Linux server market exceeds 13%
Ezekiel
http://www.techspot.com/news/31405-linux-server-market-exceeds-13.html
<quote>
Published: August 28, 2008, 11:18 AM EST
Linux has always been better received in the server market than the desktop
market, where it's compatibility with UNIX and POSIX-compliance has made it
a great fit for companies who aren't about to shell out for UNIX licensing.
The past year along has seen significant Linux server growth, which now
accounts for over 13% of the market.
They share this with many top players, including Microsoft, who has more
than a third of the total market. While UNIX-like operating systems still
make up the lion's share of all servers active in the world, vendors who
support and sell Linux will likely have to find new ways to erode Microsoft
market share rather than others, or they risk stalling growth.
</quote>
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Moshe Goldfarb.
I suspect the number is even higher.
Linux makes a good cost effective server operating system.
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Peter Köhlmann
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:39:41 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> http://www.techspot.com/news/31405-linux-server-market-exceeds-13.html
>>
>> <quote>
>> Published: August 28, 2008, 11:18 AM EST
>>
>> Linux has always been better received in the server market than the
>> desktop market, where it's compatibility with UNIX and POSIX-compliance
>> has made it a great fit for companies who aren't about to shell out for
>> UNIX licensing. The past year along has seen significant Linux server
>> growth, which now accounts for over 13% of the market.
>>
>> They share this with many top players, including Microsoft, who has more
>> than a third of the total market. While UNIX-like operating systems still
>> make up the lion's share of all servers active in the world, vendors who
>> support and sell Linux will likely have to find new ways to erode
>> Microsoft market share rather than others, or they risk stalling growth.
>> </quote>
>
> I suspect the number is even higher.
> Linux makes a good cost effective server operating system.
>
>
The numbers are about revenue, not about count of machines
--
Don't steal. Microsoft hates competition.
The Ghost In The Machine
<brick_...@gmail.com>
wrote
on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:55:29 -0400
<1x3irc4031mlc.f...@40tude.net>:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:39:41 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> http://www.techspot.com/news/31405-linux-server-market-exceeds-13.html
>>
>> <quote>
>> Published: August 28, 2008, 11:18 AM EST
>>
>> Linux has always been better received in the server market than the desktop
>> market, where it's compatibility with UNIX and POSIX-compliance has made it
>> a great fit for companies who aren't about to shell out for UNIX licensing.
>> The past year along has seen significant Linux server growth, which now
>> accounts for over 13% of the market.
>>
>> They share this with many top players, including Microsoft, who has more
>> than a third of the total market. While UNIX-like operating systems still
>> make up the lion's share of all servers active in the world, vendors who
>> support and sell Linux will likely have to find new ways to erode Microsoft
>> market share rather than others, or they risk stalling growth.
>> </quote>
>
> I suspect the number is even higher.
> Linux makes a good cost effective server operating system.
>
Presumably, so does Microsoft:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/default.aspx
Zeke's above weblink points to
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS21399008
which among other things mentions:
$1.9B for Linux servers, 13.4%. This suggests a
total market of about $14.2B.
Unix has $4.6B or 32.7% (given) or 32.4% (computed)
of this market.
Windows Server is $5.1B or 36.5% (given) or 36.0% (computed).
System z running z/OS is $1.6B or 11.8% (given) or 11.3% (computed).
Total: $13.2, leaving $1B unaccounted for.
Just to make things confusing: I wonder how much of that $1.9B
is System z running Linux on top of z/OS?
The vendor add-ups give me $13.9B, which might correct
most of these discrepancies. But as you can see,
Windows has more than 2 1/2 times the Linux server market.
Absent more data I'd say Linux is cannibalizing the Unix market;
this is corroborated by Unix's "growth" of -7.7% year on year.
This isn't a bad thing per se if Linux is more efficient, but it
doesn't do all that much to unseat Microsoft. The combined
Linux+Unix market is apparently largely unchanged
at about $1.9B + $4.6B = $6.7B, or $1.9B/1.1 + $4.6B/0.923
= $1.7B + $5B = $6.7B.
To be fair, these sorts of things strike me as a blind archer
attempting to shoot at a moving target with a crooked arrow. ;-)
There's no real good way to get it exactly right.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Warning: This encrypted signature is a dangerous munition.
Please notify the US government immediately upon reception.
0000 0000 0000 0000 0001 0000 0000 0000 ...
nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Moshe Goldfarb.
> <brick_n_st...@gmail.com>
> wrote
> on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:55:29 -0400
But since it's by revenue and not number of machines, it means that if
Microsoft doubled their price, their market share would go up!
Meanwhile, it would be interesting to compute the dollar value lost to
Microsoft by those Linux machines, assuming they could get them.
7
Exactly! And that information is carefully concealed!!!!
Last I heard, more than 50% of all servers are running Linux.
It doesn't talk about revenue that it generates for Linux customers
either. E.g. Google alone has 1 million Linux servers and that generates
one third as much revenue as Micoshaft in its entire global operations!!!!
Moshe Goldfarb.
You're an idiot 7.
The number is higher than 13 percent (my mistake BTW) but no where near 50
percent.
Ezekiel
<nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:cd4ea653-9715-42e9...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
No. Not unless the market was highly inelastic for Windows software.
Otherwise what's stopping them from doubling or tripling their price today?
> Meanwhile, it would be interesting to compute the dollar value lost to
> Microsoft by those Linux machines, assuming they could get them.
It's certainly somewhere between 0% and 100% but it's nowhere near the $$$
lost to traditional Unix vendors for every linux machine sold. Unix servers
are easy to replace with linux and this is where a lot of the sales have
been going.
amicus_curious
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:g77jo5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>
> Total: $13.2, leaving $1B unaccounted for.
>
Netware based servers.
amicus_curious
<nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:cd4ea653-9715-42e9...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> Microsoft doubled their price, their market share would go up!
> Meanwhile, it would be interesting to compute the dollar value lost to
> Microsoft by those Linux machines, assuming they could get them.
>
the years.
The $5.1B worth of Windows servers is the whole package, OS, services, and
hardware, and the hardware dominates that number. Server versions of
Windows are about $1B per quarter for the software alone, actually slightly
less.
The Ghost In The Machine
<AC...@sti.net>
wrote
on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:24:26 -0400
<48b6fb84$0$23240$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com>:
http://www.itjungle.com/bns/bns083007-story01.html
suggests Novell's Workgroup unit (containing Netware)
barely had $82.9 million in 2007. Total Novell sales is
only $243.1 million.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because a BSOD is just so 20th century; why not
try our new color changing variant?
