Slashdot Mirror
A Look at Windows Server Outselling Linux
THG writes "CoolTechZone.com has an interesting look at Linux's position in the market now that Microsoft has sold more Windows Server software than Linux. From the article: "The most important reason that Windows based servers are doing so well could be that programmers find it extremely easy to work on .Net and other related technologies (seamless integration). Plus, you have hassle free and rapid support from Microsoft, which is a comforting feature for corporate customers. When Windows Live comes in, we will see further integration between the server and online technical support areas, thereby making the troubleshooting process easier for in-house administrators and reducing overhead costs for the company."
Okay now wait, I'm confused. Are Microsoft's sales of Windows Server higher than Microsoft's sales of Linux? Or are Microsoft's sales of Windows Server higher than Linux's sales of Linux? Or are Microsoft's sales of Windows Server higher than Linux's sales of Windows Server?
Because, y'know, without clarification, I might think someone didn't know what someone was saying.
(At least we can feel safe knowing that once we figure that out, any stats involving both "sales" and "Linux" will be perfectly clear and accurate and meaningful.)
The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
Gartner, Inc. recently reported:
First, the study says that Windows based Servers accounted for 37 percent in revenue. Now traditionally, Windows based systems are more expensive than Linux based systems, so even if vendors sold lesser number of Windows systems, the price difference could ensure that Windows sales revenue was higher. This implies that, in terms of pure numbers, Linux could very well have outsold Windows.
Enough said. Nothing to see here. Move along...
I've recently redone the server end for [yet another] office (Linux based, of course) for which they certainly won't show up in Linux or Windows based sales "reports". Ever.
Linux is doing just fine...
Summary (from the article):
"The research unfortunately only refers to the sales revenue rather than overall profits and market share."
"Now traditionally, Windows based systems are more expensive than Linux based systems, so even if vendors sold lesser number of Windows systems, the price difference could ensure that Windows sales revenue was higher. This implies that, in terms of pure numbers, Linux could very well have outsold Windows."
Of course M$ outsells that.
>programmers find it extremely easy to work on .Net and other related technologies
I find .NET to be a convoluted platform for programming. I'd much rather use technologies readily available for Linux/Solaris/Mac OS X.
>hassle free and rapid support from Microsoft
Sure hasn't been my experience. Slow support with major hassles is more like it even when you pay good money for it.
Plus, you have hassle free and rapid support from Microsoft, which is a comforting feature for corporate customers
Hassle-free? Rapid? Man I gotta get whatever these guys are smoking....
Every try to report a bug in a Microsoft product and get a fix? You'll likely be waiting on the order of months. That is, if you get a fix at all.
From the article:
Is this really true? The teams I worked with on .NET and
Windows technology hardly found the integration seamless. As a
matter of fact we had a full-time staff of Microsoft consultants
on-site as well as on call to help provide workarounds for all of
the glitches with the .NET technology, and there were a LOT of
them.
I do wish there were less license for this kind of publishing. It is the complement to libel, i.e., it gives undue credit to someone for something not true. Weird. And, it still does damage to third party simply by virtue of lending credence and credibility to .NET and Microsoft. Sigh.
Did it occur to them that most of the software on Linux don't require purchasing? Groupware servers, Web servers, FTP servers... IRC servers... all free.
If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
slashdot is now dead.
piece of shit sellout.
Plus, you have hassle free and rapid support from Microsoft, which is a comforting feature for corporate customers.
I rang Microsoft the other day. It was a fantastic experience. After getting somebody on first line support who clearly had no idea what I was talking about, after 5 minutes he transfered me to 2nd line support - in India. With a several second phone lag, I explained the problem repeatedly. After 30 minutes - 30 MINUTES - I got the patch I first rang for.
Yes, that's hassle free and rapid.
It's very easy to sell more than nothing. You only need to sell it once!!!
Well heck. Considering that Microsoft is used to pulling in at least 80% of the revenue in whatever segment they enter, these results are pretty embarassing. And I'd like to know the numbers of deployments for each, including non-vendor-supported Linux deployments. Microsoft pulling a bigger piece of license revenue than anybody else isn't exactly news.
Plus, you have hassle free and rapid support from Microsoft, which is a comforting feature for corporate customers.
.Net is a selling point. For what, I'm not sure. After having the .Net framework trash my home box, I'm quite hesitant to install it on my servers.
*ROFL* Wow, that's rich. What microsoft offers is not "hassle free" or "rapid support", but the illusion of such. If Red Hat, etc, could do that, they'd own.
In the past several months, my company has had to deal with Microsoft on 2 different calls. One was about Clusters, the other was MSMQ. Both were handled poorly - the first one, their answer was "apply this hotfix", they think it'll fix it, no promises, and no easy way to back it out (that they knew of). Niiice.
The second, I'm firmly convinced that our guys know more than the people who wrote the code - we've had to deal with some odd issues, and none of the tech support had a clue(and yes it was escalated a few times). Or a grasp of the primary language in the US. *grr*
And
People don't buy servers with Linux preinstalled. They buy a no OS server and install it themselves. Plus Linux is free, which also skews the numbers a bit.
I've been running it as a desktop for quite awhile. It has the solid NT kernel without all the extra cruft of XP. It is delivered in a locked down mode and must be specifically opened to enable each task. IE is delivered in a locked-down mode, but I use Opera as IE needs lots of locking down. I'd say 2003 is MSs first totally solid release. It has everything that 2000 promised to be with all the multimedia bells and gaming possibility of XP. Oh, and IIS 6 kicks ass. You might say it is MS first deliverable of a real web server. Oh, and MS OSs are finally remotely administrable, and administrable in large groups, something Unix/Linux was far ahead on up to now.
Windows sucks,Linux is great.Thats the way it is,you will be laughed at if your server runs windows.
... that whenever a company buys a bunch of servers from say, Dell, and doesn't bother to specify on the order that some are Linux servers (since it doesn't save you any money for the hassle of making two orders, especially if you are using Debian or some non-supported distro anyway), they get counted towards *Windows* profits, even though they will be wiped as soon as they get to the company.
"I've recently redone the server end for [yet another] office (Linux based, of course) for which they certainly won't show up in Linux or Windows based sales "reports". Ever.
Linux is doing just fine..."
In other words, no one can make "revenue" with FOSS. Glad both sides now agree on that point.
This story is like putting a cat in a kennel of dogs. I can imagine the editors sitting there thinking, "Mmm. We could use some good fun..we're bored. Let's throw this cat in the kennel and get our kicks out of watching the dogs go nuts." Thanks guys.
Recent rumors claimed that Microsoft wanted to giveaway its OS for free by integrating advertisements in the OS itself. If that happens (provided the method is secure enough), I don't know what the figures would be in terms of revenue, but Windows will most definitely "outsell" Linux in sheer numbers and that could perhaps be touted as the beginning of the end of Linux.
I think this is crazy talk, but if he's right the world deserves an AD driven Windows OS.
It would kinda' be fun to be able to say "Windows Abomination" in normal company with a straight face.
How the hell will they get complete and accurate figures for all the new servers that run Linux when the OS is free in most cases? And how many of those servers with Windows on them were immediately replaced with Linux? I have worked at many shops where we freely install Fedora or Mandrake on Servers including servers bought from DELL that come with Windows preinstalled.
I love when they quote these sales figures because they mean next to nothing compared to an OS that is free and when most major hardware vendors are just NOW getting on board with Linux and even then, just half heartedly.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Seems funny that if you search Slashdot, .NET is spoken of as a dead-man walking. Netcraft shows that Apache servers are still on tops. So, what gives?
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
First MS has to do a balancing act between ads and people tolerance of those ads. Too many ads and people will stop. Next there will be add blockers, MS would have to lock down the OS so tight that the user will have no choices thus no users. Linux will do better, around the world there are pockets of Linux infrastructure, and these will just grow. Finally, I will never use MSwindows, so there will always be Linux as long as I am alive.
Now I have to start worrying about MS assassins;-)
A common problem in trying to count the number of servers running an OS is defining what a 'server' is. Most Linux servers I've seen run ten times the number of virtualhosts that Windows servers do. Do you count a Linux server running 1000 sites as 1 server or 1000?
I wouldn't be surprised if there were more physical servers running Windows, but if you count virtualhosts instead there would be far more sites using Linux.
