Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 13th Apr 2009 22:11 UTC
Microsoft At the Linux Collaboration Summit, held last week in San Francisco, an interesting panel discussion took place about Linux' position in the wider operating systems market. Included were Jim Zemlin, Linux Foundation executive director, Ian Murdock, Sun community and developer vice president, and Sam Ramji, Microsoft platform strategy director. Titled "Why Can't We All Just Get Along?", the discussion focussed on Microsoft's somewhat dubious relationship with the open source community.
Thread beginning with comment 358447
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: No, We Can't Get Along
by kwag on Tue 14th Apr 2009 07:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No, We Can't Get Along"
kwag
Member since:
2006-08-31

"Dont forgot to check exactly when those big-iron servers were bought. Most likely not in the last couple of years... "

Sorry fella!, but they're up to date, and with current maintenance contracts for a long time.
As I said. You can count the number of Linux servers with one hand on these markets. Maybe in the next decade we'll see a different picture, but as it stands now, SUN is far from being dethroned on this segment.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

but they're up to date, and with current maintenance contracts for a long time.


I'm sure they are but that has little to do with this. We're not talking about keeping systems up to date or under MA contracts. We're talking about Sun selling new machines and there's no doubt that their market share is shrinking.

Reply Parent Score: 3

StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13


I'm sure they are but that has little to do with this. We're not talking about keeping systems up to date or under MA contracts. We're talking about Sun selling new machines and there's no doubt that their market share is shrinking.


Why! oh why, do people with sh!tty knowledge of basic statistics open their mouths so wide so often?

Marketshare is a *useless measure* when the overall market is growing. Sun could have doubled their shipments and still lose "marketshare" if the market was growing at a faster rate than their sales. In that case Sun would be losing market share but still increasing their shipments at an impressive rate. Ok, in the real world they're not, but I'm giving an example. Point is marketshare is a measure for the stupid ("Oh, surveys say 93% of other people eat maggots for breakfast, so I'd better do it too"). Switch the brain from "idle" to "on" please folks.

Marketshare is a crappy metric in other ways. For example, the US F22 fighter has a negligible share of the overall aviation market, with around 187 produced versus tens of thousands of jet transports and light aircraft. Does this means the F22 sux, no! Does it mean the manufacturer of the F22 is doomed, no! </example> All it means is there is a lot more aircraft out there - but so frikken what, not all questions are answered based on mindless statistics.

The thing that matters most for business viability is *profitability*. Simple. Companies can continue indefinitely provided they remain profitable. Once a company is no longer profitable it is a matter of time before it must either close or be consumed by a profitable competitor. Note: Linux is not a company, so doesn't follow these same laws.

Growth in profits mostly matters for *investors*, especially speculative investors, and less directly for the company itself. Therefore, the *masssive (apparently mostly-US) obsession* with profit growth figures is unhealthy and leads to the decade-long boom-and-bust cycles we've been experiencing, as the herd mindlessly gallops between speculations. "Marketshare" is not how Warren Buffet makes his decisions.

but they're up to date, and with current maintenance contracts for a long time.


I've been using Linux since the early 90's and it's my daily desktop. We recommend to customers for their servers wherever we can. However, there is a lot of Sun (S5000) and IBM (Z10 and Datapower) gear still out there and still being bought (just did some work for a large bank and that's what they have). that's why Sun still generates more revenue than you do (just not enough to offset their costs and acquisitions).

The real problem with Sun in my opinion is that is it hard to order their gear if you only want small quantities of stuff (kaiwai and I have already ranted about this stuff before in previous OSnews threads - shame Sun doesn't ever listen). They've obviously decided that small orders are not profitable enough to bother with. Which is true based on their antiquated sales model that requires dealing with a sales representative. If you could actually order their stuff online I'd be getting more for our own infrastracture and customers, but at the moment it's too slow and painful. Often speed is the essence when making smaller or ad-hoc acquisitions.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: No, We Can't Get Along
by segedunum on Wed 15th Apr 2009 16:08 in reply to "RE[3]: No, We Can't Get Along"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry fella!, but they're up to date, and with current maintenance contracts for a long time.

I hope the two of you that bought such systems recently will be very happy. You won't save Sun.

You can count the number of Linux servers with one hand on these markets. Maybe in the next decade we'll see a different picture, but as it stands now, SUN is far from being dethroned on this segment.

*Cough*, bull. What kind of precarious position do you think Sun is in right now? Where have you been?

It's a very, very, very, very niche market, pretty insignificant and I'm afraid the expensive systems Sun sold many years ago aren't going to save them.

Edited 2009-04-15 16:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2