Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows Servers Neck and Neck with Unix Servers

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the five-bucks-on-unix dept.

Unix 492

BrainSurgeon writes "According to the Register, Windows based servers are now even with Unix based servers in terms of sales for the first time ever." From the article: "In an overall up server market, IDC counted $4.2bn worth of Microsoft Windows server sales on the back of 12 percent growth. Total Unix sales also hit $4.2bn in the period, IDC said, on 3 per cent revenue growth. Those totals left Microsoft and Unix systems holding 35 per cent of the server market each."

cancel ×

492 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Okay so... (3, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688600)

What the heck is running the other 30%?
Netware and OS/X?

Re:Okay so... (1)

woah (781250) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688633)

IBM mainframes?

Re:Okay so... (1)

ajlitt (19055) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688698)

That 30% represents 30% of money made selling these things, not 30% of the number of machines sold. So yeah, probably IBM mainframes. And considering IBM likes rolling in the cost of the OS, service, and DB2 licenses into the system cost, it wouldn't take too many machines sold to get up to 30%.

Re:Okay so... (1)

codeguy007 (179016) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688810)

That's complete bull. All 3 OS categories contain both the hardware and software costs and not just the misc OS one. It's based on total cost spent on servers not server software sales.

Re:Okay so... (1)

ajlitt (19055) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688896)

Have you priced a copy of DB2? Have you looked at what IBM service costs? The total bill on IBM hardware per-system usually dwarfs the competition. A pile of Sun machines running Oracle Parallel probably still doesn't come close.

Re:Okay so... (1)

Curtman (556920) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688830)

IBM mainframes

What do you think they run, pixie dust? IBM has several flavours of Unix of its own, as well pushing Linux quite hard these days.

Re:Okay so... (1)

fymidos (512362) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688839)

It cannot be IBM mainframes: IBM has an overall 28% revenue share or $3,4bn, most of which has to be mostly AIX ,Linux and Windows revenue.

$2,7bn is a big number. It has to be the revenue of OS-clean servers, which means that the real numbers would be quite different.

Re:Okay so... (0, Troll)

SQLz (564901) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688638)

A better question, what do people even run on a Windows server?

Bean Counters (2, Informative)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688739)

A better question, what do people even run on a Windows server?

Mostly big "enterprise" CRM and other slaes type applications, as well as document management systems. And of course IIS...

Re:Okay so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688753)

Usually RHEL or Suse enterprise.

Re:Okay so... (1)

hobbesx (259250) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688643)

What the heck is running the other 30%


Pigeons?

Re:Okay so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688645)

OS/X = Unix (BSD kernel)

Re:Okay so... (2, Insightful)

epiphani (254981) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688653)

Linux, *bsd.. and anything else that probably isnt purchased with the OS preinstalled.

How many of you get your servers with an OS installed on it? I surely dont. Then I install linux. And I buy a crapload of hardware.

Probably useless figures. (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688766)


Exactly. The figures are highly suspect.

Re:Okay so... (2, Informative)

breadbot (147896) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688658)

According to the article, Linux accounted for 10% of sales:

Linux server sales continued to show the strongest growth at 35.2 per cent and accounted for $1.2bn in sales. Linux servers made up 10 per cent of total sales in the quarter.

So Linux is being must be counted separately from Unix.

Re:Okay so... (1)

biendamon (723952) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688812)

Interesting. If Linux and Unix were counted together, that would be a 45% market as opposed to Microsoft's 35%.

Does anyone know off the tops of their heads if Linux has always been counted separately in IDC statistics, or if this is new? If it's always been this way, then bully for Windows; however you feel about the OS personally, it's kicking pretty good butt in sales.

However, if this is the first year Linux, BSD, and other free Unix OS variants haven't been included in the Unix count, then this is awfully disingenuous of IDC.

Re:Okay so... (2, Insightful)

ArbitraryConstant (763964) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688820)

How much is that dollar amount offset due to the fact that you don't necessarily have to pay for Linux?

Re:Okay so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688659)

OS X is unix... FreeBSD.

-1, wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688879)

FreeBSD != OS X
OS X ~= Darwin ~= *BSD

It's not really that hard to understand folks.

Re:Okay so... (1)

vivek7006 (585218) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688660)

Linux is the fastest growing...

From the article "Linux server sales continued to show the strongest growth at 35.2 per cent and accounted for $1.2bn in sales. Linux servers made up 10 per cent of total sales in the quarter."

