Michael Dell says Linux Server Sales are Up

00_NOP writes "Linux is growing faster in the server space than Windows says the Dell CEO 'On the server side Linux continues to grow nicely, a bit faster than Windows. We're seeing a move to Linux in critical applications, and Linux migration has not slowed down.'"

Comments

And this is news?

[HexaByte]

And this is news? Why?

Could this have anything to do with stability? Or perhaps the long march toward Longhorn that keeps getting longer, even as features keep getting cut?

Re:And this is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

The former, no. Windows is just as stable if you are a competant admin these days, and don't use CheapAss(R) hardware (note: inexpensive and old are ok, just not crap that will crash due to hardware issues).

The latter. That is part of it.

But as a Windows admin, (note: my main home system is not Windows - KDE > Windows) the only advantage I find on Linux in server space is the flexibility and options allowed by Unix that aren't as easy to access in Windows.

That being said, that one advantage is more than enough, given sufficient security and stability (which of course, properly run, Linux has just as well as Windows 2003, also properly run), to justify a switch for most, provided they have enough experience at getting Linux to work (I'd probably rather use FreeBSD myself, but hey, whatever floats your boat... err, server).

Re:And this is news?

[AndyCR]

the only advantage I find on Linux in server space is the flexibility and options allowed by Unix that aren't as easy to access in Windows. Cost is an advantage, too.

Re:And this is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

The cost of either is so dependant on the quality of your administrator(s).

Windows with a good administrator is cheaper than Linux with a mediocre/avarage administrator, and not significantly more expensive than Linux with a good administrator (from a business perspective, a $1000 set of OSes/licesences doesn't make much of a difference when you've got $10k hardware, and a $75k administrator.

Re:And this is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

The former, no. Windows is just as stable...

Oh dear. An article favorable to Linux.

Stand by for another avalanche of Winshills. This will get ugly.

Re:And this is news?

[MikeBabcock]

Honestly, as a server administrator, I really miss my fully scriptable environment on Linux when I'm dealing with Windows. Yes, I can install software X for backups and software Y for data replication and software Z for something else, but writing a self-updating firewall script in an hour is out of the question on Windows systems.

I'm not saying Windows is unstable or "sucky", I just find it a lot less powerful out of the box.

Re:And this is news?

[jimstapleton]

Yes. I admitted Linux had some advantages over Windows and that I don't use Windows at home.

I must be a Windows shill.

Just because I give credit where credit is due, and consider non-dos Windows, does not make me a Windows shill.

I am just not clouded by blind hatred. Learn from your enemies my friend, it makes them easier to beat.

Re:And this is news?

[somersault]

True, the grandparent poster obviously doesn't use Linux in a professional environment.. the costs of this stuff sound a lot from a home point of view, but in business then you tend to get what you pay for. I wanted to move to using towards using all Linux servers, but realised it's not really worth it since the whole organisation is already setup and stable with a Windows domain / Exchange server (which I realised is actually a pretty decent product, after I tried setting up OpenExchange and using it as a domain controller/exchange server - it was lacking in functionality and the configuration was a real pain in the ass too due to the fairly lacklustre documentation on LDAP setup, which I'd never done before, took me a week or 2 to get it right.. :( ). I'm very happy with the way vendors/customers are warming up to Linux in the server and desktop world, but for the moment I'm still waiting for a killer Exchange/Outlook replacement (not lots of separate servers/clients for calendars, email, groupware etc..), or at least just an Outlook replacement. That's more because of my own wishes, because while it will save a fair bit of money in the long run, it's still pretty small fry for a medium sized business unfortunately

Re:And this is news?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

from a business perspective, a $1000 set of OSes/licesences doesn't make much of a difference when you've got $10k hardware, and a $75k administrator You realize this is an excellent paraphrase of the entire Microsoft "Get the Facts" campaign? License cost /is/ a factor -- for a small business, it can make a big difference. For a large business, it's a matter of scale. When you've got thousands of $10k servers, that adds up to millions of dollars in licensing costs -- not an insignificant sum no matter how big the business. The place where the statement holds true is for the mid-sized business, where the number of licenses needing to be purchased is much more limited.

Re:And this is news?

[plague3106]

I think it has more to do that if you sold 10 servers and next month sell 20, you have a 200% increase in sales for Linux. If Windows were selling 1,000 server and the next month it sells 1,005 servers, you can see that Linux is growing faster than Windows.. but that doesn't mean a whole lot.

Lets see some actual numbers first. It will be more interested to hear him say Linux has become 25% of our sales, or something like that. But anyone that claims product X is the fastest growing competitor, well it doesn't mean anything.

* Yes, my numbers are purely made up, and only serve to illustrate a point.

Re:And this is news?

[plague3106]

Cost as in price paid, or are you including time costs as well?

Re:And this is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux has historically sold better than Windows on the server side, due to the popularity of the LAMP stack for web servers. There was a recent announcement that Windows was catching up in marketshare.

So there are about an equal number of Linux and Windows servers out there. And Linux is picking up the pace again.

Actual numbers would be nice, yes.

Re:And this is news?

[plague3106]

Linux, or UNIX and Unix like OSes? I haven't heard of LINUX doing better on the server space than Windows, I have known that UNIX variants have typically dominated though.

I've also seen other reports that say that the Linux installations are replacing UNIX servers, not that they are replacing Windows. Its been a while though.

Re:And this is news?

[Stamen]

Just curious but what do you think is the Windows market share on the server? From your comments, I'm guessing you think it's like it is on the desktop, pretty high, right? It isn't (check Gartner or IDC for facts).

It's like GM in the 70s and 80s. When the executives looked out on the streets in Detroit all they saw was American cars (as opposed to the streets in LA for example), so they never really believed in the threat from the Asian markets; until it was too late. I find a lot of companies that are 100% Windows are this way; people just can't believe something they don't see personally. It's not just Windows shops either, this happens in 100% Unix shops too; the difference being that the Unix shops deal with Windows on the desktop so they tend to understand both.

Re:And this is news?

[eno2001]

Why are people so keyed up about features? In reality, how many new features in an OS are used when a new version is released? How many people actually make use of Microsoft's ability to publish apps (on a large scale) via Active Directory for example. We tried it where I work and the Windows admin decided it was too much of a pain in the ass both technically and licensing-wise. So instead we manage application deployment with the third-party app: Altiris. No matter how entrenched in Windows an organization is, it's unlikely that they make use of most of the features that MS touts in their OS. Some more than others, to be sure, but I doubt that outside of the MS campus there are more than a handful of organizations that use every feature that MS has to offer.

The sad truth is that the *nix/free/open software world usually has a lot more to offer and has had many features that MS touts as "new" and "innovative" for at least half a decade. Those who know, will relate to what I'm saying. And THAT is why Linux adoption is growing on the server end. On the desktop side... well Linux does have a LOT more to offer than MS currently does. But, getting a lot of it going requires more effort and aptitude than is required on Windows. Sadly, people seem far to content to go the "easy" route to get something these days. This is why Linux on the desktop has been running into roadblocks. I don't think that will change unless the Linux desktop folks find ways to:

-Organize functionality (both UI and underlying software and subsystems)
-Provide GUI layers to manage all of the functionality above

This is something that I don't think is really possible because it's not an "itch" that any developer has. It's a user "itch". Just as an example, I make pretty extensive use of the Linux kernel's Network Block Device (NBD) features, it would be nice to see that at the desktop layer. To try and explain what it does just imagine being able to do this:

Add a new blank hard drive to you system. You can partition it if you want, or leave it unpartitioned. Once you've prepped it like that, you can then use NBD to export one or more unformatted partitions or drives to your network. Then on other systems, you can import any one of those NDBs and use it like a local disk. You could use it for as part of a RAID mirror set on a machine for example (with one half of the mirror pair residing on the NBD server and the other being the local HD or partition). Or you could do as I did and export your DVD drive so that any systems that don't have DVD drives can play DVDs.

Now imagine if you could do that all from GUI management tools as well as the command line. Gear heads like me would be happy doing it from the CLI so we could have total ultimate power. But more importantly, some Ubuntu (or other distro user) user could show his Windows using friend how his laptop's DVD drive is playable from any other Ubuntu box in the house without needing a media extender, and XBox or Windows Media Center. And that this is available in ANY version of Linux.

That's what's needed to put a hole in the whole argument that Linux isn't ready for the desktop. But, I don't expect to see it happen any time soon.

Re:And this is news?

[Stamen]

The former, no. Windows is just as stable if you are a competant admin these days I think this is a true statement. The problem is that the likelihood that you're going to find a competent Windows admin in the your typical company isn't as high as the likelihood if it were a Unix shop. It isn't because there aren't really skilled Windows admins, because there are, it's more that you're able to scrape by, in Windows, if you're incompetent; Unix is a bit less forgiving.

It's also a cultural thing also. I'm a developer, and it's true in my field as well. Back when VB was big, it was exactly the same problem: sure there were very good VB programmers, but the culture wasn't one of advanced learning or skills. If you asked a question about something in the VB forums about something advanced, you tended to get the "deer in the headlight" responses, or someone would try to tell you which Wizard to use. If you asked the same question in the c++ forum, someone would not only understand your question, they'd answer it, and explain the reason why it is done this way. Ultimately, culture, like in many aspects in life, is a very important thing.

I choose Unix because it allows me to work in a way that is powerful for me, there is a culture of excellence, and my skills are transferable to almost every OS but Windows. I don't use Unix because it's more stable than Windows; at this point I assume my OS is stable; that's hardly good enough anymore.

Re:And this is news?

[jedidiah]

I disagree.

Anyone you would want to touch a Windows server would be easily
cross trained as a Unix admin of whatever flavor you happen to
have around. The qualities of a good sysadmin are independent
of the platform.

Throw the Oracle client at the "good" Windows admin and watch him crumble.

Re:And this is news?

[pintpusher]

if a license will scale well from a few employees to a few hundred (or even a few tens) then this is very true. A micro/small business is stuck buying more capacity than they will ever use and since admin is typically done by a principal or one valued, multi-function employee (kinda like one of those print/scan/copy things) the cost of admin isn't really a factor. In my businesses, regardless of the cost of the software, I'm still doing the admin. So a license that costs a few hundred to a few thousand dollars is a big deal. If you factor in sunsetting (lookin' at you Intuit*) then it gets to be a HUGE deal.

* Yeah, Intuit, your forced sunsetting drove me away from windows for good, and I *still* thank you guys. It was the best thing that ever happened to me in the world of computing. thanks again :-P

Re:And this is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

*counts a windows admins around office who use the oracle client - comes to over a dozen*

*counts those who crubled when they first saw it. Result: 0*

Re:And this is news?

[Vancorps]

Actually, for a small business the licensing cost matters the least as the cost of good administrator is by far your biggest expense. As you go up the cost of licensing gets smaller because you're buying in larger quantity but the proportion of licensing to administration reduces as the business scales. I'm sorry if this doesn't make sense to you. As the sole Administrator to an up-and-coming mid-sized business I can say as we've grown the cost of licensing makes it more of a challenge to get approval. When I give them retail pricing I have no hope of acquisition, so I inform my vendor of this and they offer a discount which I then present and away we go.

The company I work for currently is weird in a lot of ways, this is not one of them. 10k hardware is also on the small end of things. Realistically that's where it should be as you scale out instead of up but not all businesses lend themselves to that.

