Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

A Look at Windows Server Outselling Linux 450

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the deeper-and-deeper-way-down dept.
THG writes "CoolTechZone.com has an interesting look at Linux's position in the market now that Microsoft has sold more Windows Server software than Linux. From the article: "The most important reason that Windows based servers are doing so well could be that programmers find it extremely easy to work on .Net and other related technologies (seamless integration). Plus, you have hassle free and rapid support from Microsoft, which is a comforting feature for corporate customers. When Windows Live comes in, we will see further integration between the server and online technical support areas, thereby making the troubleshooting process easier for in-house administrators and reducing overhead costs for the company."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Look at Windows Server Outselling Linux

Comments Filter:
  • Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by 75th Trombone (581309) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @10:38PM (#14121579) Homepage Journal
    CoolTechZone.com has an interesting look at Linux's position in the market now that Microsoft has sold more Windows Server software than Linux.

    Okay now wait, I'm confused. Are Microsoft's sales of Windows Server higher than Microsoft's sales of Linux? Or are Microsoft's sales of Windows Server higher than Linux's sales of Linux? Or are Microsoft's sales of Windows Server higher than Linux's sales of Windows Server?

    Because, y'know, without clarification, I might think someone didn't know what someone was saying.

    (At least we can feel safe knowing that once we figure that out, any stats involving both "sales" and "Linux" will be perfectly clear and accurate and meaningful.)

    • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by garcia (6573) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @10:51PM (#14121662) Homepage
      Because, y'know, without clarification, I might think someone didn't know what someone was saying.

      I am fairly certain they knew what they were doing as they were trying to add to the continued confusion of Linux server "sales".

      Microsoft wants everyone to believe that their TCO is lower than Linux when everyone knows it's not. By funding/writing misleading press releases, they can further blur (in the general public's mind) the lines that don't exist.
      • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dougmc (70836) <dougmc+slashdot@frenzied.us> on Sunday November 27, 2005 @12:35AM (#14122140) Homepage
        Microsoft wants everyone to believe that their TCO is lower than Linux when everyone knows it's not.
        No, everyone doesn't `know it's not'.

        Certainly, in some cases, the TCO of Linux in a certain role at a certain location will be more than the TCO of a Windows server (or group of servers) serving the same rule. I'm not saying that this is always the case, or even that it's usually the case, but at least some of the time, this will be true.

        Is it just me, or did Microsoft pretty much `invent' the TCO term strictly to counter free software like Linux? Did the term exist before Linux did, or was it just Microsoft making it popular?

        In any event, I'm not here to argue that Windows has a lower TCO than Linux. I'm just saying that it's not as `obviously' wrong as you make it sound.

        • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Informative)

          by drsmithy (35869) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .yhtimsrd.> on Sunday November 27, 2005 @12:55AM (#14122232)
          Is it just me, or did Microsoft pretty much `invent' the TCO term strictly to counter free software like Linux? Did the term exist before Linux did, or was it just Microsoft making it popular?

          Yes. "TCO" has been around forever. Mac zealots regularly rolled out the "MacOS has better TCO than Windows" arguments back in the early (and mid, and late) 90s (in reference to a single TCO comparison of MacOS 7.x and Windows 3.0, IIRC).

          "TCO" is a pretty well known term in a business environment (which is probably why so few people on Slashdot have heard of it outside Linux-Windows fluff articles).

          • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by BrokenHalo (565198) on Sunday November 27, 2005 @02:33AM (#14122534)
            "TCO" is a pretty well known term in a business environment (which is probably why so few people on Slashdot have heard of it outside Linux-Windows fluff articles).

            Indeed, but insisting on quoting figures for Linux server "sales" indicates only a deliberate intent to mislead, since the majority of Linux servers out there are running on distros downloaded free of charge. Yes, I do know about RedHat Enterprise stuff, but I don't know anybody who uses it...

          • Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Informative)

            by Kjella (173770)
            Yes. "TCO" has been around forever. (...) "TCO" is a pretty well known term in a business environment

            Well, according to the sources I find, it gets attributed to Gartner group in 1987, so I would hardly consider it forever. Businesses have always been interested in finding out what the bottom line is, but trying to consider every cost through-out the lifetime of an asset hasn't really been very feasible until we got computers with decent spreadsheet capability.
            • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Informative)

              by killjoe (766577) on Sunday November 27, 2005 @05:33AM (#14123009)
              TCO is pretty much bullshit because most businesses don't even keep track of the expenses on their servers. All they do is depreciate what they can and that's the extent of it.

              I once asked a CIO if I should keep track of what the software we installed on a server costs and whether we should balance that against the monetary benefits of the said software and he just looked at me like I was nuts. Apparently you are not allowed to actually keep track of TCO, you are just supposed to read about it in gartner reports.
              • Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)

                by gbjbaanb (229885) on Sunday November 27, 2005 @01:14PM (#14124260)
                I once asked a CIO

                Well, there's your problem, you asked an overblown geek something about financials and he either didn't know, or didn't care.

                If you'd asked a CFO, then you would have gotten a very different picture, and I think you'd still be discussing the relative merits of drawn-down software licencing as a cost structure opposed to the tax-claimable options of the licences as software rental models amortized over the standard 3 year tax redemption period.

                Go see your accounts depeartment, they'll tell you, to the penny, what you spent on software licences, renewals and maintenance agreements over anything up to 7 years ago.
            • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Informative)

              by Anne Thwacks (531696) on Sunday November 27, 2005 @06:12AM (#14123084)
              I think you will find TCO was being taught in business school in the 1960's (at least in the UK). Gartners may be staking claim to public domain property, but I dont think that is a new concept either.

