The overall Linux market is far larger than previous estimates show, a new study says. In an analysis of the Linux market released late Tuesday, market research firm IDC estimated that the Linux market — including servers, PCs and packaged software — is expected to register a 26% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) over five years, reaching a whopping $35.7 billion by 2008.
The revenue or marketshare of installed base? If the revenue for the sale of the OS itself, i imagine many whitebox systems with LAMP for hosting and SMB companies not calculated in.
I take these numbers with a sack of salt, because all the analysts seem to do is pull numbers out their arse. Im more interested in marketshare numbers – or am i? Really, i dont care
– Linux is a good solution for alot of things, marketshare or not.
Just like so much else published by IDC
I agree with Maltaq, white box LAMP deployments would considerably balloon usage estimates.
Linux marketshare will always be a mystery, such is to be expected with such free systems.
Laugh , Ignore, and Fight in this sequence
….and start publishing ‘unbiased, well-researched and vendor-neutral reports’. Thats were jobs are.
I´ll start by predicting that by 2008 China will be invaded by a horde of killer-penguins. And by 2011 Microsofts sole business left, will be selling Linux indemnification. At least… this is what my magic 8 ball tells me.
Linux and Microsoft are putting the squeeze on proprietary Unix in the server arena and Linux now has more desktop marketshare than Apple.
But what does “Users are waiting to speak out about Linux deployments on PCs until there’s full compatibility with Microsoft, Cohen added.” mean? Full wine compatibility…compatibility with .NET?
Of course you have to laugh at Cohen when he says things like Linux has the possibility of having 20% of the desktop market in 5 years.
But it is good news if it’s true that proprietary, packaged software is the fastest growing segment of the linux market.
There are plenty of clueless people in IT, so he probably does. 🙂
“And Linux still doen’t really threaten Windows on either the server or the desktop. ”
MS considers Linux the number one threat for itself and has publicly announced so. Linux is the fastest growing operating system in the world. period
“Just like so much else published by IDC”
IDC publishes reports favoring MS sometimes. are they financed by IBM too?. pretty strange theory
It’s worth noting that Linux market can achieve multi billion dollar revenue values without a single ‘desktop’ install.
The server and embedded markets alone are huge.
I feel linux is approaching the desktop from the right angle, as a reliable general purpose OS that can be used for desktop computing, rather than the Windows angle, which is a nice desktop OS which can also be used for general purpose computing.
Why would anyone pay for linux?
Is it not free?
Because companies have this strange idea that they need to have some kind of support for their vital IT infrastructure. Go figure.
You partially misunderstand. “Free” in the context that it is used in Linux has more meaning that just ‘free as in cost.’ What you pay for (if you’re a business) is typically the ability to call somebody if it breaks.
I dunno, why would consulting be the most profitable part of IT?
If you can read and have half a brain you can support linux yourself. All the the info you need is on the internet you even have the source code.
Unfortunately this does not include the majority of corporate America and MCSEs.
The corporates are so willing to pay for support as they would have someone accountable for when things go awry. I assume that if you were running a business things would be different, but that is the mindset of corporate America.
Again, this is not about you and me having the 1337 hax0r latest linux stuff running on our boxen, but about companies that do need support, regardless of what OS they are running.
>The corporates are so willing to pay for support as they
>would have someone accountable for when things go awry.
Read a Microsoft EULA recently? I’ll summarise:
“Whatever this software does, we are not responsible. Go away.”
I always get annoyed when I hear people complain about some distro makers such as SuSe, Linspire or whomever asking for money for a product of a simple set of free open source projects.
Now, sadly we live in a world that is dependent on something called money… we can’t really live without it and due to this fact I see nothing wrong with asking for a little bit of money for all the work you do with putting a distro together.
Now, I also know that no one asked for anyone to put a distro together and it’s the dev’s fault if he decides to put a lot of time and effort into putting a product together and in return maybe asking for a little bit of money for a boxed set with a manual.
One more thing, distro’s are just open source projects put together around the Linux Kernel, and they all tend to be under the same license (GPL or whatever). The point behind these licenses is to keep it “free” as in the souce is freely availible to anyone who feels the need to tinker with a program for whatever reason, no necessarily FREE OF CHARGE… this is a huge misconception that many people have adapted to and now feel that everything linux related should be free of charge… well no one can live on anything free, unless the whole world agreed to this it would be impossible.
