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."
Okay so... (Score:4, Interesting)
Netware and OS/X?
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.
Probably useless figures. (Score:2)
Exactly. The figures are highly suspect.
Re:Okay so... (Score:3, Informative)
According to the article, Linux accounted for 10% of sales:
So Linux is being must be counted separately from Unix.
Re:Okay so... (Score:2)
Does anyone know off the tops of their heads if Linux has always been counted separately in IDC statistics, or if this is new? If it's always been this way, then bully for Windows; however you feel about the OS personally, it's kicking pretty good butt in sales.
However, if this is the first year Linux, BSD, and other free Unix OS variants haven't been included in the Unix count, then this is awfu
Re:Okay so... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Okay so... (Score:2)
From the article "Linux server sales continued to show the strongest growth at 35.2 per cent and accounted for $1.2bn in sales. Linux servers made up 10 per cent of total sales in the quarter."
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?
Re:Okay so... (Score:2)
Re:Okay so... (Score:3, Insightful)
Other IBM OSs? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Okay so... (Score:2)
Another chunk would probably be IBM mainframes running MVS. I would think this would be replacement hardware and license maintenance, etc.
I would guess that servers running MacOS X are counted as Unix sales.
Re:Okay so... (Score:2)
Re:Okay so... (Score:2, Funny)
Cleary Amiga.
Re:Okay so... (Score:2)
I hope I don't have to remind you that
UNIX != Linux
Re:Okay so... (Score:2)
Re:Okay so... (Score:2)
Re:Okay so... (Score:2)
Re:Okay so... (Score:2)
For instance, you will probably find that the average cost of the Windows se
Re:Okay so... (Score:2)
What do you think they run, pixie dust? IBM has several flavours of Unix of its own, as well pushing Linux quite hard these days.
Re:Okay so... (Score:4, Funny)
Well, actually... yes [ibm.com].
Re:Okay so... (Score:4, Funny)
Okay, so the hard drive is made of pixie dust.. Next thing you'll be telling me they have a genie [ibm.com] in there too.
Fuck. Maybe I should have thought this through first.
Re:Okay so... (Score:2)
$2,7bn is a big number. It has to be the revenue of OS-clean servers, which means that the real numbers would be quite different.
Bean Counters (Score:3, Informative)
Mostly big "enterprise" CRM and other slaes type applications, as well as document management systems. And of course IIS...
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!
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."
SQL Server (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SQL Server (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Okay so... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Sales != volume (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent up (Score:2)
Re:Sales != volume (Score:2)
Re:Sales != volume (Score:2)
that Linux servers are cheaper to maintain than Windows servers.
Re:Sales != volume (Score:5, Interesting)
It only cost a nickle to go see Gone With the Wind in first run.
KFG
Re:Sales != volume (Score:3, Informative)
You're probably right. Just like last quarter Apple sold more desktop Macs than the previous quarter but made less money per unit because they began to sell a lot of Mac minis which were cheaper.
Re:Sales != volume (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sales != volume (Score:2)
Not that far from the truth (Score:5, Interesting)
Unix is more typically loaded up, running as many things as the hardware can handle. When it starts getting too loaded then you buy another one (usually a bigger one).
We've recently bought two quad processor linux machines running vmware to run a dozen or more windows servers. Two linux sales, a dozen windows sales.
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.
That's only pre-made servers (Score:3)
Re:That's only pre-made servers (Score:2)
Pun? (Score:2)
Do blade servers run hot? Or do the British heat their knives over an open flame? Can someone explain to me what the pun is in this sentence???
Re:Pun? (Score:2)
Re:Pun? (Score:2)
Re:Pun? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Pun? (Score:2)
Re:Pun? (Score:2)
So if you want to be a cooling and ductwork engineer (Like Harry Tuttle?) do you major in thermodynamics in college?
Most blade systems run ridiculously hot (Score:2)
Re:Most blade systems run ridiculously hot (Score:2)
Most blade solutions sacrifice cooling to provide more density and thus run hotter but I can guarrantee you that our current blade design runs cooler not hotter than our 1Us.
