Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Linux Business

Michael Dell says Linux Server Sales are Up 213

00_NOP writes "Linux is growing faster in the server space than Windows says the Dell CEO 'On the server side Linux continues to grow nicely, a bit faster than Windows. We're seeing a move to Linux in critical applications, and Linux migration has not slowed down.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Michael Dell says Linux Server Sales are Up

Comments Filter:
  • And this is news? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by HexaByte ( 817350 )
    And this is news? Why?

    Could this have anything to do with stability? Or perhaps the long march toward Longhorn that keeps getting longer, even as features keep getting cut?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15, 2007 @09:43AM (#20981509)
      The former, no. Windows is just as stable if you are a competant admin these days, and don't use CheapAss(R) hardware (note: inexpensive and old are ok, just not crap that will crash due to hardware issues).

      The latter. That is part of it.

      But as a Windows admin, (note: my main home system is not Windows - KDE > Windows) the only advantage I find on Linux in server space is the flexibility and options allowed by Unix that aren't as easy to access in Windows.

      That being said, that one advantage is more than enough, given sufficient security and stability (which of course, properly run, Linux has just as well as Windows 2003, also properly run), to justify a switch for most, provided they have enough experience at getting Linux to work (I'd probably rather use FreeBSD myself, but hey, whatever floats your boat... err, server).
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by AndyCR ( 1091663 )

        the only advantage I find on Linux in server space is the flexibility and options allowed by Unix that aren't as easy to access in Windows.
        Cost is an advantage, too.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15, 2007 @10:15AM (#20981861)
          The cost of either is so dependant on the quality of your administrator(s).

          Windows with a good administrator is cheaper than Linux with a mediocre/avarage administrator, and not significantly more expensive than Linux with a good administrator (from a business perspective, a $1000 set of OSes/licesences doesn't make much of a difference when you've got $10k hardware, and a $75k administrator.
          • Re:And this is news? (Score:4, Informative)

            by somersault ( 912633 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @10:49AM (#20982255) Homepage Journal
            True, the grandparent poster obviously doesn't use Linux in a professional environment.. the costs of this stuff sound a lot from a home point of view, but in business then you tend to get what you pay for. I wanted to move to using towards using all Linux servers, but realised it's not really worth it since the whole organisation is already setup and stable with a Windows domain / Exchange server (which I realised is actually a pretty decent product, after I tried setting up OpenExchange and using it as a domain controller/exchange server - it was lacking in functionality and the configuration was a real pain in the ass too due to the fairly lacklustre documentation on LDAP setup, which I'd never done before, took me a week or 2 to get it right.. :( ). I'm very happy with the way vendors/customers are warming up to Linux in the server and desktop world, but for the moment I'm still waiting for a killer Exchange/Outlook replacement (not lots of separate servers/clients for calendars, email, groupware etc..), or at least just an Outlook replacement. That's more because of my own wishes, because while it will save a fair bit of money in the long run, it's still pretty small fry for a medium sized business unfortunately
            • Re:And this is news? (Score:4, Interesting)

              by lightsaber777 ( 920815 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @01:31PM (#20984459) Journal
              One, you said it yourself... you have not previously done an LDAP setup... so obviously it is not something that you can do in a few hours. Once you've done it one time you can easily set it up again. I have to also question your assertion that it took two weeks to figure it out. It took me two days the first time I ever did it and that was a Friday night and a Saturday. I generally hold that one should not expect open source software to come in a box with a book and a support staff. There are some projects who get to this point but it's usually when a company like Red Hat takes that over when you get fully documented software with commercial support. Everyone must remember that open source is not built around a strict producer/consumer model. Rather, it encourages the consumers to add and make the product better while using something that is 95% of what they want giving them the ability to add the other 5%... in this case the consumer being the company who decides to use open source in their business. As for groupware... what features were you using in Exchange that you couldn't get in OpenExchange? While I agree that Exchange has a larger feature set, most people use 35% of the functionality in Exchange, so are you paying for features you aren't using? Secondly, if you just want a big feature set, you may find this hard to believe, GroupWise has a larger set of features than Exchange, its compatible with clients on Linux and Windows, and it's licensing costs are cheaper than Exchange. On TCO, the argument that "Windows + good admin is cheaper than Linux w/ mediocre admin", is probably true... but Windows with a mediocre admin can lead to complete failure where that is a bit harder to do with Linux. At this point there is no comparison, linux is cheaper. For instance, an admin who is not on top of patches can leave significant security holes open to attack. A windows admin who doesn't know how to adequately tune the server to the job that it does creates inefficiency, which creates more cost. Also, the argument that Windows + good admin ~ Linux + good admin is fine until your environment starts to scale. The is a simple principle... a linux admin can manage more of his machines than a windows admin can. There are just better tools for synchronizing, migrating settings, and overall enterprise management. In my mind there are only 3 good arguments for Windows servers and that is in a small business that can hire 1 good admin, a business that is dependent on .NET, or a business with existing windows infrastructure and no need to scale beyond the abilities of the current admins.
          • by thePowerOfGrayskull ( 905905 ) <> on Monday October 15, 2007 @10:54AM (#20982293) Homepage Journal