Re:Okay so... (1)

ninja_assault_kitten (883141) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688768)

It's easy to be the fastest growing when you have the most room to for growth.

Re:Okay so... (4, Insightful)

ReverendLoki (663861) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688684)

From the article, it says that Linux sales accounted for 10%, implying heavily (though not outright stated) that Linux sales were not counted among Unix sales, and rightfully so. One could say, however, that sales of Unix-like servers were at 45% of the total market, 10% ahead of MS. But only if you really wanted to.

Still, this leaves us with 20% unaccounted for. What percentage of these were sold w/o an OS, and how many of these will end up with Linux (OK, fine, or BSD) on them? What other Operating Systems are filling in the gaps?

Re:Okay so... (1)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688764)

According to the article, Linux servers are not counted as Unix. They make up 10%.

Another chunk would probably be IBM mainframes running MVS. I would think this would be replacement hardware and license maintenance, etc.

I would guess that servers running MacOS X are counted as Unix sales.

Re:Okay so... (1)

codeguy007 (179016) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688848)

Despite HPs attempts to kill the alpha platform, I would guess some of the unknown OS section would go to VMS still. We still get lots of request for Alpha systems and VMS.

Re:Okay so... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688889)

What the heck is running the other 30%?
Cleary Amiga.

Sales != volume (5, Insightful)

Ithika (703697) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688607)

Who wants to bet that maybe Microsoft just charge more? :)

Mod parent up (1)

LordKazan (558383) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688623)

yep

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688636)

I don't want to.

You, infidel! Jihad! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688834)

Your menu of options START today, with one bomb detonated each week for non-compliance! [islamicanews.com]

You may have not payed for the first IIS, or the second...or the seventh IIS, but count on my mother's prayer rug you will pay for IIS this time; and if you don't, we'll catch you and make you pay for IIS 8...and when your children are caught, we will force them to pay for IIS69 no matter how much you don't need the bundled blonde wig and car tires for the MS Car, we'll have the DMV and the United Arab Homeland Security Imperial Council charge your Microsoft Security account and GATT2 World Freedom account!! By the name of God written on my left hand, I will wipe you and your seed off the face of the earth!

Re:Sales != volume (1)

nizo (81281) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688652)

Exactly; what would be nice to see is a count of the number of servers purchased, so people could get and idea of how much of their hard earned money is going for software licenses.

Re:Sales != volume (1)

EverDense (575518) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688667)

Who wants to bet that maybe Microsoft just charge more? :)

...and keep charging after the initial sale too. Truly independent TCO studies have repeatedly shown
that Linux servers are cheaper to maintain than Windows servers.

Re:Sales != volume (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688672)

Usually, M$ charges less, claiming lower TOC against UNIX that way.

Re:Sales != volume (5, Interesting)

kfg (145172) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688733)

The movie studios use this trick to imply popularity all the time. That's why everything is trumpeted by gross sales and not tickets sold.

It only cost a nickle to go see Gone With the Wind in first run.

KFG

Re:Sales != volume (2, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688852)

Who wants to bet that maybe Microsoft just charge more? :)

You're probably right. Just like last quarter Apple sold more desktop Macs than the previous quarter but made less money per unit because they began to sell a lot of Mac minis which were cheaper.

Re:Sales != volume (3, Insightful)

codeguy007 (179016) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688870)

Than who Unix vendors or Linux Vendors. The Unix Vendors still charge a far bit more for their OS than Microsoft in a lot of cases.

Prut (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688608)

Prut

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688612)

fp

That's only pre-made servers (2)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688616)

And now, count the servers that are:
  • built by hand,
  • bought without an OS, or
  • defenestrated

Re:That's only pre-made servers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688756)

A handfull, as far as ENTERPRISE computing... A handfull.

Free as in 'bullshit' (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688617)

ditto.

Pun? (1)

nizo (81281) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688624)

Blade servers continued to be one of the hotter items - excuse the pun - as revenue increased 106 per cent year-over-year in this segment.

Do blade servers run hot? Or do the British heat their knives over an open flame? Can someone explain to me what the pun is in this sentence???

Re:Pun? (1)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688649)

Blade servers are notorious for poor heat distribution.

