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."

Comments

Re:Okay so...

[SQLz]

A better question, what do people even run on a Windows server?

this only mean

[blue b]

that we are at the end of the telnet era you ascii fools

Isn't this because...

[Steveftoth]

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.

Re:Okay so...

[1lus10n]

::sniff sniff::

I smell a hypocrite.

First and foremost, the amount of updates for windows far far FAR exceeds the amount for any Unix I have ever dealt with. While we are at it let me clue you into something: just because most apps are included within the base install of a unice doesnt mean you get to exclude the updates coming from third parties on that windows box.

Also of importance is that microsoft tries to bundle their updates into Service Packs, leaving its customers out to dry for months on end in some cases. Because "convinence" should always be paramount to security.

"Which leads to the question then of "why run Unix?"

Because you dont have to wait 3 years for SP2 to come out in order to have a stable platform. Because you dont have to spend hours dealing with virus's. Because one unix admin can handle far more boxes than his windows counterpart. Because that MCSE you put so much faith in is worth about as much as toilet paper to anybody with a lick of sense (this obviously doesnt include the HR nitwit who hired you). Because a properly secured nix box can run for YEARS without being rebooted and without service loss.

Securing any OS is equally easy. On a properly maintained network you really have no reason to do frequent updates because its virtually impossible to access a machine that is exposed to XYZ hole.

"when the machine was running which was relatively rare, we could get 300 simulataneous users. Not a typo, only 300 users. We switched the app server over to Windows/IIS on relatively comparable hardware and now we can accomodate approximately 5000 users. That's the thing about anecdotes, for every one you have, someone has one that's exactly the opposite." Really. That might have more to do with you not knowing solaris or the hardware failing than anything else. Of course you knew that already. Of course the fun part about my anecdote is that the company in questions IT department was run by a bunch of MCSE's who needed fun little point-n-click interfaces for everything and said the HP server in question couldnt run linux (it could) because none of them knew linux they lied. Six months later this scenario was repeated under a new CTO ... half the IT staff was let go and replaced with new staff that knew linux, installed the solution without a hiccup.

"This is probably the most interesting statement you made, as it's so untrue."

If something is built for XP I wouldnt give two hot damns about it being able to work on XP. If its built for XP, make it work on 3.1. I dare ya. Hence the need to upgrade. This isnt even obscure random crap, this is the core stuff. Sure old stuff runs on the newer OS's, but what freakin good is that ? I could see far more uses for running a new app on an old OS than an old app on a new OS, but of course thats because I am not a member of MSDN.

Oh and just out of curiosity, when exactly are things "just working" in the windows world ? Is that the five minutes before or after all the updates, defragging, anti-virusing, anti-malwaring and constant reboots ? Cause if things are "just working" somebody might want to let all the symantecs of the world that the myriad of products they put out to fix microsofts constant fuckups are wholly un-needed.