Score one for the little man. Point made and conceded. I was wrong on my population guesstimate. I admit when I am wrong. Now it is your turn to concede YOUR points.
Reread my posts. Over and over again I state 'almost 3 years'/ Almost=nearly, nearly=just-about. Verstehen sie jetz?
Redhat was founded in 1995. And though by 2000 even though they had 70% of the Linux market share, they only made positive cashflow as of last December. But I do not base my statement on company income or amount of downloads, I base it on usage. IDC says Linux usage will grow 24% in 2003 compared to the previous year, while Windows usage will increase by 6% and Unix by 9% (NetWare to grow 3%).
If you look at Linux usage statistics in 2001: http://www.netcraft.com/surveys/analysis/ht tps/200 1/Jan/CMatch/os13/geograph.html
you will see that they only had approx 18% of the market. But you seem to think that Linux usage has only grown by meager percentage points. Well according to Network World, Linux has an 8% greater market share than 2002 and has even doubled on desktops while Windows has only grown 1%... and that's from a report at the beginning of this year! And that's just one year!! Even if you consider that the year previous, Linux only had HALF that, then that's a 12% growth going from 18% to 30%! If you add that same 1% to Microsoft and half of that from the year before, that gives Microsoft a whopping 45% in comparison!! Meaning Microsoft has only a 15% greater market share! Not a landslide... only 15%.
You managed to avoid my whole point about Apple entirely though; you quote only Windows sales but neglect to point out equivalent Apple sales for the time. Rather than prooviding equivalent sales figures you just state ther sales were poor... and we're to take your word for this. My point was that 3 years made the difference between Apples market dominance and their death. Sure it may have been in swing but those 3 years were pivotal. Address that point and get back to me.
Now as to your theory about big business, you are quick to state that Linux is faster, cheaper, more stable, easier to configure, and more secure. Do you mean to tell me in a time of economic downturn that businesses are going to turn a blind eye to these simple facts? Faster, cheaper, better is the business mantra! Sure they want support but companies are offereing that. Sure they want a product that can be customized for their needs and companies are providing that; this is one reason why IBM won the Munich contract. One reason why China, Japan and Korea and building their own OS based on Linux. One reason why more and more businesses are switching over.
For instance, 30% of businesses affected by SQL Slammer switched to Linux within a 3 month period; 11% switched within one month! And with every new worm, virus, exploit that causes a downtime and companies information to become vulnerable and their business to lose money, more and more make the switch.
As for your 'proof' that IIS servers have grown 4% since 2001, you're wrong. They grew from approx 20% in March of 2001 to nearly 34% in March of 2002... where they PEEKED. They have been falling ever since and and are now down to 23.5 percent! Do you notice a trend? Hmm? Falling since March of 2002? Gee... apparently even 1 year can make a nearly 12% difference in Market share!
And you say Sun is getting hurt by Linux? Hell no. Linux users support J2EE more than anyone else. Also as of two months ago, Microsoft lost 2% of web server market share directly to Sun according to Netcraft. Yeah Sun is hurting but they've been hurting for a long time.
Again, your attempt to show facts to support your data still doesn't prove your point. Wou;ld you care to try again?
And yes, the population can change that much; the population from 2000 to 2004 is expected to change by approx 500,000,000 according to current statistics. You see how that works? I use CURRENT data to prove my point. Makes my point all the stronger. Interesting how that works, huh?
Yeah... you showed me numbers that were 2.5 years old? That proves nothing! That's like me showing you stats of Macs in 95 and saying that there would be only a 2 percent change in Windows sales by 98! If you think that stats from over 3 years prove anything in a modern market, you are a few fries short of a happy meal, my friend.
You think things through rationally? Is using stats that are almost 3 years old rational? I think not. In fact, it comes across as downright stupid. Just admit you're wrong and get over it.
And if you're not a Microsoftie, why not get an account and stop being anonymous...hmmm? The only people who post on Slashdot for Microsoft and remain anonymous are Microsofties; it's the only rational conclusion.:)
Well let's use something else as a comparison. Macs vs Windows 95. Back then, Macs owned the desktop but by 98, Windows owned the desktop.
Now of course we are not talking desktops, we are talking servers. Servers that have been hit by sql slammer, msblast, code red, etc. Businesses and companies who have been hit by these over and over and over.
Your company cannot afford to have these things affecting their databases, taking down their website and interrupting business every couple of months. So they switch... and most people who have switched just laugh when the latest viruses and worms come out. Why? Because they are on a Linux server.
