Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Operating Systems Software IT

Unix servers up 2.7%, Linux servers up 35.6% 314

Posted by CmdrTaco from the lookit-all-them-numbers dept.
cfelde writes "Linux servers up 35.6% and other Unix servers are up 2.7%. Also worldwide server revenue increased 6.2 percent to US$49 billion in 2004. The blade server market nearly doubled in size to over $1.1 billion in 2004 and 7 percent of x86 shipments in the U.S. were blade servers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Unix servers up 2.7%, Linux servers up 35.6% More

Unix servers up 2.7%, Linux servers up 35.6%

Comments Filter:

  • Who is still selling UNIX? (Score:5, Funny)

    by jimbro2k ( 800351 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:03PM (#11813380)
    We know it's not SCO

    • Re:Who is still selling UNIX? (Score:5, Informative)

      by owlstead ( 636356 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:15PM (#11813499)
      Well, for starters:

      IBM has AIX
      Sun has Solaris
      HP has HPUX (waiting to be retired in all probability)
      SCO - oh forget SCO, they are pretty much a non-player

      You'd be amazed how many proprietary Unix systems are still out there. Don't forget that a lot of servers are running a specific software suite or on specific hardware. But the server itself needs to be updated once in a while.

      And a lot of businesses like an OS that is very stable, if not that cool or up to date. The one time that I saw Solaris crash was due to hardware errors (and there were quite some Solaris workstations situated at university). Yes, I've seen Linux crashes, before you ask.
      • Add to that list:
        On the desktop there is MacOS.

        On the super high end there is Cray with UNICOS and Sgi with IRIX. Sgi probably sells more Linux systems then IRIX ones now days.

        I think HP still sells True64 systems but they were putting lots of True64 code into HP-UX.

        I'm sure people still resell used Ultrix, NEXTStep, etc systems too.
      • And a lot of businesses like an OS that is very stable, if not that cool or up to date. The one time that I saw Solaris crash was due to hardware errors (and there were quite some Solaris workstations situated at university). Yes, I've seen Linux crashes, before you ask.

        It's true those sun sparc boxes are very stable.

      • Sun (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Mark_MF-WN ( 678030 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @01:21PM (#11814171)
        Sun is notorious for producing some of the most stable software in the world. It's not fast, or pretty; it just never, ever fails. You can see this in the SUN JVM; it's about as stable as you could ever hope for. It's ugly and sluggish, but it's abhorrently resilient.
    • Apple does sell a server with a UNIX* default install. It is called xserve [apple.com]

      *(UNIX as in not Linux)

      • Re:Who is still selling UNIX? (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        (UNIX as in not Linux)

        Huh? Most things that aren't Linux are also not UNIX. BSD certainly isn't UNIX*

        * UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group.

    • We run SCO (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mnmn ( 145599 )
      Unixware on an old old 486 machine. It has a very proprietary software, that takes in autodesk DWG files, and through the serial port controls a large plotter with plasma, cutting inches of steel. The manufacturers, and resellers who provided support are both out of business. We do not have the root password.

      Before embarking on a cracking project, I tried installing the unixware on a different machine, it failed because the machine was too advanced I suppose. Gotta find a 486. Its also risky since the mach

  • wait (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:03PM (#11813385)
    Didn't MS claim their server was up in the market as well?
    Are these numbers the same (due to more servers being shipped) or are they actually due to increased market share?

    • Re:wait (Score:3, Insightful)

      by RealAlaskan ( 576404 )
      Didn't MS claim their server was up in the market as well?

      If the whole market is growing, then Linux could be gaining market share and MS could be losing market share, but MS could still be shipping more than ever.

      That (i.e., the whole market is growing) is what we see happening, though that doesn't mean that MS is actually losing market share: thay may simply be gaining more slowly than before.

    • Re:wait (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dtfinch ( 661405 ) *
      You can say anything with numbers, especially by omitting some of them. Those numbers are probably adjusted for inflation, but we don't really know because it doesn't say.

  • Idiotic windows users... (Score:5, Funny)

    by eggoeater ( 704775 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:04PM (#11813387) Journal
    up 500%.
  • From the article:

    When it comes to operating systems, Unix and Windows servers continued to grow. Unix server revenue was $5.2 billion in the fourth quarter of 2004 while the corresponding figure for Windows was $4.6 billion.