Why? Because we push more air through the blades than we do with a 1U.
Re:Pun? (Score:2)
Re:Pun? (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe he's just been doing hot knives. [overgrow.com]
I'm suprised (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I'm suprised (Score:2, Interesting)
You would be mistaken to do that since it IS expected that Microsoft will take 50% of the market.
Problem for Microsoft is they then have to hold it against a rapidly increasing Linux - which right now is taking sales from UNIX more than it is Microsoft.
But once proprietary UNIX is dead - and it will be within five years or so - Windows server market share will then be eroded by Linux, resulting probably in a 75-25 distribution favoring Linux over the next five years.
Windows servers won't entirely go away
From TFA (Score:2)
"Linux server sales continued to show the strongest growth at 35.2 per cent and accounted for $1.2bn in sales. Linux servers made up 10 per cent of total sales in the quarter."
Re:I'm suprised (Score:2)
Computerworld's take on the story was a dose of ice cold water:
Windows Server 2003, DataCenter Server and Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition are all selling well, according to IDC's enterprise group chief, Jean S. Bozman.
Bozman also said that she could not see Linux overtaking either Windows or Unix in the foreseeable future, mainly because Linux is starting
Re:What really amazes me... (Score:2)
Is that this is happening DESPITE all the problems with Windows-related security. I guess all those MCSE's are really bucking to keep themselves employed.
Re:I'm suprised (Score:3, Interesting)
She is basically saying that because Linux is new and coming from a small base its growth percentage is out of whack and its impossible to predict what percentages it will post going forward.
Re:You're also confused. (Score:3, Interesting)
It could easily serve over 150 users of static web content (probably over 500 users if the content is truly static). I still have an 1997 IBM PC325, dual PPro 200mhz w/384mb ram that can't possibly run any version of windows, but it ha
But that's only sales.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But that's only sales.. (Score:2)
No, it just counts physical entities sold with the label "server" and tries to determine what the people paid for them and what software was delivered with them. But that's nothing new.
Re:But that's only sales.. (Score:2)
Depressing. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Depressing. (Score:2)
That's happening right now.
There are good Exchange equivalents, and Samba 4 will be able to serve as an AD Primary Domain Controller, supposedly. (If not, I'm sure Samba 5 WILL.)
We also need to emphasize the benefits of PostgreSQL and MySQL over the very expensive MS SQL Server.
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.
Calculation (Score:2, Insightful)
By sales but not numbers...... (Score:3, Interesting)
My understanding is that more major server sales folks who are pushing some Unix flavor are trying to make their money on the Service that goes with the server, not the actual initial sale. In which case it would make sense that you could knock the price down on the Unix server that's running a free OS vs. the same machine that has a 500 CAL license for Windows 2003.
I wish they would have given us number of units vs. the cost of units.
This is just murky adspeak.
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...
Neck and Neck (Score:2, Funny)
but the workload is.... (Score:5, Funny)
Here are some official numbers from the WGAF 2005 Study of total workload being handled on the net.
Unix 85%
Windows 10%
Other 5%
HOWEVER, these numbers get funny when you factor in computing time spend running malware.
Windows outperforms Unix and others in this important category. Truly Windows has no peers when executing excrement.
Unix
Other
Windows 99.9997
These are REAL NUMBERS folks. every one of them. even the 7
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.
Re:As Usual, More FUD (Score:2)
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.
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.
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:Don't forget what's at stake (Score:2)
The biggest improvement I've seen is releasing Interix, which means they really support a functional UNIX environment and using UNIX tools on your Windows servers. What other improvements have they made?
Linux == Unix (Score:2)
> strongest growth at 35.2 per cent and
> accounted for $1.2bn in sales. Linux
> servers made up 10 per cent of total sales
> in the quarter.
Linux is Unix in that matter - Unix servers (as well as older Windoze boxes) are replaced by it.
That's what I would have said as well. (Score:2)
I guess my servers don't count (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux is excluded from Unix category (Score:2, Interesting)
Granted, the Linux server $1.2 billion factory revenue is less than a third of the Unix and less than a third of the Windows market, but hardly insignificant. Also much harder to trace, I reckon, given how many people strip Windows off a Dell and make a Linux server with a spare copy of Debian.
