Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Linux Market: Absolutes / Percentages / Trends

Posted by timothy on Tue Sep 07, 2004 06:09 AM
from the any-two-points-fit-a-curve dept.
vincecate writes "In their 10-K filing, Microsoft says that Linux server units rose slightly faster on an absolute basis than Windows server units in fiscal 2004. To project the trends it is helpful to look at the percentages. Some Gartner Inc. statistics report Linux server unit shipments are up 61% giving it 9.5% of the overall market share. Windows has a much larger base, so it can get the same absolute unit growth with a much lower percentage. Gartner expects Linux to continue growing faster and have more than 1/2 of the new server shipment market by the end of 2008."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • For all the talk of Linux, only 230,074 machines, or about 14.7 percent of shipments, were servers
    running Linux. However, all of those Linux machines added up to a smidgen more than $1 billion
    in sales for the quarter.Check more details here [midrangeserver.com]
    • by po8 (187055) on Tuesday September 07 2004, @06:39AM (#10175711)

      Keep in mind that the servers shipped running Linux may be a miniscule fraction of the total Linux servers deployed or being deployed at this point. Presumably one reason for the relative growth of Linux preloads vs Windows preloads will be more competitive prices of Linux preloads and a decline in Windows unloads.

      (BTW, when you directly quote an article, it is a good idea to use quotation marks. Otherwise people might think the text was yours.)

      • by dubious9 (580994) on Tuesday September 07 2004, @07:30AM (#10175922) Journal
        Excelent point. I know that all of my linux boxes are installed after the server is already rackmounted. That means that there was probably windows already on it, or that client need different functionality (you mean I can put my web and mail on one server and use the windows machine that were doing that to augment the SQL cluster? Cool!), or whatever.

        I'm pretty sure that none of the linux boxes that I admin will get counted in any linux survey. Count support contracts from Redhat et al? Nope, I'm the support. I'd wager that any broad count of linux deployment is under by at least 50% and probably 75%.
        • Servers are not desktops. If you buy a server with Windows if you do not want to install Windows but Linux, *BSD, whatever you either have too much money or you are stupid. Almost all relevant vendors ship today servers at least without an operating system, some even with a Linux distro of (mostly limited) choice installed.
            • Might depend on where you buy; looking at the German Dell site all servers come per default without OS, all OS'ses (W2K, W2K3, RedHat Enterprise, Novell) cost extra. The same IIRC for Fujitsu-Siemens (they are large in Germany) and others. I never saw it otherwise over here for servers in the last couple of years; desktops certainly are another story.
      • This is something that the articles and reports often fail to mention. I know at our company every Linux server we have (and we have quite a few) is running a downloaded distribution. The original server shipped with either no OS or with Windows.
  • by gregski (765387) on Tuesday September 07 2004, @06:21AM (#10175652)
    i'm not really sure how important linux server shipment numbers are. Many copies will be installed on multiple machines or just downloaded for free.

    however it does show continual growth as a general indicater that linux is well accepted in the industry. i know my recent workplace was mostly windows on the desktop but had quite a few linux servers.
    • by DNS-and-BIND (461968) on Tuesday September 07 2004, @06:35AM (#10175702) Homepage
      The corporate world isn't geeks and freaks installing linux. You buy a whole system that includes hardware, software, and support. When the machine breaks, you don't start playing with .conf files and testing it, you call the manufacturer and they fix it, or tell you how. You wank with the machine, and it'll void your warranty.

      I know, it's a long way from downloading ISO's from bittorrent. But the business world does things differently (surprise).

      • by Anonymous Coward
        "But the business world does things differently (surprise). "

        No it isn't when you are the one providing the support for the box, then you prefer to install something which is low on maintenance and by this good for profit. As long as all desired functionality is preserved most people who already have taken the step to hire IT muscle don't bother what they run just that it runs.
        Ofcourse there is preference for a brand but thats way beaten by good price over performance/functionality.

