Related link: http://www.xsltblog.com/archives/2006/03/windows_steals_1.html
Microsoft’s Windows edged out Unix in 2005 as the best-selling server operating system, research firm IDC said Wednesday, marking the first time Unix hasn’t held the top spot in more than a decade.
Okay, but by how much?
Windows servers accounted for $17.7 billion in revenues last year, the Framingham, Mass.-based research company said, while Unix-powered servers took in $17.5 billion.
Okay, so by $200 million then. A lot of money no matter which whey you look @it, but in the grand scheme of the overall market, it seems things are basically neck and neck. This is a good thing. One is pushing the other and vice-versa to become better, faster, more reliable, more secure, more user friendly, more overall value = The consumer, in this case corporations and small businesses across the world, but a consumer none-the-less, is benefiting because of this.
In fact, further in the above linked report we discover:
But Windows’ moving past Unix doesn’t mean the former top dog is going to quietly slink away, IDC analysts said.
“We do not believe that any one platform will be in a position to force another platform out of the marketplace for many years to come,” said Jean Bozman, vice president of worldwide server research, in a statement. “End users [will continue to] utilize a mix of operating systems in their infrastructures.”
Cool. So here’s my next question.
What about Linux? I’m assuming that given the fact that its an OSS product, that can be downloaded and used for free, the number must be laughably small in comparison, right?
Linux, the open-source offshoot of Unix, accounted for $5.7 billion in server sales during 2005.
*COUGH* I’m sorry *COUGH*|*COUGH* how much was that again?
Linux, the open-source offshoot of Unix, accounted for $5.7 billion in server sales during 2005.
For a free OSS system?
Hmmm… I’m trying to think:
Free != $5.7 billion, right?
[WW:Ether “Correct.”]
K, just checkin’.
So then how… wait… hold up… let me put this into something more tangible:
So what you’re saying is that Linux *DOES* have a business model that works?
But…
Okay, whatever… Nevermind… I’m still confused by all of this, but no doubt the numbers are correct and folks like RedHat, Suse/Ximian/Mono/Novell, IBM, etc… have figured out a good and proper way to make a business out of free software, and do so in a way that doesn’t cause the various OSS communities to revolt due to any notion they felt they were being taking advantage of… Something that always felt to me like it would eventually become a problem. These folks are not idiots. If they felt they were being taken advantage of it, we would know, I promise :)
All right, cool. Still don’t get it, but me not getting how they are doing it should be something for me to deal with, and not get in the way of simple acceptance. As such, accepted… Now lets move on.
Let’s get some growth rate figures:
The trend of Microsoft besting Unix appears to be accelerating, noted IDC. Windows server sales climbed 4.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2005, year-over-year, while Unix server revenues dropped 5 percent. Linux, meanwhile, posted double-digit year-over-year growth: fourth quarter 2005’s numbers were 20.8 percent higher than 2004’s.
Okay… so lets do some math.
—
Windows Server: +4.7%
Unix-based Servers: -5%
Total un-accounted for sales difference: 0.3%
Linux year-over-year growth*: +20.8%
Market Share:
It would be impossible to determine actual market share using the dollar figures presented, as market share (as long as I understand it correctly) is a representation of total number of new licenses sold as well as the total number of existing licenses currently in place. Without knowledge of the average cost per license it would be impossible to derive what that number is.
Now, I might be able to find that information if I looked… but I’m too damn lazy, so we won’t bring this into the equation until such time as the research effort seems justified in comparison to the amount of extra time I have each day to do such research. Not high on my list at the moment. Probably will never happen because of this. Sorry.
So, moving on lets pretend for a second that if we add up the sales of the above three represented systems, and setting aside the fact that there are going to be systems sold that are not represented by Windows, Unix, or Linux:
17.7 + 17.5 + 5.7 = 40.7 Billion US dollars in total server software sales during 2005.
Firstly, HOLY #$*!! Thats a lot of money!
Secondly, HOLY #$*!! Thats a lot of money!
Thirdly, HO… nevermind.
Fourthly, (if (40.7 == 100%) then ((5.7 div 40.7) = 14%) == true)
If the result of the above equation is, in fact, true, then setting aside the fact that total sales != market share here’s what were looking @:
With the notion that Linux sales are 20.8% higher in fourth quarter 2005 compared to fourth quarter 2004, and adding to this the fact that there is a 0.3% unaccounted for difference in sales growth between Windows and Unix, then I think we can accuratelly state:
Linux needs to be given a lot more credit than they have been. While it goes beyond this, lets look at two things Linux has proved:
* There *IS* a business model in OSS, and in particular Linux OSS
* Its time to start taking OSS software a lot more seriously than we have (if in fact “we” includes you. If you already take it seriously, then please remove yourself from “we”. Thanks! ;)
Now, with that said, I have my own feelings on what qualifies as a legitimate OSS product and what does not. Or better said, what qualifies as an OSS project that can be seen as beneficial to the Free Market Tech Economy, and one that can be seen as destructive to the Free Market Tech Economy. But I would prefer to not make that a primary point in this post, and instead keep Linux, a legitimate OSS project that is beneficial to the Free Market Tech Economy, as the primary focal point for this section.