My personal disclaimer: I use linux daily, and haven't touched windows in quite some time.
:-)
If the Microsoft Windows OS is becoming a better product than it used to be, then this is a great thing. If Microsoft Windows is becoming better DUE TO the presence of Linux as an alternative OS, then all the more better for both OS's. The computer world needs progress in order to keep millions of programmers and sysadmins like myself in proper employment.
Now, as I originally stated in my discalimer, I am a Linux zealot like the next penguin-headed person. I have no problems with people who think that Windows is better than Linux, because I know that Linux is aimed at people who like to (borrowing from a Mac quote) "think different" and/or have needs that Linux better suits than Windows.
Studies like this count only purchases, not acquisitions of Linux that were not purchased. So, if I download Slackware to run my webserver, I'm not going to show up on this study. Take those percentages with a grain of salt; Netcraft still knows the truth.
Regarding MS' 'seamless integration' of code on top of the OS, in this instance, only companies which own or can deliver and support the complete stack (OS, RDBMS, OOP, Web server, App server, etc) will be in a position to compete - Sun, Redhat and Novell come immediately to mind. Currently, Sun - w/ Solaris, Java, et al - is most equipped to deliver a seamlessly-integrated full stack w/ support to counter MS' offerings.
Microsoft has sold more Windows Server software than Linux.
Heck, I'm surprised microsoft has sold ANY Linux server software.
Property is theft.
This is a ridiculous piece of 'news.' This is purely an opinion piece mentioning the (questionable) results of a Garner report, without even linking to the report or its findings.
The report counts the revenue of servers which sell with either Windows or commercially supported versions of Linux (Redhat, SuSE). This has nothing to do with actual, real world usage patterns. Many, many people who buy new servers download and install Linux, FreeBSD, etc. often even when they 'own' a MS Server license for the system. Any reasonable person would understand that if the revenue of Linux servers are only 5% below that of Windows, MS should in fact be worried. Very worried.
And that's just the first paragraph. It really is a slow news day when garbage like this gets posted. What's next? Another 'Dvorak predicts' article?
E
First off, they admit that they don't know what the UNITS are, just the revenue (and they admit that Windows costs more than Linux).
THEN they go off about WHY Microsoft moves more units than Linux, even though they admit that they don't know that Microsoft DID move more units.
You'd think that "cooltechzone" might be a bit suspicious that units are not mentioned. Just a bit suspicious.
Could this have anything to do with linux being free? I find it easy to out sell things that are free.
Linux $1.44B 11.53%
Other $2.55 20.42%
Windows $4.60 36.83%
Unix $3.90 31.22%
Total $12.49 100.00%
Now ask what "Other" is. Mainframe OS and AS400 is 10% tops the rest is servers bought without OS Guess what is being installed on those?
. MS invested in Gartner here a few years back, since that no Units is being published only Value. By the wya the Linux partion went yp 37% in value and 22% unit (they poublished the growth not the absolute numbers) menaning the average price of Linux servers is rising 10%.
Help fight continental drift.
I switched from being a windows idiot to a Debian Linux slightly-less-stupid idiot 3 years ago after leaving a job at Microsoft and realizing I needed new friends. I only use Debian Linux at home, but I keep VMWare w/ W2k3, VS, SQL to practice for work; I keep WXP part for playing games and the needing to do the inevitable Microsoft crap this society demands, and am I'm doing quite well using Microsoft at work. I feel all cheap and dirty because I constantly point out to people how really sad I am for them stuck in their prison of idiocy, stupidicity, and crap, but what can I do?
The dummies I work with use Windows and I've no desire to be Martin Luther.
linux is free. Even if they have "sold" more server OS's (a ridiculous thing to say in comparison with a free product) everyone knows that apache runs about 70% of the web. this is just FUD that microsoft lovers will lap up.
How many of you are like me and downloaded your Linux distro legally and free, installed it on various computers, tested, then put in a production environment and have required no support other than occasional package updates?
Windows Server software outsold Linux in the server market. Gartner, Inc.
Well that's probably true because most of us don't buy Linux -- we simply download it. But the fact that corporate types are buying preinstalled Linux servers at a rate to nearly equal Microsoft says something about Linux in general.
Linus, please, raise the price at least another 20% ! bah hah hah hah!
At my work place we are (painfully) slowly moving away from our existing Microsoft Windows Servers and replacing them with Linux and Solaris solutions. Note things like our Exchange servers are staying in place as there are no suitable equivalents though most other things are being moved across. Why? Because Microsoft's support is a joke compared even to unofficial IRC support channels for FOSS, it costs far to much when compared to Free* (*plus training, installation, support) solutions, and we dislike the vendor lock in Activation and licenses that are forced on those using Microsoft Server software; we paid good money only to be treated like pirates and have to deal with those systems failing and causing server problems, it is Microsoft's problem and making it our problem is a punch to the face. Right now as I type this I'm converting a Windows 2k3 Server to Ubuntu 5.10 (yes I know...) for another company in towns that I'm mates with the boss as they simply can't afford to deal with support issues on a mission critical server. They need some thing that Just Works(tm) and that is Linux (I tried pitching Solaris 10! I really did!). From my look on the Industry (note I'm in Australia) I see it as being more of a case that people are looking at Linux seriously, testing the water, liking it, and then attempting to migrate their servers. Along with hardcore Linux users who refuse to move to Microsoft (Rubbish) Software I see this as the Linux server market growing and I seriously doubt Microsoft dominance over Unix really exists. (Then again...There are a lot of Exchange servers out there...) 2 cents
I ate your fish.
"Paid? You don't get paid. Are you kidding, you work on commission, that's better than getting paid."
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
is it just me or are you linux geeks starting to get scared because linux promises of being desktop ready are still far from being true...and that now windows 2003 server are in fact easier and better to maintain than your linux servers.Could it be? .NET and visual studio not to mention the upcomming Windows Vista should worry linux.As far as i can see nothing has been done lately.Not even in a bug fix view.
Yes face it...linux needs change now.Linus should be retired before linux is retired.
Windows has made a big move this year and linux is starting to fall behind.The integration of
The linux strategy is outdated and needs to be refreshed.You can't just have a good idea(and yes linux had a great idea) and then run with it for 10 years without a change.
Apache hasn't changed at all.IIS HAS.The only software which seem to be doing well with regards to actual progress and change is mySQL...which has an interesting battle with the new MSSQL Server 2005(which btw simply kicks ass).
An arguments seemed to be "GUI isn't everything"...but what happens when the GUI starts catching up and taking the lead in the code departement?(that's what's happening here).
MS ready sysadmins who are used to the help msmvps provide (who lurk everywhere) are often put off by the relentless "man " answers handed out so harshly and frequently by snobbish linux pros.
Aren't Microsoft SALES figures always going to beat open source? Isn't this like saying more people bought Microsoft's Office suite than Open Office?
Fact is 80-90% of people using OO.org or Linux for that matter DIDN'T buy it. This is the stupidest metric I can think of to compare something that is mostly free with something that is absolutely overpriced. This works from one perspective - Vendors. And it only almost works, as the article noted, this is revenue not profit. From the IT manager perspective this is either FUD or MS marketing.
Did you know that garden fresh vegetables from personal gardens are drastically outsold by grocery produce? Bad comparison..my point exactly.
If you buy an IBM blade center with all the VMWare goodies, you're running linux even if you run Windows on top of that. Wonder why they choose that for a foundation? Because they're smart, that's why. They can sell you this $70,000 software setup and aside from in-house engineering and the licensing for VMWare, their overhead is unbelievably low. You just paid a programmer's salary for the year. If they sell 3000 units and have 1500 programmers/maintenance folks, that's 100% profit. I know my numbers are waaay off but even adjusted/scaled appropriately you see the cash cow this makes. You can almost see why the tossed their low profit PC stuff to Lenovo.
Why do people greenlight this "sky is falling" garbage?
What I don't get with Windows troubleshooting is why the first thing you do is reboot. With Linux, if you have a problem, 100 reboots is not going to solve the problem. As a person who has administrated hundreds, probably thousands of Windows, Linux, BSD machines, I find Linux to be much easier to troubleshoot because there is basically no such thing as an intermittent problem.(maybe 0.01% of the time and 99.9% of the time its a hardware problem and not Linux) You either have a problem, or you don't. There is not of this crap where a machine runs fine for 30 days then all of a sudden has issues that go away when you reboot.
