Linux To Ring Up $35B By 2008

al@opensourcebrowser.com pastes "For a theoretically free operating system, Linux is -- and will continue to be -- a cash cow, a research firm said Wednesday as it predicted the OS will bring in more than $35 billion in revenues by 2008. Framingham, Mass.-based IDC said that overall revenue for servers, desktops, and packaged software running on Linux will reach $35.7 billion in the next four years."

Comments

I write OSS for Linux

[Limburgher]

So, where's my check? :)

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[marshall_j]

you did read that GPL thingy that you pasted into the top of your code right?!

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Sitting at IBM who is laughing all the way to the bank selling free software.

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[Limburgher]

Yes. Did you? I can still charge for support and distribution, I just have to make the source available.

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[infiniti99]

I think his point is that while Linux may be making a lot of money, the actual developers rarely see any of it. Yes, some open source is funded, but most of it is not. Imagine of some of these millions were to go to a project like KDE? Geezus, the whole thing would be done by now.

I don't know who is getting all of this "Linux money", but it certainly isn't affecting the projects I care about. I'm not saying that developers should be jealous of these companies that have taken their products and made money with them. After all, that's part of the freedom that has been given to them. But it is depressing that not much of this money goes back to the community. I don't say this because the developers should be rewarded or get rich, I say it because the money would speed up development.

Many of us probably can name many OSS projects we'd like to see completed. These Linux sales numbers won't impress me one bit until I see my favorite programs being sponsored.

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[IO ERROR]

So, where's my check? :)

You need to go get your product into wide use now. On one project I'm involved with, we're working with a certain .com on a project I can't say much about yet, but we're going to give a certain Microsoft product a run for their money, using open source software. I don't expect any of us to see money from the project for at least two years, though you can bet you'll see the product -- when it's ready -- on the front page of slashdot. :)

In the meantime, keep maintaining your software, and keep getting the word out. If it's good stuff, someone will take notice, and an opportunity to make money off it will come your way.

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[marshall_j]

Course I did or I wouldn't ask.

Hrmm - you have a link in the first message, shouldn't you then be asking your customers where the cheque is? :P

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[Limburgher]

Excellent point. How do we define "completed" in terms of software, though? Bug-free? Feature-complete? Both either moving targets or chimeras, depending on the project. Even time-tested tools like grep get updated.

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[sloanster]

I don't know who is getting all of this "Linux money", but it certainly isn't affecting the projects I care about.

As always, the money goes to the entrepeneurs. Forget about your favorite projects, if you want to see the money from linux, you need to create something of value to those who have money to spend. I do it by upgrading small and medium businesses to linux and becoming their permanent linux guy, you might do it by writing the killer linux program that small business wants.

One thing ought to be crystal clear at this point, however, even to the most challenged of us - and that is, there is a lot of money to be made in connection with this whole linux thing if you keep your skills sharp, and your eyes open.

Take note, mcses who consider themselves linux savvy because they managed to install redhat inside vmware on their windows pc 2 years ago and learned how to type "ps -ef" just aren't going to cut it. The demand out there is for the real deal, genuine linux talent, which can be earned by anyone willing to work hard and apply themselves.

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[Limburgher]

your customers

Sigh. . . :)

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[BoomerSooner]

ps -auxw | more is better in VMWare.

Most companies see the TCO of Windows versus Linux as immaterial. Employee's cost 1000's of times what software does. That is the main thing most of the Linux versus Windows TCO studies I see. I guess it is dependent on the available software engineers in your area that actually *know* the platform you are targeting. My guess is UNIX-based developers run for a bit more than Windows developers. Although I could be wrong and frequently am according to my wife ;)

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[superpulpsicle]

You'll know it is completed when the IRS is at your frontdoor. "Mr. developer your excellent opensourced software made millions. I don't know where the money went, but you still owe us anyways."

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine of some of these millions were to go to a project like KDE? Geezus, the whole thing would be done by now.

Yes, and because of things like scheduled releases to meet quarterly profit goals without any qualiy assurance, stupid changes in user interface instead of meaningful upgrades and gratuitous obselecsence to force user upgrades, it would be the same pile of shit that Windows is right now!

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[JohnFluxx]

"Most companies see the TCO of Windows versus Linux as immaterial."

Judging by the second sentence, i assume you meant "software cost" instead of "TCO", as the TCO _is_ what matters to companies.

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[urlgrey]

Ah ha! It IS a conspiriacy.

I've got it: Linus and Stallman are in cahoots, and they're cashing my checks!!

;-)

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[(H)elix1]

How do we define "completed" in terms of software, though? Bug-free? Feature-complete?

In the commercial world, it is pretty easy. When the check clears.... (only half kidding)

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[Trogre]

Possibly, but introducing money to a project can change the very focus of that project.

You may suddenly find that you're not driven by a desire to make good software, but driven by the pursuit of more money, and that can be a very dangerous position.

For reasons like this, people such as Eric Raymond advocate not funding Free software projects unless it's asked for.

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

News flash: the answer to "why am I not getting any of this money" is... Because you gave away your work! You made it OSS, so don't expect to get paid for it! That's the whole CONCEPT! It's FREE! No MONEY! Amazing how silly people can be...

You want to get PAID for writing software? Then produce products that follow a sales-based business model, and don't give them away! The only other alternative is to beg for scraps as a "service supporter" for both kinds of software (OSS and commercial), but this is a lowly existance.

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[HangingChad]

But it is depressing that not much of this money goes back to the community.

What about something like the model CrossOver uses? Let the community bid or pledge for specific changes or upgrades.

I remember talking to a customer in Florida a while ago wondering when MySQL would support stored procedures. They said, "We'd pay them to work on that." Made me wonder why that model couldn't be used on a wider basis in OSS development.

It preserves your freedom while encouraging development on the most widely desired features.

Donno, just thinking out loud.

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[Kafka_Canada]

ps -auxw | more is better in VMWare.

less is more

(than more)

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus might be cashing your cheques - I bet RMS is knitting environmentally friendly reusable trousers for Tibetan monks imprisoned by China.

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[Jeremi]

Yes. Did you? I can still charge for support and distribution, I just have to make the source available.

Actually, you don't even have to do that. Assuming you own the copyright to the code, you are free to do anything you want with it. It's only other people (who don't own the copyright and are licensing the code from you under the GPL) who are bound by the terms of the GPL.

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Good. I hate MS Exchange ;)

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[mattyrobinson69]

Thats how reiserfs works

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[Spoing]

1. I think his point is that while Linux may be making a lot of money, the actual developers rarely see any of it.

Same as almost every product category.

1. These Linux sales numbers won't impress me one bit until I see my favorite programs being sponsored.

Like what, specifically? OOo, Samba, Cups, Apache, MySQL and Firebird, Plone, Eclipse ... the list is quite long as it is.

The good thing about sponsorship is it does get outside groups involved in how the program is developed. Unfortunately, this is also the bad thing about sponsorship.

