software + development api + GUI (optionnal ) + command line + compiler + x server ( optionnal )"

No, that would be a minimal distribution. And if I distribute the linux OS without any of the additional software you mention it is still the Linux OS.
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by Moulinneuf · 2005-03-02 15:59 · Score: 0

I described Mac OS X , no wait Windows , no wait OS/2 ....

There are no Linux OS , there is A GNU/Linux OS , there is a Linux Kernel , and you are free to distribute it. You can modify it also. All of this because its GPL.

Have a nice day.

--
I am a REAL American from Canada , not a wanna-be from the country , self called "last remaining superpower" "of America
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by shaitand · 2005-03-02 19:13 · Score: 1

The OS is darwin, the distro is MacOS X, the OS in the name is carried over from when there was a Mac Operating system.

There is no GNU/Linux OS, there is however a Linux OS. And neither you nor GNU can change it. There is also a distinct difference between being GNU software and using the GNU license. Please read about at fsf.org and please don't bother responding unless you have some actual new content to add.
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by Moulinneuf · 2005-03-03 05:46 · Score: 0

MAcOSX is an OS , Darwin is considered an OS too , they both use a BSD Kernel.

There is a GNU/Linux OS and no Linux OS , there is a linux kernel do. I dont need to change it its the "legal" way to mention it.

There is absolutely no difference between a GNU software made inside the GNU project and a software made outside the GNU project but which use the GPL. They accomplish the same goal doing it in different ways. A bit like KDE and GNOME.

Please go pass your LPI , your elementary class , your secondary class and your university class , do a major in CS and then a doctorate in CS , then do 20 year in the IT field by using a time machine which help you start your carreer in the 1980 up until now , and dont forget to help build minimum 25 new GNU/Linux distribution and contribute software , before that work on BSD software , do documentation and support professionnaly for Gnu/Linux for over 8 years , and get a teaching degree to teach CS too.

Dont bother opening your yap until then.

Like I said before , you whant to make your point "sue me" , I will show you who is right,
Until then , again , shut your yap.

Have a nice day

--
I am a REAL American from Canada , not a wanna-be from the country , self called "last remaining superpower" "of America
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by shaitand · 2005-03-03 07:31 · Score: 1

Right, go become a random ass on Slashdot who claims lots of accomplishments. Should I assume the people I am talking to are less qualified than myself as well?

Tell me, when did I start my career and what are my accomplishments?

"dont forget to help build minimum 25 new GNU/Linux distribution and contribute software"

Did you build 25 distributions (assuming you mean linux distribution by GNU/Linux distribution) or did you contribute to a project used by 25 distributions? There is a big difference, and a google search does not even yield 25 worthwhile distributions.

"Dont bother opening your yap until then."

When you have the above qualifications, you still will not be qualified to speak down to an AC on slashdot. Ignorance is ignorance no matter how you dress it.

I repeat, do not bother responding simply to try to get the last word. Unless you have new INFORMATION (as opposed to "nuh uh") do not bother responding at all.

"its the "legal" way to mention it"

According to the people who want a share of the credit for someone elses word because nobody gives two shits about their own GNU/Hurd. Yeah, they are authoritive.
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by Moulinneuf · 2005-03-03 08:41 · Score: 0

Like I said its Gnu/Linux , you can make all the noise you whant , you and even I cant change it ...

You have a career and accomplisment , thats good to know , you where employee of the month at the next door sonic ?

Helped build 25 GNU/Linux distribution is self explaining ...

I actually contributed to project who are used in over 300 distribution.

I dont consider myself one of the best or the do it all but I did contribute.

I hope your not paid to research online , cant even use Google properly ...

try :

www.distrowatch.com

Ignorance can be solved by learning , education , watching or be tought by experts.

I had the last word from the start , your an idiot who dont accept the reality , and I am toying with you. We won. A long time ago too.

You accuse me of difamation ... I said sue me and proove your point , thats what grown up do ...

You accuse GNU of stealing there own work , sue the people you think are thief , thats what grown up do ...

But then your not a grown up , your a kid , grown up fight and win and make there point.

Have a nice day.

--
I am a REAL American from Canada , not a wanna-be from the country , self called "last remaining superpower" "of America
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by shaitand · 2005-03-03 11:34 · Score: 1

"You have a career and accomplisment , thats good to know , you where employee of the month at the next door sonic ?"

Please age a bit before proclaiming false accomplishments and talking to those who have greater real accomplishment than you ever will. I doubt you have ever managed something so great as employee of the month... anywhere.

"I said sue me and proove your point , thats what grown up do ..."

Ok, sue me and prove your point, otherwise please stfu.

"But then your not a grown up , your a kid , grown up fight and win and make there point."

I fought, I won, I made my point. You keep spouting lies and ranting anyway. I've told you twice that unless you actually have some factual data to add to please not bother to respond. If you respond again with nothing more than "I'm right, I have no idea who you are but I think I'm better and more qualified than you because we disagree, everything licensed under the gpl is GNU software whether it is produced by the organization called GNU or not, even though the fsf specifically promotes a different ideal!"
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by Moulinneuf · 2005-03-03 12:52 · Score: 0

It would be fun to discuss your accomplishment , it would take a good 2 seconds. But since your ashame to discuss them ...

I guess your wrong again , I whas employee of the month at four company and I have the record for eleven month at one of them. this whas when I whas a teenager , like yourself I guess.

I dont claim things I did not do , or accomplisment of others.

Why do I need to waste my money on you , Its legally Gnu/Linux , we won.

You fought what ? your cat ?

You won what ? 1st prize for stupidity ?

You made a point ? in your dream ?

I said its called GNU/linux :

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html

And I am right ...

I have shown factual data , over and over and over , but you refuse them because your fabulating in your own bubble and are closed to the real world.

Please STFU , Dont reply your absolutely and tottaly wrong , and I am sure that tying your shoe is a big accomplishment for you but your irrelevant for the entire planet.

Have a nice day.

since I am the grown up I cease to reply to your stupidity in this thread from now on ...

--
I am a REAL American from Canada , not a wanna-be from the country , self called "last remaining superpower" "of America
Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, not count by shaitand · 2005-03-03 13:11 · Score: 1

"It would be fun to discuss your accomplishment , it would take a good 2 seconds."

You base this on? Or do you just spout random nonsense with no factual basis whatsoever? Don't bother answering. It is what we Americans call a rhetorical question.

"whas a teenager , like yourself I guess."

You base this on? Or do you just spout random nonsense with no factual basis whatsoever? Don't bother answering. It is what we Americans call a rhetorical question.

"I said its called GNU/linux :

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html"

They are not authoritive since they neither author nor contribute to Linux.

"I have shown factual data , over and over and over"

Your factual data is some fanatic's rant on the GNU website. If it were authored by Linux Torvalds it would become factual. More to the point however is that I did not say "factual data" I said NEW factual data. If you don't have anything to say that you haven't said OVER and OVER and OVER, then stop talking until you do.

"I am sure that tying your shoe is a big accomplishment for you but your irrelevant for the entire planet."

You see, the difference between you and the rest of the planet is that we require some sort of evidence or basis before accepting a claim. If you do not like something you apparently just spout insults at random.

The Linux Increase Can Be Attributed to by ThomasFlip · 2005-03-01 05:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

none other than IBM I would presume. Sun and SGI are dead so I don't see unix jumping ahead in the near future. Apple doesn't come off as a server company. BSD isn't as widely supported (I don't think) as Linux, and certainly doesn't have the momentum. Continue to see Linux Rise !

--
If the dollar is an "I owe you nothing", then the Euro is a "Who owes you nothing." - Doug Casey

Re:The Linux Increase Can Be Attributed to by LWATCDR · 2005-03-01 05:12 · Score: 4, Informative

The Xserver from apple is doing pretty well, from what I hear it is very good product. I would also say that SUN is not dead yet. SGI... Well they do seem to have some cool stuff still. I wish them well.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:The Linux Increase Can Be Attributed to by javaxman · 2005-03-01 05:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

Apple doesn't come off as a server company.
That opinion is so last century.
The XServe is so insanely great that people are really starting to take notice, even with Apple's historically bad server-side track record. A 36% revenue increase? That's nothing compared to the XServe over 119% unit sales increase. We're installing ours now, and I can see why people like them. They just work, they're damn fast, and they're really pretty cheaply priced when you compare them to similarly-capable systems, and it's honestly really, really hard to think of something they can't do.
Apple may not come off as a server company to you, but if you were to fairly evaluate the XServe? That thing sells itself... complete with BSD unixy goodness.
Re:The Linux Increase Can Be Attributed to by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 05:47 · Score: 0

Not to be nitpicky, but: It's Xserve, not Xserver.
Re:The Linux Increase Can Be Attributed to by fr2asbury · 2005-03-01 05:52 · Score: 4, Funny

Sun and SGI are dead. BSD is dead. Linux will be dead by adding a Windows driver infastructure to it. Old people in Korea aren't dead though, they still send email. SCO is undead. When will this culture of death end?
Re:The Linux Increase Can Be Attributed to by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2005-03-01 06:10 · Score: 2, Informative

The Linux Increase Can Be Attributed to none other than IBM I would presume.

Hardly "none other."
IBM is second in Linux server revenue with 23.5% of the market, HP is first at 26%.
source

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:The Linux Increase Can Be Attributed to by jdwest · 2005-03-01 06:12 · Score: 4, Informative

Just installed and set up a new XServe last week. It is a very nice server, indeed. Although not quite perfect for the point-and-click admins (not that Slashdot readers are, anyway), the hardware is nothing short of incredible, IMO. The only hiccup I've encountered with XServe (10.3.8) is its mod_perl implementation, so I will have to roll my own.

I have a "nice" Dell PowerEdge 4600 Xeon single running Mandrake that has been rock-solid in the 2.5 years it has been up, but it sounds like a vacuum cleaner on steroids 24x7. It puts off a goodly amount of heat, too -- thank goodness for server rooms. I love it, and am a little nervous about giving it up. It was my first real test with Linux, and I've come away with nothing but good experiences with it. I've come to appreciate the Linux experience from a reliability standpoint.

Time will tell if the XServe box is as good, but based on my 18+ years experience with Apple's Mac hardware, it stands more than a reasonable chance.

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet ...
Re:The Linux Increase Can Be Attributed to by Dogtanian · 2005-03-01 06:20 · Score: 1

Old people in Korea aren't dead though, they still send email.

Us dead people send email too, you insensitive clod.

--
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Re:The Linux Increase Can Be Attributed to by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 06:45 · Score: 0

You are missing "In Soviet Russia you are dead".
Re:The Linux Increase Can Be Attributed to by Beyond_GoodandEvil · 2005-03-01 07:31 · Score: 1

When Netcraft confirms the culture is dead...oh, sorry about that.

--
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
Re:The Linux Increase Can Be Attributed to by hawk · 2005-03-01 07:53 · Score: 1

some folks are just vivocentric . . .