        Heck when was the last
      • by millahtime (710421) on Tuesday September 07 2004, @07:01AM (#10175777) Homepage Journal
        depends on which part of the corporate world. The last company I worked for downloaded the ISO or did ftp installs of BSD (depending on the application). The current company I work for has serveers where they download the ISO but bought the service. So, either way they didn't buy machines with linux on it from the get go. And neither company is small or meduim in size.
      • Be fair, some of it IS downloaded ISOs. I know, because I have done it.

        It all dependes on organisational culture and the attitude of local management.
      • by avdp (22065) * on Tuesday September 07 2004, @07:44AM (#10175976)
        Really? Because I work for a fortune 500 (not a software company) and we do just that: download the ISO and install it on whatever the HP servers come preloaded with. We have in-house experts in all operating systems we use, and to my knowledge never rely on the vendor for anything but hardware failures (and even then, we usually have the spares on hand, and do the replacement ourselves). We will buy support contracts for things like Oracle databases, but even there, we have an excellent DBA staff which is pretty self reliant.

        I think you're attempting to project the way your company works to the rest of the corporate world... Not every company hires phone operators instead of IT staff.
      • That's bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

        by njdj (458173) on Tuesday September 07 2004, @08:08AM (#10176130)
        The corporate world isn't geeks and freaks installing linux. You buy a whole system that includes hardware, software, and support. When the machine breaks, you don't start playing with .conf files and testing it, you call the manufacturer and they fix it

        This is simply not true. I've spent the last 8 years working for big multinational banks. They all have internal support organizations. When something breaks, you call the tech support hotline, which is usually to the bank's internal support group. In a few banks, this function is contracted out to a company like EDS, whose people would be on-site. Nobody ever calls the manufacturer or the software publisher. I've watched the tech support guys fix problems, and they don't call the manufacturer or software publisher either, they fix the problem themselves (which might sometimes involve replacing the machine or reinstalling the software).

    • >Many copies will be installed on multiple machines

      Yes, or the machines will be boot from one network image.
      But if you run Redhat og Suse enterprise products they would probably all be counted in statistics like this.

      >or just downloaded for free.

      Even if you buy 100 machines from Dell, and plan for format the drives and put Debian/Fedora/Gentoo on them, you might still order them with Linux just to make sure the hardware is compatible.

      Actually some of the 61% increase might be that Dell machines bo
  • by MadMirko (231667) on Tuesday September 07 2004, @06:24AM (#10175671)
    I guess we see this rise mostly from the various Unix brands getting thrown out of companies. My own employer is replacing Solaris (50 big servers, 250 workstations) with Linux wherever possible. A RedHat server license might be damned expensive when compared to a Microsoft server (and yes, I do mean bulk pricing for "enterprises"), but it's quite cheap if you compare it to a Solaris machine.
    • I must question your comparison of RedHat (I presume Advanced Server) vs. Solaris license costs. We have the opposite situetion: solaris costs us significantly less than RedHat, even though it's a bit appleas and oranges, as the two OS run on different hardware - mostly (we do have some x86 servers).
  • Surprised? No (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 07 2004, @06:32AM (#10175692)
    Why are we always shocked to hear that Microsoft might be losing market share to competitor X. When you have such a large segment of any market, you are bound at some point to see your lead eroded away.

    Regardless of whether or not you love or hate Microsoft/ Linux, the fact remains that both serve a different purpose at the corporate level. While Linux still leads as the most popular platform for hosting websites, Microsoft's IIS leads in intranet sites for most major companies.

    There is a place in the market for both Microsoft and Linux -- Microsoft's biggest problem is IBM and others push of Linux to the masses. Without heavy licensing fees, and with IBM's focus on small business consulting, they can easily modify Linux to suit individual companies wants and desires. This customization, currently, is not a key part of the Windows system. That is what direction, IMO, Microsoft should look in taking itself to compete.

