Linux-Advocacy Digest #218, Volume #35 Thu, 14 Jun 01 02:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed (Charlie Ebert)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting
good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) ("Matthew Gardiner (BOFH)")
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed (Rex Ballard)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux (Rotten168)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting
good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:44:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Anonymous wrote:
>I would view any numbers concerning market
>share of Linux compared to Windows with great
>skepticism. How can IDC or anyone else possibly
>know about all the RedHat systems I installed
>in my home? I downloaded all the software
>off of a mirror site and installed them on all
>5 of my machines in my house.
>
Exactly. They don't.
But what is extremely interesting is that with the little
information they have gathered, they have declared Linux
the #1 leader in growth of all OS's on the planet.
It's growth rate is currently double that of Windows.
>Jon Johansan wrote:
>>
>> http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=21403
>> or
>> http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2772060,00.html
>>
>> But they both say the same thing:
>> Gartner Dataquest has reported that 8.6 percent of server shipments in the
>> U.S. during the third quarter of 2000 were Linux-based and 97% of those were
>> Red Hat. Another interesting finding was that when so-called "white box," or
>> non-branded, server purchases were excluded and only branded server
>> purchases considered, Linux's share of the market fell to just 6 percent in
>> the third quarter of 2000.
>>
>> IDC claims a higher figure in previous reports, 27%. But IDC considers ANY
>> PC which has Linux installed on it a "Server Environment." Obviously that
>> stretches the definition a bit.
>>
>> Yes, I know the study was partially sponsored by MS (someone has to pay for
>> these things) so please don't fire off stupid replies implying that MS
>> purposely contaminated it's own results by 'buying the study' - that's just
>> preposterous. Consider when car companies pay someone like JD Powers to
>> guage customer satisfaction - the company that paid for the survey does NOT
>> always come out on top and that's why people trust JD Powers. Same for both
>> IDC and Gartner. They are paid by _someone_ to find something out. If the
>> results don't go your way then, sure, it's ok for you to not publish them
>> (Ford pays JD Powers to find out if people like the Explorer and it turns
>> out they don't - no need to buy Superbowl time to advertise that - but if
>> they did like it, of course you advertise it - it's normal and is done all
>> the time). So, ahead of time, ANYONE who says "MS paid for it therefore they
>> said whatever MS told them to" is automatically defined as an idiot and
>> mindless so don't fall into that hole oK?
>>
>> Further Quote: [Donn] Miller [of MS] told eWEEK that Microsoft had helped
>> sponsor the study to see exactly who was using Linux, what the server
>> deployments were and what operating system was running on it.
>> "There has been a lot of hype around Linux over the past year, and we wanted
>> to try and find out the real story on its adoption," he said. "While I admit
>> there has been interest in Linux, this by no means accounts for one out of
>> every four new servers sold. That is simply ridiculous."
>>
>> The study results prove that Linux on the server side is still "just a niche
>> play," Miller added. It's unrealistic to look at sales numbers and believe
>> that all of these are being deployed. While many users have bought Linux to
>> try it out, a large number of those copies bought, downloaded and acquired
>> were tested and then never actually used, he said.
>>
>> "Many of our customers have tested it, but found that it falls short of what
>> is required for a business server platform," Miller said. "Windows has good
>> penetration on the server side, but the misstated Linux market share figures
>> unfairly present the actual position of Novell and others rather than us."
>
> --------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
> Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
> -----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner (BOFH)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:44:55 +1200
>
>>Ditto for the Chinese, although I don't think they have as much
>>of a problem.
>>
>
> I don't trust the Chinese. I don't know if they drink anything at all.
Chinese drink beer. The quite a well established industry. I think DB
own a brewery over there.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:48:50 GMT
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============67BC8F4012DBC14E033B407D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics
Mark Twain
Can two different surveys produce very different results.