Perhaps this is why people pay SUSE and Red Hat for support? Ultimately costing a significant sum just like Windows licensing would end up costing them. There's no free lunch in this game.

Re:And this is news?

[lightsaber777]

One, you said it yourself... you have not previously done an LDAP setup... so obviously it is not something that you can do in a few hours. Once you've done it one time you can easily set it up again. I have to also question your assertion that it took two weeks to figure it out. It took me two days the first time I ever did it and that was a Friday night and a Saturday. I generally hold that one should not expect open source software to come in a box with a book and a support staff. There are some projects who get to this point but it's usually when a company like Red Hat takes that over when you get fully documented software with commercial support. Everyone must remember that open source is not built around a strict producer/consumer model. Rather, it encourages the consumers to add and make the product better while using something that is 95% of what they want giving them the ability to add the other 5%... in this case the consumer being the company who decides to use open source in their business. As for groupware... what features were you using in Exchange that you couldn't get in OpenExchange? While I agree that Exchange has a larger feature set, most people use 35% of the functionality in Exchange, so are you paying for features you aren't using? Secondly, if you just want a big feature set, you may find this hard to believe, GroupWise has a larger set of features than Exchange, its compatible with clients on Linux and Windows, and it's licensing costs are cheaper than Exchange. On TCO, the argument that "Windows + good admin is cheaper than Linux w/ mediocre admin", is probably true... but Windows with a mediocre admin can lead to complete failure where that is a bit harder to do with Linux. At this point there is no comparison, linux is cheaper. For instance, an admin who is not on top of patches can leave significant security holes open to attack. A windows admin who doesn't know how to adequately tune the server to the job that it does creates inefficiency, which creates more cost. Also, the argument that Windows + good admin ~ Linux + good admin is fine until your environment starts to scale. The is a simple principle... a linux admin can manage more of his machines than a windows admin can. There are just better tools for synchronizing, migrating settings, and overall enterprise management. In my mind there are only 3 good arguments for Windows servers and that is in a small business that can hire 1 good admin, a business that is dependent on .NET, or a business with existing windows infrastructure and no need to scale beyond the abilities of the current admins.

Re:And this is news?

[jedidiah]

I wasn't talking about desktop usage.

I was talking about maintaining it across multiple servers that host database applications.

Windows admins are why guys like me end up learning Oracle Names or LDAP.

Re:And this is news?

[garaged]

what would cost more: implement something similar from zero with windows or with linux ?

The answer lies on the cost to admin, if the windows admin's wage is lower that the linux admin's, then go for it

Re:And this is news?

[morcego]

Windows is just as stable if you are a competant admin these days

This reminds me of my time as an AIX admin. AIX just rocked, as solid, everything worked. Did I mention I had access to a lot of "IBM Internal Use Only" documentation ?

From what I noticed, the same thing is true with Windows (I'm not a Windows Admin).

Re:And this is news?

[Chewbacon]

It's not always hardware. I had a laptop with dual boot XP/Slackware. XP would sometimes (and I could reproduce it) crash with a BSD and reported a problem with the CD-ROM. I used linux about a third of the time, but in the four years of owning that laptop linux never crashed, not once. Not even for the CD-ROM issue windows had.

Re:And this is news?

[bberens]

I still find it interesting in the way the conversation is always phrased... "A well administered Windows machine is just as secure as a well administered linux machine." The statement, afaik is completely true. I just find it remarkable that linux is the measuring stick.

Re:And this is news?

[pato101]

it's a matter of scale. When you've got thousands of $10k servers,

Furthermore, IMHO if you have thousands of servers, scripting powerfully and efficiently among them is a must, and Unix approach shines there.

Re:And this is news?

[mhall119]

No, but software licensing does become a factor when your 10 year old hardware is still churning along just fine, but the new version of your enterprise software only supports the new Windows, then the license lock-in become painfully visible. When you find yourself in a situation where your old hardware won't run the new Windows, then the pain becomes exponential.

Re:And this is news?

[mattcasters]

As comments for this article go, I bet it doesn't get any more Insightful than this. I can stop reading now.
Thanks,
Matt

Re:And this is news?

[JimDaGeek]

Yawn... I heard this before. $1,000 for one server (which could be more depending on the version of MS Windows) and $65-$75k for an admin? Yeah, if you have one freaking server. However, Linux/Unix is so much easier for on admin to automate than MS windows. I work at a fortune 500 where there are 2 Linux/Solaris admins that handle a bunch of Solaris and Linux servers. The average number of servers per admin is very different for our Linux/Solaris admins vs our MS Windows admins.

We get more bang for our buck with a *nix admin than we do with an MS Windows admin. From what I have seen in the past 10 years, a very good *nix admin can handle almost twice as many servers as a good MS Windows admin. I am not dissing MS Windows admins, it is just that MS Windows really lacks the tools of automation that have been a part of *nix for decades.

The same goes for DBA's. In the past 10 years, the typical Oracle DBA's that I have worked with have had a lot more knowledge than the typical MS SQL Server DBA's.

The sad thing is that the MS Windows market is flooded with poor admins, DBA's and programmers due to the extreme ease of getting certified. I wish MS would change that.

Re:And this is news?

[paulatz]

You ar both right, the point is that for very large business the most important factors is the cost of hardware and software, for medium sized ones the cost of system admins; for small business it is software and hardware again, unless you phone the admin too often or have strange needs.

Re:And this is news?

[mackyrae]

Linux drivers handle hardware failure more gracefully than Windows ones, I've found. On Windows, a bad video card will kill your video drivers and give you 4-bit color at 640x480, and you have to reboot to fix it. That same failing video card just makes the screen "squish" a bit (get narrower by about 20px then back to normal, rapidly for around 2 or 3 seconds) once in a while.

Re:And this is news?

[RickRussellTX]

However, software licenses *add up* over the enterprise. You've got some domain controllers, some file servers, some print servers, some web servers, database servers. All with their own server OS licenses. Some of this stuff has to be redundant (more licenses) and some has to be replicated in remote offices (more licenses), etc. etc. You want to simplify by running some things as virtual servers, but that doesn't help the licensing situation. And most of these licenses involve yearly maintenance if you want vendor support.

Long story short, when you add it all up, Linux licenses + support could be much cheaper than Windows licenses + support in some enterprises.

Re:And this is news?

[Allador]

We get more bang for our buck with a *nix admin than we do with an MS Windows admin. From what I have seen in the past 10 years, a very good *nix admin can handle almost twice as many servers as a good MS Windows admin. I am not dissing MS Windows admins, it is just that MS Windows really lacks the tools of automation that have been a part of *nix for decades. Are you comparing apples to apples here?

Are the windows admins as good on that platform as the Unix guys are on their platform?

Do the windows guys do scripting and automation for all their group management tasks? Because despite the popular belief, windows has a huge amount of automation tools available, its just a different approach than unix. But there isnt really anything that cant be done from the command line and the scripting environment on windows.

For some reason though, most windows admins choose not to use them. I dont know why.

What I can agree with is the general tradition is very different. Only amongst the very best windows admins will you see that they manage huge numbers of machines, all using perl/com/adsi/wmi or vbscript/com/adsi/wmi (and plus powershell up and coming).

You can tell instantly as well when you watch them work.

Do they prefer to go into the machine room and work at the console? Do they prefer to use term-serv and work at the virtual console?

Or do they use a big combo custom MMC console for single-machine admin, and a huge library of scripts to manage whole sets of machines?

The best windows admins are the smartest/laziest, and they can manage whole hordes of windows machines from their couch or office chair.

Re:And this is news?

[Allador]

It's not that Linux is actually the measuring stick.

It's just that you are always having to beat some sense and reality into the heads of the linux zealots. So it's always in response to that.

The real measuring stick would probably be VMS or the mainframe.

Every large organization I've seen, there are huge numbers of linux boxes getting owned constantly. Mostly due to poor management. Strange how thats the same with windows.

In both cases, weak passwords will own both.

In both cases, zero-day exploits plus open holes in the firewall will own both.

In both cases, userland software vulns plus an elevation exploit will own both.

Re:And this is news?

[Allador]

It's not really that hard.

You can still use Python, wget, and throw in some com bindings for your python.

Then use the COM automation for the windows firewall.

Would probably take 1-2 hours the first time for me to do that. Much less after that.

Mind you, some of the interfaces arent as clean to the Unix'y eye as the iptables solution. MS automation tends to be more oriented towards a programmer or an SA with strong programming skills. Unix automation tends to be more oriented towards an SA with minor coding skills but an interest to poke around. Lower barrier of entry on the unix side, cause things tend to be a little simpler.

(assuming I'm understanding from the quick link what the 'self-updating firewall rules' are doing)

Re:And this is news?

[jaxtherat]

by $1000 set of OSes/licenses I hope you mean:

- ~$1000 per serve license
- ~$1000 per exchange license
- ~$280 per user for server/exchange cal combo
- ~$700 per user for an XP Pro/Office 2003 Pro combo

so after you purchase 3 x 2003 servers, an exchange server license and enough software + cals for all 80 of your users, you've spent:

(4 x 1000) + ((280 + 700) * 80) = $82,400 in total

OR

$1030 per user (!) wtf??

I administer a windows network, and the costs are scary. I'm steadily moving things off to samba boxen and switching backups to a Bacula server. Thank dog the sysad before me didn't bow down to dodgy sales guys selling thin client systems using terminal server!!

The way I like to look at it, Windows Server is like and BMW 5 series. It is great as long as you don't do crazy stuff with it, and stick to BMW approved accessories. It (and accessories) cost appropriately. If it breaks down, dog help you if you try to fix it yourself, and it'll cost lots of moolah.

Linux/BSD is like a Ford Mustang or a Holden Monaro... If you know how to keep the thing going, it'll be more fun, useful much cheaper, and way sexier/cooler than the BMW. But you really need to know what you are doing, otherwise you'll be stuffed.

Re:And this is news?

[JimDaGeek]

I agree with you. Though, to me, it seems that there is a vast difference in the percentage of MS Windows admins that can do com/adsi/wmi/etc scripting vs. the percentage of *nix admins that can do effective scripting.

I have had to a bunch of com/wmi type stuff as a progrmmer for admins at the 2 fortune 500 companies I have worked at. In contrast, I offered to do scripting for the Linux/Solaris platforms for two *nix admins and they looked at me like I was silly. I love to do *nix scripting, the 2 admins wouldn't let me. They could handle it themselves. Now on the other hand, I have written a bunch of little apps or scripts to do things with AD for our MS Windows admins or they would just copy-n-paste some AD script not really knowing how it works.

This is why I said I am not dissing MS Windows admins. There are some really good ones out there. It is just that from my experience over the last 10 years I have seen about 10% of the windows admins who know their sh!t, 50% who are average and the other 40% or so seem to just have been able to pass a test and get a cert. I had an MS Windows admin ask me how to deploy a C# ASP.Net app. I almost fell out of my chair. I gave instructions. copy the damn folder from the staging server to the production server. That is it. The app was already registered with IIS so it really was just a copy the folder thing.

Oh, well, sorry to paint with such a broad brush, sometimes I just get frustrated by how flooded the MS Windows market is with "Admins", "DBA's" and "Programmers". I just get freaked out when, as a programmer, I have to show a certified MS DBA stuff on SQL Server.

