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."

21 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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...

  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: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 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...

  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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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!
  14. 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.

  15. 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!