Linux-Advocacy Digest #524, Volume #31 Wed, 17 Jan 01 00:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Re: More Linux woes ("Gary Hallock")
Re: More Linux woes
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: You and Microsoft... (Craig Kelley)
Re: Windows 2000
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? (Bones)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? (Bones)
Re: Poor Linux (Bones)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Server Saga (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:35:07 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:03:22 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:uU296.179774$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Tom Wilson wrote:
>>
>> > Oh for the love of God (not Bill Gates), don't do that!!!
>>
>> Instead of "Om... om... om..." do you think "Bill Gatessss... Bill
>> Gatessss..." will work?
>>
>> Hey, if I pray to ol' Bill, do you think I'll be a millionaire overnight?
>>
>> > If you insist on MS, at least install NT or 2K...
>> > WinME is a TOY!
>>
>> NT or 2K on 32MBytes of RAM. Be serious, please!
>
>Ewwww, I missed that part...
Xfree runs fine on 32M, even with a DnD desktop and a nice
WindowManager running... <snicker>
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:35:20 +0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Charlie Ebert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gary Hallock wrote:
>>Try Lotus Notes on Linux.
>>
>
> I've always wanted to try that.
>
> How do you like it...
>
>
> Charlie
>
It's great (well as good as Lotus Notes can be, anyway). Much more
reliable than running on NT. And I can run Notes on my Thinkpad and
redirect the display to my AIX box. No fumbling with multiple
keyboards.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:38:18 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:05:48 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Todd wrote:
>>
>> > Linux *is* too hard to use - Linux will *never* replace Windows on the
>> > desktop if Linux users have this attitude.
>>
>> The desktop is dying, anyway. The future is embedded, where Linux
>dominates
>> already.
>
>Funny... I've heard this comment for years now...
Physical memory really hasn't been cheap long enough for
general purpose embedded systems to really take off.
>
>Last couple of years it was Java replacing Windows...
>
>Hmmmm... guess some things never change!
Not too long ago, the RAM in an 8M palmpilot would cost
you more than twice the retail of that palmpilot.
OTOH, the 'embedded gaming device' market has been more
lucrative than the PC gaming market for a couple of years
now.
--
In general, Microsoft is in a position of EXTREME conflict of
interest being both primary supplier and primary competitor.
Their actions must be considered in that light. How some people
refuse to acknowledge this is confounding.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:29:35 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bones wrote:
>
> > > In article <93rmod$uhu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) wrote:
> >
> > > Keep in mind that it is Linux/UNIX that
> > > has over 70% of the server market,
> > > and Windows NT/2000 that struggles,
> > > using $Billions in ads, to retain 20-27%
> > > of the server market (depending on which
> > > niche you are checking).
Clarifications:
According to Netcraft Surveys, NT holds less than 22% of the
web server market. An IDC survey indicates that Linux is
holding nearly 30% of the market while NT has now shrunk
to less than 27% of the server market.
Keep in mind that this is by number of server licenses shipped.
It does not factor in replications (which can legally and easily
be done with Linux, and are vigoruously prosecuted with NT/2000).
Since Microsoft charges nearly 10 times the price, NT claims a slight
lead over UNIX in terms of Dollar Volume (where Sun Solaris in high
volumes pushes up the revenue).
> > Jeez Rex, I hate to play MS Advocate,
> > but which server market it this?
I cited a reference several times
http://www.netcraft.com/survey/index-200007.html#active
At the bottom of the page is a more detailed breakdown.
The "other" catagory is a mix of BSD variants, Mac OS/X (BSD)
and other versions of UNIX such as AIX, HP_UX, and IRIS.
> > I'm positive that it isn't servers out on the
> > Internet (perhaps Apache has
> > somewhere in the 50% range including all
> > of the platforms it runs on)
>
> Looks to me like Rex is right on -
>
> Fact: Unix/Linux has ~70% of the web server market, that much is
> immediately obvious - apache alone accounts for over 60% of the
> web server market, with the rest of the 70% figure easily accounted
> for by Unix servers running netscape, thttpd, zeus, aolserver etc.
