Windows Servers Neck and Neck with Unix Servers 492
BrainSurgeon writes "According to the Register, Windows based servers are now even with Unix based servers in terms of sales for the first time ever." From the article: "In an overall up server market, IDC counted $4.2bn worth of Microsoft Windows server sales on the back of 12 percent growth. Total Unix sales also hit $4.2bn in the period, IDC said, on 3 per cent revenue growth. Those totals left Microsoft and Unix systems holding 35 per cent of the server market each."
Sales != volume (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's only sales.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Depressing. (Score:2, Insightful)
Calculation (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Okay so... (Score:3, Insightful)
How many of you get your servers with an OS installed on it? I surely dont. Then I install linux. And I buy a crapload of hardware.
sales or actual units? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it just me or does it seem like there are still a hell of lot more pears out there...
Re:Okay so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Still, this leaves us with 20% unaccounted for. What percentage of these were sold w/o an OS, and how many of these will end up with Linux (OK, fine, or BSD) on them? What other Operating Systems are filling in the gaps?
Corrolation (Score:4, Insightful)
So in this case the sales increase is not necessarily based on the quality of the offering but on the convenience.
As Usual, More FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
The report actually indicates that Windows Servers are gaining a smaller share of the server market INCREASE than they should, and Linux is gaining TWICE as much as it should if they were all actually gaining an equal share.
Also a number of idiot commentators are saying "Windows servers wipes the floor with Linux" when in fact the report shows that both Windows and Linux are wiping the floor with PROPRIETARY UNIX.
Yawn - big surprise. This has been a foregone conclusion of every analyst for the past two or three years - that Linux (and to a lesser degree Windows) will replace proprietary UNIX and then the battle will come down to Linux vrs Windows - which Linux will win handily.
Misleading headline (Score:3, Insightful)
The raw number of sales between Unix-based and Microsoft-based servers not being considered by the article. The dollar-value of sales is what they're looking at. In terms of dollar value, as much money was spent on Microsoft-based servers as on Unix-based servers, at $4.2bn
If you're going to talk about the real number of servers being implemented, you need to consider the fact that, in general, Microsoft-based solutions cost a whole lot more than Unix-based solutions.
Interestingly enough, $1.2bn was spent on Linux-based servers, and Linux-based servers accounted for the largest increase in sales.
Don't forget what's at stake (Score:5, Insightful)
But don't lose sight of what's at stake. The Microsoft business model is to leverage it's monopoly in one area to drive out competition in another. If Microsoft will let Windows coexist peacefully with it's neighbors, then great. If they're true to form, though, they'll introduce incompatabilities and do everything they can to make sure businesses don't have any more of a choice in their server OS than their desktop OS.
The struggle isn't just about running the cooler OS, or using the command line vs. a GUI. It's about freedom and choice.
Re:Okay so... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sales != volume (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess my servers don't count (Score:2, Insightful)
Corp Figures (Score:5, Insightful)
How many corporations have Linux-run PDCs? Email? File Respositories? Backup? All this talk about sales figures means little when you take out the role of the server out of the discussion. Without a breakdown along the Lines of X Windows 2003 Email Servers vs. Y Linux Email Servers the discussion really has little value besides a vague sales figure. The discussion of Linux, BSD, Windows, BEOS, Tiger, whatever is is lacking any real worth. Going on 11 years here soon and corporations are not cut and dry. What does this follow fact tell you (taken from one of my clients):
# of Linux Machines 3
# Of Windows 2003 Servers 24
# Of Windows 2000 Professional Machines 8
What do they use more? Windows? Not really. The 24 2003 Servers are used to simulate web traffic and other customized in-house traffic. Not one of those Windows servers is mission critical. The 8 2000 machines are the staff's workstations. The core critical machine that run's their entire manufacturing system is a linux machine. 1 Linux email server, and 1 linux firewall. Now looking at that figure you couldn't determine how important any of those servers are, we need more data in these discussions, it's incomplete.
Purchasing numbers mean little. Even across a broad scope there is no direct correlation between number of copies of X and their level of importance in a company, if you think that probaility shows that given there are 2 milion copies of A and only 1 million copies B that A is used more in mission critical services I would recomend you avoid gambling. The Christian Bible is in over 50% of homes yet less then 10% of people can repeat the opening of Genesis. ("In the Beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" I believe.)
I'll summarize with a classic Ken-ism:
OWNERSHIP OF SOMETHING DOES NOT GARUNTEE THE UTILIZATION OF SOMETHING.
