OSNews

Sorry to reply to my own post, but perhaps this will prove enlightening:

http://www.echannelline.com/usa/story.cfm?item=21077

And a quote from http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2005/08/04/market
:

Currently Linux has a global market share of 2.8 percent on the desktop. It has a global market share on the server of 28.3%. While the server market is a stronghold for Linux, at first glance the desktop figure seems pretty poor. However, it’s worth putting that in perspective. 2.8% percent means that one in every 36 computers in the world is running Linux.

Currently Linux has a global market share of 2.8 percent on the desktop. It has a global market share on the server of 28.3%.

More like .4% of the desktop unless Linux users never browse the web.

As for Server ... more like 12% or less.

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2162847/demand-linux-servers-slow...

Take for example the number 1 Linux vendor RedHat. 300mil in subscription revenue.

That would be 200,000 or so servers paying 1500$ a year.

That would imply that Linux's market share is totally trivial even in the server space.

As many people have pointed out, most boxes that ship with Linux are wiped clean and replaced with a pirated version of Windows.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=18785

"A REPORT FROM Gartner said that in 2005 over 11 per cent of PCs shipped in emerging markets will have Linux distributions installed.
But, claims Gartner, three quarters of them are likely to end up running Windows and very often pirated versions. And the market research company claims that by 2008, 7.5% of PCs will ship with Linux, but even then half will eventually run Windows."

Linux ... its in your imagination, and rarely anywhere else.

Nothing like beating your head against a brick wall, but here goes.

More like .4% of the desktop unless Linux users never browse the web.

Source? 4-year old stats from ONE Windows-centric-site survey, iirc.

Take for example the number 1 Linux vendor RedHat. 300mil in subscription revenue.

That would be 200,000 or so servers paying 1500$ a year.

That doesn't even begin to count the number of people downloading CentOS or Fedora Core for free. And the number of people still running Linux, but not buying servers. And then there's all the rest. And that's assuming the stat is right.

Someone already posted on how CentOS is more actively deployed than RedHat.

That would imply that Linux's market share is totally trivial even in the server space.

Right, which is why all the Linux OS vendors are making profits. Because the share is totally trivial. OK.

As many people have pointed out, most boxes that ship with Linux are wiped clean and replaced with a pirated version of Windows.

No way of knowing this, since noone is going to say "oh yes, I run pirated Windows". And it's highly unlikely anyway.

And your method of counting servers that are supplied with Windows (maybe a few years ago) and reinstalled with Linux is? Oh, I forgot, you don't have one, since there's no way of doing it and it wouldn't fit into your propaganda strategy. I call bullshit. Again.

"A REPORT FROM Gartner said that in 2005 over 11 per cent of PCs shipped in emerging markets will have Linux distributions installed.
But, claims Gartner, three quarters of them are likely to end up running Windows and very often pirated versions. And the market research company claims that by 2008, 7.5% of PCs will ship with Linux, but even then half will eventually run Windows."

Yeah, Gartner CLAIMS that. Gosh, you picked a reliable source there.

I'm done with this. It's like trying to convince Comical Ali defeat is over the next hill.

"More like .4% of the desktop unless Linux users never browse the web."

"Source? 4-year old stats from ONE Windows-centric-site survey, iirc."

http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox46-operating-systems-ma...

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2006/August/os.php

http://www.webhits.de/webhits/browser.htm

All show Linux at 0.4% or less.

"A REPORT FROM Gartner said that in 2005 over 11 per cent of PCs shipped in emerging markets will have Linux distributions installed.
But, claims Gartner, three quarters of them are likely to end up running Windows and very often pirated versions. And the market research company claims that by 2008, 7.5% of PCs will ship with Linux, but even then half will eventually run Windows." (NotParker)

I worked in market research in IT -among them several projects for Gartner- for 5-6 years and let me tell you MR proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. You get the answers you want to get depending on the questions. And the subcontracted companies collecting the data fiddle the figures if they can't come up with what's expected of them, i.e. proving what the end client wants to see.
Sure we have Code of conduct, do not falsify information etc. which applies to the interviewers but you don't know what goes on when the execs are doing their data 'cleaning' and their spreadsheets.
What's the old saying? There are lies, damn lies and...

Oh yes, and what does "will eventually run Windows" mean? Five years after puchase or when?

Edited 2006-10-06 14:25

Ugh. That's one of my pet hates. "Negative growth" = "shrinkage".

spot on!

Bill Gates business model is not much different than that of Al Capone. They kill the competition, they have the law makers in their pockets, and if you want to scratch your head, you have to get their permission and pay them.

