Linux Sales Down, But... 588
An anonymous reader writes " News.com has a story about combined Linux revenues reaching $80 million for 2001. "The Linux operating system market, from a revenue perspective, accounts for one half of 1 percent of the total operating system revenue each year, or roughly two days' worth of Microsoft's operating system revenue," [IDC Analyst] Gillen said. "On the second day of January, Microsoft had generated more operating system revenue than the Linux community (will for the entire year).""
The Cause Revealed? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Cause Revealed? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Proof positive : "EVERYBODY LOVES LINUX"! (Score:2, Funny)
Stupid "I think infinity is a number" computer scientists.
Re:The Cause Revealed? (Score:2, Insightful)
These people walk into their local software store, see Windows XP upgrade for $100 (or whatever it is) and see Mandrake and RedHat right next to it (at least in close proximity) for $25/65. These people know that Linux is not as easy to use at Windows but they see it isn't for free.
MOST people will assume that Linux is one single entity (not multiple distributions) and think that it is for cost.
So, now we have people writing stories to further this false info. Yay. This will continue to drive Linux into the ditch as far as the masses go.
Re:The Cause Revealed? (Score:2, Insightful)
These people fire up Yahoo and search for a program. They find 1000000 matches for a piece of Windows software and near nothing or nothing for a Linux piece of software.
This is not easy for them.
Re:The Cause Revealed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Cause Revealed? (Score:5, Insightful)
These are the same people that would never buy Windows anyway, but would rather pirate it. What does the Microsoft sign say in computer parts stores? 3 out of 4 OSs are pirated.
So what does this research show? It shows squat. Linux still doesn't have the luxury of being preinstalled in retail major manufacturers desktop PCs. Microsoft only sells Windows to large companies that it is able to audit, as well as preinstalled Windows PCs that ship to retail stores.
And the rest of the world is still a bunch of cheapskates. If you don't want to buy it... Don't use it. Mod my down if you wish- if you are angry, but keep in mind that it is the truth.
Poll [digitalnowhere.com]
25% of all business software is pirated? Does that count home users? [bsa.org]
Re:The Cause Revealed? (Score:3, Insightful)
I use Debian. I've donated money to Debian, but not every time I upgrade the system, which happens incrementally anyway. I'm happy that it's free, and I'm happy that it's Free.
If you don't want to buy it... Don't use it.
Why should I support companies commercialising the work of other people, especially when they don't produce distros suited to my needs? And where do you get off on turning Free Software into an economic imperative?
Co-relation (Score:2, Interesting)
But Linux was always available for free & all Linux users know that. This is not something which users found in 2001.
But, say 20% of the Linux users pay, then by co-relation, more often than not the number of users are also down. If Linux server sales were up, definitely you would have seen a revenue increase
Dan Kuznetsky, a Linux zealot, who is the VP of IDC software division, overcalculated Linux server unit figures for 2000 (at 27%) & his 2001 Linux figures came significantly low and having to eat humble pie since his Linux growth prediction didn't come true
Re:The Cause Revealed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Cause Revealed? (Score:2)
It's free in more than speech....
Shameless quote (Score:3, Funny)
And on a related note (Score:5, Funny)
And on yet another related note. (Score:3, Interesting)
In a down economy keeping cash leakage down, so you can survive until the next upturn, is the primary local target of many companies. What a pity so many of them are still hemmoraging money into Microsoft's pockets.
Of course in a down economy badly run businesses are damaged more than well-run businesses and thus have a higher probability of going under. The resources that they held become available to the survivors and new startups as things turn back up. ("Think of it as evolution in action.") So while it may be bad for the employees and investors of the dying companies (whether badly run or just not yet sufficiently established to weather the drought) it's good for the economy as a whole.
Re:And on a related note (Score:2)
Re:And on a related note (Score:3)
Re:And on a related note (Score:3, Interesting)
Shareholders watched in nauseated horror as insider MSFT selling accelerated & the going price for MSFT was chopped from $120 ath to 41-$45 and still dropping, whereat shareholders said, "Uh Holy Shit, I gotta go call my broker....".