    (For the record, the offering of the new stripped down version of XP to many developing nations is one example of truely targetting your market).
  • GNU/Linux Shines (Score:3, Informative)

    by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Tuesday September 07 2004, @06:39AM (#10175712) Homepage Journal
    It's good to see people using GNU/Linux where it shines. Stability, performance, maintainability, auditability, and continuity are all important qualities for server deployment. They are also qualities that GNU/Linux offers more than most other solutions. What of the BSDs, though?
  • by DenialS (21305) on Tuesday September 07 2004, @06:42AM (#10175717) Homepage Journal
    When even Microsoft is admitting that Linux server shipments are growing faster then Microsoft server shipments, that's news.

    Can anyone track down the original Gartner report that indicated 50% of server sales would be Linux by 2008? The linked article just mentions the Gartner report (and all-important statistic) in passing, but doesn't provide a proper reference for fact-checkers. Google [google.com] didn't do the trick for me, it did turn up an article about an IDC report released in June 2004 that predicted Linux server shipments would rise to 29% in 2004 [computerweekly.com], a fairly significant difference.

    Novell's stock [yahoo.com] is looking pretty attractive at $5.80, given that they're trading close to their 52-week low and now own SuSE, one of Red Hat's only commercial competitors. Mind you, Red Hat is actually earning a profit [yahoo.com] these days, even though their price::earnings ratio is about 100.

    So is it time to invest in Linux stocks (again), except this time with an eye for the long-term instead of the wild ride of the late 90's?

    • by njdj (458173) on Tuesday September 07 2004, @08:26AM (#10176223)
      Novell's stock is looking pretty attractive at $5.80

      The main effect of the rise of a competitive OS will be to lower prices to users, as Microsoft loses its ability to charge monopoly rents. In other words, the businesses that will really gain are computer software users, not computer software sellers or distributors.

      The best way to profit from this trend in the stock market, therefore, is to bet against high profit growth of companies like Microsoft. Microsoft currently trades at a P/E multiple of 36. The long-term historical average for stock P/E ratios is in the range 14 to 17, so Microsoft's current price builds in the assumption that their profits will continue to grow exponentially, as they have in the past. If (like me) you think it unlikely that Microsoft will be able to double its profits anytime soon, then you could sell MSFT short. I sold at a price of $28.5 and it closed on Friday at $27.11, so the trade is doing OK so far.
      If you do this, you need to control your risk, of course. Check the price every day, and if it closes above $29, accept that I was wrong and close the position.
      Otherwise, there's a good chance that it will go down to $20 or less, so you're risking $1.89/share for a very good chance of gaining $7/share or more. Those are good odds.

  • stats (Score:3, Funny)

    by tuxter (809927) on Tuesday September 07 2004, @06:53AM (#10175751) Journal
    27.9% of statistics are made up.
  • by JaJ_D (652372) on Tuesday September 07 2004, @06:59AM (#10175766)
    1) What do they mean by "shipped"? is this only the units sold by people like Redhat, IBM, etc.. Or does it take into account all the versions of Linux download and used? With Windows its easy to say "I have sold x many licences, therefore there are x many servers/users" but with Linux you cant - the numbers are likely to be a lot higher.

    2) It's nice to see the SCO lawsuit had such a dramatic effect that the total number of unit of Linux sold has risen. 30+Million dollars of MS^H^H SCO/Venture capital money burnt, with no tangable benefits - other than cementing linux place in the world of IT.

    I wonder how worried MS really is about this?

    I get an inclining of how the Ewoks/rebels must have felt as the sole destroy, all encompassing, stiffling empire fell apart around them. *sigh* Sometimes life is good...

    Jaj
    • I get an [inkling] of how the Ewoks/rebels must have felt...Sometimes life is good.

      Trust me. If I ever, at any stage, start feeling like an Ewok I will not be describing my life as good.

      Cheers,
      Ian

  • by mslinux (570958) on Tuesday September 07 2004, @07:11AM (#10175816)
    Just yesterady, I got an email from a local sys admin about Win Server 2003. He said it wouldn't boot so he couldn't install it. To make a long story short, he was trying to boot the server with the MS Office 2003 CD (the office suite, not the OS).Later that same day, the same sys admin sent another email about needing to reboot the exchange server to "clear up" a problem.

