IDC: Downturn to drive Linux adoption
Summary
IT decision-makers are planning to increase the use of server and client-side Linux due to the economic climate, analyst firm IDC has found.
Topics
The current economic downturn is set to drive Linux adoption, according to a white paper by research organization IDC.
In a survey of 330 organizations with 100 or more employees, IDC found that 53 percent were planning to increase adoption of Linux on servers, while 48 percent were planning to increase Linux on clients, as a direct result of the economic climate. The survey was conducted in February, and the white paper published on Monday.
Sixty-two percent of respondents — who comprised chief information officers, IT vice presidents, IT directors, managers and consultants — said their budget had been cut or that "they are moving more cautiously and investing only where needed", wrote white-paper authors Al Gillen and Brett Waldman.
"Economic downturns have the tendency to accelerate emerging technologies, boost the adoption of effective solutions, and punish solutions that are not cost competitive," Gillen, an IDC system software analyst, said in a statement. "This survey confirms that Linux users view [Linux] favourably, and this view places Linux in a competitive position to emerge from this downturn as a stronger solution."
Among the survey participants, 55 percent already had Linux server operating systems in use and 39 percent had some Unix server operating systems, while 97 percent had Windows server operating systems deployed. Twenty percent of respondents said they were in the process of evaluating whether to increase Linux adoption, and 27 percent said they would not increase Linux adoption.
IDC said in the white paper that Linux adoption on the server side could be accelerated by the availability of "ultra-low-cost" servers. Although the survey and white paper were sponsored by Novell, IDC said the ultra-low-cost server trend might not be positive for Linux server operating-system vendors, and may lead to the increased uptake of "non-paid Linux solutions".
On the client side, Linux adoption could be increased by use of netbooks running pared down Linux operating systems, IDC said. However, 20 percent of respondents were still evaluating client-side Linux, while 32 percent said they were not planning to increase its adoption.
Eighty-eight percent of respondents said they plan to evaluate, deploy or increase their use of virtualization software within Linux operating systems over the next 12 to 24 months, while nearly half of the participants stated that the move to virtualization is accelerating their adoption of Linux.
This article was originally published on ZDNet.co.uk.
Just In
People don't want it?
You say people don't want it... That is a curious statement to me. We obviously know different people. I'm 44 and every technician I've met in last five years that's under 30 has tried it and loves it. We can run any flavor of Windows in a Virtual Machine on our Linux boxes. Every person who has seen my Linux workstation (Ubuntu 9.04) appears to think it is an incredibly cool operating system. If they haven't heard of Linux they invariably ask how much costs with a dang it must be expensive look on their faces. When I tell them the OS and all the killer software I have is totally free they are stunned. Apparently most people just don't know about Linux or they tried a very old version years ago. You do know that Ubuntu releases a new version every 6 months don't you? It is ok to relax a little, Linux will not harm you or your family. It's written by some very nice people. 
even a price break on the server end, and netbook end may not be enough to stop market share losses. MS does not have a suitable OS for Arm based netbooks, and for virtualized environments, the licensing nightmare is just too much, and Linux is just too good.
even a price break on the server end, and netbook end may not be enough to stop market share losses. MS does not have a suitable OS for Arm based netbooks, and for virtualized environments, the licensing nightmare is just too much, and Linux is just too good
Now, for the line: Although the survey and white paper were sponsored by Novell
Now, based on your past arguments, when it was a Microsoft sponsered white paper, why should Novell, a company with an investment in Linux, be believed, if you claim that Microsoft based studies are to be ignored?
Oh, and the ARM statement was setteled some time ago: Windows will spur the growth of Atom based notebooks, not Linux will spur the groth of ARM based netbooks.
Now, for the line: Although the survey and white paper were sponsored by Novell
Now, based on your past arguments, when it was a Microsoft sponsered white paper, why should Novell, a company with an investment in Linux, be believed, if you claim that Microsoft based studies are to be ignored?