No, Gates model is this: "What do consumers want, and lets cram that into a DVD and sell it" - "What do business customers want? cram that into a dvd and shunt it out to the businesses".

Competition come along, "Lets create a superior product, market it to buggery and hype it like there is no tomorrow".

Yeah, I know, Bill Gates business plan is really top secret and special <rolls eyes>

This is an interesting development given the recent comments[1] made about that very issue. I must say that if this was done in response to the notion that they would be loosing ground to the current datacenter incumbants, that would have been very quick.

[1]http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS7530619440.html

Right now they want to kill VMware and Xen.

The unlimited virtualization rights applies to VMware Server on Datacenter too.

Of course, the problem with that for VMware is that they chose to give that product away.

I think its hilarious that the OSS nutbars freak when Microsoft gives anything away, when giving stuff away is the OSS pricing model.

Its kind of hypocritical.

It's not hypocritical, since Microsoft are doing it to maintain a monopoly. The Linux vendors are doing it because it's the only way anyone can compete with MS these days.

VMWare Server is free and it DOES run on windows...

MS does not say you have to run the virtual machines in their Virtual Server, it only says that you have unlimited licenses if you run them in A virtualized environment

Lord I forget Windows users are not very technical.

Aesiamun, VMware server is not designed for the enterprise (Which is why it's free) Anyone running Windows Datacenter Edition would not use VMware server!

LOL! They are not saying you can run Windows 2003 server and do this, or Small business server and do this or even 2003 Enterprise! Only Datacenter cerver!

This is what the CEO of SWsoft who makes Virtuozzo says:

"While the Microsoft move is a good step in the right direction, there is still a need to enable virtualization friendly licensing for Enterprise and Standard Editions of Windows Server. Further, our customers expected Microsoft to treat virtual environments (VEs) very differently from virtual machines (VMs) since they leverage one Windows instance and not multiple ones."

MS is like the Bush administration. They tell you one thing to your face and it sounds good, but the proof is in the details. And the details say that 99% of companies out there who use Windows cant even afford Windows Server DE and will not even benefit from this license!

Calling me a windows user is only assuming that my saying that it runs on Windows means I'm a windows user. I'm not, I run a Mac and OpenBSD at home. I don't have a windows computer left in the house.

Insult me all that you want, it means little to me. But, you do say that VMWare server is not designed for the enterprise...which explains why it is free...apache is free, linux is (F|f)ree, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD are free. None of them cost me anything...yet people claim they are enterprise ready. I don't run a data center, I don't care to. I'm not going to run Windows Data Center at my house to run virtual windows boxes in order to play WoW or anything like that.

Ummmmmm, Apache has always been free and was built up to be a enterprise product with years of hard work to make that goal. The BSD products derive from enterprise grade Unix. I am a Linux fan but the jury is still out on if it's 100% enterprise ready or not.

The key to what I am saying here is not the fact that it is free, but the reason it is free.

That reason is that VMware sells enterprise products already like ESX! VMware server does not fit into that space, so in order to get people to see how VMware works and attract people, they give away the lower end product because it does not target what they want as their core customers which are datacenters

The same thing MS is targeting with this license!

And we know what MS is doing. They know that ESX runs on it's own kernel and it is designed for datacenters. So to battle that, they make an open license BUT it only applies to VM on Windows Datacenter Edition. Ok, cool, so I can make as many VM's as I want! YEAAAA!

Hold it, no other datacenter VM software is designed to run on Windows. (It would kill performance) Now I am relegated to using MS's stuff to make this happen!

Typical way to kill the comp. Bait and switch.

Also I am sorry for insulting you but when you write something like: "VMWare Server is free and it DOES run on windows..." It makes me feel like you were saying: "Duh you dummy VMware server is free, you don't know what you are talking about!"

Nah, I was just pointing out that there were alternatives to MS Virtual Server (which is itself free and wasn't before) that run on Windows operating systems.

Your comment that MS was trying to destroy VMWare, Xen and others (Xen isn't enterprise ready either) made me think that you weren't considering the other free ones that MS competes with.

Peace!

Has anyone learned the MS trick yet! MS is like a person who sells crack! They give you software for free or little cost to kill the comp! Then they blast you with high prices when they are the only game in town!

Right now they want to kill VMware and Xen. Once they do it they will do like they did with Office.

It's called competition and I see nothing wrong with that. MS doesn't have a monopoly on server products. They're free to do whatever kind of pricing they like.