    The moral of this story is that *most* sys admins are not capable of installing or using Linux (or any other OS) unless it's dumbed-down to the childish level of the current Windows OSes.
    • by tehanu (682528) on Tuesday September 07 2004, @07:28AM (#10175907)
      Why don't they just hire a better admin? I keep on hearing about the high rate of IT unemployment and how many talented people are out of work. How on earth does someone so incompetent keep his job when it is essentially an employer's market out there? For home users and even small business offices (where the boss or random employee who looks like he might know more than average about computers ends up taking care of everything), well yes, ease of install and use is important, but surely anyone deserving of the title "sys admin" shouldn't need any "dumbing down".
      • by Prior Restraint (179698) on Tuesday September 07 2004, @07:55AM (#10176053)

        The reason incompetents don't get fired is because competent people cost more, at least from a hard-dollar perspective. Incompetence costs a company money, but in ways that are hard to pin down. It's far too easy for someone to shift blame; one of the keystones of Dilbert-esque companies is that it's virtually impossible to point to one person and say, "The buck stops here." Where I work, you can't even volunteer for the position. People think you're trying to make some kind of power-grab. Management wants to pretend the developers are all interchangeable cogs, shuffling us between teams as staffing needs dictate, and then they wonder why the overall result is mediocre.

    • The moral of this story is that *most* sys admins are not capable of installing or using Linux (or any other OS) unless it's dumbed-down to the childish level of the current Windows OSes.

      The problem is that that level of "competence" is accepted in the market place.

      You would never even think about hiring a car mechanic, an architect or even a plumber whose knowledge of the field is equivalent to that displayed by the typical windos admin.

      No surprise the IT landscape is as fucked as it is, whether you lo
      • by jimicus (737525) on Tuesday September 07 2004, @07:57AM (#10176068) Homepage
        At least with Microsoft I have someone to "blame" when things go wrong

        You (or your boss) may like the warm fuzzy feeling of having someone to hold responsible if things go wrong, but have either of you either tried contacting Microsoft technical support or read the EULA lately?

        Unless you're a Super-Gold-Mega-Partner, my experience suggests: forget it.
        • by Kjella (173770) on Tuesday September 07 2004, @08:47AM (#10176371) Homepage
          ...the point is "you tried". If the market leading OS craps out your production machine, it is Microsofts fault, or Dells, or computers in general, unreliable PoS as they are.

          If it is your Linux ISO running on noname (but solid) hardware and it craps out, it is your poor management, incompetence and sys admin skill.

          It may be *equally* little your fault, equally little you could have done to prevent it, and nowhere to get damages, yet the perception is completely different. That's the problem.

          Kjella
          • You're absolutely right. But the increase in Linux server shipments says to me that acceptance is increasing.

            Sooner or later, a Linux system crapping out will be perceived as being "one of those things", just like you described an MS system on Dell hardware. If/When Linux has reached that level of acceptance, the writing is almost certainly on the wall for traditional proprietary server systems - be it Microsoft, Sun or whatever.

            Quite frankly, if it's that business critical you should have a recovery pla
  • Network appliances (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Technician (215283) on Tuesday September 07 2004, @07:12AM (#10175819)
    I wonder if they count SOHO (small office home office) network appliances in the count. Many of the small easy to manage small network storage and connectivity appliances use Linux or OO software. Examples that come to mind are some of the broadband routers, the ActionTec dual PC modem, and the Buffalo LinkStation net attached storage and print server.

    Windows OS prices and bloat keeps MS products off these embeded OS items, even though MS markets their embeded Win CE as a capable product for the embeded devices market.
      • I mean, a Linksys WRT54G costs just under $60 street price, a little less for wholesale. Even a bulk licence could nearly double the price.


        My point exactly when I said "Windows OS prices and bloat keeps MS products off these embeded OS items"

        It's very hard for MS to tell Linksys or Buffalo that Linux has a higher TCO than Win CE. MS never expected these devices to reach these low prices that open software enables. Routers should still be about $300 and have MS software. A sub $100 router probably cau
  • Wait for Longhorn (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 07 2004, @07:26AM (#10175899)
    While it is news that even Microsoft admits that Linux is making inroads in the server market, there shouold also be a warning here.