Maybe others have different experiences, I don't know. I've worked a lot of different places over the last 10 years and this has held true everywhere.
The only reason why Windows is outselling Linux is because the price of Linux is $0.
I'm rather happy to see that Micro$oft is selling more software than (what I'm assuming to mean) Linux developers. Because there are still more Linux servers in use than Windows, that can only mean that people are downloading the bloody operating system for free. Not like there's any shortage of sites...
Note the difference between selling (distributing in exchange for a fee) and using (making it do useful work).
Yay, misleading statistics!!
Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
rofl @ butthurt linux zealots.
If you buy a blade server without OS specified It comes with something called "No Operating System Microsoft Configuration [Included in Price]" and is counted as Windwos servers
Look for yourselves Dell Bladeserver"
Help fight continental drift.
Rebooting to fix problems is actually a feature! See, there is this highly secret and very technologically advanced code in Windows that on a reboot diagnoses the problem and automatically fixes it! What other OS can claim that? It's self-healing!
~wink~
It's bullshit. Nobody is shocked that Windows outsells Linux. Windows Server has ALWAYS outsold Linux. Linux outselling Windows would be NEWS.
And Linux doesn't account for 31% of total server revenue.. It accounts for fucking 12% of server revenue.
http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/11/23/server_sales_q3
The only news is that NEW linux sales (as in more sold this quarter then previous) rose 34+ percent, or something like this.
This has been 12 straight quarters which new server sales for Linux growth has risen double digits. There have been quarters were Linux growth has been 54% NEW sales over the previous quarter's sales. Linux is increasing it's precense in the datacenter and in the server room like a fucking rocket. Always has been, but until recently Linux has been a very small fish in a big pond. Now it's the second most common OS that your going to see anywere.
The news this guy is refering to is that Windows outsold UNIX, not Linux. Linux is recorded in a seperate catagory..
This isn't due to anything wonderfull Windows does. The main reason you'd want to run Windows Server is that you run Windows Desktop because Microsoft's products don't integrate with jack shit. But everybody runs Windows desktop and windows desktop only works well with windows server unless you have a mixed enviroment then you use Linux as glue between MS stuff and everything else.
The main reason that Unix servers sales have flagged is because Linux, not Windows. Linux is MUCH cheaper to use then Unix.
Hell in this quarter alone Sun has dropped from 7+ % of sales to under 5% and that's due to Linux. Most of Oracle licenses and such that are sold are sold to be run on Linux.
However that has had the side effect of making Windows the largest market in terms of sales..
Which is still bullshit because if you take Unix and Linux together, which you should since they are mostly compatable and run all the same software, then Windows server is still the minority and always has been.
microsoft take on any threat to their software in one (or a mixture of) ways:
1. buy out the competition
2. use dominance in another market to push your product in this one
3. when that doesn't work simply tell people lies
so far i haven't seen much of:
4. improve your own product so that the customers like it more and pay for it
microsoft thwart the market system, anti monopoly laws and consumer soverignty yet again....
Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
What the hell kind of ignorant, 6th grade, piss-ant research article is this?
Of course, this comes from the same man (Varun Dubey) who said:
"XP is such a joy when it comes to simply connecting a device and watching the pretty little bubble detecting it and saying "its installed and ready for use" makes the slightly high price absolutely worth it. In Linux, you have to recompile a kernel if you want to so much as change your modem! Give me a break guys, Linux is light years behind Windows XP and I am sure it will be further back biting the dust when Longhorn (now Vista) comes out."
Dumbass.
It would be nice if we could moderate CoolTechZone stuff to Flamebait -1 by default!
In dollars, Microsoft is going to beat Linux for quite some time yet. A large percentage of Linux users download and more or less roll their own distributions. They don't buy them. The real question is how many are users are served with each platform on a regular basis. That is the number that really matters.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
"The most important reason that Windows based servers are doing so well could be that programmers find it extremely easy to work on .Net and other related technologies (seamless integration)."
Yeah don't get me started on how easily they can be breached into either.
I rather have a secure server and waste a bit more time configuring one than installing something as an excuse of my laziness just because it's easier.
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/27/ 1240258&tid=173&tid=184&tid=106
Back in May this Cooltechzone.com was posted with the same "slashdot" link for the submitter name.
The DNS registrant for cooltechzone's name came up for it in a google search.
Ciggarettes outselling Air!
And In other news...
Tanning Booths outselling Sunlight!
Its a mad mad world.
Web Developers: Celebrate to our roots! Animated Gifs and Tiled Backgrounds, dont let our history die!
Bill? Is that you?
"Recent rumors claimed that Microsoft wanted to giveaway its OS for free by integrating advertisements in the OS itself. If that happens (provided the method is secure enough), I don't know what the figures would be in terms of revenue, but Windows will most definitely "outsell" Linux in sheer numbers and that could perhaps be touted as the beginning of the end of Linux."
No one will want a server feeding ads, and Windows being secure enough to have advertising integrated.... yeah, right.
Not exactly. The main reason why Windows is still doing well is because of market inertia. I like to call this mind inertia, because even before considering a switch to Linux (which can be long and painful), people need to be convinced that Linux is superior to Windows. This is a step that takes quite some time, this is especially true in technological fields where so few people have the technical knowledge required to understand why product A is superior to product B. That's why, nowadays, you still have so few people realizing Linux's advantages (and inconvenients).
Look at the AMD Opteron. It is the exact same reason why so many people still believe in the superiority of Intel Xeons, despite the fact that everybody:
recognizes the superiority of Opterons over Xeons. Unfortunately, because of this market/mind inertia, because of this lack of technical knowledge, because of this diffuculty to change minds, it will take years for people to accept Opterons.
> Plus, you have hassle free and rapid support from Microsoft
Heheh, sure, much you get such intelligence and thoughtfulness from Bush and Cheney.
Ya, hit me with another shot of that heroin, the last one is wearing off...
Although, at least with Microsoft, sometimes you can manage to tell them things about how their product works -- they may have little idea about what they're doing, but at least some of them can be taught (although, that's not really technical support, when you are trying to teach the tech support people basic diagnostics, out of charitable feelings or the next poor sucker to call them).
Remember that the Gartner group makes lots and lots of money by doing expensive consultations that end up writing reports that come up with results that the managers want to read. This kind of publication is just advertising for their service. It says good things about windows, so a manager who likes windows is likely to see it, like what it says and hire the Gartner Group to write an unbiased report - knowing in advance just what it will say.
Then too, we should always remember the Good Dr. Goebbels who is reported to have said "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth."
CoolTechZone....What is that? Who is the author? /. ??? Don't feed the trolls....
Why is this story at
#find
Of course Windows server software outsells Linux server software. The Linux distributions bundle all the server software you could ever need, whereas with Windows, you better be ready to decide which arm and leg you can live without, because you're paying for each one separately. Unless you manage to retain enough sanity to use open source software such as Apache. But then, you wouldn't be stupid enough to use Windows in a server environment.
Remember, friends don't let friends use Windows in a server capacity. As a desktop machine, maybe. But never, ever for a server.
Drop me a line at:
Key ID: 0x54D1D809
When Windows Live comes in, we will see further integration between the server and online technical support areas, thereby making the troubleshooting process easier for in-house administrators and reducing overhead costs for the company.
Yeah, right. If microsoft support is 30 bucks a call (and it is, no exaggeration), I shudder to think how much windows live will cost. Not to mention you'll no doubt have to wait in line an hour. I sure hope windows live has a hold function.
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
Taos or Whitebox. I can't take articles that don't bring the broader picture into account seriously. When I started my current job they where 50/50 Linux/Sun. The *old* Linux systems (still in production in a post dot-com bubble surviver) were running RH9, the newer Linux boxes where (much to my dismay, as it is) running Fedora Core 3. I can't imagine this is uncommon. We've got firewall systems running Clark Connect community edition and two lonely Windows 2003 servers, only one of which we plan to keep in services.
Meta distro's like Centos (my current personal fav for corporate, seeing as the upgrade path to full-fledged RHEL is pretty much a straight shot) and even full fledged distro's like Debian, Gentoo or Slackware still get taken pretty seriously by a lot of data-centers and run a lot of enterprise systems.
