Slashdot Mirror
Perens Discredits Mundie's Attack On GPL
SaxMan101 writes "CNET has an editorial from Bruce Perens that quite handily dismantles Mundies attack on the GPL and the Liberty Alliance. He takes the time to make YA strong argument for free software which he backs up with real numbers. Well said, worth the read."
Perens is dismantling Mundies FUD in a calm, businesslike way. Let's hope that the debate on MS FUD stays this calm and reasonable
It's obvious that Mundie sees the world through Windows-colored glasses. Software must be sold to get the money to make more software. How else could a software company work? If you can't license it, you can't gouge^H^H^H^H^Hcollect your due earnings. Oh, and the whole thing about people not working with Microsoft...if that's not a monopolist talking I don't know what is.
Anyway, rant off now. It's good to see someone who can rationally tear down his arguement, and it's even better to see it on a fairly commonplace site like CNet. I think more and more people are realizing the snowjob Microsoft keeps trying to pull, and in the end that will be the thing that ends the monopoly.
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
GPL, Apache, BSD, all these licences .
Who is the GPL bad for ?
Only 2 kinds of people, thats it TWO and ONLY two
1.Those that make a copeting product with a GPL available substitute, (SQL, Linux, etc) and stand to lose money from cometition (i.e. MS)
2.Those that would like to steal code repackage it and sell it without giving either credit or code back to whence it came.
Thats it PERIOD.
All this viral liscence crap and Craig Dumbdie spewing trash means nothing, the big boys the ones that count know. IBM, Copmaq, the people from a high line backing know this is all MS horeshit.
I love the people that complain about hte license ONLY because the see $$$ signs and want to take it reroll it and sell it without contributing a damm thing back, those are the ones that make me laugh, go write the fucking code yourself.
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
I'm not sure how the numbers balance out, but these concerns far outweigh the price of buying the software. If Mr. Perens is going to dip his toe in TCO waters, he'd be better be sure he can jump all the way in and not get himself drowned.
What's a sig?
I recently read an article in either Inc. or BusinessWeek about the effect Lou Gerstner had on IBM. Among other things, the article praised him for moving IBM agressively to becoming a service-based company.
I don't think Microsoft has anything to compare with this (yet), and fears those who are already in the arena.
The way Microsoft is fighting this war is to attempt to discredit open source as an approach, while (and I'm guessing on this) preparing its own service division.
It's classic. Throw out a load of FUD about the competition, while readying your own competing product. Depend on clueless PHBs to swallow your line, and watch the cash roll in.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
For all the discussions about Linux taking over the world, or Microsoft obliterating the competition, etc., it's fun to just sit back and watch how several breakout OSes and technologies (Linux, OSX, MP3s, etc.) slowly and naturally build in popularity and find a solid niche in our lives. I guess it all comes down to "natural selection". :-)
--SC
You read fiction? I write it! Lemme know what you th
If you drill down a bit you find this letter from a programmer that complains about Open Source. While I found it both sad and funny, it does shed light on how Microsoft and other commercial software vendors view the movement.
To summarize: OSS is a bad thing because if free software is available no one will want to pay for software, which will drive programmers out of work. OSS is good in that it establishes competition for Microsoft, but that competition is better done through litigation or other commercial software.
Applying this point of view to Microsoft is humorous, of course, considering what they did with IE.
I actually don't think the developer has a point, though. Open source software has created far more jobs than it took. Linux, Apache, and other free platforms and development tools have meant, in my experience, that corporations are financially able to deploy systems that would otherwise have been prohibitive. The spread of such tools has also increased the number of people who are exposed to them - how many people would be running personal Unix systems if they had to have commercial systems? These people are able to get jobs in IT they would otherwise not be qualified for, or perhaps even know about.
In any case, Perens' response likening software development and protective measures against open source competition to buggy whips (actually ice, in his analogy) is only half the story.
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
--The Sphinx
Intelligent citizens, industry professionals and academics will read, understand, and probably agree with this article.
This is also the sort of writing that could really color the public debate if average Joe Citizen had any reason to value the opinion of Bruce Perens over Craig Mundie.
But why should they?
What does the average person know about Perens? What do they know about the Open Source Initiative? Correct me if I'm wrong, but probably very little. What does the average person know about MicroSoft? That they build the software that runs on every computer that they sit behind every day.
There's a bit of a credibility gap.
Craig Mundie could conceivably be any employee with the MicroSoft backing, and he would get press and general public recognition that Perens doesn't.
