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

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: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.

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

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: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.

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.

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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: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:*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.

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.