:)

hawk
Re:The Linux Increase Can Be Attributed to by metamatic · 2005-03-01 08:48 · Score: 1

In fact, IBM's revenue growth on Linux servers was higher than the figure cited in the article...but I'm probably not allowed to tell you how much higher...

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Re:The Linux Increase Can Be Attributed to by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 09:05 · Score: 0

When will this culture of death end?
Just as soon as all Muslims convert to atheism or another religion...and changing the color of the BSOD to beige or salmon would help too.
Re:The Linux Increase Can Be Attributed to by penguinoid · 2005-03-01 10:00 · Score: 2, Funny

When will this culture of death end?

When will this culture of death die off?

--
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Re:The Linux Increase Can Be Attributed to by SunFan · 2005-03-01 14:09 · Score: 1

Sun and SGI are dead so I don't see unix jumping ahead in the near future.

Sun is the #1 UNIX company on the planet (edging out even IBM and HP in this market). They also sell Linux on Opteron (quite a few of them, I hear).

--
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.

No mention of BSD! by Mars+Ultor · 2005-03-01 05:05 · Score: 5, Funny

What about *BSD? I think the absence of any mention here is a clear indicator that it's dying. Anyone have some Netcraft stats?

--
"Nokia is not a country, it's the capital of Finland!" -Moderated "Informative". Yeesh.

Re:No mention of BSD! by FLAGGR · 2005-03-01 05:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

BSD seems to always get clumped in with unix. Don't see why, unless its the commercial BSD's but meh I'm assuming it is included in the unix category (with OSX too I bet)
Re:No mention of BSD! by TheRealMindChild · 2005-03-01 05:30 · Score: 2, Informative

FOr a good chunk of time, Unix could be broken up into two flavors, more or less: SCO Unix and BSD Unix. This is why BSD gets grouped in with unix... because that is what it is.

We've all got our copy of the Devil Book right(http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0201061961/ 104-3689157-9232706?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=507846&s=bo oks&v=glance). Notice the name "The Design and Implementation of the 4.3 BSD UNIX Operating System

--

"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Re:No mention of BSD! by SenFo · 2005-03-01 05:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

"What about *BSD?"

I still don't understand why Linux isn't categorized as Unix. Is it a license issue?

In the beginning, I can remember all the Unix guys degrading Linux. At the time Linux was probably missing a lot of what the large products had to offer. Now days, Linux feels pretty much like my old Unix boxes; but with BASH as my primary shell.

"I think the absence of any mention here is a clear indicator that it's dying."

FreeBSD has recently grown in popularity. They just released their new kernel and things are still looking good for them. I've finally become accustomed to Gentoo's portage enough that I prefer it over FreeBSD's ports; but ports still has some very powerful features that make it the choice of many.

--
My lame blog.
Re:No mention of BSD! by nalav · 2005-03-01 06:07 · Score: 1

"I still don't understand why Linux isn't categorized as Unix. Is it a license issue?"
Linux is not Unix. Especially not like Aix, Irix, Solaris, BSD, etc are. Those are the Unixes.
Re:No mention of BSD! by Mars+Ultor · 2005-03-01 06:09 · Score: 1

Notice the name "The Design and Implementation of the 4.3 BSD UNIX Operating System

Notice the use of the phrase Netcraft stats? It was a joke is all. I actually got my start to this whole GNU thing on FreeBSD 4.* After you crash course into UNIX that way, Gentoo, Debian, etc. don't seem all that scary. I had KDE running over FreeBSD on a Pentium II. I thought I was the hottest things since sliced bread.

--
"Nokia is not a country, it's the capital of Finland!" -Moderated "Informative". Yeesh.
Re:No mention of BSD! by thisissilly · 2005-03-01 06:55 · Score: 2, Informative

two flavors, more or less: SCO Unix and BSD Unix. I think you mean "AT&T Unix (System III,V, etc)" and "BSD".
Re:No mention of BSD! by bastardsquadmuzz · 2005-03-01 07:14 · Score: 1

The BSDs are derived from the same source -- 4.3BSD, so although they are no longer officially UNIX, they have enough of the heritage there. Linux was written from scratch, and so does not have any UNIX heritage to draw from.

This is my own interpretation of it however. I don't know what the official stance is.

--
--Muzz
Re:No mention of BSD! by TheRealMindChild · 2005-03-01 08:16 · Score: 1

Maybe it is wrong of me, but when comparing flavors of Unix, SysV and SCO are synonymous to me.

--

"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Re:No mention of BSD! by Kosgrove · 2005-03-01 08:17 · Score: 1

Yeah, but Linux has pretty much the same interface as any other Unix variant - same naming conventions, same basic shell commands (ls, chmod, etc), same file permissions, etc, etc.

So why not just say Linux is part of the Unix family?
Re:No mention of BSD! by mickyflynn · 2005-03-01 08:20 · Score: 1

That's just what THEY want you to think!!
Re:No mention of BSD! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 08:52 · Score: 0

It's all part of the Linux hype. If you say that Linux is a knock-off of a 20-year-old OS design, who would care?
Re:No mention of BSD! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 09:21 · Score: 0

*ahem*
What does GNU stand for? GNU's Not Unix, you know, so go look it up.
Re:No mention of BSD! by evilviper · 2005-03-01 09:51 · Score: 1

"The Design and Implementation of the 4.3 BSD UNIX Operating System

The ONLY reason UNIX is mentioned in the title, is because before 4.4BSD Lite, BSD still contained AT&T UNIX code, and so it was still UNIX.

Linux is seperate not because it's not UNIX code (BSD would qualify too) but because Linux has been getting huge ammounts of press, while BSD has not. The reasons behind that are anyone's guess, but never-the-less, that is why.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:No mention of BSD! by Bnonn · 2005-03-01 12:04 · Score: 1

Yes, but then 4.4BSD came out without any AT&T code, and was required to drop the UNIX trademark.
Hence, BSD is not Unix.
Re:No mention of BSD! by 1lus10n · 2005-03-01 12:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

Because its not unix. Its a fundamental design difference. Linux was specifically desiegned to be a unix-like system that could run on cheap (x86) hardware, so a lot of things are similar (commands and what not) but are not always the same in function or syntax. Especially if you are comparing a GNU utility to an old corporate Unix utility. However thats where some of the similarities come in, the corporate Unix's are increasingly using the GNU tools.

You build a kit car to look like a '67 shelby mustang, that doesnt make it a '67 shelby mustang.

Most people consider Linux to be part of the family, like an inlaw. Its not a blood relationship, they are sort of related. The BSD's on the other hand are Unix, they started as unix and still maintain a good portion of unix code. Some of their unix-ness has been bred out of the family though.

--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
Re:No mention of BSD! by Brandybuck · 2005-03-01 17:49 · Score: 1

The ONLY reason UNIX is mentioned in the title, is because before 4.4BSD Lite, BSD still contained AT&T UNIX code, and so it was still UNIX.

Six! Six freaking files!

Do we also call SysV by the name of "BSD" since it backported a heck of a lot more files than that from BSD?

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!

Is that all? by Vainglorious+Coward · 2005-03-01 05:05 · Score: 5, Funny

35.6% seems a pretty poor record for uptime to me.

--
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush

Re:Is that all? by SenFo · 2005-03-01 05:45 · Score: 1

Are you joking?

It's revenue, NOT uptime.

--
My lame blog.
Re:Is that all? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 05:50 · Score: 1, Funny

Are you off your medication, again?
Re:Is that all? by DA-MAN · 2005-03-01 07:11 · Score: 1

35.6% seems a pretty poor record for uptime to me.

Obviously written by someone whose never used NT4!

--
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum

Computerworld.com.au confirms it... by Joey+Patterson · 2005-03-01 05:06 · Score: 2, Funny

Linux is NOT dying!

If something goes up, something goes down.. by Masq666 · 2005-03-01 05:06 · Score: 0

If UNIX and Linux are getting more market shares, then someone has to lose shares, and that someone might me M$ (at least i hope)

--
Bits of News Giving you the latest bits.

Re:If something goes up, something goes down.. by w42w42 · 2005-03-01 05:28 · Score: 1

It's a misleading title - I originally read it as market share as well, thinking Windows would have had to been trounced to account for those numbers. It's not though, but only refers to revenue, where Unix/Linux/Windows are all up.
Re:If something goes up, something goes down.. by Masq666 · 2005-03-01 05:48 · Score: 0

Ahh, thanks for pointing this out for me.

--
Bits of News Giving you the latest bits.

Up compared to what? by bwcarty · 2005-03-01 05:06 · Score: 5, Funny

Linux servers up 35.6% and other Unix servers are up 2.7%.

Need a new sysadmin? My Linux and Unix servers are up over 99%.

Re:Up compared to what? by mikvo · 2005-03-01 06:45 · Score: 1

But I hear Microsoft has finally achieved 5 nines downtime...
Re:Up compared to what? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 07:49 · Score: 0

Keeping up with your dyndns Gentoo LAMP box sitting on your home DSL with 6 hits a month is not what real sysadmins do.

Two nines is not impressive even for that.
Re:Up compared to what? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 10:14 · Score: 0

That's a fallacy. They've quite nearly achieved 9 fives uptime! ;-)

It's ALL servers up, better news than I thought by RealAlaskan · 2005-03-01 05:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

It looks as if all server sales are up, not just Linux and Unix. From TFA:

When it comes to operating systems, Unix and Windows servers continued to grow. Unix server revenue was $5.2 billion in the fourth quarter of 2004 while the corresponding figure for Windows was $4.6 billion. Linux servers represented 9 percent of worldwide server revenue in 2004, which is 35.6 percent growth compared to the year before.

It sounds as if we're seeing some growth in IT spending, rather than just growth in Linux. Notice that Unix servers are still a bit ahead of Windows, in terms of dollar volume.

Growth in Linux is good, but overall growth in IT means more jobs, and that's even better.

--
See what I've been reading.

Re:It's ALL servers up, better news than I thought by The-Perl-CD-Bookshel · 2005-03-01 05:16 · Score: 1

the corresponding figure for Windows was $4.6 billion.
I wonder if that figure includes software licenses, or if it is just for the server hardware.

--
I don't keep a lid on my coffee so when I walk around I look busy -me
Re:It's ALL servers up, better news than I thought by RealAlaskan · 2005-03-01 06:06 · Score: 1

>> the corresponding figure for Windows was $4.6 billion.
>I wonder if that figure includes software licenses, or if it is just for the server hardware.
Well, if they're consistant, does it really matter?
Maybe it would: if the Windows figure is license revenue, and the Unix figure is too, then the fact that Linux makes up 9% of the Unix number becomes even more impressive.

--
See what I've been reading.
Re:It's ALL servers up, better news than I thought by The-Perl-CD-Bookshel · 2005-03-01 07:07 · Score: 1

If they consistantly include the cost of the OS license then it would skew the figures towards more dollar sales for MS products which steeply ramp up the cost as blades/CPUs are added.

