What is Digg?112 Comments
- TnTBass, on 08/28/2008, -2/+55This is to be expected in my mind, since more and more companies are losing their fear of Linux and recognizing the benefits. As well, more and more people who work in the IT departments are becoming aware of Linux and are recommending a Linux solution for that business.
I don't predict Linux taking the lions share of the market any time soon, but I do expect the Linux market share to increase each year.
This is a good thing for Windows. It will hopefully drive Microsoft to increase their innovation, which will hopefully provide us with better products.
We, the consumer, can only benefit from increased competition. - nxusername, on 08/28/2008, -3/+53We have been switching to Linux servers over the past few years. The security of Linux external facing services such as DNS, web, and email is unmatched. Also the performance, reliability, and cost can't be beat. Some of these servers have been up for over a year with no reboot. We can keep them updated without having to reboot once a month like we do on the Windows servers.
When I switched from running my VMWare server from Windows to Linux I saw a huge performance boost and was able to support more RAM without having to buy Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition to get more that 4GB of RAM. - willtrx, on 08/29/2008, -1/+33This is a little misleading since 'market share' is calculated based on revenues. Last I checked, the software for my CentOS server didn't cost a dime. If you estimated server share using the installed base instead of revenues, I bet the Linux market would look much stronger.
- rowjimmy, on 08/28/2008, -0/+31re, "in terms of revenue" - fta: "Windows servers account for the single largest segment of spending, by operating system, in the worldwide server market." - i wonder if that skews the results? i know that a server running windows server 2003 or whatever costs a pretty penny more than the same server running a free gnu/linux distribution - doing the math, that means that if they count percentages in terms of revenue, a single windows server would count for more than the same linux server (as it would cost more). eg say the base server costs 1 unit, windows costs 1 unit, and gnu/linux is free - you could have 2-to-1 linux servers to windows and yet by revenue each would have 50% market share...
- smotpoker, on 08/29/2008, -0/+30Yes.
- Chandon, on 08/29/2008, -1/+27If Linux has 13% of revenues and Windows has 36% of revenues, that means that Linux probably has significantly more installations.
Remember, Market Share and Installed Base are completely different stats. - 3242130193, on 08/28/2008, -3/+21The end sums it up perfectly: "I actually would have expected a stronger showing from Windows but then, HP, IBM, and Dell all have a vested interest in getting out of Redmond's shadow."
Now do it on the desktop market too you losers! - frontporsche, on 08/29/2008, -1/+18This is percentage of the dollar market -- money paid for servers
Maybe you're thinking of percentage of number of servers running Linux. ...yes, the Linux numbers would be much better there. - enantiodromia, on 08/29/2008, -1/+16do you know what "troll" means in this context? because, you're doing it right now.
- infiniphunk, on 08/29/2008, -2/+17You people do realize that by 'market share' they are talking about server systems that shipped with a linux OS on them. In terms of real 'market share', way more servers out there run on some linux or bsd than Windows.
- shifty2, on 08/29/2008, -3/+17I am a network engineer for 12 clients. I have added Linux based servers for more and more basic tasks and scrapping Windows Server 2003.
File server w/ block level replication to a SAN? Linux.
Wifi user authentication RADIUS Server? Linux.
Secure Internet Gateway w/ filtering and monitoring? Linux.
Web Server (PHP/MySQL based)? Linux.
Backup DNS servers? Linux.
I have even started putting them in VMWare images and booting them off Windows based servers. This helps my clients save thousands in licensing costs and I can add more functionality to their existing servers with minimal hardware upgrades like RAM. AND the best part is, it is quite transparent to the end user.
Deployment times are nil as I usually just change some IP addresses in the VM's and copy them to the server.
Hell, I even got funding to do Co-Location web hosting. Dual quad core CPU's 32GB of RAM, 2TB SAN storage in a RAID 10... all LAMP servers running as Ubuntu Server VM's.
Unless MS can lower licensing costs or add some extra functionality to their server line of OS's, Linux will gain a steady increase in server environments. The only thing really holding Linux up is newer, younger IT professionals willing to learn it on their own.
I think more and more IT employees will start diving into Linux as a low cost and rapid deployment alternative to Windows Server. - rowjimmy, on 08/28/2008, -0/+12(just sent an email to the people responsible for the study asking this very question)
- enantiodromia, on 08/29/2008, -1/+13I'm actually surprised that Linux is such a low percentage in the server market. I have administered hundreds of servers over the last few years, and nearly all of them have been CentOS/Redhat.