Take a typical computer, slap some SNMP on it and grab CACTI and monitor the staff in a building. I bet you the average work-hour utilization of the processors will never exceed 50%. 10 years is hasn't. Just because you have a 3.4 GHz processor doesn't mean you'll use all that CPU power.
For you drivers out there your speedometer can post 125 MPH... doesn't mean your gonna ever go that fast right?
--END RANT + LUV--
Re:Well.. (Score:2, Insightful)
No, you can thank poor administration and low bandwidth for that. Default Apache isn't going to stand up to a Slashdotting more than IIS. Would I run IIS? No. But that's besides the point.
Re:Misleading headline (Score:4, Insightful)
While you are generally correct that proprietary UNIX servers tend to cost more than Intel-based servers, the increase in Windows-based servers then reflects more an economic urge to consolidate servers and to replace expensive aging servers with less expensive Intel server than it does a perception of actual server OS value.
The same economic argument benefits Linux just as much or more so, which is one reason Linux sales are increasing even faster than MS sales.
Which merely emphasizes the point I made earlier - that once proprietary UNIX machines are dead, Windows is going to have to compete directly with Linux - which is not the same proposition as competing with expensive UNIX systems.
Re:Okay so... (Score:5, Insightful)
SQL Server, lots of them. A good, fast (check the TPCC ratings) and reliable database with lots of features. OLAP cubes. Applications servers. Scalable n-tier applications architectures. SAP. Peoplesoft. Siebel. File and print services. SOE roaming profiles. Business Objects. Reconciliation systems. Document archiving and control systems for whole governments. Entire financial systems infrastructures. Enterprise messaging and groupware, all flavours. Enterprise directories. Risk management systems. Workflow and document routing engines. EIA busses. HR systems. Project management systems. Name it, it probably runs on a Windows server just as effectively as it does on Unix servers. In the name of the immortal John Von Neumann, I command you to Grow Up!
"According to the Register.." (Score:3, Insightful)
Now there's a bad start.
Re:How accurate are these numbers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Notice the important point of this story beyond the fact that purchased Windows servers were exchanged for Linux:
Everybody involved (except the one Microsoft-based consultancy) KNEW that Linux had better stability and maintainability than Windows! Why? Because they've been there and done that with Windows and Linux!
At my last job we had lots of Windows server (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Okay so... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what he meant was "none of my friends use Windows to run their at-home MP3 Server/Firewall/DIVX FTP server."
Re:Okay so... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Okay so... (Score:1, Insightful)
That's the biggest list of buzzword-bullshit I've ever seen. So often it's a case of "I NEED that!.... I think....wait, what is it?"
Re:Okay so... (Score:1, Insightful)
My customers say "I need a reliable mail server."
I manage about 20 FreeBSD qmail servers scattered throughout the USA. They have no other open ports except SSH which is firewalled and keys-only. I have not updated any part of any of them in a year and they all still work.
I don't doubt that it's *possible* to do this with Windows, but I really hope I'm never asked to try.
Re:Depressing. (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish I had mod points so I could mod this up.
The vast majority of sizeable businesses are wired into Exchange. There's no suitable replacement in the OSS world, much less a drop-in replacement. Without this, it's next to impossible to get into this space.
Re:Okay so... (Score:2, Insightful)
Which wouldn't be so surprising. Most "real" IT departments are filled with people who know one thing and know it reasonably well enough to confuse the suits. They also spend all of their time denegrating anything that isn't "their thing". Well, that and they have a declining population of Unix admins, a growing population of Windows admins, and a growing number of users glad the stuff "just works" now.
Real world apps dont take 5 updates per release to become stable. Real world apps dont have more holes than swiss cheese.
Which leads to the question then of "why run Unix?" But, of course, you weren't talking about Unix, which is the thing you know. Having worked with both Unix and Windows relatively equally over the last 15 years, I'd say your statement is true of Windows 10 years ago, but not today. However, it's more equally true of Unix today, than 10 years ago. All of the major vendors push updates so frequently now, I can't comprehend how anyone could be so blind to it. I'd say, on average, we push updates to our servers about once every four weeks, maybe six. We check the update, see if it's going to fix something that's broken. If not, it'll wait. As for security fixes, well...on a properly secured Windows box, they aren't as necessary as the Unix crowd would have you believe. And, yes, it's relatively easy to secure a Windows box....just do what you'd do on a Unix box. If you lock it down, a good 95% of the security patches don't apply. OTOH, the amount of patches to a Unix box these days just makes me cringe.