--
I don't keep a lid on my coffee so when I walk around I look busy -me
Re:It's ALL servers up, better news than I thought by RealAlaskan · 2005-03-01 07:28 · Score: 1

If they consistantly include the cost of the OS license then it would skew the figures towards more dollar sales for MS products which steeply ramp up the cost as blades/CPUs are added.
Yep, that's right. So, as I said, if they were consistantly including OS cost, Unix and Linux are doing far better than they look. Since they're looking pretty good already, that's doubly nifty.

--
See what I've been reading.
Re:It's ALL servers up, better news than I thought by Dan+Ost · 2005-03-01 07:51 · Score: 1

I've never heard of anyone running Windows on blades. Does anyone do this?

--

*sigh* back to work...
Re:It's ALL servers up, better news than I thought by LinuxHam · 2005-03-01 08:36 · Score: 2, Informative

I've never heard of anyone running Windows on blades. Does anyone do this?

Yes, I just finished a 3-year server consolidation deal collapsing over 700 servers to ESX on "big boxes" and Windows primarily on IBM blade. Now I'm wrapping up an 8 week SCON design project collapsing over 100 aging Windows servers to a mix of VMware and Windows on HP blades. Here's a small book on deploying Exchange on IBM's blade offering. FWIW, I'm an IBM SCON Architect. Blade is a nice alternative to ESX when customers either

a) want a good consolidation ratio but using physical servers instead of VMware (14 servers in 7U), or
b) want to go nuts consolidating over 100 servers to 7U with VMware but splitting all the "eggs" across 14 different "baskets", or
c) somewhere in between

BTW, HP offers 8 blades in 6U, and you can't mix RISC and Intel blades in the same chassis; advantage IBM

--
Intelligent Life on Earth
Re:It's ALL servers up, better news than I thought by shaitand · 2005-03-01 08:55 · Score: 1

Wait a sec, you mean you IMPLEMENTED windows servers? Surely you mean that you upgraded the server OS to something other than windows but they had old windows stuff when you got there?
Re:It's ALL servers up, better news than I thought by IchBinEinPenguin · 2005-03-01 13:42 · Score: 1

yeah... probably SUS servers to support the desktops :-)
Re:It's ALL servers up, better news than I thought by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 17:10 · Score: 0

it doesnt really matter if license costs are included ... anyone tried to compare support costs between sun, microsoft, ibm, novel and red hat? - guess who will be the cheapest for a 4 way system over a 3 year period. Enough of this license nonsense linux is free only for an individual user for a corporation it is far more expensive then a windows box.
end.

- La Riva (too lazy to create an account)
Re:It's ALL servers up, better news than I thought by The-Perl-CD-Bookshel · 2005-03-02 04:35 · Score: 1

far better than they look.
this is my gripe with the statistic, its biased. We're not arguing against eachother, we're arguing different points next to eachother. The problem is that the average (non-slashdot) reader is not going to be able to pick out the statistical bias.

--
I don't keep a lid on my coffee so when I walk around I look busy -me

Some of the UNIX's that are still n the market by speighd · 2005-03-01 05:07 · Score: 4, Informative

HP (HP-UX) Sun (Solaris) IBM (AIX) One could also claim that the BSD versions (like Apple OS/X) fall in the category.

Re:Some of the UNIX's that are still n the market by krgallagher · 2005-03-01 06:10 · Score: 1

This is from the article:
"IBM, HP and Sun are competing for market shares in the same accounts. Those days when a customer had habits and said, 'I'm a Sun user or I only trust IBM' are over," he said."
Is that really true? In everycompany I have worked for there was one brand of *NIX in the vast majority of hardware. This was because of economics. It is cheaper for a large company to go with a single vendor. They get discounts on volume and for support. Sure there are usually a few rouge servers running around, bought by someone who bypassed the normal provisioning process, but they are few and far between.

--
Insert Generic Sig Here:
Re:Some of the UNIX's that are still n the market by pianophile · 2005-03-01 07:32 · Score: 1

there are usually a few rouge servers running around

I prefer black faceplates for my servers, but to each his own.

--

'Your brain is God.' -- Dr. Timothy Leary
Re:Some of the UNIX's that are still n the market by jbplou · 2005-03-01 11:42 · Score: 1

Although I don't think anyone uses OS X servers. I know someone out there as some example of a company using one, but not many.

Imagine by Timesprout · 2005-03-01 05:08 · Score: 1

The figure if Linux was up that much on the desktop

--
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe

What about numbers? by xRelisH · 2005-03-01 05:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

These figures are based on revenue, what's the market share in terms of numbers?

That is, in terms of the number of Unix servers vs. Linux servers vs. Windows servers?

I don't think revenue gives one an accurate picture of the market share of these servers, especially for Linux since I'd expect the software for Linux machines ( and probably hardware too, since it's off the shelf stuff versus a lot of the stuff from Sun/IBM ) to be a lot cheaper.

Re:What about numbers? by rastan · 2005-03-01 05:18 · Score: 1

I am not so sure wheather revenue is not a good number. How would you compare a $1M UNIX server against 100 $1k Linux servers? Which counts as more in your view of "market share"?

--
Understanding is a three-edged sword. --Kosh
Re:What about numbers? by hackstraw · 2005-03-01 05:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

That is, in terms of the number of Unix servers vs. Linux servers vs. Windows servers?

If it takes 15 Linux servers to do the work of 1 Windows server, what does the number of servers tell you?
Re:What about numbers? by ArsonSmith · 2005-03-01 05:57 · Score: 1

It tells me it's time to upgrade the 486 linux boxes.

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:What about numbers? by xRelisH · 2005-03-01 06:30 · Score: 1

True, raw numbers don't say much. You could have a $1M Unix supercomputer and two regular off the shelf Linux machines, that's obviously a bad comparison.

I guess a better way to evaluate market share of servers that are in a certain "class". For example, what's the market share of webservers for websites that get around 10,000 hits ( or maybe in terms of bandwidth, say 5 gigs of bandwidth per day )?

This way at least we're comparing servers that are all considered "equal".

With that said, I still say that raw revenue figures can be misleading. For a render farm, you could spend $1M on a Unix supercomputer, or spend $100K on a cluster of linux machines that does the same job. The revenue figures in this case don't imply that there are 10 times more Unix machines doing rendering for studios out there.
Re:What about numbers? by hackstraw · 2005-03-01 10:48 · Score: 1

Re:What about numbers? (Score:1, Troll)

That is, in terms of the number of Unix servers vs. Linux servers vs. Windows servers?

If it takes 15 Linux servers to do the work of 1 Windows server, what does the number of servers tell you?

Man, I don't get the moderators lately. I'm not Windows guy at all, but intentionally put absurd numbers that are opposite of my beliefs to make a point, and I get modded as a troll. Shesh.

I was trying to merely make a counterpoint to the "Insightful" comment that someone wanted data for the number of servers installed.

MiniMac servers up by WillAffleckUW · 2005-03-01 05:09 · Score: 5, Funny

but they're too small to be counted.

i know i had a MiniMac server somewhere on my desk ... oh, wait, it's under my coffee cup!

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Re:MiniMac servers up by gngulrajani · 2005-03-01 05:21 · Score: 1

woh , you better make sure you coffee isnt to hot!

-best
-greg
Re:MiniMac servers up by Ironsides · 2005-03-01 05:26 · Score: 1

You kidding? He's using the mac mini to heat the coffee!

--
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Re:MiniMac servers up by operagost · 2005-03-01 05:32 · Score: 1

Good to see that the MiniMacs still have that nifty cup holder. I have to use a very small cup in mine though, or else it will tip over.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:MiniMac servers up by bert.cl · 2005-03-01 07:05 · Score: 1

Yeah,
I always thought it supported java out of the box
Re:MiniMac servers up by wootest · 2005-03-01 11:04 · Score: 1

Nice gag, but they're slot-loaded.

Linux server revenue almost equals M$-Windows by Husgaard · 2005-03-01 05:10 · Score: 3, Informative

TFA states that total server revenue in 2004 was US$49 billion, and that 9% of this was Linux servers. This amounts to US$4.41 billion. M$-Windows server revenue was US$4.6 billion in 2004.

Looks like Linux is catching up on M$-Windows.

Re:Linux server revenue almost equals M$-Windows by OblongPlatypus · 2005-03-01 05:38 · Score: 1

It does indeed look like that's what the article is saying. Which really makes you wonder - what the hell accounts for the $34.79mil that remains once you subtract the numbers for Windows, Unix, and Linux from the total revenue?

--
-- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
Re:Linux server revenue almost equals M$-Windows by OblongPlatypus · 2005-03-01 05:40 · Score: 1

Oops, make that $34.79bil, not mil.

--
-- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
Re:Linux server revenue almost equals M$-Windows by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 05:41 · Score: 0

sun hardware...
Re:Linux server revenue almost equals M$-Windows by cmorriss · 2005-03-01 05:57 · Score: 1

TFA states that total server revenue in 2004 was US$49 billion, and that 9% of this was Linux servers. This amounts to US$4.41 billion. M$-Windows server revenue was US$4.6 billion in 2004.
Looks like Linux is catching up on M$-Windows.
Not quite yet. Microsoft Windows server revenue was US$4.6 billion in the fourth quarter of 2004. So Linux still has only about 25% of Window's server revenue, but Linux's growth continues to remain very high and considering the fact that anyone can access it's source and binaries for free, that's not too bad. :)

--
10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
Re:Linux server revenue almost equals M$-Windows by troop23 · 2005-03-01 06:02 · Score: 3, Informative

Your misquoting the article. The figures for Unix and Windows was $5.2 billion and $4.6 billion for the forth quarter only. That anualizes to $20.8 billion and $18.4 billion for the year. The Linux number is for the whole year.

When it comes to operating systems, Unix and Windows servers continued to grow. Unix server revenue was $5.2 billion in the fourth quarter of 2004 while the corresponding figure for Windows was $4.6 billion.

Linux servers represented 9 percent of worldwide server revenue in 2004, which is 35.6 percent growth compared to the year before.
Re:Linux server revenue almost equals M$-Windows by Paul+Jakma · 2005-03-01 06:02 · Score: 4, Informative

M$-Windows server revenue was US$4.6 billion in 2004.

No, the windows/unix figures were for the last quarter of 2004, quoting the article:

Unix server revenue was $5.2 billion in the fourth quarter of 2004 while the corresponding figure for Windows was $4.6 billion.

Multiply by 4 to get ~$25G for Unix, $18G for Windows. So that puts Linux at somewhere around 1/4 of MS Windows. It also explains the "missing $34G" the other poster referred to. It isnt missing, 25+18+4.4 = 47.4G, so non-Windows/Unix/Linux revenue is somewhere between $1G to $2G.

