Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Windows Operating Systems Software Linux

Windows 2003 takes 5% away from Linux 873

ZuperDee writes "According to Netcraft, the number of Windows 2003 servers has doubled since July, and 5% were running Linux before, which is consistent with the trends they've been observing for some time. This doesn't look good for Linux, in my opinion. Maybe we should all start to think about jumping ship?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows 2003 takes 5% away from Linux

Comments Filter:
  • Jump ship? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Neophytus ( 642863 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @11:07AM (#7077248)
    Jump ship? Why jump ship? Because others have done so? If I decide to jump off a cliff [] and fall to my microsoft death will you follow just because you can? Jeez, whats up with people these days.
    • Re:Jump ship? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Fred IV ( 587429 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @11:09AM (#7077281)
      Maybe we should all start to think about jumping ship?

      Hmm... -1 Flamebait in the story summary?
      • by Sj0 ( 472011 )
        I'd say it would be a good use for a (-1, Stupid) moderation. We seriously need one of those. We can use it on all those 12 year olds who let us know that "M$ is teh ghey!", or the people who say things like "Oh geez, that new version of windows is pretty popular! maybe we should stop using linux now!". :D
    • I'll switch from Linux when you pull my last server from my cold dead hands!
    • Re:Jump ship? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Daengbo ( 523424 )
      Well, Thailand just signed a five year Partner in Learning contract with MS, where they get a bunch of outdated machines and software at a large discount. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop next year on a forced migration to 2003 Server (.net?) and the resulting budget crisis.
      How long a shelf life can Win98 have at this point?
      • It's gonna be interesting to watch the spamming and exploits over there in the next five years, too.
      • Re:Jump ship? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by BJZQ8 ( 644168 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @01:41PM (#7078418) Homepage Journal
        I have a good idea where some of this Linux-shifting is coming from...I talked to some Microsoft salesmen, trying to sell me some financial software. They off-handedly asked me what I had for server software...Previously I had Novell Netware, which they didn't care much about. But the most recent time, I mentioned I ran Linux. They were very, very interested...and in fact offered me a $70,000 software "grant" if I would put in a Windows Server. I am not going to take the same road as my previous district (of which I was an underling, and not in charge)...which is now in the position of almost yearly forced upgrades from Microsoft, at a yearly licensing fee exceeding $50,000. They are caught in a swirling monetary vortex from which there is little or no escape...particularly so since their "consultants" keep pushing MS onto them with no remorse.
        • Credible story (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Nazmun ( 590998 )
          Over at some dedicated server providers I see that linux servers with the same hardware as windows server cost more then the windows version. I just sat there wondering how the hell can windows software be cheaper then free software.

          Note that these servers are unmanaged so the provider has no personnel costs related to that at all.
    • Re:Jump ship? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 )
      "Jump ship? Why jump ship? Because others have done so?"

      What he's saying is "Don't ignore Server 2003 simply because you hate Microsoft." And, he's right. In the end, they're tools that do a job. Pick the one that's best for you instead of picking the one that makes you cool on Slashdot.
    • *I* am in business. I balance what the customer wants against security against their budget against their needs. I can usually talk someone out of using old ass redhat/plesk and switching to either my homegrown FreeBSD/webmin solution that is easy as hell to keep secure or my Gentoo/webmin solution that is easy as hell to keep secure. I offer them a support contract and I keep the machines up to date and patched for a tiny fee monthly. Some customers are SICK of linux/apache because they aren't smart enough
  • Doh. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sesse ( 5616 ) * <`sgunderson' `at' `'> on Sunday September 28, 2003 @11:07AM (#7077254) Homepage

    The article heading is rather misleading. It's not like 5% of all Linux servers converted to Windows Server 2003, or 5% of all servers in the world suddenly run Windows Server 2003. No, of all new Windows Server 2003 installations (which still isn't that many), five percent used to run Linux. It is definitely not time to "think about jumping ship" yet...

    /* Steinar */

    • Re:Doh. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by coolmacdude ( 640605 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @11:13AM (#7077309) Homepage Journal
      Exactly. Which means of those that switched to Server 2003 from something else, only a very small number decided to give up Linux. Not hard to guess why.

      The heading should read "Only 5% of Windows Server 2003 users switched from Linux."
      • Re:Doh. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Karamchand ( 607798 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @11:36AM (#7077503)
        Certainly one can interpret - or at least phrase - it in many different ways. Some important questions:
        • What about those 5%? What did they dislike about Linux, why did they switch (back?) to Windows? - We need to get in touch with folks who switched from Linux to Windows and ask them these questions.
        • What about these other 95%? Why didn't they switch to Linux instead of switchting to the - probably much more expensive - Windows 2003? What features is Linux missing Windows 2003 can offer?
        • Re:Doh. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Lord Kholdan ( 670731 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @11:50AM (#7077588)
          Perhaps it's a time for Ask Slashdot: Why aren't you switching to Linux?

          Excellent chance to see what Linux is lacking and perhaps maybe even show few people that Linux has the options they think it lacks!
          • Re:Doh. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 28, 2003 @02:34PM (#7078806)
            I don't run GNU/linux because I'm lazy.

