Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Businesses Linux Business Microsoft Unix Windows Linux

Linux To Take Over Microsoft In Enterprises 237

Posted by samzenpus
from the slow-and-steady-wins-the-race dept.
shougyin writes "For years, Linux has enjoyed much of its success as a replacement for Unix. Companies turned to Linux to replace Unix servers, or for new deployments within a Unix-heavy environment. Linux is still king there, but it's starting to encroach on Microsoft as well. Big companies are planning overwhelmingly (76.4%) to add more Linux servers in the next year, and less than half (41.2%) of the companies are planning to add Windows servers in the next year. Even more interesting, nearly half (43.6%) are actively planning to decrease use of Windows servers in the next year."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux To Take Over Microsoft In Enterprises

Comments Filter:
  • Re:News for Nerds: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rjch (544288) on Monday October 18, 2010 @02:31AM (#33929820) Homepage

    This week, bogus statistics pushing an increasingly boring anti-microsoft zealotry and a pro-"operating system that takes at least one more step than windows to run any popular application or game" agenda.

    I agree. Percentages are tossed around without any evidence or explanation as to how these figures were arrived at. Who was surveyed? What industries were they in? Why are they planning to add Linux servers? What function will these servers have? Why aren't they planning on adding Windows servers?

  • by shitzu (931108) on Monday October 18, 2010 @02:43AM (#33929878)

    However the time and effort that I have spent installing Samba 4 would have cost this organisation a fair bit more than the cost of a Windows Server 2008 Standard license

    Perhaps. But imagine that you ditch windows servers altogether and save quite a bit from server CALs. Depending on the network size and configuration that could save a significant amount.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18, 2010 @02:45AM (#33929886)

    I thought it was very funny to see 41% called "less than half", and 44% called "almost half! :D

    Technically correct and true, yes, but I smell bias...

  • Who was surveyed? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by benjymouse (756774) on Monday October 18, 2010 @02:47AM (#33929900)

    Who was surveyed?

    from the TFA:

    the organizations surveyed were picked by the Linux Foundation End User Council

    Next up:
    10 out of 10 randomly selected stock brokers want more deregulation of the financial system
    10 out of 10 randomly selected Taliban fighters don't trust the USA

  • by icebike (68054) on Monday October 18, 2010 @02:55AM (#33929930)

    Any organization small enough to have trouble funding and domain controller Doesn't need one.

    Just because the only tool you know how to use is a hammer doesn't mean every problem is a nail.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18, 2010 @02:57AM (#33929944)

    It does, I saw it first hand in the Republican primaries in Florida. Out of the half dozen possibilities the local (and to some small extent national) media pulled the rug out from below 4 of them, and then focused on the remaining two for weeks. So ya It works.

  • by gbjbaanb (229885) on Monday October 18, 2010 @03:56AM (#33930202)

    However the time and effort that I have spent installing Samba 4 would have cost this organisation a fair bit more than the cost of a Windows Server 2008 Standard license

    Does trhat count the time it took you to get trained in Windows Server 2008, Active Directory and all the other gubbins? IIRC there was a fair learning curve going from domains to AD. (and we'll ignore the cost of the CALs)

    This annoys me a little about Linux migrations, people say how much more it costs based on the fact that they already know Windows, then compare that to the time taken to not only implement but also learn the Linux equivalent. Now you've done it once, you should be able to put in another Samba4 system without any fuss, surely?

    and you can, of course, supply your config experience to the community - or to your own, ad-laden, blog. Might as well earn a little from getting people to come read what you did.

  • by dhawton (691348) on Monday October 18, 2010 @04:02AM (#33930232)
    If your 3 engineers study rocket science, then sure! Any group of programmers could replicate AD, just like another group of programmers did when they built AD. The group that built AD were unspecialized in AD, were they not?
  • Single sign on? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jernejk (984031) on Monday October 18, 2010 @04:46AM (#33930382)

    Do we have AD like single sign on at least for linux servers? No? How about clients then? No?

    Seriously, how do you guys handle root password management for servers? SSH is not the real answer here, IMHO.

  • This annoys me a little about Linux migrations, people say how much more it costs based on the fact that they already know Windows, then compare that to the time taken to not only implement but also learn the Linux equivalent.

    People do that because its the real life situation and *should* be considered - its not like the migration is happening from a blank slate to one or the other, its going from one to the other and thus the advantage of pre-existing experience in the familiar should be considered.

