Ask Dan Kusnetzky About Linux Server Counts 109
How many people run Linux as a desktop OS? How many servers run Linux? Is the Linux server market share 8.6 percent or 24 percent or somewhere in between? Dan Kusnetzky is a heavily quoted analyst at IDC who wrestles with questions like these for a living. This is your chance to find out how analysts come up with all those numbers -- and why analysts seem to disagree with each other so often. One question per post, please. We'll send 10 of the highest-moderated ones to Dan, and post his answers as soon as we get them back.
Possibly a stupid question... (Score:1)
Inquiring minds want to know... (Score:1)
Re:Factoring in the Captive Audience (Score:1)
People make the decision to use "x" for their own good reasons.
What if you gave people the free choice to pick the word processor they wanted to use ?? A few years ago, you had MS Word and WordPerfect. Is one better than the other ?? Who knows... If Word does the job and I can buy the copies I need, I will. If WP does the same, I will. But not both. Same goes with spreadsheets. You used to have Excel, Quattro Pro, and Lotus 123...
What about undercounting? (Score:1)
A big problem I see with your methodology is that you probably overcount Linux server shipments. From what I understand (I may be incorrect here) you count each sale of Linux as a server shipment.
So you don't even know if your assumption is correct, but you decide to karma-whore anyway.
___
Confidence level (Score:1)
Re:What about the so-called "third world"? (Score:1)
How often do you backcheck (Score:1)
Re:Anagram (Score:1)
coincidence? you decide.
Re:I just have to ask... (Score:1)
Follow The Money (Score:1)
Who? (Score:1)
Re:*what* consititutes a Linux server? (Score:1)
Re:Sold vs Installed (Score:1)
Gartner reported (in their actual report) numbers of servers that were shipped.
It could have simply been bad wording in the report. If so, they haven't corrected it yet. The actual report speaks only of the amount of Linux installed on shipping servers, and says absolutely nothing about later installs.
Unless Gartner actually releases more information about their survey, it's impossible to know whether the problem was bad wording in the report or bad wording in the survey. Either way, I definately have doubts about the validity of the final numbers.
Re:*BSD is dying (Score:1)
Re:Question(ADDNUM) (Score:1)
When wvdial runs through its scripts, after it gets the nameserver, it will try to resolve www.suse.com (or
Whether or not SuSE actually uses this data, I have no idea.
It's not in the documentation, but it's hardly hidden. You'd have to be blind not to see it scroll by on a bad setup or baked DNS.
It IS there, however. Anyone know anything else about this?
Great point. (Score:1)
Most Important Question (Score:1)
don't do it by just 'hits' (Score:1)
For example if slashdot we're a static site I would guess that it would be much faster and available. However Slashdot is not a static site, it's one of the most dynamic sites on the web, it constantly works the hell out of MySQL it caches the results, and serves up static pages (i.e. the home page)
I think most people here are really interested in the nebulas question "what OS is the _best_" which of course you really can't answer. However I think if you we're going to use the amound of traffic a OS can handle as a measuring stick, then it's only fair to talk about constant load, and complexity or that load rather then just the number of 'hits'.
The problem with calculating that metric is that it's WAY more complecated and subjective then just hits, which may make it dam near unatainable. I mean how would you compare the complexity of a mod_perl+ssh+MySQL site vs. a WebSphere+Apache+DB2 or IIS+MTS+COM+. You could have to come up with a number saying, "ok this is a complexity of 8, where is is a 5' and you really can't do that.
-Jon
Do analysts have too much influence? (Score:1)
Dan,
Are you ever concerned that analysts such as yourself have an unhealty amount of influence on the computer industry?
It seems to me that many analysts predictions amount to self-fulfilling prophecies. ie., Analyst 'X' says that Server 'Y' has the largest market share, so IT managers everywhere follow a herd mentality and only use Server 'Y', creating a vicious cycle. Do you think that this effect is real, and if so, does it result in innovation being stifled in the industry?
-Bruno
FTP downloads? (Score:1)
Re:Factoring in the Captive Audience (Score:1)
Re:*what* consititutes a Linux server? (Score:1)
I know I know there are other servers started first, you know what I mean.
