That all depends on how well the hardware supports windows. Besides thats a little dumb in most cases since the majority of companies either buy as they go or have a contract with a specific hardware vendor wich includes licenses on the machines they purchase.
How about the space to store said image, the time to install the new software and restore the image. How about the fact that sysprep doesnt officially work on 2003. Why exactly would a company buy windows if they are going to start using GNU tools ?
But it worked on my l33t g@m3r 'puter.
Most companies do not have the resources to setup images for installs. They want to install from a damn CD or DVD and be done with it.
Sure there are costly time consuming ways around it, but that doesnt mean its the right way to do it. The right way is to have options in the installer. Period.
Whats she is saying is not a bucket of cold water. Its just a fact. Given the current growth rate of linux it will be grabing 22% of quarterly sales in a year. Thats not impossible, but its not entirely likely either. Expand that out and all of a sudden its going to be on everything sold.
She is basically saying that because Linux is new and coming from a small base its growth percentage is out of whack and its impossible to predict what percentages it will post going forward.
Dude that costs money. Nobody wants to spend money on IT these days.
There is no excuse for not having options to configure the basic options at install time. None.
But then again MS has always gone out of their way to prevent people from customizing windows or having access to the nitty gritty of it. After all there is good money to be made in selling books and training on the subject. The more that has to be done, the bigger the book, bigger the book the bigger the pricetag.
IIRC they have had a seperate breakdown for linux for quite some time now. Many people forget that a large portion of the surge in windows sales as of late is related to server 2003. The exact same thing happened with IIS gaining ground on apache a while back, then the tide washed back the other way and IIS ended up with an even lower percentage than before.
Perhaps what he meant was "I work at a company with a real IT department and have never seen windows used in a critical role."
Real world apps dont take 5 updates per release to become stable. Real world apps dont have more holes than swiss cheese.
Let me tell you a funny story about a company running a Java based CRM app on IIS. This company had roughly 5k users for this app and were having ungodly amounts of crashes and slow connect times. You know what the vendors solution was: Use Solaris or Linux.
What this article doesnt mention is the overall percentages of servers. It just mentions the prior quarters sales. Big whoop. Linux has had 11 consecutive quarters of double digit growth. Windows has one (shortly after its first server-OS release in 4 years) quarter of impressive sales and the world is ending.
Reality is that this should happen for MS every time they release a new version of their OS (front or back end) because they go so long between releases and there are tons of reasons to upgrade. When dealing with a Unix platform the need to upgrade is much less since the majority of the needed items are rolled into almost all prior versions and you generally wont have some crap-ass "built for XP" compatibility issues.
Most of the x86_64 stuff is much much more cool and hence much more quiet than the normal x86 stuff.
Though your point about the drive is notable I am not much of a gamer so I wont go all out on a pimped video card and LED loaded RAM etc etc. My next system will probably be a dual opteron or a dual g5. I have yet to actually price out both systems but the one that is cheaper with my prefered config gets my business. I will be running linux on it either way so the OSX v. windows angle is of no concern to me.
Interesting. I'll have to look up the noise levels for a mini... and for some of the G5's (notably the dual G5 vs a dual opteron).
Thanks for the info.
Social Security ID's were never a "tracking" device. They are meant to make sure you pay your 12.5% into the system no matter what job you hold and to make sure employers are honest. Nothing about that system has a goddamn thing to do with security.
Going even a step farther, who is going to maintain the DB with over 300 million entries ?? The government ? Christ it takes 6-8 weeks to get a drivers license in most states, how long do you think this is going to take ? Wanna leave state ? Catch a flight ? 3 month wait while they "process" your request.
Now assume they figure out having the gov't handle this would be to expensive so they do what... hand it off to contractors. So now you have some 30k/year asswipe frat boy CIA reject handling the most important data of your life. Fun.
So explain to me how this is going to make us secure. I can already tell you that there are going to be so many holes in this system and so much bloat and crashes galore that many places will just do a visual check of the ID, exactly like they do with drivers licenses, the majority of which have stripes or barcodes on them that are never used. Even more important, explain to me how allowing the airline desk jockey to access this info is secure ? Or any number of different people who are expected to have access to this information ? You think they are not bribable ?
