This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Linux Grabs #2 Server OS Sales Spot, NT Still #1
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.
But is anyone making any PROFIT ????? (Score:1)
As a widely acknowledged expert in marketing, and coming from an extremely hardcore technical background (Ex NT admin and VBA developer) there is something about this which does not "smell right".
I have previously contributed to this forum with my free "open source" marketing advice, only to be flamed to pieces and accused of being a "troll" by the long-haired left wing pseudo-intellectual open-source Linux zealots. But I keep coming back. This is because Linux deserves better marketing.
Linux's marketing strategy so far has been inadequate. The reason Linux is so slow to penetrate the corporate IT infrastructure is that the zealots who are early adopters have made no effort to describe Linux in "marketing friendly" terms.
You have to put yourself into the shoes of the techno-clueless PHB who reads GartnerWeb all day long, and throw him a few buzzword bones to chew on.
It is ACRONYMS and not TECHNOLOGY that is of prime importance when selling to the corporate server sector. When oh when will the long-haired Linux zealots produce some CEO-Friendly TLA's and FLA's.
Microsoft continues to develop acronyms well in advance of actual technology witness the astounding success of its SOAP technology.
Until Linux develops a whole new set of acronyms, with a "linux-branded prefix" (Microsoft has "Active" everything, what does Linux have?) It will NEVER make inroads into the corporate server b2b, b2c and c2b e-commerce space.
Do the Linux zealots not understand the concepts of leverage, synergy and a new paradigm ?
No wonder Linux lags behind NT in the all-important server market.
Finally if Linux cannot compete with Microsofts ever more powerful technologies, they should consider licensing them from Microsoft.
Once again my "open source" marketing advice is free.
Feel free to flame away. I have come to expect it from the lunatic socialistic left wing long-haired body-pierced Liunx brigade (most of whom have never worn a suit and tie in their lives) and nothing you can say will change my mind.
dmg
Linux Numbers Hold Up Well (Score:1)
Isn't it true that in MOST cases the HW manufacturers are giving no discount for Linux installed instead of NT? This is Dell's practice.
Secondly, you must not have read the article. It shows that Linux growth came NOT at the expense of NT sales, but at the expense of everyone else. NT market share was flat. There is therefore no way your argument holds any water.
Thirdly, I'll venture a guess and say that the market share lost by Unix to Linux is directly related to the cost of the hardware. Linux runs on cheap intel stuff -- even fossil hardware -- whereas most Unix runs on much more expensive iron(MIPS, Alpha, SPARC).
Lastly, there is NO means for measuring the number of legacy servers onto which Linux has been installed -- which represents a diminishing install base for everyone else. In my main client's shop they have an ancient box now running Linux and doing a great job for them. It will never run any other OS again, and if/when Netware 4.x is no longer up to the task their main servers will be moved to Linux as well because it is free.
Sure, that company you mention will have an NT site license -- but they'll still have the hardware it USED to run on, too -- and when the NT's moved to the new hardware, in many cases Linux will be moved onto the old stuff.
All of which means: The Linux numbers hold up well.
Re:NT market share stayed the same, linux up 92%.. (Score:2)
What does this mean though?
Keep in mind we're talking about percentage of sales during the year, it says nothing about whether these are new servers or replacing the OS on existing servers. Also keep in mind that all the Linux copies that didn't involve sales are ignored by this study.
What it looks like it means to me is that:
* Microsoft failed in its goal to sell substantially more copies of NT
* Linux increased in distribution at the expense of Netware and the Commercial Unixes
I think the real test of linux vs. NT marketshare will be this year. Linux has the backing of most companies now, and Windows2000 is soposed to be NT done right.
I think you're right as far as 2000 being a critical year for these numbers. From what little I've seen about Windows 2000 it's the same crap with a different number (and much larger), but it certainly will be marketed as the best thing since sliced bread.
In fact, the marketting campaign is already in full swing, and it hasn't even been released yet. When I was down in NYC this past weekend, posters declaring "Windows 2000 is coming" were all over the mass transit system. I kept wishing I had a can of red spray paint so I could add the word "REPENT" to the posters
----
Re:Linux sales only (Score:1)
"Microsoft makes more money before the morning coffee break every day of the year" than all the purveyors of Linux made in the entire year, Kusnetzky said. [Kusnetzky is an IDC analyst]
Look at that statement. One company charges anywhere from several hundred dollars for what, a 10 user license?, to many, many thousands for much larger user licenses. You want to add an email server, ok, chuck up another $50,000 (;)). Then the Linux market consists of $50-100 packages with varying amounts of support down to less than one hour's download of an ISO and $1.50-2.00 cheap CDs. All of which have no limit on the number of users or even the number of servers you put the software on (not to mention unlimited uptime)! So, yes, Microsoft can make more money during a coffee break than Linux, but only because they charge so damned much and you get so little.
Sales aren't the best way of judging dominance in this new market, and it will always be a stumbling block for us.
It is interesting (Score:1)
Here we have a dilemma, or so it seems. On one side, we have "Linux deserves better marketing". We as Linux users (for those of us that are, and I'm sure there are those reading this who are not) see this and say "yes, it does... I want to use Linux everywhere I work, because (I enjoy it|it makes my life easier|it's fun|it looks pretty|whatever)".
On the other side, we see "It is the acronyms and not the technology that is of prime importance when selling to the corporate server sector." After all, that is what seems to sell and promote OS XYZ over Linux/unix. Then the hackish nature in us reviles, and we imagine ourselves not working on those things that are of importance, those things that are useful, those things that we should do because they are what need doing, and instead work on glitz, paperclips, and TLA's.
And we are right. On both counts. This is not a dilemma, we do not have to "sell our souls" to the corporate nature as this comment would seem to imply. Do we not understand "a new paradigm"? How is it that we have created a new market, a Free and Open Source market, one totally unheard of, yet one totally successful?
Who is it who is unwilling to change? "and nothing you can say will change my mind" Who flames, who insults; who is set in their ways, who unwilling to create a new market where technology does matter, not TLA's and buzzwords?
I suggest we learn. Not to compromise our ideologies in order to conform to a market, not in order to have higher sales and make more money. I suggest we learn what is best, to write software that doesn't mimic poorly, but does its job the way it should. To come up with a better way to market, but not necessarily the old way, not to compromise what has been worked so hard for to escape.
Our marketing and promotion is working. There is a slow, sure change on a level which others cannot compete by covering bugs with glitz. If this can be improved, if it should be improved, we need to come up with a truly new method that doesn't treat those who simply are not trained in our field as dogs, to be "thrown a few buzzword bones to chew on". How dare we insult people who have merely different interests, and have different knowledge circles and goals than we? They trust the journals and articles they read because they do not have any knowledge in which to judge.
Show the difference! Explain the importance! They don't have interest in knowing the difference at a code level, nor need to. But we have something different, something better, we can and should show it as such. Why change what Linux is to match what NT is? What point then is there to move from NT?