>
> jjs
>
>
--
Rex Ballard - Sr I/T Systems Architect
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 80 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 01/14/00)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:37:07 GMT
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:e4996.2831$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> news:tR396.84229$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Way to snip the part about this being a WORKSTATION conversation genius.
>
> (Alruight then. Fair enough. Smartass mode off)
>
> Honest question: Do you really find crashing of even that sort
> (Workstation) to be acceptable and do you find those who don't to be
> unreasonable?
I find that people complaining about "crashing workstations" to be primarily
caused by the use of Microsoft's Windows 95 & 98 operating systems. Neither
of which I have much respect for. As for claiming that Windows NT 4
"bluescreens every half hour" are caused by lackluster administrative
policies. Windows NT had stability problems, but Service pack 4 hammered
most stability problems out, from then on it was securty problems until 6a,
when it was discontinued in favor of 2000, which seems to be showing a lot
of technological advancement on Microsoft's part.
Even then, when something crashes, it crashes, and the reset switch is just
around the corner. I've seen Linux lock up, I've seen Windows lock up. It
stops responding, you hit reset. It's a workstation, I think someone can
wait two, or three minutes to resume their work.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: 16 Jan 2001 21:40:39 -0700
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Kev Ford wrote:
>
> > Windows 98 will crash every 2/3 days if it is doing any sort of
> > networking. Witness
> > my so called web proxy that became utterly unresponsive after about 50
> > hours uptime.
>
> That explains why our Windows 98 SE system at work stays up for months on
> end serving files to our group of a dozen developers with no problem at all.
Strange -- nobody even knew about the 47 day limit for Windows until
VMWare came out...
(I've never seen Windows/DOS stay up for days, much less "months")
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:46:11 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:02:11 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:10:28 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:49:07 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 06:22:55 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> >> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 14:43:03 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch
>> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >news:Fzn86.57932$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> [deletia]
>> >> >> >industry or even
>> >> >> >> >> the Macintosh.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Yes, there was a long history of such in the scientific
>> >> >> >and perhaps even
>> >> >> >> >banking industry, but not the *PC* industry.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> So? Are you trying to tell us that BillyBob was so
>> >> >> >incompetent
>> >> >> >> and disinterested in his 'beefier' potential rivals that
>> >> >> >he
>> >> >> >> was completely unaware of any of that?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >His company was pretty much tied to IBM/Intel from the
>> >> >> >get-go and for good reason because that's where the money
>> >> >> >was.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That's no excuse. As others here have pointed out, there were
>> >> >> common data formats used across 6502's,68000's & 8086's years
>> >> >> ago and Microsoft even had some early participation in the Mac
>> >> >> apps market.
>> >> >
>> >> >Being paid by an industry powerhouse to build an OS for a new product
>> >line
>> >>
>> >> DOS really has nothing to do with this discussion.
>> >
>> >The data formats it and the underlying architecture forced on people are,
>> >though.
>>
>> Do you actually have the slightest clue what you are talking about?
>
>Can the arrogance, there's no need for it.
Why? Someone is very ignorant.
DOS didn't even provide a graphics subsystem.
If ONE had any experience with DOS AT ALL, one would clearly
remember the VIDEO DRIVERS for INDIVIDUAL APPLICATIONS.
DOS didn't do SQUAT.
Beyond very low level programming interfaces, quite apart from
the data, DOS didn't impose any constraints on the applcations
programmer.
This is PAINFULLY obvious to anyone with even a passing
familiarity with the thing. Those things really bit you
in the ass in daily PC use.
>
>>
>> DOS is a simple program loader. It doesn't do much of ANYthing to
>> constrain end user applications. It doesn't even provide basic
>> user or process management services or even a device driver interface.
>
>Couple that with lame hardware and multiply by massive marketing and hype
>and you have the reason for the incompatabilities. MS didn't really give a
Nope.
That just demonstrates a pattern of total negligence.
That doesn't demonstrate any technological barriers.
>damn about supporting other platforms or doing much to improve theirs since
>the vast majority of systems shipping were IBM based and MS powered. Other
...yeah, like the Mac version of Excell that they pushed <snicker>.