I for one have no probelms with paying for a distro, just as long as I’m not paying the prices MS asks for. Most of the distros usually only ask for prices in the range of $1-$80 (SuSe is the most expensive of the lot that I’ve seen so far. I myself use Slackware and play around with others for fun)
(Remember this is just my opinion, don’t take it to heart if I upset you)
Just my 2(Canadian)cents.
Corporate customers of a linux distro don’t just get support, they buy influence. If theres a feature missing from windows, they’re typically caught between microsoft and a hard place. If theres a feature missing in a linux distro, they have a better chance of getting that feature added. Both because of the smaller customer base at linux distros, and through offering code bounties and hiring the programmers of projects that they use.
“Why would anyone pay for linux?
Is it not free?”
People with slow internet connections.
If you can read and have half a brain you can support linux yourself. All the the info you need is on the internet you even have the source code.>>
1) Suppose the problem you’re having is that you can’t connect to the internet?
2) To give an example of the typical CRAP instructions on the web — Open a new Terminal.app window and run the following: “fink scanpackages; fink index”, or use the included Fink Commander GUI application (which must be placed in a real folder on your system, not run from the disk image) and run the following commands from its menu: Source->scanpackages followed by Source->Tools->index.
Which is all well and good, except when you open Fink Commander and discover there is no “Tools” menu w/in “Source”. (Of course, if they weren’t so picture phobic, this error would’ve been caught with a simple screen grab!)
Now, I took a SWAG and guessed what the author meant and ended up in the right menu. But had I not known what “Tools” tends to be called in OS X, I would’ve been stumped; however,I guarantee you that for many people this mistake would’ve been the end of the adventure.
There’s no help line to call and had a noobie gone to the Fink Forums they would’ve likely been told to RTFM or insulted for not knowing the “obvious” correct menu off of that choice.
Why not use the CLI?
Because the first half of that instruction set isn’t exactly clear, despite the fact that these are instructions that claim to be written “for new users”.
1) Can I type that line from the first prompt I hit?
2) Is that the only thing I have to type?
3) Do I include the quotes? (I gurarantee you it’s faster to do a copy and paste from the browser into the terminal than to be flipping between windows and typing a long command you’re not that familiar with and a significant number of people are going to go for the C&P.)
—
The page I quoted from is here:
http://fink.sourceforge.net/download/index.php
I *guarantee* you grandma is not getting Fink on her Mac all by herself if she follows those instructions.
1) They have an error in them.
2) The writer is clearly an experienced Linux user, and makes several assumptions instead of clearly and simply spelling out what somebody “new” really needs to do.
3) Problem #2 could be avoided if the writer would clearly and directly state that he assumes an intermediate *nix familiarity for those “new to fink” and that beginners need to go to [link to alternate instruction set]*
*Of course, that would actually entail writing an instruction set, chock full of screen grabs, that correctly assumes that grandma knows nothing about *nix.
Right, and the time you / your corporation spends ‘supporting linux itself’ is of course free!
I mean how do you really track Linux users? FOr example, I just bought a laptop with Windows on it. First thing I’m going to do is put linux on them. Furthermore I have two other computers here with linux on it but I built them. At my work there are several computers running linux as well and only one (RHEL) isn’t available by a free download.
So if this really is just the numbers coming in from purchases with Linux installed, or in some way paying for linux, then this really is impressive. It’s important to remember how important these numbers are too since businesses will base their decision’s on these types of facts (since they need to know if the revenue stream exists).
Numbers like this will only be really accurate when we can order the computers we want without windows on it, something that is becoming a reality more and more, but defenitley still not the case (especially with laptops).
While individuals may not see much value if you’re running a business then having the support is a big deal, which is why I’m running an RHEL box. The things as solid as a rock, the best server I’m running (I run windows servers too and they are getting better than NT days for sure).
What’s up with the pop-ups on this site? That’s annoying!
