Linux Market Penetration Much Less Than Previously Thought
Adrian L
A curious debate is growing in Open Source Software (OSS) circles, a previously unassailable world
where claims are often made but rarely refuted. Such claims include alleged Linux security
advantages over Windows 2000, of course, but they also include the market penetration of Linux as a
server OS. In this newsletter we've discussed the various ways one can use facts and figures to lie
about such things, but a new report brings a more believable account of Linux's market share to the
forefront. And as you might expect, that market share isn't nearly as high as the Linux crowd has
claimed.
According to a new report by Gartner Dataquest, in third quarter 2000, manufacturers shipped just
8.6 percent of servers with a form of Linux, and more than 93 percent of those servers used the Red
Hat distribution. But the telling figure concerns the so-called "white box" servers that
"mom-and-pop" stores around the world sell. When you exclude these boxes from the mix and count only
name-brand servers, Linux's share falls to less than 6 percent.
Gartner Dataquest was quick to quell any reprisals from the volatile Linux community. "Linux
continues to be on a growth path," the report reads, "and Gartner Dataquest believes the demand for
Linux-based servers will grow to 10 percent of [overall] server shipments in 2001. The primary
demand for these servers will be as Internet or infrastructure servers [such as DNS, gateways,
etc.]." Gartner Dataquest notes that its primary goal for the report, which Microsoft at least
partly funded, was to establish realistic market-share data for Linux.
Previous reports from other companies place Linux market share at a much higher level, although
these reports often rely on anecdotal evidence or opinion. This week, for example, International
Data Corporation (IDC) told eWEEK that preliminary figures for 2000 place Linux's market share at 27
percent--behind Windows, which has 41 percent. IDC says the number of Linux installations on typical
PCs used as servers cause the discrepancy, although the company relies on assumptions about the
number of Linux installs that occur as a result of free downloads. IDC estimates that only 10 to 15
percent of Linux installations are bundled with a new server because most installations are
downloaded from the Internet.
For its part, Gartner Dataquest says IDC is overstating Linux's market penetration. It's
inconceivable that businesses would download a free OS without a service contract and use that OS in
a production environment, said Gartner Dataquest Principle Analyst Jeff Hewitt, who authored the
Linux report. "If that's true, then the market is in even worse shape than my survey shows," Hewitt
said. "How many support contracts are vendors going to get from those customers? I have already told
Red Hat that they are stretching the numbers they put out to the marketplace, which resulted in a
very lively debate."
Even Microsoft couldn't stay out of the debate. Doug Miller, Microsoft's director of competitive
strategy for the Windows division, told eWEEK that Microsoft helped sponsor the study to see exactly
who was using Linux. "There has been a lot of hype around Linux over the past year, and we wanted to
. . . find out the real story on its adoption," Miller said. "While I admit there has been interest
in Linux, this by no means accounts for one out of every four new servers sold. That is simply
ridiculous." According to Miller, the vast majority of Linux sales and downloads occurred so users
could experiment with it, but the OS is rarely deployed.
Obviously, the debate is far from over. With recent attacks on Linux from Microsoft executives such
as Craig Mundie, Steve Ballmer, and Jim Allchin, it's clear that the company has turned its
attention to the little OSS project that could. Whether Linux has what it takes to stand in the face
of such pressure and scrutiny will be telling for the OS, which has thus far gained success and
prominence without having to fend off any actual competition.
David Candy
--
David Candy
http://www.mvps.org/serenitymacros
Free Explorer Addin -
[Screenshot] http://www.angelfire.com/biz/serenitymacros
[Details] http://www.winsite.com/bin/Info?500000002364
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Adrian L" <n...@no.com> wrote in message news:#zE8hHB9AHA.1184@tkmsftngp05...
Adrian L
something ?
"David Candy" <dav...@sia.net.au> wrote in message news:#j8cdMB9AHA.1844@tkmsftngp02...
Larry
As a Server OS, Linux is all set. What is needed exists.
As a general applications/gaming platform, it's just not as strong.