Hadron
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:39:41 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.techspot.com/news/31405-linux-server-market-exceeds-13.html
>>>>
>>>> <quote>
>>>> Published: August 28, 2008, 11:18 AM EST
>>>>
>>>> Linux has always been better received in the server market than the
>>>> desktop market, where it's compatibility with UNIX and POSIX-compliance
>>>> has made it a great fit for companies who aren't about to shell out for
>>>> UNIX licensing. The past year along has seen significant Linux server
>>>> growth, which now accounts for over 13% of the market.
>>>>
>>>> They share this with many top players, including Microsoft, who has more
>>>> than a third of the total market. While UNIX-like operating systems
>>>> still make up the lion's share of all servers active in the world,
>>>> vendors who support and sell Linux will likely have to find new ways to
>>>> erode Microsoft market share rather than others, or they risk stalling
>>>> growth. </quote>
>>>
>>> I suspect the number is even higher.
>>> Linux makes a good cost effective server operating system.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The numbers are about revenue, not about count of machines
>
>
> Exactly! And that information is carefully concealed!!!!
>
> Last I heard, more than 50% of all servers are running Linux.
Dont talk such utter nonsense.
Wake up to the realities and maybe you can improve things. Exchange is
gaining market share. Sad but true. And until the collaberative tools
under Linux improve it will continue on that trend.
amicus_curious
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, amicus_curious
> <AC...@sti.net>
> wrote
> on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:24:26 -0400
> <48b6fb84$0$23240$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com>:
>>
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
>> message
>> news:g77jo5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>>>
>>> Total: $13.2, leaving $1B unaccounted for.
>>>
>> Well, $13.9B minus $13.2B is closer to $700M and that is doubtless sales
>> of
>> Netware based servers.
>>
>
> http://www.itjungle.com/bns/bns083007-story01.html
>
> suggests Novell's Workgroup unit (containing Netware)
> barely had $82.9 million in 2007. Total Novell sales is
> only $243.1 million.
>
For Microsoft's ~$1B of software, the server sales were $5.1B so figure the
ratio at 5:1 and see where Netware and Groupware times 5 accounts for the
missing server revenue.
Linus has cannibalized Unix to some extent, but Windows has devastated
Netware.
The Ghost In The Machine
<hadro...@gmail.com>
wrote
on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:22:42 +0200
<g971f5$v4j$1...@registered.motzarella.org>:
> 7 <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> writes:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>> Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:39:41 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.techspot.com/news/31405-linux-server-market-exceeds-13.html
>>>>>
>>>>> <quote>
>>>>> Published: August 28, 2008, 11:18 AM EST
>>>>>
>>>>> Linux has always been better received in the server market than the
>>>>> desktop market, where it's compatibility with UNIX and POSIX-compliance
>>>>> has made it a great fit for companies who aren't about to shell out for
>>>>> UNIX licensing. The past year along has seen significant Linux server
>>>>> growth, which now accounts for over 13% of the market.
>>>>>
>>>>> They share this with many top players, including Microsoft, who has more
>>>>> than a third of the total market. While UNIX-like operating systems
>>>>> still make up the lion's share of all servers active in the world,
>>>>> vendors who support and sell Linux will likely have to find new ways to
>>>>> erode Microsoft market share rather than others, or they risk stalling
>>>>> growth. </quote>
>>>>
>>>> I suspect the number is even higher.
>>>> Linux makes a good cost effective server operating system.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The numbers are about revenue, not about count of machines
>>
>>
>> Exactly! And that information is carefully concealed!!!!
>>
>> Last I heard, more than 50% of all servers are running Linux.
>
> Dont talk such utter nonsense.
Figures I've located suggest Linux servers got barely
13.4%, though that's for new servers as of 2Q08. Much of
the market is divvied up between Windows (36.5%) and Unix
(32.7%).
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS21399008
This is for new servers, of course; I can't say regarding
existing ones just from this document.
>
> Wake up to the realities and maybe you can improve things. Exchange is
> gaining market share. Sad but true. And until the collaberative tools
> under Linux improve it will continue on that trend.
There are other issues with Linux tools as well; Windows
works excellently for mail transfer precisely because
files in Windows are transparently archived using DOC,
and do not need special procedures to view from Exchange;
just click. No special generation tools required, apart
from Word, Powerpoint, or Excel.
Contrast that to the gyrations required to generate
multipart/alternate files; the closest thing to an archiver
I've found thus far is a Java utility library, JavaMail. The
good news: Evolution understands ODF attachments.
While there are other issues -- say, how big is one's
mail spool, again? -- it's clear which one wins
convenience-wise.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #992398129:
void f(unsigned u) { if(u < 0) ... }
JEDIDIAH
This is just more nonsense along the lines the article of faith
that Windows or msoffice are in their current dominant position due
to any technical characteristics they possess.
I suspect you can't even name the alternatives, nevermind criticize
them. I am also sure you can't describe the actual problems with OO
either.
This is just the ancient and nebulous "anything not MS is inferior".
--
OpenDoc is moot when Apple is your one stop iShop. |||
/ | \
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
The Ghost In The Machine
<48b7105a$0$23210$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
> news:k6bjo5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, amicus_curious
>> <AC...@sti.net>
>> wrote
>> on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:24:26 -0400
>> <48b6fb84$0$23240$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com>:
>>>
>>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
>>> message
>>> news:g77jo5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>>>>
>>>> Total: $13.2, leaving $1B unaccounted for.
>>>>
>>> Well, $13.9B minus $13.2B is closer to $700M and that is doubtless sales
>>> of
>>> Netware based servers.
>>>
>>
>> http://www.itjungle.com/bns/bns083007-story01.html
>>
>> suggests Novell's Workgroup unit (containing Netware)
>> barely had $82.9 million in 2007. Total Novell sales is
>> only $243.1 million.
>>
> That's a quarterly figure. Also the sales of servers is a multiple of that.
Of course it is. Does it matter? Divide all by 4, and one still gets
relative percentages. Or are you suggesting I should use $60.8M
or $972.4M? The latter at least gets close to Linux sales.
> For Microsoft's ~$1B of software, the server sales were $5.1B so figure the
> ratio at 5:1 and see where Netware and Groupware times 5 accounts for the
> missing server revenue.
And why would I need to do that? At best, I can compensate by
multiplying $5.1B to $25.5B.
>
> Linus has cannibalized Unix to some extent, but Windows has devastated
> Netware.
>
And is trouncing Linux servers as well, as you can plainly
see, even without the 5:1 correction.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #992398129:
void f(unsigned u) { if(u < 0) ... }
The Ghost In The Machine
<je...@nomad.mishnet>
wrote
on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:03:41 -0500
<slrngbe85...@nomad.mishnet>:
One of those technical characteristics being brand name recognition.
>
> I suspect you can't even name the alternatives, nevermind criticize
> them. I am also sure you can't describe the actual problems with OO
> either.