Organizations including companies are lothe to kill off projects that are dumb but support the organization's PR. They are also slow to support what could be helpful to the goals of the organization if they don't see a PR or propriatory benifit; they don't want to help the opponents of the organization. These needs often have little to do with doing the smart or right thing.

Fortunately, the licencences used for many open projects can tilt the benifits in the right direction -- if the organizations give up some control in an effort to be fair to all groups; from interested individuals to normally hostile competitors.

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you gave the source code away, why would any one need your support in the first place? Its all in the code, and you just have to hack away at it a bit. Not too hard to do that, and definitely saves me a bundle!

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

This all gets back to the greed vs idiology. Yes, the OSS guys try to be idealistic and believe in the free flow of ideas to improve the software. On the other side sits the gready companies, wanting to make a buck out of these idealistic engineers. So, they pay a few top guys the salary of a few engineers, get them to farm out a whole bunch of other good developers working for almost free, then reap the rewards.

For those who still wont believe, lets take a look at OSDL. How many developers are paid to work there? How much are they paid? Now, lets see how many companies are benefiting from their work. So, OSDL was founded by Computer Associates, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Intel, and NEC in 2000. Now if these five companies were to do the development by themselves, how much would it cost them? How many would have been employeed? They all banded together and formed OSDL, so they can all reap the rewards and pay only 1/5th what they would have to alone, employing about 1/5th the number number of engineers. Should we be all clamoring for this? I dont think so. When the element of greed is introduced, all the benefits of OSS wanishes away, and along with it, many, many software engineering jobs. OSS gives us the knife to stab ourselves, with only those handing out the knives surviving!

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

This all gets back to the greed vs idiology. Yes, the OSS guys try to be idealistic and believe in the free flow of ideas to improve the software. On the other side sits the gready companies, wanting to make a buck out of these idealistic engineers. So, they pay a few top guys the salary of a few engineers, get them to farm out a whole bunch of other good developers working for almost free, then reap the rewards. For those who still wont believe, lets take a look at OSDL. How many developers are paid to work there? How much are they paid? Now, lets see how many companies are benefiting from their work. So, OSDL was founded by Computer Associates, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Intel, and NEC in 2000. Now if these five companies were to do the development by themselves, how much would it cost them? How many would have been employeed? They all banded together and formed OSDL, so they can all reap the rewards and pay only 1/5th what they would have to alone, employing about 1/5th the number number of engineers. Should we be all clamoring for this? I dont think so. When the element of greed is introduced, all the benefits of OSS wanishes away, and along with it, many, many software engineering jobs. OSS gives us the knife to stab ourselves, with only those handing out the knives surviving!

Really?

[Blapto]

I'll be frank, I really can't see it generating that much of an income. There are only 6-7 Billion people in the world...

Re:Really?

[marshall_j]

why not?

ibm generates about 20B a quarter. this is revenue not profit. (note i realise all 20B is not linux, just an example of a huge amount of money going through a company who happens to promote and use linux)

Re:Really?

[killerface]

can i be shirly?

BUT WINDOWS IS CHEAPER!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

GET THE FACTS!

Re:BUT WINDOWS IS CHEAPER!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Psst. This stories IDC study was commissioned by the OSDL. Nothing like "getting the facts" you pay for right?

I hope at least one of your +1 funny mods was doing it for the +1 irony.

Re:BUT WINDOWS IS CHEAPER!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot - where truth is flamebait.

Errrr, Dupe

[MrWim]

See here

Re:Errrr, Dupe

[maddskillz]

This story is a dupe....whoops someone already posted that. I feel like an idiot, posting the same thing over and over again

Karma points to..

[itistoday]

..anyone who can figure out where that figure came from, and who's getting it...

Re:Karma points to..

[Nine Tenths of The W]

Support fees and training courses, I'd guess. Note that this is only to be described as profiteering or monopolistic when Microsoft does it. When Redhat relies on support fees and training courses it's a viable business strategem.

Re:Karma points to..

[Anti Frozt]

Hopefully not the RIAA; otherwise, I would peg the revenue estimate at around $20.

Re:Karma points to..

[gatesh8r]

Pulled out of someone's ass of course -- along with TCO figures saying that Windows beats Red Hat Linux.

Re:Karma points to..

[goon america]

From the article:

The numbers are higher than earlier estimates by most analysts, in part, said IDC, because it changed it methodology to account for not just Linux on new hardware, but also Linux that's redeployed on existing hardware, and even cases when the open-source OS is used as a guest operating system, such as in a server partitioned with virtualization software to run multiple OSes.

So, not only are they counting the hardware that linux is running on as being "spent on linux," they're also counting existing hardware on which linux will be installed as being "spent" on linux as well.

Re:Karma points to..

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the report:

"Software -- and not the free kind -- is the fastest-growing subsection of the Linux market, according to IDC's projections."

As long as the free nutcases stay out of the
picture Linux will be funded.

Re:Karma points to..

[SetupWeasel]

To be honest, it is only monopolistic when you have a monopoly. There are a lot of very good business practices that are not allowed when you have a monopoly.

Re: Karma points to..

[Alwin Henseler]

..anyone who can figure out where that figure came from, and who's getting it...

Well let's see, who can come up with that kind of money? Governments? Naahhh, then they would be using FOSS everywhere, and that's clearly not the case.

Then maybe it's Mr.Gates, trying to purchase all available copies, so that none are left for the rest of the world? That must be it!

The money would then go to... FTP mirror sites? Yeah, that's it! That must be why my downloads are going so fast lately, they must have been getting some shiny new hardware.

You see? Suddenly everything makes sense again.

Re:Karma points to..

[fymidos]

as i understand it, they are counting hardware that was not *purchased* with linux installed:
In many cases, a linux server will be purchased without an OS, as each administrator will simply install his favorite distro from a cd or the net.
It is however, correct to count this hardware as linux hardware.

Re:Karma points to..

[buddha42]

So, not only are they counting the hardware that linux is running on as being "spent on linux," they're also counting existing hardware on which linux will be installed as being "spent" on linux as well.

Spend once, expense twice? Linux really has grown up in the corporate world!

Re:Karma points to..

[God! Awful 2]

So in other word, the article is a deceptive propaganda piece. I think I got that from the capsule summary, but I still wanted to read the comments to see what /.ers think.

-a

Re:Karma points to..

[njcoder]

"So, not only are they counting the hardware that linux is running on as being "spent on linux," they're also counting existing hardware on which linux will be installed as being "spent" on linux as well"

I don't know what's sadder. That you misread the quote and posted such a misinformed statement, or that 4 people decided to moderate you up and nobody that replied seems to be able to read the statement any better.

Lets look at the quote from the article:

The numbers are higher than earlier estimates by most analysts, in part, said IDC, because it changed it methodology to account for not just Linux on new hardware, but also Linux that's redeployed on existing hardware, and even cases when the open-source OS is used as a guest operating system, such as in a server partitioned with virtualization software to run multiple OSes.