The useability issues are certainly a factor as well.
-Larry
"Adrian L" <n...@no.com> wrote in message news:#zE8hHB9AHA.1184@tkmsftngp05...
Robert Moir
"Adrian L" <n...@no.com> wrote in message news:OhpRCVB9AHA.2216@tkmsftngp07...
> It is very much related to Windows. Where else should I have posted this ?
To alt.politics or
> something ?
>
Sure. It has as much political content as it does technical. Gartner's
surveys are BS anyway.
Bob Young
<mara...@bitey.force9.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Sure. It has as much political content as it does technical. Gartner's
>surveys are BS anyway.
>
It's easy to proclaim somebody else's work "BS." Unless the
proclamation is backed up with contrasting data, or valid and specific
questions are raised about the collection methods, making such a
proclamation makes one look at best somewhat biased, and at worst a
bit silly.
Regards
Bob Young
NT/2K Video/OpenGL Drivers
S3Graphics Inc.
Private EMail ignored
Except from Cute Nasty Women.
Ian Semmel
They are selling programs now that allow you to run Windows programs under
Linux.
Am I missing something?
"Larry" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:#SdE64B9AHA.1164@tkmsftngp07...
Chris Barnes
> manufacturers shipped just 8.6 percent of servers with a form of Linux,
The fact that *any* are shipping with Linux pre-installed is fairly
amazing to me - in my department we have roughly a dozen machines acting
as servers of one sort or another - 2 are Win2000, the others are all
Linux.
Guess how many came with Linux on the drive out of the box?
ZERO (all had some flavor of Windows)
Which would seem to indicate that it is the Windows numbers that are
inflated, not the other way around.
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
chris-...@tamu.edu ICQ: 3581645
Computer Systems Manager ph: 979-845-7801
Department of Physics fax: 979-845-2590
Texas A&M University pager: 979-228-1604
Chris Barnes
> I've never really got the point of Linux.
> They are selling programs now that allow you to run Windows programs
under
> Linux.
> Am I missing something?
In the slightly modified words of Bill Clinton, circa 1992, it's money
stupid.
The software cost to setup a machine to act as a webserver, email server,
and file server under Windows will cost you in the hundreds, and problaby
thousands of dollars (if you use Exchange Server). The same software
cost under Linux will cost you zero.
Note: I use and LIKE both. But there are times where one tool is better
for a particular job over the other. A person who blindly closes their
eyes to one to gaze upon the other is a fool.
Adrian L
For most people it would be more expensive to waste precious time studying
Linux than buying a Windows license.
Exchange Server may be expensive but it has great features for businesses, and
there is no Linux equivalent to it.
"Chris Barnes" <chris-...@tamu.edu> wrote in message news:OLAj83E9AHA.1800@tkmsftngp07...
Robert Moir
"Bob Young" <BYo...@S3Graphics.Com> wrote in message
news:3b2bb526....@msnews.microsoft.com...
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 19:09:45 +0100, "Robert Moir"
> <mara...@bitey.force9.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >Sure. It has as much political content as it does technical. Gartner's
> >surveys are BS anyway.
> >
>
> It's easy to proclaim somebody else's work "BS." Unless the
> proclamation is backed up with contrasting data, or valid and specific
> questions are raised about the collection methods, making such a
> proclamation makes one look at best somewhat biased, and at worst a
> bit silly.
Actually I was thinking about the number of times the same data has been
used to prove completely contrasting points. Which makes Gartner look a bit
silly.
Ian Fette, MCP
themselves, the way they want? I know I do... I know a lot of people who
order servers without an OS and then slap Linux on...
A more accurate rating is to determine what real-world servers are running.
Do queries on major domains, like ZDNet, etc... you will find that Linux has
a very large market-share on web-servers...
"Adrian L" <n...@no.com> wrote in message news:#zE8hHB9AHA.1184@tkmsftngp05...
Choong
expensive as Windows admins are somewhat more common than *nix admins these
days. Depending on whether you are implementing a new system or being
brought
in to manage an existing system Lotus Domino may be a valid solution.