--
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
Re:Linux server revenue almost equals M$-Windows by jrutley · 2005-03-01 06:50 · Score: 1

Not quite.
That $49 billion is for the year.
Assuming that UNIX and Windows servers made up 91% of the market, the revenue for the quarter was about $10.8 billion.
So that puts Linux at $1 billion (9%), with Windows at $4.6 billion (43%), and UNIX at $5.2 billion (48%).
Re:Linux server revenue almost equals M$-Windows by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 14:34 · Score: 0

Wait, did you just refer to a billion dollars as a giga dollar? Now is the time when you get rid of your computer, buy a farm, and relax for a few years. Come back when Linux is dominant and Microsoft is no longer earning "billions" a year.

Missing from the summary by bonch · 2005-03-01 05:10 · Score: 4, Informative

Missing from the summary was mention of Windows growth--"When it comes to operating systems, Unix and Windows servers continued to grow. Unix server revenue was $5.2 billion in the fourth quarter of 2004 while the corresponding figure for Windows was $4.6 billion."

That's really good for a non-UNIX server.

Re:Missing from the summary by nbritton · 2005-03-01 06:54 · Score: 1

That's not what the numbers say, Linux and UNIX is gaining on windows 2:1....

*nix = $5,200,000,000 / $500 = 10,400,000
Win = $4,600,000,000 / $1000 = 4,600,000

Bad news for windows in the server martket.
Re:Missing from the summary by jbplou · 2005-03-01 11:49 · Score: 1

Whats that math your trying to show. I think most Unix servers are more expensive than most Windows Servers. Like this Sun Server that costs $752,085. I doubt you'll find many Windows servers that cost more than that and its not even Suns highest model. Lets face it Windows primarly runs on x86 while Unix runs on all sorts of expensive architechtures. Your math is serioulsy flawed because I've never been in an organization that has purchased a server for $500 or $1000 to get what you need for business it is going to cost more. This isn't your home network here.
Re:Missing from the summary by nbritton · 2005-03-01 19:07 · Score: 1

"When it comes to operating systems, Unix and Windows servers continued to grow. Unix server revenue was $5.2 billion in the fourth quarter of 2004 while the corresponding figure for Windows was $4.6 billion."

The keyword is "operating systems" and the numbers show Microsoft getting it's shit pushed in.

Windows Server 2003, Standard / Enterprose Edition: $1,100 / $3,999
Windows Server 2003, Datacenter 4way / 8way / 16way: $12,500 / $25,000 / $50,000
SuSE LINUX Enterprise Server, 2way / 8way / 16way: $349 / $579 / $899
RedHat Enterprise Linux ES, Basic / Standard: $349 / $799
RedHat Enterprise Linux AS, Standard / Premium: $1,499 / $2,499
Sun Solaris 10, 8way Basic / Standard / Premium: $120 / $240 / $360
SuSE, Redhat, or Solaris Media Only: $0.00
Re:Missing from the summary by jbplou · 2005-03-02 10:15 · Score: 1

The key here is its the cost of the server. Which includes the hardware and the operatin system. The average Sun Solaris system is much more expensive than the average Dell Windows system. You also left out Windows 2003 Small Business Edition and Web Edition which are both cheaper in price. Plus where are your AIX numbers, or is that too expensive. Plus Suse doesn't have a very large footprint to be taken seiously for adding into that 5.2 billion.

97.3% of all statistics are made up by xtermin8 · 2005-03-01 05:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

and 99% of the time I don't care.

Re:97.3% of all statistics are made up by hackstraw · 2005-03-01 05:45 · Score: 1

I'm not interested in well over 99% of the female population out there.

Yet, I still care.

Oh, and its 96.37% of all stats are made up on the spot.
Re:97.3% of all statistics are made up by ArsonSmith · 2005-03-01 05:51 · Score: 1

Oh, and its 96.37% of all stats are made up on the spot.

And you know that 76.654% of those made up on the spot have absolutly no basis in reality.

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:97.3% of all statistics are made up by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 06:00 · Score: 0

It's common knowledge that 74.3% of all released statistics are wrong.
Re:97.3% of all statistics are made up by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 06:03 · Score: 0

97.3% of all statistics are made up

97.3% of all statistics are made up

Where are you getting those figures?

**WHOOSH!**

Whoa! What just flew over my head?
Re:97.3% of all statistics are made up by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 06:21 · Score: 0

You are 100% correct.

Feel good to be a UNIX admin right at this moment by nomad63 · 2005-03-01 05:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

Well kinda-sorta. I have devoted last 13 years of my 40+ years life to be a full time computer systems admin, after getting my bachelors and masters degrees in EE and working 7 years in the electronics assembly and manufacturing trenches. I knew that there was an ulterior motive to go in the UNIX direction rather than windoze path subconciously but did not know exactly why and how I ended up being a UNIX guy.
During the last few years, certificate mills creating an army of windows admin drones, who can only click a predefined sequence of location on the screen with their mouse and passing as "system administrators", I tend to think that, certificate watching management types are going to hire more and more of these admin lookalikes and increase the share of windows in the server room which would make a demise of my careerpath. When I see articles like UNIX/Linux gaining ground on the server room, it makes me breathe a little easier. I do not want another career change, even though, after a week of skiing in Colorado, doing something like that for living is tempting :)

--

__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals

Everybody wins! by cmburns69 · 2005-03-01 05:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is not an increase in market share! This is an increase in revanue. Microsoft was reporting similar gains for their server division as well.

When you're not talking about market share, everybody can be a winner!

--
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!

Blade server sales are up? by Mr+Ambersand · 2005-03-01 05:12 · Score: 1

I hope that doesn't mean that Sun is going to pull Open Solaris now that their financial situation has improved.

--
"Your admirers in the street
Got to hoot and stamp their feet
in the heat from your physique" -King Crimson

Re:Blade server sales are up? by Doomdark · 2005-03-01 06:35 · Score: 1

Sun is going to pull Open Solaris now that their financial situation has improved
Huh? While cheap-ass blade server revenues (and especially shipments) are up, expensive big-ass server revenues are down... and since former has razor thin margins, whereas latter does not, it's not given that their financial situation is positively changed by this. You may want to go read Sun's financial reports to see how well they are doing. It's bit like the optimism regarding Apple-clones back in 90s; growing the market share doesn't help if your company doesn't make money. You may also want to read public filings by Sun, to check out their profitability and financial status; they give a pretty clear picture of how things are, at high level.
But even if the situation did improve, backtracking from the announcements would be a very foolish move (PR-wise), and considering necessary legal work Sun has already done to get S10 out there as Open Source, I find it very unlikely to happen in near future. In fact, if they did that, I'd consider it as the signal of the show coming to its end.... (i.e. it'd be a desperate move by a dying company)

--
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

Activant Solutions use UNIX -- many new installs by The-Perl-CD-Bookshel · 2005-03-01 05:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

The business that I'm currently developing a web site for just got a snazzy new POS/Inventory Management/Client Accessible DB/Payroll/Kitchen Sink solution from Activant. They are running UNIX on the back end with familiar Windows machines for the POS machines. Do you need someone on-site that knows UNIX? Not at all, they can diagnose and fix most problems from their headquarters in California. I could see these highly polished, well integrated systems becoming a must-have for small business. Way to go UNIX, way to go Activant for making a strong OS decision.

P.S. I don't own any Activant stock (if they are even public). Also, I do have a gripe with their lack easy to find web integration information for their seemingly home-rolled database, "Eagle."

--
I don't keep a lid on my coffee so when I walk around I look busy -me

Up 35.6%!! Even for Slashdot, this is meaningless. by kokoloko · 2005-03-01 05:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

At first I assumed it was market share. Then I stopped and thought it must be something much less dramatic. Then I RTFA. Jeez..... Basically, in a growing server market, Linux is producing more money than it did before.

Not really by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 05:18 · Score: 0

We have been in an IT depression for 4 years. I would guess that a good percentage of the Windows boxes are to be able to replace some boxes that have simple been dieing out. Keep in mind, that for the last 4 years, companies have been buying the boxes on e-bay and other places. Now, they have to buy new. So, personally, I do not think that this shows an improved situation.

Re:Not really by RealAlaskan · 2005-03-01 06:04 · Score: 1

... companies have been buying the boxes on e-bay and other places. Now, they have to buy new. So, personally, I do not think that this shows an improved situation.
The folks who build and sell the new boxes probably would call it an improvement, and some of them still live in the U.S.

--
See what I've been reading.

Re:So what's.... by ajnsue · 2005-03-01 05:19 · Score: 1

um I think its still 1, unless they changed it recently?

Had to buy my laptop retail. by NoMoreNicksLeft · 2005-03-01 05:21 · Score: 1

So of course they claim a copy of windows for it. I broke the restore cd, and installed slackware 10 on it, non-dualboot. The "designed for windows xp" sticker left a little gunk that I can't quite wipe away. Now if I could just replace the windows key with tux somehow...

Re:Had to buy my laptop retail. by oliverthered · 2005-03-01 05:38 · Score: 1

I've tried the windows key a hundred times or more under linux and still windows hasn't popped up. I think my keyboard must be broken.

--
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Re:Had to buy my laptop retail. by wed128 · 2005-03-01 05:41 · Score: 1

I don't know about replacing just one key, but here's a link to a keyboard with the keys built in... CLICKY
Re:Had to buy my laptop retail. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 06:48 · Score: 0

It's not very practical on a desktop.
Re:Had to buy my laptop retail. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 08:35 · Score: 0

Gaaah, I meant laptop, it's not practical on a laptop, I buy my laptops in parts, so of course I get the best I can :)

Just at a glance by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 05:21 · Score: 0

I would guess that Windows grew at less than 10% and probably at around 5%. Must of the real growth was in blade and Linux. If windows is less than 10% increase, it it slowing way down.

1.16 billion dollars by Johan+Veenstra · 2005-03-01 05:21 · Score: 1

3.25 billion -> 4.41 billion

Re:So what's.... by ajnsue · 2005-03-01 05:24 · Score: 2, Funny

can you imagine how embarrasing that was for me... My stupidity documented. Guess I will go back to managing my win2k boxes and shut up.

Zealotic Linux Users... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 05:24 · Score: 0

post at slashdot.

Re:Zealotic Linux Users... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 05:38 · Score: 0

Make that up 501%

35.6% growth = 9% market share by winkydink · 2005-03-01 05:25 · Score: 1, Interesting

Clearly Linux is coming of age in the enterprise data center.

For instance, all of Oracle's hosting for its ERP product is done on Linux. In my company, we run our PeopleSoft ERP system on Linux.

I believe that we are still on the bottom of the S-curve and will easily see numbers in the 30% range in the next 3 years.