The main problem with OpenOffice is that nobody knows about it. ;-)
>
> This is just the ancient and nebulous "anything not MS is inferior".
>
Anything not MS *is* inferior, with regards to sales
revenue. Of course that's rather orthogonal to actual
technical superiority, but there are three questions, which
might illustrate how stupid the system (no, not computer --
I'm referring to the worldwide trade/capitalism system)
actually might be:
[1] How important is sales revenue of OO versus MSO to
the business selling the product?
[2] How important is sales revenue of OO versus MSO to
the purchaser of the product?
[3] How important is sales revenue of OO versus MSO to
the actual end user?
See the disconnect here? It's a problem.
Ideally, of course, competition would force purchasers to
shop around, looking for the product that best fits their
user's needs.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #889123:
std::vector<...> v; for(int i = 0; i < v.size(); i++) v.erase(v.begin() + i);
Linonut
>> Last I heard, more than 50% of all servers are running Linux.
>
> Dont talk such utter nonsense.
Well, depends what you mean by "server". I have two servers running
right now, but they're also workstations. And they're at home, not in a
business (though I have a server running at work, too).
> Wake up to the realities and maybe you can improve things. Exchange is
> gaining market share. Sad but true. And until the collaberative tools
> under Linux improve it will continue on that trend.
I tend to doubt that even an exact Exchange equivalent would put much
dent in the real Exchange. Exchange is just another example of how a
"business" black hole keeps getting more massive. You got a lot of
Windows clients, Mr. CTO? Well then you need Windows servers, too!
http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/2002/11/30.html
This link quotes from a source that, alas, now comes up 403 Forbidden:
Just as in a Bose-Einstein condensate all particles crowd into the
lowest energy level, leaving the rest of the energy levels
unpopulated, in some networks the fittest node could theoretically
grab all the links...It destroys the hierarchy of hubs characterizing
the scale-free topology...And there is a network in which we cannot
fail to notice one node that carries the signature of a Bose-Einstein
condensate. The node is called Microsoft.
--
Freedom from incrustation of grime is contiguous to rectitude.
DFS
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:39:41 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> http://www.techspot.com/news/31405-linux-server-market-exceeds-13.html
>>
>> <quote>
>> Published: August 28, 2008, 11:18 AM EST
>>
>> Linux has always been better received in the server market than the
>> desktop market, where it's compatibility with UNIX and
>> POSIX-compliance has made it a great fit for companies who aren't
>> about to shell out for UNIX licensing. The past year along has seen
>> significant Linux server growth, which now accounts for over 13% of
>> the market.
>>
>> They share this with many top players, including Microsoft, who has
>> more than a third of the total market. While UNIX-like operating
>> systems still make up the lion's share of all servers active in the
>> world, vendors who support and sell Linux will likely have to find
>> new ways to erode Microsoft market share rather than others, or they
>> risk stalling growth. </quote>
>
> I suspect the number is even higher.
> Linux makes a good cost effective server operating system.
I thought it was much higher, like 33% or so.
Christopher Hunter
> The number is higher than 13 percent (my mistake BTW) but no where near 50
> percent.
An explanation to the hard of thinking:
The metric used to determine "market share" was /revenue/ which is an
obvious nonsense when you're considering a (mostly) free operating system.
I did about 400 server installs last year - /none/ of them used MS products
(because they don't work properly), and only four of them used "paid-for"
operating systems (all Red Hat). The rest were mostly CentOS.
C.
Moshe Goldfarb.
Idiot.....
An explanation to the hard of reading comprehension:
I realized my mistake, admitted above BTW, and was replying to a moron who
was talking percentages. IOW the discussion changed from the original post.
BTW who cares what you installed?
Ignoramus23257
Ubuntu linux (server edition, no GUI). Guess how this shows up on the
"server market share" numbers? That's right, they count as Windows
servers.
i
P.S. The marginal cost of administration on these linux servers, that
is, the extra effort to manage them individually, is zero. They are
all managed by scripts and system administrators do absolutely nothing
for each individual server. This is in contrast to Windows, where
people have to go from machine to machine and click buttons.
--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/
amicus_curious
"Ignoramus23257" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.23257.invalid> wrote in message
news:Kfqdnbt6j6UzeyrV...@giganews.com...
> At work, we removed Microsoft Windows on 22 servers. Replaced it with
> Ubuntu linux (server edition, no GUI). Guess how this shows up on the
> "server market share" numbers? That's right, they count as Windows
> servers.
>
generated in total for the product class. If a server is sold new, with or
without an OS, the price is counted as part of the overall server market.
If software is sold without hardware and it is deemed to be a server sale,
it is counted. If there is no money involved, it is not counted.
> i
> P.S. The marginal cost of administration on these linux servers, that
> is, the extra effort to manage them individually, is zero. They are
> all managed by scripts and system administrators do absolutely nothing
> for each individual server. This is in contrast to Windows, where
> people have to go from machine to machine and click buttons.
>
Your knowledge of Windows server administration is poor.
Ignoramus23257
>
> "Ignoramus23257" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.23257.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Kfqdnbt6j6UzeyrV...@giganews.com...
>> At work, we removed Microsoft Windows on 22 servers. Replaced it with
>> Ubuntu linux (server edition, no GUI). Guess how this shows up on the
>> "server market share" numbers? That's right, they count as Windows
>> servers.
>>
> Wrong. They don't show up at all. The market figures are for the
> revenues generated in total for the product class. If a server is
> sold new, with or without an OS, the price is counted as part of the
> overall server market. If software is sold without hardware and it
> is deemed to be a server sale, it is counted. If there is no money
> involved, it is not counted.
The point is, the market share figures measured by $$, do not properly
reflect what OS are the servers eventually running.
>> P.S. The marginal cost of administration on these linux servers, that
>> is, the extra effort to manage them individually, is zero. They are
>> all managed by scripts and system administrators do absolutely nothing
>> for each individual server. This is in contrast to Windows, where
>> people have to go from machine to machine and click buttons.
>>
> Your knowledge of Windows server administration is poor.
>
>
Thank God. That would definitely not be a skill that I would
seek. What I have seen, as far as windows administration, is that
people endlessly click mouse buttons, do the same thing on every
machine, spend enormous amount of time (and thus money!) and think
that it is normal.
Matt
> But since it's by revenue and not number of machines, it means that if
> Microsoft doubled their price, their market share would go up!
> Meanwhile, it would be interesting to compute the dollar value lost to
> Microsoft by those Linux machines, assuming they could get them.
A naive estimate of that dollar value would be the number of Linux
servers times the price of a copy of Windows Server. But the true loss
is much larger than that: If Linux weren't available for free, MS would
be charging a lot more per copy than they do now.