    Microsoft is almost certainly not going to take this lying down. Their biggest development effort right now is Longhorn. Some of the things that they say about Longhorn (the fact that they need to roll it out on clients and servers at the same time, in particular) makes me think that they will modify the networking protocols enough that Linux servers will no longer be able to play with Microsoft desktops.

    Many large companies out there are running Windows on the desktop and connecting them to Linux servers. I think when Longhorn is released they may not have any choice about what server software to use anymore.
    • by Zapdos (70654) on Tuesday September 07 2004, @08:04AM (#10176100)
      This would haunt Microsoft for a long time.
      Where I work 80,000+ employees, we naturally have separate server and desktop teams. Making Longhorn networking incompatible with current networking, will make it impossible for us to migrate to longhorn.

      Changing the required number of server and client systems to longhorn in order to have a working system would take at least five full weeks.

      What company wants to be out of business for five weeks.

    • by zogger (617870) on Tuesday September 07 2004, @08:05AM (#10176112) Homepage Journal
      ...XPSP2 and decide that longhorn just isn't worth it-the risk, cost, headache, bugs, etc- and switch the desktops to some linux instead of the servers back to MS.

      Honestly, the only thing I can see coming with MS is for them to go completely on the offensive with patents and copyright lawsuits and hope to scare and bully and maybe even legislate their way to staying topdog. I don't see them being able to do it on just quality/price and a normal market scene for much longer. The only people left who aren't considering Linux are very casuasl and unsophisticated home users, anyone more technologically savvy above that level is at least thinking about linux now. At some time MS will feel threatened enough to start using their portfolios very agressively, think SCO type action times 1,000. They could carve out a few billion just to start the lawsuits and not break sweat. Then they could start lobbying. We have the easiest bribed legislature and executive branch and probably judges evah now. This is the most high level "consultant fee" friendly government I can remember going way back. Those who already have the coin to spread around are not hesitating to "share the wealth" with those charged with maintaining what passes for "law" nowadays.
    • Re:Wait for Longhorn (Score:5, Interesting)

      by say (191220) <.sigve. .at. .wolfraidah.no.> on Tuesday September 07 2004, @08:17AM (#10176181) Homepage
      Many large companies out there are running Windows on the desktop and connecting them to Linux servers. I think when Longhorn is released they may not have any choice about what server software to use anymore.
      Well, my university [www.uio.no] has got only unix/linux backend servers, and mostly windows 2K/XP clients. If Longhorn won't play well with the Samba/IMAP solution on the unix servers, they aren't going to upgrade to Longhorn. I doubt MS will put themselves in this position. A _lot_ of major businesses will simply choose to not upgrade. They are concerned with getting stuff that works - in the cheapest possible way. Longhorn would have to include some _really_ powerful effectivity-producing functions if businesses are going to change their entire server system just to get it. And by the way, universities and colleges are probably really important to Microsoft, because they need young people to learn their products. Most universities (at least in Europe) use unix servers for everything. MS isn't likely to upset them too much. Universities have clever sysadmins who know damn well how to set up *nix graphical clients as well.
      • Re:Wait for Longhorn (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Technician (215283) on Tuesday September 07 2004, @08:33AM (#10176273)
        If Longhorn won't play well with the Samba/IMAP solution on the unix servers, they aren't going to upgrade to Longhorn.

        Agreed. More important is the browser. If it doesn't work with Apache, then as far as MS is concerned, Longhorn is broken and can't access most of the Internet. Many corporations are using web based solutions. My timecard is web based. So is our internal newsletter, campus maps, HR information, safety guidelines, employeed education courses, polls, etc. If Longhorn breaks the way we do business, we'll probably find something else that works as a client.
    • Some of the things that they say about Longhorn (the fact that they need to roll it out on clients and servers at the same time, in particular) makes me think that they will modify the networking protocols enough that Linux servers will no longer be able to play with Microsoft desktops.

