Linux Ecosystem Is Worth $25 Billion 176
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Linux Ecosystem Is Worth $25 Billion
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
"To take a significant step forward, you must make a series of finite improvements." -- Donald J. Atwood, General Motors
How much is Linux worth? (Score:2, Insightful)
In a different sense, the question is as simple as answering this one: How much is your business worth?
Re:How much is Linux worth? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a little more complex than that because an individual business does have a quantifiable worth: in the case of a publicly traded company, it's their stock valuation; in the case of a privately held company, it's how much they'd get if they went public. (Note that I'm not saying this is an accurate measure, but it is at least something you can put a number on.) You could, if you wanted to and you had enough money, buy any corporation for a precisely tabulated amount. With Linux, there's nothing to buy out -- you could buy all the companies that make money distributing it (Red Hat etc.) and you still wouldn't own it.
From the market-value-is-everything POV, this means Linux has infinite value, which clearly isn't true. But it does make it a lot harder to count up than, say, the value of Windows or Mac OS.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it wasn't supposed to be like "How much money" so much as "How much is your daughter worth to you?" when being threatened into doing stuff, except backwards because it's Microsoft that's the guy with the gun and the need of a hatchetman.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, good point. I hadn't thought of that interpretation.
Okay, in that sense no one can really quantify the worth of anything, because everything has some emotional value. (Kids are right at the top of the list, obviously, but for many people businesses are pretty high up there too.) But we do quantify the value of things all the time, every time we buy or sell, so I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with trying to do so in this case. It's just much tougher than it would be with a proprietary
Re: (Score:2)
And somehow I posted anonymously when I didn't check the box thingie.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you DIDN'T post that... you just created karma sniping.
Re:How much is Linux worth? (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer to this question is the same answer to "How much money is lost when people download music?"
"Whatever they are willing to pay."
If, like me, they are not willing to pay anything for either Britney Spears' latest CD, or the latest Linux distro, then the value is nothing. $0.00. But the record companies always assume everyone who downloads Britney is a "lost sale", and they publish huge outlandish figures for how much value they think they've lost. I suspect the Linux estimators will make the same crucial error in their estimates. Of those who download "free" music, or Linux, probably only 10% would be willing to pay for it.
That tendency to avoid spending money needs to be accounted for, otherwise the value estimates are meaningless.
Re:How much is Linux worth? (Score:4, Funny)
Everyone who downloads Britney is a "lost cause" but this is off-topic isn't it...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that by your use of Linux you're increasing it's value by the network effect. Granted, the same is also true for Britney, but for OSes the effect is much stronger than for mere music, so even if you never intended to pay for it, Linux is better off with you than without.
Re: (Score:2)
"How much money is lost when people download music?"
Wrong example. Copying music, whether done by a record company or its illegal competitor the music pirate, is always producing value. No money is lost. Money is lost when you are not downloading while you want to.
"Whatever they are willing to pay."
This is wrong too. What we are willing to pay depends on what else is on the market and the price of these alternatives are related.
Without Linux there is a good chance that Unix would have died and Windows would
Re: (Score:2)
"How much money is lost when people download music?"
Wrong example. Copying music, whether done by a record company or its illegal competitor the music pirate, is always producing value. No money is lost. Money is lost when you are not downloading while you want to.
I think the music example was right on the mark. I was going to make that same comparison before I found theaveng's post. I'm not sure where you're going with the rest of this... The only difference between copying music and copying a linux distro is that you're violating copyright law in one instance. In both cases the user gets some satisfaction or utility as a result, and both cases are impossible to qualify in financial terms, as you note further on.
Open source also provides value by acting as an anc
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that's quite right.
There are many cases of private companies being sold in a private transaction, and the value on the stock market isn't a factor. Using plain old balance sheets and some measure of good will you can certainly quantify the v
Re: (Score:2)
There are many cases of private companies being sold in a private transaction, and the value on the stock market isn't a factor.
