"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."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
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
Member since:2005-10-08
"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
Member since:
2005-10-08
"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