    Linux servers represented 9 percent of worldwide server revenue in 2004, which is 35.6 percent growth compared to the year before.

  • The Linux Increase Can Be Attributed to (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ThomasFlip ( 669988 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:05PM (#11813398)
    none other than IBM I would presume. Sun and SGI are dead so I don't see unix jumping ahead in the near future. Apple doesn't come off as a server company. BSD isn't as widely supported (I don't think) as Linux, and certainly doesn't have the momentum. Continue to see Linux Rise !

    • Re:The Linux Increase Can Be Attributed to (Score:5, Informative)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:12PM (#11813468) Homepage Journal
      The Xserver from apple is doing pretty well, from what I hear it is very good product. I would also say that SUN is not dead yet. SGI... Well they do seem to have some cool stuff still. I wish them well.

      • Re:The Linux Increase Can Be Attributed to (Score:5, Informative)

        by jdwest ( 760759 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @01:12PM (#11814082)
        Just installed and set up a new XServe last week. It is a very nice server, indeed. Although not quite perfect for the point-and-click admins (not that Slashdot readers are, anyway), the hardware is nothing short of incredible, IMO. The only hiccup I've encountered with XServe (10.3.8) is its mod_perl implementation, so I will have to roll my own.

        I have a "nice" Dell PowerEdge 4600 Xeon single running Mandrake that has been rock-solid in the 2.5 years it has been up, but it sounds like a vacuum cleaner on steroids 24x7. It puts off a goodly amount of heat, too -- thank goodness for server rooms. I love it, and am a little nervous about giving it up. It was my first real test with Linux, and I've come away with nothing but good experiences with it. I've come to appreciate the Linux experience from a reliability standpoint.

        Time will tell if the XServe box is as good, but based on my 18+ years experience with Apple's Mac hardware, it stands more than a reasonable chance.
    • The Linux Increase Can Be Attributed to none other than IBM I would presume.

      RedHat, HP, ...

    • Re:The Linux Increase Can Be Attributed to (Score:5, Interesting)

      by javaxman ( 705658 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:47PM (#11813781) Journal
      Apple doesn't come off as a server company.

      That opinion is so last century.

      The XServe is so insanely great that people are really starting to take notice, even with Apple's historically bad server-side track record. A 36% revenue increase? That's nothing compared to the XServe over 119% [eweek.com] unit sales increase. We're installing ours now, and I can see why people like them. They just work, they're damn fast, and they're really pretty cheaply priced when you compare them to similarly-capable systems, and it's honestly really, really hard to think of something they can't do.

      Apple may not come off as a server company to you, but if you were to fairly evaluate the XServe? That thing sells itself... complete with BSD unixy goodness.

    • Re:The Linux Increase Can Be Attributed to (Score:5, Funny)

      by fr2asbury ( 462941 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:52PM (#11813846)
      Sun and SGI are dead. BSD is dead. Linux will be dead by adding a Windows driver infastructure to it. Old people in Korea aren't dead though, they still send email. SCO is undead. When will this culture of death end?
    • The Linux Increase Can Be Attributed to none other than IBM I would presume.

      Hardly "none other."
      IBM is second in Linux server revenue with 23.5% of the market, HP is first at 26%.
      source [informationweek.com]

  • No mention of BSD! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mars Ultor ( 322458 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:05PM (#11813399) Homepage
    What about *BSD? I think the absence of any mention here is a clear indicator that it's dying. Anyone have some Netcraft stats?

    • Re:No mention of BSD! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by FLAGGR ( 800770 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:20PM (#11813535)
      BSD seems to always get clumped in with unix. Don't see why, unless its the commercial BSD's but meh I'm assuming it is included in the unix category (with OSX too I bet)

    • Re:No mention of BSD! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by SenFo ( 761716 )
      "What about *BSD?"

      I still don't understand why Linux isn't categorized as Unix. Is it a license issue?

      In the beginning, I can remember all the Unix guys degrading Linux. At the time Linux was probably missing a lot of what the large products had to offer. Now days, Linux feels pretty much like my old Unix boxes; but with BASH as my primary shell.

      "I think the absence of any mention here is a clear indicator that it's dying."

