Microsoft, IBM mentioned as big winners in gaining server share, s/w.Gee, no mention of Linux or Apache--why is that? - Linux

This is a discussion on Microsoft, IBM mentioned as big winners in gaining server share, s/w.Gee, no mention of Linux or Apache--why is that? - Linux ; Microsoft, IBM mentioned as big winners in gaining server share, s/w. Gee, no mention of Linux or Apache--why is that? RL Spending on Servers Shows Signs of Slowing By BEN CHARNY August 28, 2008; Page B6 World-wide spending on servers, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: Microsoft, IBM mentioned as big winners in gaining server share, s/w.Gee, no mention of Linux or Apache--why is that?

  1. Microsoft, IBM mentioned as big winners in gaining server share, s/w.Gee, no mention of Linux or Apache--why is that?

    Microsoft, IBM mentioned as big winners in gaining server share, s/w.
    Gee, no mention of Linux or Apache--why is that?

    RL

    Spending on Servers Shows Signs of Slowing
    By BEN CHARNY
    August 28, 2008; Page B6

    World-wide spending on servers, the powerful machines businesses rely
    on as part of their computer networks, is showing signs of slowing
    down, according to market-research provider IDC.

    IDC reported Wednesday that global server sales between April and June
    rose a relatively healthy 6.4% to $13.9 billion. But the growth came,
    in part, because manufacturers cut prices on popular product lines.
    That worries IDC because cutting prices is how companies typically
    react when faced with softening demand.

    On Wednesday, IDC reported that International Business Machines Corp.
    and Dell Inc. were the biggest server market-share gainers in the
    second quarter when measured by revenue.

    IBM's market share was 33.2% on 13.8% annual growth, driven by sales
    of its System z and System p servers, IDC said.

    Hewlett-Packard Inc. was among the worst performers, IDC said. The No.
    2 ranked server seller saw its market share drop to 27.4% from 28.3% a
    year earlier. H-P's revenue growth was also a relatively anemic 3.1%
    on the year, IDC reported.

    No. 3 Dell saw its market share jump nearly a full percentage point to
    12.5% of revenue, on revenue growth of 14.1%.

    Sun Microsystems Inc. maintained its No. 4 slot, though its revenue
    declined 7.2% to $1.5 billion, while its market share fell to 11.2%
    from 12.8%.

    Microsoft Corp. was another big winner in the quarter by capturing the
    single largest amount of spending on software, IDC said.

  2. Re: Microsoft, IBM mentioned as big winners in gaining server share, s/w. Gee, no mention of Linux or Apache--why is that?

    On 2008-09-03, raylopez99 wrote:
    > Microsoft, IBM mentioned as big winners in gaining server share, s/w.
    > Gee, no mention of Linux or Apache--why is that?


    Because the article only mentions _spending_ on software.


    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  3. Re: Microsoft, IBM mentioned as big winners in gaining server share,s/w. Gee, no mention of Linux or Apache--why is that?

    On Sep 4, 1:23*pm, Linonut wrote:

    >
    > And, since we're about 10 years into the time in which Linux exploded
    > into the public's (read: *conventional media) conscious, and you still
    > haven't figured it out, well, you just might as well give up, son.


    Try explaining it Nut.

    >
    > --
    > Lies! *All lies! *You're all lying against my boys!
    > * * * * * * * * -- Ma Barker


    Lies, like Linux lying lies.

    RL

  4. Re: Microsoft, IBM mentioned as big winners in gaining server share, s/w. Gee, no mention of Linux or Apache--why is that?

    On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 08:57:40 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:

    > IBM's market share was 33.2% on 13.8% annual growth, driven by sales of
    > its System z and System p servers, IDC said.


    Windows does not run on System z or p but Linux does. In fact it is
    Linux that has revitalized the System z mainframe market.

    Bug


  5. Re: Microsoft, IBM mentioned as big winners in gaining server share, s/w. Gee, no mention of Linux or Apache--why is that?

    * raylopez99 peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On Sep 4, 1:23*pm, Linonut wrote:
    >
    >> And, since we're about 10 years into the time in which Linux exploded
    >> into the public's (read: *conventional media) conscious, and you still
    >> haven't figured it out, well, you just might as well give up, son.