Jon Johansan wrote:
>
> http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=21403
> or
> http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2772060,00.html
>
> But they both say the same thing:
> Gartner Dataquest has reported that 8.6 percent of server shipments in the
> U.S. during the third quarter of 2000 were Linux-based and 97% of those were
> Red Hat. Another interesting finding was that when so-called "white box," or
> non-branded, server purchases were excluded and only branded server
> purchases considered, Linux's share of the market fell to just 6 percent in
> the third quarter of 2000.
>
> IDC claims a higher figure in previous reports, 27%. But IDC considers ANY
> PC which has Linux installed on it a "Server Environment." Obviously that
> stretches the definition a bit.
Actually, IDC counts "Licenses Shipped". Gartner measures Market
share by
gross revenues from license fees. Since Linux licenses cost about
1/5th
the cost of Windows, it seems that IDC has undercounted (or Linux has
grown to about 40%).
Second, neither IDC nor Gartner consider the "Clone Factor". It is
legal
to install multiple copies of Linux with a single CD. Since the
revenue
comes in the form of Support contracts, which wouldn't be counted in
either
survey, Linux would be undercounted in both surveys.
Still, it's probably appropriate to be conservative. Still, Linux
seems to find itself more and more as a work-horse within IT shops.
It's not unusual to see Linux machines used as DNS servers, routers,
firewalls, email servers, news servers, portal servers, cable modems,
file servers, print servers, and database servers for internal
services.
It's very hard to count Linux boxes because many of these utility
boxes are
created from the workstations and servers that couldn't be upgraded to
Windows
NT or Windows 2000, or just couldn't handle the memory hungry
applications.
On an Win2K server, 8 gig of RAM and 200 Gigs of hard drive is
minimal. On a
Linux server, a gig is huge, and 20 gigs is more than enough for many
of the
jobs described above. Gartner wouldn't even try to count these.
Then we have the Linksys boxes, the Netgear boxes, the Tivo Boxes, the
fire-wire boxes, and the various other "Appliances" which don't get
counted as servers. Finally, we have the BSD boxes included in CISCO
routers and various switches,
and the SCO boxes included in most franchises. That gives Opens
Source a pretty big market share.
THEN, we have the UNIX boxes, most of which run some open source, and
most
of which have benefitted from Open Source. These are the "Glamour
Servers",
and are the big E-10K and S-80 servers that do the work of 100-200
Linux Appliances, or OS/390 systems which do the work of about 2000 PC
based Linux
systems.
> Yes, I know the study was partially sponsored by MS (someone has to pay for
> these things) so please don't fire off stupid replies implying that MS
> purposely contaminated it's own results by 'buying the study' - that's just
> preposterous.
Microsoft isn't stupid. You can report different measured quantities,
state the result with complete accuracy, and still create a distorted
view of the market.
The Gartner reference is a classic. And by the way, Gartners numbers
last
year were that Linux had 6% by the same quantity. The jump from 6%
(which IDC measured at 27%) to 8% (which IDC has not yet released),
could indicate a
server count in excess of 40% or more.
Gartner seems to have avoided trying to draw the conclusion that
there's no
money in Linux. When Customers have an extra $1/4 million (the cost
of Data Center Edition on 12 CPUs spread acrossto spend across 4
servers), to spend on
consulting, custom software, and support contracts, you can get very
creative
very quickly.
When Open Source enables you to leverage the time spent in development
by using
well known components that have been "battlefield tested" for
reliability, security, and performance, you get some very high
leverage. Since Linux
can be run on everything from a small laptop or home computer to
Z-series
servers, you can develop, demonstrate, and review in a convenient
environment,
and scale up to Fortune 50 class enterprise servers.
> Consider when car companies pay someone like JD Powers to
> guage customer satisfaction - the company that paid for the survey does NOT
> always come out on top and that's why people trust JD Powers. Same for both
> IDC and Gartner.