Re:And this is news?

[ignavus]

I'd like to see you run Google on Microsoft OSs with that attitude that licences don't add much cost ...

In other words, I'd like to see a Beowulf cluster of those licences.

Re:And this is news?

[Allador]

Agreed for the most part.

Do you really see that many MS certified folks?

I hardly ever do, and they tend to not be the best ones. But I just dont see that many. The good admins are usually too lazy to go get a cert, to be honest. :)

Also, I should say that I come from a programmers background, so dont mind the MS stuff. And I actually appreciate the philosophy behind it (abstraction, etc), but I do also agree that its more complicated.

Of course, thinking about it now ... the fact that it is more complicated and more programmer focused on windows is probably bad ... as the average windows admin isnt that great of an admin, much less a competent programmer.

Ick, just made myself sad.

Re:And this is news?

[runningduck]

Do not forget about the three $125k managers required to figure out excatly which license fees apply and how to track compliance.

Re:And this is news?

[dbIII]

I think this is a true statement.

Unfortunatly any anecdotes I give will either be dismissed by others here as cherrypicking or will invite an attack on the skills I have with the Microsoft Windows platforms so I can really only express an opinion.

My opinion is - you have to be joking guys, get out more and take a look at what else is around and you'll see that the MS platforms on average do not come up to any measure of stability used elsewhere since the 1970s.

Re:And this is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes except that on Windows you always need extra software (backup, proxies, remote control, scripting langage etc..)
and are more often than not required to do painful upgrades to have this or that working or supported.
This increases costs sometimes dramatically...

Re:And this is news?

[rhsanborn]

Source for this?

Re:And this is news?

[dbIII]

The source of my opinion? Most likely myself. Please read the posts you reply to.

Re:And this is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's of course why one of the M$ admins here asked what our 'reboot schedule' was.

To which I answered : "Reboot schedule? What bloody reboot schedule? I am running Unix, we don't have a reboot schedule."

Apparantly the MS boxes are being rebooted every week for 'stability'. No unplanned downtime though, so their 'uptime' is quite good.
(and no the MS boxes here don't run on cheap ass hardware).

Re:And this is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

if you are a competant admin these days

You expect us to believe you are competent when you can't even spell the word?

Re:And this is news?

[somersault]

It wasn't so much the actual setup, it was the fact that I used the domain name in one section where I should have just had any random name other than the domain name, and that screwed up the whole install process, took me a couple of weeks of reading and trying stuff out to find out where the problem was. That's what I meant by the documentation being poor, otherwise things would have been fairly smooth.

I was hoping to make the server a domain controller too, and I tried that out, but it was veeeeery slow. I had also thought that people weren't really using the functionality of outlook, but then found out that they were - for example the free/busy information on the calendars, which (I may be wrong, it was a couple of years ago) wasn't reported to work in OE yet. The web interface for OE was great, but I doubt most users would be happy with that, especially when a lot of the directors make extensive use of PST files. The final killer blow was that Exchange has direct push email which I've setup a few people on and have been very happy with compared to our blackberrys.. so I have come to respect Exchange, but if any other open source email client would play nicely with it then I would roll out open office onto a few more machines. I'd put it on machines that were only ever going to be used to view offshore documentation, but when those machines come back into the office, people wanted Outlook.

One of our new machines has just come with Office 2007, so this is again a good time to try people out on other office suites, since the 2007 interface is so different to previous versions that people could be happier with for example Open Office - though I think a lot of users will succumb to Microsoft snobbery.. maybe shouldn't mention that OOo is free :P

Re:And this is news?

[somersault]

PS our business has been small for the last 10 years or so, though is expanding rapidly in some areas. It's always been Windows servers with usually 2 or 3 people in the IT staff (for a while recently it was just me, though we've hired someone else who handles most of the simpler IT stuff as part of his job, gives me more time to code! :) though it's also making me feel a bit lazy sitting at my desk so much of the time now ;) ). Hopefully I'm a 'good' admin - have made mistakes in the past, but tend to be able to fix them myself :p

Re:And this is news?

[rhsanborn]

The word's 'my opinion' does not indemnify you from having to back up claims. You made a statement of fact, that MS systems aren't as stable. Back it up, or it is invalid and unusable for discussion.

Re:And this is news?

[dbIII]

I made a statement of opinion as would be clear from reading the very short sentences above.

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

The CEO of DELL was found dead in his mansion today, suffering numerous blows to his head from a chair. He was found with a note attached to his body that simply read "Microsoft > u"

Authorities are baffled to who committed this crime.

captcha: mocker

Re:In other news...

[Dunbal]

Offtopic? This is called HUMOR you stupid mods. Funny is NEVER offtopic.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

the problem is that it's so dull it's not funny.

Re:In other news...

[rubycodez]

no, it's fucking funny. the dullness is between your ears, just as with the mods.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Authorities are baffled to who committed this crime.

The 'acting' Chair - Man of MyCrowSoft is under investigation.

Re:In other news...

[Procasinator]

Knock Knock Whose there? Boo Boo Who? No need to cry you big pussy.

Re:In other news...

[Ed Avis]

Truly an American icon.

Re:In other news...

[cronot]

When asked about in the investigations, Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's CEO, has plead innocent on the crime, because he "didn't fucking bury him".

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Netcraft confirms it: Michael Dell is dying.

Where are the numbers?

[Necreia]

I RTFA, but didn't see anything about 'numbers'. "How" much is Linux up?

Did I gloss over it somewhere?

Re:Where are the numbers?

[MeBot]

I'm also confused that if both Windows & Linux are "growing"... what is shrinking? Just the proprietary UNIX distributions from HP & IBM?

Re:Where are the numbers?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's up 100%.

Like robot chicken they went from 10 to 20 users.

Capcha: lifeboat

Re:Where are the numbers?

[Bert64]

The overall market is growing...
I also assume this only counts Dell servers which are bought with Linux preinstalled... I would be interested to see how many systems are bought with nothing installed, as a lot of these will probably end up with linux distributions installed on them that dell doesn't offer preinstalled (debian etc)

Guess he wants cheaper OEM licenses

[Hal_Porter]

$50 being too much it seems.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070525-windows-tax-is-50-according-to-dell-linux-pc-pricing.html

I wonder how much of a discount he woulld get from Microsoft if he stopped selling Linux machines? Could Microsoft even ask for that I wonder, given the anti trust case?

Re:Guess he wants cheaper OEM licenses

[ivan256]

That article is talking desktops.

I'm sure that the "tax" is much higher for servers, depending on which variety of Windows Server you get, and how many licenses you add.

Re:Guess he wants cheaper OEM licenses

[Lumpy]

Sorry but have you ever bought a Dell server? you dont get an OEM server 2003. you get a full boat price.

in many cases the Server 2003 price with licensing costs as much or more than the hardware you are buying.

Re:Guess he wants cheaper OEM licenses

[Anonymous Coward]

$50 being too much it seems.

Remeber that Windows is also subsidized by all the crap/trialware that publishers pay OEMs to put on the disk images. With Linux you save $50 along with the hassle of uninstalling all of the crud. (You also save by not needing anti-virus and anti-spyware software.)

Re:Guess he wants cheaper OEM licenses

[Anonymous Coward]

You're quoting Jeremy Reimer the 'hack reporter' (at best) from arstechnica?

Jeremy Reimer doesn't even have a degree or certification in the field of computer sciences, nor does he have professional hands on experience (much less years to decades of it) in computers either. I wouldn't cite he. He was caught email harassing others online, impersonating and libelling them and had portions of his website (and his friend Jay Little had his entire website kicked from his hosting provider) removed forcibly by his hosting provider(s), see here:

http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?articleid=41095&cpage=212#feedbackAnchor

This has happened to Reimer many times now. He is a pest, and nuisance, and unqualified to do anything computers-wise. A fake is a fake, that's all there is to it. My 6 yr. old could do the same things he does in fact, which is read what others write, & spit it back out (merely plagiaristic hack reporting), & in fact, see what people wrote about Jeremy Reimer being an unqualified hack, from an educational institution:

http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/node/933

Re:Guess he wants cheaper OEM licenses

[advocate_one]

Microsoft got around that... the price/volume remains the same, but you get a larger kickback to cover your "marketing costs" if you comply with things Microsoft want.

RED ALLERT

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft CEO: We need that Windows Vienna Server edition NOW.
Employee: Sir we still have nothing but the boot screen graphic
Microsoft CEO: Quick apply to Vista, put a random theme,Find and Replace all Vista words for Vienna Server and deploy.

Re:RED ALLERT

[pushing-robot]

For great justice.

Well, duh.

[EveryNickIsTaken]

From TFA:

..Dell said his company has seen Linux uptake for servers increase faster than Windows server products.. So, there has been a greater percentage increase in number of Linux units sold than in number of Windows units sold. How is this news? We can gloss over supposed percentage increases all day, but without any real numbers to go by, this is rather meaningless.

Re:Well, duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Dell admits it?

Re:Well, duh.

[someone1234]

While i'm a Linux enthusiast, I have to agree. Dell only started to sell Linux recently. Even if they sold it earlier, they didn't market it. So, I guess the earlier numbers were near 0. Percentages are meaningless when one of the values is zero.

Btw, a year ago i wrote that Vista isn't ready for the desktop. Someone wrote it is already out in the shops. Heh, it still isn't ready, so i was right :) Vista's very poor performance really helps Linux.

Re:Well, duh.

[JohnBailey]

On desktops and laptops yes. But hasn't Dell been selling Red Hat for several years on servers?(the topic of the article) and about the time the Ubuntu deal was made public, they also started selling Novell's server Linux.

Re:Well, duh.

[someone1234]

Uhm, i didn't know that. Still, i don't know (because they didn't tell), the exact numbers. So if last year's windows/linux sales were not comparable, then a percentage increase is utterly irrelevant. (Though, they didn't even tell if it is an absolute or percentage increase).
At this point, it sounds like they simply try to pressure M$.

Re:Well, duh.

[JohnBailey]

They didn't tell the exact number of Windows based servers either, so does that mean anything? The desktop and server markets are quite different, so assuming what is common in one is common in the other is not a good idea. Things that make Linux a hard sell for an unskilled desktop user are irrelevant in the server market, and Linux has the advantage of being closer to Unix than Windows is, so perhaps better for someone moving from one to the other.

All the big names in the server market have a long association with both Unix and Linux, so its not a case of Linux moving recently from being an OS dreamed up by a student to suddenly being a valid choice in the business world. So if Dell are seeing continued growth in the Linux market, they are seeing significant numbers. Not just a few more units a year.

He should figure out the OSless ones as well.

[alta]

They should survey upon sale what OS the customer intends to install on the machines. I've bought a number of machines from them in the last few months, ordered with no OS and put CentOS on it. I'm sure the deb folks are doing the same. I'd venture to say a LOT more of the linux users are ordering a server and putting a legal copy of linux on them as opposed to windows users putting legal copies of windows. Illegal copies of either OS shouldn't count.

I'd venture a guess at 80/20.

Re:He should figure out the OSless ones as well.

[scubamage]

The idea of an illegal copy of linux is kind of a paradox, isn't it?

Re:He should figure out the OSless ones as well.

[ozmanjusri]

The idea of an illegal copy of linux is kind of a paradox, isn't it?