--

"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

Re:35.6% growth = 9% market share by jbplou · 2005-03-01 10:13 · Score: 1

and will easily see numbers in the 30% range in the next 3 years.
I really doubt that. IBM is the only major manufacturer solidly behind Linux. I see more Oracle running on Solaris and Windows than Linux. This is just like the way firefox is having its usage growth begining to slow. It may be a really good product but there are only so many willing to switch. Plus you add in the fact that corporations are locked into getting at least some Windows servers for things like SMS, unless your suggesting that Linux is going to take over the desktop market in the next 3 years.
Re:35.6% growth = 9% market share by Ham_belony · 2005-03-01 23:33 · Score: 0

The support for linux from software vendors is increasing drastically, that is the only reason why linux is double digit growth. At the moment I only see the major growth for linux in the application server market. I know at least of one place that will switch Oracle application servers from a windows platform to a linux platform.

Re:Feel good to be a UNIX admin right at this mome by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 05:25 · Score: 1, Interesting

You misread, if you can't do simple math and realise that Linux/Unix grew at LESS THAN HALF the rate that the server industry grew, you'd realize that it actually LOST market share.

In that case I would not use the term "Gaining Ground" but rather "Mostly holding on but slipping a bit" instead.

Not to mention that you are seriously a bigot.

Re:So what's.... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 05:26 · Score: 0

... about 9%. =]

Blade server definition by ZeeExSixAre · 2005-03-01 05:31 · Score: 5, Informative

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_server

A blade server is essentially a computer on a motherboard, including: one or more processors, memory, storage, and network connections. The idea behind blade servers is that many such blades can be added in space-saving racks, thus providing compact and powerful computing solutions that are less expensive than traditional solutions (such as mainframes). Blade servers are ideal for specific purposes such as web hosting and cluster computing. Individual blades are typically hot-swappable. Although blade server technology allows for open, cross-vendor solutions, for the time being, users experience fewer problems when keeping with blades, racks and blade management tools from the same vendor. Eventual standardisation of the technology will hopefully result in more choices for consumers; increasing numbers of third-party software vendors are now entering this growing field.

Re:Blade server definition by DragonWyatt · 2005-03-01 08:25 · Score: 2, Interesting
I'm not downing your comment, overall very informative. However I thought I'd hang my own off of it since it's topical...

From an engineering standpoint, the concept sucks. Here are a few of my gripes about blades:
1. Convergent infrastructure causes issues. Blades combine power, management, network, cooling, a single CDROM, single floppy, and servers all into one box. Management module crashed? There went all your servers in that chassis! Want to physically split networks for security purposes? Sorry! Want to burn a bunch of CDs or floppies to flash many boxes in parallel? Too bad!
2. Not as expandable. What happens when you need multiple NICs, a SCSI controller, a modem, etc, each allocated to a different server? The answer: you don't.
3. Less serviceable. For example, IBM's lightpath is supposed to be designed to indicate where the problem is on the server so you can make a service call to get the parts in while coordinating downtime. With their blades you have to PULL OUT THE BLADE to see what the problem is! Mostly because there is no front panel to show faults at the blade level.
4. Density is a myth for real servers. Every SCSI option out there only allows for 7 servers in 7U. With only two disks. Pop Quiz: How many 1U servers can you get into 7Us?
5. Hot-Swappable is not a new feature. How hot swappable are individual 1U servers?
6. "Integrated mass deployment tools" are again not specific to blades. There's nothing magical about fancy network-enabled ghost-like tools that operate across a LAN.
7. "Cheaper" is a myth. $20G for the blade chassis, and $2000 per blade? That's $34k for 7 servers. How much for a 1U server? Times 7?
How can these be fixed? Here are some thoughts.
1. Drop a PCI slot into each blade with back-end access.
2. Put a freaking jumper or internal dip switch on each blade to allocate it to different physical networks/ports on the back. Better yet just put separate ports for each blade on the back of the unit- along with a switch- and use something physical to connect the blade to the switch or to the external port.
3. Put a CDROM and floppy drive on the front of each blade.
4. Put more LEDs on the front of the blade
5. Make them WAY more dense- say 24 SCSI servers per 7U.
Of course you're basically approaching "vertical 1U servers". Notice how there's already a nicely engineered solution to all the "problems" that blades pretend to solve?

Thanks for listening to my rant. I have 8 bladecenters in my care and feeding - none of which I had input on for procurement - And I've give anything to swap them out for 1U boxes.
--
Don't sweat the petty things. But do pet the sweaty things.
Re:Blade server definition by LinuxHam · 2005-03-01 09:08 · Score: 2, Informative

Dude. You are bad for business. Especially if people were to start listening to you.

1. You can reboot IBM's management module without crashing your blades. Also, my current customer is running a drop to each of 3 NICs on each HP blade for security reasons. They *want* 21 runs to each blade chassis for some reason.

2. Not what you use blade for. Best tool for the job.

3. It sounds like you must be using IBM equipment but no one has deployed IBM Director. Someone in charge really needs to schedule a visit to get you out of hell. IBM Director can order replacements for failed components automatically and let you schedule your downtime.

4. IBM and HP both do SCSI in single-width blades now. HP does hot plug.

5. None.

6. Can't help you there, except that IBM's RDM can do scripted installs as well as image-based deployment. I can even assign an image to a blade slot so that if you swap out a blade with a blank, Director will automatically push the desired image to the new blank. Great for database and web application servers that join a live cluster.

7. If you're still thinking 1U, then I'm guessing you're not in an enterprise setting. Or a necessarily modern one.

Sorry to disrespect your low UID, but a lot of stuff has changed recently, and some newbies here might actually believe you.

--
Intelligent Life on Earth
Re:Blade server definition by jbplou · 2005-03-01 10:20 · Score: 1

In ten years people will walk into datacenters see someBlade sitting there and the manager will say I don't know what we were thinking buying those. They simply aren't cost effective, which is what they were supposed to be. For the same price you can get some real servers that are more capable.

Stats Based on Revenues by geoffrobinson · 2005-03-01 05:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

So somebody who takes a disk, knows what they are doing, and makes three servers is not represented in the stats.

A Linux box which does two tasks and a Windows box which is devoted to only one will also skew the stats.

While this stat is helpful on a year-to-year basis to see how the industry is trending, it does not give a complete picture.

--
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.

Re:Stats Based on Revenues by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 15:08 · Score: 0
Think about this:
- Linux server revenue last year was five thousand million dollars ($5,000,000,000).
- IBM Linux revenue was $1.5 billion
- HP Linux revenue was $1.25 billion
- Dell Linux revenue was $750 million
That ain't hay.

Monkeys by wed128 · 2005-03-01 05:32 · Score: 1, Funny

Throw Poo.

Re:Feel good to be a UNIX admin right at this mome by megarich · 2005-03-01 05:33 · Score: 1

makes me breath easier too :) i'm a sys admin newbie. only 2+ years of experience. i'm mostly doing linux/unix admin with some windows and i want to keep it that way. my next job i'm looking for is linux administration. that's what i enjoy doing and hopefully i can find a decent jr. admin position out there somewhere...

so the more i see linux server rising, the more opportunity they'll be for me to do what i enjoy elsewhere

RTFA by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 05:38 · Score: 2, Informative

Way to FUD yourself!

First off, Linux isn't Unix, and the article clearly distinguishes between the two.

It does not say that Linux servers are 9% of Unix servers. It says that Linux servers are 9% of the worldwide server revenue.

Secondly, the article clearly states that the total worldwide server revenue is $49 billion.

Re:RTFA by shaitand · 2005-03-01 09:07 · Score: 1

Linux IS unix it just isn't Unix. The trademark is dilluted and unix is a generic term that is synonymous with posix compliance.
Re:RTFA by 1lus10n · 2005-03-01 12:50 · Score: 1

Unix is a code base, it always was a code base. The frickin trademark came along afterwards so there was a standard that could be applied to all the variations out there. Similar to what LSB is trying to accomplish.

Linux is not Unix. It has a lot in common because it was designed to have a lot in common. Commonality however does not mean that they are the same.

Linux does not have the ability to execute Unix code natively. Some of the corporate unices have add-on's that allow them to execute Linux code natively. This tells me that they are different operating systems. (Amongst the hundreds possibly thousands of other differences.)

--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
Re:RTFA by shaitand · 2005-03-02 09:18 · Score: 1

Both BSD and Linux share a great deal of the codebase you are referring to.

Unix is not a codebase, Unix is not a trademark either. The meaning of words is defined by common usage not idealistic determination of meaning, and the common usage of unix is to refer to any posix compliant system.
Re:RTFA by 1lus10n · 2005-03-02 10:03 · Score: 1

Horsecrap. Talk to anyone who works on computers for a living and HAS worked on computers for years. The use the word Unix to describe a specific type of operating system.

Further to the point ... Linux hardly contains any Unix code. Whereas BSD was built on the unix code. Solaris is a BSD for example.

Nobody I have ever talked to thought Unix meant Posix compliance. Why would you use something that came along decades after the fact to layout ground rules to assist in development and training as the definition for an operating system ? Thats goofy. Its like saying that since solaris is going to be (possibly already is) LSB compliant it is linux. Its not.

If everybody thought this then you wouldnt have several people going out of their way to point out that Linux is Not unix. Up and down this article's comments you see two people saying it is and quite a few saying it isnt. The only people who think it is dont have a very good technical grasp on the subject ... or want to lump everything together to make Linux look better (worse ?).

--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
Re:RTFA by shaitand · 2005-03-02 15:19 · Score: 1

"Talk to anyone who works on computers for a living and HAS worked on computers for years."

You assume a lot.

"Linux hardly contains any Unix code"

Linux contains a great deal of BSD code. Although "hardly any" and "great deal" are both subjective.

"Why would you use something that came along decades after the fact to layout ground rules to assist in development and training as the definition for an operating system?"

NOW is decades after the fact. The origin has nothing to do with common usage. POSIX defines a standard set of system calls and programming API's. All posix systems are variations of one another and behave similarly. You can expect to find more or less the same standard utilities and commands when you sit down at the prompt of one. And someone who has experience with one will find it easy to sit down at the next. If you prefer a different term because of MS partial compliance we will call them *nix. Oh wait, that is just another way of using the generic term unix without being assaulted by purist with fondness for the good old days.

"The only people who think it is dont have a very good technical grasp on the subject ... or want to lump everything together to make Linux look better (worse ?)"

The only people who think it is not don't have a very good technical grasp on the subject ... or want to single linux out to make it look better (worse ?)
Re:RTFA by 1lus10n · 2005-03-03 09:32 · Score: 1

So lemme get this straight. If MS or Novell make Netware or Windows Posix compliant they are Unices ? Just wanna clear that up because it sounds like that is your whole claim.

Sooooo sorry. According to every person I have talked to about this subject who has a solid technical grasp on the subject positively concludes that under the technical definition Linux is not Unix. Hell I remember mcnealy saying Linux was Unix and he almost got laughed right off the stage. Hell even people in his own company were making statements to the contrary and blasting his opinion.

The only people who have said Linux is Unix dont know what they are talking about. You think that ls, chmod or chown makes something a unix your wrong. I can install them on windows, it doesnt make it a unix. I would also point out that if Posix was the only way something could be considered unix everyone would be a unix vendor by now. Except perhaps MS. That however is not the case. Just because you make a chevy drive and behave like a ford doesnt make it a ford.