Re:Pun? (1)

nizo (81281) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688735)

Ahh. I have avoided buying blade servers because the PHB is more impressed spending money on a big blinkey box to go next to the other big blinkey boxes rather than a little blinkey box with more horsepower than all of the other big blinkey boxes put together. Besides I have a better chance at getting disablity later when I go deaf from the several dozen fans that produce a noise much like that of a jet getting ready to take off.

Re:Pun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688795)

A rack full of blades has lots of nifty blinkenlights, one for each blade. And they produce heat like no one's business, so all the blinkenlights in the rack behind your rack of blades will be all wavy from the heat refractions. Your boss will like blades.

Someone needs to come up with a blade rack that vents into a turbine to recycle that excess heat. Problem is, they just need to get rid of the heat period, and closing the loop for power is just going to make 'em too hot.

Re:Pun? (4, Interesting)

AmigaAvenger (210519) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688675)

blade servers are VERY hot, at least compared to the density. A full rack of blades is nearly impossible, you simply can't cool the rack enough to run it. (most vendors don't tell you this, although IBM recently started admitting that fact)

Re:Pun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688822)

you simply can't cool the rack enough
Tell that to someone who owns one of these [google.com] bad boys.

Re:Pun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688872)

er i mean http://www.rigaku.com/cryo/nitrogen.html [rigaku.com]
60 litres a day of Ln2 ;) someone's blade is gonna run cool tonight...

Re:Pun? (1)

Shinaku (757671) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688716)

Blade servers continued to be one of the hotter items - excuse the pun - as revenue increased 106 per cent year-over-year in this segment.

Do blade servers run hot? Or do the British heat their knives over an open flame? Can someone explain to me what the pun is in this sentence???


I think they meant cliché

Most blade systems run ridiculously hot (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688775)

This ties in with the MIPS/Watt thing i was talking about in a previous post. If you're planning on buying blade servers the only sane solution is a Transmeta based one rather than Intel or AMD.

Re:Pun? (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688786)

You can save a lot of space if you have a rack of blade servers. The trade off is that cooling a rack of blade servers cost two to three times as much of having a rack of 1U servers. That's why blade servers are a "hot" item these days.

Re:Pun? (3, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688861)

Do blade servers run hot? Or do the British heat their knives over an open flame? Can someone explain to me what the pun is in this sentence???

Maybe he's just been doing hot knives. [overgrow.com]

I'm suprised (3, Interesting)

detritus` (32392) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688625)

I'm suprised they didnt mention that Linux servers had the greatest overall growth with 35.4%, and that they're 10% of the entire market. Now if Microsoft hits the 50% mark then thats when i'll start believingthe whole Unix/*BSD is dead hype

Re:I'm suprised (1, Interesting)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688767)


You would be mistaken to do that since it IS expected that Microsoft will take 50% of the market.

Problem for Microsoft is they then have to hold it against a rapidly increasing Linux - which right now is taking sales from UNIX more than it is Microsoft.

But once proprietary UNIX is dead - and it will be within five years or so - Windows server market share will then be eroded by Linux, resulting probably in a 75-25 distribution favoring Linux over the next five years.

Windows servers won't entirely go away until the Windows desktop goes away - which will happen, but take much longer.

From TFA (1)

dustmite (667870) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688806)

"Linux server sales continued to show the strongest growth at 35.2 per cent and accounted for $1.2bn in sales. Linux servers made up 10 per cent of total sales in the quarter."

But that's only sales.. (4, Insightful)

LilGuy (150110) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688630)

That doesn't count towards how many servers are running linux/unix without having paid for it... in regards to how many servers are out there of each, you can't go by just the sales. I would say linux/unix probably outweighs windows in quantity of servers on the net.

Re:But that's only sales.. (1)

sycotic (26352) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688683)

Doesn't this article talk about machines that are sold for business? I don't think it just refers to machines connected to the internet...

I know we have a Linux based CheckPoint firewall facing the internet at my work but there are racks and racks of Windows machines behind that serving the company...

Re:But that's only sales.. (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688714)

It doesn't even count all those desktop boxes acting as servers. Once, when the Xbox was still a good deal for the hardware you got in it we even considered buying Xboxes and installing linux on them to have cheap servers which don't run too hot.
No, it just counts physical entities sold with the label "server" and tries to determine what the people paid for them and what software was delivered with them. But that's nothing new.

Also (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688731)

Does this count only UNIX sales? What about revenues from UNIX support contracts? Some of these companies, the sale is not where they are making the money.