Most people who know anything about this are appalled. The general public has heard nothing of this. The few in the "mainstream" that have heard of this have heard complete horsecrap about how everything will be smooth running and flawless, and how its going to be impossible to fake. Right. Just like the new money was impossible to fake.
The only way to implement this in a "safe and secure" manner is going to cost far far more than its worth. You would have to have a fully private (No internet, or internet2) network with fully trained and top secret clearanced clerks accessing the information. Full redundancy on the backend. Triple check authentication at a minimum in order to access the DB. You would also have to hold so much information on the people in question (AKA the citizens) that this DB would probably have to be the largest in existance.
Using a RAD environment with normal coders and normal hardware, and inevitably the normal internet to develop and access this information has to be the most insecure method I can think of. This is a complete pigfuck. This is not about protecting me or you from terrorists, its about allowing the government to track us for any number of (profitable and power securing) reasons.
The terrorists are jealous of this system. They wish they had the power in their homelands to implement something like this so they could track infidels and anyone who would fight them for their freedom. It makes being a power monger a lot easier when you know everything about your enemy/opponent/voter/consumer.
Nah. No dumbass'ness about that. The older RPM based (and really ANY) linux distro's are/were a pain. There is a reason the term 'rpm hell' was coined. Of course the flip side is the same, I was having issues with a win2k laptop's video driver the other day, namely that I had to find and install it. Vendor of card says "talk to laptop maker" laptop maker says "not available for win2k". After about an hour of googling I found a non-passworded working download and installed it.
On a modern linux distro I could simply use the package manager's UI or the commandline and it would search and install the package for me. I use gentoo on my desktop and fedora core 3 on my servers and I haven't had to hunt for an RPM in over a year. Simply type 'emerge foo' on gentoo or 'yum foo' on redhat. Finds the package and its dependancies, downloads and installs them. AFAIK windows doesnt have anything like that, closest to it is windows update which only handles microsoft's core stuff not third party apps.
Of course 7.3 was new 4 years ago. *A LOT* has changed since then.
Right because you dont need to retrain people when they move from nt4 to 2000 or 2003. You wont need to retrain them for longhorn either. Get a grip. While your at it please alert microsoft that nobody ever needs to be trained when upgrading their software since there are no differences from one version to another.
Interoperability with what ? They dont play nice with any other operating system and are notoriously bad about dealing with open standards.
Microsoft is dominant because it had business savvy when nobody else in the industry seemed to be any the wiser. They said "pay us for *every* machine you make, weather it includes windows or not" and everyone agreed because at the time it seemed like a logical choice since there was no major competition. Business sense would have said "leave yourself an out". No out. Hence the majority of PC makers have been locked into paying MS or Using MS for the past decade or so. Since MS is the OS thats shipped on the majority of machines not because its what everyone chooses. They lied cheated and stole to put themselves in this position because they knew they would profit greater than they would lose.
How many people do you know who have ever installed windows ? Not many of them are "normal users" I can assure you that. The majority of people just use whats already on the system unless they know what they are doing. Case in point: Apple. You dont see people wiping OSX out for something else. Heck a lot of peope still run ME. Never been a worse OS.
I have never had a person tell me that linux is difficult to use. Difficult to master sure. The average user is no more likely to recompile a kernel than they are to mess with the registry. You just sit and go. In many ways linux is much more sane than windows. File/directory structure is much more sane. Security is better. Performance is better because there aren't all these little bloatware/spyware/adware programs installed in the background. Mostly because the design and implementation is about actually working. Its not determined by marketing or what somebody thinks will be "idiot proof".
Everyone applies this theory about the average MS user being good with computers. That couldnt be farther from the truth. People act like the average MS user even knows what version of windows they are using, or what web browser or what anti virus etc etc. They have no clue. They just want to click and go. Guess what ? With a modern linux distro thats all you have to do the majority of the time. Yeah you might have some damn frustrating issues with a driver or what have you, but you have the EXACT same issues with MS. How many hundreds of sites are out there dedicated to fixing stupid little MS driver issues ? Think the average person knows how to do any of whats required on those sites ? Nope.
