| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Gartner: Linux Not About to Do Damage to Windows | |
|
||
| Time: 23:01 EST/04:01 GMT | News Source: eWeek | Posted By: Andre Da Costa | ||
|
PHOENIX—Microsoft Windows will not suffer irreparable damage on the server side at the hands of the Linux operating system over the next five years, Gartner analyst George Weiss told attendees at the Gartner Open Source Summit here September 28. In fact, in terms of worldwide server operating system revenue, Linux would come in below both Windows and Unix by 2011 in spite of its enormous growth, he told attendees in a session entitled "Enterprise Linux: Has it Arrived?" | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 225 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:49:26 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 9/29/2006 7:37:51 AM |
| the tabloid linux headlines we've all suffered through for upteem years might sell to joe idiot, but not to joe enterprise buyer. |
| #2 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 9/29/2006 9:32:57 AM |
| #1: Yep, nobody's using Linux in the enterprise, especially large companies. Not Google, not IBM, not Oracle, not Novell, not DaimlerChrysler... I could go on and on about companies not using Linux in the enterprise. What's the name of that company that MS uses for global web caching and load distribution, Akamai? They aren't using Linux either. |
| #3 By 8556 (12.217.111.92) at 9/29/2006 10:01:21 AM |
| We can't accept this as we don't know if the crystal ball that was used was highly polished or not. |
| #4 By 46122 (24.45.46.12) at 9/29/2006 11:31:38 AM |
| Who in their right mind would use linux? It is slow, hard to use, what a waste of time |
| #5 By 32132 (142.32.208.238) at 9/29/2006 11:45:17 AM |
|
"Linux seems to be running out of steam a little. After nearly four years of double-digit revenue growth, the Linux server sub-market accounted for only $1.5 billion in sales in the second quarter of 2006, an increase of only 6.1 percent.
IDC didn't say this, but it could be that the mainframe market has saturated itself with Linux and is no longer consuming Linux MIPS like it has for the past several years. Linux server shipments grew 9.7 percent in the quarter, and most of the revenue and shipments were on X86 and X64 servers. Windows-based server shipments increased by 11 percent. IDC said in a statement accompanying the statistics that companies are beginning to deploy richer Windows server configurations, often as part of a virtualization and server consolidation initiative, and this is helping drive Windows sales faster than the market at large. " http://www.itjungle.com/tlb/tlb082906-story01.html |
| #6 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 9/29/2006 12:43:26 PM |
| #5: I'll say it every time you trot out numbers like that: those figures are from major server vendors who sell the preconfigured boxes. What about server sales not done through those vendors? It's impossible to account for those, but you can't just dismiss them either. What about the company that buys a bunch of Dell boxes and then deploys RHEL for example? You may as well take the sales numbers for bottled water companies and then claim that hardly anyone is drinking water because you don't count those who get it from the tap. At any rate, I'll be the first to say that I doubt Linux will displace Windows any time soon, but I'm pleased that Linux channel sales are still growing. |
| #7 By 23275 (209.149.207.40) at 9/29/2006 12:54:20 PM |
|
#4, Many companies. Most have applications developers staffs that were trained up in the Unices and develop using Java/Corba, vice COM, or .NET
We have some customers like that and generally [in our case], business owners who invested in tech centric companies acquired less costly talent that had been trained in largely east-block nations. Since they had little access to the PC ecosystem, they were trained on much older Unices based systems. Many wish to migrate to .NET, but really cannot afford the time it takes to become as good in that environment as they are in that which they know [this is based upon what our Linux customers devs have told me]. I will say this, they are some of the best developers and people I have ever seen, or known. So good that they develop their own languages as they need them. We support several distro's in production here - for clients. We maintain a few of them end to end, and as I have shared here many times, it is a much more time consuming process. Their applications are complex, but their systems have run very well - aside from some hardware issues on select Dell 6600 hundred series servers [risers, drives, etc...]. They also have an Oracle on W2K server that has run in isolation [not on the net at all], that has been up for over five (5) years - it has not been rebooted since May 2001 [again, it is not on any Internet connected segment, or array that is on the cloud (Dell 4400). I add that bit to show that if properly configured, even a very old W2K build can be as solid as stone. As for RHAS, early builds were a very big challenge. Later builds [from early 2005 on], have been fine - set em up and let em run. It is the setting them up part that is costly. We do not run X-Services of any kind and manage them all remotely from the CLI - X-Services are just wasteful on such machines. All that said, these guys do have some nasty habits - for example, most Linuces guys will place compilers on their production boxes - no matter how strenuously we advise them not to. That practice is so foolish on a *Nix that it cannot be spoken to enough. Also, they tend to favor up-time over all else and they never patch - again, no matter how often they are reminded or cautioned. They seem to have some sense that they are never going to get hit. Some also were foolish enough to use SSH and demand that it be open from any address - simply stupid. Needless to say, those that we do not manage often have to call after they have gotten themselves into real trouble. This I see is the real problem with the Linuces - owners and devs are naive about it and they get in, thinking they are saving some money - in the long run, they end up spending so much more, as the development process is so much slower and systems require real attention all the time. The talent it takes to support them is rarer and costly - so there is little support to be had. RHAS paid support is a joke - at least compared to our guys. Some customers, for contractual reasons, must maintain RH support, but it has never been of any value to them and they end up calling us for support. Sorry for the book, but I felt #4, deserved a real-world example. This post was edited by lketchum on Friday, September 29, 2006 at 12:54. |
| #8 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 9/29/2006 1:14:20 PM |
| #4: Who uses Linux, you ask? How about the US Governement. The NSA uses it, and even drove the development of Secure Linux. How about the US Military, which uses Linux applications for important and critical applications. Many companies use it for many reasons, but not all of them make a lot of noise about the fact that they use it. And the use of Linux and other open source application stacks (jBoss, Java, PHP, Apache, etc.) are growing in US government agencies. |
| #9 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/29/2006 1:33:03 PM |
| lketchum--do you have a blog? |
| #10 By 23275 (209.149.207.40) at 9/29/2006 1:52:39 PM |
|
#9, Yes, a private one for clients, but I am building a new type and will port more finsihed material to it, soon. Sorry to drop so many long posts here, but I reason that they may help at least a few activewin folks.