Gartner has many reviewers and tries to "mix" the reviews. They try
to estimate the "predictable future". When a paradigm shift such as
the commercial Internet, the World Wide Web, Linux, or Open Source
hit the scene, it some times takes 3-5 years to recalibrate their
instrumentation. see http://www.open4success.com/gartner.html for
an article I wrote in response to a review made available to the
General public in October 1999.
> They are paid by _someone_ to find something out. If the
> results don't go your way then, sure, it's ok for you to not publish them
> (Ford pays JD Powers to find out if people like the Explorer and it turns
> out they don't - no need to buy Superbowl time to advertise that - but if
> they did like it, of course you advertise it - it's normal and is done all
> the time). So, ahead of time, ANYONE who says "MS paid for it therefore they
> said whatever MS told them to" is automatically defined as an idiot and
> mindless so don't fall into that hole oK?
Gartner also sells it's services to subscribers, especially those in
the
marketing and product management professions. They also give
probabilities
to their predictions based on known variables. Again, paradigm shifts
have
traditionally been a problem for Gartner.
Traditional predictions and risk management are based on the
assumption
that current trends will tend to transition predictably based on
consistent
market factors.
When companies were putting every possible corporate resource into
being ready
for Y2K, they delegated new technology to outsourcers such as ISPs,
Hosting services, and Consultants. When Y2K was over, and there were
extra resources
available to handle these functions in-house, the entire market became
"unpredictable". Which projects would they "bring in", how would
hosting services make up for the revenue, how could consultants
increase revenue when competing against salaried workers? Who could
the workforce be restructured to
combine the efforts of highly skilled consultants and the salaried
workers?
Ironically, Microsoft's approach of trying to get "more for less",
expecting
users to replace perfectly functional PCs with ME machines backfired.
XP seems
to also be looking more like NT 3.5 than the next Windows 95. In
fact,
it may even turn out that Linux will make a better Windows upgrade
than XP.
As WINE gets better, and vendors begin testing their applications
against
WINE, Linux seems to be more and more.
> Further Quote: [Donn] Miller [of MS] told eWEEK that Microsoft had helped
> sponsor the study to see exactly who was using Linux, what the server
> deployments were and what operating system was running on it.
However, Microsoft chose the nature of the research criteria. They
suggested that only brand-new servers be counted, that only those sold
with Linux preinstalled would be counted, and that "White Boxes"
(those
sold without any operating systems) be excluded from the count.
By excluding White boxes, and Linux boxes generated from existing
servers,
Microsoft was able to eliminate the largest markets. The fact is that
most
Linux administrators like to perform their own installations. They
like
to tune their partitions, spread the load across multiple hard drives,
and
many even chose a distribution other than the one offered by the OEM.
> "There has been a lot of hype around Linux over the past year, and we wanted
> to try and find out the real story on its adoption," he said. "While I admit
> there has been interest in Linux, this by no means accounts for one out of
> every four new servers sold. That is simply ridiculous."
This certianly exposes the bias of the researcher. He could have
said,
"there has been a lot of" - press coverage", or "interest", or
"discussion",
but instead he uses the word "hype".
We have a number of huge research projects, involving millions of
servers,
in their deployed state. Netcraft and IDC have tracked the end result
of
millions of servers and licenses. What did this gartner researcher
provide?
> The study results prove that Linux on the server side is still "just a niche
> play," Miller added.
There may be some truth to this. Linux clusters do very good
high-profile work
ranging from exploring for oil to doing animations for the movie
Shrek. Linux clients range from Royal Dutch Shell to DeucheBank to
the Chinese government.
> It's unrealistic to look at sales numbers and believe
> that all of these are being deployed. While many users have bought Linux to
> try it out, a large number of those copies bought, downloaded and acquired
> were tested and then never actually used, he said.
These have been factored into the estimates. Furthermore, the
estimates have
been mapped to other factors such as software downloads, on-line
upgrades,
security fixes, server signatures and browser signatures.