And those who are unwilling to change will, unfortunately for them and for us, be left behind. But it is their choice.
Creative CNET statistics (Score:2)
Since Linux is as much a flavor of Unix as *BSD or Solaris, shouldn't more honest table table be:
OS...........1998...1999
Windows NT.....38.....38
Unix...........35.....40
Netware........23.....19
Other...........4......3
?
Re:it's only a matter of time (Score:1)
I agree.
When I upgraded from a Pentium 133 to an AMD K6-II 450, Linux was quite happy and ran just fine
after I put in the new motherboard & chip.
However, I had to completely re-install Windows 98 because it wouldn't even boot.
Of course I had since recompiled the kernel to optimize for the new CPU, but still, Linux kept running like a champ, and Windows 98 failed me.
NJV
Re:its only a matter of time (Score:1)
Windows 2000 is not a "formidable challenge" to Unix, just as Windows NT is not a Unix-alternative.
Linux is an alternative Unix, though.
Windows 2000 might have fixed some things that were originally broken in Windows.
All of the big advances consist of reinventing Unix, and attempting to implement open standards.
We'll see how long this takes. Let me know when they really implement libraries, symlinks, file systems, and namespaces decently. (or even the Unix way.
Not a flame. Technical replies welcome. Your rights may be different in some states. Offer expires while you wait. Bah Weep Grah Na Weep Ni Ni Bong.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Re:its only a matter of time (Score:1)
But Microsoft was attempting to break into the enterprise market with NT. I'm sure a lot of people who try to use NT and are dissatisfied with it *might* try using Windows 2000, whereas before they would have switched to Linux.
However, the same problems apply. Windows 2000 is automatically in the "enterprise" market just because the real minimum-decent system is so beefy. And anyone who knows what they're doing will wait for the reviews of the first service pack to do any serious work. Buying the first release of anything Microsoft puts out is generally a waste of time and money, wait for a known stable version.
(the closest they have gotten to that is probably either Windows 3.1, or Windows '95 OSR2 ("the B version"), or Windows NT 3.1/3.51 (not NT4), depending on which Windows you like. Personally I think DOS 3.31 and DOS 5-6.22 were pretty good too, but that's about it.)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Re:numbers seem a little off? (Score:2)
>million per percentage point). Does that seem low to anybody else,
>considering that Apple sold 1.3 million machines last quarter alone?
>I would think Apple's shipment share in 1999 would have been at least
>5-6 millione
That sounds about right (cool, you can invoke vi from within
lynx to edit these . . . much easier than the netscape windows . .
Anyway, 1.3/quarter is an annual rate of 5.2. If Apple sales are
rising at all, this appears reasonable--1.2/quarter would be 4.8
a year, and this is higher than that.
hawk
stocks... (Score:1)
-----
If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed...
Interesting (Score:2)
If the former, then what was the percentage rise last year?
There -is- one conclusion that can be drawn. Linux was one of the least-used OS' for server operations, the last time any real figures were published. NT was in the same boat. I forget which order they were in. But, if Linux is now outselling EVERY OTHER UNIX on the market, then (by definition), its standings must change, and relatively quickly, at that.
There is one figure I find a little disturbing - the 92% growth for Linux, overall. This figure has reached or exceeded 100% for the past 4 years. If this figure is accurate, then Linux' exponential growth may be trailing off. It's way too soon for that, if Linux wants Global Domination. It needs to ride the crest for another 4 years, to be secure as the Ultimate Power.
Last, but not least, this =may= be good news, in the longer-term. If people are buying NT in vast quantities, NOW, then they are unlikely to upgrade to Windows 2000 in a hurry. Too expensive to make that kind of move. These figures may, therefore, be good for Microsoft right now, but they might be killers for their sales, later.
A long rant (Score:2)
----------------
Well this is interesting. Linux has passed Novell Netware and all commercial Unices to rank as the #2 best selling server OS in 1999, with 25% of the market. Only Windows NT beats it, with 38% share (same as last year). This is significant because analysts were predicting it would take Linux until 2002 or 2003 to reach the #2 slot.
Analysts expect that, if anything, Linux' numbers are skewed low. Linux sales increased 92% from 1998 to 1999, while average growth was 23%. Furthermore, IDC counts only box sales, not free downloads, and there's no way they can measure situations where a company buys one CD and installs it on dozens of machines.
What makes this even more interesting, however, is the fact that Linux accounts for only $32 million of the $5.7 billion spent on server operating systems in 1999. Windows NT accounts for $1.7 billion. This makes a lot of sense: open source systems destroy licensing revenue opportunities everywhere they go, replacing them with consulting and support revenue opportunities. Marc Ewing has said repeatedly that he doesn't want Red Hat to become a $5 billion/year company; he wants to turn Microsoft into a $50 million/year company. This year's numbers seem to bear that trend out.
It's also interesting that Linux has mainly cannibalized Netware and other Unix sales, all of which dropped from 1998 to 1999, but has not touched Windows NT sales. The only reason NT got a foothold in serverland in the first place was that the commercial Unix vendors were so busy fighting each other (by making their products increasingly incompatible) that the market splintered, thereby eliminating the competitive advantage of the root from which all the unixes were derived.
With Linux, we're seeing the splinters come back together again. Linux can already run on pretty much all the strange RISC boxes that had custom Unices written for them, and in some cases it even runs better than the manufacturer's own Unix did. That's where a lot of the development work on Linux has focused in the last year, too: the big iron multiprocessor tons-of-RAM servers that have to have uptimes measured in years. Linux is actively moving into the high-end Unix space that NT so far hasn't been able to touch.
This is actually a good thing. If Linux can kill of AIX, Irix, HPUX, Tru64, and SCO (all likely possibilities) and forge alliances with Solaris and BSD, the resulting Unix-centred-on-Linux power bloc will account for 40% of the market. Suddenly NT has real competition again. I think that this is, in fact, inevitable, and for simple economic reasons.
A case study: SGI has almost gone under (and still appears likely to) trying to develop its high-end workstations, IRIX operating system, and custom hardware for its custom workstations all at the same time. SGI has made repeated efforts to shed some of these businesses - their 1998/1999 attempt was the "Visual Workstation" line, a series of high-end PCs using SGI buses and graphics hardware on ordinary Intel x86 CPUs. They ran a custom version of WinNT, rather than Irix.
This didn't work for two reasons. NT's not Irix: it can't do what Irix can do, and it can't do it as well. Furthermore, SGI had to hack on NT just to get it to work on their custom boxes. This means they had to get cooperation from Microsoft - always a dangerous situation. Eventually, of course, the venture failed. Microsoft didn't cooperate sufficiently for SGI to make their version of NT work well enough for SGI to be able to sell enough of the boxes to make a profit. And the customers hated it - they were used to Irix, they liked Irix, and they didn't want this "ugly Windows crap" cluttering up their monitor.