BEST FRONT (Score:1)
What's More Important? (Score:1)
Re:Doesn't IDG host Linux world? (Score:1)
Who uses this data? (Score:1)
Statistical Seriousness (Score:1)
How do you design your sampling methods when such questions are answered?
How do you deside which errors are you more willing to accept? Because you may design a low power question if it's less biased than other or are you willing to sacrifice a bit more of Type I/II error for a less biased survey desing? Who makes this decisions and with which rules?
Do you test the sample for statistical properties? Do you segment your sample candidates to represent your desired universe?
Response to "secondly" (Score:1)
IDC counts Linux server licenses as tabulated by distributor sales and perhaps spot check polls.
Gartner is counting new server hardware shipments with Linux pre-installed/ordered. Given that much (more than 50%) of new Linux licenses are installed on old hardware, the discrepancy is easy to understand.
Finally, given the nature of OSS distribution, there are, ahhh, large standard errors in these estimates anyway.
Beyond the Distro and Back (Score:1)
One of the biggest questions with Linux and it's introduction into the server/desktop market is the GUI interfaces that come with it. Now-a-days, it really doesn't matter what distro you run to any great degree. It just matters how it looks to the average person.
Since the onset of the GUI environment, OSs have changed entirely. Since Linux is more of a brute and rooted "hands-on" OS, one of the biggest struggles has been to make it 'look pretty'.
To many of the /. readers, this is less of an issue, but if Linux is to put a severe dent in the desktop market, it's a pretty important issue to be raised. To that end, several companies have started to produce desktop-environments designed to include the kitchen sink in GUIs and make the point-and-click users happy.
In your opinion, is there any apparent leader in this sector? Certainly, GNOME and KDE are two of the standards, but I refer more to compaines like XIMIAN (formerly HelixCode), XFCE, Enligtenment, AfterStep, WindowMaker, Blackbox, and so on...
Are any of these companies steering in the right direction for the end (desktop) user? Or are they simply following the trends and hopeing they end-up on top of a big pile of money?
G.
Re:Sold vs Installed (Score:1)
Gartner reported that they asked end users what OS they were using on their new servers. They did not ask what came preinstalled (despite what all the /. posters who had not read the actual article were claiming during the 8/24 debate).
To me this seems like a decent way of determining market share. It would be interesting to hear more about the characteristics of the end users that Gartner polled. The specific industry and size of a company often dictates technical choices of that nature, and if Gartner did not have a broad cross-section then their results could be questioned.
Gartner define the parameters - up front (Score:1)
IIRC, it's all based on the "shipped OS" - which is defined, as you would expect, in the definition of what is being surveyed.
this, of course, leaves it wide open for interested parties to imply other parameters (since people are usually too lazy or ignorant to read and understand such terms of reference) when they commentate on the findings. Far to much of this corporate spin-doctoring going on at the moment! - after all they're not going to headline "OEMs predominantly shipping Windows in pre-installed market" - not enough spin there to stir a cup of tea.
Server vs workstation (Score:1)
What do you use to define server or workstation ? Server could mean, dedicated server doing things like HTTP or FTP only. It could also mean a machine that provides some sort of network service. If the second is that case, what about people like my mother inlaw. She uses Mandrake 7.2 has here only OS. She also has her website on her machine and what not. Is this a server or workstation ?
How about the other way around ? The machine handles serving webpages all day ... but is also used for Q3A once a day (or a few times a day)
Some people would say that what it does more then 51% of the time is what it is. Where do you draw the line. Its a difficault thing to say.
How many machines are running Linux vs NT vs BSD, is more possiable, imo
until (succeed) try { again(); }
Re:We Need To Know... (Score:1)
Tom.
Doesn't IDG host Linux world? (Score:1)
OS stats fishy... (Score:1)
ethical conscience? (Score:1)
- connordb - results for funder not the public
- dmccarty - palm OS predictions wrong
- bwoodring & dvc - include & self-fulfulling predictions
What is your view on the ethics of producing results which are used specifically to deceive and manipulate? I appreciate that your business is merely providing a service, but since that service often boils down to "whoring for figures" to support some funders marketing spin (i.e. they pay you, you give them what they want), can you (as a business) command any respect for what you do, and for your reports?Numbers vs. What Works (Score:1)
Does anyone really care if the number is 8% or if it is 80%?