Re:Justice Department Ignores Federal Judge +1, Fu (Score:2, Offtopic)
What's frightening is that CNN doesn't have any mention of this on its front page, but it does have a story about how Britney Spears is tired and thinking of taking a break from churning out her crap-rock.
It appears that we get the government we deserve, after all.
Does this not fall in the "no shit" category? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does this not fall in the "no shit" category? (Score:2)
This article is meaningless in my eyes because it is comparing something that anyone can have to somthing that is under lock and key. Show me the results of the support numbers, show me the results of the contracts and their numbers, then I'll give an opinion that means something. Otherwise, please stop wasting my time with this blatant attempt to stir up the hive and get the fragile linux zealots on their high horses. Be an advocate, not a zealot - people respect you more.
Re:Does this not fall in the "no shit" category? (Score:2)
Re:Does this not fall in the "no shit" category? (Score:2)
I was trying to push that fact that Microsoft charges for their OS, Linux vendors may or may not charge for their OS. I think that support contracts would be a more justifiable metric to measure the value of the two as opposed to OS sales.
Re: Does this not fall in the "no shit" category? (Score:5, Insightful)
> Really, I mean 1% or whatever seems pretty good when you figure that the OS costs about $5 with all sorts of applications included. ... No shit sherlock, the free OS makes less money than Microsoft
Yes, we live in a curious society where the value of something is reckoned solely on the basis of what you can sell it for, rather than on the basis of what you can use it for.
Re:Does this not fall in the "no shit" category? (Score:2)
Re:Does this not fall in the "no shit" category? (Score:2)
That's exactly what they are doing. If total revenue goes down for shipping the same number of units of Linux/GNU/Much_much_more, then THIS IS GOOD FOR CONSUMERS! They get more and better stuff for less money. The article doesn't seem to mention this. Whereas when Microsoft makes more money, it's not necessarily good for consumers; much more likely, like another poster eloquently put it, it's because the consumers are being raped in the a$$.
Re:Does this not fall in the "no shit" category? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nearly a third of Microsoft's revenue is pure profit. That is not in any way shape or form normal. RedHat is aiming to replace Microsoft's multi-billion-dollar-per-year enterprise with a much more modest business that makes 5-10% profits on hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue. That's still a good business, but it makes comparing sales between the two companies a bit lopsided.
If Microsoft can continue to convince its customers that it is in their best interests to spend billions of dollars a year on software then Microsoft wins. My guess is that is going to get harder and harder to do.
Re:Does this not fall in the "no shit" category? (Score:4, Interesting)
"The Linux operating system market, from a revenue perspective, accounts for one half of 1 percent of the total operating system revenue each year, or roughly two days' worth of Microsoft's operating system revenue," Gillen said. "On the second day of January, Microsoft had generated more operating system revenue than the Linux community (will for the entire year)."
They are specifically talking about just revenues from the operating systems, not from support. While support is mentioned in the article later on, it is not indicated that it is included in the "operating system revenue." That would clearly fit in to the "support revenue" side of things.
I have 68 linux servers here. I've paid for 3 sets of CD's from redhat - 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3. I could have downloaded them, but didn't (thought I'd have my company chip in to the RedHat charity).the windows guys here don't have that option. Not only is it 4-10 times as expensive for a cd set, they have to buy one per each system (duh, eh?). So right here, in this place, we have Linux use growing literally exponentially, but MS operating systems expenses being literally at least 200 times as much as linux OS expenses for the year (sadly, while the linux server numbers have increased from 4 to 68, the windows server #'s have barely increased at all. The sad part is that all the revenues were from going from nt4 to win2k server).
Another thing to keep in mind is that in windows land, they don't like having one box do multiple things. "Have the domain controller do email?!?! Are you MAD??" is the tpye of thing you hear. A single linux server can run the services 5 or 6 windows boxes run and at about the same speed, so...you need fewer linux boxes.
so...like..you need fewer boxes, and the OS is free. Like everyone has said - DUH, MS OS revenues are so much higher as to make linux OS revenues seem non-existent. Duh.
