Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
MS-sponsored study finds Linux fastest-growing OS

By locutus074 in News
Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 11:15:30 PM EST
Tags: Software (all tags)
Software

"OFFICIAL: Linux is the fastest growing O/S." is the title of a news article at IT Analysis. What I found most interesting about this was that right up at the top there was a line that said, "Sponsored by: Microsoft".


I wonder if that was referring to the web page/advertisements, or if it was the actual study that they sponsored? If it was the study they sponsored, I confess to a bit of mild surprise about that. My first thought, if it was the second possibility, was that this is related to the antitrust lawsuit. But that doesn't make sense. The DOJ never accused them of being a monopoly in the server market, only on the desktop.

Anyway, about the article itself -- it says that right now Linux represents about 6% of OS sales worldwide. They don't dwell on that, but that's rather impressive in and of itself, at least to me. I wonder if the 6% represents a figure including OEM pre-installs. But then it also goes on to say that Linux sales grew 166% from Q4 of 98 to Q4 of 99. Sweet! (The article goes on to talk about Linux server market share breakdown among a handful of the biggest players, but it'd be kind of silly of me to rehash the entire article here.) I find it interesting that even with its rather smallish limit on the number of processes, memory, and disk, file, and swap space sizes, that Linux is being adopted as quickly as it is. My guess would be the momentum behind it, which started because of the "sexy" GPL, "viral" though it may be. ;) Maybe also because although it emulates Unix, it is perceived as "fresh and new" since it's rather young and makes a break with the AT&T codebase. (AFAIK, the BSD brethren don't have limitations as low as Linux. Sure, they're a bit harder to install, but that's what you pay sysadmins for, right? ;) )

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o "OFFICIAL: Linux is the fastest growing O/S."
o IT Analysis
o Also by locutus074


Display: Sort:
MS-sponsored study finds Linux fastest-growing OS | 39 comments (39 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Somewhat interesting and certainly ... (none / 0) (#11)
by pvg on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 08:14:39 AM EST

pvg voted 0 on this story.

Somewhat interesting and certainly on-topic - one thing that is worth mentioning is that 'fastest-growing' is typically a lousy metric. The smaller you are, the easier it is to be 'fastest-growing'.

Re: Somewhat interesting and certainly ... (none / 0) (#19)
by locutus074 on Mon Apr 17, 2000 at 07:34:23 AM EST

Oh, I agree with you totally. If you have one user, and in the course of a year you get 5 more, why then, you've just had 500% annual growth. :)

I just found it interesting that a story such as this carried a label that said, "Sponsored by Microsoft". It felt like I had stepped into some weird parallel universe. :) I guess I shouldn't have been surprised, though; what with the whole antitrust thing going on, it's not as if this is without precedent.
--
"If you haven't gotten where you're going,
you aren't there yet." --George Carlin
[ Parent ]

Re: Somewhat interesting and certainly ... (4.00 / 1) (#21)
by dlc on Mon Apr 17, 2000 at 07:44:17 AM EST

But "fastest growing" also indicates industry opinion, developer support, and all that fun stuff. These are the things that are actually important here. Overall market share is just a meaningless, in real terms, as fastest growing.

You know, I'd rather that linux have a 5% overall share than 50%, if that 5% represented huge datacenters, beowolf clusters, and large scale webfarms, to 50% of desktops. For all the community's talk of bringing Linux to the desktop, I personally see that as secondary. Desktop machines come and go, and if the next one has Linux, or FreeBSD, or Windows, or the MacOS on it, the average user will adjust (albeit often unhappily). But how often do think that Fidelity, for example, or the New York Times, rip out their infrastructure? Give Linux to the Fidelities and NYT's of the world, for a "measly" 5 - 10% of the market, and you can keep the desktop majority. Real power and influence live in the back office, not the desktop, especially with the Web as ubiquitous as it is.

darren


(darren)
[ Parent ]

What swap space size limits?... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by alisdair on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 11:42:52 AM EST

alisdair voted -1 on this story.

What swap space size limits?

Re: What swap space size limits?... (none / 0) (#32)
by Anonymous Hero on Mon Apr 17, 2000 at 08:50:27 PM EST

What's swap? Just get more memory... =)

[ Parent ]
Re: What swap space size limits?... (none / 0) (#37)
by Anonymous Hero on Tue Apr 18, 2000 at 05:12:25 AM EST

People used to Windows, where the swap is on one partition, probably aren't
used to the fact that 1) swap is in its own partition and 2) you can have more
than one swap partition mounted!