Let me tell you a funny story about a company running a Java based CRM app on IIS. This company had roughly 5k users for this app and were having ungodly amounts of crashes and slow connect times. You know what the vendors solution was: Use Solaris or Linux.
Let me tell you a funny story about a system we just replaced. It had been running on Solaris, and on a good day, when the machine was running which was relatively rare, we could get 300 simulataneous users. Not a typo, only 300 users. We switched the app server over to Windows/IIS on relatively comparable hardware and now we can accomodate approximately 5000 users. That's the thing about anecdotes, for every one you have, someone has one that's exactly the opposite.
When dealing with a Unix platform the need to upgrade is much less since the majority of the needed items are rolled into almost all prior versions and you generally wont have some crap-ass "built for XP" compatibility issues.
This is probably the most interesting statement you made, as it's so untrue. I've rarely seen a Windows 3.1 program that won't work on XP, but don't try running something that's 11 years old on a "modern" Unix variant. Binary compatibility issues alone would make your statement false. The "Built for XP" crap is just marketing. It's got more to do with the fact that "all of the drivers for the hardware used in this machine are native to the XP CD. You only need to go to the website to get updated drivers." Nothing more. Sure, you'll find the odd program here and there that won't work, but see my prior statements on anecdotal evidence.
SQL Server (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sales != volume (Score:5, Insightful)
Stupid shit tends to be more popular than high quality shit!
Britney Spears has more sales than Tom Waits, but that doesn't mean she's better.
Re:I am betting a lot of OS-less servers (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember, these numbers are based on dollars, not number of servers. Almost all of the servers you're talking about, being sold without an operating system so Linux can be installed later, are going to be way down the line in terms of cost (and cost is both cause and effect there). The number of Linux servers is going to be significantly higher than the 10% figure given in the article. They're also probably much more efficient with their dollars, able to accomplish more for the same number of dollars (e.g. ten $1,000 Linux-based servers may be able to do a lot more than one $100,000 name-brand Unix or Windows server "solution", and for the same amount in support costs, you probably get about the same amount of service.
Re:Don't forget what's at stake (Score:1, Insightful)
Speaking as a Windows guy who's also handy with *n*x
But to respond to the most common and obvious
1) Vastly improved command line and ability to both read and change configs from there. No, we're still not using flat
2) Auto-updates mirroring apt-get or Redhat update functionality. It's true (and sad) this hasn't trickled out to the apps yet.
3) Much better ability to force complex passwords.
4) Much better 'su' ability via 'runas' and other utilities. (Gripe:
5) Much stronger password hashing and closed holes which made hashes available to non-admins.
6) Win2003 does install much more secure 'out-of-the-box' these days. About as much as RH or Suse or the other major *nix distros; some services still default enabled in every popular server OS I have seen. And while I prefer knowing the OS and making changes via normal interfaces, Win2003 now ships with a 'security config wizard' type thing which leads you by the nose through a rather complete lockdown excercise. Then prints the end result.
7) It's a hell of a lot easier to run headless these days, do all your work from outside the server room. That was a rather large pain for some tasks in the old NT4 days.
8) Very few actions require reboots or service interruptions. MS still needs to do better in this respect, but truthfully the service interruption of a security patch these days is often less than 3 minutes - even if multiple patches being installed. Compares well with Sun & others. Caveat: some actions tell you to reboot but don't actually require it, and it takes experience to know which ones are which.
9) The transition from Netbios/WINS to DNS is complete, and working well.
10) 'Jumpstart' type installs are a solved issue that used to be a huge pain.
11) IIS is very secure these days (about freakin' time!). And it no longer installs by default which is a relief.
12) Much greater scalability in a single box than we used to have (in terms of multiprocessing, memory limits, disk volume sizes, etc)
There's still some stuff that ticks me off. I'd like to remove Outlook Express, IE, and WMP from my Win2003 servers; it's lame that they are there to start with, and inexcusable that I have to resort to hackish tricks to get them off my systems.
Rumor has it that SFU (you called it Interix) will actually be made a default part of the Win2003v2 install rather than an addon package. If this doesn't open any security issues it'll be extremely cool. No more typing 'ls' when I really meant 'cd' and vice-versa! Not to mention the possibility of compile & run many *n*x packages directly on Windows - making this a default ability could really change the landscape.