Even worst (Score:2, Funny)
And the 2nd could be a weekend day.
Re:Even worst (Score:2)
But... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:But... (Score:3, Interesting)
Are the people who use Windows in their business happy? Happy to have increased licensing costs for a "yearly" subscription? Happy to have an operating system with security holes the size of my Aunt Lilly's ass? Happy that Microsoft is about to release the details of API's - but you can only use some of them if you "license" their use?
We're so happy at my Day Job that we're pretty much converting everything over to Novell or Linux, we're installing OpenOffice (except where we *must* have MS Office), and I'm still trying ton convince people that really, OS X is a great desktop system for the business. Oh yeah, happy are we with Windows.
All I want to know... (Score:2)
What's the big deal with revenue? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because Microsoft is making a lot of money, doesn't mean that this will always be true. Their business plan is fundamentally flawed... who in their right mind will rent software? And who in their right mind actually agrees with Microsoft's EULA? Right now they make way more money than Linux, but if Linux wasn't a product line that was profitable, then companies like IBM and Corel would not have put any energy into it...
Re:What's the big deal with revenue? (Score:3, Insightful)
IBM's mainframe customers have been doing it for years... seems to have worked for Big Blue... but as they're now switching to using Linux for a whole load of stuff, maybe it's a sign that the practice of renting is out of favour.
Re:What's the big deal with revenue? (Score:2)
That's the whole point. Microsofts target market is people who aren't in their right mind (henceforth called 'the general public'), and since 'the general public' can't think for themselves, take responsiblity for their actions, or critically examine their options, primarly because Microsoft doesn't let them see any other options, the net result is people who will agree to draconian licensing and renting software simply because they don't know any better. Of course if 'the general public' knew what all Microsoft could do with their computer (spyware, installing whatever it feels necessary, monthly fees, etc), they probably wouldn't be so keen on Microsoft, but they don't know, even if they did, they probably wouldn't know of any other options or even think they were viable alternatives to Microsoft so they would just go along with it, but as they say 'ignorance is bliss'.
Re:What's the big deal with revenue? (Score:3, Informative)
Then you obviously don't keep up on things. Lets see.. in the past 7 months their stock has fallen 88%, from 72.66 to 8.69.
They expected their second-quarter revenue to be up 1 percent to 3 percent, instead it declined by about 30%. (Causing the stock to tumble 31% in after hours trading two weeks ago) Nvidia said it would have to take a "significant" write-off of inventory in the quarter.
Yeah, I would say they are hurting right now.
-gerbik
Re:What's the big deal with revenue? (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, because they got sucked into a dead platform (XBox).
More... hmm... (Score:2, Funny)
Shouldn't it read? "On the second day of January, Microsoft had generated more bugs than the Linux community (will ever in their entire lives)."
Re:More... hmm... (Score:2, Troll)
Trend (Score:2, Redundant)
Yep. They have nowhere to go but down. And we have nowhere to go but up.
Re:Trend (Score:4, Informative)
Is an alternate way of looking at it. Which the customers appreciate.
Seriously tho, RedHat and company knows that they will never ever make anywhere close to what Microsoft has made selling software. But the idea is to make computing cheaper and freer, not to suck customers dry and invent new exciting buisness 'methods'.
Re:Trend (Score:2)
But... (Score:5, Funny)
Well...duh! (Score:2, Interesting)
A more interesting look would be to see how much money Microsoft is *losing* per year, because companies are replacing Windows with Linux.
Well, duh! (Score:4, Insightful)
It amazes me that so many media people still don't get that you can't measure Linux's success in dollars and cents!
Re:Well, duh! (Score:2)
Ask people who use computers at work what their ENTIRE network is based on... "Windows9x/NT". They have no idea that it is possible to have a Unix-based network running behind this.
Re:Well, duh! (Score:2)
In my opinion, the largest part of GNU/Linux's success is if the mere existance of the system has changed the way people think about software. It has certainly changed my perspective. I know some people don't believe this, but one of the goals of free software (as in speech) is Widespread Social Change. Not so much that software can be developed collobaratively, thats just creamy filling. But that lending out your software CDs to friends, family, or complete strangers doesn't have to be illegal and it doesn't have to be wrong.