>software vendors didn't have a choice either. It was either concentrate
>support on that one platform or take a losing bet on one of the others.
This is pure bullshit.
If you're going to support multiple platforms, then you are already
engaging in a considerable expense. Making sure that a wp8 file
from a Sparc will look the same as a wp8 file on a PC is not that
much more of a burden.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >is a pretty good excuse! Also, if anyone was going to win the
>"standards
>> >> >war", it was going to be a juggernaut like IBM.
>> >>
>> >> Microsoft could merely have made their Mac apps conform to the
>> >> way PC's do things right down the endianness of the raw data.
>> >
>> >Would IBM have liked that?
>>
>> Beyond 1985, they probably had little choice.
>>
>> Certainly beyond 1992 they had no choice.
>>
>> That's 9 years ago & 6 years before Office 98
>
>And now MS is the software version of the 1980's IBM. Actually, they've
>outdone IBM by leaps and bounds when it comes to a market stranglehold. They
>dictate, for the home and business desktop user, what is standard and what
>isn't. They don't have a financial incentive to make their software
>compatable with anything other than the Intel-Based PC. They couldn't care
That's not a technological argument.
That's not even an engineering argument.
You've said nothing that supports the idea that Microsoft is
somehow constrained or really even has a sound motive to
skimp when it comes to cross platform data compatibility
in 1998.
>less about supporting their Apple based releases. They all but killed Apple.
>It's of no concequence to them. Not like there's any money in it.
Yet they continue.
They must see some point.
Also, that they don't view the Mac as a genuinely viable
platform is no excuse. It's still not a motivation that
fits into a profit and loss calculation.
[deletia]
--
Also while the herd mentality is certainly there, I think the
nature of software interfaces and how they tend to interfere
with free choice is far more critical. It's not enough to merely
have the "biggest fraternity", you also need a way to trap people
in once they've made a bad initial decision.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:51:56 GMT
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
> Linux is WIDE OPEN to attack and only a seasoned pro is going to know
> how to shut things down via inetd to make it reasonably safe.
I guess if you pick the "server" installation method.
> I would be terrified to run a newly installed Linux system on a cable
> or dsl or any "on all the time" connection because you WILL be hacked
> in short order.
> Win2k show ALL relevant ports closed by default on both sites.
Does Windows2k still have that problem that NT 4 had? You know, all the hard
disk volumes are shared for "administrative purposes" and every share
includes "full access" to the account "Everyone" by default? I would say
that this, coupled with the fact that installing any kind of network device
automatically configures TCP/IP, NetBEUI and IP encapsulation for
NetBEUI is a decent security problem.
If Win2k Pro's typical install included a net time server, web server, ftp
server, mail server, nntp daemon and whatever else is included with every
Linux distribution, those would be running on 2K Pro as well. But we aren't
comparing two items that are equivalent.
You know my PalmPilot is more secure out of the box than Windows is. Sure, I
tested it, and there was no way anyone could access it from the Internet.
That must make it a superior computing choice to Windows 2k.
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:51:57 GMT
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Let's look at hardware, detection and drivers.
OK.
> Linux claimed it detected my Logitech WheelMouse and Matrox card yet
> in reality neither was detected properly.
Why, did it say your mouse was a CD-ROM drive or something?
I like when Windows says its detecting hardware, but in reality you are
waiting those five minutes while it scours your hard disk looking for legacy
drivers. What's really a hoot is when it installs drivers for a device that
isn't even attached to your system, or when it doesn't find anything at all
(until two months later when it suddenly finds your hardware).
I prefer not to do any hardware detecting under Linux myself. I just make
sure that my kernel has the support I need, and all my hardware works
immediately and flawlessly thereafter, for ever and ever. Amen.
> Linux also could not detect my IBM/Sony monitor...
That's funny. "Uh oh, I picked the wrong monitor! This is one of those IBMs
where the raster goes in the opposite direction. Damn!"
>, printer (Lexmark)
Why would you want your OS to detect this? Is this some kind of internal
printer thats plugged into a PCI slot where you can't see it?
> or scanner (Canon) or digital USB camera (xirlink).
