Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Look at Windows Server Outselling Linux

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the deeper-and-deeper-way-down dept.

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."

93 of 450 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm... by 75th+Trombone · · Score: 5, Funny
    CoolTechZone.com has an interesting look at Linux's position in the market now that Microsoft has sold more Windows Server software than Linux.

    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.
    1. Re:Hmm... by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because, y'know, without clarification, I might think someone didn't know what someone was saying.

      I am fairly certain they knew what they were doing as they were trying to add to the continued confusion of Linux server "sales".

      Microsoft wants everyone to believe that their TCO is lower than Linux when everyone knows it's not. By funding/writing misleading press releases, they can further blur (in the general public's mind) the lines that don't exist.

    2. Re:Hmm... by Golias · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And just who is this "Linux" company which Microsoft seems to be competing so well against?

      The thing I know of called "Linux" is a free operating system (which behaves a lot like UNIX), sold by dozens of different companies as a server environment, and also available for free. If there's some company out there called "Linux" who is just selling to the IT server market, it is no wonder MS is outselling them, as they must be very obscure.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    3. Re:Hmm... by slavemowgli · · Score: 2, Funny

      Are Microsoft's sales of Windows Server higher than Microsoft's sales of Linux?

      That's the way I'd read it - and it's probably true, too (which is certainly a new twist as far as FUD is concerned).

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    4. Re:Hmm... by Red+Alastor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yup, that's purely the truth and it's purely FUD. In other news, Linux servers are outdownloading Microsoft servers.

      --
      Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
    5. Re:Hmm... by dougmc · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Microsoft wants everyone to believe that their TCO is lower than Linux when everyone knows it's not.
      No, everyone doesn't `know it's not'.

      Certainly, in some cases, the TCO of Linux in a certain role at a certain location will be more than the TCO of a Windows server (or group of servers) serving the same rule. I'm not saying that this is always the case, or even that it's usually the case, but at least some of the time, this will be true.

      Is it just me, or did Microsoft pretty much `invent' the TCO term strictly to counter free software like Linux? Did the term exist before Linux did, or was it just Microsoft making it popular?

      In any event, I'm not here to argue that Windows has a lower TCO than Linux. I'm just saying that it's not as `obviously' wrong as you make it sound.

    6. Re:Hmm... by drsmithy · · Score: 4, Informative
      Is it just me, or did Microsoft pretty much `invent' the TCO term strictly to counter free software like Linux? Did the term exist before Linux did, or was it just Microsoft making it popular?

      Yes. "TCO" has been around forever. Mac zealots regularly rolled out the "MacOS has better TCO than Windows" arguments back in the early (and mid, and late) 90s (in reference to a single TCO comparison of MacOS 7.x and Windows 3.0, IIRC).

      "TCO" is a pretty well known term in a business environment (which is probably why so few people on Slashdot have heard of it outside Linux-Windows fluff articles).

    7. Re:Hmm... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "TCO" is a pretty well known term in a business environment (which is probably why so few people on Slashdot have heard of it outside Linux-Windows fluff articles).

      Indeed, but insisting on quoting figures for Linux server "sales" indicates only a deliberate intent to mislead, since the majority of Linux servers out there are running on distros downloaded free of charge. Yes, I do know about RedHat Enterprise stuff, but I don't know anybody who uses it...

    8. Re:Hmm... by vardhman · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://vardhman.blogspot.com/2005/11/decreasing-th eir-credibility.html May shed some lights on the validness of article etc.

    9. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      if we talk about true "sales", MS politics for selling is based on intimidation at least. I know, here in Portugal, one of the major banks was about to buy some hundreds of new pc's equiped with Novell Linux. The business was very near to beeing closed, when MS portuguese headquarters knew! Well, a simple reunion clarified it all: the reseller who was about to sell the linux boxes had a MS software department too. The thing is: "i'm sory but i'm affraid you're about to loose permission to continue working (selling) with us (MS)". The reseller managed to convince the bank admin. that afterwards the best would be to implement some w2000 boxes... -- pedro mg

    10. Re:Hmm... by Kjella · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes. "TCO" has been around forever. (...) "TCO" is a pretty well known term in a business environment

      Well, according to the sources I find, it gets attributed to Gartner group in 1987, so I would hardly consider it forever. Businesses have always been interested in finding out what the bottom line is, but trying to consider every cost through-out the lifetime of an asset hasn't really been very feasible until we got computers with decent spreadsheet capability.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    11. Re:Hmm... by killjoe · · Score: 4, Informative

      TCO is pretty much bullshit because most businesses don't even keep track of the expenses on their servers. All they do is depreciate what they can and that's the extent of it.