The cost is gonna be off the hook! Exchange used to be cheap also when Lotus Notes, Groupwise and Beyond Mail were popular. (I know, Beyond mail may be over some peoples head, that was Banyan Mail)

If the price remains overly high, the market will correct itself through competition. Another competitor will arise. Exchange is good -- but it isn't the only possible groupware server.

It's called competition and I see nothing wrong with that.

I don't see anything wrong with it either. But wary consumers that don't want to get bit should learn who is and isn't their friend and purchase accordingly.

Yes but as someone said above, the market will correct itself if the price becomes too high for the value it delivers.

I don't see anything wrong with it either. But wary consumers that don't want to get bit should learn who is and isn't their friend and purchase accordingly.

There's a big difference between a business partner and a friend.

I don't have a problem with competition! If your companies are on the same level and you battle it out in the market then it's all good. Like Ford and GM or Walmart and Target etc.

But here you have MS which is bigger then all other software companies put together! They don't compete, they use dirty tactics to win! Which is why they have lost their Anti Trust cases in the US (Which has no teeth) and in the EU.

Microsoft doesnt do ANYTHING to help customers. This license is not for the customers its to kill the comp and play like they being more open.

No MS doesnt have a monopoly on the server market. But using their dominance in desktop OS's and Office sales is illegal. However, server is so overpriced that they could argue that even with the price cuts that they arent undercutting the competition.

As for the change, its the only way they can insure that they get paid no matter what. Want to run half linux and half windows? Still costs the same now as running ALL windows. Costs even more is you run Linux as the base OS, since you will have to pay for each virtual server OS you run. This only saves you money if you are running all Windows OS's on a Windows virtual platform. Pretty tricky huh?

Thank you. That was my point. This only helps you if you run all Windows, on top of Data Center server!

So yes if you run all Windows and you have Data Center server then you are good with this.

>All 64 bit. So you can't use your old hardware anymore

So, how many Exchange 2007 upgrades do you think would have been made in place on old hardware even if it had run 32 bit? You don't think that - maybe - everyone would do this by swinging the data onto shiny new kit anyway? And how much of that is not 64bit? Much as I like mini-ITX systems, I don't think I'd plan to use one for Exchange.

I've been hearing this 'they will make you pay' for years and years, even when MS has had an effective monopoly, and it just hasn't happened. What *has* happened is that the main UNIX vendors had to drop their prices, as did DBMS vendors, and now we have a stratified FOSS/dual license market where you can have 'free', or you can have 'expensive', but nothing in between - except for Microsoft.

Well I work for a Federal government agency. When I started there we were using Banyan Vines and Beyond Mail. To move from from Beyond mail to Exchange 5.5 cost several hundred thousand dollars. We put in 3 times as many exchange servers to do the same tasks. When we were done we wound up with about 75 exchange servers for like 5000 users.

Then we moved from 5.5 to Exchange 2000 because of security issues. We went from 75 servers to about 100, cost us another serveral hundred thousand dollars. First problem we had was that MS sold us standard edition (Claimed it would meet the need of our small office (Under 1000 users) needs. NOT!! We ate that 16 GB limit up in 8 months! And since exchange doesn't do a good job of server space management and PST files get corrupted all the time we had to go spend MORE money to get the 2003 enterprise edition with Windows 2003. We got 64 bit servers etc. All is well.

Now they start touting exchange 2007. Right now we have 100 servers as it is. To replace them all at this point to support the requirements of exchange 2007 we would have to spend Millions. Tax payers dollars.

Oh and those 64 bit servers we already have, they have Windows 2003 enterprise on them, have to wipe them and put Windows 2003 enterprise 64bit. So labor costs are going to be out the ass cause you can't do ANY upgrades!

Trust me, some places will want to spend a ton of money replacing EVERY thing. But some places like the Federal agency I work for is gonna be hard pressed to come up with a good reason to spend so much money!

Unix vendors are just becoming Microsofts targets. You are skipping over companies like Novell, Corel, Apple, Lotus and many others that MS used their monopoly on. Windows 2003 server is really MS's first product that could compete with Unix servers. Linux has killed more Unix servers then Windows.

75 servers for 5000 users.... 100 servers for 5000 users.. are you sure you are not taking those numbers from your ass. thats way too much. exchange is a good solution...

no it just means they have a couple terrible System Administrators.

No, it means you don't know how to set up a proper solution yourself.

Ummmm, we have an office in almost every country in the world. Each office has at least 1 exchange server.

On top of that 8 to 10 of those servers are bridgehead servers that just do spam filtering, message directing, anti virus etc.

And because exchange sucks when it comes to space management we have 5 or 6 servers for Kvault.

