Sign In
Register
Help
Post your comments for Linux Servers Take Bigger Hit here
Linux Servers Take Bigger Hit
MultiQuote
#2
ShineOn 
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 17
- Joined: 05-April 09
Posted 05 April 2009 - 10:42 AM
The problem with this is that it only counts "server shipments." In other words, new server hardware that ships with a particular OS.
It doesn't count servers that may have shipped with Windows once upon a time but have been converted to Linux, and doesn't count servers shipped with no OS that have Linux installed post-delivery.
One of the major differences between Linux and Windows is the fact that you do not have to buy it - in fact, you can't buy it, you can only purchase support for it. That makes "server shipment" statistics useless, and reports like this misleading.
It doesn't count servers that may have shipped with Windows once upon a time but have been converted to Linux, and doesn't count servers shipped with no OS that have Linux installed post-delivery.
One of the major differences between Linux and Windows is the fact that you do not have to buy it - in fact, you can't buy it, you can only purchase support for it. That makes "server shipment" statistics useless, and reports like this misleading.
#3
campbell2644
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 23
- Joined: 21-February 07
Posted 05 April 2009 - 11:22 AM
The evidence around me is quite the opposite. Linux seems on the up.
#4
rasmasyean
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 704
- Joined: 31-October 08
Posted 05 April 2009 - 01:26 PM
I can see Windows prefered in enterprise markets. It costs them less to generate new applications since .NET is easier to use and they likely already have programmers by the hundreds. That actually saves money more than a liscence.
I wonder is ASP.NET servers are replacing the Linux market in the internet. I see a lot more aspx pages than before. And with Silverlight creeping in and all. Linux on the desktop STILL doesn't support Silverlight. That's really bad to be that slow. I guess you can't trust the open source community for everything.
I wonder is ASP.NET servers are replacing the Linux market in the internet. I see a lot more aspx pages than before. And with Silverlight creeping in and all. Linux on the desktop STILL doesn't support Silverlight. That's really bad to be that slow. I guess you can't trust the open source community for everything.
#5
WinTard
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3,141
- Joined: 16-January 09
- Location:Look behind you...
Posted 05 April 2009 - 06:16 PM
There seems to be a false and futile sense of competition amongst numbers. How do you measure something? By its height, weight, circumference, volume, market share, popularity, or what?
First of all, in the higher-end server market, HP, IBM and Sun usually support in-house Aix, HP-UX, or Solaris, as well as Enterprise Class Linux such as Red Hat or Suse. Not to mention Dell.
All these vendors support Linux pre-installed (with perhaps the exception of Sun?). I remember long ago, when IBM was claiming over $1B in Linux business, then HP came out and claimed $2B...
I think we should use the best tool, for the task at hand, and let's face it, there is no Ultimate... Even Windows is quite decent on the high-end of things. And IBM, HP and Dell all support and sell Windows servers too.
We should all become less partisans of one camp or another, because we only limit our options in the end...
To paraphrase a good friend on these forums, who at first came to me as firmly in the Apple camp, but turned out to be a true PC enthusiast said:
>I consider myself to be platform agnostic, rather than a platform zealot. I just use whatever is better at the time of my upgrade cycle.
>~ asiafish
So let's all stop this juvenile bickering about this is better than that, instead focusing on understanding the reasons why people like this or that.
;)
~~~~~~~~~~
The superior man does not set his mind either for anything, or against anything; what is right he will follow.
~ Confucius, The Confucian Analects
It is not who is right, but what is right, that is of importance.
~ Thomas Huxley, 1825-1895, English Biologist
Listen to all, plucking a feather from every passing goose, but follow no one absolutely.
{Chinese Proverb}
First of all, in the higher-end server market, HP, IBM and Sun usually support in-house Aix, HP-UX, or Solaris, as well as Enterprise Class Linux such as Red Hat or Suse. Not to mention Dell.
All these vendors support Linux pre-installed (with perhaps the exception of Sun?). I remember long ago, when IBM was claiming over $1B in Linux business, then HP came out and claimed $2B...
I think we should use the best tool, for the task at hand, and let's face it, there is no Ultimate... Even Windows is quite decent on the high-end of things. And IBM, HP and Dell all support and sell Windows servers too.
We should all become less partisans of one camp or another, because we only limit our options in the end...
To paraphrase a good friend on these forums, who at first came to me as firmly in the Apple camp, but turned out to be a true PC enthusiast said:
>I consider myself to be platform agnostic, rather than a platform zealot. I just use whatever is better at the time of my upgrade cycle.