              TCO in relation to servers probably did not exist before servers.

              TCO is widely taught in sales courses as a marketing tool used by people whose solution is too expensive to justify the additional cost. Its in the same boat with "Yes we are the most expensive, its cos we are the best".

              The whole point of getting an MBA is so you know to use these things on the competition, and not have them used on yourself. Of course, if you got your MBA from one of those places offering them for $5 on the internet, you might not have to do any actual learning.

    • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Golias (176380) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @10:59PM (#14121702)
      And just who is this "Linux" company which Microsoft seems to be competing so well against?

      The thing I know of called "Linux" is a free operating system (which behaves a lot like UNIX), sold by dozens of different companies as a server environment, and also available for free. If there's some company out there called "Linux" who is just selling to the IT server market, it is no wonder MS is outselling them, as they must be very obscure.
    • Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Funny)

      by slavemowgli (585321)

      Are Microsoft's sales of Windows Server higher than Microsoft's sales of Linux?

      That's the way I'd read it - and it's probably true, too (which is certainly a new twist as far as FUD is concerned).

      • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Red Alastor (742410) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @11:33PM (#14121875)
        Yup, that's purely the truth and it's purely FUD. In other news, Linux servers are outdownloading Microsoft servers.
      • The article actually says that Windows Server sales accounts for 5% more total sales revenue than Linux server sales.

        That makes sense. Item A is grossly overpriced, yet there are lots of companies locked into it. Item B is free, though you can buy support and extensions if you want. Which is going to have a bigger net negative impact on your cash flow?

        The title of the article should be "Windows Server sucks up more of your IT budget. Stop that!"

  • Gartner... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by krray (605395) * on Saturday November 26, 2005 @10:39PM (#14121582)
    Gartner, Inc. recently reported:
    First, the study says that Windows based Servers accounted for 37 percent in revenue. Now traditionally, Windows based systems are more expensive than Linux based systems, so even if vendors sold lesser number of Windows systems, the price difference could ensure that Windows sales revenue was higher. This implies that, in terms of pure numbers, Linux could very well have outsold Windows.

    Enough said. Nothing to see here. Move along...

    I've recently redone the server end for [yet another] office (Linux based, of course) for which they certainly won't show up in Linux or Windows based sales "reports". Ever.
    Linux is doing just fine...
    • Not to mention.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by brunes69 (86786) <<gro.daetsriek> <ta> <todhsals>> on Saturday November 26, 2005 @10:47PM (#14121641) Homepage

      ... that whenever a company buys a bunch of servers from say, Dell, and doesn't bother to specify on the order that some are Linux servers (since it doesn't save you any money for the hassle of making two orders, especially if you are using Debian or some non-supported distro anyway), they get counted towards *Windows* profits, even though they will be wiped as soon as they get to the company.

      • by timeOday (582209) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @10:54PM (#14121677)
        Slight correction: those short-lived preinstalls aren't just counted as Windows profits, they are Windows profits. In fact it's a very profitable sale of Windows, as there are no support issues whatsoever. Pretty sweet for Microsoft, I'd say.
        • by Cylix (55374)
          I bought my Dell's with NO OS....

          Servers you can get without the Windows tax with a small penny saved. (small in comparison to the overall cost anyway... sorta... unless you count the license packs for connections... then the savings are quite ungodly... a few more dots shall we? ... )
          • by arivanov (12034) on Sunday November 27, 2005 @04:02AM (#14122798) Homepage
            This offer is available only from DELL and only in the US.

            Dell is a no-buy in my "house". For many reasons starting from being very non-standard (just disassemble one for a change and see how many parts are custom) and finishing with being Texan.

            This leaves me with the other usual suspects - IBM, Compaq/HP and Fujitsu/Siemens. Well, none of these sells OS-less servers at least for the UK market. None of them sells desktops or laptops without a preloaded OS either. And you do not get the discounts and the special offers on the few models available with a linux preload.

            In fact, if you follow the discounted models you can get a better value for your money then from buying OS-less Dell. Sad but true.
            • by Linker3000 (626634) on Sunday November 27, 2005 @07:01AM (#14123193) Journal
              I have been purchasing OS-less HP Proliant servers in the UK for around two years through the regular end-user sales channels. They end up running CentOS as mail, intranet and database servers.
            • by arkhan_jg (618674)
              I've just bought a batch of HP Proliant Ml110 + ML310 small servers for firewall/proxy and file server duties, and no windows pre-installed. Pretty cheap too, though I'm adding hardware raid cards and the extra drives myself.

              They're nothing wonderful, but they're better than a cheap desktop - as they have PCI-X - for basic server duty in isolated areas, especially if you're putting linux on them.
      • Actually its very simple to buy servers from Dell without operating systems (A variety of OS choices are offered including Redhat and Microsoft server OS's) So your theory of server sales counting towards Windows is patently false.
    • Re:Gartner... (Score:5, Informative)

      by MaelstromX (739241) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @10:50PM (#14121654)
      Absolutely right, and to attempt to gauge Linux's success or popularity by sales is completely futile. As a matter of fact, the article recognizes all of this.

      First, the study says that Windows based Servers accounted for 37 percent in revenue. Now traditionally, Windows based systems are more expensive than Linux based systems, so even if vendors sold lesser number of Windows systems, the price difference could ensure that Windows sales revenue was higher. This implies that, in terms of pure numbers, Linux could very well have outsold Windows.

