Win2k delay claimed to be helping spread of Linux

Threnody writes " Great article about Windows 2000 delay. Apparently Linux has grown from negligible in the '97 poll to 13% today. This is the latest results from IDC, the pre-eminent measuring company. They were measuring business usage. They also talk about the fact that many major organizations are not interested in rolling out Win2k right away, because of being burned before.Update: 08/19 02:08 by H :I've also been informed by a number of people that DevX is currently running a poll along much the same lines.

Comments

One quote and one clarification

[FascDot Killed My Pr]

First, I love this quote: "Past issues with first-release operating systems from Microsoft have caused organizations to rein in their Windows 2000 deployment plans."

I guess you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Now the clarification: Linux didn't go from 0 to 13% since 1997, at least not the way you are probably thinking.

In 1997 IDC did a survey of business computing users (presumably CTOs and CIOs). 0% of them said they used Linux. At the time this was probably false because they (the CTOs and CIOs) didn't know about it. Furthermore, this only counts business use, clearly there were millions of installations in other settings.

Now they've done another study and 13% of the respondents said they use Linux. It doesn't say they use it exclusively and this isn't a weighted number. That is, it could be that it was the top 13 companies in the world (ranked by size of IT dept) that said they used Linux 100% each OR it could be the smallest 13% that said they had "one test Linux box".

My basic point is that this survey tells us nothing about the real marketshare (measured in number of machines weighted by their purpose) of Linux, but a lot about the mindshare among CIOs.
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
"An armed society is a polite society" -- Robert Heinlein

The problem with Win2000 - fear among NT users

[IntlHarvester]

Despite it's problems, NT4 is the "NetWare 3" of the late 90s LAN - the entrenched market leader. (Before anyone makes any comparison, NetWare 3 wins in many respects, but I remember quite a few abends and configuration nightmares.)

Windows 2000 probably will be a compelling workstation for shops struggling with crappy Win9x, but the server version includes a number of complex and difficult to understand network services aimed at the enterprise market.

This poses a big problem: Larger shops won't want to move to Active Directory (etc) for a while until they've tested the hell out of it. Upgrading is no longer a tactical decision (like NT3.51 to NT4 or NT4 to Linux/Samba), and more of a strategic one which will involve considerable planning and budget and the typical interminable big-IS project BS.

(I don't see much good information from MS about how an Domain to AD transition is really supposed to work. They probably don't know themselves. Furthermore, they've magnified the problem by unifying the Exchange and NOS directories, which makes the prominence of fucking up an order of magnitude greater. Maybe I'm missing something, but I also don't see a way to run Win2000 server in 'Domain-emulation' mode.)

Smaller shops (which by-in-large are running NT with loosely pieced together WINS systems and broadcasts) don't want or need Active Directory, et al, and will have considerable fear and uncertainty over an upgrade. Everything is kinda-sorta working -- why break it.

All of this adds up to a lot of fear and confusion for NT shops. Add in an economic downturn, and IT budget cuts will probably stagante any new project or make cheaper alternatives (ahem) look more appealing.

So, NT5/Win2000 has a big chance at being the "NetWare 4" of the early 00s LAN -- A good portion of the installed base might just skip the upgrade or switch to a less complex and cheaper alternative.
--