For all you people out there with the reading comprehension of a 4 year old.. let me explain what it says. It says that the original estimate only calculated the money spent on linux when it is bought for new hardware. Now they're also counting the amount they think will be spent on linux when linux is installed on existing hardware. THEY ARE NOT COUNTING THE COST OF THE HARDWARE AS YOU SEEM TO THINK!

Let me give you an example since you couldn't figure it out by reading it the first time. If you buy 5 new servers for 3k each and you spend $300 dollars for linux for those servers, you've spent $1500 for linux. Now lets say you also had 10 old servers that you are migrating from AIX to Linux. Well then you have to account for the cost of licenses/support for those 10 servers as well which is (10x300) $3000. So your total cost for linux/support is $4500 not $1500. No where in there are you counting the cost of the hadware as being "spent on linux" as you, and a bunch of other iliterates seem to think.

Re:Karma points to..

[goon america]

If you read the article, it says in the preceding paragraph that the number refers to "overall revenue for servers, desktops, and packaged software running on Linux." This is what might lead someone to believe they are counting the hardware on which linux is installed as being spent on linux. The rest of the article discusses hardware on which linux will run and software that will run under linux, but does not mention spending on linux itself anywhere.

$358

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw $358 and was not surprised.

more power to FOSS

[adeydas]

i presume most of this is from donations because the ISO's can be downloaded free. so if linux is turning into a cash cow just by being a free software, then think how much it would have made by being a commercial one... ha! ha! got ya... it would have made quite less as its appreciation comes from its FOSS tag, right?! now that's what i call paying for what you like and not what your vendor insists... more power to FOSS.

Re:more power to FOSS

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Most is probably in the consulting service, programmer's salaries etc involved in getting Linux running on the wide range of devices it is used on.

Most Linux devices won't run an ISO image.

Re:more power to FOSS

[SpooForBrains]

Really? Cos I presume that it's from the money that Redhat, SUSE and now Novell, Sun and various others charge for licensing fees.

How does is feel to get used?

[Anonymous Coward]

Must suck.

Re:How does is feel to get used?

[MikeCapone]

Not half as much as paying AND using Windows, Office, etc.

MOD PARENT (+4803434, TRUE)

[Anonymous Coward]

'Cos it is.

$35.7bn?

[Nine Tenths of The W]

Wow. That's a lot of SCO licenses.

Re:$35.7bn?

[justsomebody]

Yeah, but if you look at title that says "Ring Up". That's even more ringing:)

p.s. Does anyone know how much can one hour of ringing bring???

Re:$35.7bn?

[Magicpop]

Indeed that is a many copies of Red Hat.

Re:$35.7bn?

[FuzzzyLogik]

kind of funny how we haven't really heard too much about SCO on slashot lately... they still exist? I thought IBM would've snapped them in two and spit them out....

Re:IMPORTANT: Firefox (luv hfis)

[Sir_Jeff]

Maybe FF were making sure they released a patch that worked. How many patches for patches have MS released. Oh yeah, I chew my male chicken, it's quicker.

And yet...

[elid]

...Microsoft generates $10.6 billion in annual revenue from Office alone.

(source)

Re:And yet...

[SoSueMe]

Yes, and Openoffice.org rings up significantly less because... it's free.
It does most of what the higher priced software for "Office Productivity" users need.
Comparisons between closed, propreitary, for profit, software and sales of prepackaged support releases are not a benchmark of quality or popularity.

Re:And yet...

[Incoming9000]

Yes, but I wonder how much is wasted dealing with the problems, bugs, and security issues that come along with it...

Re:And yet...

[westlake]

Comparisons between closed, propreitary, for profit, software and sales of prepackaged support releases are not a benchmark of quality or popularity.

which gives you an easy out whenever an OSS project fails to gain significant market share. but I don't see this argument being made when it is Firefox that takes the spotlight.

Re:And yet...

[diegocgteleline.es]

They have lots of governments paying automatically lots of millions every year to upgrade their computers (plus hardware upgrade, etc etc)

When it comes to servers Windows may not be the king, but when it comes to "desktop computer with a office suite and corporate support", Microsoft Office has pretty much the 100% of the market.

Which is why Openoffice is so important. Openoffice is damaging Microsoft more than any other OSS project.

Re:And yet...

[NardofDoom]

Unless you're on Mac OS X, in which case the only option. (Unless you like long start times, lack of HIG compliance, and an ugly, unmatching interface.)

Basic math

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yeah. If you sell 100 Licences at $699 each (you cock smoking tea baggers), you're bound to make a bit of a profit.

License

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone knows that the smallest cost in most enterprise projects is the license costs. As more engineers gain skills in Linux, Microsoft's claims of lower TCO will ultimatly diminish as a result. Software and operating systems will be compared on performance, reliability, and security, to a greater extent.

Re:License

[jericho4.0]

As MS already pulls TCO numbers out of its ass, why will the numbers of qualified admins matter?

revenue

[cipher uk]

Framingham, Mass.-based IDC said that overall revenue for servers, desktops, and packaged software running on Linux will reach $35.7 billion in the next four years.

it wouldn't be such a far-fetched figure if it included sales through websites on linux servers aswell as linux hosting. they could go as far to include bandwidth costs and how isps would gain revenue from linux servers/desktops being connected to the internet. i'm guessing the desktop portion of the money will be small compared to the servers and software/support

And Its Net Economic Benefit Is Even Greater

[geoffrobinson]

Linux allows companies and individuals to use their money in other areas as well. This helps the economy overall. Cell phones on Linux will be cheaper, etc.

Also, companies can use that money in other areas, which I would assume would make them more productive.

A lot of this revenue is probably for services I would assume.

Re:And Its Net Economic Benefit Is Even Greater

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't help the software-writing economy much. Just ask SCO.

Re:And Its Net Economic Benefit Is Even Greater

[Yartrebo]

More simply put, economic strength is measured by the amount and quality of goods and services produced and provided. It is denominated in goods and services, not dollars.

Computer maintain their contribution to economic strength, if not increase it [since Linux does things better]. At the same time, more resources are available to make other goods and services, since resources previously diverted to Microsoft are in the control of consumers and the state (state for tax money, consumers for what is left over).

I for one

[sore loser]

Welcome our open source capitalist overlords

RMS just called

[Anonymous Coward]

He says the correct figure is GNU/$35B

Is it much?

[asac]

Microsoft will earn $38 bn in 2005.

IBM received $23.2 bn in 2004.

How will those figures look in 2008?

Re:Is it much?

[Anonymous Coward]

The article you linked says IBM received $23.2 billion in the second quarter.

Accoring to Forbes, they have made $89.13 billion so far in 2004 (in sales).

Re:Is it much?

[falsified]

Revenues vs. profits. Your numbers are probably profits (revenue minus cost).

Re:Is it much?

[nagora]

Those figures are not comparable: Microsoft's is for the year, IBM's is for the quarter. IBM's consulting devision takes in more than then whole of Microsoft. IBM can't match Microsoft's profit margin, though, so MS is still the richer company. But I'd bet on IBM still being around in 50 years when MS is long gone.