Windows
often has the advantage of leveraging existing Windows experience. *nix
sometimes the same. Linux on inexpensive hardware has the advantage of a
very
low cost of entry and at the same time a viable upgrade path to both Linux
on
mid-range hardware and similar operating systems on high-end hardware. WinXP
64-bit will likely improve the situation somewhat, but exactly how much
remains to be seen.
-Choong
Rafal
> Yeah, if you have a simple Web server, Linux is OK IF you know how to use
it.
What's a simple web server? Is apache a simple web server? And how did you
learn to use windows, or were u born with the knowledge already :)?
> For most people it would be more expensive to waste precious time studying
> Linux than buying a Windows license.
I seriously doubt that learning all the features of Exchange Server takes
less time than learning application that run on Linux. Plus, getting a
windows license does not entitle you to run Exchange Server, don't forget
you have to learn windows too.
> Exchange Server may be expensive but it has great features for businesses,
and
> there is no Linux equivalent to it.
I don't know anything about Exchange Server, but I am sure there is
something on Linux that can do the job as well.
--
Rafal Gan
David A. Spicer
many are NOT running Windows servers.
"Adrian L" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
news:#yU6P9E9AHA.1872@tkmsftngp07...
Jose Ines
Maybe its the version, I dont now.
"Larry" <no...@none.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:#SdE64B9AHA.1164@tkmsftngp07...
Chris Barnes
> Yeah, if you have a simple Web server, Linux is OK IF you know how to
> use it.
Apache is "simple"? Lol.
> For most people it would be more expensive to waste precious time
studying
> Linux than buying a Windows license.
Rotfl. How much time (and money) is spent studying Windows? Reminds me
of those commercials back in the 80's Apple put out trying to convince
people that they could use a Mac and never have to open a user manual.
> Exchange Server may be expensive but it has great features for
businesses,
> and there is no Linux equivalent to it.
IF you need those features of Exchange, I agree with you. It's been my
experiance that most businesses don't need those features - all they
want/need is a basic email system. For that, Exchange is *way* overkill.
Paul Coen
>
> Has it ever occurred to you that many Linux admins prefer to load Linux
> themselves, the way they want? I know I do... I know a lot of people who
> order servers without an OS and then slap Linux on...
> A more accurate rating is to determine what real-world servers are running.
> Do queries on major domains, like ZDNet, etc... you will find that Linux has
> a very large market-share on web-servers...
>
We do that for all our OSes -- we buy without OS and put Linux
or Netware on it (ALA program agreement). If we want Win2000 on
the server for an application, we buy a server license at the
edu price.
A lot of sites using netware have MLA/ALA agreements, and
you don't need to buy Linux. So a lot of those servers
are shipping with no OS.
Of course, there's also no distinction between server function
(file/print, web, application etc.) in a lot of these surveys.
When Microsoft compares itself to, say, Netware, they include
every server sale, even systems obviously being used as
web/application servers. When they're comparing to Linux,
they include the file/print side, even though most Linux
servers are probably being used for web/application.
Frankly, the way the server market has been growing, there's
enough pie for everyone.
Larry
IMHO Linux is for 3 classes of user:
1. Server.
2. Engineering.
3. Broke Teenagers.
:)
-Larry
"Ian Semmel" <ise...@rocketcomp.com.au> wrote in message
news:tifgqco...@news.supernews.com...
Robert Moir
"Bob Adkins" <bo...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:rfghitcn5qtlvfn2e...@4ax.com...
> >surveys are BS anyway.
> >
>
> speech.
And? It supports MS's position in the market so of course their marketing
people will love it. Still don't make it right.
My problem with gartner and the like is that I've seen, in the same week,
the same survey used by different people, complete with quotes from a
gartner person, saying opposite things. IMHO Gartner, and all the other
companies like them - let me make it clear I am not picking on Gartner in
particular - are proof that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Robert Moir
"Ian Fette, MCP" <ia...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:Od7gCvF9AHA.1404@tkmsftngp04...
