“The Linux community was left stunned when Windows Server software outsold Linux in the server market. Gartner, Inc. recently reported that sales of Windows systems accounted for nearly 37 percent of all server revenue in the last quarter while Linux accounted for 31.7 percent. Windows has a 5+ percent lead over Linux, which should be the cause for celebration at Microsoft. Is this the downfall or, as they say, the beginning of the end of Linux? Most definitely not. Before the folks at Redmond rejoice too much, there are some things they need to consider.”
Linux servers have a hard time competing against newer windows server platforms, since they are dead simple to setup, and are becoming very popular with many IT groups, and valued as worth the money for the licence.
it is not surprise, but because i’m sure a large % of IT shops just download the isos and install, or buy once, and install hundred of times.
I know I was left stunned. Shocked I tell you, shocked! I could barely eat any turkey last week I was so in a daze!
Honestly, without posting any reports of the actual “reaction” of the Linux community, how can you use such strong words about what its reaction was? In my experience, the Linux community doesn’t care a whole lot about Microsoft. They are vaguely aware of its precense, but they’re too busy doing their own thing.
In my experience, the Linux community doesn’t care a whole lot about Microsoft
I don’t know if your sarcasm extended to that quote, but it’s always amusing, in a snickering kind of way, when someone(whoever) tries to talk for “the community”.
“We are borg, this is what we think”
I wonder who was stunned?
It wasn’t me, nor have I heard about other people in the community being stunned.
It doesn’t surprise me that MS made more money on selling Windows servers than Linux distributers made on giving GNU/Linux distributions away for free… sort of logical right
EDIT: Arrghh.. stop that lame modding down constantly. Go away fanboys on all sides!
Edited 2005-11-27 06:05
I’m not really that supprised by this. Generally most companies are shifting from heavy duty servers that would traditionally not run windows to more x86 based servers. And with .NET catching on with web apps, Windows Server make this easy. Besides why wouldn’t you run the same OS that you are running on all your workstations, on your servers. It sure makes things easier.
But remember, just because Windows was sold more doesn’t mean it has any more market share than Linux as there are dozens of distros that aren’t sold that are used on Servers.
You do realize that it’s in the area of money Windows is outselling Linux, and not in the number of installations?
So, Windows is more expensive than Linux (since you have to buy several licenses, and each license cost money).
Windows 2003 Server: Price in Denmark: >6000 DKK.
Any Linux Server: Price in Denmark: 0 DKK .. one or more CD-Rs may be necessary. Price pr. CD-R: 4 DKK.
Hmm… :p
No wonder Windows is outselling Linux in amount of money
So you think Linux won’t cost anything to companies? Stop telling nonsense, most companies buy quite expensive Linux installations. Most of those installations are marginaly cheaper than Windows installations. Server market value is good way to count things since it eliminates non-business installations. Since the report doesn’t tell average price of Linux and Windows installations it’s only speculation to talk which one has more installations.
They don’t have to pay all that money, you know
And saving 97% on deploying Linux compared with deploying Windows is not a rare sight.
Nice numbers. Can you give a link about that report?
Uhmm.. you can actually find it here on OSN
It was here a few weeks ago, somewhere down in Spain.
If you want more numbers than that I could dig ’em up. But of course you have to remember that such savings aren’t possible with a distribution like RHEL (neing more expensive to buy than Win2K3 Server).
The Linux community was left stunned when Windows Server software outsold Linux in the server market
I hate it when people make generalizations like that. There is no “linux community”, and they weren’t stunned. Nice work sensationalizing though.
Well, there is a linux community.
Just like there is a CounterStrike community, and a Bygfoot Football Manager community.
However… I don’t know about that stunned thing… nobody told me to be stunned :s
Is Linux about to enter the realm of the legendary “end of BSD” lore?
This article was a bit long on rhetoric and short on fact. Red Hat has had sales increases this year, and non commercial aspects of Linux are really immune from these Wall Street statistics anyways.
The traditional measurements of success do not apply to Linux use anyways.
AFAIK Windows has always outsold Linux on the server market, at least in terms of revenue.
However, Linux was and still ist the fastest growing OS on the server market.
So really, I fail to see how this article is news, it’s just a pretty stupid flamebait.
AFAIK Windows has always outsold Linux on the server market, at least in terms of revenue.
However, Linux was and still ist the fastest growing OS on the server market.
So really, I fail to see how this article is news, it’s just a pretty stupid flamebait.
Exactly – what the real news was that for the first time Windows outsold Unix in terms of revenue ( I’m not sure if this was only for the volume sector only). What is new is that for the last two quarters MS has made a turnaround in the server market insomuch the it’s rate of growth exceeds that of the rate of growth in this market, prior to that it was lower.
The rate of growth of Linux in the server market is still more than twice that of Windows, but it will be several years before Linux has a larger share of this market on current trends.
What we are really seeing is the slow fading away of proprietary Unix.
What we are really seeing is the slow fading away of proprietary Unix.
AFAIK Windows has always outsold Linux on the server market, at least in terms of revenue.
However…..
What everyone misses about stories like this is that Microsoft needs to promote news items like this as much as it can :
Microsoft needs all decision makers to think that its products are superior to all competion.
Microsoft needs all decision makers to think that companies who used to use Linux are moving back to Windows.
Microsoft needs all decision makers to think that new companies are using Windows products instead of the competition.
Microsoft need you all to believe that they have the best products, and that everyone is going back to Windows.
It is a long and well travelled road of a troubled business to market like this.
For example…
In the UK we used to only have one telecoms company BT. They were overcharging customers and provided poor service. Our exchanges opened up and a multitude of companies came in to offer a better and cheaper service.
BT countered this with a massive advertising campaign that still runs to this day, it says that everyone is switching back to BT. They are not.
One of BT adverts even claimed that 1 million people a week are moving back to BT in the UK, this was blatant lies, as there is only 56 million people in the UK! So from this advert we should all have been back with BT in just over a year, when in fact that advert is 3 years old !
Microsoft are heading this way, save this post, and check it every few years, you will see that it is right.
… W2003 Server ist just a good product that can keep up with Linux in regard of security, stability and performance ?
Not from my experience working with it daily. I would actually describe it as relatively flakey and difficult to maintain compared to the Linux servers I run at home. I think that the other observations in this thread explain this “stunning” news a little better. I, for one, was left decidedly unstunned by this unremarkable and routine news.
Windows is outselling linux in regard to amount of money, not amount of installations.
So basically: Windows is more expensive than Linux. That’s the only thing we can conclude from this
As several readers have already noticed, this is not a very significant piece of news because the economic model is not the same and there are many Linux installations which we will know nothing about simply because they won’t be counted as sales.
Anyway I’d dare say that this has nothing to do with MS products’ quality because it is more and more clear that MS is not relying on its products’ merits to sell them, but on a very well orchestrated campaign of FUDding, political lobbying and press spinning. See these two latest news items and you’ll see what I mean:
http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/66619
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051126163314567
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051125-5628.html
Shame on you, Microsoft.
rehdon
“Anyway I’d dare say that this has nothing to do with MS products’ quality because it is more and more clear that MS is not relying on its products’ merits to sell them, but on a very well orchestrated campaign of FUDding, political lobbying and press spinning.”
Except that the open source community does the exact same thing. They have their fair share of spinsters as well… And your post itself is at least partially spinning. It’s not as bad on the Microsoft side as you try to make it look. Windows 2003 server does have some nice features that Linux doesn’t. And it does have fair number of merits.
Except that the open source community does the exact same thing. They have their fair share of spinsters as well…
This accusation is so generic as to be totally useless to me. Can you point some “open source community” member, whatever that means, doing their daily quote of spin, and political lobbying, and FUDding? (Because even if you chose to answer only part of my post, this is what I wrote in its entirety). Can you point me to some Torvalds’ interview where he spreads FUD on Windows? Or Bruce Perens convincing a senator that it’s time to derail some state’s technical requirements?
And your post itself is at least partially spinning. It’s not as bad on the Microsoft side as you try to make it look. Windows 2003 server does have some nice features that Linux doesn’t. And it does have fair number of merits.
Huh? Are you sure you fully understood what I wrote? I actually don’t know jack about Windows Server 2003 and similar products coming from MS, I have a Windows XP partition on my laptop that I could safely delete to gain some hd space, so useless it is to me.
My point is that it doesn’t matter how good these products are, they are invading our boxes (you think I really did want to waste money on that XP license for my laptop?) thanks to a combination of smart marketing, predatory tactics, brute force lobbying, FUDding and spinning.
Is that any clearer now?
rehdon
“This accusation is so generic as to be totally useless to me. Can you point some “open source community” member, whatever that means, doing their daily quote of spin, and political lobbying, and FUDding?”
Well, RMS and ESR are both probably the top spinsters in the open source communinity. A lot of their anti-Windows propeganda is spun quite heavily.
But there is also a fair share of FUD in the community in general. For example, the “IE is insecure” claim when the reality is that Firefox has suffered from more security vulnerabilities recently than IE has.
“Huh? Are you sure you fully understood what I wrote? I actually don’t know jack about Windows Server 2003 and similar products coming from MS”
So you don’t know jack about Windows Server 2003, and yet are saying the higher sales of Windows Server 2003 as opposed to Linux are due to marketing FUD and not any kind of quality or technical merits. That’s dishonest. Because yourself admit you don’t know jack about Windows Server, and therefore don’t know jack about why companies would choose it over Linux.
Well, let me give you a hint: Marketting propeganda is only a very small part of what Enterprise operations choose their server platform based on. A very small part. Give these guys some credit huh? I mean they do research this stuff a lot deeper than just listening to marketting propeganda. Do you honestly think that you are the only one intellectually gifted enough to know that companies spin marketting propeganda to support their own products? Do you really think that CIOs of Enterprise operations don’t know this?
So your argument has quite a bit of spin itself. I guarantee you that enterprise corporations do not make major decisions about what platform they will deploy on based on marketting propeganda. But you imply that they do, and that this is why Windows Server outsells Linux.
Edited 2005-11-27 15:54
Well, RMS and ESR are both probably the top spinsters in the open source communinity. A lot of their anti-Windows propeganda is spun quite heavily.
All that weight, and you still haven’t singled out a FUD-ridden, dirty propaganda word from the people *I* named. I can’t wait for the next round of sweeping generalizations.
But there is also a fair share of FUD in the community in general. For example, the “IE is insecure” claim when the reality is that Firefox has suffered from more security vulnerabilities recently than IE has.
Ah, that’s the word, recently! Now, where did I here that last? Perhaps in some MS-funded study, arbitrarily restricting the comparison between two products to favour the MS one? You don’t happen to be a MS-funded apologist, do you? Sure know the tactics.