  • by WindBourne (631190) on Monday October 18, 2010 @05:15AM (#33930492) Journal
    While Linux is certainly the much lower costs option vs. MS, the real issue should be about Security. The problem though, is that many of *nix, is the fact that since Windows is so easily cracked. And once cracked, they have access to SSH keys and/or passwords and the ability to place a snooper. Once you have access to being on ANY TYPE BOX, it is over. It is simply a matter of time before it is fully owned. This does not matter if it is windows, Linux, OSX, trusted Linux, trusted Solaris/AIX/HP-UX, or even a os/390.
  • Re:Single sign on? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sique (173459) on Monday October 18, 2010 @05:20AM (#33930508) Homepage

    You know, about 30 years ago (1978 to be specific) there was this strange thing called "KERBEROS"... it still works. Single-Sign-On is a non-issue in the UNIX-world. It was solved 30 years ago.

  • Re:wake me up.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by silanea (1241518) on Monday October 18, 2010 @05:58AM (#33930678)

    Do you see cloud at all mentioned in the grandparent post? Why is your imagination so limited?

    People who focus "away from the desktop" at some point end up with wanting to run everything but the driver layer in the browser, coming from some kind of all new, all fancy web-based platform. Ie. the "cloud".

    Chrome OS, iPhone, and WP7 can all run offline local (web) apps just fine. Full 3D games are now officially running natively inside of Chrome using WebGL (search for Google's Web Store).

    Great. We essentially get an operating system on top of an operating system that can run local applications that actually aren't really local but web-based but that can be run offline. Say what?

    There is a lot of stuff that can safely and easily be done via a web interface - consumer-grade web mail, relatively simple office applications, maybe media players etc. Then there is a hell of a lot of stuff for which I cannot see any net gain from moving those to some half online, half offline platform. This introduces more complexity and overhead than it brings savings, as I see it.

    And games? Sure, there are games that can be realised in a browser. Most large modern games cannot. And that is not going to change overnight.

    Also, requests like yours demonstrate a need for separation of concerns. Consumers have no use for workstation-demanding application suites like CAD. [...]

    This thread is about desktops in enterprise environments. Regardless, more and more "consumers" start reencoding video for their portable players or using other resource-hungry complex applications that have long been the domain of professional users. The technological standard is rising.

  • by kenh (9056) on Monday October 18, 2010 @06:47AM (#33930902) Homepage Journal

    As a poll taken by the Linux Foundation based on the answers of two hundred of it's largest members that responded, what I found suprising is that less than half of them plan on increasing their use of Linux - these are the biggest supporters of Linux, and 50%+ ARE NOT PLANNING TO INCREASE THEIR USE OF LINUX!

    These are Linux's biggest supporters (they joined the foundation, they replied to the survey, and they are of a certain size) - if half of them aren't increasing use of Linux, to me that is the interesting number. If 50%+ of the largest members of the Oracle Users Group said they were not going to increase use of Oracle DB that would be the story, why is the spin backwards here? Oh yeah, Linux Foundation wrote the press release, slashdot partitas it...

  • Re:Wow . . . (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18, 2010 @06:50AM (#33930918)

    Yes, the expression should be "overtake", which is much different than "take over".

  • Re:News for Nerds: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bigrockpeltr (1752472) on Monday October 18, 2010 @08:27AM (#33931648)
    did it occur to you that someone has to be (in) the minority?
    i didn't read the entire article nor do i have any insider info like you do but if you take any survey and the report on the findings of said survey does not describe you then obviously you were not what the survey found to be the trend that emerged from the sample group.
  • by DJRumpy (1345787) on Monday October 18, 2010 @08:37AM (#33931754)

    Considering that the latest workstation distributions are still plagued by basic install issues (blank screens, etc), it's still not ready. I got a chuckle reading some of the support forums and the responses that were being given to 'newbies' as if they really expected these folks to understand what was being told to them. Although it has advanced by great strides in the last few years, it's still not ready. The basic install should work universally across a wide range of hardware. Seems they are still having problems with improper ATI/nVidia drivers being selected. This seems to be a common theme for the last 4 or 5 major releases.

    If you install Windows, the chances are very rare that you won't get a desktop after the install. Even less so for OS X. End users don't want to deal with an OS that takes troubleshooting and 'technical' help to get it to even show something other than a command shell.

    They newest offerings are impressive, but still need a LOT of work.

    I think that an OS that spreads across both areas but reflects poorly in one (workstations), can effect it's perceived quality in the other arena (servers).

  • Re:Wow . . . (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bert64 (520050) <bert AT slashdot DOT firenzee DOT com> on Monday October 18, 2010 @01:16PM (#33935796) Homepage

    Vendor driven certs are worthless, wether they come from microsoft, cisco or redhat... Those vendors goals is not to educate people or even to ensure a high standard, they simply want more people out there promoting their products and having a large number of "qualified" cert holders helps more than a small number of "qualified and competent" cert holders.

The next person to mention spaghetti stacks to me is going to have his head knocked off. -- Bill Conrad