According to Ballmer, EVERY copy of Linux is illegal.

Re:He should figure out the OSless ones as well.

[TuringTest]

Not if you give away the server to a third party without giving the source code.

Re:He should figure out the OSless ones as well.

[paeanblack]

The idea of an illegal copy of linux is kind of a paradox, isn't it?

Not at all.

Open source does not mean the software is free (as in beer). Open source does not mean you can redistribute the software without heeding the terms of the license.

Re:He should figure out the OSless ones as well.

[Mongoose Disciple]

You could scheme up an illegal copy of Linux, though I've never heard of one.

There's an idea for an annual FOSS (well, sort of) community competition for you: most original illegal Linux distro created.

You have to give "doesn't include the source code and thus violates the license" a pass. It's too easy, like shooting barrel in a barrel. Such as:

- Distro that ships with 100 pirated movies.
- Distro that ships with the latest Britney Spears .mp3. (And the software to play it!)
- Distro that includes illegal pornography.
- Distro that includes documents which violate some NDA or other.
- Distro that automatically sets up an offshore casino and starts gambling.
- Distro that automatically tries to hack cia.gov on startup.
- Distro that includes Tiannamen Square massacre photos and articles (for China distribution only)
- Distro that includes utilities to execute phishing attacks aimed at particular ethnicities. (Quick, think of a clever name that includes 'Hate Crime'!)
- A pledge to kill an endangered non-penguin species for each download.
- Distro that rebroadcasts Major League Baseball games without express written consent.

Re:He should figure out the OSless ones as well.

[AvitarX]

I pirated SUSE install media when they didn't allow it.

It even had some commercial software on it.

Re:He should figure out the OSless ones as well.

[Zygamorph]

Actually to a certain extent it can. According to the GPL if you distribute software that is licensed under the GPL you must: a. Make available the source code if asked for it, including any changes you made; b. Allow anyone who got the software from you to also redistribute it under the GPL Its the second part that means the cost will come down. You can try to sell your special brand of Linux for $10,000 a pop. Since you must also supply the source code and can't limit your customers from redistributing it all it takes is one customer buying it at $10K and then redistributing it at $100 to bring your own price down. Any contract that tries to put a redistribution limit runs afoul of the GPL.

Re:He should figure out the OSless ones as well.

[Tim C]

Hardly - SUSE Linux Enterprise Server, for example, cannot be downloaded for free except as an evaluation copy, good for 60 days with an option to extend your evaluation period for a further 60 days *once*.

If you're using it past that date, you need to pay for it. I'm sure SUSE isn't the only pay-for-only distro.

There's nothing in the GPL that prevents you from charging for a distro, and besides, every distro packages software of their own with it (management tools, etc). These tools are often not under the GPL and may well be under a commercial, closed source licence. Even if they are under an open source licence, that doesn't automatically mean that they're under a Free Software licence.

Re:He should figure out the OSless ones as well.

[laffer1]

If dell wants to track this, they should remove the NO OS option and replace it with a checkbox that says "I don't want to say" and a textbox labeled other. THe user could fill in Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, or whatever they intend to run. Counting NO OS options as linux is stupid for this reason. Heck, I could even install windows on the thing after getting it as "NO OS".

Re:He should figure out the OSless ones as well.

[sconeu]

- Distro that ships with the latest Britney Spears .mp3. (And the software to play it!)

What sort of sadist (or masochist, depending...) would create a distro like that?

I've always said that if Joseph Fourier knew that his work would eventually lead to Britney Spears CDs, he'd have burned his notes and joined a monastery.

Re:He should figure out the OSless ones as well.

[CastrTroy]

Which is why we end up with things like CentOS. Which is essentially Redhat, but rebranded, and offered with no support. Support is what you really get when you pay for Redhat. Otherwise, you could just use any other free-as-in-beer Linux distro.

Re:He should figure out the OSless ones as well.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

In the case of someone installing it themselves, that takes a lot of work, because GPL is a lot more about distributors than users. A user installing it on their own computer isn't likely to be doing that. You can even make your own custom distro and not give out the source if you don't give out the distro outside your organization.

Re:He should figure out the OSless ones as well.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are you getting Redhat Enterprise for free?

Re:He should figure out the OSless ones as well.

[bitflip]

And of the hundreds of servers ordered by the company currently paying me, they are all ordered without an OS, and end up receiving Windows 2003. The licenses have been paid for via volume licensing, and there's automated installation scripts for the OS and a bunch of standard applications.

Conversely, the few RHEL servers we've ordered came pre-installed.

Previous to this, I worked at a large financial institution. Thousands of servers per year, and pretty much the same deal (except the *nix machines were Sun w/Solaris, no Linux at all).

I'd be willing to go as high as 50/50, but I think 80/20 is wishful thinking.

Re:He should figure out the OSless ones as well.

[alta]

hmm, good point. I'd love to see some real numbers then.

Re:He should figure out the OSless ones as well.

[alta]

They aren't giving the option so thry can track what you're going to install. It's where you choose what you want to buy and have them install.

Re:He should figure out the OSless ones as well.

[laffer1]

Duh. They are trying to draw conclusions from it though. Had they said "More people are buying linux from us than windows pre-installed" then I'd be fine with it. Also, what a person buys may not be what they end up using. Perhaps an application will not run on suse or redhat and they end up with another distro or OS. Maybe the IT manager is fired and the new guy loves BSD or windows.

If I buy a new computer from dell, I'll probably buy one of the linux machines even though I will be running BSD instead of ubuntu. The hardware is easier to get working in BSD. The situation is different for servers as people are paying large sums of money for a free operating system. I understand the business reasons for buying redhat, but at the same time I find it a bit amusing.

Re:He should figure out the OSless ones as well.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well taking a cue from OpenBSD you can technically, as a distributor, copyright the layout of your CD/DVD distribution and sell that. The source would be open, the binaries would be free but having the distribution set up in a certain way could be copyrighted, where the only legal way you could obtain it is through the distributor. It makes little sense to do this but just because something is GPL doesn't mean that you can't copyright the layout or media of the distribution.

Re:He should figure out the OSless ones as well.

[fritsd]

But then we wouldn't have had MRI research (WARNING: several Slashdot readers might find this article... disturbing).

Fourier Transform rulez!one!1

Re:He should figure out the OSless ones as well.

[Bert64]

Some of the volume/site licence agreements actually state that all your machines must be licenced for a version of windows, and your site licence allows you to install the same latest version on every machine regardless of what it originally came with. Thus, it's quite possible to be in violation of your licence terms if you buy the machines with no os.
I've been at several companies who buy all their workstation with oem xp home, and then upgrade it on their site licence.

Re:He should figure out the OSless ones as well.

[falconwolf]

If dell wants to track this, they should remove the NO OS option and replace it with a checkbox that says "I don't want to say" and a textbox labeled other. THe user could fill in Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, or whatever they intend to run. Counting NO OS options as linux is stupid for this reason. Heck, I could even install windows on the thing after getting it as "NO OS".

What you say is true but why would anyone buy a naked PC then install Windows? It seems to me a person doing this would either be installing an illegal Windows or would be paying more for a Windows license. The only other way is if they have a volume Windows license.

Falcon

Re:He should figure out the OSless ones as well.

[Allador]

For desktops/laptops its not cost effective, and even volume licensing usually requires you to buy the machine with a windows OS on it for your VL licenses to work.

For servers though its pretty common. As someone else noted, Dell's price for Windows server products is not that good. You can do better with NewEgg or your own volume licensing program.

You also then end up with a copy of the OS not tied to the hardware (unless you're sticking OEM server stuff on it).

Re:He should figure out the OSless ones as well.

[Allador]

This is true, but only applies to desktops/laptops, at least everywhere I've seen. There is no such requirement for servers.

Re:He should figure out the OSless ones as well.

[falconwolf]

For desktops/laptops its not cost effective, and even volume licensing usually requires you to buy the machine with a windows OS on it for your VL licenses to work.

So basically buying a naked PC is more expensive if you're going to install Windows then, it's only cheaper if you're installing one of the unices, BSD or Linux.

For servers though its pretty common. As someone else noted, Dell's price for Windows server products is not that good.

The same here.

You can do better with NewEgg or your own volume licensing program.

I don't know about NewEgg, are you talking about buying PCs or licenses from them? Can you order custom PCs from them? If so, I wonder if it's cheaper to have NewEgg build you one or if you can build your own cheaper. Right now it doesn't matter to me much, a bit over a year ago I bought a PC with Linux preinstalled, which I plan on setting up as a server. And I'm typing this on a Macbook Pro I got 2 months ago. So I should be set for two or three years. Heck unless things change dramatically I expect them to last twice as long.

Falcon

Re:He should figure out the OSless ones as well.

[Allador]

For desktops/laptops its not cost effective, and even volume licensing usually requires you to buy the machine with a windows OS on it for your VL licenses to work.


So basically buying a naked PC is more expensive if you're going to install Windows then, it's only cheaper if you're installing one of the unices, BSD or Linux. Not sure what you mean here, but I dont think thats an accurate re-statement of what I said. Basically, what I meant is that all the MS VL programs I've seen requires you to buy your PCs (ie, desktops & laptops, but not servers) with a windows OS for your OS licenses in the VL program to work. So in effect, all the desktop OS licenses in the VL programs are 'upgrade' licenses.

It sounds worse (cost-wise) than it is, as you're usually paying a per-head or per-machine licensing, not directly for the OS again.

I don't know about NewEgg, are you talking about buying PCs or licenses from them? Can you order custom PCs from them? If so, I wonder if it's cheaper to have NewEgg build you one or if you can build your own cheaper. Right now it doesn't matter to me much, a bit over a year ago I bought a PC with Linux preinstalled, which I plan on setting up as a server. And I'm typing this on a Macbook Pro I got 2 months ago. So I should be set for two or three years. Heck unless things change dramatically I expect them to last twice as long. I meant windows licenses, not PCs. You can definitely build a PC for yourself from parts from NewEgg cheaper than most manufacturers. But its not worth the time/trouble to everybody (for me for example ... used to be fun, not any longer).

Re:He should figure out the OSless ones as well.

[falconwolf]

So basically buying a naked PC is more expensive if you're going to install Windows then, it's only cheaper if you're installing one of the unices, BSD or Linux.

Not sure what you mean here, but I dont think thats an accurate re-statement of what I said. Basically, what I meant is that all the MS VL programs I've seen requires you to buy your PCs (ie, desktops & laptops, but not servers) with a windows OS for your OS licenses in the VL program to work.

If you buy a PC with Windows preinstalled you pay less than if you buy a naked PC then install Windows. Even if you have a volume license if as you say the PC still has to have a version of Windows installed to use a volume licensed upgrade, it's still cheaper to have Windows preinstalled.

NewEgg

I meant windows licenses, not PCs

Ok.

You can definitely build a PC for yourself from parts from NewEgg cheaper than most manufacturers. But its not worth the time/trouble to everybody

Agreed about the trouble of building your own. I can probably do more with hardware than most people but I've never compleatly built my own PC, about all I've done is add RAM and installed a second hdd as well as a second video card. It used to be that someone knowing what they're doing could build their own PC cheaper than buying one, but now I think the only tyme this is true is when there are specific hardware requirements so it's basically a custom build.