            from a business perspective, a $1000 set of OSes/licesences doesn't make much of a difference when you've got $10k hardware, and a $75k administrator
            You realize this is an excellent paraphrase of the entire Microsoft "Get the Facts" campaign? License cost /is/ a factor -- for a small business, it can make a big difference. For a large business, it's a matter of scale. When you've got thousands of $10k servers, that adds up to millions of dollars in licensing costs -- not an insignificant sum no matter how big the business. The place where the statement holds true is for the mid-sized business, where the number of licenses needing to be purchased is much more limited.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by pintpusher ( 854001 )
              if a license will scale well from a few employees to a few hundred (or even a few tens) then this is very true. A micro/small business is stuck buying more capacity than they will ever use and since admin is typically done by a principal or one valued, multi-function employee (kinda like one of those print/scan/copy things) the cost of admin isn't really a factor. In my businesses, regardless of the cost of the software, I'm still doing the admin. So a license that costs a few hundred to a few thousand doll
            • Actually, for a small business the licensing cost matters the least as the cost of good administrator is by far your biggest expense. As you go up the cost of licensing gets smaller because you're buying in larger quantity but the proportion of licensing to administration reduces as the business scales. I'm sorry if this doesn't make sense to you. As the sole Administrator to an up-and-coming mid-sized business I can say as we've grown the cost of licensing makes it more of a challenge to get approval. When

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by pato101 ( 851725 )

              it's a matter of scale. When you've got thousands of $10k servers,
              Furthermore, IMHO if you have thousands of servers, scripting powerfully and efficiently among them is a must, and Unix approach shines there.
            • No, but software licensing does become a factor when your 10 year old hardware is still churning along just fine, but the new version of your enterprise software only supports the new Windows, then the license lock-in become painfully visible. When you find yourself in a situation where your old hardware won't run the new Windows, then the pain becomes exponential.
          • by jedidiah ( 1196 )
            I disagree.

            Anyone you would want to touch a Windows server would be easily
            cross trained as a Unix admin of whatever flavor you happen to
            have around. The qualities of a good sysadmin are independent
            of the platform.

            Throw the Oracle client at the "good" Windows admin and watch him crumble.
        • Cost as in price paid, or are you including time costs as well?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by MikeBabcock ( 65886 )
        Honestly, as a server administrator, I really miss my fully scriptable environment on Linux when I'm dealing with Windows. Yes, I can install software X for backups and software Y for data replication and software Z for something else, but writing a self-updating firewall script [] in an hour is out of the question on Windows systems.

        I'm not saying Windows is unstable or "sucky", I just find it a lot less powerful out of the box.
      • the only advantage I find on Linux in server space is the flexibility and options allowed by Unix that aren't as easy to access in Windows.
        So... nothing important then...

      • Re:And this is news? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Stamen ( 745223 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @11:40AM (#20982863)

        The former, no. Windows is just as stable if you are a competant admin these days
        I think this is a true statement. The problem is that the likelihood that you're going to find a competent Windows admin in the your typical company isn't as high as the likelihood if it were a Unix shop. It isn't because there aren't really skilled Windows admins, because there are, it's more that you're able to scrape by, in Windows, if you're incompetent; Unix is a bit less forgiving.

        It's also a cultural thing also. I'm a developer, and it's true in my field as well. Back when VB was big, it was exactly the same problem: sure there were very good VB programmers, but the culture wasn't one of advanced learning or skills. If you asked a question about something in the VB forums about something advanced, you tended to get the "deer in the headlight" responses, or someone would try to tell you which Wizard to use. If you asked the same question in the c++ forum, someone would not only understand your question, they'd answer it, and explain the reason why it is done this way. Ultimately, culture, like in many aspects in life, is a very important thing.