SuSe is not the only distro that conforms to the LSB requirements, which are what the "specific file location" junk you are talking about is refering to. Matter of fact these days the vast majority of distros keep the core stuff in the same locations.
There is nothing on those tests that is anymore SuSe specific than Debian specific. The only stuff that is distro specific is in the earliest test (101) and wont be in the 30x series of tests. There is nothing about YaST in ANY LPIC test.
IBM consultant would be more likely. Or were you unaware that they are backing SuSe and partially funded Novell's purchase ?
Re:Did you pass the test? Did you make more money?
on
LPIC 1 Exam Cram 2
·
· Score: 1
If you have experience then you should be good. Some people will easily pass the existing tests. The level 3 is supposed to be the one that seperates "junior" from "senior" level admins. Weather it actually does that or not remains to be seen....
Yeah and thats all fine and dandy for a top of the line cert which costs in excess of double the LPIC exam. The training prices are even more ungodly.
Every single cert has answers and they are all on the net. The key is knowing how to implement and answer the questions in the proper manner. That includes fixing a box thats broken within a certain time frame.
Also FWIW the LPI is most certainly *NOT* a SuSe oriented exam. The only section of the exams that contain any sort of vendor specific material is the first section of the level 1 exam that has a selection for RPM and DEB. Thats it.
I dont have the slightest idea where you got the idea that the level 3 is going to be yast oriented since yast is more a level 1 tool than a level 3 tool and including anything about it would be going against the stated goal of being vendor neutral.
Its all about bang for the buck. You will *NOT* pass the RHCE without extensive on the job experience or the redhat training. The Linux+ cert is a joke. The LPIC certs seem to be the middle ground, not to expensive or insanely difficult yet they do represent a basic (and intermediate) level of knowledge.
As far as novell... I have not heard a peep from any recruiters about it. Haven't seen any listings mentioning it either. Of course that might just be me... dunno.
Re:Did you pass the test? Did you make more money?
on
LPIC 1 Exam Cram 2
·
· Score: 1
Did you attain both level 1 and 2 or just 1 ? Level 2 is supposed to be more difficult and 3 when it comes out is supposed to be "cream of the crop" so to speak.
The RHCE is much harder since its a performance based test, but it is specifically for redhat which does have its limitations.
Re:"Paltry" is probably a poor choice of words
on
GCC 4.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
The internet. Its about as big as the unoccupied space between your ears.
Re:"Paltry" is probably a poor choice of words
on
GCC 4.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Without going to far into it or getting overly granual I just meant anything not a desktop or network component (switch, router etc). For instance file servers and DNS servers. Generally servers is what I was thinking about.
I tried pointing out that apple is unix and that I was refering to the other unices, but yes I slipped up a bit.
What is interesting and informative is a matter of opinion. To some people "oh look a fungus" is interesting, to others "oh look an exhaust manifold" is interesting.
Re:"Paltry" is probably a poor choice of words
on
GCC 4.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Again your pulling shit out of your ass. Exactly when did I say the total sales for the year of 2004 ? I didnt.
Why dont you try digging up some statistics on the life expectancy of servers vs workstations. I know at every employer I have worked for workstations get upgraded on a 2 or 3 year cycle whereas servers are usually on a 5 year (or longer) schedule. I would also point out that servers used internally still use gcc and hence should be counted just like any macs sold to a private company for internal use should be (and are) counted.
Re:"Paltry" is probably a poor choice of words
on
GCC 4.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
and how the hell do you figure that ? The crap sold at wal-mart and the like might or might not be getting wiped (hell I dont even know anyone who has bought one yet) but the majority (by leaps and bounds) of systems running linux were never "sold" by a vendor the way windows is. I have bought two copies of linux in the past ~6 years since I have started using it. Yet I have at this moment 9 machines in this room (at my home) running linux of many flavors. The majority of which were downloaded for free.
So tell me, if I download something from a random FTP mirror and install it on either a machine I built myself or bought from somebody used (ebay for instance) how the hell does gartner count that ?
Hell how do you come up with the theory that "the vast number of Linux machines are not linux machines for long." ???