      Furthermore the article says that Linux servers account for 31.7% as opposed to Windows' 37%. To paint this as anything other than a success for Linux (which is either free, as in the case of the parent, or likely cheaper than the Windows alternative) is a little strange.

      Personally I'm not seeing the point of posting this blog entry but learning those numbers was a little interesting I guess.
    • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Saturday November 26, 2005 @11:02PM (#14121715)
      First off, they admit that they don't know what the UNITS are, just the revenue (and they admit that Windows costs more than Linux).

      THEN they go off about WHY Microsoft moves more units than Linux, even though they admit that they don't know that Microsoft DID move more units.

      You'd think that "cooltechzone" might be a bit suspicious that units are not mentioned. Just a bit suspicious.
      • by bit01 (644603) on Sunday November 27, 2005 @05:31AM (#14123004)

        You'd think that "cooltechzone" might be a bit suspicious that units are not mentioned. Just a bit suspicious.

        Probably a marketing front site. Many marketing parasites are far more devious and deceptive than even most /.'ers give them credit, let alone the general public.

        It's common practice to create and maintain plausible looking "alternative viewpoint" websites designed to manipulate opinion. and to submit posts and moderate on sites like /.. Marketers aren't stupid, they're quite happy to put in strawman viewpoints and other material just to make their marketing propaganda look plausible. On /. a classic is "I like linux but ..." and then proceed to trash any viewpoint except the one they're paid to push.

        There's millions of dollars involved; do you think the ethics of a large percentage of marketing parasites is going to stop them from doing damn near anything they think they can get away with?

        ---

        The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry".

    • Re:Gartner... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by aCapitalist (552761)
      I've recently redone the server end for [yet another] office (Linux based, of course) for which they certainly won't show up in Linux or Windows based sales "reports".

      You gotta just love these personal anecdotes that everybody is so fond in telling us. They are so indicative of market trends.

      "People, all you have to do is listen to my random personal experience to know the market trends. I'm important. Listen to me.......please"
      • Re:Gartner... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by penguinoid (724646)
        yes, but can you tell the difference between "listen to this odd story" and "I did this, and so do several thousand others"?
    • by sillybilly (668960) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @11:58PM (#14122001)
      Duh. Linux can be had for free, without a sale. You could even say linux had zero sales and you could still be missing the point, because some people might find it very useful and might be using it very happily, for free. This is not the front to attack linux from.

      If you wanted to have a point to what you say, you could say about linux that people who made it were too lazy to make it good because they weren't paid, and I could believe that with good data backing it up, but it must be hard to prove that point, or we'd see it all over the place. You could also say that linux was submarined and made defective on purpose, that there was significant effort invested by the competition to bring it down, or to bring down its creators, and I would even believe that with even less data, but I'd get very pissed. "Ideally" (according to some people,) people who get paid lots of money to program should come up with better software than those that only make a comfortable sustenance at it, and are mostly fueled by compassion and the love of their art, and the recognition of their peers. Money can only buy you so much recognition in a linux coding community, but if you're the creator of some cool kernel feature, or device driver, or super optimized smp code section that everyone admires to read, now you're talking.

      For the other side, there was a story on PBS about two gun-inventors, from about the 1960's, one in the US, the other in the USSR. I forget the actual gun names. They both invented roughly equivalent guns, that were robust, could be dragged through mud and still work, and the US version even saw action in Vietnam, where soldiers preferred it to the more sophisticated guns that just broke down at the slightest touch of dirt. So basically, the US inventor got very rich, while his Soviet counterpart got a medal. This is the most important difference, according to the Soviet guy, as he commented on it years later. Sooner or later that aspect catches up with people too, especially if they are like an ex soviet, currently living barely at the edge of sustenance level. Hey, after the collapse of USSR, there were PBS reports showing a guy with a family to support, whose job was to guard the nuclear warheads, saying he hasn't been paid for six months by his government, because it was so bankrupt it couldn't even send a spaceship up to the MIR space station, and an astronaut was stuck up there for like a year, until the US Space Shuttle made a trip to pick him up. So yes, soviet gun inventors care a lot about not getting paid, especially when they are hungry. Basically, if you want the freecoding linux programming community to care more about getting paid, you should find a way to starve them, but as soon as they make enough to have food, and shelter (but not soap, clothing, combs, etc, such things are unimportant to happiness, unless you want to get laid) off they go again, out of your control.
      • Re:Gartner... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by SnowZero (92219)
        You do realize that many of the top Linux kernel developers are paid to work on it, right? Linus gets paid by OSDL. Many developers work for various distributions. IBM, SGI, and Intel have paid employees who work on Linux full or part time. Your oft-repeated view may have been true years ago, but that system started disappearing in the late 90s.

        There are still, of course, plenty of people who work on Linux in their spare time. Some of the bigger contributers do it to get a job: After they have proven t
    • Clueless article (Score:5, Informative)

      by einhverfr (238914) <chris.travers@gM ... com minus author> on Sunday November 27, 2005 @01:08AM (#14122282) Homepage Journal
      Well, this is a fun article to pick apart and see why people are jumping to all the wrong conclusions....

      First, the article makes the mistake in merely comparing Windows and Linux. In omitting any analysis in what is going on with UNIX, MacOS X (yeah, I know it has a UNIX-like kernel but much of the rest of the setup is almost but not quite entirely unlike UNIX), any context to these numbers is omitted. What is happening, however, is that three trends are occuring which are noteworthy:

      1) Proprietary UNIX's market share is shrinking.
      2) Windows and Linux are gaining market share in terms of absolute deployments on the server side.
      3) *Some* of these deployments are counted in the sale of new servers. but not all.