So you don’t know jack about Windows Server 2003, and yet are saying the higher sales of Windows Server 2003 as opposed to Linux are due to marketing FUD and not any kind of quality or technical merits. That’s dishonest. Because yourself admit you don’t know jack about Windows Server, and therefore don’t know jack about why companies would choose it over Linux.
Before passing to the next tirade, I really think you have a problem with words here. That’s dishonest? Sorry, that’s just my personal opinion, from my very personal point of view and on the facts I know. Which also means that I don’t have to know the internals of a Trabant to observe that it was the most popular car in the ex DDR only because there was another kind of monopoly imposing it to the people. Get the drift?
Well, let me give you a hint: Marketting propeganda is only a very small part of what Enterprise operations choose their server platform based on. A very small part. Give these guys some credit huh? I mean they do research this stuff a lot deeper than just listening to marketting propeganda. Do you honestly think that you are the only one intellectually gifted enough to know that companies spin marketting propeganda to support their own products, and that CIOs of Enterprise operations don’t know this?
Of course I don’t, but I also know that MS is a convicted monopolist in the USA and in the EU, and under investigation in other countries. I also know that they use all the brute force tactics I’ve already mentioned to further their agenda and push their products. I also know that when you know no better, you practically have no choice. Can you add two and two and come to the result of four? Show me you can.
BTW, do you know what’s intellectually dishonest? Pretending that all of the above (MS guilty of monopoly abuse) didn’t happen, pretending that it’s all about “products” and technical prowess. If you’re naive or dishonest enough to believe that, that’s your problem, just don’t think you can convince anyone with this kind of argument.
So your argument has quite a bit of spin itself. I guarantee you that enterprise corporations do not make major decisions about what platform they will deploy on based on marketting propeganda. But you imply that they do, and that this is why Windows Server outsells Linux.
Again, a problem with words: what spin are you talking about? I’m not trying to spin anyone here, just venting my thoughts on the subject. Perhaps you meant bias? Of course I’m biased: I have no sympathy for MS, and the idea of a MS-only IT world (where MS products would surely shine, being the only ones) worries me. Your guarantees are worth nothing to me, why should I trust your word? especially when I know all too well the recent history of MS thrust into markets? Are you one of those enlightened not buying MS propaganda, but buying their products nonetheless? Makes even less sense after I wrote it…
So the conclusion is: thanks, but no thanks.
rehdon
“All that weight, and you still haven’t singled out a FUD-ridden, dirty propaganda word from the people *I* named. I can’t wait for the next round of sweeping generalizations.”
You named *ONE* person–and that person is not even the most vocal proponent of Linux. The only one making sweeping generalizations here is you. You are saying “Linus Torvalds does not use FUD to promote Linux, therefore no FUD is used to promote Linux”. That’s a clear generalization, and also a logical mistake. I pointed out two people who routinely use FUD and spin to support Linux over Windows. Go read ESR’s Art of UNIX Programming if you want to find some examples of FUD being used against Windows.
“Ah, that’s the word, recently! Now, where did I here that last? Perhaps in some MS-funded study, arbitrarily restricting the comparison between two products to favour the MS one”
If you don’t follow security issues, that’s your problem. This has nothing to do with MS, and everything to do with looking at recent security advisiries on your own. You are simply denying reality now if you want to deny that Firefox has had more security issues than IE lately. The number of security advisories issued for each prove that it has. And sorry, but the “giant MS conspiracy” argument gets *VERY* old after awhile. All it proves is that you are radical Linux apologist who completely ignores reality. And no, I am not an MS apologist. But you are clearly a Linux apologist–so much so, that you ignore reality.
“Of course I don’t, but I also know that MS is a convicted monopolist in the USA and in the EU”
Wrong. They were convicted of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. They were *NOT* convicted of being a monopoly. There is a *BIG* difference. You don’t even have your legal facts straight. But again, I wouldn’t expect you to given how much you ignore facts and spin your own Linux propeganda.
And need I remind you that IBM is a “convicted” monpolist? And yet IBM is the darling child of the open source world.
“BTW, do you know what’s intellectually dishonest? Pretending that all of the above (MS guilty of monopoly abuse) didn’t happen, pretending that it’s all about “products” and technical prowess.”
Wrong. What is intellectually dishonest is what you just did. You claimed Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, when in fact they are not. You didn’t have your facts straight.
“Before passing to the next tirade, I really think you have a problem with words here. That’s dishonest? Sorry, that’s just my personal opinion, from my very personal point of view and on the facts I know.”
But you didn’t state it as personal opinion. You stated it is fact. And later admitted you knew jack shit about Windows server, and threfore, have absolutely nothing to base your opinion on. You are backpeddling in the fashion of a true spinster who got caught in their own web.
And if you look back at the history, I strongly critisized the article because the finding of the article is meaningless since the vast majority of Linux server installations are not registered and not trackable. I am not a Microsoft apologist. But that doesn’t mean I like it when people on either side of the issue resort to FUD and misinformation to promote their view. Call it a pet peeve. It pisses me off. I can’t stand that kind of extremism. And like it or not the Linux community is quite rampant with militarists.
And when it comes to marketting… Every single company that markets a product spins it. Sorry, that’s just reality. They are going to do whatever they can to make their product look good. This is not new. Everyone knows it happens. And it is just the way marketting works. Get used to it.
Edited 2005-11-27 17:18
This seems to be going nowhere, but it’s a rainy Sunday afternoon, so I’ve got time
You named *ONE* person–and that person is not even the most vocal proponent of Linux.
I named *TWO*. Can you at least quote that correctly, please?
The only one making sweeping generalizations here is you. You are saying “Linus Torvalds does not use FUD to promote Linux, therefore no FUD is used to promote Linux”. That’s a clear generalization, and also a logical mistake.
What a pity that I never said anything like that and that you’re just putting words into my mouth. Is that honest in your book? I guess so.
Go read ESR’s Art of UNIX Programming if you want to find some examples of FUD being used against Windows.
So AUP is a propaganda piece against Windows. This is just hilarious! Are you serious, doped or what?
You are simply denying reality now if you want to deny that Firefox has had more security issues than IE lately.
And where, pray tell, did I deny it? or imply it?
And sorry, but the “giant MS conspiracy” argument gets *VERY* old after awhile.
What “giant MS conspiracy”? Again quoting something I never said.
All it proves is that you are radical Linux apologist who completely ignores reality. And no, I am not an MS apologist. But you are clearly a Linux apologist–so much so, that you ignore reality.
Sure, as long as one believes to all the straw men you riddle your posts with. My personal philosophy, born from the consideration that no OS is perfect, is as follows: thou shalt use what sucks less. Today that’s Linux, tomorrow I don’t know. I have no religious or sentimental ties to Linux, only practical ones. One thing for sure: I will never, never trust something coming from MS, at least until there’s been a complete generational renovation at the top.
I can’t keep noticing that there must be some kind of interior conflict between different parts of your brain if you really aren’t a MS apologist, because defending MS’ position it’s all you’ve done so far. You also sound a very naive one at that.
Wrong. They were convicted of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. They were *NOT* convicted of being a monopoly. There is a *BIG* difference. You don’t even have your legal facts straight.
Sigh. Read that as “a monopolist found guilty of monopoly abuse”, as I stated more clearly in the latter part of my post, I perfectly know that being a monopoly is not per se a legal offence in the USA. But you just had to jump the gun, eh?
But again, I wouldn’t expect you to given how much you ignore facts and spin your own Linux propeganda.
Sure, I’m here because I hope to convert you to the Linux cause, and doing so I will hasten world domination! Heck, that’s my mission in life
Wrong. What is intellectually dishonest is what you just did. You claimed Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, when in fact they are not. You didn’t have your facts straight.
This (“no, *you* are wrong!”) is saddeningly silly, you know? But anyway, you didn’t state your position: it’s ok to you that they were found guilty of violating the Sherman Act, and of monopoly abuse in the EU? And that they try to boycott interoperability with other OSS (ask the Samba people? And … etc. etc. On second thought, you don’t have to answer: I already know you are a MS apologist, otherwise you’d answered before instead of jumping around the obstacle.
But you didn’t state it as personal opinion. You stated it is fact.
Huh??? Really having problems in following you here.
And later admitted you knew jack shit about Windows server, and threfore, have absolutely nothing to base your opinion on. You are backpeddling in the fashion of a true spinster who got caught in their own web.
Can you for a second withhold your righteous indignation and actually read what I wrote? Especially when I explain, with an analogy, why you don’t have to know how something works to realize that it has been actually forced on people? Your answer would have soooo larger a chance to make some sense, you know.
But that doesn’t mean I like it when people on either side of the issue resort to FUD and misinformation to promote their view.
*What* FUD? What are you talking about? It is a known fact (at least you seem to know about here every now and then) that MS uses predatory tactics, and that it has been found guilty of that. That’s all I stated. Are you denying that? (<– see? when in doubt about the other one’s opinion, you can at least ask!)
Call it a pet peeve. It pisses me off. I can’t stand that kind of extremism. And like it or not the Linux community is quite rampant with militarists.
“Militarists”??? I’m starting to think that English is not your mother tongue – it’s not mine either, nothing bad in that of course, but I can’t understand what you’re implying with that, a secret army of Linux zealots preparing for the revolution???
And I hate extremists too, whatever their affiliation: Linux fans saying Windows sucks unnerve me as well. That’s not the point here, I never said anything like that.
And when it comes to marketting… Every single company that markets a product spins it. Sorry, that’s just reality. They are going to do whatever they can to make their product look good. This is not new. Everyone knows it happens. And it is just the way marketting works. Get used to it.
Again, it seems we have a communication problem here: I’m most definitely not talking about “marketing” here, do you understand that? Fact is, you can’t just pretend MS is like all other players in the field: they been found guilty of cheating, and not only once. You can condone that if you happen to like their products, but non-MS users are less than happy, to severely understate the present situation, and don’t trust them one little tiny insignificant bit. Especially since, as I tried to explain to you, they’re not showing any sign about a change in their ways.
If you like to hug the 800 pound gorilla, that’s your choice: I’d rather not risk being crushed, thank you so much.
rehdon
“So AUP is a propaganda piece against Windows. This is just hilarious! Are you serious, doped or what?”
I didn’t say that. What I did say is that there is anti-Windows propeganda in the book because ESR couldn’t resist the urge to take potshots against Windows in several places. And sometimes those potshots are shakey at best. I’m guessing you have not actually read the book, or you would know what I am talking about.
“This (“no, *you* are wrong!”) is saddeningly silly, you know? But anyway, you didn’t state your position: it’s ok to you that they were found guilty of violating the Sherman Act, and of monopoly abuse in the EU?”