Papers like these are always clearly limited by either their bias (who funding me?) or the methodology. I hope more often its B.
We'll be replacing all our older Sun hardware with Supermicro bases servers running Xeon or Opteron chips. All of these systems will be running Centos and apparently will never be counted. Unless of course you use real statistics like netcraft.com.
Everything else is just bullshit as far as I'm concerned (I'm not trying to leave the BSD's out, but thats a whole other discussion, lots of good reasons good shops are picking BSD up too).
Quack, quack.
the copies of Linux that were not purchased from retail channels but were downloaded free of charge.
They also, no doubt, included in the counting the number of times a single, freely downloaded copy of Linux was installed more than once.
Yup, despite the fact that these "onsulting" firms income streams totally depend on advising on the use of Microsoft software, I'm sure Gartner analysts will be professional and do their best to tally accurate counts, eschewing the crass action of merely rubberstamping a Microsoft PR memo. After all, people who earn fees by being featured in Microsoft server sales videos shouldn't have too much trouble remaining unbiased.
mmm... after thinking about it I'm sure they never counted the four Linux servers we recently installed at work. Maybe they aren't as accurate as I thought.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
What is this nonsense? When I first started reading /., it was about Linux, damn it! If you brought up Windows, it was solely for the point of ridicule ("look at that Swiss cheese of an OS!"), never to put it above Linux. Windows support? Excuse me why I go laugh myself silly. I cannot be the only person disappointed with the trend /. is making in stories like these, can I?
My user agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050517 Firefox/1.0.4 (Debian package 1.0.4-2)
Thank you, and good night.
Face it, linux sucks. If everyone used linux, things wouldn't go as smoothly as they do with Windows. One word: Reliability. linux just doesn't cut it. Never has and never will. As with the current line and stage of kernel development (2.0.40), linux is slow and not as powerful as Windows. Also, with the advent of Apple being based on linux, apple has slowed down. DONT blame it on the intel chips either because Dell has gone to amd because amd is cheaper(dell buys cheap parts), so the intel chips are keeping up with making the kernel/os and root run faster.
Thus, the current development branch is slow and should be as underutilized as it currently is. The hardware support is extremely poor. I could not get my copy of Mandarin Linux to boot on my 64-bit dual core Thoroughbred-B. However, Winxpcorp ran FLAWLESS. No problems with the 64 bit architecture support. What's interesting about linux is that sooner or later, Microsoft will buy out linux and the linux issues will be solved......at least for the time being
If I remember correctly, Microsoft is in trial with OpenBSD for stealing their source code and integrading it into the Windows Kernel Architecture (WKA). This may be trouble for Microsoft, but it is indiscernable that Theo De Raadt cannot afford to succumb to Microsoft's legal team and will probably also sell out to Microsoft.
These are people that told us that OS/2 would be king. Their veracity is in constant question; they make a living from making corporations believe that Gartner has information that they don't. And virtually all their research is vendor sponsored. Add this up: for Gartner to admit that Linux has such a huge PAID FOR share is tremendously good news.
Sales? Consider: when did YOU last BUY Linux? Use Fedora Core? Most versions of SuSE worth having? Most of us don't pay for Linux, although it's nice to have Red Hat or Novell, or heaven forbid Sun to fall back on.
If you RTFA, then understand the apparent pro-Microsoft bias on the part of the columnist at CTZ, you'll understand that there's actually very good news here: people actually paid, as in money, for Linux to get support-- because you don't have to buy it any other way. They did this, in competition with Microsoft's value proposition. That says more, and positive news about Linux than ever before.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Another thing this research proves is that despite the affordable deployment cost with Linux systems, and perhaps even security advantages,
Perhaps?!?!?! Yeah, perhaps Linux is cheaper than windows too. This guy wins the award for the understatement of the year.
No Sigs!
Er, could it be that the effect of thousands of Microsoft salespeople is increasing Windows sales, compared to the much smaller amount of Linux salespeople? Maybe all that monopoly vendor lockin is giving Microsoft an edge in sales. And perhaps the media bias in favor of their big advertiser, Microsoft, after years of buying brand favoritism, is responsible for that media spin. Any Linux competitiveness in the highly rigged market is testament to its value. And stories like that one validate Linux's inexorable rise in market share. Linux is just getting started, while Windows getting pretty creaky. Propping it up won't last forever.
--
make install -not war
...---===INF0RMATIVE===---...
...
... of why you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.
After about 10 years now, you would think that Slashdot would be getting better at weeding out crap like this. Instead, it seems to be getting worse. If anything I would say that Slashdot is doing Microsoft an even bigger favor than cooltechzone.com (or whatever the hell this one is called) thanks to all the traffic this site generates.
I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. -Confucius
Well, this is a fun article to pick apart and see why people are jumping to all the wrong conclusions....
:-)
First, the article makes the mistake in merely comparing Windows and Linux. In omitting any analysis in what is going on with UNIX, MacOS X (yeah, I know it has a UNIX-like kernel but much of the rest of the setup is almost but not quite entirely unlike UNIX), any context to these numbers is omitted. What is happening, however, is that three trends are occuring which are noteworthy:
1) Proprietary UNIX's market share is shrinking.
2) Windows and Linux are gaining market share in terms of absolute deployments on the server side.
3) *Some* of these deployments are counted in the sale of new servers. but not all.
Even so, Linux's marketshare is still up, as is Windows. These are the only two OS's to have been significantly gaining marketshare in server market (well, maybe MacOS, but it is hard not to gain from about 0% a few years ago). I would argue that WIndows is gaining because it is familiar, and Linux is gaining because it is like that it is replacing. Both operating systems claim to be easier to administrate than proprietary UNIX (I certainly think Linux is, but I think that non-trivial tasks in Windows are actually harder than with proprietary UNIX).
Now, something seems fishy to me about this study in another way. In the 2000 IDC study (iirc) NT4 and 2000 accounted for about 37% of the market share by volume. Linux was much lower than that. If the IDC is correct and Windows market share has indeed been growing from 2000 to 2002 (when I stopped reading the study) then either they have slipped in market share, Linux sells for more, Gartner is underestimating Windows' market share, or the IDC is overestimating the market share of WIndows. Perhaps even some combination of the above explenations.
Now... I used to work at Microsoft's PSS. I can tell you their support is nothing to write home about. They aren't someone you call because you need expert advice. If you are reasonably knowledgable, you call them for a second opinion. If you are a novice you call them for mentoring. But you can get braindead answers occasionally from them. I remember being on the phone with a customer and conferencing someone in from the SQL Server support team who said that it was not possible to set a value to NULL once it had been set to another value. Somehow I don't think that this was right but I have not had a chance to test it. Then there are the issues where the technicians advocate best practices whithout understanding *why* they are best practices. And this was all before so much of it was sent to India
Finally the idea that an ad-supported Windows would be the end of Linux is laughable. I think that this would be the beginning of the end of Windows, not of Linux. Hmm... 2 free products. One is adware the other is not. Which should I choose?
In short this article makes mistakes such as:
1) assuming that market share by revenue has any reasonable correlation to actual deployments.
2) refusing to take into account the broader market trends that form the context of this study.
This article smacks of MS shilling.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The links don't have any meaning. IINM if certain keywords appear in an article they are automatically turned into links to whoever happened to pay for that keyword.
The impression I get is that sites like this write 'articles' to spam Google more effectively.
my password really is 'stinkypants'
As someone who tracks the actual numbers when the quarterly surveys are released, what I have to ask is what is the comparison to the previous quarter, what is the comparison to the same quarter the previous year?
.NET? Not worried about it. The worldwide GNU/Linux development model simply cannot be matched even with Microsoft's billions. GNU/Linux is improving by leaps and bounds constantly, and there is nothing Microsoft can do to stop this.
Those two questions weren't asked in all the posts with a threshold of three or better yet. While the articles put up by news.com.com.com.com and other tech news sites almost always include previous quarters and the previous year's same quarter comparisons, they also normally include estimated unit sales. If the tech news site is biased toward Microsoft, or in the case of analysts with brown noses, the unit sales estimates are normally buried at the bottom of articles since those numbers are almost always bad news for Microsoft and reflect the 25-50% compounded growth rate of GNU/Linux systems.
