Slashdot Mirror
Windows Servers Neck and Neck with Unix Servers
BrainSurgeon writes "According to the Register, Windows based servers are now even with Unix based servers in terms of sales for the first time ever." From the article: "In an overall up server market, IDC counted $4.2bn worth of Microsoft Windows server sales on the back of 12 percent growth. Total Unix sales also hit $4.2bn in the period, IDC said, on 3 per cent revenue growth. Those totals left Microsoft and Unix systems holding 35 per cent of the server market each."
What the heck is running the other 30%?
Netware and OS/X?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Who wants to bet that maybe Microsoft just charge more? :)
the layman's guide to computer science
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
yep
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
Do blade servers run hot? Or do the British heat their knives over an open flame? Can someone explain to me what the pun is in this sentence???
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
I'm suprised they didnt mention that Linux servers had the greatest overall growth with 35.4%, and that they're 10% of the entire market. Now if Microsoft hits the 50% mark then thats when i'll start believingthe whole Unix/*BSD is dead hype
drunk chemists
That doesn't count towards how many servers are running linux/unix without having paid for it... in regards to how many servers are out there of each, you can't go by just the sales. I would say linux/unix probably outweighs windows in quantity of servers on the net.
You're nothing; like me.
I wonder if this will make UNIX vendors realize that unless they can get a consumer UNIX, like Linux, out there and viable, erosion is going to continue. Windows will continue to eat up the server space for as long as people need Exchange and Active Directory servers. We need to remove the need for Exchange and Active Directory servers.
I can almost feel the Microsoft terrorists looking to throw their monopolised Microsoft-only education propoganda up in the air.
I don't want to.
Does this mean they took the value of the entire server market and calculated the share of Windows server from the size of the sales... (100/35)*4.2bn = $12bn total market? Doesn't this mean that the amount of Unix installs per server is still much bigger because Unix (if it includes *bsd) is cheaper?
I wonder if this isn't more of a sign that OSS is making some headway. Linux server sales are way up according to the article, and they compare Unix and Windows servers based on cost.
My understanding is that more major server sales folks who are pushing some Unix flavor are trying to make their money on the Service that goes with the server, not the actual initial sale. In which case it would make sense that you could knock the price down on the Unix server that's running a free OS vs. the same machine that has a 500 CAL license for Windows 2003.
I wish they would have given us number of units vs. the cost of units.
This is just murky adspeak.
"Those totals left Microsoft and Unix systems holding 35 per cent of the server market each."
Strong arms? The maybe help each other...
Where does the source data come from? I mean, it's very hard to make such statistics and I still have doubts that Microsoft servers caught up with Unix servers.
10 idiots want to buy a lemon for $10/each and 100 people buy a tasty pear for $1/each.
Is it just me or does it seem like there are still a hell of lot more pears out there...
*pat*pat*
"Nice troll, there's a good troll"
It is not neck and neck anymore, I just brought a windows server so Windows wins by massive margin of US$4,000.
so with the same number of servers, the load they are processing is 50-50 too, right?
.0001 .0002
Here are some official numbers from the WGAF 2005 Study of total workload being handled on the net.
Unix 85%
Windows 10%
Other 5%
HOWEVER, these numbers get funny when you factor in computing time spend running malware.
Windows outperforms Unix and others in this important category. Truly Windows has no peers when executing excrement.
Unix
Other
Windows 99.9997
These are REAL NUMBERS folks. every one of them. even the 7
Are you trolling or just trying to be funny?
You honestly believe that GUI is a better way to admin a server?
So in this case the sales increase is not necessarily based on the quality of the offering but on the convenience.
This is a good point. The comparison is being made *based on cost*. If Linux servers are half as expensive in initial cost as Windows servers and there are twice as many Linux servers out there, the survey still holds.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
You're being funny.. right?
that we are at the end of the telnet era you ascii fools
Does this count only UNIX sales? What about revenues from UNIX support contracts? Some of these companies, the sale is not where they are making the money.
This IS a joke right?
The report actually indicates that Windows Servers are gaining a smaller share of the server market INCREASE than they should, and Linux is gaining TWICE as much as it should if they were all actually gaining an equal share.
Also a number of idiot commentators are saying "Windows servers wipes the floor with Linux" when in fact the report shows that both Windows and Linux are wiping the floor with PROPRIETARY UNIX.
Yawn - big surprise. This has been a foregone conclusion of every analyst for the past two or three years - that Linux (and to a lesser degree Windows) will replace proprietary UNIX and then the battle will come down to Linux vrs Windows - which Linux will win handily.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Mostly big "enterprise" CRM and other slaes type applications, as well as document management systems. And of course IIS...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Oh, now you've done it!
As is always the case...
The raw number of sales between Unix-based and Microsoft-based servers not being considered by the article. The dollar-value of sales is what they're looking at. In terms of dollar value, as much money was spent on Microsoft-based servers as on Unix-based servers, at $4.2bn
If you're going to talk about the real number of servers being implemented, you need to consider the fact that, in general, Microsoft-based solutions cost a whole lot more than Unix-based solutions.