[ Parent ]
We know Linux is the fastest growin... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Anonymous Coward on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 12:04:40 PM EST

Anonymous Coward voted -1 on this story.

We know Linux is the fastest growing OS. That doesn't make it good, OR bad for that matter. Keep in mind that Windows grew pretty fast too, yet people bash that all the time. MS isn't evil, you know. They could have done it.

Well, considering that Microsoft be... (none / 0) (#3)
by bmetzler on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 12:14:34 PM EST

bmetzler voted 1 on this story.

Well, considering that Microsoft believes that people don't know the 'difference' between a client and server, it certainly is a strong tactic of their's in their PR campaign. I doubt whether it's related to their sponsership of this study though.
www.bmetzler.org - it's not just a personal weblog, it's so much more.

Hm. Did we need Bill to tell us thi... (none / 0) (#1)
by rusty on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 01:12:54 PM EST

rusty voted -1 on this story.

Hm. Did we need Bill to tell us this? :-)

____
Not the real rusty

Re: Hm. Did we need Bill to tell us thi... (none / 0) (#18)
by locutus074 on Mon Apr 17, 2000 at 07:28:34 AM EST

Hey now. Ain't it you that's telling us to submit stuff that we find interesting? :)
--
"If you haven't gotten where you're going,
you aren't there yet." --George Carlin
[ Parent ]
I find it interesting that even wit... (4.00 / 1) (#4)
by FlinkDelDinky on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 02:12:53 PM EST

FlinkDelDinky voted -1 on this story.

I find it interesting that even with its rather smallish limit on the number of processes, memory, and disk, file, and swap space sizes, that Linux is being adopted as quickly as it is.

I'm curious what you mean by the above? It makes me wonder if you know what you're talking about.

Maybe also because although it emulates Unix, it is perceived as "fresh and new" since it's rather young and makes a break with the AT&T codebase.

I've decided that you're uninformed and haven't even attempted to research Linux. At first I wanted to through this story into edit. But since we don't have that I was going to vote 0, but I think you've posted this just to do it, and it shows.

Re: I find it interesting that even wit... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by locutus074 on Mon Apr 17, 2000 at 07:24:33 AM EST

I'm curious what you mean by the above? It makes me wonder if you know what you're talking about.
Don't misunderstand me. It's not my intention to be unduly critical of Linux. See below for a few limits, with references.
I've decided that you're uninformed and haven't even attempted to research Linux. At first I wanted to through this story into edit. But since we don't have that I was going to vote 0, but I think you've posted this just to do it, and it shows.
That wasn't my intention at all when I posted this. I simply saw this on a mailing list I was on, and felt that other k5 readers would find it interesting, too. Maybe not the most interesting thing in the world, but interesting nonetheless, IMO.

Note that when I say that I saw it on a mailing list, it was basically just the URL and someone's two-sentence blurb about this. What I wrote for submission is a slightly edited version of a posting I sent to a (different) mailing list. Yes, I should have taken some more time to add some more polish, but I was very tired at the time, and it seemed "good enough".

After reading a few of the comments in the submission queue yesterday, I started questioning myself as to whether or not this should should be posted, but I found myself hoping it would so that I could reply to you. (Rusty, can we have replies on the voting pages?) What follows is a list of a few of the limitations that I was referring to. (I had done this research for a Linux startup that paid me to find out some of the limitations. This is because the company [whose CIO and co-founder is the founder of Oracle or Zope, both applications that store most all of their information in a single file, in an enterprise-type setup, when Linux does not yet (in the stable kernel, that is; we're not talking about using development kernels in a production environment) support file sizes over 2 GB, for example. So without further ado:

Max file size:
2GB for 32-bit architectures, much larger for 64-bit. (Note: Although I've not seen documentation, I believe this to be 8,388,608 terabytes. (2^32)/(2*1027*1024*1024)==2GB; I applied the same formula for 2^64.)

Max open files:
With 2.2.x you can have 1024. Various patches exist which allow you to increase these limits. Note that this can break select(2).

Max filesystem size:
The limit for a single filesystem (partition) on a 32 bit CPU is 4 Gi blocks. Each block is 512 Bytes, so that works out to 2 TiB.