That is how we came about having 100 servers! Not out of thin air or my ass!

I also work for a Government agency (in fact I have worked for several) and I was part of a migration from Banyan Vines to Windows NT which included replacing Mailman with Exchange. The limits that Microsoft puts on its products limit functionality, but let's be realistic, that is not the cause of the problems with Windows or Exchange.

The typical Government computer user thinks e-mail is not only a way of communicating, but a way to transfer files as well. How many of your users know what ftp, scp and sftp are and how to use them? I was working with a GS-15 trying to fix a mail problem (mail limit was 50 MB per user) when he received a message with a 50 MB PowerPoint presentation! Don't even get me started about people who don't know how to create graphics and PowerPoint, but if you are not going to educate your users about what is and is not appropriate to send as part of an e-mail message. And let's not discuss the users who save every message since the beginning of time! I think over a period of time any mail server over a period of time would eventually have problems in under these circumstances.

I am not a big fan of Microsoft products (I am a Solaris administrator) but I also believe in being fair in my views on products. Is it so much that Exchange can't handle the load, or are you seeing the results of an uneducated user community. We use multiple document management systems here that is supposed to be the repository for information, and yet people still use e-mail to send large attachments.

Do I think Exchange is a good e-mail server, possibly. But I think a lot of people try to force it to do things it was never designed to do.

True. But it's easy to limit file attachment sizes and file types that can go through exchange. And you can use products like Kvault that can do real time off line storage of old messages.

My big problems with exchange are:

Space management sucks!
No good spam management!
And the ever present PST!

Space management. Every message that comes in is replicated 3 times or more. In the log files, in the users mail account etc. A lot of times even when you delete a users mail box and defrag the information store (Which you have to do off line so it's a pain to do) If you have a 500 MB mail box you may get 250 back after deleting it! That is crazy! And it has to do with my number 3 issue!

PST files! Why the heck has MS not gotten away from the PST on the server side? PST's limit the size of a users mail box to about 2GB. Now that sounds like a lot of space but I see it all the time. Whats worse is that if you get tooo many messages in the inbox the server side PST file can easily get corrupted. :-(

Now you used Banyan Vines. We had Beyond Mail with the same user community and didn't have half these problems. Same community and same habits.

I agree with the issues you point out about Exchange, and many of the problems Exchange administrators face daily are the result of limitations Microsoft has placed on Exchange. I worked with an Exchange administrator on a project to determine whether or not we could backup individual mail boxes (Exchange 5.5 and Veritas Backup Exec 8.0). We found out that we could if we set up a separate backup job just to backup the mail boxes, now multiply this by 4,500 users and you see the problem this creates.

Unfortunately in Government IT spending politics has more to do with what is purchased than common sense and meeting actual requirements. One project I worked on replaced Solaris with AIX because Sun could not deliver hardware in an artifically imposed (and ridiculous) time frame!

I think if IT people in Governement (particularly DoD) actually purchased hardware and software based on meeting real requirements and not what Microsoft told them, the IT landscape we see in Government IT today would be far different.

Robert you are 100% right on all of that.

I run into those issues everyday!

It's crazy and out of control.

The sad part is I don't see it getting all that much better any time soon.

I call bullshait.

Back in the day (1997-1999 ish, I'm getting old) I admin'd an exchange 5.5 server with 360 users. Based on your math, you went from 5000 users with 75 servers (66 per) to 5000 users with 100 servers (50 per).

This means that 8 years ago, I was getting 7 times your capacity with older hardware. I wasn't even maxxed out; that's how many customers we had on it.

>> First problem we had was that MS sold us standard edition (Claimed it would meet the need of our small office (Under 1000 users) needs. NOT!!

I've been in the IT industry a long time and I have never seen a product advertised as for a small office of (1,000 users). There's no way you'd be buying licensing for 5,000 users and recieve 5 "small office" cd's.

I'm not opposed to different viewpoints, but you don't need to make things up. That, and you might want to consider making a point and then leaving the topic as it shows a lot more respect to the other readers.

My $.02

Morglum

I assume you didn't read my last posting. (Maybe its your reading that needs some work not your memory)

In my last posing I said we have about 15 of those servers assigned to tasks like Bridgehead work and Kvault (Real time off primary server back up)

I also said we have an office "Mission" in almost every major country in the world! Those offices are small branch offices with 50, 60 users (Sometimes more, sometimes less) Each office has an exchange server.