That phenomenon is seen in MS's dumping of desktop Windows into
third-world and low-cost-hardware markets. Next we'll see them
practically giving Windows away in the developed world: first to
schools, then to governments, then to big companies. By then they might
only be able to get the small-time Windows addict to pay, and improved
migration tools will cause even that market to shrink. Antitrust
regulators will hinder their attempts at user lockin.
They will run short of money to develop Windows and Office. They will
have difficulty adding uncalled-for features or secret, changing,
complex APIs. Complexities they previously introduced as barriers will
turn out to be a big burden on them. But they may be in a better
position than anybody to help people migrate to FOSS. And there is the
possibility of releasing their own software as FOSS and supporting it as
Red Hat and Suse now support Linux.
Robert Heller
>
> On 2008-08-29, amicus_curious <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
> >
> > "Ignoramus23257" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.23257.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:Kfqdnbt6j6UzeyrV...@giganews.com...
> >> At work, we removed Microsoft Windows on 22 servers. Replaced it with
> >> Ubuntu linux (server edition, no GUI). Guess how this shows up on the
> >> "server market share" numbers? That's right, they count as Windows
> >> servers.
> >>
> > Wrong. They don't show up at all. The market figures are for the
> > revenues generated in total for the product class. If a server is
> > sold new, with or without an OS, the price is counted as part of the
> > overall server market. If software is sold without hardware and it
> > is deemed to be a server sale, it is counted. If there is no money
> > involved, it is not counted.
>
> The point is, the market share figures measured by $$, do not properly
> reflect what OS are the servers eventually running.
Netcraft's figures are probably more accurate. Netcraft does NOT
measure things like 'sales', instead it polls the machines themselves
and examines the various headers returned from the webservers. Apache
has been up around 60-70% for years and IIS is down around 30-40%. IIS
only runs on MS-Windows, and although Apache does run under MS-Windows,
this is not a common thing to do. Almost all of the machines running
the Apache webserver are running some flavor of UNIX or Linux.
>
> >> P.S. The marginal cost of administration on these linux servers, that
> >> is, the extra effort to manage them individually, is zero. They are
> >> all managed by scripts and system administrators do absolutely nothing
> >> for each individual server. This is in contrast to Windows, where
> >> people have to go from machine to machine and click buttons.
> >>
> > Your knowledge of Windows server administration is poor.
> >
> >
>
> Thank God. That would definitely not be a skill that I would
> seek. What I have seen, as far as windows administration, is that
> people endlessly click mouse buttons, do the same thing on every
> machine, spend enormous amount of time (and thus money!) and think
> that it is normal.
>
--
Robert Heller -- Get the Deepwoods Software FireFox Toolbar!
Deepwoods Software -- Linux Installation and Administration
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Web Hosting, with CGI and Database
hel...@deepsoft.com -- Contract Programming: C/C++, Tcl/Tk
JEDIDIAH
>
>> The number is higher than 13 percent (my mistake BTW) but no where near 50
>> percent.
>
> An explanation to the hard of thinking:
>
> The metric used to determine "market share" was /revenue/ which is an
> obvious nonsense when you're considering a (mostly) free operating system.
...I think at one time Redhat had as one of it's stated goals, the shrinking
of the server market in terms of total revenue per year. This still may be
the case.
So basing "marketshare" on revenue is potentially quite stupid.
There's a wide gap in pricing and price models between each of the
classes of servers in that "study": Free Unix, Commercial Unix, Windows
and Mainframes.
>
> I did about 400 server installs last year - /none/ of them used MS products
> (because they don't work properly), and only four of them used "paid-for"
> operating systems (all Red Hat). The rest were mostly CentOS.
>
> C.
>
--
It is not true that Microsoft doesn't innovate.
They brought us the email virus.
In my Atari days, such a notion would have |||
been considered a complete absurdity. / | \
Ignoramus23257
> At Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:57:13 -0500 Ignoramus23257 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.23257.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2008-08-29, amicus_curious <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > "Ignoramus23257" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.23257.invalid> wrote in message
>> > news:Kfqdnbt6j6UzeyrV...@giganews.com...
>> >> At work, we removed Microsoft Windows on 22 servers. Replaced it with
>> >> Ubuntu linux (server edition, no GUI). Guess how this shows up on the
>> >> "server market share" numbers? That's right, they count as Windows
>> >> servers.
>> >>
>> > Wrong. They don't show up at all. The market figures are for the
>> > revenues generated in total for the product class. If a server is
>> > sold new, with or without an OS, the price is counted as part of the
>> > overall server market. If software is sold without hardware and it
>> > is deemed to be a server sale, it is counted. If there is no money
>> > involved, it is not counted.
>>
>> The point is, the market share figures measured by $$, do not properly
>> reflect what OS are the servers eventually running.
>
> Netcraft's figures are probably more accurate. Netcraft does NOT
> measure things like 'sales', instead it polls the machines themselves
> and examines the various headers returned from the webservers. Apache
> has been up around 60-70% for years and IIS is down around 30-40%. IIS
> only runs on MS-Windows, and although Apache does run under MS-Windows,
> this is not a common thing to do. Almost all of the machines running
> the Apache webserver are running some flavor of UNIX or Linux.
I recall that Microsoft made a deal with a "defunct domain hosting"
company, whereby Microsoft would pay to that company for using IIS to
host those "domains under construction", and that would hugely inflate
IIS market share due to sheer number of these worthless domains. Is
that true?
i
>>
>> >> P.S. The marginal cost of administration on these linux servers, that
>> >> is, the extra effort to manage them individually, is zero. They are
>> >> all managed by scripts and system administrators do absolutely nothing
>> >> for each individual server. This is in contrast to Windows, where
>> >> people have to go from machine to machine and click buttons.
>> >>
>> > Your knowledge of Windows server administration is poor.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Thank God. That would definitely not be a skill that I would
>> seek. What I have seen, as far as windows administration, is that
>> people endlessly click mouse buttons, do the same thing on every
>> machine, spend enormous amount of time (and thus money!) and think
>> that it is normal.
>>
>
--
Robert Heller
If Netcraft measures by IP number, rather than domain name, the market
share 'inflation' would be small. There was a 'peak' for MS-Windows (IIS)
back about a year or so ago, but Apache is regaining ground in recent
months.
The 6 of the top ten most reliable hosting companies in July use Linux.
>
> i
>
> >>
> >> >> P.S. The marginal cost of administration on these linux servers, that
> >> >> is, the extra effort to manage them individually, is zero. They are
> >> >> all managed by scripts and system administrators do absolutely nothing
> >> >> for each individual server. This is in contrast to Windows, where
> >> >> people have to go from machine to machine and click buttons.