        I choose Unix because it allows me to work in a way that is powerful for me, there is a culture of excellence, and my skills are transferable to almost every OS but Windows. I don't use Unix because it's more stable than Windows; at this point I assume my OS is stable; that's hardly good enough anymore.

      • by morcego ( 260031 )

        Windows is just as stable if you are a competant admin these days

        This reminds me of my time as an AIX admin. AIX just rocked, as solid, everything worked. Did I mention I had access to a lot of "IBM Internal Use Only" documentation ?

        From what I noticed, the same thing is true with Windows (I'm not a Windows Admin).
    • I think it has more to do that if you sold 10 servers and next month sell 20, you have a 200% increase in sales for Linux. If Windows were selling 1,000 server and the next month it sells 1,005 servers, you can see that Linux is growing faster than Windows.. but that doesn't mean a whole lot.

      Lets see some actual numbers first. It will be more interested to hear him say Linux has become 25% of our sales, or something like that. But anyone that claims product X is the fastest growing competitor, well it do
      • by Stamen ( 745223 )
        Just curious but what do you think is the Windows market share on the server? From your comments, I'm guessing you think it's like it is on the desktop, pretty high, right? It isn't (check Gartner or IDC for facts).

        It's like GM in the 70s and 80s. When the executives looked out on the streets in Detroit all they saw was American cars (as opposed to the streets in LA for example), so they never really believed in the threat from the Asian markets; until it was too late. I find a lot of companies that ar
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by eno2001 ( 527078 )
      Why are people so keyed up about features? In reality, how many new features in an OS are used when a new version is released? How many people actually make use of Microsoft's ability to publish apps (on a large scale) via Active Directory for example. We tried it where I work and the Windows admin decided it was too much of a pain in the ass both technically and licensing-wise. So instead we manage application deployment with the third-party app: Altiris. No matter how entrenched in Windows an organiz
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15, 2007 @09:35AM (#20981439)
    The CEO of DELL was found dead in his mansion today, suffering numerous blows to his head from a chair. He was found with a note attached to his body that simply read "Microsoft > u"

    Authorities are baffled to who committed this crime.

    captcha: mocker
    • Hey, now that we are at it, it was not long since Microsoft embraced our beloved Tux!, yup, I just stumbled upon Tux in MSDN [], and guess what, it is used as a benchmark for Windows (they use a really high mark as benchmark no?).

  • by Necreia ( 954727 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @09:37AM (#20981453)
    I RTFA, but didn't see anything about 'numbers'. "How" much is Linux up?

    Did I gloss over it somewhere?
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by MeBot ( 943893 )
      I'm also confused that if both Windows & Linux are "growing"... what is shrinking? Just the proprietary UNIX distributions from HP & IBM?
      • by Bert64 ( 520050 )
        The overall market is growing...
        I also assume this only counts Dell servers which are bought with Linux preinstalled... I would be interested to see how many systems are bought with nothing installed, as a lot of these will probably end up with linux distributions installed on them that dell doesn't offer preinstalled (debian etc)
  • by Hal_Porter ( 817932 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @09:39AM (#20981475)
    $50 being too much it seems. []

    I wonder how much of a discount he woulld get from Microsoft if he stopped selling Linux machines? Could Microsoft even ask for that I wonder, given the anti trust case?
    • by ivan256 ( 17499 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @09:42AM (#20981505)
      That article is talking desktops.

      I'm sure that the "tax" is much higher for servers, depending on which variety of Windows Server you get, and how many licenses you add.
    • by Lumpy ( 12016 )
      Sorry but have you ever bought a Dell server? you dont get an OEM server 2003. you get a full boat price.

      in many cases the Server 2003 price with licensing costs as much or more than the hardware you are buying.
    • Microsoft got around that... the price/volume remains the same, but you get a larger kickback to cover your "marketing costs" if you comply with things Microsoft want.
  • by alta ( 1263 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @09:44AM (#20981523) Homepage Journal
    They should survey upon sale what OS the customer intends to install on the machines. I've bought a number of machines from them in the last few months, ordered with no OS and put CentOS on it. I'm sure the deb folks are doing the same. I'd venture to say a LOT more of the linux users are ordering a server and putting a legal copy of linux on them as opposed to windows users putting legal copies of windows. Illegal copies of either OS shouldn't count.