Anyone that needs proof why Linux is a better server OS than Windows can just tell there System admin to reboot there server. If it is a Windows Admin, he will have no problem kicking everyone off the server (the users are used to it) and rebooting it. If it is Unix/Linux admin, they will request proof beyond a doubt for the reason, and if is required…..they will start to cry!.
“No… My uptime!!!!”
It’s really not fair to ask Linux admins to reboot. Last time I needed to (building electrical maintenance), my box (the one I use every day for GUI development, thesis writing and server development had been up for 250+ days.
It was a sad time….
Win will lose ultimately because it is such a low quality OS compared to a number of other OSs design more thoroughly and without integrated high level code in the kernel.
Linux kernel and many of the key GNU software pieces including other higher level software making up the OS will win in the end simply because it is a better design, much tougher against unexpected or illegal events and because it is so modular and one part can easily replace another.
The modularisation brings competition which brings innovation.
Anyone that needs proof why Linux is a better server OS than Windows can just tell there System admin to reboot there server.
I’ve been trying to work out how I’m not going to do this on a remote hosted Windows 2003 Server when I install some new software. We can’t afford to reboot a server that is remote hosted as we don’t have access to it, and the usability is shocking. Given that this is a server, perhaps running critical services, when it wants to reboot the server it just gives you a yes/no dialogue box with no regard as to the function this server may perform. With Linux or any Unix it’s easy – install and start the service, or restart it if necessary. The IP filtering has improved somewhat, but it’s still pretty laughable. Give me IPTables and a decent front-end in Shorewall any day.
Using a remote Windows 2003 Server has been pretty scary, and I have no desire to repeat the experience.
Call me a purist but big business ( Novell, IBM, HP ) should stay out of Linux. They don’t “give” stuff away without an eventual payback…
-Nx
Administrators that don’t reboot ever 60 days are:
a) lazy
b) negligent
Long uptimes practically guarantee security issues. They mean that the kernel is probably not up to date and the software probably isn’t, either. It also usually means that the administrator hasn’t shut the machine down regularly to give a blast of compressed air to lift dust off the interior of the machine, and the machine could be running significantly hotter than anticipated.
In short, keep your machines up to date and clean.
”
Call me a purist but big business ( Novell, IBM, HP ) should stay out of Linux. They don’t “give” stuff away without an eventual payback…
”
Ummm…yeah, perhaps the services they sell??? Linux and big business brings us good driver support. You may as well take advantage.
MS considers Linux the number one threat for itself and has publicly announced so. Linux is the fastest growing operating system in the world. period
People like free stuff.
“People like free stuff.”
free stuff has been ignored for years. they will only accept free stuff if its useful to them….
if you mean freedom then i differ
Administrators that don’t reboot ever 60 days are:
a) lazy
b) negligent
LOL! What if the machine doesn’t have local users or is not plugged on a network? What about those VAX clusters which have an uptime of 12 years (your title included ‘Linux’ but your message did not)? What if nodes are rebooted each at a time without any overal downtime? What if hardware is replacable while the machine is running? What if the kernel was simply secure and did not demand a reboot? What if its a microkernel in which one restarts only a service (i’m not talking about Windows NT here)?
If Linux embedded wants to compete with say QNX and other embedded solutions they better aim for 100% uptime.
After an onslaught of software updates and patches from Redmond, especially in large IT environments, can prove extremely frustrating for any system administrator.
Redmond-based products must often be rebooted after a patch is installed unlike Linux.
Until I stopped this moronic patching, I felt my systems had come to resemble the groundhogs. Constantly power up and power down in an endless repetative cycle of rebooting.
I consider a hardened server running Linux with a decent uptime, yes, I constantly check my system logs and messages, to be less prone to attack that pop-goes-the-weasel Redmond machine.
If you can read and have half a brain you can support linux yourself. All the the info you need is on the internet you even have the source code.
Well, if you can support it yourself then it is free as in money and free as in speak.
However, even if you have half a brain the best use of it may not be to support Linux. If you have a business, you may make more money foucusing your customers and your products than to support your Linux box in your datacenter.
Besides if something goes wrong, it is always better if its done by sombody else than you or your employees, especially if this sombody else claims that he is an expert avoiding it going wrong. That expert is more likely to give you some extra houers to save his reputation than an employee of yours.