You can also cut the "purist" angle. I am not nor have I ever been a purist. That however doesnt mean I want to stick every friggin work-alike under one banner to make it easier on some simpleton manager who cannot grasp the difference between Linux and AIX.

--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
Re:RTFA by shaitand · 2005-03-03 12:14 · Score: 1

First and foremost, as long we are both enjoying this debate that is one thing. If not I see no reason to go forward debating semantics like this anyway. If you do not feel this way then feel free to ignore my rebuttal and we will call it at "we disagree and will never agree."

"concludes that under the technical definition Linux is not Unix"

We are not talking about the technical definition, we are talking about common usage.

"Just because you make a chevy drive and behave like a ford doesnt make it a ford."

That is just it, common usage of the word unix no longer has anything to do with the brand anymore. The difference between chevies and fords in general is the logo.

"You can also cut the "purist" angle."

If you are trying to argue that the common definition of a word has anything to do with the technical definition, you are a purist. The meaning of a word is derived from common usage, it is not like a technical or mathmatical matter where there is a right and a wrong answer.

When speaking of words in language, if enough people say cat means the animal we now refer to as dog, and vice versa, the meanings become reversed. The reference books are not authoritive, speech is authoritive. Anything that has ever been called *nix is unix by common usage. Hell, people like you and your colleges and the unix purists at Sun are the reason people started using *nix instead of unix to begin with!

"That however doesnt mean I want to stick every friggin work-alike under one banner to make it easier on some simpleton manager who cannot grasp the difference between Linux and AIX"

Why on earth would you explain the technical difference to a manager or anyone else. After all the "technical" difference we are talking about is that technically the historical roots of this or that *nix trace to a different codebase. It is not as if there is some technical MERIT or functionality to goes along with that. The unixes you have willingly called unix have almost no functional commonality that is not shared with linux.

Even the codebase claim is shakey since there is a great deal of SysV code in BSD and a great deal of that code in turn in Linux. Either way, it is nothing to concern a manager, programmer, or administrator today. The only ones who have a VALID reason to be prejudicing based on the code roots are historians, not technical personel.

The difference between Linux and AIX is about the same as the difference between Linux and Solaris or Solaris and AIX, or any of the above and SCO, or any of the above and BSD. Or any of the above and... put random *nix here. And yes, 90% of OS's in use today are properly grouped as unix.

Out of curiousity, if you find an app and the author says that it should compile on pretty much any unix, do you take that to include unix?

0 S X by guet · 2005-03-01 05:39 · Score: 1

You forgot someone : )

Sorry, but... by SmokeHalo · 2005-03-01 05:41 · Score: 0, Redundant

...I need my servers to be up 99.999% of the time. Anything less is simply unacceptable.

--
I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q

Re:Feel good to be a UNIX admin right at this mome by jovetoo · 2005-03-01 05:41 · Score: 1

You really don't know why?

For me, a windows machine feels like style over substance. Pretty knobs on an empty box.

A Unix machine feels like substance over style. Something solid to built on. It appeals to my enginering instincts.

Re:In other words by WindBourne · 2005-03-01 05:41 · Score: 1

And new ones as well as Windows. If Unix is growing at 2.6% REVENUE and their prices are up (not down), then they are shipping less. Likewise, Windows appears to be at a little growth.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

for comparison by Jrod5000+at+RPI · 2005-03-01 05:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

internet pr0n is a 5-7 billion dollar industry

Re:for comparison by youngerpants · 2005-03-01 05:59 · Score: 2, Funny

Informafunny

Funnymative

Damn, and I've got mod points... I just dont know how to use them on your post.

And now I cant use them at all
Re:for comparison by Jussi+K.+Kojootti · 2005-03-01 06:00 · Score: 1

Don't believe everything you read - porn is an industry where they exaggerate the size of everything. Forbes has an old but good article about this.
Re:for comparison by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 06:56 · Score: 0

for comparison?? These aren't mutually exclusive industries. Who do you think is buying all these new servers?

Faulty logic ? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 05:44 · Score: 0

Alright lets think about this for a second.

If Unix accounts for 5.2 billion, Windows for 4.6 billion, and Linux for 4.4 billion... thats 14.2 billion.

Now, if you say that the overall market was 49 billion then those three only account for 29% of the market.

The other 71% of the market is obviously split between VMS, NetWare, OS/2, DOS, Apple, CP/M, BeOS, Amiga, and PalmOS... oh and BSD!

Makes sense right?

Re:Faulty logic ? by shaitand · 2005-03-01 09:04 · Score: 1

I'm sure you'll find that most of it was HARDWARE. Windows/Linux/Generic Unix are SOFTWARE. If you think about that, linux having close to same spent on licensing means that there VASTLY more linux installs than windows or generic *nix.

If we are really being honest however, the trademark is dilluted and linux is just the leading unix system.

You presume wrong ... by AHumbleOpinion · 2005-03-01 05:45 · Score: 1

The Linux Increase Can Be Attributed to none other than IBM I would presume.

RedHat, HP, ...

You're not kidding by delcielo · 2005-03-01 05:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

You're not kidding. I didn't get any real respect around here until I started spending money on server class hardware, "enterprise" distributions, etc.

Funny how that works. You would think that I'd get more respect for NOT spending money.

--
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!

Re:You're not kidding by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 06:20 · Score: 2, Informative

You are judged by the size of your budget. The bigger your budget, the more important you look to others in management. I say, tell the higher ups that you need a LOT of money, buy the more cost effective solution, and have a Kick A** party at the end of the year (But don't invite the higher ups, or they might catch on).
Re:You're not kidding by Kosgrove · 2005-03-01 08:10 · Score: 1

I hope you're not seriously recommending this to people, because what you're suggesting amounts to fraud. You'll find your ass in serious trouble if you knowingly lie to your superior in a budget estimate.
Re:You're not kidding by shaitand · 2005-03-01 08:44 · Score: 1

Amendment, if you knowingly lie AND GET CAUGHT.

Right figures! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 05:48 · Score: 0

snip, snip
The x86 server market, the largest among the volume server segment, had revenue of $6.3 billion worldwide for the fourth quarter of 2004.
snip, snip
Unix server revenue was $5.2 billion in the fourth quarter of 2004 while the corresponding figure for Windows was $4.6 billion.

so linux (9% of 6.3 billion) must have $0.567 billion.
Not much unix i x86 is it? Naaaa

POS machines by Prof.+Pi · 2005-03-01 05:51 · Score: 1

Windows machines for the POS machines

When I first read that, I thought, "of course
any Windows machine is a POS."

Re:this means.. by Leo+McGarry · 2005-03-01 05:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Linux is the future. And it always will be.

Understand these misleading stats: Linux server sales revenues grew 36% over the previous year. But the grand total is still only 9% of the total server market.

Re:Feel good to be a UNIX admin right at this mome by hackstraw · 2005-03-01 05:55 · Score: 1, Interesting

During the last few years, certificate mills creating an army of windows admin drones, who can only click a predefined sequence of location on the screen with their mouse and passing as "system administrators"

Not to bash a Windows admins, but merely some observations.

1) On average a *NIX admin can code and script, a windows admin can't.

2) On average a *NIX admin can handle more boxes than a windows admin (probably because of #1)

GUI administration is fine and dandy, and UNIX and Linux releases come out with more of them each year. But the shear fact that knowing where these things are stored on the system and being able to directly manipulate, distribute, and restore these things is godlike. Even things like remote desktops and whatnot make things easier in the GUI land, they still don't scale very well.

teasing out info from the stats by chunderfest · 2005-03-01 06:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

The most interesting thing I see is that in the x86 segment, only $4.6b of the total $6.3b in the fourth quarter went to winboxen. Also, Linux' 35% growth is a relative increase, i.e. from ~6.6% to 9% -- really it's a ~2.4% increase in revenue share, which is still pretty good given that corps can install it themselves for free if they like.

Otherwise there's not much there for my pattern-seeking synapses to grab ahold of. Am I missing where in TFA the "Unix servers up 2.7%" stat is? I even fired up a graphical browser to see if it was in a sidebar! I suspect the 2.7% for Unix may be directly comparable to Linux's 2.4%, and not to the percent-of-percent 35%.

--
Ah, bitter dregs.

Did you even read the first line of the summary? by Lehk228 · 2005-03-01 06:07 · Score: 1

Linux servers up 35.6% and other Unix servers are up 2.7%

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.

Re:this means.. by Leo+McGarry · 2005-03-01 06:09 · Score: 1, Insightful

Remember, kids: Any post that doesn't strictly conform to Slashdot(TM) standards of acceptability must be moderated as a "troll" immediately.

Re:Activant Solutions use UNIX -- many new install by Lehk228 · 2005-03-01 06:12 · Score: 2, Funny

They are running UNIX on the back end with familiar Windows machines for the POS machines.
I always choose windows when i need a POS machine.

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.

XServe sales make that look like nothing. by javaxman · 2005-03-01 06:17 · Score: 3, Informative

I know it's easy to double your sales when they start small, but an increase of over 119% is always impressive. Especially after you've been seeing triple-digit or near triple-digit sales increases for seven quarters in a row.

Too bad the story submitter and the slashdot editors have worked together to give us a dollar amount an label it a server unit number, but still.... when looking at server deployments, I'm going to guess that if you're just looking for percent increases in units shipped, nobody this past year is going to beat XServe numbers.

These statistics are always hard to digest, though... what segment of the server market are we talking about, what constitutes a server, is that UnixTM or does BSD/Darwin count, etc... I always have more questions than such articles are prepared to answer.

Still, any increase in Linux sales is good news.

Re:XServe sales make that look like nothing. by KingBahamut · 2005-03-01 06:57 · Score: 1

X-Servers good....very good.......better with Yellow Dog....=)

--
"God of Rock, thank you for this chance to kick ass. "
Re:XServe sales make that look like nothing. by javaxman · 2005-03-01 08:07 · Score: 1

X-Servers good....very good.......better with Yellow Dog....=)
Yea, but if you're going to go that route, you're tossing out a copy of OS X Server... and shouldn't you be able to find something almost as good from IBM, like the BladeCenter jS20?
du... what the hell am I saying? Yea, buy an XServe!! I has cool blinkinlights!
Re:XServe sales make that look like nothing. by KingBahamut · 2005-03-01 08:22 · Score: 1

That is perhaps true. Xservers just look cooler. =)

--
"God of Rock, thank you for this chance to kick ass. "

Gartner reports... by Blitzenn · 2005-03-01 06:18 · Score: 1

The Gartner Group followed up the IDC report by saying that the increase in the number of Linux boxes sold is mainly due to people replacing boxes with older Linux versions. Rather than upgrade the existing boxes, it turns out to be cheaper, once manhours are included, to replace the Linux box rather than try to figure out an upgrade path in the highly undocumented world of Linux distributions.

