Slashdot Mirror
Windows Bumps Unix as Top Server OS
Ivan writes "
Windows narrowly bumped Unix in 2005 to claim the top spot in server sales for the first time, according to a new report from IDC.
Computer makers sold $17.7 billion worth of Windows servers worldwide in 2005 compared with $17.5 billion in Unix servers, IDC analyst Matthew Eastwood said of the firm's latest Server Tracker market share report. "It's the first time Unix was not top overall since before the Tracker started in 1996.""
From TFA:
And in another first, fast-growing Linux took third place, bumping machines with IBM's mainframe operating system, z/OS. Linux server sales grew from $4.3 billion in 2004 to $5.3 billion in 2005, while mainframes dropped from $5.7 billion to $4.8 billion over the same period, Eastwood said.
"Sales" being the operative word. How would one fit the free Linux options into this equation, I wonder?
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
We purchased five brand new Dell rackmountable servers last month. When we got them, we burned in some linux and threw the windows disks in the trash...
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
Probably worth adding that in many shops I know, every new server-type application that requires Windows gets its own Windows box, whereas people seem to understand the concept of "multitasking" with Unix and GNU based platforms, which is another thing that probably distorts the figures. That is, suppose my employer sells "StatisticStats" to Target, WalMart, and K-Mart. If we've written it as a web application, we'll deploy it one-(or-more)-CPUs-per-customer with all three (ie three servers) if we're doing it under IIS, whereas we'll centralize it unless it really starts becoming a resource hog if we deploy it under GNU/Linux.
I don't really understand why, except in that Windows does a lot to hide the underlying system to the point that it becomes easier just to throw a new box at each job than spend the time getting the different parts to work. It shouldn't be like this, IIS is pretty versatile, it just... is.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Slight marketshare loss for Unix, large marketshare growth for Linux, with Windows edging out Unix minus Linux.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
It's nice to have two products which are pretty much equivalent in performance. I think this is the type of situation which is good for competition, and good for everyone involved. Even if Microsoft does take the lead in server marketshare, I think that's just naturally reflecting the skillset of the workforce. Many people who are becoming system administrators now only know how to use windows, and probably haven't even used dos.
We have to run a seperate server for each app that requires Windows as the server. So, instead of one server to run the apps we have four.
Our Linux servers do multiple duties. Same goes for the Novell servers we use. They all perform multiple tasks on top of the standard filesharing and print q's.
We had to pay for each copy of Windows server, Linux was free to install anywhere and the Novell is a site license per student so we can install it as many times as we want without additional fees.
What I'd like to see is the number of new installs in the past year. Win vs. Unix vs. Linux vs. others.
-JM
Well if what I am reading is correct Unix is $17.5 Billion + Linux $5.3 Billion = $22.8 Billion. Microsoft is $17.7 Billion. Last I checked the *nix camp is still $5 billion ahead of M$. Not to mention that there was no number on Mac OSX in there. Just another feel good bullshit article trying to pump up M$.
What about server hardware sold without an operating system?
It's counted. They're using a combination of methods, remember, and that includes asking those surveyed "how many servers did you buy without an operating system, and what operating system did you put on them?"
It is incredibly difficult to produce a "market" leader measure without some consideration to the way that the market is measured. Fundamentally, that method determines the leader. Consider the obvious:
The market measure should be considered a dubious statistic, much like a political one. Raising the overall spending on education means nothing. Raising the overall spending per student, that means something. If you raise overall spending per student in constant dollars (inflation adjusted dollars), now you are really producing an accurate measure. The fact that most people can't understand basic comparisons--read the book Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos--leads to this fallacy of a measurement.
...tizzyd
Linux was listed in the ranking seperately (it came third, according to the article). Linux is not UNIX, so even if you bought it with Linux installed, it wouldn't have changed the relative positions of the two operating systems.
I agree that Linux would have come higher if the eventual OS installs of servers with no OS installs had been recorded, though.
It would be pretty stupid to lump UNIX and Linux sales together, given that Linux is not UNIX. As far as I can tell, not a single Linux distribution is certified against the Single UNIX Specification, which any Operating System must be in order to be UNIX.
They share similarities to be sure, but they are not the same and should not be lumped together any more than Windows and Linux should be lumped together.
