Slashdot Mirror
Linux Ecosystem Is Worth $25 Billion
darthcamaro writes "How much is Linux worth today? That's a question the Linux Foundation is trying to answer in a new report expected to be released on Wednesday.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
In a different sense, the question is as simple as answering this one: How much is your business worth?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
There's no need for that, we already have the answer (see title).
in a study done by me, my 11 year old jeep is also worth $25 billion.
I wonder how much the Linux ecosystem would be worth if it were valued by an organization that didn't have a vested interest.
Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
Value can only be attributed towards things that can be bought and sold.
This is therefore an example of Post hoc ergo propter hoc; ie., just because Linux foundation says the Linux footprint is worth $25 Billion, is a fallicy because nobody can purchase it. It could show a measure of the rate of Linux adoption, but such suggestions must be understood by looking at the bigger picture. Who's losing when Linux is being adopted and also, which projects are not going with Linux?
There is also the long-tail of Linux adoption that couldn't possibly be accounted in their figure.
I must maintain that the big picture is currently too big for anyone to fully interpret at present, especially the Linux foundation who is subject to some considerable bias.
You can't sell the Linux ecosystem, and if you believe you can buy it -- I have a bridge to sell you (please contact me right away because I also have some important Nigerian business that requires you immmmmediate and humbling attention, kind sirs.)
I like Linux, but these types of concepts are rooted in Non Sequitur; that the buy-in of Linux is rooted in the success of Linux. That can only be true of this is a zero-sum claim, and there is evidence of losses directly attributed which while plausible does not make these factually relevant.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
How much is air worth?
It's sad that there are so many people who worship the almighty dollar that they have to put a price on everything.
Linux, like air, is priceless. Saying it is worth $n devalues it.
Free Martian Whores!
Linux is priceless in value precisely because it is F/OSS
Even let's say that the $25B value is accurate and represents something meaningful, it seems to be a pretty depressing number for the entire ecosystem, isn't it? Microsoft as a publicly traded company alone is currently worth $216.11B and I'm sure we can all agree that the entire Windows "ecosystem" is worth at least that much over again. So the Linux ecosystem is worth, what, 5% of Microsoft's value? And this is at a time when Linux is at a historic "high" while Microsoft is in a pretty firm slump...
Not that I think this is an accurate or meaningful number.
25 Billion? That's nothing. Have you seen how much just one of RIAA's infringed songs is worth???
A: Linux is worth $25 Billion
B: Microsoft market share has decreased
Therefore A caused B? No. There is no evidence of that.
I love Linux but that kind of logic is simply flawed and therefore people who love Microsoft could use it against OSS in their sales pitch. A good part of OSS is the ability to have groupthink be thwarted by the input from many open (freely offered) sources. I happen to be a proponent of OSS.
A: Linux is worth $25 Billion
B: Microsoft market share has increased
Therefore A caused B?
Linux foundation is suggesting that their value of Linux is somehow relevant. It's not that relevant.
How can you put a value on something that is inherently invaluable? How do you account for the savings of using free products that also cause additional savings (from avoiding security holes, for example).
You cannot attribute a price on the value of Linux. It's simply priceless and that was the intent of my original comment.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
There's no need for that, we already have the answer (see title).
Mod parent recursive !!!
My Starcraft 2 Blog
Hmmm, I'm not sure I understand in which way it is a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, means almost literally what its translation says: Y happened after X, therefore Y happened because of X. In other words it's mistaking chronology for causation. E.g.,
- I bought a new cell phone last year, and this year I occasionally have migraines. Therefore, the cell phone is obviously the cause of my headaches.
- Bill Hicks spoke against God and religion, then (after many years of it) Bill Hicks died relatively young. Of cancer. Obviously his lack of faith is the cause of his illness.
- I got a raise, and soon thereafter the latest economic bubble burst and the credit crunch kicked in. Obviously my raise the cause of the recession. My wage is that big a burden on the economy ;)
- Jane bought a new TFT monitor, and soon thereafter she got diagnosed with melanoma. Therefore the radiation from TFT monitors must have caused it.
- John switched from Linux to BSD, and soon afterwards he ended up in a mental institution. Therefore BSD drives people insane.
Etc.
The common theme there is really this: "happened after, therefore happened because". Temporal succession => causality.
The difference between it and, say, "correlation != causation" is that here usually you don't even have enough of a sample to even have a proper correlation. You have two random anecdotes and the only thing that connects them is the order of their timestamps, so to speak, and that succession is taken to mean causation.
But you probably knew that already.
So, anyway, assuming that you did mean that particular fallacy, in which way do you see it at work there? It doesn't seem obvious at all to me, and I'm genuinely curious. What case of chronology mistaken for casuality do you have in mind there?
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The problem that remains, though is: just because you can think up a random number to put on something, doesn't mean it's the right number.
And if economists were that good at calculating the values, the USSR would still be going strong and would have the strongest economy in the world. After all, that was the whole idea: instead of letting the free market work it out by trial and error, have a handful of smart guys who calculate exactly how many bycicles are needed and exactly how much should they cost. It should be much more efficient, right? It didn't quite work out that way.
So, yes, some people like to put a dollar value on anything in sight. It doesn't mean it's the right one.
The only moment when you can know the real value, is, yes, when you can apply what we knew at least since Publilius Syrus: "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it." As long as you can't have a purchaser, that value you put on it is just a pointless abstraction. Again, I know that some people love to paint the whole world in dollar worths, but it doesn't mean it actually means anything or that you can do anything with that number.
E.g., they even put a $ worth on a human life. What _can_ you do with that number? Can I come shoot you if I have that money on hand to pay as weregeld? Can I buy you? Or what? Exactly what _does_ that number tell me?
In practice it's just an abstraction used to handwave stuff like "see, the legal speed on highways should by higher/lower because it means X million dollars in lost lives, vs Y million gained in commerce along that road." But it's ultimately just a made up excuse, and usually working backwards from the conclusion one wants to an acceptable excuse for it.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.