      Even so, Linux's marketshare is still up, as is Windows. These are the only two OS's to have been significantly gaining marketshare in server market (well, maybe MacOS, but it is hard not to gain from about 0% a few years ago). I would argue that WIndows is gaining because it is familiar, and Linux is gaining because it is like that it is replacing. Both operating systems claim to be easier to administrate than proprietary UNIX (I certainly think Linux is, but I think that non-trivial tasks in Windows are actually harder than with proprietary UNIX).

      Now, something seems fishy to me about this study in another way. In the 2000 IDC study (iirc) NT4 and 2000 accounted for about 37% of the market share by volume. Linux was much lower than that. If the IDC is correct and Windows market share has indeed been growing from 2000 to 2002 (when I stopped reading the study) then either they have slipped in market share, Linux sells for more, Gartner is underestimating Windows' market share, or the IDC is overestimating the market share of WIndows. Perhaps even some combination of the above explenations.

      Now... I used to work at Microsoft's PSS. I can tell you their support is nothing to write home about. They aren't someone you call because you need expert advice. If you are reasonably knowledgable, you call them for a second opinion. If you are a novice you call them for mentoring. But you can get braindead answers occasionally from them. I remember being on the phone with a customer and conferencing someone in from the SQL Server support team who said that it was not possible to set a value to NULL once it had been set to another value. Somehow I don't think that this was right but I have not had a chance to test it. Then there are the issues where the technicians advocate best practices whithout understanding *why* they are best practices. And this was all before so much of it was sent to India :-)

      Finally the idea that an ad-supported Windows would be the end of Linux is laughable. I think that this would be the beginning of the end of Windows, not of Linux. Hmm... 2 free products. One is adware the other is not. Which should I choose?

      In short this article makes mistakes such as:
      1) assuming that market share by revenue has any reasonable correlation to actual deployments.
      2) refusing to take into account the broader market trends that form the context of this study.

      This article smacks of MS shilling.

      • Excellent, clear analysis.

        You said, "I used to work at Microsoft's PSS. I can tell you their support is nothing to write home about. They aren't someone you call because you need expert advice."

        That reminded me of a comparison [karmak.org] of Microsoft technical support with Psychic Friends Network. Neither know the answer, but Psychic Friends Network is more friendly and less expensive.
      • by fimion (890504)
        Let's also look at what else this author has written about linux.... OH! look! [cooltechzone.com] (for you lazy people, i'll take a nice quick quote.)

        "... I love Microsoft. Absolutely adore it and what's more, I hate Linux. I think it's the most over rated piece of software ever built and survives simply out of spite and not because it is terribly good at doing something because it is not!"

        Maybe Microsoft is paying people to slashdot crappy articles....

      • by Jerry (6400)
        This article smacks of MS shilling.

        I agree.

        It has all the ear-marks of a "Submarine" article, as defined by Paul Graham.
        http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html [paulgraham.com]

        That this is true is born out by IDC's evaluation of the data.
        http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;17540595 24;fp;2;fpid;1 [linuxworld.com.au]
        "After a long period focused on cutting costs and buying servers just to run current applications, enterprises are once again investing strategically in systems to handle future workloads, said IDC analyst Matt Eastwood. IT o
  • Summary (from the article):
    "The research unfortunately only refers to the sales revenue rather than overall profits and market share."
    "Now traditionally, Windows based systems are more expensive than Linux based systems, so even if vendors sold lesser number of Windows systems, the price difference could ensure that Windows sales revenue was higher. This implies that, in terms of pure numbers, Linux could very well have outsold Windows."
  • by brunes69 (86786) <<gro.daetsriek> <ta> <todhsals>> on Saturday November 26, 2005 @10:42PM (#14121607) Homepage

    Plus, you have hassle free and rapid support from Microsoft, which is a comforting feature for corporate customers

    Hassle-free? Rapid? Man I gotta get whatever these guys are smoking....

    Every try to report a bug in a Microsoft product and get a fix? You'll likely be waiting on the order of months. That is, if you get a fix at all.

    • by DanteLysin (829006) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @10:48PM (#14121649)
      I know this audience is largely anti-Microsoft. However, all of my service tickets with Microsoft (regarding server support) were resolved quickly. The Product Support Engineers kept me apprised with daily updates. One time, one of the Product Support Engineers took 2 days to get back to me.

      In my career, I've experienced poorer support with other software vendors.

      Then again, the company I work for is a Microsoft Partner. That could make a difference.
    • We demand buggy software!
    • by mfifer (660491) on Sunday November 27, 2005 @12:31AM (#14122126)
      I call BS.

      We've worked with Microsoft's $245/call service several times with obscure problems and two things to Microsoft's credit:

      1) they never gave up on the problem
      2) they came through with a fix (longest wait time was a really odd Office/Windows OpLock prob and we had a fix within 10 business days).

      Man, I think MS is the devil as much as the next guy (Apple guy here, for reference), but I've put dollars up that they've refused to take.

      FUD you're speakin', I'd say...
      • by Anonymous Coward

        Well I'll see your call of BS and raise you a little research:

        Microsoft Versus Psychic Friends Network [joke-archives.com]

        For those unwilling to read the article, and you really should read it, here's how it breaks down:

        1. Both Microsoft and the Psychic Friends Network provided an equivalent level of technical assistance. (0==0)
        2. Psychic Friends Network was cheaper.
        3. Psychic Friends Network had better customer service. Faster, and much more courteous.
      • by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Sunday November 27, 2005 @07:20AM (#14123237)
        I think folks know that I pretty much think Microsoft is fairly evil, immoral, dishonest, (convicted of multiple crimes), etc. that wants to lock me into paying a monthly subscription for the OS and applications.