SGI has seen the light, albeit belatedly. Instead of depending on Microsoft for NT, and instead of spending millions of their own dollars on Irix (it takes dozens of engineers to maintain a commercial Unix), they are breaking the best features of Irix out into modules and working on integrating them into Linux. They win, because their (very well-designed) workstations will look as great running Linux as they did running Irix, their customers will continue to get all the features they're used to, and they no longer have to bear the strain of developing an OS *and* a line of hardware. Further, they benefit from the development work everyone else is already doing on Linux.
Whether this will rescue them from financial oblivion is another story, but at least they have a chance now. Had they adopted this approach two years ago, they might have been able to save the inertia they built up in the late 80s and early 90s.
The same situation goes for all of the workstation manufacturers. Intel has been developing its x86 line so aggressively that it's hard to economically maintain a speed advantage with a custom RISC chip. This puts the squeeze on non-revenue-generating parts of the business, like the UNIX division. A workstation manufacturer simply can't continue to play the same game and maintain profitability.
Rather than submit to a "partnership of death" with Microsoft, it makes much more sense for them to take the unique features of their Unix they spent so much money developing, merge them into Linux, and continue shipping their hardware - running Linux instead. The simple fact is that operating systems are no longer profitable unless you are Microsoft (and even that is debatable). Everyone who isn't Microsoft benefits much more by de-splintering their Unix effort and standardizing on Linux than they gain by pouring money into a private-label Unix.
Now consider the case of Sun. Their Solaris is the most powerful version of Unix around, and also the only one of the commercial Unices that doesn't look like it's about to die - mainly because NT is a joke in the world Solaris lives in. They seem least likely of all to ally themselves with Linux. Scott McNealy has lambasted Linux as a toy - not without justification, as Solaris handles humongous servers with hundreds of hot-swappable processors, terabytes of RAID storage, and uptime needs measured in years. None of which Linux is particularly good at right now.
Yet I think even Sun will find that they need to ally with Linux or die. That Linux doesn't support Sun's top-end machines is a result of the fact that most of the people hacking on Linux don't own them. Linux performs quite nicely on Sun's lower-end machines - notably their SPARCstations. Furthermore, Linux has been steadily working its way up the line. It's only a matter of time and interest before Linux performs quite as satisfactorily on Sun's massive servers as it does on their little workstations.
While Sun may be able to take on Linus Torvalds and a loose gang of random hackers, that was the battle two years ago. If Sun wants to fight Linux now, they have to add IBM, SGI, Corel, Caldera, and a couple dozen others to the ever-growing mix. Sun can't keep up this fight forever, especially while Microsoft continues nipping at their heels in the workstation market.
Sun, too, will face SGI's crunch. If they're smart, they'll let go of their ego, adopt Linux as an ally, and take on Microsoft together before Solaris suffers the same fate Irix has. There's no reason Solaris and Linux can't coexist, but Sun needs to learn the lessons SGI and IBM have: there is only one enemy in Unix-land, and that's Microsoft.
Now what about the other free Unices, the trio of BSDs? I don't think they face a great threat. They'll continue to be niche OSes focusing on (and excelling in) certain targeted environments. NetBSD will continue to run on every piece of hardware ever built, FreeBSD will continue to kick everyone's butt in PC servers, and OpenBSD will continue to be the #1 choice for security conscious administrators. Meanwhile, Linux will continue its path to world (or at least server) domination. Linux and the BSDs are allies.
This is a path Sun could take, if they wanted to. I believe maintaining Solaris is ultimately a money-losing proposition for Sun, but if they want to try it, they could still reap some of the benefits of a reunified Unix market by writing compatibility wrappers for Solaris and Linux that allow them to run each other's apps, filesystem plugins to crossmount each other's disks, and so on. There's a lot to be gained by encouraging communication between the Unices.
Ultimately, I think the reconsolidation of Unix into a power bloc centred on Linux is somewhat inevitable. Microsoft and Intel have made the traditional workstation company obsolete. The choices are simple: join the Linux revolution, or watch Microsoft steal your customers.
Once that happens, the question becomes significantly different. If we assume current trends continue, within one or two years Linux will represent a share of the server market equal to Microsoft's. In the face of such opposition, we have to ask - can *Microsoft* survive?
It'll be an interesting fight to watch. The desktop market is, of course, quite huge, and Linux hasn't come close to challenging Microsoft's dominance there. But the server market is much more demanding than desktop market, and Unix unquestionably has the edge over NT there. So will Microsoft's deep pockets and consumer-desktop backing be enough to support its fight for acceptance in server-space, or is it as vulnerable to the Linux juggernaut as everything else? And if Unix wins back the servers, will that put Microsoft on the defensive for the desktops?
Ultimately, I think this will be the battle that determines the future of computing for the next decade. Open systems or closed? Profit or freedom? Corporate unification or creative anarchy? It'll be fun to watch.
-Mars
Re:Linux sales only (Score:1)
You are talking about students here. I don't think they really care how much they are legally supposed to pay for software.
Re:it's only a matter of time (Score:1)
computers...</i>
i people? is that what imac users are called?
sorry, bad joke i know.
Yup, Red Hat mentioned the market devastation. (Score:1)
Re:But 1 Linux server = 4 NT servers (Score:1)
huh? (Score:2)
___
Re:Moderate this WAY UP. (Score:1)
No growth of NT market share though... (Score:1)
Re:Keep in mind... (Score:2)
In the same spirit, here's one I wrote just now: "Keep in mind, there are too many Windows-using lamers posting these days, and they ALL suck".
Re:Keep in mind... (Score:2)
Trolling for Jesus (or even Scooby Do) I can cope with; trolling for MS is a bit too much. Go work for Mindcraft or something.
The technical term is "low water mark" (Score:2)
Cheers,
Ben
Stop patting yerself on the back! (Score:2)
Geeks, of all groups, ought to know that it doesn't matter what the trade magazines, PHBs or legions of analysts (Gartner group anyone?) says - It's whether or not it works. If it works for you, it's good. If it doesn't, it's bad and should be avoided. It's that bloody simple. Linux works for me because it's stable, reasonably fast (except for the filesystem - boo, hiss), and supports most of my hardware.
But linux could very easily NOT be an ideal solution for me.. especially if I: a) needed to guarantee I could leave for vacation and be sure if the server crashed somebody ELSE could fix it, b) have an Adaptec Ultra160 SCSI card (I'm working with them on this mixup) or other incompatible hardware, c) require support for an application that doesn't run under linux, or d) am prevented by policy from doing so.
So get over it people - use what works, avoid what doesn't.. and let the analysts go extort the PHBs for every nickle they have... we know the truth, ain't that enough? Do your job as best you can, and let management figure out how you did it later.
Re:Funny quote from Sun (Score:2)
In your little world, perhaps.
Stood for Stanford University Network. Doesn't stand for anything now.
Re:Predictions... (Score:2)
How many games do you see released for AIX, Solaris, or Netware?