            I love the politics and ideas behind the free software movement, I think its an incredibly important issue. I've just been running my Win2000 system for 2 years, have got it set up pretty much exactly to my liking, have my neuro-system accostomed to accomplishing everything i want to accomplish without having to think about it. Know how to use all the applications I use without having to think about it. And really dont have any problems with instability (except trying to access a CD with a scratch on it, fucking I cant believe my CDRom can crash my computer)

            My experiances with linux (I set up an old PII i had to be a router/nat box on my home network) proved to be somewhat of a bitch. Yes, it was usually possible to get what I wanted to get accomplished , but it was just a pain in the ass. I spent probably about 3 weeks trying to figure out how to get port forwarding to work (i wound up downgrading my kernel)

            Linux has an inherant disadvantage to Windows because of the current proprietary nature of the computer industry. End users want their computers to work with the applications that they have been using, and their friends are using, and have them have all the features that the windows versions have. I am incredibly impressed and amazed by the community's ability to reverse engineer these protocols and drivers, but the fact is, I KNOW that if I switch over the GNU/linux, I'm going to be spending a bunch of time figuring out how to get various things working that I currently take for granted.

            Gnu/Linux is also incredibly intimdating in regards to the vast amount of choice you are given. Picking a distrobution, picking what desktop you want to use. I don't want to spend a shitload of time installing and tweaking my operating system to work the way I want, only to realize that it isn't really the best option for me, and to learn the subtle differences between the distrobutions once I've become accostomed to one.

            Another issue for me is that I simply dont have much of my windows software installations lying around. Trying to get my system back to the state its currently at will require me to hunt down a bunch of shit. I'm considering just buying a new harddrive to put gnu/linux on, so I can just switch back to windows if i feel like I have to, but I'm broke.

            I think the real question tho, is why does it matter whether I am using gnu/linux or not. Gnu/linux exists, and that in and of itself is an incredible achievement. I think the adoption of gnu/linux on the desktop is incredibly unimportant. I am not a developer so I cant contribute to the community. I didnt even give microsoft any money (as we all know many many windows users dont). Even the adoption of GNU/linux in the buisiness world is a double edged sword. Buisiness will always do what it can to subvert truly radical technology. IBM has flat out refused to refer to linux as gnu/linux most likely because they do not want to associate themselves with the radical philosophy behind free software. Reap the profit, but ignore the philosophy. Subvert the philosophy.

            The Gnu/linux community should be proud of what it has accomplished, and dedicate itself to continuing the development of the operating system instead of being worried about destroying microsoft or getting your mom to use it. If you cant connect to MSN messanger, so fucking what. What matters is that people who want to use it can.
            • Re:Doh. (Score:3, Informative)

              by Sevn ( 12012 )
              This reminds me of something....

              I had a client recently that had a linksys router get fried and wanted to know if I could make an old pentium 133 his new router. This is what I did...

              Took a freebsd 4.9-beta cd over to his house.
              Put it in the cdrom drive.
              Did the minimal install.
              Visited the last minute options and set him a bizarre root password, disabled all services, and configured xl0 for DHCP and xl1 for a 192.160.x.x network.

              Set his bios to ignore all errors on boot.

              Added this crap to his /e
            • translation: (Score:3, Informative)

              I don't run GNU/linux because I'm lazy.

              I love the politics and ideas behind the free software movement, but can be arsed to put my deeds where my heart lays.I enjoy not having to think what I do, that is why MS thinks for me.

              Linux is at a disavantage becuse people act like herds. Or lemmings.Choice is intimidating. Give me back my fetal position inducing, womb-like user interface.

              Another issue is that I am messy with controling my software and have not hear about Knoppix.

              I am a Windows pirate, I am not
          • Next Poll: (Score:3, Funny)

            by fishexe ( 168879 )
            Have you quit using Linux yet?

            - Yes
            - No
        • Re:Doh. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by hanssprudel ( 323035 )
          Nine thousand sites that previously used Linux now using a new version of Windows is not showing any meaningful trend. It hardly makes an anecdote.

          Maybe machines that were previously home rolled were replaced by machines managed centrally by MS happy IT departments. Maybe people changed the consultant who runs the server. Maybe a new PHB came in who loves MS.

          Some people will always be leaving Linux, it means nothing.
        • Re:Doh. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by mgv ( 198488 ) <.gro.namtlev. .ta. .tod2hsals.10.mapsoN.> on Sunday September 28, 2003 @12:27PM (#7077871) Homepage Journal
          What about those 5%? What did they dislike about Linux, why did they switch (back?) to Windows? - We need to get in touch with folks who switched from Linux to Windows and ask them these questions.

          Ok, so we have established that there is a switch back rate. Its not that surprising. People try linux, then go back to microsoft for a variety of reasons, such as they discovered they were locked into windows and couldn't change over at that point.

          To really make sense of the statistics, you also need to compare that to the rate of those who are using windows who now use linux.

          Knowing only one statistic doesn't let you work out anything much.