Max processors:
16, using the Intel MP specification

Max files per process:
256

Max swap: On i386, 2 GB (16 swap areas * 128 MB/swap area). On Alpha and Sparc64, 8 GB (16 swap areas * 512 MB/swap are).

Max RAM: Kernels 2.2.11 and 2.3.9 and onwards support 2GB of RAM out of the box, you can just select a special config option and it'll work. Support for more than 2GB of RAM is in the works and will probably be in kernel version 2.4. Since kernel 2.3.24, Linux supports up to 64 GB of physical memory and up to several TB of swap on the x86 platform. This means that this howto is now obsolete. The easiest way to use more than 1GB of memory is to get a newer kernel and run that.

For memory, you really want to look at the "Linux Memory Management subsystem" page. It includes such updates as "Linux now (kernel >2.3.24) supports up to 64GB of physical memory and up to several terabytes (that's no typo) of swap space" and "Since kernel version 2.3.28 the kernel supports large files (> 2GB) on x86 machines. Matti Aarnio's LFS patches have been integrated and the maximum file size on ext2 with 4k block sizes is now 8TB."

Also, there is a resource at http://linuxperf.nl.linux.org/unknown/limits.txt, where he also references the Documenation/proc.txt under the source subdirectory as his "definitive source."

That's pretty much the entire text of my report, at least, the part regarding the kernel. (I just added such niceties as hyperlinks, as the original text was a flat ASCII file.) I have done my research, and I am currently doing more. Oh, and note while that I am retaining copyright on the above report (obviously, I don't have copyright on someone else's words that I quoted, but on the parts that I didn't quote, and on the entire compilation), feel free to use the above if you need it (although you might be better helped by a forthcoming HOWTO, which will be available in (what I'll call) a "first public draft" form at or near the beginning of May. (Publish early, publish often -- we want to get it out there for people to start using as soon as possible, and this will allow us to get feedback on it much sooner.) Full disclosure and shameless plug: A Linux startup in the Philadelphia area, LinuxForce, paid me to research the above, and they'll also be paying me a little each month to co-author and maintain the forthcoming HOWTO. Note that the only relationship that I have with LinuxForce is that of a Linux enthusiast and someone that does some occasional work for them on a per-job consulting-type basis; I wasn't involved in the founding of the company.

Anyway, I hope that that answers any questions that you might have about the veracity of my claims. In particular, the statement about the filesystem size wasn't entirely accurate (I don't have a 2 TB parition lying around, do you?), but the statements in the submission were made from memory. I also hope that this can be of help to other people. Also note that the statements I made were based on the production kernel (2.2 as of this writing, of course) on a 32-bit architecture, which is what I suspect is what most people are using.

I closing I want to say that while I am enthusiastic about and supportive of Linux as much as the next Linux fan, that dealing with business is forcing me to be more practical. Linux is not the be-all and end-all of operating systems; such an animal does not exist. While it is my OS of choice, there are situations where is neither practical (because of limitations) nor advisable (because of advocacy reasons) to use or recommend the use of Linux. A good amount of this stuff will go away when 2.4 is the production kernel, but I suspect it's not a good idea (in general) to use a development kernel in a production environment (at least, not as your primary box for $TASK; it can certainly be good for development work). Linux still needs work, but it's coming along marvellously and rapidly. Don't forget the old saying that all operating systems suck. :) (Linux, IMO, just happens to suck less.) And neither is any one operating system suited for all tasks. Oh, and if you know of any resources that document more limits the kernel (either 2.2 or the forthcoming 2.4), feel free to let me know, if you want to. (The email address I'll be using for HOWTO-related stuff is this one. Proper credit will be given in the Acknowledgements or Credits section. Just say how you want to be credited [ie, by name, email address, etc].)

What we really need are documents that detail the same sorts of things about other OS's, like NT/2K, *BSD, Solaris, etc....
--
"If you haven't gotten where you're going,
you aren't there yet." --George Carlin
[ Parent ]

HTML correction for this comment's parent (none / 0) (#24)
by locutus074 on Mon Apr 17, 2000 at 11:22:11 AM EST