Oh, and the ARM statement was setteled some time ago: Windows will spur the growth of Atom based notebooks, not Linux will spur the groth of ARM based netbooks.
you did not notice that MS was forced to re-introduce XP and give it away on the netbook platform.
And, Arm for netbooks will get hot, with equal performance, but much longer battery life, and lower prices. MS does not have a solution here, and when they do, they will have to give it away to compete with Linux.
And, Arm for netbooks will get hot, with equal performance, but much longer battery life, and lower prices. MS does not have a solution here, and when they do, they will have to give it away to compete with Linux.
"...they will have to give it away or outsource opensource 'GL's' job to compete with Linux."
^o^
^o^
"...why should Novell , a company with an investment in Linux ' and Microsoft ', be believed,..." ?
Because when " Novell & Microsoft Collaborate Customers Win."
^o^
Because when " Novell & Microsoft Collaborate Customers Win."
^o^
[Eighty-eight percent of respondents said they plan to evaluate, deploy or increase their use of virtualization software within Linux operating systems over the next 12 to 24 months, while nearly half of the participants stated that the move to virtualization is accelerating their adoption of Linux.]
Good news and bad news. The good news is that virtualization is driving Linux adoption. The bad news is that virtualization IS TOTALLY STUPID! I've written at length about this facade so I won't rewrite all of that here. Suffice to say, virtualization is good for development/ad-hoc deployments and NOTHING else (WRT Linux). It's a mainframe technology trying to turn Linux into a mainframe . . .
Good news and bad news. The good news is that virtualization is driving Linux adoption. The bad news is that virtualization IS TOTALLY STUPID! I've written at length about this facade so I won't rewrite all of that here. Suffice to say, virtualization is good for development/ad-hoc deployments and NOTHING else (WRT Linux). It's a mainframe technology trying to turn Linux into a mainframe . . .
for testing purposes. Running multiple copies of ONE kernel is the way to go. When you use multiple different OSes on a single box, you have to have the OS image, and all of the application images loaded in memory for EACH instance. The best approach is to let the OS offer virtual copies of the same OS. With that, you get ONLY one image for the OS and all of the applications. On a server farm, each server should be dedicated to a particular OS. This is part of why RedHat is moving to KVM.
Virtualization done RIGHT is a great tool.
Virtualization done RIGHT is a great tool.
Humans can do one thing at a time. Humans look at a VM and say "Hey, we can run one application at a time" - so they do it because it resembles what their world view is.
Computers can multi-task. UNIX can automatically handle all resource requests from multiple processes. It does not matter to UNIX whether you are running 1 application or 100 - it can handle it (it's the hardware that is the limiting factor - not the OS).
So what are you using the VMs for? Creating a sandbox for developers to have root and mess it up is a great use for VMs. There are no others.
Computers can multi-task. UNIX can automatically handle all resource requests from multiple processes. It does not matter to UNIX whether you are running 1 application or 100 - it can handle it (it's the hardware that is the limiting factor - not the OS).
So what are you using the VMs for? Creating a sandbox for developers to have root and mess it up is a great use for VMs. There are no others.
the best solution for many (ok most) applications. but, obviously, for an ISP renting virtual servers, you do NOT want 2 customers on the same OS instance. Also, if an instance starts needing a lot of CPU, with VMs, you can automatically move it to its own machine, or to a lightly loaded machine (load balancing). But, just completely isolating different functions that are not related, so that you can be sure that one is not affecting the other is very valuable, especially when the overhead of doing so is insignificant (when virtualization is done right).
If you are a vendor selling VM access - yes you need virtualization. Isolating outside customers to their own instance is necessary. But that is circular logic - using the definition to create the definition.
Application isolation is not hard to do - it's just that sysadmins don't. If an application is self-contained on its own 'storage' - then it can be moved in-whole to another computer. Most decent sysadmins can spot overloaded computers or applications that clash - and can do something about it. Isolation is something humans understand - but computers are not introverts.