      I once asked a CIO if I should keep track of what the software we installed on a server costs and whether we should balance that against the monetary benefits of the said software and he just looked at me like I was nuts. Apparently you are not allowed to actually keep track of TCO, you are just supposed to read about it in gartner reports.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    12. Re:Hmm... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 4, Informative
      I think you will find TCO was being taught in business school in the 1960's (at least in the UK). Gartners may be staking claim to public domain property, but I dont think that is a new concept either.

      TCO in relation to servers probably did not exist before servers.

      TCO is widely taught in sales courses as a marketing tool used by people whose solution is too expensive to justify the additional cost. Its in the same boat with "Yes we are the most expensive, its cos we are the best".

      The whole point of getting an MBA is so you know to use these things on the competition, and not have them used on yourself. Of course, if you got your MBA from one of those places offering them for $5 on the internet, you might not have to do any actual learning.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    13. Re:Hmm... by gbjbaanb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I once asked a CIO

      Well, there's your problem, you asked an overblown geek something about financials and he either didn't know, or didn't care.

      If you'd asked a CFO, then you would have gotten a very different picture, and I think you'd still be discussing the relative merits of drawn-down software licencing as a cost structure opposed to the tax-claimable options of the licences as software rental models amortized over the standard 3 year tax redemption period.

      Go see your accounts depeartment, they'll tell you, to the penny, what you spent on software licences, renewals and maintenance agreements over anything up to 7 years ago.

    14. Re:Hmm... by Darby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I do believe that this is true overall, but I wonder if it's true with servers where they might be replaced with Windows Server 2000 or 2003?

      Well one data point from the small company I work for.

      We have 20 Linux servers all running gentoo.
      We have support for the hardware, but not the OS.
      My new baby (dual Opteron) is in charge of cross compiling updates for all the other machines as well as network and server monitoring (nagios, cacti, snort etc).
      Additionally it connects across all tiers, so we can centrally manage all other servers including remote desktop to our remaining Windows servers which are being fazed out.

      Anyhow, that's what we have for what that's worth. We are not running any big commercial software packages though.

  2. Gartner... by krray · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Gartner... by MaelstromX · · Score: 5, Informative

      Absolutely right, and to attempt to gauge Linux's success or popularity by sales is completely futile. As a matter of fact, the article recognizes all of this.

      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.

      Furthermore the article says that Linux servers account for 31.7% as opposed to Windows' 37%. To paint this as anything other than a success for Linux (which is either free, as in the case of the parent, or likely cheaper than the Windows alternative) is a little strange.

      Personally I'm not seeing the point of posting this blog entry but learning those numbers was a little interesting I guess.

      --
      audioLibre - freedom of music
    2. Re:Gartner... by sillybilly · · Score: 5, Funny

      Duh. Linux can be had for free, without a sale. You could even say linux had zero sales and you could still be missing the point, because some people might find it very useful and might be using it very happily, for free. This is not the front to attack linux from.

      If you wanted to have a point to what you say, you could say about linux that people who made it were too lazy to make it good because they weren't paid, and I could believe that with good data backing it up, but it must be hard to prove that point, or we'd see it all over the place. You could also say that linux was submarined and made defective on purpose, that there was significant effort invested by the competition to bring it down, or to bring down its creators, and I would even believe that with even less data, but I'd get very pissed. "Ideally" (according to some people,) people who get paid lots of money to program should come up with better software than those that only make a comfortable sustenance at it, and are mostly fueled by compassion and the love of their art, and the recognition of their peers. Money can only buy you so much recognition in a linux coding community, but if you're the creator of some cool kernel feature, or device driver, or super optimized smp code section that everyone admires to read, now you're talking.

