[News] The Impact on Linux Servers on the Industry
Roy Schestowitz
IDC reports lacklustre overall performance but strong Linux sales
Linux servers posted year-over-year revenue growth of 17 per cent and
unit shipments up 14.4 per cent
Linux servers posted their 15th consecutive quarter of double-digit growth
http://www.computing.co.uk/vnunet/news/2156824/linux-bucks-slowing-server
billwg
"Roy Schestowitz" <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
news:1186638.c...@schestowitz.com...
But can roy boy do the arithmetic?
"Microsoft Windows servers continued to show strong growth as revenues
grew 5.9 per cent and unit shipments grew 12.9 per cent year over year.
Significantly, quarterly factory revenue of $4.4bn for Windows servers
represented the largest single segment of the server market, gaining 2.7
points of revenue share over the first quarter of 2005 and comprising
37.1 per cent of all server revenue in the first quarter of 2006 as
customers continue to deploy more fully configured Windows servers in
support of scalable workloads and consolidation projects."
Linux grew 17 percent, from $1.25B to $1.45B, which is a $200M increase,
but Windows grew from $4.16B to $4.41B, a nifty $250M or $50M more than
linux. So the gap continues to widen.
Geico Caveman
Has it occured to your logically challenged brain that Linux servers
typically cost far less (and in some cases, nothing) than windows servers.
The only meaningful comparison is between volumes, not sales, when the
prices of the products you are trying to compare are so different. Last
year, we had a choice between implementing a windows file server and a
linux server. My organization chose Redhat Linux (this is a 95%+ windows
workplace) and saved hundreds of dollars. Another department here did the
same. Now, if someone implemented a windows server solution, the earnings
of Microsoft would have been about as much as both the above installations.
According to your "logic", Microsoft marketshare would be equal to that of
Redhat, even when the latter has twice the number of servers running.
Ray Ingles
> "Microsoft Windows servers continued to show strong growth as revenues
> grew 5.9 per cent and unit shipments grew 12.9 per cent year over year.
> Linux grew 17 percent, from $1.25B to $1.45B
Say, where did these dollar figures come from? They aren't in the
referenced article. Do you have access to the (for-pay) report the
article is based on?
> which is a $200M increase, but Windows grew from $4.16B to $4.41B, a
> nifty $250M or $50M more than linux. So the gap continues to widen.
Interestingly, you dropped one statistic: Linux unit shipments were up
14.4 percent. So Linux revenue went up faster than unit shipments, and
both went up faster than Windows.
Meanwhile, Windows revenue went up *much* slower than unit shipments.
Looks like Microsoft is feeling some price pressure there. Their growth
is definitely being affected, and Linux's growth hasn't slowed at all.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing
what is right!" - Isaac Asimov
billwg
"Geico Caveman" <sp...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:3-ydnXPwo4S...@comcast.com...
thing is a matter of business, afterall, and the only thing that counts
in business is the money involved. If you give away your Casawa melons
and the next farmer charges $1 each, you may have a much higher volume,
but you will be unable to pay the mortgage on the farm and will
eventually become a sharecropper. You may take some solice in having
grown the most melons, but the other guy will still be able to feed his
family and keep his land. The unit volume of the market is meaningless
if there are no profits involved.
And your premise is baloney, too. Go to Dell or HP or even IBM and see
that the prices for servers with linux are very much the same as the
prices for servers with Windows2K3. The commercial companies are not
selling servers with the odd strains of linux, they are selling servers
with the RHEL and sometimes Novel's enterprise product.
> The only meaningful comparison is between volumes, not sales, when the
> prices of the products you are trying to compare are so different.
> Last
> year, we had a choice between implementing a windows file server and a
> linux server. My organization chose Redhat Linux (this is a 95%+
> windows
> workplace) and saved hundreds of dollars. Another department here did
> the
> same. Now, if someone implemented a windows server solution, the
> earnings
> of Microsoft would have been about as much as both the above
> installations.
> According to your "logic", Microsoft marketshare would be equal to
> that of
> Redhat, even when the latter has twice the number of servers running.
The people who care are the companies who are supplying the servers,
caveman. This anecdote of yours is kind of confused, but you are saying
that you got two linux servers for the price of a single Windows server
and so saved "hundreds of dollars" twice, making the expected price of
the server, if your story is true, on the order of "hundreds of dollars"
as well. I seriously doubt that these servers came from Dell, HP, IBM,
or even Sun at that price and are probably not even counted in the
$11.9B overall market.
Bottom line, Microsoft Windows is increasing the gap between the
revenues assignable to linux and the revenues assignable to Windows.
Ray Ingles
>> Has it occured to your logically challenged brain that Linux servers
>> typically cost far less (and in some cases, nothing) than windows
>> servers.
>>
> Well, caveman, it certainly has been discussed, but so what? The whole
> thing is a matter of business, afterall, and the only thing that counts
> is meaningless if there are no profits involved.
That's an interesting jump. What data do you have to support the notion
that there are "no profits involved"? Are you really trying to say that
server Linux generates no profits? If so, on what data do you base that
claim?
It's a poor businessman indeed who treats the money as a static instead
of a dynamic process. What if someone sells their melons for less
because they can produce them for less? What if their production costs
are the same but they drop their price, making less per melon but
selling many more melons, ultimately making more profit?
You have a habit of ignoring trends, too, unless they happen to agree
with your prejudices. E.g. Firefox. The trend of Firefox adoption has
been uniformly upward except for a few brief downticks. Both of those
downticks you've crowed about them, only to fall strangely silent when
the overall trend resumes.
> Bottom line, Microsoft Windows is increasing the gap between the
> revenues assignable to linux and the revenues assignable to Windows.
Actually, the numbers tell a different story. If you look at the
trends, Windows's growth has been slowing, while Linux's has been
constant or accelerating. Windows revenue grew by 5.9% while Linux' grew
by 17% this last quarter, putting Linux's revenue growth almost three
times that of Windows.
Indeed, as the article notes, "Volume server revenues grew 6.3 per cent
year over year", putting Windows revenue as growing *less* than the
market.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself --
and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman
The Ghost In The Machine
<sp...@spam.invalid>
wrote
on Thu, 25 May 2006 20:22:13 -0400
<3-ydnXPwo4S...@comcast.com>:
> billwg wrote:
>
>>
>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
>> news:1186638.c...@schestowitz.com...
>>> Linux bucks slowing server sales
>>>
>>> IDC reports lacklustre overall performance but strong Linux sales
>>>
>>> Linux servers posted year-over-year revenue growth of 17 per cent and
>>> unit shipments up 14.4 per cent
>>>
>>> Linux servers posted their 15th consecutive quarter of double-digit
>>> growth
>>>
>>> http://www.computing.co.uk/vnunet/news/2156824/linux-bucks-slowing-server
>>
>> But can roy boy do the arithmetic?
>>
>> "Microsoft Windows servers continued to show strong growth as revenues
>> grew 5.9 per cent and unit shipments grew 12.9 per cent year over year.
>> Significantly, quarterly factory revenue of $4.4bn for Windows servers
>> represented the largest single segment of the server market, gaining 2.7
>> points of revenue share over the first quarter of 2005 and comprising
>> 37.1 per cent of all server revenue in the first quarter of 2006 as
>> customers continue to deploy more fully configured Windows servers in
>> support of scalable workloads and consolidation projects."
>>
>> Linux grew 17 percent, from $1.25B to $1.45B, which is a $200M increase,
>> but Windows grew from $4.16B to $4.41B, a nifty $250M or $50M more than
>> linux. So the gap continues to widen.
>
>
> Has it occured to your logically challenged brain that Linux servers
> typically cost far less (and in some cases, nothing) than windows servers.
Which is more relevant to the business community? :-) The good
news: Linux servers cost far less which means that a business
contemplating an upgrade to, say, 1000 servers would have to pay
less for the software.
The bad news: software costs aren't the only factor.
>
> The only meaningful comparison is between volumes, not sales, when the
> prices of the products you are trying to compare are so different. Last
> year, we had a choice between implementing a windows file server and a
> linux server. My organization chose Redhat Linux (this is a 95%+ windows
> workplace) and saved hundreds of dollars.
Probably more than that -- no viruses, for example, and more
reliability. There is a small risk on a format change breaking
things, though.
> Another department here did the
> same. Now, if someone implemented a windows server solution, the earnings
> of Microsoft would have been about as much as both the above installations.
> According to your "logic", Microsoft marketshare would be equal to that of
> Redhat, even when the latter has twice the number of servers running.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrne7duj6....@localhost.localdomain...
> On 2006-05-26, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Has it occured to your logically challenged brain that Linux servers
>>> typically cost far less (and in some cases, nothing) than windows
>>> servers.
>>>
>> Well, caveman, it certainly has been discussed, but so what? The
>> whole
>> thing is a matter of business, afterall, and the only thing that
>> counts
>> in business is the money involved. [...] The unit volume of the
>> market
>> is meaningless if there are no profits involved.
>
> That's an interesting jump. What data do you have to support the
> notion
> that there are "no profits involved"? Are you really trying to say
> that
> server Linux generates no profits? If so, on what data do you base
> that
> claim?
>
linux servers generate profits and presumably profits comparable to
profits from Windows servers!
> It's a poor businessman indeed who treats the money as a static
> instead
> of a dynamic process. What if someone sells their melons for less
> because they can produce them for less? What if their production costs
> are the same but they drop their price, making less per melon but
> selling many more melons, ultimately making more profit?
>
Superficial thinking, ray! Price is established by the market. A
product is worth what it is worth and the optimum price is the optimum
price regardless of your production costs. You will always set your
price at the optimum that maximizes revenue if you are not insane.
You may not make as much profit if your costs are too high, but you will
not "drop your price...ultimately making more profit".
> You have a habit of ignoring trends, too, unless they happen to agree
> with your prejudices. E.g. Firefox. The trend of Firefox adoption has
> been uniformly upward except for a few brief downticks. Both of those
> downticks you've crowed about them, only to fall strangely silent when
> the overall trend resumes.
>
Once, ray, once. And it is not very obvious that Firefox is moving, up
or down. In any event, how does that affect revenues of MS or anyone
else?
>> Bottom line, Microsoft Windows is increasing the gap between the
>> revenues assignable to linux and the revenues assignable to Windows.
>
> Actually, the numbers tell a different story. If you look at the
> trends, Windows's growth has been slowing, while Linux's has been
> constant or accelerating. Windows revenue grew by 5.9% while Linux'
> grew
> by 17% this last quarter, putting Linux's revenue growth almost three
> times that of Windows.
>
Growth RATE, ray, growth itself for linux was less than for and the gap
widens.
> Indeed, as the article notes, "Volume server revenues grew 6.3 per
> cent
> year over year", putting Windows revenue as growing *less* than the
> market.
>
Well, it may be true that linux is getting more of the peanut whistle
server segment than Windows, but by the same token, Windows is moving up
the scale to the larger, enterprise level servers, too.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-05-25, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>> "Microsoft Windows servers continued to show strong growth as
>> revenues
>> grew 5.9 per cent and unit shipments grew 12.9 per cent year over
>> year.
>
>> Linux grew 17 percent, from $1.25B to $1.45B
>
> Say, where did these dollar figures come from? They aren't in the
> referenced article. Do you have access to the (for-pay) report the
> article is based on?
>
>> which is a $200M increase, but Windows grew from $4.16B to $4.41B, a
>> nifty $250M or $50M more than linux. So the gap continues to widen.
>
> Interestingly, you dropped one statistic: Linux unit shipments were up
> 14.4 percent. So Linux revenue went up faster than unit shipments, and
> both went up faster than Windows.
>
> Meanwhile, Windows revenue went up *much* slower than unit shipments.
> Looks like Microsoft is feeling some price pressure there. Their
> growth
> is definitely being affected, and Linux's growth hasn't slowed at all.
>
slowed to an estimated 35% in 2004. This past year the rate has slowed
even farther to 17%. If we were to calculate the slowdown acceleration
of linux, it would be a lot higher than the Windows rate.
Ray Ingles
>>> in business is the money involved. [...] The unit volume of the
>>> market is meaningless if there are no profits involved.
>>
>> That's an interesting jump. What data do you have to support the notion
>> that there are "no profits involved"? Are you really trying to say that
>> server Linux generates no profits? If so, on what data do you base that
>> claim?
>>
> Where did I make such a claim, ray? Read for the content. Certainly
> linux servers generate profits and presumably profits comparable to
> profits from Windows servers!
I did read for the (I assume you meant) context. It's right there.
Why even utter the phrase "no profits involved" if that's not what you
meant?
> Superficial thinking, ray! Price is established by the market. A
> product is worth what it is worth and the optimum price is the optimum
> price regardless of your production costs.
Not when you're dealing with a commodity. Price is a function of
demand, true, but *also* supply, and you're ignoring that, bizarrely
enough. Open source does alter the dynamics - competition in general
alters the dynamics. Your thinking is somewhat hidebound from living too
long in a monopoly environment.
>> E.g. Firefox. The trend of Firefox adoption has
>> been uniformly upward except for a few brief downticks. Both of those
>> downticks you've crowed about them, only to fall strangely silent when
>> the overall trend resumes.
>>
> Once, ray, once.
Fri, Aug 12 2005 7:54 pm
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/a4f81360e7a217ce
Thurs, Nov 3 2005 6:55 pm
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ee69933924659783
> And it is not very obvious that Firefox is moving, up or down.
There's plenty of noise in the data, but the trend is ever upward, by
everyone's accounting.
> In any event, how does that affect revenues of MS or anyone else?
Indirectly, by making it much easier to transition to non-MS solutions.
>> Actually, the numbers tell a different story. If you look at the
>> trends, Windows's growth has been slowing, while Linux's has been
>> constant or accelerating. Windows revenue grew by 5.9% while Linux' grew
>> by 17% this last quarter, putting Linux's revenue growth almost three
>> times that of Windows.
>>
> Growth RATE, ray,
You're right, I left off the word 'rate' by accident.
> growth itself for linux was less than for and the gap
> widens.
...but, again, you ignore the trend. I wonder how long you'll be able
to pretend to do that. You have a pretty low credibility threshold, but
still...
>> Indeed, as the article notes, "Volume server revenues grew 6.3 percent
>> year over year", putting Windows revenue as growing *less* than the
>> market.
>>
> Well, it may be true that linux is getting more of the peanut whistle
> server segment than Windows, but by the same token, Windows is moving up
> the scale to the larger, enterprise level servers, too.
No, no, proprietary Unix and mainframes rule the high end. Windows has
basically no presence there. Linux has some, in the supercomputing/compute
cluster area.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
'[W]e want a slate of projects that will out-dumb the dumb shows
like Whoopi, The Victoria's Secret Fashion Show, and The Next
Joe Millionaire.' ABC's pilot orders for Fall 2004 include The
Naked Ladies, Extreme Explosions, and America's Shiniest Objects.
- The Onion
Ray Ingles
>>
>> Say, where did these dollar figures come from? They aren't in the
>> referenced article. Do you have access to the (for-pay) report the
>> article is based on?
Again, I pose this question...
> In a pig's eye, ray. Linux growth in 2003 was around 50% in 2003 and
> slowed to an estimated 35% in 2004. This past year the rate has slowed
> even farther to 17%. If we were to calculate the slowdown acceleration
> of linux, it would be a lot higher than the Windows rate.
Um, from what I can see you are comparing figures for a quarter to
figures for a whole year. Again, where are you sourcing those numbers?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Windows NT *does* have a low cost of ownership. The problem
is, *Microsoft* owns it. You merely *licensed* it..."
- after Jens Benecke
Cyberwasteland
billwg said:
"...linux is getting more of the peanut whistle server segment than
Windows"
So, when billwg's assinine assertions are proven wrong (which is often)
- he poopoos the facts.
He seems to be expert in the art of minimizing and denial, unless the
assertions are pro-MS. I'm sure he has spent time in front of the judge
saying, "No your honor, I only hit her *three* times, not four."
Typical billwg bullshit.
Is it really worth it to try and have a reasonable debate with billwg?
As usual, it looks like a complete waste of time.
Ray Ingles
> billwg said:
> "...linux is getting more of the peanut whistle server segment than
> Windows"
>
> So, when billwg's assinine assertions are proven wrong (which is often)
> - he poopoos the facts.
What's really funny is that he has to deliberately ignore parts of the
article he's working from, e.g.:
"Volume server revenues grew 6.3 per cent year over year and, although
this segment represents the 'primary growth engine' for the overall
server market, IDC's data shows that the first quarter of 2006
experienced the slowest growth in this segment for more than three
years.
