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?
Linux gained marketshare in a variety of places, such as TiVo boxes all being run under Linux. Getting commercial consumer products to go Linux was a clever way around the MS domination of the desktop...since most consumer products *don't* have what anyone would label as a "desktop."
"...The more people we brought in the more I realised that a Linux configuration is an art not a science..."
It's like anything, I guess. It just takes a bit of getting used to. Having alpha geeks on hand doesn't hurt either. :)
We are at the point where a Linux server or workstation install/configuration goes like this ...
Install:
Plug new system(s) into the network
Insert custom boot CD(s)
Turn on system(s)
Come back in 25 minutes.
Plenty of time for golf if that's your thing. I play frisbee with the dog, myself. :)
I think the point, here, is that a single GUI cannot satisfy everyone. They have their strengths and weaknesses.
That said, Mac OS-X's GUI is quite nice. I was totally impressed by it.
On Linux, I stick with either fluxbox or KDE depending on my mood.
That's true. Linux on TiVo also reboots more often than does Windows XP.
...Which brings up my interesting point from years and years ago: wouldn't MS have been better off releasing an old OS such as Windows 95 to Open Source in order to have those sorts of consumer devices running on an MS-compatible platform, rather than completely losing that marketshare to Linux?
I mean, it's not like Windows 95 as Open Source would have been a threat to MS Windows XP sales in 2004 or 2005, after all!
So instead of parking Windows 95 code on the shelf, never to see daylight again, the smarter move would have been to have at least licensed it almost (or even) free to consumer products developers.
Windows 95 might be dismal by modern desktop standards, but it would stream video as well as Linux does today in a TiVo box.
Missed opportunity for additional marketshare by MicroSoft; they should have opened up Windows 95 or 98 for consumer products developers. The game players and developers alone would have dug the VB dot net and other MS development possibilities.
I think the point, here, is that a single GUI cannot satisfy everyone. They have their strengths and weaknesses.
That said, Mac OS-X's GUI is quite nice. I was totally impressed by it.
On Linux, I stick with either fluxbox or KDE depending on my mood.
When did they change? Do you have a source?
Hey Bush2k, is someone using your screenname? You just posted a calm, reasoned comparison of Windows and Linux. No ad-hominem attacks, no depiction of Linux as Bolshevism-redux, no predictions of the imminent demise of every company and technology south of Redmond Washington.
Ok, all kidding aside, what you say makes sense.
One benefit would be to gain marketshare. TiVo, for instance, would have easily gone with a free Open Source Windows 95 instead of a free Linux release.
Now TiVo units are not only in millions of homes connected to millions of TV's, but they are also being connected to millions of home networks.
However, instead of that new networked computer being MS Compatible, they are all Linux.
Instead of game developers writing MS compatible code for TiVo games (hey, it's a computer that's already connected to a remote and a TV), now they're writing for Linux.
MicroSoft is losing the Consumer Products marketshare for operating systems...all because ancient Windows 95 code wasn't licensed at minimal cost (but with important MS restrictions included in the license) to consumer products developers like TiVo.
This is in direct contrast to Bill Gates' stated dream of seeing MS dominate the convergence of the computer, TV, and telephone.
Instead, new consumer products are rolling out running on Linux. Gain enough marketshare on consumer products, and suddenly the TV becomes the new desktop instead of the computer.
Lots and lots of people watch TV and play games on TV and TiVo TV. That's an awful lot of potential desktop marketshare...and MS isn't in the hunt for any of it, even though they could have *owned* all of it now and in the future by giving away something that MS has locked up inside safes: ancient Windows 95 code.
Interesting hypothesis... but if I'm a Tivo developer and I had my choice of free *old* windows code and free *new* linux code (and with linux you have a pretty much guaranteed upgrade /migration path for kernel upgrades, security patches etc.) why would I choose Win95?
IOW, why would someone choose to be frozen in 1995 instead of starting in 2001 and whatever with every prospect of moving forward as technology improves?
I'm not saying there isn't a good reason, I just can't see what it would be.
That misses too many factors to get an accurate picture of the installed base - hardware replacement cycles, repurposed hardware, OS distributions channels (like downloadable free Linux), licensing policies (like multiple installations from a single copy of Linux), etc.
For calculating the installed base of desktop machines, I think user-agent statistics from a universally popular web sites like Google or Yahoo would give a fairly accurate measurement.
"MS is still running Apache for Hotmail."
Really????? Netcraft says otherwise:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=hotmail.com
Hotmail switched eons ago. Originally when Microsoft bought them they ran Apache they switched soon after.
| Whether a columnist on the Microsoft Adversing payroll understands the reality matters not
It'd be interesting to know if the same outfit also runs a rag called "Linux IT Professional," and what they're saying over there. Probably the same kind of feel-good hype. |
mash this Paulus...http://www.linspire.com/
Litigation isn't scaring anybody off. Prices to enterprise customers are negotiable of course, but for the most part Windows is less expensive than Windows. You can't impress me with TCO either. In my outfit, Windows server support runs a 150:1 ratio servers to FTEs. UNIX/Linux support, on the other hand, runs about 60:1.
Linux is a great OS with a place in the data center. Linux will destroy Sun, then certain flavors of Unix. After that, it may be mature enough to challenge Windows for general purpose file/print/application serving.
NDS didn't come into it's own until eDir, and by then it was too late. Novell was a terrible marketing company, and a terrible OS company. Novell didn't discover SMP until version 5.1, and didn't think multithreading was cool until 5.5 or so. Hell, they didn't realize this whole TCP/IP thing was going to take off until '99 or so.
Not to mention their QA problems with patches and service packs. It wasn't unusual to get a patch a day for certain modules. As a matter of fact, we had a Novell developer sitting in a cube coding fixes for awhile.
So, Novell decides to get out of the NetWare OS business and become a directory company. Smart move. The only platform eDir actually WORKED on was Solaris. Dumb move.
Now, Novell is reshaping itself as a Linux company. Too late.
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.
Presumably, a rag called "Windows IT Professional" is targeted at Windows shops. They want to be reassured that some train is not leaving without them, so this guy did that. A little hype, a little FUD... pretty standard fare. I doubt anybody's going to be fired for running a Microsoft shop any time soon.