    I'd venture a guess at 80/20.
    • The idea of an illegal copy of linux is kind of a paradox, isn't it?
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by ozmanjusri ( 601766 )
        The idea of an illegal copy of linux is kind of a paradox, isn't it?

        According to Ballmer, EVERY copy of Linux is illegal.

      • The idea of an illegal copy of linux is kind of a paradox, isn't it?

        Not at all.

        Open source does not mean the software is free (as in beer). Open source does not mean you can redistribute the software without heeding the terms of the license.
      • You could scheme up an illegal copy of Linux, though I've never heard of one.

        There's an idea for an annual FOSS (well, sort of) community competition for you: most original illegal Linux distro created.

        You have to give "doesn't include the source code and thus violates the license" a pass. It's too easy, like shooting barrel in a barrel. Such as:

        - Distro that ships with 100 pirated movies.
        - Distro that ships with the latest Britney Spears .mp3. (And the software to play it!)
        - Distro that includes illega
        • by sconeu ( 64226 )
          - Distro that ships with the latest Britney Spears .mp3. (And the software to play it!)

          What sort of sadist (or masochist, depending...) would create a distro like that?

          I've always said that if Joseph Fourier knew that his work would eventually lead to Britney Spears CDs, he'd have burned his notes and joined a monastery.
          • by fritsd ( 924429 )
            But then we wouldn't have had MRI research [] (WARNING: several Slashdot readers might find this article... disturbing).

            Fourier Transform rulez!one!1

      • by AvitarX ( 172628 )
        I pirated SUSE install media when they didn't allow it.

        It even had some commercial software on it.
      • by Tim C ( 15259 )
        Hardly - SUSE Linux Enterprise Server, for example, cannot be downloaded for free except as an evaluation copy, good for 60 days with an option to extend your evaluation period for a further 60 days *once*.

        If you're using it past that date, you need to pay for it. I'm sure SUSE isn't the only pay-for-only distro.

        There's nothing in the GPL that prevents you from charging for a distro, and besides, every distro packages software of their own with it (management tools, etc). These tools are often not under the
    • by laffer1 ( 701823 )
      If dell wants to track this, they should remove the NO OS option and replace it with a checkbox that says "I don't want to say" and a textbox labeled other. THe user could fill in Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, or whatever they intend to run. Counting NO OS options as linux is stupid for this reason. Heck, I could even install windows on the thing after getting it as "NO OS".
      • by alta ( 1263 )
        They aren't giving the option so thry can track what you're going to install. It's where you choose what you want to buy and have them install.
        • by laffer1 ( 701823 )
          Duh. They are trying to draw conclusions from it though. Had they said "More people are buying linux from us than windows pre-installed" then I'd be fine with it. Also, what a person buys may not be what they end up using. Perhaps an application will not run on suse or redhat and they end up with another distro or OS. Maybe the IT manager is fired and the new guy loves BSD or windows.

          If I buy a new computer from dell, I'll probably buy one of the linux machines even though I will be running BSD instead
  • Hmmmm.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rindeee ( 530084 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @09:45AM (#20981539)
    I'm guessing that they in no way account for servers purchased without an OS that (the vast majority of which) end up as Linux boxes. I have purchased hundreds of Dell servers, all with no OS and all but a couple have been built out with CentOS. I'm just speculating, but I'd guess the numbers are vastly greater if only there was an accurate means of tracking what OS winds up on bare server shipments.
    • The *other* issue people fail to take into account is how many *older* machines end up being converted over to Linux boxes, despite initially being purchased with Windows on them.

      I've worked for two different manufacturing firms now where this happened. The first firm bought exclusively Dell servers, always pre-loaded with a version of Windows server. After the older systems were "retired" from their original uses, they were usually still good, functional machines nobody wanted to throw away. So they'd f
  • This might be little of topic.

    Everytime Steve B. spreads his FUD about Linux my imagination brings an image of flying chairs.
    Can I get screensaver somewhere without risk being hit by a chair?

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by FudRucker ( 866063 )
      that would be a good edition to xscreensaver, flying ballmer with flying chairs, (sort of like the flying toasters screensaver)...
  • by bogaboga ( 793279 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @09:55AM (#20981645)
    I wonder whether this development will reverse the Apache web server's seemingly steady erosion in market share to Windows' IIS.