Revenues for midrange enterprise servers declined 16.2 per cent year
over year for the second consecutive quarter, and the high-end
enterprise server market showed a 3.2 per cent decline year over year,
making this the sixth consecutive quarter of declining revenue for
high-end enterprise servers."
So, he admits that Linux is getting more of the low end, and pooh-pooh's
that... but that's the only segment of the server market that's actually
growing.
And we know Windows grew slower than the volume server market. Not only
that, but if he *were* right that Windows is expanding into the mid and
high end, then that would mean that Windows's expansion, such as it is,
is even *less* in the volume market by that very amount.
He can't even champion his own side properly. He ends up making them
look worse. :->
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"If these aliens are so magically powerful, how come you
never see any forest circles? Or mountain circles?" - Me
The Ghost In The Machine
<sorc...@localhost.localdomain>
wrote
on 26 May 2006 14:24:25 -0400
<slrne7eibm....@localhost.localdomain>:
> On 2006-05-26, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> Linux grew 17 percent, from $1.25B to $1.45B
>>>
>>> Say, where did these dollar figures come from? They aren't in the
>>> referenced article. Do you have access to the (for-pay) report the
>>> article is based on?
>
> Again, I pose this question...
>
>> In a pig's eye, ray. Linux growth in 2003 was around 50% in 2003 and
>> slowed to an estimated 35% in 2004. This past year the rate has slowed
>> even farther to 17%. If we were to calculate the slowdown acceleration
>> of linux, it would be a lot higher than the Windows rate.
>
> Um, from what I can see you are comparing figures for a quarter to
> figures for a whole year. Again, where are you sourcing those numbers?
>
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2005/tc2005067_2133_tc024.htm
is a hopefully balanced commentary on this question. The
top few paragraphs indicate that, as of June 1, 2005,
only 7% of outfits with no Linux servers plan to add some
Linux servers over the next year, compared to 12-17% in
September 2003. This of course gives a forward pointer to
SG Cowen, which is mentioned in a fair number of webpages
if I search on Google for "Cowen Linux survey", but oddly
a path somewhere into the survey is not mentioned.
A link on the site http://www.cowen.com took me
to http://www.cowenresearch.com which requires
a username/password. Maybe not so odd after all;
compensation required.
This is as far as I go, here. The Cowen site is an
investment firm but I don't know how many Cowens there are
out in the world. :-)
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-05-26, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> in business is the money involved. [...] The unit volume of the
>>>> market is meaningless if there are no profits involved.
>>>
>>> That's an interesting jump. What data do you have to support the
>>> notion
>>> that there are "no profits involved"? Are you really trying to say
>>> that
>>> server Linux generates no profits? If so, on what data do you base
>>> that
>>> claim?
>>>
>> Where did I make such a claim, ray? Read for the content. Certainly
>> linux servers generate profits and presumably profits comparable to
>> profits from Windows servers!
>
> I did read for the (I assume you meant) context. It's right there.
> Why even utter the phrase "no profits involved" if that's not what you
> meant?
>
when I said: "The unit volume of the market is meaningless if there are
no profits involved." I was clearly making a statement about unit volume
as a market metric. The context of the whole paragraph was that profits
are paramount.
>> Superficial thinking, ray! Price is established by the market. A
>> product is worth what it is worth and the optimum price is the
>> optimum
>> price regardless of your production costs.
>
> Not when you're dealing with a commodity. Price is a function of
> demand, true, but *also* supply, and you're ignoring that, bizarrely
> enough. Open source does alter the dynamics - competition in general
> alters the dynamics. Your thinking is somewhat hidebound from living
> too
> long in a monopoly environment.
>
I think that you have a very superficial understanding of the phenomena
involved, ray, else you would not say such a silly thing. Certainly
there is no supply and demand issue with software. It is not a
commodity at all regardless of any label you want to put on it. It is
what is termed a "shopping good". It is easily replicated at next to no
expense and there is no upware price pressure available due to
restricting any access. Price points are set by analyzing feature,
function, and benefit matrices along with issues like affordability
limits and price/volume elasticity. Cost has absolutely nothing to do
with setting a price on software.
>>> E.g. Firefox. The trend of Firefox adoption has
>>> been uniformly upward except for a few brief downticks. Both of
>>> those
>>> downticks you've crowed about them, only to fall strangely silent
>>> when
>>> the overall trend resumes.
>>>
>> Once, ray, once.
>
> Fri, Aug 12 2005 7:54 pm
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/a4f81360e7a217ce
>
> Thurs, Nov 3 2005 6:55 pm
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ee69933924659783
>
They are both in regard to the same July, 2005 report, ray. Didn't you
read them? Do you agree with lucky, BTQ?
>> And it is not very obvious that Firefox is moving, up or down.
>
> There's plenty of noise in the data, but the trend is ever upward, by
> everyone's accounting.
>
>> In any event, how does that affect revenues of MS or anyone else?
>
> Indirectly, by making it much easier to transition to non-MS
> solutions.
>
Are you sure? As difficult as it is to measure browser use, secondary
effects would be next to impossible.
Well HP seems to offer Windows2K3 in some systems at over $1M bucks a
pop, ray. That is hardly nothing at all. See the results at
http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp. Note, too, that
IBM seems to eschew linux for AIX when they need to go to the mat.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-05-26, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> Linux grew 17 percent, from $1.25B to $1.45B
>>>
>>> Say, where did these dollar figures come from? They aren't in the
>>> referenced article. Do you have access to the (for-pay) report the
>>> article is based on?
>
> Again, I pose this question...
>
that you can no longer think? The article did say that linux grew 17%
and had attained a level of 1.45B. Now if you were to divide 1.45 by
1.17, what answer would you get?
>> In a pig's eye, ray. Linux growth in 2003 was around 50% in 2003 and
>> slowed to an estimated 35% in 2004. This past year the rate has
>> slowed
>> even farther to 17%. If we were to calculate the slowdown
>> acceleration
>> of linux, it would be a lot higher than the Windows rate.
>
> Um, from what I can see you are comparing figures for a quarter to
> figures for a whole year. Again, where are you sourcing those numbers?
>
You are the Googlemeister, ray. Sure some simple query like "linux
server market share 2003" would occur to you. I think you are just
being coy.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>
> He can't even champion his own side properly. He ends up making them
> look worse. :->
>
strong base in the low level server market that has been built up over a
decade starting with NT4 server versions. Unix has eroded because of
that, but was still the master of the larger enterprise level segment.
5-6 years ago, MS started an assault on the upper end of the market and
has made a lot of inroads there. That is a necessary move to achieve an
eventual overall market capture ala' the desktop client business.
Unix lost a lot of business to linux in shops where abandonment of unix
was anathema, but a strong desire to obtain the cost savings inherent in
switching to Intel CISC existed. Linux is a natural choice for these
places and the linux segment of the low end server market is merely the
result of keeping unix methods while switching to lower cost hardware.
But these prospects will eventually switch to Windows as well. It is
just a matter of time.
Ruel Smith
> Linux grew 17 percent, from $1.25B to $1.45B, which is a $200M increase,
> but Windows grew from $4.16B to $4.41B, a nifty $250M or $50M more than
> linux. So the gap continues to widen.
No, the writing is on the wall. If I had a few extra $$ to invest right now,
I'd be investing in either Red Hat or Novell and not M$. I think their days
are numbered on the server end. On the desktop, though, it will remain
dominant for a long time - until users get fed up with being forcefed new
software.
BTW, discussions on gaming forums indicated that a lot of gamers weren't
exactly hyped about Vista and intended to not upgrade. However, M$ just
announced no DX10 for XP, so they've just forced hard core gamers to adopt
it sooner than later... Now that's the kind of thing I absolutely hate
about M$...
Ruel Smith
> Well, caveman, it certainly has been discussed, but so what? The whole
> thing is a matter of business, afterall, and the only thing that counts
> in business is the money involved. If you give away your Casawa melons
> and the next farmer charges $1 each, you may have a much higher volume,
> but you will be unable to pay the mortgage on the farm and will
> eventually become a sharecropper. You may take some solice in having
> grown the most melons, but the other guy will still be able to feed his
> family and keep his land. The unit volume of the market is meaningless
> if there are no profits involved.
Why do you care about M$ profit? Are you an investor?
I could care less about how well Billy Boy and Co. are doing. What matters
to me is what MY benefit is. I'd be better off with the free melons, and
that's where I'm going to buy them. The other guy will just have a truck
full of rotten, worthless melons at the end of the day because Caveman
undercut his price!
billwg
"Ruel Smith" <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote in message
news:1IYdg.49874$P2.4...@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> billwg spewed this vial garbage:
>
>> Linux grew 17 percent, from $1.25B to $1.45B, which is a $200M
>> increase,
>> but Windows grew from $4.16B to $4.41B, a nifty $250M or $50M more
>> than
>> linux. So the gap continues to widen.
>
> No, the writing is on the wall. If I had a few extra $$ to invest
> right now,
> I'd be investing in either Red Hat or Novell and not M$. I think their
> days
> are numbered on the server end. On the desktop, though, it will remain
> dominant for a long time - until users get fed up with being forcefed
> new
> software.
>
> BTW, discussions on gaming forums indicated that a lot of gamers
> weren't
> exactly hyped about Vista and intended to not upgrade. However, M$
> just
> announced no DX10 for XP, so they've just forced hard core gamers to
> adopt
> it sooner than later... Now that's the kind of thing I absolutely hate
> about M$...
No need to upgrade, smitty, you will need a new computer soon enough.
billwg
"Ruel Smith" <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote in message
Spoken like a true freeloader! LOL!!!
Ruel Smith
>> Why do you care about M$ profit? Are you an investor?
>>
>> I could care less about how well Billy Boy and Co. are doing. What
>> matters
>> to me is what MY benefit is. I'd be better off with the free melons,
>> and
>> that's where I'm going to buy them. The other guy will just have a
>> truck
>> full of rotten, worthless melons at the end of the day because Caveman
>> undercut his price!
>>
>
> Spoken like a true freeloader! LOL!!!
Except that I'm not... I donated $40 so far to PCLinuxOS this year, and will
donate at least $60 more later this year. I'm also a silver member of the
Mandriva Club. With the exception of Kubuntu, Ubuntu, and Debian, I've
always bought my distros in the past. Those 3 made donating more difficult,
as I couldn't directly donate to them, or I would have.
Ruel Smith
> No need to upgrade, smitty, you will need a new computer soon enough.
I don't know. I still keep a Windows XP system around, but I'm not sure if
Vista will be on my system or not.
billwg
"Ruel Smith" <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote in message
Ruel Smith
>>> Spoken like a true freeloader! LOL!!!
>>
>> Except that I'm not... I donated $40 so far to PCLinuxOS this year,
>> and will
>> donate at least $60 more later this year. I'm also a silver member of
>> the
>> Mandriva Club. With the exception of Kubuntu, Ubuntu, and Debian, I've
>> always bought my distros in the past. Those 3 made donating more
>> difficult,
>> as I couldn't directly donate to them, or I would have.
>>
> $40! Wow!
Well, since I already sent Mandriva $100 for silver club membership, I
figure I've already contributed $140, and like I said, at least $60 more
will go their way before year's end. That will mean I will have spent $200
this year on Linux. When I used to buy my distros from Suse, I'd spend
about $60 every 6 months for the new release.
On top of that, I've been a regular helper in Kubuntu forums, Mandriva Club
forums, alt.os.linux.mandrake, alt.os.linux.suse, and the PCLinuxOS forum
over the years. I've also contributed artwork over the years to
www.kde-look.org. I've given back in non-monetary ways as well.
Point is, I'm not a freeloader... I make my contributions. Most Linux users
give something back in non-monetary ways. Many also either contribute, or
buy their distros, as well. Linux users aren't freeloading, for the most
part, despite what Windows zealots claim.
billwg
"Ruel Smith" <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote in message
3% or more of the desktop "market" (in terms of units). With over 200
million new PCs shipping annually and over 500 million PCs in use,
that's some 15 million linux users and that way, way more names than you
will ever find contributing to linux.
Ray Ingles
> Well, ray, have you become so dependent on seeing something expressed
> that you can no longer think? The article did say that linux grew 17%
> and had attained a level of 1.45B. Now if you were to divide 1.45 by
> 1.17, what answer would you get?
Um, the sequence "1.45" does not appear in the article.
http://www.computing.co.uk/articles/print/2156824
Hence my question about where the numbers *did* come from...
>> Um, from what I can see you are comparing figures for a quarter to
>> figures for a whole year. Again, where are you sourcing those numbers?
>>
> You are the Googlemeister, ray. Sure some simple query like "linux
> server market share 2003" would occur to you. I think you are just
> being coy.
So, yeah, you really don't have anything to back those numbers up.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. - Anonymous
Ray Ingles
>> Why even utter the phrase "no profits involved" if that's not what you
>> meant?
>>
> Well, I feel a little silly parsing a simple sentence for you, ray, but
> when I said: "The unit volume of the market is meaningless if there are
> no profits involved." I was clearly making a statement about unit volume
> as a market metric. The context of the whole paragraph was that profits
> are paramount.
Ah, but even by this interpretation, what you say is not true. Let's
assume for the moment that you're right, and 'free' Linux installs have
no direct effect on the OS market and its pricing. (An odd and illogical
position, but what the heck...)
An operating system is attractive to developers not merely for the ease
of development, but the market that can be reached by developing for it.
The larger the installed base, the larger the potential market. In this
way 'free' installs become quite relevant to developers, and thus
influence the overall attractiveness of the platform. And this will in
turn affect the 'paid' installs.
We've already seen this in the server area. Linux grew *fast* in the
server area on the back of the initial 'free' installs, and now is
generating about a third of the revenues that server Windows is.
> I think that you have a very superficial understanding of the phenomena
> involved, ray, else you would not say such a silly thing. Certainly
> there is no supply and demand issue with software. It is not a
> commodity at all regardless of any label you want to put on it. It is
> what is termed a "shopping good".
Wait, 'shopping goods' "are items consumers will conduct a search for
in order to find the one that best suits their needs. They usually
require an involved selection process. When purchasing a shopping
product, consumers will compare a variety of attributes, such as
suitability, quality, price, and style. Automobiles are often bought
this way. Consumers may also visit a number of shopping places, such as
retail stores, before they make a decision. Because of the importance of
these types of purchases, consumers usually invest considerable time and
energy before making such a purchase."
http://www.bookrags.com/other/business/shopping-ebf-02.html
But you *also* say that Linux has no chance to succeed on the desktop
because it's an 'unsought good' (see the same page) and there's
insufficient marketing. And yet, if it *were* a 'shopping good', people
*would* do some searching and ask around, giving word of mouth and viral
marketing and internet presence a good chance.
Funny, Linux seem to switch categories regularly, in whatever way
happens to be convenient for your claims at the moment... and regardless
of what you've said in the (immediate) past. How odd.
> It is easily replicated at next to no
> expense and there is no upware price pressure available due to
> restricting any access.
Then why is Microsoft cracking down on piracy?
> Price points are set by analyzing feature,
> function, and benefit matrices along with issues like affordability
> limits and price/volume elasticity. Cost has absolutely nothing to do
> with setting a price on software.
I didn't *say* that 'cost' had anything to do with pricing in the sense
you are trying to imply.
The price that one can set for a software product is strongly affected
by the price of the competitors in the area. There are very few 'tiers'
of game software prices, for example. Most games start out ~$50 and then
have an ~6 month 'half life'. There are *some* budget games - ~$20 (e.g.
Katamari Damacy) and then there's the ~$10 'bargain bin' stuff.
The higher-end game software costs quite a bit to produce using the
current methodologies. The budgets do vary considerably - some in the
many tens of millions, some only a few million. But they all sell for
the same basic price.
Now, if someone were to have much lower development costs and could
afford to produce games for dramatically less than the competition, they
could start a price war - releasing similar-quality games in, say, the
$40 range. Less profit per unit sold but *many* more units sold. (e.g.
100K boxes times $50 is less than 200K boxes times $40).
Of course, the price difference doesn't have to be even 20% to have a
significant effect. But it's even more for Linux in general.
>> Indirectly, by making it much easier to transition to non-MS
>> solutions.
>>
> Are you sure? As difficult as it is to measure browser use, secondary
> effects would be next to impossible.
Yeah, I'm sure. I've seen it in action myself. But never fear, it's
becoming harder and harder for you to maintain your positions in the
server space (even according to you, Linux revenue is 1/3 that of
Windows this last quarter - I know, 'nobody uses Linux').