Re:Getting Close To Sundown! (Score:2)
Disclaimer: the above does not constitute investment advice
Re:So little money (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the problem with this approach is that it also makes your competitors hardware more appealing unless you go with a restrictive license.
It also suggests there's a lot of savings to be had for the economy by switching to open-source where feasible.
Or maybe it simply says that the Linux companies are all doomed to failure. It's naive to think that development of Linux doesn't cost anything. People contribute their time and time == money. Some of the developers are paid for their time, some aren't. But one thing that's for sure is that the software doesn't just materialise out of nowhere. So I'd question these supposed "savings to the economy".
Re:It's called "capitalism". Get used to it. (Score:2)
Re:but they're not talking about desktops (Score:2)
In response to your claim that powerful PCs will overtake Sun's hardware -- well many UNIX servers are less powerful than today's top of the line x86 hardware. But they still sell. I don't think that the PC will ever push Sun out of the server market.
Re:I know they're not talking about desktops (Score:2)
No, it doesn't go to Bill Gates and the stock holders ( when was the last time MS issued a dividend ? Hint: when your P/E is over 60, you can't afford to issue a respectable dividend. )
In the case of Linux , it's not clear that money is "freed up" ( hint: the software costs something to develop. The only question is where the resources come from. The software doesn't write itself ). The only thing that's clear is that companies that "do Linux" will have a hard time staying in business unless Linux proves itself to be a viable business propsition
Re:Linux Grows/MS Shoots Itself in the Foot (Score:2)
Re:Linux sales only (Score:2)
Well you may feel that way, but all the dollars are voting for Microsoft. Even Linux users give Microsoft the dollar vote by purchasing Win-hardware and buying from Windows-only shops.
Sales aren't the best way of judging dominance in this new market,
Agreed. The best way to measure the performance of a company is profits, not sales. On this basis, Linux doesn't even qualify, since no Linux companies are even making a decent profit. Linux might be widely used, but that doesn't alter the fact that Linux companies are performing badly.
Re:what's so great about "capitalism"? (Score:2)
I agree completely. I am also a fan of Linux and OpenBSD, in fact I actually contribute ( see http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/font_howto/ and http://independence.seul.org/ )
I'm just fed up with all these naive right wing Americans who pretend that Linux is inherently capitalist ( especially since a lot of them really start to sound like Marxists when you talk to them about intellectual property )
Re:It's called "capitalism". Get used to it. (Score:2)
It might save money for you, but my point is that it doesn't make money for the companies associated with it. Microsoft could give away their operating systems and products, and that would also "make money for you", but they'd hardly be effective capitalists because of it.
Haven't you noticed that we are transitioning from a manufacturing based economy to a service based one?
Yes, this is because manufacturing is expensive. However, software development has nothing ( or almost nothing ) to do with manufacturing. The commercial software industry is about creating intellectual assets and capitalising on those assets via licensing schemes. Capitalising on ones assets is at the heart of capitalism ( duh! ) and is the most effective way to make money ( who makes more than investment bankers and stock market gurus ? ) And the software industry is booming. Take a look at MSFT's earnings chart if you have any doubts about this.
Sorry to debunk your 'Linux is socialism' fantasy,
I never said Linux was socialist. But it does embody many of the ideals of Marxism.
Still, I don't like to say "Linux is communist", because a lot of ignorant American's immediately assume that this means that the Linux community is Stalinist or Maoist, or that the Linux community are a bunch of dirty hippies. As a member and contributor of this community, I find both insinuations offensive.but Linux is not at all incompatible with making money.
Can you substantiate this by naming a Linux company that has been sustaining substantial operating profits over the last two or more years ?
Re:Linux sales only (Score:2)
I'd agree. My point is not that I am sure that Linux isn't profitable, I am just beginning to have doubts. Redhat are 6 years old. IIRC, Microsoft already had DOS 1.0 out the door when they were 6 years old, and I take it that would mean they were in the black, and hardly "tiny" ( they didn't go public till the early 80 btw. And they weren't founded till the mid 70s )
Both Red Hat and VA Linux Systems are not profitable right now due in large part to the fact that both of them are reinvesting huge amounts of their income and capital back into themselves
Sorry, this doesn't wash. Investments/acquisitions don't count as costs for the purpose of reported earnings. Staffing is an operating cost and admittedly it does have a future benefit as does advertising, but they can only "borrow" like this for so long. ( And it's not clear that their "investments" in the development of free software are actually paying off ) However, if you buy something, that isn't counted as an operating cost for financial accounting purposes.
Re:but they're not talking about desktops (Score:2)
Re:what's so great about "capitalism"? (Score:2)
OK, now you are making a lot of sense. Yes, I also believe that Linux is very much "free market". In fact, I'd go so far as to say that open standards are crucial to free/competitive/ideal markets. Closed standards create artificial vendor lock, and in a monopoly ( or collusive oligopoly ) market, they give the monopoly control over prices ( which violates the definition of a free/competitive market )
Rather than being "political", Linux seems to synthesize the more favourable aspects of many political philosophies ( as opposed to the deplorable practices committed in the name of such ideologies ) which probably explains its appeal to people of all political persuaions.
But I'd still be happier if those public Linux companies would start actually making some profits out of Linux.
Re:So little money (Score:2)
You speak as though this model is unprecendented in a capitalist economy, but actually, it exists in many other examples. The proprietary software industry is about the creation of intellectual assets, and using those assets to generate income streams. Using assets to generate income streams is not a concept unique to the software industry. You see it in investment, real estate leasing, and a less tangible example, Amway diamonds generate an income stream by virtue of having earned their title.
The economic cost is paid once. The monetary cost is paid repeatedly. This suggests an inefficiency that could potentially be avoided.
The order tin which the transactions occur does not seem terribly relevant. The intellectual asset ( being the software ) has a certain NPV, and that NPV is equal to the size of the income stream that it can generate, which is in turn ( assuming a competitive market ) determined by market forces. In other words, despite the lack of synchronicity between payment and development costs, the software ultimately makes whatever money it's worth ( worth being something determined by market forces ).
The Linux business model seems to be to not pay for the software, but rather, pay for ongoing support.
The problem with this is that it presupposes that developer time has no economic value, because the intellectual assets they create are freely distributed.
by using a weakly related activity to generate money
I don't see how it's "weakly related" in the proprietary case. They are essentially capitalising on their assets through licensing. This would seem to be obviously related to the creation of those assets.
It seems to me that in one case, the cost is overpaid (license fees)
Empirical data would disagree with this assertion. assuming a competitive market, proprietary software is not overly expensive ( for example, games which truly satisfy "free market" axioms are very reasonably priced ). The problems come when we see monopolies and collusive oligopolies. Besides that, the prices are determined by the market.
