Posted on 02/05/2005 7:02:30 AM PST by ShadowAce
I've reported in Windows IT Pro UPDATE several times over the years about Linux and its potential to unseat Windows Server as the most used enterprise OS. As a general rule, each January seems to bring a collection of "This Will Be the Year of Linux" stories, typically from analysts who've been bowled over by the Linux hype. To be fair, I've always assumed that Linux and Windows would some day run neck-and-neck in the server world, with Linux's perceived security, cost, and reliability advantages as the major reasons. Also, the past few years have been tough on Microsoft, as the company has suffered through a mind-boggling series of security snafus.
The Linux hype has just one little problem. Despite steady improvements over the past several years and the support of major IT companies such as IBM, Novell, and even Sun Microsystems, Linux seems stuck in a perpetual holding pattern, unable to eat away at Microsoft's server market share. And as the PC industry comes out of an economic recession and enterprises resume technology spending, it's interesting to note that Microsoft solutions, not open-source solutions such as Linux, are making the biggest gains.
Case in point: In its most recent quarterly earnings announcement last week, Microsoft once again beat forecasts and set an earnings record. Record earnings happen so regularly at Microsoft now that it's almost not worth mentioning. But key to the company's success, interestingly, is its Server and Tools division, which is responsible for such products as Windows Server 2003, Microsoft Exchange Server 2003, and Microsoft SQL Server 2000. The Server and Tools division made revenues of $2.8 billion in the quarter ending December 31, 2004, the same amount of money as the Information Worker division, which sells the Microsoft Office cash cow, made. Indeed, Server and Tools almost edged out Microsoft's other cash cow, the Windows Client division, which earned $3.2 billion.
Those results are amazing. Server and Tools grew more than 18 percent year-over-year, compared with flat or single-digit growth for Windows Client and Information Worker. SQL Server growth topped 25 percent. And Exchange 2003 is off to the fastest start of any Microsoft server product. These figures indicate two things: First, the IT industry is spending money again. Second, Microsoft's server products are kicking butt, and they're doing so at a point in time in which all the core products--Windows Server, Exchange, and SQL Server--are fairly mature. And because both Windows Server and SQL Server will see major updates this year--Windows 2003 Release 2 (R2) and SQL Server 2005, respectively--we might expect the upgrade treadmill to keep revenues rolling for quite a while.
"Our server business has a track record like the [New England] Patriots in the NFL playoffs," Microsoft chief financial officer (CFO) John Connors said, according to a report by Todd Bishop of the "Seattle Post Intelligencer." The comparison was carefully selected, I think. The Patriots, which have advanced to the Super Bowl in three of the last four years, are seen as a modern sports dynasty and widely respected for their leadership and team-oriented attitude. Microsoft would like to see its server products as well-respected as the Patriots are and would like to foster the notion that, although each individual server has certain strengths, they work together in such a way that the whole is more valuable to customers than the individual parts.
Some key challenges will still bedevil Microsoft as it attempts to fight back against the Linux threat, although recent history suggests the company might have finally latched onto a winning strategy. First, Microsoft must counter the perception that Linux is more secure than Windows. We're just starting to see some people come around to the notion that a largely untested solution such as Linux can be as insecure or more insecure than Windows, given improper configuration.
Second, Microsoft must prevent an upswing in support for Linux and other open-source solutions in world, regional, and local governments. In some cases, Microsoft has won government contracts by sweetening deals financially. But more often than not, fear of moving to an unknown and unproven system has kept many governments firmly in the Windows camp. And widely publicized Linux conversions--such as the one in Munich, Germany--have predictably run into problems. More important, they still represent a small portion of the overall worldwide government IT market.
Third, Microsoft should continue pushing its integration approach, which is truly a huge competitive advantage. Turnkey products such as Windows Small Business Server (SBS) 2003 and the awesome services industry built around it are unparalleled in the open-source world and will likely continue to be so for some time. Although it's interesting to make product-to-product comparisons--such as Windows 2003 versus Red Hat Enterprise Linux--few customers think in such fine-grained ways. Enterprises want solutions. And I think this is an area in which Microsoft comes out on top.
Fourth, I think Microsoft has finally won the battle over cost. Depending on whom you talk to, Linux solutions are cheaper or as expensive as Windows-based solutions. That comparison doesn't resonate very loudly with IT administrators who are already familiar with Windows and would dearly miss functionality and compatibility if they left the platform. Even if some Windows solutions are a bit more expensive than Linux-based alternatives, the benefits of Windows often outweigh what is essentially a small price differential, spread out over time.
So what do you think? Is Linux the next big thing, or will it simply snag a few key niche markets like most of Microsoft's past competitors have?
The Linux boxes run
1/ DNS external
2/ Our payroll system
3/ 1 web site
These servers (at one very low and depressing point) were taking upwards to 90% of our time. The more people we brought in the more I realised that a Linux configuration is an art not a science.
Example:
Windows Install
Insert CD
8 gig OP / Remaining Data
Install
Run Windows Update
Enable Service required or folder to share
....