- rowjimmy, on 08/29/2008, -0/+12if that is indeed the case (that they are counting OS cost in determining revenue totals) this demonstrates a serious flaw in using traditional market-style metrics to track FOSS usage
- santasing, on 08/29/2008, -2/+12Buried as FUD. Linux server share is close to 70% AFAIK.
- javaroast, on 08/29/2008, -0/+10If you read the article or hell even just the headline the market share for servers is 13.4%.
- zip000, on 08/29/2008, -0/+10Unfortunately, my library (before I came on the job) just moved from linux over to windows...I think because the campus IT people here are less than stellar and have only ever used windows products. I'd much prefer a nice apache server, but it'll be an uphill battle to change back to linux. Of course, I could probably make the switch without the IT department even knowing about it.
- rowjimmy, on 08/29/2008, -2/+12exactly . i sent an email to the actual authors of the study - http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS2139 ... - asking this very question. if they included OS cost in calculating revenue totals, the numbers are going to be horribly skewed towards weighting servers running proprietary os's much higher than servers running foss os's. if this is the case, it shows a serious flaw in using traditional market-style metrics to measure FOSS usage
- Sammi84, on 08/29/2008, -2/+11Get a clue dude: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Exte ...
Quote:
Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition 4 GB
Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition 32 GB
The Linux kernel includes full PAE support starting with version 2.6, enabling access of up to 64 GB of memory on 32-bit machines. - dooooo, on 08/29/2008, -1/+10How much did you pay for CentOS ?
- AsusMobo, on 08/29/2008, -2/+11The sad part is so many people run windows servers. You poor poor souls. The numbers are skewed anyway since servers often come with Windows and we blow it away and install Linux. The Extra windows CDs are good for scratching your ass crack with.
- speel, on 08/29/2008, -1/+9So whats running the other 42%?
- Sammi84, on 08/29/2008, -1/+9@atbnet
Yes 64 bit is better for al kinds of reasons, and has no problems with allocating more than 4 GB of memory. But the point is that 32 bit Enterprise Edition can handle 32 GB, and what gets the job done, gets the job done. Simple as that.
And what's up with the pathetic swearing? Can't make yourself important without it? - Stemp, on 08/29/2008, -0/+8«percent of the overall server market in terms of revenue in 2007»
- prevett, on 08/29/2008, -0/+8Just placed a nice little CentOS - Hylafax - Avantfax fax server into a production environment. Seem stable as hell... And I didn't have to pay anything other then the .99 for a compatible modem off of ebay.(Build it from an old Dimension 2400) My staff is giddy with happyness, now that they can get, and send faxes from their desktops, or any other place they want.. Excellent web based management... I have it sitting headless in the copier room, with XDMCP, and SSH, I can access it in a PUtty Terminal, or via Remote XDMCP.. I love it!
- inactive, on 08/29/2008, -2/+10Companies are starting to see that linux is open source/free and isn't really that hard to implement. And can continue to run well on older hardware.
- bieber, on 08/29/2008, -0/+8Wait. Linux jumps to 13.5 percent as measured by..._revenue_? Seriously? I know there's a lot of people selling GNU/Linux commercially, but I'd tend to think that there are probably a lot more people with servers running it with internal tech support for free, so it seems to be something of an insanely biased metric...
- regeya, on 08/29/2008, -0/+8I don't know how prevalent this sort of thing is, but...
I have an aging G4 at work running Debian Etch, a custom kernel from the Zen sources (2.6.24, as going higher breaks loads of things on Etch), using drives on a combo of USB and a Sonnet Ultra ATA card (yeah, that was fun...not!) LVM2 volumes formated as Reiser3, shared via Netatalk CVS (CVS checkout so I have the upriv option, to work around 10.5's weird group permissions without changing clients' umask settings) with another volume doing rsync'ed backups using --link-dest to do read-only "snapshots" (shared via Netatalk under the name...hehe...McFly) and clients' system folders backed up using BackupPC.
All of this was somewhat of a challenge, but it was no more challenging than all the #$%! workarounds I had to do on OS X Server. Sorry, Apple, but that hunk of crap isn't worth a grand. The worst challenge was figuring out that I had to boot the system from a kernel using the old ata drivers to install yaboot, then use a kernel with the new drivers so that I wouldn't lose data to dma errors, and moving several hundred gigs of data to the new machine; everything else was a cakewalk. - Chandon, on 08/29/2008, -0/+7Just because a thing is possible doesn't mean it's a good idea.
