See:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4442420a26513.html
"Microsoft briefs Kiwis on Windows Server 2008"

Especially:

"Technology consultancy Gartner recently reported that Microsoft
increased its share of the server operating system market by 1 per
cent to 67 per cent last year, with Linux’s share of the market
slipping to 23 per cent."

Surely any self respecting journalist would know that Gartner is a
cat's paw of Microsoft and hence issues 'feel good' PR about Microoft
products.

In any case how does Gartner know what the Linux share of the market
is, since organisations can set up as many Linux servers as they like
without having to obtain licences, SAL's etc etc?

Even if Gartner has researched or oftained figures derived by proper
scientific methods, the margin of error would be greater than 1%%, so
there would be some probability that Linux servers has gained on MS
servers. In any event if all *nix servers are considered together,
then it would be 67%% Microsoft vs 33%% *nix assuming Gartners figures.

____/ peterwn on Monday 17 March 2008 05:03 : \____

"peterwn" paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:73cfbbc7-f7b2-4ca9-91b7-2eebc22c1650@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

"Finally how the hell should figures such as this influence IT
Departments' purchasing decisions. Gartner and Microsoft must surely
presume that IT managers are a bunch of Baa-sheep. Now everyone knows
that New Zealand has millions of Merinos, Romneys, Drysdales and other
fine sheep, but I for one did know that New Zealand's IT Departments
were full of sheep."

The short answer is that they do not. The information here is purely
informational and is unlikely to enter into anyone's decision-making
process.

Market surveys are intended to give information to market participant
suppliers to tell them where they stand, nothing more. Knowing where you
stand will presumably affect the go to market stragegy that you employ. If
you are a market leader, you do things differently than if you are not a
leader. If the market is mature and you are woefully far behind the leader,
you are well advised to consider your exit strategy rather than any sort of
promotion strategy.

peterwn wrote:

[snip]

In article <73cfbbc7-f7b2-4ca9-91b7-2eebc22c1650@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, peterwn paradise.net.nz> wrote:

The report as is is accurate. "Gartner reported". Readers can take what they
like from such reports ... but surely we are used to seeing quotes without
balance ? It's journalism, but not as it should be. :)

In article <73cfbbc7-f7b2-4ca9-91b7-2eebc22c1650@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, peterwn paradise.net.nz> wrote:

Point of order. Please don't connect a relatively sane news group (nz.comp)
with an inherently evil one (anything.advocacy). That, no one here needs.

Thanks :)

In article <47def5bd$1@clear.net.nz>, Max Burke did write:

So, have you upgraded to Vista yet?

* Max Burke peremptorily fired off this memo:

"Every year, Zone-H publishes stats of registered attacks."

Nah, looks like there's no status in attacking a Windows site and then
registering your deed to zone-h. Also, the software is getting more
popular:

In the past the most attacked operating system was Windows, but many
servers were migrated from Windows to Linux...
Therefore the attacks migrated as well, as Linux is now the most
attacked operating system ...

On Mar 18, 1:19 pm, bruce.sincl...@NOSPAMORELSEagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz
(Bruce Sinclair) wrote:

comp.os.linux.advocacy would be a quite sane group if pro- Microsoft
astroturfers and trolls left it alone - not content with spamming the
group with off topic stuff, they personally attack those who make
sensible on-topic postings, the nature of some of the attacks being in
very poor taste to say the least.

nz.comp is for discussion for all IT matters, not just a Microsoft
discussion group. If Microsoft fans want a nz.comp.microsoft
newsgroup then this surely can be arranged.