        Those creditials as a Certified Anti-Microsoft Geek (tm) out of the way:

        The one time I had a problem on Win98SE and called for support they:
        1) tried to have me reinstall everything (I refused since I'd done that myself twice).
        2) They said okay then, the call is going to cost you $35 bucks (I said, Sure).
        3) They then spent 5 hours, pulled in at least 2 senior programmers and eventually correctly diagnosed that the sound card (a really high end card I paid about $250 for in 1996ish) had not produced a new compatible driver for win98SE. Since they had me doing all the keying and mousing, I learned a lot about debugging the problem. It was indeed the sound card (which I replaced with a creative Live card).
        4) They said, "wow- that was a toughy. No charge!" at the end of the call.

        So as far as customer support goes, I have no complaints as a microsoft customer from my one hardcore experience with them.
    • Ever tried to get an uncommon bug fixed in the OSS world, or explanation on how something works? Unless you get lucky and meet someone who a) happens to know what they are talking about, b) happens to have the time, and c) happens to be in a good mood, you are out of luck.

      Yes, MS support is expensive, but I know that if I call them, they will MAKE someone work with me, even if I have to end up on 3rd level developer support. With Linux, no such luck. I'm at the mercy of the wind. Yes, I can buy support from
  • by yagu (721525) * <yayagu.gmail@com> on Saturday November 26, 2005 @10:42PM (#14121610) Journal

    From the article:

    The most important reason that Windows based servers are doing so well could be that programmers find it extremely easy to work on .Net and other related technologies (seamless integration). Plus, you have hassle free and rapid support from Microsoft, which is a comforting feature for corporate customers. When Windows Live comes in, we will see further integration between the server and online technical support areas, thereby making the troubleshooting process easier for in-house administrators and reducing overhead costs for the company.

    Is this really true? The teams I worked with on .NET and Windows technology hardly found the integration seamless. As a matter of fact we had a full-time staff of Microsoft consultants on-site as well as on call to help provide workarounds for all of the glitches with the .NET technology, and there were a LOT of them.

    I do wish there were less license for this kind of publishing. It is the complement to libel, i.e., it gives undue credit to someone for something not true. Weird. And, it still does damage to third party simply by virtue of lending credence and credibility to .NET and Microsoft. Sigh.

    • I do wish there were less license for this kind of publishing. It is the complement to libel, i.e., it gives undue credit to someone for something not true.

      1) Sue them for reverse-libel!! (lebil?)
      2) ????
      3) Profit!
    • Not all development teams are created equal. I led a small development team that developed a C#/.NET application to automate Technical Support and QA internal operations. The project was largely successful. We had 1 contact with Microsoft ( due to my team's lack of experience in automating remote Hostname changes). In just 3 days, Microsoft provided us with the code answers we were missing. Our first release was bugfree and, in the first year, the departments experienced an 800% ROI.

      That being said, .NET is
    • by killjoe (766577) on Sunday November 27, 2005 @01:09AM (#14122287)
      FUD articles like this usually ignore the fact that java exists. Java does exist and .NET is just a ripoff of it. Java has a better ide then .net (yes eclipse, netbeans and idea are all better the VS), has a richer library, integrates fantastically with the OS (syslog etc), has a much more robust and active community and costs nothing to use.

      Look at what happened with VS.NET 2005. After years of being half as productive as eclipse users MS finally gave them a decent build sytem, a unit testing framework, and something like javadoc. Needless to say they blatantly ripped off ant and junit all the while making their product incompatible of course. Somehow they forgot about ripping off hibernate and xdoclet though which I found odd.

      Anyway after two years of working with primitive tools which didn't have any refactoring support or half the shit java developers have been taking for granted they now have a product which is 80% as good as eclipse. FOr the next two years eclipse will continue to pull ahead and the VS.NET people will not know any better because they finally got a few new features in VS and are soooooo happy and proud.

  • by Punboy (737239) *
    Did it occur to them that most of the software on Linux don't require purchasing? Groupware servers, Web servers, FTP servers... IRC servers... all free.
    • by gmuslera (3436)
      And even between the ones that "require" purchasing, probably they are counting the "Enterprise" versions of packaged linux, i.e. not just redhat but redhat advanced server, not just suse but the enterprise version.

      From that point of view, Microsoft could claim that "the number of company supported server OSs market share is bigger for Windows". I can take that were sold or even used around the world more Windows Servers than Enterprise versions of Linux distributions... but from there, to say that Window

      • well of course the number of supported systems is higher. with windows you must keep support otherwise you will get owned. with linux you can maintain your own system and download the patches you need manually.
  • by Gossi (731861) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @10:44PM (#14121624)
    Plus, you have hassle free and rapid support from Microsoft, which is a comforting feature for corporate customers.

    I rang Microsoft the other day. It was a fantastic experience. After getting somebody on first line support who clearly had no idea what I was talking about, after 5 minutes he transfered me to 2nd line support - in India. With a several second phone lag, I explained the problem repeatedly. After 30 minutes - 30 MINUTES - I got the patch I first rang for.