> >> >>
> >> > Your knowledge of Windows server administration is poor.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Thank God. That would definitely not be a skill that I would
> >> seek. What I have seen, as far as windows administration, is that
> >> people endlessly click mouse buttons, do the same thing on every
> >> machine, spend enormous amount of time (and thus money!) and think
> >> that it is normal.
> >>
> >
>
--
amicus_curious
"Ignoramus23257" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.23257.invalid> wrote in message
> On 2008-08-29, amicus_curious <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Ignoramus23257" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.23257.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:Kfqdnbt6j6UzeyrV...@giganews.com...
>>> At work, we removed Microsoft Windows on 22 servers. Replaced it with
>>> Ubuntu linux (server edition, no GUI). Guess how this shows up on the
>>> "server market share" numbers? That's right, they count as Windows
>>> servers.
>>>
>> Wrong. They don't show up at all. The market figures are for the
>> revenues generated in total for the product class. If a server is
>> sold new, with or without an OS, the price is counted as part of the
>> overall server market. If software is sold without hardware and it
>> is deemed to be a server sale, it is counted. If there is no money
>> involved, it is not counted.
>
> The point is, the market share figures measured by $$, do not properly
> reflect what OS are the servers eventually running.
>
than "they count as Windows servers". Forschtay?
But who would ever care about that anyway? Market statistics are intended
to tell those whose business is affected by what the market is doing
something that would cause them to make a better product
promotion/development decision. If numbers of servers in use were
important, and it probably is, that would be measured differently. The
discussion was about apples and you interject a specious comment about
shrimp.
Ignoramus23257
I believe that they do it by "hostname", so if you have xxx.abc.com
and yyy.abc.com on the same IP, that counts as two websites. I may be
wrong.
> The 6 of the top ten most reliable hosting companies in July use Linux.
>
> http://news.netcraft.com/
Look at the complete list, it is even more impressive.
i
>>
>> i
>>
>> >>
>> >> >> P.S. The marginal cost of administration on these linux servers, that
>> >> >> is, the extra effort to manage them individually, is zero. They are
>> >> >> all managed by scripts and system administrators do absolutely nothing
>> >> >> for each individual server. This is in contrast to Windows, where
>> >> >> people have to go from machine to machine and click buttons.
>> >> >>
>> >> > Your knowledge of Windows server administration is poor.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Thank God. That would definitely not be a skill that I would
>> >> seek. What I have seen, as far as windows administration, is that
>> >> people endlessly click mouse buttons, do the same thing on every
>> >> machine, spend enormous amount of time (and thus money!) and think
>> >> that it is normal.
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
--
JEDIDIAH
>
> "Ignoramus23257" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.23257.invalid> wrote in message
> news:VKudnSwMv8S0byrV...@giganews.com...
>> On 2008-08-29, amicus_curious <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Ignoramus23257" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.23257.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:Kfqdnbt6j6UzeyrV...@giganews.com...
>>>> At work, we removed Microsoft Windows on 22 servers. Replaced it with
>>>> Ubuntu linux (server edition, no GUI). Guess how this shows up on the
>>>> "server market share" numbers? That's right, they count as Windows
>>>> servers.
>>>>
>>> Wrong. They don't show up at all. The market figures are for the
>>> revenues generated in total for the product class. If a server is
>>> sold new, with or without an OS, the price is counted as part of the
>>> overall server market. If software is sold without hardware and it
>>> is deemed to be a server sale, it is counted. If there is no money
>>> involved, it is not counted.
>>
>> The point is, the market share figures measured by $$, do not properly
>> reflect what OS are the servers eventually running.
>>
> If that is/was your point, then that is what you should have said rather
> than "they count as Windows servers". Forschtay?
>
> But who would ever care about that anyway? Market statistics are intended
> to tell those whose business is affected by what the market is doing
...the problem with that idea is that these numbers represent only
the most superficial way of viewing the situation. For systems like
these, the OS and server costs are going to be relatively meagre. Given
that storage and software costs will be far more "interesting", any
analysis of the market that doesn't include number of servers is crude
to the point of not being useful.
> something that would cause them to make a better product
> promotion/development decision. If numbers of servers in use were
> important, and it probably is, that would be measured differently. The
> discussion was about apples and you interject a specious comment about
> shrimp.
>
--
Unfortunately, the universe will not conform itself to
your fantasies. You have to manage based on what really happens |||
rather than what you would like to happen. This is true of personal / | \
affairs, government and business.
DFS
> At work, we removed Microsoft Windows on 22 servers. Replaced it with
> Ubuntu linux (server edition, no GUI). Guess how this shows up on the
> "server market share" numbers? That's right, they count as Windows
> servers.
>
> i
> P.S. The marginal cost of administration on these linux servers, that
> is, the extra effort to manage them individually, is zero. They are
> all managed by scripts and system administrators do absolutely nothing
> for each individual server. This is in contrast to Windows, where
> people have to go from machine to machine and click buttons.
That's 'cause you have ignorant admins. Even I, a desktop jockey, know you
can script the heck out of Windows servers.
Mark Hobley
> Your knowledge of Windows server administration is poor.
Not necessarily. Microsoft Windows does not work well in unmanned or
automated environments, or in environments where manned applications are
being used on the same machines being used to provide services.
--
Mark Hobley,
393 Quinton Road West,
Quinton, BIRMINGHAM.
B32 1QE.
Mark Hobley
> Thank God. That would definitely not be a skill that I would
> seek. What I have seen, as far as windows administration, is that
> people endlessly click mouse buttons, do the same thing on every
> machine, spend enormous amount of time (and thus money!) and think
> that it is normal.
That is my experience too. I work in an educational institute, and the
system administrators go round to each of the computers to perform
maintenance and upgrades. (There are over 1000 computers on one site
alone, and the institute has additional outreach centres across the
entire county.)
I ran a shared network once, and I installed my Linux based server at a
remote location. A friend decided to deploy his Microsoft Windows NT
server at the same location.
Every few days he used to keep having to go and attend to a
software problem on his machine. In contrast, my machine ran without
attendance for about 18 months of operation before stopping due to dust
clogging the power supply intake fan. (Now that is bad administration -
leaving computers running for more than a year without cleaning them.)
Mark.
Ignoramus4791
> Ignoramus23257 <ignoram...@nospam.23257.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Thank God. That would definitely not be a skill that I would
>> seek. What I have seen, as far as windows administration, is that
>> people endlessly click mouse buttons, do the same thing on every
>> machine, spend enormous amount of time (and thus money!) and think
>> that it is normal.
>
> That is my experience too. I work in an educational institute, and the
> system administrators go round to each of the computers to perform
> maintenance and upgrades. (There are over 1000 computers on one site
> alone, and the institute has additional outreach centres across the
> entire county.)