I run Linux as a server because it works better than anything else I've tried. I run Linux as a desktop because it works better than anything else I've tried. Why all the numbers and why do they even matter?
Re:Here's a simple one... (Score:1)
There wasn't any "caving in." For better or worse, that's what Gartner does. They're not Consumer Reports.
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
Which is it... (Score:1)
how many computers run Linux? (Score:1)
I would like to ask:
Good Numbers or Bad Numbers? (Score:1)
8.6% Is this a good number in your view of the industry? Has there been an indication of positive growth in the industry? And what is the perception of Linux by corporate users?
Thanks.
Impossible!!! (Score:1)
I don't think people would agree on a single measure, especially when it doesn't favor them.
And how would you get all that data???
Study funding (Score:1)
Is this because analysts change the results of studies in favor of the company that is funding it? I was thinking that it was more likely that company X only releases the the information in the study to the public when the results are favorable to them so their stock will increase. How can we tell which studies to trust and which ones not to?
Re:How do you discount overcounting? (Score:1)
The "serverness" of the machine should probably be determined by the hardware, like RAID arrays and such.
Art At Home [artathome.org]
Re:Question(ADDNUM) (Score:1)
Also, what if you do a reinstall? Does it ask to register again?
Also, this is extra work. Any tech who has to intall linux on 20 machines will not want to register each install.
Besides, no one needs to know what I do or don't do with my machines.
What about dual-boot machines?
I think that cold-calling would not work. I don't do phone surveys. I hate them (do you somewhat agree? do you somewhat disagree? Arrghh!)
Besides, for companies, the survey should be more refined: it should ask the preferred OS for specific tools, not servers. for example:
- Mail server
- Internet servers
- Intranet servers
- FTP servers
- Print servers
- File servers
- Application servers
- SQL db servers
etc.
Then we would get a much better view of what people are using in the Enterprise.
And forget asking the users. you need to ask the sysadmins. (our users think everything runs NT--mostly, but not all
Electronic Unbiased Polls (Score:1)
Re:Data origins (Score:1)
Embedded (Score:1)
Re:why not just ask? (Score:2)
http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,1101
But Gartner's Hewitt was adamant that his methodology and findings were correct. Some 724 U.S.-based respondents had answered questions over the phone for the survey, he said, ranging from small organizations with fewer than 50 PCs to large companies with more than 500 computers, as well as educational institutions, Internet service providers and application service providers.
Respondents were screened to ensure they were knowledgeable about server purchases over the quarter, and they were asked what percentage of their server purchases were Linux servers, he said.
"We went to end users, rather than looking at just sales numbers, and asked them what servers they had bought over the past three months and what operating system they had installed on it over the same period," Hewitt said. "There was no question about whether Linux was preinstalled or not, we simply asked about new shipments and this is what we found."
Blather... (Score:2)
All because IDC has larger numbers.
I would seriously like to see IDC justify these numbers as accurate. From what I've seen of their press releases they extrapolate off some pretty questionable data.
At least Gartner went to the trouble of performing a survey.
Re:Funding (Score:2)
I'm sure they are, as long as there's some plausable truth in the results.
Re:Reproducibility (Score:2)
FWIW: At a place where I worked (many years ago), that was a higher category than official US Govt. Secret.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:*what* consititutes a Linux server? (Score:2)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:How do you discount overcounting? (Score:2)
But if I owned a hundred computers, I'd have the same number of copies of Linux, and over 100 copies of Windows (it comes automatically with just about all computers, even it you get them with only Linux installed).
So number of copies sold doesn't have much to do with number installed. It systematically overcounts Windows, and both over and under counts Linux.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Ages. (Score:2)
Scott Ruttencutter
Re:I Have a Few.... (Score:2)
Re:*what* consititutes a Linux server? (Score:2)
What good are these numbers? (Score:2)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/19661.ht
which show the meaninglessness of statistics like these up to a point. What are your thoughts?