Go ahead and get us some recent stats my friend, then try and tell me nothing has changed. Go ahead? I dare you? Shoo shoo... go get em.:)
Doesn't matter. Woud you try and compare Macs on the desktop compared to Windows 95 and then say the same stats were true 3 years later when 98 came out? Huh? I can't hear you...:)
Yeah that's right. You wouldn't because that's when the Microsuck revolution occurred. Well my friend, you are in the middle of the Linux revolution and those server stats have changed alot. You should try and check www.microsoft.com sometime via Netcraft and see what they have doing their caching.:)
God you are a tard. A census can change by half a billion people in that TIME! Also you are making this comparison when Linux when Redhat was still a fledgling company as were Sue Mandrake and all the others. Now Linux is known throughout ALL IT depts... big diff.
In that time, alot has changed.
You should try using your logic on your boss the next time you ask for a raise so that he can say 'Oh, well the economy doesn't change very much in 3 years so I'm only going to give you a raise of 10 cents'. Your logic is so flawed it's not even funny.
Well yes, you are right that Linux has the ability to run multiple websites far better than Windows can. And as a result, more websites DO run on Linux servers. As for your stats on Windows servers vs Linux servers, your stats are almost 3 years old... at the BEGINNING of the Linux revolution. Try looking at current stats and you'll see a completely different picture.
Geezo, I thought you Microsofties were going to start base your Linux bashing on the facts. What happened? You just decide to use facts from several years ago?
I'd like to see them show exactly what the vast majority of these attacks consisted of. Because without that data, you can't derive whether it is the system or the person implementing it that is the cause of security failure.
I know many admins who are not worth two cents and I know others who are so swamped with tasks that they don't have time to patch much less check logs on a regular basis.
Well according to netcrafts statistics, nearly 70% of all websites run Apache in comparison to around 23% running IIS. Now keep in mind that Apache CAN run on Windows (as I have an installation with PHP and MYSQL running on our companies servers as they won't let me use Linux) but this is rare and seldom the case.
All in all the stats are fairly accurate. Microsoft is not very loved as a server.
Well as far as independent websites delivering media in comparison to an organized distribution company delivering the media... yes. But by having a centralized media company that will deliver the comic books online, you have a much larger public draw and can better take advantage of several revenue streams at the same time.
The individual comic website does not have the power that an online distribution company would have. The true question though is who is going to create it first?
Nope. The speculators market is dead. And unlike dogfood, nothing would require being shipped if you bought comics online; you would merely download them.
Which, unlike news and stuff, is a far better online business model as entertainment such as comics, will not be available on just about every news site and blog (comic STRIPS not included).
Between Diamond killing off independents by making them IMPOSSIBLE to get distributed and the basic stigma behind comics books, the only thing that wil truly re-invigorate comics is the internet and reinventing the distribution method.
Yep. Indeed. Windows is good for little else. The only reason I have my version anymore is because I want to play games. As for work, the IT dept and the CEO won't let me install Linux (or anything but Windows)on anything.
Not really. I was being sarcastic. As in 'yeah it sure is great for playing games but I sure as hell wouldn't want it running my business apps or database or having my life, government or financial welfare reliant on it. But it sure is good for playing games isn't it?
Yep. Akamai runs on several windows.com servers as well using Linux. And the fact that they have to do load balancing for Microsoft on Linux machines speaks for itself I think.
Well you can check the hotmail servers as well or just go down the list. The company I work for is right across from Microsoft and 90% of our business relys on them; Steve Ballmer is here just about every morning!
So I had to justify my decision to use Apache, MySQL and PHP (they won't let me use Linux however) so I did loads of research and discovered LOADS of machines running Microsoft.com domains that were on Linux machines. Hotmail still has a quite a few.
Microsoft.com doesn't have as many as it did 5 months ago because they have been trying to move as many as possible to 2003 but they still have quite a few.
Well alot of people who used to run Solaris are now running Linux. Oracle just finished switched 8000 desktops over to Linux and nearly their entire infrastructure is Linux based now.
Slashdot Mirror
Notice I said almost 70% in the original? You seem to keep missing this fact over and over. And it still doesn't prove your point so keep trying :)
Score one for the little man. Point made and conceded. I was wrong on my population guesstimate. I admit when I am wrong. Now it is your turn to concede YOUR points.