TWW

Re:Is it much?

[asac]

Those figures are not comparable: Microsoft's is for the year, IBM's is for the quarter

Bug confirmed ;). A fact that IBM's revenue is less then microsofts would be ridiculous.

Nevertheless, my question is still (even more) valid.

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else first read the logo under the Slashdot banner as saying "Don't feed the penguins?"

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Loser.

Warning

[Ars-Fartsica]

These are the same people who claimed B2B sites would be transacting $10 billion a year by 2006 whilst praising ATM networking, 3G networks and AOL.

Yet the same people completely missed portable MP3 players, VOIP, etc etc

Re:Warning

[Anonymous Coward]

and might i add, WRT the submitter to slashdot: Linux is not a cash cow. A "cash cow" is a dominant business in a low growth market. Linux is in a high growth market, and it is not the dominant player, thus it requires further investment which means that it needs cash, and doesn't throw cash off.

there really is something to an MBA.

Don't count your money before it's made.

[SetupWeasel]

Didn't we learn anything from 4 years of George W. Bush?

Re:Don't count your money before it's made.

[eddy the lip]

Nope

Not just Linux

[stox]

FreeBSD is responsible for over $1B in revenues, today. If it could be accurately counted, it might be over $2B. Yup, it's dying, all the way to the bank. ;->

Re:Not just Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

I did not know that the one box running freebsd is made of pure antiparticles thus being worth a billion

That's where the number comes from!

[EmbeddedJanitor]

It's just $1billion duped many times on Slashdot!

Re:That's where the number comes from!

[fiftyfly]

|snip|

Real programmers have sixteen fingers.

Hmmm - I guess, if you consider all 0x10 digits as fingers. I'm afraid 2 of mine are rather substandard and will be sticking to my O10 fingers and 10b thumbs....

Re:That's where the number comes from!

[9-bits.tk]

No, no, no! REAL programmers have F fingers! Newbies have A fingers!

How many copies of RHEL for zSeries is that?

[PornMaster]

Only 2 million copies of Redhat Enterprise Linux for zSeries, and we're there...

http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/purchase/index .html

TCO!

[Dark Paladin]

[sarcasm]
See! Windows is a lot cheaper than Linux - I mean, look how much money you have to spend on it!

Hm? How much would it cost to do the same thing with Windows? That's not the point - look! Shiny object!
[/sarcasm]

don't need me anymore

[ToasterTester]

Well with that much money guess they don't need us writing free code anymore. They can afford to pay and spread the wealth.

Re:don't need me anymore

[unixbugs]

Hey now, dont start falling for it. If you really think about it, this could be a big wedge set up between the lone developer and the big community. The big guys waving fat wallets and the little guys waving bug fixes. The self-healing nature of the OSS community probably wont let that happen, but it woulndt hurt to be wary because it seems like a weak link in the chain that holds it all together.

Sure we dont get paid, but we do love what we do. The whole satisfaction bit comes from the sense of accomplishement and contribution to a greater good.

Besides, there is a big demand for linux pro's out there and nobody can fill a gap in a big company doing serious migration like the lone developer.

Cheer up!

Re:don't need me anymore

[njcoder]

"Sure we dont get paid, but we do love what we do. The whole satisfaction bit comes from the sense of accomplishement and contribution to a greater good."

The greater good seems to buying mansions for resellers or at least shiney new cars. So you work for free o something that other people make money off of. I need to find some people interested i the greater good of my lawn care.

Let me be the first to say...

[SoSueMe]

$Moo!$

Re:Let me be the first to say...

[Nugget]

Yay cows.

Seriously, though. I want a version of CVS that does $Moo$.

TCO studies

[vlad_petric]

Believing TCO studies from Microsoft is like believing safety studies from medication manufacturers.

Oh, wait a sec ... I meant the other way around.

Re:TCO studies

[bigman2003]

Yet here we are discussing a report about how huge the Linux market will be in the future.

Of course we really need to know who funded the study, so we can know the source...

"Open Source Development Labs (OSDL), a Beaverton, Ore.-based Linux advocacy group that funded IDC's analysis of data the research firm collected earlier."

Oh...I see, a 'Linux advocacy group' funded the report that said that Linux would be a 35 billion dollar business in a few years. Yes...that explains it.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

and how much do the creators get

[Anonymous Coward]

Not much. OSS creators are patsies being exploited by hardware companies such as IBM and software companies such Red Hat. They take all the money, and throw a bone to the OSS community once in a while to pay a few of the top creator's salaries.

Re:and how much do the creators get

[tarquin_fim_bim]

How are they being exploited if they end up having systems that function correctly? And furthermore have a sense of wellbeing with knowledge that they have benefited their fellow man without reward. They are heroes not patsies my friend.

Re:and how much do the creators get

[jericho4.0]

Nobody starts developing in OSS for the money. And IBM might not be giving paycheck to every OS developer, but they are contributing tons of code, and that's the point.

This is what happens...

[donnz]

...when communists go bad

Re:This is what happens...

[MikeCapone]

Capitalism can include cooperation, not just competition.

Re:This is what happens...

[donnz]

the problem with irony is that when you have to explain it it's no longer irony. Ironic, huh...

Re:This is what happens...

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism can include cooperation, not just competition.

So can bank robbery.

Re:This is what happens...

[MikeCapone]

Hey, I wasn't defending the system.. Just saying that it doesn't have to be the way that wall street wants it to be.

Re:This is what happens...

[MikeCapone]

The problem with the internet is that the irony often gets lost in the binary translation.

Actual revenue for 2004 is $15 billion

[Animats]

More interesting is the actual value for 2004 - $15 billion.

That's a nice number, Note that in comparison, Microsoft's 2004 revenue is about $36 billion. Apple is around $10 billion.

Re:Actual revenue for 2004 is $15 billion

[Anonymous Coward]

fyi the 34b figure for 2008 and 15 for 2004 includes everything - like the price of the actual hardware, transactions run thru the system etc.

if you'd do this math for MS it would be a lot higher, ibm would most likely win with all the transactions in banks going over them

Re:Actual revenue for 2004 is $15 billion

[Animats]

True. Red Hat makes about $150 million per year. That's revenue. Profit is about $5 million per year. Which is not much, considering that Red Hat didn't have to pay for the development of Linux.

Re:Actual revenue for 2004 is $15 billion

[gregorio]

More interesting is the actual value for 2004 - $15 billion. That's a nice number, Note that in comparison, Microsoft's 2004 revenue is about $36 billion. Apple is around $10 billion.

The 15 billion figure is the *total* direct and indirect profits *related* to Linux. Including Hardware.

Re:Actual revenue for 2004 is $15 billion

[IamTheRealMike]

Not quite - Red Hat have always poured huge amounts of money into Linux development. I suspect their profits have not kept pace with their revenues because their desktop team has grown enormously in 2004. It must have quadrupled in size, at least. At least that's my estimate taken by looking at the rate they were hiring community figures and knowledge of the size of their desktop team a few years ago.