      FreeBSD has recently grown in popularity. They just released their new
      • Linux servers up 35.6% and other Unix servers are up 2.7%

  • Is that all? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Vainglorious Coward ( 267452 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:05PM (#11813402) Journal
    35.6% seems a pretty poor record for uptime to me.
  • Linux is NOT dying!

  • Up compared to what? (Score:5, Funny)

    by bwcarty ( 660606 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:06PM (#11813412)
    Linux servers up 35.6% and other Unix servers are up 2.7%.

    Need a new sysadmin? My Linux and Unix servers are up over 99%.

  • It's ALL servers up, better news than I thought (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RealAlaskan ( 576404 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:06PM (#11813414) Homepage Journal
    It looks as if all server sales are up, not just Linux and Unix. From TFA:
    When it comes to operating systems, Unix and Windows servers continued to grow. Unix server revenue was $5.2 billion in the fourth quarter of 2004 while the corresponding figure for Windows was $4.6 billion. Linux servers represented 9 percent of worldwide server revenue in 2004, which is 35.6 percent growth compared to the year before.
    It sounds as if we're seeing some growth in IT spending, rather than just growth in Linux. Notice that Unix servers are still a bit ahead of Windows, in terms of dollar volume.

    Growth in Linux is good, but overall growth in IT means more jobs, and that's even better.

    • the corresponding figure for Windows was $4.6 billion.

      I wonder if that figure includes software licenses, or if it is just for the server hardware.

      • >> the corresponding figure for Windows was $4.6 billion.

        >I wonder if that figure includes software licenses, or if it is just for the server hardware.

        Well, if they're consistant, does it really matter?

        Maybe it would: if the Windows figure is license revenue, and the Unix figure is too, then the fact that Linux makes up 9% of the Unix number becomes even more impressive.

        • If they consistantly include the cost of the OS license then it would skew the figures towards more dollar sales for MS products which steeply ramp up the cost as blades/CPUs are added.

  • Some of the UNIX's that are still n the market (Score:4, Informative)

    by speighd ( 693783 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:07PM (#11813420)
    HP (HP-UX) Sun (Solaris) IBM (AIX) One could also claim that the BSD versions (like Apple OS/X) fall in the category.
    • This is from the article:
      "IBM, HP and Sun are competing for market shares in the same accounts. Those days when a customer had habits and said, 'I'm a Sun user or I only trust IBM' are over," he said."

      Is that really true? In everycompany I have worked for there was one brand of *NIX in the vast majority of hardware. This was because of economics. It is cheaper for a large company to go with a single vendor. They get discounts on volume and for support. Sure there are usually a few rouge servers runni

  • The figure if Linux was up that much on the desktop

  • What about numbers? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by xRelisH ( 647464 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:08PM (#11813435)
    These figures are based on revenue, what's the market share in terms of numbers?

    That is, in terms of the number of Unix servers vs. Linux servers vs. Windows servers?

    I don't think revenue gives one an accurate picture of the market share of these servers, especially for Linux since I'd expect the software for Linux machines ( and probably hardware too, since it's off the shelf stuff versus a lot of the stuff from Sun/IBM ) to be a lot cheaper.
    • That is, in terms of the number of Unix servers vs. Linux servers vs. Windows servers?

      If it takes 15 Linux servers to do the work of 1 Windows server, what does the number of servers tell you?

  • MiniMac servers up (Score:5, Funny)

    by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:09PM (#11813442) Homepage Journal
    but they're too small to be counted.

    i know i had a MiniMac server somewhere on my desk ... oh, wait, it's under my coffee cup!

  • Linux server revenue almost equals M$-Windows (Score:3, Informative)

    by Husgaard ( 858362 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:10PM (#11813455)
    TFA states that total server revenue in 2004 was US$49 billion, and that 9% of this was Linux servers. This amounts to US$4.41 billion. M$-Windows server revenue was US$4.6 billion in 2004.

    Looks like Linux is catching up on M$-Windows.

    • It does indeed look like that's what the article is saying. Which really makes you wonder - what the hell accounts for the $34.79mil that remains once you subtract the numbers for Windows, Unix, and Linux from the total revenue?
    • Your misquoting the article. The figures for Unix and Windows was $5.2 billion and $4.6 billion for the forth quarter only. That anualizes to $20.8 billion and $18.4 billion for the year. The Linux number is for the whole year.