>~ asiafish
So let's all stop this juvenile bickering about this is better than that, instead focusing on understanding the reasons why people like this or that.
;)
~~~~~~~~~~
The superior man does not set his mind either for anything, or against anything; what is right he will follow.
~ Confucius, The Confucian Analects
It is not who is right, but what is right, that is of importance.
~ Thomas Huxley, 1825-1895, English Biologist
Listen to all, plucking a feather from every passing goose, but follow no one absolutely.
{Chinese Proverb}
#6
Eruaran
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 6
- Joined: 08-June 08
Posted 06 April 2009 - 04:01 AM
@ rasmasyean,
"I can see Windows prefered in enterprise markets. It costs them less to generate new applications since .NET is easier to use and they likely already have programmers by the hundreds. That actually saves money more than a liscence."
You could hardly talk more rubbish if Steve Ballmer was paying you a personal cheque. .NET is rubbish and I see a lot more Java being used in enterprise.
"I wonder is ASP.NET servers are replacing the Linux market in the internet."
The short answer is no.
"I see a lot more aspx pages than before."
I see a lot more astroturfers than before...
"And with Silverlight creeping in"
I don't see Silverlight "creeping in", I see it floundering.
"Linux on the desktop STILL doesn't support Silverlight. That's really bad to be that slow. I guess you can't trust the open source community for everything."
Silverlight is Microsoft's own proprietary software. And we dont' need it. Why is it up to the FOSS community to support it ? If Microsoft wants it running usefully on Linux (which we know they don't), let them develop it instead of stringing along a bunch of useful idiots at Novell.
Haven't you got anything better to offer than Microsoft's own propaganda ?
"I can see Windows prefered in enterprise markets. It costs them less to generate new applications since .NET is easier to use and they likely already have programmers by the hundreds. That actually saves money more than a liscence."
You could hardly talk more rubbish if Steve Ballmer was paying you a personal cheque. .NET is rubbish and I see a lot more Java being used in enterprise.
"I wonder is ASP.NET servers are replacing the Linux market in the internet."
The short answer is no.
"I see a lot more aspx pages than before."
I see a lot more astroturfers than before...
"And with Silverlight creeping in"
I don't see Silverlight "creeping in", I see it floundering.
"Linux on the desktop STILL doesn't support Silverlight. That's really bad to be that slow. I guess you can't trust the open source community for everything."
Silverlight is Microsoft's own proprietary software. And we dont' need it. Why is it up to the FOSS community to support it ? If Microsoft wants it running usefully on Linux (which we know they don't), let them develop it instead of stringing along a bunch of useful idiots at Novell.
Haven't you got anything better to offer than Microsoft's own propaganda ?
#7
rasmasyean
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 704
- Joined: 31-October 08
Posted 06 April 2009 - 04:28 AM
Well, Eruaran...
Not sure where you get you info from but I guess it depends on individual experiences in part. My "personal" experiences are from New York (a.k.a. the financial capital of the world) so I would think that if I see a lot of .NET or other MS products around me, that would indicate something since finance is one of the biggest users of IT. And I'm also into the general industrial sector which is full of ".NET" and related stuff also. Where they do things that are considered "dangerous"...as opposed to just moving customer information around like the financial industry. So I wouldn't think .NET is "rubbish" in the sectors I'm involved in at least.
As for Silverlight, if you think "small outfits" like Olympics, AOL Mail, and even Youtube's NCAA broadcasts are "floundering"... BTW, it works for Mac...a much bigger "threat" to Microsoft than Linux's < 1% share.
Whatever man. I try to look at facts and statistics. If you call that "propaganda", it's your choice. Live in your own little world.
Not sure where you get you info from but I guess it depends on individual experiences in part. My "personal" experiences are from New York (a.k.a. the financial capital of the world) so I would think that if I see a lot of .NET or other MS products around me, that would indicate something since finance is one of the biggest users of IT. And I'm also into the general industrial sector which is full of ".NET" and related stuff also. Where they do things that are considered "dangerous"...as opposed to just moving customer information around like the financial industry. So I wouldn't think .NET is "rubbish" in the sectors I'm involved in at least.
As for Silverlight, if you think "small outfits" like Olympics, AOL Mail, and even Youtube's NCAA broadcasts are "floundering"... BTW, it works for Mac...a much bigger "threat" to Microsoft than Linux's < 1% share.
Whatever man. I try to look at facts and statistics. If you call that "propaganda", it's your choice. Live in your own little world.
#8
asmoore82
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 06-April 09
Posted 06 April 2009 - 02:19 PM
@ rasmasyean
Hi there Mr. Financial Capitol of the Universe,
Wall Street runs on Linux.
http://www.wallstree...cleID=216402934
Silverlight owns the Olympic Games, Oh my!
I wonder if that had anything to do with MSnbc?
you know, MS nbc, right; like MS nbc.
AOL?? haven't they gone out of business and been bought and sold 10 times over now?
Yep, that's the real way to gauge up and coming technologies.
removed
http://news.zdnet.co..._22-131923.html
http://arstechnica.c....pen-source.ars
http://www.manilasta...day.com/?...ss6jan132009
http://www.linux-wat...6504473525.html
Hi there Mr. Financial Capitol of the Universe,
Wall Street runs on Linux.
http://www.wallstree...cleID=216402934
Silverlight owns the Olympic Games, Oh my!
I wonder if that had anything to do with MSnbc?
you know, MS nbc, right; like MS nbc.
AOL?? haven't they gone out of business and been bought and sold 10 times over now?
Yep, that's the real way to gauge up and coming technologies.
removed
http://news.zdnet.co..._22-131923.html
http://arstechnica.c....pen-source.ars
http://www.manilasta...day.com/?...ss6jan132009
http://www.linux-wat...6504473525.html
#9
rasmasyean
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 704
- Joined: 31-October 08
Posted 06 April 2009 - 02:42 PM
When the heck did I say that they don't use Linux? They use all sorts of unix and even mainframes still. You're just saying that .NET sucks and Windows Server and stuff sucks. And I'm saying that you don't know what you're talking about. removed You have to link articles of individual case excerpts, ancient articles (2003? Come on!), broken and irrelevant links, linux advocacy sites, and even resort to the "Oh you see reality so you must be an employee of Microsoft just like the billion other users whom most don't even know what Linux is) in a futile attempt to make yourself feel better.
#10
mphenterprises
- Moderator
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 12,259
- Joined: 19-February 07
- Location:Philadelphia, PA
Posted 06 April 2009 - 04:10 PM
Okay, before this gets way out of hand, please keep all responses in line with the article and the Discussion title. Personal attacks will not be tolerated and any personal attack posts will be edited or removed. Continued personal attacks may result in removal from this Community. If you have any questions, please feel free to review the {document:id=1000}.
#11
Grr8008
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 436
- Joined: 11-August 08
Posted 06 April 2009 - 05:13 PM
I have tried all three OSs and they all have their merits. That is all I can say. Linux is free and works fast, Wndows is more supported by the world at whole, and
Mac has a uniqueness that is hard to match. I can't comment on the server versions but I think that this makes sense. In other words, I support not one, not two, but all three. Competition makes everyone work harder to improve.
Mac has a uniqueness that is hard to match. I can't comment on the server versions but I think that this makes sense. In other words, I support not one, not two, but all three. Competition makes everyone work harder to improve.
#12
nologo
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 11-April 09
Posted 11 April 2009 - 04:43 PM
Large datacenters normally have a large percentage of their Windows environment on virtualized infrastructure, while Linux / Unix systems tend to reside on standalones. I would bet that this is the reason for the downturn in Linux sales. If there's a request for a small Windows app, toss up an ESX instance. If there's a request for a new standalone server, maybe that can wait.
#13
ShineOn
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 17
- Joined: 05-April 09
Posted 11 April 2009 - 05:10 PM
That's anecdotal at best.
First, I posit that Linux has not "taken a hit" - the study uses statistical data that requires an OS to be distributed with a piece of server hardware in order to be counted.
Second, "server shipments" would have no bearing on the number of virtual servers of whatever guest OS they may be, since a server sold with ESX would be an ESX "server shipment" and not a Windows or Linux "server shipment." Virtualization would not be taken into account by the study the author uses to form their opinion.
Third, the idea that large datacenters would naturally only be putting up multiple guests of a Microsoft OS is questionable. Many large datacenters have virtualized guest Linux OSes. Any ISP worth contracting with for website hosting will be providing Linux to their clients as a rule, and Windows for those that insist on it for whatever reason. IBM mainframes host multiple guest Linux machines as well, because Linux can run on OS/390. Windows can't.
To be sure, you're more likely to be able to fully utilize a beefy mulitprocessor Intel box with lots of RAM if you're running 64-bit Linux on it rather than Windows, but that doesn't mean standalone servers are Linux's "niche" arena.
In fact, if you run 32-bit SLES10 on an ESX server you can turn on paravirtualization support and have a more efficient virtual environment. Linux is very much at home running on VMware or XEN or Virtual Iron or whatever and doesn't bear the licensing cost burden that throwing another Windows guest on your ESX server does.
