On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 07:40:44 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ thad01@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] on Sunday 05 March 2006 07:38 \__
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> |"Linux servers generated $1.6 bln in quarterly revenue, the 14th
>>> |consecutive quarter of double-digit growth, with YTY revenue growth of
>>> |20.8%. For the full year, Linux server revenues were $5.7 bln, placing it
>>> |in third place for the first time from an operating system perspective as
>>> |customers continued to expand the role of Linux servers into an
>>> |increasingly wider array of commercial and technical workloads."
>> Stop and think about this for a moment... a 'free' operating system taking
>> third place in the server market when measured by revenue. What does that
>> say about unit volume, especially when you add in all the redeployment of
>> old hardware, whitebox servers, and other installs not measured by this
> This was more or less the motive for posting this. People look at money,
> money, money and the corresponding placement of Windows servers. When it
> comes to numbers, Windows is less than prevalent.
Absolutely. If you extrapolate this, then it's possible for MS to
sel ONE server costing $8 billion and claim to be the top in the server
market! You HAVE to use numbers of units sold. That's the only way to
measure market penetration. We had a situation recently here in the UK
with a company that supplies domestic gas (for cooking and heating - not
the gas for cars!), posting a huge profit, and then putting up gas prices
to the consumer, which caused a big outcry. In fact, when the numbers were
analysed, the domestic gas division actually posted either a loss or a
VERY small percentage of the total profit.
You CANNOT determine "market share" purely on revenue.
Registered Linux User no 240308
to email me replace the obvious!