Compare this with many Linux installations, such as what I have at
work and at home, where computers are managed by scripts and adding
more computers does not add any extra work for people. (other than
plopping in the install disk, or course)
> I ran a shared network once, and I installed my Linux based server at a
> remote location. A friend decided to deploy his Microsoft Windows NT
> server at the same location.
>
> Every few days he used to keep having to go and attend to a
> software problem on his machine. In contrast, my machine ran without
> attendance for about 18 months of operation before stopping due to dust
> clogging the power supply intake fan. (Now that is bad administration -
> leaving computers running for more than a year without cleaning
> them.)
Most decent places actually have filtered air.
Canuck57
"Ignoramus23257" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.23257.invalid> wrote in message
It is, it has the kind of load Microsoft IIS can handle. I believe there
was more than one too, Network Solutions is one that comes to mind. They
were also hacked shortly after the conversion. PR move.
The best part is many business are now moving off of IIS and using
Linux/Apache.
Clogwog
bericht news:7ZMtk.37564$W71....@newsfe12.ams2...
> Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>
>> The number is higher than 13 percent (my mistake BTW) but no where near
>> 50
>> percent.
>
> An explanation to the hard of thinking:
>
> The metric used to determine "market share" was /revenue/ which is an
> obvious nonsense when you're considering a (mostly) free operating system.
>
> I did about 400 server installs last year - /none/ of them used MS
> products
> (because they don't work properly),
lol !, tell your boss to fire your fucking arse and hire some cunt who knows
what they're doing.
Rex Ballard
> http://www.techspot.com/news/31405-linux-server-market-exceeds-13.html
> <quote>
> Published: August 28, 2008, 11:18 AM EST
>
> Linux has always been better received in the server market than the desktop
> market, where it's compatibility with UNIX and POSIX-compliance has made it
> a great fit for companies who aren't about to shell out for UNIX licensing.
> The past year along has seen significant Linux server growth, which now
> accounts for over 13% of the market.
Keep in mind that this is market share by REVENUE, not unit volumes.
And
this is all revenue, including hardware, software licenses, access
licenses (CALS),
and/or Enterprise licenses. Given that the average Windows 2003
Enterprise Edition
system would cost 6-15 times what a similarly configured Linux system
would cost,
it's not such a surprising development. That could put Linux at over
50% in terms of
unit volumes.
I also found it interesting that Z-Series got 11.8% of the market, and
each Z-Series
can run a as many as a thousand virtualized Linux servers (which were
probably NOT
counted in the previous number).
The other thing is that virtualization, 8 core blades, and integration
of blade servers to
storage arrays may have further increased the number of virtual Linux
servers per physical
server. This would also substantially lower the price per server,
since hardware costs could
be spread across 4-8 virtual servers per blade. That would be another
advantage of Linux
making efficient use of smaller footprints, allowing more virtual
servers per blade, compared
to Windows 2003 or Windows 2008 which has a much larger footprint, has
much larger CPU
and memory demands, meaning fewer virtual servers per blade.
> They share this with many top players, including Microsoft, who has more
> than a third of the total market.
Again, this is a third by revenue. If Linux costs $1000 per
virtualized server, and Windows costs $5,000 per virtualized server, a
13% to 34% could translate to 50% Linux and 20% Windows by volume. If
I have $13 million at $1000 per virtualized server for Linux, that's
about 13,000 servers. $34 million at $5,000 per server would be just
under 7 million servers. That would mean Linux would have almost
double the total number of virtualized servers.
> </quote>
See also
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS21399008
Top-Level Server Market Findings
* Linux servers posted year-over-year revenue growth of 10.0%, for
a total of $1.9 billion in the quarter. Linux servers now represent
13.4% of all server revenue, up from 9.4% a year ago.
* Unix servers experienced year-over-year revenue growth of 7.7%.
The high-end enterprise segment of the Unix market was strongest of
all three segments (volume, midrange enterprise and high-end
enterprise), as worldwide Unix revenues totaled $4.6 billion in 2Q08,
representing 32.7% of quarterly server spending. Unix servers account
for the second-largest segment of spending, by operating system in the
worldwide server market.
* Microsoft Windows server revenue was $5.1 billion in 2Q08,
showing 1.7% year-over-year growth and comprising 36.5% of all server
revenue in the quarter. Windows servers account for the single largest
segment of spending, by operating system, in the worldwide server
market.
* IBM's System z servers running z/OS experienced the second
consecutive quarter of positive revenue growth, with 31.7% year-over-
year growth in 2Q08 to $1.6 billion. IBM mainframes running the z/OS
operating system accounted for 11.8% of all server revenue in 2Q08.
"IBM regained the top spot in Unix market share on the strength of its
Power-based System p and merged Power Systems families, growing
revenue nearly 25.7% in the quarter and gaining 5.1% points in year-
over-year comparisons," said Steve Josselyn, research director for
Enterprise Platforms at IDC. "Sun took second position with 31.1%
share, posting a drop of 5.6% points from a year ago, and HP rounds
out the top three with 25.8% share and a gain of 1% point. Overall,
the Unix market remains a significant source of revenue and
competition among the top three suppliers."
> ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**
Hadron
> On Aug 28, 8:39 pm, "Ezekiel" <z...@zekerules.com> wrote:
>> http://www.techspot.com/news/31405-linux-server-market-exceeds-13.html
>
>> <quote>
>> Published: August 28, 2008, 11:18 AM EST
>>
>> Linux has always been better received in the server market than the desktop
>> market, where it's compatibility with UNIX and POSIX-compliance has made it
>> a great fit for companies who aren't about to shell out for UNIX licensing.
>> The past year along has seen significant Linux server growth, which now
>> accounts for over 13% of the market.
>
> Keep in mind that this is market share by REVENUE, not unit volumes.
> And
> this is all revenue, including hardware, software licenses, access
> licenses (CALS),
> and/or Enterprise licenses. Given that the average Windows 2003
> Enterprise Edition
> system would cost 6-15 times what a similarly configured Linux system
> would cost,
Links to these ridiculous claims please. Not forgetting to factor in
cost of administration and HW.
Moshe Goldfarb.
My head is still spinning from Rex's last post.
This one has it spinning even faster...
He reminds me of an insurance salesman that used to come to my parents
house once in a while.
He told these awful jokes and interspersed them with horror stories of
people dying without insurance etc.
I was a kid at the time but even then I knew this guy was a real piker.
The Natural Philosopher
>
> I recall that Microsoft made a deal with a "defunct domain hosting"
> company, whereby Microsoft would pay to that company for using IIS to
> host those "domains under construction", and that would hugely inflate
> IIS market share due to sheer number of these worthless domains. Is
> that true?
