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

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: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).

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.

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?

[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.