    >
    > Try explaining it Nut.


    Nope. You're one of those "in one ear, out the other ear" trolls, like
    Snit, though you don't whine quite as much.

    I might as well explain GNU/Linux's place in the IT market to my beagle.

    --
    Everywhere I look I see NEGATIVITY and ASPHALT ...

  6. Re: Microsoft, IBM mentioned as big winners in gaining server share,s/w. Gee, no mention of Linux or Apache--why is that?

    "Linonut" stated in post
    Frbwk.22287$XB4.7503@bignews9.bellsouth.net on 9/5/08 7:39 AM:

    > * raylopez99 peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> On Sep 4, 1:23*pm, Linonut wrote:
    >>
    >>> And, since we're about 10 years into the time in which Linux exploded
    >>> into the public's (read: *conventional media) conscious, and you still
    >>> haven't figured it out, well, you just might as well give up, son.

    >>
    >> Try explaining it Nut.

    >
    > Nope. You're one of those "in one ear, out the other ear" trolls, like
    > Snit, though you don't whine quite as much.
    >
    > I might as well explain GNU/Linux's place in the IT market to my beagle.


    Why do you always blame others for your inability to support your own
    claims? It is juvenile and shows you do not really think you have thought
    your ideas out.


    --
    "Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
    all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs




  7. Re: Microsoft, IBM mentioned as big winners in gaining server share, s/w. Gee, no mention of Linux or Apache--why is that?

    * Snit peremptorily fired off this memo:

    >> I might as well explain GNU/Linux's place in the IT market to my beagle.

    >
    > Why do you always blame others for your inability to support your own
    > claims? It is juvenile and shows you do not really think you have thought
    > your ideas out.


    Idiot.

    --
    Good day to deal with people in high places; particularly lonely stewardesses.

  8. Re: Microsoft, IBM mentioned as big winners in gaining server share,s/w. Gee, no mention of Linux or Apache--why is that?

    "Linonut" stated in post
    cGdwk.24108$vX2.9585@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 9/5/08 10:07 AM:

    > * Snit peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >>> I might as well explain GNU/Linux's place in the IT market to my beagle.

    >>
    >> Why do you always blame others for your inability to support your own
    >> claims? It is juvenile and shows you do not really think you have thought
    >> your ideas out.

    >
    > Idiot.


    And that is your best response... you cannot explain why you are so bad at
    supporting your claims.


    --
    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
    --Aldous Huxley


  9. Re: Microsoft, IBM mentioned as big winners in gaining server share, s/w. Gee, no mention of Linux or Apache--why is that?

    Linonut wrote:

    >****:
    >>
    >> It is juvenile

    >
    >Idiot.


    Some would say it's "juvenile" to aspire to be an obnoxious troll, as
    **** does.


  10. Re: Microsoft, IBM mentioned as big winners in gaining server share, s/w. Gee, no mention of Linux or Apache--why is that?

    The liar Michael Glasser (Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Brock McNuggets) snotted:

    > "Linonut" stated in post
    > cGdwk.24108$vX2.9585@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 9/5/08 10:07 AM:
    >
    >> * Snit peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >>>> I might as well explain GNU/Linux's place in the IT market to my
    >>>> beagle.
    >>>
    >>> Why do you always blame others for your inability to support your own
    >>> claims? It is juvenile and shows you do not really think you have
    >>> thought your ideas out.

    >>
    >> Idiot.

    >
    > And that is your best response... you cannot explain why you are so bad at
    > supporting your claims.
    >
    >


    He simply does not want to explain the obvious to someone with such a bad
    reading comprehension problem like "Raylopez".
    That twit is dumb as a stump (so he is slightly smarter than you are) and
    understands absolutely nothing (so he is slightly ahead of you)

    Any explanations on twits like raylopez or you, Snot Glasser, is simply
    wasted time
    --
    I doubt, therefore I might be.


  11. Re: Microsoft, IBM mentioned as big winners in gaining server share,s/w. Gee, no mention of Linux or Apache--why is that?

    On Sep 5, 10:22*am, chrisv wrote:
    > Linonut wrote:
    > >****:

    >
    > >> It is juvenile

    >
    > >Idiot.