NAS
How are copies and discards counted? (Score:2)
How are throw-aways counted?
How are pre-load erases counted?
How is piracy (of proprietary SW) counted?
Loaded question (Score:2)
/Brian
Better link for "Dan Kusnetzky" (Score:2)
If you really want to check all of his quotes, try the same Google search with his name spelled correctly [google.com].
Factory installed Windows (Score:2)
The things that it clearly does not take into account are:
- Servers that come with Windows (or some other OS) that people wipe and install Linux on. Keep in mind that many vendors do not provide Linux as a pre-installed option, and (thanks to Microsoft's anti-piracy efforts) often do not offer to sell unconfigured systems. The result is that many companies who want to run Linux on their servers must buy Windows licenses anyway.
- Many companies and organizations build their servers from scratch. If you assume that all servers are purchased from vendors and OEMs, these servers will seem to materialize out of thin air. Also, people who are savvy enough to build a server from scratch are also more likely to make an informed decision about what type of server to use (and thus, be more likely to go with Linux or BSD).
- "Recycled" servers. In many companies, it is common practice to move aging desktop systems (especially the more powerful ones) into low-end server roles. For instance, intranet servers in small to medium sized companies. If the IT people know what they are doing, these former desktops will get formatted and rebuilt, and there's a good chance they'll get rebuilt with Linux, since one of the strong points of Linux is its ability to make good use of older hardware.
- Beleive it or not, some people dual-boot servers. This is especially convenient when you put the bootable image on a hot-swap drive sled. This may sound odd, but it is partiularly convenient for production enviornments, where you might only need a server up for a night or two after a commit cycle. It's also conveinent with large database enviornmetns, where you need to do periodic aggrigations. I really, really doubt that you'd be able to find this option on a vendor's configuration page.
- "Junker" servers, often built from aincent hardware. People save themselves piles of money by using 386's and such for routers and firewalls instead of paying for custom hardware. This is a good solution for many people, especially since Linux does a good job of utilizing older harware. This is different from "recycled" servers because routers and firewalls tend to be transparant peices of network infastructure. However, no one would despute that they are important.
There are probably a few situations that I'm leaving out. The point is, how important are vendor statistics for measuring the Linux market share?It seems to me that the only way to make informed statements about server market share is to gather statistics at the source. Put together a statistically significant sample of companies, individuals and organizations, and ask them for a list of the servers they use, a description of of each (including OS), and an explanation of their choices. This seems like the only way to actually answer the bigger question of server OS market share. The answer might not make anyone happy, but at least it would be an answer.
--
Re:Factory installed Windows (Score:2)
It's not a question of Microsoft being evil - the fact is, a lot of people used to opt for unconfigured systems, and would then install an unlicensed copy of Windows. That's a fact that Microsoft took note of, and acted to prevent. This is a very well established and open policy of Microsoft, not some underhanded conspiracy. It's not as if there's any dispute about this.
--
Effectiveness of MS' Campaigns (Score:2)
By extension, what affect do you forsee on the numbers of server sales as a result of these campaigns?
Error in data collection (Score:2)
Now I cannot know if Microsoft's number in this study include pirated software, but whether they did or not for this particular study is almost irrelevant! That fact is, you cannot count Linux installations by the number of machines sold with Linux on them. That's insane because that's not how Linux is most frequently distributed. It's also inconsistant with Microsoft's standard position where they claim an accounting for unpurchased copies in use. At the very least they should make efforts to remain consistant. But if they did, the numbers wouldn't be quite as favorable. They KNOW this.
I Have a Few.... (Score:2)
My humble input:
Thank you for your time.
The Role of Analysts (Score:2)
As a sales and marketing manager, I often use analyst reports from IDC or Gartner when working with the CEO or CFO of a prospective customer because they trust the source. It amazes me how quickly a CEO will abandon the advice of an IT staffer based on a report from IDC or Gartner.
If you were the CEO of a company faced with a long term technology decision, how much would you rely on analysts? What sources other than analysts would you look to to aid you in making your decision?
Re:Sold vs Installed (Score:2)
But, as you said, if they didn't have a cross group survey, then it's pretty useless.
