Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Mon 26th May 2003 23:36 UTC
Linux only has a small percentage of the computing market, however Microsoft already considers it a major competition as the open source OS steals the hearts of many users. Following the hard numbers though, Microsoft also increases its market share on both server and desktop space with time. The only logical explanation is that Linux steals quite a market share from the traditional UNIX providers (SCO, Sun, SGI, HP, IBM). But only Sun seems to truly be in a real Linux trouble, as it is the one with a resistance to Linux integration to its full product range.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
I think some considerations in this article are wrong.
First of all Linux does not have now a small percentage (in the server market).
Second it's first a re-implementation and then an evolution and of all the Unix O.S. it has highest trend of development, the largest and differentiated team of developers (and I am only considering the kernel) and it's the more customizable OS solution today on the market (from wristwatch to enterprise mainframe). Also in the most of the cases Linux (server) has all that you need for implementing IT services.
Besides other "classical" aspects like scalability, on Intel systems (where Linux will be competitive in less than a year: next 2.6 kernel), there is a fundamental feature that's very important in the IT today infrastructures: the integrability.
No other OS offer, in the server arena, the same kind of versatility of Linux. All the best open source (and now also commercial) server system applications (web, app.server, mail, etc.) have Linux has the reference platform.
More over Linux will be soon really an alternative also on the desktop.
Consider also that the x86 (and the evolutions) platform now is now at the same performance level of the RISC counterpart at a fraction of the cost.
So why someone should have a long term strategy on other (expensive) solutions (O.S.)?