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. "
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.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
To me, HP is a middleman doing anything profitable, while IBM sticks to one thing and tries to do it well.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
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
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.
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.
"A war over religion is like fighting over who has the best imaginary friend."
I serviced HP servers for years and always thought them to be pretty good. I especially think that the proliant servers provide a lot of bang for the buck. But sometimes I think that their image suffers from association with some of their less than stellar workstation offerings.
... want a nice big mainframe in my closet running linux.
The mere thought makes me wet whenever I say, "Linux Mainframe"
Linux Mainframe... ooh.
Shadus
-
IBM defends Linux in Court, which made by boss realize that Linux is a serious computing platform with (Thanks SCO!!!).
-
IBM, in a move reminicent of drug gangs, got in trouble with their
illegal graffiti across san francisco and chicago; giving IBM the street cred they needed so badly.
So far I haven't seen HP breaking the law for Linux, so I can only assume IBM loves Linux more.This shows IBM's willingness to stand by linux within the legal system.
This shows IBM's willingness to stand by linux outside the legal system.
IBM definitely contributes more in the way of core kernel functionality (it's not just JFS, but also we have a number of engineers, myself included, who publically contribute on LKML and on ext2-devel on the ext2/3 filesystem). I'd have to think hard to think of any HP kernel contributors, besides the folks who work on the architecture-specific Itanium code.... (thinking....) Nope, got nothing.
That being said, I do have to give snaps to HP for employing Keith Packard and Jim Gettys. Keith in particular has been pretty much the only X developer that has been working on new core features in X11 for the past couple of years.
But in the final analysis, between IBM making 500 patents available, and all of the IBM developers contributing various enhancements to the linux Kernel, it's really not at all surprising that more people think of IBM when it comes to Linux.
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
HP donates in some way to about 55 projects, but only a few of them are linux specific. IBM on the other hand contributes to at least 162 projects, 44 of them specific to Linux. So IBM's Linux specific contributions alone number nearly as much as ALL those of HP put together. When you count in the projects that IBM works on that are not Linux specific, they stand head and shoulders ahead of HP in the most important measure: code.
The analysis is interesting. The article says HP failed at marketing. For all the criticisms that Carly turned HP into a make nothing market everything company, this article would seem to refute that. That in fact HP was doing lots with Linux and reaping the rewards in sales, but failing ot let the world know about it.
On the contrary (not that it is anything new) IBM is marketing the crap out of Linux.
I guess this is proof that if it didn't end up on Carly's radar she couldn't ruin it with marketing BS.
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
IBM has become, at Gerstner's direction, a "global services juggernaut." Their support of Linux is not directly tied to a plan to sell more Linux servers. It is tied directly to their capability to provide comprehensive services through their Global Services division. It's a good strategy. That division is the bane of just about every other major tech services provider.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
But HP replaced Carly with Mark GNU/Hurd! Surely that's gotta count for something?
Having used both IBM xSeries servers and HP Proliant servers all running Linux, I can say without any hesitation that the Proliant boxes are far better Linux servers. Their servers all work and work great with Linux. The IBM servers can be a real gamble, especially newer models, with devices not supported by most Linux distributions or requiring closed source drivers. HP has also done a great job porting over all of their Insight Management tools and agents for Linux. So it is certainly not suprising that HP is leading in the Linux server space, they simply have a better product. Also, there is no chance HP is getting out of the Intel/AMD server market. Is anyone willing to make that same bet with IBM, especially after the Lenovo deal?
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.
-- http://www.criticalassets.com
Street cred?
Dey were all like 'Yo! you be puttin' dis Windows on dat PC!' and I was like all 'What bitch? You be dissin my machine wit dat shiznit?!?' Den I got all Gentoo on their ass. Damn posers.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
... that at this stage of the game "Nondescript Old Beige Box In The Corner" still garners the most Linux server installation title... but that's not good marketing I suppose
[what?]