Re:Definitely has uses but..
on
Oracle Linux?
·
· Score: 1
this is where distro-independent systems management comes into play. there's a growing number of open source projects that abstract the nuances of the different distros (and many go beyond Linux to provide transparent management of POSIX). check out www.open-management.com
good point. you're right. the only study I'm aware of that tried to count these boxes is IDC's study that OSDL commissioned back in December 2004. That study forecasted (since it was done in '04) that in 2005, Linux shipments and redeploys (redeploys is what they call it when you take an old machine, stip it and load it with a free version of Linux) would be 22% globally and 26% in the Americas. So, with UNIX at 34%, and Linux at 26% in the Americas according to this IDC study, there's your 60%....
looks like I'm the one who's high....
I think you're a little high (not as in on drugs, but your Liux/UNIX numbers). Of the annual $50 billion server market, UNIX (not including Linux) is like $17 billion, or 34%, Linux is about $5 billion, or 10%, and Windows is $17 billion, or 34%. So, combined Linux/UNIX would be 44%, you're right on for Windows at 34% and the remaining 22% is "other"
I agree. to take it a little further:
Authors say Linux won't overtake MS - so what? even if Linux grows to 40% of the server OS market, and MS has 50, and everyone else 10, how awesome would that be?
Second: they get the demise of UNIX wrong, I think. Especially Solaris, which has gotten wise to the power of Open Source and who's Q2 numbers reflect, I think, what will be a growth period for this OS.
Third, when the researchers talk about price differences in the market, I think they need to think about whether comparing street prices between commercial Linux like RHEL and Microsoft is the right comparison. If we consider each major release of a distro to be a unit of innovation, then RH Linux is 6-10 times more innovative than MS, and so you need to adjust street price for quality, what economists call a hedonic price index. I'd argue that the hedonic price of commercial Linux like RHEL is substantially lower than Microsoft, as a consequence of the 6-10 times faster Linux innovation rate versus MS.
Slashdot Mirror
this is where distro-independent systems management comes into play. there's a growing number of open source projects that abstract the nuances of the different distros (and many go beyond Linux to provide transparent management of POSIX). check out www.open-management.com
good point. you're right. the only study I'm aware of that tried to count these boxes is IDC's study that OSDL commissioned back in December 2004. That study forecasted (since it was done in '04) that in 2005, Linux shipments and redeploys (redeploys is what they call it when you take an old machine, stip it and load it with a free version of Linux) would be 22% globally and 26% in the Americas. So, with UNIX at 34%, and Linux at 26% in the Americas according to this IDC study, there's your 60%.... looks like I'm the one who's high....
I think you're a little high (not as in on drugs, but your Liux/UNIX numbers). Of the annual $50 billion server market, UNIX (not including Linux) is like $17 billion, or 34%, Linux is about $5 billion, or 10%, and Windows is $17 billion, or 34%. So, combined Linux/UNIX would be 44%, you're right on for Windows at 34% and the remaining 22% is "other"
I agree. to take it a little further: Authors say Linux won't overtake MS - so what? even if Linux grows to 40% of the server OS market, and MS has 50, and everyone else 10, how awesome would that be? Second: they get the demise of UNIX wrong, I think. Especially Solaris, which has gotten wise to the power of Open Source and who's Q2 numbers reflect, I think, what will be a growth period for this OS. Third, when the researchers talk about price differences in the market, I think they need to think about whether comparing street prices between commercial Linux like RHEL and Microsoft is the right comparison. If we consider each major release of a distro to be a unit of innovation, then RH Linux is 6-10 times more innovative than MS, and so you need to adjust street price for quality, what economists call a hedonic price index. I'd argue that the hedonic price of commercial Linux like RHEL is substantially lower than Microsoft, as a consequence of the 6-10 times faster Linux innovation rate versus MS.