      For the other side, there was a story on PBS about two gun-inventors, from about the 1960's, one in the US, the other in the USSR. I forget the actual gun names. They both invented roughly equivalent guns, that were robust, could be dragged through mud and still work, and the US version even saw action in Vietnam, where soldiers preferred it to the more sophisticated guns that just broke down at the slightest touch of dirt. So basically, the US inventor got very rich, while his Soviet counterpart got a medal. This is the most important difference, according to the Soviet guy, as he commented on it years later. Sooner or later that aspect catches up with people too, especially if they are like an ex soviet, currently living barely at the edge of sustenance level. Hey, after the collapse of USSR, there were PBS reports showing a guy with a family to support, whose job was to guard the nuclear warheads, saying he hasn't been paid for six months by his government, because it was so bankrupt it couldn't even send a spaceship up to the MIR space station, and an astronaut was stuck up there for like a year, until the US Space Shuttle made a trip to pick him up. So yes, soviet gun inventors care a lot about not getting paid, especially when they are hungry. Basically, if you want the freecoding linux programming community to care more about getting paid, you should find a way to starve them, but as soon as they make enough to have food, and shelter (but not soap, clothing, combs, etc, such things are unimportant to happiness, unless you want to get laid) off they go again, out of your control.

    3. Re:Gartner... by penguinoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      yes, but can you tell the difference between "listen to this odd story" and "I did this, and so do several thousand others"?

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    4. Re:Gartner... by SnowZero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You do realize that many of the top Linux kernel developers are paid to work on it, right? Linus gets paid by OSDL. Many developers work for various distributions. IBM, SGI, and Intel have paid employees who work on Linux full or part time. Your oft-repeated view may have been true years ago, but that system started disappearing in the late 90s.

      There are still, of course, plenty of people who work on Linux in their spare time. Some of the bigger contributers do it to get a job: After they have proven themselves as a major contributor, they can get a job doing the same thing.

    5. Re:Gartner... by someone300 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you've missed the point. The pont is that he has installed linux into several machines and it hasn't increased the amount of Linux units that have been sold, therefore identifying a flaw in the study. He didn't say that everyone is doing that, but it's certainly possible.

  3. Re:from a different viewpoint: by gui_tarzan2000 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Especially since so many Linux servers are running free versions. Our Linux OD didn't cost us a dime, the support is what we pay for (but rarely need).

    --
    Have you hugged your penguin today?
  4. Is it April Fools alreay? by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Is it April Fools alreay? by DanteLysin · · Score: 4, Informative

      I know this audience is largely anti-Microsoft. However, all of my service tickets with Microsoft (regarding server support) were resolved quickly. The Product Support Engineers kept me apprised with daily updates. One time, one of the Product Support Engineers took 2 days to get back to me.

      In my career, I've experienced poorer support with other software vendors.

      Then again, the company I work for is a Microsoft Partner. That could make a difference.

    2. Re:Is it April Fools alreay? by mfifer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I call BS.

      We've worked with Microsoft's $245/call service several times with obscure problems and two things to Microsoft's credit:

      1) they never gave up on the problem
      2) they came through with a fix (longest wait time was a really odd Office/Windows OpLock prob and we had a fix within 10 business days).

      Man, I think MS is the devil as much as the next guy (Apple guy here, for reference), but I've put dollars up that they've refused to take.

      FUD you're speakin', I'd say...

    3. Re:Is it April Fools alreay? by cyphercell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      OK I'll give on support cause I just don't know. But, I will go on to discredit this website.

      First in the title "Linux is Doomed thanks to Microsoft"; "Linux" links to Information Week which has a whole section dedicated to Windows and calls itself a "Microsite". "Microsoft" links to an ad mentioned in the story (Live Meeting). The Link found in the story is "Server Software" which links to an HP Printer?

      Google linux site:Gartner.com oh boy, this website is a flamethrower, fud factory, or whatever you want to call it. I would also like to add that CoolTechZone did not link directly, to this wonderful store of unbiased software evaluations.