Re:this means.. by TrappedByMyself · 2005-03-01 06:18 · Score: 1

Linux is the future. And it always will be. Understand these misleading stats: Linux server sales revenues grew 36% over the previous year. But the grand total is still only 9% of the total server market.

Hmmm, I see an opinion and some facts. The opinion is that Linux is good, so I don't think that caused the troll mod. I guess the facts caused the troll mod. Now I hope we can all see the difference between an open discussion forum and a propaganda/spin driven discussion forum

--

Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?

Sun by Mark_MF-WN · 2005-03-01 06:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Sun is notorious for producing some of the most stable software in the world. It's not fast, or pretty; it just never, ever fails. You can see this in the SUN JVM; it's about as stable as you could ever hope for. It's ugly and sluggish, but it's abhorrently resilient.

Re:Sun by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 06:55 · Score: 0

Be gone, abomination.
Re:Sun by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 08:00 · Score: 0

If only the same were true for its hardware... The reliability part, that is. Sun hardware is ugly, sluggish and shoddy. The software only partially makes up for it.
Re:Sun by metamatic · 2005-03-01 08:43 · Score: 1

You can see this in the SUN JVM; it's about as stable as you could ever hope for.

I wish the APIs were a bit more stable.

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Re:Sun by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 09:04 · Score: 0

I take you never used AIX before
Re:Sun by layer3switch · 2005-03-01 09:06 · Score: 0

Strongest chain is only strong as its weakest link.

JVM may be stable, but it's only stable as underlying native OS and servlets.

Java is like a trophy wife. It was a good idea to marry her back 10 years ago, but you won't do it again if you had a do-over.

--
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
Re:Sun by xcomm · 2005-03-01 09:08 · Score: 1

[quote] Sun is notorious for producing some of the most stable software in the world. It's not fast, or pretty; it just never, ever fails.[/quote]

I go with your first part and with your view about Java, but Solaris is not only stable it is also a nice cute. And it is fast (maybe now too under x86) no matter how much load is on the server!
Re:Sun by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 09:39 · Score: 0

You say "not fast, or pretty" Solaris 10 seems to have addressed both of these issues. It seems Sun now has the "lastest, coolest, greatest of the *nix OSes. (Unless you want to argue for Apple>)

Seriously, I've been a Linux fan from backin the days of the 0.9 kernel and a Sun user from the pre-solaris days. While they are similar they each address the needs of a different type of user. I likely one of the few posting to Shashdot from a Solaris 9 system.
Re:Sun by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 10:47 · Score: 0

Compared to what? Dell Linux boxes? Ever used a E10K or F15K? I take it you haven't.
Re:Sun by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 12:30 · Score: 0

OS? You shouldn't try and boot the JVM with LILO or whatever. It's not designed to do that.
Re:Sun by randalware · 2005-03-01 13:18 · Score: 1

But, Try running the JVM on non-Sun hardware.

Your mileage will vary greatly.

The run anywhere language is NOT nearly as reliable on other platforms.

You would think a test suite for quality should be required.

Memory leaks, default configrations, benchmarking speed tests have be some of my challenges.

--
This is my opinion based on what little I know and understand of the rumors and lies Thanks, Randal
Re:Sun by Nailer · 2005-03-01 17:19 · Score: 1

Sluggish to he point where the average user would think it has crashed, in my experience.

good news by H9000 · 2005-03-01 06:21 · Score: 1

it's going in the right direction very nice. my 2 cent

Re:Activant Solutions use UNIX -- many new install by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 06:29 · Score: 0

The problem with having UNIX as a server is the number of support calls. Support calls cost about $25 a pop. I bet Activant spends a lot of extra money because none of the staff know what a UNIX is and are scared of it.

Re:In other words by njcoder · 2005-03-01 06:30 · Score: 2, Informative

That's not necessarily true in all cases. In that (or a similar report based on the idc study), it mentioned that Sun's shippments where up higher than their revenues. Not sure about the other unix vendors but Sun has been dropping it's prices.

--
Open Source Java DAO Generator

Wrong figures by Ulric · 2005-03-01 06:32 · Score: 1

Here's what I get:

Worldwide server revenue increased 6.2 percent to US$49 billion in 2004 driven by the volume server segment, according to analyst firm IDC.

And:

Linux servers represented 9 percent of worldwide server revenue in 2004, which is 35.6 percent growth compared to the year before.

9 percent of 49 is 4.41, not 0.567.

I'm assuming that the vast majority of Linux servers are x86.

Re:Feel good to be a UNIX admin right at this mome by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 06:38 · Score: 0

1) On average a *NIX admin can code and script, a windows admin can't.

That description fits perfectly. The company I work for maintains a group of five techs in its IS dept. and none of them know how to code much beyond Visual Basic (and no offense to you hobbyists, but VB is Tinkertoys on the programmer's landscape.) Most of our company is run on Windows.

I'm one of several people in the web dept. (maintain and develop the company site) and we're all proficient in multiple programming environs and do tons of behind-the-scenes stuff that puts our IS techs to shame. And we're one of the few depts. not on Windows. And yet, despite being able to do all sorts of magic with our OS X and Linux boxes, our management still view the IS techs as the gurus because they have certifications and whatnot that apparently make them wise beyond their years.

Linux lost market share? by Ulric · 2005-03-01 06:43 · Score: 1

What part of "Linux servers represented 9 percent of worldwide server revenue in 2004, which is 35.6 percent growth compared to the year before." don't you understand?

Re:Linux lost market share? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 08:01 · Score: 0

What part of revenue vs. market share don't you understand?

The market grew overall. Unix sales grew at a slower rate then the overall market. You do the math to figure out where the extra growth went.

Re:In other words by WindBourne · 2005-03-01 06:44 · Score: 1

Actually, their unix servers are increasing in prices, but they are now selling a lot of AMD servers. What I would like to know, is are they counted as Unix or Linux servers?

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:Feel good to be a UNIX admin right at this mome by budgenator · 2005-03-01 06:59 · Score: 1

Does it seem to you that Windows admins tend to think more of administering a server or desktop rather than the broader view of administering a system. I tend to think more systematicaly myself, and am comforatble pulling data out of a MySQL table, doing a little massageing in Perl, sticking the data into a LaTeX document and piping the whole thing to lpr, but the non-systemic thinkers tend to open an integrated app and want it all done for them or else say its impossible.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Re:Activant Solutions use UNIX -- many new install by The-Perl-CD-Bookshel · 2005-03-01 07:05 · Score: 1

Support calls cost about $25 a pop

Activant doesn't charge for support when you purchase one of their solutions. I'm sure that they factor it into the cost of the system, but there is no "per-call" cost.

--
I don't keep a lid on my coffee so when I walk around I look busy -me

Re:In other words by PygmySurfer · 2005-03-01 07:29 · Score: 1

Actually, their unix servers are increasing in prices, but they are now selling a lot of AMD servers. What I would like to know, is are they counted as Unix or Linux servers?

Well, that would probably depend on whether they ship with Linux, or Solaris.

On a somewhat related note--- the Unix name by DunbarTheInept · 2005-03-01 07:29 · Score: 1

Does anyone know what the legal status is right now on the official Unix name? Is it SCO that owns it (I know they own the rights to the AT&T-derived code, but I don't know if they own the trademark as well)?

The reason I ask is that frankly I'm really getting sick and tired of all the trade rags the PHB's read, with the way they are using the term "UNIX" as if it was a totally seperate entity from Linux. This leads to all sorts of FUD-able obfuscation (like MS comparing the cost of MS to the cost of UNIX, and never explicitly mentioning that they are only talking about commercial UNIXes, hoping the reader will also associate the findings with Linux.)

--

Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

Re:In other words by njcoder · 2005-03-01 07:35 · Score: 2, Informative

" Actually, their unix servers are increasing in prices, but they are now selling a lot of AMD servers"

No and yes. From http://www.itjungle.com/breaking/bn022405-story01. html

Sun Microsystems just barely held onto its number three position, with $1.365 billion in sales after a 5.1 percent decline in revenue compared to the fourth quarter of 2003. Part of Sun's revenue decline is due to the shift toward X86 server, but most of it is due to Sparc customers buying less iron or paying a lot less for what they do buy.

Also interesting...

Sun's X86 server revenue grew by 360 percent, hitting $152.5 million for 2004.

" What I would like to know, is are they counted as Unix or Linux servers?"

My guess would be Linux as reports claim that the majority of Sun's x86 servers are ordered with linux preloaded. Compared to 4.something billion in linux server sales overall, it wouldn't make that much difference in the numbers. Sun's still a small player in x86 but they're growing fast. They're more in the 64 bit x86 space. I read somewhere that they're the largest buyer of AMD Opteron chips.

--
Open Source Java DAO Generator

OT: Your sig by Just+Some+Guy · 2005-03-01 07:39 · Score: 1

I hope you're not actually endorsing the crap site you linked in your sig. For starters, does anyone outside the little blue island in the top right corner of the map think of Oklahoma as "the south" (as opposed to, say, the Midwest, where it really is)? The loser's real rants is about "red states", even though they cover far more of the map than just the southeast US.

Please don't link to such things. You usually have interesting things to say, but your sig cheapens their impact by association.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?

Re:OT: Your sig by The-Perl-CD-Bookshel · 2005-03-01 14:43 · Score: 1

Point taken and sig. changed.

--
I don't keep a lid on my coffee so when I walk around I look busy -me

Just don't do too much disk access by WillAffleckUW · 2005-03-01 07:39 · Score: 1

You kidding? He's using the mac mini to heat the coffee!

If you do too much disk access you might get a burnt tongue with your coffee. but i like my java hot and strong, so it works fine ...

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Re:this means.. by Just+Some+Guy · 2005-03-01 07:42 · Score: 1

Key word: market

I've never paid a penny for a Linux or BSD distribution (although I've donated a small amount to OpenBSD). Unix and Unix-alike servers account for a large percentage of the machines at my company, but 0% of our spending.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?

Strong market by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 07:42 · Score: 0

The server market is exceptionally strong -- the grand total is 127 percent!

From the horses mouth... by Phil+John · 2005-03-01 07:43 · Score: 2, Informative

...The correct attribution is:

"UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group"

(http://www.unix.org/trademark.html)

--
I am NaN

G's up 23.7%, ho's down 16.5% by Symbiosis · 2005-03-01 07:44 · Score: 0

More at 10...

--

-------------------------------------------
I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells.
-- Dr. Seuss

Somewhat less disorganized version of this article by alw53 · 2005-03-01 07:45 · Score: 2, Informative

Here's the original IDC report which has a somewhat more organized picture as well as more data.

Re:this means.. by Paiway · 2005-03-01 07:45 · Score: 1

In the future, Linux will be the future. Eh.

Re:It's Linux *revenue* that's up 35%, Its GOOGLE by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 07:48 · Score: 0

Thats because Google opened up a new Data Center.

Your facts mean nothing.....