    >
    > Some would say it's "juvenile" to aspire to be an obnoxious troll, as
    > **** does.


    What is your value add in this thread, piss? I mean Chris? All you
    do is complain about 'trolls', like this was pre-1995 Usenet. Where
    is your advocacy of Linux?

    No wonder you people have less than 0.8% market share--you are your
    worse enemy/enema.

    RL

    "We have met the enema and it is us" - Pogo

  12. Re: Microsoft, IBM mentioned as big winners in gaining server share, s/w. Gee, no mention of Linux or Apache--why is that?

    * Peter K÷hlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > The liar Michael Glasser (Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Brock McNuggets) snotted:
    >
    >> "Linonut" stated in post
    >> cGdwk.24108$vX2.9585@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 9/5/08 10:07 AM:
    >>
    >>> * Snit peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>
    >>>>> I might as well explain GNU/Linux's place in the IT market to my
    >>>>> beagle.
    >>>>
    >>>> Why do you always blame others for your inability to support your own
    >>>> claims? It is juvenile and shows you do not really think you have
    >>>> thought your ideas out.
    >>>
    >>> Idiot.

    >>
    >> And that is your best response... you cannot explain why you are so bad at
    >> supporting your claims.

    >
    > He simply does not want to explain the obvious to someone with such a bad
    > reading comprehension problem like "Raylopez".
    > That twit is dumb as a stump (so he is slightly smarter than you are) and
    > understands absolutely nothing (so he is slightly ahead of you)
    >
    > Any explanations on twits like raylopez or you, Snot Glasser, is simply
    > wasted time


    Both are desperately trolling for responses.

    Snit, seeing my one word response of "Idiot", should realize what I
    think of him, and realize why I don't want to respond further. But, so
    needy is he, he simply *must* try to elicit a further response. Even
    though he ought to know I'm not playing that game.

    Idiot, indeed.

    --
    James McNeill Whistler's (painter of "Whistler's Mother")
    failure in his West Point chemistry examination once provoked him to
    remark in later life, "If silicon had been a gas, I should have been a
    major general."

  13. Re: Microsoft, IBM mentioned as big winners in gaining server share, s/w. Gee, no mention of Linux or Apache--why is that?

    * raylopez99 peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On Sep 5, 10:22*am, chrisv wrote:
    >> Linonut wrote:
    >> >****:

    >>
    >> >> It is juvenile

    >>
    >> >Idiot.

    >>
    >> Some would say it's "juvenile" to aspire to be an obnoxious troll, as
    >> **** does.

    >
    > What is your value add in this thread, piss? I mean Chris? All you
    > do is complain about 'trolls', like this was pre-1995 Usenet. Where
    > is your advocacy of Linux?
    >
    > No wonder you people have less than 0.8% market share--you are your
    > worse enemy/enema.
    >
    > RL
    >
    > "We have met the enema and it is us" - Pogo


    Another idiot.

    --
    He who laughs last is probably your boss.

  14. Re: Microsoft, IBM mentioned as big winners in gaining server share,s/w. Gee, no mention of Linux or Apache--why is that?

    On Sep 3, 6:57 pm, raylopez99 wrote:
    > Microsoft, IBM mentioned as big winners in gaining server share, s/w.
    > Gee, no mention of Linux or Apache--why is that?


    Maybe because IBM, HP, and Dell all sell servers, and those servers
    are sold with the option of Linux, Virtualized Linux, UNIX, or Windows
    2003. It's getting hard to count servers, so Revenue is often used,
    because modern Blade systems can put over 100 servers into a 8 foot
    tall 19 inch rack. Superdomes and P-Series servers can run multiple
    virtualized UNIX or Linux servers. Sun is primarily focused on
    Solaris, but, just like all of the other server vendors, they are
    delivering more "bang for the buck", including virtualization, more
    cores, larger cache, and faster backplanes.


    IBM offers Linux on Z-Series. Even the low end machines can host
    1,000 virtual machines.



    > Microsoft Corp. was another big winner in the quarter by capturing the
    > single largest amount of spending on software, IDC said.