Re:But that's only sales.. (1)

CajunArson (465943) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688751)

Yeah but I'm sure that Bill & Co would have no problem with you paying MS for 10 server licenses and then dropping Linux on them (at least not as much of a problem as you buying from Sun). Sorta like Ford wouldn't mind you buying 2 Mustangs, running them off a cliff, then refurbishing an old Camaro.

Re:But that's only sales.. (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688909)

That doesn't count towards how many servers are running linux/unix without having paid for it... in regards to how many servers are out there of each, you can't go by just the sales. I would say linux/unix probably outweighs windows in quantity of servers on the net.

Linux server sales usually aren't counted with Unix server sales. The analysts typically treat them separately. So US $4.2bn in sales for Unix servers counts only servers running Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, IRIX, SCO, etc.

If you combined the $1.2bn in sales for Linux servers with $4.2bn for Unix servers, that puts total *nix sales at $5.4bn.

Depressing. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688631)

I wonder if this will make UNIX vendors realize that unless they can get a consumer UNIX, like Linux, out there and viable, erosion is going to continue. Windows will continue to eat up the server space for as long as people need Exchange and Active Directory servers. We need to remove the need for Exchange and Active Directory servers.

Re:Depressing. (1)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688793)


That's happening right now.

There are good Exchange equivalents, and Samba 4 will be able to serve as an AD Primary Domain Controller, supposedly. (If not, I'm sure Samba 5 WILL.)

We also need to emphasize the benefits of PostgreSQL and MySQL over the very expensive MS SQL Server.

It's getting spicy now! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688632)

I can almost feel the Microsoft terrorists looking to throw their monopolised Microsoft-only education propoganda up in the air. [islamicanews.com]

Calculation (2, Insightful)

Wm_K (761378) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688641)

Does this mean they took the value of the entire server market and calculated the share of Windows server from the size of the sales... (100/35)*4.2bn = $12bn total market? Doesn't this mean that the amount of Unix installs per server is still much bigger because Unix (if it includes *bsd) is cheaper?

RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688823)

Read the article source from IDC. They count only server hardware shipments according to vendor & OS.

No systems ship with BSD.

Makes sense. (-1, Troll)

Sheetrock (152993) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688663)

You can do some really neat things with Windows Servers that aren't possible with Unix:
  • Microsoft Access
  • Remote Desktop (graphical -- like sitting at the server console)
  • Frontpage
I think a lot of the Unix share is from traditionalists and people who are interested in leveraging proven solutions, but there are a lot of exciting technologies coming from Windows that offer a different way of doing things. It's a little strange using a GUI to administrate a server, but it makes installation and maintenance a lot easier when you have the features built in rather than having to grab or build a script for everything.

Re:Makes sense. (1)

Usquebaugh (230216) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688687)

*pat*pat*

"Nice troll, there's a good troll"

Re:Makes sense. (1)

vivek7006 (585218) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688715)

Are you trolling or just trying to be funny?

You honestly believe that GUI is a better way to admin a server?

Re:Makes sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688722)

You can do some really neat things with Windows Servers that aren't possible with Unix:

* Microsoft Access
* Remote Desktop (graphical -- like sitting at the server console)
* Frontpage

You're being funny.. right?

Re:Makes sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688732)

This IS a joke right?

Re:Makes sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688740)

Oh, now you've done it!

Re:Makes sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688761)

You can run X remotely too, no? And that's kindof graphical?

MS Access? What for?

And Frontpage?!!

You, Infidel! Jihad!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688898)

Are you trying to say a telnet session in 80x25 is not graphical? You, Infidel! [slashdot.org]

Re:Makes sense. (1, Flamebait)

gspr (602968) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688779)

1) Access? Excuse me? OK, fine, there are alot of bad things to say about MySQL, but it'll beat Access any day, between breakfast and lunch!

2) Heard of X's networking abilities? Or VNC, if you want something more in the style of Remote Desktop.

3) I don't even know what the hell that is...

Re:Makes sense. (1)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688826)


Were you trying to be funny? Try again.

Access? Remote desktop? FRONTPAGE (OMG!)?

Using a GUI to administer a server?

The equivalents of all of these have been available on Linux for the last five years. (Well, something EXACTLY as easy (and lame) as Microsoft Access hasn't, but GUI database managers have been, and the next version of OpenOffice will have the Access problem licked.)

Re:Makes sense. (1)

lakeland (218447) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688859)

I believe theKompany sells something similar to access for linux, if you go for that sort of thing...