Re:"Paltry" is probably a poor choice of words
on
GCC 4.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Steve jobs is full of malarky. They are not bigger than IBM. Probably about the same in size as Sun. Not to mention that there really is no way to measure the number of linux desktop installs. Dual boots etc etc etc.
I was just throwing it out there to negate any "way more apple" crap, which is equally loony since there is no real way to measure that either. I would generally guess that combined the nix's and apple make up about 6-7% of the desktop market. Another 1% (if that) going to random non unix non apple non windows desktops and the rest (~92%) going to windows.
The logical reasoning behind the "more linux" argument is based on certain guesses. Namely the cheaply and readily available hardware. Apple has gotten loads better lately in that department, but they still have a ways to go to match x86 hardware availability. Hell I have 2 name brand store bought machines here that came with windows, counted as a sale to them... yet dont have windows on them any longer (and have not for years).
The most important part of this equation is simple: the average person already owns something capable of running linux. In order to run OSX one must make a *new* purchase the vast majority of the time. OSX might be easier to learn and you can piss up a rope with the "time is money" arguement since the majority of people dont think like that, and its not logically true for most people either.
Re:"Paltry" is probably a poor choice of words
on
GCC 4.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Did I miss something ?? When the fuck did I make the blanket comparison of "all desktops vs all backend".
I did no such thing. Perhaps you and whoever the dimwit was who modded you up should go back to junior high and read about english comprehension. You are apparently lacking that skill.
I would like your estimates of the combined total for apple and unix desktops (say about 6% of the total market) compared to the amount of unix systems on the backend of the internet (which would be somewhere in the area of 50-60% of that total market.). My guess would be that the numbers are fairly similar, which I pointed out in my original post. If you take half (or slightly less than) of the assumed 6% of desktops and attribute it to unix/linux and the other half and attribute it to mac, then add all of the back end unix systems to the unix/linux side of the count you probably end up at double what the apple crew accounts for.
6% of the total desktops = the combined market share of unix/apple.
~50% of the backend = non-apple unix market share.
Assuming the 50% of the backend is roughly equal to the total (6%) of the desktops, and assuming half the desktops are apple you will end up with roughly a 2:1 ratio of non-apple unix machines to apple machines.
I can pipe this all through bablefish for you since you apparently cant read or understand english.
Slashdot Mirror
That all depends on how well the hardware supports windows. Besides thats a little dumb in most cases since the majority of companies either buy as they go or have a contract with a specific hardware vendor wich includes licenses on the machines they purchase.
How about the space to store said image, the time to install the new software and restore the image. How about the fact that sysprep doesnt officially work on 2003. Why exactly would a company buy windows if they are going to start using GNU tools ?
But it worked on my l33t g@m3r 'puter.
Most companies do not have the resources to setup images for installs. They want to install from a damn CD or DVD and be done with it.
Sure there are costly time consuming ways around it, but that doesnt mean its the right way to do it. The right way is to have options in the installer. Period.
Whats she is saying is not a bucket of cold water. Its just a fact. Given the current growth rate of linux it will be grabing 22% of quarterly sales in a year. Thats not impossible, but its not entirely likely either. Expand that out and all of a sudden its going to be on everything sold.
She is basically saying that because Linux is new and coming from a small base its growth percentage is out of whack and its impossible to predict what percentages it will post going forward.
Dude that costs money. Nobody wants to spend money on IT these days.
There is no excuse for not having options to configure the basic options at install time. None.
But then again MS has always gone out of their way to prevent people from customizing windows or having access to the nitty gritty of it. After all there is good money to be made in selling books and training on the subject. The more that has to be done, the bigger the book, bigger the book the bigger the pricetag.
1.2 Billion worth of servers were sold with Linux installed on them last quarter.
Its in the article in plain english.
IIRC they have had a seperate breakdown for linux for quite some time now. Many people forget that a large portion of the surge in windows sales as of late is related to server 2003. The exact same thing happened with IIS gaining ground on apache a while back, then the tide washed back the other way and IIS ended up with an even lower percentage than before.
One quarter of good sales doesnt mean squat.
Perhaps what he meant was "I work at a company with a real IT department and have never seen windows used in a critical role."