Pro-Open Source writers are often honest and, while not unbiased or impartial, are at least driven more by a cooperative and edifying spirit than a monopolistic one. If the general public had more reason to trust them, the articles they write would more effectively influence public opinion.
Think about how can this community help people like Perens while he's busy trying to help us.
Rob Carlson
You expect a debate on MS FUD to stay calm and reasonable? On Slashdot?
Best Slashdot Co
I find it sorta funny that Mundie would actually state something along the lines of, "There is this notion that people should have a choice."
How I find that funny is that in the past he has proclaimed how "Un-American" the GPL and OSS is. Of course, I believe that he never claims that MS is a for American standards of freedom, choice. A number of his statements are the sort of thing that one would expect from a dictatorship or the "American idea" of what the old Soviet Block was and may actually have been.
--
.sig seperator
--
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
I'm pleased to see such a good piece of anti-FUD work aimed at managers.
:
...
The articles explains clearly that the key point in GPL is
But this is not to say that the main benefit of Linux and other GPL software is lower-cost. Control is the main benefit--cost is secondary.
This quote is the most important : GPL gives you _control_ on the library you've choosen to link with your project. The library is not subject to stock prices or whatever non-IT reason. If you don't want the new features : don't upgrade, you don't like the new direction : fork the developement tree
While all the points he makes are true, and the economic beneifits of free software are obvious, that is not the primary moral justification for software being free. Repeat after me, "When software is free, the world is a better place."
Now, it stands to reason, that part of the world being a better place is certainly the economic benefit that free software provides to reduce operating costs. In fact, one could argue that if there were no such effect, free software wouldn't be too great a thing -- who'd want it if it had no value (rather like some excuses for programs I've seen)? And they'd be right. These are open source arguments, though, and miss the fact that freeing software not only results in lowered operating costs for businesses that use it, but it changes the every environment in which they operate.
There are two primary schools of economic thought: planned economies and free markets. Politically, you have the statists on one side and the libertarians and anarchists on the other. Proponents from both sides argue that "their" way serves to distribute scarce resources in the most effective way, and that's what we want, no? -- effective distribution of scarce resources.
Well, yeah, but that doesn't make the scarcity go away, does it? Oh sure, the technological advancements that lead to efficiency improvements do eventually trickle down to everyone so that certain scarcities are less visible, but that's just a kludge. Think water. Most cities have methods for distributing drinking water to the point that, although the amount of water available may remain the same, it hardly seems locally scarce, even though it may have come from far away.
Free software serves to reduce the scarcity of good code out there. It provides value without relying on scarcity as the source of that value. It is a threat only to those who seek to leverage their possession of a scarce resource for maximum value. Now, if that resource is naturally scarce, fine: once sold, it is gone. But if the resource is artificially scarce, you can manufacture more of it for no cost, and charge whatever the market will bear, for pure profit (until you saturate the market, that is, but time-limited use licenses take care of that "problem" -- Microsoft's latest licensing strategy). It gives the owner incredible power over society as a whole (until society revolts).
But it costs money to produce code! People can't afford to give it away!! Well, if they depend on making it scarce for their livelyhood, no, but that is a bootstrapping problem: you make something artificially scarce in order to deal with real scarcities in your life. You'd have to do this less if there were less scarcities to worry about (imagine if we had solar-powered food-generation machines). And indeed, some have managed to give code away. RMS has done this exclusively, though by living a rather austere lifestyle. His choice. Others give code away when they can afford to. Each such contribution changes our environment for the better. For hackers who breathe code, this is, of course, a godsend (RMS, an atheist, might not like that choice of wording -- "GPLsend" then). Perhaps that's why we like the GPL so much, even those of use that produce restrictively-licensed code for a living.
So, you don't need economic arguments to defend the GPL. It is as good and wonderful for the world as are the lack of patents on fire, wheels, and language. The only people who will criticize it are those that profit from the misery that scarcity brings.
You could've hired me.
What Mundie doesn't understand (or chooses to ignore) is how wealth is created. Simply passing wealth back and forth between companies doesn't create wealth. Paying taxes doesn't create wealth. Government spending doesn't create wealth.
:-)
Wealth is created by increasing efficiency. If I pay you $10/hour to build widgets worth $3 a piece, and you can build 4 widgets per hour, then I make $2/hour profit. If you figure out how to increase you efficiency and make 6 widgets per hour instead of 4, my profit has now increased to $8/hour. This can then be reflected in increased wages for you, fewer work hours, or a cheaper product. Regardless, net wealth of the economy has been increased, since more output is produced from the same input.
