Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux To Ring Up $35B By 2008

Posted by michael on from the money-in-the-bank dept.

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."

149 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. I write OSS for Linux by Limburgher · · Score: 4, Funny

    So, where's my check? :)

    --

    You are not the customer.

    1. Re:I write OSS for Linux by marshall_j · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re:I write OSS for Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

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

    3. Re:I write OSS for Linux by Limburgher · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --

      You are not the customer.

    4. Re:I write OSS for Linux by infiniti99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:I write OSS for Linux by IO+ERROR · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.

      --
      How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    6. Re:I write OSS for Linux by marshall_j · · Score: 1

      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

    7. Re:I write OSS for Linux by Limburgher · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --

      You are not the customer.

    8. Re:I write OSS for Linux by sloanster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    9. Re:I write OSS for Linux by Limburgher · · Score: 1
      your customers

      Sigh. . . :)

      --

      You are not the customer.

    10. Re:I write OSS for Linux by BoomerSooner · · Score: 1

      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 ;)

    11. Re:I write OSS for Linux by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      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."

    12. Re:I write OSS for Linux by JohnFluxx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "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.

    13. Re:I write OSS for Linux by urlgrey · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ah ha! It IS a conspiriacy.

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

      ;-)

      --
      Running 'Nix is like owning a Lightsaber. It's "a more elegant weapon for a more civilized time."
    14. Re:I write OSS for Linux by (H)elix1 · · Score: 1

      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)

      --
      +++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
    15. Re:I write OSS for Linux by Trogre · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    16. Re:I write OSS for Linux by HangingChad · · Score: 1
      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.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    17. Re:I write OSS for Linux by Kafka_Canada · · Score: 1

      ps -auxw | more is better in VMWare.

      less is more

      (than more)

      --
      Fuck it
    18. Re:I write OSS for Linux by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      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.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    19. Re:I write OSS for Linux by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

      Thats how reiserfs works

    20. Re:I write OSS for Linux by Spoing · · Score: 1
      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.

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
  2. BUT WINDOWS IS CHEAPER!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    GET THE FACTS!

    1. Re:BUT WINDOWS IS CHEAPER!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      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.

  3. Errrr, Dupe by MrWim · · Score: 4, Informative

    See here

    1. Re:Errrr, Dupe by maddskillz · · Score: 1

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

  4. Karma points to.. by itistoday · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Best. Webhost. Ever. Dreamhost.
    1. Re:Karma points to.. by Anti+Frozt · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --
      In C++, friends can touch each others private parts.
    2. Re:Karma points to.. by gatesh8r · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Karma whorin' since 1999
    3. Re:Karma points to.. by goon+america · · Score: 5, Informative
      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.
    4. Re:Karma points to.. by SetupWeasel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re: Karma points to.. by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1
      ..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.

    6. Re:Karma points to.. by fymidos · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
    7. Re:Karma points to.. by buddha42 · · Score: 1
      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!

    8. Re:Karma points to.. by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 1

      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

      --
      /. users can't
    9. Re:Karma points to.. by njcoder · · Score: 1
      "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.

      --
      Open Source Java DAO Generator
    10. Re:Karma points to.. by goon+america · · Score: 1

      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.

  5. $358 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I saw $358 and was not surprised.

  6. more power to FOSS by adeydas · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:more power to FOSS by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
      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.

      --
      Engineering is the art of compromise.
    2. Re:more power to FOSS by SpooForBrains · · Score: 1

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

      --
      "The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
  7. $35.7bn? by Nine+Tenths+of+The+W · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wow. That's a lot of SCO licenses.

    --
    Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters only to them
    1. Re:$35.7bn? by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      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???

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    2. Re:$35.7bn? by FuzzzyLogik · · Score: 1

      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....

      --
      Kyle
      http://www.unlogikal.net/
  8. Re:IMPORTANT: Firefox (luv hfis) by Sir_Jeff · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

    --
    --Sir_-_Jeff--
  9. And yet... by elid · · Score: 3, Informative
    ...Microsoft generates $10.6 billion in annual revenue from Office alone.