Interestingly enough, $1.2bn was spent on Linux-based servers, and Linux-based servers accounted for the largest increase in sales.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
"Unix is a bit harder. Let me rephrase that: A lot harder."
You say that as if it's a good thing.
That asside, lets make something clear. It's one thing to install an operating system, it's quite another to know what you're doing within it.
For example, I can get by with MS Word when I need to, but there are thousands of really cool advanced features I'd have no clue even exist if it wasn't for my assistant.
You can run X remotely too, no? And that's kindof graphical?
MS Access? What for?
And Frontpage?!!
Exactly. The figures are highly suspect.
One of the reasons Microsoft is making such inroads into the server market is that they've really improved their operating system. Windows servers can be made reliable and secure if they're administered properly. Insofar as it brings choice to the marketplace, then having Windows as a realistic option for a server is a good thing.
But don't lose sight of what's at stake. The Microsoft business model is to leverage it's monopoly in one area to drive out competition in another. If Microsoft will let Windows coexist peacefully with it's neighbors, then great. If they're true to form, though, they'll introduce incompatabilities and do everything they can to make sure businesses don't have any more of a choice in their server OS than their desktop OS.
The struggle isn't just about running the cooler OS, or using the command line vs. a GUI. It's about freedom and choice.
KTHXBYE
This ties in with the MIPS/Watt thing i was talking about in a previous post. If you're planning on buying blade servers the only sane solution is a Transmeta based one rather than Intel or AMD.
Deleted
1) Access? Excuse me? OK, fine, there are alot of bad things to say about MySQL, but it'll beat Access any day, between breakfast and lunch!
2) Heard of X's networking abilities? Or VNC, if you want something more in the style of Remote Desktop.
3) I don't even know what the hell that is...
> Linux server sales continued to show the
> strongest growth at 35.2 per cent and
> accounted for $1.2bn in sales. Linux
> servers made up 10 per cent of total sales
> in the quarter.
Linux is Unix in that matter - Unix servers (as well as older Windoze boxes) are replaced by it.
"Linux server sales continued to show the strongest growth at 35.2 per cent and accounted for $1.2bn in sales. Linux servers made up 10 per cent of total sales in the quarter."
Yes, sure it has its share of security problems, but frankly, let's be honest with ourselves. W2K3 is very stable, it looks pretty and does everything I *need* it to do.
Yeah, yeah, I know people are comparing the uptime etc to Linux/Solaris, etc, but frankly, I upgraded my W2K3 domain controllers from W2K 1.5 years ago, and I only brought it down recently for W2K3 SP1. If you don't use your server for interactive apps, neither W2K3 or Linux will likely crash for months or years at a time.
Read the article source from IDC. They count only server hardware shipments according to vendor & OS.
No systems ship with BSD.
Were you trying to be funny? Try again.
Access? Remote desktop? FRONTPAGE (OMG!)?
Using a GUI to administer a server?
The equivalents of all of these have been available on Linux for the last five years. (Well, something EXACTLY as easy (and lame) as Microsoft Access hasn't, but GUI database managers have been, and the next version of OpenOffice will have the Access problem licked.)
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Your menu of options START today, with one bomb detonated each week for non-compliance!
You may have not payed for the first IIS, or the second...or the seventh IIS, but count on my mother's prayer rug you will pay for IIS this time; and if you don't, we'll catch you and make you pay for IIS 8...and when your children are caught, we will force them to pay for IIS69 no matter how much you don't need the bundled blonde wig and car tires for the MS Car, we'll have the DMV and the United Arab Homeland Security Imperial Council charge your Microsoft Security account and GATT2 World Freedom account!! By the name of God written on my left hand, I will wipe you and your seed off the face of the earth!
As a Unix admin. Linux is just another Unix box. I suppose it's interesting to see the information split out.
Deleted
I believe theKompany sells something similar to access for linux, if you go for that sort of thing...
Does Netcraft confirm it?
FreeBSD != OS X
OS X ~= Darwin ~= *BSD
It's not really that hard to understand folks.
you've obviously never heard of FrontPage extensions for Unix, VNC/X Forwarding/SSH/Telnet, and Access isn't something that runs on a server (afaik).
Are you trying to say a telnet session in 80x25 is not graphical? You, Infidel!
I guess my home web server doesn't count in the statistics for server sales in the past year. I found the machine on the street, threw in a new hard drive from newegg, and it's running Debian GNU/Linux. I just did some work for a company that wanted me to get rid of their spam and also upgrade their website backend. The website backend project involved setting up mysql on an old server that they had laying around, and the spam filter is postfix+spamassassin+amavis+clamav running on Debian on an extra desktop workstation computer that they had at the office. I also set up a near-identical spam filtering machine using Debian on a workstation at a law firm recently. So, there you go, 4 new servers running Debian GNU/linux in the past year. It's interesting that these sales figures are dollar denominated. It marginalizes GNU/Linux as a server OS (because it's free as in beer or alternately relatively cheap if it comes with support) while also informing how valuable it is (because in the hands of the skilled, it gets the job done while costing nothing).
Uh, interesting way to spin the original press release, which prominently highlights 35 percent revenue growth for Linux, 12 percent Windows, 3 percent "Unix," which should really be called "Other Unix."