Unix servers on average cost significantly more than Windows servers. Even educated people seem to have trouble getting it through their heads that the cost of the cost of the software is not the most significant cost in setting up a server. Also, I think you're right that you'll see more Windows servers but it's probably not because of more teaching facilities focusing on ASP.NET and the like. It's because IT decision makers (the people with the $$) are going with Windows for a whole variety of reasons (works for them, good TCO, good integration with the rest of their stack etc.)
Actually they aren't giving them away, they're letting you trial them for 60 days. Some customers who create a comparative report (to another os or chipset server) might get to keep their server - most will have to buy or return it, from sun.com:
;P
"Thank you for your interest in our Try and Buy Offer. For a limited time, Sun is offering qualified customers a free 60-day trial of the world's first eco-responsible server, the Sun Fire T2000 server. And, it's easy...Your complete responses allow us to instantly determine your qualification and get your trial system to you within a couple of weeks! It will only take about 3-4 minutes to determine your qualification. After the evaluation period, you may choose to purchase the server or return it to us."
Although they do look like nice servers - I wouldn't want to reutrn it
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
Linux is not Unix, it's "Unix-like". I'm not particularly anal about that distinction, but there is one, and the distinction was made in this test. Solaris is "real Unix" (as I believe AIX is, I'm not sure about the BSDs). There's a specification for "what Unix is", so as nit-picky as it sounds, there's a technical reason that they don't count. There's a bit more explanation on this Wikipedia page.
I was just trying to explain why Linux wasn't counted in the Unix ranking. On the other hand (as another reply to my post has pointed out) Linux, rather than Windows, is likely to be the reason that "real Unix" is losing market share.
Depending on what agreements your company has with Microsoft that may not be the case.
I don't know about your particular situation, but my experience is that most corporate agreements with Microsoft apply only to the desktop licensing rather than server licensing (in most cases, desktops outnumber servers by a good amount). Licensing server operating systems per vm instance is a real cost to most companies.
Jim
PS: I work at a company where we have over 100,000 users (presumably a similar number of desktop systems with a large number of servers) and our agreement only covers the desktop licenses for the site. Any servers purchased must be purchased with the OS license rather than a corporate agreement.
Well, yes and no... Various Linux distros have angled for POSIX certification and certification against the Single UNIX Specification, and so on, and I believe some have actually made it, though I don't see anything over at the Open Group's site.
Barring a huge merge between Linux and a "real UNIX," Linux will never be a "real UNIX" based on source code descendency. But, Linux may be considered a "real UNIX" at points due to SUS certification of particular distro releases that care enough to bother.
And, as far as BSD is concerned, while it may have removed certain proprietary AT&T code as part of the lawsuit, enough code and structure crossed both ways between BSD and AT&T that it'd be silly to argue that BSD is not "real UNIX." That said, it appears none of the BSDs have registered for UNIX certification.
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
So I guess there is a little breathing space yet ;-)
Interestingly, if you RTFA and scroll down to the other links, you'll see "windows leads server OS pack for first time" last november !
dupe or astroturf - you decide ...
Its a matter of ease of deployment and use. Most likely, this little law office isn't going to have an IT guy and most of the day-to-day will fall on the office manager, which most likely doesn't know SaMBa from doing the Rumba. In that situation, the cheapy solution makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
:)
With the addition of a single server running Small Business edition, includes a bunch of useful stuff - Exchange, ISA, SQL etc, they can have a _supported_ solution covering their current needs and many/most of their near-future needs. Plus, with the addition of AD, reduce the amount of effort that goes in to managing the day-to-day stuff. Instead of managing 11 machines' passwords, she manages the domain. This includes homogenizing the configuration of all the workstation and all the other benefits of having centralized control of configuration, authorization and authentication. Workgroup isn't a "solution" in any sense
Some will argue that SBS is harder to manage for the general user wearing the admin cape - true, but how much easier is it than trying to manage a linux server for them?
"In the end, there is simply no weapon more devastating than the truth, delivered in just the right way." - tnk1
Because there is a lot more to Windows server than NFS support. There is no open source system that provides a turnkey replacement for active directory.
The cost of Windows server is irrelevant compared to the cost of having someone set up any enterprise class server. IT consultants charge upwards of $2000 a day.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/