> "Many of our customers have tested it, but found that it falls short of what
> is required for a business server platform," Miller said. "Windows has good
> penetration on the server side, but the misstated Linux market share figures
> unfairly present the actual position of Novell and others rather than us."
Let's see. Microsoft, who forbids the publication of benchmarks and
other
direct comparisons in their NT Server Licenses, has the ability to
reassess
licenses due, and has attempted every means possible to force OEMS to
preinstall
some version of Windows on every machines sold with a hard drive,
surveyed it's customers. Would they dare say "Compared to Linux, NT
sucks. NT is slower, less reliable, less secure, labor intensive to
maintain, and 10 times more expensive,
so I'd like to go on record with Microsoft executives as being ready
to
switch all servers from Windows 2 Linux or UNIX within the next 2-3
years.
And by the way, I'm reporting to a CTO who is getting the hairy
eyebrow
from the CEO and the CFO because he wants 20 cents/share to upgrade
the
Microsoft servers to Windows 2000 this year.
You can bet that was a really unbiased survey. Anyone stupid enough
to
sit in on one of those Gartner Conferences, across from the highest
ranking executives, who bet their careers on Microsoft (having little
or
no Hands-on experience with any version of UNIX beyond the minimal),
and announcing to a $4000 conference call, that "NT sucks and Linux
rules",
I doubt it. He wouldn't even be invited to attend the call.
--
Rex Ballard
It Architect
http://www.open4success.com
==============67BC8F4012DBC14E033B407D
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="rballard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Rex Ballard
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="rballard.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Ballard;Rex
tel;cell:973-723-4008
tel;work:973-723-4008
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:IBM Global Services;EAI National Practice
adr:;;491 Valley Rd;Gillette;NJ;07933-2111;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Cons IT Architect
fn:Rex Ballard
end:vcard
==============67BC8F4012DBC14E033B407D==
------------------------------
From: Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:49:28 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Stephen S. Edwards II in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 12 Jun 2001
> >"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:9fngm6$obl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> >If you don't understand that, then you are a spineless
> >> >coward.
> >>
> >> People will continue to mock you as long as you make this ridiculous
> >> assosiation that those who do not claim pride or love for their country
> >are
> >> cowards.
> >
> >A person who chooses not to take sides is the very
> >definition of a coward, Mr. Brown.
>
> Bullshit. That's just the last ditch effort of an extremist to tar the
> moderate with an ad hominem attack.
>
> Being an extremist on either side is easy. It is refusing to "choose
> sides" that takes courage. Be your own man.
Thank you! I've heard that fool Rush Limbaugh rail and rail against
moderates as being indecisive and cowards.
Well, fuck him. I am a moderate. And fuck all you liberal and
conservatives who believe that the world is a simple place where their
side is right 100% of the time. Any person who chooses a side and
automatically agrees with it every time is a intellectually lazy and
slothful IMO.
Be your own man. Damn right.
> >If you cannot
> >see that, then God help you, sir.
>
> We are told that God helps those who helps themselves. Others he
> "helps" to eternal damnation. Fuck God.
Catholics actually believe that murder and sex before marriage are equal
sins. Can you believe that?
--
- Brent
"General Veer, prepare your underpants for ground assault."
- Darth Vader
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:54:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charlie Ebert
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:13:53 GMT
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>In article <iXxV6.26576$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Chad Myers wrote:
>>>
>>>Not really, you just don't like any organization which doesn't
>>>kiss Linus' ass. The fact is, Linux really isn't getting adopted
>>>in the market, it's still niche, it still has many problems
>>>and people know this, no Linux company is even close to making
>>>profit, including Red Hat, and most people consider Linux a little
>>>toy unix-like OS for when they don't want to pay for Solaris or
>>>HP-UX and yet need something similar for testing or whatnot.
>>>
>>>-c
>>
>>The real truth of the matter is that Linux is the #1 growth OS
>>on the planet right now, with over double the growthrate in
>>usage that MS has.