Real world apps dont take 5 updates per release to become stable. Real world apps dont have more holes than swiss cheese.
Let me tell you a funny story about a company running a Java based CRM app on IIS. This company had roughly 5k users for this app and were having ungodly amounts of crashes and slow connect times. You know what the vendors solution was: Use Solaris or Linux.
What this article doesnt mention is the overall percentages of servers. It just mentions the prior quarters sales. Big whoop. Linux has had 11 consecutive quarters of double digit growth. Windows has one (shortly after its first server-OS release in 4 years) quarter of impressive sales and the world is ending.
Reality is that this should happen for MS every time they release a new version of their OS (front or back end) because they go so long between releases and there are tons of reasons to upgrade. When dealing with a Unix platform the need to upgrade is much less since the majority of the needed items are rolled into almost all prior versions and you generally wont have some crap-ass "built for XP" compatibility issues.
Most of the x86_64 stuff is much much more cool and hence much more quiet than the normal x86 stuff.
Though your point about the drive is notable I am not much of a gamer so I wont go all out on a pimped video card and LED loaded RAM etc etc. My next system will probably be a dual opteron or a dual g5. I have yet to actually price out both systems but the one that is cheaper with my prefered config gets my business. I will be running linux on it either way so the OSX v. windows angle is of no concern to me.
Interesting. I'll have to look up the noise levels for a mini ... and for some of the G5's (notably the dual G5 vs a dual opteron).
Thanks for the info.
Yep. I am in the habit of supplying my ID even if they dont ask for it.
So the mini has no fans or just really quiet fans ?
Noise has always been one of my largest problems with the x86 hardware arena.
Your fuckin cracked.
... hand it off to contractors. So now you have some 30k/year asswipe frat boy CIA reject handling the most important data of your life. Fun.
Social Security ID's were never a "tracking" device. They are meant to make sure you pay your 12.5% into the system no matter what job you hold and to make sure employers are honest. Nothing about that system has a goddamn thing to do with security.
Going even a step farther, who is going to maintain the DB with over 300 million entries ?? The government ? Christ it takes 6-8 weeks to get a drivers license in most states, how long do you think this is going to take ? Wanna leave state ? Catch a flight ? 3 month wait while they "process" your request.
Now assume they figure out having the gov't handle this would be to expensive so they do what
So explain to me how this is going to make us secure. I can already tell you that there are going to be so many holes in this system and so much bloat and crashes galore that many places will just do a visual check of the ID, exactly like they do with drivers licenses, the majority of which have stripes or barcodes on them that are never used. Even more important, explain to me how allowing the airline desk jockey to access this info is secure ? Or any number of different people who are expected to have access to this information ? You think they are not bribable ?
Most people who know anything about this are appalled. The general public has heard nothing of this. The few in the "mainstream" that have heard of this have heard complete horsecrap about how everything will be smooth running and flawless, and how its going to be impossible to fake. Right. Just like the new money was impossible to fake.
The only way to implement this in a "safe and secure" manner is going to cost far far more than its worth. You would have to have a fully private (No internet, or internet2) network with fully trained and top secret clearanced clerks accessing the information. Full redundancy on the backend. Triple check authentication at a minimum in order to access the DB. You would also have to hold so much information on the people in question (AKA the citizens) that this DB would probably have to be the largest in existance.
Using a RAD environment with normal coders and normal hardware, and inevitably the normal internet to develop and access this information has to be the most insecure method I can think of. This is a complete pigfuck. This is not about protecting me or you from terrorists, its about allowing the government to track us for any number of (profitable and power securing) reasons.
The terrorists are jealous of this system. They wish they had the power in their homelands to implement something like this so they could track infidels and anyone who would fight them for their freedom. It makes being a power monger a lot easier when you know everything about your enemy/opponent/voter/consumer.
Nah. No dumbass'ness about that. The older RPM based (and really ANY) linux distro's are/were a pain. There is a reason the term 'rpm hell' was coined. Of course the flip side is the same, I was having issues with a win2k laptop's video driver the other day, namely that I had to find and install it. Vendor of card says "talk to laptop maker" laptop maker says "not available for win2k". After about an hour of googling I found a non-passworded working download and installed it.