Another thing to consider this quarter and possibly the next couple of quarters going forward is the news that computer hardware sales are higher than expected and strong. In this environment, Microsoft will be posting record sales again since more companies are upgrading, more companies will be reluctant to switch from the status quo, and with current good economic growth in the US along with a good short/medium term economic growth outlook, there will be less pressure to cut costs, search for cheaper options, etc. The more this is true, the more momentum there will be for maintaining the status quo in terms of keeping what you know and upgrading, vs. a migration to a technology that a particular company has less expertise on.
Linux has been capturing the majority of migrations from Unix, beating Microsoft in this category. This isn't news, its been reported repeatedly for more than a year. But at some point, the number of Unix installations left will become insignificant. It won't be enough to affect market share numbers in any substantial amount any more. Once the Unix load has been shot, then what remains will be Linux against Windows for current Windows installations. At that point, growth in Linux market share and Linux unit share will slow, but it won't stop. That will be the point when the real market share strengths will be determined. And that determination won't be possible for many months afterward, since it will take time to report the numbers and then interpret what they really mean.
My take of just the numbers reported in the article? Linux has a larger unit share of servers as compared to Microsoft, and therefore a bigger market share. As others have pointed out, free download/installs aren't included, free generic versions of enterprise editions aren't included, and Microsoft is falsifying their numbers by manipulating numbers from Dell and others.
At some point Microsoft won't be able to hide the damage it is suffering from OpenOffice.org, nor will it be able to hide the damage from market share losses and massive discounting to attempt to retain market share. If this comes out when Microsoft is setting new records in sales due to a strong economy it may soften the impact. But if it comes out during a quarter of stagnant sales, watch out. The stock will seriously drop, and the SEC may start sniffing around Microsoft's numbers as they did when the cell phone carriers manipulated their customer numbers. Should that happen, there will be a few quarters of turmoil as the investigation drags on, and then we may see a settlement with the SEC over Microsoft reporting more accurate numbers (with no admission of guilt of course).
isn't Linux free?
Talk about Gartner making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If Linux is only a couple percentage points behind Windows servers on a [b]revenue[/b] basis it's Linux supporters who should be dancing in the streets. That's fantastic!
Crimeny, no wonder Ballmer comes flying in like some giant winged monkey every time there's talk of a big Linux conversion. They're scared...and should be.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Slashdot user THG doesn't appear to have posted on slashdot before.
But he has submitted a few articles starting "Cooltechzone.com has..."
my password really is 'stinkypants'
Why is anyone surprised? I've made a couple hundred recommendations with small businesses who are pinching pennies. It comes down to "You can have Linux for free, or Windows 2003 SBS for $80CDN or so a user". Most of them will choose SBS. The reasoning?
1. Their neighbouring company is using it
2. If you ever are on vacation, away, or leaving the industry, they know they can easily find support for it
3. The features of SBS are pretty good out of the box with some great workgrouping features, including copies of outlook 2003 for all machines and so on.
4. Support support suppport.
It's all about support- having the ability to find people to work on the system and understand it. Being able to do some basic features yourself (add users, etc) without needing administrators.
Linux has it's place. We all know this. Move along.
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
CoolTechZone.com has an interesting look at Linux's position in the market now that Microsoft has sold more Windows Server software than Linux
That sentence has two interpretations both of which are wrong:
* Microsoft has sold more Windows Server software than Linux has sold Windows Server software.
* Microsoft has sold more Windows Server software than Microsoft has sold Linux.
i agree that coding is easier on windows but any web business would prefer linux due to its increased security and stability. guess what the servers of google, wikipedia and slashdot runs on???
I've been building major websites for about six years now and believe me, writing in C# using VS.Net is far superior to most other tools. Eclipse is coming around now with their Web Tools Project (http://eclipse.org/webtools/) but the proliferation of Java frameworks (Hibernate, Spring, Struts, and JSF) as well as servers makes for a lot of distractions that you just don't have to put up with in the dotnet world. Wish that I could just choose the best tool and use it, but believe-it-or-not there are some clients that prefer their politics to dictate what kind of platform their custom software runs on. It's idiotic really. So somebody has to do the Java coding and it's not going to be some newbie, because it's simply too complicated.
Yeah, you did? Did you notice how impossible he is to reach? Ever notice how he really didn't care about fixing YOUR bug? Why does Linus expect you to use his OS, and then doesn't even bother taking your calls?
Your right, its not everything. But its certainly a lot and a good indication of whats on the back-end.
Quack, quack.
And what kind of bullshit do we have to read here on Slashdot these days? "now that Microsoft has sold more Windows Server software than Linux." - do you mean Microsoft is selling Linux now? Or is Linux some dude selling Windows Server software?
I really recommend to put fewer, but worthwhile articles on Slashdot - we won't read it more often if you fill the front page up with such crap.
Thank you.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
On se Internetz nobody noes your German.
That quote which paints .net as being seamlessly integrated only with windows is such a crock.
I'm doing a project for a programming languages course in C# in the mono dev environment for mac and it's as integrated as the java development and runtime environments are on the platform. (note: the linux kit operates in the same way) What's really sad is I have yet to find a gap in the mono sdk and it's approx 1/6 the size of the official .net binary installer for windows.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Remember this is about the total revenue, not the units (Gartner dropped the units long ago). So How much did that 'free' copy cost? It was added in ($1000000000 + (1000000 * 0) == $1000000000 ). Likewise, they added the costs of each unit that was installed in the same way. Of course, I am guessing that MS will prevent the information about units that they sell, and sure as heck do not want any info about units of Linux installed, copied, or upgraded over Windows being reported.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
i once wrote a paper in school like this when i was a frosh in high school... i kept contradicting my self by saying things that made my teacher go mad it was awesom... this just reminded me of it... i wonder why the person ever bothered posting this artical """windows out sold linux by 5% but the cost difference makes up for the over selling... """ umn ok shoot your self in the foot now and we will call it a day?
(yes i know i suck at spelling fell free to correct my grammar and/or spellin i dont care, im still not going to change
Since most of the orginal article is unintelligible, here's is ComputerWorld's look at the same report. http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/hardwa re/server/story/0,10801,106500,00.html
How many commercial servers are based on "sold distributions." We have more than a dozen sites with Linux servers running Debian, which were not bought from anywhere and thus basically untraceable as a purchase. We have a few windows servers as well, which we pay for license for.
Therefore, you could easily say we've bought more windows servers than linux, even though it's probably greater than a 10-1 ratio of actual use.
Excellent, clear analysis.
You said, "I used to work at Microsoft's PSS. I can tell you their support is nothing to write home about. They aren't someone you call because you need expert advice."
That reminded me of a comparison of Microsoft technical support with Psychic Friends Network. Neither know the answer, but Psychic Friends Network is more friendly and less expensive.
but some one may have stated this. But I do not think that anyone has ever bought Linux! There have been many people/companies that have bought support for Linux that included install cd/dvd. So assuming that Microsoft will purchase 1 copy of it's server OS then it will always outsell Linux, as long as they are in existence
Bill Gates and your parents probaby did a lot of drugs during the 1960's. You're still flying or frying 40 years later. Microsoft is a Wicker Man and Linux is a flamethrower. No matter what Gates does financially, Linux will still be around 40 years from now. So will bad jokes about Microsoft, but not Gates or his White Elephant. Maybe Gates could sell shoes or Used Cars? India will be the technological titan in ten years. We will be whistling at snakes in baskets and wondering what the hell happened.
...is that it takes 10 (or more) Windows Servers to do the same job as 1 Linux Server. Therefore companies have to buy more Windows Servers.
All that the article sais is "windows sales passed linux because .NET is such an amazing product". (!!!)
.NET never took off. Free software has taken over and there is no free software for NET (at least not more than java/3P). Of course there are many students who used to go get themselves a pirated VB cd and now this thing also includes '.NET', but never figured what its' about.
But seriously.
Truth is, microsoft cannot compete with software that costs nothing, and C# is a terrible programming language.
It's all about support- having the ability to find people to work on the system and understand it. Being able to do some basic features yourself (add users, etc) without needing administrators.
...
... but you said "out of the box."
Um
This is the primary way companies like Red Hat and Novell make money. They provide support for customers using their Linux products. Of course, support isn't free, but tech support for Linux is every bit as real as it is for Windows.