      I almost decided not to label gartner.com as biased then it hit me, why doesn't Gartner.com have a hype cycle for Windows report? Or, a single depiction of an effective deployment of Linux? Further research shows, there are one or two accurate assesments of Linux. Try IBM site:gartner.com and there you go. Don't do linux site:gartner.com cause it doesn't work very well. Confused?

      go Here: http://www.gartner.com/2_events/conferences/lsc23_ sponsors.jsp/
      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    4. Re:Is it April Fools alreay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well I'll see your call of BS and raise you a little research:

      Microsoft Versus Psychic Friends Network

      For those unwilling to read the article, and you really should read it, here's how it breaks down:

      1. Both Microsoft and the Psychic Friends Network provided an equivalent level of technical assistance. (0==0)
      2. Psychic Friends Network was cheaper.
      3. Psychic Friends Network had better customer service. Faster, and much more courteous.
    5. Re:Is it April Fools alreay? by maunleon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ever tried to get an uncommon bug fixed in the OSS world, or explanation on how something works? Unless you get lucky and meet someone who a) happens to know what they are talking about, b) happens to have the time, and c) happens to be in a good mood, you are out of luck.

      Yes, MS support is expensive, but I know that if I call them, they will MAKE someone work with me, even if I have to end up on 3rd level developer support. With Linux, no such luck. I'm at the mercy of the wind. Yes, I can buy support from Red Hat, but can they guarantee that whatever they tell me will also work on Debian? I just want support for Linux, not for Red Hat Linux.

      MS support is HASSLE FREE because you are not reduced to begging someone for help. If you got the money, you get the support, and it's pretty damn quick (once you navigate their phone system and they manage to understand what you are asking.) I am talking from my experience the past 1.5 years of writing the same application under three OSs: Win32, Win CE, and Linux.

  5. Cred, where on cred is due... sigh by yagu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    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.

    1. Re:Cred, where on cred is due... sigh by DanteLysin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not all development teams are created equal. I led a small development team that developed a C#/.NET application to automate Technical Support and QA internal operations. The project was largely successful. We had 1 contact with Microsoft ( due to my team's lack of experience in automating remote Hostname changes). In just 3 days, Microsoft provided us with the code answers we were missing. Our first release was bugfree and, in the first year, the departments experienced an 800% ROI.

      That being said, .NET is a framework. I'm sure there are products and implementations that .NET is not suited for. Part of being a professional in this industry is understanding which tools to use for the job at hand.

    2. Re:Cred, where on cred is due... sigh by killjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      FUD articles like this usually ignore the fact that java exists. Java does exist and .NET is just a ripoff of it. Java has a better ide then .net (yes eclipse, netbeans and idea are all better the VS), has a richer library, integrates fantastically with the OS (syslog etc), has a much more robust and active community and costs nothing to use.

      Look at what happened with VS.NET 2005. After years of being half as productive as eclipse users MS finally gave them a decent build sytem, a unit testing framework, and something like javadoc. Needless to say they blatantly ripped off ant and junit all the while making their product incompatible of course. Somehow they forgot about ripping off hibernate and xdoclet though which I found odd.

      Anyway after two years of working with primitive tools which didn't have any refactoring support or half the shit java developers have been taking for granted they now have a product which is 80% as good as eclipse. FOr the next two years eclipse will continue to pull ahead and the VS.NET people will not know any better because they finally got a few new features in VS and are soooooo happy and proud.

      --
      evil is as evil does
  6. Microsoft technicial support is outstanding by Gossi · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Microsoft technicial support is outstanding by Bluey · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've called in twice over the few month to Microsoft, once for a SQL Server patch, once for a Visual Studio patch. Both times (and the several others over the course of the year), one of the first questions the phone routing system asked was if I was calling in for a patch. After pressing 1, the call got routed to a customer service rep who took my information and forwarded me to a technical rep. The technical rep simply verified the error I was receiving was fixed by the patch I was requesting and then sent it to me. Each call probably took less than 10 minutes.

      Not sure why you seemed to have such a bad experience, but getting a hotfix has never been an issue for me, as long as I can remember to press 1.

    2. Re:Microsoft technicial support is outstanding by Gossi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just for information, the problem in question needed a very specific, not available over the phone patch. It's a problem in Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1, with Terminal Services, where a user logging out causes the server to blue screen. It's been an issue for over 8 months, and there is still not an official patch for it - if you manage to obtain a fix from Microsoft 2nd line it has a debug version number on it and you are specifically told not to post it online. There's a very big forum topic on brianmadden.com for the particular problem - it effects a lot of companies. One of MS's senior technical support managers actually posts in the topic to apologise for the service people are getting over the phone for the problem.