This seems counterintuitive. If it's a PRIVATE company that can be sold in a private transaction, then there is no "value on the stock market" because it's not publically traded.
On the other hand, if there IS value on the stock market then it IS publically traded and can't be sold "in a private transaction".
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstand me. The OP said:
My response is that the stock market does n
Re: (Score:2)
more like, how much is the sum of all linux-centric business, plus half of businesses that indirectly benefit from linux, twice times whatever charities or non-profit orgs use linux, etc;
then take the square root of that, then the natural logarithm of both sides, and then differentiate. The resulting value is some totally unrelated number. Or is it?
Re:How much is Linux worth? (Score:5, Funny)
How much is your business worth?
-$104, 287 in the red ever since the BSA raided my small business. Turns out that a former employee(my dim but well-meaning wife) installed the same copy of Windows Vista Business on 5 computers while I had only 4 licenses.
They came in with assault rifles and stomped my face into the ground with their jackboots and kevlar saying I was a "filthy pirate" and that I was "goin' on a free vacation to Gitmo" and stole all 6 computers including my Mac and my Linux box and told me that they were being used for software piracy. When I asked teh judge about my rights, he said "9/11 threat level yellow terrorist pirate national security" and now I write slashdot from a common terminal within a very sympathetic maximum security prison.
Re: (Score:2)
-$104, 287 in the red
Since "in the red" is supposed to denote a negative, -(-$104,287) is not bad.
Re: (Score:2)
That'd outgross SCO, I think.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly.
If linux were suddenly to 'go away', how much would it cost to license, install, configure, and support the entire business world with millions of copies of Server 2008?
Answer - a heckuva lot more than 25B.
Back to the abacus to make up some new numbers...
What? (Score:5, Funny)
There's no need for that, we already have the answer [slashdot.org] (see title).
Re: (Score:2)
10 PRINT "25 BILLION"
20 GOTO 10
Mod (Score:5, Funny)
There's no need for that, we already have the answer [slashdot.org] (see title).
Mod parent recursive !!!
Re: (Score:2)
Now THAT is funny!
Mod parent funnier!
Re: (Score:2)
teabaggers.
Isn't that term reserved for people who play FPSs? Since we are using Linux, our exposure to FPSs is rather limited.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, he (she? it?) missed a lot of !s, some 1s and a 'ONE'
In related news... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I'm sure this bomber I'm about to fire up has a "street value" of well over $1.3 million, but I managed to acquire it for the low low price of $12.50...
Also (further off topic), over the course of my life, I've found that the price of pot is a far better instrument to measure inflation than any number published by a government agency.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see those numbers...
Re:In related news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Usually, I share your cynicism about these breathless, fact-free "open source is gaining ground!" stories. But here your logic is way off. If this were just some pundit working for the Linux foundation making the usual "expert" assertions, your criticism would be valid. But this is a report based on real-world figures, and these figures deserve to be evaluated on their own merit. The fact that the people who wrote the report have a bias should make you look out for selective use of data, but doesn't automatically destroy the report's credibility.
Re: (Score:2)
He does have a point: they have a vested interest.
Re: (Score:2)
You're oversimplifying. His point is not just that they have a vested interest (duh!). It's that because they have a vested interest, we can ignore everything they have to say. My point is his point is wrong. It's rejecting an argument without listening to it, because you question the objectivity of the arguer. But the arguer's objectivity is irrelevant: an argument should stand or fall on its own merits.
Re: (Score:2)
So why is that a bad study? Because the person doing the study cherry-picked the data. The fact that he had a bias towards over-pricing the jeep gives him motive for fiddling the results, but it doesn't prove he fiddled the results. Only a careful examination of the data can do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Lisa, I would like to by that Jeep.
Re:In related news... (Score:4, Interesting)
Depends on if they have a vested interest in the other way.
Microsoft would argue that Linux clearly has a negative value due to all of those patents which it may or may not be infringing on and the licensing fees you owe them.