This is a rather small element of our society that is going to change. Even so, it has to be done. Its for the better.
In related news... (Score:5, Insightful)
cool (Score:3, Funny)
The Microsoft crowd must have been too hung over on January 1st.
Re:cool (Score:2)
Why is Worth = Sales? (Score:3, Interesting)
Same for the operating system, what is it worth for humanity and our social system? How much of our resources we would have needed to spent (to microsoft) if it wouldn't be there? What money would the companies miss that use linux?
And note again becase it's free does not mean it costs anybody a job or is evil. After all not a single job should be just a occupational therapy.
(thats where the anti GPL comments fail, or where the adversaries miss the global sight. A job should be good for something, if we can save the work then better leave it, and leave us all more freetime, spent the time on the beach, etc.
Re:Why is Worth = Sales? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the very same thing as moby said recently, he questioned why the worth of music is measured by the amount of sales. I agree with him that the music that really matters and defines our culture is not the charts.
Yeah... but moby also said that he still wants to make a living selling music.
-a
Linux Sales ? (Score:3, Funny)
So in essence, this article really only applies to the mentally handicapped.
Well, duh! (Score:3, Insightful)
For all that the BSA would have you believe otherwise, the vast majority of computers running Microsoft operating systems are running paid-for licensed copies.
For all that Red Hat and others would hope, the vast majority of computers running Linux are running unpaid-for licensed copies.
Even if the same number of computers ran each operating system, the Microsoft operating system ``market'' would be much larger, as a result of simple math.
With this overwhelming inherent disadvantage, that Linux is even on the charts at all is impressive.
Cheers,
b&
And this is surprising? Do the math... (Score:2)
Compare that to Microsoft which gets revenue for every Intel box built by most of the major PC OEMS, plus every seat in a site licensed business, etc. etc. ad nauseum. In other words, Operating System Sales revenues are irrelevant as a measure of Linux success in the real world. The real question is: what percentages of new installs in the various business sectors (consumer, small business, enterprise) and segments (server, workstation, PDA, embedded) are more important and interesting statistics, are they not?
Isn't that the point of the "free OS" anyway?
Sales, statistics and Mark Twain (Score:2, Insightful)
What kind of sales were included?
When it comes to Linux a lot of the sales do not derive from the sale of shrinkwrapped packages, but from consultancy services. Sometimes software is service, but these kind of surveys seldom acknowledge that. Sure, you do need help to install Microsoft Windows too, but in the Linux case the installment service might be the only cost associated with the installment, thus scewing the figures quit much.
Regards,
Mikael
Different perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't make any sense to compare the "revenues" of a priced product and a free product.
What next? A startling revelation that people all over America are paying for HBO and Cinemax, but many are getting local networks like NBC, ABC and Fox for FREE?
Re:Different perspective (Score:2)
While it's true that you can't use the revenues of individual Linux companies to draw any intelligent conclusions about install base, you can use it to gauge the health of the particular companies. Since they don't run on candy and magic, their revenues are extremely important.
Now, that said, comparing them to the 800-lb. gorilla of the industry also seems unfair -- almost nobody has revenues comperable to Microsoft's. As an investor in Red Hat, I care about the following "real" items:
Are they bringing in more money than this time last year?
Can I reasonably expect continued growth in that revenue?
Are they in the red or in the black?
There are some other things to think about as well, but these are basically it.
To sum up: Don't let the jerking of your knee cloud the real concerns.
Re:Different perspective (Score:2)
If you are trying to figure out what people are doing with computers, then yes, comparing revenue does not enlighten.
If you are trying to figure out what the relative budgets are going to be for purpose of lobbying, litigating, and advertising, then revenue amounts do matter, a lot.
Re:Different perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
For NBC, ABC and fox generate revenue (and a hell of a lot of it) based on viewers... in your analogy, linux should be generating lots of revenue since a lot of people have it installed.
The problem is that Microsoft gets money upfront for their OS sales, while tv stations generate money based on views (or 'use' if we push the analogy a bit.)