> Well HP seems to offer Windows2K3 in some systems at over $1M bucks a
> pop, ray. That is hardly nothing at all.
Hey, nobody actually buys those things. (I use your definiton of
'nobody', BTW. :-> )
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas
are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
- Howard Aiken
Ray Ingles
> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2005/tc2005067_2133_tc024.htm
>
> is a hopefully balanced commentary on this question. The
> top few paragraphs indicate that, as of June 1, 2005,
> only 7% of outfits with no Linux servers plan to add some
> Linux servers over the next year, compared to 12-17% in
> September 2003.
Of course, there were a lot fewer "outfits with no Linux servers" in
2005 than in 2003 (and even fewer now). It's hard to say what those
numbers actually mean without looking at the data they were derived
from...
> A link on the site http://www.cowen.com took me
> to http://www.cowenresearch.com which requires
> a username/password. Maybe not so odd after all;
> compensation required.
...and good luck getting those without paying significant cash.
Even if the numbers did mean what the article writer implies, they say
nothing about Linux expansion within enterprises it's already present
in.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"[E]lectronic voting machines are a great idea, according to people
who make millions of dollars selling them." - Dave Barry
Ray Ingles
> strong base in the low level server market that has been built up over a
> decade starting with NT4 server versions.
And Linux is already generating a third of Windows' server revenue (and
increasing, while Windows's growth is flattening) after starting
significantly later with a vastly smaller marketing budget. Your picture
seems oddly-framed and incomplete.
> 5-6 years ago, MS started an assault on the upper end of the market and
> has made a lot of inroads there.
Really? Where?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Republicans... preach our sacred duty to the army's morale and
simultaneously cancel $15 billion in veteran's benefits and 60
percent of federal education subsidies for servicemen's children.
If you can't believe that, look it up. - Hal Crowther
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-05-27, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>> Yada, yada, ray. The picture that I see shows Windows with an
>> already
>> strong base in the low level server market that has been built up
>> over a
>> decade starting with NT4 server versions.
>
> And Linux is already generating a third of Windows' server revenue
> (and
> increasing, while Windows's growth is flattening) after starting
> significantly later with a vastly smaller marketing budget. Your
> picture
> seems oddly-framed and incomplete.
>
>> 5-6 years ago, MS started an assault on the upper end of the market
>> and
>> has made a lot of inroads there.
>
> Really? Where?
>
http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp
Ray Ingles
>>> 5-6 years ago, MS started an assault on the upper end of the market
>>> and has made a lot of inroads there.
>>
>> Really? Where?
>>
> Does a $6M Windows server suit your notion of "upper end"?
>
> http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp
Oh, I'm sure there are few benighted souls out there who would do such
a thing, but they hardly count! How many Windows machines on the Top 100
computers list again?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Even in the wake of an event so invasive and frightening as
September 11, not one person in a leadership position in
America asked anyone to really give up or rethink anything...
Yes, we were asked to do very little, and we responded. That's
the bargain we tacitly make with our presidents: we won't ask
too much of you, if you don't ask too much of us."
- Bill Maher, "When You Ride Alone You Ride With bin Laden"
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
pretty much come with all their necessary parts from what I have seen
and you might want to add some data protection or other such utility
functions, but it is not the all-skate that the client arena hosts.
Insofar as the vendors of servers are concerned, the dollar volume of
the market is the important issue. If the market is eroding because of
linux servers being home-brewed out of junk parts or because the need
for centralized information is waning, is not so important as the rate
at which it is happening.
Well it is laudable that you are working to improve your understanding,
ray, but you need to try a little harder. Linux and Windows are not
"shopping goods" in their own right, but it is the package, consisting
of the hardware and the software that people will compare. There is a
strong expectation among consumers that the computer should come with
Windows and the so-called Wintel computer is the most popular by far.
There is, of course, the Macintosh, and, rarely in the consumer space,
the "Lintel" machine.
As to whether or not word of mouth is sufficient to gain a share of this
market, you can argue all day long. I don't give it much of a chance,
myself.
> Funny, Linux seem to switch categories regularly, in whatever way
> happens to be convenient for your claims at the moment... and
> regardless
> of what you've said in the (immediate) past. How odd.
>
Not all all, ray. It is you lack of feel for the context that makes you
think that way.
>> It is easily replicated at next to no
>> expense and there is no upware price pressure available due to
>> restricting any access.
>
> Then why is Microsoft cracking down on piracy?
>
Are they? It seems almost childishly simple and easy for the warez
people to defeat these measures.
You are confusing yourself with your own arithmetic, ray! The
reproduction cost for the $50 game is the same as the reproduction cost
of the $40 game. If there is more revenue at $40 due to your postulated
price-volume sensitivity, the price would not have been set at $50.
> Of course, the price difference doesn't have to be even 20% to have a
> significant effect. But it's even more for Linux in general.
>
There is nothing to differentiate linux marketing from Windows marketing
in terms of price, ray. If it can sell otimally for $100, you would
have to be an idiot to pick any other price point. What differs between
Linux and Windows is that the linux distributors, say Red Hat and
Novell, have a lot lower R&D budget than Mr. Softee. OTOH, Windows is a
much more highly recognized name and Microsoft is a powerful brand. I
think that is far more important to sale than the technical function
hair splitting that the techies indulge in.
>>> Indirectly, by making it much easier to transition to non-MS
>>> solutions.
>>>
>> Are you sure? As difficult as it is to measure browser use,
>> secondary
>> effects would be next to impossible.
>
> Yeah, I'm sure. I've seen it in action myself. But never fear, it's
> becoming harder and harder for you to maintain your positions in the
> server space (even according to you, Linux revenue is 1/3 that of
> Windows this last quarter - I know, 'nobody uses Linux').
>
Linux-powered server revenue, Ray, not revenue to linux vendors.
Compare RHAT and NOVL sales to Windows server edition sales.
>> Well HP seems to offer Windows2K3 in some systems at over $1M bucks a
>> pop, ray. That is hardly nothing at all.
>
> Hey, nobody actually buys those things. (I use your definiton of
> 'nobody', BTW. :-> )
>
But they are high end systems and Microsoft is in the market.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-05-27, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>> Well, ray, have you become so dependent on seeing something expressed
>> that you can no longer think? The article did say that linux grew
>> 17%
>> and had attained a level of 1.45B. Now if you were to divide 1.45 by
>> 1.17, what answer would you get?
>
> Um, the sequence "1.45" does not appear in the article.
>
> http://www.computing.co.uk/articles/print/2156824
>
> Hence my question about where the numbers *did* come from...
>
>>> Um, from what I can see you are comparing figures for a quarter to
>>> figures for a whole year. Again, where are you sourcing those
>>> numbers?
>>>
>> You are the Googlemeister, ray. Sure some simple query like "linux
>> server market share 2003" would occur to you. I think you are just
>> being coy.
>
> So, yeah, you really don't have anything to back those numbers up.
>
The numbers are accurate and show the rate of increase of linux business
declining, which is what you would expect, given the circumstances.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-05-30, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> 5-6 years ago, MS started an assault on the upper end of the market
>>>> and has made a lot of inroads there.
>>>
>>> Really? Where?
>>>
>> Does a $6M Windows server suit your notion of "upper end"?
>>
>> http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp
>
> Oh, I'm sure there are few benighted souls out there who would do such
> a thing, but they hardly count! How many Windows machines on the Top
> 100
> computers list again?
>
Ray Ingles
>>
> Well, you could try 12.2 percent of $11.9B to see where that might lead.
Gee, you could have said that in the first place. Trying to pin you
down on anything is like nailing Jello to a wall.
It's still interesting that Linux server revenue grew faster than unit
shipments did, while (much) the reverse is true for Windows.
>> So, yeah, you really don't have anything to back those numbers up.
>>
> The numbers are accurate and show the rate of increase of linux business
> declining, which is what you would expect, given the circumstances.
So, yeah, you really don't have anything to back those numbers up.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Microsoft Windows - The joke that kills.
Ray Ingles
>> Oh, I'm sure there are few benighted souls out there who would do such
>> a thing, but they hardly count! How many Windows machines on the Top
>> 100 computers list again?
>>
> What list is that, ray?
Since you appear to be the type to skip to the answers on your
homework, here's a link where you can query the OS involved:
http://www.top500.org/sublist/
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code will
be a violent psychopath who knows where you live." - Martin Golding
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-05-31, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Oh, I'm sure there are few benighted souls out there who would do
>>> such
>>> a thing, but they hardly count! How many Windows machines on the Top
>>> 100 computers list again?
>>>
>> What list is that, ray?
>
> http://www.top500.org/
>
> Since you appear to be the type to skip to the answers on your
> homework, here's a link where you can query the OS involved:
>
> http://www.top500.org/sublist/
>
more careful.
Even so, what significance do you attribute to this list?
Ray Ingles
>> of development, but the market that can be reached by developing for it.
>> The larger the installed base, the larger the potential market. In this
>> way 'free' installs become quite relevant to developers, and thus
>> influence the overall attractiveness of the platform. And this will in
>> turn affect the 'paid' installs.
>>
> The issue here is servers, ray, try to stick to the context. Servers
> pretty much come with all their necessary parts from what I have seen
> and you might want to add some data protection or other such utility
> functions, but it is not the all-skate that the client arena hosts.
Just because they come as a package doesn't mean that application
developers don't target them. When you buy an Oracle-on-Linux server,
you're getting Oracle because they developed it for Linux.
> Insofar as the vendors of servers are concerned, the dollar volume of
> the market is the important issue. If the market is eroding because of
> linux servers being home-brewed out of junk parts or because the need
> for centralized information is waning, is not so important as the rate
> at which it is happening.
Of course, the market is *not* eroding, the server vendors don't have
to pay a third party (MS) monopoly prices for licenses for the OS, and
thus don't have to pass those costs onto the consumer. So the dollar
value drops but the vendors keep more of the money.
> Well it is laudable that you are working to improve your understanding,
> ray, but you need to try a little harder. Linux and Windows are not
> "shopping goods" in their own right
...despite you specifically saying "software... is what is termed a
'shopping good'". Glad you contradicted^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlarified
that.
> but it is the package, consisting of the hardware and the software
> that people will compare. There is a strong expectation among
> consumers
But I thought we were talking about servers? And as I said, the more
popular an OS is (whether or not it is installed at the factory or
aftermarket, even 'free') the more attractive it becomes as a
platform for development. You are trying to ignore this point and
prattle on about irrelevancies.
> There is, of course, the Macintosh, and, rarely in the consumer space,
> the "Lintel" machine.
The issue here is servers, billwg, try to stick to the context.
> As to whether or not word of mouth is sufficient to gain a share of this
> market, you can argue all day long. I don't give it much of a chance,
> myself.
Linux is doing great in the server market, and people are happy to pay
for it. As noted, revenues increased at a greater rate than unit sales
last quarter.
But, if you want to shift to the consumer market, as I've noted before,
word of mouth has worked out just fine for Firefox (more than 10% of
browser share, up from essentially zero two years ago).
>> Funny, Linux seem to switch categories regularly, in whatever way
>> happens to be convenient for your claims at the moment... and
>> regardless of what you've said in the (immediate) past. How odd.
>>
> Not all all, ray. It is you lack of feel for the context that makes you
> think that way.
Like you switching from the server market to the desktop market within
two paragraphs?
>> Then why is Microsoft cracking down on piracy?
>>
> Are they? It seems almost childishly simple and easy for the warez
> people to defeat these measures.
http://news.com.com/Vista+wont+show+fancy+side+to+pirates/
2100-1016_3-6060700.html
http://bink.nu/Article7213.bink
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6064555.html
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/87898/microsoft-expects-
vistainspired-surge-in-piracy.html
"The effect, says Alexander, is a drop in the UK piracy rate. When the
campaign launched in July, the UK had a piracy rate of 16.7 per cent.
It's now running at 15.45 per cent."
> You are confusing yourself with your own arithmetic, ray! The
> reproduction cost for the $50 game is the same as the reproduction cost
> of the $40 game. If there is more revenue at $40 due to your postulated
> price-volume sensitivity, the price would not have been set at $50.
You ignore the hit-or-miss nature of the game industry. Many (most?)
games, like most movies, are not big hits and the winners subsidize the
losers to an extent. If your overall development costs are lower, it
affects your overall pricing model.
> There is nothing to differentiate linux marketing from Windows marketing
> in terms of price, ray. If it can sell otimally for $100, you would
> have to be an idiot to pick any other price point.
...ignoring all the other effects on pricing. Can you tell me again why
Windows unit shipments are up 12.9 percent but revenues are only up 5.9
percent? Why are they lowering their prices?
>> Yeah, I'm sure. I've seen it in action myself. But never fear, it's
>> becoming harder and harder for you to maintain your positions in the
>> server space (even according to you, Linux revenue is 1/3 that of
>> Windows this last quarter - I know, 'nobody uses Linux').
>>
> Linux-powered server revenue, Ray, not revenue to linux vendors.
> Compare RHAT and NOVL sales to Windows server edition sales.
Wow, you managed to remember the server context! Of course, expenses
with Linux are lower so the revenue need not be so high to generate a
particular level of profit. I'm curious to see Novell's numbers, coming
soon apparently.
>> Hey, nobody actually buys those things. (I use your definiton of
>> 'nobody', BTW. :-> )
>>
> But they are high end systems and Microsoft is in the market.
But nobody buys them.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Microsoft Windows - A mistake carried out to perfection.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-05-30, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Hence my question about where the numbers *did* come from...
>>>
>> Well, you could try 12.2 percent of $11.9B to see where that might
>> lead.
>
> Gee, you could have said that in the first place. Trying to pin you
> down on anything is like nailing Jello to a wall.
>
> It's still interesting that Linux server revenue grew faster than unit
> shipments did, while (much) the reverse is true for Windows.
>
MS figures show their prices to be lower than previous, although I think
a lot of that is the increasing sale of the Win2K3 Web Edition.
>>> So, yeah, you really don't have anything to back those numbers up.
>>>
>> The numbers are accurate and show the rate of increase of linux
>> business
>> declining, which is what you would expect, given the circumstances.
>
> So, yeah, you really don't have anything to back those numbers up.
>
But you cannot deny that they are accurate.
Ray Ingles
>>>> How many Windows machines on the Top 100 computers list again?
>>>>
>>> What list is that, ray?
>>
>> http://www.top500.org/
> I guess that is why "Top 100" didn't yield any results! Next time be
> more careful.
Wow, you were actually stymied by that? Um, okay, I'll be mindful of
your limitations in the future...
> Even so, what significance do you attribute to this list?
What, we were discussing high-end servers, and Windows can't even crack
the top 300? And of the top 10, 7 are running Linux? Why do you assume
it's any less relevant than the other metrics you claim to use? What
metric would *you* suggest?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"U.S. planes have thus far showered defoliant on more than 200,000
acres, killing not just coca plants but entire ecosystems: damaging
legitimate crops, poisoning water supplies, killing fish and livestock,
uprooting entire villages, and causing people to suffer fevers,
diarrhea, allergies and rashes.
And that's why they hate us: because, to keep drugs out of Bobby
Brown's glove box, we kill peasants in Putumayo. If we did this kind
of thing to the Arabs, they'd actually have the kind of beef with us
that they think they do."
Ray Ingles
And yet growing at double digits.
>> So, yeah, you really don't have anything to back those numbers up.
>>
> But you cannot deny that they are accurate.
I don't trust *anything* you say without some kind of backup, and so
yeah, I'll freely deny them. Feel free to come up with some kind of
dispute of fact...
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Redundancy is good, and redundancy is even better! - Howard Tayler
DFS
> What, we were discussing high-end servers, and Windows can't even
> crack the top 300?
Why not?
These HPC sites could have installed Windows on any of the EMT64, IA32,
IA64, or AMD64 systems in the list. Doing so could have placed a Windows
supercomputer at #4 (and as high as #2 on the Nov 2004 list).
http://www.top500.org/system/7288
They opted not to - most likely for cost and open source code reasons.
Jesse F. Hughes
Wow. Great point. Instead of "can't", Ray should say "hasn't".
Boy, that changes everything, don't it?
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"The people who made up the words could have said 'newspaper' is
'trees'." -- Quincy P. Hughes, five-year-old Wittgensteinian
(This comment came out of the blue at breakfast.)