The Ghost In The Machine
<a@b.c>
wrote
on Tue, 02 Sep 2008 21:28:59 +0100
<122038734...@proxy02.news.clara.net>:
IIS is already attempting it, though GoDaddy is cleverly hiding it
for some reason.
shows Godaddy at #10 on the hosting list, running Winserver 2003.
However, a simple wget shows little:
$ wget -O /dev/null --server-response http://www.godaddy.com/
--2008-09-02 14:21:37-- http://www.godaddy.com/
Resolving www.godaddy.com... 208.109.132.201
Connecting to www.godaddy.com|208.109.132.201|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response...
HTTP/1.0 200 OK
Connection: Close
Pragma: no-cache
cache-control: no-cache
Refresh: 0.1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Length: unspecified [text/html]
Saving to: `/dev/null'
[ <=>
] 415 --.-K/s in 0s
2008-09-02 14:21:38 (50.3 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [415]
Whether this is because of sophisticated configuration of IIS or
some caching scheme in front, I for one do not know.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/05/29/go_daddy_assumes_850000_registerfly_domains.html
shows GoDaddy gobbling up RegisterFly, for example. This might
explain a secondary bump from 32% to 35% mid-2007.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2006/04/06/april_2006_web_server_survey.html
is probably when Netcraft first noticed the shift, which shows up as a
rather sizable bump mid-2006 timeframe, from 20% to 32% over about a 4
month period.
The games domains play...
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #10239993:
char * f(char *p) {char *q = malloc(strlen(p)); strcpy(q,p); return q; }
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Ignoramus2176
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, The Natural Philosopher
><a@b.c>
> wrote
> on Tue, 02 Sep 2008 21:28:59 +0100
><122038734...@proxy02.news.clara.net>:
>> Ignoramus23257 wrote:
>>>
>>> I recall that Microsoft made a deal with a "defunct domain hosting"
>>> company, whereby Microsoft would pay to that company for using IIS to
>>> host those "domains under construction", and that would hugely inflate
>>> IIS market share due to sheer number of these worthless domains. Is
>>> that true?
>> Dunno, but it seems a task that IIS could almost manage..
>
> IIS is already attempting it, though GoDaddy is cleverly hiding it
> for some reason.
>
> http://news.netcraft.com/
>
> shows Godaddy at #10 on the hosting list, running Winserver 2003.
>
> However, a simple wget shows little:
>
> $ wget -O /dev/null --server-response http://www.godaddy.com/
> Connecting to www.godaddy.com|208.109.132.201|:80... connected.
> HTTP request sent, awaiting response...
> HTTP/1.0 200 OK
> Connection: Close
> Pragma: no-cache
> cache-control: no-cache
> Refresh: 0.1
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
> Length: unspecified [text/html]
> Saving to: `/dev/null'
I lost you here, what are you implying?
i
>
> [ <=>
> ] 415 --.-K/s in 0s
>
> 2008-09-02 14:21:38 (50.3 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [415]
>
> Whether this is because of sophisticated configuration of IIS or
> some caching scheme in front, I for one do not know.
>
> http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/05/29/go_daddy_assumes_850000_registerfly_domains.html
>
> shows GoDaddy gobbling up RegisterFly, for example. This might
> explain a secondary bump from 32% to 35% mid-2007.
>
> http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2006/04/06/april_2006_web_server_survey.html
>
> is probably when Netcraft first noticed the shift, which shows up as a
> rather sizable bump mid-2006 timeframe, from 20% to 32% over about a 4
> month period.
>
> The games domains play...
>
--
Rex Ballard
> Rex Ballard <rex.ball...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Aug 28, 8:39 pm, "Ezekiel" <z...@zekerules.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.techspot.com/news/31405-linux-server-market-exceeds-13.html
>
> >> <quote>
> >> Published: August 28, 2008, 11:18 AM EST
>
> >> Linux has always been better received in the server market than the desktop
> >> market, where it's compatibility with UNIX and POSIX-compliance has made it
> >> a great fit for companies who aren't about to shell out for UNIX licensing.
> >> The past year along has seen significant Linux server growth, which now
> >> accounts for over 13% of the market.
>
> > Keep in mind that this is market share by REVENUE, not unit volumes.
> > And this is all revenue, including hardware, software licenses, access
> > licenses (CALS), and/or Enterprise licenses.
Pricing for server and client licenses.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtobuy/licensing/pricing.mspx
(estimate based on 1000 CALS to get equivalent for 1 Linux server).
Remember that prices here are Per Processor Core.
Remember, there are no Client Access Licenses with Red Hat Linux.
Linux TCO - vs Microsoft Fast [with the] Facts
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Breaking/TCO-study-Linux-wins-again/2004/12/13/1102786990788.html
The Ghost In The Machine
<ignora...@NOSPAM.2176.invalid>
wrote
on Tue, 02 Sep 2008 18:19:21 -0500
<6M6dnQfL1M5kVCDV...@giganews.com>:
You're not familiar with 'wget'? 'man wget'. ;-) In
a normal IIS response one might expect to see
an appropriate Server: Microsoft-IIS/* header.
The fact that GoDaddy does not choose to do so is
interesting, though it gets weird, as a later
request generates far more output, including
Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
X-Powered-By: ASP.NET
X-AspNet-Version: 2.0.50727
So color my conclusion premature. I suspect a minor malfunction
on their end.
Interestingly, 208.109.132.201 resolves to
corpweb-v101.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net .
www.secureserver.net resolves to 208.109.132.208, which
is on the same subnet; the redirect eventually bangs
around to http://default.secureserver.net on a
completely different subnet.
>
> i
>
>>
>> [ <=>
>> ] 415 --.-K/s in 0s
>>
>> 2008-09-02 14:21:38 (50.3 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [415]
>>
>> Whether this is because of sophisticated configuration of IIS or
>> some caching scheme in front, I for one do not know.
>>
>> http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/05/29/go_daddy_assumes_850000_registerfly_domains.html
>>
>> shows GoDaddy gobbling up RegisterFly, for example. This might
>> explain a secondary bump from 32% to 35% mid-2007.
>>
>> http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2006/04/06/april_2006_web_server_survey.html
>>
>> is probably when Netcraft first noticed the shift, which shows up as a
>> rather sizable bump mid-2006 timeframe, from 20% to 32% over about a 4
>> month period.
>>
>> The games domains play...
>>
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Warning: This encrypted signature is a dangerous munition.
Please notify the US government immediately upon reception.
0000 0000 0000 0000 0001 0000 0000 0000 ...
none of your buisiness
> Linux TCO - vs Microsoft Fast [with the] Facts
>
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Breaking/TCO-study-Linux-wins-again/2004/12/13/1102786990788.html
>
not to mention that these factors were not included in the base study.