        • Re:Doh. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Karl Cocknozzle ( 514413 ) <kcocknozzle AT hotmail DOT com> on Sunday September 28, 2003 @12:33PM (#7077912) Homepage
          Certainly one can interpret - or at least phrase - it in many different ways. Some important questions:

          What about those 5%? What did they dislike about Linux, why did they switch (back?) to Windows? - We need to get in touch with folks who switched from Linux to Windows and ask them these questions.

          In our case, we switched our Samba servers over to Windows 2000 about 18 months ago because a new CIO was installed, and he commanded from the ivory tower that we would be all Microsoft within one year from his start date. No, we aren't using 2003--yet. But it seems conceivable to me that other companies are in similar situations... Their linux machines run great, like toy cars on Christmas morning, but somebody somewhere in authority gets a pitch from an MS salesman, and the next thing you know, bye-bye Samba and Apache, hello IIS and Windows 2003 file servers. (Ugh!)

          So in our case, it was an arbitrary decision by somebody higher up. We never had ANY problems with the Samba servers, but because he used to work at Microsoft (in Redmond, y'all!) it was done.

          Or perhaps they decided they wanted to re-write their whole web-site in I know a job I applied for recently was mine until we started talking about their web-site, and I recommended they not go ASP but implement their new site in HTML/PHP on apache using a low-cost database like mysql or postgres. As a one-man band, I would prefer to spend my time patching the parts of apache/php/mysql that need patched, rather than having to test and verify the twice per afternoon stuff that has been out from MS lately.
          • Re:Doh. (Score:4, Informative)

            by pjrc ( 134994 ) <> on Sunday September 28, 2003 @01:53PM (#7078502) Homepage Journal
            Indeed, this happens all too often. About 4 years ago, I used to work at a small company which was acquired by a large giant. For several months, nothing really happened... until they broight in a new controller for accounting. Our company was smallish (about 100 people) and the controller was to be "in charge" of the computing. Perviously, nobody was really making global computing infrastructure decisions, and virtually all computing stuff was handled by a couple consultants. Of course, the new guy was a "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM... er, Microsoft", so he wanted everything migrated to a "standardized platform". At that point, the comany had 3 servers... one Windows NT, one Novell, and one Linux. The Linux machine didn't really do a lot (DNS, firewall, some other little stuff)... it was the Novell server which had been running for many years and was doing most of the heavy lifting. Likewise, the NT box ran a couple little databases (not the main one for accounting and manufacturing). Eventually, everything but the firewall migrated to Windows. It was expensive... they bought some very expensive hardware, but that was a minimal cost compared to the dozens of consultants who seemed to live on-site for easily a year, and the resulting dependance of having many more around permanently afterwards. Migrating to Microsoft Exchange was probably the most expensive part where it was a pure platform switch without new functionality. Massive money was also dumped into a new accounting package, but those things are always expensive and we'd limped along for a couple years before the company was sold... since the new owners would want us to use their software of choice (didn't actually turn out that way), and to keep a massive capital-draining software change off the books while negotiating the sale price. For a couple years, they were determined to replace that linux firewall/router with expensive Cisco equipment.... but it did some fancy things and despite their supposed certifications, they didn't really understand basic TCP/IP routing, subnets, etc (they knew some expensive gui-based firewall that dumbs down the whole process into pictures and drag-and-drop.... or at least that's my cynical view, believing that ipchains/iptables is pretty straightforward it you know what your subnets are). Windows won, and Linux and Novell lost, not because of cost or performance or any other real-world considerations. It was entirely due to the whim of a corporate guy they shoved into a position at a newly-acquired small company. However, in the matter of 16500 webservers switching from linux to win2003 (5% of something, but still only 16500 worldwide), these guys who "go with the trend" and want to "standardize" on whatever if fassionable (whatever Gartner is pushing)... they were probably not behind this. Those guys go with the older revs and rarely want to deploy the newest version. Too risky. I'd guess Microsoft "sold" win2003 to some high-profile hosting providers.
      • Re:Doh. (Score:5, Informative)

        by RoLi ( 141856 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @11:36AM (#7077504)
        The numbers:

        Total installs: 43,144,374(100%)
        Of those Windows2003: 185,000(0.4%)
        Of those switched from Linux: ~ 9,500(0.002%)

        In the meantime...

        Apache runs: 27388860 (63.98%)
        All IIS combined run: 10165745 (23.75%) (-5.42% compared to Sep2002, -3.70% compared to Apr2002)

        • Re: Doh. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @12:07PM (#7077706)

          The numbers:

          Total installs: 43,144,374(100%)
          Of those Windows2003: 185,000(0.4%)
          Of those switched from Linux: ~ 9,500(0.002%)

          In the meantime...

          Apache runs: 27388860 (63.98%)
          All IIS combined run: 10165745 (23.75%) (-5.42% compared to Sep2002, -3.70% compared to Apr2002)
          Yep, MS is stealing from Linux, but for some reason has still suffered a steady decline for the past year and a half.

          Also, they mention the number of Linux sites stolen by Windows, but never not the number of Windows sites stolen by Linux. Does that mean that none were stolen, or is Netcraft just another Gartner-style FUD-for-pay enterprise?