> Has it ever occurred to you that many Linux admins prefer to load Linux
> themselves, the way they want? I know I do... I know a lot of people who
> order servers without an OS and then slap Linux on...
> A more accurate rating is to determine what real-world servers are
running.
> Do queries on major domains, like ZDNet, etc... you will find that Linux
has
> a very large market-share on web-servers...
We buy our servers without an OS installed. Even though we use windows and
could have it pre-loaded easily enough, I much prefer my team to setup a
server inhouse, our way, so there are no doubts its configured and tuned how
we want it. That, imho is the right approach to building servers regardless
of what operating system you install in the end.
Steve Howard
> the same survey used by different people, complete with quotes from a
> gartner person, saying opposite things. IMHO Gartner, and all the other
> companies like them - let me make it clear I am not picking on Gartner in
> particular - are proof that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
This is the nature of statistics.
Happens everywhere.
Steve
Ian Fette, MCP
those who like to have total control of their OS (just recompiled my 2.4.2
kernel last night...)news:#Wt4G6P9AHA.1268@tkmsftngp04...
Ian Fette, MCP
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:33:39 -0400, "Larry" <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
> >There are two problems with Linux. Software, and Software.
> >
> >As a Server OS, Linux is all set. What is needed exists.
> >
> >As a general applications/gaming platform, it's just not as strong.
> >
> >The useability issues are certainly a factor as well.
>
> system. A 1 GB OS? Come on Linux! Get with the program! Whip some Windows
> boutte'!
How is the file system bloated and confusing? It makes far more sense than
the DOS/Windows scheme... If you walk in and sit down at a computer you've
never seen before, and you see drives C-F, what does that tell you? It tells
you that there are partitions C-F... but what else? It's just not logical.
Under Linux, we have /dev/hda0, /dev/hda1, /dev/hdb0, /dev/hdb1, /dev/fd0
etc... all very logical. /dev/hda1 is the second partition on the first
drive (which is quite logical, since in programming numbering often starts
at zero), /dev/fd0 is the first floppy drive, etc. And you can assign
convenient mount points. /usr/home, /, <swap>, /boot, etc... and as for the
files, how so? Config files go into /etc/, startup for many builds in
/etc/init.d/, then you have /usr/sbin and /usr/bin, both with logical
functions... if you know what you're talking about it is much more logical
than the windows way of doing things - shove everything in C:\winnt and hope
you can sort it out later....
and BTW ext2 is a very efficient fs...
Ian Fette, MCP
> sure took a lot of words and a lot of explaining! :-)
>
> I beg to differ with you on the bloat issue too.
>
> Windows is usually well under .5 GB after a fresh install. Some Linux
> versions fully installed are over a GB!
>
> Another thing I hate about Linux is that it does not recover gracefully.
> Although Win2000 and WinXP need a lot of refinement in this area, Linux
> totally sucks at recovering from a crash. Many times you must sit there
for
> over an hour and re-install the whole bloody thing just because a few
files
> were corrupt or missing.
>
>
>
> "From the Heart of Cajun Country".
>
> Bob
Bob- if you know what you're doing, recovery is not that bad at all.
Why don't you try explaining to me how to sit down at a Windows computer and
instantly know the info about the harddrive schematics? :-) "well, pop open
FDisk, and you can see the partitions, but that doesnt tell you what drive
letter they have been assigned to.... or you can go into computer
management, but if you have RAID arrays..." and re: bloatware... you have
got to be kidding.Windows XP is a 1GB install. Go to slackware.com - you can
get regular slackware (a normal install is just a few hundred megs, if you
dont install X), you can get a version that runs off of a CD (can Windows do
that?) or you can get a version that boots off of and runs off of a Zip
disk... and thats the latest version too (It's called ZipSlack). I'd love to
see Windows attempt that...
David Baker
"Ian Fette, MCP" <ia...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:#Zvw2TC#AHA.1256@tkmsftngp05...
