They're table indicating license shipments is misleading. ONe linux
"license" can mean HUNDREDS (and in a few cases THOUSANDS) of installed
machines. It's more ubiquitous than they're willing to admit in this
article.
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> "Stephen D. Williams" wrote:
> >
> ...
> > We've been through the kind of monopoly that MS would tend to become,
> > IMHO, with the old ATT and IBM. Competition has been a huge boon to
> > consumers since those monopolies or near monopolies, respectively, were
> > overcome.
>
> I should have pointed out that the new IBM's moves are one of the
> reasons that I'm optimistic about Linux, Java, XML, etc. in the near
> term. I'm not, yet, worried about their regressive tendancies (although
> I wish they'd kill or open source Lotus Notes).
>
> >From Business 2.0 coverstory, April 2001 (not available online yet):
>
> Big Blue Wages Open Warfare
>
> "IBM, the $88 billion behemoth, is committing itself to one of the most
> radical shifts in its corporate history: a move away from proprietary
> systems and toward an open computing environment. Don't expect peace,
> love, and flowers however. The future of IBM is at stake. And,
> perhaps, the future of the entire computer industry."
>
> "... by CEO Lou Gerstner. It's hugely ironic that he is committing the
> company to what may become the most radical shift in its 77-year history
> -- a tough questioning of the proprietary lock-in model and a warm
> embrace of open computing."
>
> "open computing is now central to Big Blue's future."
>
> "Indeed, it is the lack of control -- the lack of proprietary lock-in --
> that makes IBM's strategy revolutionary."
>
> "Gerstner is basically doing a technology hedge."
>
> "In addition to sinking $1 billion into Linux development this year, IBM
> will invest $300 million over three years to create Linux-related
> training, education, and consulting services."
>
> "If IBM can afford to be agnostic, it still must persuade customers that
> it is not simply attempting a different sort of lock-in. IBM's take is
> that Microsoft and Sun, which are trying to sell services of their own,
> cannot be trusted because their ultimate aim is to lock customers into
> Windows and Solaris."
>
> Worldwide server operating environments:
>
> New Software license shipments by platform, 1999 and 2000 (thousands)
>
> 1999 2000 1999-2000 growth%
> WinNT/2k 2,086 38.4% 2,508 40.9% 20.2%
> Linux 1,322 24.3% 1,645 26.9% 24.4%
> Netware 3-5 1,064 19.6% 1,030 16.8% -3.1%
> Combined Unix 826 15.2% 826 13.5% 0.0%
> Other NOS 140 2.6% 116 1.9% -17.4%
> Total 5,438 100.1% 6,125 100.0 12.6%
>
> Solaris in 1999 had 22.5% of Unix market, in 2000 it's 31.7%.
>
> So NT/2K has 40.9% in 2000, Linux/Unix has 40.4% in Unit Shipments.
> This should mean that installed servers are much higher for Linux/Unix
> due to copying and lower incidence of new OS shipments being counted for
> existing servers.
>
> sdw
> --
> sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st
> Stephen D. Williams
> 43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax
> Dec2000
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geeks mailing list
> Geeks@lig.net
> http://www.lig.net/mailman/listinfo/geeks
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Seidenman, CISSP
Senior Security Consultant
Hyperon, Inc.
www.hyperon.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:15:06 PDT