          Numbers don't lie, but data scummers certainly do. Let's see how this trend turns out in the long run.
        • Apache != Linux (Score:5, Insightful)

          by KalvinB ( 205500 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @12:16PM (#7077786) Homepage
          I don't use Linux because it's an unneccessary pain in the ass to do things with it. I use Win2K Pro. However, all the software running the server components are Open Source (Apache, GuildFTPd) or just well respected freeware like Mercury Mail.

          Using Apache just demonstrates what a great product Apache is. It has nothing to do with Linux. I'm not going to abandon the simplicity and stability of Win2K just because Apache can faithfully serve up HTTP requests.

          Nobody is debating that IIS is feature bloated hacker friendly piece of garbage. But that has nothing to do with Windows.

          I have better things to do with my time (like actually building up the web-site) than dicking around with an OS.

          The high quality of one open source product has zero to do with the quality of another.

          • OK, I'll call. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @12:42PM (#7077964)

            > I don't use Linux because it's an unneccessary pain in the ass to do things with it.

            Maybe this would be a good time to get specific about what's hard to do on Linux when you're using it for your Web server.

          • I've had exactly the opposite experience. Once I got rid of all MS servers and moved to Debian, life has been, comparatively, a breeze. I'll take apt-get over hfnetcheck any day! And in comparison, Linux is way, way, way simpler than Windows. Oh, yeah -- and have fun running around to every server in you site to do updates because Windows doesn't support remote admin!

            The worst thing that microsoft has done for our industry is to breed a whole generation of check-box programmers and admins -- if they c
            • Never played with RDC or MMC have you?

              Windows doesn't support secure remote shells (Out of the box), but it certainly has remote admin capabilities. In some ways (RDC especially) they are better than anything Linux has, in others (MMC), I'll take SSH and vi instead.

          • Re:Apache != Linux (Score:3, Interesting)

            by antiMStroll ( 664213 )
            While I agree Apache shouldn't be equated with Linux, it took me less than an hout to set up my first Apache box with Mandrake 9.1, including the OS install. The Webmin Apache module provides more configuration options than this noob knows what to do with in a clearly laid out Web interface.

            ...abandon the simplicity and stability of Win2K....

            Obvious troll.

            .....IIS is feature bloated hacker friendly piece of garbage ... that has nothing to do with Windows...

            Other than the tight integration with the OS a

    • Re:Doh. (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It is definitely not time to "think about jumping ship" yet...

      I don't know about that. With Microsoft Windows 2003 Server, undoubtably Microsoft's greatest product yet, businesses and individuals alike can be assured that they'll lower their TCO while ensuring the time-honored commitment of Microsoft to providing world-class customer service and product quality. Only with Microsoft Windows 2003 Server will companies be able to tackle the e-commerce situations of the future using...

      aww fsck it. I can'

    • Re:Doh. (Score:5, Informative)

      by kinnunen ( 197981 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @11:17AM (#7077344)
      Also maybe someone should point out that Apache actually gained 0.54% relative market share in the past month, while Microsoft lost 0.21%. In fact, September 2003 looks like it was the Best month ever [] for Apache so far.
    • Re:Doh. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @11:18AM (#7077347)
      It is probably possible that the only reason those 5% were using Linux in the first place was because there old version of windows didn't support the feature the needed properly, so they were forced to use Linux. Now that Windows 2003 got the features they switched back. Or perhaps it came with a hardware upgrade and they got it packaged. So they just replaced the linux system with the win2003. It is possible that that 5% may have believed Microsoft redirect about lower TCO. or It may hard to believe but there are some people who don't care what OS they are using just as long as it works.
      • Re:Doh. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by zulux ( 112259 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @12:16PM (#7077783) Homepage Journal
        Actually - I know exactly why.

        Curiosity. Microsoft is giving away demo CD's almost as freely as AOL does. So if you're remotly curious - you can just throw it on a non critical web server just to see what it's like.

        I bet that's what going on here - we're talking 'bout a few thousand servers that have Windows 2003 - and only a *few* of those were orgionally Linux.

    • Re:Doh. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by wtmoose ( 639328 )
      Not to mention, a number of Windows Server 2000 (and possibly Windows Server 2003) installations have undoubtably converted to Linux during the same time period. Therefore, the 5% measure does not in any way suggest a trend away from Linux. Its entirely possible that the trend is in the other direction.
    • Re:Doh. (Score:3, Funny)

      by EvilAlien ( 133134 )
      It'll be never time to "jump ship". It is always time to reevaluate your business needs and the solutions chosen for them.

      What this likely says is that "of all the broadband users who run servers on their cable modems, 5% of those running Linux have formatted and installed a warez copy of Windows 2003 because they couldn't figure out how to secure their FTP services)".

  • Why worry? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ixt ( 463433 )
    IMHO, if these viruses keep coming around, one is BOUND to attack 2003 servers. Then the 5%'ll feel bad and then revert back.

    It's only a matter of time (and trial and error).
    • Re:Why worry? (Score:3, Informative)

      IMHO, if these viruses keep coming around, one is BOUND to attack 2003 servers. Then the 5%'ll feel bad and then revert back.