On a modern linux distro I could simply use the package manager's UI or the commandline and it would search and install the package for me. I use gentoo on my desktop and fedora core 3 on my servers and I haven't had to hunt for an RPM in over a year. Simply type 'emerge foo' on gentoo or 'yum foo' on redhat. Finds the package and its dependancies, downloads and installs them. AFAIK windows doesnt have anything like that, closest to it is windows update which only handles microsoft's core stuff not third party apps.
Of course 7.3 was new 4 years ago. *A LOT* has changed since then.
Right because you dont need to retrain people when they move from nt4 to 2000 or 2003. You wont need to retrain them for longhorn either. Get a grip. While your at it please alert microsoft that nobody ever needs to be trained when upgrading their software since there are no differences from one version to another.
Interoperability with what ? They dont play nice with any other operating system and are notoriously bad about dealing with open standards.
Microsoft is dominant because it had business savvy when nobody else in the industry seemed to be any the wiser. They said "pay us for *every* machine you make, weather it includes windows or not" and everyone agreed because at the time it seemed like a logical choice since there was no major competition. Business sense would have said "leave yourself an out". No out. Hence the majority of PC makers have been locked into paying MS or Using MS for the past decade or so. Since MS is the OS thats shipped on the majority of machines not because its what everyone chooses. They lied cheated and stole to put themselves in this position because they knew they would profit greater than they would lose.
How many people do you know who have ever installed windows ? Not many of them are "normal users" I can assure you that. The majority of people just use whats already on the system unless they know what they are doing. Case in point: Apple. You dont see people wiping OSX out for something else. Heck a lot of peope still run ME. Never been a worse OS.
I have never had a person tell me that linux is difficult to use. Difficult to master sure. The average user is no more likely to recompile a kernel than they are to mess with the registry. You just sit and go. In many ways linux is much more sane than windows. File/directory structure is much more sane. Security is better. Performance is better because there aren't all these little bloatware/spyware/adware programs installed in the background. Mostly because the design and implementation is about actually working. Its not determined by marketing or what somebody thinks will be "idiot proof".
Everyone applies this theory about the average MS user being good with computers. That couldnt be farther from the truth. People act like the average MS user even knows what version of windows they are using, or what web browser or what anti virus etc etc. They have no clue. They just want to click and go. Guess what ? With a modern linux distro thats all you have to do the majority of the time. Yeah you might have some damn frustrating issues with a driver or what have you, but you have the EXACT same issues with MS. How many hundreds of sites are out there dedicated to fixing stupid little MS driver issues ? Think the average person knows how to do any of whats required on those sites ? Nope.
SuSe is not the only distro that conforms to the LSB requirements, which are what the "specific file location" junk you are talking about is refering to. Matter of fact these days the vast majority of distros keep the core stuff in the same locations.
There is nothing on those tests that is anymore SuSe specific than Debian specific. The only stuff that is distro specific is in the earliest test (101) and wont be in the 30x series of tests. There is nothing about YaST in ANY LPIC test.
IBM consultant would be more likely. Or were you unaware that they are backing SuSe and partially funded Novell's purchase ?
If you have experience then you should be good. Some people will easily pass the existing tests. The level 3 is supposed to be the one that seperates "junior" from "senior" level admins. Weather it actually does that or not remains to be seen ....
Yeah and thats all fine and dandy for a top of the line cert which costs in excess of double the LPIC exam. The training prices are even more ungodly.
Every single cert has answers and they are all on the net. The key is knowing how to implement and answer the questions in the proper manner. That includes fixing a box thats broken within a certain time frame.
Also FWIW the LPI is most certainly *NOT* a SuSe oriented exam. The only section of the exams that contain any sort of vendor specific material is the first section of the level 1 exam that has a selection for RPM and DEB. Thats it.
I dont have the slightest idea where you got the idea that the level 3 is going to be yast oriented since yast is more a level 1 tool than a level 3 tool and including anything about it would be going against the stated goal of being vendor neutral.
Its all about bang for the buck. You will *NOT* pass the RHCE without extensive on the job experience or the redhat training. The Linux+ cert is a joke. The LPIC certs seem to be the middle ground, not to expensive or insanely difficult yet they do represent a basic (and intermediate) level of knowledge.