And what do you mean by "Being able to do some basic features yourself without needing administrators?" Adding users is very simple. Every distro I've tried provides an easy GUI interface for this, or if you prefer the command line, "useradd name" isn't hard either. Please explain what you meant by this.
3. The features of SBS are pretty good out of the box with some great workgrouping features, including copies of outlook 2003 for all machines and so on.
Virtually all Linux distros come with at least one email client, usually more than one. In fact, Linux distros come out of the box with a whole lot more software and features than Windows usually does (this is partly due to Microsoft's antitrust situation, but it's still reality). That's not to say you can't install stuff on Windows computers that doesn't come in the box
So your only reason other for choosing Windows over Linux is that "everyone uses Windows," which is definitely not the case in the server world. And even if it were, "everyone uses it" has no merits behind it.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.
Apart from the inherent problems of comparing sales of Windows with "sales" of Linux, it is probably true that there are many more Windows Server installations than Linux server installations.
Is that due to some amazing technical advantages of Windows Server? No, not really. It's because if you have Microsoft desktop machines, it's an uphill struggle to use anything other than their servers. Of course, small businesses are going to go with Windows Server.
In any case, the future of Microsoft is so dependent on other factors that short term statistics don't matter anyway. Personally, I think Microsoft's business model is doomed; if they survive, they'll have to become a very different company.
I've not bought /Linux/ since 1996, and now you tell me I should have paid for all those copies I downloaded. This article is utter nonsense, Linux is by the people for the people you shouldn't have to pay for it if you make a contribution. How can the author publish such a silly statistic.
Why UNIX?
I think folks know that I pretty much think Microsoft is fairly evil, immoral, dishonest, (convicted of multiple crimes), etc. that wants to lock me into paying a monthly subscription for the OS and applications.
Those creditials as a Certified Anti-Microsoft Geek (tm) out of the way:
The one time I had a problem on Win98SE and called for support they:
1) tried to have me reinstall everything (I refused since I'd done that myself twice).
2) They said okay then, the call is going to cost you $35 bucks (I said, Sure).
3) They then spent 5 hours, pulled in at least 2 senior programmers and eventually correctly diagnosed that the sound card (a really high end card I paid about $250 for in 1996ish) had not produced a new compatible driver for win98SE. Since they had me doing all the keying and mousing, I learned a lot about debugging the problem. It was indeed the sound card (which I replaced with a creative Live card).
4) They said, "wow- that was a toughy. No charge!" at the end of the call.
So as far as customer support goes, I have no complaints as a microsoft customer from my one hardcore experience with them.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Redhat? Novell? all distros combined? who? sounds like a generalization to me...
what about all the implementations of GNU/Linux where the admin just downloads ISOs & burns && installs them without the need of a sales receipt and other records being kept...
i think it is just more FUD and at the risk of sounding redundant i will say "nothing to see here, please move along"...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
In this type of arguments people usually mean workgroup scheduling when they're talking about Linux. I don't know if this is already available out-of-the-box on Linux distros...
On a seperate rant, the ML110s really are nothing more than a glorified PC. My personal favourite is the ML350, which had hot-plug HDD, hot-plug redundant PSU, redundant fan, dual processor, all good! For £1,399 you can get an ML350 G4, Xeon 3GHz, 2 x HP 72GB HDD, 1GB PC3200 Advanced DDR, HP redundant PSU & redundant fan. Bargain! And it'll run Redhat!
I have just received 20 copies of Ubuntu Linux. I didn't buy any of them. Until Microsoft starts sending people Windows copies for free, this comparison is void.
Uninformed and mostly speculation about events that haven't happened yet - except the obvious one that Microsoft servers cost more than Linux servers, therefore their revenue is higher.
Duh!
Morons.
Windows Live? Gimme a fuckin' break!
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
"Plus, you have hassle free and rapid support from Microsoft..."
OMG, this made me blow coffee through my nose.
If only Netcraft or the like could produce publically available statistics upon what server OS's are actually used in the field - their "What's that Site Running" as a webcrawler on a daily basis for a random pool of 50,000 target domains. I suggest this as in my world the use of Windows to host a webserver seems very rare - albeit as fileservers they are more common.
Here for instance we see very useful statistics surrounding webserver deployment but not host OS.
Thank you for choosing Microsoft!
I think that the reason we are seeing this is because "enterprise class" apps are based on J2EE or .NET technology. Hence, the stuggle of application servers becomes reflected in server OS popularity.
.NET is poised to overtake j2ee because everything in j2ee is a colossal pain in the ass to implement. Yeah, I know j2ee is "better" but at some point people have work to get done. The java world ass-hats are releasing one framework per week now with no signs of consolodation or simplification. It is a full time job just to keep up with developments in j2ee.
.NET on windows servers (non-enterprise folks will cut the bullshit and use neither technology on linux).
Sadly,
The end result of all this is that elite groups will maintain j2ee based apps on linux machines and the rest of the world will use
Now it's official Linux is dying
I don't think so, and so the premise of the article makes no sense. Note that Linux's growth is still higher than Microsoft's growth.
Counting those as a 'sale' isnt really fair, as once you are trapped by the MOLP agreement, you are pretty much forced to upgrade and its rather costly ( in practical terms ) not to continue with the agreement, and its restrictions.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You are a submarine troll. Know what that means? You post to Slashdot for a week looking for karma and then burn it all off on blatantly offensive comments. Remember that whole flaming tree you posted about a gay governor a few months ago? How about that whole unfounded Griffin critcism? And what about your nasty comment about someone's username? And then you posted this rotten comment.
When you reply to these posts, you link to your own posts. Couple that with your bio and you show yourself as one huge egomaniac!
That's *MR.* Self-Righteous Asshat to you.
Mods, don't feed this guy. Maybe without a karma stash he won't go on these trolling runs.
--
Trolling all trolls since 2001.
... Let me explain my choice of platform. There's just one of me, it's my responsibility to run the servers, write the applications and deploy them, then maintain them. You'd think a small start-up would be the ideal ground for Linux, but really it's just something thats too much of a hastle. I really, really havent got the luxury of spending three days tweaking my Apache config, and it's hard to justify using PHP when I can use ASP.net and have it literally use objects from the same libraries that my client applications use. Theres no fighting with versioning, theres no obscure dependancy trees, theres no need to recompile IIS because I want to run my application with a different threading mode.
Small Enterprise:
Time Precious: Use Windows
Otherwise: Use Linux
Large Enteprise:
Ideology determines choice. Default to windows if you dont have a pre-chosen ideology.
No wonder Winodws sells more than Linux when you dont need to buy Linux to get it.
.NET is avaible for Linux too via Mono. Also, I dont see what is so good about .NET, to me it seems like some buzz word or overhyped thing.
Also, not that
And about tech support, why on earth is the guy an admin if he needs call the tech support?
> This offer is available only from DELL and only in the US.
They are available in China too.
Max.
In general I think there is no doubt that Linux has a lower TCO. However in some shops that are heavy into development the great productivity increase in development work that .net offers may make Windows more attractive. Luckily (I am a Linux proponent) a lot of the world has not discovered the benefits of .net and just look at it as another bunch of Microsoft fluff.
To put my experience into numbers, I found that Java was 5 times more productive for my development team than was C++. I have found that .net is twice as productive as Java. That almost makes up for all the costs and problems associated with Windows. For some situations where a great deal of development is being done for a critical but lesser used solution I have the staff develop in .net and host it on a Windows server instead of Linux. The skill set needed for .net is so much less than the skill set for Java that the staff does not suffer much lag from the use of lesser used tools. At first thr staff resisted use of .net but now they want to switch all development to it. They, of course, are not considering the TCO of the whole package and are only looking at development efforts.
That explains why IIS is in decline in terms of market share and total numbers.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
"And .Net is a selling point. For what, I'm not sure."
.NET keeps getting -- they'd be popular on your server I expect...
For making other programs behave strangely when it fails, so their authors have to deal with the support calls.
Plus the ever popular "fixes an issue which would allow attackers to take complete control of any ASP.NET website" updates that
Well in my house I have a linux with sambaserver, apache2 , mysql , and some more that were bundled in my distro. On the next room my mother runs a winxp home box, that has no servers. So I have 4+ linux servers and 0 windows servers.