If it turns out it is underpaid, then maybe the Linux companies are doomed to failure
The existing model for application has some problems simply because Redhat get no competitive advantage from paying free software developers. These developers are relying on donations alone ( the RH contributions are analagous to donations to the "free software community" IMO. Redhat give because of a shared interest, but don't get control of the projects. )
I like your other suggestion -- that they come up with something better. Let's hope so (-;
Re:It's called "capitalism". Get used to it. (Score:2)
At least at present, it doesn't appear to be making money. I'll remind you that when Microsoft were as old as Redhat ( 6yrs ), they'd already won the DOS contract with IBM.
That depends. Microsoft gives away a lot of things as loss leaders and to get people locked in.
...
Giving things away isn't necessarily incompatible with capitalism.
This is a very bad example. Attempting to "lock people in" is attempting to undermine the free market. While profitable, this goes against the idea of free market capitalism. Destroy the free market and you destroy capitalism as we know it.
That has been the primary model for the past few years, but that doesn't necessa rily mean that is the only way for things to work, or that it will work forever.
can you suggest another model ? As someone who is "strongly anti-socialist", I would hope that your model doesn't come wrapped in anti-property neo Marxist rhetoric.
Unfortunately, it seems that Microsoft has been pulling out those big earnings largely by their ability to destroy markets and gobble them up.
OK, admittedly that wasn't the best example, because MS's profits are partly due to some fairly non-ideal markets ( desktop OSs ). However, there are proprietary software copmanies that bring in earnings substantially larger than all the "free software companies" put together. For example, Novell, Id Software, Adobe and Oracle corp. There are also several companies that sell "solutions" that are in part proprietary software, such as Sun Microsystems ( who have been astronomically succesful ), SAP, IBM, etc. Out of these, at least IBM and MSFT are Dow 30 companies, and ORCL are fortune-100. It seems clear that overall, proprietary software does bring in large amounts of money.
The fact that profits go up and down, and some businesses come and go is orthogonal to my point -- that proprietary software brings in money, big money.
more than you can say that no Linux company will make substantial profits over the next two years.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that no Linux company will turn profit. I believe for example that Linuxcare and VA could make some money. VA actually have a decent revenue source, while redhat rely on tiny little $50- box sets for their income.
What I see as the big problem is this -- no one is going to make money by developing for Linux, because the company are paying for the creation of assets that they do not own. I see this as an economic disincentive for companies such as Redhat to pay for Linux development. I don't believe Redhat's idea of funding GNOME development makes good business sense, and I don't think it is sustainable ( though making modest donations to the projects is a different matter. )
The problem is that the paradigm whereby you don't pay developers is hardly one which is going to attract developers to the LInux platform.
Re:So little money (Score:2)
Yes. But I am not clear on why they should be related to developer time as opposed to market value of the intellectual assets created. In some cases, it makes sense to pay for developer time ( ie custom business applications sold to one buyer ). In other cases, it doesn't ( end user apps sold to many users. )
Imagine Microsoft being a huge faction of developers accepting bids on co-source to create their software.
This poses several problems : Who would bid, and why ? if you can get the software for nothing after the developer's been paid, why bid in the first place ? This creates a disincentive to bid. You would end up with a downard spiral, and your system would collapse before it began ( which explains why we don't see anything like it in the application software market ). The other problem with your model is this -- it completely ignores the fact that after the developers are done with their time, they have an asset in their hands, and they have every right to control it. Given this, why should they give up control ?
NT market share stayed the same, linux up 92%... (Score:2)
1) people that may have went NT for something went with Linux instead?
or 2) NT users are waiting for Windows2000 and found it pointless to deploy NT4 so late in it's lifespan?
I think the real test of linux vs. NT marketshare will be this year. Linux has the backing of most companies now, and Windows2000 is soposed to be NT done right.
This is where I think linux will do some major catching up in NT markets. NT4 will no be supported(Microsoft will just go "get windows2000" like they did to Win95 users when Win98 was released). They will have to replace NT4 machines with something supported. Do they go with the Windows2000 upgrades at God knows how much money? Or do they try out Linux because it's free and can do the same job for alot less money?
This may very well me the make it or break it year for both Windows2000 and Linux. Be interesting to see how it all turns out this year.
So what happened to the OS counter? (Score:2)
Am I wrong about this? I think the number of Linux servers is being serverly underestimated.
Re:Linux Grows/MS Shoots Itself in the Foot (Score:2)
True. For the enterprise you'd probably be better off with Wordperfect [corel.com].
Re:The other Linuxes. (Score:2)
But they do important and often critical stuff. No one would try to use NT or Linux to do what HP/UX or Solaris or AIX can do. And those who need the high-end OS' are more then willing to pay what they are worth.
It's like comparing pickup trucks to semi-trucks. It'd be foolish to believe that I can buy a semi-truck at pickup truck prices. Indeed it'd even be more foolish to attempt to use a semi-truck for what a pickup truck can do.
More then that, I'll bet that everyone who needs a semi-truck knows that they need a semi-truck and is willing to pay the price for one. We'll never see the market-share of semi-trucks overtaking that of pick-up trucks or any other vehicle class. But to say that that means that the usefulness of semi-trucks is dying out is just plain wrong.
It's the same with OS's. HP/UX does what it does very well. It was no need to be the dominant OS. Also, anyone would be foolish to believe that they can replace their HP/UX server with an NT server. Likewise, I have no plans to replace my NT server with an HP/UX one. They serve 2 completly different markets.
Now, Netware, NT and Linux compete for marketshare. They all have somewhat overlapping uses. That's like comparing sales of Chevy and Ford pickup trucks. I can accept that. And the increasing marketshare of Linux is certain stealing marketshare from something else. But it's something that it competes with. ie, Netware, and NT.
In conclusion, I think it's a fallacy to compare *all* servers in marketshare reports, just as it would be a fallacy to compare all "trucks". I think that comparing marketshare in servers that do similar things is much more valid. For instance, what Netcraft does with web servers.
-BrentRe:I know they're not talking about desktops (Score:2)
Don't forget, it's not like money isn't going anywhere. Money always goes somewhere. In the case of someone using NT, that money primarily goes to Microsoft, to Bill Gates and to the stockholders. But in the case of Linux, that money is freed up to go to employees or other people who among other things, work the make the company better. As a result, the money goes to feed many families, instead of just build up Bill's portfolio.
-BrentRe:NT market share stayed the same, linux up 92%.. (Score:2)
People keeping saying this over and over again, that Linux won't hurt NT, but will kill other Unixes, but is this a reasonable assumption? Why would anyone replace their high-end Unix server with Linux? Won't it make more sense that they'd replace their NT e-mail server, file server, web server, and proxy server with Linux?
The fact that NT has been replaced by Linux installations can be documented. But can it be documented that someone using a high-end Unix server has replaced it with Linux?
-Brentits only a matter of time (Score:2)
I keep seeing signe all over the place saying "Windows 2000 is coming, to set a new standard in reliability." Something like that at least. I guess they don't know the reliability that a UNIX box has. Not just Linux, but Solaris, and AIX and FreeBSD. What is this new standard in reliability that Windows 2000 is going to set?