... I have not heard a peep from any recruiters about it. Haven't seen any listings mentioning it either. Of course that might just be me ... dunno.
As far as novell
Did you attain both level 1 and 2 or just 1 ? Level 2 is supposed to be more difficult and 3 when it comes out is supposed to be "cream of the crop" so to speak.
The RHCE is much harder since its a performance based test, but it is specifically for redhat which does have its limitations.
The internet. Its about as big as the unoccupied space between your ears.
Without going to far into it or getting overly granual I just meant anything not a desktop or network component (switch, router etc). For instance file servers and DNS servers. Generally servers is what I was thinking about.
I tried pointing out that apple is unix and that I was refering to the other unices, but yes I slipped up a bit.
What is interesting and informative is a matter of opinion. To some people "oh look a fungus" is interesting, to others "oh look an exhaust manifold" is interesting.
Again your pulling shit out of your ass. Exactly when did I say the total sales for the year of 2004 ? I didnt.
Why dont you try digging up some statistics on the life expectancy of servers vs workstations. I know at every employer I have worked for workstations get upgraded on a 2 or 3 year cycle whereas servers are usually on a 5 year (or longer) schedule. I would also point out that servers used internally still use gcc and hence should be counted just like any macs sold to a private company for internal use should be (and are) counted.
and how the hell do you figure that ? The crap sold at wal-mart and the like might or might not be getting wiped (hell I dont even know anyone who has bought one yet) but the majority (by leaps and bounds) of systems running linux were never "sold" by a vendor the way windows is. I have bought two copies of linux in the past ~6 years since I have started using it. Yet I have at this moment 9 machines in this room (at my home) running linux of many flavors. The majority of which were downloaded for free.
So tell me, if I download something from a random FTP mirror and install it on either a machine I built myself or bought from somebody used (ebay for instance) how the hell does gartner count that ?
Hell how do you come up with the theory that "the vast number of Linux machines are not linux machines for long." ???
Steve jobs is full of malarky. They are not bigger than IBM. Probably about the same in size as Sun. Not to mention that there really is no way to measure the number of linux desktop installs. Dual boots etc etc etc.
... yet dont have windows on them any longer (and have not for years).
I was just throwing it out there to negate any "way more apple" crap, which is equally loony since there is no real way to measure that either. I would generally guess that combined the nix's and apple make up about 6-7% of the desktop market. Another 1% (if that) going to random non unix non apple non windows desktops and the rest (~92%) going to windows.
The logical reasoning behind the "more linux" argument is based on certain guesses. Namely the cheaply and readily available hardware. Apple has gotten loads better lately in that department, but they still have a ways to go to match x86 hardware availability. Hell I have 2 name brand store bought machines here that came with windows, counted as a sale to them
The most important part of this equation is simple: the average person already owns something capable of running linux. In order to run OSX one must make a *new* purchase the vast majority of the time. OSX might be easier to learn and you can piss up a rope with the "time is money" arguement since the majority of people dont think like that, and its not logically true for most people either.
Did I miss something ?? When the fuck did I make the blanket comparison of "all desktops vs all backend".
I did no such thing. Perhaps you and whoever the dimwit was who modded you up should go back to junior high and read about english comprehension. You are apparently lacking that skill.
I would like your estimates of the combined total for apple and unix desktops (say about 6% of the total market) compared to the amount of unix systems on the backend of the internet (which would be somewhere in the area of 50-60% of that total market.). My guess would be that the numbers are fairly similar, which I pointed out in my original post. If you take half (or slightly less than) of the assumed 6% of desktops and attribute it to unix/linux and the other half and attribute it to mac, then add all of the back end unix systems to the unix/linux side of the count you probably end up at double what the apple crew accounts for.
6% of the total desktops = the combined market share of unix/apple.
~50% of the backend = non-apple unix market share.
Assuming the 50% of the backend is roughly equal to the total (6%) of the desktops, and assuming half the desktops are apple you will end up with roughly a 2:1 ratio of non-apple unix machines to apple machines.
I can pipe this all through bablefish for you since you apparently cant read or understand english.