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.'"
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
I RTFA, but didn't see anything about 'numbers'. "How" much is Linux up?
Did I gloss over it somewhere?
$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;
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).
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.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
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.
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?
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?
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.
..... If this has anything to do with Dell renewing their Microsoft OEM agreement? One has to wonder.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
If there's anyone I hate more than stupid people, it's intellectuals.
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....."
I want Dell to report on how the Ubuntu laptops have been working out for them so far.
...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 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.
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.
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.
Hasn't linux always been better than Windows on the server side? (I'm politely asking "HOW IS THIS NEWS?!")
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)
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.)
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.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
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.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
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
which is totally what she said
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.
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?
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
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.
:-P
* 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
man, I feel like mold.
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.
Will this finally be the Year of the Linux Server?
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
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.
http://www.mhall119.com
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.
http://www.zombieapocalypse.tv/
Source for this?