    3. Re:Microsoft technicial support is outstanding by CowboyBob500 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I had an interesting phone call with Microsoft the other week. My laptop came with Win XP Pro pre-installed. I'd activated it since I had a contract where I needed it.

      I decided to wipe it off, install SuSE Linux, and run Win XP in VMWare. All my work is Linux based at the moment. Of course it wouldn't activate as the "hardware" had changed so I called Microsoft and ended up at an Indian call centre.

      Paraphrasing...

      Me : I'd like to re-Activate Windows
      Her : You're using an OEM version of Windows, you cannot put it on another machine
      Me : It *IS* on the same machine, it's just running inside VMWare at the moment
      Her : What's VMWare?
      Me : It's a virtual machine that's running on the same laptop that Windows was pre-installed on
      Her : I don't understand. You sound like you're telling the truth. Here's your activation key.

      Of course, the actual conversation went on a lot longer and was a lot more frustrating, but I got there in the end. Basically the person at the other end had no idea what I was talking about, so gave me the key because I sounded trustworthy.

      Bob

      --
      Listen to my latest album here
  7. Well... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 4, Insightful
    When your product is gratuit, it's very easy to "sell" less than a competing product that costs money... In fact, you're selling none at all.

    It's very easy to sell more than nothing. You only need to sell it once!!!

  8. Huh? Someone's not actually _used_ Windows support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Plus, you have hassle free and rapid support from Microsoft, which is a comforting feature for corporate customers.
    *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 .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.

  9. Why Windows outsells Linux in $$$ by dtfinch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  10. Not to mention.... by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... 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.

    1. Re:Not to mention.... by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Slight correction: those short-lived preinstalls aren't just counted as Windows profits, they are Windows profits. In fact it's a very profitable sale of Windows, as there are no support issues whatsoever. Pretty sweet for Microsoft, I'd say.

    2. Re:Not to mention.... by technoviper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually its very simple to buy servers from Dell without operating systems (A variety of OS choices are offered including Redhat and Microsoft server OS's) So your theory of server sales counting towards Windows is patently false.

    3. Re:Not to mention.... by Cylix · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I bought my Dell's with NO OS....

      Servers you can get without the Windows tax with a small penny saved. (small in comparison to the overall cost anyway... sorta... unless you count the license packs for connections... then the savings are quite ungodly... a few more dots shall we? ... )

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    4. Re:Not to mention.... by arivanov · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This offer is available only from DELL and only in the US.

      Dell is a no-buy in my "house". For many reasons starting from being very non-standard (just disassemble one for a change and see how many parts are custom) and finishing with being Texan.

      This leaves me with the other usual suspects - IBM, Compaq/HP and Fujitsu/Siemens. Well, none of these sells OS-less servers at least for the UK market. None of them sells desktops or laptops without a preloaded OS either. And you do not get the discounts and the special offers on the few models available with a linux preload.

      In fact, if you follow the discounted models you can get a better value for your money then from buying OS-less Dell. Sad but true.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    5. Re:Not to mention.... by Linker3000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have been purchasing OS-less HP Proliant servers in the UK for around two years through the regular end-user sales channels. They end up running CentOS as mail, intranet and database servers.

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
    6. Re:Not to mention.... by arkhan_jg · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've just bought a batch of HP Proliant Ml110 + ML310 small servers for firewall/proxy and file server duties, and no windows pre-installed. Pretty cheap too, though I'm adding hardware raid cards and the extra drives myself.

      They're nothing wonderful, but they're better than a cheap desktop - as they have PCI-X - for basic server duty in isolated areas, especially if you're putting linux on them.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    7. Re:Not to mention.... by jmoen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not quite right, we buy Dell OptiPlex, Precision and Poweredge servers all the time here in Norway without any OS preinstalled.

  11. Cat in a kennel by eyebits · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  12. Sales Figures for something thats free?? by Foofoobar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  13. Misrepresented Statistics by n0dalus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  14. Windows better due to the Linux "threat" by hbp4c · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  15. Only counting purchases... by drgroove · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  16. No, it gets even better. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:No, it gets even better. by bit01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You'd think that "cooltechzone" might be a bit suspicious that units are not mentioned. Just a bit suspicious.