Don't hate me cause I'm beautiful..
send flames > /dev/null
autoupdate (Score:2)
send flames > /dev/null
Predictions... (Score:2)
With the huge strides in usability which desktops like Gnome and KDE seem to be adding to Linux, and the rapid advance in terms of performance, such that Linux is at least operating in the same ballpark as any other operating system. I'm beginning to believe that Linux has a fighting chance of being the #1 OS everywhere by say Jan 2003. I wouldn't have been confident enoough to say that even a year ago, but Linux as an OS just gets better and better in all fields, not just the server market.
Last time I wrote something about the future I said I'd regard Linux as being a contender when games were regularly released for Linux at the same time as for Windows. Whilst that is not true yet, many companies at least look about producing a Linux version of the software and the time lag appears to be less and less. I'd like to hope that within the next 12 months this becomes more and more true.
Re:Linux sales only (Score:2)
Probably a lot less than the number of machines counted as NT sales due to preloads that were blasted to install Linux, BSD, Netware or one of the commercial UNIXes. Most of the server grade hardware, and an even larger number of high end desktop and/or deskside boxes that are sold are bundled with Microsoft OSes even when people purchase them to run some other OS. Microsoft counts a lot of sales that aren't the same as installs. Linux sales versus installs are a different matter entirely.
Re:That Wonderful Shipped Benchmark (Score:2)
Actually, that isn't quite right. There are a substantial number of people who pay money for preloaded NT Server on hardware they purchase to run Linux, Netware or one of the commercial UNIXes. Why? Not because they want to in many cases, although in some it is because NT fails to perform and they end up punting to another choice. Mostly it is because they have no choice. A lot of hardware vendors force feed preloaded NT with every server sale even if the customer is buying Netware, Linux or a commercial UNIX from them -- and many hardware vendors don't offer the option of even getting a non-Microsoft OS installed or shipped with the computer leaving the customer to make that aquisition on their own. Very few vendors offer machines with no OS installed at all (and most of the ones that do only do so on a limited number of models).
So, it's safe to say that Linux sales estimates should be scaled back by a factor of ten to come up with install base numbers.
According to your argument, that should be 'scaled up'. If you 'scale back' numbers it would be the opposite of what you are saying.
As for Linux CDs that come with books, given the sales numbers they are talking, I believe they are not being counted. The number that they quote for 1999 Linux sales appears to only be the retail shrinkwrap box 'official' sales from major distributions like Red Hat, Caldera, SuSE and Mandrake. They don't look like they would contain any of the 'free' CD's on books or magazines or the copies included on cheap CD's like CheapBytes, the InfoMagic CD-ROM sets, etc.
If you could figure out a way to count all the copies of Linux shipped through these sources, the number would probably be staggeringly large, but that isn't what this article was talking about at all.
Re:Linux sales only (Score:2)
Re:Hi there. (Score:2)
Re:Linux machines could be lower than indicated, t (Score:2)
I bought about 3 or 4 boxed 'official' versions in 1999, but then again, I have at least a dozen Linux boxes.
I also have a CD burner, and I probably have made and distributed at least 20 Linux CD's to friends and coworkers who want to learn Linux in the past few months.
Re:are we actually comparing apples to apples here (Score:2)
Re:Unix* is now #1... (Score:2)
Interesting point. I wonder whether the *BSD's are included in 'UNIX' or in 'other', as they are not officially UNIX branded just like Linux.
Re:its only a matter of time (Score:2)
Magazines are highly unreliable in such things, as they tend to be influenced by their advertisers' interests. Look at the number of pages of advertising in the magazines in question that are either directly paid for by Microsoft, partially paid for by Microsoft through co-op programs with hardware and 3rd party software vendors or indirectly related to Microsoft orriented hardware and software products from 3rd parties.
I've read a lot of articles like that, and often their rating methods and conclusions are highly suspect. There is often an assumption made that you need the same number of admin staff to admin an equal number of Linux and NT boxes. From my experience that is not true. Linux not only requires less maintenance because it is more reliable, but is more condusive to remote administration and automation of common sysadmin tasks through scripting. Often the assumption that NT doesn't require administrators at all, or that you can just get any idiot off the street and have them administrate your NT boxes for very little money. Frankly, this just doesn't pan out in practice. Regardless of platform, in order to run reliably in the long term, admins need to be at least halfway competent or you will have problems. There is also a misconception that there are a lot more people who are knowledeable about NT than Linux and they work cheaper than UNIX admins. I've found that to be pretty much false as well. There are a lot of people with superficial knowledge of Windows 9x, a fairly large number with superficial knowledge of NT, but it is actually easier to find people who are really capable Linux/UNIX admins than NT. The price for really qualified people is about the same.
One of the most serious errors many of the articles I've seen comparing TCO between Linux and NT is that they use TCO figures for commercial UNIXes (which generally include large vendor licensing and support fees, as well as expensive high end RISC hardware). Frankly it isn't comparing Apples to Apples, as Linux's costs are way lower in licensing and hardware than commercial UNIXes (much lower in licensing than NT and slightly lower in hardware than NT, too, since Linux is typically more lenient in hardware requirements), and for vendor support contracts the cost is fairly comparable on all of the major platforms. The difference is that there is excellent free support for Linux available which is harder to find for commercial OSes. Many companies get by without paying for any commercial Linux support at all. That is hard to do with NT and not something most companies would even contemplate with a commercial UNIX.
Re:It's called "capitalism". Get used to it. (Score:2)
Sorry to debunk your 'Linux is socialism' fantasy, but Linux is not at all incompatible with making money.
Re:Linux sales only (Score:2)
By your logic, when Microsoft was a tiny startup company back in the mid 70's, they weren't even worth looking at. You just can't look at things through such a tiny window and get the whole picture. You have to look at where the company is going in the future and how they are executing on that vision. If on that basis you don't think any of the Linux companies are viable in the long run, then you are certainly entitled to that opinion -- and maybe you might want to buy some long term short positions on their stocks. However, I imagine quite a lot of people felt the same way about Microsoft when they were a tiny startup.
Re:Sales? (Score:2)
Re:The other Linuxes. (Score:2)
What can your NT server do that an HP/UX server configured with Apache (or Zeus, or Netscape Enterprise or whatever you happen to like), Samba (or one of the similar commercial file/print services for Windows clients), HP OpenMail (or sendmail+pop/imap or Lotus Notes or whatever other mail/groupware server you like) and your choice of RDBMS software (Sybase/Informix/Oracle) can't?
Do they really serve totally different markets? Or are you trying to artifically draw boundaries where they don't technically exist?
Re:its only a matter of time (Score:2)
What it comes down to is that most companies seem to think they need to pay for big service contracts for NT, and most of them are content to only pay for support on Linux on a per-incident basis. They don't do that for no reason. Obviously I'm not the only one who thinks the same way.