Where does the GPL work into this? Because one GPL application has effectively infinite supply, it drastically reduces input costs of production and therefore leads to a very high net increase in the entire economy's wealth. Commercial software necessarily leads to less wealth increase, because it has an artificial cost added to increase the producer's personal wealth at the cost of the whole economy's net wealth.
Mundie's argument is that the artificial cost is necessary for software to get produced, because there will otherwise be no incentive for the producers to produce software. The thing he ignores, though, is that obviously the software does get produced. If OS software gets produced, then it is out there. It has increased the net wealth of the economy. That increase will never go away (unlike the commercial company, which could go out of business). If OS is not enough incentive for the software to get produced, or OS doesn't lead to a solution that is sufficient, then the demand for a commercial version will be high enough that commercial development will be supportable. There is room for both.
Microsoft, of course, is just beginning to realize that the software they make is quite compatible with OS development, and there is no way they can compete with the efficiency of an OS product. Therefore, Mundie is arguing that we will all be better off if the economy's net wealth is held down in favor of MS's personal wealth gain. I just don't buy it
On the other hand, he's absolutely right that there may not be as high a demand for software developers in the future. So what. So, a few programmers may have to change careers. They're smart people (and yes, I am one), and shouldn't have too much of a problem finding work. Yes, it sucks for a few, but where would we be today if we always held back progress in favor of old, established industries. Not to be cliche, but I'm sure the development of the automobile sucked for the buggy whip manufacturers, too. Personally, I'll risk my long term personal stability for the chance of great wealth increases for both myself and the economy as a whole.
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
I don't think that's what Perens meant. Recouped costs aren't going toward "paying for" GPL software, they are going back into the company's general budget. I can't even guess at how much money we save annually at my workplace by running Linux on all our servers. That money goes into marketing and product development (e.g. it pays my salary).
Even if Microsoft manages to make as much money on services as they do now on selling software, they'll have to increase their workforce to provide the services as well as create the SW that runs it. Which means it'll be a lot less profitable. For Microsoft, this may not be a problem, but lots of smaller software houses will be up shit creek.
I'm not sure I understand. Don't most businesses deal with this already? To continue using my workplace as an example, we've been growing our customer base at an astonishing rate, putting out new products nearly every year, and we still only have four tech support people (one of which just hired). Over time we've become more and more a "services" company and indeed it is our goal to move completely away from software sales and into services. This isn't an outrageous idea. The money that flows in at an increasing rate every day is one piece of proof that our business model is sound. The comments we receive from customers daily telling us how much ass we kick are more proof. Without Linux and GPL, we couldn't have done this.
For now, that will work because the amount of open-source SW is limited. But soon, we'll run out of programmers who are willing to donate free time. So I don't see the ... larger development staff than any one company could support... happening in general. Only for the few Good Causes (in programmer community opinion) will an ample (free) workforce be available.
Apparently you aren't a programmer (or at least not the type of programmer who typically works on free software). The GPL and other licenses like it live on because the really good programmers (the ones you would gladly pay for their services) are also the ones who love doing their job so much that when they get home at night, they do it some more, for free (possibly to the detriment of their spouses). Because they want to. And the number of such people is growing. Quickly. To be really cheesy and quote the IBM commercial, why does Linux (or GPL, Bruce Perens, etc.) work for peanuts?
Because he loves the game.
> Somebody has to pay for the time and effort.
> RMS is a fraud -- we all know it. He left MIT
> to do GNU but was fortunate that the director
> of the AI lab allowed him to comtinue to use
> its facilities (publicly-funded - so you and I
> paid for it).
Umm, the AI lab already had their computers. We might have paid for them to set up, but we probably didn't pay much extra for RMS to work there. Same with most people. If you already have a computer, you don't need to pay for it.
> He needed money: so sold GNU
> EMACS at $150 a pop and funded himself from "a
> software distribution business" (his words).
> Sounds like Bill et al to me.
EXCEPT that under the GNU anyone can do that. This is the old 'free software' confusion. Free software doesn't have to be given away. If I wanted to sell copies of GNU Emacs, I could do, as long as the people I sold it to had permission to sell it on themselves.
The normal cry here is: "but! You can't really make money selling free software, because since you can't stop others distributing it, those other people can give it away for nothing and you'll lose the money you made." Yep, that's right. But then, even if you were making commercial software they'd still be no guarantee you'd make money doing it. And a competitor might well try and push you out by giving an equivalent product away (Internet Explorer anyone?).