Granted, the Linux server $1.2 billion factory revenue is less than a third of the Unix and less than a third of the Windows market, but hardly insignificant. Also much harder to trace, I reckon, given how many people strip Windows off a Dell and make a Linux server with a spare copy of Debian.
If you mean Rekall, I'm aware of it, but as I understand it, it's not quite up to par with Access.
But I haven't used it, so I could be wrong. The screenshots look good.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Linux usage is certainly up, the ROLE of the server needs to be discussed. I have 24 linux machines at one client's location, too bad most of them are just proxy servers running squid with an LAMP for configuring them. While all the chatter about Linux making progress into corporate IT the role of the machine needs to be involved in the discussion?
How many corporations have Linux-run PDCs? Email? File Respositories? Backup? All this talk about sales figures means little when you take out the role of the server out of the discussion. Without a breakdown along the Lines of X Windows 2003 Email Servers vs. Y Linux Email Servers the discussion really has little value besides a vague sales figure. The discussion of Linux, BSD, Windows, BEOS, Tiger, whatever is is lacking any real worth. Going on 11 years here soon and corporations are not cut and dry. What does this follow fact tell you (taken from one of my clients):
# of Linux Machines 3
# Of Windows 2003 Servers 24
# Of Windows 2000 Professional Machines 8
What do they use more? Windows? Not really. The 24 2003 Servers are used to simulate web traffic and other customized in-house traffic. Not one of those Windows servers is mission critical. The 8 2000 machines are the staff's workstations. The core critical machine that run's their entire manufacturing system is a linux machine. 1 Linux email server, and 1 linux firewall. Now looking at that figure you couldn't determine how important any of those servers are, we need more data in these discussions, it's incomplete.
Purchasing numbers mean little. Even across a broad scope there is no direct correlation between number of copies of X and their level of importance in a company, if you think that probaility shows that given there are 2 milion copies of A and only 1 million copies B that A is used more in mission critical services I would recomend you avoid gambling. The Christian Bible is in over 50% of homes yet less then 10% of people can repeat the opening of Genesis. ("In the Beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" I believe.)
I'll summarize with a classic Ken-ism:
OWNERSHIP OF SOMETHING DOES NOT GARUNTEE THE UTILIZATION OF SOMETHING.
Take a typical computer, slap some SNMP on it and grab CACTI and monitor the staff in a building. I bet you the average work-hour utilization of the processors will never exceed 50%. 10 years is hasn't. Just because you have a 3.4 GHz processor doesn't mean you'll use all that CPU power.
For you drivers out there your speedometer can post 125 MPH... doesn't mean your gonna ever go that fast right?
--END RANT + LUV--
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Number of Windows servers installed 2004: 9 Number of Windows servers installed now: 0 Number of Windows servers that are planned to be instaled in future: 0 Number of Exchange server replaced: 2 Number of Linux Servers: 29 (NATIVE JAVA) Number of FBSD Server: 14 Number of Windows Desktops 2004: 30 Number of Windows Desktops 2005: 4 I'm not sure who would use a windows box as a server. Even on the desktop all client sevice people have been convered to Linux. They have only the applications they need for work and all boxes are updated from a single internal package respoitory. Who comes up with the crap(Windows = with UNIX, LOL). I would be interested in what other compies numbers are for the pass few years.
Godwin's Law!
Thank you for playing!
PLONK! (Oh, wait, this isn't Usenet! Where are my mod points when I need them?)
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
An example I recently was involved in: I work with a company doing software. Big and mission-critical systems. One big customer wanted a really big installation of this software. We recommended that this was run on either Linux, BSD or Solaris. Our customer had hired their own consultancy company, and these consultants were very pro-Microsoft. So the customer said "We need this to run on MS-Windows", and we said "Ok, our software can run on MS-Windows, although we cannot recommend it.".
So a big server park was ordered with MS-Windows preinstalled.
Then, as the project progressed, the customer also hired an Oracle consultant. This consultant said "I would not sleep well at night if these Oracle servers are running on MS-Windows. Other systems will give you more stable operation". So all the operating systems on the Oracle servers were scrapped, and Linux was installed instead.
Then, when all the servers were sent to a hosting provider, the hosting provider said to the customer "We see that while the Oracle servers run Linux, all the application servers run MS-Windows. We will be better at supporting this system if all the servers run the same OS, and you will probably have better uptime if running linux on the application servers too. If you don't mind we will install Linux on the application servers for you free of charge.". The customer accepted.
So while this big server park was purchased with MS-Windows pre-installed, all servers were running Linux before the system was put into use.
The only one of the three worth even considering as an advantage is Remote Desktop, and what with X, VNC, and now NX, that's not a problem either.
Graphical interfaces for database management, assuming that that's what you were referring to when you said Access, are emerging in the Linux world as well, what with Rekall and the upcoming Kexi (in KOffice).
Frontpage... How anyone could possibly consider that an advantage, I don't know.
As for GUI administration, though I disagree with most as to its usefulness (most think it's useless, I think it can be useful), I also disagree that you can't do it under Linux. GUI administration, especially web-based, has been something possible on Linux for a few years now.
