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?

[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?

[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?

[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

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?

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.

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.

I wonder.....

[8127972]

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

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....."

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.

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.