There can still be commercialisation and competition in free software. Witness the Linux boxed distros. The only difference is that the scarce resource involved isn't the software.
> And why is is all Microsoft versus Linux? What
> about the rest of us trying to earn an honest
> living out of selling our software?
You have every right to do that. Only a few people believe that *ALL* software should be OS, and even then, it's "should be" (ie, it would be nice if the authors chose it to be), not "should be forced to be".
It's only forced to be if you base it on other free software - and that's only because, were there no free software, you would have probably had to pay a big-ass licensing fee to get at the source code you based it on, if you were even allowed to see the source in the first place.
> Why should I expose all my genius to have every
> half-wit so the he/she can copy it, corrupt it,
> and persuade his boss to give him a raise for
> it?
Well, you said your software was for Linux, so calling the people who might have written the kernel 'half-wits' is a shade hypocritical..
> DOn't I deserve more than a mindless "credit"
> in the source code -- (and half of you take
> those out as well, in my experience).
Of course you do. Go persuade your boss to give you a raise based on your product, just like the other guy did. If he could do so and you can't, then, well, he's obviously improved the product and deserves his raise.
> No, no, no and no again. You're wrong-headed,
> misguided, foolish and economically illiterate.
The capitalist economy is fully operational on free software. It's just that you have to find something other than the software to be scarce. Think you're such a hot programmer? Sell the service of making custom alterations to it. Grab distributions, test them for hours to ensure industrial standard and then sell them with proven certifications. Sell support. Write about the software then sell the book. It's all there.
I can't believe Mundie's complaint about the GPL is that it will pull money out of the public sector. He should be arguing the other way around: In the long run, the GPL puts money into the public sector, and that's why it's bad.
Peren's argument distracts us from the real problem by pointing out how much money business saves in the short-run.
What is the real problem? There are at least two: First, by discouraging entry into the software market, the GPL reduces the number of competitors. This means less consumer choice, not more. That's because most consumers have the ability and the resources to evaluate and choose programs, but most don't have the ability and resources to evaluate and choose programmers. Free Software is devestating to the diverse "middle ground" of software that sells in the $20-$100 range. When GPL software dominates a market, we are left with low-quality free packages on one end and expensive "industry standard" or "specialized" software on the other.
The other problem is that when GPL projects fail to keep pace with technology, there is the danger that people will make arguments that the government needs to step in and take over the project. This is the secret hearts desire of the Free Software movement, which is just socialism with a hi-tech veneer. Already, there are too many government workers writing software who should instead be using a diverse array of packages from different vendors, linked together by open standards (open standards are law, but executables are *not*. That's a critical distinction that Lessig fails to make, but we aren't here to talk about Lessig).
Perens is right in the short-run: Socialism always does well in the beginning because it lives off the fat of the land that has been stored up. In the long-run though, it drags the economy down.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
While you're correct in saying that software has to be paid for, you're being too narrow in looking for the money.
Examples, in house development. Companies have their own stables of programmers building the tools they need/want for competitive advantage. What if they devoted 60-70% of those resources to working on Open Source projects that get them closer to their goal? Remember, if you don't distribute an OS project then you don't have to distribute the improved code. So, if three different companies working for different things all contributed towards the development of the base utilities then they all get a return far in proportion to the initial investment.
Second, schools. These institutions get money from grants, endowments, and tuition. They have a bunch of students and professors working there. Why not utilize Open Source to keep costs down and contribute back to that community? Again, return versus investment.
Finally, the Open Source people aren't trying to keep you from making a living selling software. The main complaint most of us have (or well to be honest at least I have) with MS is that they use their position to fight illegally. If it were just a matter of "may the best code win" then I think everyone would be perfectly willing to just roll up their sleeves and duke it out.
Remember, software isn't the beginning and ending of economics. For most people and companies software is just a means to an end. (Point of Sale systems in stores, Web Servers for e-businesses, accounting systems, etc.) For the average production company software is only an overhead cost driving up the overall cost of their products. And if you look at the Fortune 500, Microsoft is pretty far down the list.
The lessons of history have shown the following: companies are always trying to decrease their costs, monopolies tend to get broken up, and everyone hates bullies.
(Btw - the difference between software, and IP, versus physical things is that sharing the one doesn't decrease the value to the current owner. Two people can use the same software at the same time and both derive the same benefit, thus doubling the return. It's tough for two people to share the same airplane and fly in different directions.)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
With all due respect, I do not feel this was the best piece of argument ever put forward.