Application isolation is not hard to do - it's just that sysadmins don't. If an application is self-contained on its own 'storage' - then it can be moved in-whole to another computer. Most decent sysadmins can spot overloaded computers or applications that clash - and can do something about it. Isolation is something humans understand - but computers are not introverts.
the method of choice to separate customers, and un-related applications, and make them portable to other machines for load balancing and maintenance. Then, load balancing and separation can be automatic, and in real-time without human intervention, and we do not need so many man-hours to manage servers and applications.
No reason to mess with administration hacks, when virtualization is free and insignificant overhead.
No reason to mess with administration hacks, when virtualization is free and insignificant overhead.
You are mixing metaphors. Virtualization does not eliminate sysadmins, it just changes their roles. Complexity in the hypervisor/administration "level" adds to the "normal" complexity of UNIX. In fact, it makes it HARDER to diagnose problems because you are virtualizing them.
The "load balancing" you are espousing does not exist. With 1 instance of UNIX, it automatically load balances. With VMs, you need to ASSIGN memory and CPU MANUALLY. So if one VM is running a 10% utilization - you (as a human) have to do something about it (hardly automatic load balancing).
Your other assertions are fantasy. You never eliminate IT positions, you only create NEW ones! In the old days, syadmins did everything. Now you have Network guys, SAN admins, UNIX admins, and of course VMWare admins.
The "load balancing" you are espousing does not exist. With 1 instance of UNIX, it automatically load balances. With VMs, you need to ASSIGN memory and CPU MANUALLY. So if one VM is running a 10% utilization - you (as a human) have to do something about it (hardly automatic load balancing).
Your other assertions are fantasy. You never eliminate IT positions, you only create NEW ones! In the old days, syadmins did everything. Now you have Network guys, SAN admins, UNIX admins, and of course VMWare admins.
administration. And, being able to move VM instances from one physical machine to another is already here and will be universal within a couple of years. Letting users manage their own machine, and being able to move jobs to different physical machines for either maintenance or load balancing without administrative hacks will save a ton of time. Managing VM instances will be much easier than managing user accounts and moving them from machine to machine.
[Isolating different jobs on different VMs will be a huge savings in administration.]
Where, who? What savings? You sound like a salesdroid.
[ And, being able to move VM instances from one physical machine to another is already here and will be universal within a couple of years. Letting users manage their own machine, and being able to move jobs to different physical machines for either maintenance or load balancing without administrative hacks will save a ton of time.]
Wow cool, what do you do with it? Letting users manage their own machine is just silly. If they could do it, why have an IT department? When you have a SAN, and disk pools are assigned via WWN - how pray tell, do you switch to another machine? Only with administrative hacks . . .
[ Managing VM instances will be much easier than managing user accounts and moving them from machine to machine.]
Using KERBEROS and automount, you can log in to any machine and VIOLA, there is your home directory. You have to manage user accounts regardless - so what are you talking about?
Where, who? What savings? You sound like a salesdroid.
[ And, being able to move VM instances from one physical machine to another is already here and will be universal within a couple of years. Letting users manage their own machine, and being able to move jobs to different physical machines for either maintenance or load balancing without administrative hacks will save a ton of time.]
Wow cool, what do you do with it? Letting users manage their own machine is just silly. If they could do it, why have an IT department? When you have a SAN, and disk pools are assigned via WWN - how pray tell, do you switch to another machine? Only with administrative hacks . . .
[ Managing VM instances will be much easier than managing user accounts and moving them from machine to machine.]
Using KERBEROS and automount, you can log in to any machine and VIOLA, there is your home directory. You have to manage user accounts regardless - so what are you talking about?
>>>...The bad news is that virtualization IS TOTALLY STUPID!...