Re:The reason Linux is #2 (Score:2)
Re:Linux Grows/MS Shoots Itself in the Foot (Score:2)
Re:Oh, boo hoo. (Score:2)
I don't use Windows 9x at all at home, but I am subjected to it some at work. It doesn't crash every ten seconds, to be sure. It does however crash at least once or twice a week on average and does other strange and bizarre things now and then. NT boxes seem to be more reliable than that, they maybe seem to go a month or so on average between reboots. Both are oodles better than Windows 3.1 was, where I literally often had to reboot several times a day. However, in comparison, I am used to seeing Linux boxes run several months without rebooting, and I push my Linux boxes at home a lot harder than I do Windows anything at work because Linux is my primary OS at home, and Solaris is my primary OS at work. As a point, I never run games at work and pretty much only use a few business apps.
As for your point C. I was flaming Microsoft before it ever became fashionable to do so, and if Microsoft ever cleans up their act, I will happily stop. I used to flame IBM as bad or worse than Microsoft, but since they have gone a long way towards reinventing themselves as an ethical and forward thinking company, I've changed my tune.
Re:Linux sales only (Score:2)
Re:It's called "capitalism". Get used to it. (Score:2)
I think it is too soon to say that for sure.
Microsoft could give away their operating systems and products, and that would also "make money for you", but they'd hardly be effective capitalists because of it.
That depends. Microsoft gives away a lot of things as loss leaders and to get people locked in. They don't always expect to profit from that directly, or to see returns right away even when they do expect to profit directly. Giving things away isn't necessarily incompatible with capitalism.
Yes, this is because manufacturing is expensive. However, software development has nothing ( or almost nothing ) to do with manufacturing. The commercial software industry is about creating intellectual assets and capitalising on those assets via licensing schemes.
That has been the primary model for the past few years, but that doesn't necessarily mean that is the only way for things to work, or that it will work forever.
Capitalising on ones assets is at the heart of capitalism ( duh! ) and is the most effective way to make money ( who makes more than investment bankers and stock market gurus ? ) And the software industry is booming. Take a look at MSFT's earnings chart if you have any doubts about this.
Unfortunately, it seems that Microsoft has been pulling out those big earnings largely by their ability to destroy markets and gobble them up. There is only so long that they can do that before they run a real danger of irritating so many competitors and customers that they either find themselves under government scrutiny, driving large coalitions of their competitors together or formenting a full scale revolt amongst their customers.
Microsoft is one of the few software companies that has been able to consistantly turn huge profit numbers. Many of the other large software companies have had much more spotty track records.
IBM had huge earnings on mainframe hardware in the 70's and early 80's until the market changed. In a very short period of time they went from making billions to losing billions in a quarter. No matter what company you are talking about, or what industry, those that aren't prepared when the market changes will have a hard time reinventing themselves. IBM seems to be well on their way to doing that, but it wasn't easy for them.
I never said Linux was socialist. But it does embody many of the ideals of Marxism.
It may appear that way, but I believe that is more of a side effect than a core philosophy when it comes to Linux.
Still, I don't like to say "Linux is communist", because a lot of ignorant American's immediately assume that this means that the Linux community is Stalinist or Maoist, or that the Linux community are a bunch of dirty hippies.
Unfortunately, not everyone seems to be able to excercise your self restraint.
As a member and contributor of this community, I find both insinuations offensive.
As do I, being rather strongly anti-socialist.
Can you substantiate this by naming a Linux company that has been sustaining substantial operating profits over the last two or more years ?
No more than you can say that no Linux company will make substantial profits over the next two years. About the only companies we know anything about the finances of are Red Hat and VA. We are just starting to hear anything about Caldera and LinuxCare's financials now that they are going to IPO. Just about every other company (SuSE, MandrakeSoft, Walnut Creek, etc) are privately held. While I don't know, I'd suspect that at least some of those companies are profitable.
Oi! (Score:2)
Re:Nuff said (Score:2)
Particularly when a company like GM can buy one copy of Red Hat and distribute it to thousands of computers.
And, examining Windows NT sales, I can't help but point out the fact that all the money going to NT doesn't really give you anything extra. I mean, copies of Linux have to be outstripping NT in terms of distribution, but the transfer of money isn't so mind-boggling. So using "Linux will save you a fortune, as opposed to NT", seems to be written between the lines in this article ...
Re:Funny quote from Sun (Score:2)
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
It's important to note a couple of facts: the price of admission to, say, AIX is >> than Linux.
And because of this there are probably numerous would be Linux installs that failed to produce the desired result (ie. a company is willing to let a newish admin spend a teensy amount of money attempting to produce an alternative to their $75,000 Sun upgrade, even if the odds of it working out are low.)
We need to keep our hats on and not let these things fuck with our perceptions.
Re:But 1 Linux server = 4 NT servers (Score:2)
Re:Linux Grows/MS Shoots Itself in the Foot (Score:2)
Re:Linux sales only (Score:2)
Which means, of course, that they won't show up in the sales figures. No? Yet they often will drop $35 for "the cause."
Re:what's so great about "capitalism"? (Score:2)
Perhaps it would more accurate to use the term "free market" rather than "capitalism" -- Linux *is* free market. "Capitalism" is Marx's term for it, and not an entirely accurate one. It implies a worshipful attitude toward money which is possible (but not necessary) in a free economy.
I think the term is often confusing because "Capitalists" can include monks who sell fruitcakes on the internet, speakers whose money comes from remaining popular and in-demand, and anyone else who trades Stuff They Have Or Do for Other People's Stuff, without coercion.
Linus might / might not call himself a "capitalist," and may or may not share your conception of it, but Linux the operating system is the result of a great deal of voluntary, decentralized transactions. Not all monetary, true, but then people can find value in a great variety of things.
Just thoughts,
timothy
Re:Unix* is now #1... (Score:2)
So... Unix/Linux now has 40%, passing NT at 38%.
*Oh yeah, UNIX [unix-systems.org] is a registered trademark of The Open Group.
Novell is hurting (was Re:NT market share stayed) (Score:2)
Still as of this moment I don't believe Microsoft is suffering that much from the Linux advance (I believe it will); I think the people who are suffering are Novell.
Solaris *not* Open Source (TM) (Score:2)
I.e. this is "free as in beer", not "free as in speech".
Reliability of software running on dodgy hardware (Score:2)
> reliable hardware and software or even more BSOD's
> will result.
Is there a circumstance when Linux will cope with dodgy hardware but NT will flake? I know that high end unices can detect and cope with broken hardware, but can linux do better than NT?
So little money (Score:2)
I'm not saying this is a bad thing (well, just for owners of Red Hat stock, or VA stock). It indicates that hardware is what you sell. Software is what you support and contribute to (in order to make your hardware more appealing).
It also suggests there's a lot of savings to be had for the economy by switching to open-source where feasible. And that simply translates to greater productivity, which is what economic growth is all about.
Re:So little money (Score:2)
With most proprietary software, you pay a per license fee, which means that the underlying cost (time to develop said software) has a strange relationship to the actual monetary value paid for the software. The economic cost is paid once. The monetary cost is paid repeatedly. This suggests an inefficiency that could potentially be avoided.