#8, On the contrary, the National Security Agency [The NSA] does NOT/NOT use Linux - they study it. The NSA has produced hardened versions of the Linuces for one reason only - because they are terrified of its use by American and allied businesses and without it being worked up properly, it presents a real threat to our national interests. I know, I retired from the place and in terms of computing science and measured brain-pans, the NSA has no equal and never will. At the NSA, the *Nix are seen as both an opportunity and a serious threat to the health of the national economy. As I have suggested, the *nix are fine - great, even, but MOST OFTEN, they are set up and run by people who are very naive and inexperienced. OSX is regarded as being even worse - for both technical and social reasons - all driven by naive people - good people, that think they are safe. For years, the NSA has used its own systems and special builds of Windows [per 5200-M series regulations]. Windows is the only commercial microcomputing OS that is authorized by use within the DoD, PERIOD. The Military branches - especially their own agencies like INSCOM [Army], are subordinate to the NSA - they use the same systems and share a common philosophy. |
| #11 By 32132 (142.32.208.238) at 9/29/2006 3:10:02 PM |
|
#6 "What about the company that buys a bunch of Dell boxes and then deploys RHEL for example?"
As I've said before coffee girl, IDC takes that into account as best it can. We've bought 200+ servers from Dell. Not one had Windows on them. We bought the OS through a reseller. But the numbers I posted are why Gartner no longer thinks Linux is a big threat to Microsoft's OS business. |
| #12 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/29/2006 4:09:53 PM |
| lketchum: I hope you start a public one--I'd read it. ;) I don't want to say that you're wasting your insights on us in the Activewin comments section, but... it'd be great if you opened up your knowledge to a broader audience, I think. |
| #13 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 9/29/2006 4:18:41 PM |
|
#11: 'as best it can'??? There is no possible way for them to know what is going on blank systems.
|
| #14 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 9/29/2006 4:20:32 PM |
|
Well isn't this special. Gartner finally tones down their outrageous claims that open source operating systems are going to take over the world. The screaming headlines should read, "Sorry World We Made a Big Boo Boo."
Meantime, reportedly Red Hat sells 61% of the commerically supported open source operating systems world wide, but while growing its sales, profits, margins, and EPS is still a tiny company with $300 million in yearly sales and $80 million in profits. Recently, they reported good earnings, but not a good forecast of the future; their stock fell 25%. Red Hat's chief competitor, Novell with their SUSE offering was recently threaten with delisting by the NASDAQ. It hasn't realiably earned profits since 2000; and the only time Novel has earned a significant profit in the last six years is when their extortion of Microsoft came to fruition in the 1st quarter of 2005. While they are still a billion dollar company in terms of sales, the majority of those sales are from their legacy NetWare revenue stream. They have yet to prove that their strategy of porting NetWare to the Linux platform is a profitable one. Moreover, what was glaringly absent from the Gartner report was that open source operating systems continue to this day to have a dearth of applications that run on them. This is still the primary reason it is not being adopted at any significant rate in the server rooms across the planet. |
| #15 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 9/29/2006 5:48:09 PM |
|
#12, Kindest thanks - I have been very lucky - I have a great group that has enabled us to do some amazing things and they have really driven a great deal forward for all of us. They are so good that all of us have to really hustle just to keep up.