    This is according to [], though Security Space paints completely different picture [].

    By the way, who of the two is more credible? Netcraft or Security Space?

    • by gmack ( 197796 ) <gmack.innerfire@net> on Monday October 15, 2007 @10:23AM (#20981955) Homepage Journal
      Actually the steady erosion for the most part has been to Google more than it has been to Windows. Google is running it's own custom web server that dropped just under 5% off of the Apache numbers.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Another factor is how you count. If you count actual servers (not domains), then you end up with the 'big' sites being very influential. OS and webserver comparisons then become more of a comparison between the relative growth of MySpace (IIS on Windows) vs. Facebook (Apache on unknown OS), and between Google (custom webserver on Linux), Yahoo (custom webserver on FreeBSD) and Microsoft Live (IIS on Windows). If one of these giants grows by a significant factor, it brings up the stats for its OS and webserv
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Tantris ( 553205 )
      It looks as though Security Space visits a fraction of the number that netcraft does. If you look at this quote from Security Space:

      What sites do you visit?

      We visit what we consider well-known sites. In our case, we define a well-known site as a site that had a link to it from at least one other site that we consider well-known. So, if we are visiting you, it means we know about you through a link from another site.

      If a site stops responding to our request for 3 consecutive months, we automatically remove

      • First I agree it is a numbers game....

        But I question the technique. It is like when the Fed reports CPI, and conviently discards certain pieces of data. Yes I know the argument of CPI, but sometimes the Fed includes and ignores things in their own interest. Ignoring "personal" websites is like saying, "oh heck you are not important and therefore will not count you." Tooo convienent if you ask me.

        I would rather know what the numbers are without playing any games and I think that is Netcraft.
        • On the other hand, people with "personal" websites don't typically pick the OS the server runs on. That is just whatever OS their host decides to use.
        • by pikine ( 771084 )
          It's not accurate to say they're ignoring personal sites. They're ignoring sites nobody links to. If you have a personal site, changes are you also post that url whenever you go to a web forum, thus drawing links to it. You could choose to keep your personal site a secret and have nobody link to your personal website. However, if you're a domain squatter, you probably don't have the means to legitimately advertise these domains through web forums without being flagged spam.
    • There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. Both are incorrect. Google is stealing market share from Apache but is actually an Apache-based web server so it is irrelevant to call it something else. Microsoft's IIS gain is mostly erroneous as it is due to domain parkers being bribed to move to IIS machines.

      Also, both statistic sites only give partial results; Netcraft deliberately filters it's results in some instances and securityspace just doesn't have a wide enough sample.

      All in all

  • by JeremyGNJ ( 1102465 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @09:57AM (#20981655)
    one has to wonder if these servers are being purchased BECAUSE they have Linux on them? Or because they DONT have Windows Server on them.

    If you've ever dealt with order stuff from Dell, you know that if you have direct bulk licenses with Microsoft, then it often still makes sense to buy equipment with software on it. I wonder if these servers had an option for "no OS at all". Of if there was ANY price difference between "NO OS" and "Linux".

    There were times that I've bought servers from Dell with a copy of Windows Server OEM on it, not because I didnt already have licenses for Windows Server, but because the sales rep was able to offer excellent deals on systems configured in a certain way.

    • The company I work for has Corp site license for Windows products (most of the big ones). So all the servers that I buy (HP in my case) are OS-less. When they arrive, I put our 'corporatized' version of Server 2003 or whatever other OS i need on the box. So stats from the server makers can be misleading.
    • Dell's server configuration screens and forms have options for each version of Windows to pre-install, or Linux to pre-install, or whether its without an OS for Linux, or just no OS.

      The "No OS Pre-installed - Linux" option is important, because it makes sure the hardware is compatible with Linux in general.
      • I worked on a project that created a large amount of HTML pages. The manager of the project and even some of the other engineers kept bugging me about why I didn't output the files in strict XML. To which I replied, they are in XML as HTML is an XML schema. You would think that would be the end of the argument, but it wasn't. Eventually I had to bring up that HTML is the most widely used and best known XML schema.

        I think Ubuntu is fast becoming the same for Linux, although it wouldn't be my first ch
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by mrjb ( 547783 )
      "Are they actually running Linux?" You must be new here. The correct wording is, "But do they run Linux?"
    • Of if there was ANY price difference between "NO OS" and "Linux".