As far as the taxes issue, something that taxes do, in many cases, is aggregate a small incremental cost in a lot of areas into something that can be very meaningful. This is something that Perens wholly ignores. There are lots of places taxes will be lost:
a) Taxes on all the individual workers at companies that manufacture commercial software and in corporations world wide who install/maintain that software
b) Sales taxes on purchased software
c) Taxes on infrastructure for selling software all together
As a result money IS lost to the economy. Tax money recovered to the individual will either find its way back into our pockets (unlikely), or we will be taxed at an incrementally higher rate to make up for it. Many recessions are caused by the reduction in consumer spending, to which erasing all money spent on software would be an economic equivalent. Let's face it, the service economy around software will never be as robust as license sales, for the simple fact that end users will be unable to hire service people (it will be too difficult for companies to support the mass amount of end users for open source software). Tax money recovered by corporations WILL have extra money, but they'd rather pay for software that off the shelf worked than dedicate manpower to it (which is a lot more costly in the long run)... and the second that you have an advantage provided to someone who offers a better off the shelf package than another, you're right back to forcing people to develop proprietary software. Why would I open source the one thing that gives my distro an advantage over yours?
As for the $1.9 B number... If you're going to give that number credit, then you probably also believe that number for world wide piracy. Both suffer from the same fallacy. If people were ACTUALLY willing to pay $1.9 Billion for the development, then they would have done so. They didn't. QED. The fact that it exists is because, in the exact same way that taxes have the ability to aggregate amounts of money so small that they would not amount to anything on their own, open source aggregates developer time. Its economic viability does not factor into it at all.
I almost don't want to get into the Liberty argument, since that's a mess unto itself. Some central authority needs to sign all these certificates. MS has stepped forward, though it easily could have been anyone else. I actually thought that Verisign would be the one to step forward, since they have such a large infrastructure for signatures and all. I'm all for multiple offerings, but it looks like the Liberty Alliance is going after the wrong thing all together. Perens is wrong here, MS is claiming they're providing the infrastructure, that's all.
All in all, it's not a very good representation of Open Source argument when Perens engages in the exact same strawman attacking that he claims Mundie is guilty of.
Frankly, I think that the CS degree should move to the Engineering department, and become a true software engineering degree. The CIS degree belongs in the business department. [I'm one of the latter.]
But I've never understood the random ways that schools go about producing the CS people. Not that they're bad, it just seems to have no real standard.
Software Engineering ought to be more like ENGINEERING! Not just throw code at the compiler until it sticks.
I have faith, mostly, in the structural engineers, and the chemical engineers, and the electrical engineers. But software engineers?
Here's an appropriate poke with a sharp stick...
A DESIGN PARABLE
Once upon a time, in a kingdom not far from here, a king summoned two
of his advisors for a test. He showed them both a shiny metal box
with two slots in the top, a control knob, and a lever. "What do you
think this is?"
One advisor, an engineer, answered first. "It is a toaster," he
said. The king asked, "How would you design an embedded computer for
it?" The engineer replied, "Using a four-bit microcontroller, I
would write a simple program that reads the darkness knob and
quantizes its position to one of 16 shades of darkness, from snow
white to coal black. The program would use that darkness level as
the index to a 16-element table of initial timer values. Then it
would turn on the heating elements and start the timer with the
initial value selected from the table. At the end of the time delay,
it would turn off the heat and pop up the toast. Come back next
week, and I'll show you a working prototype."
The second advisor, a computer scientist, immediately recognized the
danger of such short-sighted thinking. He said, "Toasters don't just
turn bread into toast, they are also used to warm frozen waffles.
What you see before you is really a breakfast food cooker. As the
subjects of your kingdom become more sophisticated, they will demand
more capabilities. They will need a breakfast food cooker that can
also cook sausage, fry bacon, and make scrambled eggs. A toaster
that only makes toast will soon be obsolete. If we don't look to the
future, we will have to completely redesign the toaster in just a few
years."
"With this in mind, we can formulate a more intelligent solution to
the problem. First, create a class of breakfast foods. Specialize
this class into subclasses: grains, pork, and poultry. The
specialization process should be repeated with grains divided into
toast, muffins, pancakes, and waffles; pork divided into sausage,
links, and bacon; and poultry divided into scrambled eggs,
hard-boiled eggs, poached eggs, fried eggs, and various omelet
classes."