No. My position is that I can’t stand it when the pot calls the kettle black. In otherwords, half of the things that Linux users complain about Microsoft doing to Linux, they turn around and do the exact same thing to Microsoft (and often many other commercial vendors as well).
“that MS uses predatory tactics, and that it has been found guilty of that. That’s all I stated. Are you denying that? (<– see? when in doubt about the other one’s opinion, you can at least ask!)”
No, I am not denying that. But FUD and spin in marketing tactics (which is what your original complaint was) are neither predatory, or illegal. Your gripe was not against their predatory tactics, but against the fact that they use FUD and spin to sell their product. Well guess what? Linux evangelists do the exact same thing to promote Linux over commercial solutions.
“Militarists”??? I’m starting to think that English is not your mother tongue – it’s not mine either, nothing bad in that of course, but I can’t understand what you’re implying with that, a secret army of Linux zealots preparing for the revolution???”
English is my native tongue, and “militant” perhaps has a somewhat looser definition than what you might think. When I say it, what I mean is that Linux users often resport to extreme radical ideas and propeganda to support their platform. Sometimes going past any point of reason. “Linux is ready for everyone’s desktop and anyone who thinks it isn’t is just too stupid to use a computer.” Those kinds of things. Or the ones who think Microsoft should be completely shut down, etc.
“Especially when I explain, with an analogy, why you don’t have to know how something works to realize that it has been actually forced on people?”
Windows Server is *NOT* forced on people. It never has been. There have always been tons of alternatives. Many companies will preload Linux. And of course, before Linux, there were tons of non-Windows server solutions from tons of companies. Sun, HP, Digital, IBM, SGI, etc. Windows Server has never been forced on people.
“Again, it seems we have a communication problem here: I’m most definitely not talking about “marketing” here, do you understand that?”
But you are talking about marketting. Your original complaint was about marketting. It was about Microsoft using FUD and spin to sell their products. That’s marketting. And that is neither predatory or illegal. And as I said, when the Linux community complains about FUD and spin marketting, it just makes me want to say “Hello pot, my name is kettle”. There is plenty of FUD and spin to go around in the Linux community as well when it comes the all their anti-Microsoft / Anti-Sun / Anti anything that is not open source enough for them propeganda.
Edited 2005-11-27 19:39
“Recent rumors claimed that Microsoft wanted to giveaway its OS for free by integrating advertisements in the OS itself. If that happens (provided the method is secure enough), I don’t know what the figures would be in terms of revenue, but Windows will most definitely “outsell” Linux in sheer numbers and that could perhaps be touted as the beginning of the end of Linux.”
Pure nonsense. I wouldn’t give up my secure, flexible Debian for an adaware OS.
And besides with Debian more than 20,000 apps are just an apt-get away. Or can Microsoft convince all the ISVs to give their apps for free as well?
Sony outsells Panasonic, what does this mean?
It’s not surprising really but why is 5% lead by Microsoft “the beginning of the end of Linux”?, thats just a very hard statement on Linux. Seems Linux gets the rough end of the stick on every front these days.
1. Servers are locked down so the adds wont load.
2. No one is reading the adds.
“And besides with Debian more than 20,000 apps are just an apt-get away. ”
A-ha. So you name things like “sudo”, “pptpclient” or some myterious Perl tool for analyzing the log files of your coffee machine as APPLICATIONS. LOL.
And : Most OSS-Applications are a search in Google and 3 mouseclicks away – with a no-brainer-installer that you don’t need an expert to configure things in /etc/someconfigfile
“And : Most OSS-Applications are a search in Google and 3 mouseclicks away – with a no-brainer-installer”
By far not quite as many as for linux.
As to “need an expert to configure things in /etc/someconfigfile”, that is a (long) out of date fairy tale
You only need to mess around in /etc/* when you’re building a LFS-system or something equal. In Gentoo pretty much everything is done for you, actually to the extent of being eekily easy…
What about server distros like the RHEL clones?
A lot of people use them and they cost absolutely nothing. People use also other free distros as servers, including Debian.
What a silly article that says nothing. It appears the author grabbed a figure from an analysts company, whose impartiality has been questioned so many times before, and added a few editorializing comments to it. My HS nephew could have done the same thing and probably better.
Does the author know that with Linux, any company can buy or even get for free one copy of the OS and install it in as many servers as they please? They can purchase service plans later which might or not reflect the number of individual server installations they have. At least that is the case in my college where we have 35 servers running SUSE/Open SUSE.
It would be much more insteresting to know, and even that is difficult, the percentage of servers running Linux as opposed to Windows. For the past few years Linux has been growing at a faster pace than Windows server installations. That is much more relevant than talking about sales revenue that tries to compare apples and oranges.
Oh yeah and “free” ad supported OS is going to knock Linux? That will never happen. MS cannot risk their main revenue stream to the uncertainties of ad revenue. If the economy tanks, puff there goes their ad revenue. Ask opera if the ‘free’ ad revenue supported browser was a success when there were true free alternatives? Yeah, go ahead MS and send ad popups to the screens of people who are using Windows and the mass migartion will happen in the opposite direction.
no, it will promote people to buy the software because its more popular.
windows xp is popular because everyone uses it.
simple eh?
scary.
maybe its because solaris is getting more popular
“Micros$$f–k will be dead, Linux will RULE and everyone who has started using Linux back in the year 2000 will be $$$RICH$$$ !!!!”
Sorry – but many Linux guys keep telling you things like these for years and years and years and ….
In about a month, we can expect the “2006 – Year of the Linux Desktop” headlines that we’ve become accustomed to for the past 5 years.
In about a month, we can expect the “2006 – Year of the Linux Desktop” headlines that we’ve become accustomed to for the past 5 years.
You know, I sort of agree with you about the hype…but OTOH, I have been running Linux happily (and exclusively) for 3 years.
Hehehe. Word.
I heard MS claim they investigated the possibility of giving away some softare (MS Money, Encarta) as ad supported, but I have heard no such claim that they would be giving away Windows as ad supported (at least not in the US).
This is due to the lack of real sysadmins to run a REAL OS like Solaris or FreeBSD or a well thought Linux distribution as Slackware. Windows Server is a toy OS when it comes to delivering real services and not small businesses requirements. Excuse my zealotry, but a sysadmin job is a REAL programing job, not a windows update & reboot job. I’d love to see the uptime of these windows servers…
This is due to the lack of real sysadmins to run a REAL OS like Solaris or FreeBSD or a well thought Linux distribution as Slackware. Windows Server is a toy OS when it comes to delivering real services and not small businesses requirements. Excuse my zealotry, but a sysadmin job is a REAL programing job, not a windows update & reboot job. I’d love to see the uptime of these windows servers…
Hehe, *snicker*, Microsoft loves that attitude. Because we all know that businesses want operating systems that a “real admin” can handle. Why if they don’t have a Nick Burns-wannabe running around their whole operation might collapse.
Hell, Novell and RedHat build their whole businesses around “real admins” (that means Unix admins) being too incompetent to do anything without a fat service/support contract.
his is due to the lack of real sysadmins to run a REAL OS like Solaris or FreeBSD or a well thought Linux distribution as Slackware.
There is a lack of sysadmins for *nix and BSD systems ? Thats a shame.
Windows Server is a toy OS when it comes to delivering real services and not small businesses requirements.
i know a few people at my place of work that would argue that one with you all day. Its not a *small business* either, more like a fortune 500 company.
Excuse my zealotry, but a sysadmin job is a REAL programing job, not a windows update & reboot job.
Agreed. I don’t know any sys admins, *nix or windows for that matter that do not do serious scripting of the OS and automation that is quite literally *real* programming.
I’d love to see the uptime of these windows servers…
Well where I work we have recieved a 2,3 and 4 year continous uptime award from the uptime institute. Yes that includes the windows servers.
“Excuse my zealotry, but a sysadmin job is a REAL programing”
Exactly this kind of arrogance lead to the fact, that Windows is dominating the Desktop today. And – please stay in your dark back-office … people like you make me sick.
I think people are getting confused here. Linux may run more webservers than Windows, but in the general fileserver/mailserver domain of the corporation you have to be kidding if you’re shocked that Linux is behind.
I’m more shocked it’s such a close thing!
And narrowing Windows’ competition to just Linux is not realistic either, in my experience, Solaris is used about twice as often as Linux in the enterprise.
They are a bunch of teenage MS fans that don’t have a clue, but unfortunately have a website.
I can only repeat it, Windows outselling Linux on the server in terms of revenue is _not_ news, it has never been different and it doesn’t mean a thing, or only to a fifteen year old idiot.
So please, simply ignore them!
There *will not be any*
Linux will simply keep improving and growing all the time, as it has always done.
But maybe there will be an age of “the laptop linux”
Or has everybody already forgotten the millions of UN laptops being delivered to poorer children within a couple of years?
There aren’t any laptops being given away yet, and it’s unlikely that they ever will.
I said “being delivered”, not “being given away”
There is a subtle but important difference.
Seeing how desperate you are trying to start a flamewar…
Pathetic!
If you go to Dell’s PowerEdge server range and customise the box, you’ll find that you can buy it with Windows, RHEL 3 or 4, Netware or with *no OS*. In every case where we needed a Linux Dell server, we’ve bought it with no OS and then installed a free distro (CentOS or Fedora depending on the mission criticality). How does Gartner’s survey cope with this scenario? Answer – it doesn’t…
If you have competent Linux technical admins (and one would hope that any company with a lot of employees and/or servers to maintain would have at least one), you *don’t* need Linux OS support and hence a good free distro is fine.
Remember that Red Hat run a Bugzilla site at http://bugzilla.redhat.com/ where you can search for and report bugs without requiring any sort of OS support contract whatsoever. With this available, you’ve got to question the high prices of RHEL contracts really…
“The Linux community was left stunned when Windows Server software outsold Linux in the server market. Gartner, Inc. recently reported that sales of Windows systems accounted for nearly 37 percent of all server revenue in the last quarter while Linux accounted for 31.7 percent. Windows has a 5+ percent lead over Linux, which should be the cause for celebration at Microsoft. Is this the downfall or, as they say, the beginning of the end of Linux? Most definitely not. Before the folks at Redmond rejoice too much, there are some things they need to consider.”
>
>
OSNews editors and reporters *REALLY* need to get a clue or quit commenting about things like Linux and the Free Software/Open Source Movement.
Hasn’t it occured to any of these morons that unlike Windows and Mac operating systems people can download and use operating systems like Linux for free because they were designed that way?
OSNews editors and reporters *REALLY* need to get a clue or quit commenting about things like Linux and the Free Software/Open Source Movement.