      From dell (poweredge 6800 configure page):

      SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 10, Up to 32 CPUs, 1 YR Subscription, FI [add $299 or $9/month1]

      SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 10, Up to 32 CPUs, 3 YR Subscription, FI [add $769 or $23/month1]

      No Operating System [Included in Price]

      So it doesn't appear they are counting No OS as Linux.

  • I wonder..... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 8127972 ( 73495 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @09:58AM (#20981667)
    ..... If this has anything to do with Dell renewing their Microsoft OEM agreement? One has to wonder.
  • by JeremyGNJ ( 1102465 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @10:12AM (#20981811)
    Dell doesnt care if Linux is doing good or not. Quite the contrary. While people on Slashdot like to cheer for the Linux vs Microsoft "war"...consider the game that Dell could be playing:

    Microsoft Rep: "HEY! We saw your press release about Linux sales, why would you do that?"
    Dell: "Hey we're a company in trouble, we're just trying to show growth. We're just reporting numbers"
    Microsoft rep: "Ok ok I see. Well what can we do to show good growth of Windows???"
    Dell: "Wellllll, since you mention it....perhaps if we had some promotional pricing....."

    • A couple of things are dead-on about the parent post.

      Dell is a retailer more than anything else. As a retailer, Dell relies on Linux to bring them in the door where they get an opportunity on the up-sell to Microsoft. As the parent post points out, they are Dell's negotiating weapon of choice.

      As a sysadmin for both win32 and Linux, the conversations with dedicated Microsoft admins, typically display a remarkable depth of knowledge and long discussions about the intricate workings of the license and how to
  • Big deal (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FoolsGold ( 1139759 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @10:14AM (#20981841)
    I want Dell to report on how the Ubuntu laptops have been working out for them so far.
  • ...when I am looking at the latest Microsoft ad on this very story page, stating how "[some east-coast state] government recently decided that Windows Server 2003 was the right choice for them as moving to linux was deemed too risky for their mission critical operations".
  • the actual news (Score:5, Interesting)

    by blind biker ( 1066130 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @10:16AM (#20981885) Journal
    I guess what the actual news here is not that Linux server sales are up and the increase is at the expense of their Windows counterparts; the news is, rather, that Michale Dell himself went public with the info. I remember the days when such an event would be unimaginable, regardless of Linux server sales numbers.

    Good on Linux. Somewhat humbling for Microsoft, but they'll have to learn to take it like men, from now on (Firefox marketshare, Vista brand fiasco etc.)
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by JustNiz ( 692889 )
      Is it just me, or does anyone else also see that Microsoft started to go downhill faster and market even more shitty products than normal just after Gates handed the keys to Ballmer.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by alexhs ( 877055 )

        Is it just me, or does anyone else also see that Microsoft started to go downhill faster and market even more shitty products than normal just after Gates handed the keys to Ballmer.
        It works the other way : Why do you think Gates did hand the keys to Ballmer in the first place ? :P
  • Claims (Score:4, Funny)

    by hey ( 83763 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @10:17AM (#20981897) Journal
    Why does the article have to mention Microsoft's claims "that Linux violates its software patent" (yes, singular patent). I assume the next article this site will say: Microsoft made some sales despite Linux fan's claims that Vita is really bad.
  • by Klaidas ( 981300 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @10:27AM (#20981993)
    Hasn't linux always been better than Windows on the server side? (I'm politely asking "HOW IS THIS NEWS?!")
  • I am finding more and more examples of numerical illiteracy in corporate communications.

    One type is an "honest mistake" (in quotes), such as corporate earnings reports that need to be restated on a regular basis. Another type is when corporate messages take advantage of the poor numeracy of their reader.

    On the server side Linux continues to grow nicely, a bit faster than Windows.