Fslcon

Dell Servers

[BlowHole666]

That is funny. I remember my dad telling me a story about how all of Dell's financial servers were run off of Compaq Himalayas. Mostly due to the fact that Dell servers were not that good at the time. Dell required Compaq to remove all the markings off the truck that delivered the servers, off the side of the boxes, off the computers etc.

With that being said it could just be that Dell servers are not top of the line and of the few they do sell people are picking Linux because they are gaining a Linux following because of selling Linux on the desktop.

Re:Dell Servers

[Anonymous Coward]

I would disagree with Dell Servers not being good. The recent servers (PowerEdge x8xx and x9xx) are all very effective servers.

Re:Dell Servers

[BlowHole666]

Well this was a while ago. I still do not think Dell comes close in server sales compared to HP, IBM, and Sun. When I think Dell I think desktops.

Re:Dell Servers

[the_tsi]

I'd imagine dell corporate runs an awful lot of non-dell servers. It's not like they make any large machines, or systems with any built-in redundancy. They are, and always have been, in the commodity PC market -- on the desktop and in the server room.

Re:Dell Servers

[Anonymous Coward]

With that being said it could just be that Dell servers are not top of the line...

Or, it could be that that the Tandem NonStop Himalaya server line is older than dirt, and in 1997 many businesses depended on applications created for the Tandem platform before the IBM PC was even existed.

You are aware that Tandem NonStop Himalaya line aren't PC's and don't run Windows, right? And, you are also aware that Compaq bought Tandem at about the same time they bought DEC, right?

Re:Dell Servers

[Ang31us]

"It's not like they make any large machines, or systems with any built-in redundancy."

What systems are sold with built-in redundancy (RAIDs, multiple NICs, and multiple storage HBAs aside) and by whom? My sense is that aside from RAID and other internal redundant devices, we add server redundancy through software means (clusters, mirrors, etc) if multiple hosts are purchased for that type of redundancy. I do see the need for products that are sold with built-in redundant systems in some industries (airplanes come to mind), but I did not know that server manufacturers sold hardware with this feature built-in. Is it that the client is also paying a service premium to the OEM to set up and maintain a clustered or mirrored environment made up of multiple hosts?

How would you define a "large machine?" I had to shop for a servers with 64 GB of RAM and > 2 TB of internal storage using 15K RPM SAS drives in a 6U rack footprint and chose Dell at a $30K price per unit when I saw how much the competitors (HP and IBM) charge for equivalent hardware. I also saw that if I wanted to go to 128 GB RAM or more, I would need to buy a full HP rack, which was not an option (too much space for 1 database server). Setting clusters and mainframes aside for now (I have no idea what a high-end mainframe spec looks like), what kind of hardware spec would you consider "large" in a single server?

Re:Dell Servers

[Anonymous Coward]

What systems are sold with built-in redundancy (RAIDs, multiple NICs, and multiple storage HBAs aside) and by whom?

Well, the Tandem NonStop Himalaya servers described by the original poster are fully redundant. But, they don't run Unix or Windows, and you can't buy one for $30K.

Re:Dell Servers

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like HP recently came out with an entry-level "NonStop" server for about $200K, marketed to small hospitals and financial institutions. This is a redundant fault-tolerant system, not a clustered or mirrored system. But if you really need a fully-redundant database server with 64 GB of RAM, count on spending several million dollars.

Re:Dell Servers

[Allador]

Mostly due to the fact that Dell servers were not that good at the time. Nothing really to do with being good enough, its a fundamentally different type of system. Dell pretty much only sells x86 stuff.

Dell doesnt offer anything thats in the same class of equipment as the Himalayas (also known as the Tandom NonStop). Those things have massive, massive internal redundancies and (IIRC) a mini-os to manage the hardware. It's very specialized hardware and operating systems.

More here.

So think of it as basically buying a mainframe. It's not anything to be ashamed of, because Dell doesnt sell mainframes (or products like the himalayas).

Hmmmm....

[rindeee]

I'm guessing that they in no way account for servers purchased without an OS that (the vast majority of which) end up as Linux boxes. I have purchased hundreds of Dell servers, all with no OS and all but a couple have been built out with CentOS. I'm just speculating, but I'd guess the numbers are vastly greater if only there was an accurate means of tracking what OS winds up on bare server shipments.

Re:Hmmmm....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing that they in no way account for servers purchased without an OS that (the vast majority of which) end up as Linux boxes. I have purchased hundreds of Dell servers, all with no OS and all but a couple have been built out with CentOS. I'm just speculating, but I'd guess the numbers are vastly greater if only there was an accurate means of tracking what OS winds up on bare server shipments. If we're talking numbers-for-the-public here, I'd agree with you, but I think that if they had somebody do an overview of Linux vs. Windows internally, that little bit of data would be included. I've seen little evidence that Dell is run by fools.

Re:Hmmmm....

[initdeep]

Personally, since i have Volume Lisc copies of all my MS programs, I order all of my Dell servers without OS as well.....

And so do a lot of large places

Re:Hmmmm....

[KDingo]

Yepp, that's how my company does it. All the new PowerEdge 2950s we have been purchasing have no OS installed, to eventually be set up with CentOS. Sometimes Windows. And software-wise, Dell only supports RHEL and SLES, but those are things we can live without.

Flying Chairs ScreenSaver. Anyone ?

[HansKloss]

This might be little of topic.

Everytime Steve B. spreads his FUD about Linux my imagination brings an image of flying chairs.
Can I get screensaver somewhere without risk being hit by a chair?

Re:Flying Chairs ScreenSaver. Anyone ?

[FudRucker]

that would be a good edition to xscreensaver, flying ballmer with flying chairs, (sort of like the flying toasters screensaver)...

Re:Flying Chairs ScreenSaver. Anyone ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm thinking more along the lines of bouncing cow....

Re:Flying Chairs ScreenSaver. Anyone ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Developers! Developers! Developers! Doh!

How will this news affect Apache?

[bogaboga]

I wonder whether this development will reverse the Apache web server's seemingly steady erosion in market share to Windows' IIS.

This is according to http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html, though Security Space paints completely different picture http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/200709/index.html.

By the way, who of the two is more credible? Netcraft or Security Space?

Re:How will this news affect Apache?

[gmack]

Actually the steady erosion for the most part has been to Google more than it has been to Windows. Google is running it's own custom web server that dropped just under 5% off of the Apache numbers.

Re:How will this news affect Apache?

[Tantris]

It looks as though Security Space visits a fraction of the number that netcraft does. If you look at this quote from Security Space:

What sites do you visit?

We visit what we consider well-known sites. In our case, we define a well-known site as a site that had a link to it from at least one other site that we consider well-known. So, if we are visiting you, it means we know about you through a link from another site.

If a site stops responding to our request for 3 consecutive months, we automatically remove it from the survey. In this fashion, our list of known servers remains up to date.

Because of this technique, we find that we actually only visit about 10% of the web sites out on the web. This is because approximately 90% of all web sites are "fringe" sites, such as domain squatters, personal web sites, etc., that are considered unimportant by the rest of the web community (because no-one considers them important enough to link to.)

It is possible IIS is really upping their market share using domain squatters and personal web pages. I would see Security Space as having a better methodology, as the web sites that are really important on the internet are more interesting than just random numbers. That is just my opinion though, both seem to show interesting information. I seem to remember one of the big web hosting companies(GoDaddy?) switching to having all unused domains and the default(mostly static) new sites hosted on IIS. That made a big hit in the Netcraft report, but honestly, is just kind of silly numbers games. I imagine they got some money to do it from Microsoft. I wonder if every single Livejournal account gets a domain. That would be a fairly large number of domains, that are in essence meaningless.

Re:How will this news affect Apache?

[SerpentMage]

First I agree it is a numbers game....

But I question the technique. It is like when the Fed reports CPI, and conviently discards certain pieces of data. Yes I know the argument of CPI, but sometimes the Fed includes and ignores things in their own interest. Ignoring "personal" websites is like saying, "oh heck you are not important and therefore will not count you." Tooo convienent if you ask me.

I would rather know what the numbers are without playing any games and I think that is Netcraft.

Re:How will this news affect Apache?

[ebvwfbw]

This is according to http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html, though Security Space paints completely different picture http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/200709/index.html.

I was wondering about that. I know that Microsoft has an interest in netcraft and I wondered if they would fudge the numbers as time went on. I think that is the case. Otherwise I'd know people that actually use IIS and they seem to be very difficult to find. My experience is about what securityspace shows or roughly at least 3 out of 4 servers are running Linux at least. Some places it is almost entirely Linux/apache.

Re:How will this news affect Apache?

[kripkenstein]

Another factor is how you count. If you count actual servers (not domains), then you end up with the 'big' sites being very influential. OS and webserver comparisons then become more of a comparison between the relative growth of MySpace (IIS on Windows) vs. Facebook (Apache on unknown OS), and between Google (custom webserver on Linux), Yahoo (custom webserver on FreeBSD) and Microsoft Live (IIS on Windows). If one of these giants grows by a significant factor, it brings up the stats for its OS and webserver of choice.

So, the stats don't indicate the prevalence of use of the various OSes in the sense of "the probability of a new company installing a new server to pick such-and-such", which we might understand as the 'perceived quality' of the OS/webserver. I don't mean the stats are misleading, just that they need to be interpreted correctly.

Another issue is whether parked domains are taken into consideration in the count, or just 'actual' websites; for example, some time ago GoDaddy moved their parked domains to Windows/IIS, spiking Microsoft's share instantly. This might explain part of the difference between NetCraft and SecuritySpace's web server surveys; SecuritySpace claim they don't visit cybersquatter web sites and other 'isolated' domains that no one links to.

Re:How will this news affect Apache?

[Anonymous Coward]

This comment seems to be in line with the numbers presented on the SecuritySpace survey if you assume the custom Google web server is reflected in the "Other" numbers.

Apache dropped: 0.06%
Other rose: 0.05%

With the other 0.01% in the servers outside of IIS.

Re:How will this news affect Apache?

[zippthorne]

On the other hand, people with "personal" websites don't typically pick the OS the server runs on. That is just whatever OS their host decides to use.

Re:How will this news affect Apache?

[Foofoobar]

There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. Both are incorrect. Google is stealing market share from Apache but is actually an Apache-based web server so it is irrelevant to call it something else. Microsoft's IIS gain is mostly erroneous as it is due to domain parkers being bribed to move to IIS machines.

Also, both statistic sites only give partial results; Netcraft deliberately filters it's results in some instances and securityspace just doesn't have a wide enough sample.

All in all, the correct stat is probably an average of the two.

Re:How will this news affect Apache?

[pikine]

It's not accurate to say they're ignoring personal sites. They're ignoring sites nobody links to. If you have a personal site, changes are you also post that url whenever you go to a web forum, thus drawing links to it. You could choose to keep your personal site a secret and have nobody link to your personal website. However, if you're a domain squatter, you probably don't have the means to legitimately advertise these domains through web forums without being flagged spam.

Re:How will this news affect Apache?

[Bert64]

Interestingly, older versions of IIS allowed you to hide the web server banner (for security reasons, no sense to tell people exactly what webserver and os your running) whereas 6.0 doesnt..
Apache doesn't let you hide the fact it's apache by default, but it lets you hide the version the OS type (IIS on the other hand, doesn't let you hide the version and an IIS/6.0 version banner also tells you exactly what OS is running too). There really is no reason to remove the ability to hide the banner, other than to try and inflate the netcraft stats. They also now recommend that you don`t change the banner, despite previously recommending that you do for security reasons and providing a tool to do so easily (search for urlscan).
Apache has never let you remove the apache string short of modifying it and recompiling.