I bet that doesn't include all the routers out there that run some flavor of linux.
Don't Vote for Norm Dicks! http://www.nodicks2008.com Another nutless dirtbag that voted for the FISA bill!
X and VNC suck.
X is bandwidth-starved and VNC just sucks.
I have still to see something with the responsiveness of Terminal Server.
Be on the lookout for web services that are up for a few days, get /.'ed, and go poof. You can thank Gates for that.
No, you can thank poor administration and low bandwidth for that. Default Apache isn't going to stand up to a Slashdotting more than IIS. Would I run IIS? No. But that's besides the point.
"Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman
I have two servers at work - a P4 Gateway, and an Opteron HP. The first thing I did on both was to format and install Linux (i386, and x86_64). I also have a server at home running on a computer that I bought from a student at school for $50, which runs Linux as well. I do my PhD thesis on an Athlon64 machine that I assembled from scratch by buying components from six online dealers. It came without an OS. I bet the study doesn't account for all these.
That's 4 linux servers right there. But this would be accounted by the study as $5000 worth of Windows servers, and a $1000 no OS machine, and a $50 machine which no one knows about (Top secret!!!).
When I used to look at this kind of information, the explanation went something like this:
-The information used to make up these market share numbers are generally reported by retailers/resellers. In this case, maybe they get some data from system integrators or from companies like IBM who deploy these things.
-Those numbers are aggregated and then estimates are added for channels they don't have good numbers for.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
3) I don't even know what the hell that is...
He is probably talking about Front Page web extensions. Note: link to a HOWTO for installing them on Apache, including info about installing it on Linux.
Spoken like someone who truely knows jack-shit about Microsoft and their products!
robert
You have never tried running the remote assistant (which is basically remote desktop) in WinXP over a 128kbit ADSL line, did you?
I don't know about VNC, but I could play UT200? over a 100MBit LAN, in a time when we had only a hub, no switch in out little network.
Try to play a game on remote desktop.
Separating Linux from "trademark-UNIX" in this sort of comparison is just plain deceptive. You can find more differences between different trademark-UNIX versions than between most trademark-UNIX versions and Linux.
So UNIX server sales are at least 45% to Windows 35%, and I wouldn't be surprised to find UNIX sales in the remaining 20% as well. Especially since the #1 manufacturer is IBM with their "penguin farms".
This is typical of these survey summaries. And of course you can't get at the actual results
Also pages that are dynamically generated when they needn't/shouldn't be.
"...IDC counted $4.2bn worth of Microsoft Windows server sales.... Unix sales also hit $4.2bn in the period..."
I see. In other words, Unix servers sold account for 4 times the number of Windows servers sold?
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Now there's a bad start.
So Windows server sales == Unix server sales. If at least some portion of unix server sales are linux based systems (or other ocasionally free systems such as BSD), doesn't this mean that there are more unix servers than windows servers? I'm assuming that a windows server is more expensive than a linux server...
Not to mention the amount of servers sold without an OS, which could unbalance this equation even further, as some other poster has said above.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Is that this is happening DESPITE all the problems with Windows-related security. I guess all those MCSE's are really bucking to keep themselves employed.
This doesn't measure how many servers are running what OS, it measures how many servers were purchased from select vendors with which OS. BSD is dead bullshit doesn't factor into it because the select vendors in question do not sell BSD. People buy the servers and then install BSD themselves. Its also pretty safe to assume that linux is actually higher than 10% if you start counting servers where people got no OS and installed their distro of choice instead of the single outdated option usually available from a vendor.
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
The security problems are typically in their desktop products, not their server products.
Will slashdot ever drag itself into the year 2005 and provide the ability to edit posts?
No, never. Because that's an invitation to trolls to post something, get it modded up to +5, then change it to link to goatse.cx or whatever.
Note that you can edit journal posts. It's intentional that you can't edit regular posts.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
YOU are the moron. Obviously can't read a post correctly.
For your edification: the poster explicitly stated that the CUSTOMER ordered the Windows servers based on the advice of a consultant. EVERYBODY else involved recommended Linux.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
This reminds me of another news story from IDG about the OS market I saw for a few years ago. It was about almost the same thing. Windows was supposed for have a bigger market share for workstations and servers than any other operating system.
When I read the story again it was about a poll and the question was about what operating system one had bought in the recent year.
I don't buy Linux or BSD. -I just use it.
it's Linux/BSD FIRST, Wintel SECOND, and Unix THIRD.
After all, it's on sales. They only count the cost WHEN SHIPPED, so if you buy an OEM server with Wintel and reimage it as a more stable Linux/BSD server, it gets counted as Wintel. Plus you can buy a lot of Linux/BSD imaged BIOS only boxen for the price of a Wintel or Unix box.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The average MS server is a dual proc box - with "big" boxes going all the way to 4 processors... Think a $20K Windows box is big.
Now go over to the Unix world - Sun/HP/IBM sell multiple million dollar 60+ way single image servers. Unix doesn't even want to bother with single processor boxes, dual proc systems are considered toys, 4 ways are small boxes.