[Quote]
The study was first issued in April 2002. "We have now updated this report
to accommodate the changes in both platforms. We have also extended the
model to increase its relevance and accuracy," said Con Zymaris, chief
executive officer of Cybersource.
The study covers the average requirements over a period of three years.
Zymaris said the timeframe was chosen because the costs of upgrading had to
be borne repeatedly in the case of Windows.
He said given the fact that the company deals in open source products, four
aspects had been factored in to tip the scales towards Microsoft:
[Quote]
The model was not modified to to reflect research by the Robert Frances
Group which showed that Linux needed 82 percent fewer staff resources.
The costs of malware - viruses, spyware, worms, keyloggers, adware - were
not taken into account. Zymaris said every research point found had
suggested that this cost was essentially and predominantly a Windows
platform cost, resulting in billions lost by business every year.
Costs which arose when systems need to be pre-emptively rebooted or crashed,
resulting in unscheduled downtime, were not taken into account. "All our
research indicates that Linux rarely if ever suffers such problems and open
source platforms on the whole are extremely robust," Zymaris said.
"Finally, because Microsoft has claimed that introducing Linux into an
environment will lead to increased reliance on external consultants, we
have tripled the amount budgeted for such requirements on the Linux
models," he said.
[/Quote]
this makes the TCO for linux actually over 40% cheaper than windows.
shmell...@hotmail.com
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> > Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:39:41 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.techspot.com/news/31405-linux-server-market-exceeds-13.html
>
> >>> <quote>
> >>> Published: August 28, 2008, 11:18 AM EST
>
> >>> Linux has always been better received in the server market than the
> >>> desktop market, where it's compatibility with UNIX and POSIX-compliance
> >>> has made it a great fit for companies who aren't about to shell out for
> >>> UNIX licensing. The past year along has seen significant Linux server
> >>> growth, which now accounts for over 13% of the market.
>
> >>> still make up the lion's share of all servers active in the world,
> >>> vendors who support and sell Linux will likely have to find new ways to
> >>> erode Microsoft market share rather than others, or they risk stalling
> >>> growth. </quote>
>
> >> I suspect the number is even higher.
> >> Linux makes a good cost effective server operating system.
>
> > The numbers are about revenue, not about count of machines
>
> Exactly! And that information is carefully concealed!!!!
>
> Last I heard, more than 50% of all servers are running Linux.
>
> It doesn't talk about revenue that it generates for Linux customers
> either. E.g. Google alone has 1 million Linux servers and that generates
> one third as much revenue as Micoshaft in its entire global operations!!!!
Source?
The Ghost In The Machine
<shmell...@hotmail.com>
wrote
on Tue, 2 Sep 2008 20:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
<3f12dd8f-f7d2-4df4...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>:
First off, Google does not generate revenue; it transfers
it. The revenue comes from the advertisers financing
Google's operations, since Google has economies of scale
regarding searching. (It gets interesting since Google
also offers per-site searching; if an advertiser contracts
with Google as a search engine for his site, I'm wondering
who pays what when.)
Similar claims could be made for Microsoft, of course.
In fact, I'm not sure if any non-farm company creates
wealth, although they might create brand name recognition.
(Of course they can create wealth for themselves.)
Second off, one has to be very careful here;
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=GOOG in particular makes a
distinction between revenue, gross profit, earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA),
net income available to common, and diluted EPS. There
are also operating cash flow and levered free cash flow,
in a different portion of Yahoo!'s report.
And then there's market cap, which is basically the
worth of the company as judged by the market.
For its part
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=GOOG
has a Financials section, which relates Total Revenue,
Gross Profit, Operating Income, and Net Income.
So...using Yahoo!, since I'm slightly more familiar with it:
MSFT GOOG RHT
Revenue: 60.42B 19.61B 0.56078B
(32.5%) (0.93%)
Gross Profit: 48.82B 9.94B 0.44236B
(20.4%) (0.91%)
EBITDA: 26.01B 7.16B 0.11019B
(27.5%) (0.42%)
Net Income: 17.68B 4.83B 0.07774B
(27.3%) (0.44%)
Market cap: 245.65B 144.87B 3.91B
(59.0%) (1.59%)
By the first four of these metrics Microsoft is 3-5 times
bigger, but is depressed (or Google and Redhat inflated)
as far as stock price goes.
In a rational market the percentages would probably be
equal, though in all fairness I can't say I'm expert in
all this.
(And yes, disclaimer: I am not an investment adviser. ;-) )
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #1123133:
void f(FILE * fptr, char *p) { fgets(p, sizeof(p), fptr); }
Tom Shelton
> On Aug 31, 4:40 pm, Hadron <hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Rex Ballard <rex.ball...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > On Aug 28, 8:39 pm, "Ezekiel" <z...@zekerules.com> wrote:
>> >>http://www.techspot.com/news/31405-linux-server-market-exceeds-13.html
>>
>> >> <quote>
>> >> Published: August 28, 2008, 11:18 AM EST
>>
>> >> Linux has always been better received in the server market than the desktop
>> >> market, where it's compatibility with UNIX and POSIX-compliance has made it
>> >> a great fit for companies who aren't about to shell out for UNIX licensing.
>> >> The past year along has seen significant Linux server growth, which now
>> >> accounts for over 13% of the market.
>>
>> > Keep in mind that this is market share by REVENUE, not unit volumes.
>> > And this is all revenue, including hardware, software licenses, access
>> > licenses (CALS), and/or Enterprise licenses.
>
> Pricing for server and client licenses.
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtobuy/licensing/pricing.mspx
> (estimate based on 1000 CALS to get equivalent for 1 Linux server).
> Remember that prices here are Per Processor Core.
>
You don't need 1000 cals to run a windows web server...
--
Tom Shelton
Peter Köhlmann
Just leave that "web" out of "server"
Because you introduced it, and it is irrelevant
--
The National Short-Sleeved Shirt Association says:
Support your right to bare arms!
Tom Shelton
You're right - I somehow read web server above...
--
Tom Shelton
Rex Ballard
> On 2008-09-02, Rex Ballard <rex.ball...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You don't need 1000 cals to run a windows web server...
You might be right about that, a complex application running on
Windows (as opposed to trivial static text and static ASP) would
probably have a lot of trouble handling 1,000 concurrent users.
Linux, on the other hand, typically handles such loads.
Keep in mind that for extended "sessions" such as database
interactions, complex forms, and other persisted cookies or "logged
in" users, each such "session" constitutes a single concurrent user
for the duration of the log-in session.
There are "unlimited user" licenses for Windows servers running SQL
Server, but they are a bit more expensive. If I recall correctly,
it's around $15,000 per processor core.
Rex