TSG
TSG
"David Baker" <chipp...@gci.net> wrote in message
news:ubj7LhF#AHA.2104@tkmsftngp05...
Bob Young
>Yes, but as they apply to DOS/9x. The rules change under Win2K...
>
>TSG
No. all flavors of windows use the same rules for choosing drive
letters of recognized partitions.
Different lettering between versions usually has one of two sources.
1. NT based OS's are capable of creating multiple primary partitions
on a drive, fdisk will only create one primary partition. Primary
partitions are always assigned prior to other partitions.
2. Letters are only assigned to partitions formatted with a recognized
file system, NT can't see F32, 9X can't see NTFS.
Mark Strelecki, ACP
How about an all-SCSI system running NT or 2000 and you add a bootable IDE
drive to the system.
Ever see drive letters enumerate differently?
I sure have - the old SCSI C drive becomes drive D no matter what BIOS
settings you use.
Why is that, do you suppose?
--
Mark Strelecki, ACP BE6.2195SP1.010331
Computing and Programming Since 1975 http://www.strelecki.com
Protect Your Rights -- Fight UCITA http://www.4cite.org
"Bob Young" <BYo...@S3Graphics.Com> wrote in message
news:3b44b929....@msnews.microsoft.com...
David Baker
it looks at slot controllers.
" Mark Strelecki, ACP" <be6...@nospam.strelecki.com> wrote in message
news:eSmgRgZ#AHA.1716@tkmsftngp03...
TSG
If you boot a dual-boot 2K/9x system Win9x will not display the NTFS
partition and thus will shift the drive letters.
There are other little instances where drive letters change, but I
digress...
TSG
"Bob Young" <BYo...@S3Graphics.Com> wrote in message
news:3b44b929....@msnews.microsoft.com...
TSG
TSG
"David Baker" <chipp...@gci.net> wrote in message
news:O3seC5Z#AHA.1816@tkmsftngp04...
Bob Young
>How doesn't matter. It HAPPENS, that's the point :)
>
>TSG
>
>> > "Bob Young" <BYo...@S3Graphics.Com> wrote in message
>> > news:3b44b929....@msnews.microsoft.com...
>> > > On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 13:32:39 -0400, "TSG" <no...@none.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >Yes, but as they apply to DOS/9x. The rules change under Win2K...
>> > > >
>> > > >TSG
>> > >
>> > > No. all flavors of windows use the same rules for choosing drive
>> > > letters of recognized partitions.
>> > >
>> > > Different lettering between versions usually has one of two sources.
>> > >
>> > > 1. NT based OS's are capable of creating multiple primary partitions
>> > > on a drive, fdisk will only create one primary partition. Primary
>> > > partitions are always assigned prior to other partitions.
>> > >
>> > > 2. Letters are only assigned to partitions formatted with a recognized
>> > > file system, NT can't see F32, 9X can't see NTFS.
Yes, adding an IDE drive to an all SCSI system may change the drive
letters. It would change drive letters in the same way regardless of
what flavor of Windows is being used.
My only point was that all versions of Windows, both 9X and NT based
verities use the same rules for assigning drive letters. That was in
contrast to your assertion:
"Yes, but as they apply to DOS/9x. The rules change under Win2K..."
There is a difference however, you can fix it under Win2K. For example
my drive C: is a SCSI device, even though there are two IDE hard
drives attached to the main bd IDE cntlr.
Wizard Prang
IMHO surveys seldom contradict the party that commission them.
Troll.
PRANG!
Adrian L wrote:
> According to a new report by Gartner Dataquest... Microsoft helped sponsor the study...
TSG
The damned letters can change depending on the situation. That's the point.
TSG
"Bob Young" <BYo...@S3Graphics.Com> wrote in message
news:3b35e684....@msnews.microsoft.com...
Mark Strelecki, ACP
I've been working on systems for MANY years.
I've seen changing drive letters occur in EVERY system.
Drive enumeration is simply DIFFERENT under NT/2000 than it is in 9X/ME.
If it hasn't bitten you, consider yourself fortunate, but that hardly means
the issue doesn't exist.