Might want to cool your jets there. Virtualization is not always totally stupid. Sometimes it's pretty smart. And Linux is also a mainframe system. You do count the IBM S/390 as a mainframe, yes?
Might want to cool your jets there. Virtualization is not always totally stupid. Sometimes it's pretty smart. And Linux is also a mainframe system. You do count the IBM S/390 as a mainframe, yes?
Their VM OS is what I'm modeling. Linux came from Multics - which I guess you COULD call a mainframe, but it ain't IBM.
You have fallen for the soft sell hook line and sinker if your attitude is that virtualization is "smart". Where are the "hard" facts and comparisons that a good researcher would normally find? All of the "info" about VMs today come from the big computer companies - parroted by the blog "press".
You have fallen for the soft sell hook line and sinker if your attitude is that virtualization is "smart". Where are the "hard" facts and comparisons that a good researcher would normally find? All of the "info" about VMs today come from the big computer companies - parroted by the blog "press".
"...if your attitude is that virtualization is "smart". Where are the "hard" facts and comparisons that a good researcher would normally find?"
"The benefits of virtulization come directly from the flexibility that it allows."
Three Scenarios that Benefit from Virtualization
^o^
"The benefits of virtulization come directly from the flexibility that it allows."
Three Scenarios that Benefit from Virtualization
^o^
Like I said, not always stupid. Like any other technology, has to thought out before implementing.
1. Disaster Recovery Opportunities. I have designed Autonomic systems that can recover from one downed platform by running on another i.e. Sun server goes down, HP comes up and runs job. No VM needed.
2. Pre Sales Demonstrations. Talk about WEAK! All the money flowing into VM and THIS is a major benefit?
3. Massively Parallel Processing. Using a grid on client computers has been well established - BEFORE VM was widely used. I don't see how splitting up an 8 CPU box into 4 x 2 CPU VMs would do ANYTHING for this.
These are EXTREMELY weak arguments! I could have come up with better ones.
2. Pre Sales Demonstrations. Talk about WEAK! All the money flowing into VM and THIS is a major benefit?
3. Massively Parallel Processing. Using a grid on client computers has been well established - BEFORE VM was widely used. I don't see how splitting up an 8 CPU box into 4 x 2 CPU VMs would do ANYTHING for this.
These are EXTREMELY weak arguments! I could have come up with better ones.
On one installation for a small, low budget non-profit organization needing a Windows server, I was also able to give them a Linux support server which could provide email, fileserver and various networking functionality, and all on the one piece of hardware costing less than $US1000. The only software costs were for Windows and applications running on it. VMWare server does the virtualization. Performance is not a problem because of the small number of users. Virtualization also provides the ability to move between hardware servers without reinstallation. Another advantage is that if a hardware failure does occur, moving the VMs to another spare machine is the work of minutes.
I wouldn't necessarily do this on a larger installation where the machines are needed to provide full performance capacity.
People just need to be aware of the advantages and disadvantages, and use the appropriate solution.
I wouldn't necessarily do this on a larger installation where the machines are needed to provide full performance capacity.
People just need to be aware of the advantages and disadvantages, and use the appropriate solution.
You hit on one of the only reasons to use VMs - to have Windoze and Linux run on the same box. Linux doesn't benefit from multiple VMs, but Windoze does. It is Windoze that has trouble with running more than one application at a time - therefore the VM premise works for that.
Still, if you were going to run one application per VM, you could just use DOS . . .
Still, if you were going to run one application per VM, you could just use DOS . . .
All around commercial vendors have to do more to
earn their money when there's less of it to spend, but if you concentrate on giving people their money's worth, instead of trying to foreclose all other alternatives, they're likely to remember that when things get better.
earn their money when there's less of it to spend, but if you concentrate on giving people their money's worth, instead of trying to foreclose all other alternatives, they're likely to remember that when things get better.