Now if we could get advertisers to buy 30 second commercial breaks in your linux productivity software and/or games, then perhaps we could get those revenues up a bit... But I don't want commercials poping up while I work, it's bad enough while I'm surfing the web...
Re:Different perspective (Score:2)
http://counter.li.org/
(too tired to link)
Hello? Linux is FREE! (Score:2, Insightful)
But you can't compare revenue generated by a FREE operating system with revenue generated by a rather costly operating system. The goals are completely different.
Stupid statistic comparison (Score:2)
Linux, on the other hand, is either bought standalone or downloaded. Most folks download it. It's loaded on very few computers when they're sold, plus Linux is the minority OS in comparison.
Next thing they'll tell us is rainy weather is wetter than dry weather :P
Upgrade extortion non-existent in Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
A. Not need to upgrade in a long time.
B. Realize how to upgrade for free.
[political rant mode on]
"While experts still can assemble the required Linux components for free and create the same package that companies sell, customers will be leery of using that sort of customized software, Gillen said. "
I like how people feel no shame in telling what customers WILL do.
Reports like this are very usefull as an indication of what the news organization that reports them's position is. This tells me that news.com is a BigSoftware mouthpiece.
[/political rant mode on]
Re:Upgrade extortion non-existent in Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone that successfully installs Linux and uses it for a short while will
A. Not need to upgrade in a long time.
B. Realize how to upgrade for free.
This is true for the server market, where the OS is still relatively detached from what's running on top of it, and there's a lot of incentive not to change that much.
In the desktop market, both of your premises are off base:
a) people want new stuff: Microsoft sold tens of millions of copies of XP within a short time of releasing it. People regularly buy new cellphones for size, color, or something else they could probably get along without.
b) at this stage upgrading is not easy at all. I upgrade KDE fairly regularly, and even though I use binary packages built specifically for my Mandrake distro (the supposedly user-friendly one), I still have to slog through the dependency swamp every time I install it. And God forbid you should try to build source....Even installing a new version of OpenOffice involves dealing
Recall also that the three or so years that a decent number of people have been making a go at Linux-as-a-business is a very short time. Much of what will happen has yet to happen. So the "analysis" by IDC is basically speculation on what a very short history means for a long future.
If Jack Valenti was in charge of Linux... (Score:2)
1. Lobby Congress to force PCs to not save Linux on the hard drive.
2.
3. Profit!
Sales up revenues down (Score:3, Interesting)
The good news is that sales are up, especially for "client" computers.
The real danger to Microsoft isn't Linux's ability to generate profits, the real danger is Linux's ability to commoditize software. Eventually Microsoft's customers are going to learn that they can get more for less.
linux sales as a % of a MS sales (Score:3, Informative)
For instance, I guess most people say that in politics winning is everything. But quite a lot can be said about losing as well. In 2000 every single Libertarian candidate in my county lost, and most of them lost big--I think the max one got was 7% of the vote (now that I think about it, I was that candidate
However, one county comissioner's race, the clerk of courts race, the county treasurer's race, and I think a judgeship's race went unexpectedly for the democrats. Our LP candidates threw almost all of the county for the Democrats in spite of the fact that it's a strong Republican county. For a 3rd party candidate, there's actually a victory to be had in throwing a race. Next time you campaign, the candidates take you seriously, not to mention the people who won with "your help."
My point in saying that is, I'm sure that MS takes that 1% of their revenue lost very seriously, because I suspect that it matters quite a lot more to them than just 1% of their operations, in the same way that a Republican candidate who lost the election with 48% of the vote takes an LP'er who got less than 2% of the vote very seriously.