    If you have 10 sales/month, and it increases +5, that's an increase of 50%. If you have 1000 sales/month, and it increases +50, that's "only" an increase of 5%. You can "truthfully" state that 50% g

  • Sounds to me like Mr. Dell is currently in negotiations with Microsoft for their win2k8 pricing. "You know Bill, I might need to keep making these press releases if we can't drop that to 5$/copy".
  • There are several posters already above who make noise about Linux being free but it isn't when Dell counts a server as being sold as a Linux server. From their Small/Medium business server purchase options:

    SUSE Enterprise comes in either 1 year ($280) or 3 year ($698)
    RedHat Enterprise for 1 yr ($349) or 3 yr ($1,047)
    Win2k3 Std at $799

    I bet corporate buyers are unlikely to get service contracts for anything less than the service life of the server, usually a minimum of 3 years. So, no, it'
    • So, what's the price for the Microsoft support contract? Compare apples to apples now. The software is free on the linux side. The support isn't. The software and support aren't free on the Microsoft side, so pull the numbers for Microsoft to offer the same level of enterprise support to a server deployment.

      From: []
      (Microsoft's pricing study against linux)

      I can sometwhat determine in their "Detailed Microsoft Pri
      • The software is free on the linux side. The support isn't
        In the case of Red Hat's and SUSE's "Enterprise" offerings this is a technicality - the only way to get those packages is to buy the support. So, no, from the path of buying a server from Dell and having it count in the stats that the article is about, Linux is not free.
        • Yes, but they come with support so compare apples to apples. If you want a free distro with no support contract: CentOS, OpenSUSE. Same code base.
          • If you want a free distro with no support contract: CentOS, OpenSUSE

            Please RTFA and my original comments. TFA is about Dell's stats on servers sold when someone's clicked one of the Windows options versus one of the Linux options. Dell's sales options for servers don't include any free Linux distros, only bundled support/software packages from RH and SUSE. And they don't include MS's support options, only Windows software licensing. Therefore the only comparison to make with what's given is wit
            • Just because its not on the webpage you're looking at doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Contact Dell's business sales, and you'll get their pricing for a barebones system, contact microsoft and you'll get support.

              I'm talking about how an Enterprise would actually purchase a system, not some dumbass clicking a button on Dell's webpage.

              We live in the real world..
  • Who would want any desktop OS on a server, let alone a Windows one?

    I'm all for (appropriate) MS bashing, but c'mon guys, this is starting to get really, really old...
    • ... You do know they sell versions of Windows without all the bells/whistles/bling for servers? Windows Server 2003, for example.
  • by LoudMusic ( 199347 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @10:47AM (#20982231)

    "Linux is growing faster in the server space than Windows says the Dell CEO 'On the server side Linux continues to grow nicely, a bit faster than Windows. We're seeing a move to Linux in critical applications, and Linux migration has not slowed down.'"
    It seems kind of odd to me to think about Windows' market share growing. I'd think everyone that was going to have a pile of servers by now would already have them and either be replacing several with fewer or changing OS. But clearly the statement "Linux continues to grow nicely, a bit faster than Windows" means Windows Server continues to measurably grow in number. I suppose people could still be replacing Sun, HP, SGI, or IBM non-Windows computers (even mainframes) with new Windows boxen.

    For me, to buy a new server for the company I work for it would have to replace at least one computer if not two or more. There's no point for us to bring more computers online without end-of-life'ing some antiquated machine.

    Speaking of, what's the average lifespan of a server these days? We run ours a minimum of 3 years and a maximum of 8. At that point they start to make me nervous - dealing with hardware failure is not my favorite past time.
  • Said "Former Director of State IT services" in an ad that claimed he wouldn't convert Illinois to Linux because it was insufficiently reliable. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

    Having said which, this is not really bad news for either side. For Microsoft, this is actually good news. It's counter evidence for the next time they get called in over monopolistic practices, and reduces the chances of more fines from the EU.

    Microsoft has to really grow up and become the kind of company that realises that competi

    • by jedidiah ( 1196 )
      OTOH, people have to worry about the statements they make when
      they are contradicted by the like of Oracle. The fact that some
      rube has decided to drink the MS Cool-Aid might not have any
      effect on how the EU treats Microsoft.

      If anything, the guy in Illinois might get asked some very
      uncomfortable questions...
    • It's counter evidence for the next time they get called in over monopolistic practices, and reduces the chances of more fines from the EU.

      How so? Servers are a completely separate market, and one that Windows has never been particularly well suited for. They used to have a decent server OS, Xenix, but after they dumped it SCO managed to completely trash it for them.
  • by kidcharles ( 908072 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @02:01PM (#20984957)
    Will this finally be the Year of the Linux Server?

"Unibus timeout fatal trap program lost sorry" - An error message printed by DEC's RSTS operating system for the PDP-11