Re:How will this news affect Apache?

[ebvwfbw]

They also now recommend that you don`t change the banner, despite previously recommending that you do for security reasons and providing a tool to do so easily (search for urlscan).

I'm actually in the Internet Security biz and I'd love to see where they say to leave the headers the heck alone. I have left them alone with the logic that it hurts me and won't have any effect on a cracker. The reason being the exploits go out and don't seem to care what you are running anyhow. I get a ton of IIS hacks on my Apache machines. Over and over and over again. So obviously it didn't matter. I still feel like I'm holding the only candle for my cause though. Recently yet another government questionaire asked me about it. OTOH I can do a simple script to suck down the headers and see what is really running on my machines. I have a lot of machines to maintain and some of them are Solaris and are more than a PIA to maintain.

Are they actually running Linux?

[JeremyGNJ]

one has to wonder if these servers are being purchased BECAUSE they have Linux on them? Or because they DONT have Windows Server on them.

If you've ever dealt with order stuff from Dell, you know that if you have direct bulk licenses with Microsoft, then it often still makes sense to buy equipment with software on it. I wonder if these servers had an option for "no OS at all". Of if there was ANY price difference between "NO OS" and "Linux".

There were times that I've bought servers from Dell with a copy of Windows Server OEM on it, not because I didnt already have licenses for Windows Server, but because the sales rep was able to offer excellent deals on systems configured in a certain way.

Re:Are they actually running Linux?

[cavtroop]

The company I work for has Corp site license for Windows products (most of the big ones). So all the servers that I buy (HP in my case) are OS-less. When they arrive, I put our 'corporatized' version of Server 2003 or whatever other OS i need on the box. So stats from the server makers can be misleading.

Re:Are they actually running Linux?

[MikeBabcock]

Dell's server configuration screens and forms have options for each version of Windows to pre-install, or Linux to pre-install, or whether its without an OS for Linux, or just no OS.

The "No OS Pre-installed - Linux" option is important, because it makes sure the hardware is compatible with Linux in general.

Re:Are they actually running Linux?

[mrjb]

"Are they actually running Linux?" You must be new here. The correct wording is, "But do they run Linux?"

Re:Are they actually running Linux?

[pokerdad]

Of if there was ANY price difference between "NO OS" and "Linux".

From dell (poweredge 6800 configure page):

SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 10, Up to 32 CPUs, 1 YR Subscription, FI [add $299 or $9/month1]

SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 10, Up to 32 CPUs, 3 YR Subscription, FI [add $769 or $23/month1]

No Operating System [Included in Price]

So it doesn't appear they are counting No OS as Linux.

I wonder.....

[8127972]

..... If this has anything to do with Dell renewing their Microsoft OEM agreement? One has to wonder.

Not news.

[El Lobo]

Nor is the next part of the interview :

"Are they [desktop Linux PCs] going to sell a lot? Absolutely not. But on the server side we've seen continued growth," said Jarvis.

I think we know where the numbers are.

[DanielJosphXhan]

Clearly, Netcraft must needs confirm this.

Re:I think we know where the numbers are.

[PHPfanboy]

Yeah, but not much chance of that till they remove those big Microsoft banner ads from their site...

Re:I think we know where the numbers are.

[Respawner]

Enterprises usually don't share their intranet with the whole world, so netcraft is only an indication to the level of linux/windows /... servers on the public internet.
That's one of the many problems with counting server os's imho, and then we haven't even touched the subject of virtualisation.

How does this coincide with security costs?

[damn_registrars]

When I saw this article, I remembered this one from last week:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/10/2233218

Where it was said that 20% of IT costs are security related. But if Dell is at or near the top of PC sales, and they're seeing increased Linux sales, then what is this security money going for?

Re:How does this coincide with security costs?

[PowerEdge]

Buying secure linux systems of course!

Re:How does this coincide with security costs?

[guruevi]

The '20%' security model is imho just a load of bull from security vendors. Ever try reading those free magazines you get because you're an IT person? They're loaded with stuff like security programs that cost >100k per license and that don't ever offer more than an equivalent to Tripwire or a decently set up IPTables firewall.

Sure it's got a nice interface, but out of experience I know those companies only sell 10-100 initial licenses and some 'consulting' then the whole 10 programmers and 2 managers of the company split the profits and go on to another venture. When after about a year of messing around with it, it still doesn't work at the client, the whole company already cleared out.

Some companies dare to stay in business to resell consulting to their clients where gullible managers that are afraid to admit mistake keep buying into the magic mushrooms. Yes, I'm talking about you Peoplesoft, Microsoft and Infor. Really, did you ever notice non of those expensive ERP packages work as they are promised to and need about 10 in-house programmers and 20 consultants?

A totally different game

[JeremyGNJ]

Dell doesnt care if Linux is doing good or not. Quite the contrary. While people on Slashdot like to cheer for the Linux vs Microsoft "war"...consider the game that Dell could be playing:

Microsoft Rep: "HEY! We saw your press release about Linux sales, why would you do that?"
Dell: "Hey we're a company in trouble, we're just trying to show growth. We're just reporting numbers"
Microsoft rep: "Ok ok I see. Well what can we do to show good growth of Windows???"
Dell: "Wellllll, since you mention it....perhaps if we had some promotional pricing....."

Big deal

[FoolsGold]

I want Dell to report on how the Ubuntu laptops have been working out for them so far.

Re:Big deal

[bakamaki]

I would like to know as well as I'm considering purchasing one.

Re:Big deal

[the_womble]

I did see some comments to the effect that Dell has done a fairly shoddy job of installing Linux (getting the best drivers installed etc). In that case, you might as well buy any laptop that is known to be compatible (and there are websites that help you check), and install Linux yourself. Alternatively, you could go to someone like system76 who are Linux specialists and more likely to care about making sure installation is done right.

Re:Big deal

[pato101]

My personal experience:

My sister bought a Dell inspiron 6400 with nvidia card. I deleted the windows partition and installed Ubuntu Feisty Fawn beta (was a week time before Feisty was released). Everything worked except the suspend-to-disk, the modem (conexant) which was not required to work and has proprietary drivers available for small fee, and the multi-card reader which does read SD cards but not usb-sticks. All I had to do is to install nvidia proprietary drivers, a common situation easy to follow from the forums/wiki/googling. She was able herself to upgrade to oficial Feisty when it was released, without loosing any hardware featuring.

After the success we had, I asked my boss to buy me a Dell inspiron 9400 with nvidia card. Same story here. Basically it is the same machine, with larger screen and better video card and CPU. Both run pretty well with Ubuntu, and I guess they do with any recent distro.

The suspend-to-disk feature seems to work but then it does not start properly. I've not tried to tweak kernel options, since I do not miss that feature because the machine starts up quite quickly. I'm not sure if this can be solved nowadays

Also, when using latest compiz built, I detected a quite known nvidia bug which is solved editing the modules file, adding some options I read in the nvidia/compiz forums.

Also, I remember figuring out how to disable the system bell since it is very very loud.

I cannot remember if there were more tweaks required, but these are the two laptops with lower ammount of problems with linux distros I've tested. In fact, just by starting the LiveCD it was clear that almost everything was just OK.

Re:Big deal

[Fred_A]

I would like to know as well as I'm considering purchasing one. So did I. But since they only provided a generic (as in not even configured for their hardware) Ubuntu on the crappiest of their laptops, I got a Samsung instead and installed the system myself.

Very shoddy offering IMO.

Re:Big deal

[johnsie]

Gusty Gibbon has an easy-to-use restricted drivers wizard that makes it really easy to install and use restricted drivers. This works for alot of modems, network cards and other hardware. It also has a graphical easy-to-use monitor/graphics interface that lets you choose which graphics drivers you want to use. All in all I think Gutsy is the first step in a new process of creating better hardware support in Ubuntu. Hopefully this will encourage more companies to provide driver support for Ubuntu and Linux in general.

How fitting this story is...

[distantbody]

...when I am looking at the latest Microsoft ad on this very story page, stating how "[some east-coast state] government recently decided that Windows Server 2003 was the right choice for them as moving to linux was deemed too risky for their mission critical operations".

the actual news

[blind biker]

I guess what the actual news here is not that Linux server sales are up and the increase is at the expense of their Windows counterparts; the news is, rather, that Michale Dell himself went public with the info. I remember the days when such an event would be unimaginable, regardless of Linux server sales numbers.

Good on Linux. Somewhat humbling for Microsoft, but they'll have to learn to take it like men, from now on (Firefox marketshare, Vista brand fiasco etc.)

Re:the actual news

[JustNiz]

Is it just me, or does anyone else also see that Microsoft started to go downhill faster and market even more shitty products than normal just after Gates handed the keys to Ballmer.

Re:the actual news

[alexhs]

Is it just me, or does anyone else also see that Microsoft started to go downhill faster and market even more shitty products than normal just after Gates handed the keys to Ballmer. It works the other way : Why do you think Gates did hand the keys to Ballmer in the first place ? :P

Re:the actual news

[morgan_greywolf]

It works the other way : Why do you think Gates did hand the keys to Ballmer in the first place ? :P You got it! Because Gates knew Microsoft was going downhill. Gates is a strategist and loves to win. On the flip side of that coin, he hates to lose. He hates to lose so much, than when playing strategy games like Risk as child, as soon as he saw that he was going to lose, he would quit playing.

You guys should really read the unauthorized biography on Gates by Stephen Manes and Paul Andrews. Anybody who has knows that Microsoft's days are numbered, and more importantly, they know why.

Re:the actual news

[MadUndergrad]

Frankly, if I were the second-richest person in the world, I'd be happy to cut and run too, even before the business started to tank. I suppose the fact that most of his money is tied up in MS stock gives him an interest in what happens to the company still. The only way I wouldn't retire after my first several billion is if I felt that it was truly important that that company succeed in whatever they're doing....I can't see that being the case with MS, unless it's an ego thing, which imho is stupid.

Re:the actual news

[falconwolf]

I guess what the actual news here is not that Linux server sales are up and the increase is at the expense of their Windows counterparts; the news is, rather, that Michale Dell himself went public with the info. I remember the days when such an event would be unimaginable, regardless of Linux server sales numbers.

Good on Linux. Somewhat humbling for Microsoft, but they'll have to learn to take it like men, from now on (Firefox marketshare, Vista brand fiasco etc.)

While I applaud Dell for offering Linux I think it's foolish to discount or dismiss the fact Dell is a business and could be using Linux preinstalled PCs as a bargaining chip with Microsoft. I'm not saying Dell is but they could take the sales figures for Ubuntu PCs and tell MS that they want the price they pay for Windows to be cut. "Either cut prices or we'll push to sell more Ubuntu systems."

Falcon

Claims

[hey]

Why does the article have to mention Microsoft's claims "that Linux violates its software patent" (yes, singular patent). I assume the next article this site will say: Microsoft made some sales despite Linux fan's claims that Vita is really bad.

Ok, but...

[Klaidas]

Hasn't linux always been better than Windows on the server side? (I'm politely asking "HOW IS THIS NEWS?!")

