Gartner's Biased Frame
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| swhiser Aug 28, 2005 10:50 AM EDT |
Gartner's language indicates that they believe low Application-Availabiltiy is holding Linux back and supporting Microsoft in data-centers like Rackspace. They fail to note that 50/50 is a pretty good indicator that Linux is en route to a major ROUT! Gartner's survey and analysis would be more useful to all parties if they were able to be specific about which applications Linux does not support. But since this is PR, it likely doesn't concern them much. As for applications Linux doesn't support... -if it's Exchange, they're wrong; -if it's custom enterprise apps, they're rapidly being ported to Firefox -etc., etc., etc. This situation ought to be viewed in context with the fact that there are over 1,000 "packages," for example, included in a recent Ubuntu distribution of Linux and over 17,000 other packages available for free. Gartner seem clueless that Linux adoption and its eventual complete dominance of datacenters around the world is mostly a social phenomenon. Meanwhile their paid PR work on behalf of Microsoft can only perpetuate Microsoft's misapprehension of how their business is being eroded from beneath. It has no effect on Microsoft customers with whom I communicate. In other words, educated, aware Open Source participants would not believe the emphasis here; and if Microsoft, its customers, Gartner, Forrester, Yankee and the rest of the disinformation team believe it, then their knowledge stands ready for unwelcome correction as the markets drift away from their interests. |
| phsolide Aug 28, 2005 12:37 PM EDT |
Well, if Gartner had bothered to specify the missing applications, they would probably have mentioned "Word", and "Excel", the manager's Magic Touchstones, and then maybe PowerPoint and Project. Or VB6. Or Outlook. Maybe something as "reliable" and "secure" as IIS. All MSFT applications are missing of course, and of course, that's what all "Information Workers" use, right? So, rack-mounted Linux does miss some applications. Actually, the Windows application space is the one rather sparsely inhabited, once you get away from Monopolist Maintained office worker apps. Usually, Linux has half a dozen or more of any category - web servers: apache, thttpd, boa, wn, on and on actually. Even in the office worker app category, there's usually 3 main competitors and a multitude of small fry agressively pursuing them. I think what confuses Gartner and Yankee & etc is that no clear leader ever exists. Sure, Slypheed (in the email client category) has a contingent, but geez, so does Evolution, mutt, pine, nail, Thunderbird, Kmail, etc. Wow, the Giga group or DH Brown just can't seem to find a winner. And they're so conditioned to recommending the sales leader, their heads spin and they bail out. It's always something for MSFT True Believers: in the mid 90s, the key phrase was "Doesn't support Productivity Apps" (i.e. Word, Excel, PowerPoint), around 2000, it was "Linux doesn't have rich clients", now it's "Linux doesn't have enterprise-ready applications". And it all means the same: "I can't find 'My Computer' on it, and it doesn't have Word, Excel and PowerPoint.". |
| jimf Aug 28, 2005 2:39 PM EDT |
Well, 'lack of apps' is certainly not the problem. I think phsolide, that you may have identified the real issue. |
| dinotrac Aug 28, 2005 2:46 PM EDT |
Guys: The article specifically talked about slow adaptation in the desktop space, not the server space. Linux is going great guns on servers, and doing better all the time. No use pretending the sky is green, however. Desktops are much harder to win than servers because desktops are heterogeneous as hell. Linux is my preferred desktop, but my wife is forced to use Windows on her notebook (her other computer runs Suse) so that she can run a couple of apps that serve the mortgage loan industry. She has no option to run Linux for that work. From a corporate standpoint, the situation is muddied by the fact that more and more apps that run on Linux also run on Windows. Don't want to pay for Microsoft Office? You can run OpenOffice on Windows. Ditto for Firefox, Thunderbird, MySQL, the Gimp, PostgreSQL, and others. A number of other apps are webserver implementations that can be used from a Windows client. There is no GoldMine for Linux, for example, a product that my wife could use well. I am presently setting her up with SugarCRM, a tool that doesn't require Windows. It doesn't require Linux, either, however, as it is a server app. She uses it from her Windows notebook (and her Linux network node). |
| phsolide Aug 28, 2005 5:23 PM EDT |