ISPs tend to use *nix deriatives, and office networks (file & print sharing, mainly) tend to be NT, frex.(Just the two most distinct groups that I could think of, don't flame me for this)
You could get a totally true, but meaningless statistic if you poll your target correctly.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
Sold vs Installed (Score:2)
Many Linux installations have not been bought, after all.
And while we are at the subject, how do you diffrenciate between Linux used as a desktop platform and as a server platform?
--
Two witches watch two watches.
Re:Impossible!!! (Score:2)
That's easy: get it from the FBI. They've got Carnivore systems planted all over the Internet that could snoop out this info. Since it's aggregate data, no warrant necessary. :-)
Faster servers hurting themselves (Score:2)
Re:More breakdown needed (Score:2)
What was your methodology. (Score:3)
In short how did you come up with your figures. We could ask about the other figures too but since you didn't publish those someone else may have to answer that.
Factoring in the Captive Audience (Score:3)
SuperID
Free Database Hosting For Developers [freesql.org]
Linux can't feed you (Score:3)
Does it affects you or your team work ?
A question about your report (Score:3)
You use the number "15". Frankly, I'm surprised that it is so big. Upon what data did you base that estimate? Who did you interview to get it? I realize that any such estimate would have to account both for the very large number of installs at large colocation and/or service provider shops, as well as the number of untrackable network installs that take place. But it would also need to account for the number of times where a machine had Linux installed upon it, was used as an experimental development platform, and then was wiped, not to mention the number of cases where somebody bought a distribution, and then never installed it at all.
Re:I just have to ask... (Score:3)
linux ports. (Score:3)
Many Linux desktops have ftp, telnet & http ports open, so do they count as severs too?
no, they count as targets for l33t haX0rs, especially since the people who just installed mandrake from that wal mart cd don't even know they're open or use them...
--saint----
Hardware sales mean very little (Score:3)
Question (Score:4)
According to IDC figures, the Linux desktop market share was 5% and now it's less then 2%. Gartner numbers are of course differently (way lower if I'm not mistaken)
Yet, when I look at developments of projects like XFree, KDE, Gnome, Linux kernel - or when you get the daily list from freshmeat, or even talking to the the ISP who host mirrors of ISO images of Redhat, Mandrake etc - then you see that linux get FAR more then 2%. Hell - if it was 2% and you account the developments of Linux - then each developer works 25 hours per day on a porject!
So, as you can see - the numbers here are definately wrong here - and those numbers are actually hurting the Linux community. If an ABCD company wants to make a software for the Linux desktop and they see those IDC figures - then they will say something like "oh, 2%? no thanks - we'll make it for Mac - they are %5+", and we'll loose..
Comments?
Company size. (Score:4)
Do we have evidence of any companies with multi-million dollar revenues that rely on linux solutions for their servers or do most companies that use linux servers do it because they lack the money? (choice/only option)
-S
Scott Ruttencutter
Assuring accurate results? (Score:4)
How does IDC determine if the answers they are getting are valid? What I mean by this is how does your organization insure that the people they are surveying being truthful in their responses? I can see scenarios where a well co-ordinated group of people could be swayed by a vendor to influence the results of a survey, especially in a field as specialized as the IT industry.
Also, if you suspect that the results of a survey are tainted, do you publish it anyway (with caveats included, of course) or redo it (at your time and expense)?
Re:Funding (Score:4)
Even if the funder does not infulence the questions asked they may well control if the "results" see the light of day.
Re:Polling questions (Score:4)
It's quite trivial for methodology to affect the results. That is why in any kind of scientific publication the method is considered at least as important as any conclusion.
Not only is no methodology available "conclusions" are being called "results".
How do you discount overcounting? (Score:4)
This is probably going to be a tough question for you (if you ever get it, that is - given the bias on Slashdot, this probably won't be modded up).
A big problem I see with your methodology is that you probably overcount Linux server shipments. From what I understand (I may be incorrect here) you count each sale of Linux as a server shipment. However, many of these copies may be tested but never used, a great many are used in home computers or development workstations. The problem is, unlike with Windows or OS/2, there is no ``client version'' vs. a ``server version''. There is no easy way to tell if a copy of Linux is used in a server environment or a client environment by sales figures alone. So my question is: given total Linux sales figures, how do you estimate the number used in server environments?