      IMHO as a corporate IT director (and home Linux user), if Linux was:
      a) easier to find quality support for
      b) able to run more mission critical apps
      I would use it in more places in my corporate network. (currently we use it for security and traffic monitoring). I know it is making strong headway, but it is not there yet. I am of course tempted to use it just to spite SCO, but that
  • "Maybe we should think about jumping ship?"

    How about, "No."

    You don't leave a battlefield just because the enemy takes some ground.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 28, 2003 @11:09AM (#7077283)
    Netcraft now confirms: Linux is dying...
    • No, as that would need the introduction of a "-29101834+e - Troll" rating. Also, Slashdot would Slashdot itself due to the large number of moderations.

      Hell, we might even get a world record out of it...

      "Quickest felling of a MySQL server"
  • FP? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I, for one, welcome our new 2003 server overlords.
  • Maybe we should all start to think about jumping ship?

  • SCO Suit? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by terrencefw ( 605681 )
    I wonder how much the SCO suit has to do with this. Maybe there has been some uncertainty generated.

    Perhaps some Linux servers were deployed which were destined to be replaced once Win2003 was released, like as an interim measure. Personally, I think anybody running a website on anything other than Apache on some *nix like OS should be shot. IIS... ugh .

    • It's amazing. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RoLi ( 141856 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @11:49AM (#7077586)
      It's really amazing.

      Windows 2003 does so badly that it runs only about 0.4% of webservers half a year after release.

      Overall IIS loses about 0.2%/month to other webservers.

      And now 8500 domains (= 0.002% !) throughout about half a year (= 0.0003%/month) switch from Linux to Windows and people start to get wet their pants.

      And then the FUD gets modded as insightful...

  • Jump ship? Never (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RighteousFunby ( 649763 ) <> on Sunday September 28, 2003 @11:10AM (#7077292) Homepage
    "Perhaps we should all think about jumping ship", eh?

    What bollocks. Linux's worth as a server is not judged by its popularity, or its market share. It is, however, judged by how well it performs as a web server, and as a matter of fact it performs very well.
  • ...why there have been more serious windows spreading Virus attacks recently.
  • by Trigun ( 685027 ) <{xc.hta.eripmelive} {ta} {live}> on Sunday September 28, 2003 @11:11AM (#7077298)
    And they're replacing the old. No big deal. This is one of the same reasons that Linux got big into the market. Big claims about cost savings, more with less, etc.

    If MS new server is a good product, then it should keep the 5% and grow. If it doesn't live up to the hype (replacing 200 servers with 20, saving millions of dollars per annum), its marketshare will dissappear. Initial cost doesn't figure entirely into this either. The software costs for some customers have been subsidised by Bill, and the hardware costs for the upgrades are both minimal, and bugetted because some equipment is becoming EOL'ed by companies three-year plans.
  • I was on the elevated the other day, and a guy next to me was reading a magazine in English, so I was peeking at him reading an article about I lost interest until he turned the page to another article, but that was about .Net servers. I felt like asking him snidely if it was a .Net magazine or what, but it was too early to quip, so I just stayed quiet. Imagine my suprise when he finished the mag and closed it, revealing the Asia.Net cover!
    Tears welled up...
  • Its still new... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Popsikle ( 661384 )
    Its like a new toy, Every new OS gets to be played around with a bit. We have a few 2000/nt4 boxes that are in production that we are slowly moving to 2003. While the move is going on (2 months per box) that means we have a 2003 server and a nt4/2000 server doin the same thing. Lets see what the numbers state after the rollout cycles are complete, and lets not jump to any conclusions (like jumping ship).

    Besides if SCO didnt convince you to jump ship yet (we cant afford 700$ per copy can you?) then your
  • Well, since Sitefinder is running Linux [], wouldn't Linux now be running an infinite number more sites than Windows Server 2003?
    • Quick, everyone type into the "what's that site running?" box on netcraft.. soon we'll make IIS hosting below the margin of error.
  • On the other hand (Score:4, Informative)

    by Eudial ( 590661 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @11:15AM (#7077329)
    On the other hand, how many (desktop) Linux converts used to run Windows?
  • Maybe we should all start to think about jumping ship?

    I realize this is sarcasm, but the sentiment of potential trouble should be genuine, regardless of whether or not trouble actually exists.

    One obtains and maintains dominance by being absolutely paranoid. Microsoft watches everyone else like a hawk -- and if Linux wants to erode Windows market share and shove immutable roots into the ground, its developers must be equally vigilant, if not more so, as it is in some circles the perceived underdog.

    And v
  • This is one of those anecdotical non-news things that I suppose the MS people think is earth shattering. These factoids are downright annoying really because they essentially blow up something very insignificant to make it look like it actually means something and it doesn't. Linux+Apache is on something like 60% of Internet servers and that's a big number. If a couple of Win2003 boxes happen to creep in there - big deal. Essentially shovelling the proverbial fecal material against the tide

  • I think that it is about time to start a moderation system for articles displayed on front page.

  • Notably, the number of sites switching from Linux has proportionately kept pace since July when many commentators thought the 5% of sites switched to Windows 2003 from Linux was an aberration.

