Jump to content

What is a Linux distro worth?


spinynorman
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here's a thought experiment proposed by the Linux Foundation today: If you had to start from scratch, what would it cost to create a Linux distribution?

 

The short answer is: about $1.4bn for the Linux kernel and about $10.8bn for the Red Hat Fedora 9 development release, the latest one out this summer.

 

More at The Register.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you had to start from scratch, what would it cost to create a Linux distribution?
Nothing. Linux WAS started from scratch (with inspiration, but not code, from minix), and Linus didn't pay anyone to develop it (although, people get paid now, but not as direct "Linux employees").
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing. Linux WAS started from scratch (with inspiration, but not code, from minix), and Linus didn't pay anyone to develop it (although, people get paid now, but not as direct "Linux employees")

 

I think the point was to put an economic value on the on the service provided gratis/at cost by the community to the linux project as a whole, comparing the services provided for free with comparable services provided at market rates.

 

Just because money doesn't change hands, does not necessarily mean that no economic wealth has been transferred. Money is just an intermediary function that minimises transaction costs, it's absence does not necessarily prevent the transfer of economic wealth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point was to put an economic value on the on the service provided gratis/at cost by the community to the linux project as a whole, comparing the services provided for free with comparable services provided at market rates.
I know what their point was, but you may have missed mine...(that is, sarcasm, to point out the pointlessness of this exercise).

 

Money is just an intermediary function that minimises transaction costs, it's absence does not necessarily prevent the transfer of economic wealth.
Were you a finance major? :D Edited by tyme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what their point was, but you may have missed mine...(that is, sarcasm, to point out the pointlessness of this exercise).

 

Your sarcasm did not copy well :P

 

Although I would not argue that the research is totally pointless, it contributes to defining the nature of GNU/Linux as a whole. However, I do not believe that the time and effort spent on the research was an efficient use of resources, I'm sure they could have been spent on more prominent issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the basic idea is pointless. A group of "volunteers" makes something for no charge, and gives it away. How much is it worth?

It's an interesting question. It didn't "cost" anything to produce (apart from personal costs, and above all time costs), but at the end it's worth money. It challenges all the usual assumptions about how much it would cost to make that thing (assuming you built it from scratch using the traditional models). Of course it's hugely approximate but it's a real eye-opener just how much value is created for free by volunteers with no salary.

 

As for the efficiency, well of course. But it's a lot more efficient than if those same people had sat watching TV all that time instead of creating. And those people won't volunteer their time if they're not interested and motivated in the result - I heard the phrase "herding cats" which seems to fit the attempts to control volunteer time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Economic wisdom has it that the price of a product is not determined by the cost to produce it but rather how much people on the free market would want to pay for it; if people are not willing to pay for it (but will use it when it's free) linux is worthless...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Economic wisdom should also tell you that there are pricing strategies other than market/target pricing (e.g. cost plus, marginal cost, markets are imperfect allowing these strategies to exist) in existence and that they work well. Similarly, your economic wisdom should tell you that goods and services can be exchanged on free markets without using money as an intermediary, money itself is not an asset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Economic wisdom should also tell you that there are pricing strategies other than market/target pricing (e.g. cost plus, marginal cost, markets are imperfect allowing these strategies to exist) in existence and that they work well.

In free markets people will only pay the amount that they think the product is worth to them if the nominal cost to produce a product is higher than what the market want to pay the value of the product is not that of the nominal costs but that of the market, no one of their free will will pay more.

 

Similarly, your economic wisdom should tell you that goods and services can be exchanged on free markets without using money as an intermediary, money itself is not an asset.

This is beside the point charity/volunteer work has a value only when someone is willing to pay for it with goods/money or services 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the basic idea is pointless. A group of "volunteers" makes something for no charge, and gives it away. How much is it worth?
That's not what they're asking - they're asking how much would it cost to make it, not how much is it worth. The two things may not necessarily be mutually exclusive, but they are certainly two different questions.

 

I think the problem has become that we equate value/worth with monetary measurements. It's possible for something to have value, but no monetary value. In fact, we'd probably be better off if we didn't put monetary value to everything - but that's a whole other discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In free markets people will only pay the amount that they think the product is worth to them if the nominal cost to produce a product is higher than what the market want to pay the value of the product is not that of the nominal costs but that of the market, no one of their free will will pay more.

 

Still this fixation on price when the exercise was to measure cost, no point carrying on this line of discussion.

 

This is beside the point charity/volunteer work has a value only when someone is willing to pay for it with goods/money or services

 

Utility theory would disagree with that.

Edited by Reiver_Fluffi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

charity/volunteer work has a value only when someone is willing to pay for it with goods/money or services
Eermmm, no. If someone provides some charitable service to someone else, that can be worth a bunch to the person receiving it, even if they don't reciprocate.

 

they're asking how much would it cost to make it, not how much is it worth. The two things may not necessarily be mutually exclusive, but they are certainly two different questions.
You're right. But for most things they're related (price = cost + profit), so one way to estimate the price it would be sold at if it were developed by traditional means is to estimate (very roughly) the cost which would arise by such means.

Or another way of looking at it - if a company wanted to create from scratch a competitor to Linux, using proprietary techniques and staff and all that, how much would it cost them to get to an equivalent state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if a company wanted to create from scratch a competitor to Linux, using proprietary techniques and staff and all that, how much would it cost them to get to an equivalent state?
Such a number would only be useful as a very, very loose approximation. The software development world simply isn't reliable enough that an estimate like that would be any good to a business, and in fact would probably hurt them since, chances are, it's an underestimate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it would explain why going over budget is so common. :P
I could probably write an entire paper on that alone. Going over budget is the most common problem with IT projects (often a result of scope creep), and I think the source of the issue is managers (or who ever guesses the budget) not having a thorough understanding of the development process. Or perhaps the problem is the development process itself.

 

how did we end up here? :P

Edited by tyme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...