Analyst: If I were a betting man...(Linux vs. Windows server shipments)

Just found this (of all places, on Novell's website [Click on "Figure 4" to get to the text below] - you'd think someone would have shared this with me...?). As the IDC analysis goes,

IDC expects Linux to continue biting at the heels of Windows market share and increase from 24 percent to 33 percent within two years forcing Microsoft to swallow even smaller profit margins just to hold on to their share.

Reasons for this?

1. Linux is starting to move beyond Unix - it's slowly starting to take a bite out of Windows. Why?
   • Whatever the relative cost of Linux talent (Robert Frances Group says it's cheaper than Windows system administrator talent, while Forrester says it's pricier), Linux requires fewer support resources. In Boscov's case (a SUSE Linux customer - full disclosure), they have all 200 instances of Linux in the enterprise supported by one person. If you read Microsoft's TCO case studies, its customers only state that Microsoft is cheaper because they didn't want to invest in any new training, which is a bit of a canard since Unix skills transfer automatically to Linux skills and, last time I checked, Unix predates Windows (so, in many cases, it is Unix skill, not Windows skill, that needs transferring....);
     
   • Linux hardware is much cheaper than Unix hardware (old news - Cendant indicates it saved $100 million by moving from proprietary Unix hardware), but also significantly cheaper than Windows hardware (Higher utilization rates, more apps/server)
     
   • "Windows installations require twice the number of administrator hours...spent patching systems and dealing with other security-related issues." (Robert Frances Group 2002) Even the Yankee Group, which has been bearish (neutral, they'd say) on Linux and open source indicates that only "18 percent [of its surveyed enterprises] report[] that [Windows Server 2003] is comparable to Linux reliability in terms of unnecessary reboots." This came right after the analyst's statement that Windows Server 2003 has come light years in terms of security and stability. Great progress, no doubt, but obviously a long way to go.
2. Microsoft customers have been pushing back on price, resulting in a better pricing structure/program, as both Yankee Group and SearchWin2000 have reported.
   
3. I suspect that choice really is an issue for CIOs. Some prefer Microsoft's "integrated innovation" model, which aims to remove complexity (and, necessarily, choice) from the IT purchasing equation by tightly integrating a broad suite of products. The problem with this "one ring to rule them all" approach is that whether you think Gates is Sauron or not (and I, for one, do not), the fact remains that many CIOs prefer to manage their vendors, rather than have the vendors manage them.

Anyway, I'm sure there are many more reasons for Linux's rise and Microsoft's leveling off. But it's a head-to-head battle that hasn't been won - by either side - and it's no time for complacency and back-slapping.