    Personally, I consider this news item on /. as closed... Fortunatly.
  • by NZheretic ( 23872 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @11:22AM (#7077388) Homepage Journal
    The original netcraft article on the "Migration" to Windows Server 2003 [] hints at the fact that that most of the migration is occuring on hosted systems, where the hosting providers have received very favorable terms ( read as bribes ) [] to switch to Windows2003. continues to be the top hoster of active Windows Server 2003 sites, and now has over 98% of their active sites migrated to Windows 2003. The month before, was hosting 13,504 , in comparison to last months 32,810, an increase which accounts for the 5%. Yes, one provider.

    What the Microsoft spin doctors do not mention is the continuing market share loss to Apache overall [].

  • This was covered by Linux Today [] about two weeks ago.

    Worst case scenario, about 4500 servers may have switched from Linux to Win2003. I can easily see that as a result of statistical noise, or of pointy-haired management thinking, "Ooooh! Shiny new toy! Microsoft says it's secure! I want one! I wonder what's in the cafeteria for lunch."

    File this one as being from the "So what? Me, worry?" department.
  • by Realistic_Dragon ( 655151 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @11:25AM (#7077409) Homepage
    When your boss told you to replace your Debian webserver with Win2k3 server, did you...

    1[] Capitulate to the microwenie with pleasure.
    2[] Change the ID strings and pocket the money.
    3[] Install Win2k3 but leave Linux doing the real work (dynamic pages etc).
    4[] Tell him to f**k off.
    5[] Electrocte the boss with a waffle iron.

    So... only 5% chose 1, although some may have done 2 or 3 instead - so call it 2%. Me? My boss knows better than to tell me to install Win2k3 - the previous electrical burn marks attest to that.
  • The 5% switching figure only has meaning in the context of marketshare numbers. If Linux is less that 8.6% marketshare (= (5%)/(100%-42%) of the existing servers, then this switching rate suggests that Linux switchers are over represented and that Linux is declining. If Linux has more than 8.6% marketshare, then it suggests that Linux switchers are underrepresented. Moreover, without corresponding data on new sites hosted by Linux, numbers of switchers from Windows, we really have no idea what is happeni
  • Take a look at all of the great GPL web projects using LAMP. The applications will dictate the platform. MS always talks about intergration but linux apache provides the most powerful integrated platform for web applications, period. MS developers work in a closed loop system and have no pride for a product that they do not own. Keep building linux solutions and they will come.
  • Percentages (Score:2, Funny)

    by Cerberus9 ( 466562 )
    So, there are five new Windows 2003 servers, one of which used to run linux?
  • by Glock27 ( 446276 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @11:27AM (#7077423)
    Windows 2003 has 185K total installs so far. That is next to nothing (100 million PCs will be sold this year, probably 10 million PC architecture servers).

    To extrapolate anything from 185K installs is silly.

    Further, the opposite statistic should be considered...the number of Win 98, Win NT, Win 2000, and Win XP boxes being converted to Linux. I'm pretty sure the rate will end up much higher than 5%. ;-) And that will be applied to the hundreds of millions of existing machines out there.

    Certainly not time to cut and run, Taco. :-P

    (Maybe I should set my house on fire today...nah.)

  • That's why they do them.

    Well, that's great news for the Windows OEM staff being put under intense pressure by their Directors to make inroads in the Linux market.

    There's another interesting statistic which the /. article didn't mention - look at Top Hosting Locations [] and Longest Uptimes []. The figures do the talking.

    As Vic Reeves says, "82% of statistics are made up on the spot."
  • by cOdEgUru ( 181536 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @11:29AM (#7077444) Homepage Journal
    IMHO, and for someone who has been running Windows 2003 server beta on a dev workstation for the last 9 months, I been extremely happy with it.

    I have got tons of tools/utils that could bring an XP box to its knees and outright destroy the damn thing. 2003 server has so far been gracefully handling the pressure with no blue screens till last week.

    Last week, I came across from first core dump when I was playing around with the Cisco VPN tool and it core dumped (it was due to bad drivers, couldnt find native ones) giving a BAD_POOL_CALLER error a bunch of times.

    I thought Xp was way decent than the shitty 98SE and the unbelievably piece of crap ME, but 2003 server has proved that theres a lot of room for improvement. I think they still have a long way to go to capture the server market.

    Disclaimer : I have been running a server operating system on a workstation, I admit. Theres guides available to tune the OS to make it run as a workstation and for gaming.

    Also, Microsoft has finally shipped an OS with most of its services disabled (including sound) rather than running in to a "gotcha" moment down the line.
  • by MartinG ( 52587 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @11:37AM (#7077505) Homepage Journal
    Of all those upgrading to windows 2003, 5% previously used linux. So what?

    Compare that to all those upgrading _to_ linux, and look how many of those were previously running other versions of windows? It could easily by a lot more than 5%.

    This all looks like a pretty desperate attempt to discredit linux and make win 2003 look more popular than it really is.

    Oh, and it's old news anyway.
  • by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @11:45AM (#7077556)
    5% of What?

    The netcraft web survey shows that there are about 42 million domains, 28 million of which are hosted on Apache systems, 10 million on Windows.