First, I posit that Linux has not "taken a hit" - the study uses statistical data that requires an OS to be distributed with a piece of server hardware in order to be counted.
Second, "server shipments" would have no bearing on the number of virtual servers of whatever guest OS they may be, since a server sold with ESX would be an ESX "server shipment" and not a Windows or Linux "server shipment." Virtualization would not be taken into account by the study the author uses to form their opinion.
Third, the idea that large datacenters would naturally only be putting up multiple guests of a Microsoft OS is questionable. Many large datacenters have virtualized guest Linux OSes. Any ISP worth contracting with for website hosting will be providing Linux to their clients as a rule, and Windows for those that insist on it for whatever reason. IBM mainframes host multiple guest Linux machines as well, because Linux can run on OS/390. Windows can't.
To be sure, you're more likely to be able to fully utilize a beefy mulitprocessor Intel box with lots of RAM if you're running 64-bit Linux on it rather than Windows, but that doesn't mean standalone servers are Linux's "niche" arena.
In fact, if you run 32-bit SLES10 on an ESX server you can turn on paravirtualization support and have a more efficient virtual environment. Linux is very much at home running on VMware or XEN or Virtual Iron or whatever and doesn't bear the licensing cost burden that throwing another Windows guest on your ESX server does.
#14
rasmasyean
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 704
- Joined: 31-October 08
Posted 11 April 2009 - 06:11 PM
Well this site does show some relation between decreasing Linux usage conrresponding to increasing Windows usage in the Web arena.
news.netcraft.com/
Maybe it's a trend that spreads to enterprise deployments as well...
news.netcraft.com/
Maybe it's a trend that spreads to enterprise deployments as well...
#16
ShineOn
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 17
- Joined: 05-April 09
Posted 11 April 2009 - 07:59 PM
I guess you're reading a chart I don't see on that link.
I see that Apache still rules the Internet.
I see that from March to April, Apache server count grew by 2.2 million while Microsoft (presumably IIS) grew by 1.5 million - but some others also grew, which was why the market share percentage for both went down.
However, Apache can be on any number of OS platforms, so your pointing to these stats has little or no bearing on Linux server share. This is for Web servers, not server OSes, but if we assume Apache=Linux (which it doesn't) the numbers show more growth in Apache use than in IIS use which, using that assumption, would mean Linux is growing faster than Windows on the 'net. It does mean that Apache still rules the 'net, though.
The section that shows stats by server OS refers to most reliable hosting sites, and in that table only one of the top 10 uses Windows. The top 2 use FreeBSD and the next 2 use Linux. Windows comes in 5th. 3 of the top ten use Linux and four use FreeBSD.
Nowhere does it show what server OS is most in use across the 'net, but the one place where server OS is mentioned still only has one of the top 10 hosting sites using Windows. Even in the prior month's stats, only one of the top 10 hosting sites uses Windows.
There's absolutely nothing there that supports your claim of decreasing Linux usage.
I see that Apache still rules the Internet.
I see that from March to April, Apache server count grew by 2.2 million while Microsoft (presumably IIS) grew by 1.5 million - but some others also grew, which was why the market share percentage for both went down.
However, Apache can be on any number of OS platforms, so your pointing to these stats has little or no bearing on Linux server share. This is for Web servers, not server OSes, but if we assume Apache=Linux (which it doesn't) the numbers show more growth in Apache use than in IIS use which, using that assumption, would mean Linux is growing faster than Windows on the 'net. It does mean that Apache still rules the 'net, though.
The section that shows stats by server OS refers to most reliable hosting sites, and in that table only one of the top 10 uses Windows. The top 2 use FreeBSD and the next 2 use Linux. Windows comes in 5th. 3 of the top ten use Linux and four use FreeBSD.
Nowhere does it show what server OS is most in use across the 'net, but the one place where server OS is mentioned still only has one of the top 10 hosting sites using Windows. Even in the prior month's stats, only one of the top 10 hosting sites uses Windows.
There's absolutely nothing there that supports your claim of decreasing Linux usage.
#17
rasmasyean
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 704
- Joined: 31-October 08
Posted 11 April 2009 - 08:05 PM
Look at the second chart for April.
I said the "trend",...not the actual number.
Look at how from 2006, Apache is decreasing while Microosft was increasing. That is a clear indication that Microsoft has taken some of the Apache marke share.
I clearly indicated that these a "web" stats and said maybe..that is...it MIGHT reflect a crossover to enterprise as well.
And when you're talking about "number of servers" as this article is...it doesn't matter what the "popular sites" use. We are just talking about quantity of instalations...whether it's loaded at 5% most of the time...or 90%.
