> On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 11:01:07AM -0700, Seth Cohn wrote: > > > >Gartner's been really really bad about advocating > >Linux... > > Well, it's not like that's really their job anyway. It seems to me we > should be glad they're taking the bold step of saying "maybe IIS isn't > so hot after all", which would have been heresy to the tie-wearing crowd > not so long ago. But if you look at all of the previous noise from Gartner, they were often putting Linux down in many ways. Googling for Gartner and Linux (or even just search Slashdot for Gartner) finds a few dozen articles/reports, with such skewed issues as "Number of Servers shipping with Linux " (versus number _running_ Linux, since most don't ship with Linux, since most vendors aren't selling it that way). The problem I have with them is that for so long, they have been not just conservative, but outright biased. If they truly are looking out for their customers (which is why the customers pay them for the reports), they shouldn't have been caught so unaware and forced to (at this point) recommend dropping IIS. It's solely because of the M$ money that they've been so hostile, and I wonder what the backlash from Bill will be to this. I am happy to see it, but I don't think Gartner's rep is deserved anymore... too little too late. The tie wearing crowd follows IBM (among others) and IBM's been pushing the Apache ticket for some time now... they dropped their own webserver in favor of working with Apache.