Upon actually reading the article (It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide it's strength), I have had second thoughts. Windows does indeed have a number of apps that Linux does not. Viruses, trojans and worms. In fact, although Linux does have a very few viruses, and a few worms, it seems to totally lack macro viruses, boot viruses and email worms. Not a single one appears to exist. I mean, a HOW-TO even exists: http://www.lwfug.org/~abartoli/virus-writing-HOWTO/_html/ Why the heck don't linux "developers" seek to address this glaring deficiency? Without a thriving, vibrant "VX scene", Linux will never support that most necessary of windows accessory, a Virus checker. No worms, no Linux anti-virus companies. A whole Industry Sector, and an Important One at that, will have gone missing. I call upon the VB6 community of the world to rectify this glaring lack. |
| cjcox Aug 29, 2005 8:11 AM EDT |
Desktop space has volume but lower margins... granted x86 servers have lower margins than let's say a SPARC or even IA64 (titanic). You almost need a monopoly (dominating volume shipments) to sustain business there. Otherwise you just won't be able to make enough money. Linux on the desktop is happening because Microsoft is raising the cost-bar of running a desktop for home users (people with Microsoft software with lost or missing COA's). Also, the cost-bar can be extreme in certain countries. There's a few moving toward Linux desktops because of the security/stability mess that is Windows. In general, it's usually caused more by the casual administration tactics of the end user, but still. It's kind of funny in a way. Forever, Microsoft has been the desktop monopoly player that desparately wanted into the high margin world of the backend server space.... so Microsoft deems that world as the "prize" and not the desktop. Maybe people are trying too hard to see Linux on the desktop. Maybe that space one is easier to win than people realize. Linux still has a lot of growth room in the server arena... it keeps getting better, but there are a lot of features still not implemented (some due to the nature of free software... lots of discussions, wheel reinvention, etc.). If Linux can continue to gain marketshare in the backend server space, I believe the desktop will follow. I've been a Linux desktop user since about 1994 (that's NO dual boot folks). My wife has been a Linux desktop user for a couple of years now (no dual boot). We still have some Windows at the house. I own a copy of W2K3 that I use for Samba testing and my daughter still has a dual boot config. Oh... and just since the word rackspace appears in the title. The only rackspace has ever done for me was to send thousands and thousands of spam emails generated from the seedy customers they allow onto their networks. I would never recommend them to anyone. I blocked their entire netblocks from reaching our smtp server at one time for a customer (told rackspace about it too). It's one thing to deal with China, etc.... I don't like dealing with spam generators so close to home, especially ones touting a Linux option. Rackspace is ONLY interested in the almighty dollar. |
| swhiser Aug 29, 2005 12:34 PM EDT |
dinotrac: "Guys: The article specifically talked about slow adaptation in the desktop space, not the server space." It's precisely this confusion of the point that betrays Gartner's fuzzy logic with a "news" item like this. But, d'trac, the article was about Rackspace -- where they rent and co-lo SERVERS. Desktop was mentioned as you say; but I think the point Gartner would have made explicitly if they weren't such bozos is that 'if Linux has almost 70% share of served domains (see Netcraft), then why is Rackspace at 50/50?' Separately, it occured to me that we ought to look out ahead and expect future Gartner articles on this topic to be even more bizarrely contradictory. Imagine if 2 years from now the Rackspace survey yields 80/20 Linux to Windows. Gartner's point will be the same: "See how great Windows is to maintain 20% of installations there. Obviously it's a case of Linux's low application availability," they will exclaim, as if in justification for their fees. The Bozos! |
| dinotrac Aug 29, 2005 3:22 PM EDT |
swhiser -- Gots to read a wee bit more carefully. The study was conducted or commissioned by Rackspace, not about Rackspace. As to its 50/50 mix, who knows? Apache's got 70% overall, but all averages allow for chunkiness. |
| TxtEdMacs Aug 30, 2005 6:28 PM EDT |
Quoting: Rackspace is ONLY interested in the almighty dollar I beg to differ! I am sure they put weight on other more important issues, e.g. they will gladly accept pounds and euros even more readily. Now cjcox, admit the error of your ways! Repent! [U.S.A. Political Speech mode] |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!