    Yes, that's hassle free and rapid.
    • I've called in twice over the few month to Microsoft, once for a SQL Server patch, once for a Visual Studio patch. Both times (and the several others over the course of the year), one of the first questions the phone routing system asked was if I was calling in for a patch. After pressing 1, the call got routed to a customer service rep who took my information and forwarded me to a technical rep. The technical rep simply verified the error I was receiving was fixed by the patch I was requesting and then
    • I had an interesting phone call with Microsoft the other week. My laptop came with Win XP Pro pre-installed. I'd activated it since I had a contract where I needed it.

      I decided to wipe it off, install SuSE Linux, and run Win XP in VMWare. All my work is Linux based at the moment. Of course it wouldn't activate as the "hardware" had changed so I called Microsoft and ended up at an Indian call centre.

      Paraphrasing...

      Me : I'd like to re-Activate Windows
      Her : You're using an OEM version of Windows, you
  • Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pig Hogger (10379) <pig.hoggerNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday November 26, 2005 @10:45PM (#14121625) Journal
    When your product is gratuit, it's very easy to "sell" less than a competing product that costs money... In fact, you're selling none at all.

    It's very easy to sell more than nothing. You only need to sell it once!!!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26, 2005 @10:45PM (#14121629)
    Plus, you have hassle free and rapid support from Microsoft, which is a comforting feature for corporate customers.
    *ROFL* Wow, that's rich. What microsoft offers is not "hassle free" or "rapid support", but the illusion of such. If Red Hat, etc, could do that, they'd own.

    In the past several months, my company has had to deal with Microsoft on 2 different calls. One was about Clusters, the other was MSMQ. Both were handled poorly - the first one, their answer was "apply this hotfix", they think it'll fix it, no promises, and no easy way to back it out (that they knew of). Niiice.
    The second, I'm firmly convinced that our guys know more than the people who wrote the code - we've had to deal with some odd issues, and none of the tech support had a clue(and yes it was escalated a few times). Or a grasp of the primary language in the US. *grr*

    And .Net is a selling point. For what, I'm not sure. After having the .Net framework trash my home box, I'm quite hesitant to install it on my servers.
  • by dtfinch (661405) * on Saturday November 26, 2005 @10:46PM (#14121633) Journal
    People don't buy servers with Linux preinstalled. They buy a no OS server and install it themselves. Plus Linux is free, which also skews the numbers a bit.
  • by eyebits (649032) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @10:50PM (#14121655)
    This story is like putting a cat in a kennel of dogs. I can imagine the editors sitting there thinking, "Mmm. We could use some good fun..we're bored. Let's throw this cat in the kennel and get our kicks out of watching the dogs go nuts." Thanks guys.
  • by Foofoobar (318279) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @10:50PM (#14121659)
    How the hell will they get complete and accurate figures for all the new servers that run Linux when the OS is free in most cases? And how many of those servers with Windows on them were immediately replaced with Linux? I have worked at many shops where we freely install Fedora or Mandrake on Servers including servers bought from DELL that come with Windows preinstalled.

    I love when they quote these sales figures because they mean next to nothing compared to an OS that is free and when most major hardware vendors are just NOW getting on board with Linux and even then, just half heartedly.
  • In related news, Kool-aid stocks have hit an all time high. Favorite flavor, lemon-aid.

    Seems funny that if you search Slashdot, .NET is spoken of as a dead-man walking. Netcraft shows that Apache servers are still on tops. So, what gives?

    • by Metzli (184903)
      Exactly what part of negative .NET press on Slashdot surprises you? C'mon, this is _Slashdot_, anti-MS opinions (whether they are accurate or not) are the norm. It's not right, it's not wrong, it's just the way it is.
  • by n0dalus (807994) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @10:52PM (#14121670) Journal
    A common problem in trying to count the number of servers running an OS is defining what a 'server' is. Most Linux servers I've seen run ten times the number of virtualhosts that Windows servers do. Do you count a Linux server running 1000 sites as 1 server or 1000?
    I wouldn't be surprised if there were more physical servers running Windows, but if you count virtualhosts instead there would be far more sites using Linux.
  • by hbp4c (315334) <howard.powell@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Saturday November 26, 2005 @10:55PM (#14121679) Homepage
    My personal disclaimer: I use linux daily, and haven't touched windows in quite some time.

    If the Microsoft Windows OS is becoming a better product than it used to be, then this is a great thing. If Microsoft Windows is becoming better DUE TO the presence of Linux as an alternative OS, then all the more better for both OS's. The computer world needs progress in order to keep millions of programmers and sysadmins like myself in proper employment. :-)

    Now, as I originally stated in my discalimer, I am a Linux zealot like the next penguin-headed person. I have no problems with people who think that Windows is better than Linux, because I know that Linux is aimed at people who like to (borrowing from a Mac quote) "think different" and/or have needs that Linux better suits than Windows.
  • by drgroove (631550) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @10:57PM (#14121693)
    Studies like this count only purchases, not acquisitions of Linux that were not purchased. So, if I download Slackware to run my webserver, I'm not going to show up on this study. Take those percentages with a grain of salt; Netcraft still knows the truth.

    Regarding MS' 'seamless integration' of code on top of the OS, in this instance, only companies which own or can deliver and support the complete stack (OS, RDBMS, OOP, Web server, App server, etc) will be in a position to compete - Sun, Redhat and Novell come immediately to mind. Currently, Sun - w/ Solaris, Java, et al - is most equipped to deliver a seamlessly-integrated full stack w/ support to counter MS' offerings.
  • by bstadil (7110) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @11:04PM (#14121728) Homepage
    $B

    Linux $1.44B 11.53%

    Other $2.55 20.42%

    Windows $4.60 36.83%

    Unix $3.90 31.22%

    Total $12.49 100.00%

    Now ask what "Other" is. Mainframe OS and AS400 is 10% tops the rest is servers bought without OS Guess what is being installed on those?