...the company [whose CIO and co-founder is the founder of Oracle or Zope, both applications that store most all of their information...
Damn. I hate to reply to myself, but I didn't catch this in preview. That should have read something like as follows:
...the company [whose CIO and co-founder is the founder of PLUG, our local user's group] wanted to know Linux's capabilities so that in recommending Linux as a solution for an enterprise server, they could better ascertain if Linux is right for the job. after all, you don't want to give a company the wrong impression of Linux by trying to have it do something that it's not yet capable of.) Note that I certainly feel that Linux is viable on the desktop; I use it 90% of the time on my own home machine. But it doesn't help Linux's cause to try to have it run, say, Oracle or Zope, both applications that store most all of their information...
That's what I meant to have it say. (Feel free to check the page source. :P) The guy founded our local LUG, not Oracle and Zope. :)

Geez. Accidentally type a ' instead of a " and the browser goes wacky on you. :) Rusty, if you're so inclined, feel free to edit the parent comment and delete this one. If not, no biggie.
--
"If you haven't gotten where you're going,
you aren't there yet." --George Carlin
[ Parent ]

Re: I find it interesting that even wit... (3.00 / 1) (#27)
by Anonymous Hero on Mon Apr 17, 2000 at 03:46:54 PM EST

Max swap: On i386, 2 GB (16 swap areas * 128 MB/swap area). On Alpha and Sparc64, 8 GB (16 swap areas * 512 MB/swap are).

Sorry, but this, at least, is wrong. Quoth /usr/src/linux/Documentation/Changes:

Among other changes made in the development of Linux kernel 2.2, the 128 meg limit on IA32 swap partition sizes has been eliminated.

And from man mkswap:

The maximum useful size of a swap area now depends on the architecture. It is roughly 2GiB on i386, PPC, m68k, ARM, 1GiB on sparc, 512MiB on mips, 128GiB on alpha and 3TiB on sparc64.

Further:

Presently, Linux allows 8 swap areas.

I should hope that 16 GiB of swap on i386 (or 24 TiB on sparc64!) will cut it for you.

AH.

[ Parent ]

Re: I find it interesting that even wit... (none / 0) (#34)
by locutus074 on Tue Apr 18, 2000 at 01:50:07 AM EST

Thanks for the corrections!
--
"If you haven't gotten where you're going,
you aren't there yet." --George Carlin
[ Parent ]
Re: I find it interesting that even wit... (4.00 / 1) (#29)
by Inoshiro on Mon Apr 17, 2000 at 05:03:34 PM EST

For max file size, just use 2^31 because the file offset is a signed 32-bit integer.. You also lose that strange munging or whatever you did to get 2gb out of 2^32 over something..

For the 2.2.x series, there is *no* limit on the size of the swap partition (you continue to use the old 128mb limit from 2.0.x in your calculations).



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
Re: I find it interesting that even wit... (none / 0) (#36)
by locutus074 on Tue Apr 18, 2000 at 02:29:22 AM EST

For max file size, just use 2^31 because the file offset is a signed 32-bit integer..
Doh! The 1027 was a typo... Anyhow, I should have realized that; (2^3)/2 == 2^2...

Whoopsie.
--
"If you haven't gotten where you're going,
you aren't there yet." --George Carlin
[ Parent ]

Re: I find it interesting that even wit... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by FlinkDelDinky on Mon Apr 17, 2000 at 11:31:26 PM EST

Now the above post was cool. I would have voted +1 easy on that because at least I know what you mean by limitations (and I was aware of most of them, but the swap limitation has been fixed).

I think it would have been good if you'd talked about why the limitations were important. I already know some, all related the 2GB file size (which I first heard about in OS/2).

IIRC, your post was related to limitations regarding big servers. Who's going to run a big server on IA32? I thought people were using IA32 freenix for small to medium-small servers.

You also could have mentioned the various filesystems available and in development. This is a big problem.

I don't mind you or anybody critisising freenix. I know they're not all there yet. I just like specifics (which you provided) and reasons (which you didn't provide but if you add it to the above article and put it in the que things could get lively and that's always entertaining.

[ Parent ]

Re: I find it interesting that even wit... (none / 0) (#39)
by Anonymous Hero on Tue Apr 18, 2000 at 09:55:29 AM EST

the "max 256 files per process" limit is not accurate, as far as I can see; on RH 6.2 and Mandrake 7.0, using various 2.2 kernels, I can open 1024 files in a single process with no problems.

[ Parent ]
Linux vs [insert other OS here] gro... (none / 0) (#9)
by inspire on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 02:55:00 PM EST

inspire voted 0 on this story.

Linux vs [insert other OS here] growth is not a very useful statistic. I tend to find that these sorts of statistics are bandied about by people who dont have any other real selling point.

