Excerpted from the May 24, 2005 "Analyst Views Weekly Report" by Jim Zimmermann, Executive Editor, Analyst Information Products, TechTarget
According to leading analysts, Linux is a legitimate player for corporate servers, but it has yet to make any perceptible impact in the desktop market. In the past, the main reasons for migrating from Windows to Linux servers were to lower the total cost of ownership (TCO) and to improve security. However, recent analyst commentary is questioning this reasoning.
Linux vs. Microsoft Market Statistics
Sageza Group recently reported that market share and revenue for Linux installations continues to rise, stating that Linux has shown "revenue growth and unit growth both above 50 percent, with revenue topping $1 billion for the fifth consecutive quarter - at nearly $1.6 billion for the last quarter alone." Sageza goes on to point out, "While Linux revenue is growing much faster than that of Windows-based servers, the Microsoft product still holds a commanding 4 to 1 revenue edge in 2004 figures."
Yankee Group reports that "Linux now accounts for 20 percent of the worldwide installed base of server operating systems and its share of the North American market is approximately 15 percent." However, Info-Tech Research Group reports that "Most mid-sized enterprises are simply not interested in Linux. A tiny 10 percent of mid-sized enterprises plan to evaluate Linux within the next three years and only a portion of these will actually adopt it." Info-Tech claims that the lack of interest in Linux in mid-sized companies is due to the fact that "smaller organizations already have a trained Windows-based support staff, and adding Linux to the mix can add headcount, complexity and create havoc."
What about TCO?
Yankee Group recently released the results of a survey that compared the TCO of Linux and Windows. Its findings should surprise those Microsoft-haters who believe that Windows is a lost cause and that Linux is the future. According to the study, "An overwhelming 88 percent of corporations report that Microsoft's Windows Server 2003 operating system provides performance and reliability that are equal to or better than Linux in comparable usage scenarios." This represented a 12 percent increase over Yankee's 2004 survey results.
The survey found that from 2004 to 2005, Linux maintained - but did not expand - its healthy 15 percent market share compared to the 73 percent market share for various versions of Windows servers. This is not to say that Windows servers are the solution for all server needs in a company. Yankee Group believes that Windows and Linux each have their own specific "strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that can affect a corporation's TCO and ROI, positively or negatively." Yankee cautions that "To achieve optimum results and avoid undue deployment problems and expenses, corporations must perform a thorough cost, performance and risk analysis to determine the right technology option."
What about Security?
Microsoft's focus on correcting security concerns seems to be yielding results. The Yankee Group survey found that:
"Users rated the security of Linux and Windows servers nearly equal."
"Windows servers recover 30 percent faster from security attacks than Linux servers."
"Patch management woes lessen for Windows, but are on the rise for Linux."
"Microsoft clearly and convincingly corrected its most severe technical customer concerns. It must now maintain that vigilance."
Several firms also have pointed out that as Linux servers become more numerous, hackers have begun developing viruses and other threats to Linux. Although the number of Linux hacks is still small, the numbers are rising (Sources: Yankee Group, The Sageza Group).
Conclusions
Both Linux and Windows are here to stay. The decision to deploy a Linux or a Windows server should be based on a careful evaluation of both technical and business needs. For smaller companies with in-house Windows skills, moving to Linux or implementing Linux alongside Windows could cause more headaches and staff issues than value. For larger companies with sufficient staff and training budgets, implementing Linux-based servers may prove cost-effective in the long-term.