Re:Makes sense. (1)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688907)


If you mean Rekall, I'm aware of it, but as I understand it, it's not quite up to par with Access.

But I haven't used it, so I could be wrong. The screenshots look good.

Re:Makes sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688882)

you've obviously never heard of FrontPage extensions for Unix, VNC/X Forwarding/SSH/Telnet, and Access isn't something that runs on a server (afaik).

Re:Makes sense. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688895)

You know what I love about all the posts above me. They all bash the parent for supporting a product not of their liking...has the industry really become that bad that we can't support a product and stand by it without recieving slack from every single open source activist. Just admit it, you're just as bad as Hitler was you open-source Nazis. You've created a very accessible alternative, now leave others to their business. "GOBT HABT MICROSOFT! (Its german meaning god hates microsoft, but then again you "freedom to choose" nazis should know that. Note: I may have screwed that up so I'm expecting at least 10 German/Lingustics majors to correct me, enjoy you nazis.)

Well.. (-1, Flamebait)

Coolnat2004 (830862) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688666)

That's probably because anyone with a slight IT background could *mostly* set up a Windows server, while Unix is a bit harder. Let me rephrase that: A lot harder. Be on the lookout for web services that are up for a few days, get /.'ed, and go poof. You can thank Gates for that.

Re:Well.. (1)

ninja_assault_kitten (883141) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688749)

"Unix is a bit harder. Let me rephrase that: A lot harder."

You say that as if it's a good thing.

That asside, lets make something clear. It's one thing to install an operating system, it's quite another to know what you're doing within it.

For example, I can get by with MS Word when I need to, but there are thousands of really cool advanced features I'd have no clue even exist if it wasn't for my assistant.

By sales but not numbers...... (3, Interesting)

Alcimedes (398213) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688678)

I wonder if this isn't more of a sign that OSS is making some headway. Linux server sales are way up according to the article, and they compare Unix and Windows servers based on cost.

My understanding is that more major server sales folks who are pushing some Unix flavor are trying to make their money on the Service that goes with the server, not the actual initial sale. In which case it would make sense that you could knock the price down on the Unix server that's running a free OS vs. the same machine that has a 500 CAL license for Windows 2003.

I wish they would have given us number of units vs. the cost of units.

This is just murky adspeak.

Mod parent up (0)

typical (886006) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688721)

This is a good point. The comparison is being made *based on cost*. If Linux servers are half as expensive in initial cost as Windows servers and there are twice as many Linux servers out there, the survey still holds.

Heavy lifting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688679)

"Those totals left Microsoft and Unix systems holding 35 per cent of the server market each."

Strong arms? The maybe help each other...

Method (1)

DiogoFerreira (844415) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688681)

Where does the source data come from? I mean, it's very hard to make such statistics and I still have doubts that Microsoft servers caught up with Unix servers.

sales or actual units? (5, Insightful)

chuckball (457795) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688682)

10 idiots want to buy a lemon for $10/each and 100 people buy a tasty pear for $1/each.

Is it just me or does it seem like there are still a hell of lot more pears out there...

Neck and Neck (2, Funny)

Ed Thomson (704721) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688707)

It is not neck and neck anymore, I just brought a windows server so Windows wins by massive margin of US$4,000.

but the workload is.... (5, Funny)

wardk (3037) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688709)

so with the same number of servers, the load they are processing is 50-50 too, right?

Here are some official numbers from the WGAF 2005 Study of total workload being handled on the net.

Unix 85%
Windows 10%
Other 5%

HOWEVER, these numbers get funny when you factor in computing time spend running malware.

Windows outperforms Unix and others in this important category. Truly Windows has no peers when executing excrement.

Unix .0001
Other .0002
Windows 99.9997

These are REAL NUMBERS folks. every one of them. even the 7

Corrolation (4, Insightful)

ndansmith (582590) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688719)

This seems to be a simple corrolation of Windows penetration into the mainstream computer market. Employees use Windows machines at home, and therefore prefer to use them at work. Business like to use Windows Server 2003 and Exchange to tie their nice WinXP Pro network together. Windows Server 2003 comes with IIS, which you might as well use for ftp and http servers, since it is already included.

So in this case the sales increase is not necessarily based on the quality of the offering but on the convenience.

this only mean (0, Troll)

blue b (888416) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688723)

that we are at the end of the telnet era you ascii fools

As Usual, More FUD (5, Insightful)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688736)


The report actually indicates that Windows Servers are gaining a smaller share of the server market INCREASE than they should, and Linux is gaining TWICE as much as it should if they were all actually gaining an equal share.