Summary
Here’s what I think we can safely derive from all of this:
* The server software marketplace is alive and well
* Windows Servers needs to be given some credit by the folks who otherwise would not give it credit, for being a pretty kick a$$ server software system.
* Unix Servers need to be given credit for fighting tooth and nail and maintaining a solid piece of the server software market share.
* The result of these last two items is a better product that is more secure, reliable, efficient, and beneficial to all of us because of this.
* Linux, and the OSS movement in general need to be given both credit, and some serious respect for accomplishing what they have thus far.
These are all good things. And each one of use are benefiting from each piece of the server software puzzle because of this.
Thats pretty fantastic if you ask me. :)
Enjoy your knowledge that we have a strong, healthy, and interesting server software marketplace that is being fueled by strong competition, including Linux and Open Source Software in general, and we’re all better off because of this-enhanced day! :D
—
[*A comparison of last years fourth quarter compared to this years fourth year quarter (speaking in generic “year” terms)]
So is the server software market as healthy as I’m suggesting? Or am I missing something that needs to be accounted for?
(bit of a rant) Re: Still don't get it
My understanding is that a server sale is piece of kit running an operating system not a DVD containing an operating system. So when they say "$5.7 billion" in Linux server sales I take it to mean "$5.7 billion worth or servers shipped with Linux installed as specified by the buyer".
I see full page adverts in magazines for IBM PowerPC servers with either AIX UNIX on them or Linux. You can get HP Intel servers with either Windows or Linux. You can buy Sun Microsystems Athalon servers with either Solaris or Linux on them. Installed in the factory and shipped with all the correct device drivers. So a lot of different kit has shipped where the buyer had ticked the Linux box.
Under the terms of the GPL the firm is not selling you the operating system. They are selling you a server with the operating system Linux pre-installed, their tweaks to the Linux distribution (drivers etc), their testing on the Linux on the actual hardware, their support of the whole item, and other things that the GPL allows for. All of which to make the lives of the end user easier.
I got into Linux as a computer enthusiast. I currently work for a small bank than runs a lot of HP Intel servers and Windows and some older Sun boxes for web stuff. This year the bank has bought HP Intel servers with Linux on them to replace the aging Sun kit. We paid for servers with RedHat Linux installed and put these servers on the same hardware our support agreement as the Windows boxes. To get 3rd party support for the servers we extended our support agreements to cover the Linux operating system. If I die on the way to work and then some servers dies (of a broken heart) some 3rd party engineer comes in under the support contract to resurrect the server. RedHat provide software security patches on a paid basis. I would just love to compile all the code from source. When you are running a custom online banking application you have to consider that the bank would rather not be dependent on must my programming / sysadmin skills. They want a big firm backing me.
How exactly is all of this going to make the opensourcers feel "taken advantage of"? They would feel taken advantage of if the businesses in question (RedHat in this instance) were not giving back. So is big business giving back. Lets see. Take a look at this page http://www.osdl.org/about_osdl. It says that the Opensource Development Labs is the home of Linus Torvalds. But what about this page: http://www.osdl.org/about_osdl/board_of_directors.html/document_view and this page: http://groups.osdl.org/osdl_members/osdl_roster/ that name both HP and RedHat as member companies and affiliates? Shock! Horror! Linus has sold out to big business! Surely they must have him chained their against his will! Er. Nope. The truth is that there many, many full time software engineers paid by big business to work full time on Linux writing opensource code.
Which is why Linux is as amazing as it is. Fulltime Linux hackers like to raise their kids to go to college and pay their mortgages. They don't just live on air or simply exist within cyberspace. Some find a business that is backing Linux and they get a full time job and continue to improve Linux. They also want lots of good hardware to work with and lots of real world big problems to solve (see Carrier Grade Linux, Data Center Linux, Desktop Linux and Mobile Linux at the OSDL website).
Within a bank a server is not just a piece of software. It is an asset. It is software, hardware, depreciation, employee costs, 3rd party support contracts, training for employees and a lot of other stuff (budget, purchase orders, invoices, internal audit reviews, external audit reviews, penetration testing etc etc). Oh yes - and some business applications running on it that may be either homebrew, commercial or opensource. The fact that Linux is part of this picture to the tune of $5.7billion shows that opensource is here to stay. Everyone is a winner. The hobbyist and hardnosed business consultants alike...
(bit of a rebuttle) Re: Still don't get what?
I am dieing to understand what it was in this piece that caused such a title and need for a rant.
- I get it.