It might have something to do with if "it looks like a duck". It is not like MS has
never FUD lied in the past, it is not like MS never has been convicted of
monopoly and trust issues in the past. Sure everything that MS says is true and
everything that Novell says is a lie!!! Get your head out of the South Pole!!!!
never FUD lied in the past, it is not like MS never has been convicted of
monopoly and trust issues in the past. Sure everything that MS says is true and
everything that Novell says is a lie!!! Get your head out of the South Pole!!!!
Oh this is one of the funnier stories I've read today. It seems like every few months we hear about how linux adoption is supposed to increase due to situation X happening. Lets see here, linux adoption was supposed to increase because of Vista, and before that XP, and before that Windows 2000, and before that Windows 98, yet all that statistics show linux is either flatlining or declining in usage.
The problem with linux and what the fanboys don't understand is that people don't want it. Its not compatible with the rest of the world. Its got a security record like swiss cheese, remember the telnet port being left open? And there is no technical support when you run into problems and trust me you will run into many problems from the time it starts installing.
I think one of the linux distros paid IDC to publish this report, probably Red Hat or Novell.
The problem with linux and what the fanboys don't understand is that people don't want it. Its not compatible with the rest of the world. Its got a security record like swiss cheese, remember the telnet port being left open? And there is no technical support when you run into problems and trust me you will run into many problems from the time it starts installing.
I think one of the linux distros paid IDC to publish this report, probably Red Hat or Novell.
I have setup two sites with Windows servers, because people are familiar with MS software, and also because third party application developers focus on Windows (for good business reasons of course). However many of the users don't realize that Linux is also there saving significant costs by providing network, email, web and file server functionality.
Installation of Windows server is reasonably easy for someone with a decent experience. Linux requires more work initially, mainly because of the email server which can be tricky. However "trust me you will run into many problems from the time it starts installing" is just not true. Apart from initial configuration issues, the same on both servers, the major problem I have to deal with is Outlook which seems to cause users endless headaches for no discernible reason. My headache personally is getting MS licences sorted out. For servers MS licensing is inconsistent and restrictive (just read it - I bet few sysadmins actually do), not to mention the frustrating days of phonecalls and emails trying to get licence keys.
Many of the companies surveyed had some form of Unix and Windows together and I consider this to be an optimal approach for SMEs at any rate.
As for Linux desktops, sure ordinary users are scared of them, because they are different. But Linux these days has no more problems than an average Windows desktop installation in my experience.
Installation of Windows server is reasonably easy for someone with a decent experience. Linux requires more work initially, mainly because of the email server which can be tricky. However "trust me you will run into many problems from the time it starts installing" is just not true. Apart from initial configuration issues, the same on both servers, the major problem I have to deal with is Outlook which seems to cause users endless headaches for no discernible reason. My headache personally is getting MS licences sorted out. For servers MS licensing is inconsistent and restrictive (just read it - I bet few sysadmins actually do), not to mention the frustrating days of phonecalls and emails trying to get licence keys.
Many of the companies surveyed had some form of Unix and Windows together and I consider this to be an optimal approach for SMEs at any rate.
As for Linux desktops, sure ordinary users are scared of them, because they are different. But Linux these days has no more problems than an average Windows desktop installation in my experience.
You say people don't want it... That is a curious statement to me. We obviously know different people. I'm 44 and every technician I've met in last five years that's under 30 has tried it and loves it. We can run any flavor of Windows in a Virtual Machine on our Linux boxes. Every person who has seen my Linux workstation (Ubuntu 9.04) appears to think it is an incredibly cool operating system. If they haven't heard of Linux they invariably ask how much costs with a dang it must be expensive look on their faces. When I tell them the OS and all the killer software I have is totally free they are stunned. Apparently most people just don't know about Linux or they tried a very old version years ago. You do know that Ubuntu releases a new version every 6 months don't you? It is ok to relax a little, Linux will not harm you or your family. It's written by some very nice people.
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
Facebook Activity