Also a number of idiot commentators are saying "Windows servers wipes the floor with Linux" when in fact the report shows that both Windows and Linux are wiping the floor with PROPRIETARY UNIX.

Yawn - big surprise. This has been a foregone conclusion of every analyst for the past two or three years - that Linux (and to a lesser degree Windows) will replace proprietary UNIX and then the battle will come down to Linux vrs Windows - which Linux will win handily.

Misleading headline (2, Insightful)

KillerBob (217953) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688745)

As is always the case...

The raw number of sales between Unix-based and Microsoft-based servers not being considered by the article. The dollar-value of sales is what they're looking at. In terms of dollar value, as much money was spent on Microsoft-based servers as on Unix-based servers, at $4.2bn

If you're going to talk about the real number of servers being implemented, you need to consider the fact that, in general, Microsoft-based solutions cost a whole lot more than Unix-based solutions.

Interestingly enough, $1.2bn was spent on Linux-based servers, and Linux-based servers accounted for the largest increase in sales.

Don't forget what's at stake (5, Insightful)

loudmax (243935) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688771)

One of the reasons Microsoft is making such inroads into the server market is that they've really improved their operating system. Windows servers can be made reliable and secure if they're administered properly. Insofar as it brings choice to the marketplace, then having Windows as a realistic option for a server is a good thing.

But don't lose sight of what's at stake. The Microsoft business model is to leverage it's monopoly in one area to drive out competition in another. If Microsoft will let Windows coexist peacefully with it's neighbors, then great. If they're true to form, though, they'll introduce incompatabilities and do everything they can to make sure businesses don't have any more of a choice in their server OS than their desktop OS.

The struggle isn't just about running the cooler OS, or using the command line vs. a GUI. It's about freedom and choice.

Linux == Unix (1)

kosmosik (654958) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688783)

> Linux server sales continued to show the
> strongest growth at 35.2 per cent and
> accounted for $1.2bn in sales. Linux
> servers made up 10 per cent of total sales
> in the quarter.

Linux is Unix in that matter - Unix servers (as well as older Windoze boxes) are replaced by it.

That's what I would have said as well. (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688857)

As a Unix admin. Linux is just another Unix box. I suppose it's interesting to see the information split out.

that's because W2K3 is pretty good despite /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688807)

Yes, sure it has its share of security problems, but frankly, let's be honest with ourselves. W2K3 is very stable, it looks pretty and does everything I *need* it to do.

Yeah, yeah, I know people are comparing the uptime etc to Linux/Solaris, etc, but frankly, I upgraded my W2K3 domain controllers from W2K 1.5 years ago, and I only brought it down recently for W2K3 SP1. If you don't use your server for interactive apps, neither W2K3 or Linux will likely crash for months or years at a time.

I'm surprised no one questioned yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688867)

Does Netcraft confirm it?

I guess my servers don't count (2, Insightful)

gregorlowski (884938) | more than 9 years ago | (#12688902)

I guess my home web server doesn't count in the statistics for server sales in the past year. I found the machine on the street, threw in a new hard drive from newegg, and it's running Debian GNU/Linux. I just did some work for a company that wanted me to get rid of their spam and also upgrade their website backend. The website backend project involved setting up mysql on an old server that they had laying around, and the spam filter is postfix+spamassassin+amavis+clamav running on Debian on an extra desktop workstation computer that they had at the office. I also set up a near-identical spam filtering machine using Debian on a workstation at a law firm recently. So, there you go, 4 new servers running Debian GNU/linux in the past year. It's interesting that these sales figures are dollar denominated. It marginalizes GNU/Linux as a server OS (because it's free as in beer or alternately relatively cheap if it comes with support) while also informing how valuable it is (because in the hands of the skilled, it gets the job done while costing nothing).

Linux is excluded from Unix category (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12688906)

Uh, interesting way to spin the original press release [idc.com] , which prominently highlights 35 percent revenue growth for Linux, 12 percent Windows, 3 percent "Unix," which should really be called "Other Unix."

Granted, the Linux server $1.2 billion factory revenue is less than a third of the Unix and less than a third of the Windows market, but hardly insignificant. Also much harder to trace, I reckon, given how many people strip Windows off a Dell and make a Linux server with a spare copy of Debian.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>