IBM will argue it has a high value since they make gobs of money on services as a result of it.
At some point, you have to try to value it in terms of industry revenues associated with it, as well as the intangible value of how long it would take to build your own, or to buy a commercial solution to replace it.
If every company using Linux were forced to replace it with a Microsoft solution, I can easily see the valuation to industry being measured in the billions.
In terms of the resources being managed under Linux machines, how they're used, and what it would take to swap them out ... there's an awful lot of stuff you'd have to be spending a lot of money on to replace.
Cheers
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I Love Linux, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Value can only be attributed towards things that can be bought and sold.
This is therefore an example of Post hoc ergo propter hoc [wikipedia.org]; 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.
Re:I Love Linux, but... (Score:5, Informative)
This is therefore an example of Post hoc ergo propter hoc
This is an example of someone not understanding what a particular logical fallacy actually is, and throwing it against the wall hoping it will stick.
Seriously. These online lists of classic fallacies are useful resources, and I think they've done a lot of good by helping people learn to recognize arguments that fail in certain predictable ways, but I'm getting really tired of people just grabbing their favorite and applying it to whatever argument is at hand without pausing to make sure that it actually applies in any meaningful way.
Re:I Love Linux, but... (Score:5, Informative)
A occurred, then B occurred.
Therefore, A caused B.
I really don't see how that applies here.
I think the converse fallacy of accident is more applicable.
Every (business/good/OS) I've seen is worth something, so it must be true that Linux is worth something.
But, as was stated, Linux is not for sale.
Okay I will explain my logic. (Score:2, Interesting)
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 mark
Re: (Score:2)
I think I missed some part where any mention was made of Microsoft's market share. Where are you getting that the Linux Foundation made that assertion, or concluded that B was a consequence of A?
As stated in the article, and the summary, the Linux Foundation asserting that "the Linux ecosystem is worth 25 Billion dollars" is not an example of the logical fallacy you're claiming they've made.
Re: (Score:2)
Your post is based on a misunderstanding of the original poster. Actually "value" doesn't have any meaning at all. It is pure junk business speak as in "we deliver value to our shareholders". In this particular case there are at least two different things. "Purchase value", which is what you are talking about and "value to mankind" or perhaps "value to business" which is what most other people here are talking about. Even those have definitions which will vary according to exactly what question you ask
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think his statement is intended to "oppose your position". I think what he's done is pointed out that the logical fallacy you referenced doesn't apply to this situation. Or, in the immortal words of Inigo Montoya [youtube.com]... "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds suspiciously like "if you don't know why I'm mad, I'm not going to bother explaining it." That argument doesn't hold any water from my girlfriend, so it's sure not going to hold any water when it's advanced by you.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with your "supporting arguments" is that there is simply no evidence in the article of the claim you assert they're making. If they had made such a claim, then of course it would be post hoc unless they presented additional evidence of causation. But they didn't. The logic of your argument is irrelevant, because it's factually incorrect.
By being a "big picture thinker ... [who] connect[s] disparate facts" you are, I suspect, actually increasing the chances of making fallacious assumptions you
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The value of the open source OS, to them, is the cost of option 1 or 2, minus the cost of developing the extra stuff they need on top of it.
Re:I Love Linux, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the entire Linux technology sphere magically vanished overnight (don't ask me how), would the damage to the economy be in excess of $25 billion? Just because there's no liquidity doesn't mean there's no value.
Re:I Love Linux, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Value can only be attributed towards things that can be bought and sold.
Pure nonsense. Value can be attributed to things that produce value. Would you say the Brooklyn Bridge is worth nothing because it can't be bought or sold? I'd hope not.
Linux, like the Brooklyn Bridge produces economic value. Economists assign value to things that aren't bought and sold all the time. You can argue about how to go about this (and I'm certainly not qualified to do even that), but it's silly to say you can't give it a dollar value simply because nobody can "own" it.
Re:I Love Linux, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Value can be attributed to things that produce value.
l = []; l.append(l); print l. Your definition is circular.