So I wouldn't read too much into the RH figures.

IDC 96% off

[bstadil]

You are quite right. These clowns predicted Itanium sales of $30B in 2001.

Why is anyone taking this seriously?

Re:Oww the ironey!

[Anonymous Coward]

First off this this is totally off topic.
Secondly not all slashdoters are american or capitalists. You can't go lumping everyone togeather like that. Furthermore under communism the state owns and runs everything, it is not "shared by all", as it is with open ousrce.

Kinda misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

They're counting money for hardware that would have been spent anyway, regardless of what OS is running on it. It's like a car company taking credit for $35 billion spent on gas. In the end, if I don't buy a Honda, I'll buy a Ford and spend money on the gas regardless.

The only credible argument is that less will be spent on hardware supporting Linux than would be spent supporting other operating systems. Perhaps, that's an arguable point. But even then, the cost difference would not be $35 billion.

Re:Kinda misleading

[808140]

In a way, I want to agree with you. But I'd like to point out where your Ford/Honda/gas analogy breaks down: interfaces.

You see, good hardware is very important in a purchase decision. However, hardware on its own is not particularly useful, nor does it sell particularly well -- you'll note that it's rather hard to purchase systems independant of an operating system.

While a Windows server and a GNU/Linux server may run on the same hardware, people are buying the servers running GNU/Linux, rather than the servers running Windows (or Solaris, or HP-UX, or whatever). In essence, GNU/Linux is important because it is probably driving these sales -- people are looking at GNU/Linux and saying, gee, I want to do XYZ with a computer, and a RH/SuSe/whatever server is the one for me. They aren't going to buy a GNU/Linux server and install Windows on it.

See, the problem with the Honda Ford analogy is that a car is just a car. They all have the same interface; the only selling point is the hardware. So if I buy a Ferrari, or a Honda, or whatever, I'm not making my purchase decision based on how to drive it -- all cars are driven the same way.

In computers, the opposite is (normally) true. Hardware is generally just hardware, it all essentially does the same sort of stuff (ie, manipulate integers and floats). The OS is what makes it useful, and even more, the software that runs on that OS. So while the OS may not generate the actual revenue, it is what drives the sale.

That's why it's important.

I see they discovered the secret formula!!

[Dano Watt]

You know, the three step program.

1) Distribute OS for free
2) ???
3) Profit!


All successful companies follow it, and so far, it hasn't failed yet.

In other news, beating dead horses has reached an all time high.

Re:I see they discovered the secret formula!!

[Anonymous Coward]

lol, now where have I seen this before.

*cough* google profits thread *cough*

Still though, hillarious.

Re:I see they discovered the secret formula!!

[eraserewind]

I believe that should be:

1) Distribute OS for free
2) ???
3) Watch others Profit!

Re:Oww the ironey!

[Dano Watt]

Hold on... You state that /.er's love the ideals that 'co-inside' (you have a way with words) with communism, and they blast the threads that are pro-capitalism...
You call this 'ironey' (again, a lovely way with words)?
Sounds pretty consistent to me.

Oh the ironey...

[Anonymous Coward]

... you have such a narrow minded view of what Capitalism actually is.

From a non American /.er, your rhetoric stinks as well.

Re:Oww the ironey!

[jericho4.0]

Sharing commons != Commie threat.

It's simplistic to say that someone who belives in common ownership of one thing can't belive in private ownership of means of production or capital.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

yawn. moving on...

[Anonymous Coward]

who cares? for real?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Cash cow?

[daishin]

Its a cash penguin damnit!

Re:Cash cow?

[Brane2]

He was probably talking about Gentoo (Larry the Cow etc)

Re:Cash cow?

[MBCook]

OK, if the cow-dog of the Macintosh says "Moof!", what does the cow-penguin of Linux say?

Quackoo? Mooack?

It's these kind of issues that confuse pointy-headed bosses untill they decided against implementing Linux! We must find the answer if Linux is to continue to gain popularity!

Maybe "Mackoo"???

Re:IMPORTANT: Firefox (luv hfis)

[Anonymous Coward]

You better be goofing off in the office like I am, or this was a tragic waste of your time.

Re:Oww the ironey!

[strider44]

please tell me, wtf has open source got to do with communism? If you actually get a bloody encyclopaedia and figure out what communism actually means or actually pick up and read the communist manafesto you'll see that Open Source is pretty much the bloody opposite of what marxism aims for! An overly simplified version of the philosophies behind communism is the removal of the bourgios (not sure of the spelling), the people who make profit in capatilism out of the simple workers. Open Source has those workers put up their hands and yell "hey all you companies, please make profit out of me and my work (as long as it remains my work)!", as you can see from the [over]estimation of the huge profits made out of linux!

In other words, OSS exists supporting capatilism, not breaking it.

Socialism (which is what you're stupidly mistaking communism for) is has values similar to that of the Creative Commons License or the BSD License, but Communism is in practice very different from Socialism.

Now please pick up a book (preferably the communist manafesto) and figure out what you're talking about when posting such crap.

This is capitalism getting a chance to work!

[BugBlatterBeast]

Or is it what happens when capitalism gets a chance to work? Linux will be successful because the product is better, the price is better, and the service is better. Microsoft's profitability is dependent on it being an 800 pound gorilla which can basically set the prices for its products.

Software Sells Hardware

[stankulp]

IBM said it first, but it's still true today.

You don't buy computer hardware because of its architecture. You buy it for the software it will run.

Linux runs just about any sort of application you could desire, it's free (as in speech, not as in beer), but businesses have to buy hardware and hire IT people to run it.

IBM used to give the software away for free to get people to buy the iron.

The more things change...

Re:Software Sells Hardware

[ColMustard]

While it is quite obvious that software sells hardware (otherwise, what would the hardware do), it should be emphasized that the important thing is the quality and type of the software, not quantity. There is way more software written for the Windows platform, yet other platforms are doing just fine. There's no doubt that Mac OS X and the professional software available for that platform is selling Apple's computers for them.

Re:Software Sells Hardware

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Apple hardware is very sexy aswell.. I think many people see that as a valid reason and they might be pursuaded to use Mac OS X in that case.

Re:Oww the ironey!

[Anonymous Coward]

If Linus supports communism, why does he own the copyright and trademark to Linux?

What you are thinking of is communialism were a community co-owns and maintains society. Social class still exists but each member of such a society takes it to themselves to share resources for the greater good of the society. Check Pacific islanders.

Communism is state owned means of production and distrobution of wealth. That means social class disappears as well as poverty in ideal cases but never occured yet. Check U.S.S.R and China.

It's irony.

Re:Oww the ironey!

