- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Linux servers post strong growth in Q3
|
|
|
Comments (6)
I read an article saying Windows took #1 - they're liars
It's interesting to see that Linux outpaced Windows again in the server market. But, I deleted another Aussie submission saying Windows was the top server selling platform. What's wrong with Australia? You guys in a big internal war? You got a Windows insurgency down there? Send 'em to Bagdad.
According to my Australian chums, AU is under assault from the US on a number of fronts. The US government is exerting considerable pressure to get them to sign treaties and enact laws that mirror the worst of our laws- the Patriot Act, the DMCA, and so forth. Additionally, Microsoft (and other US companies, but Microsoft as usual is the bullyingest) are exerting considerable pressure to hawk their warez to AU government agencies, and private businesses. They're feeling like the 51st State, and not liking it very much.
OK. Send Microsoft packing then.
Hey you yanks are also capable of churning out crap as well. How about this ridiculous cnet article on the same topic?
[url=http://news.com.com/Low prices, Windows capture server market/2100-1010_3-5969041.html?tag=nefd.top]http://news.com.com/Low prices, Windows capture server marke...[/url]
I assume cnet is funded by M$?
Expatriate Aussie....
[url=http://news.com.com/Low prices, Windows capture server market/2100-1010_3-5969041.html?tag=nefd.top]http://news.com.com/Low prices, Windows capture server marke...[/url]
I assume cnet is funded by M$?
Expatriate Aussie....
A perfect example of paid-for articles. Dollar figures don't exhibit accurate assessments of proliferation, number of units do.
FOSS has no vested interest in such studies and no money to capitalize on, MS does.
FOSS has no vested interest in such studies and no money to capitalize on, MS does.
Server Growth Comment
Hate to throw some cold water on the parade, but IDC has been fairly sympathetic to Linux for quite a period, so this report internally is not necessarily biased. However, several questions come to my mind every time I read their surveys: 1. How do they get their numbers? 2. How reliable are those figures? 3. What factors are missing from a raw compilation?
While I have no inside information on the first two (and they are troubling) I am left more confused than informed. For example, how are the Free DOS machines counted that Dell sells? Obviously Linux, but they could be counted as "other" or left out of the server counts entirely.
With respect missing considerations: there are several obvious issues that a half way informed individual might leaven those numbers. It used to take several Windows servers to do the equivalent work of a less robust Linux server (in terms of components). I think this still holds. Next Windows machines in a larger company may be added at the departmental level at a price and internal components that may place it in a higher server range than where it actually is used. Furthermore, how many of those Windows servers are wiped upon arrival?
In terms of costs and units Windows may still dominate. Moreover, on the basis of sales in raw numbers Windows sales may indeed be growing more rapidly, particularly when using only the OS with which the unit arrives. I am troubled too by the drop in the rate of growth of the Linux servers, because the last time I converted those percentages to numbers Windows servers had a three to one advantage in supposedly existing installations.
From what I observed at a very big client Windows continued to grow, but where it counted Linux was the default for any new enterprise applications. That may have changed, but I suspect the fall back would have been Sun.
I wish I knew more, but it is likely Windows machines are both selling well and will continue to do so. How many of you have been at a site where new management for the IT flashes through trashing everything and becomes an all Windows shop (nearly so in one case I observed) only to see several years later they have left the scene. Corporate upper management worked this way too, milking the company for a few good quarters and bonuses only to leave the hulk for others to sink with.
While I have no inside information on the first two (and they are troubling) I am left more confused than informed. For example, how are the Free DOS machines counted that Dell sells? Obviously Linux, but they could be counted as "other" or left out of the server counts entirely.
With respect missing considerations: there are several obvious issues that a half way informed individual might leaven those numbers. It used to take several Windows servers to do the equivalent work of a less robust Linux server (in terms of components). I think this still holds. Next Windows machines in a larger company may be added at the departmental level at a price and internal components that may place it in a higher server range than where it actually is used. Furthermore, how many of those Windows servers are wiped upon arrival?
In terms of costs and units Windows may still dominate. Moreover, on the basis of sales in raw numbers Windows sales may indeed be growing more rapidly, particularly when using only the OS with which the unit arrives. I am troubled too by the drop in the rate of growth of the Linux servers, because the last time I converted those percentages to numbers Windows servers had a three to one advantage in supposedly existing installations.
From what I observed at a very big client Windows continued to grow, but where it counted Linux was the default for any new enterprise applications. That may have changed, but I suspect the fall back would have been Sun.
I wish I knew more, but it is likely Windows machines are both selling well and will continue to do so. How many of you have been at a site where new management for the IT flashes through trashing everything and becomes an all Windows shop (nearly so in one case I observed) only to see several years later they have left the scene. Corporate upper management worked this way too, milking the company for a few good quarters and bonuses only to leave the hulk for others to sink with.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post