Secondly, is it possible that the descrepancy between your numbers and Gartners' is due to a problem in the way you estimate Linux server sales?
What difference does it make? (Score:4)
---
why not just ask? (Score:4)
The naive approach of asking hardware vendors how many units of hardware ship with what OS is obviously flawed.
So why not just do the dumb brute-force thing? Dial phone numbers at random and ask people what they use? Too expensive?
How much is accurate data worth, anyway?
Trends (Score:4)
*what* consititutes a Linux server? (Score:5)
Re:Question(ADDNUM) (Score:5)
What if IDC could work with the Linux distributions (RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE, TurboLinux, Debian) to add a small program which will run after the first internet connection has been succsessfull..
When this program runs - it will ask the user to "register" his copy of the distribution. If it has been purchased from one of the distributors - then the user can add his serial number. Some other questions like will this distribution be used as a server, a workstation, or combination of the 2, or a development workstation. The survey SHOULD be annonymous (unless the user wants to give some details about himself)
By that way - the distributors can give the numbers back to IDC - and IDC can publish a report which will tell that the number of Linux installations - and that number is X. X is combined of Y free download version and Z purchased copies of Linux.
What do you think, Dan? what the slashdot readers think about it?
Data origins (Score:5)
Do you base your data mostly on marketing analysis or do you actually go a pay a consultor to scan machines on the net? If there are scans involved, how do you pick the IP blocks to be scanned and what's the uncertainty associated with such a method (and how is this uncertainty guessed)? If there are no scans involved, why not? If this is "maket analysis", can you defined that for me? Which factors are involved? And a different question: who's the target market for this kind of study? How much does such a thing cost?
Reproducibility (Score:5)
- Ask Gartner their methodology,
- Document it so that it can be reproduced;
- Make sure and get Gartner to say "yep that's how we did it".
- Dan&Co reproduces the methodology and compares the numbers
Might be overly scientific. Maybe consider it an "Open Source" version of market research because of the peer review and verification. Some may think this approach has no place in the market research area.But, I (for one) think it would be interesting to call Gartner's Bluff (if indeed that's what this is). I personally place them (and ZD, etc) into the Shill [tuxedo.org] category.
Thoughts anyone?
I just have to ask... (Score:5)
TIA
Self-fulfilling analysis? (Score:5)
If it is possible or already happened, do analysts in general (and you in particular) find it a worrisom possibility, and if so, are there any attempts/ideas to deal with the issue?
Thanks,
DVK
Funding (Score:5)
My question is: Do those who fund a study influence how the study turns out (ie. Microsoft studies show higher MS market share). Or is it that these corperations only decide to fund groups who they know will most likely return results in thier favor.
---Lane
Who Keeps track of the Predictions (Score:5)
I have a question on the area of predictions in general. For example, fellow IDC analyst Jill House has been severaly negative on Palm over the years, with regard to the Win CE operating system and devices. A sample quote from her in Feb. 2000 read, "If I was Palm, I would be beside myself with panic. [zdnet.com]"
The issue is, that over the last 3 - 4 years she's been predicting the demise of Palm and the rise of Win CE, a claim that has never materialized. Who verifies the reliability of these predictions and keeps the analysts accountable. With the frequent sound bytes and one-liners that they give to the press, these analysts have significant influence over public perception of the issues. But how is policing done when the analysts don't analyze very well?
Sincerely,
Daniel McCarty
Palm OS Developer
What about the so-called "third world"? (Score:5)
Here's a simple one... (Score:5)
Thanks for your time,
- Brad Heintz
--
Polling questions (Score:5)
More breakdown needed (Score:5)
So why are OS numbers reported with equal rating? Not all users are equally suited to *choose* an OS, therefore not all users *choices* are equally interesting. I'd really like to see a breakdown of OS by user-type (levels of education, field of degree if applicable, occupation, etc). Keep in mind this applies just as much to business. A technology company presumably put more informed thought into their choice of server than an art supply house or whatever.
--