Reread my posts. Over and over again I state 'almost 3 years'/ Almost=nearly, nearly=just-about. Verstehen sie jetz?
t tps/200 1/Jan/CMatch/os13/geograph.html
2 00 1/Jan/CMatch/oscnt_all.html
Redhat was founded in 1995. And though by 2000 even though they had 70% of the Linux market share, they only made positive cashflow as of last December. But I do not base my statement on company income or amount of downloads, I base it on usage. IDC says Linux usage will grow 24% in 2003 compared to the previous year, while Windows usage will increase by 6% and Unix by 9% (NetWare to grow 3%).
If you look at Linux usage statistics in 2001:
http://www.netcraft.com/surveys/analysis/h
http://www.netcraft.com/surveys/analysis/https/
you will see that they only had approx 18% of the market. But you seem to think that Linux usage has only grown by meager percentage points. Well according to Network World, Linux has an 8% greater market share than 2002 and has even doubled on desktops while Windows has only grown 1%... and that's from a report at the beginning of this year! And that's just one year!! Even if you consider that the year previous, Linux only had HALF that, then that's a 12% growth going from 18% to 30%! If you add that same 1% to Microsoft and half of that from the year before, that gives Microsoft a whopping 45% in comparison!! Meaning Microsoft has only a 15% greater market share! Not a landslide... only 15%.
You managed to avoid my whole point about Apple entirely though; you quote only Windows sales but neglect to point out equivalent Apple sales for the time. Rather than prooviding equivalent sales figures you just state ther sales were poor... and we're to take your word for this. My point was that 3 years made the difference between Apples market dominance and their death. Sure it may have been in swing but those 3 years were pivotal. Address that point and get back to me.
Now as to your theory about big business, you are quick to state that Linux is faster, cheaper, more stable, easier to configure, and more secure. Do you mean to tell me in a time of economic downturn that businesses are going to turn a blind eye to these simple facts? Faster, cheaper, better is the business mantra! Sure they want support but companies are offereing that. Sure they want a product that can be customized for their needs and companies are providing that; this is one reason why IBM won the Munich contract. One reason why China, Japan and Korea and building their own OS based on Linux. One reason why more and more businesses are switching over.
For instance, 30% of businesses affected by SQL Slammer switched to Linux within a 3 month period; 11% switched within one month! And with every new worm, virus, exploit that causes a downtime and companies information to become vulnerable and their business to lose money, more and more make the switch.
As for your 'proof' that IIS servers have grown 4% since 2001, you're wrong. They grew from approx 20% in March of 2001 to nearly 34% in March of 2002... where they PEEKED. They have been falling ever since and and are now down to 23.5 percent! Do you notice a trend? Hmm? Falling since March of 2002? Gee... apparently even 1 year can make a nearly 12% difference in Market share!
And you say Sun is getting hurt by Linux? Hell no. Linux users support J2EE more than anyone else. Also as of two months ago, Microsoft lost 2% of web server market share directly to Sun according to Netcraft. Yeah Sun is hurting but they've been hurting for a long time.
Again, your attempt to show facts to support your data still doesn't prove your point. Wou;ld you care to try again?
And yes, the population can change that much; the population from 2000 to 2004 is expected to change by approx 500,000,000 according to current statistics. You see how that works? I use CURRENT data to prove my point. Makes my point all the stronger. Interesting how that works, huh?
Yeah... you showed me numbers that were 2.5 years old? That proves nothing! That's like me showing you stats of Macs in 95 and saying that there would be only a 2 percent change in Windows sales by 98! If you think that stats from over 3 years prove anything in a modern market, you are a few fries short of a happy meal, my friend.
You think things through rationally? Is using stats that are almost 3 years old rational? I think not. In fact, it comes across as downright stupid. Just admit you're wrong and get over it.
:)
And if you're not a Microsoftie, why not get an account and stop being anonymous...hmmm? The only people who post on Slashdot for Microsoft and remain anonymous are Microsofties; it's the only rational conclusion.
Well let's use something else as a comparison. Macs vs Windows 95. Back then, Macs owned the desktop but by 98, Windows owned the desktop.
:)
Now of course we are not talking desktops, we are talking servers. Servers that have been hit by sql slammer, msblast, code red, etc. Businesses and companies who have been hit by these over and over and over.
Your company cannot afford to have these things affecting their databases, taking down their website and interrupting business every couple of months. So they switch... and most people who have switched just laugh when the latest viruses and worms come out. Why? Because they are on a Linux server.