Unix TM is not owned by SCO - Linux is not Unix by oo_waratah · 2005-03-01 07:57 · Score: 1

Firstly USL, Novell, gave the Unix trademark away before selling the distribution rights of the Unix Software. So no SCO does not own the trademark.

Linux is not Unix. This is a repeating theme from a number of people. It is a look alike system not derived from Unix and hence not 'Unix'. This distinction may not be relevant to the programmer but it is a very important legal point.

Re:Unix TM is not owned by SCO - Linux is not Unix by DunbarTheInept · 2005-03-01 08:19 · Score: 1

I know the distinction is important from the legal point, but the problem is that there are now two different meanings - the legal one (It's called UNIX if the (anti-)open group says so, which essentially ends up meaing that at least a small fraction of the code base is derived from the original AT&T, even if, as in the case of BSD, a gigantic portion of it was totally redone afterward.) and the actual one people use (it behaves just like all the other unix systems, regardless of whether the source code is 100% new, or has a tiny percentage of the old AT&T code in it). The fact that one definition includes Linux and the other does not is the basis behind an awful lot of FUD and confusion. I really wish the now-meaningless trademark would die already and go the way of "Kleenex", becoming a generic non-trademarked name.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Unix TM is not owned by SCO - Linux is not Unix by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 20:12 · Score: 0

Some contrarians have been using "unix is a common noun" instead of "unix is a trademark of whoever owns is today" for at least a decade. However, you seem to have missed the requirements for being legally a Unix. No code derivation whatsoever is required. All that is required is to pass the Single Unix Specification conformance tests, and to pay your dues to the Open Group. It's called open because any company can join by paying their portion of the costs. IMHO that's a perfectly reasonable usage of the word open, if you don't feel that the OSS movement has a monopoly on the allowed meanings of a single English word.
Re:Unix TM is not owned by SCO - Linux is not Unix by DunbarTheInept · 2005-03-02 06:55 · Score: 1

All that is required is to pass the Single Unix Specification conformance tests, and to pay your dues to the Open Group.

if you don't feel that the OSS movement has a monopoly on the allowed meanings of a single English word.

If you believe that companies should be allowed to buy mandatorily enforced language propaganda, then I have no respect for you.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Unix TM is not owned by SCO - Linux is not Unix by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-02 07:24 · Score: 0

As for mandatorily enforced language propaganda, I have no particular beef with the present trademark law. Or is that not what you were talking about? The word open, as discussed here, cannot AFAIK be trademarked. The word unix is trademarked, and most of the time I don't mind it, even though I have been known to be in the 'unix is a common noun' camp at times.
Re:Unix TM is not owned by SCO - Linux is not Unix by DunbarTheInept · 2005-03-02 08:30 · Score: 1

Just because a car salesman officially declares his business to have the name "Honest Joes" doesn't mean I am obligated to agree that he is honest. And just because a group calls itself "open" in its name doesn't mean I am obligated to agree that it is open.

How you turned that around into implying I was thinking that OSS is the only allowed source of the definition I have no clue.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

If Revenue up 36 percent for Linux by WillAffleckUW · 2005-03-01 07:57 · Score: 1

and Linux servers cost half as much as Windows servers, than MSFT is selling HALF as many boxen and HALF as many licenses.

Interesting ...

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Re:If Revenue up 36 percent for Linux by mla_anderson · 2005-03-01 12:16 · Score: 1

Microsoft doesn't sell boxes, just licenses.

--
Sig is on vacation
Re:If Revenue up 36 percent for Linux by WillAffleckUW · 2005-03-01 12:38 · Score: 1

ah, but their revenue is based on boxen.

so, in code:
MSFT_Profit=0; Linux_Profit=Bheer; Cost_of_Bheer=2; # we are cheep MSFT_Revenue=$5000.00; Linux_Revenue=$2500 .00; MSFT_Boxen=1000000; Linux_Boxen=2000000; M SFT_Profit=MSFT_Revenue * MSFT_Boxen; Linux_Profit=Linux_Revenue * Linux_Boxen; PRINT "MSFT makes ", MSFT_Profit, " and Linux makes ", Linux_Profit; PRINT "And Linux coders get ", (Linux_Profit/Cost_of_Bheer) " Bheers";
So, you see, if Windows server revenue is equal to Linux server revenue, that's a lot of Bheer and Linux grew TWICE as fast. Of course, in the real world, Linux is a lot cheaper and Bheer is not as cheap, but you have to go at happy hour and get a Bucket of Mike's Hard Lemonade (made in Seattle).

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

yah! by MasTRE · 2005-03-01 07:59 · Score: 1

Pimps up, hos down.

--
Must-not-watch TV!

Meanwhile... by lexiconographolologi · 2005-03-01 08:19 · Score: 0

Windows blades are up what? 75%?

--
Give my girl Lindsay an email

Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 08:38 · Score: 0

No.
Re:Meanwhile... by Eric+S+Raymond · 2005-03-02 11:56 · Score: 1

then what?

--
Bypass Compulsory Web Registration -- http://bugmenot.com/

Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-01 08:27 · Score: 0

Well, that would probably depend on whether they ship with Linux, or Solaris.

Sun likes to play with stats. I would not be surprised to see that they are reporting a number of the Linux boxes as Unix.

Pathetic Performance by greenhide · 2005-03-01 08:29 · Score: 0

Linux servers only have an uptime of 35.6%?!?

That's terrible!

Even Windows has an average uptime of 50% or so.

--
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.

Missing from the missing... by solomonrex · 2005-03-01 08:38 · Score: 0

Windows servers are so completely monetized. Really, who cares about revenues off Wall Street? Adoption rate has to be sky-high if revenues are this high off of a free OS. Whereas, Windows is just splintering server offerings to increase revenues per customer. They really need their small business initiative, because that's the one space where user-friendliness is key.

Unix/Linux market share is increasing by Ulric · 2005-03-01 09:02 · Score: 2, Informative

Since the numbers are not there in TFA to actually do the math, I did a little research on my own and found the original IDC article. It seems the numbers are not there either, but these snippets should allow us to calculate market share in 4Q03 and 4Q04:

"Unix server revenues were $5.2 billion in the quarter, increasing 2.7% year over year against a difficult compare for 4Q03."

"Additionally, on a sequential basis, Unix servers grew dramatically in 4Q04, add ing more than $1 billion in quarterly revenue."

"Linux servers generated $1.3 billion in quarterly revenue, representing 9.0% of worldwide server revenue."

"Overall, Linux server revenue grew 35.6% year over year"

"factory revenue in the worldwide server market grew 5.1% to $14.4 billion in the fourth quarter of 2004"

"For the full year 2004, worldwide server revenue grew 6.2% to $49.0 billion"

So...

Unix in 4Q03 was 5059.6 million.
Linux in 4Q03 was 837.2 million.
Total market in 4Q03 was 13717 million.
Unix/Linux marketshare was 42%

Unix in 4Q04 was 5200 million.
Linux in 4Q04 was 1300 million.
Total market in 4Q04 was 14420 million.
Unix/Linux marketshare was 45%

That's just EMEA numbers by Ulric · 2005-03-01 09:10 · Score: 2, Informative

The worldwide report is here.

An interesting fact, as I noted in another thread, is that combined Unix+Linux marketshare seems to be increasing.

and in other news... by plopez · 2005-03-01 10:01 · Score: 0, Offtopic

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/28/itanium_04 _sales/

Seems the Itanic has hit a whopping 5% of projected sales.

--
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+

Re:0 S X by wootest · 2005-03-01 11:00 · Score: 1

Not really - Darwin is similar to FreeBSD more than anything, and it hasn't gotten UNIX certification anyway. (Although they do use the name a lot in their ads.)

If they are trying to sell software.... by jotaeleemeese · 2005-03-01 11:34 · Score: 1

.... they would be idiotic.

If they are trying to sell services, they are wise.

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.

this assumes a perfect world, of course by WillAffleck · 2005-03-01 12:47 · Score: 1

one in which revenue = profit.

however, in practice, if the cost of revenue is the same percentage for both Linux and Windows, then the answer will be the same.

--
Will in Seattle

Re:0 S X by croddy · 2005-03-01 15:15 · Score: 1

Dear OS X,

Come back when you've got a /proc filesystem.

-Unix

We run SCO by mnmn · 2005-03-01 16:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

Unixware on an old old 486 machine. It has a very proprietary software, that takes in autodesk DWG files, and through the serial port controls a large plotter with plasma, cutting inches of steel. The manufacturers, and resellers who provided support are both out of business. We do not have the root password.

Before embarking on a cracking project, I tried installing the unixware on a different machine, it failed because the machine was too advanced I suppose. Gotta find a 486. Its also risky since the machine should not go down for a day... but looking away is risky too, we should take a partition image while the system is running good... its binaries could prob run on linux or bsd's sco unix binary compatibility... and we could provide a nice KDE interface remotely via terminal services, and have the files loaded via network shares... while removing SCO.

Do remember they were once admirable. Imagine this happening to Linux in 2020.

--
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky

Re:We run SCO by SpaghettiPattern · 2005-03-01 20:12 · Score: 1

Boy this sounds risky. Especially if your business depends on the system.

We do not have the root password.
Ever tried booting with a rescue CD, mounting the root partition and changing the password? Just the first thing I would do I guess. No, I'd make a backup of the disk first.

--

I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
Re:We run SCO by that+_evil+_gleek · 2005-03-01 21:20 · Score: 1

>Do remember they were once admirable. Imagine this happening to Linux in 2020.
Yes. But it can't happen to linux. No can buy linux. Santa Cruz Operations was bought
by Caldera in 2000, Caldera then renamed themselves to SCO, (Google for "caldera buys SCO" )
making them seem more longer in the tooth, than they really are.

You might consider emulation as well. Run a software 486, on a modern computer.

And... by shird · 2005-03-01 20:06 · Score: 1

Windows servers up 55%...

stats are pretty meaningless with nothing to compare them to.

--
I.O.U One Sig.

1984 by kwoff · 2005-03-01 21:31 · Score: 1

Did people start chanting "Big! Big! Big!" after reading the article summary?

Re:Feel good to be a UNIX admin right at this mome by demon · 2005-03-02 01:17 · Score: 1

Hence why it's said that with UNIX, easy tasks are easy and hard tasks are doable, but with Windows, easy tasks are simple, and hard tasks start at $29.95. The Windows mentality orbits around "packaged goods" for everything. I prefer the UNIX/Linux way - it may not be as pretty, but it lets you do things your own way, whatever your reason may be for doing so, rather than having to drop money left and right for everything you do, and be stuck with someone else's (frequently backward) way of thinking about your problem.

--

Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"

At least I got over 76% of the quotation correct! by xtermin8 · 2005-03-02 02:53 · Score: 1

I'm also tempted to respond with the percentage of the female population that are interesteed in you, but I've met my meanness quota.

Slashdot Mirror

Unix servers up 2.7%, Linux servers up 35.6%

314 comments