Linux Growth In The Workplace Slowing

BrainSurgeon writes "According to a Business Week article Linux growth numbers have slowed for the first time since SG Cowen & Co. began tracking it on their survey. The biggest reason for the slow down according is due to the hidden cost of consultants." From the article: "That doesn't mean overall Linux use is slowing. The survey only shows that a smaller number of companies not using Linux plan to try the software than in previous surveys. Most analysts expect Linux use to grow at the companies that have already rolled it out -- and do so at a healthy rate. And analysts say Linux is picking up steam outside North America, which the Cowen survey doesn't cover."

Without knowing the error margin, we can't say.

[khasim]

They say their survey shows reduce interest in Linux
in North American Companies
that have not deployed Linux.

But they don't state their error margin.
http://www.resolutions.co.nz/sample_sizes.htm [resolutions.co.nz]

So, given those numbers, unless shown otherwise, the difference between the two surveys is ... statistically zero.

But that doesn't get the big headlines, so they play up the difference between the two surveys because people don't know enough about surveys and statistics to know that there might not be as big a difference as is claimed.

As you noted, the REAL question is: What is the adoption rate doing? And we won't know that until a year from now. Even a 1% gain a year means that, eventually, every company except Microsoft and Sun will be running Linux.

And even then, we'd need to know the error margin to know whether there is a statistically valid increase or decrease.

Misleading Slashdot Title

[the_crowbar]

Wow! What is with this story submission? The title on /. would suggest that the Linux growth is slowing. The only thing the article stated was that the rate of new companies testing Linux solutions was slowing.

The last line of the article sums it up nicely:

It may get harder to find potential customers that haven't yet tried out the Linux operating system. But has Linux hit a wall? Don't bet on it.

The prior paragraph also states that Linux server sales were up 35.2% for first quarter 2005, and that was the 11th consecutive quarter of double digit growth.

the_crowbar

Real numbers don't show up in management

[tuoppi]

When you ask from a company about what systems they are using, they will give (if they will give such information) out an number which consists of systems are actively maintained server or desktop systems or other systems which cause expenses.

If the system doesn't cost anything extra, it doesn't exist in those numbers. Hence, all test and development environments don't show up in these numbers. In many cases the company doesn't even want to give out any information on what platform they are developing their products on - or then the people in the management see them only as "pc" expenses, and draw an conclusion that it must be also an windows box.

Saving big?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

With in house Linux (or UNIX) personnel and a large deployment - of course you'll save big.

I've heard this argument a lot, and yet... At the hourly cost of employing most guys at the office where I work (mostly developers, and a few tech support/sales guys), the amount my employer pays for a Windows licence is worth a little over an hour. Office is a couple more, and Visual Studio a couple more. Since there's a very good chance that someone in the office will know how to do just about anything with those key products, ongoing support costs are close to nil.

In other words, even if we were all instantly and permanently as productive with Linux and a Linux-based office suite and development tool, and they also required no ongoing support costs because we could pretty much do it all ourselves, the most switching to Linux would save my employer is the cost of a day of my time. It would take that day just to set the new system up.

Now, there are many UNIX fans at the office where I work, and we all know at least the basics since we develop for several UNIX-ish platforms, including Linux. Even so, I don't for an instant believe we'd be as productive using the Linux-based tools (which we're free to do if we want, but almost no-one does, even the Linux fans).

In summary: this is an office full of technically competent people with no particular love of Microsoft and a certain fondness for Linux, and yet I can't make a genuine case for switching on cost saving grounds. Unless I'm missing some major financial consideration, that pretty much kills the argument for other offices without either the technical expertise or the Linux fans dead. So where are the big savings I keep being told about coming from?