Microsoft embraces Tux!! *yay!*

[xtracto]

Hey, now that we are at it, it was not long since Microsoft embraced our beloved Tux!, yup, I just stumbled upon Tux in MSDN, and guess what, it is used as a benchmark for Windows (they use a really high mark as benchmark no?).

The New Math

[Speare]

I am finding more and more examples of numerical illiteracy in corporate communications.

One type is an "honest mistake" (in quotes), such as corporate earnings reports that need to be restated on a regular basis. Another type is when corporate messages take advantage of the poor numeracy of their reader.

On the server side Linux continues to grow nicely, a bit faster than Windows.

If you have 10 sales/month, and it increases +5, that's an increase of 50%. If you have 1000 sales/month, and it increases +50, that's "only" an increase of 5%. You can "truthfully" state that 50% growth is faster than 5% growth, but that +5/month increase is not going to make Microsoft worry quite yet.

Re:The New Math

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have 10 sales/month, and it increases +5, that's an increase of 50%. ....

You should be mod'ed down to troll.

When Microsoft quotes market share, they do not include Europe or Asia any more. Just USA. Because that is all a McWindows can handle. Linux is growing all over like weeds. Just have to open your eyes a bit to see. I look forward to the McWindows admin surplus a coming.

Negotiating

[saleenS281]

Sounds to me like Mr. Dell is currently in negotiations with Microsoft for their win2k8 pricing. "You know Bill, I might need to keep making these press releases if we can't drop that to 5$/copy".

It's NOT price

[magarity]

There are several posters already above who make noise about Linux being free but it isn't when Dell counts a server as being sold as a Linux server. From their Small/Medium business server purchase options:
 
SUSE Enterprise comes in either 1 year ($280) or 3 year ($698)
RedHat Enterprise for 1 yr ($349) or 3 yr ($1,047)
Win2k3 Std at $799
 
I bet corporate buyers are unlikely to get service contracts for anything less than the service life of the server, usually a minimum of 3 years. So, no, it's not upfront sticker cost that's driving businesses to "free" Linux instead of Windows in the server market.

Re:It's NOT price

[ericrost]

So, what's the price for the Microsoft support contract? Compare apples to apples now. The software is free on the linux side. The support isn't. The software and support aren't free on the Microsoft side, so pull the numbers for Microsoft to offer the same level of enterprise support to a server deployment.

From: http://download.microsoft.com/download/7/3/9/739c7ab3-25c4-4b8c-9680-81ae10573b9d/BearingPoint.doc
(Microsoft's pricing study against linux)

I can sometwhat determine in their "Detailed Microsoft Pricing" that their "Essential Support" for a small deployment is $8000/year, for "Premier Support" you're talking $50,000. For clarity, for the server deployments they were talking about, that was $300/license on the essential and $100/license on the Premier since it was a larger deployment. So add that to you $799.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Re:It's NOT price

[magarity]

The software is free on the linux side. The support isn't
 
In the case of Red Hat's and SUSE's "Enterprise" offerings this is a technicality - the only way to get those packages is to buy the support. So, no, from the path of buying a server from Dell and having it count in the stats that the article is about, Linux is not free.

Re:It's NOT price

[ericrost]

Yes, but they come with support so compare apples to apples. If you want a free distro with no support contract: CentOS, OpenSUSE. Same code base.

Re:It's NOT price

[magarity]

If you want a free distro with no support contract: CentOS, OpenSUSE
 
Please RTFA and my original comments. TFA is about Dell's stats on servers sold when someone's clicked one of the Windows options versus one of the Linux options. Dell's sales options for servers don't include any free Linux distros, only bundled support/software packages from RH and SUSE. And they don't include MS's support options, only Windows software licensing. Therefore the only comparison to make with what's given is with what's given. Are you completely unable to understand these limits???

Re:It's NOT price

[ericrost]

Just because its not on the webpage you're looking at doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Contact Dell's business sales, and you'll get their pricing for a barebones system, contact microsoft and you'll get support.

I'm talking about how an Enterprise would actually purchase a system, not some dumbass clicking a button on Dell's webpage.

We live in the real world..

From the 'nobody-wants-vista' dept?

[Tim C]

Who would want any desktop OS on a server, let alone a Windows one?

I'm all for (appropriate) MS bashing, but c'mon guys, this is starting to get really, really old...

Re:From the 'nobody-wants-vista' dept?

[KillerBob]

... You do know they sell versions of Windows without all the bells/whistles/bling for servers? Windows Server 2003, for example.

Re:From the 'nobody-wants-vista' dept?

[Bert64]

A "server" OS that comes with...
A full set of DirectX libraries that arent easily removed (3d graphics, directplay, audio support etc)
A web browser that's not easily removed..
A graphical mail client
A mandatory GUI that cannot be shut down or removed with kernel mode video drivers (and no facility to use serial console)
A media player complete with codecs etc

And i'm sure there's some other crap that has no place on a server too.
Any unix server i set up would be text only, with serial consoles and a completely minimal install. Even my gaming server (runs dedicated quake servers and the like) doesn't have any gui at all, tho it does need a couple of image libraries installed for some of the games. I only install something if it is absolutely required to support the primary purpose of the server.

Re:From the 'nobody-wants-vista' dept?

[cloakable]

It has one bit of bling I've never needed on a server: A GUI.

Seriously. All my server boxen are running headless, with OpenSSH installed. What use would a GUI be, apart from a waste of resources?

Good point ... but not only that .....

[King_TJ]

The *other* issue people fail to take into account is how many *older* machines end up being converted over to Linux boxes, despite initially being purchased with Windows on them.

I've worked for two different manufacturing firms now where this happened. The first firm bought exclusively Dell servers, always pre-loaded with a version of Windows server. After the older systems were "retired" from their original uses, they were usually still good, functional machines nobody wanted to throw away. So they'd find up getting reformatted, and used experimentally as Linux boxes.

Where I work now, I took an older PIII class rack-mounted server and turned it into a dedicated web proxy server with site filtering under Linux. (It ran too slow using its original Windows installation to be worth using anymore, but works GREAT in Linux for its new purpose.)

Windows Server growing?

[LoudMusic]

"Linux is growing faster in the server space than Windows says the Dell CEO 'On the server side Linux continues to grow nicely, a bit faster than Windows. We're seeing a move to Linux in critical applications, and Linux migration has not slowed down.'" It seems kind of odd to me to think about Windows' market share growing. I'd think everyone that was going to have a pile of servers by now would already have them and either be replacing several with fewer or changing OS. But clearly the statement "Linux continues to grow nicely, a bit faster than Windows" means Windows Server continues to measurably grow in number. I suppose people could still be replacing Sun, HP, SGI, or IBM non-Windows computers (even mainframes) with new Windows boxen.

For me, to buy a new server for the company I work for it would have to replace at least one computer if not two or more. There's no point for us to bring more computers online without end-of-life'ing some antiquated machine.

Speaking of, what's the average lifespan of a server these days? We run ours a minimum of 3 years and a maximum of 8. At that point they start to make me nervous - dealing with hardware failure is not my favorite past time.

Re:Windows Server growing?

[evilviper]

I'd think everyone that was going to have a pile of servers by now would already have them

There aren't X number of computers needed in the world. As technology marches on, prices fall, and digital systems get more advanced, there become more and more places where computers replace lower-tech systems.

Where once there were binders full of documents, now there is a file server. Where once there was a VCR, now there is a DVR, and probably several newly installed servers on the intranet/internet to serve video to them. etc.

It most definitely isn't a zero-sum game. Markets can grow hugely. Remember, there was a market for only a handful of computers in the world, back when they were gigantic, expensive, and slow. Yet Dell, Apple, and HP aren't completing to build those 5 systems.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they thought "the year of wide open Lunix servers" was more appropriate.

Another Lunix victory over Windoz3!

Flexibility

[Colin Smith]

the only advantage I find on Linux in server space is the flexibility and options allowed by Unix that aren't as easy to access in Windows. So... nothing important then...

Longorn? Just a sec.

[WheelDweller]

I've been hearing "Longhorn" since about 1989; isn't this the codeword for "The release that's in the works"?

Mod Parent Informative

[mpapet]

A couple of things are dead-on about the parent post.

Dell is a retailer more than anything else. As a retailer, Dell relies on Linux to bring them in the door where they get an opportunity on the up-sell to Microsoft. As the parent post points out, they are Dell's negotiating weapon of choice.

As a sysadmin for both win32 and Linux, the conversations with dedicated Microsoft admins, typically display a remarkable depth of knowledge and long discussions about the intricate workings of the license and how to appropriately use the software they paid too much for. An extraordinary amount of time and money wasted shackled to these limitations and they gladly accept the abuse and bizarre restrictions.

The story itself is right on too. If you are in a growing business, the costs of going with Microsoft start out okay, but ramp up dramatically. Very dramatically now more than ever. The cost is finally beginning to be too much for the average PHB.

The linked MS ad at the top of the page

[Flying pig]

Said "Former Director of State IT services" in an ad that claimed he wouldn't convert Illinois to Linux because it was insufficiently reliable. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Having said which, this is not really bad news for either side. For Microsoft, this is actually good news. It's counter evidence for the next time they get called in over monopolistic practices, and reduces the chances of more fines from the EU.

Microsoft has to really grow up and become the kind of company that realises that competition from the same kind of product grows the pool. For Linux, the less niche it becomes, the more there is pressure to support, innovate and drive down cost of ownership (not cost of acquisition.) Therefore, as it generates a business ecosystem, its future is more assured.

Re:The linked MS ad at the top of the page

[jedidiah]

OTOH, people have to worry about the statements they make when
they are contradicted by the like of Oracle. The fact that some
rube has decided to drink the MS Cool-Aid might not have any
effect on how the EU treats Microsoft.

If anything, the guy in Illinois might get asked some very
uncomfortable questions...

Some questions about the Linux Desktop Sales ...

[Herschel Cohen]

By implication and from the words alone, since not even any dubious qualitative percentage changes were mentioned, the tone was downbeat. Ok then, what made Dell extend the model line if the sales were so poor? Were their expectations that low and the real initial sales shockingly high? Could that have pushed the expansion? Or is there a devious plot afoot? Perhaps the one cited in the comments; is it just extracting an even more favorable, bulk licensing deal for Windows?

Anyone have solid information or knowledge? Rather see that than uniformed speculation that runs rampant in the comments section. One can hope.

Please mod up - serious analysis

[wmaster]

And just to add my sperm here: All those "former" CIA, NSA, FBI agents have always been such a reliable source of information. ;-) Greetings, Chris

Re:Longorn? Just a sec.

[cayenne8]

"I've been hearing "Longhorn" since about 1989; isn't this the codeword for "The release that's in the works"?"

I'm not sure, but, I've heard they're waiting really for Duke Nukem Forever to be released as a Longhorn only, so they can release it to the market with the perfect 'killer' app.....

Re:Longorn? Just a sec.

[Anonymous Coward]

No. 95 was chicago, XP was whistler.

I TELL YOU WHY!!!

[Ep0xi]

I tell you Why Network administrators are migrating to Linux some workstations.
They wonder if they could replace IIS with Apache, and ASP.NET with MONO.
Sad but true, but they think that is easier to maintain a Linux Server than a Windows Server just because Linux is an Open system.
Hear and Learn, network administrators.
Linux is better, but never has been said to be easier. Even for Engineers and Admins.

is Ubuntu becoming Linux?