GOLF
Linux Install
I think at the point I was boiling toads I got frustrated
.....No GOLF
Wow a contractor from a competing company (which has lost a ton of market share to Linux) told you linux was not good... Ill also take his word for it. Linux is ready for prime time and companies like Amazon.com prove it every day.
I read on FR once Linux does not have a chance until my 70 year old grandmother can install it and use it, or something like that. I gotta agree. Every experience I have had with Linux has been one big clustermuck after another. I have one more project I am going to try Linux out on. If it does not work I am done with Linux. (LinuxFreaks FreepMe)
"Awful" might not be accurate in all cases. I know that it has some good points, and some bad points. I enjoy running "one of each" in my parent company: Two Novell Netware servers, one Windows 2k3 SBS server, and one Linux server.
Novell's eDir simply blows AD outta the water, and is a great platform for email and ZEN. It also makes a great gateway / router since no hackers every try to hack it (shhh... I don't run a firewall, have a DMZ, etc)
Terminal Services / Citrix / VNC / PCAnywhere, on the other hand, is a wonderful thing. I use my W2K3 also is my backup app server.
The Linux world is great for those online duties, and that failover HA solution is definitely on my list of things "to do".
One of the problems that I have with M$ geeks is that they think that M$ has the best solution for every problem. This is annoying, dangerous, and arrogant. Worse yet, no M$ partners dare suggest those alternatives lest they incur the wrath of Oz.
Most enterprises release like RedHat and Suse have configuration tools which are as easy as anything windows has, because you dont know how to use them does not reflect on the system it reflects on you. I dont know squat about iis6, that does not mean it sucks or is hard to config.
Power users in analytical roles. Ones that have to manipulate data files, manage processes, synchronize or backup data and interact with the OS in ways that may be very foreign to them on Linix.
So you don't like Linux because you don't understand it? And you like Windows because it doesn't require a lot of knowledge?
DNS servers in the Linux world are common, even for large (HUGE) ISPs. I hate running W2k3 DNS servers, and resent having to run one for AD. In addition, Linux servers hold about 1/3 of the Web pages on the Net, so I can't understand what's going on in your situation.
The Payroll system might be another deal altogether....
Again, why are they worried about what's going on at the server? SQL codes are SQL codes... Oracle is Oracle, etc. What you're talking about is normally handled by desktop apps, such as the Accounting app, or add-ons made from Crystal Reports, or Access, etc.
(-;
I admit I'm exaggerating a bit. However, to be able to click that red ! you do need to purchase a subscription from RH.(this is for the ES AS WS versions)This automatically negates the "free" aspect. For the sake of disclosure we are an educational facility and get dirt cheap pricing from Microsoft .
Another pet peeve is the PHP problem with Apache 1.3 vs 2. I've had nothing but headaches with this one as there seems to be a backward compatibility problem (Linux geeks give me solutions).
I agree that in some cases Linux or any nix is a good idea. I would not run an FTP server on Windows (too much overhead). I like Apache (I really do)
However, when it come to file and print sharing, user management, application sharing, remote tools, typeyourpoisonSQL server. Windows runs best IMHO.
What Linux has done, which has helped companies tremendously, is force Microsoft to become reasonable in its pricing structure for licensing and their OS. I cannot believe how much prices have dropped for CAL's, for instance and the cost of Windows 2003 Standard server with 5 CAL's is quite reasonable, under $900.
The bias is in asserting that squeezing more money out of captive customers means anything. Ask a Computer Associates shareholder if that is a resilient strategy with a future.
I bought a copy of Red Hat Linux 9 off of ebay for $15, purchased a Linux manual and pocket guide, inserted the CD, let it install everything incuding OpenOffice, studied the manual for about 6 hours so far cumulatively, and have a very nice system that I have been able to transfer files from W98 and XP PCs, modify and print documents, run the browser and get email, set up an Apache server, and everything I can think of -- with esseantialy no learning curve except bash (command interpreter) commands I like to play around with. I am now learning how to set up a streaming video server.
Not that I am typical since I have an MS in computers, but I AM going to show people around town how easy it is.
Redhat will also discount, but for free open a terminal on fedora or CentOS and type yum-update...
Thanks alot I did not know that. Now I can calmly look at my wife who says I spend too much time at this website and point out that it's work related.
What "market share"? The number of units sold? Annual revenue? The author seems to use the latter measurement. That could simply mean that Microsoft products are more expensive, or have to be replaced more often, or both.
Market share does not accurately reflect the size of the installed base. That's the measurement I'm more interested in.
These days, it is used for just about everything on the server side. At the telecom I work for, everything is Linux on the back-end. That said, Exchange Server is the killer app that keeps selling Windows Server licenses. If a potent replacement is developed for Linux, and such work is being done, that would knock down the last barriers at most of the big companies I know.
sorry linux enthusiats, but that is reality - which can change, however
(build a better mousetrap...)
I think it's more in the neighborhood of $60~70 billion, which is still respectable.
Bloody hell, it sounds like they were very badly managed if it was only three servers.
We run hundreds of mission-critical servers on Linux on a wide range of hardware and using maybe three distros. One sysadmin manages all those boxes part-time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.