Sonny, we LINKED to the article, we did NOT write it.
like it was said before, it is a pity we cannot mod you up…
here is a virtual +1 anyway
I realize you didn’t write it… But you really should be a little more selective in what you report, and recognize things that are not even worthy of news. Please do not turn OSNews into Slashdot. In otherwords, please do not post articles that you know are garbage, but post them anyway because you know they will artifically inflate the reply count because of the convtroversy. Please don’t turn OSNews into a tabloid.
Edited 2005-11-27 08:06
perhaps they post such things because they know that osnews readers are smart enough to think for themselves and make there own judgements accordingly.
i don’t need osnews editors pulling articles that don’t seem accurate enough (in their views) for me. sometimes i actually just want to see what rediculous crap the sheep are beeing fed. its like when you watch NBC or CNN news to see what crap the rest of America is being fed even though you can watch BBC news on PBS.
It means absolutely nothing considering that the vast majority of Linux servers are downloaded free copies of Linux that are never paid for and never registered in any kind of trackable system.
I always assumed that Microsoft servers did outsell Linux servers for this very reason. And I seriously doubt any Linux users are surprised by this.
Would would shock me, is if Linux servers ever did outsell Windows servers, despite the fact that Linux can be used for free on servers. If that happened, even if it was only by one unit, Microsoft would have a serious crisis on their hands if Windows server can’t even outsell sales of a competing product that can be legally obtained for free.
This says oppostie about MS Servers:
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html
Does anyone find MS stable? I know my client a fortune 500 institutions bans MS servers becuase of security.
.V
53.7% of Fortune 1000 companies run IIS. They must be running it on Windows. http://www.port80software.com/surveys/top1000webservers/
If there is no other UNIX but Linux, even then Linux is only running 46.3% Fortune 1000 Web servers. In reality that number is smaller.
>but Windows will most definitely “outsell” Linux in sheer numbers
It already does. Without any “”. Yes, Joe Shmoe from Trasbutania can download LAMP for free and install it on his desktop computer to run his Web site. He gets it for free, he pays nothing for software, support and services.
Unfortunately, software developers have to buy food and pay for shelter. There is definite disconnect between what they are paid for by Joe Shmoe ($0) and their daily expenses (more than $0).
That is why Fortune 1000 numbers are important: these are paying customers that help Microsoft and Red Hat to survive.
These are paying customers that let Joe Shmoe download new release of Red Hat 4.0 or pirated Windows2003 Server free of charge- and yet have salaried software developers working.
The fact that Windows server keeps outselling Linux means that more money goes to Microsoft software developers than to Linux software developers.
53.7% of Fortune 1000 companies run IIS. They must be running it on Windows. http://www.port80software.com/surveys/top1000webservers/
How much independent is port80software.com ?
and
Keep in mind that other webservers than IIS can be configured to report them as anything you want (ie as IIS) trying to mislead hackers
How much independent is port80software.com ?
The list of Fortune 1000 companies in not prepared by the Microsoft, it is prepared by financial industry. How much independent financial industry is?
Keep in mind that other webservers than IIS can be configured to report them as anything you want (ie as IIS) trying to mislead hackers
You did not bother to visit port80software.com at all, did you? They discuss how they produce these surveys. There is enough interesting reading for independently thinking person.
port80software.com says that they survey “a list of 1000 leading global corporations’ main corporate Web sites”.
Above this they say they do “periodic surveys of Fortune 1000 corporate Web sites to discover what type of Web server software they are running.”
I would interpret this as surveying an arbitary list of “global corporations”, which just happens to include some Fortune 1000 companies. Seeing as they produce software addons for IIS, it would be in their best intrests to make IIS seem dominant. Therefore I would seriously doubt the impartiality of this survey. Netcraft is a much more reliable source of this data.
>I would interpret this as surveying an arbitary list of “global corporations”, which just happens to include some Fortune 1000 companies.
I can make it very easy for you:
Since July 2003, Port80 Software has surveyed Web sites of the U.S. Fortune 1000 corporations to determine their choice of Web server software. May 2005 marks a new update to Port80’s Top 1000 Web Servers Survey — based on the 2005 Fortune 1000 list of companies’ Web sites.
>Therefore I would seriously doubt the impartiality of this survey.
You sure would. The sky is falling: Microsoft IIS is the Choice of the US Corporate Web Server Market.
>Netcraft is a much more reliable source of this data.
Netcraft is useful source of data. If you would like to know what is the favorite Web Server worldwide- go Netcraft.
It is kind of getting average salary worldwide, by adding together salaries of Americans, Japanese, Chinese, Indians and Africans- and dividing by the population.
Port80 is US centric. Want to know what American paying customers choose- go Port80. It is like getting average American salary- still average, but much more useful for that case, and most likely very different from the average salary worldwide.
After all, Port80 survey supports this article statement that Microsoft Windows servers are more popular among paying customers.
OSS adsvocates can dismiss it as all lies, from the fact that Windows ousold Linux to the fact that Fortune 1000 companies prefer IIS/Windows, but one day facts will dismiss OSS advicates.
The fact that Windows server keeps outselling Linux means that more money goes to Microsoft software developers than to Linux software developers.
But thenn you forget the large numbers of “hobbyist” linux programmers who contribute to OSS projects in their *free time* and don’t recieve or expect any kind of payment. Who paid Linus to develop the original kernel? Who paid the founders of the Apache Group? etc.
Linux can survive (thrive?) with zero payment to any programmer. Windows cannot.
But thenn you forget the large numbers of “hobbyist” linux programmers who contribute to OSS projects in their *free time* and don’t recieve or expect any kind of payment.
That “large” number for Linux kernel, for example, is less than 100, mostly salaried, software developers.
Stories about hordes of hobbyist developers contributing to the kernel were dismissed by Andrew Morton.
Who paid Linus to develop the original kernel?
Which was good enough hobbyist kernel but piece of crap as desktop or server kernel- until money started to pour into it.
If you Google, you’ll find Linus’ emails threatening to delay release of kernel 2.0 or pre-2.0, because not enough bug fixes were contributed by “hobbyist” linux programmers .
Money, big money, is what made Linux kernel 2.4 and 2.6 on par with many of for-profit UNIX kernels.
Linux can survive (thrive?) with zero payment to any programmer.
Yes, it can: like BeOS, same type of survival.
Windows cannot.
Yes, it can not, but as long as Microsoft happily makes big $$$ on desktop OS and on server OS while Linux vendors are not, a highly skilled software developer can choose:
A) to be a “hobbyist” linux programmer who contribute to OSS projects and doesn’t recieve or expect any kind of payment.
B) get paid by the Microsoft to work on Windows kernel, MS Office software or X-Box Microsoft game engine.
No matter how hard OSS founders and leaders and followers try to convince the world that money does not matter- it does.
It may be bad or it may be good, but it is the fact of life: money does matter.
You *know* that this comparison is exactly as idiotic like comparing the sales of Linux servers vs. Windows server …
I find it funny that techies fight the OS wars while the people that make the money (I work in the financials so those “people” are the traders and business lines) don’t care. What they care about is productivity and time-to-market. If Linux/Java fits the bill for a particular app so be it. If Windows/.NET is the tool of choice so be it. Instead of spending all this time arguing about which OS is better, why not concentrate on providing value-add to our customers (i.e. those we serve/work for as IT people). Besides… in the end, Service Oriented Architecture (Business Applications and Infrastructure) will take a much stronger foothold in the industry. At that level of abstraction… the OS/language/engine WILL NOT MATTER. The users will simply expect Identity Management Services, Storage Services, Provisioning Services, Resource Allocation and Discovery Services, etc. But those who decide to continue on the OS wars will do so… and rightfully so… I mean… someone has to find out who can fling their fecal matter farther the farthest. And the last comment above – “using Linux back in the year 2000 will be $$$RICH$$$ !!!!” you can’t be rich on something that sells for $0… oh wait.. how about the service contracts and support? How about the application integration work that needs to be done? how about all the stuff that needs to be put around Linux (like any other OS) to make it a completely managed environment? AHH there is no escaping the fact that every OS requires investment, work, commitment… but in the end… the people making the money will be the ones making the decisions. And those who argue that Linux is better than Windows in a business meeting in front of the managing director of an Equities division will get thrown out and replaced… not because of his/her religious zealous towards Linux… but because that type of attitude is counter productive to a fast paced, money generating environment. So… am I surprised that Windows “outsold” Linux? NO. Would I be surprised the other way around? NO. Each OS has its PROS and CONS. As long as IT stays fresh, on top of technology, building innovative solutions, cutting costs, providing value to the enterprise (small or large); who cares what OS is better! We are in control of providing valuable feedback to the OS vendors. And yes, it might take a while and market conditions will drive some initiatives farther than others but that is the beauty of the game.
Lovely, beautiful post ….I am a Linux admin but also a business man so your post is right on the money.
for microsoft, ignore it. this person’s opening statements were enough for me to stop reading and just glance through it. this dude is completely full of shit. microsoft can’t compete with free software and they never will be able to (unless they give their software away for free, and even then it won’t be really free). just like commercial software vendors couldn’t compete with microsoft (ie. antitrust).
Hmmm, it puzzles me how this article got to be linked from OSNews.
Once you say “Microsoft could be under selling the product just to hold on to its market share” (in an article making a fuss about Windows Server taking in more money than the various GNU/Linux server solutions, no less!), it becomes obvious there is something seriously wrong with the arithmetic: I think it is pretty much obvious Windows Server 2003 has payed for what little extra development has been invested in it (compared to the money earned so far), so anything but giving it away would be _overselling_, and it is pretty much impossible to undersell it in this situation, IMHO. One cannot compare software and actual objects, which actually have to be made. This only shows how deeply some have been brainwashed by the content-providing industry, so that it is somewhat imagined there is an extra cost in the making of a compy of some digital data, besides the price of machinery and media involved.
So this is either an irony – and you guys have not been getting it – or this is a miscomprehension. Of course Microsoft is cashing in more money! Do we need anyone to actually discover this and be stunned by it? But this has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons for choosing one or the other, with the numbers of installed or supported systems, and with the ability to perform specific tasks.
Hmm,i bet they all got w3k with an new Xbox360.
Just a joke as most of the sponsored Gartner FUD.
Linux is free. Windows costs money. Windows sells more than Linux.
Linux is free. Windows costs money. Windows sells more than Linux.
Note that this is the first quarter ever that Windows servers are #1.
So why weren’t Windows servers #1 last Q? Or the Q before that..?
Last quarter, I bought a dozen dual xeon rackmount servers. Our University has a ‘special deal’ with a hardware company (lets call them ‘BELL’ for ambiguity). Fortunately, they never actually made it to the windows first boot, and now they are happily chugging along running core 4 doing cluster type stuff. Given our current agreement, it was cheaper for me to order the Winblows OS and erase it than order RHAS. While I saved some money, I now somehow feel dirty…
Thanks – I’ve already pointed this out and it was obvious. It didn’t take yet another article to do it.
The only funny thing that the ‘by revenue’ share Windows has is to show that Windows is more expensive! And I bet they also include all sorts of added licenses into that as well, including CALs.
holy smoke batman!
not really.. this article is shit…
ms outsells server linux in servers… yet many of the best server distros are free…
please dont generalize the linux community, as noone is stunned by any reports
I know of several consultants that are now placing Linux servers – most are using Fedora or SuSE not Red Hat or Novell enterprise grade products. These same people are telling me that more and more often their clients wish to remain quiet about the install. Reasons often given – “not to rock the boat with their old suppliers” and “not to give away a competitive advantage to others”.
So Linux cost less per install this comparison is based on $ spent
Then many migrations are not being disclosed
Yet Linux is smoking the competition in growth rate on the server.
Now one more point – is this of any more than minor interest – it the system works for you use it.
Windows Servers make more _MONEY_… the more increase make the Linux Servers. Why… Windows Server have more $$$ at the Label.
like many of the previous posters have said. This study (right) only shows how many have actually BOUGHT a linux or winserver. It is basically an irreleveant article unless you are someone like ibm . I have a friend who carries an ubuntu disk and installs it on most of the old servers he finds tucked away under layers of dust where he works..yeah..x86 servers. This article is useless in terms of total winserver vs linserver deployments. As far as an ad sponsored version of windows?? You have got to be kidding. I wouldnt run an ad sponsored browser let alone a karbuncle like that inhabit (infest) my hard disk.
What about servers sold without operating systems? I just bought 7 Dell servers, 3 of which I bough without an OS so I could install Gentoo.
Looks like Gartner is playing spin city on this one. Anyone with half a lick of sense knows that measuring Linux versus Windows based soley upon REVENUE is probably the poorest indicator of growth there is. Linux doesn’t cost as much as Windows DUH!
So as I read this, I can only draw one conclusion…
Linux has outpaced Windows in growth and they just can’t bring themselves to admit it. Since the VOLUME numbers wouldn’t tell the story they want, they switch to REVENUE. So if Linux is only 5% behind in revenues, geesh it’s clearly got to be royally kickin’ Redmond’s arse bigtime in volume/deployment numbers. Great day i the Linux world IMHO!
How sad the spin is, they should be in Washington politics, they could convince themselves that the sky is actually yellow!
JT
what does it mean? nothing – we run doxens of linux servers – none of which are “bought” in the traditional sene because they are debian.
It means Linux sells nearly as much for servers as Microsoft…Wow!! And those numbers just count who “pay” for it. Time for Windows-only IT guys to pull their heads out of the sand.. Linux isn’t a “hobby” os anymore!
Other than the acknowledgement that since Windows costs more than Linux, saying that revenue is greater obviously makes some sense, but says nothing about overall value of the two systems compared.
The idea that Windows Live is somehow going to matter is also nonsense. Microsoft has no clue what it’s doing with this entire area, and is obviously floundering to find some way to compete with Google – or what it imagines is Google’s possible intentions in the future. Since Google runs on Linux, that’s the only connection with Linux at all in this.
As for the “simplicity” of Microsoft’s Small Business Server, while it may be easier to setup than previous Microsoft efforts, it’s a nightmare of complexity under the hood and subject to the same reliability and security and lock-in issues every Microsoft server OS has. Nothing has changed vis-a-vis Linux.
The rest of the article is the usual excuses – CIOs have no clue, corporations like to CYA by buying Microsoft, etc., etc., ad nauseum. All of which is true and all of which is irrelevant to the future of Linux.
There is NOTHING here to suggest the “beginning of the end of Linux”.
Utter crap.
Browser: ELinks/0.10.6-1-debian (textmode; Linux 2.6.8-2-386 i586; 80×25-2)
At work we are purchasing some new servers, we are going to run CentOS on them. I’m guessing since we don’t actually have to pay for CentOS we wouldn’t be included in this report.
It seems obvious that a product that is required to be purchased to be used would outsell a product that you don’t have to pay for.
In other news, more people brought snickers bars than brought trips to the toliet.
Here in the Dallas Ft. Worth area, there are hundreds of companies, that have done the smart thing.
Hire an experienced Linux Systems administrator, and use one of the Linux distros that is FREE to download, upgrade, and use.
The cost,varying from company to company, of hiring ONE SysAdmin for about $70,000/ yr, and letting him use his talents to free the company of the MS BS, has proven to be wise and frugal.
I myself work for myself, as a freelance “gunslinger” as it were. I am contracted with several, 27 at the moment, smaller companies, that I have shown the benefiets of swithcing to linux.
I have analyzed their needs, expectations, and future plans. I have developed working models and proposals, of entire systems to meet THEIR needs. I then build and maintain those same systems. They save quite a bit over hiring an individual full time employee, and I dont have any problem with dividing my time amoung several clients. Linux is that stable.
I have saved some of them 10s of thousands of dollars, while making some money myself. Free Enterprise, got to love it.
While MS was insisting that one of my companies computers were so outdated, that they would need to be replaced in order to “keep up”, I have converted their older computers to dedicated servers all running ROCK Solid stable on Linux, and then setup simple terminal workstations on the rest of their hardware for desktop use.
One final note. While I always use free linux on the servers, and will setup the desktops as well with FREE linux, I often suggest to the company that they consider buying Linux for their desktop systems.
They are usually so happy with the earlier results and experiences with Linux, that they dont mind at all spending the money on the desktop versions.
So MS outsells Linux, maybe. But I noticed that the article did not even MENTION how many companies and individuals are going the same or similar route as the comapanies I work with.
Maybe someone should do an article that includes those people as well.
The organizations that install servers primarily buy their operating system bundled with the hardware and support contracts. They generally don’t install the OS, themselves. Note that I said “generally”. Sure, there are exceptions, but they’re exceptions — not the rule. Therefore, the number of server licenses sold pretty accurately reflects the numbers for companies that are deploying Linux and Windows. Sure, some of you will declare that to be “bullsh*t” or claim that Gartner is biased. But the fact remains that the sales numbers are pretty widely disseminated in the industry.
From article:
The research unfortunately only refers to the sales revenue rather than overall profits and market share.
None the less on OSNews this news was earlier marketed this way:
Microsoft Windows captured the lead for the first time in server operating systems during the third quarter, boosted by continued demand for inexpensive servers selling for less than $25000 (EUR 21190), according to a new report.
The latter being a gross misinterpretion of said report. This text gives readers the impression that the report is saying Windows is being installed more, when the report actually says, that Windows is making more money (due to higher prices pr. installation).
I wish people would stop making this clam, neither the hardware or the software that you get with a Linux server are free.
Most companies are not running Fedora servers, they are using RHEL which is far from free.
If you want to debate the license restrictions between Windows server and RHEL etc. fine, but please stop saying it is free.
If you are going to count downloads of free Linux distros as server sales then lets also count pirated copies of Windows.
Edited 2005-11-27 06:05
The Gartner Group has always been very pro Microsoft so one may want to take their “independent” reports with more than a grain of salt.
There are plenty of other statistics from more neutral sources that have reported significant gains of Linux’ market share in the server market over the past year, mostly with Linux accounting meanwhile for 35%-45% of the market.
Could it be that MS has finally created a stable server OS, and lowered user support costs while increasing the quality of such support?
Ouch! My 6 year old daughter just slapped me, claiming I’m out of my mind…
Edited 2005-11-27 06:35
This article actually looks pretty interesting. They did say that given WIndows Server’s higher price that it was just outselling linux in terms of profits, meaning that Linux can and I think does have greater marketshare but just a lower cost.
Forget what I just said, this article looks like crap, after reading the rest of it.
Yet another FUD article by MS fan boys. I can only say Every Empire has begining and un end … MS prepeare to go down no matter ho much FUD and dirt you made for Open Source we all know the truth
Pimp-TV reported commercial labor of love outsales free love.
Let the battle continue.
I think that this is, like most stats that try to show somthing, are pointles.
Windows 2003 server is a very good OS, and so is FreeBSD, and Linux, most of which is not sold.
Many people posted about Linux being free. But in the enterprise, I don’t think free linux is an option. Think about having Lotus Notes and +1000 users, or running SAP in Oracle for your company in Fedora without any support from Red Hat. Not a good idea. In the Enterprise they buy supported distributions for… support. And when you buy RH, you can’t installed in any server you want. http://www.redhat.com/en_us/USA/rhel/details/faq/#4. So the price difference between Windows and supported Linux is not a big difference. The point of the article is that MS is selling more than Red Hat, Novell/SUSE and others distributions and that is a big hit to Linux, like it or not. With out RH, Novell or any big name supporting Linux the enterprise will not support a “free” software without a big name giving support for the big apps.
My two cents…
I would agree that .NET would be the main reason why server is performing well. Another reason is Linux you dont have to buy a box set of debian. Debian has been a stable platform for hosing companies for years.
PHP developers use linux
Perl is good for either
Server is only as secure as the weakest link and a admin that knows nothing about the way linux works will not be competent to keep it secure.
Microsoft have students forced to use it every year as a requirement to pass.
No. My position is that I can’t stand it when the pot calls the kettle black. In otherwords, half of the things that Linux users complain about Microsoft doing to Linux, they turn around and do the exact same thing to Microsoft (and often many other commercial vendors as well).
So, to you, potshots taken by users against a company that tries to cripple their OS of choise is comparable with multi-million dollar disinformation campaigns by said company?
I’m sorry, but it’s not a case of a a pot calling the kettle black at all. It’s a case of many, many individuals who are threatened by an abusive monopoly and responding in kind.
I don’t think you are a MS apologist, however in your quest to be as objective as possible you are putting both camps on equal footing while you really shouldn’t.
“So, to you, potshots taken by users against a company that tries to cripple their OS of choise is comparable with multi-million dollar disinformation campaigns by said company?”
Potshots that are based on misinformation are comparable. Yes. And a lot of the crap that much of the more militant Linux evangelists put out there about Windows is not true. It’s even worse then they do it to a company like Sun. Sun has been the victim of tons of FUD and spin from the GNU / GPL community, particularily when it comes to Java.
“many individuals who are threatened by an abusive monopoly and responding in kind.”
Fine. They can respond in kind if they want to. But they shouldn’t be letting their right hand complain about the tactics Microsoft is using to market products when their left hand is doing those exact same thing, not only to Microsoft, but to other vendors as well. It only makes them look like a bunch of dishonest hypocrites.