What I'm trying to say, I guess, is that I wouldn't use an OS based on its growth figures. It may be impressive to say that Linux is the fastest growing OS, but that doesn't say anything about comparative features of Linux vs [other OS], apart from its popularity.

What's needed is objective benchmarking of all the OS'es side-by-side doing functions that people would consider essential - for desktop/gaming machines, the functions/features/speed of word processors and performance of the latest version of Quake etc., for servers, network throughput and requests served/time.

What's NOT needed is "Linux rocks because lots of people use it".
--
What is the helix?

Re: Linux vs [insert other OS here] gro... (none / 0) (#20)
by locutus074 on Mon Apr 17, 2000 at 07:42:56 AM EST

What's NOT needed is "Linux rocks because lots of people use it".
Absolutely. Last week at work (I work third shift for an ISP), I met a guy (a customer's consultant who was installing a tape drive in one of the customer's colocated servers) that has many years' experience both with commercial Unices and also with Microsoft products. He said that one time a Microsoft employee (not sure if it was sales or support, but I think it was support staff) tried to tell him that the Microsoft $PRODUCT in question was the best because the most people use it. He then spent a while arguing with the rep that quantity != quality. (And this is from an MCSE, too [he got it for career reasons, I think, although he's sick of dealing with MS software, staff, and corporate arrogance].)
--
"If you haven't gotten where you're going,
you aren't there yet." --George Carlin
[ Parent ]
Hasn't Linux been the fastest-growi... (none / 0) (#6)
by evro on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 03:06:01 PM EST

evro voted 1 on this story.

Hasn't Linux been the fastest-growing-OS for a while now?
---
"Asking me who to follow -- don't ask me, I don't know!"

Re: Hasn't Linux been the fastest-growi... (none / 0) (#16)
by Anonymous Hero on Mon Apr 17, 2000 at 06:33:11 AM EST

Yeah, I'm just testin'


[ Parent ]
It just means that the page itself ... (none / 0) (#12)
by medicthree on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 03:46:13 PM EST

medicthree voted -1 on this story.

It just means that the page itself was sponsored by (advertising) Microsoft. Microsoft didn't sponsor the study, Microsoft was just advertising on the page that happened to post it.

Re: It just means that the page itself ... (none / 0) (#28)
by fluffy grue on Mon Apr 17, 2000 at 03:48:17 PM EST

Yes, but probably not for long. ;)

(Knowing MSFT's tendency to use financial status to bully companies which don't completely sell out, it wouldn't surprise me too much if that site were to suddenly lose their sponsorship.)
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

It is interesting to see the large ... (none / 0) (#13)
by bmaust on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 04:31:49 PM EST

bmaust voted 1 on this story.

It is interesting to see the large amount of PR microsoft has started generating since the DOJ ruling. I've seen a TV commercial of just Bill Gates, explaining how great they are. It didn't feature any specific product; it just hyped the company. I agree with Locutus that the most interesting part is the sponsorship.

Re: It is interesting to see the large ... (none / 0) (#30)
by skim123 on Mon Apr 17, 2000 at 05:29:58 PM EST

It is interesting to see the large amount of PR microsoft has started generating since the DOJ ruling. I've seen a TV commercial of just Bill Gates, explaining how great they are

I think part of that was to calm down those folks dumping MS shares (and general tech. shares).

Bill was saying, "Hey, fuck what the government says, we're gonna be here for a long time."

Money is in some respects like fire; it is a very excellent servant but a terrible master.
PT Barnum


[ Parent ]
This just isn't interesting. I'm p... (none / 0) (#2)
by ebunga on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 04:45:23 PM EST

ebunga voted -1 on this story.

This just isn't interesting. I'm pretty sure we all know that linux is growing, if not, where have you been?

Anything showing that MS has compet... (4.00 / 1) (#10)
by jrennie on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 04:52:17 PM EST

jrennie voted 1 on this story.

Anything showing that MS has competition is good for them in court. They're probably emphasizing the server market so they don't have to lie about Linux's presence. Linux doesn't have much of a presence on the desktop side, but it is a significant force on the server side. Given the court case, it can't hurt MS to reitterate the fact that one day, Linux may cut into MS's profits...

Nice. But, are you so sure Linux i... (none / 0) (#5)
by shepd on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 10:55:44 PM EST

shepd voted 1 on this story.