Ruel Smith
> Oh pshaw, smitty! Take your COLA claims at face value, i.e. linux has
> 3% or more of the desktop "market" (in terms of units). With over 200
> million new PCs shipping annually and over 500 million PCs in use,
> that's some 15 million linux users and that way, way more names than you
> will ever find contributing to linux.
With 514 Linux newsgroups on my server alone, and countless web based
forums, Wikis, developers, artists, yadda yadda yadda there are numerous
ways to contribute to Linux. It doesn't have to be a monetary contribution.
Linux needs people for testing, documentation, artwork, and just helping
out the next guy who's having trouble understanding Linux. These
contributions go on daily by an enormous number of volunteers. You don't
have to spend a dime to "give back". Giving some money to the cause is my
choice, and there are others.
DFS
> "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> writes:
>
>> Ray Ingles wrote:
>>
>>> What, we were discussing high-end servers, and Windows can't even
>>> crack the top 300?
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>> These HPC sites could have installed Windows on any of the EMT64,
>> IA32, IA64, or AMD64 systems in the list. Doing so could have
>> placed a Windows supercomputer at #4 (and as high as #2 on the Nov
>> 2004 list).
>>
>> http://www.top500.org/system/7288
>>
>> They opted not to - most likely for cost and open source code
>> reasons.
>
> Wow. Great point. Instead of "can't", Ray should say "hasn't".
I agree.
> Boy, that changes everything, don't it?
Yes it do.
And it's a sight more realistic than the typical cola hypothetical "If it
wasn't MS\Windows, some other GUI operating system would have become
dominant."
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-05-31, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>> How many Windows machines on the Top 100 computers list again?
>>>>>
>>>> What list is that, ray?
>>>
>>> http://www.top500.org/
>
>> I guess that is why "Top 100" didn't yield any results! Next time be
>> more careful.
>
> Wow, you were actually stymied by that? Um, okay, I'll be mindful of
> your limitations in the future...
>
>> Even so, what significance do you attribute to this list?
>
> What, we were discussing high-end servers, and Windows can't even
> crack
> the top 300? And of the top 10, 7 are running Linux? Why do you assume
> it's any less relevant than the other metrics you claim to use? What
> metric would *you* suggest?
>
what they do doesn't affect you. I understand that you can use linux on
an IBM mainframe, too, but that has no bearing on the desktop and what
the supercomputers use has neither. Windows is tailored for the broad
middle market and does quite well at the task. Maybe trying to make a
supercomputer server OS work on the desktop is the reason for the linux
continued failure in that space.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-05-30, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>> An operating system is attractive to developers not merely for the
>>> ease
>>> of development, but the market that can be reached by developing for
>>> it.
>>> The larger the installed base, the larger the potential market. In
>>> this
>>> way 'free' installs become quite relevant to developers, and thus
>>> influence the overall attractiveness of the platform. And this will
>>> in
>>> turn affect the 'paid' installs.
>>>
>> The issue here is servers, ray, try to stick to the context. Servers
>> pretty much come with all their necessary parts from what I have seen
>> and you might want to add some data protection or other such utility
>> functions, but it is not the all-skate that the client arena hosts.
>
> Just because they come as a package doesn't mean that application
> developers don't target them. When you buy an Oracle-on-Linux server,
> you're getting Oracle because they developed it for Linux.
>
linux because they existed previously for every variety of unix as well.
But when it is a question of a major port, say taking our Windows
products and moving them to linux, the decision has been negative. We
shopped the idea of a linux version around our direct and distributor
sales teams and got a big ho-hum. They have a very long list of what
they would like to have instead.
>> Insofar as the vendors of servers are concerned, the dollar volume of
>> the market is the important issue. If the market is eroding because
>> of
>> linux servers being home-brewed out of junk parts or because the need
>> for centralized information is waning, is not so important as the
>> rate
>> at which it is happening.
>
> Of course, the market is *not* eroding, the server vendors don't have
> to pay a third party (MS) monopoly prices for licenses for the OS, and
> thus don't have to pass those costs onto the consumer. So the dollar
> value drops but the vendors keep more of the money.
>
It seems to me that Dell, HP, and IBM are all paying Red Hat or Novell
for their software on a par with Microsoft. They are not shipping
servers with the off-the-wall freebie linux, rather it is with the
enterprise editions at the enterprise edition prices. Depending on
configuration, that is a little less expensive in most cases, but not
dramatically so.
>> Well it is laudable that you are working to improve your
>> understanding,
>> ray, but you need to try a little harder. Linux and Windows are not
>> "shopping goods" in their own right
>
> ...despite you specifically saying "software... is what is termed a
> 'shopping good'". Glad you contradicted^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlarified
> that.
>
>> but it is the package, consisting of the hardware and the software
>> that people will compare. There is a strong expectation among
>> consumers
>
> But I thought we were talking about servers? And as I said, the more
> popular an OS is (whether or not it is installed at the factory or
> aftermarket, even 'free') the more attractive it becomes as a
> platform for development. You are trying to ignore this point and
> prattle on about irrelevancies.
>
Well, ray, YOU introduced the side issue with your statement: "But you
*also* say that Linux has no chance to succeed on the desktop because
it's an 'unsought good' (see the same page) and there's insufficient
marketing."
I was just commenting on that side issue.
>> There is, of course, the Macintosh, and, rarely in the consumer
>> space,
>> the "Lintel" machine.
>
> The issue here is servers, billwg, try to stick to the context.
>
I was just being polite and following your shift, ray. You seem
ungrateful.
>> As to whether or not word of mouth is sufficient to gain a share of
>> this
>> market, you can argue all day long. I don't give it much of a
>> chance,
>> myself.
>
> Linux is doing great in the server market, and people are happy to pay
> for it. As noted, revenues increased at a greater rate than unit sales
> last quarter.
>
> But, if you want to shift to the consumer market, as I've noted
> before,
> word of mouth has worked out just fine for Firefox (more than 10% of
> browser share, up from essentially zero two years ago).
>
How much revenue has Firefox obtained from Microsoft due to this effort,
ray? Answer, none. It is generally a waste of the developer's time,
IMO, and they could be doing something useful rather than re-inventing
the wheel. But that is easier to do than inventing something new, so
maybe it serves to reduce their stress levels.
>>> Funny, Linux seem to switch categories regularly, in whatever way
>>> happens to be convenient for your claims at the moment... and
>>> regardless of what you've said in the (immediate) past. How odd.
>>>
>> Not all all, ray. It is you lack of feel for the context that makes
>> you
>> think that way.
>
> Like you switching from the server market to the desktop market within
> two paragraphs?
>
Well, we have seen how that is not true.
>>> Then why is Microsoft cracking down on piracy?
>>>
>> Are they? It seems almost childishly simple and easy for the warez
>> people to defeat these measures.
>
> http://news.com.com/Vista+wont+show+fancy+side+to+pirates/
> 2100-1016_3-6060700.html
> http://bink.nu/Article7213.bink
> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6064555.html
> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/87898/microsoft-expects-
> vistainspired-surge-in-piracy.html
>
> "The effect, says Alexander, is a drop in the UK piracy rate. When the
> campaign launched in July, the UK had a piracy rate of 16.7 per cent.
> It's now running at 15.45 per cent."
>
So you are of the opinion that the MS anti-piracy efforts are effective?
A lot of gum flapping, IMO. They will go after a pirate who is selling
their products, to be sure, and where the pockets are deep enough, it is
often a winner. But they have yet to go after the individual poacher as
far as I can see, ray.
>> You are confusing yourself with your own arithmetic, ray! The
>> reproduction cost for the $50 game is the same as the reproduction
>> cost
>> of the $40 game. If there is more revenue at $40 due to your
>> postulated
>> price-volume sensitivity, the price would not have been set at $50.
>
> You ignore the hit-or-miss nature of the game industry. Many (most?)
> games, like most movies, are not big hits and the winners subsidize
> the
> losers to an extent. If your overall development costs are lower, it
> affects your overall pricing model.
>
Do you think that losers are the result of low-budget development?
Somebody comes out with a lousy game on purpose to sell it at a lower
price point?
>> There is nothing to differentiate linux marketing from Windows
>> marketing
>> in terms of price, ray. If it can sell otimally for $100, you would
>> have to be an idiot to pick any other price point.
>
> ...ignoring all the other effects on pricing. Can you tell me again
> why
> Windows unit shipments are up 12.9 percent but revenues are only up
> 5.9
> percent? Why are they lowering their prices?
>
Presumably to match an ever-shifting price-volume curve perception, ray.
With such a huge market size to cover, there is not enough new business
to leverage the existing business.
>>> Yeah, I'm sure. I've seen it in action myself. But never fear, it's
>>> becoming harder and harder for you to maintain your positions in the
>>> server space (even according to you, Linux revenue is 1/3 that of
>>> Windows this last quarter - I know, 'nobody uses Linux').
>>>
>> Linux-powered server revenue, Ray, not revenue to linux vendors.
>> Compare RHAT and NOVL sales to Windows server edition sales.
>
> Wow, you managed to remember the server context! Of course, expenses
> with Linux are lower so the revenue need not be so high to generate a
> particular level of profit. I'm curious to see Novell's numbers,
> coming
> soon apparently.
>
They get some R&D labor for free apparently, but they are on the wrong
side of the power curve when it comes to marketing, so that is going to
be detrimental. Their profitability is about half that of MSFT.
>>> Hey, nobody actually buys those things. (I use your definiton of
>>> 'nobody', BTW. :-> )
>>>
>> But they are high end systems and Microsoft is in the market.
>
> But nobody buys them.
>
You don't know that, ray. If HP and others tout Windows in their
benchmarks, they presumably are targeting some segment of the market.
The size of the segment is not well publicized.
Linonut
> Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>> "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> writes:
>>> Ray Ingles wrote:
>>>
>>>> What, we were discussing high-end servers, and Windows can't even
>>>> crack the top 300?
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>>
>>> These HPC sites could have installed Windows on any of the EMT64,
>>> IA32, IA64, or AMD64 systems in the list. Doing so could have
>>> placed a Windows supercomputer at #4 (and as high as #2 on the Nov
>>> 2004 list).
>>>
>>> http://www.top500.org/system/7288
>>>
>>> They opted not to - most likely for cost and open source code
>>> reasons.
>>
>> Wow. Great point. Instead of "can't", Ray should say "hasn't".
>
> I agree.
>
>> Boy, that changes everything, don't it?
>
> Yes it do.
In this whole conversation, I'm somewhat doubtful that being near the
top of the TCP list is a recognized qualifier for having a
"supercomputer". For any OS.
--
/\ STOP! This post has not passed Microsoft Logo testing to verify its
/ \ compatibility with Microsoft FUD. Microsoft strongly recommends
/ !! \ you stop reading this post, and consult a poster with FUD
/______\ certification. [ Continue Anyway ] [ STOP Reading ]
billwg
"Linonut" <lin...@bone.com> wrote in message
news:UpidnVPg-4FfTuPZ...@comcast.com...
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>
> top of the TCP list is a recognized qualifier for having a
> "supercomputer". For any OS.
>
issue was whether Windows has any presence in the "high end of the
market". Supercomputers are curiosities more than marketed products and
are not in the market at all. A $6M Windows machine is definitely
"high-end", though.
Ray Ingles
>> What, we were discussing high-end servers, and Windows can't even crack
>> the top 300? And of the top 10, 7 are running Linux? Why do you assume
>> it's any less relevant than the other metrics you claim to use? What
>> metric would *you* suggest?
>>
> Well, which one of those is yours, ray? Presumably none of them, so
> what they do doesn't affect you.
Well, you say Linux doesn't affect you, and here you are anyway.
But, of course, *you* are the one who claimed that Microsoft was moving
into the high-end server space. I responded by pointing out that's
patent nonsense, and you reply by saying... er... well... basically,
"nyahh nyahh!". Certainly nothing actually relevant to the topic.
And seriously, I ask again: "What metric would *you* suggest?"
> Windows is tailored for the broad
> middle market and does quite well at the task.
Oh, so now you tacitly, effectively admit that *maybe* you were just
whistling Dixie about Windows on high-end servers?
> Maybe trying to make a supercomputer server OS work on the desktop
> is the reason for the linux continued failure in that space.
Funny, Linux is *also* creaming Microsoft's offerings (as well as
everyone else's) in the low-end, embedded space too. It would appear
that scaling down isn't a problem, either.
It's worth noting that only in the last couple years have people
started really pusing Linux in the desktop space. It took Microsoft
what, about 9 years to get anything like a serious OS on the desktop
(from Windows 3.1 to Windows XP). I'd say Linux is doing pretty well so
far. Certainly is seems to be following a similar track to the server
adoption rate.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Lately I've been getting the impression that overzealous censorship
[...] is an adult manifestation of fear of cooties." - anonymous
Jesse F. Hughes
No, it is clear that *you* haven't paid attention.
DFS used the term "supercomputer". Linonut was responding to DFS and
mocking his use of the term.
>>>> These HPC sites could have installed Windows on any of the EMT64,
>>>> IA32, IA64, or AMD64 systems in the list. Doing so could have
>>>> placed a Windows supercomputer at #4 (and as high as #2 on the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ See?
>>>> Nov 2004 list).
Do try to keep up. I know that you're usually the one being mocked,
because you say so many eminently mockable things. But on this
occasion, attention was focused on someone else's silly statements. I
can see where that would confuse you.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Have we learned nothing, nothing, from the downfall of Vanilla Ice?"
-- Time Magazine columnist Lev Grossman on
James Frey's /A Million Pieces/.
DFS
What's silly about it?
Ray Ingles
>> Just because they come as a package doesn't mean that application
>> developers don't target them. When you buy an Oracle-on-Linux server,
>> you're getting Oracle because they developed it for Linux.
>>
> Well we do the very same thing, ray, and you get many of our products on
> linux because they existed previously for every variety of unix as well.
So, the presence of Linux encouraged your company to put development
time into porting your Unix programs over. Thus helping to make Linux a
more attractive platform. Thanks for helping to prove my point!
> But when it is a question of a major port, say taking our Windows
> products and moving them to linux, the decision has been negative.
Yes, that is a major development effort. It does happen - more and more
often these days as Linux increases its presence - but perhaps it
doesn't make sense for your company at this time. (Though based on your
past history, you may not be surprised to hear I doubt your objectivity
there.) Beware - times can change.
>> Of course, the market is *not* eroding, the server vendors don't have
>> to pay a third party (MS) monopoly prices for licenses for the OS, and
>> thus don't have to pass those costs onto the consumer. So the dollar
>> value drops but the vendors keep more of the money.
>>
> It seems to me that Dell, HP, and IBM are all paying Red Hat or Novell
> for their software on a par with Microsoft.
Oh, the cost savings are there, and apparently significant given the
fast rate of Linux adoption in the server space.
> Well, ray, YOU introduced the side issue with your statement: "But you
> *also* say that Linux has no chance to succeed on the desktop because
> it's an 'unsought good' (see the same page) and there's insufficient
> marketing."
>
> I was just commenting on that side issue.
So, basically, Linux is a shopping good, except when you say it isn't?
>> But, if you want to shift to the consumer market, as I've noted before,
>> word of mouth has worked out just fine for Firefox (more than 10% of
>> browser share, up from essentially zero two years ago).
>>
> How much revenue has Firefox obtained from Microsoft due to this effort,
> ray? Answer, none.
The Mozilla Foundation made ~$50 million last year. Much of that's
from their Google-Firefox deal. That's not revenue lost to Microsoft,
I'll grant. But it's more than Windows has made, or will make, off
IE.
> they could be doing something useful rather than re-inventing the wheel.
Again with the "re-inventing the wheel" thing. I have asked you several
times before:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/4070f5e6b2796799
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/2510c97243134da9
"...find a feature the Microsoft claims will be available in IE7 that
is not currently available for [Firefox]."
Come on, if it really is Microsoft that's inventing stuff, and Firefox
that's doing the copying, this should be easy, right? How come you
never, ever, answer this question?
>> Like you switching from the server market to the desktop market within
>> two paragraphs?
>>
> Well, we have seen how that is not true.
Um, yeah... right. I think the use of the plural 'we' there is a trifle
premature.
> So you are of the opinion that the MS anti-piracy efforts are effective?
> A lot of gum flapping, IMO. They will go after a pirate who is selling
> their products, to be sure, and where the pockets are deep enough, it is
> often a winner. But they have yet to go after the individual poacher as
> far as I can see, ray.
> Do you think that losers are the result of low-budget development?
> Somebody comes out with a lousy game on purpose to sell it at a lower
> price point?
That, of course, it precisely the point you are evading. Improving
means of production leads to lower costs which leads to lower prices.