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
A large, distributed flock of Apple IIs. There are still a lot of them out there, and Apple did say they would be "forever."
Gary Dunn
Open Slate Project
Sometimes it's not what's counted but what's not counted.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Considering you can only run a single piece of server software per windows box the sales should be much greater. Take your typical Linux or Unix machine, these things have far, far greater utilization. At work for instance we have three times as many windows machines as we do linux boxes yet the Linux boxes are handling ten times the work load. Not to mention the fact that we never run anything mission critical on a windows machine unless we absolutely have to. The typical machine load on my Linux servers are at or nearing better than 80% utilization.
More Windows sales == Less Efficiency
Got Code?
Of course, the blame must go to MCSE's .. or Canada.
Oh quit talking out of your ass, I run hundreds of
thin client X terminals and never ever had even close to a problem with bandwidth starvation.
Got Code?
Oh sorry, that's GNU/Linux.
Now I understand: GNU and Linux are interchangable synonyms, but Linux is dominantly used simply because it's obviously the superior acronym.
I never bought a "server," I built one from spare parts. I'm sure that the majority of us who run sites from a home DSL connection are in the same demographic as I am, and obviously we aren't counted in this article. And out of that group, how many of us are going to shell out 600 bucks on a Windows server?
"Considering you can only run a single piece of server software per windows box the sales should be much greater."
How many Linux servers do you typically run per box?
Unix is more typically loaded up, running as many things as the hardware can handle. When it starts getting too loaded then you buy another one (usually a bigger one).
We've recently bought two quad processor linux machines running vmware to run a dozen or more windows servers. Two linux sales, a dozen windows sales.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
Quick! Somebody buy another server and break the tie!
..except one of them seems to consistently stick it's neck in a noose.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
you need like 3-5 windows boxes to equal one good unix server?
MS themselves reccommends that you have multiple boxes incase one fails. Especially because most of the boxes that run windows do not support any sort of failover if RAM, CPU or PCI card failure. So yeah, if you need to have multiple nines in the uptime of your site, then you will need multiple boxes to handles that.
Number of boxes sold != number of services in any way shape of form.
Everyone knows that it takes multiple windows servers to do the work of one decent Unix server... :)
:q!
This is why I suck at business. I don't know how long it would've taken me to think of that. I think a lot of other people reading this thread are totally missing that point too, too busy thinking about how rock solid *nix's are compared to windows. And of course a stable server will save your business money in the long run, but TFA wasn't about saving money.
And people some people claim that MS isn't a monopoly...
Did this study count the servers shipped with no OS? (I know, RTFA...) They'd have to figure out the distribution of enterprise licensed versus BSD and Linux OSes put onto them in order to get a clear picture of what's really going on.
Why the hell would you run a server on Pear? And what's Lemon, a BeOS emulator?
I find it amusing that Microsoft had a 12 percent(%) growth and Unix had a 3 per cent growth.
wtf is a per cent, 3 extra revenue units for each cent it earned?
Great Catch ZONK!
I would say, SQL Server is one of the few remaining reasons why Windows might be a better bet in some circumstances. It's really a fairly impressive database product. I suppose its closest competition on the Unix side is, well, Oracle, or PostgreSQL, but then you aren't even touching the Analysis Services datacube technology, which is fairly amazing and seems to have no peer in that industry.
Netcraft can't confirm how much money was spent on a server.
Looking around I can count 4 servers which shipped with windows and are running linux or bsd.
I see no windows servers.
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
Sometime ago, Dell and others did not install Linux on the server. Your choice was with Windows or with no OS at all. So, you just buy the no OS option. I would guess that about 10-15% of the servers are configured this way, and Linux will be installed, with BSD occupying most of the other part. But if that is true, that would make Linux occupying about 20-25% space, not the 10 % that IDC and Gartner claim. Keep in mind that it is very doubtful that OS-less servers are being used for Windows and few Unix.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Thats awsome! With all the extra manpower it takes to manage a M$ environment, we're all guaranteed employment for a long time to come!
And don't forget to invest in hardware PC hardware makers. With Linux, my PII/128MB makes quite a nice low-volume web server. With Windows, I can't even get through the IIS setup process before I get impatient waiting on the GUI and give up.
This is truly wonderful news.
The hosting provider said "We will be better at supporting this system if all the servers run the same OS".
In other words, all Windows would have been fine too. All Linux was their choice because All Windows wasn't an option, having been eliminated by the Oracle vendor.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
doesn't count pirated copies of windows either..
Windows is on 70% of servers, Linux on 20%, and Unix on 10%. But that 10% = Windows 70% in terms of cost.
I'm not familiar with pricing for UNIX licenses, but I always hear people complain about the excessively high prices of Microsoft licenses. If the dollar sales amounts for the 2 server platforms are equal, wouldn't UNIX still be ahead because of MS pricing?
Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
Microsoft is taking it's final stabs in the dark to reclaim it's lost stronghold on the OS market. Microsoft is dying. Using Windows as a server OS? BAH! Somebody fire these MCSE-turned-IT-managers now!
Meh.
Look it up before you flame
I regularly go over 130 mph, and my speedo goes to 180, thanks for asking.
SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!