      When it comes to operating systems, Unix and Windows servers continued to grow. Unix server revenue was $5.2 billion in the fourth quarter of 2004 while the corresponding figure for Windows was $4.6 billion.

      Linux servers represented 9 percent of worldwide server revenue in 2004,

    • Re:Linux server revenue almost equals M$-Windows (Score:5, Informative)

      by Paul Jakma ( 2677 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @01:02PM (#11813964) Homepage Journal
      M$-Windows server revenue was US$4.6 billion in 2004.

      No, the windows/unix figures were for the last quarter of 2004, quoting the article:

      Unix server revenue was $5.2 billion in the fourth quarter of 2004 while the corresponding figure for Windows was $4.6 billion.

      Multiply by 4 to get ~$25G for Unix, $18G for Windows. So that puts Linux at somewhere around 1/4 of MS Windows. It also explains the "missing $34G" the other poster referred to. It isnt missing, 25+18+4.4 = 47.4G, so non-Windows/Unix/Linux revenue is somewhere between $1G to $2G.

  • Missing from the summary (Score:5, Informative)

    by bonch ( 38532 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:10PM (#11813457)
    Missing from the summary was mention of Windows growth--"When it comes to operating systems, Unix and Windows servers continued to grow. Unix server revenue was $5.2 billion in the fourth quarter of 2004 while the corresponding figure for Windows was $4.6 billion."

    That's really good for a non-UNIX server.

  • 97.3% of all statistics are made up (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xtermin8 ( 719661 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:10PM (#11813459)
    and 99% of the time I don't care.

  • Feel good to be a UNIX admin right at this moment (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nomad63 ( 686331 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:11PM (#11813462)
    Well kinda-sorta. I have devoted last 13 years of my 40+ years life to be a full time computer systems admin, after getting my bachelors and masters degrees in EE and working 7 years in the electronics assembly and manufacturing trenches. I knew that there was an ulterior motive to go in the UNIX direction rather than windoze path subconciously but did not know exactly why and how I ended up being a UNIX guy.
    During the last few years, certificate mills creating an army of windows admin drones, who can only click a predefined sequence of location on the screen with their mouse and passing as "system administrators", I tend to think that, certificate watching management types are going to hire more and more of these admin lookalikes and increase the share of windows in the server room which would make a demise of my careerpath. When I see articles like UNIX/Linux gaining ground on the server room, it makes me breathe a little easier. I do not want another career change, even though, after a week of skiing in Colorado, doing something like that for living is tempting :)
    • During the last few years, certificate mills creating an army of windows admin drones, who can only click a predefined sequence of location on the screen with their mouse and passing as "system administrators"

      Not to bash a Windows admins, but merely some observations.

      1) On average a *NIX admin can code and script, a windows admin can't.

      2) On average a *NIX admin can handle more boxes than a windows admin (probably because of #1)

      GUI administration is fine and dandy, and UNIX and Linux releases come out
      • Does it seem to you that Windows admins tend to think more of administering a server or desktop rather than the broader view of administering a system. I tend to think more systematicaly myself, and am comforatble pulling data out of a MySQL table, doing a little massageing in Perl, sticking the data into a LaTeX document and piping the whole thing to lpr, but the non-systemic thinkers tend to open an integrated app and want it all done for them or else say its impossible.

  • Everybody wins! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cmburns69 ( 169686 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:12PM (#11813470) Homepage Journal
    This is not an increase in market share! This is an increase in revanue. Microsoft was reporting similar gains for their server division as well.

    When you're not talking about market share, everybody can be a winner!
  • The business that I'm currently developing a web site for just got a snazzy new POS/Inventory Management/Client Accessible DB/Payroll/Kitchen Sink solution from Activant. [activant.com] They are running UNIX on the back end with familiar Windows machines for the POS machines. Do you need someone on-site that knows UNIX? Not at all, they can diagnose and fix most problems from their headquarters in California. I could see these highly polished, well integrated systems becoming a must-have for small business. Way to go UNIX, way to go Activant for making a strong OS decision.

    P.S. I don't own any Activant stock (if they are even public). Also, I do have a gripe with their lack easy to find web integration information for their seemingly home-rolled database, "Eagle."