[huckamania]

I worked on a project that created a large amount of HTML pages. The manager of the project and even some of the other engineers kept bugging me about why I didn't output the files in strict XML. To which I replied, they are in XML as HTML is an XML schema. You would think that would be the end of the argument, but it wasn't. Eventually I had to bring up that HTML is the most widely used and best known XML schema.

I think Ubuntu is fast becoming the same for Linux, although it wouldn't be my first choice for a Linux server box (too much eyecandy). I do use Ubuntu on a desktop/development system and happily so.

Why it's news: Patent FUD is Failed Bullshit.

[twitter]

From the Fine Article:

Claims made by Microsoft that Linux violates its software patent have not affected sales of Linux-based hardware, according to Dell's CEO Michael Dell. ... for those customers who might be concerned about whether Microsoft's claims of patent violation could result in legal action, Dell added that there were "certainly mechanisms if customers are concerned about patents."

They don't really know if the FUD worked or not, they just know that trends are unbroken. Given the disparity in features, performance and trust there's no reason for most users to want anything but GNU/Linux as a server or desktop.

The whole thing is as groundless as it is ineffective. It is too bad Dell they did not look at the source of M$'s patent FUD, because he repudiated M$'s use of his work as making the exact opposite case he had observed. M$ is more likely to violate patents for technical and cultural reasons.

nice troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's paying you to post this stuff and make FOSS look bad? Whomever it is, it's not enough.

Is this the year?

[kidcharles]

Will this finally be the Year of the Linux Server?

Disconnect at DELL

[psydeshow]

Odd. You have to go through DELL's consumer division if you want anything other than "enterprise" Linux.

Mention Debian to the business reps and they'll drop you like a radioactive watermelon.

Sales "Up"? WTF does that mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

So this is news because last year Dell sold 10 Lunix servers, and this year they sold 30? A 200% increase? Is this what the big huge news story is?

Yawn. Wake me when Teh Lunix has a higher market share than Windows 2000.

How does this effect their monopoly?

[argent]

It's counter evidence for the next time they get called in over monopolistic practices, and reduces the chances of more fines from the EU.

How so? Servers are a completely separate market, and one that Windows has never been particularly well suited for. They used to have a decent server OS, Xenix, but after they dumped it SCO managed to completely trash it for them.

Linux advantages

[falconwolf]

the only advantage I find on Linux in server space is the flexibility and options allowed by Unix that aren't as easy to access in Windows.

Cost isn't an advantage? If not I wonder what employer has money to burn. Linux is cheaper, basically free, with lower hardware requirements Support costs? Whether it's Windows or Linux, support has to be paid for. About the only area Windows may be cheaper is in systems administration. However I don't think that's valid anymore, because of low prices many are able to learn Linux. But this isn't true for Windows.

Falcon

Is it really just as stable?

[Anti-Trend]

Windows is just as stable if you are a competant admin these days, and don't use CheapAss(R) hardware The entire underlying principles behind the UNIX design lend themselves much better to a flexible, highly-available multiuser environment. I say this as a sysadmin who's done my time with Windows as a server platform and also multiple variants of UNIX, primarily Linux. With all due respect, here's why you're wrong. For the sake of argument, let's for a moment choose to ignore all the other factors such as performance, scalability, memory handling, durability, security and flexibility and instead simply measure "stability" by the most simple metric possible: uptime. If you have an uptime any greater than 30 days on a Windows server, it's probably because the box hasn't been patched, or because it's been patched but not rebooted (which is fundamentally the same thing). In either case, the OS is in a less than optimal state, either due to outstanding bugs or vulnerabilities, or both. So while it's technically possible to have a high uptime on Windows, it's not best practice by a mile. On a UNIX system like Linux, the updates are performed live with no reboot necessary. The clients already connected to a running service which is updated out from under them don't even realize the server's been updated, everything just works. More often than not, the UNIX-based servers I've managed average about 10x higher uptime, literally. Before you say it, it's not from lack of Windows skill on my part, nor that of any of the other admins I work with. First there's updates... most require a reboot to become fully active. And then there's those times the servers slow down inexplicably and a reboot seems to be only cure. Other times a minor configuration change requires a reboot to go into effect, and there's not a lot one can do about that either. I haven't even mentioned availability under stress, which is a factor. It's just not as cut & dry as many make it out to be. And come now, Windows has a registry. It's a spaghetti tangle of cryptic and archaic settings, many of which are purposefully obfuscated, and is prone to corruption. UNIX systems use flat config files, usually in plain old English. These are two very different platforms, nevermind the advertising campaigns.

Re:Is it really just as stable?

[falconwolf]

On a UNIX system like Linux, the updates are performed live with no reboot necessary.

I've installed some Windows updates without needing to reboot and I've had to reboot some Linux updates. Maybe it was just the distro I have, Linspire, but when I first booted up and setup an online account with them I ran update and afterwards it wanted to reboot. However it only took maybe half the tyme to do so than Windows did.

Falcon

Re:Is it really just as stable?

[Allador]

If you have an uptime any greater than 30 days on a Windows server, it's probably because the box hasn't been patched, or because it's been patched but not rebooted (which is fundamentally the same thing). In either case, the OS is in a less than optimal state, either due to outstanding bugs or vulnerabilities, or both. So while it's technically possible to have a high uptime on Windows, it's not best practice by a mile. On a UNIX system like Linux, the updates are performed live with no reboot necessary. The clients already connected to a running service which is updated out from under them don't even realize the server's been updated, everything just works. A couple comments.

Yes, the way windows does 'in-use' files is annoying, and this is the root cause for the reboot need.

But what most people are talking about with uptime is avoiding unplanned downtime. 60-120 seconds of planned downtime once a month is very reasonable and manageable for most shops. Where its not, you load-balance.

Note as well that that both Linux and Windows require reboots for the same things: updates to kernel. Unfortunately, more things in Windows are in there than probably should be.

All that being said, its not too uncommon to have an MS super tuesday go by with servers not needing to reboot. Tons of things can get patched without rebooting: sql server, IIS, exchange, IE, office, many explorer components if they're not being used. AD stuff usually requires a reboot, and so does core explorer elements.

In addition, dont abstract too far over the way unix systems handle this. If you have apache running with a nasty vuln, and you patch it, but dont restart apache, all old existing connections are still using the vulnerable binaries. I realize that you dont tend to have long-running connections to apache, just using it as an example. In both windows and unix case, you just patch apache/iis, then restart apache/iis.

And come now, Windows has a registry. It's a spaghetti tangle of cryptic and archaic settings, many of which are purposefully obfuscated, and is prone to corruption. UNIX systems use flat config files, usually in plain old English. The registry is largely a non-issue nowadays. It's not like unix, where you use 'white box' access, and directly modify the config files. On windows, there is an abstraction layer, and its much more of a 'black box' interaction. You use the programmatic interface to tell the service what to change, it handles storage issues for you, and you dont need to know. There are a lot of benefits to doing it this way, and in the programming world, thats the superior approach.

Re:Is it really just as stable?

[jaxtherat]

Firstly, Linspire (oh god I'm melting!) is not a good example, the way that distro is way too kernel patch-happy (apart from all the other scary stuff) is the reason you had to reboot.

Secondly, if you install a distro that isn't brand new, of course after the first update you'll need to reboot, as it'll most likely patch the kernel.

My Fedora box (core 6) has only had 2 kernel patches, and so hence has had only 2 update related reboots. My Ubuntu 7.04 laptop has had 1 update related reboot.

My XP Pro box has had over 20 (!) update related reboots, partially due to driver updates.

QED

hiding the server banner

[falconwolf]

There really is no reason to remove the ability to hide the banner, other than to try and inflate the netcraft stats

I think there's a perfectly good reason to hide what a webserver is running. By hiding what the server is it makes it harder for miscreants, cracker, and blackhats to break into the system. Not knowing what is running they don't know what exploits will work. Obviously though, it may not matter much if a domain is being parked.

Falcon

It's not accurate to say they're ignoring personal

[falconwolf]

sites. They're ignoring sites nobody links to. If you have a personal site, changes are you also post that url whenever you go to a web forum, thus drawing links to it. You could choose to keep your personal site a secret and have nobody link to your personal website.

AH, but they may be ignoring personal websites, what's an "important" website afterall? There might be a bunch of personal websites that exchange links but no "important" website links to them. Say, there are members of a family spread widely, they could be using personal websites to let keep family members up to date on what's happening. They could also be linked from and link to friends and acquaintances.

Falcon

Gates' wealth

[falconwolf]

Frankly, if I were the second-richest person in the world, I'd be happy to cut and run too, even before the business started to tank

Depending on how you look at it it's either fortunate or unfortunate but most of Bill Gates wealth is tied up in Microsoft paper. If MS were to tank he would loose a lot of his wealth. He could try to sell off MS stock however unloading it will create ripples in MS stock prices. MS closed on NASDAQ today at $30.04 on a volume of 47.13M. Selling just 500,000 shares at that price would only raise $15M, however moving that much stock would cause the price of shares to drop. Maybe small lots of stock could be sold, say 10,000 up to about 100,000 spread over a bunch of accounts with different brokers but for Gates to really liquidate even a small portion of MS stock will drive prices down.

Falcon

Re: Linux Servers are Up...

[bibendum59]

...while Windows Servers are up... now down... now up. Doh!

My Macintosh runs Ubuntu.

[falconwolf]

I've seen your sig, above, a number of tymes and I've been wondering what it does for you. In the beginning of August I got a Macbook Pro and before I bought it I was planning on dualbooting it with Ubuntu however after I got it I've been wondering just what benefit installing Ubuntu would give me, other than learning it. As it is now I can drop into the terminal and though there's some differences it's basically the same as the Linux command line.

Falcon

Re:Longorn? Just a sec.

[Hucko]

I'm pretty sure I've been hearing about Longhorn since before Whistler. I remember being surprised that XP was called Whistler as I had been waiting for Longhorn. Then we heard about the feature drop to the 'next' release, which are now in the 'next' release. Longhorn is long in the tooth.

Re:It's not accurate to say they're ignoring perso

[Anonymous Coward]

Read ancestor post here which answers your question.

Mackenzie Morgan naked and petrified!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Beautiful Mackenzie (an Actual Girl):

I'd like to sneak up behind you and start fondling you violently and then as you struggle to try to escape I'll take a scientifically-proven magic petrification ray from my bag and zap you with it, and it would first disintegrate all your clothing, leaving you gloriously naked, then it would start the process of transforming your body into marble, inducing in you a massive magically-induced which would be captured eternally as your body is turned into solid stone from the feet up to the head gradually, freezing your final moan of ecstasy as you become a beautiful, cold lifeless statue, but with your mind still alive inside the statue, aware of everything that happens to you. I would put you in display in art museums so that everyone could admire your spectacular naked & petrified teen body, then I would put you on a pedestal in my apartment and admire you constantly, and climb up on the pedestal and make love to your stony form, getting my penis raw & red from the friction, and covering your beautiful hard marble skin with my spooge, my beloved naked-and-petrified queen.

(NOTE: This is just a fantasy; I would not actually do this.)

p.s. I like masturbating to your Blogspot picture2