The Linux business model seems to be to not pay for the software, but rather, pay for ongoing support. Both cases avoid the problem of finding the funds to pay for the underlying economic cost (developer time), by using a weakly related activity to generate money. It seems to me that in one case, the cost is overpaid (license fees), whereas the other is probably too early to say. If it turns out it is underpaid, then maybe the Linux companies are doomed to failure (or that another model will come into play, personally, I think this is likely).
But, I stick by my suggestion that we are heading toward a more efficient valuation of the costs of software, which will have the effect of saving money overall.
Oh, and in regard to the hardware thing - this situation may simply be forced upon companies (ie all companies would choose to make a killing off proprietary software, given the choice, but they may not have the choice), in which case, there means of competing is reduced to hardware superiority, and better marketing.
Re:So little money (Score:2)
Imagine Microsoft being a huge faction of developers accepting bids on co-source to create their software. Would the combined costs there come anywhere near the price being paid now (I realize Microsoft, being a monopoly is a bad example, but substitute Corel, if you like, or Borland).
Not that I think Co-source can succeed in its current implementation, but I think something like that could work pretty well. At least, for those brave enough to take that plunge.
Re:So little money (Score:2)
Regarding the question of why should developers give up their rights to their creations - it's not a question of choice. You do what you have to do to compete. If a business model shows up that's will to work for 10% of the price you charge, you are forced to get down to that level, or stop competing. If open source creates a truly viable alternative to Windows, for so little cost, how long can Windows survive? It will catch up to them eventually. (note, I'm not saying Linux is at that point yet - I use Linux now, and I can barely stand it. I'm just betting on its future).
Co-source won't work in all situations. But those areas where it does, current companies whose revenue comes from competing sources should experience serious difficulties. Unfortunately for our little debate (which I've enjoyed enormously!), we won't really know the answers for another 5 years or so.
numbers seem a little off (Score:2)
One big flaw (?) (Score:2)
Some major assumption is buried here. I'd like to know what it is and whether it has held constant. It could affect that growth rate (98%) significantly.
Other than that, glad to see continued progress according to this metric. Useful for talking to those PHBs.
--LP
Oxymoron (Score:2)
I recently installed the Neoplanet web browser onto an NT box. It required a reboot. This sort of behaviour does not meet my definition of a modern server operating system.
HH
Server or Desktop, I can't tell (Score:2)
I think this is great news and all but with a grain of salt or so . .
The article doesn't exactly seem to say how you can differentiate (or if they even are differentiating) between the OS being sold and used for the purposes of being a server, and purchases that are used for the desktop environment.
It also gives a bit of the wrong impression on what's being used out there. The numbers they give are sales for the last few years NOT the actual percentage of all systems running the listed OSes. Linux still has a big big hill to climb I think, but is moving up.
Still good news though!
Re:Server or Desktop, I can't tell (Score:2)
I didn't mention FTP download and FTP installations, however I think those are usually limited to experienced Linux (server) admins, and there's not a massive # of them compared to other OSes (at least not yet).
I spoke with a few friends at several large IS consulting services and interest in Linux is noticeable they say, however they installations are still quite rare. Most of their clients have a wait and see look, but do ask about it often. With the exception of using it for web hosting, that is very common for companies that handle their own hosting now they tell me.
Re:Server or Desktop, I can't tell (Score:2)
Active!
That's quite true.
From experience I know as well that just because your supposed to use legal copies of NT doesn't mean they're not using several NT installs illegaly. It would be an interesting thing to see (I don't think it can be reliably tracked) to compare the # of illegal multiple NT installs to the multiple installs of Linux.
(I'm sure this story is not uncommon) I worked once for a company who hozed their NT system running Exchange (their own darned fault) and reloaded and reconfigured (fools who don't backup) and all. Aprox 120 days (I think it was 120) later the system didn't work . . . They had installed the trial ver of their OS! *sigh*
That IS the hidden story, isn't it? (Score:2)
--
Funny quote from Sun (Score:2)
I hope someone at Sun is feeling like an idiot about now. (But probably not. He probably has his head too far up his @$$...)
-=-=-=-=-
Re:But 1 Linux server = 4 NT servers (Score:2)
Re:its only a matter of time (Score:2)
This is something I've never understood as a valid arguement for Linux. Yes, there are newsgroups for Linux, and websites, etc, but there is the same thing for NT. I can go to the MS website and get most of my questions answered. Plus, when it comes down to real support, newsgroups don't really help. I crash (on either platform) and I need to get back up and running ASAP. I don't have time to post to a newsgroup and see if I get an answer. I need an answer NOW, whether it's from MS, Redhat, or some other company I've contracted with. Just because Linux has more newsgroups doesn't mean I can't find free NT help online, and it doesn't help in a bind.
"IP Aliasing under NT" (Score:2)
No charge. No difficulty.
It is available under advanced for TCP/IP properties (have to find the little button).
IIS lets you graphically assign different IP addresses to different links.
Not saying that Linux numbers aren't Deflated (they are), but IP Aliasing isn't a separate machine. Also, this is a report on SALES, not uses. They're figuring out where the money is going.
Linux numbers are deflated. However, that doesn't justify confusing ignorance with NT as flaws in NT... NT has enough flaws without your adding some...
What do you mean I need to reboot to setup my printer?
Alex M. Hochberger
MCSE, CCA
Customers bad for MS!?! (Score:3)
I think Microsoft themselves have admitted that the vast installed base presents a problem -- they have to keep selling people stuff they already have.
As for the numbers being confusing -- indeed. What I'd like to see are the following:
Chart of OS unit sales in 99, 98, AND 97. This would tell us what was not said in the article: did the flat share for NT represent a cooling off? I expect that NT's share _had_ probably been growing steadily.
Chart of OS $ sales in 99, 98, AND 97. This would tell us whether NT has kept share by dropping prices (I think so, if I remember events of the past year correctly) or despite raising prices. We'd also be able to see the Linux $ growth more clearly, and see whether popularity = ability to command higher prices, which many suspect is not the case with commodity open-source.
Microsoft must be frustrated as hell: they spent all this money to get into the high-buck server OS market, only to arrive after Linux has turned it into the low-buck server OS market!
??? (Score:2)
Besides, there are probably many small organizations (like mine) which didn't buy Linux, but instead downloaded it (I don't need phone support, I have a LUG!) I have 4 servers running Linux, and one of those servers has 3 aliases (so by my counting, that's 7 servers). Servers like these were not counted at all in these statistics.
I doubt that Linux verdors charge extra for people using IP aliasing, but I'm betting that if NT has a similar feature (does it?), there's licensing fees to be paid for using it. So, I would say that the Linux numbers are DEFLATED, for the factors of freeness and aliases.
Nuff said (Score:2)
Solaris? (Score:2)
When did this happen? This is the first I've heard of this. Are they going to cover Slowaris under GPL?
NO! You have it backwards (Score:2)