    . MS invested in Gartner here a few years back, since that no Units is being published only Value. By the wya the Linux partion went yp 37% in value and 22% unit (they poublished the growth not the absolute numbers) menaning the average price of Linux servers is rising 10%.

  • I switched from being a windows idiot to a Debian Linux slightly-less-stupid idiot 3 years ago after leaving a job at Microsoft and realizing I needed new friends. I only use Debian Linux at home, but I keep VMWare w/ W2k3, VS, SQL to practice for work; I keep WXP part for playing games and the needing to do the inevitable Microsoft crap this society demands, and am I'm doing quite well using Microsoft at work. I feel all cheap and dirty because I constantly point out to people how really sad I am for the
  • Who's buying Linux? (Score:3, Informative)

    by max born (739948) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @11:08PM (#14121750)
    Windows Server software outsold Linux in the server market. Gartner, Inc.

    Well that's probably true because most of us don't buy Linux -- we simply download it. But the fact that corporate types are buying preinstalled Linux servers at a rate to nearly equal Microsoft says something about Linux in general.

  • by cloricus (691063) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @11:09PM (#14121758)
    At my work place we are (painfully) slowly moving away from our existing Microsoft Windows Servers and replacing them with Linux and Solaris solutions. Note things like our Exchange servers are staying in place as there are no suitable equivalents though most other things are being moved across. Why? Because Microsoft's support is a joke compared even to unofficial IRC support channels for FOSS, it costs far to much when compared to Free* (*plus training, installation, support) solutions, and we dislike the vendor lock in Activation and licenses that are forced on those using Microsoft Server software; we paid good money only to be treated like pirates and have to deal with those systems failing and causing server problems, it is Microsoft's problem and making it our problem is a punch to the face. Right now as I type this I'm converting a Windows 2k3 Server to Ubuntu 5.10 (yes I know...) for another company in towns that I'm mates with the boss as they simply can't afford to deal with support issues on a mission critical server. They need some thing that Just Works(tm) and that is Linux (I tried pitching Solaris 10! I really did!). From my look on the Industry (note I'm in Australia) I see it as being more of a case that people are looking at Linux seriously, testing the water, liking it, and then attempting to migrate their servers. Along with hardcore Linux users who refuse to move to Microsoft (Rubbish) Software I see this as the Linux server market growing and I seriously doubt Microsoft dominance over Unix really exists. (Then again...There are a lot of Exchange servers out there...) 2 cents
  • "Paid? You don't get paid. Are you kidding, you work on commission, that's better than getting paid."
  • by SQLz (564901) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @11:16PM (#14121780) Homepage Journal
    thereby making the troubleshooting process easier for in-house administrators and reducing overhead costs for the company.

    What I don't get with Windows troubleshooting is why the first thing you do is reboot. With Linux, if you have a problem, 100 reboots is not going to solve the problem. As a person who has administrated hundreds, probably thousands of Windows, Linux, BSD machines, I find Linux to be much easier to troubleshoot because there is basically no such thing as an intermittent problem.(maybe 0.01% of the time and 99.9% of the time its a hardware problem and not Linux) You either have a problem, or you don't. There is not of this crap where a machine runs fine for 30 days then all of a sudden has issues that go away when you reboot.

    Maybe others have different experiences, I don't know. I've worked a lot of different places over the last 10 years and this has held true everywhere.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26, 2005 @11:28PM (#14121848)

    It's bullshit. Nobody is shocked that Windows outsells Linux. Windows Server has ALWAYS outsold Linux. Linux outselling Windows would be NEWS.

    And Linux doesn't account for 31% of total server revenue.. It accounts for fucking 12% of server revenue.
    http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/11/23/server_sales_q3_ 2005/ [tgdaily.com]

    The only news is that NEW linux sales (as in more sold this quarter then previous) rose 34+ percent, or something like this.

    This has been 12 straight quarters which new server sales for Linux growth has risen double digits. There have been quarters were Linux growth has been 54% NEW sales over the previous quarter's sales. Linux is increasing it's precense in the datacenter and in the server room like a fucking rocket. Always has been, but until recently Linux has been a very small fish in a big pond. Now it's the second most common OS that your going to see anywere.

    The news this guy is refering to is that Windows outsold UNIX, not Linux. Linux is recorded in a seperate catagory..

    This isn't due to anything wonderfull Windows does. The main reason you'd want to run Windows Server is that you run Windows Desktop because Microsoft's products don't integrate with jack shit. But everybody runs Windows desktop and windows desktop only works well with windows server unless you have a mixed enviroment then you use Linux as glue between MS stuff and everything else.

    The main reason that Unix servers sales have flagged is because Linux, not Windows. Linux is MUCH cheaper to use then Unix.

    Hell in this quarter alone Sun has dropped from 7+ % of sales to under 5% and that's due to Linux. Most of Oracle licenses and such that are sold are sold to be run on Linux.

    However that has had the side effect of making Windows the largest market in terms of sales..

    Which is still bullshit because if you take Unix and Linux together, which you should since they are mostly compatable and run all the same software, then Windows server is still the minority and always has been.