  • Up 35.6%!! Even for Slashdot, this is meaningless. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kokoloko ( 836827 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:15PM (#11813493)
    At first I assumed it was market share. Then I stopped and thought it must be something much less dramatic. Then I RTFA. Jeez..... Basically, in a growing server market, Linux is producing more money than it did before.
  • Clearly Linux is coming of age in the enterprise data center.

    For instance, all of Oracle's hosting for its ERP product is done on Linux. In my company, we run our PeopleSoft ERP system on Linux.

    I believe that we are still on the bottom of the S-curve and will easily see numbers in the 30% range in the next 3 years.

  • Blade server definition (Score:5, Informative)

    by ZeeExSixAre ( 790130 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:31PM (#11813631)
    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_server

    A blade server is essentially a computer on a motherboard, including: one or more processors, memory, storage, and network connections. The idea behind blade servers is that many such blades can be added in space-saving racks, thus providing compact and powerful computing solutions that are less expensive than traditional solutions (such as mainframes). Blade servers are ideal for specific purposes such as web hosting and cluster computing. Individual blades are typically hot-swappable. Although blade server technology allows for open, cross-vendor solutions, for the time being, users experience fewer problems when keeping with blades, racks and blade management tools from the same vendor. Eventual standardisation of the technology will hopefully result in more choices for consumers; increasing numbers of third-party software vendors are now entering this growing field.

    • I'm not downing your comment, overall very informative. However I thought I'd hang my own off of it since it's topical...

      From an engineering standpoint, the concept sucks. Here are a few of my gripes about blades:
      1. Convergent infrastructure causes issues. Blades combine power, management, network, cooling, a single CDROM, single floppy, and servers all into one box. Management module crashed? There went all your servers in that chassis! Want to physically split networks for security purposes? Sorry
      • Dude. You are bad for business. Especially if people were to start listening to you.

        1. You can reboot IBM's management module without crashing your blades. Also, my current customer is running a drop to each of 3 NICs on each HP blade for security reasons. They *want* 21 runs to each blade chassis for some reason.

        2. Not what you use blade for. Best tool for the job.

        3. It sounds like you must be using IBM equipment but no one has deployed IBM Director. Someone in charge really needs to schedule a visit to

  • Stats Based on Revenues (Score:3, Insightful)

    by geoffrobinson ( 109879 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:31PM (#11813632) Homepage
    So somebody who takes a disk, knows what they are doing, and makes three servers is not represented in the stats.

    A Linux box which does two tasks and a Windows box which is devoted to only one will also skew the stats.

    While this stat is helpful on a year-to-year basis to see how the industry is trending, it does not give a complete picture.

  • for comparison (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jrod5000 at RPI ( 229934 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:44PM (#11813743)
    internet pr0n is a 5-7 billion dollar industry
  • The most interesting thing I see is that in the x86 segment, only $4.6b of the total $6.3b in the fourth quarter went to winboxen. Also, Linux' 35% growth is a relative increase, i.e. from ~6.6% to 9% -- really it's a ~2.4% increase in revenue share, which is still pretty good given that corps can install it themselves for free if they like.

    Otherwise there's not much there for my pattern-seeking synapses to grab ahold of. Am I missing where in TFA the "Unix servers up 2.7%" stat is? I even fired up a g

  • XServe sales make that look like nothing. (Score:4, Informative)

    by javaxman ( 705658 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @01:17PM (#11814117) Journal
    I know it's easy to double your sales when they start small, but an increase of over [eweek.com] 119% [macworld.com] is always impressive. Especially after you've been seeing triple-digit or near triple-digit sales increases for seven [it-enquirer.com] quarters in a row.

    Too bad the story submitter and the slashdot editors have worked together to give us a dollar amount an label it a server unit number, but still.... when looking at server deployments, I'm going to guess that if you're just looking for percent increases in units shipped, nobody this past year is going to beat XServe numbers.

    These statistics are always hard to digest, though... what segment of the server market are we talking about, what constitutes a server, is that UnixTM or does BSD/Darwin count, etc... I always have more questions than such articles are prepared to answer.

    Still, any increase in Linux sales is good news.

  • Somewhat less disorganized version of this article (Score:3, Informative)

    by alw53 ( 702722 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @02:45PM (#11815280)
    Here's the original IDC report [idc.com] which has a somewhat more organized picture as well as more data.

Slashdot Top Deals

"jackpot: you may have an unneccessary change record" -- message from "diff"

Close