(ok...ok...it's an apples to mustard greens comparison, i'm just saying that there are lots of ways of looking at that data)
Re:linux sales as a % of a MS sales (Score:2)
It is for the reason of this kind of perverse outcome that boolean ballots should be scrapped and be replaced by ranking ballots. E.g.: who do you want for president (of the US):
- Al Gore
- George W. Bush
- Pat Buchanan
- Ralph Nader
Instead of selecting one, the voters would select a ranking order for all four candidates (except in Palm Beach where they would select "Al W. Buchanan").The procedure for determining a winner would be to tally all of the first choices and eliminate the candidate with the lowest vote count, and then repeat counting the highest-ranked choice still available for each voter. This way, voters for Nader wouldn't unintentionally be voting for Bush instead, whom they probably despise. The vote results would more accurately represent the true will of the voters.
France effectively had a similar idea in its recent federal elections, by eliminating all of the lower-ranking candidates before the final vote, but it could have all been done in one go with a ranking scheme.
Aw, BS (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Aw, BS (Score:2)
Why is that surprising? (Score:2)
Re:Why is that surprising? (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux: not just a lifestyle choice anymore.
So is the sales for everything else (Score:2)
Why is this even considered news?
The most interesting thing (Score:2)
So what that means, in Microsoft terms... (Score:2)
.
.
ahh, the Micropoly [cafepress.com]
desktops (Score:2)
IDC declined to release the numbers of copies of Linux that were sold, but said the number stayed about level from 2000 to 2001. The number of copies that sold for "client" computers such as desktops and workstations, however, increased nearly 50 percent over 2000, in particular in Asia and Latin America, Gillen said.
Just because higher revenue comes from server sales doesn't mean it is "best suited" for servers. I think he's selling the desktop short, especially considering the huge growth of the desktop market this year (presumably from almost nothing to a little bit more than almost nothing, but none the less....)
A more pertinent comparison. (Score:2)
That would be actually rather interesting, from both social and business points of view. Not easy at all, but interesting.
Soko
that $80 million (Score:2)
That $80 million in revenues for Linux probably generated about $200 million in revenues for Microsoft due to Microsoft's licensing tactics. As we all know, Microsoft's "campus" style licenses require you to pay a fee for every CPU whether it's running Windows or some other OS.
Does the word "free" mean anything? (Score:2)
How many new installations of Linux were installed vs. the number of Windows installations?
Sure, Microsoft will probably still win, but the ratio will be a lot tighter.
-Restil
who-pays-for-a-distro dept. (Score:2)
Go ahead, fertilize your favorite distro today.
Computer sales down, but.... (Score:2)
"On the second day of January, Apple had generated more computer systems revenue than Microsoft (will for the entire year).""
what's even better news about that is that Apple is selling actual property in that figure.. not just intellectual property...
and that.. in the end... will make all the difference. because no matter how many laws they make - they can never hire enough cops or lawyers or judges to stop the spread of information and intellect.
$80 million is like 10 million users ... (Score:3, Funny)
and in related news ... (Score:2)
Another Gardener study has indicated that oxygen tank manufacturers will have more revenue by January 2 of next year than the (unnamed and unknown) purveyors of the free air that humans normally consume.
Gardener recommends that corporate executives switch to free water and air.
A little known fact... (Score:2)
What I REALLY want to know... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen reports similar to this apples-and-oranges comparison (revenue from free software vs. proprietary) for the last couple of years, but the last figures I've been able to find that actually mean something (market share, or how many computers out there are actually running this or that OS) are for the year 2000.
That year, M$ server OSes had a 41% market share, with around 30% for Linux. It's interesting that no one has ever released the figures for 2001. Apparently IDC knows what those figures are, but won't say.
WHY DON'T ANY OF THESE SURVEY COMPANIES WANT TO TALK ABOUT MARKET SHARE??? Is it because M$ is going down the toilet and they're afraid it will start an investor panic if the word gets out? Is M$ PAYING them not to release the information? Is it just that nobody cares and no one wants to know?
I'm an inquiring mind, and I want to know....
Which one fosters more economic productivity? (Score:5, Informative)
The revenue of companies that manufacture goods, while not insignificant, is less important than the network effects on the economy of infrastructure products like operating systems. These "second order" effects are often much greater than the first order revenue. Especially when we are talking about productivity tools (as opposed to pure consumer products like toothbrushes and deodorant).