It's good that you ask, as we have evolved an entirely new web and a series of blogs that are unlike any that we have seen - featured on them are things like two simultaneous fields of motion video, or imagery that play in the same web page at once. We've succeeded in synchronizing that content and also mixing content in either field. To our knowledge, this has not been possible, previously. It is all designed to share exactly what is possible - where good code, and the mastery of server types and networking are used all at once to deliver solutions. Our hope is to generate a lot of interest in a form of pluralism that reduces the separations between disciplines and starts devs thinking about how to leverage the totality of the platform and equally, having network and hardware engineers working with developers to write code that leverages much that is so often overlooked. Some of the coolest parts come from how we designed the tools to make it work and we'd like to share those, too. We think that a lot of people would enjoy this process a lot more. A big part of that is to encourage OSS types to focus on building a platform - vice fixating on Microsoft. That is not healthy for anyone - especially consumers and Microsoft itself. They do their best, as most of us do, when they "have to" and legislating that does not produce the impulses to innovate. Real competition does, however. Finally, truth... it is an irresistible force... and the *nix based upon the Linuces, have a great deal of distance to go as well as in practice, being very porous. Exploring that should not result in so much heat between people and we'd like to see the negative toned down as interest in all technologies is turned up and shared. It basically comes down to not allowing the noise to shape what we all do, and to focus on positive goals. I mean, regard him as naive as we might, we all respect Latch's passion - same for NotParker [I guess Parker got into some hot water at some point]. Any way, thanks for the forum and the interchange. I enjoy it a great deal and we are all working very hard to create the right kind of place for all people to perhaps stop by for a visit and some real help - mixing sound business analysis as part of the solutions process, etc... - that focuses the energy and effort on the people the work is designed to support. Again, sorry for the book. L. |
| #16 By 32132 (142.32.208.238) at 9/29/2006 6:18:20 PM |
|
#13 "There is no possible way for them to know what is going on blank systems."
So ... it could be ZERO Linux systems? Cool! Seriously, if you have a better methodology, post it coffee girl. Otherwise .... nah nah nah nah ... nah nah nah nah ... goodbye. :) |
| #17 By 46122 (68.237.199.39) at 9/30/2006 2:30:59 PM |
| #8 I have some close friends that work at the FBI and NSA, and they DO NOT use Linux. They are currently Running Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows 2003 Sever RC1. They are decided whether to upgrade to Vista (which at right now they plan to) |
| #18 By 15406 (69.196.199.10) at 9/30/2006 3:13:29 PM |
|
#16: Goodbye? Where are you going, to try and find a fix for the latest zero-day Windows 'own-your-box' exploit? Don't bother. There'll be a new one next week, just as there was last week.
|
| #19 By 15406 (69.196.199.10) at 9/30/2006 3:16:31 PM |
|
#17: Sure you do. You just happen to have friends in the FBI and NSA. 'Close' friends at that. You should tell them that Windows Server 2003 was released a long time ago so they should stop running the release candidate. And, forgive me for laughing while I type this, but the FBI and NSA are most certainly not looking at upgrading to Vista any time soon.
|
| #20 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 9/30/2006 5:15:53 PM |
|
#19, On the contrary, they are, and Bitlocker was advanced as it is in Vista largely due to requirements specified by the U.S., and Canadian governments. The U.S., government, especially the DoD, and DHLS, are the quickest to roll out new operating systems. Depending upon what class of govt. user they are [Tiers as they are called], they will begin using a custom version of Vista in November and applications developers like some of our own, have been working all spring and summer on Vista compliant applications as contracted for various DoD branches and components. Locking out USB and other media.memory devices in Vista is another example.
Latch, please don't ignore the vast differences in the Vista roll-out as compared to other Windows OS releases. Installation, distribution, management and imaging tools, as well as applications testing tools are rolling ahead of and parallel to Vista - this is entirely unique in the entire history of software and operating systems. Using XP as an example to compare Vista against, it [XP's] less capable deployment and migration tools trailed XP's release by nearly two years. This coupled with an absolute mandate to run secure systems and networks, will see Vista roll into and throughout governement faster than any operating system before it. And please do trust those that know, our Government is not into Linux in any way you may hope - it does however retain an ability to exploit the ever-loving dog-water out of it and with an ease that would humble even the most strident of OSS advocates. I mean, it is after all, "open" - so a clear and available map is evident and it has been since it was aborted from the universities that it was used in as a teaching tool. Securing DoD, or any goup of sytems is not hard - run a one to one configured group IV firewall w/NIDS and HIDS, ahead of a group IV proxy [ MS ISA Server ]. Place internet facing servers, like email front ends and web servers in a DMZ behind the ISA Server. Run a second ISA Server in a back to back configuration [supported by a split DNS and split GC] to protect internal clients. This is exactly what good hosts do and, regardless of brands used, what the minimum DoD spec is. Connectoids and Credent Client managers are used to control client systems and audit GPO. It's not hard - it is instead, planned, tested and rolled in compliance with known and rehearsed steps. |
| #21 By 32132 (142.32.208.238) at 9/30/2006 6:21:32 PM |
|
#18 I'll take that as a surrender on the issue of Linux's market share.
#19 Actually, Windows 2003 Server R2 did come out in December. We've upgraded a number of servers to it because of some of the new features. |
| #22 By 46122 (68.237.236.23) at 10/7/2006 5:08:55 PM |
| #19 By Latch, sorry for being a poor typer, but it was Windows Server 2003 R2, not RC1 sorry for any confussion |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 225 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:49:26 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