- The poing that I believe you are probably missing that would help in clearing things up: I come from a HEAVY Windows influenced background. I tend to take a pro MS view in many areas because there are folks who simply don't understand that MS is successful for a lot of reasons, that go beyond what they are willing to admit.
- That said, I also am a BIG fan if Linux. I made it a point to learn as much as I could about Linux over teh past two years of my life. The result:
- I use Linux-based Servers for about half of my equipment, Windows Server 2003 for the other half. Why? Because in some cases Linux is better, and in others Win2K3. Its simply a matter of primary purpose of any given server.
With all of this said, the piece that should help gel things for you:
- Linux, and subsequently those who are as passionate about it as it seems you are, is a fairly MAJOR minority in both the Desktop and Server market. There are a good 50-75% of the folks who might read this article who, by taking the approach I chose for this post, were able to see things from a different light. The point I was hoping to bring across : to them : was that its time to take Linux seriously, if in fact you do not already.
To you, you already get this. This article wasn't for you.
TO THE LINUX COMMUNITY: If you are the type that feels the need to try and disect a post in which has praised Linux and suggested to the non-Linux world "If not already, you need to take this seriously", pulling pieces out and attempting to use these to Soap box your views:
You're going to do more damage than you are good. People who use Windows and Unix, as compared in this article, are not stupid. They get it just as much as you get it. The fact that you have placed yourself in a world "above all others" because you seem to think you get it, and (as your title suggests) we (or I) don't....
Your going to see those numbers slide back down, not move up.
My final point regarding Linux was:
* Linux, and the OSS movement in general need to be given both credit, and some serious respect for accomplishing what they have thus far.
I just lost a bit of respect overall for the exact same reasons that agravate me about a good portion of the high and mighty Linux advocates.
Try to keep this in mind next time, k. Seriously, I like Linux, and would be bummed to see people who seem to find fault in everyone, including those who praise Linux, for the things "we still don't get"
I get it. We get it. And you still somehow seem to think that, in fact, we don't. You sure you get it as much as you think you do?
Based on your response, you don't.
One nice conclusion for us in the industry: the overall IT market is still growing very strongly.
I guess all those Indians and Chinese aren't "stealing all our jobs" after all.
Hi Al,
I most definitely agree. I can't remember what show it was: 60 minutes, 20/20, 48 Hours : one of those, but a few years back they did a piece that showcased a town in which "lost" their jobs (if not mistaken, it was a Levi's factory that was shut down and moved overseas) to cheaper overseas labor. Of course initially there was outrage, and fear, etc... all to be expected. Theres nothing wrong with being angry about these kinds of things, but maintaining anger instead of moving on certainly doesn't help -- which is exactly what these folks did.
The result: These folks were challenged to find new work. In some cases this required more education; so some folks went back to school and got more education. In other cases, it meant learning a new skill; so some folks learned new skills. Obviously the pattern here is easy to recognize so theres no point in showcasing each scenario which, in fact, did take place.
The interesting piece to all of this is that in the end, when all was said and done, their economy (it was a small town) actually became better, not worse, as was feared and expected. People found better, higher paying jobs. People found sanother skill that they didn't know they were capable of doing. All in all, these folks were actually grateful to (Levis?) for giving them a chance to move on... to challenge them to make something good out of something bad.
Now I have my doubts that EVERYONE in this town had the same positive results, and I don't want to suggest that this is and will be the case in every town something like this takes place. But I do believe it helps showcase the fact that losing jobs to overseas workers CAN actually result in a good, positive thing for both those who lost their jobs, and those who gained new jobs, as both sets of folks, no matter what region of the world they happen to live in, have been given a chance at a new, better overall life because of this change.
If I can boil this down into one moral for the entire story, it would be this:
The world does not consists of ONLY the United States. Good, honest, hard working folks exists everywhere... The notion that folks in the United States have to lose something so that folks in China, or Taiwan, or India, or any of these other countries can gain something it just silly. If it was impossible for the economy to grow without somebody or something losing something they needed to exists, the thought of a "Growing Economy" would survive about as long as it takes to speak these two words.
Of course, theres a balancing point that must be struck... and in the short term its difficult to try and keep things balanced such that you don't take too much away from one economy such that the initial result turns out to be devastating and EXTREMELY difficult to recover from. But it seems to me that in MOST cases there is enough play in the overall need for balance that as long as its not cheap, greedy, and short sighted CEO's leading the way, then overall the world is a better place because of this overall overseas labor trend.
Fortunately it seems that one of the positive things that seems to be taking place inside of the US Government is an attempt to pull in the reigns on corporate corruption. Cheap, greedy, and short sighted CEO's tend to be at or about corruption quality. Lets hope that the trend to clean out the corruption leads to an overall cleansing of the C-level types, and as such a balance can be struck that will make the overall world economy MUCH better than it was before all of this began to take place.