Windows Downloads Down, But... (Score:3, Insightful)
So, your point was that more people buy Windows than Linux. Wow. Anyone could have figured that one out. Why not compare the number of Linux installations to the number of Windows installations? Wouldn't that be a more appropriate benchmark of Linux popularity? As for the commercial side of Linux, I don't think anyone claims to be as competative as Microsoft. Why aren't there meaningful co-relations (eg. 10% more Linux sales than last year)?
Oh well. I don't do things 'cause they are popular, so this means nothing to me.
Comparing Revenue? (Score:3, Interesting)
"On the second day of January, Microsoft had generated more operating system revenue than the Linux community (will for the entire year)."
You're kidding!
You mean that Linux, which is free, generates less revenue than a commercial OS, which costs money? Wow, how long did these guys spend figuring this one out?
Statistics (Score:3, Insightful)
1. I would dare to say the majority of Linux installs is of free ISOs (sorry, no evidence), which would still affect the low sales figure dramatically.
2. For those who use dialup and wish to purchase Linux, most distributions can be found for $5 or less, also contributing to low sales figures.
Also, do we know what "linux sales down" means? Does it mean retail purchases or anytime someone shells out money for Linux? What about expensive systems where a vendor version of Linux is included?
For example, if I buy a Sun Cobalt RAQ server right now, I get a nice server with Cobalt Linux installed on it. Sun has sold me the system and included a version of Linux with the sale of the system. Did the study give a dollar value to the Linux OS that was sold with my server in this case? I doubt it. There are a helluva lot of web hosting providers that use RAQs.
What about embedded devices?
Re:Comparing Apples and Penguins (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Comparing Apples and Penguins (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Comparing Apples and Penguins (Score:3, Informative)
And, shock horror, RedHat et al ain't the whole of the Linux community by any means. I am pleased and grateful they succeed (and I buy licenses to assist that success), but the revenue figures just CANNOT BE MEANINGFULLY COMPARED.
Re:Comparing Apples and Penguins (Score:2)
Well, sure they can. They can't be used to draw any intelligent conclusions about the install base of either company's products, but since both are publically traded businesses, the revenues of both are extremely relevant.
Red Hat, as the original poster pointed out, isn't in it for the chicks; they're in it to make money (which they can then use to impress chicks). As an investor in Red Hat, I care quite a bit about their revenues and their prospective growth as a company in the longer term.
Again, as a public company, they should be out making money. And, guess what, they are -- and let's be honest, you can't compare the revenues of most companies to Microsoft's. Shocking. That's really the bit that's irrelevant.
Re:Not for free anymore? (Score:2, Troll)
IDC based its projection of $280 million in sales within four years on efforts by Red Hat, SuSE and others to wring more money from Linux, in part by making it more difficult for users to obtain the software for free, Gillen said.
Here's what I think will happen:
1. RedHat stops distributing binaries and enforces its copyright on the binaries it builds.
2. Someone founds a company called OrangeFedora whose sole purpose is to take the RedHat distribution, s/RedHat/OrangeFedora/ and give away/sell the binaries at a reduced cost.
3. RedHat embeds some secret instances of the string "RedHat" inside their distro.
4a. OrangeFedora developers don't notice the secret strings.
5a. RedHat sues OrangeFedora for trademark violation and wins.
4b. OrangeFedora developers notice the secret strings and remove them.
5b. RedHat sues OrangeFedora under the DMCA and wins.
6. The courts decide that commercial entities have the right to keep ownership of their improvements to GPL'ed code, thus defeating the spirit of the license.
-a
Re:Not for free anymore? (Score:2)
RedHat has been pretty careful to follow the letter and spirit of the GPL, and they remain openly committed to that model. Why would they try to subvert it now?
Commercial entities _already_ own and have a legal copyright for their GPL-derived code.
All RedHat has to do in order to make free copies more scarce is to stop maintaining an anonymous ftp server, and stop allowing updates to mirror sites. That is perfectly allowed under the GPL. Of course, they cannot stop anyone from buying the disc and redistributing the contents.
not really (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This only goes to show how much MS fleeces us (Score:2)
Re:Hahaha... look at the stocks (Score:2)