[BugBlatterBeast]

I think the original post might have meant that they filled the threads with pro-capitalist comments, rather than criticizing that type of comment. At least that's the way I read it.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Wow, back on the 15th is was only 28 billion

[Anonymous Coward]

timothy post

How about some DISCUSSION on Linux related stocks? It seems the only serious player is IBM who markets both SUSE and RedHat. SUSE DB2 IBM power 720, whipped the pants off SUN recently in TP benchmarks. There has been speculation that Sun will make a play for either RedHat or Novell. Even though market caps of Novell and Redhat are similar, I doubt Sun's 6billion cash will be enough to buy Novell and S.M. won't give up more than cash. If Redhat folks don't have some decent takeover protection built in, they'd likely be the target if rumors are true.

"- IBM OpenPower Systems Combine with Novell's SUSE(R) LINUX Enterprise Server and DB2 Universal Database to Set World Records on TPC-H Performance Benchmark", read more.

Face it, Novell and RedHat are the only serious players and Novell has been playing the game a lot longer...

Wonder what you guys who are messing around in the stock market think of Linux opportunities for investors at this time?

Re:Wow, back on the 15th is was only 28 billion

[Builder]

Dell seem to make good money off of Linux as well, supporting both RHEL and SLES on their server lines and their N models of desktops.

Sun are in a bad place at the moment, and Solaris 10 x86 HAS to succeed for them to make it through the next 3 years. But they still sell a lot of Red Hat, despite their rants about it.

Red Hat have some problems. Their pricing is high for the service they deliver, their products are buggy or incomplete in many cases (config tools, etc.) and they're not great with release dates.

Novell have a good product in SLES, but they're an unknown in the Open Source world - we don't know how they will behave towards the community yet. Dell's recent endorsement may or may not make a difference there.

Overall, none of the big players are really doing anything interesting enough to bump stock prices at the moment. IBM are about the most visible to the financial corps, and they're doing a little bit of interesting stuff.

Re:Wow, back on the 15th is was only 28 billion

[dbacher]

Novell, right now, is not an unknown in the open source world. They've contributed to Linux since before buying SuSE, and they've contributed heavily to project Mono, and are the sole reason why it is more or less the king of the open source implementations of the ECMA .NET framework, and the only implementation with meaningful support for the new beta features in Microsoft's newest framework.

Linux runs on everything

[s4ltyd0g]

So I'm not really all that surprised with those figures. What about all the cell phones and other handheld devices?

Re:Linux runs on everything

[Anonymous Coward]

What cell phones and other handheld devices? Hardly any Linux mobile devices are sold, compared to PalmOS, Symbian and Microsoft Windows Mobile devices.

Lots of projects are "funded"

[diegocgteleline.es]

If you look at the kernel, pretty much all the core kernels are IBM/Redhat/Suse workers. GCC (which BSD users also use) have lots of redhat people in their lists. Lots of gnome hackers are paid to (project Utopia in Novell, Sun and Redhat, etc). Openoffice is not something that a couple of geeks can do in a weekend too. X.org has keith packards who did lots of work. KDE has several Suse/Mandrake/Lindows contributions. There're Freebsd hackers too, etc, etc etc..

OSs programmers probably won't see money, but instead companies hire people to work on their projects and they give you the code (lots of times those people are guys who were one of the main developers of the project and they got hired)
Which is fair. We give them our work, they got money, and they hire people to work on our projects and release the source of the modifications. We get better software, they get money.

Well, my point is, "is not true that they give absolutely nothing back". NTPL, good SMP support, latest improvements in the incoming GCC 4.0, Gnome usability, Gnome accesibility from the Sun guys, openoffice...there're LOTS of things that wouldn't have happened without those companies.

Re:Lots of projects are "funded"

[mibus]

Apple also pour effort into KHTML, for another example.

Re:Lots of projects are "funded"

[AusG4]

Last I checked, Apple indeed employs Jordan Hubbard, who was a major figure in the FreeBSD community (project lead, IIRC).

That said, Darwin, the OS underlying OS X is need basically FreeBSD with a Mach kernel (some of the man pages still say FreeBSD on them), and I've read comment from JKH that much code makes it's way back to FreeBSD.

How that helps Linux, is of course, circular, in that code may eventually make it's way back to Linux.

Re:Lots of projects are "funded"

[IamTheRealMike]

They don't actually work with KDE upstream though, which makes it rather moot from the perspective of KDE users. Unless you fancy spending Christmas sorting through undocumented patch dumps, of course.

*sigh* revenue is for the ignorant

[Anonymous Coward]

revenue: the entire amount of income before any deductions are made [google]

cash cow: A business that generates cash in excess of the amounts required to maintain its facilities or earning power ... [google]

The following is left as an excersise for the reader:
What does revenue tell you about profitability?

Re:*sigh* revenue is for the ignorant

[Omniscientist]

Well, since Linux is a free OS there may be a very high chance that the deductions from the income are not alot.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Erm

[Rie Beam]

I guess now would be the wrong time to tell them it's free, right?

Isn't it really a lot more?

[SuperKendall]

Considering a fair portion of OS X is based on FreeBSD, I think you could argue for a much higher number than that.

Re:Isn't it really a lot more?

[stox]

Good point, but, how much of Apple's revenue stream could you honestly attribute to FreeBSD? An interesting question. How much revenue can be attributed to the GNU stream? //hint: an aspiring economics student could really make a name for themselves exploring this.

al@opensourcebrowser.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone see his site? It seems like a scam to me. Why the hell create another brower when there is Firefox?

From the site
"Open Source Browser (OSB) aims to create a new, more dynamic, versatile and usable browser, to enable next generation information, inter-activity and commerce."

AND

"What if the browser software isn't made?

It will be! But if it isn't, you'll get your money back in full - that's guaranteed in the contract! As an individual who enjoys living life to the full, ask yourself what kind of unique experience can you buy anywhere else for just £100 nowadays?"

Re:al@opensourcebrowser.com

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to admit that thats quite a poor effort for a joke site. Its an even poorer example of a scam site, if thats what they are going for. I mean - £250,000 just to do a paint job on Firefox (I'm guessing thats what they would do ..)

Interestingly enough, the WHOIS for that domain shows the registrar as:

al@opensourceblog.com

Which actually looks to be a 'front' site pretending to be a blog software portal. Something about that all smells bad - I'm thinking scam now, to be honest.

Re:Oww the ironey!

[Dano Watt]

[I]Also it's "bourgeois", for someone who's telling me to read the Communist manifesto, I'm surprised you can't spell the word that is probably the most used in the text.[/I]
What position are you in to critique somebody's spelling skills?

In case you forgot, here are a few gems you've dropped in this thread alone:
indepth (in-depth)
co-inside (coincide)
ironey (irony)
evenally (evenly)
interlectual (intellectual)
bitter-sweet (bittersweet)

Don't get me started on your grammer, capitalization, punctuation, and logic skills. I need to be somewhere in a few hours.

Re:Oww the ironey!

[Wonko]

So many American /.er's love the ideals of Opensource which very much co-inside with the economic values of Communism, resources are evenally divided and owned by all, opposed to that of of Capitalism where resources are freely traded based on class and ownership(interlectual property) enforced by the state(RIAA).

yet the same American /.er's blast the threads with "pro-Capitalism anti-communism" rhetoric.