OK, you got me on this one. You must have missed the dozens of messages in
this NG about kernel 2.4, the first with decent support for USB peripherals.
> Win2k detected every single piece of hardware and they all worked, and
> in fact even the scanner and and digital camera worked.
Excellent! You have chosen your hardware wisely.
> The SBLive drivers stuttered a little, but a quick trip to Creative fixed
> that problem with newer drivers.
Nope, you broke your own rules. Fixing things this way requires "work" and
"thought", things which suddenly become off-limits when you are kicking
around Linux. You have to leave it the way it was and go post four rants a
day about it in the NT group, or risk being a flamebaiting hypocrite.
> Sound?
> Linux seems to think my SBLive and CDROM were designed to only provide
> DAE mode of operation which is nice if you want to watch your system
> crawl to a halt.
Here we go with this again. Why don't you just call your Linux vendor's tech
support number? You DID purchase a version of Linux with support, RIGHT? You
must have, since it would be ludicrous for you to profess your total lack of
practical experience with Linux and then go out and buy a disc without
manuals or support.
> Under WIn2k I could turn it off by checking a box.
> I still have not figured out how to do it under Linux, and no Penguinista
> has been able to tell me how.
Because we are probably running ten different distributions configured one
thousand different ways. Your problem is unique among the other people in
this group. Go back and read some of the replies to your flamebait, at least
one other person has a similar setup but does not have the problem. Plus you
were the one who went nuts tweaking a bunch of different settings without
taking note of what you did.
Also you're posting in the wrong newsgroup.
Also you're obnoxious most of the time, which definitely isn't generating
any sympathy.
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:51:55 GMT
> Classy Jones wrote:
> Still can't work with UDMA 66 and 100 out the box.
Flamebaiter.
I've had zero trouble running it on UDMA66/100 machines. I've run a Mandrake
disc I have on three different ones with no problems.
But my distro didn't come out of a box, it came out of an envelope, so maybe
that's your problem. Try inserting the installation CD in a cardboard
envelope and then removing it. It should work after that.
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:56:13 GMT
In <3a644117$2$fuzhry$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>No, the correct explanation is that you're an illiterate fool. Where
>does it say "mainframe"?
>
uhhh, let's see ... you can run DOS apps using Softwindows in Irix ...
so I guess that you couldn't *possibly* assume one can run DOS
programs on an SGI machine ... Irix has no more relation to MIPS
than mainframe to OS/390 ... here's a quicky for you from an IBM
page that mentions "mainframe" :
"We offer network professionals a wealth of courses from beginner
to advanced to help expand their knowledge of IBM OS/390 (and
the earlier counterpart MVS) mainframe systems."
now where was that local PLO office ? Maybe it's about time
to make a donation ...
--
härad ængravvåd
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Date: 16 Jan 2001 21:55:47 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) writes:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Craig Kelley
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on 15 Jan 2001 16:42:32 -0700
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> pip wrote:
> >>
> >> > There is a big difference between choosing the wrong run-level and
> >> > not having simple tools installed! On some options under mandrake
> >> > it assumes that you don't need to install a ftp server of telnet server
> >> > and these tools are *very* handy when setting up a Linux boxen!
> >>
> >> And the options aren't made very clear, I think.
> >
> >I wish NT had runlevels. You can choose between "run everything" and
> >"run nothing"; not very nice.
>
> OK, so it has 2 runlevels. What, you need more? :-)
Microsoft would have MANY more supporters if NT3/4 had supported
runlevel 3-ish setup like UNIX does.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:55:23 GMT
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ironiclly, the process of installing hardware under MS-DOS WAS less
> > step intensive than under Linux today.
>
> No way. Having to deal with HIMEM.SYS, ISA card IRQ/PORT issues,
> lack of system resources, MSCDEX.EXE, drivers in CONFIG.SYS needing to
> be called in AUTOEXEC.BAT (God forbid you ever upgrade a CD-ROM
> drive!)... the list goes on and on.
Sounds a lot like "download this dependency", edit "/etc/***", if you
compiled **** with the --*** flag, you need to edit line 133 of
/etc/X11/***.conf to accomidate your new.."