Televisions are certainly 'shopping goods' by any definition -
particularly the features like HD - and the prices for those have been
falling continuously as production methods have improved, reducing
costs.
Open source produces robust, flexible, feature-rich software less
expensively than proprietary models in a wide variety of situations. Of
course it will affect software prices.
>> ...ignoring all the other effects on pricing. Can you tell me again
>> why Windows unit shipments are up 12.9 percent but revenues are only up
>> 5.9 percent? Why are they lowering their prices?
>>
> Presumably to match an ever-shifting price-volume curve perception, ray.
> With such a huge market size to cover, there is not enough new business
> to leverage the existing business.
Oh, and the presence of Linux isn't affecting that market size?
>>>> Yeah, I'm sure. I've seen it in action myself. But never fear, it's
>> Wow, you managed to remember the server context! Of course, expenses
>> with Linux are lower so the revenue need not be so high to generate a
>> particular level of profit. I'm curious to see Novell's numbers,
>> coming soon apparently.
>>
> They get some R&D labor for free apparently, but they are on the wrong
> side of the power curve when it comes to marketing, so that is going to
> be detrimental. Their profitability is about half that of MSFT.
Considering MS is exceptionally profitable (monopoly pricing and all)
I'd say that's pretty good. There are many companies who'd be happy for
that. I'm sure Novell wants to do better, of course, and they seem to be
following the right path.
>> But nobody buys them.
>>
> You don't know that, ray. If HP and others tout Windows in their
> benchmarks, they presumably are targeting some segment of the market.
> The size of the segment is not well publicized.
I'm just using *precisely* the same 'logic' you use when you say
"nobody uses Linux". Please explicate any difference you see...
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe
what you just said. -- William F. Buckley, Jr.
Linonut
> "billwg" <bi...@twcf.rr.com> writes:
>
>> "Linonut" <lin...@bone.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> In this whole conversation, I'm somewhat doubtful that being near the
>>> top of the TCP list is a recognized qualifier for having a
>>> "supercomputer". For any OS.
>>>
>> You only say that because you haven't paid any attention, nut. The
>> issue was whether Windows has any presence in the "high end of the
>> market". Supercomputers are curiosities more than marketed products and
>> are not in the market at all. A $6M Windows machine is definitely
>> "high-end", though.
>
> No, it is clear that *you* haven't paid attention.
>
> DFS used the term "supercomputer". Linonut was responding to DFS and
> mocking his use of the term.
And now I will mock bilge for stating that "Supercomputers are
curiosities more than marketed products..."
What a bonehead! Either that, or he's simply an ignorant snickering
teenager.
(No new information on that, of course. He's simply bilge.)
Jesse F. Hughes
> Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>> "billwg" <bi...@twcf.rr.com> writes:
>>
>>> "Linonut" <lin...@bone.com> wrote in message
>>> news:UpidnVPg-4FfTuPZ...@comcast.com...
>>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In this whole conversation, I'm somewhat doubtful that being near
>>>> the top of the TCP list is a recognized qualifier for having a
>>>> "supercomputer". For any OS.
>>>>
[...]
>> DFS used the term "supercomputer". Linonut was responding to DFS and
>> mocking his use of the term.
>>
>>>>>> These HPC sites could have installed Windows on any of the EMT64,
>>>>>> IA32, IA64, or AMD64 systems in the list. Doing so could have
>>>>>> placed a Windows supercomputer at #4 (and as high as #2 on the
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ See?
>>>>>> Nov 2004 list).
>>
>> Do try to keep up. I know that you're usually the one being mocked,
>> because you say so many eminently mockable things. But on this
>> occasion, attention was focused on someone else's silly statements. I
>> can see where that would confuse you.
>
> What's silly about it?
Okay, allegedly silly.
I was loosely paraphrasing Linonut. I have no knowledge about what
counts as a supercomputer and what doesn't.
--
"Maya Nahib is not a Checotah Indian! [...] Maya Nahib is an Englishman!"
"Are you telling us that a civilized white man could kill and ravish
and destroy with all the brutality of a savage?"
-- Adventures by Morse radio program (1944)
billwg
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Jesse F. Hughes belched out this bit o'
> wisdom:
>
>> "billwg" <bi...@twcf.rr.com> writes:
>>
>>> "Linonut" <lin...@bone.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> In this whole conversation, I'm somewhat doubtful that being near
>>>> the
>>>> top of the TCP list is a recognized qualifier for having a
>>>> "supercomputer". For any OS.
>>>>
>>> You only say that because you haven't paid any attention, nut. The
>>> issue was whether Windows has any presence in the "high end of the
>>> market". Supercomputers are curiosities more than marketed products
>>> and
>>> are not in the market at all. A $6M Windows machine is definitely
>>> "high-end", though.
>>
>> No, it is clear that *you* haven't paid attention.
>>
>> DFS used the term "supercomputer". Linonut was responding to DFS and
>> mocking his use of the term.
>
> And now I will mock bilge for stating that "Supercomputers are
> curiosities more than marketed products..."
>
statement. The market for the "conventional" PC hardware and software
is measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars. The "market" for
the supercomputers is an infinitesimal amount of that. You have no
supercomputer yourself and I doubt that you have ever visited a site
containing one. Nor do you have any use for such a thing. They are
just curiosities manufactured to play chess or design atomic weapons.
DFS
> "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> writes:
>> What's silly about it?
>
> Okay, allegedly silly.
>
> I was loosely paraphrasing Linonut. I have no knowledge about what
> counts as a supercomputer and what doesn't.
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercomputer says "A supercomputer
is a computer that leads the world in terms of processing capacity,
particularly speed of calculation, at the time of its introduction."
http://www.top500.org/ doesn't adhere to that definition, as some of the
slower computers on the list were introduced after some of the faster ones.
What's incredible is in the 30 years since the Cray-1 was introduced, the
power of supercomputers has increased a millionfold - but OpenOffice still
requires 10 seconds to launch on Blue Gene/L. Scary.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-05-31, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>> What, we were discussing high-end servers, and Windows can't even
>>> crack
>>> the top 300? And of the top 10, 7 are running Linux? Why do you
>>> assume
>>> it's any less relevant than the other metrics you claim to use? What
>>> metric would *you* suggest?
>>>
>> Well, which one of those is yours, ray? Presumably none of them, so
>> what they do doesn't affect you.
>
> Well, you say Linux doesn't affect you, and here you are anyway.
>
> But, of course, *you* are the one who claimed that Microsoft was
> moving
> into the high-end server space. I responded by pointing out that's
> patent nonsense, and you reply by saying... er... well... basically,
> "nyahh nyahh!". Certainly nothing actually relevant to the topic.
>
into the high end of the server market and you pooh-poohed the notion,
whereupon I cited a major manufacturer's good faith offer of a Windows
machine costing in excess of $6M and you try to change the topic with
some nonsense about "super computers". They are not the high end of the
market at all. They are not in the market in any useful way. They are
custom products produced on a one-off basis for some specific purpose,
typically some thing to do with designing atomic weapons. I'm sure you
will come up with some other uses, but it is just a side issue.
> And seriously, I ask again: "What metric would *you* suggest?"
>
>> Windows is tailored for the broad
>> middle market and does quite well at the task.
>
> Oh, so now you tacitly, effectively admit that *maybe* you were just
> whistling Dixie about Windows on high-end servers?
>
Where do you get that idea? You misstate things and then claim to show
they are faulty. Ineffective and transparent.
>> Maybe trying to make a supercomputer server OS work on the desktop
>> is the reason for the linux continued failure in that space.
>
> Funny, Linux is *also* creaming Microsoft's offerings (as well as
> everyone else's) in the low-end, embedded space too. It would appear
> that scaling down isn't a problem, either.
>
What is "linux" in that environment, ray? Just a task
dispatcher/scheduler and a few drivers. BFD.
> It's worth noting that only in the last couple years have people
> started really pusing Linux in the desktop space. It took Microsoft
> what, about 9 years to get anything like a serious OS on the desktop
> (from Windows 3.1 to Windows XP). I'd say Linux is doing pretty well
> so
> far. Certainly is seems to be following a similar track to the server
> adoption rate.
>
Well linux started at the same time as Windows and is in last place,
ray. Hardly a noteworthy effort although it is par for the course with
much of the OSS tripe. Can you go into a retail store and buy a linux
machine? No. You can order one, of course, if you look hard enough,
but that is no big deal.
Linonut
> Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercomputer says "A supercomputer
> is a computer that leads the world in terms of processing capacity,
> particularly speed of calculation, at the time of its introduction."
>
> http://www.top500.org/ doesn't adhere to that definition, as some of the
> slower computers on the list were introduced after some of the faster ones.
>
> What's incredible is in the 30 years since the Cray-1 was introduced, the
> power of supercomputers has increased a millionfold - but OpenOffice still
> requires 10 seconds to launch on Blue Gene/L. Scary.
I seriously doubt that is the case.
I read somewhere about a computer that could compile the whole Linux
kernel in about 7 seconds. Can't find the link, though.
142 seconds:
http://www.intel.com/cd/ids/developer/asmo-na/eng/182333.htm?prn=Y
202 seconds:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2002/01/07/pentium_4/page17.html
55 to 65 seconds (vmlinux):
http://kerneltrap.org/node/1783
I assume these are all only the kernel (not "make modules")
amosf © Tim Fairchild
And my super(desktop)computer opens it in 6 seconds, and yet it doesn't make
the top 500. Must be a conspiracy, huh?
Jim
AMD64 32...@2.53GHz on Gigabyte K8T800 Pro S754, 1GB DDR400, 40+4
PATA133, 80 SATA150, 256MB FX6200V+ span-panel 32" TFT, dualboot
XPSP2/Debian 3.1RC3 (on the 40, 20 each):
XP: 11 seconds
Deb: 6 seconds
Same hardware, fully updated software. Says it all.
--
When all else fails...
Use a hammer.
Some people are like Slinkies
They serve no particular purpose
But they bring a smile to your face
When you push them down the stairs.
DFS
Dim! Whaddaya know?
It must be a conspiracy (not slow-ass code) - I wonder how much MS paid
Linux Format magazine to print that obscene slur against OSS.
Hey, you're an Aussie; have you seen this new Western movie called "The
Proposition"? It was written by some musician named Nick Cave. All the
critics have been raving about it, and it just opened at an art-house
theater across town - I may have to check it out.
DFS
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> What's incredible is in the 30 years since the Cray-1 was
>> introduced, the power of supercomputers has increased a millionfold
>> - but OpenOffice still requires 10 seconds to launch on Blue Gene/L.
>> Scary.
>
> I seriously doubt that is the case.
Linux Format magazine said it, so you know it has to be true.
Ray Ingles
>> patent nonsense, and you reply by saying... er... well... basically,
>> "nyahh nyahh!". Certainly nothing actually relevant to the topic.
>>
> Not a very accurate recap, ray! I said that Windows was making inroads
> into the high end of the server market and you pooh-poohed the notion,
> whereupon I cited a major manufacturer's good faith offer of a Windows
> machine costing in excess of $6M
You can't actually show anyone buying those, though, can you?
> and you try to change the topic with
> some nonsense about "super computers". They are not the high end of the
> market at all. They are not in the market in any useful way.
Funny, people are making money off 'em. Google for "supercomputer" and
particularly "bioinformatics", and check out the Google ads.
> They are
> custom products produced on a one-off basis for some specific purpose,
> typically some thing to do with designing atomic weapons. I'm sure you
> will come up with some other uses, but it is just a side issue.
Analyzing geophysical data to find resource deposits (usually oil),
modelling weather, molecular modeling (engineering and medicine),
physical modelling (engineering), etc. There's a growing business there
as many companies are finding Linux makes such computing affordable.
>> And seriously, I ask again: "What metric would *you* suggest?"
...and evidently, you'll never answer the question. But I'll pose it
again, just for grins.
>>> Windows is tailored for the broad
>>> middle market and does quite well at the task.
>>
>> Oh, so now you tacitly, effectively admit that *maybe* you were just
>> whistling Dixie about Windows on high-end servers?
>>
> Where do you get that idea? You misstate things and then claim to show
> they are faulty. Ineffective and transparent.
What's funny about this attempt to evade the point is you left the
context, your own statement, right below:
>>> Maybe trying to make a supercomputer server OS work on the desktop
>>> is the reason for the linux continued failure in that space.
I mean, I point out that Linux and Unix are dominating the high end of
computing, despite MS's attempts to get into the market, and you
effectively say, "Well, maybe Linux is doing well there, but, um,
Windows does better at the low end..."
It's particularly funny since we just noted that Linux is growing at a
faster rate (in both units and revenue) in the low end, too...
>> Funny, Linux is *also* creaming Microsoft's offerings (as well as
>> everyone else's) in the low-end, embedded space too. It would appear
>> that scaling down isn't a problem, either.
>>
> What is "linux" in that environment, ray? Just a task
> dispatcher/scheduler and a few drivers. BFD.
You've just described any OS, in any situation. If it's so simple, why
can't MS crack that market?
>> It's worth noting that only in the last couple years have people
>> started really pusing Linux in the desktop space. It took Microsoft
>> what, about 9 years to get anything like a serious OS on the desktop
>> (from Windows 3.1 to Windows XP).
> Well linux started at the same time as Windows and is in last place,
> ray.
Um, second place and growing, or first and growing, depending on the
area you're talking about. Linux has been on an exponential uptake curve
in servers for many years, and it seems that is starting in desktops.
It's a characteristic of exponential growth that people tend to
overestimate it in the short term and underestimate it in the long term.
Remember IDC and Gartner predicting that Linux would never achieve a
significant presence in servers? It's now pulling in 1/3 of Windows'
server revenue.
> Can you go into a retail store and buy a linux machine? No.
Sure I can. Microcenter, a chain here, is selling them.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"...how much money for Afghan reconstruction did the administration
put in its 2004 budget? None. The Bush team forgot about it.
Embarrassed Congressional staff members had to write in $300 million
to cover the lapse."
- http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/21/opinion/21KRUG.html
Ray Ingles
>> Windows revenue grew by 5.9% while Linux' grew
>> by 17% this last quarter, putting Linux's revenue growth almost three
>> times that of Windows.
>>
> Growth RATE, ray, growth itself for linux was less than for and the gap
> widens.
Oh, I'd meant to comment on this one. Tell ya what, let's do some math.
I'll start out at 1.45B, and you can start out at 4.4B. But I'll grow by
17% per quarter, and you grow by 5.9%. How long until I have more than
you?
At the end of 12 quarters (three years), I've got 9.54B, and you've got
8.75B.
Now, growth rates in the real world aren't constant, but Linux's growth
rate has dramatically exceeded that of Windows in the server area for
years now. I see no reason to assume that will suddenly change.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers.
You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions."
- Naguib Mahfouz
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
>> Can you go into a retail store and buy a linux machine? No.
>
> Sure I can. Microcenter, a chain here, is selling them.
locations and buy a Linux desktop.
Thad
Linonut
My guess is that, paradoxically, you are "sarcasm challenged" <grin>.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:25:08 -0400, Ray Ingles wrote:
> Oh, I'd meant to comment on this one. Tell ya what, let's do some math.
> I'll start out at 1.45B, and you can start out at 4.4B. But I'll grow by
> 17% per quarter, and you grow by 5.9%. How long until I have more than
> you?
>
> At the end of 12 quarters (three years), I've got 9.54B, and you've got
> 8.75B.
And let's not forget that if I install 500 Debian boxes, the growth in
_seats_ increases, but the growth in _dollars_ doesn't. Like DFS, bill's
apparently too stupid to grasp that comparing revenues when one of
the options can be had for free is kinda silly.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
<tiresome circular thread snipped>
>>>
>> What is "linux" in that environment, ray? Just a task
>> dispatcher/scheduler and a few drivers. BFD.
>
> You've just described any OS, in any situation. If it's so simple, why
> can't MS crack that market?
>
Is there a market there, ray? MS seems to sell a lot of the palm top
Windows into the PDA market. Is there a linux PDA?
I don't know that there is much of a market for OS for toasters and
such. People used to make their own. It is not so very hard to do and
so it wouldn't be economic to buy something outside if there were any
volume attached to the product. How big do you think this market is,
anyway? Windows on the desktop is about a billion bucks a month.
>>> It's worth noting that only in the last couple years have people
>>> started really pusing Linux in the desktop space. It took Microsoft
>>> what, about 9 years to get anything like a serious OS on the desktop
>>> (from Windows 3.1 to Windows XP).