  • sigh... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by shrewd (830067) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @11:30PM (#14121855)
    microsoft take on any threat to their software in one (or a mixture of) ways:

    1. buy out the competition
    2. use dominance in another market to push your product in this one
    3. when that doesn't work simply tell people lies

    so far i haven't seen much of:

    4. improve your own product so that the customers like it more and pay for it

    microsoft thwart the market system, anti monopoly laws and consumer soverignty yet again....
  • Netcraft's data says (Score:5, Informative)

    by dorkygeek (898295) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @11:31PM (#14121862) Journal
    The mandatory netcraft [netcraft.com] post: the current web server survey [netcraft.com] does show a market share of 70.89% for Apache, 20.24% for Microsoft. Looking at the curve shows that MS market share has been stagnating since feb 2004 (after a rapid decline from their all time high of about 30% in feb 2002). Apache's market share is on a steady upwards trend.

  • by WindowsWasher (849166) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @11:31PM (#14121864)
    What the hell kind of ignorant, 6th grade, piss-ant research article is this?

    Of course, this comes from the same man (Varun Dubey) who said:

    "XP is such a joy when it comes to simply connecting a device and watching the pretty little bubble detecting it and saying "its installed and ready for use" makes the slightly high price absolutely worth it. In Linux, you have to recompile a kernel if you want to so much as change your modem! Give me a break guys, Linux is light years behind Windows XP and I am sure it will be further back biting the dust when Longhorn (now Vista) comes out."

    Dumbass.
  • In dollars, Microsoft is going to beat Linux for quite some time yet. A large percentage of Linux users download and more or less roll their own distributions. They don't buy them. The real question is how many are users are served with each platform on a regular basis. That is the number that really matters.
  • by lifebouy (115193)
    Of course Windows server software outsells Linux server software. The Linux distributions bundle all the server software you could ever need, whereas with Windows, you better be ready to decide which arm and leg you can live without, because you're paying for each one separately. Unless you manage to retain enough sanity to use open source software such as Apache. But then, you wouldn't be stupid enough to use Windows in a server environment.

    Remember, friends don't let friends use Windows in a server capa
    • Re:Duh. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jdragon (922434)
      Windows server software is outselling Linux because linus isn't usually sold but rather downloaded and installed. Alot of corporate admins typically buy servers without the O/S and install it themself. This report is totally bogus and misleading if you ask me!
  • by Jerry (6400) on Sunday November 27, 2005 @12:14AM (#14122067)
    the copies of Linux that were not purchased from retail channels but were downloaded free of charge.

    They also, no doubt, included in the counting the number of times a single, freely downloaded copy of Linux was installed more than once.

    Yup, despite the fact that these "onsulting" firms income streams totally depend on advising on the use of Microsoft software, I'm sure Gartner analysts will be professional and do their best to tally accurate counts, eschewing the crass action of merely rubberstamping a Microsoft PR memo. After all, people who earn fees by being featured in Microsoft server sales videos shouldn't have too much trouble remaining unbiased.

    mmm... after thinking about it I'm sure they never counted the four Linux servers we recently installed at work. Maybe they aren't as accurate as I thought.
  • Mediocracy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Sunday November 27, 2005 @12:48AM (#14122200) Homepage Journal
    Er, could it be that the effect of thousands of Microsoft salespeople is increasing Windows sales, compared to the much smaller amount of Linux salespeople? Maybe all that monopoly vendor lockin is giving Microsoft an edge in sales. And perhaps the media bias in favor of their big advertiser, Microsoft, after years of buying brand favoritism, is responsible for that media spin. Any Linux competitiveness in the highly rigged market is testament to its value. And stories like that one validate Linux's inexorable rise in market share. Linux is just getting started, while Windows getting pretty creaky. Propping it up won't last forever.
  • by HangingChad (677530) on Sunday November 27, 2005 @01:29AM (#14122351) Homepage
    [b]First, the study says that Windows based Servers accounted for 37 percent in revenue. Now traditionally, Windows based systems are more expensive than Linux based systems,[/b]

    Talk about Gartner making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If Linux is only a couple percentage points behind Windows servers on a [b]revenue[/b] basis it's Linux supporters who should be dancing in the streets. That's fantastic!

    Crimeny, no wonder Ballmer comes flying in like some giant winged monkey every time there's talk of a big Linux conversion. They're scared...and should be.

  • by Lazy Jones (8403) on Sunday November 27, 2005 @02:37AM (#14122547) Homepage Journal
    Ha ha ha.

    And what kind of bullshit do we have to read here on Slashdot these days? "now that Microsoft has sold more Windows Server software than Linux." - do you mean Microsoft is selling Linux now? Or is Linux some dude selling Windows Server software?

    I really recommend to put fewer, but worthwhile articles on Slashdot - we won't read it more often if you fill the front page up with such crap.

    Thank you.

  • by phorm (591458) on Sunday November 27, 2005 @05:16AM (#14122965) Journal
    How many commercial servers are based on "sold distributions." We have more than a dozen sites with Linux servers running Debian, which were not bought from anywhere and thus basically untraceable as a purchase. We have a few windows servers as well, which we pay for license for.

    Therefore, you could easily say we've bought more windows servers than linux, even though it's probably greater than a 10-1 ratio of actual use.
  • by MECC (8478) on Sunday November 27, 2005 @12:53PM (#14124148)


    That explains why IIS is in decline [netcraft.com] in terms of market share and total numbers.

  • Straw man argument (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dacarr (562277) on Sunday November 27, 2005 @01:48PM (#14124440) Homepage Journal
    This argument given by Gartner is a straw man argument, and their report, to give an analogy, is like saying that designer bottled water is more popular than tap water because it, as well, brings in more revenues. (Naive, anybody?)

The amount of weight an evangelist carries with the almighty is measured in billigrahams.

Working...