Come on, were and are both task and time intensive.
> People somehow dealt with it, just like they deal with Linux -- it's
> only a few people (like yourself) that complain about how "hard" Linux
> is.
People complained how hard dos WAS, it changed. People are complaining how
hard Linux IS, well...?
> > I am fully aware of how DOS was. It's quite structurally similar to how
> > Linux IS. Not technicaly mind you, but from the END USER STANDPOINT.
>
> And yet it was the most popular operating system of it's time.
>
> (and Linux is soooo much more, of course)
As far as the end user is concerned, it's a 32-bit version of DOS and
Windows 3.1, with different names, and a UNIX file system.
> > Win3.0 was an 8 bit user interface, with no ability to augment anything
on
> > the OS level. Win 3.1 was a 16 bit platform, with psudo 32-bit
extentions
> > that could augment functions of DOS, and provide SEAMLESS transparency.
>
> Windows 3.0 was 16 bit, as was a special version of 2.x (memory
> failing!) -- perhaps that is what you meant.
Got my 8's and my 16's mixed up. Oops!
> > The POINT is that WINDOWS PROVIDED A BETTER UI. And it did it by
bypassing
> > the shortfalls of DOS. And the CONSUMER LIKED IT.
>
> ...and they didn't have to throw away their old software, which was
> the mistake that Apple made with the high-cost Macintosh (and,
> Commodore made with the most excellent Amiga -- many C64 users
> abandoned ship).
As well!
> > Win95 introduced the DirectX multimedia layer, which revoulitionized
> > PC gaming.
> <pedantic> DirextX didn't come out until well after Windows 95
Witch my sords mor fe, yill wa? Kew ynow mhat I went.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:54:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > In article <93rmod$uhu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) wrote:
>
> > Keep in mind that it is Linux/UNIX that has over 70% of the server market,
> > and Windows NT/2000 that struggles, using $Billions in ads, to retain 20-27%
> > of the server market (depending on which niche you are checking).
>
> Jeez Rex, I hate to play MS Advocate, but which server market it this? I'm
> positive that it isn't servers out on the Internet (perhaps Apache has
> somewhere in the 50% range including all of the platforms it runs on), and
> Linux definitely doesn't have anywhere near 70% with file and print
> servers... Where are those numbers from?
>
> ----
> Bones
http://www.eb-mag.com/eb-mag/Issues/2000/200008/04linux.asp
This is a slightly different, and more up to date breakdown.
Linux has 5% of the market by dollar volume, but Microsoft charges 10 times
the price of Linux for their licenses, which means that Linux actually holds
nearly 25% by license shipments. When you add the number of second and third
installations from a single shipment, (completely legal in Linux, prosecuted
vigorously in NT) Linux could even have as much as 40% of the market.
These were 1999 shipments (early 1999). Indicators are that the Windows
NT/2000 market has grown about 20-25%, while the Linux market has grown
150-250%.
It's very hard to track Linux usage because Linux servers rarely have to be
requisitioned (they are usually machines headed for the Recycle bin), the
Licenses rarely have to be authorized by a purchase order (many Linux users
either expense it to petty cash or simply pay the $20-$80 out of petty cash.
In fact, Linux only recently appeared on the Radar screen when Red Hat began
offering Red Hat Linux with Websphere and DB2 as a $1000 package. IBM
restricts this to 999 users per processor.
Another IDC Linux survey of Client Operating Environments listed Linux at 4%
of the market. Since that time, Linux has grown at 150-250%, about tripled,
while Microsoft Windows has remained pretty much flat. This could result in
Linux reaching roughly 15% of the client licenses shipped or sold in the last
year. This probably isn't too far off. Mandrake, SuSE, and Caldera have all
been turning in some very respectable numbers. Red Hat is still primarily
focused on the Server market, and they are growing at a respectable rate.
Many industry analysts are also noticing that many of the companies
that have been "in the black" since inception, who never went to IPO
because they didn't need to, are not only profitable but thriving.
And most of these companies are running Linux or FreeBSD.
--
Rex Ballard - Sr I/T Systems Architect
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 80 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 01/14/00)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