- rowjimmy, on 08/29/2008, -0/+7re your first point - i think you are right, so they would be counting linux servers as servers sold running gnu/linux (the revenue being the cost of the hardware plus whatever minimal cost the company charges to pre-install gnu/linux), and servers sold running windows (the revenue being the cost of the hardware, plus the setup costs, plus the cost of a windows server license - which is a pretty hefty extra cost)
re your second point - i really have no idea. i sent an email to the three contact addresses at the end of the actual report - http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS2139 ... - to find out how they did the calculations. if our suspicions are right, it highlights a serious flaw in traditional market-style metrics in tracking trends with FOSS. - evilgourmet, on 08/29/2008, -2/+9Linux is at 100% of my computer market.
- inactive, on 08/29/2008, -0/+7Yes. It's stupid. Necessary with Windows rubbish. Unnecessary with PROPER operating systems.
- saranagati, on 08/29/2008, -1/+8I would image it does since this is a study of the revenue. Most studies in the past about revenue are about revenue, not how many servers are out there running linux. Out of the 300+ production servers i've set up, the only time i paid for an operating system was for one red hat server. However the OS was purchased separately from the hardware so it probably wouldn't even show up in this survey. So you can imagine these results in no way show how many servers are out there.
On another note, where are they pulling these numbers from? the graph just shows hardware vendors... - RoboDonut, on 08/28/2008, -2/+9Mac OS X can run Apache...
- inactive, on 08/29/2008, -0/+6This is market revenue share. Not to be confused with market share.
- ptFoe, on 08/29/2008, -1/+72008 is the year of the Linux Server "Desktop" ;)
- zip000, on 08/29/2008, -0/+6I misspoke, I shouldn't have equated apache with linux. Usually when I think of apache, I think of linux, but you can run apache on other OSs obviously.
I'd much prefer a linux server, running apache. - dacheetah, on 08/29/2008, -1/+7Note to self: Never hire atbnet as an IT guy unless you have an unlimited budget.
Sure 64-bit versions can handle more RAM than the 32-bit versions, but if you have 32-bit servers that have not reached their end of life, and with RAM being so damn cheap right now, I can see plenty of use running a 32-bit server with more RAM than the cheaper versions of windows will handle.
Sure you can go out and buy a bunch of new 64-bit servers and throw out the old 32-bit ones, and then you don't have to upgrade to a more expensive version of Windows Server, but that still costs WAY more than the man hours involved in installing linux and getting it running VMWare the same way Windows did. (Active directory services are a little more complicated, and without experience it might be easier to just get suitable windows machines, but for VMWare, Linux is awesome.) - JonForTheWin, on 08/29/2008, -1/+7Am in the process of replacing 200+ windows desktops with GNOME served via NX running on a machine wholly with Solid State Drives for very high performance. A windows 2003 server is run in a virtual machine to provide windows apps via RDP (buffered by NX, feels just like a local instance even better in enough cases), users have no idea they are using two operating systems.
- inactive, on 08/29/2008, -2/+7So windows servers are more likely to stall, eh? ;)
- javaroast, on 08/29/2008, -0/+5Just read your comments for a good definition of troll. The article is actually a relatively dry article about server market share.
- bipolarruledout, on 08/29/2008, -0/+4I'm kind of surprised that windows still takes a big lead. Keep in mind that it's revenue only and not the number of boxes. Basically this means that windows is still in the lead on on big fat redundant systems, the ones that make all the money. Why is this? Could it be that these customers just have deeper pockets?
- championchap, on 08/29/2008, -0/+4Ironyyyyyy!
- nebbus, on 08/29/2008, -0/+4I have had my Mythbuntu server running for over a year now. Just rebooted twice, once because of a upgrade and once because of a thunderstorm.
You must have a HW problem or you are doing something wrong... - EarlOfLade, on 08/29/2008, -2/+6Can someone tell me how much Microsoft paid the author to write that word salad?
- enantiodromia, on 08/29/2008, -0/+4it's taking over anything important
- enantiodromia, on 08/29/2008, -0/+4oh. so in other words, it doesn't reflect reality.
- MWeather, on 08/29/2008, -0/+4Is revenue really a good metric to measure a free operating system? Maybe 1 out of 10 companies I've done work for use (for example) Redhat. The rest just use CentOS.
- paulsmith288, on 08/29/2008, -0/+3my mythbox is stable. Just because you have a problem does not mean OMG mythtv is crap
-
Show 51 - 100 of 113 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is