I've never been a big fan, being that I've used Linux for years on the desktop but I rescently applied for a job at a SC colo and the shop was running FreeBSD on all their servers and OSX on the desktops.
I'd expect FreeBSD to be gaining some pretty decent marketshare (although I'll be using Debian on my personal server).
Quack, quack.
Microsoft is dead. It's just that most people don't know or believe it yet.
Meh.
What is this pre-occupation with "that product has bigger market share than x product".
As long as UNIX/LINUX/Whatever/Windows does the job you need it to do it will be around. If it does it well and it's cost effective then more people will use it. If not then less people will use it.
One thing is certain. LINUX/BSD will be around as long as there are uses for it and people continue to develop it and develop for it. This is different from commercial OS's that can die when their companies screw up. So I say WHO CARES! Use what works and ignore the hype.
But most movie listing adjust gross revenue for inflation. In todays money, GWTW is the top, then star wars, then Sound of music, with Spider Man 2 making more money than passion, and in the same range as animal house. But again, as capitalists, we should be more interested in profit, or even percentage profit, than gross revenue. After all, what good is 200 million if it cost 250 to make?
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
How about OS/400. Lots of retail POS ISVs run the server code on AS/400 (iSeries). And how about zOS? Still a lot of banks and insurance companies run their core apps on mainframe.
Our policy for Windows servers is that a *seperate* server is set up for each task. Linux and Unix OTOH, gets all manner of stuff loaded up on the *same* (bigger) server. Does this mean that task-for-task, Windows needs to spend more money? Or does it mean more money is spent accomplishing more tasks with Windows?
The story covers an interesting milestone, but exactly what that milestone is is a bit more difficult to figure.
. . .as capitalists, we should be more interested in profit. . .
As a capitalist I am a movie goer, not investor.
KFG
About the only way that sales can indicate market shares is if what you are purchasing is a consumable that deteriorates before the next survey period. This might be true for Coke vs Pepsi but servers? (OK, it might be true for Windows servers, but UNIX servers?) Servers should be expected to last a little bit longer than one quarter.
Sheesh! You would think that people could get that right once in a while.
Lotus Domino
Business Objects
SQL 2000
win32-specific ERP software
commercially supported antispam system
Active Directory server and remote install server
Domino can run on Linux, BO too, SQL can be replaced with oracle, ERP run in WINEX, antispam replaced and Active Directory replaced with the Novell directory.
But thats way way too much money for little additional gain and the combination is not so well tested.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
I bought a few Windows laptops over the past years. I installed Linux on every single one of them. My purchases count towards those numbers, too, I suppose, but the reality is I don't do Windows - I just paid a higher price for my laptops because I couldn't get them without Windows.
Simpy
Can you measure and compare what the RAS level for a server is? The Software (OS and application) and Hardware in combination would play a factor in the RAS level. I would like to see a mathematical formula based on MTBF for hardware components (especially hard drives, power supplies) and OS and application software quality quantification(1) to create a RASmark level. It would help make server buying decisions less seat-of-the-pants so you can decide whether or not it's worth it to get the redundant power supply option and/or RAID level for a server to get to a required RAS level for your needs.
(1) It's difficult but not impossible to quantify software quality. There's plenty of real-world usage that can be surveyed to cancel out admin competence levels (another difficult item to measure) and other factors. Have to beware of zealots and a certain monopolist's FUD.
Transmitting energy without a license.
True, Microsoft has improved their operations. They are now charging more than ever for less than ever. This guy's got the numbers
If this really represents an increase in the number of unit's shipped and a greater reliance on M$ by big dumb companies, big dumb companies are doomed and we will all get to pay for it.
The struggle isn't just about running the cooler OS, or using the command line vs. a GUI. It's about freedom and choice.
The real struggle is convincing the PHB that M$ has not cleaned up and should be replaced as fast as possible. In business, it's a matter of survival. Companies hamstrung with servers that lose information, export it to the competition and generally don't do what they are supposed to are not going to make it.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Linux installations I've made over the last year or two, and all of them were done with freely downloaded distros, including SELS9.
So, as a measure for the total number of Linux servers (or desktops) these retail channel figures are WORTHLESS!
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Linux is getting bloated beyond belief.
It used to run well in 4 MB.
Now it runs badly in 128 MB.
5 years from now you'll need a full 4GB.
10 years from now, you won't be able to (or it will be PAINFULLY SLOW AND CRAMPED) run on a 32 bit chip.
You'll need at least 4 TERABYTES of disk and 16 GB of RAM on a 8 GHZ 64 bit chip to run it well.
Linux: You need to stop and reverse the bloat.
How many 100,000 instructions are run on a mouse click now?
I am a Linux supporter, and am disappointed in seeing this happen.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
All those stories about Windows servers now running Linux. Bill probably doesn't care: Licenses were bought.
Bert
It's possible that thay're talking about actual UNIX (TM) servers. If MS catches up to the sales of actual UNIX servers, it could be because people are moving a lot of their new machines to UNIX-like machines, which don't get counted.
So this could mean that as UNIX marketshare is declining, *BSD/Linux marketshare is growing.
Common sense is not so common.