    (source)

    1. Re:And yet... by SoSueMe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:And yet... by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:And yet... by NardofDoom · · Score: 1

      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.)

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
  10. Basic math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    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.

  11. Re:Really? by marshall_j · · Score: 1

    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)

  12. revenue by cipher+uk · · Score: 1

    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

  13. And Its Net Economic Benefit Is Even Greater by geoffrobinson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    1. Re:And Its Net Economic Benefit Is Even Greater by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      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).

  14. I for one by sore+loser · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Welcome our open source capitalist overlords

  15. RMS just called by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    He says the correct figure is GNU/$35B

  16. Is it much? by asac · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Microsoft will earn $38 bn in 2005.

    IBM received $23.2 bn in 2004.

    How will those figures look in 2008?
    1. Re:Is it much? by falsified · · Score: 1

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

      --
      HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
    2. Re:Is it much? by nagora · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    3. Re:Is it much? by asac · · Score: 1
      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.

  17. Warning by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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

  18. Don't count your money before it's made. by SetupWeasel · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    1. Re:Don't count your money before it's made. by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 1

      Nope

      --

      This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

  19. Not just Linux by stox · · Score: 1

    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. ;->

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  20. That's where the number comes from! by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:That's where the number comes from! by fiftyfly · · Score: 2, Funny
      |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....

      --
      "Sanity is not statistical", George Orwell, "1984"
    2. Re:That's where the number comes from! by 9-bits.tk · · Score: 1

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

  21. How many copies of RHEL for zSeries is that? by PornMaster · · Score: 1

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

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

    --
    500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
  22. TCO! by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 4, Funny

    [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]

    --
    52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
  23. don't need me anymore by ToasterTester · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:don't need me anymore by unixbugs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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!

      --
      You are about to give someone a piece of your mind, something which you can ill afford...
    2. Re:don't need me anymore by njcoder · · Score: 1
      "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.

      --
      Open Source Java DAO Generator
  24. Let me be the first to say... by SoSueMe · · Score: 1

    $Moo!$

    1. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Nugget · · Score: 1

      Yay cows.

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

  25. TCO studies by vlad_petric · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Believing TCO studies from Microsoft is like believing safety studies from medication manufacturers.

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

    --

    The Raven

    1. Re:TCO studies by bigman2003 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      No reason to lie.
  26. This is what happens... by donnz · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...when communists go bad

    --
    -- Free software on every PC on every desk
    1. Re:This is what happens... by MikeCapone · · Score: 1

      Capitalism can include cooperation, not just competition.

      --
      Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
    2. Re:This is what happens... by donnz · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      --
      -- Free software on every PC on every desk
    3. Re:This is what happens... by MikeCapone · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
    4. Re:This is what happens... by MikeCapone · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
  27. Actual revenue for 2004 is $15 billion by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    1. Re:Actual revenue for 2004 is $15 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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

    2. Re:Actual revenue for 2004 is $15 billion by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Actual revenue for 2004 is $15 billion by gregorio · · Score: 3, Informative
      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.
    4. Re:Actual revenue for 2004 is $15 billion by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      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.

  28. IDC 96% off by bstadil · · Score: 4, Interesting
    You are quite right. These clowns predicted Itanium sales of $30B in 2001.

    Why is anyone taking this seriously?

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  29. Kinda misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Kinda misleading by 808140 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  30. I see they discovered the secret formula!! by Dano+Watt · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:I see they discovered the secret formula!! by eraserewind · · Score: 1

      I believe that should be:

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

  31. Re:Oww the ironey! by Dano+Watt · · Score: 1

    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.

  32. Re:License by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1
    As MS already pulls TCO numbers out of its ass, why will the numbers of qualified admins matter?

    --
    "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  33. Re:Oww the ironey! by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1
    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.

    --
    "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  34. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  35. Re:and how much do the creators get by jericho4.0 · · Score: 2, Informative
    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.

    --
    "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  36. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  37. Cash cow? by daishin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Its a cash penguin damnit!