"The ham and cheese omelet class is worth special attention because
it must inherit characteristics from the pork, dairy, and poultry
classes. Thus, we see that the problem cannot be properly solved
without multiple inheritance. At run time, the program must create
the proper object and send a message to the object that says, 'Cook
yourself.' The semantics of this message depend, of course, on the
kind of object, so they have a different meaning to a piece of toast
than to scrambled eggs."
"Reviewing the process so far, we see that the analysis phase has
revealed that the primary requirement is to cook any kind of
breakfast food. In the design phase, we have discovered some derived
requirements. Specifically, we need an object-oriented language with
multiple inheritance. Of course, users don't want the eggs to get
cold while the bacon is frying, so concurrent processing is required,
too."
"We must not forget the user interface. The lever that lowers the
food lacks versatility, and the darkness knob is confusing. Users
won't buy the product unless it has a user-friendly, graphical
interface. When the breakfast cooker is plugged in, users should see
a cowboy boot on the screen. Users click on it, and the message
'Booting UNIX v. 8.3' appears on the screen. (UNIX 8.3 should be
out by the time the product gets to the market.) Users can pull down
a menu and click on the foods they want to cook."
"Having made the wise decision of specifying the software first in
the design phase, all that remains is to pick an adequate hardware
platform for the implementation phase. An Intel 80386 with 8MB of
memory, a 30MB hard disk, and a VGA monitor should be sufficient. If
you select a multitasking, object oriented language that supports
multiple inheritance and has a built-in GUI, writing the program will
be a snap. (Imagine the difficulty we would have had if we had
foolishly allowed a hardware-first design strategy to lock us into a
four-bit microcontroller!)."
The king wisely had the computer scientist beheaded, and they all
lived happily ever after.
Now that all the CS people hate me...I'll slink into the shadows.
Cheers!
Have you considered being a technical writer or something? There are many ways that anyone can help.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Steven Levy's book Hackers shows that the attitudes Bill Gates and his friends were set a long, long time ago. They never likes the idea of "giving" away any software, none at all. Their mantra was "if you use it, you should pay ME for it." All that time has done is increase their size as a business (most likely by insisting on "don't applaud, throw money instead") and being the driving force behind organizations like the Business Software Alliance (BSA).
As is their right in our society.
You, of course, have the right of choice -- choice that lets you choose to use software vended by someone other than Microsoft.
The anti-trust trial was about Microsoft trying to eliminate sources of software other than itself, in the areas which Microsoft chose to "compete," and the US Department of Justice taking exception to that elimination of competition and choice. We had a charge, an answer, discovery, a trial, a verdict, and an appeal...and at the end of the day we have a company that has been declared guilty (in a Court of Equity) of anti-competitive actions.
Bill continues to show that his grade of "F" in sandbox remains a fair and valid one by refusing to understand why his actions are in violation of statute, and why his actions are harming society.
And who here would be the wiser if you were in his place?
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I suggest that you look at my paper Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS)? Look at the Numbers!. It has that kind of information, grouped into categories such as market share, total cost of ownership (TCO), reliability, and so on.
For example, Microsoft absolutely owns the desktop client market, that's true. But it certainly doesn't own other markets - Apache is still the most common web browser, for example, and sendmail is the most popular mail transfer agent (MTA). See my paper for the details.
Total cost of ownership (TCO) is so dependent on the assumptions that you really have to do your own. However, it's clear that many people do find that GNU/Linux systems have a lower TCO than Microsoft's systems in their environment.
Please note that Perens himself claims that the $1.9 billion estimate was only if the software had been developed the same way as Microsoft's. Perens does not claim that $1.9 billion was spent. Check the linked-to paper, I think it spells things out clearly. One caveat: I wrote the analysis tool used in the paper. However, the tool simply implements a well-known and widely respected estimation model that has been openly documented; it's certainly not biased to give open source software bigger results.
I think Perens' article was well-written.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
That US$1.9B is software that was released for the general public to use, and it does indeed have a lot of users. But I don't have a user count right now, all I have is the theoretical cost of production. The true benefit may be larger than I said. Given the amount of business around Linux, I doubt it's smaller.
In economic terms, the users will derive utility from the software. They will carry out some economic activity, for example operate a business, using that software, and will gain an economic benefit because of what they didn't pay for it. This benefit may well be greater than US$1.9B, since we have a lot of users these days. Again, the software didn't just go into /dev/null, it is now part of the economy. Engineers are familiar with thermodynamics, there are some parallels here, aren't there?
Bruce
Bruce Perens.