Where does Google's contribution to linux marketshare factor in?
The number one 'portal', and some might say the 'anchor' of the Web, Google.com, runs a custom home-brew linux. So do many large financial firms.
There are TWO linux markets. One is commercial vendors that sell you high-end server setups (RedHat, Novell). The other is custom stuff, where in-house or contracted developers build you a particular solution that is only loosely based on the commercial distributions.
There's nothing wrong with this setup, either. The beauty of the open source 'ecosystem' is that you have near-traditional software companies (RedHat), and you have the world of custom-OSS contractors, too.
The second is _never_ factored into these marketshare studies, even by groups that are pro-linux. Part of the reason is that these organization see no reason to publicize their inner workings. They build their own systems, and they work. Period.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Windows Server may have outdone Linux simply because of branding. I was told not to use Linux at my workplace by my boss and outside consultants. The database system that our ERP system runs out of is a Unix application, which we have running on Windows. It would run much better/faster in its native POSIX glory on Linux. I would prefer Linux for stability, and voiced my opinions at the meetings when we were setting this stuff up. I was told both by my boss and by the hired consultants that running on Linux would not work because a) they would need people with a background in Linux if I were to, uh, be disposed of and b) because the ERP vendor would not support such a configuration (I assume because they don't do Linux either).
:P I've never had to reboot the Linux box since I set it up. No one knows it's there because it just works!
For Linux to gain market share in the business arena, it needs to be accepted as a serious OS both by management and by consultants. Linux has a history of perceived low user-friendliness when compared to Windows, and I think that this has more to do with it than anything else.
Oh - and we do have a Linux server at the office. Management just doesn't know about it. We ended up running all of our print jobs through a Linux server with CUPS because the spooler under Server 2003 dies when it gets several hundred print jobs at once.
This argument given by Gartner is a straw man argument, and their report, to give an analogy, is like saying that designer bottled water is more popular than tap water because it, as well, brings in more revenues. (Naive, anybody?)
This sig no verb.
I've looked at small business server and it's a pretty attractive product. For about $80/user you get a pretty full featured server. It includes a full copy of exchange which is hard to beat for calendaring and shared contacts, sharepoint server and of course print and file server.
Only downside is it maxes out at 75 users and can't join a domain.
For a business with 50 or so employees it's a pretty good deal.
Do I really care if Windows sells more units? As long as I have the ability to work on an operating system that isn't beat, let them eat cake!
"Apparently you are not allowed to actually keep track of TCO, you are just supposed to read about it in gartner reports."
That shouldn't surprise anyone. All the big analysts are way too smart to announce figures for anything that can, or will, actually be measured. If they did, someone would have a chance to prove them wrong. Gartner's ideal is for PHBs to say "we don't need to measure those numbers, because Gartner told us what they are". Selling data under those conditions is the perfect business: a big, regular revenue stream, and no possible comebacks.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
So the story is:
1. Windows costs more per unit than Linux (actually, much, much more; and the difference increases the more servers you install).
2. Windows and Linux are close enough in functionality and other qualities that people can argue the odds for ever.
3. Yet Windows is supposed to sell more units than Linux, which is approximately as good and cheaper? (and which gets much cheaper the more units you want)
Maybe I'd better dust off that bridge: looks like there are lots more potential customers out there.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Just as general good measure we reboot our Windows servers (AD and all) on a 30 day cycle. In this manner we have found many of those "wierd things" that drive you nuts go away.
Now this could just be for MSDE (Microsoft Desktop Engine sqllite basically) being such a major component on many vendor apps this, Microsoft's propensity for Driver issues (hurray) and their persistence on using database backends for critical services (DHCP for instance) Makes it a pain in the ass to keep one running for any extended period of time. Sure you can try things like killing processes etc, but you're better off rebooting. Who knows what your poorly coded driverset has done in a full month timeperiod. The one thing you can almost be certain of is that your MSDE/Sql manager is eating up waaaay (500mb-2gb) more ram than it did when you first started.
Not that linux won't do similar things, but on less gear linux outperforms hands down in terms of stability (Trustix/RHE/SuSE/Debian/LFS In my experience anyways.) And those memory leaks that seem to plague windows boxen don't seem to be anywhere near as big a problem.
Let managment know that you are using a Linux printserver and ask them
if, in their greater wisdom, you should swtich that to Windows too.
Predictably they will rectify the situation immediately once
they discover this secret horror. If, as you suggest, Windows falls on its face then
you will do more for the cause of using Linux than if you quietly use Linux until Microsoft
gets around to fixing Windows.
You have to find ways to bring pressure on the people who
are directly or indirectly getting kickbacks from Microsoft
as an inducement to using expensive and inferior
products.
The touted "user friendliness" of Windows is skin deep. This becomes apparent
when you have to pay someone to make it do its job and to keep it working.
I can't believe that Slashdot users are so naive as to believe that Linux has ever outsold Windows.
As far as I know, the sale of Windows server OSs has always been greater than the SALE of Linux OSes. This is nothing new. There are a hell of a lot of companies that don't buy Linux (for instance, WETA uses Fedora Core), and a lot of universities use whatever debian based distro they can get their hands on (Debian, ubuntu, etc.). And I don't even want to think about how many boxes are probably still on Redhat 9.
But besides that, Linux is the underdog and catching up. By stating that Windows sales outpace Linux sales, you are implying that somehow Linux was ahead, and it was not.
The real headline is that Linux sales are slowly catching up to Windows sales. When Windows and Linux SALES are neck and neck, we can assume Linux has won, since all the free copies out there don't get counted and probably account for, perhaps has much as 50% of all the Linux installs out there.
When is the last time you contacted an ISP or hosting provider that used Solaris? They're all Linux based these days. Most have some Windows servers, but they only put your site on a Windows box if you request it. The default is a Linux box.
That whole thing about microsoft giving you support with their product is a load of bullshit.
Several months ago we purchased win 2003 server with 50 licenses. And we had some questions about backing up user accounts. So I called up microsoft for some support. What they don't tell you is that "You have to pay for that support".
I ended up telling the chick on the phone that I was going to format c: and install linux because at least when you buy redhat you get phone support with you purchase.
Redhat has always been good to me when I've needed help with an install or other question.
Microsoft has yet to be good to me.
Did IQs drop sharply while I was away? Did I stumble unwittingly into a parallel dimension?
Windows "outselling" Linux? Sure. That's kind of the point. Windows costs money, and not a little of it. Linux can be had for free.
"programmers find it extremely easy to work on .Net and other related technologies"
Bullshit, ever try to send email with a MS server? Give me LAMP anyday..
"hassle free and rapid support from Microsoft"?
Don't make me laugh. Ever call MS and ask them to fix a bug in their product? Did they fix it, or give you a workaround?
>
Microsoft sells software. Linux companies don't. They're comparing apples with oranges.
I'd agree that Windows is probably harder than even traditional UNIX for any non-trivial task. At work I'm having to try to set up proper secure applications to run with minimum privelage. The Windows security system is so overcomplex it's no wonder so many people just run everything as administrator!
I also fail to see why Dot-Net is seen as so amazing. It must be just familiarity for the existing Windows developers. Visual Studio is incredibly buggy for normal workloads. More complex things like debugging a multi-threaded application are very hard - where in Eclipse all this works well and is easy. Eclipse is free. Visual Studio costs a lot of money. Why does Visual Studio sell?
Then again our company director is enamoured with Microsoft. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a change in direction from open systems and Java to Microsoft technologies in the near future. Our company director doesn't have to use and live with the tools.
.LOL
is on crack.
The article actually says that Windows Server sales accounts for 5% more total sales revenue than Linux server sales.
That makes sense. Item A is grossly overpriced, yet there are lots of companies locked into it. Item B is free, though you can buy support and extensions if you want. Which is going to have a bigger net negative impact on your cash flow?
The title of the article should be "Windows Server sucks up more of your IT budget. Stop that!"
The ______ Agenda
I always found MS to be a pain in the arse. The last time I ever tried dealing with MS went like this.
Me: G'day, I would like to report a bug in Windows XP.
MS: Yeah sure, can I have your credit card number please?
Me: Sorry? What do you need that for?
MS: Oh, we charge you a support fee and if it turns out to be a real bug we will refund your money.