We're in process of getting 10 HP Proliant DL360 and 2 Proliant DL380 servers.
They won't come with OS installed, and they will be running CentOS4 very soon.
So, how do these fit in these statistics? Vendor doesn't know what we'll be running.
Do they simply put all these "no-OS" server in Windows category, maybe?
Wheter pages are served on IIS or Apache only matters so much indeed - especially when serving dynamic content.
/.'ings with the new built-in caching -both on the data (SQL server) side and on the output (client) side. It should help a lot. Web-Farm session states are sure going to help for clustering, too.
...) - and they even encourage you to download the apps and test it by yourself.
I can't wait to see how ASP.Net 2.0 will be able to withstand
They claim it vastly outperforms J2EE as well - I quote: "28x faster (that's 2700%), and supported 7.6x as many concurrent users as J2EE, with only 1/6th as much processor utilization". I doubt their benchmarks (on the Pet Shop Store) is 100% true (one wonders who paid for them), although several people did similar tests and seem to have had similar results (VeriTest, GotDotNet,
I didn't care too much for ASP.Net, but v2.0 seems very interesting (More infos on ASP.Net 2.0) I was thinking of moving to J2EE primarily, but this has changed my mind, especially if it can be hosted on Mono as well(?).
Also, I've seen a lot of "code less!", "get more done quicker!" claims and such, and never really found it faster to develop into, but ASP.Net 2.0 seems to deliver. I'll be giving it a try very soon.
///<sig
That's funny, because all mine do ;)
Just serious.
The article states that Linux experienced the strongest growth, leading someone to publish an article entitled "Windows wipes the floor with Linux" where they give their expert opinion that although Linux's growth was triple that of Windows', they can't imagine Linux ever ousting Windows as the leading server, despite that NetCraft thinks Linux took the lead many years ago.
Garbage? Sounds like you've never tried it. Almost makes you sound like a php/mysql l33t fanboy.
Enterprise edition is still a LOT F'N CHEAPER than oracle with similar features - by a LOT. Especially now that Oracle will charge PER CORE!
Price for a 4-cpu machine (not using dual cores either - which would double the price of oracle licensing):
SQL Server 2000 Ent. Ed: 80k$
Oracle9i Ent. Ed w/ OLAP & Data Mining: 320k$
"Just" 4 TIMES AS MUCH! (or 8 if you got dual cores)
It might be marginally better in some (rare) situations, but for 99.9% of business and corporate applications it will do just fine, and for a LOT LESS.
Oh, you'll also save a lot in wages. Senior oracle DBAs cost a LOTTA $$$ (just like their DB).
Saying it's a toy is beyond a troll. For 320k vs 80k for a very similar setup, it better be F'N good. Postgres? Come on, you're sounding worse than a mysql fanboy now...
Fact: it is much cheaper than oracle
Fact: it repeatedly wins at top TPC-C perf & price/perf comparisons
Fact: it's used by a lot of huge corps, and it does work fine for just about all of them
I think I needn't continue.
Windows outperforms Unix and others in this important category. Truly Windows has no peers when executing excrement.
.0001
Unix
God dammit Bob! I told you not to run WinXP through a VM on my box!
At work I'm using remote desktop to server that has 4 processors, 4GB of RAM and RAID disk, running MS SQL, IIS and SharePoint. Sometimes Visual Studio .NET. The system is dying when 5 (that is five) users start doing something more intensive. I can see pixels popping up on the screen.
Windows 2k3 Server is one of the best platforms to do media streaming right now. (if you get a really fast intel box). As soon as MPLAYER, VLC, REALPLAYER, DARWIN, get there crappy distributions stable and working properly under LINUX/BSD >Then! Windows server sales should drop big time. People In the Streaming media business do not like being locked into a single platform.
whereas I have several hundred high school aged children using Terminal Services to run everything they need at school on a dual PIII 1.2ghz machine with 2Gb of RAM and LVD SCSI disk (U320) and it runs just fine
Solitaire?
http://twitter.com/gr
However, sales are completely unrelated to install base. Many machines sold with Windows end up running F/OSS sooner or later. We saw that in the late 90's, too. It's still difficult to get OEMs to supply white boxes with no operating system or ones with BSD or Linux. It's still difficult to get the MBAs or MSCEs in charge of ordering to order white boxes with no operating system or ones with BSD or Linux. And often it's fastest delivery to just bite the bullet and pay the MS tax.
So - a large number of MS' sales can be attributed to people who are going to be using the hardware for Linux. In other cases, if the new box gets used for Windows, then the old box gets wiped and then uses Linux from then on, thus an indirect increase in Linux.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
IBM mainframes can and do run UNIX (even Linux).
/ ).
You can even run several OSs at once on the mainframe hardware due to logical partitioning (see http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/iseries/lpar
While z/OS (the current incarnation of MVS) is probably the most popular choice, there is also VM, DOS/VSE and yes, various *NIX flavours.
Hear hear. This isn't so relevant to server systems, but any workstation Windows box, I can lock down to a memory footprint of 80MB. Now with 1GB+ of memory that's not so important - but what is important is exactly the lack of myriad apps loading on startup, lurking in the task tray, and using up processor time as well as memory.