I said the "trend",...not the actual number.
Look at how from 2006, Apache is decreasing while Microosft was increasing. That is a clear indication that Microsoft has taken some of the Apache marke share.
I clearly indicated that these a "web" stats and said maybe..that is...it MIGHT reflect a crossover to enterprise as well.
And when you're talking about "number of servers" as this article is...it doesn't matter what the "popular sites" use. We are just talking about quantity of instalations...whether it's loaded at 5% most of the time...or 90%.
#18
WinTard
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3,141
- Joined: 16-January 09
- Location:Look behind you...
Posted 11 April 2009 - 08:25 PM
nologo said:
Large datacenters normally have a large percentage of their Windows environment on virtualized infrastructure, while Linux / Unix systems tend to reside on standalones. I would bet that this is the reason for the downturn in Linux sales. If there's a request for a small Windows app, toss up an ESX instance. If there's a request for a new standalone server, maybe that can wait.
I would beg to differ. All large telecom I deal with, and our own infrastructure is based on Windows servers, virtualizing Linux. Not the other way around.
#19
WinTard
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3,141
- Joined: 16-January 09
- Location:Look behind you...
Posted 11 April 2009 - 08:27 PM
bbvammy said:
I was on vacation and was on Korean Airline 1 week ago.
They use Red Hat as the OS for their in-flight movies.
No Windows or Mac there.
It was Boeing 777
They use Red Hat as the OS for their in-flight movies.
No Windows or Mac there.
It was Boeing 777
Um, do you know if it was virtualized? Perhaps running under Windows 2008 Enterprise Server? Using Hyper-V ^1^ ? For policy management and updates, including images of Red Hat? That's what we do. And the likes of Time Warner, AT&T, Comcast, Charter, Videotron, Rogers, and Bell to name a few...
If I were the IT guy at Boeing, I would use the Xbox Media Center instead... For media, it's simply the best IMHO. Oh, you can virtualize that too! And it's FREE!
>
Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 1,590,000 for xbmc. (0.05 seconds)
XBMC for Mac OS X, Windows and Linux
XBMC is an award winning media center for Mac OS X, Linux, Windows, Apple TV and Xbox. The ultimate hub for all your media.
xbmc.org/ - 24k - Cached - Similar pages
Download
Forum
XBMC 8.108.10 `Atlantis? released
Support Screenshots
XBMC `Atlantis? Beta 2 released
Development
About
More results from xbmc.org >
XBMC for Mac OS X, Windows and Linux | Download
XBMC Media Center is currently available for Ubuntu Linux, Mac OS X (Intel-based Leopard, Tiger, and Apple TV), Microsoft Windows, and the original ...
xbmc.org/download/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pagesXBMC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
XBMC Media Center (formerly named "XBox Media Center") is a cross-platform free and open source software media-player and entertainment hub with a 10-foot ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBMC - 136k - Cached - Similar pages
-----
^1^ Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 9,930,000 for hyper-v. (0.23 seconds)
Windows Server 2008 Virtualization with Hyper-V: Home
Learn about Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V, the next-generation hypervisor-based server virtualization technology, allows you to make the best use of your ...
www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/hyperv.aspx - 35k - Cached - Similar pages
>Windows Server 2008 Virtualization with Hyper-V: FAQ
>Find answers to frequently-asked questions about Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V.
>www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/hyperv-faq.aspx - 65k - Cached - Similar pages
>More results from www.microsoft.com >
Hyper-V - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Microsoft Hyper-V, codenamed Viridian, [1] formerly known as Windows Server Virtualization, is a hypervisor-based virtualization system for x64 systems. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-V - 77k - Cached - Similar pages
Review: Microsoft's Hyper-V puts VMWare and Linux on notice | All ...
Now I can add Microsoft?s Hyper-V (the beta version in the final Windows 2008 ... VMWare?s ESX differs from Hyper-V and Xen in that it currently uses pure ...
blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1182 - 202k - Cached - Similar pages
Give it a try! It's worth it! And it WORKS flawlessly!
-----
I am the computer tard...
#20
rasmasyean
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 704
- Joined: 31-October 08
Posted 11 April 2009 - 08:33 PM
I don't really know what they use in planes to show movies or whatever these days as I would have imagined a DVD player would suffice. :p
But arround me, the airport checkin terminals are all Windows XP (or embedded, not sure). But I guess panel touch machines are also a practical monopoly of MS.
But arround me, the airport checkin terminals are all Windows XP (or embedded, not sure). But I guess panel touch machines are also a practical monopoly of MS.