I think you are missing a something here... I definitely know very little about Communism. However, my understanding is that it deals with distribution of physical property, correct?

Software is about Intellectual Property. If I have a copy of open source project X and you make your own copy, I haven't lost anything. You can make as many copies as you like and you take nothing away from anyone else.

If everyone were advocating that all hardware should be free, that may possibly be Communist. If I have a server and you take my server, I do not have my server anymore. See the difference?

It's bitter-sweet me thinks..

I don't think it is bitter-sweet... Although I do believe you are a little short on information.

Re:Oww the ironey!

[strider44]

*shrug* I never was good at french, but hey, I was close.

I do, however, not understand your post.

hmm packaging costs..

[Grommet - Space Cade]

surely that figure has something to do with the amount of boxed versions of software people will have made available to them now that out bittorrents are being attacked...
if only we could use that money to fund a bittorent hosting service so we can not have packaging...but packaging is a good thing...look at microsoft if you read the packaging you'd actually think you were buying something secure and stable...and fast...and user freindly...

Or maybe not ?

[Anonymous Coward]

you sure ? http://www.novell.com/news/press/pressroom/news_br ief/archive/2004/suse_archive/response.html

Maybe...

[BugBlatterBeast]

...but I still don't get it!

Re:Oww the ironey!

[hazah]

Bah! Who cares?! There's a bit of good to both. Would be nice to see something that utilizes good ideas for once without remembering what arbitrary system they came from. Have we learned nothing yet?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Oww the ironey!

[cowsandmilk]

yet, what you saw in Russia, and what you see in North Korea are what most Americans are opposed to, thus invalidating your argument. Rule Number 1 in arguing about communism: When someone is opposed to communism, but misdefines it, they are opposed to what they define it as, not the correct definition.

Re:Oww the ironey!

[screenrc]

The vast majority of FOSS developers are only
agaist patents, the are not against copyrights.
Every time a developer adds a GPL license to
his work, or displays his name as the author,
he says to the world that "this is my work" . It
is not yours or ours, this software "belongs to me".
And the penalties are severe. Try ripping-out the
copyright notices from the source, or perhaps
change the name of author with yours. Nobody
will like you, nobody. In most cases, the developers are agaist sharing
the ownership of their work -- this is protected
through copyright.

Re:Oww the ironey!

[the_womble]

OSS is pro free markets (by minimising network effects, thus keeping barriers to entry lower) as opposed to state enforcement of monopolies (sound familiar?) and central planning (sound familiar?).

Re:IMPORTANT: Firefox (luv hfis)

[Anonymous Coward]

I laugh at you all, Linux pussyboys.

I use CP/M, you insensitive clod!

I wonder....

[blair1q]

Do you think Linus Torvalds looks at that $35 billion valuation for Linux and thinks, "I wish I'd invented that..."

Re:I wonder....

[Soko]

My guess is Linus would answer "No" to your question.

Linus had a very nice life - hacking on what he wants how he wants, when he wants and where he wants. He's healthy, warm, clothed and fed, as are his wife and children.

Some people just don't need any more than that.

Soko

Re:I wonder....

[blair1q]

>Some people just don't need any more than that.

Nobody needs more than that.

But show then $35 billion in stacks of $100 bills some time, and tell them he'll never be subject to risk if he has money.

Any one of them who denies wanting to stuff a duffel bag with as much as they can carry is a damn liar.

Do not know the answer but...

[SuperKendall]

I don't know the answer to the question of revenue derived from any particular piece of open source Apple uses (like Apache or CUPS or FreeBSD or all the rest), but an interesting observation is this:

While Microsoft struggles to get Longhorn out in 2006, Apple is beating them (with far less manpower or monetary resources) on almost every point with an OS out in (early) 2005! Apple, more than any commercial company I have seen, is leveraging Open Source as much as possible to expend all of its energies on creative and thoughtful enhancements to systems already built. Instead of reinventing the wheel, Apple is figuring out how to make better rubber for the wheels that are already around. Microsoft meanwhile is still at the stage where they are still trying to decide if they should build a standard wheel, or if perhaps square wheels have been dismissed by the populace too early. One great example of a Microsoft square wheel for those that doubt the analogy is the stupid menu hiding features added in XP, along with the folding taskbar icons (like all command windows lumped in one icon).

That seemed to go a little off-topic, but my point is this - you can to some extent measure economic benefit Apple derives from open-source by measuring Apple's output compared to other companies that do not make similar use of open technologies.

IDC beating the drum for M$ again

[mauriceh]

This report seems to have exactly the result that IDC and M$ wanted.
A bunch of Linux people saying "Where's my piece of the action?"

Where on earth do they come up with this rubbish?

If one wanted to write something to stir up dissent in the Linux commumity, this is a blueprint for the method.

In real terms

[SuperBigGulp]

$35B as in Beer?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

IDC says Itanium to rule

[TheKingAdrock]

Let us not forget that in '98 IDC said that Itanium would be the dominant shipping server by 2002, with desktop sales to become dominant a year or two after. Perhaps their numbers are correct within an order of magnitude.

I know where the money is going

[NiteEyes]

It seems to me most of the projected revenues from Linux sales will be going to hardware server vendors. Why so? Are they selling so many Linux servers that they're making a killing? Not at all. See, they're robbing the customers.

Check out the support sites for major server vendors. On the support sites, look for the software available for downloading. You may notice that there's a lot more software (drivers, etc.) available for Windows Server 2k/2k3 than for Linux. Or, if an equivalent software package exists, it's only supported on a particular distribution, usually an out-of-date one. What's going on here? Many server vendors know their (x86,x86-64) servers are being sold to run Linux. But it seems they're getting away with doing support work only for Windows. Commercial third-parties, volunteers, and the customers themselves are making up the short-fall.

Not every server vendor should be indited for poor Linux support. But a few of the major ones out there have figured out how to save a few dollars on their support costs.

add in books to that

[Anonymous Coward]

and training

TCO

[Anonymous Coward]

One benefit of OSS and linux in particular that i havent seen mentioned is the downward pressure they place on the (total) cost of Windows equivalent products. Ill bet that Windows XP, MS Office etc would be priced a lot more expensively and less competitively if linux did not exist at all. end users be they individuals or corporations benefit even if they do not choose to run linux and other OSS software.

Re:TCO

[NiteEyes]

I don't quite agree with this. The cost to the individual consumer probably would be no different. I don't think MS feels threatened at all on the individual sale. Linux offers better competition on the bigger deals, to corporations and governments. And even when it does, I (personally) don't believe MS lowers its price based on TCO -- rather it's the licensing costs that make Linux more competitive. TCO varies too widely in Linux shops, I feel, to make a consistent and compelling argument in its favor. Some shops can get by with supporting Debian themselves -- some need that RedHat or Suse support contract.

fake whois details

[Anonymous Coward]

perhaps ICANN should know as well as the police, isnt it against the T&C to put fake details in a whois ?