Also by virtue of using a hardware firewall, not opening dodgy attachments, not downloading from unreliable sites, not visiting dodgy sites (and in the past year, using firefox and content filtering/adblock) - I have never, in my twelve years of Windows experience, ever gotten a virus, nor gotten spyware. And yes, back in the day, security mindedness meant not allowing boot from floppy (still the case, better safe than sorry), not copying other's software/disks, etc.
I currently run a virus-scanner - just for the craic - as it (f-prot) was a low yearly subscription when bought as a group and my machine is insanely over-powered enough that I need not worry about one extra task.
Running Spybot S&D is something I occasionally do for fun - but seeing as I'm picky even about cookies - it doesn't ever give a single notification.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
Linux on Intel was nearly only FIFTEEN PERCENT of the cost of Sun servers!
YM the latest Intel hardware is only 15% the cost of the older Sparc hardware they're replacing.
Price and performance has never been the pull for Sparc, and what you're seeing is the result of the collapse of most of the non-Intel CPUs, plus Moores Law.
This is why Linux is such a huge part of the UNIX Market, yes. That's why in the '80s SCO was, for a time, the biggest part of the UNIX Market before they started taking themselves too seriously and both quit improving and tried to price themselves up there with the "big boys".
You notice the prices Red Hat are charging? Remember that RH is the leading commercial Linux and the only version of Linux most of the commercial software there is for Linux is supported on. Red Hat is the new SCO.
It has NOTHING to do with whether Linux has the same system calls, or whether Linux is POSIX compliant, or anything else related to nomenclature.
So, if Linux couldn't run the exact same software as the Suns, if it was some kind of "Open Source VMS" or "Open Source AmigaDOS", or even "Open Source Windows", it would still be doing as well? People don't run ISS under Wine on Linux, they run Apache. People don't run SQL Server under Wine on Linux, they run Postgres. This has nothing to do with "nomenclature", it has 100% to do with applications. Linux only has applications because it is UNIX. Because people don't buy operating systems to run operating systems, they buy them to run applications.
Applications define the market.
Even Microsoft is going after the UNIX applications part of the server market, because that's the biggest part of that market. That's why Active Directory is based on DNS, that's why Interix is available. Windows Applications is a less-than-35% slice, at best, and it's growing slowly... File and Print and everything else you need to support Microsoft's desktops is still Microsoft's strength.
If Linux wasn't UNIX, it would have zero percent of the market for servingUNIX applications, and that would leave it with zero percent of the server market. Zero. None. Nada. Zilch. A big fat goose egg. The only reason there's a "Linux Market" is because there's a "UNIX Market" for Linux to be part of.
Separating Linux out as if it was a different market from any other UNIX, as if it had its own applications base driving it, is just foolishness.
Well, you'll obviously need one more CPU for the fifth user. :o)
This is a good point. Now that I think about it, it looks like there is no easy way to say "for X dollars I got Y amount of computing power", since Y is always some meaningless number the vendor essentially makes up (unless the OSs run on the same hardware, such as linux and Microsoft Windows). However, I would be amazed if the same dollar amount didn't buy more linux servers than microsoft servers, simply because the OS is free (or at least cheaper, if buyers are purchasing from suppliers who bundle their own version of linux with their custom servers).
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Is it just me, or is POSIX is what's missing here?
I don't know if it's just you, but it's certainly not me.
POSIX is a very low hurdle to jump. Windows NT was "POSIX compliant" from the start, and even Bill Gates recanted on his claim that the crippled POSIX subsystem meant that Windows was "UNIX". If all Linus was trying to do was satisfy the POSIX API he wouldn't necessarily have produced anything like a UNIX. And, I don't think he would have been successful, because there were too many "own goals" in the process that produced POSIX.
POSIX was useful as a way to make systems that were already UNIX systems more like each other. But if a system wasn't UNIX, implementing a POSIX interface didn't make it UNIX.
Because *many* servers are bought (or even built) and then the OS installed later. While (legal) windows installs could be counted reasonable accurately, due to the requirement that the OS/license be purchased; many Linux, FreeBSD, and other F/OSS OS installations can't really be accounted for.
If the ones that *are* accounted for purportedly equal (as far as market share, how many copies of a linux 'server' distribution can you buy for what it costs to buy one Windows license?) then what might that say about the overall ratio?
Out of curiosity: what does 'user on the system' mean in your case?
.NET. The system is dying when 5 (that is five) users start doing something more intensive.
In this case it's a web-based app with an Oracle backend.
At work I'm using remote desktop to server that has 4 processors, 4GB of RAM and RAID disk, running MS SQL, IIS and SharePoint. Sometimes Visual Studio
Then, don't you think you should fix that? That's not normal behavior for a Windows box. You should be able to get 50-125 users working simultaneously on that machine without it breaking a sweat. Back when I was a Citrix Admin, I had dual-PIII 1.5Ghz machines with 2G of RAM and would have 75 users using Office, Lotus Notes, etc without issue.
But, I know, it's easier to blame MS than to fix problems. I used to be like that a LOOONG time ago.
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com