Why, you ask? To limit traffic across links. Also from some "3rd world countries" we use satellite links. Its more efficient to have an exchange server in each office. That way the only time traffic goes back to HQ (Here in DC) or to other offices is when mail needs to go from exchange server to exchange server. When mail needs to go to the internet its lower in cost to send it right from the the "Mission"

We could have a handful of servers in our HQ. But then we would spend much more money on network traffic, if a link goes down then users would loose all access to email! (The way we have it now the users can still connect to their local exchange servers, send mail to users in the office, and exchange will cue up any mail that is supposed to go to other offices or to the internet)

Also you said "I've been in the IT industry a long time and I have never seen a product advertised as for a small office of (1,000 users). There's no way you'd be buying licensing for 5,000 users and recieve 5 "small office" cd's."

This is what MS says about standard edition:

"Exchange Server 2003 Standard Edition is designed to meet the messaging and collaboration needs of small and medium corporations, and for specific messaging server roles or branch offices."

On top of that the licenses for exchange are separate from the exchange server software. So you would only need 1 CD to do 5 servers (Long as you have the licenses) and then CAL's for the 5000 users (At $69 per user)

Anyway because we have a lot of "Branch offices" MS sold us on Standard at first saying it would be good for small offices of up to about 1000 users per server. But the 16 GB limit killed us and we had to upgrade most of our servers!

Well as you said, I am not opposed to different viewpoints ether. But please learn more about large enterprises and also please read all the posts before putting in your $.02

Shows a lot more respect for your own knowledge and for other readers.

Thanks. :-)

Edited 2006-10-06 16:09

"I also said we have an office "Mission" in almost every major country in the world! Those offices are small branch offices with 50, 60 users (Sometimes more, sometimes less) Each office has an exchange server."

If that is your deployment model, wouldn't that be true of any email solution you chose? You could be using plain ol' sendmail, you would still have a hundred or so servers. That's not an issue with Exchange.

Never said that having 100 servers was the issue.

The cost of going from exchange 2003 on X86 to exchange 2007 on 64 Bit.

The fact that we have to get 100 new servers to put exchange 2007 in the whole enterprise.

If I upgrade a sendmail server I won't have to replace all the hardware also!

My whole point is how MS gets you in and then jacks up the cost!

My whole point on exchange at first (Then I got deeper on what I actually think about exchange)was the cost difference going from Exchange 5.5 to 2000 to 2003 now to 2007. How we spent a few hundred thousand dollars each upgrade and how that will now jump to millions (Depending on the pricing we work out)

And how to go to Exchange 2007 not only do you have to use 64 bit hardware but you MUST use the 64 Bit version of Windows. In the past even if you got new equipment a lot of times you could keep the version of Windows you already use.

It's a mess.

Edited 2006-10-06 17:30

My whole point on exchange at first (Then I got deeper on what I actually think about exchange)was the cost difference going from Exchange 5.5 to 2000 to 2003 now to 2007.

But didn't the volume of email and spam increase astronomically in that time frame as well?

We run Exchange 2003 on one frontend server handling OWA and one backend server holding mailboxes and we have 1200 users at 44 sites (A lot of Schools connecting over ADSL).

One thing the Kray brothers (London's answer to Al Capone) would not accept was violence directed towards the elderly and infirm. They would make sure anyone guilty of it who was caught by their goons Got The Message. That doesn't mean they weren't criminals, and equally, it doesn't mean Microsoft is doing this because it suddenly got all up close and personal with the Penguin. The bigger they come, the harder they fall - and the more desperately they will do anything to make sure they remain big. Sooner or later, however, time catches up with you.

"One thing the Kray brothers (London's answer to Al Capone)"

Dinsdale? DINSDALE!

Dinsdale?

@smashIt

ms-bashing all the way, even when they do the right thing.

It's Vista envy. lol

Ooh, yes! I really WISH I could fill my hard disks up with 15GB of stuff JUST TO RUN WINDOWS MAIL!

Well, considering there haven't been any significant new features added to Office in the past ten years, i'd say that keeping the price "exactly the same" is only fair.

Well, considering there haven't been any significant new features added to Office in the past ten years

publisher and busines content manager were added

Well, considering there haven't been any significant new features added to Office in the past ten years...

True enough. However, when dealing with the highly skeptical, (or trollish), it's often helpful to be as conservative as possible to help get through to them.

no, you don't buy Datacenter edition in a webshop, you can only get it with certified hardware

This used to be true. DataCenter is available to anyone who wants it. You just don't get the availability guarantees you would if you purchased it with hardware from a certified vendor.

You are right about that. But that was added with SP2. By the time SP2 came out we had moved to Enterprise edition.