Domain name: OPENSOURCEBROWSER.COM

Administrative Contact:
OSB, OSB al@opensourceblog.com
OSB
OSB
OSB
OSB, OSB E7 0AB
GB
+44.0
Technical Contact:
OSB, OSB al@opensourceblog.com
OSB
OSB
OSB
OSB, OSB E7 0AB
GB
+44.0

my guess is if they have to hide their identity on a whois then who knows what else they are hiding from, perhaps a few calls to the authorities would clear things up

Revenue not from invention

[Anonymous Coward]

The revenue generated from linux is primarily from services, not the invention of the kernel. Linus definitely would NOT want to spend time with customers doing support work. That's not the kind of guy he is, from what I can tell. Though, I don't know him personally, I can see that his attitude is maverick-ish (his comments r.e. SCO smoking a substance).

Communism

[danila]

That's the communist model. :-) OSS companies are giving as much as they think they can, while getting everything that they want. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs".

40 years ago Khruschev said: "this generation will live under communism". His forecasting skills were worse than ITC's, but we will get there, eventually. Don't lose hope. :-)

Re:Communism

[Anonymous Coward]

"You pretend to pay, I'll pretend to work."

You fucking ignoramus.

MICRO$OFT MADE 32.19bn IN 2003 ALONE!

[enigmals1]

Microsoft made $36.84bn in 2004 alone.

Go Linux! (rolling eyes)

Impressive for a "free" product I guess... but considering that's over 4 years and multiple companies it's just a blip on the corporate radar. In fact, considering the purpose of Linux, would one even WANT to brag about how much Linux has made? Isn't that just signs of Linux heading down a different road but arriving at the same destination?

Just some rambling thoughts. ;)

Ha

[Anonymous Coward]

That's as ridiculous as saying that FireFox has 10 million users. lmfao.

It is free competition...

[Kjella]

...everyone can compete on equal tersm with Red Hat. Think you can offer better or cheaper support? Just do it. OSS software differs quite a lot from closed source software. In closed source software, you typically *spend* a lot of money on R&D, then *make* a lot money off the product.

In OSS, you don't need to spend a lot of money on R&D as such, but you don't get to sit there and milk it later either. You have to offer something continously in order to sell service and support. Red Hat can never sit around and make money off selling RHL licenses the way Microsoft is selling Windows licences.

There's also a question about when you're selling "Linux" as such. Many companies sell what essentially an application, where they include the hardware and OS (something big from IBM or Oracle etc.) If it wasn't Linux, they'd just licence the OS from somebody. What is the proper value of Linux here? 0? Full retail price of the system? Some "what we would have paid if Linux wasn't around" fudge number? Very hard to tell.

Kjella

So... the farmers will be rich...

[bill_doors]

I still remember the time when Bill Gates said that the only persons in the open source business would be the farmers... it was on 2002... check it and think about how Gates is a big prophet! http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/2002/0 4-17glc.asp

Re:IMPORTANT: Firefox (luv hfis)

[lack1uster]

How did Firefox get associated with Linux? It's available on many platforms. I have plenty of friends that use Firefox and don't know/care about Linux.

PS: Thanks for explaning Micro$oft vs Microsoft. I didn't get that until now.

Oh no! this is a curse in disguise

[d0n quix0te]

Isn't IDC the bozos who predicted a $35billion Itanium server based business?

Now Linux is doomed ;-)

Re:Oww the ironey!

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm opposed to what communism's correct definition is. i'm opposed to what i see in soviet union, north korea, china, cuba, vietnam, et cetera, because i am opposed to foreign countries.

Re:I write OSS for Linux and moreover

[Anonymous Coward]

To make money as a Linux IT/ programmer, you need to be a programmer. To make money as a Windows servers IT guy, all you need is to know how to create .com buttons and have taken some quick college courses. So most Windows IT guys have little if any real programming skills.

I remember the initial VB learning course, one of the things stressed was, to program for Windows you really did not need to know anything about the windows OS code, VB can do everything you need....if your are in a hurry. My take on this was that they really did not want people to learn real programming skills! Perhaps seeing the truth about the Windows API might make Microsoft redundant.

This is why OSS, Linux and Gnu will eventually succeed, and why there are so many cracked and broken Windows servers out there!

Ca$h Flow

[__aamcgs2220]

Free puppies anyone? They're much better than those WinPuppies. You know you want one! Go on, take a puppy, it's free! Zero cost to take the puppy! Everybody else is getting a free puppy, why aren't you getting one?

Linux would be in the trillions

[defile]

Measuring the Linux market by commodity software is like measuring the auto industry by car manufacturer sales.

Cars require fuel. And maintenance. And roads. And (ick) regulations. The amount is staggering -- cars are an enormous part of our economy and looking at only the businesses that sell them and the people that design and manufacture them is not seeing the whole picture.

Not to mention that the critical difference between software and automobiles is that software is unlimited (it's just information), and that this kind of software (open source) encourages unlimited copying, so the unit sales numbers are even more meaningless.

Re:Oww the ironey!

[Ontheotherhand]

Is this some special kind of irony that only slashdotters understand? (and can my Karma get any lower?)

Doesn't include embedded market

[zbik]

According the the IDC overview, this survey only includes servers, PC's, and "packaged software". What is the size of the embedded market, considering Linux is now the number one embedded OS in Asia?

Re:Oww the ironey!

[TakaIta]

In communism, all property is owned by the community as a whole

I don't know who wrote that in the wikipedia, but it surely gives the wrong definition of communism. Communism is not about ownership in general, but about ownership of means of production. It's basic roots are in the observation that those who have money earn money by doing nothing. Means of production are: 1. capital, 2. labour, 3. natural resources. Now Marx thought that it would be fair that people get paid for their actual labour, not for possession of capital and natural resources.

In the Sovjet Union the "experiment" to put Marx's ideas into practice has failed - as we all have been able to observe.

OSS is quite according to Marx's ideas. You get paid for doing the work (or you volunteer to not get paid). But once the work is done, you can't use it to make money except for charging for "added value" like distribution - which is the labour you are actually doing.

But even in the Sovjet Union people had private property, they could own their house, their cloths, their furniture. And "theft" was really something you could be punished for.

Linux entrepreneurs

[Anonymous Coward]

Then the question should be made of you noble entrepreneurs is: how much of that money you earn from OSS do you give back to the community you rely on?

I am also someone that installs Linux for businesses and I make it a point to estimate a reasonable value (my somewhat arbitrary assessment) for the OSS that the company will be using and add that to the bill. I then donate that money back to the community.

It's my feeling that you can easily make yourself more profitable by using "free" software that requires somewhat specialized support.

In the end though, if you are making money off OSS: make sure some of that money makes it back out of your pocket.

The bigger the $ signs

[Anonymous Coward]

The bigger the market gets, the faster development and growth get. At the current 25%-50% growth rates, its great. Going forward, I see not just growth, but the rate of growth increasing.

Hair Trap Hair Salon New York