    Is that for SERVER Software? Or for all spending on software by
    corporations?
    The statement is ambiguous, and without the body of the study, subject
    to any
    kind of interpretation.


  15. Re: Microsoft, IBM mentioned as big winners in gaining server share,s/w. Gee, no mention of Linux or Apache--why is that?

    "Linonut" stated in post
    CKuwk.25100$Ep1.20245@bignews2.bellsouth.net on 9/6/08 5:35 AM:

    > * Peter K÷hlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> The liar Michael Glasser (Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Brock McNuggets) snotted:
    >>
    >>> "Linonut" stated in post
    >>> cGdwk.24108$vX2.9585@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 9/5/08 10:07 AM:
    >>>
    >>>> * Snit peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> I might as well explain GNU/Linux's place in the IT market to my
    >>>>>> beagle.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Why do you always blame others for your inability to support your own
    >>>>> claims? It is juvenile and shows you do not really think you have
    >>>>> thought your ideas out.
    >>>>
    >>>> Idiot.
    >>>
    >>> And that is your best response... you cannot explain why you are so bad at
    >>> supporting your claims.

    >>
    >> He simply does not want to explain the obvious to someone with such a bad
    >> reading comprehension problem like "Raylopez".
    >> That twit is dumb as a stump (so he is slightly smarter than you are) and
    >> understands absolutely nothing (so he is slightly ahead of you)
    >>
    >> Any explanations on twits like raylopez or you, Snot Glasser, is simply
    >> wasted time

    >
    > Both are desperately trolling for responses.
    >
    > Snit, seeing my one word response of "Idiot", should realize what I
    > think of him, and realize why I don't want to respond further. But, so
    > needy is he, he simply *must* try to elicit a further response. Even
    > though he ought to know I'm not playing that game.
    >
    > Idiot, indeed.


    Please stop begging for my attention. It is pathetic.

    In the end you are just trying to change the topic from your complete and
    total inability to support your accusations. Oh well - it is not like
    anyone expects *you* to be honest!


    --
    .... something I'm committed to work on, focusing increasing amounts of
    resources of Canonical on figuring out on how we actually move the desktop
    experience forward to compete with Mac OS X.
    - Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)


  16. Re: Microsoft, IBM mentioned as big winners in gaining server share,s/w. Gee, no mention of Linux or Apache--why is that?

    On Sep 6, 5:13*pm, Hadron wrote:
    > Rex Ballard writes:
    > > On Sep 4, 11:23*pm, Linonut wrote:
    > >> * raylopez99 peremptorily fired off this memo:


    > > It's just that Linux is substantially less per server. *Most companies
    > > do purchase Linux support contracts, most common vendors are Red Hat
    > > and Novell in the US and Europe, and TurboLinux and RedFlag east Asia.


    > No. "Most" companies do not.


    Most companies who buy production grade servers from IBM, HP, and Dell
    would want those contracts. They might by them THROUGH the vendor
    (IBM, HP, or Dell), but if you are running a production server, you
    normally do want the Linux "package" from a reputable company.

    > Where do you get off making these outrageous and ridiculous claims?


    I do bid and proposal work for several Linux Server based systems.
    I've also worked on a number of projects where Linux based servers
    were HP or Dell servers.

    I'm an Enterprise Architect and I usually have a pretty good idea of
    how much is being paid for what.

    > *MOST* companies take it because its reliable and free.


    Perhaps very small companies, like the ones you work for. I do a lot
    of work for $billion/year or more companies, especially Fortune 500.

    > "free" as in *costs nothing.


    But Linux does have a TOTAL Cost of Owership. Having the person to
    call at 3 AM when a backup fails, or a software upgrade goes south is
    about like car insurance. You hope you never need it, but if you ever
    do, you're glad you have it.

    > They then buy their admin a book and leave him to it.


    I find that most Linux admins also have strong Unix admin skills as
    well. Many also have fair Windows admin skills as well, but generally
    leave Windows admin work such as rebooting boxes and rebuilding
    images, to lower paid and lower skilled workers.

    On the other hand, there are times when they can "pitch in" because
    they aren't that busy. Typically a room with 30-50 servers can be
    maintained with a team of three during the prime time shift, and 1 on-
    shore and 2 offshore during the slow shifts.

