"George Weiss, Gartner's open-source analyst, recently said that Microsoft Windows will not suffer irreparable damage on the server side at the hands of Linux over the next five years. He's right. Microsoft will fall flat on its face all by itself, and Linux will pick up afterwards. It's very simple."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-06-01
If virtualization represents the commoditation of IT reaching a new watershed up the stack, from hardware into the OS, then how can a non-commodity OS survive?
On the other hand ... Windows 2003 R2 Enterprise licenses allow 4 free virtual servers of any kind to be run concurrently with the main OS.
http://www.inacom.com/newsletter/dec05/whatsnewinwindowsserver.aspx
Thats what we plan to do. Buy One W2K3R2 Ent license, use VMware Server (free) and virtualize 4 servers on each box. VMware is free. The virtualize boxes are free. We get 4 VM's per box which gives us some leeway in terms of resources to bring up more than 4 VM's for disaster recovery.
Plus, if you buy DataCenter Edition, you get unlimited virtualization rights:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/news/bulletin...
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:2006-01-06
Now, what has become clear, even to Microsoft, is that Linux is a superior product for delivering IT infrastructure, such as network servers, grid computing, and the like.
How, then, do you explain the growth of Windows server market share, then?
So where I see the future is in using Windows and Linux in tandem: Windows runs virtualized within Linux, getting all the benefits of security and stability from that platform, while Linux gets the benefits of Windows applications.
It could also work the other way around, too. TCO is essentially the same for both OSes.
The only option would be to price Windows licenses at virtually nothing, no pun intended.
You're looking at this in a very one-dimensional way. Virtualization allows companies to consolidate a lot of their existing infrastructure (ie. reduce number of physical servers while maintaining compatibility with existing applications). And, while virtualization favors lower-cost licensing, the comparative TCO for Windows and Linux is essentially a wash either way, so it depends on how much investment companies are willing to do to migrate from existing infrastructure. That isn't a slam dunk for Linux.
Not at the OS level ... the "gold rush" in IT has moved much higher up the stack. There's some money to be made in commodity OS, but it's more on par with what we're seeing out of Red Hat, not MS.
Nah. Look at revenue growth for both MS and Red Hat. I think you'll see that the OS hasn't been commoditized to linear returns. Far from it.
Member since:
2006-01-06
With Windows Xen-enabled, companies will be running virtualized instances of Windows within Linux.
Now, what has become clear, even to Microsoft, is that Linux is a superior product for delivering IT infrastructure, such as network servers, grid computing, and the like.
Where Windows is superior, however, is in application support -- for no real technical reason, but for a multitude of business/marketplace reasons, which is just as much a reality as the tech side of things.
So where I see the future is in using Windows and Linux in tandem: Windows runs virtualized within Linux, getting all the benefits of security and stability from that platform, while Linux gets the benefits of Windows applications.
There are also products emerging that allow Windows admins to use GUIs to manage large numbers of Linux servers.
SVJN is a fanboy, but I think he does have a point. If virtualization represents the commoditation of IT reaching a new watershed up the stack, from hardware into the OS, then how can a non-commodity OS survive?
The only option would be to price Windows licenses at virtually nothing, no pun intended.
Is it possible that MS could even make as much money at a service-based model instead of a product-based one?
Not at the OS level ... the "gold rush" in IT has moved much higher up the stack. There's some money to be made in commodity OS, but it's more on par with what we're seeing out of Red Hat, not MS.