      Probably a marketing front site. Many marketing parasites are far more devious and deceptive than even most /.'ers give them credit, let alone the general public.

      It's common practice to create and maintain plausible looking "alternative viewpoint" websites designed to manipulate opinion. and to submit posts and moderate on sites like /.. Marketers aren't stupid, they're quite happy to put in strawman viewpoints and other material just to make their marketing propaganda look plausible. On /. a classic is "I like linux but ..." and then proceed to trash any viewpoint except the one they're paid to push.

      There's millions of dollars involved; do you think the ethics of a large percentage of marketing parasites is going to stop them from doing damn near anything they think they can get away with?

      ---

      The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry".

  17. Here is the 3Q breakdown by bstadil · · Score: 2, Informative
    $B

    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.
    1. Re:Here is the 3Q breakdown by Glonoinha · · Score: 4, Funny

      the rest is servers bought without OS Guess what is being installed on those?
      Windows 2000 Pirate Edition?

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
  18. Re:In related news.... by Metzli · · Score: 2, Informative

    Exactly what part of negative .NET press on Slashdot surprises you? C'mon, this is _Slashdot_, anti-MS opinions (whether they are accurate or not) are the norm. It's not right, it's not wrong, it's just the way it is.

    --
    "It's too bad stupidity isn't painful." - A. S. LaVey
  19. Who's buying Linux? by max+born · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  20. Re:No purchase necessary by gmuslera · · Score: 2, Interesting
    And even between the ones that "require" purchasing, probably they are counting the "Enterprise" versions of packaged linux, i.e. not just redhat but redhat advanced server, not just suse but the enterprise version.

    From that point of view, Microsoft could claim that "the number of company supported server OSs market share is bigger for Windows". I can take that were sold or even used around the world more Windows Servers than Enterprise versions of Linux distributions... but from there, to say that Windows server is more used than linux is a big shot

  21. What Rubbish (Not Troll...Serious comments!) by cloricus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  22. Windows Troubleshooting by SQLz · · Score: 4, Interesting
    thereby making the troubleshooting process easier for in-house administrators and reducing overhead costs for the company.

    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.

  23. NO OS couints as Windows at Dell by bstadil · · Score: 5, Informative
    No it is not false

    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.
    1. Re:NO OS couints as Windows at Dell by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's also a selection "Red Hat Enterprise Linux - No Operating System Installed", for the same $0 price.

      --
      If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
  24. It's a feature! by eyebits · · Score: 2, Funny

    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~

  25. This article is a Misleading troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative


    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_ 2005/

    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.

  26. sigh... by shrewd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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....

  27. Netcraft's data says by dorkygeek · · Score: 4, Informative
    The mandatory netcraft post: the current web server survey does show a market share of 70.89% for Apache, 20.24% for Microsoft. Looking at the curve shows that MS market share has been stagnating since feb 2004 (after a rapid decline from their all time high of about 30% in feb 2002). Apache's market share is on a steady upwards trend.

    --
    Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
  28. Yeah and the moon is made out of green cheese. by WindowsWasher · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  29. Extra Extra! by aywwts4 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!
  30. Re:What are they smoking? by eyebits · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Try support issues regarding the function of Exchange server in a large educational environment.

    >ASP.NET, ADO.NET, and C# Windows apps are very easy to write and maintain.

    You are entitled to your opinion that the above statement is correct. It just hasn't been my experience.

    .
  31. Windows 2003 is solid by Create+an+Account · · Score: 4, Funny


    Bill? Is that you?

  32. Re:Gartner...Money for nothing, labour for free. by Elm+Tree · · Score: 5, Informative

    Maybe you should look at

    http://news.com.com/Subscription+boom+boosts+Red+H at+profit,+revenue/2100-7344_3-5178057.html
    http://www.signal42.com/soaring_linux_sales_double _red_hat_profit_for_bcg.aspx
    http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,623 69,00.html

    then. Apparently some people are making money from it.

