Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
$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?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
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.
I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
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.
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?
I want Dell to report on how the Ubuntu laptops have been working out for them so far.
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.)
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
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?).
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
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.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
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.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
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.
I'm also confused that if both Windows & Linux are "growing"... what is shrinking? Just the proprietary UNIX distributions from HP & IBM?
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.