On 2006-06-06, billwg <billw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> But if you're right, how come Linux revenues are 1/3 that of Windows
>> and growing?
>>
> Well the common wisdom is that, absent linux, those servers would be
> mostly unix and some Windows as has long been the case.
Wait, you've actually said something sort of true. Are you really
billwg?
> The OEMs would have made more money, too.
Whoops, yeah, this is billwg all right. A falsehood, with not even the
slightest attempt to justify it.
High-priced proprietary Unix is high-margin, true, but doesn't sell
very well in the volume server market, due entirely to that higher
price. Windows is selling all right, but doesn't generate much revenue
for the OEM, the OS revenue goes to MS. Linux lets them sell their
hardware (and proprietary Unix apps) in the volume server market (the
only part of the server market that's growing) with more revenue going
to them instead of MS.
> Well, ray, you are clearly one of those fastidious folk who seem to know
> the price of everything, but don't understand the value of anything! If
> HP features Windows in its TPC benchmarks, it is safe to assume that
> they are selling them to someone
Funny, Roy posts news articles every day talking about the expansion
and adoption of Linux. Why do you believe HP's press releases re:
Windows but doubt them concerning Linux? Why doesn't your own logic
apply to Windows on the server?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Does anyone really believe that terrorists can actually threaten
our survival as a nation? Killing large numbers of people is not
the same as threatening the entire country. It doesn't make sense
to restructure our entire legal system, giving up rights and
freedoms that people fought and died for, all to cut the odds
from 0.005% to 0.003% (and that's generous)." - Me
|
|