Value is a measure of how much we want or like something. I value personal liberties. I value economic liberties. I value food, clean air, sex, internet, staple guns, learning new things, intellect and reason in myself and others, science and lots of other things.
Value influences how much we're willing to give up to get the thing we value. If I had to choose between a house to live in and air to breath, I'd choose the air. If I had to choose between sex and internet, I'd choose sex. If I had to choose between 100$ and a copy of GH3+controller, I'd choose Guitar Hero. If I had to choose between 200$ and two Guitar Hero packs, I might choose the money, or I might choose the GH packs in hope of a resale.
Money has value for society because it allows us to break symmetry: I don't have to write code for the baker to get his bread. It has value to the individual (or the organization) because we all agree to trade it for other things we value.
Asking for the value of Linux is a vague question. The value of Linux what? The Copyrights? Not sure; even if everybody handed copyright on all FOSS code to a buyer, it's still FOSS, so we could just fork it and continue doing what we do. The buyer could allow itself to link GPL-incompatible code to _its_ GPL-licensed code. Or go all-the-way proprietary. How large a competitive advantage is that going to give? Not much, I think.
Linux use? To me, being able to use Linux is more valuable than being able to use Windows. I'm a member of our minority group on that. To some people, there's a big dollar amount [of saved money] attached to using Linux instead of $OS. Measure all those amounts well and add them up, and you may end up with a number that actually means something and has a relationship to reality.
An interesting bit from TFA:
In 2008, IDC forecast that the Linux ecosystem would be worth $49 billion by 2011. That report coincidentally was sponsored by the Linux Foundation as well.
Is that like a Gartner report saying Vista is worth $BIGNUM monies? Because from here I can't tell the difference, so someone please spell it out for me.
(#define Linux GNU/Linux or Linux, as appropriate)
-- Jonas K
Re:I Love Linux, but... (Score:5, Funny)
If I had to choose between sex and internet, I'd choose sex.
Re: (Score:2)
Value is a measure of how much we want or like something.
Value is clearly more complicated than that. For example, Marx diffentiated value into social value, "use value" [wikipedia.org], "exchange value" [wikipedia.org], and price. This is much closer to the modern economic idea of value. Economists come up with metrics for use-value all the time-- and the idea is to facilitate proper calculation of exchange-value so that decisions can be made purely on a utilitarian basis. This is how we come to have figures like the economic value of human life [behan.ws].
Re: (Score:2)
> Would you say the Brooklyn Bridge is worth nothing because it can't be bought or sold?
The Port Authority could sell it if they so chose. Linux, on the other hand, cannot be sold in the same sense that you cannot sell the idea of a cloud.
Re: (Score:2)
Linux and any other collaborative open source project could be sold theoretically, if all copyright holders would agree on the terms.
Re: (Score:2)
The Port Authority could sell it if they so chose. Linux, on the other hand, cannot be sold in the same sense that you cannot sell the idea of a cloud.
I have as much right to sell the Brooklyn Bridge as the Port Authority Corporation of NY and NJ does. The bridge is owned by the City of New York, and I assure you it would be easier to get the few thousand copyright holders of Linux to sell than it would be to get New York City to to sell the symbol of the unification of the five boroughs. In fact, it might
A problem though remains... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Get a clue dude. The Brooklyn Bridge was "bought" for the wages of the workers who built it and the cost of their raw materials. It produces tangible return to the community by increasing their available paths of commute, reducing their transportation costs in fuel and time. In fact, it could even be "sold" to a private holder, who would value it for the return that could be produced by charging a toll on the bridge.
You're right that value can be attributed to things that produce value. What you have failed
Re: (Score:2)
True, but how many people would be using Linux if it weren't free?
It's powerful for a lot of functions - servers and the like. But let's say Linux costed even half as much as Windows XP. Would we see it in sub-notebooks like the EEE? OLPC?
Re: (Score:2)
What the crap are you talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_bridge [wikipedia.org]
The bridge was purchased by the city for 15.5 million dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, now I assume you're saying "But the bridge is unique, and it _could_ be sold/leased by the city to a toll-company"... Well, what about wind? If magically, all wind stopped, what does that do to everything? The wind produces value despite no price tag. Therefore, we value the wind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was the price tag then. You also have to look at how much it would cost you to replace it now. The fact that they likely spend millions/year in maintaining it means that it inherently has more value than just its "book value", which is almost meaningless for a bridge.
It would cost a
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you 100%. If you were doing a pro forma for the bridge, you'd have to consider the annual maintenance fees as one of the bridge's expenses, as well as considering the toll fees (or the money saved by the local economy, depending on your objectives) as the annual income. If the annual income is more than the annual expenses, then the present value of the bridge is equivalent to the net income in each subsequent year, each discounted by your annual MARR (and possibly including profits on the disp
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, and, for many of the same reasons, it's meaningless to argue that Linux can't have a value associated with it and things that run on it.
It has value. Albeit, one which is hard to come up with a specific dollar figure for.
Cheers
Re: (Score:2)
If I were doing the books for a company's tech department, I'd figure that the value of Linux was something like the cost of licensing Windows, minus the cost of hiring a team of Linux admins to maintain the software. I imagine that you would end up with figures showing that you saved the company $X million dollars, especially if Linux can keep a comparable uptime and you can show that there'd be a minimum of retraining costs associated with using something like OpenOffice instead of MS Office.
And then, if
Re: (Score:2)
cost!=value.
You are correct to say that the cost of the Brooklyn Bridge was the labor and materials put into building it (all which I'm sure have a known dollar amount, in case anyone cares), but that is not the same as its value or worth. One would have to account for how much it would cost to rebuild the bridge now, how much revenue it actually generates per year (ie. in terms of fuel savings and increase in access, how much business is created by the Brooklyn Bridge multiplied by how valuable that busine
Re: (Score:2)
your country's GDP for example.
Hmm? (Score:3, Informative)
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 Hic
Re: (Score:2)
Value can only be attributed towards things that can be bought and sold.
Nonsense. Since Linux is a free alternative to a much spendier product (Windows), it's "value" is the money saved when you choose it over something that would have cost you. In other words, Linux has tangible value because it has less opportunity cost than Windows, even though you can't buy it and you can't sell it.
Also, I don't think you used post hoc ergo propter hoc correctly. That means "after this, therefore because of this," or
Value... (Score:2)
Value can only be attributed towards things that can be bought and sold.
In most everyday cases, this is true. However precise monetary value can also be assigned to things which cannot be bought or sold, or which are illegal to trade. Consider the life insurance policy taken out on a spouse, for instance. A precise monetary value is attached to the loss of the spouse. This cannot be the replacement cost to buy a new spouse, since buying and selling spouses is not legal.
$50,000 (Score:2)
You can't sell the Linux ecosystem, and if you believe you can buy it
It's been tried before ... http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/linux-kernel-cost.html [dwheeler.com]
Air (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you had 30 lawyers form a trade group, and sue every user a standard 5-6 grand per use then multiply by how many.....oh wait, it is licensed as free.
Humm well then! Get an advertising firm. Have them work for a powerful software company that makes superior products, design a slick ad campaign staring has-been comedians and zillionaire CEOS and...oh wait, their products suck and aren't Linux anyway. humm...
Looks to me like Linux truly is priceless in the one true coin of the realm:
Re: (Score:2)
So valuing something devalues it?
You must be using a newfangled quantum valuation system.
Re:Air (Score:4, Insightful)
Putting a price on the priceless devalues it. "Priceless" means it has infinite value, and any dollar amount put on your infinitely useful object/endeavor/material brings its value DOWN.
There is more to life than money.
Re: (Score:2)
I beg to differ.
We have to be accurate when applying a term like "priceless," and certainly not make a false analogy of Linux to air. (Why not compare water to Linux? You can pay for both of them, just as you can get air and Linux for free.)
Currently, air is available to all at no cost, assuming no special circumstances. Thus it not priceless but free, as in having a value of $0. Its value goes up quite quickly when one ascends into the sky/space or underground/water, which is due to its being a necessi
Re: (Score:2)
I think you misunderstand the use of the word in the post you replied to.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/priceless [merriam-webster.com]
(See #2)
Re: (Score:2)
""Priceless" means it has infinite value"
Your argumentation being?
Water is colorless; does it mean "water has infinite colour"? Snails are footless; does it mean they have an infinite number of feet?
Priceless means "without a price tag"; nothing more, nothing less. If anything, putting a price tag on something that can't have one (not that I'm saying Linux belongs to such category or not) is a nonsense, not a devaluation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The dictionary disagrees with you."
I don't think so. And semantics surely don't. That a word can have many connotative meanings doesn't mean any of them are applicable within context. Within this context Linux is priceless because you can't apply a price tag to it (it holds value not money related), certainly not because it has a price tag and it says "infinite"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obvious conclusion of a study... (Score:2)
...done by SCO.
Simply Put (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly what I was thinking, hence why I tagged the article "whocares?"
I use Linux daily because I can get things done in a way that works best for me. That makes it far too important a tool to put a dollar figure on, IMO.
Not something to brag about? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that I think this is an accurate or meaningful number.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
25 Billion $ is a lot of money.
Additionally, if we follow your reasoning, many companies that have products that could be sold for Linux will think : Linux = 5% of Windows. They will conclude that they could increase their sales by 5% by supporting Linux.
That could sound like an interesting deal for many companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Except Microsoft is not just windows. Xbox, office, etc.
No bids (Score:2)
Like the mortgage backed securities embeded in bank asset portfolios, there's no market for "Linux" so anybody naming a price is spreading fairy dust. Maybe they can get the US Treasury to make a bid.
I thought Linux was free (Score:2)
That's NOTHING! (Score:5, Funny)
25 Billion? That's nothing. Have you seen how much just one of RIAA's infringed songs is worth???
No, it is not. (Score:2)
This is how much it would have been if it was for sale. But it is not and neither does it function as a sellable entity...
Value of Linux > Value of Vista (Score:2)
$25B? (Score:2)
What would that be if we had Microsoft's market share?
Juniper's JunOS is FreeBSD based (Score:2)
Juniper's JunOS is FreeBSD based. It wouldn't make sense to count most of Juniper's revenues as part of the Linux EcoSystem. While they have acquired a small number of Linux-based startups, the vast majority of revenue is from is FreeBSD JunOS software. Oh, and all that hardware...
How do you separate out the difference between the two anyway?
I think we passed that long time ago (Score:2)
I'm betting much more than $25 billion (Score:2)
Lets pretend that you could actually buy the Linux ecosystem. I believe MS would pay over $50 billion just to get rid of it, let alone to aquire some of the tech.
I often hear that the value of an object is whatever someone is willing to pay, so I say - the Linux ecosystem for $25 billion undervalued!
Ecosystem??? (Score:2)
It's fucking software, not life. It's not an ecosystem. Stop reassigning the definitions of words.
Re: (Score:2)
It makes sense. In an ecosystem, every species depends on certain resources and produces others. The net result is to form a network of interdependent links.
With Linux, there are a large number of corporations, companies and self-employed consultants/contractors who exchange services for money. Application developers depend on GUI and API developers who in turn depend on device driver developers, who depend on kernel developers. All depend on compiler developers who depend on development tools.
Re: (Score:2)
I know BSD could have been used, but I was referring to a non-free OS.
So maybe they don't wholly owe their existance to Linux, but with out a free and open OS available, they may not have been possible.
Re: (Score:2)
> How much would you pay to not have your Linux nuked?
How much would you pay not to have your tv magically transformed into a purple rhinoceros?