Me: Look, I can assure you that this is a real bug. I am trying to help you by reporting it. I don't understand why I have to pay.
MS: Sorry, sir. That's the away it works. Can I have some credit card details please?
Me: No. I actually don't have a credit card [I really didn't]. Couldn't I just explain it to you and you will see that this is a bug.
MS: I don't know anything about computers sir, I just take the credit card details and refer you onto a technician.
Me: Oh, can't you refer me anyway? [prempting the answer] Or at least put me onto a supervisor who can?
MS: No, it doesn't work that way. If you can't pay for the support call sir, I am afraid we can't help you...
I still cringe when I think that they expected to be paid by me for me to report a bug! Needless to say they never found out what the problem was which then took me the best part of a day to work out.
For the record it was a glitch in networking. I had two network connections are set up, one an Ethernet connection and the other a dial up, set to dial automatically on no network. When I was disconnected from the network, the bloody OS would try to dial to access the loopback address! In the end I had to work around to problem by setting my dial-up to a manual dial.
It's easy for a commercial server to outsell a server which is free for download by anyone.
& cid=14117183) but it seems they're still in the first (denial). Eventually they will come to accept open source, quit spreading the FUD and come to terms with it and actually offer not only apps which run on *nux or *BSD, but offer consulting for deploying OSS solutions - and when that time comes, I'm sure that Microsoft will excel at it, as well. Oops, made a pun there (excel) and I assure you it was unintentional.
Not only that, some of the "commercial" distributions which while not being marketed as server platforms are perfectly usable as servers, just as reliable and scalable (especially after recompiling the kernel), and explicitly allow for use and redistribution of unlimited copies within the organization.
So: By counting sales of Microsoft Windows vs. single downloads or even sales of a single copy of say, Novell Linux, or even SuSE Linux or CentOS, you're (probably intentionally) skewing the stats. Sure, you may be "outselling" Linux, but are you really being deployed more than Linux? Doubtful. How many people download CentOS 10 different times for installation on 10 different servers?
How much more likely is that downloaded image going to be burned to DVDs and handed out and installed on separate boxes? Not only that, because imaging Linux is easier than it is to image Windows servers, how much more likely that servers are being deployed using Partimage and being set up in clusters for web or email servers?
The other day I posted that Microsoft is in the third stage of grief (http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169359
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
help get some statistics logged: http://counter.li.org/
How each of the thousands of deployed Linux servers at Google's and Akamai's data centers are counted? Each company has thousands upon thousands of Linux boxes, all identically configured, and were they Windows deployments certainly the licensing would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, easily, and Microsoft would be trumpeting those specific clients were that the case.
Of course, because each uses home-brewed "distributions" built from source downloads and in-house contributions, each deployment is not counted as a sale- heck, the original box at each company probably was based on Slackware and not counted as a sale from the very beginning.
Google and Akamai are not the only large data houses or hosts turning to Linux by a long shot, and yet every solution where the distribution is downloaded and deployed from an image (particularly from in in-house distribution) is not counted as a sale. This is because Linux (and BSD) make this possible - both due to licensing and due to technology.
Is it possible to build your own Windows distribution tailor-designed? Sure, but the custom licensing and paperwork (including NDAs) make the cost prohibitive if not obscene, and those certainly would count for sales - each deployed instance. There is certainly some of that going on with Windows, and those are tallied in the sales, but nowhere on the level that Linux and BSD are.
It's well-known that Daimler-Chrysler and AutoZone are migrating to (or have completed migration to) Linux - is each system deployed tallied as Linux sales? Doubtful, because each instance was likely deployed from a single downloaded image, or a single image purchase.
The solution?
Microsoft should build a better product, price it in accordance with its true value, and market it to compete with Linux. Sell it based on its merits/benefits and not based on what FUD they can contrive.
So, how does one tally Windows vs. Linux deployments? Self-reporting? Doubtful. People/organizations which pirate Windows will under-report deployments. Organizations which are Microsoft partners will over-report deployments and sales. Linux zealots will over-report.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Every Linux box I've either built or been responsible for has been a free distribution of Linux. Be it Debian, RedHat, or Suse.
So Microsoft is using their usual smoke and mirrors trick here. You don't buy Linux, you download it and install it.
Put it this way, I'm doing a db project. Do you think for one moment I'd recommend a Microsoft solution to a non-profit? Instead they built an RH9 server and I installed MySQL 5.0.12 on it at the time. Total cost is less than 1/4 of what a Microsoft solution would have cost, what with the OS and MS-SQL tallying in at just under $20,000 and that wouldn't include any db design and support.
We have 2 Linux servers at work, and about 10 windows servers. Of the 2 linux servers, we only had to purchase 1 support contract (since the server installs are identical) and of the 10 windows servers, we had to purchase 10 licenses. My point is that if we had 10 linux servers (not unlikely, given how well they've been running and performing), we still only need 1 support contract, as what goes wrong with 1 will go wrong with the others. So total "sales" reported by our vendor would be completely wrong.
You'll mostly see it on managed web servers for resellers.
That might even go down with the rise of CentOS.
"Microsoft has sold more Windows Server software than Linux."
wait, Microsoft is selling a Linux distribution now?
(or maybe, Linux is selling Windows server now?)
I know what his secret is. He found a way to end SPAM. It involves Lasers, GPS, and Traceroute.
Obviously the writer of this article hasn't spent 2 weeks on the phone with an ADVANCED technician (in India) that just refused to admit he didn't have a solution to the problem and wouldn't escalate the issue for....get this. Microsoft Office 2000 installation issues on Windows Terminal Server 2003. After I finally got the dude to escalate, it took less than an hour with a guy in Texas to resolve the issue.
Gotta love it when a clean install of win2k3 terminal won't properly run a clean administration install of o2k without registry hacking. I always kind of thought the installations where suppose to do that kind of thing for you. But of course it's sooooo much easier to use Windows than linux. I could have had the same thing setup in linux in under 4 hours.
The following numbers are guaranteed to be at least somewhat inaccurate.
Number of Linux Server licenses sold: 451,236
Number of Windows Server licenses sold: 982,435
Number of Linux servers running because it only takes half a brain to realize that you can download everything you need for free: 45,345,813,834
Wow, Windows DID sell more!
New versions of linux are obviously inferior to Windows, I mean, just look at all the companies that refuse to upgrade linux, while their Windows servers get upgraded every few years...
For the MSCD's out there, and the blind troll-hunters, that was sarcasm. I run security updates, but other than that haven't found the need for too many OS reinstalls, whereas my only windows server that isn't running the latest version is on its last leg and about to be converted to a linux server. (I guess I should go mark that on the linux server tally somewhere)
In other news: Slashdot readers bash another pro-Microsoft FUD article and give examples of their favorite Linux victory. Potential abilities to get girlfriends drop dramatically among the FOSS enthusiasts. (fortunately I got married before getting into Open Source!)
"Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed." -C.S. Lewis
I have 3 servers at rackspace. they came with redhat enterprise linux 3.0, which i couldn't stand despite being a die hard redhat guy (and stock purchaser) in the redhat7 days.
Each of those boxes runs http://www.linux-vserver.org/, which then spawns of 50 or so instances of debian sarge distributions to run our cluster (tomcat, apache, postgres, http://www.xcnetwork.com/, and others).
I wouldn't be surprised if rackspace is actually reporting this as a windows operating system, since the hardware probably came with a windows install originally. But how do you count it, really? 3 Redhat installs, even though all that distro does is run the kernel, ssh, and the vserver userland tools? Or is it 50 instances of debian sarge?
I have a strong gut feeling i'm not the only one playing with virtualization (vmware esx/gsx, xen, hell even ms now has some offerings)
The reality is we'll never really know how many linux servers there are. i'm guessing tens of thousands are running --routers and firewalls-- and hundreds of thousands (millions?) dont have a public ip address. on the other side of the fence you have microsoft, touting every license that they sell, even knowing full well that some percentage of them are not in use despite being purchased in some leverage deal.
Not that i really care, since I'm busy building a company around the concept of platform agnosticism and anti-lockin. So long as the innovation market is still fostering development in open source software i could care less how many licenses microsoft is reporting having sold. I dont need to be sold "Linux," what i need to be sold is support.
Who needs to buy Linux?
Getting old fast, Shit!