      And, this would be one of those things that would probably vault Linux forward rapidly. If it's all new, what's the advantage of Windows?

      Take a look here [joelonsoftware.com] for an interesting article on how Microsoft is losing the "API war
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 07 2004, @08:26AM (#10176228)
    Look into it. Gartner ALWAYS favours Microsoft products. (ie. "Windows has 95% of the market share" -- this stats doesn't include cell phones, PDAs, game platforms, but does include sales of old PCs.) Skewed for sure.

    Wonder why? Look into it. Gartner Inc. is a "separate" firm created by a certain firm to create (sell) all of these statistics (ultimately to serve the purposes of the firm.) Microsoft owns at least 20% of this underlying firm.
    • Boy, you are just trapped inbetween college and corporate ...

      On one hand you bash the corporate linuxes, and in the same breath you judge the 'GNU assholes'

      oh and, try working in a corporate environment.
      And read up on the Software lifecycle, development is just a fraction of the cost. $400 for RedHat buys you a whole lot more than just the free software.

      But then again, why should you, you're an excellent software engineer.
    • Re:I like linux (Score:5, Insightful)

      by McCall (212035) on Tuesday September 07 2004, @06:28AM (#10175680) Homepage
      This has got to be a troll, but some points are just plain stupid..

      "have a root password since it was a single user machine" - This is totally normal, every version of Windows since NT has had this. Your probably confused because most peoples home Windows machine logs in with the administrator account. Most linux distro's can log straight into your user account from boot now too, IIRC RedHat 8 allowed this.

      "X Windows loaded up and I was in Linux" - This statement just proves you know nothing about Linux or UNIX in general.

      "CD ROM icon...where was it? Apparently I had to mount it manually" - IIRC RedHat 8 came by default with amd running, so I am starting to think you never actually intalled RedHat 8.

      "it wants the stupid root password again" - BTW you better get used to this, Windows 2003 and above tries to enforce good administrator procedures by getting users to log into their own account, then "Run as..." administrator.

      I am amazed that someone who has "studied the Linux kernel in depth" actually gave up on installing a distro because the automatic detection of the sound card didn't work.

      "even though its autoupdate some how corrupted my kernel and I had to overwrite it" - Didn't your studying help solve this problem?

      "I'm an excellent software engineer" - oh boy... I need to laugh... someone carry on for me please!!

      Ahem... /me wipes a tear from his eye...
    • Re:I like linux (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 07 2004, @06:28AM (#10175681)
      once you understand that this isn't windows and accept that, you'll almost be ready to use linux. Then what you gotta do (and this is hard) is realize that, yes, you can learn new things after windows.

      linux isn't windows. it was never meant to be (well, as you discovered, fc2 comes as "close" as any linux distro as has.)

      A big problem new linux users seem to encounter is the huge difference in how hardware is interfaced. in windows you run a setup.exe and magically a box pops up and says you have a new network card working.. WOW!. In linux, the kernel has the code for many, many, many NIC's already, and most distro's will include all of them compiled as modules in their default kernels and load the appropriate one when you boot. However, sometimes you'll have 'odd' hardware and it wont be able to find a module for your device... adding new code to your kernel (via patching) or compiling a module outside of the kernel tree isn't ever easy and this is where novice users will fall down and scream till' their blue in the face that "linux blowz".

      Once you do it a couple times for various peices of hardware (NIC's [be it wifi or otherwise], video or sound [doesnt happen much, alsa is now included in the 2.6 kernels]) you realize it's not too terrible.. but it takes a lot of time to get a good feel for everything in linux/unix. The power of unix is in the terminal and always has been. If you dont know much about unix shells before your initial linux experience you'll be left with a severely crippled experience.
    • Coupe of points (Score:5, Interesting)

      by brunes69 (86786) <slashdot.keirstead@org> on Tuesday September 07 2004, @06:33AM (#10175696) Homepage

      But what I find most stupid is the philosophy behind it. Why make something so complex for free? I'm an excellent software engineer, good software is hard to make, it's beyond art, takes incredible amounts of education, hardwork and talent, and it should be kept proprietary and one should be paid to make it.