    > Fortunately the Linux defaults tend to be "secure enough".


    True, but you still have to set up LDAP accounts and identities, you
    have to back up hard drives, you need to apply updates, most of this
    is pretty easy, but people are needed if a tape jams.


  17. Re: Microsoft, IBM mentioned as big winners in gaining server share, s/w. Gee, no mention of Linux or Apache--why is that?

    Rex Ballard writes:

    > On Sep 6, 5:13┬*pm, Hadron wrote:
    >> Rex Ballard writes:
    >> > On Sep 4, 11:23┬*pm, Linonut wrote:
    >> >> * raylopez99 peremptorily fired off this memo:

    >
    >> > It's just that Linux is substantially less per server. ┬*Most companies
    >> > do purchase Linux support contracts, most common vendors are Red Hat
    >> > and Novell in the US and Europe, and TurboLinux and RedFlag east Asia.

    >
    >> No. "Most" companies do not.

    >
    > Most companies who buy production grade servers from IBM, HP, and Dell


    This is, in itself, not "most companies".

    > would want those contracts. They might by them THROUGH the vendor
    > (IBM, HP, or Dell), but if you are running a production server, you
    > normally do want the Linux "package" from a reputable company.
    >
    >> Where do you get off making these outrageous and ridiculous claims?

    >
    > I do bid and proposal work for several Linux Server based systems.
    > I've also worked on a number of projects where Linux based servers
    > were HP or Dell servers.


    This is not "most companies".

    >
    > I'm an Enterprise Architect and I usually have a pretty good idea of
    > how much is being paid for what.


    This is not "most companies".

    >
    >> *MOST* companies take it because its reliable and free.

    >
    > Perhaps very small companies, like the ones you work for. I do a lot
    > of work for $billion/year or more companies, especially Fortune 500.


    This is not "most companies".


    Sheesh.

  18. Re: Microsoft, IBM mentioned as big winners in gaining server share, s/w. Gee, no mention of Linux or Apache--why is that?

    * Snit peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Please stop begging for my attention. It is pathetic.


    ! Ay yi yi !

    --
    Substantial risk of electric shock.

  19. Re: Microsoft, IBM mentioned as big winners in gaining server share, s/w. Gee, no mention of Linux or Apache--why is that?

    On 2008-09-06, raylopez99 wrote:
    > On Sep 6, 6:58*am, Rex Ballard wrote:
    >
    >> It's just that Linux is substantially less per server. *Most companies
    >> do purchase Linux support contracts, most common vendors are Red Hat
    >> and Novell in the US and Europe, and TurboLinux and RedFlag east Asia.

    >
    > Yes, I agree. For that < 1% market share.


    Are you trying to tell people that Linux has less than a 1 percent
    "market share" in the server market?

    You've seriously lost the plot.

    >> Just like other software products, there are quantity discounts.
    >> Still, Linux is about 80% less than comparable Windows license and
    >> support package. *And real experience shows that real TCO is 60-80%
    >> lower for Linux than Windows.

    >
    > Says Linux. Windows people say differently.


    Yep... That's because they are biased.

    How about coming up with an independent report.

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  20. Re: Microsoft, IBM mentioned as big winners in gaining server share,s/w. Gee, no mention of Linux or Apache--why is that?

    On Sep 6, 3:21*pm, Gregory Shearman wrote:
    ..
    >
    > > Yes, I agree. For that < 1% market share.

    >
    > Are you trying to tell people that Linux has less than a 1 percent
    > "market share" in the server market?


    Could be--it's hard to tell. Remember, Apache now is ported to run
    under Windows.

    > >> Just like other software products, there are quantity discounts.
    > >> Still, Linux is about 80% less than comparable Windows license and
    > >> support package. *And real experience shows that real TCO is 60-80%
    > >> lower for Linux than Windows.

    >
    > > Says Linux. Windows people say differently.

    >
    > Yep... That's because they are biased.
    >
    > How about coming up with an independent report.


    Well, that independent report won't be coming from you (a Linux
    advocate) or me (a MSFT shareholder and satisfied user).

    RL

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast