Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Linux To Ring Up $35B By 2008

Posted by michael on Sun Dec 19, 2004 07:20 PM
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."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Limburgher (523006) on Sunday December 19 2004, @07:21PM (#11133571) Homepage Journal
    So, where's my check? :)
    • So, where's my check? :)

      You need to go get your product into wide use now. On one project [citadel.org] 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 soft

      • by Limburgher (523006) on Sunday December 19 2004, @07:44PM (#11133725) Homepage Journal
        Yes. Did you? I can still charge for support and distribution, I just have to make the source available.
      • by infiniti99 (219973) <justin@affinix.com> on Sunday December 19 2004, @07:50PM (#11133766) Homepage
        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.
        • by Limburgher (523006) on Sunday December 19 2004, @07:53PM (#11133789) Homepage Journal
          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.
        • by sloanster (213766) * <ringfan@@@mainphrame...com> on Sunday December 19 2004, @08:28PM (#11133935) Journal
          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.
            • "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.
        • by diegocgteleline.es (653730) on Sunday December 19 2004, @09:16PM (#11134139)
          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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 19 2004, @07:22PM (#11133575)
    GET THE FACTS! [microsoft.com]
  • Errrr, Dupe (Score:4, Informative)

    by MrWim (760798) on Sunday December 19 2004, @07:23PM (#11133586)
    See here [slashdot.org]
  • ..anyone who can figure out where that figure came from, and who's getting it...
    • by Anti Frozt (655515) <chris...buffett@@@gmail...com> on Sunday December 19 2004, @07:27PM (#11133605)

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

    • Pulled out of someone's ass of course -- along with TCO figures saying that Windows beats Red Hat Linux.
    • Re:Karma points to.. (Score:5, Informative)

      by goon america (536413) on Sunday December 19 2004, @07:29PM (#11133618) Homepage Journal
      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.
  • $358 (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 19 2004, @07:24PM (#11133593)
    I saw $358 and was not surprised.
  • 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.
  • $35.7bn? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Nine Tenths of The W (829559) on Sunday December 19 2004, @07:28PM (#11133616)
    Wow. That's a lot of SCO licenses.
  • And yet... (Score:4, Informative)

    by elid (672471) <eli.ipod@noSPam.gmail.com> on Sunday December 19 2004, @07:29PM (#11133624)
    ...Microsoft generates $10.6 billion in annual revenue from Office alone.

    (source [reuters.com])

  • by geoffrobinson (109879) on Sunday December 19 2004, @07:33PM (#11133652) Homepage
    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    He says the correct figure is GNU/$35B
  • Is it much? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by asac (643533) on Sunday December 19 2004, @07:35PM (#11133669)

    Microsoft will earn $38 bn [computerweekly.com] in 2005.

    IBM received $23.2 bn [com.com] in 2004.

    How will those figures look in 2008?
  • Warning (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ars-Fartsica (166957) on Sunday December 19 2004, @07:36PM (#11133675)
    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

  • by SetupWeasel (54062) on Sunday December 19 2004, @07:38PM (#11133687) Homepage
    Didn't we learn anything from 4 years of George W. Bush?
  • TCO! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dark Paladin (116525) * <jhummel@johnhum m e l.net> on Sunday December 19 2004, @07:41PM (#11133707) Homepage
    [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]
  • by ToasterTester (95180) on Sunday December 19 2004, @07:41PM (#11133709)
    Well with that much money guess they don't need us writing free code anymore. They can afford to pay and spread the wealth.
  • by donnz (135658) on Sunday December 19 2004, @07:50PM (#11133764) Homepage Journal
    ...when communists go bad
  • by Animats (122034) on Sunday December 19 2004, @07:50PM (#11133768) Homepage
    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.

  • Kinda misleading (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 19 2004, @07:56PM (#11133798)
    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.
    • 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 t
  • by Dano Watt (841769) on Sunday December 19 2004, @07:58PM (#11133813) Homepage
    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.
  • Cash cow? (Score:4, Funny)

    by daishin (753851) on Sunday December 19 2004, @08:34PM (#11133963) Homepage
    Its a cash penguin damnit!
  • by stankulp (69949) on Sunday December 19 2004, @08:49PM (#11134021) Homepage

    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...
  • by blair1q (305137) on Monday December 20 2004, @01:10AM (#11135220) Journal

    Do you think Linus Torvalds looks at that $35 billion valuation for Linux and thinks, "I wish I'd invented that..."
  • by SuperBigGulp (177180) on Monday December 20 2004, @02:51AM (#11135464)
    $35B as in Beer?
    • 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 da