  33. Re:According to who? by Lehk228 · · Score: 2, Informative

    they don't use linux as the base just because it is cheaper, with $70k the price of the OS is unlikely to be a major component in the price. linux is built to be modified and customized so the linux running on that server is specially tuned for the server and overall with low level functionality linux has much better performance especially for network intensive tasks.

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  34. Re:Duh. by jdragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Windows server software is outselling Linux because linus isn't usually sold but rather downloaded and installed. Alot of corporate admins typically buy servers without the O/S and install it themself. This report is totally bogus and misleading if you ask me!

  35. I'm sure Gartner was also including ... by Jerry · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!

  36. Mediocracy by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

  37. Clueless article by einhverfr · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
    1. Re:Clueless article by fimion · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Let's also look at what else this author has written about linux.... OH! look! (for you lazy people, i'll take a nice quick quote.)
      "... I love Microsoft. Absolutely adore it and what's more, I hate Linux. I think it's the most over rated piece of software ever built and survives simply out of spite and not because it is terribly good at doing something because it is not!"
      Maybe Microsoft is paying people to slashdot crappy articles....
    2. Re:Clueless article by Jerry · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This article smacks of MS shilling.

      I agree.

      It has all the ear-marks of a "Submarine" article, as defined by Paul Graham.
      http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

      That this is true is born out by IDC's evaluation of the data.
      http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;17540595 24;fp;2;fpid;1
      "After a long period focused on cutting costs and buying servers just to run current applications, enterprises are once again investing strategically in systems to handle future workloads, said IDC analyst Matt Eastwood. IT organizations are once again being asked to support real growth, he said."

      This article contains some MS PR spin that the Gartner version did not: that purchases of Linux servers is short sighted because Linux server cannot be 'strategically' deployed but MS servers can. An odd assertion given the fact that many deploying Linux servers to replace Microsoft servers find that one Linux server can easily handle the load of 3 or 4 Microsoft servers, and do so more reliably and with less maintenance. Microsoft servers are notorious for being able to support only ONE application per server, a deployment model recommended by Microsoft itself, if not to improve MS server speed and stability then to improve Microsoft's sales figures.

      As you point out, comparing sales levels of prior years with those given this year by Gartner and IDC, with Microsoft FUD wrappings, either Microsoft server shares have been declining while Linux' have been rising, or these "Consulting" firms are merely passing on MS PR memos with their own corporate dressing on them. I have no doubt that Linux server shares are rising, having grown from a few percent a few years ago to 31% this year, AND that Gartner was and is a mere extension of Microsoft's PR department. After all, they've been revealed as such in prior "research" reports that they put on line where they claimed the report was their work but they forgot to remove the Microsoft PR logo from the article.

      --

      Running with Linux for over 20 years!

  38. Re:Gartner...Money for nothing, labour for free. by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Insightful
    In other words, no one can make "revenue" with FOSS. Glad both sides now agree on that point.

    What leads you to the conclusion that krray made no revenue on that project?

  39. What is the relation to previous quarters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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?

    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).

    .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.

  40. Linux comperable on a revenue basis? by HangingChad · · Score: 2, Insightful
    [b]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,[/b]

    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
  41. 3 words about these Gartner figures by Lazy+Jones · · Score: 2, Funny
    Ha ha ha.

    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)
  42. Easy to outsell, not to outuse by phorm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  43. Excellent, clear analysis. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  44. Re: Microsoft does give good support sometimes. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  45. No OS required with HP Servers! by mr_rizla · · Score: 2, Informative
    I work at an HP reseller in the UK, and you can buy *any* HP ProLiant without any OS at all. Virtually all HP servers are certified to run Redhat, except, frustratingly, the low-end SATA ones (SCSI versions of the same model are fine).

    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!

  46. Followup News by patiodragon · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Plus, you have hassle free and rapid support from Microsoft..."

    OMG, this made me blow coffee through my nose.

  47. Statistics never lie by perdelucena · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now it's official Linux is dying

  48. MS Web servers in decline by MECC · · Score: 2, Insightful



    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
  49. Straw man argument by dacarr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  50. The article does clarify by cgenman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  51. It's easy for a commercial server to outsell by kimvette · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's easy for a commercial server to outsell a server which is free for download by anyone.

    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& 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.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  52. Another question: I wonder. . . by kimvette · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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