    Of that 42 million, 325 thousand are now running Windows 2003. Of that 325 thousand, 5% were running Linux, or about 16 thousand. Now that 16 thousand actually accounts for a transition to Windows 2003 for 1 out of every 2,000 Apache domains.

    What is doesn't show is what the overall change in Windows vs Apache is - in the same time frame that Windows 2003 was growing to 385,000 sites, Windows overall actually lost 3% domain share to Apache, or 1.2 million domains. So the transition of ex Apache sites to Server 2003 is equal to about 1% of the switch away from Windows to Apache that occurred during this same time period.

    On a global basis Windows is losing market share to Apache based web serving at a rate 100 times greater than this supposed switch from Linux to Windows 2003.

  • by ishmalius ( 153450 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @11:52AM (#7077601)
    This is so funny. Everyone missed the joke.

    This is similar to newpapers in China quoting articles from the Onion as the truth.

    Must be attributable to hangovers!

  • by LazloToth ( 623604 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @12:11PM (#7077742)
    I recently attended a technology conference with my CEO. We're a typical medium-sized company, running one mainframe (VMS), some IBM stuff, and quite a few Windows servers. We're in the financial services industry.

    My CEO has known for a long time that I'm an Open Source advocate, and he expresses interest in getting away from Microsoft. He enjoys seeing what I can do with Linux and older hardware that would otherwise be mothballed, and he even consented to purchasing Redhat ES 2.1 at full fare recently. He has been amazed at the uptimes achieved on "worn out" servers running various flavors of Linux.

    At the conference, our core processing company briefly touched on Open Source software and the remote possibility that they might, one day, port their software to, say, Linux. At lunch that day, I listened closely as various CEO's, CIO's, and other higher-ups discussed this possibility. Overall, I am sad to say that the overwhelming reaction was one of disbelief and/or fear. I saw clearly that Linux is still considered by many, if not most executives, to be unproven and unsupported technology. The same people who speak disparagingly of the Microsoft monopoly and the high cost of proprietary software still would rather pay ransom than go into uncharted waters. Those having a more technical understanding were quick to point out that Linux still does not scale as true enterprise-OSes are expected to. These people expressed the view that, while such Open Source software as Linux and MySQL were "interesting" and "have potential," no one was remotely interested in seeing their core software ported to a non-proprietary operating system.

    I came away feeling a little depressed, but I resolved to continue, one server at a time, showing my CEO what Linux, Apache, PHP, Open Office, etc., can do and ARE already doing. Those of us who advise executives MUST continue with this kind of approach if we want to see better software running on our core servers.
  • by GeorgeH ( 5469 ) * on Sunday September 28, 2003 @12:18PM (#7077800) Homepage Journal
    ...100% of web servers run Apache on Linux [], thanks to VeriSign's DNS wildcard being hosted on Apache/Linux.
  • by defile ( 1059 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @12:31PM (#7077894) Homepage Journal

    If you ever worked at an ISP that hosted both Windows ASP/Front Page sites and UNIX PHP/CGI/DreamWeaver sites you know first hand how much of a royal pain in the ass managing the Windows sites is. Windows accounted for only 10% or so of our hosted sites but consumed about 65% of our support budget. It's simply too hard or even outright impossible to automate administrative tasks.

    I've heard from several sources that Windows 2003 makes this *much* easier, so it's very possible that the major hosting companies that have to deal with all of these ASP/Front Page sites that once moved as many sites as possible to a Linux platform to cut their costs have moved back now that they have Windows 2003.

    And it only took Microsoft 6 years to start addressing this market, and of all of the people who said Windows 2003 was way better, they still have a lot of complaints.

  • by gaj ( 1933 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @12:47PM (#7078021) Homepage Journal
    Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick, are you people completely daft? Or just that insecure? The "jump ship" comment was obvious sarcasm [] and on a quick scan of the comments it doesn't seem like anyone go it.

    A piddlingly small percentage of the even more pathetic percentage of sites that chose to try .Not ... er, I mean 2003 Server, we previously using Linux. The meat of the story (such as it is) is that so few sites are even bothering to try 2003 Server.

    And I wouldn't be surprised if the story behind the switches from Linux to .Not are mostly cases where a company had their site done by a hosting service (who, sensibly, used Linux) that had grown enough that some twit manager decided they should bring their web presence "in house". Their internal IS people only know Windows, so their obvious choice was 2003 Server (it being perhaps the least bad of the Microsoft stable of shite).


  • by flikx ( 191915 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @01:45PM (#7078450) Homepage Journal

    The 5% is coming from business gained by running Microsoft advertisements on slashdot.

  • Switching to Linux (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WhiteWolf666 ( 145211 ) <> on Sunday September 28, 2003 @04:23PM (#7079535) Homepage Journal
    Switching to Linux is Hard(TM)....

    It's kind of difficult to explain why, but it has something to do with the documentation being difficult to use.

    There is plenty of Linux documentation, man pages, HowTos, and all kinds of other stuff in newsgroups/forum postings.

    But often times, it is very difficult to find a simple, step-by-step instruction list to accomplish a task that I know LOTS of other people have done.