“I don’t think you are a MS apologist, however in your quest to be as objective as possible you are putting both camps on equal footing while you really shouldn’t.”
All I am saying is that it’s a bit hard to maintain face when you are using the same tactics that you complain about others using. And like I said, the Linux / GNU / GPL community does it to more than just Microsoft. They do it to Sun, and many other commercial vendors who have products that are not open source enough for their tastes.
Edited 2005-11-28 09:31
Okay, I’ll have to disagree here. Saying that something is “not free enough” because it’s not GPL is not spreading FUD, it’s expressing a difference in philosophy.
I don’t think you know what FUD means: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. You can’t just call being critical of something FUD. There has to be an element of those three above – mainly, you have to claim that using product A will cause you problems because of its quality, interoperability, or viability.
Again, you can’t compare Microsoft’s campaign of disinformation (“Linux is a cancer”, etc.) to the gripes of Linux users. The former is reasoned, planned propaganda, while the second is a knee-jerk reaction to the former.
Moreover, whereas the former is clearly fraudulent, and aimed at crippling Linux and FLOSS’ chances in the market, the latter is not necessarily false: there have been glaring security problems with Windows over the years, for example, and to someone who believes in FLOSS, proprietary software is a “bad thing”. Neither of these are FUD: the first one is based on reality, and the second one is based on philoshophical differences. Again, not all criticism is FUD…
In any case, you can’t equate the freedom of expression of thousands with the marketing campaigns of a monopoly. I thought you were unbiased in this, but now I clearly see that you have an axe to grind about GPL/FLOSS advocates. As long as you don’t see this bias, you won’t be able to construct a solid argument to defend your position.
One last thing. You say:
They can respond in kind if they want to. But they shouldn’t be letting their right hand complain about the tactics Microsoft is using to market products when their left hand is doing those exact same thing, not only to Microsoft, but to other vendors as well. It only makes them look like a bunch of dishonest hypocrites.
You’re making a logical error here. You’re basically saying that, because they’re part of the same “community” those who complain about Microsoft’s tactics are the same as those who would use the same tactics, and therefore are hypocrites. The flaw in this argument is that the community doesn’t speak in one voice. By lumping them all together you in fact greatly weaken your argument – the fact is that criticism against Microsoft (and Sun) comes from a variety of sources. Some of it is legitimate, others isn’t, but it’s erroneous to portray it as coming from the same entity, and then painting that entity as hypocritical because another group of people (which may intersect with the others, but not necessarily) is critical of Microsoft FUD.
In other words, denounce FUD when you see it, but don’t try to denigrate or demonize an entire community based on faulty logical assumptions. It only reinforces the impression that you have a big chip on your shoulder.
“Okay, I’ll have to disagree here. Saying that something is “not free enough” because it’s not GPL is not spreading FUD, it’s expressing a difference in philosophy.”
You are missing the point though. Take Java for example. They have an axe to grind with Java because it as “not free enough” for them. So they spread FUD about it. Example “Don’t use Java, because if you do, you are basically placing your future in the hands of Sun and gambling on the idea that they will never decide to revoke the free license and start charging hundreds of dollars for the JRE”.
That is FUD. Because simple business logic says Sun is not going to do that. It would kill Java if they did. And even if they did do it, they cannot stop the many free Java projects out there that are working towards a “truly open source” JVM. So this kind of “Sun could revoke the free license” stuff is just FUD that they use to grind their axe against the fact that they are pissed off it’s not GPL.
“I don’t think you know what FUD means:”
Yes, I do know what it means. See my above explination. That clearly falls into the FUD category.
“Moreover, whereas the former is clearly fraudulent, and aimed at crippling Linux and FLOSS’ chances in the market, the latter is not necessarily false: there have been glaring security problems with Windows over the years”
It’s not fradulent. Misleading? Yes. Fradulent? No. And yes, there have been glaring security problems with Windows over the years. But Linux has suffered from more than its fair share of security problems over the years as well–a fact that the Linux evangelists simply ignore when pointing out Windows security problems. In fact, statistically, Linux is the most cracked into operating system in the world. Sorry, but that is true. you might be able to blame that on popularity, or the number of misconfigured “basement servers” out there. But statistically, Linux servers are cracked more often than Windows servers.
“In other words, denounce FUD when you see it, but don’t try to denigrate or demonize an entire community based on faulty logical assumptions.”
Fine. But I denounce FUD in both camps. If the Linux community wants to denounse Windows FUD, fine. But they shouldn’t do it while at the same time sweeping the FUD that comes from their own community under the rug.
Edited 2005-11-28 16:45
You are missing the point though. Take Java for example. They have an axe to grind with Java because it as “not free enough” for them. So they spread FUD about it.
They, they, they…who is this “they” you keep referring to? That’s the problem with your argument, which I,ve already pointed out but which you choose to ignore.
Repeat after me: the “Linux community” does not speak with a single voice, therefore any blanket criticism of it in response to what a vocal minority may have said or done misses the mark.
That is FUD. Because simple business logic says Sun is not going to do that. It would kill Java if they did. And even if they did do it, they cannot stop the many free Java projects out there that are working towards a “truly open source” JVM.
Okay, so this might be a doomsday scenario, however that’s not something that you often hear Linux users say. And the fact that there are (as you point out) free Java projects around is in fact the direct result of people not being happy about Java’s licensing.
The problem is that you’re taking the words of a few individuals and faulting an entire community for it. Again, the community does not speak of a single voice. It never has, and never will. Microsoft, on the other had, is a single entity. Therefore one cannot logically equate the two.
And yes, there have been glaring security problems with Windows over the years. But Linux has suffered from more than its fair share of security problems over the years as well–a fact that the Linux evangelists simply ignore when pointing out Windows security problems. In fact, statistically, Linux is the most cracked into operating system in the world.
That is true, but there is a very good explanation for this: that’s because Windows “cracking” falls into the malware category because it’s automated. There are a lot more “cracked” Windows boxes out there than Linux boxes, however the study you refer to (which I remember well, even though I can’t find the link right now) only measured “active” hacking attempts, and didn’t take into account rootkits and backdoors installed by Windows malware. And we all know how bad of a problem malware is for Windows.
Sorry, but that is true. you might be able to blame that on popularity, or the number of misconfigured “basement servers” out there. But statistically, Linux servers are cracked more often than Windows servers.
Only if you count active hacking. There’s a good reason for that: hacking a *nix server requires more skill and direct intervention. “Owning” a Windows box can be down by a simple script run by a user who receives it by e-mail. Believe me, I know: I can’t count the number of infected Windows spam realy bots I’ve had to format and reinstall.
So, even if Linux is more “actively” hacked, it is still a much more secure OS than Windows is. There never has been a commercial Linux system that was automatically compromised after being connected to the Internet for 15 minutes, as is the case with Windows XP (no service pack).
Fine. But I denounce FUD in both camps. If the Linux community wants to denounse Windows FUD, fine. But they shouldn’t do it while at the same time sweeping the FUD that comes from their own community under the rug.
We’ll let Microsoft denounce “Linux FUD”…after all, it has billions of dollars at its disposal. When the “Linux camp” (which, again, doesn’t exist per se) gets billions of dollars in marketing money, then perhaps it will play fair. Until then, I honestly don’t see how you can put the two on the same footing.
There’s an old saying: if you’re in a street fight, fight dirty, because the other side won’t give you any chances. You basically want the “Linux camp”, a loose collection of individual, to adopt a unified strategy that would prevent it from using the same tactics that Microsoft uses against it. In other words, you want Linux enthusiasts to fight with a hand tied behind their back.
I’m sorry, but it’s not going to happen. If you want Linux enthusiasts to play fair, get Microsoft to do it first.
“That is true, but there is a very good explanation for this: that’s because Windows “cracking” falls into the malware category because it’s automated.”
But the kind of cracking that is done on Linux is far more serious. Windows “malware” is basically annoying. But it does not result in lost or stolen data, stolen trade secrets, or defaced Web sites. That’s the kind of cracking that tends to happen on Linux, as you said the “active cracking” which tends to be far more dangerous and destructive then malware, when is mostly an annoyance and tends to cause denial of service issues at its worst.
You see? Either one of us can spin this issue both ways can’t we? But at least I admit I am spinning it. You don’t. And the fact is that you are. And can you offer any kind of supporting evidence for your statement that it requires more skill to crack a Linux box than a Windows box? I doubt it. Because it’s not likely to be true.
And by the way, you sneakily tried to extend the argument to cover all Windows installations, and not just Windows server installations, which I restricted it to. Of course you get malware when you have uneducated users opening email attachments and such on their desktops. But I was not refering to that category. I was restricting it to servers, where Linux servers are still more cracked into than Windows servers.
“There’s an old saying: if you’re in a street fight, fight dirty, because the other side won’t give you any chances. You basically want the “Linux camp”, a loose collection of individual, to adopt a unified strategy that would prevent it from using the same tactics that Microsoft uses against it.”
Fine. Fight dirty. Fight fire with fire. But don’t throw fire at your opponent after you just got done whining about its unfair that they are throwing fire at you. It makes you look like a hypocrite.
“I’m sorry, but it’s not going to happen. If you want Linux enthusiasts to play fair, get Microsoft to do it first.”
Once again, I am not saying they have to play fair. I am saying that they look like a bunch of hyporcrites when they complain about it and turn around and do the same things themselves.. And I don’t care if it is not a coherant entity, it still makes the community look like a bunch of hypocrites (which many in the community are).
Edited 2005-11-29 08:50
But the kind of cracking that is done on Linux is far more serious. Windows “malware” is basically annoying. But it does not result in lost or stolen data, stolen trade secrets, or defaced Web sites. That’s the kind of cracking that tends to happen on Linux, as you said the “active cracking” which tends to be far more dangerous and destructive then malware, when is mostly an annoyance and tends to cause denial of service issues at its worst.
No, you’ve got it all wrong. Windows malware can be very destructive, as it can allow a pirate to gain Administrator access to the PC. Whether the cracking is automated (i.e. through a trojan horse or a worm that attacs an open service) or not, the results are the same: a compromised PC.
Once it has access to the Windows machine, the hacker can in fact do what he wants with it: erase files, steal secrets, etc. However, in order to remain undetected, the hacker is likely to use the box as a spam relay or use it as an attack zombie for DDoS attacks.
By the way, Denial of Service attacks rarely involve Linux boxes, as it is much easier to gain access to an unsecured WinXP box on the Internet (there are still lost of people not using SP2).
Malware costs for 2004 were estimated at between 160 and 200 billion dollars, and that’s almost entirely on Windows. I don’t have figures for compromised Linux boxes, but I’m pretty sure it pales in comparison.
You see? Either one of us can spin this issue both ways can’t we? But at least I admit I am spinning it. You don’t. And the fact is that you are.
Uh, no, I’m not. I’m simply stating what I believe to be the truth according to the data I have. Why do you automatically assume that it’s spin? Because it goes against your preconceived notions? I’m not here to spin anything, I’m here to engage in honest debate. We’re allowed to disagree. However, I have no financial interest in the matter, and use both Windows and Linux daily. The only reason I am critical of Microsoft is that it will not allow Linux to gain market share, while I’d be content with a computing ecosystem where Windows and *nix would coexists with similar market shares. In other words, I criticize Microsoft because I want a level playing field. That only makes be biased towards balance, which is fine in my book.
And can you offer any kind of supporting evidence for your statement that it requires more skill to crack a Linux box than a Windows box? I doubt it. Because it’s not likely to be true.
I am basing myself on logic: it’s hard to write efficient malware that will give root access to a Linux installation and allow arbitrary execution of code. It’s possible, but difficult. Therefore, automatization of the cracking process is not cost effective. It therefore requires skills to actively hack the Linux box.
There are, on the other, numerous vulnerabilities that allow this on Windows boxes (some of them structural, like default services and making files executable through the file extension), especially on older Windows machines. Therefore, it only requires skill to write the malware that will give access to the Windows PC. Using the malware to infect PCs and have them “phone home” to you is trivial. This was easily demonstrated back in the days with BackOrifice.
So it does take skill to crack Windows boxes, but since it can be easily automated it means that unskilled Script Kiddies can go on and infect Windows boxes.
And by the way, you sneakily tried to extend the argument to cover all Windows installations, and not just Windows server installations, which I restricted it to. Of course you get malware when you have uneducated users opening email attachments and such on their desktops. But I was not refering to that category. I was restricting it to servers, where Linux servers are still more cracked into than Windows servers.
As long as a machine offers a service on the Internet, it is considered a server. Unfortunately, plenty of people still connect to the Internet with Windows File and Printer Sharing turned on, and no firewall. This means that their port 139 is wide open, and that their home machine is effectively a server (which will be compromised in a matter of minutes). So there’s nothing sneaky about it: if your machine offers a service on the Interenet – whether you know it or not – it IS a server.
That said, there are plenty of malware that targets “real” servers. Code Red, Nimda, Blaster, SoBig, etc. These have cause real damage, much more than the defacement of web sites (which represents the vast majority of Linux cracking events).
I’m curious, though: do you have recent data as per the number of Linux boxes compromised? I remember the study you’re referring to, and it’s a couple of years old…I’m just curious to know what the situation is these days.
To me, the fact that the US DoD has been increasingly using Linux is a sign that it’s not too shabby, security wise (especially if you secure it with the NSA’s SELinux module).
Once again, I am not saying they have to play fair. I am saying that they look like a bunch of hyporcrites when they complain about it and turn around and do the same things themselves.. And I don’t care if it is not a coherant entity, it still makes the community look like a bunch of hypocrites (which many in the community are).
You should care, because it basically means that your argument is not based on facts but on appearances. And please provide the data to indicate that “many in the community” are hypocrites. What are you basing yourself on to make that claim? I could very well claim that “many in the Linux community are NOT hypocrites” and that’d as valid as your claim.
In any case, you also have to make a distinction between criticism of Microsoft (which is prevalent), valid criticism of Windows (which is common not only among Linux users, but Windows users as well) and FUD about Windows/other proprietary OSes (which should be condemned). It seems to me that you’re lumping everything in one big category, and then condemning the Linux community at large for all of this. Your argument lacks finesse and precision, and as such can be easily disproved in a logical, rational debate. Also, saying that something is “not free enough” is a philosophical debate, and as such is not FUD because the conclusions cannot be said to be true or false as they depend on your opinion about the matter.
All in all, I still think you are unfair in your clumsy caracterization of the Linux community. Also, you shouldn’t put a multinational corporation (and convicted monopolist) with individual users. Compare users with users (i.e. Windows advocates with Linux advocates) and companies with companies (i.e. Microsoft with Red Hat, Novell, Sun, etc.). That’s the only way you’ll be able to construct a valid argument about this.
“By the way, Denial of Service attacks rarely involve Linux boxes, as it is much easier to gain access to an unsecured WinXP box on the Internet (there are still lost of people not using SP2).”
And 99% of the time, this is due to users. NOT the OS itself. It’s due to users who run email attachments and such. The only reason malware doesn’t affect Linux very often is because they average Linux user is a techie and knows better than to run email attachments. But drop the user level of the average Linux user down to that of the average Windows user, and Linux because just as easy to install malware on. In fact, easier. Because a simple shell script could do the trick.
“Malware costs for 2004 were estimated at between 160 and 200 billion dollars, and that’s almost entirely on Windows. I don’t have figures for compromised Linux boxes, but I’m pretty sure it pales in comparison.”
That may be true. But when you put it in proportion I suspect there would not be that much difference. 160 to 200 billion dollars for an operating system that has 94% to 96% marketshare.
“The only reason I am critical of Microsoft is that it will not allow Linux to gain market share, while I’d be content with a computing ecosystem where Windows and *nix would coexists with similar market shares. In other words, I criticize Microsoft because I want a level playing field. That only makes be biased towards balance, which is fine in my book.”
And whether you like it or not, this is mostly user drive. The average user simply does not want Linux. There are tons of PC vendors out there that will pre-load Linux these days. But the average user doesn’t want it. And for very good reasons.
So basically what you want to do is penalize Microsoft for being successful. You want to punish them until Linux has 50% marketshare, and then suddenly lift the restrictions.. And if Linux pulls ahead, then what? Are you going to support punishing Linux to level it again? Maybe by charging the entire community with product dumping after Microsoft claims it is unfair that they have to compete against a free product? Maybe the DOJ could make it illegal to distribute Linux for free at that point to level the playing field again?
“Unfortunately, plenty of people still connect to the Internet with Windows File and Printer Sharing turned on, and no firewall.”
By default, Windows has a firewall enabled. This is at least better than the typical Linux distribution which comes with no firewall enabled at all out of the box. (And setting up iptables in Linux would be beyond the typical the average user’s skill level, so they couldn’t enable the firewall even if they did want to).
“Also, saying that something is “not free enough” is a philosophical debate, and as such is not FUD because the conclusions cannot be said to be true or false as they depend on your opinion about the matter.”
“It’s not free enough” is not the FUD part of it. The logic used to support that view is pure FUD though. Particularly in the Java case I pointed out. That is pure FUD. Sun cannot possibly do what they are suggesting. It’s 100% pure FUD being used to support their philosophical view.
“All in all, I still think you are unfair in your clumsy caracterization of the Linux community. Also, you shouldn’t put a multinational corporation (and convicted monopolist) with individual users.”
#1: As I pointed out before, Microsoft is *NOT NOT NOT* a convicted monopolist. This is probably one of the most common bits of misinformation floating around on the Internet. The truth is that Microsoft was convicted of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. That’s ALL. The court stopped short of calling them a monopoly. So here you are simply spreading false information.
#2: You say I am lumping the entire Linux community in with the radical FUD spreaders. But that’s just a copout. You don’t want to admit that it exists at all. You don’t want to admit that anyone in the Linux community, or the OSS community spreads FUD. Hence, you even try to say that the “not free enough” argument I gave is philosophical and not FUD, when the argument I gave you is 100% pure FUD. Sun cannot possibly do what they suggest Sun would do. The supporting argument is 100% FUD. But you ignored that. Because you don’t want to admit that anyone in the open source community is just as guilty of FUD and spin as Microsoft’s marketting people are.
First, are you Simba? Because if you are you forgot to log in.
And 99% of the time, this is due to users. NOT the OS itself. It’s due to users who run email attachments and such. The only reason malware doesn’t affect Linux very often is because they average Linux user is a techie and knows better than to run email attachments.
That’s debatable. There were numerous flaws in Outlook where the user didn’t even need to run the attachment: simply previewing the e-mail was enough. This, like IE exploits that give Admin access to a website (!), are due to design decisions by MS to deeply integrate Outlook and IE with the operating system.
There is other design decisions that make Linux safer: first, you cannot make a file executable simply by giving it the appropriate extension in Linux – you must set the executable bit. Second, Windows XP gives the first user Administrative rights on a regular install, which is very, very dangerous (not sure if it still does this in SP2, but as I said many people have not upgraded yet).
That may be true. But when you put it in proportion I suspect there would not be that much difference. 160 to 200 billion dollars for an operating system that has 94% to 96% marketshare.
Actually, as far as servers are concerned Microsoft’s market share is quite lower. A consolidated market share is probably closer to 90%. However, if you want to look at it proportionately, you’ll find that Windows has about 100,000 malware against it, while Linux has about 100. When you adjust the numbers due to market share, Windows still has about 40 times more malware programs for it. Market share isn’t everything: it’s easier for malware to spread on Windows system, in part due to design decision, in part due to the greater homogeneity of Windows installs.
And whether you like it or not, this is mostly user drive. The average user simply does not want Linux. There are tons of PC vendors out there that will pre-load Linux these days. But the average user doesn’t want it. And for very good reasons.
“Very good reasons”? That’s debatable. If Linux was more easily available pre-installed on PCs (which, until recently, was impossible due to Microsoft pressure on OEMs and resellers – just ask the BeOS folks), then its market share would increase.
That said, Linux market share is increasing. Slowly, yes, but no one’s in a hurry, really. I’m just content that the number of Linux users is increasing steadily.
So basically what you want to do is penalize Microsoft for being successful. You want to punish them until Linux has 50% marketshare, and then suddenly lift the restrictions.
Who said anything about punishing anyone for being successful? I just want a level playing field. Microsoft should be punished for anti-competitive behavior, certainly.
By default, Windows has a firewall enabled.
It does in SP2. It didn’t before. Lots of people don’t have SP2 (or XP, for that matter), therefore lots of Windows machines are still at risk of being compromised.
This is at least better than the typical Linux distribution which comes with no firewall enabled at all out of the box. (And setting up iptables in Linux would be beyond the typical the average user’s skill level, so they couldn’t enable the firewall even if they did want to).
Who’s spreading FUD now? Modern Linux distros have wizards to set up iptables, and other have easy-to-use front-ends such as Firestarter.
The logic used to support that view is pure FUD though. Particularly in the Java case I pointed out.
Correction: ONLY in the Java case you pointed. And when I read it in your post it was the first time I ever heard that argument, so it’s far from being a prevalent view among the Linux community. Again, you’re focusing on what a few people have said and condemning the entire community for it. That is unfair, and weakens your argument from a rational point of view.
