A Look at Windows Server Outselling Linux 450
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."
Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Extra Extra! (Score:5, Funny)
And In other news...
Tanning Booths outselling Sunlight!
Its a mad mad world.
Followup News (Score:3, Funny)
OMG, this made me blow coffee through my nose.
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Funny)
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)
The article does clarify (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
... 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.
Re:Not to mention.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not to mention.... (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re:Not to mention.... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Not to mention.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not to mention.... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Not to mention.... (Score:2, Insightful)
NO OS couints as Windows at Dell (Score:5, Informative)
If you buy a blade server without OS specified It comes with something called "No Operating System Microsoft Configuration [Included in Price]" and is counted as Windwos servers
Look for yourselves Dell Bladeserver" [dell.com]
Re:NO OS couints as Windows at Dell (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Gartner... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
No, it gets even better. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:No, it gets even better. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
Re:Gartner... (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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)
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. (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:Clueless article (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe Microsoft is paying people to slashdot crappy articles....
Re:Clueless article (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Gartner...Money for nothing, labour for free. (Score:5, Informative)
http://news.com.com/Subscription+boom+boosts+Red+
http://www.signal42.com/soaring_linux_sales_doubl
http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,62
then. Apparently some people are making money from it.
from a different viewpoint: (Score:2)
"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."
Re:from a different viewpoint: (Score:5, Informative)
Is it April Fools alreay? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Is it April Fools alreay? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Is it April Fools alreay? (Score:2)
Re:Is it April Fools alreay? (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Re:Is it April Fools alreay? (Score:3, Funny)
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:
Re: Microsoft does give good support sometimes. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Is it April Fools alreay? (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Cred, where on cred is due... sigh (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article:
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.
Re:Cred, where on cred is due... sigh (Score:2)
1) Sue them for reverse-libel!! (lebil?)
2) ????
3) Profit!
Re:Cred, where on cred is due... sigh (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said,
Re:Cred, where on cred is due... sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
No purchase necessary (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No purchase necessary (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:No purchase necessary (Score:2)
Microsoft technicial support is outstanding (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Microsoft technicial support is outstanding (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Microsoft technicial support is outstanding (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
It's very easy to sell more than nothing. You only need to sell it once!!!
Huh? Someone's not actually _used_ Windows support (Score:3, Insightful)
*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
Why Windows outsells Linux in $$$ (Score:4, Insightful)
Cat in a kennel (Score:3, Funny)
Sales Figures for something thats free?? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sales Figures for something thats free?? (Score:2)
Re:Sales Figures for something thats free?? (Score:2)
This is actually fairer than counting number of boxes, because one could argue that Unix/Linux tends to be installed on larger, more expensive systems than Windows.
Re:Sales Figures for something thats free?? (Score:2)
Sales also mean nothing when the OS is free. This seems to be a rather arbitrary report meant to slant one sides findings. Naturally, it's in Microsofts favor. Go figure.
Re:Sales Figures for something thats free?? (Score:2)
Re:Sales Figures for something thats free?? (Score:2)
In related news.... (Score:2)
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?
Re:In related news.... (Score:3, Informative)
Misrepresented Statistics (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Windows better due to the Linux "threat" (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Only counting purchases... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Only counting purchases... (Score:2)
Here is the 3Q breakdown (Score:3, Informative)
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%.
Re:Here is the 3Q breakdown (Score:5, Funny)
Windows 2000 Pirate Edition?
A Report from the Front (Score:2)
Re:A Report from the Front (Score:2)
The K
Who's buying Linux? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
What Rubbish (Not Troll...Serious comments!) (Score:5, Interesting)
linux = repo man? (Score:2)
Windows Troubleshooting (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
It's a feature! (Score:2, Funny)
Rebooting to fix problems is actually a feature! See, there is this highly secret and very technologically advanced code in Windows that on a reboot diagnoses the problem and automatically fixes it! What other OS can claim that? It's self-healing!
~wink~
Re:Windows Troubleshooting (Score:2)
This article is a Misleading troll. (Score:5, Informative)
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
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)
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)
Yeah and the moon is made out of green cheese. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Well, Duh!! (Score:2)
Duh. (Score:2)
Remember, friends don't let friends use Windows in a server capa
Re:Duh. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure Gartner was also including ... (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Linux comperable on a revenue basis? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
3 words about these Gartner figures (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Easy to outsell, not to outuse (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
MS Web servers in decline (Score:3, Insightful)
That explains why IIS is in decline [netcraft.com] in terms of market share and total numbers.
Straw man argument (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What are they smoking? (Score:2)
I love my OSS environments, languages and frameworks as much as the next guy, but good is good, and sometimes I'll admit it.
Re:What are they smoking? (Score:3, Interesting)
Try support issues regarding the function of Exchange server in a large educational environment.
>ASP.NET, ADO.NET, and C# Windows apps are very easy to write and maintain.
You are entitled to your opinion that the above statement is correct. It just hasn't been my experience.
.Windows 2003 is solid (Score:5, Funny)
Bill? Is that you?
Re:According to who? (Score:3, Informative)