>
>> Well linux started at the same time as Windows and is in last place,
>> ray.
>
> Um, second place and growing, or first and growing, depending on the
> area you're talking about. Linux has been on an exponential uptake
> curve
> in servers for many years, and it seems that is starting in desktops.
> It's a characteristic of exponential growth that people tend to
> overestimate it in the short term and underestimate it in the long
> term.
>
Do you really think it is ahead of Apple?
> Remember IDC and Gartner predicting that Linux would never achieve a
> significant presence in servers? It's now pulling in 1/3 of Windows'
> server revenue.
>
No I don't remember anything like that, ray. Do you have a cite? I
think you are fantasizing again.
>> Can you go into a retail store and buy a linux machine? No.
>
> Sure I can. Microcenter, a chain here, is selling them.
>
One store in Michigan it says on their website and two cheesy Linspire
machines available out of the several dozens listed. Not much of a
buying opportunity, ray.
billwg
<tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote in message
news:e5pg5j$ahh$1...@tux.glaci.com...
like they offer any.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-05-26, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Windows revenue grew by 5.9% while Linux' grew
>>> by 17% this last quarter, putting Linux's revenue growth almost
>>> three
>>> times that of Windows.
>>>
>> Growth RATE, ray, growth itself for linux was less than for and the
>> gap
>> widens.
>
> Oh, I'd meant to comment on this one. Tell ya what, let's do some
> math.
> I'll start out at 1.45B, and you can start out at 4.4B. But I'll grow
> by
> 17% per quarter, and you grow by 5.9%. How long until I have more than
> you?
>
rate, ray! A couple of years ago you could have used 50% to come up
with a wrong answer, too! LOL!!!
> At the end of 12 quarters (three years), I've got 9.54B, and you've
> got
> 8.75B.
>
> Now, growth rates in the real world aren't constant, but Linux's
> growth
> rate has dramatically exceeded that of Windows in the server area for
> years now. I see no reason to assume that will suddenly change.
>
Well I can see a reason right off, ray. The market cannot sustain that
rate, since in less than 4 years it would be more than the total market,
which is shrinking due to the price deteriorization brought about by the
shift to Intel processors from proprietary RISC.
And the linux rate has been declining for those same years, starting at
a high rate and sinking to 17% today. Tomorrow, even less. What is
much more telling is the business capture in absolute dollar terms and
unix/linux is shrinking while MS is still growing.
Ray Ingles
>>> Once, ray, once.
>>
>> Fri, Aug 12 2005 7:54 pm
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/a4f81360e7a217ce
>>
>> Thurs, Nov 3 2005 6:55 pm
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ee69933924659783
>>
> They are both in regard to the same July, 2005 report, ray. Didn't you
> read them? Do you agree with lucky, BTQ?
A mispaste, actually. Here's the other one from April 2006:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/382a40d52e377c2f
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day,
no matter how rich you are." - Colonel Adolphus Busch
Ray Ingles
>
> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:slrne80e1b....@localhost.localdomain...
>> can't MS crack that market?
>>
> Is there a market there, ray? MS seems to sell a lot of the palm top
> Windows into the PDA market. Is there a linux PDA?
There have been several, with more to come:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/02/14/75368_HNaccesspalm_1.html
> I don't know that there is much of a market for OS for toasters and
> such.
Oddly enough, the embedded market covers a wider area than toasters and
PDAs.
> How big do you think this market is,
> anyway? Windows on the desktop is about a billion bucks a month.
All depends on how you count, but estimates are in the several billion
dollars a year. Apparently you think Microsoft shouldn't bother pursuing
the odd billion? Why are they in the game console business, when that's
*cost* them billions a year?
> Do you really think it is ahead of Apple?
Yup. The numbers I've seen bear that out. I've never seen any numbers
from you to dispute it.
>> Remember IDC and Gartner predicting that Linux would never achieve a
>> significant presence in servers? It's now pulling in 1/3 of Windows'
>> server revenue.
>>
> No I don't remember anything like that, ray. Do you have a cite? I
> think you are fantasizing again.
http://lwn.net/1999/features/1998timeline/
"...these operating systems will not find widespread use in mainstream
commercial applications in the next three years, nor will there be broad
third-party application support."
Next month, Ingress, Oracle, IBM...
>>> Can you go into a retail store and buy a linux machine? No.
>>
>> Sure I can. Microcenter, a chain here, is selling them.
>>
> One store in Michigan it says on their website and two cheesy Linspire
> machines available out of the several dozens listed. Not much of a
> buying opportunity, ray.
Infinitely more than you claimed, though...
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Microsoft Windows - Ignorance is our most important resource.
Ray Ingles
>> math. I'll start out at 1.45B, and you can start out at 4.4B. But
>> I'll grow by 17% per quarter, and you grow by 5.9%. How long until
>> I have more than you?
>>
> Surely you are not so naive as to think that linux can maintain that
> rate, ray!
Um, no. Seeing as I specifically said that and all.
> A couple of years ago you could have used 50% to come up
> with a wrong answer, too! LOL!!!
And yet the groups that people pay for predictions are suggesting ~9B
for the Linux server market in 2008... sooner even than I suggest here.
>> Linux's growth
>> rate has dramatically exceeded that of Windows in the server area for
>> years now. I see no reason to assume that will suddenly change.
>
> Well I can see a reason right off, ray. The market cannot sustain that
> rate, since in less than 4 years it would be more than the total market,
I didn't say that Linux would maintain that specific rate. I said that,
wait, let's repeat, with some emphasis thrown in: "Linux's growth rate has
*dramatically exceeded* that of Windows... for years." *That's* the
situation I don't see changing.
The actual rates will fluctuate, but can you provide any reason why the
situation would change from "Rate_Linux > Rate_Windows"?
> And the linux rate has been declining for those same years, starting at
> a high rate and sinking to 17% today. Tomorrow, even less.
Um, Windows' rates are sinking, too. Revenue's actually growing less
than the overall market now, which cannot be said for Linux.
> What is
> much more telling is the business capture in absolute dollar terms and
> unix/linux is shrinking while MS is still growing.
How come nobody who actually reports these figures lumps Linux in with
Unix like you do? Seriously, *nobody* reports on a combined Unix+Linux
figure - they all consider them as separate from each other. If you're
right that they are so interrelated, how come the people that get paid
to do these analyses don't agree with you?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"The only thing that was a miracle in that situation was the lightning
that hit the plane. That was the act of God. If anything God was trying to
kill these people. His plan was foiled by the crew's satanic competence."
- Jon Stewart on Flight 358 in Toronto
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> Have you ever tried to do that? From their website, it doesn't look
> like they offer any.
They sell Linspire systems. Not my first choice but at least it is
Linux under the hood. They do not yet make it easy to build a custom
Linux PC via their web site, but both full and OEM copies of Linspire
come up in their parts database and I know you can walk in and ask
for it on a system. Milwaukee PC has built themselves on a custom
build / customer server model. You go in and tell them what you
want and they will put it together, run a burn-in test, and have it
ready the next day.
Cheers,
Thad
JEDIDIAH
That's a rather dubious position to be taking simply due to
basic arithmetic. Now while it is certainly true that the bigger boxes
exit in smaller numbers they are themselves capable of being made up
of hundreds or thousands of individual components as expensive or
powerful as thos consumer machine you're fixated on.
> supercomputer yourself and I doubt that you have ever visited a site
> containing one. Nor do you have any use for such a thing. They are
> just curiosities manufactured to play chess or design atomic weapons.
You make it sound like mathematics has no real world applications.
--
...as if the ability to run Cubase ever made or broke a platform.
|||
/ | \
billwg
"JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:75l6l3-...@nomad.mishnet...
and your "basic arithmetic" skills have suffered from lack of use! Yes
the supercomputers have thousands of processors, but the market for
computers has billions of processors and a thousand supercomputers (not
500) with thousands of processors are only millions of processors as
opposed to billions of general purpose processors. The supercomputer
market is thus a 0.1% proposition and that is being kind.
>> supercomputer yourself and I doubt that you have ever visited a site
>> containing one. Nor do you have any use for such a thing. They are
>> just curiosities manufactured to play chess or design atomic weapons.
>
> You make it sound like mathematics has no real world applications.
>
Well, the nut knows nothing of mathematics, jedidiah, and it takes a lot
of calcs to build an H-bomb apparently, and they can, as ray likes to
say, can figure out where the oil might be or where the wind may blow,
but it seems to hardly matter if we have the right answers or not. Look
at the hurricane that hit New Orleans. If they had known a day ahead of
time, there would still have been people sitting on their roofs two days
later.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-06-02, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Oh, I'd meant to comment on this one. Tell ya what, let's do some
>>> math. I'll start out at 1.45B, and you can start out at 4.4B. But
>>> I'll grow by 17% per quarter, and you grow by 5.9%. How long until
>>> I have more than you?
>>>
>> Surely you are not so naive as to think that linux can maintain that
>> rate, ray!
>
> Um, no. Seeing as I specifically said that and all.
>
>> A couple of years ago you could have used 50% to come up
>> with a wrong answer, too! LOL!!!
>
> And yet the groups that people pay for predictions are suggesting ~9B
> for the Linux server market in 2008... sooner even than I suggest
> here.
>
predicted to be much larger.
>>> Linux's growth
>>> rate has dramatically exceeded that of Windows in the server area
>>> for
>>> years now. I see no reason to assume that will suddenly change.
>>
>> Well I can see a reason right off, ray. The market cannot sustain
>> that
>> rate, since in less than 4 years it would be more than the total
>> market,
>
> I didn't say that Linux would maintain that specific rate. I said
> that,
> wait, let's repeat, with some emphasis thrown in: "Linux's growth rate
> has
> *dramatically exceeded* that of Windows... for years." *That's* the
> situation I don't see changing.
>
But their size has been very small compared to Windows, ray. That's the
part I don't see changing.
> The actual rates will fluctuate, but can you provide any reason why
> the
> situation would change from "Rate_Linux > Rate_Windows"?
>
Yes, linux is actually losing ground to Windows in terms of the actual
gap that exists. Every quarter, the gap is a little wider due to the
huge lead that Windows has over linux, even in servers.
>> And the linux rate has been declining for those same years, starting
>> at
>> a high rate and sinking to 17% today. Tomorrow, even less.
>
> Um, Windows' rates are sinking, too. Revenue's actually growing less
> than the overall market now, which cannot be said for Linux.
>
But the gap is increasing.
>> What is
>> much more telling is the business capture in absolute dollar terms
>> and
>> unix/linux is shrinking while MS is still growing.
>
> How come nobody who actually reports these figures lumps Linux in with
> Unix like you do? Seriously, *nobody* reports on a combined Unix+Linux
> figure - they all consider them as separate from each other. If you're
> right that they are so interrelated, how come the people that get paid
> to do these analyses don't agree with you?
>
Well, quite a few people in the business do think the same way, ray, I
know that our marketing folk do. We target our Unix products at a bunch
of unix versions and also Red Hat EL and Novell. Same code base, same
functionality, same thing. OTOH, our Windows stuff is totally different
in look, feel, and functionality, and is geared to the Windows release
train.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-06-02, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>> news:slrne80e1b....@localhost.localdomain...
>>> You've just described any OS, in any situation. If it's so simple,
>>> why
>>> can't MS crack that market?
>>>
>> Is there a market there, ray? MS seems to sell a lot of the palm top
>> Windows into the PDA market. Is there a linux PDA?
>
> There have been several, with more to come:
>
> http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/02/14/75368_HNaccesspalm_1.html
>
year, ray, but that seems to be a day late and a dollar short, if you've
heard the expression. Nothing right now though.
>> I don't know that there is much of a market for OS for toasters and
>> such.
>
> Oddly enough, the embedded market covers a wider area than toasters
> and
> PDAs.
>
>> How big do you think this market is,
>> anyway? Windows on the desktop is about a billion bucks a month.
>
> All depends on how you count, but estimates are in the several billion
> dollars a year. Apparently you think Microsoft shouldn't bother
> pursuing
> the odd billion? Why are they in the game console business, when
> that's
> *cost* them billions a year?
>
I think you are dreaming, ray.
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS7483572763.html
"Surprise, surprise!" as Gomer Pyle used to say. It would appear that
Mr. Softee does have his oar in the water here and is chewing up the
turf. The big opposition is said to be Wind River (NASDAQ: WIND) and
last annual sales figure was $266M.
>> Do you really think it is ahead of Apple?
>
> Yup. The numbers I've seen bear that out. I've never seen any numbers
> from you to dispute it.
>
>>> Remember IDC and Gartner predicting that Linux would never achieve a
>>> significant presence in servers? It's now pulling in 1/3 of Windows'
>>> server revenue.
>>>
>> No I don't remember anything like that, ray. Do you have a cite? I
>> think you are fantasizing again.
>
> http://lwn.net/1999/features/1998timeline/
>
> "...these operating systems will not find widespread use in mainstream
> commercial applications in the next three years, nor will there be
> broad
> third-party application support."
>
> Next month, Ingress, Oracle, IBM...
>
>>>> Can you go into a retail store and buy a linux machine? No.
>>>
>>> Sure I can. Microcenter, a chain here, is selling them.
>>>
>> One store in Michigan it says on their website and two cheesy
>> Linspire
>> machines available out of the several dozens listed. Not much of a
>> buying opportunity, ray.
>
> Infinitely more than you claimed, though...
>
What do you think that does to the linux cause, BTW? Invariably, linux
powers the cheesy systems and the upscale stuff comes with Windows.
What kind of a message do you think that carries to the customers?
Ray Ingles
>>
> Well I see where they say they hope to sell something by the end of the
> year, ray, but that seems to be a day late and a dollar short, if you've
> heard the expression. Nothing right now though.
Um, yeah, a few. But PDAs are actually quite a small part of the
embedded market, and getting smaller. It's smartphones that are taking
over that space, and gee...
http://www.windowsfordevices.com/news/NS7338132450.html
"Regarding vendor OS shares, most analysts have concurred with ABI's
observation that smartphone OS leader Symbian is facing increased
pressure from Windows Mobile and Linux. A report from The Diffusion
Group (TDG) for example, projected that Windows Mobile would lead the
smartphone market by 2010 with a 29 percent share, followed by 26
percent for Linux, and 22 percent for Symbian.
As far as which challenger -- Windows Mobile or Linux -- will end up on
top, the predictions are mixed, possibly due to what's being counted.
Analysts are divided on whether to include phone-enabled PDAs, such as
those powered by Microsoft's Windows Mobile 'Pocket PC Phone' software.
Gartner does not, and sees Windows trailing Linux. IDG on the other
hand, which does include phone-enabled PDAs, reported Windows ahead of
Linux in its most recent report."
So you pick one section - PDAs - and put all your emphasis on that. The
real situation is quite a bit vaster.
>>> How big do you think this market is,
>>> anyway? Windows on the desktop is about a billion bucks a month.
>>
>> All depends on how you count, but estimates are in the several billion
>> dollars a year. Apparently you think Microsoft shouldn't bother
>> pursuing the odd billion? Why are they in the game console business,
>> when that's *cost* them billions a year?
>>
> I think you are dreaming, ray.
> http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS7483572763.html
2003 called. They want their report back. My link above is, um,
substantially more recent. And gee, even this link from 2004:
http://csdl.computer.org/comp/mags/ds/2004/10/ox003.pdf
...says "Linux appears to be approaching dominance in embedded
systems... At 15.5 percent, commercial embedded Linux owns approximately
50 percent more of the new project market than either Microsoft or Wind
River Systems... And, as telecom and consumer electronics each sell more
units worldwide than the PC market, Linux's success in those areas
points to continued growth. Linux is expected to make up an ever-larger
percentage of the world's embedded systems market, which grew to more
than US$760 million in 2003, according to VDC."
>>> One store in Michigan it says on their website and two cheesy Linspire
>>> machines available out of the several dozens listed. Not much of a
>>> buying opportunity, ray.
>>
>> Infinitely more than you claimed, though...
>>
> What do you think that does to the linux cause, BTW?
Thanks for admitting your mistake, BTW. Oh wait, you never do that, you
just change the subject...
> Invariably, linux
> powers the cheesy systems and the upscale stuff comes with Windows.
For a guy as wrong as you usually are, you speak in absolutes a lot.
"Invariably", when you say things like that you're .
> What kind of a message do you think that carries to the customers?