Nice. But, are you so sure Linux isn't a viable desktop OS right now? Slap on X, a nice looking window manager, StarOffice, Netscape, and a few games, and you have a tidy little desktop machine. :-)

Re: Nice. But, are you so sure Linux i... (none / 0) (#22)
by locutus074 on Mon Apr 17, 2000 at 07:50:57 AM EST

Nice. But, are you so sure Linux isn't a viable desktop OS right now? Slap on X, a nice looking window manager, StarOffice, Netscape, and a few games, and you have a tidy little desktop machine. :-)
Agreed. Totally. I use it every day as my desktop. I've still got a Win98 partition on my machine, though, sucking up ~4 gigs for no good reason. :) What I really want is to find an mpeg player that doesn't suck. At this point, that would remove practically all my motivation for booting back into Windows.

(PS: I was only referring to their current legal troubles when I said what I did about server/desktop. It looks like you realize that, but I just wanted to state that explicitly.)
--
"If you haven't gotten where you're going,
you aren't there yet." --George Carlin
[ Parent ]

Re: Nice. But, are you so sure Linux i... (none / 0) (#26)
by fluffy grue on Mon Apr 17, 2000 at 03:46:49 PM EST

mpg123. After all (to quote MikMod's design document), "Music is to be heard and not seen." Sure, if I want to do playlist stuff or look at pretty graphics of the music, I'll run xmms, but if I just want to have all my MP3s going in the background, it's mpg123 for me.


--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

Re: Nice. But, are you so sure Linux i... (none / 0) (#31)
by ramses0 on Mon Apr 17, 2000 at 07:50:28 PM EST

agreed. www.xmms.org skins and everything. plus you can wire it up to the internet (now you know what i spend my spare time doing :^)=

--Robert
[ rate all comments , for great justice | sell.com ]
[ Parent ]

Re: Nice. But, are you so sure Linux i... (none / 0) (#35)
by fluffy grue on Tue Apr 18, 2000 at 01:55:59 AM EST

Spare time? Oh, you mean that mythical time taken up by tweaking steganography, Markov chains, and other useless crap when I should be working on my RA project. :)

Sorry, I gotta be a pretentious, egotistical bastard/bitch now and then. (No, I'm not always one, Rusty. :)
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

Re: MS-sponsored study finds Linux fastest-growing (none / 0) (#14)
by evro on Mon Apr 17, 2000 at 02:04:18 AM EST

You know, considering Microsoft's track record on the truth, if they "found"
that Linux was the fastest growing OS, I'd almost be inclined not to believe
it.

Of course, whether or not they actually "sponsored" this study is a matter of
some debate, but...

---
"Asking me who to follow -- don't ask me, I don't know!"
Re: MS-sponsored study finds Linux fastest-growing (none / 0) (#15)
by henrik on Mon Apr 17, 2000 at 05:03:18 AM EST

Look at that last sentence:
"Just shows you, there really is life outside Wintel."

Ha! That explains it all. How long do you think it'll be before Microsoft lawyers stand up waving this in court?

Microsoft conspiracy theories are just so fun!

-henrik

Akademiska Intresseklubben antecknar!

Queue moderation - OT (none / 0) (#23)
by Notromda on Mon Apr 17, 2000 at 10:18:08 AM EST

I'm a newcomer to K5, and I see that there has been discussion on this before, but I'm still curious how the story queue moderation works. From what I see, this story had a negative vote, yet it still posted. ????

Re: Queue moderation - OT (none / 0) (#25)
by Inoshiro on Mon Apr 17, 2000 at 11:57:41 AM EST

(From the FAQ page) Votes are cumulative. For an article to be posted, a number equal 3% of all accounts must vote yes for it. -1 votes subtract from that number. If the number gets below -4, the article is killed. If an article stays inside the moderation queue for longer than X number of days, it's also killed. This allows for situations where a lot of people vote +1, and an almost equal number vote -1 (the marginal stories).

Enjoy K5 :-)



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
Re: MS-sponsored study finds Linux fastest-growing (none / 0) (#38)
by Anonymous Hero on Tue Apr 18, 2000 at 05:42:30 AM EST

it says that right now Linux represents about 6% of OS sales worldwide.

Since Linux is a free OS that looks like a lot to me. I think most Linux users buy a low-cost cd to install and get the rest from the net. So sales have nothing to do with usage when Linux (or any other free os) is involved.

MS-sponsored study finds Linux fastest-growing OS | 39 comments (39 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!