    --
    (\_/)
    (O.o) This is Bunny. Add Bunny to your signature
    (> <) to help him achieve world domination.
    1. Re:Cash cow? by Brane2 · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re:Cash cow? by MBCook · · Score: 1
      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"???

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  38. Re:Oww the ironey! by strider44 · · Score: 1

    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.

  39. This is capitalism getting a chance to work! by BugBlatterBeast · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    If you steal this sig, the only people who will profit are professional criminals.
  40. Software Sells Hardware by stankulp · · Score: 4, Insightful


    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...

    --
    We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
    1. Re:Software Sells Hardware by ColMustard · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Moof.
  41. Re:Oww the ironey! by BugBlatterBeast · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    If you steal this sig, the only people who will profit are professional criminals.
  42. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  43. Wow, back on the 15th is was only 28 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Wow, back on the 15th is was only 28 billion by Builder · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Wow, back on the 15th is was only 28 billion by dbacher · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      If your code is acting bloated, and is running rather slow, it's likely and predicted that some loops you will unroll.
  44. Linux runs on everything by s4ltyd0g · · Score: 1

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

  45. Lots of projects are "funded" by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Lots of projects are "funded" by mibus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Apple also pour effort into KHTML, for another example.

    2. Re:Lots of projects are "funded" by AusG4 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      bash-3.00$ uname -a
      SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
    3. Re:Lots of projects are "funded" by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      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.

  46. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  47. Re:*sigh* revenue is for the ignorant by Omniscientist · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  48. Erm by Rie+Beam · · Score: 1

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

  49. Isn't it really a lot more? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

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

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Isn't it really a lot more? by stox · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  50. al@opensourcebrowser.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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?"

  51. Re:Oww the ironey! by Dano+Watt · · Score: 1

    [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.

  52. Re:How does is feel to get used? by MikeCapone · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
  53. Re:Oww the ironey! by Wonko · · Score: 1

    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.

  54. Re:Oww the ironey! by strider44 · · Score: 1

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

    I do, however, not understand your post.

  55. Or maybe not ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

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

  56. Maybe... by BugBlatterBeast · · Score: 1

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

    --
    If you steal this sig, the only people who will profit are professional criminals.
  57. Re:Oww the ironey! by hazah · · Score: 1

    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?

  58. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  59. Re:Oww the ironey! by cowsandmilk · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    http://sladm.org Saint Louis Area Dance Marathon The Best One Night Stand of Your Life
  60. Re:Oww the ironey! by screenrc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  61. Re:Oww the ironey! by the_womble · · Score: 1

    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?).

  62. Re:IMPORTANT: Firefox (luv hfis) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I laugh at you all, Linux pussyboys.

    I use CP/M, you insensitive clod!

  63. I wonder.... by blair1q · · Score: 3, Funny


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

    1. Re:I wonder.... by Soko · · Score: 1

      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

      --
      "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
    2. Re:I wonder.... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      >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.

  64. Do not know the answer but... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  65. IDC beating the drum for M$ again by mauriceh · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
  66. In real terms by SuperBigGulp · · Score: 3, Funny

    $35B as in Beer?

    --
    Someday a Slashdot ID of 177180 will mean something.
  67. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  68. IDC says Itanium to rule by TheKingAdrock · · Score: 1

    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.

  69. Re:Really? by killerface · · Score: 1

    can i be shirly?

  70. Communism by danila · · Score: 1

    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. :-)

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  71. MICRO$OFT MADE 32.19bn IN 2003 ALONE! by enigmals1 · · Score: 1


    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. ;)

  72. It is free competition... by Kjella · · Score: 1

    ...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

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  73. So... the farmers will be rich... by bill_doors · · Score: 1

    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

  74. Oh no! this is a curse in disguise by d0n+quix0te · · Score: 1

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

    Now Linux is doomed ;-)

  75. Ca$h Flow by __aamcgs2220 · · Score: 1

    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?

  76. Linux would be in the trillions by defile · · Score: 1

    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.

  77. Doesn't include embedded market by zbik · · Score: 1

    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?

  78. Re:Oww the ironey! by TakaIta · · Score: 1
    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.