Go ahead and get us some recent stats my friend, then try and tell me nothing has changed. Go ahead? I dare you? Shoo shoo... go get em.
Doesn't matter. Woud you try and compare Macs on the desktop compared to Windows 95 and then say the same stats were true 3 years later when 98 came out? Huh? I can't hear you... :)
:)
Yeah that's right. You wouldn't because that's when the Microsuck revolution occurred. Well my friend, you are in the middle of the Linux revolution and those server stats have changed alot. You should try and check www.microsoft.com sometime via Netcraft and see what they have doing their caching.
God you are a tard. A census can change by half a billion people in that TIME! Also you are making this comparison when Linux when Redhat was still a fledgling company as were Sue Mandrake and all the others. Now Linux is known throughout ALL IT depts... big diff.
In that time, alot has changed.
You should try using your logic on your boss the next time you ask for a raise so that he can say 'Oh, well the economy doesn't change very much in 3 years so I'm only going to give you a raise of 10 cents'. Your logic is so flawed it's not even funny.
Well yes, you are right that Linux has the ability to run multiple websites far better than Windows can. And as a result, more websites DO run on Linux servers. As for your stats on Windows servers vs Linux servers, your stats are almost 3 years old... at the BEGINNING of the Linux revolution. Try looking at current stats and you'll see a completely different picture.
Geezo, I thought you Microsofties were going to start base your Linux bashing on the facts. What happened? You just decide to use facts from several years ago?
Uh... riiiiiight. This is from March of 2001. Get me those stats when they are accurate.
I'd like to see them show exactly what the vast majority of these attacks consisted of. Because without that data, you can't derive whether it is the system or the person implementing it that is the cause of security failure.
I know many admins who are not worth two cents and I know others who are so swamped with tasks that they don't have time to patch much less check logs on a regular basis.
Well according to netcrafts statistics, nearly 70% of all websites run Apache in comparison to around 23% running IIS. Now keep in mind that Apache CAN run on Windows (as I have an installation with PHP and MYSQL running on our companies servers as they won't let me use Linux) but this is rare and seldom the case.
All in all the stats are fairly accurate. Microsoft is not very loved as a server.
Well as far as independent websites delivering media in comparison to an organized distribution company delivering the media... yes. But by having a centralized media company that will deliver the comic books online, you have a much larger public draw and can better take advantage of several revenue streams at the same time.
The individual comic website does not have the power that an online distribution company would have. The true question though is who is going to create it first?
Nope. The speculators market is dead. And unlike dogfood, nothing would require being shipped if you bought comics online; you would merely download them.
Which, unlike news and stuff, is a far better online business model as entertainment such as comics, will not be available on just about every news site and blog (comic STRIPS not included).
Between Diamond killing off independents by making them IMPOSSIBLE to get distributed and the basic stigma behind comics books, the only thing that wil truly re-invigorate comics is the internet and reinventing the distribution method.
Oh my... a shot across the bow from an anonymous coward. Don't you realize that until you get a real account, you guys are just shooting blanks :)
That's it. I'm moving to Canada.
Yep. Indeed. Windows is good for little else. The only reason I have my version anymore is because I want to play games. As for work, the IT dept and the CEO won't let me install Linux (or anything but Windows)on anything.
Not really. I was being sarcastic. As in 'yeah it sure is great for playing games but I sure as hell wouldn't want it running my business apps or database or having my life, government or financial welfare reliant on it. But it sure is good for playing games isn't it?
Where I come from, we call that sarcasm.
Yeah Microsoft sure is great for playing games isn't it. Yep, it sure is great for playing games.
Yep. Akamai runs on several windows.com servers as well using Linux. And the fact that they have to do load balancing for Microsoft on Linux machines speaks for itself I think.
LOL! Can't deal with facts so you have to start spouting FUD, eh? Thanks for playing. :)
Well you can check the hotmail servers as well or just go down the list. The company I work for is right across from Microsoft and 90% of our business relys on them; Steve Ballmer is here just about every morning!
So I had to justify my decision to use Apache, MySQL and PHP (they won't let me use Linux however) so I did loads of research and discovered LOADS of machines running Microsoft.com domains that were on Linux machines. Hotmail still has a quite a few.
Microsoft.com doesn't have as many as it did 5 months ago because they have been trying to move as many as possible to 2003 but they still have quite a few.
Well alot of people who used to run Solaris are now running Linux. Oracle just finished switched 8000 desktops over to Linux and nearly their entire infrastructure is Linux based now.