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--
How accurate are these numbers? (Score:5, Interesting)
An example I recently was involved in: I work with a company doing software. Big and mission-critical systems. One big customer wanted a really big installation of this software. We recommended that this was run on either Linux, BSD or Solaris. Our customer had hired their own consultancy company, and these consultants were very pro-Microsoft. So the customer said "We need this to run on MS-Windows", and we said "Ok, our software can run on MS-Windows, although we cannot recommend it.".
So a big server park was ordered with MS-Windows preinstalled.
Then, as the project progressed, the customer also hired an Oracle consultant. This consultant said "I would not sleep well at night if these Oracle servers are running on MS-Windows. Other systems will give you more stable operation". So all the operating systems on the Oracle servers were scrapped, and Linux was installed instead.
Then, when all the servers were sent to a hosting provider, the hosting provider said to the customer "We see that while the Oracle servers run Linux, all the application servers run MS-Windows. We will be better at supporting this system if all the servers run the same OS, and you will probably have better uptime if running linux on the application servers too. If you don't mind we will install Linux on the application servers for you free of charge.". The customer accepted.
So while this big server park was purchased with MS-Windows pre-installed, all servers were running Linux before the system was put into use.
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!
Linux is UNIX, and what's the other 20% anyway? (Score:2)
So UNIX server sales are at least 45% to Windows 35%, and I wouldn't be surprised to find UNIX sales in the remaining 20% as well. Especially since the #1 manufacturer is IBM with their "penguin farms".
This is typical of these survey summaries. And of course you can't get at the actual results
"According to the Register.." (Score:3, Insightful)
Now there's a bad start.
A doubt I had (Score:2)
So Windows server sales == Unix server sales. If at least some portion of unix server sales are linux based systems (or other ocasionally free systems such as BSD), doesn'
At my last job we had lots of Windows server (Score:3, Insightful)
Quick! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Makes sense. (Score:2)
"Nice troll, there's a good troll"
Re:Makes sense. (Score:2, Flamebait)
2) Heard of X's networking abilities? Or VNC, if you want something more in the style of Remote Desktop.
3) I don't even know what the hell that is...
Re:Makes sense. (Score:2)
Were you trying to be funny? Try again.
Access? Remote desktop? FRONTPAGE (OMG!)?
Using a GUI to administer a server?
The equivalents of all of these have been available on Linux for the last five years. (Well, something EXACTLY as easy (and lame) as Microsoft Access hasn't, but GUI database managers have been, and the next version of OpenOffice will have the Access problem licked.)
Re:Makes sense. (Score:2)
Re:Makes sense. (Score:2)
If you mean Rekall, I'm aware of it, but as I understand it, it's not quite up to par with Access.
But I haven't used it, so I could be wrong. The screenshots look good.
Re:Makes sense. (Score:2)
Thank you for playing!
PLONK! (Oh, wait, this isn't Usenet! Where are my mod points when I need them?)
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:Well.. (Score:2)
Re:that's because W2K3 is pretty good despite /. (Score:2)
Re:that's because W2K3 is pretty good despite /. (Score:2)
Having just taken a Windows 2003 Server class, I can say with confidence that administering it is a nightmare in anything other than a business with =25 machines.
Even in a college lab environment, running canned exercises, the system will do oddball things with no explanation as to why something did or did not work. Extend this to a large corporate environment and it is no surprise to me that Windows sys admins spend their days running around madly solving problems.
And even then, you won't be using ten pe
Re:Windows should have 10 times the sales (Score:3, Interesting)
Excellent point.
Microsoft explicitly recommends running each server app on a DIFFERENT server. Don't run your Exchange on your Active Directory; don't run your license compliance app on the same server; don't run your SQL Server database on the same server.
Why? Simply because MS server app performance sucks because of "featuritis bloatware".
So how many of these new Windows servers in the study were actually running ONE-THIRD of what the Linux servers were doing?
As someone else pointed out, the roles th