      You say that good code is like a work of art - if it is, then why don't you do what an artist does? An arist creates a small number of great paintings(programs), has a showing (creates a company website), and sells them to the highest bidder, and sells each painting only once. The artist does not care if that painting is subsequently copied by another artist - in fact, it is seen as a compliment by most!

      Your age shows in the post (first tried RedHat 8.0 in University), so let me educate you a bit on the history of programming. Before Microsoft came along, it was common that software (and a whole lot of its code) was free. Why? Because most programmers worked for hardware companies, who were interested in selling hardware.

      Does IBM make any less money if it ships a server running Linux or Windows? No, in fact they likely make more money since they don't need the Windows license markup and can thus charge less.

      Personally, *my* wish in life is that eventually, all "software companies" are abolished; programmers will either work for hardware companies customizing their OS/driver platforms, or they will work as consultants, customizing existing open source software to the business, with the end product from both of these endevours going back to the public.

      Really, if I as company X spend some time customizing an application to by business, what harm does it do to release the code? None, other than it may save someone else time and money in the long run. God forbid it be a compeditor - but what if it saved a non-profit like World Vision millions of dollars??? Isn't that worth it? Are you really that greedy of a copany, that the chance that it may help a competitor outweights the chance that you could be saving people's lives? (Sze note: from the behaviour of most companies, the answer is a resounding yes.)

      Just as a note, I say the above as a professional programmer with a software company as well. I know to some people like you it might seem weird for me to be advocating the elimination of my profession, but really, I am in it for the love of what I do, not the love of money. When you do something for the love of what you do, you will always find a way to make ends meet.

    • Well, firstly, Im not surprised you got some flamebait modding. What did you expect??

      In your rant, you focussed on the install / setup issues with Linux. Firstly, as a loyal Linux user myself, your main problem seems to be that you are not prepared to get your hands dirty. This is what you have to do if you use Linux. You are no longer in your magical lala land where you click on the magical ice cream and everything is just fine - not true. Linux is more honest. Operating systems ARE complex, and if you wa
    • Re:I like linux (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lachlan76 (770870) <lachlan.gunnNO@SPAMinternode.on.net> on Tuesday September 07 2004, @07:30AM (#10175923)
      But what I find most stupid is the philosophy behind it. Why make something so complex for free? I'm an excellent software engineer, good software is hard to make, it's beyond art, takes incredible amounts of education, hardwork and talent, and it should be kept proprietary and one should be paid to make it.

      Perhaps we enjoy writing code? Perhaps we want people who otherwise couldn't afford the software to have it? Perhaps we think it's a better way of programming.

      Not everything in life is about money, you know.
    • If by preinstalled unit sales, presumably sometime in the next four years.

      If by distribution sales, probably next year or the year after.

      If by legitimate installed base, Linux is probably well in the lead already.

      If by total installed base including warez, probably next year or the year after.

      If someone makes a virus that downloads a modified Debian and replaces MS-Windows, IIS and VBSCript with it without noticeably interrupting the services on the machine, about two weeks after that.
      • If someone makes a virus that downloads a modified Debian and replaces MS-Windows, IIS and VBSCript with it without noticeably interrupting the services on the machine, about two weeks after that.

        A virus that transforms a running Windows machine into a Linux machine without even rebooting (which would certainly noticeably interrupt the services on the machine)? And Web services are transferred from IIS to Apache without any interruption? Including the rewrite of IIS specific stuff to Apache specific stuff?

        • A virus that transforms a running Windows machine into a Linux machine without even rebooting (which would certainly noticeably interrupt the services on the machine)?

          Oh? I don't know that a reboot on a Windows machine would be considered outside of the normal course of events. Yeah, technically an interruption, but the user wouldn't remark on it... ;-)
    • <flamebait>If you don't count the machines currently in the process of rebooting and therefore unusable, then it has already occurred</flamebait>