The truth is that Microsoft was convicted of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. That’s ALL. The court stopped short of calling them a monopoly. So here you are simply spreading false information.
As far as Microsoft being a monopoly or not, I refer myself to Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson’s ruling:
” 33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.
34. Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft’s share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft’s dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft’s customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows.”
So you can split hairs and say that MS is not a monopoly, but the truth is that for all practical purposes they are. Now you’re really starting to sound like a Microsoft apologist.
#2: You say I am lumping the entire Linux community in with the radical FUD spreaders. But that’s just a copout. You don’t want to admit that it exists at all. You don’t want to admit that anyone in the Linux community, or the OSS community spreads FUD.
That’s simply not true. Of course there are people spreading FUD about Microsoft (and Sun, to a certain extend). I’m just saying that this is a small minority and therefore one cannot judge an entire community from their words or actions.
I also think that whatever FUD is spread by individuals in the FLOSS community pales in comparison to the multi-million dollar marketting campaigns, “independent” studies and Ballmer performances.
Hence, you even try to say that the “not free enough” argument I gave is philosophical and not FUD, when the argument I gave you is 100% pure FUD.
Correction: I’m saying that the first part of the argument isn’t FUD, i.e. one can argue from a philosophical point of view that Java isn’t free enough, just like someone can disagree from a philosophical point of view that the BSD licence isn’t free enough. You’re welcome to disagree, but it does not mean that it’s FUD. It is, in fact, a philosophical disagreement.
The second part of the argument (“Sun could turn around and require people to pay for Java”, if I understand correctly) could be said to be FUD, although it would be theoretically possible for Sun to do just that (stupid, yes, but we’ve seen that companies sometimes do very stupid things – see SCO vs. IBM). So while you may see it as FUD, if it’s a real concern for someone it isn’t FUD, even though they might be mistaken as to the probability of its occurence.
But you ignored that. Because you don’t want to admit that anyone in the open source community is just as guilty of FUD and spin as Microsoft’s marketting people are.
Don’t be ridiculous. Of course I’ll admit that people in the FLOSS community can spread FUD, however to me that’s a very small minority, and it pales in comparison to the FUD spread by Microsoft.
And as far as me ignoring one of your arguments, that’s kind of ironic considering you’ve ignored many of my own arguments. For example, the very solid argument that you should compare corporate FUD vs. corporate FUD, and individual opinions with individual opinions.
All of this leads me to believe that you are quite biased against FLOSS in your criticism, despite wrapping yourself in a self-important veil of neutrality.
“First, are you Simba? Because if you are you forgot to log in”
Yes.
“That’s debatable. There were numerous flaws in Outlook where the user didn’t even need to run the attachment: simply previewing the e-mail was enough.”
And many security experts estimate that there are probably over 1,000 buffer exploit security holes in Pine that have not yet been discovered. And you don’t need to set the executable bit to push arbitrary executable code on to the stack if their is a buffer exploit. The user doesn’t even have to click on anything. All they need to do is run across an email message with a bad header.
And do you want me to bring routed, and sendmail, and bind into the discussion? Those are all very common unix / Linux daemons that have been plagued with expoitable holes.
“Actually, as far as servers are concerned Microsoft’s market share is quite lower.”
But do you see what you are doing here? You are lumping clients in with servers when it supports your argument. And then convieniantly seperating the two when it doesn’t. That’s spin in the purist sense.
“”Very good reasons”? That’s debatable. If Linux was more easily available pre-installed on PCs (which, until recently, was impossible due to Microsoft pressure on OEMs and resellers – just ask the BeOS folks), then its market share would increase.”
I don’t buy it. And you can’t support. I can support the argument that it would not though. It’s not ready for the average desktop user. No matter how much the zealots stomp their feed and whine and pout that it is, it simply isn’t. It’s still too hard to install applications. Many of the apps user want to run don’t exist (and very few games have been ported). And a significant amount of internet content is unaccessible to Linux users because of ActiveX requirements. Tried viewing CNN’s video news feeds on Linux lately?
“So you can split hairs and say that MS is not a monopoly, but the truth is that for all practical purposes they are. Now you’re really starting to sound like a Microsoft apologist.”
But they aren’t. And there is *KEY* reason they aren’t. The marketshare that Microsoft has is primarily user created. Like it or not, no other PC operating system balances the typical desktop user’s needs better than Windows. Yes, I know the zealots can’t stand to hear that, and will whine and stomp their feet. But it is the simple truth.
“I refer myself to Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson’s ruling”
Jackson’s ruling is an opinion based on a finding of fact hearing. It has no legal enforcability or legal power.
“Who said anything about punishing anyone for being successful? I just want a level playing field. Microsoft should be punished for anti-competitive behavior, certainly.”
You want a level playing field by saying Let’s penalize Microsoft until they have lost so much share that Linux and MS can both start with a 50% marketshare. And like I said, what are you going to do if Linux ever pulls ahead? Are you going to support charging them with product dumping for giving a whole OS away for free?
And if you want to talk about level playing fields, why do you ignore the fact that Linux has created a TOTALLY unlevel playing field for commercial UNIX. I guess that is ok though huh? It’s ok to drive commercial UNIX vendors into economic decline, and cause hundreds if not thousands of programmers to lose their jobs by cloning an OS and giving it away free so that commercial companies can’t compete?
“Correction: I’m saying that the first part of the argument isn’t FUD, i.e. one can argue from a philosophical point of view that Java isn’t free enough, just like someone can disagree from a philosophical point of view that the BSD licence isn’t free enough. You’re welcome to disagree, but it does not mean that it’s FUD. It is, in fact, a philosophical disagreement.”
“The second part of the argument (“Sun could turn around and require people to pay for Java”, if I understand correctly) could be said to be FUD, although it would be theoretically possible for Sun to do just that (stupid, yes, but we’ve seen that companies sometimes do very stupid things – see SCO vs. IBM).”
It’s not even theoretically possible because of the fact that Sun is not the only entity that has contributed code to Java. IBM has contributed significant amounts of code. And under the new community licensing, users are contributing code as well. Sun couldn’t do this without getting sued most likely.
“All of this leads me to believe that you are quite biased against FLOSS in your criticism, despite wrapping yourself in a self-important veil of neutrality.”
That’s usually what the FLOSS zealots such as yourself resort to when they realize they are losing an argument. Just the “Well, you are just biased against FLOSS”.
No, I’m not. I am biased against people who complain about Microsoft, while at the same time ignoring both the FUD from their own community, as well as the fact that Linux has created somewhat of a monopoly of its own in the unix world by virtue of product dumping. But while you all sit and whine about “level playing field between Microsoft and Linux”, you don’t seem to care that the playing field between Linux and the systems it basically cloned is not at all level.
I see no point in continuing this discussion. It’s obvious we have very different views, and it’s pointless to keep debating it.
And do you want me to bring routed, and sendmail, and bind into the discussion?
SoBig, Code Red, Nimda, Blaster…do you really want to compare *nix and Windows’ security records? Show me ONE *nix distro over the past ten years that can be compromised in less than 15 minutes simply by connecting it to the Internet.
But do you see what you are doing here? You are lumping clients in with servers when it supports your argument. And then convieniantly seperating the two when it doesn’t.
Uh, no. “Servers” is an arbitrary term. I’m not making the distinction, those establishing market share figures are. I have no problem lumping ALL of them together ALL THE TIME myself, but apparently the distinction can be useful for marketing…. 🙂
Jackson’s ruling is an opinion based on a finding of fact hearing. It has no legal enforcability or legal power.
Nonetheless, I happen to agree with him. Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. You’ll find that the vast majority of people, whether they are Windows, Mac or *nix users also agree with this assertion.
That’s usually what the FLOSS zealots such as yourself resort to when they realize they are losing an argument.
Oh, insults! And you have the gall to say that I’m losing the argument?
News for you: my argument still stands. You use the words of a small minority to issue a blanket condemnation of a very large group of people. I called you on it. You tried to weasel your way out of it and have added ad hominem attacks to your strawman argument. I my book, that’s a clear indication that you are the one to have lost thisargument, not me.
No, I’m not. I am biased against people who complain about Microsoft, while at the same time ignoring both the FUD from their own community, as well as the fact that Linux has created somewhat of a monopoly of its own in the unix world by virtue of product dumping.
It is not product dumping, because it is not sold at less than it costs to make. If it had in fact been dumping, you can be sure Microsoft would have found someone to sue. It seems your knowledge of legal matters is as weak as your knowledge of computer security.
And, yes, you are clearly biased against FLOSS. That can easily be gleaned from the hostile tone you take towards Linux, its community and the FLOSS community at large. The fact that you condemn an entire community for the bad actions of a few of them is a clear indicator of that. You even went as far to say that “many in the FLOSS community are hypocrites”, a statement that implies that the FLOSS has a higher proportion of hypocrites than, say the commercial software community.
By the way, Sun is now offering OpenSolaris for free as well. Are they guilty of “product dumping” as well?
I see no point in continuing this discussion. It’s obvious we have very different views, and it’s pointless to keep debating it.
I agree.
I notice you completely did not adress the fact that Linux has created totally unlevel playing field for the systems it cloned. Is that fair or not? Or is that Ok, while it is somehow not ok that the playing field between Microsoft and Linux is unlevel?
“By the way, Sun is now offering OpenSolaris for free as well. Are they guilty of “product dumping” as well?”
They had no choice. It was all they could do to keep Solaris alive thanks to the very unlevel playing field that Linux has created. This is why Solaris will be the only formerly commercial UNIX to survive the Linux assult. The other two big ones (AIX and HPUX) will both die.
“do you really want to compare *nix and Windows’ security records?”
Already did that, and have shown that Linux loses since it is the most cracked operating system in the world.
“News for you: my argument still stands. You use the words of a small minority to issue a blanket condemnation of a very large group of people.”
Small minority? Go read any thread about Java or Solaris or Windows on OSNews, and tell me it is a small minority. Any thread that says something positive about any of these topics is almost immediately hijacked by tons of FUD. Example, recent Solaris post “Solaris is neither open source or free.”.
Well, guess what? Even OSI disagrees with that. Solaris is licensed under an OSI approved license. It most certainly is not a small minority considering the amount of FUD you can find in virtually any topic on OSNews and many other forums that says something positive about any of these three technologies.
“And, yes, you are clearly biased against FLOSS.”
No, I am not. I am biased against the fact that the FLOSS community whines about how unfair it is that the playing field is so unlevel between Microsoft and Linux, while at the same time ignoring the severe ecnomic damange that FLOSS has done to competing commercial interests by basically cloning commercial software and giving it away free.