Under a Big Blue Shadow

PenguinCandidate writes "Linux server market share numbers can be tricky, with HP touting itself as a leader and IBM garnering all the press. For one analyst, it's all about identity." From the article: "HP can say that it has led the worldwide Linux server market for 29 consecutive quarters. HP can also say with confidence, thanks to IDC's Worldwide Quarterly Server Tracker from May 2005, that it outpaced IBM by nearly eight percentage points in quarterly revenue share. And yet, that Big Blue thundercloud remains. "

Comments

Marketing changes the perception

[winkydink]

and obviously, IBM's marketeers are doing a good job. HP's still reeling from the fiasco of the Carly years and probably will for at least another year or two.

Re:Marketing changes the perception

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not convinced the culture at the top has changed all that much since Carly. What makes you think otherwise?

Re:Marketing changes the perception

[Nutria]

Why was this modded Funny?

Re:Marketing changes the perception

[njcoder]

" Well another important issue is IBM's more apparent commitment to both Linux and Open-Source. It may just be marketing for all I know, but we hear a whole lot more about IBM paying for this and donating that to Linux & F/OSS than HP."

That's what good marketting is... making sure people hear a whole lot more :)

Re:Marketing changes the perception

[AJWM]

As with anything large, it does take a little while for a corporate culture to turn around - and it has only been a few months. But the seeds of change were already there or Carly wouldn't have been ousted, and new CEO Hurd comes from quite a different background and has a rep for turnarounds.

Re:Marketing changes the perception

[Jeff DeMaagd]

For businesses, it is far easier to just go for one vendor than deal with half a dozen or more.

I have been buying name brand systems, used ones even, and really haven't had problems. Often, more reliable and quieter than I see/hear elsewhere. It is just a matter of being careful what you buy.

I really haven't found DIY systems that have better build quality than my Xeon workstations, finding one that is as good is rare, usually they are considerably worse. These I buy used because their value plummets after a year, but they are incredibly reliable and haven't given me any problems in the last eight years that I've been running them. I hope to get an Opteron workstation once those hit the used/off lease market.

Less is more

[fembots]

To me, HP is a middleman doing anything profitable, while IBM sticks to one thing and tries to do it well.

Re:Less is more

[arete]

In more specific terms, IBM sells Linux and Linux servers and lots of other related solutions.

HP sells lots of servers that HAPPEN to be Linux.

Re:Less is more

[suitepotato]

To me, HP is a middleman doing anything profitable, while IBM sticks to one thing and tries to do it well.

And like a lazy underachiever who delusionally thinks himself a contender, they fail miserably at that thing.

I don't know why people assign so much weight to IBM's presence in the Linux world. Does Linux have Token Ring support? Does it play well with OS/2? Do we care? From another angle, what are they exactly doing that will contribute to the spread of Linux? Putting it on desktops where it will lose to Windows because they haven't wielded their magical corporate wand to make it enduser-friendly and efficient? Getting it on server farms which already have ten dozen distros running? Making it work on mainframes where they already have stable operating systems which do serious critical work at transaction levels that Windows and Unix can't touch which is like putting generic motor oil of the wrong weight in an Indy race car?

I really am confused by this phenomenon...

This is the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

For better or for worse, Haff said he believes HP has never made the same level of executive commitment to position itself publicly with Linux and open source the way IBM did

-mocheese

Re:This is the summary

[DarkMavis]

No surprise here as HP has historically had a tight connection with Microsoft. IBM has little to lose when touting their support for Linux. They don't like Microsoft anyway. HP on the other hand, with their huge PC division and Intel server division, has much more to lose. That's probably why you don't hear HP's executives talking up Linux as much as Big Blue's.

Market Share

[coop0030]

To be honest this article seems accurate enough. I didn't even know that HP was selling Linux servers. They definitely don't try to make it known, and do not get very much press if they do try.

IBM dominates the Linux news everywhere I look.

I think the biggest reason is that they do so many different things for Linux, and it seems they actually help the development of Linux much more than just selling servers.

There in lies the biggest difference.
HP = selling servers
IBM = developing new features in Linux, and selling servers.

So What?

[HaFBaKeD]

When it comes right down to it, every company can use some pretty "impressive" looking stats to swing things in their favor. This is no different.

The aotumotive industry is the worst, every possible car on the market seems to have some obscure award it has won to help tout its abilities. In the end, its whatever fits your current needs/situation, ignore the hyped up stats.

The reason is ...

[WindBourne]

that IBM is contributing heavily in the Linux arena. They have more coders in the kernel. Most of HP's contributions are about sales for HP. Good example is HP's drivers for their printers. They have not really contributed to lpr or cups. It would be nice if HP also did advertisements for and with Linux. So far, all that see is that "We sell Windows, and Unix. Oh yeah, some Linux too.". HP has hired some top ppl from Linux, but they did not make good use of them. They wished to keep a low profile so as to not anger the Windows ppl. Well, so what. Dell is eating HP for lunch when it comes to Windows, and will continue to do so.

and yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

....people with a clue know this is all marketroid bullshit.

sigh of relief

[ohzero]

finally the day has come where huge industry players are fighting over who is more badass with open source. 10 years ago people would have laughed at this idea.

Current batch of Proliants SUCK

[Anonymous Coward]

We just recently bought a half dozen Proliant ML370G4 machines, all dual processor 3.2GHz Xeons, 4GB memory, SmartArray 6402 raid controllers, filled with 73GB 15K rpm hot swap drives, and have redundant power supplies and cooling fans. These machines have been installed and in service a little over 6 months and already 4 of them have suffered hardware failures. The machines are fast as hell when they're running, but reliability is getting very questionable. I now wish that I'd chosen the Dell PowerEdge 2800's instead. I would've gotten two additional hotswap drive bays with those too. Proliants used to be legendary quality... built like army tanks. I have an ML370G3 and two ML350G3's that are absolute juggernauts. These newest G4 machines however are flimsy cheap Chinese junk. Half of the parts inside them are labelled "Foxconn" brand :-(. Dell's are pretty cheaply made nowadays too, but I have 4 PE2600's that while they seem built flimsy, have been running non-stop for over a year without a glitch... even with Windows 2000 Server operating system on them! (don't worry, they're not on the Internet :D )

From what I've seen lately, the last intel-based server hardware that's still built like heavy iron is IBM's stuff, but you pay a premium price for that.