Wait, I thought you were the one who said the consumers hadn't seen
*any* message about Linux yet? Personally, I think the positive
word-of-mouth is already pretty helpful, and there's ever more of that.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Lately I've been getting the impression that overzealous censorship
[...] is an adult manifestation of fear of cooties." - anonymous
Ray Ingles
>> for the Linux server market in 2008... sooner even than I suggest
>> here.
>>
> IIRC that was quite a while ago and the server market itself was
> predicted to be much larger.
Says the guy who produces links from 2003...
>> I didn't say that Linux would maintain that specific rate. I said that,
>> wait, let's repeat, with some emphasis thrown in: "Linux's growth rate has
>> *dramatically exceeded* that of Windows... for years." *That's* the
>> situation I don't see changing.
>>
> But their size has been very small compared to Windows, ray. That's the
> part I don't see changing.
To paraphrase Charles Babbage, "I am not able rightly to apprehend the
kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a statement." That's
sort of the whole point of measuring growth rates. Here's a simple table
illustrating the example I talked about before (Linux grows 17% per
quarter, Windows at 5.9%):
Q Linux Growth_Lin Windows Growth_Win Growth_Diff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
0: 1.450000 0.200000 4.400000 0.250000 -0.050000
1: 1.696500 0.246500 4.659600 0.259600 -0.013100
2: 1.984905 0.288405 4.934517 0.274917 0.013488
3: 2.322339 0.337434 5.225653 0.291136 0.046298
4: 2.717137 0.394798 5.533967 0.308313 0.086484
5: 3.179050 0.461913 5.860471 0.326504 0.135409
6: 3.719488 0.540438 6.206239 0.345768 0.194670
7: 4.351801 0.632313 6.572407 0.366168 0.266145
8: 5.091607 0.739806 6.960179 0.387772 0.352034
9: 5.957181 0.865573 7.370830 0.410651 0.454923
10: 6.969901 1.012721 7.805708 0.434879 0.577842
11: 8.154784 1.184883 8.266245 0.460536 0.724347
12: 9.541098 1.386313 8.753953 0.487708 0.898605
Early on, Windows (which starts from a higher value) grows more in
absolute terms than Linux. But eventually the higher rate of Linux
growth takes over. This is why you want to focus on absolute growth
instead of growth rates, because it's quite bad for your case. The
actual rates don't matter, long term, so long as the rate for Linux is
higher than the rate for Windows.
>> The actual rates will fluctuate, but can you provide any reason why
>> the situation would change from "Rate_Linux > Rate_Windows"?
>>
> Yes, linux is actually losing ground to Windows in terms of the actual
> gap that exists. Every quarter, the gap is a little wider due to the
> huge lead that Windows has over linux, even in servers.
Yup, ignoring the effect of growth rates, again.
>>> And the linux rate has been declining for those same years, starting
>>> at a high rate and sinking to 17% today. Tomorrow, even less.
>>
>> Um, Windows' rates are sinking, too. Revenue's actually growing less
>> than the overall market now, which cannot be said for Linux.
>>
> But the gap is increasing.
Yup, ignoring the effect of growth rates, again.
>> How come nobody who actually reports these figures lumps Linux in with
>> Unix like you do? Seriously, *nobody* reports on a combined Unix+Linux
>> figure - they all consider them as separate from each other. If you're
>> right that they are so interrelated, how come the people that get paid
>> to do these analyses don't agree with you?
>>
> Well, quite a few people in the business do think the same way, ray, I
> know that our marketing folk do. We target our Unix products at a bunch
> of unix versions and also Red Hat EL and Novell. Same code base, same
> functionality, same thing. OTOH, our Windows stuff is totally different
> in look, feel, and functionality, and is geared to the Windows release
> train.
But, again... why don't the market reporting types report it that way?
Can you simply answer the question I asked instead of the one you wish
I had asked?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Okay, hold on tight, I'm gonna try something I saw in a
cartoon once but I'm pretty sure I can do it." - Kelly Reid
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
happens in the embedded market, I don't do anything with it and it has
no perceptible effect on my interests. You seem to think that it is so
important, I
LOL!!! Their motto is: "Linux - when you just can't afford anything
else!"
>> Invariably, linux
>> powers the cheesy systems and the upscale stuff comes with Windows.
>
> For a guy as wrong as you usually are, you speak in absolutes a lot.
> "Invariably", when you say things like that you're .
>
>> What kind of a message do you think that carries to the customers?
>
> Wait, I thought you were the one who said the consumers hadn't seen
> *any* message about Linux yet? Personally, I think the positive
> word-of-mouth is already pretty helpful, and there's ever more of
> that.
>
"Linux is cheese!" is not much of a forward going message, ray, but if
you are satisfied with that, OK.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
linux cannot grow at that rate.
>>> The actual rates will fluctuate, but can you provide any reason why
>>> the situation would change from "Rate_Linux > Rate_Windows"?
>>>
>> Yes, linux is actually losing ground to Windows in terms of the
>> actual
>> gap that exists. Every quarter, the gap is a little wider due to the
>> huge lead that Windows has over linux, even in servers.
>
> Yup, ignoring the effect of growth rates, again.
>
Linux is cannibalizing unix market share, pure and simple. Deny it
until the cows come home, but that is what is happening in the server
market. Linux growth rate is decaying as the low hanging fruit is
harvested.
You are only looking at a small part of the market intelligence here,
ray, and that itself only the part for free public consumption. The
flacks that report on the reports are eager to stir up some controversy
or contention to pique interest in their reports, but when it comes to
selling things to people who buy things, it is a much different story.
Ray Ingles
>> Early on, Windows (which starts from a higher value) grows more in
>> absolute terms than Linux. But eventually the higher rate of Linux
>> growth takes over.
> A lot of effort for such a silly premise, ray!
You're telling me that ten lines of code is a lot of effort for you?
> The flaw is that linux cannot grow at that rate.
Linux has been growing quite well, for many years; indeed, outpacing
everyone else in growth since it's been measured. Even the most recent
figures put Linux at three times the growth rate (in *revenues*, note,
not unit shipments) of Windows. Whatever rate the market grows at,
Linux's growth will outpace Windows for the forseeable future.
> Linux is cannibalizing unix market share, pure and simple. Deny it
> until the cows come home
Okay, thanks for your permission. I will.
Oh, that's certainly part of it, of course. It's easy and
cost-effective to move from Unix to Linux, so it's no surprise that
happens a lot. (Interestingly, though, that just makes Linux more
attractive to companies to develop for.) Linux also gets new business,
too, though. It grew a lot faster than the market.
But let's assume that you were correct, and Linux is simply grabbing up
Unix share, period. Eventually all Unix will be Linux, and then... what?
Microsoft has found a handful of cases (some apparently paid for in
deep discounts) of people switching from Linux to Windows. It's
certainly not any kind of noticeable trend (unless you can surprise me
more than you might imagine, and produce some actual data - something I
don't recall you ever doing). Personally, I see Linux simply growing.
Sometimes an invader species doesn't need to directly kill its local
competition. It can simply not shrink, and grow into new territories as
the opportunity presents itself. If it grows faster, well, after a
forest fire it can claim that ground more effectively than the local
varieties.
>> But, again... why don't the market reporting types report it that way?
>> Can you simply answer the question I asked instead of the one you wish
>> I had asked?
>>
> You are only looking at a small part of the market intelligence here,
> ray, and that itself only the part for free public consumption.
So you claim. Of course, by that very fact you acknowledge that you
cannot back up whatever you might declare about the other contents.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"The idea that an arbitrary naive human should be able to
properly use a given tool without training or understanding
is even more wrong for computing than it is for other tools
(e.g. automobiles, airplanes, guns, power saws)." - Doug Gwyn
Ray Ingles
>> The real situation is quite a bit vaster.
>>
> All I did was ask a simple question, ray! I don't really care what
> happens in the embedded market
Ah, yes. "Those grapes were probably sour anyway."
>> Thanks for admitting your mistake, BTW. Oh wait, you never do that,
>> you just change the subject...
>>
> LOL!!! Their motto is: "Linux - when you just can't afford anything
> else!"
Yeah, yeah. I take it we're done here? The usual, you know, I show
where you're wrong, and you just walk away whistling, glancing over your
shoulder occasionally, hoping nobody notices?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Intelligence doesn't guarantee wisdom, but does allow
more complicated delusions." -- Steve Gutterman
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-06-05, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Early on, Windows (which starts from a higher value) grows more in
>>> absolute terms than Linux. But eventually the higher rate of Linux
>>> growth takes over.
>
>> A lot of effort for such a silly premise, ray!
>
> You're telling me that ten lines of code is a lot of effort for you?
>
>> The flaw is that linux cannot grow at that rate.
>
> Linux has been growing quite well, for many years; indeed, outpacing
> everyone else in growth since it's been measured. Even the most recent
> figures put Linux at three times the growth rate (in *revenues*, note,
> not unit shipments) of Windows. Whatever rate the market grows at,
> Linux's growth will outpace Windows for the forseeable future.
>
gap widening today. You hope and pray that the trend will reverse
itself, but you have no explanation as to why that should happen.
>> Linux is cannibalizing unix market share, pure and simple. Deny it
>> until the cows come home
>
> Okay, thanks for your permission. I will.
>
> Oh, that's certainly part of it, of course. It's easy and
> cost-effective to move from Unix to Linux, so it's no surprise that
> happens a lot. (Interestingly, though, that just makes Linux more
> attractive to companies to develop for.) Linux also gets new business,
> too, though. It grew a lot faster than the market.
>
> But let's assume that you were correct, and Linux is simply grabbing
> up
> Unix share, period. Eventually all Unix will be Linux, and then...
> what?
>
Oh, I don't think that will ever happen. The rate is continually
slowing and the traditional unix suppliers are holding onto many
business areas. The more that it happens, though, the better for
Microsoft. The linux suppliers are, even with the free R&D, not as
profitable as the proprietary software suppliers and are not as able to
promote themselves in the market. Whether the product story being told
is true or false, it will be effective if unanswered.
> Microsoft has found a handful of cases (some apparently paid for in
> deep discounts) of people switching from Linux to Windows. It's
> certainly not any kind of noticeable trend (unless you can surprise me
> more than you might imagine, and produce some actual data - something
> I
> don't recall you ever doing). Personally, I see Linux simply growing.
>
And I see it simply eating into the unix space.
> Sometimes an invader species doesn't need to directly kill its local
> competition. It can simply not shrink, and grow into new territories
> as
> the opportunity presents itself. If it grows faster, well, after a
> forest fire it can claim that ground more effectively than the local
> varieties.
>
Which is exactly what Windows is doing, ray. It is not cannibalizing
any of its roots, every increase in share comes out of the
competition's. Add unix to linux and see the year to year total
results, more for Windows, less for unix+linux.
>>> But, again... why don't the market reporting types report it that
>>> way?
>>> Can you simply answer the question I asked instead of the one you
>>> wish
>>> I had asked?
>>>
>> You are only looking at a small part of the market intelligence here,
>> ray, and that itself only the part for free public consumption.
>
> So you claim. Of course, by that very fact you acknowledge that you
> cannot back up whatever you might declare about the other contents.
>
Well I am never going to convince you anyway, ray. It is just a matter
of opinion. Just like at the dog track, some people bet on the winners
and usually more people bet on the losers, but everyone had a positive
opinion about their selection. The only "proof" will be what goes up on
the board after the race.
Ray Ingles
> Well, it is not "outpacing" Windows now, ray. Your own calcs show the
> gap widening today. You hope and pray that the trend will reverse
> itself, but you have no explanation as to why that should happen.
Oh, give me a break. I just broke it down in tabular form and you
pretend not to see. I don't need to jump on this merry go round again.
The trend is in the second derivative, not the first. Well, actually, it
is in the first, in that those jumps have been getting smaller all the
time.
>> But let's assume that you were correct, and Linux is simply grabbing
>> up Unix share, period. Eventually all Unix will be Linux, and then...
>> what?
>>
> Oh, I don't think that will ever happen. The rate is continually
> slowing
(Um, so's the rate for Windows. And Linux's growth rate has always
exceeded that of Windows by at least a factor of three.)
> and the traditional unix suppliers are holding onto many
> business areas.
But Unix isn't really growing - indeed, you continually point out that
it's shrinking. As noted below, an invader just needs to not shrink.
> The more that it happens, though, the better for
> Microsoft. The linux suppliers are, even with the free R&D, not as
> profitable as the proprietary software suppliers and are not as able to
> promote themselves in the market. Whether the product story being told
> is true or false, it will be effective if unanswered.
You love to say this, but you have never answered my repeated question
about why Firefox spreads at all, let alone as successfully, without
that kind of marketing effort. Oh, and let's see, Linux is now bringing
in 1/3 of the server revenue of Windows, while spending much less than
MS on marketing. As the money increases (faster than for Windows)
there'll be more money for marketing, and Linux is obviously far more
efficient at marketing than MS. I don't see MS's 'story' being
'unanswered' at all.
>> Sometimes an invader species doesn't need to directly kill its local
>> competition. It can simply not shrink, and grow into new territories as
>> the opportunity presents itself. If it grows faster, well, after a
>> forest fire it can claim that ground more effectively than the local
>> varieties.
>>
> Which is exactly what Windows is doing, ray.
Except that Windows is growing at a slower rate (three times slower)
than Linux.
> It is not cannibalizing any of its roots, every increase in share comes
> out of the competition's.
Um, this last quarter, Windows grew slower than the overall market. By
definition, your claim above is false. And even MS, with its 'dinosaur'
ads, is working hard to compete with its own previous versions. The
major market prediction firms are seeing XP holding on for at least a
year after Vista comes out.
'Not cannibalizing any of its roots' indeed.
>> So you claim. Of course, by that very fact you acknowledge that you
>> cannot back up whatever you might declare about the other contents.
>>
> Well I am never going to convince you anyway, ray. It is just a matter
> of opinion.
Except that I point out actual numbers and you just state your
'opinion'. See my .sig...
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"You are not entitled to an opinion. An opinion is what you
have when you don't have any facts. When you have the facts,
you don't need an opinion." - David Gerrold
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-06-06, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>> Well, it is not "outpacing" Windows now, ray. Your own calcs show
>> the
>> gap widening today. You hope and pray that the trend will reverse
>> itself, but you have no explanation as to why that should happen.
>
> Oh, give me a break. I just broke it down in tabular form and you
> pretend not to see. I don't need to jump on this merry go round again.
> The trend is in the second derivative, not the first. Well, actually,
> it
> is in the first, in that those jumps have been getting smaller all the
> time.
>
Point B: Your "break-down" assumes an invalid set of growth rates.
Point C: I said it shows the gap widening "today", which it does.
>>> But let's assume that you were correct, and Linux is simply grabbing
>>> up Unix share, period. Eventually all Unix will be Linux, and
>>> then...
>>> what?
>>>
>> Oh, I don't think that will ever happen. The rate is continually
>> slowing
>
> (Um, so's the rate for Windows. And Linux's growth rate has always
> exceeded that of Windows by at least a factor of three.)
>
>> and the traditional unix suppliers are holding onto many
>> business areas.
>
> But Unix isn't really growing - indeed, you continually point out that
> it's shrinking. As noted below, an invader just needs to not shrink.
>
You are failing to comprehend that the total is always only 100%. If MS
percentage is greater each quarter, the others, in total, are less.
>> The more that it happens, though, the better for
>> Microsoft. The linux suppliers are, even with the free R&D, not as
>> profitable as the proprietary software suppliers and are not as able
>> to
>> promote themselves in the market. Whether the product story being
>> told
>> is true or false, it will be effective if unanswered.
>
> You love to say this, but you have never answered my repeated question
> about why Firefox spreads at all, let alone as successfully, without
> that kind of marketing effort. Oh, and let's see, Linux is now
> bringing
> in 1/3 of the server revenue of Windows, while spending much less than
> MS on marketing. As the money increases (faster than for Windows)
> there'll be more money for marketing, and Linux is obviously far more
> efficient at marketing than MS. I don't see MS's 'story' being
> 'unanswered' at all.
>
But the money is not increasing. The money in the system comes from
profits. Plus the OEMs have no interest in linux promotion, they merely
fill orders if/when they occur. Look at initial and final margins for
RHAT vs MSFT financials.
>>> Sometimes an invader species doesn't need to directly kill its local
>>> competition. It can simply not shrink, and grow into new territories
>>> as
>>> the opportunity presents itself. If it grows faster, well, after a
>>> forest fire it can claim that ground more effectively than the local
>>> varieties.
>>>
>> Which is exactly what Windows is doing, ray.
>
> Except that Windows is growing at a slower rate (three times slower)
> than Linux.
>
Except that Windows is growing by a larger amount.