>>
>>And MS is aware of this and worried for good reason.
>>
>>Linux will bury Windows and that time is comming now.
>
>Never underestimate the naivete of the general public. :-)
>After all, that's how MS got its near-monopoly in the first place.
>
>[rest snipped]
>
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random sigh here
>EAC code #191 44d:02h:06m actually running Linux.
> [ ] Check here to always trust monopolistic software.
Never underestimate the power of "CHEAP!"
XP will not allow Employers to steal software anymore.
Now, whether you want to call it theft or mis-appropriation,
that's your business. But when it stopps happening Linux
will obtain another GROWTH SPIRT!
You also have to keep in mind that in order to MS to continue
to remain in power they MUST have control of the back office.
MS has lost 80% of the backoffice territory in my town now.
There are only a couple of companies left with less than
100 employee's I'm aware of who are still hanging on to
the expensive, bloated, limited-uptime windows servers.
Now SAMBA emulates a Windows Server perfectly for W2k
down. And this leaves quite a few shops with Windows
desktops for the time being. The time being until
XP starts to ramp up.
Considering how dismal the W2k system sold, it might
be another 1.5 years or more before XP infiltrates
the market to teach them a lesson on in-advertant
software piracy. Seeing how these folks are super
intelligent millionaires, it is my predicition they
will continue to milk their current investments in
NT until such a time comes in that 1.5 years where
they will trade in their desktops for Gnome and Linux.
You know, HP has invested heavily in Linux and Gnome.
So has IBM. That is the wave of the future.
Anybody on an HP Unix system will be ramped up to
a form of Linux shortly. IBM customers enjoy
the new compatibility of AIX-LINUX right now.
Both companies are offering totally across the
board compatibility amongst their entire server
lines.
The OTHER beautiful part about Linux is that what
is written for a mainframe version of Linux can
be recompiled and run on a PC bound server for
Linux. It will run on a sparc Linux. It will
run on an RS-6000 Linux. It will run on an Amiga
or Apple or Mac Linux. It will run on a PC linux.
It can ramp up thru HP-9000's, AS400's and even
the venerable S390 class. All this with absolutely
NO recoding required. Just recompile it and run it.
Microsoft has NO SUCH CAPABILITY. Microsoft is totally
limited to the spectrum of the ALPHA and the IBM PC/INTEL
arena.
There is simply too much candy on the table for your
average millionaire to say NO.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 06:02:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:31:44
> [...]
>>> Ireland - abortion is illegal
>>
>>So they don't kill their own young. Sounds much more enlightened than
>>the U.S. or Europe.
>
>Wow. That's cute. Chad is a pro-lifer. That would be a major score,
>if I could spank him in an abortion debate.
>
>You up for it, Chad?
>
I'll start this off.
We we aborted Chad we wouldn't have to read his loonacy
so that would be a good thing.
But first we have to invent a time machine; one which
will re-materialize in Texas.
>--
>T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 06:04:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rotten168 wrote:
>"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>>
>> "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:9g75ar$rtm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> 8<snipped communist apologist crap>8
>>
>> > They did it for the profit. That is all that is left of the "American
>> way".
>>
>> I'm assuming you are a U.S. citizen...
>>
>> Then here's a suggestion... get the fuck out if
>> it's so bad here. Nobody's coercing you to stay
>> here. If you don't like it here, then leave.
>>
>> What? You don't want to leave? Hmmm... I wonder
>> why that is?
>
>But maybe he believes in his country enough to want to change it. One of
>the reasons that America's inner cities decayed so much is that people
>who became successful left them instead of staying behind to try and
>make them better for other people.
>
>Not everyone is apathetic you know.
>
I thought Steven S. Edwards II was an inner-city kid?
I mean, wouldn't that explain a lot of things?
>--
>- Brent
>
>"General Veer, prepare your underpants for ground assault."
>- Darth Vader
>
>http://rotten168.home.att.net
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