    For example-----I do not know how to make my own initrd. I run Suse 8.2, and wanted to test the 2.6.0-test5 kernel. Couldn't get it installed properly. I was running Grub, and the make install script was not configuring Grub correctly. For some reason, the mkinitrd script was not producing the right file either (quite possibly I was not using it correctly).

    All sorts of little issues like this, that thousands of you power users out there have been able to do correctly, I have not be able to get around, since the documentation is often indicipherable.

    Maybe I'm an idiot, but I spent hours, and hours, looking through man pages and searching on google. I didn't bother posting to a newsgroup, instead, I gave up, and started using Lilo.

    2.6 couldn't find my root filesystem. Don't know why (probably mis-configured my initrd). Don't care. 6 hours invested? Better off reverting to 2.4.

    I have similar problems---My fonts in mozilla are not anti-aliased properly, and I can't figure out why. I've configured it the same exact way as I did in Mandrake, but the fonts are butt ugly.

    All sorts of other minor, nagging issues too. I won't go into them now, but it pisses me off the way forum posts will refer to man pages which refer to man pages which refer to 'common' knowledge, which I'll have to google for, and which won't apply to my distribution.

    Perhaps, what needs to happen is more and better contextual help. Maybe an interactive --help switch in most programs? Or just redesigning man pages---This is a project that I would definitely love to participate in, but I just don't have the knowledge---If other people were willing to contribute suggestions, I would love to help organize an 'alternative' comprehensive man page set.

    Not that I'm going to switch to Windows anytime soon---I only use Windows 2000 for eve-online, 'cause WineX doesn't support directx 9 yet, and i'm an addict (savage battle for newerth is native linux, though).

    I just will have to keep fighting the nagging issues (easier than fighting the giagantic issues that Windows has (more sort of inconsistency and instability problems))

  • by Jerry ( 6400 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @06:49PM (#7080523)
    they get tagged with serveral Win2003 viruses.

    If that doesn't do it they'll sober up when they realize the total extra cost of re-buying Office and all the other software they used on XP or W2K or Win9X but won't run on Win2003. Oh, and the new client side licenses for their existing WinXXX. They'll especially love those naggling little DRM micropayments that suddenly appear in their mail box each month. Bill said he was movng toward the subscription model. He meant it.
  • by ducomputergeek ( 595742 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @06:57PM (#7080565)
    Now I will admit that I still have 2 Linux boxes I host client's web sites on, but most of my boxes now either run FreeBSD or OpenBSD and I have an iBook as my main computer.

    Why? It's been my humble opinion that Linux has been a bit of a bastard child. Is it a desktop OS, or a server OS? Its flexablity is its greatest strength and its achellies heel at the same time. With no standards between distros on simple things, like the path to PERL, can cause headaches for software developers. I once work on a project where we had to code three different versions of an app, one for RH, another for Mandrake, and one for Debian. After that expirance, I got fed up with the Linux Platform about the same time as Mac OS X.1 came out.

    FreeBSD was/is designed as a server OS first, and if you want to toy with it, it can also make an effective workstation. However this is where Mac OS comes into play: There are companies that are publishing commercial software for the platform. So I can interface wtih 90% of the web design/graphics world that use Photoshop, dreamweaver, QuarkXpress, and other such programs where as due to the pain in the ass Linux is to port across distros, commerical companies WON'T port their products. I will even admit to having MS Office, and I actully LIKE it on mac. It works wonderfully.

    While the OSS community has developed some kick ass apps, like the ERP module OSSuite (NOLA I think is the sourceforge project) is what I use to keep track of our business's accounting needs including payroll, W-2's, inventory, etc., there is still a vast void of software needs outthere. GIMP is certianly not a photoshop killer. Back in the days of PS 4 and 5, GIMP looked like it was on the track to possible create a much better product, but as now it seems as though GIMP has made very few improvements over the last two years and it still takes a lot more time and effort to get the same results as Photoshop. Photoshop 7 now blows GIMP away in my book.

    The two Linux servers I have still are Sun Cobalt Raq servers and I still use them because of the ease of maintance, but all my ecommerce sites are on FreeBSD machines and I have had very little problems with these boxes. Hell two are still running FreeBSD 3.4 and had uptimes of like 250 days until I patched OpenSSH and several other updates two weeks ago.

    RH and SuSE are getting closer to getting Linux from Geekdom to mainstream as SuSE is large in Europe. I used it when I studied over there for semester as the school had a windows lab and a linux lab, but that is mainly a result of GUI installers and KDE & GNOME.

    At our new business, I have FreeBSD on both of the terminals (we inheirted two PIII 700 Dells & 3 PIII 550 Gateway's when we bought the business) and instead of paying $2500 for four new computers, I slaped FreeBSD 5 with KDE on there, install mozilla and linked them to the office server which is configured as a local webserver with no outside pipeline and we use OsCommerce as our POS system.

    Now this article is a bit trollish about jumping ship. I stats and as Mark Twain wrote, "Lies, Damn Lies, and Stats". Approach with caution. OSS software is starting to get looked at, I work as a independant tech consultant, and Linux gets the press thanks to RH and SuSE providing what Linux needs to get into main stream: commericalization. There is a number you can call for support, if you need it.

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson