According to IDC, the Linux installed base, currently at 3.5 million units, will climb to 8.6 million server units alone by 2005. By contrast, Unix will drop from 2.61 million units to 2.53 million units. But Windows will still lead the way with an installed base of 8.6 million units in 2002 and 13.84 million server units in 2005. […] How far Linux climbs in the OS market remains to be seen. “In five to 10 years, Unix will be overtaken by it. Whether [or not] we will get by Windows, we’ll get close,” deVisser said. Read the report at InfoWorld. As for the LinuxWorld, ZDNews has an interesting all-around article.
Linux, at Your Service
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Linux is a UNIX child. GET IT LINUX GEEKS YOU ARE STILL USING UNIX, just a hacked up version. Almost UNIXv2 if you will
Where are all these servers coming from?? I hardly think that the server market will expand from a total of 14.7 million to 24.9 million in 3 years. Why would we suddenly need 70% more servers in 3 years?? Hmm.. I have a feeling I’m missing something..
By the way, these estimates are just that. Someone is pulling numbers out of their ass again.
“Where are all these servers coming from??”
China, South America, maybe even Africa.
I find it laughable that anyone would predict any significant growth for Microsoft servers. With the disaster the .NET has turned out to be shows that companies just aren’t in the mood to lock themselves into another decade shacked to MS.
And the x86 line is nearing it’s end, or at least in transformation to 64bit depending on who comes out on top between AMD and Intel. There is no way anyone can predict what will happened between Linux,MS,AMD, and Intel a year from now, let alone three years.
Unless MS can find some new way to interfere with Linux being used as a cheaper drop in replacement for Windows servers mixed with the insane ramp up in licensing costs from MS to prop up their shrinking profits, even the most die hard MS fanatic admins are going to have to come to grips with the dramatic cost savings with going with Linux.
Linux has commoditized the low end server market and all Redmond can do is crap in their pants.
Linux is a UNIX child. GET IT LINUX GEEKS YOU ARE STILL USING UNIX, just a hacked up version. Almost UNIXv2 if you will
Yeah, and I’m glad. And I’m sure Mac OS X users are glad too =)
I thought Linux was not a true UNIX, just a workalike, due to a few differences. Isn’t there something about the root user?
Yeah, Linux is not truely UNIX b/c it has not been certified as such by the Open Group, but it’s really close enough that in most respects it is UNIX for all intents and purposes. Its one of those deals where its pretty much compliant, just not officially yet…of course this doesn’t really matter much b/c nearly all *Nixen that are still alive are becoming “Linux-compatible” to a certain degree…HP-UX/AIX 5L/IRIX/Solaris…all are become quite Linux compatible…and the BSDs all have excellent Linux BINARY compatibility layers
so to make a long story short…Linux *IS* UNIX, just not officially
-bytes256
“I find it laughable that anyone would predict any significant growth for Microsoft servers.”
The Linux figures are OK because, Tuttle says so.
But, the Windows figures are wrong because…Tuttle says so.
Sure, whatever.
There are a lot of network admins that are either afraid of or can’t handle linux…Windows fills a nice little niche…a server OS that’s relatively easy to set up…and security is not always an issue (if you’ve got a good dedicated firewall appliance an internal MS file server is probably pretty safe)…and as far as stability is concerned, all of the Windows NT line is pretty good in that respect…it’s the other windows line that’s known for crashing and only a total retard would run a server on Win98
-bytes256
Adding another number after the decimal point does not make the number bigger…
3.5 > 2.61
I presume this is an error, because they go on the say that Linux will overtake Unix “In five to ten years.” Hasn’t Linux already done it if they have a larger installed base?
It would be nice to have the CORRECT numbers, so that the article would actually make sense…
It says:
2,800,000 microsoft
693,000 Unix
622,000 Linux
I’m not sure that I believe either set of numbers.
Linux is a UNIX child. GET IT LINUX GEEKS YOU ARE STILL USING UNIX, just a hacked up version. Almost UNIXv2 if you will
Arguing semantics is always silly. How does one define Unix? Theoretically sharing some source code with the original Unix? Having TOG’s stamp of approval?
Personally I tend to go for the former. It’s nice to think that FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD/etc evolved from the original Unix operating system, even though they may no longer share any common source code.
By that definition, this would mean that Linux is a Unix workalike or clone since it didn’t evolve from the original Unix source code. Of course, as I stated earlier this is a semantic destinction and doesn’t have any bearing in reality.
Gil Bates “Sure, whatever.”
Ohhh Mommy, look! a Microsoft fan, thought they were all extinct!
“either afraid of or can’t handle linux”
With the enourmous savings of dumping Windows for Linux servers it’s no longer going to be a preference, either you are up to speed as a Linux admin or your replacement will be. End of story.
that’s not necessarily the case…there’s a lot of company’s that are very MS-Biased…
read this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26628.html
also, to many execs a Windows server looks like the smart way to go…sure its more expensive up front…but they (mistakenly) believe that nothing else will integrate with their Windows desktops like a Windows server
there are a lot of companies that rule out linux simply b/c it’s given away…they say “you get what you pay for”…so then you look at the alternatives…NetWare, expensive and complex, and Commercial-grade UNIX…VERY expensive and VERY complex
i love Linux…i think it’s the best choice for many business servers, but unfortunately the people who actually make the decisions think otherwise
-bytes256
“Mollenhoff noted that Linux offers advantages in reliability, price, and CPU power.”
Since when can Linux (or any software) improve CPU power? Maybe they mean speed but that certainly isn’t CPU power. Makes me wonder how much bull the write all day long.
Doug Kennedy, VP of platform alliances, Oracle: “The combination of Red Hat and the Intel servers, we believe, is the best economic model for us to run our [outsourcing] business right now.”
Sure, don’t mention that Oracle costs and arm and a leg. Maybe reduce your price instead.
The article also made me wonder if those statistics mean anything. Even if there are hundreds of tiny Linux-based web servers out there, one huge-ass Sun installation is probably worth more than those. It is like comparing oranges and apples.
> The article also made me wonder if those >statistics mean anything. Even if there are >hundreds of tiny Linux-based web servers out >there, one huge-ass Sun installation is probably >worth more than those. It is like comparing >oranges and apples.
Replace the words “Linux” with “Windows” and “Sun” with “Linux” and it will be true.
“Replace the words “Linux” with “Windows” and “Sun” with “Linux” and it will be true.”
I hope you feel better now. I didn’t even mention Windows and of course someone has to come along and put down Windows again…
on unix numbers being lower. there are alot more low end servers compared to high end servers(unix). you dont need sun e450 for print and mail,and file services