>> It is not cannibalizing any of its roots, every increase in share
>> comes
>> out of the competition's.
>
> Um, this last quarter, Windows grew slower than the overall market. By
> definition, your claim above is false. And even MS, with its
> 'dinosaur'
> ads, is working hard to compete with its own previous versions. The
> major market prediction firms are seeing XP holding on for at least a
> year after Vista comes out.
>
You seem to have slipped a cog here, ray. The market declined and MS
increased. You are confusing yourself with your silly theory of "unit
volume share"! LOL!!!
> 'Not cannibalizing any of its roots' indeed.
>
>>> So you claim. Of course, by that very fact you acknowledge that you
>>> cannot back up whatever you might declare about the other contents.
>>>
>> Well I am never going to convince you anyway, ray. It is just a
>> matter
>> of opinion.
>
> Except that I point out actual numbers and you just state your
> 'opinion'. See my .sig...
>
You misinterpret the numbers, ray.
Ray Ingles
> Point A: The current data shows the gap widening.
And each quarter, the gap "widens" less.
> Point B: Your "break-down" assumes an invalid set of growth rates.
*You* have claimed they are invalid. But you haven't substantiated that
in the slightest.
>> But Unix isn't really growing - indeed, you continually point out that
>> it's shrinking. As noted below, an invader just needs to not shrink.
>>
> You are failing to comprehend that the total is always only 100%. If MS
> percentage is greater each quarter, the others, in total, are less.
Reality is not a zero-sum game. It's not just shuffling slices of pie
around - the pie itself is growing.
>> As the money increases (faster than for Windows)
>> there'll be more money for marketing, and Linux is obviously far more
>> efficient at marketing than MS. I don't see MS's 'story' being
>> 'unanswered' at all.
>>
> But the money is not increasing. The money in the system comes from
> profits.
And, yes, the profits on Linux are increasing. Revenues grew faster
than unit shipments. Oy...
> Plus the OEMs have no interest in linux promotion, they merely
> fill orders if/when they occur.
Wait, huh? First you say businesses have to go out and actively promote
themselves, now you say they are just shopkeepers who put out their
shingle and wait for customers to amble past...
> Look at initial and final margins for RHAT vs MSFT financials.
In the server area, they are comparable. Windows revenues actually grew
*slower* than the market... something you can't say for Red Hat.
>> Except that Windows is growing at a slower rate (three times slower)
>> than Linux.
>>
> Except that Windows is growing by a larger amount.
Not for much longer, if the trends continue. They used to grow by
hundreds of millions more... now it's 50 million. Be interesting to see
what the difference is next quarter... if any.
> You seem to have slipped a cog here, ray. The market declined and MS
> increased.
The overall server market declined. The volume server market, where MS
competes, grew; and MS grew less than that.
> You are confusing yourself with your silly theory of "unit
> volume share"! LOL!!!
I'm talking about revenue share, not units. Linux does way better
there, and each one of those units is revenue that didn't go to MS.
>> Except that I point out actual numbers and you just state your
>> 'opinion'. See my .sig...
>>
> You misinterpret the numbers, ray.
Not that you've been able to show.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently
advanced." - Anonymous' restatement of Clarke
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-06-06, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>> Point A: The current data shows the gap widening.
>
> And each quarter, the gap "widens" less.
>
>> Point B: Your "break-down" assumes an invalid set of growth rates.
>
> *You* have claimed they are invalid. But you haven't substantiated
> that
> in the slightest.
>
told you so!"
>>> But Unix isn't really growing - indeed, you continually point out
>>> that
>>> it's shrinking. As noted below, an invader just needs to not shrink.
>>>
>> You are failing to comprehend that the total is always only 100%. If
>> MS
>> percentage is greater each quarter, the others, in total, are less.
>
> Reality is not a zero-sum game. It's not just shuffling slices of pie
> around - the pie itself is growing.
>
The whole thing is still only 100%, ray. "Zero-sum!" LOL!!!
>>> As the money increases (faster than for Windows)
>>> there'll be more money for marketing, and Linux is obviously far
>>> more
>>> efficient at marketing than MS. I don't see MS's 'story' being
>>> 'unanswered' at all.
>>>
>> But the money is not increasing. The money in the system comes from
>> profits.
>
> And, yes, the profits on Linux are increasing. Revenues grew faster
> than unit shipments. Oy...
>
You are not going to make it in finance either, ray! Good grief!
Whatever in the world makes you think unit shipments have anything to do
with profits?
>> Plus the OEMs have no interest in linux promotion, they merely
>> fill orders if/when they occur.
>
> Wait, huh? First you say businesses have to go out and actively
> promote
> themselves, now you say they are just shopkeepers who put out their
> shingle and wait for customers to amble past...
>
Well you are apparently confused, ray. Certainly businesses have to
promote themselves. But linux is a nowhere kind of differentiator. The
successful OEMs are not going to promote their use of linux with much
of an effort, next to no one cares. The only thing that occurs is a
mild "Me, too." from the OEMs regarding linus. The OEM does not sell
any more computers or obtain any more revenue than would be the case
absent linux.
>> Look at initial and final margins for RHAT vs MSFT financials.
>
> In the server area, they are comparable. Windows revenues actually
> grew
> *slower* than the market... something you can't say for Red Hat.
>
>>> Except that Windows is growing at a slower rate (three times slower)
>>> than Linux.
>>>
>> Except that Windows is growing by a larger amount.
>
> Not for much longer, if the trends continue. They used to grow by
> hundreds of millions more... now it's 50 million. Be interesting to
> see
> what the difference is next quarter... if any.
>
>> You seem to have slipped a cog here, ray. The market declined and MS
>> increased.
>
> The overall server market declined. The volume server market, where MS
> competes, grew; and MS grew less than that.
>
MS competes in the other areas as well, ray. You want to deny that, but
you are just hoping it isn't true. $6M machines are hardly "volume
market"!
>> You are confusing yourself with your silly theory of "unit
>> volume share"! LOL!!!
>
> I'm talking about revenue share, not units. Linux does way better
> there, and each one of those units is revenue that didn't go to MS.
>
Or more likely to Sun, but so what? They will eventually go to MS.
Ray Ingles
> Well wait until the next quarterly reports, ray, and I will tell you "I
> told you so!"
Your predictions haven't borne fruit in the past. I'm not worried about
this one.
>>> percentage is greater each quarter, the others, in total, are less.
>>
>> Reality is not a zero-sum game. It's not just shuffling slices of pie
>> around - the pie itself is growing.
>>
> The whole thing is still only 100%, ray. "Zero-sum!" LOL!!!
And Linux is increasing its share faster than Windows is. Eventually
they will bump more directly against each other and that will be
interesting.
>> And, yes, the profits on Linux are increasing. Revenues grew faster
>> than unit shipments. Oy...
>>
> You are not going to make it in finance either, ray! Good grief!
> Whatever in the world makes you think unit shipments have anything to do
> with profits?
Nothing in the world makes me think that. Revenues (you know, like I
specifically said) however, do have something to do with profits.
>> Wait, huh? First you say businesses have to go out and actively promote
>> themselves, now you say they are just shopkeepers who put out their
>> shingle and wait for customers to amble past...
>>
> Well you are apparently confused, ray. Certainly businesses have to
> promote themselves. But linux is a nowhere kind of differentiator.
And yet it's a (quickly) growing presence, and Roy's "News" posts show
that many companies are in fact using it as a differentiator. Reality
just refuses to line up with your misdirections. Funny, eh?
> The OEM does not sell
> any more computers or obtain any more revenue than would be the case
> absent linux.
But if you're right, how come Linux revenues are 1/3 that of Windows
and growing?
>> The overall server market declined. The volume server market, where MS
>> competes, grew; and MS grew less than that.
>>
> MS competes in the other areas as well, ray. You want to deny that, but
> you are just hoping it isn't true. $6M machines are hardly "volume
> market"!
Can you show anyone - *anyone* - has actually bought one of those?
I didn't think so when I asked last time. Here I am, still not thinking
so.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
How to fix your Windows Application when it doesn't work:
(1) Stop and start the program
(2) Log in and log out again
(3) Reboot the machine
(4) Reinstall the application again
(5) Reinstall the operating system
(6) Dance naked around the machine, waving a rubber chicken
(7) "Take your machine back for servicing"
- Chris Wedgwood
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
mostly unix and some Windows as has long been the case. The OEMs would
have made more money, too.
>>> The overall server market declined. The volume server market, where
>>> MS
>>> competes, grew; and MS grew less than that.
>>>
>> MS competes in the other areas as well, ray. You want to deny that,
>> but
>> you are just hoping it isn't true. $6M machines are hardly "volume
>> market"!
>
> Can you show anyone - *anyone* - has actually bought one of those?
>
> I didn't think so when I asked last time. Here I am, still not
> thinking
> so.
>
Well, ray, you are clearly one of those fastidious folk who seem to know
the price of everything, but don't understand the value of anything! If
HP features Windows in its TPC benchmarks, it is safe to assume that
they are selling them to someone, but if it makes any difference, you
can read HP's press releases that say, among other things: "
"Microsoft Windows Server 2003 and SQL Server with HP Integrity server
solutions have helped establish the Itanium architecture as the 64-bit
platform for enterprise customers who require the highest levels of
reliability and scalability. Windows Server 2003 is now the fastest
growing operating system on Integrity servers and also represents 35
percent of the HP Integrity Superdome server installed base."
Now Integrity Superdome servers start at around $200K. Do you think HP
is lying? You might look at Fujitsu, too, since they are actively
promoting Windows on their Primequest line of million dollar systems.
Ray Ingles
>> But if you're right, how come Linux revenues are 1/3 that of Windows
>> and growing?
>>
> Well the common wisdom is that, absent linux, those servers would be
> mostly unix and some Windows as has long been the case.
Wait, you've actually said something sort of true. Are you really
billwg?
> The OEMs would have made more money, too.
Whoops, yeah, this is billwg all right. A falsehood, with not even the
slightest attempt to justify it.
High-priced proprietary Unix is high-margin, true, but doesn't sell
very well in the volume server market, due entirely to that higher
price. Windows is selling all right, but doesn't generate much revenue
for the OEM, the OS revenue goes to MS. Linux lets them sell their
hardware (and proprietary Unix apps) in the volume server market (the
only part of the server market that's growing) with more revenue going
to them instead of MS.
> Well, ray, you are clearly one of those fastidious folk who seem to know
> the price of everything, but don't understand the value of anything! If
> HP features Windows in its TPC benchmarks, it is safe to assume that
> they are selling them to someone
Funny, Roy posts news articles every day talking about the expansion
and adoption of Linux. Why do you believe HP's press releases re:
Windows but doubt them concerning Linux? Why doesn't your own logic
apply to Windows on the server?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Does anyone really believe that terrorists can actually threaten
our survival as a nation? Killing large numbers of people is not
the same as threatening the entire country. It doesn't make sense
to restructure our entire legal system, giving up rights and
freedoms that people fought and died for, all to cut the odds
from 0.005% to 0.003% (and that's generous)." - Me
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>
> Funny, Roy posts news articles every day talking about the expansion
> and adoption of Linux. Why do you believe HP's press releases re:
> Windows but doubt them concerning Linux? Why doesn't your own logic
> apply to Windows on the server?
>
> --
unwillingness to admit that Windows servers are a significant part of
the upscale server market! Now you invent stories about my doubting HP
press releases vis-a-vis linux?
Ray Ingles
> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:slrne8glra....@localhost.localdomain...
>>
>> Funny, Roy posts news articles every day talking about the expansion
>> and adoption of Linux. Why do you believe HP's press releases re:
>> Windows but doubt them concerning Linux? Why doesn't your own logic
>> apply to Windows on the server?
> Well, ray, I guess you are sufficiently chastised over your
> unwillingness to admit that Windows servers are a significant part of
> the upscale server market!
You're being entirely too precious here. Be more explicit. Surely you
don't mean to imply you've actually *shown* that "Windows servers are a
significant part of the upscale server market"?
> Now you invent stories about my doubting HP press releases vis-a-vis
> linux?
You seem to doubt *any* and *all* press releases about Linux. Since you
say "nobody" uses it and all...
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"I like the flag plenty, but I never forget it's only a
symbol, a reminder of what we stand for, not a replacement
for actually standing for it."
- Bill Maher, "When You Ride Alone You Ride With bin Laden"
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-06-08, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>> news:slrne8glra....@localhost.localdomain...
>>>
>>> Funny, Roy posts news articles every day talking about the expansion
>>> and adoption of Linux. Why do you believe HP's press releases re:
>>> Windows but doubt them concerning Linux? Why doesn't your own logic
>>> apply to Windows on the server?
>
>> Well, ray, I guess you are sufficiently chastised over your
>> unwillingness to admit that Windows servers are a significant part of
>> the upscale server market!
>
> You're being entirely too precious here. Be more explicit. Surely you
> don't mean to imply you've actually *shown* that "Windows servers are
> a
> significant part of the upscale server market"?
>
has some 35% of the installed base already. Since HP and IBM are tied
for first place in this area, with Sun presumably filling out most of
the rest, that puts Windows at some 12% of the market. Do you disagree
that 12% is significant? Careful now.
>> Now you invent stories about my doubting HP press releases vis-a-vis
>> linux?
>
> You seem to doubt *any* and *all* press releases about Linux. Since
> you
> say "nobody" uses it and all...
>
Now you have moved from saying that I doubt HP press releases to saying
that I doubt *all* press releases and I suppose you have something filed
away where I pooh-poohed some press release or other, but I doubt that
it was from HP.
The Ghost In The Machine
<bi...@twcf.rr.com>
wrote
on Fri, 09 Jun 2006 20:01:23 GMT
<nskig.8124$Ui7....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>:
>
> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:slrne8isad....@localhost.localdomain...
>> On 2006-06-08, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>>> news:slrne8glra....@localhost.localdomain...
>>>>
>>>> Funny, Roy posts news articles every day talking about the expansion
>>>> and adoption of Linux. Why do you believe HP's press releases re:
>>>> Windows but doubt them concerning Linux? Why doesn't your own logic
>>>> apply to Windows on the server?
>>
>>> Well, ray, I guess you are sufficiently chastised over your
>>> unwillingness to admit that Windows servers are a significant part of
>>> the upscale server market!
>>
>> You're being entirely too precious here. Be more explicit. Surely you
>> don't mean to imply you've actually *shown* that "Windows servers are
>> a
>> significant part of the upscale server market"?
>>
> Well, ray, HP says that Windows is the fastest growing Superdome OS and
> has some 35% of the installed base already. Since HP and IBM are tied
> for first place in this area, with Sun presumably filling out most of
> the rest, that puts Windows at some 12% of the market. Do you disagree
> that 12% is significant? Careful now.
Where, precisely, does HP say that?
http://www.hp.com/products1/servers/scalableservers/superdome/index.html
looks like an interesting if pricey box
(ooh, 32 processors minimum :-)).
There is a page
http://www.hp.com/education/sections/microsoft_int_superdome.html?jumpid=reg_R1002_USEN
which suggests that one can run Windows on Superdome Servers (it's a
class titled "Microsoft Windows for HP Integrity/Superdome Servers")
There is also
http://docs.hp.com/en/A5201-96043-en/apcs03.html?jumpid=reg_R1002_USEN
which tells how to boot Win2003 on HP Integrity Superdome.
Perhaps you can disclose the URL to the press release?
I'm curious, though it looks like it can be done easily enough,
with some digging through HP's doc system.
[rest snipped]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
Ray Ingles
>> You're being entirely too precious here. Be more explicit. Surely you
>> don't mean to imply you've actually *shown* that "Windows servers are
>> a significant part of the upscale server market"?
>>
> Well, ray, HP says that Windows is the fastest growing Superdome OS and
> has some 35% of the installed base already.
You mean 7 out of 20 are running Windows, right?
>> You seem to doubt *any* and *all* press releases about Linux. Since
>> you say "nobody" uses it and all...
>>
> Now you have moved from saying that I doubt HP press releases to saying
> that I doubt *all* press releases and I suppose you have something filed
> away where I pooh-poohed some press release or other, but I doubt that
> it was from HP.
Boy, it must feel weird to see your own arguing techniques used on you,
eh?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
1992:
Republicans: Their candidate is a draft dodger, ours is a war hero.
Democrats: It doesn't matter if our candidate went to Vietnam.
2004:
Democrats: Their candidate is a draft dodger, ours is a war hero.
Republicans: It doesn't matter if our candidate went to Vietnam.