I have NO add-in cards - all are mobo connectors - and this applies to me.
I use the Abit BE6 board with HPT366 ATA66 drive connections on the mobo.
I can see the changed drive letters here all day long.
If you can shed some light on the problem, you just might help us all out.
Thank you for your insight and experience.
--
Mark Strelecki, ACP BE6.2195SP1.010331
Computing and Programming Since 1975 http://www.strelecki.com
Protect Your Rights -- Fight UCITA http://www.4cite.org
"TSG" <no...@none.com> wrote in message news:uGWKilx#AHA.1400@tkmsftngp05...
Cyor
<be6...@nospam.strelecki.com> wrote:
>
>I've been working on systems for MANY years.
>I've seen changing drive letters occur in EVERY system.
>Drive enumeration is simply DIFFERENT under NT/2000 than it is in 9X/ME.
I don't believe that's true. If there is credible documentation
indicating that each platform uses a different algorithm to enumerate
drives then I'll gladly modify my opinion and acknowledge that I was
incorrect.
In the absence of such documentation, I don't know of any drive letter
differences that can't be explained by one of two things:
1. NT based OS's are capable of creating multiple primary partitions
on a drive, fdisk will only create one primary partition. Under both
OS's primary partitions are always assigned prior to other partitions.
2. Letters are only assigned to partitions formatted with a file
system recognized by the OS doing the assignment, NT can't see F32,
9X can't see NTFS, Win2K can see both.
>If it hasn't bitten you, consider yourself fortunate, but that hardly means
>the issue doesn't exist.
>
It's also true that just because you've seen different drive letters
under different platforms, doesn't mean those platforms use a
different algorithm for assigning drive letters.
Two common examples:
Dual boot between 9X and NT, if _Any_ partiton(s) is something besides
FAT16, letters may be different, as that's the only file system the
two OS's have in common.
Dual boot between 9X and 2K, if _Any_ partition is NTFS, letters are
going to be different, as 9X will not assign a letter to the NTFS
partition but Win2K will.
>I have NO add-in cards - all are mobo connectors - and this applies to me.
>I use the Abit BE6 board with HPT366 ATA66 drive connections on the mobo.
>I can see the changed drive letters here all day long.
>If you can shed some light on the problem, you just might help us all out.
What OS's and what file systems are being used?
Cheers
Cyor - Create Your Own Reality
[Bob Young]
2D/3D Video Drivers for Win2K
If you can't figure out my reply address,
I probably don't want to talk to you.
TSG
Because I agree with you. He doesn't :)
TSG
" Mark Strelecki, ACP" <be6...@nospam.strelecki.com> wrote in message
news:uBDsLn##AHA.1388@tkmsftngp04...
Ron Martell
>
>I've been working on systems for MANY years.
>
>I've seen changing drive letters occur in EVERY system.
>
>Drive enumeration is simply DIFFERENT under NT/2000 than it is in 9X/ME.
>
>If it hasn't bitten you, consider yourself fortunate, but that hardly means
>the issue doesn't exist.
>
>I have NO add-in cards - all are mobo connectors - and this applies to me.
>
>I use the Abit BE6 board with HPT366 ATA66 drive connections on the mobo.
>
>I can see the changed drive letters here all day long.
>
>If you can shed some light on the problem, you just might help us all out.
>
>Thank you for your insight and experience.
The default drive enumeration under Windows NT is the same as it is
under DOS/Windows3.x/Windows9x.
However, WindowsNT has the ability to manually configure the drive
letters for any drive whereas in Windows3.x/9x this configurability is
limited to those devices that use a special driver such as CD-ROMs,
DVDs, Zip drives, etc.
Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
sniz
"TSG" <no...@none.com> wrote in message news:#q#ZxFb#AHA.2184@tkmsftngp05...
Cyor
>Windows NT CAN read a FAT32 partition. You need a patch tho. =P
>
Maybe with something 3rd party, but not out of the box, and none of
the NT Service Packs provide for NT reading F32.