Open Source Software Costing Vendors $60 Billion Dollars! - Linux

This is a discussion on Open Source Software Costing Vendors $60 Billion Dollars! - Linux ; http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=844462 Looks like they figured in all the time wasted trying to make "free Linux" work.... -- Moshe Goldfarb Collector of soaps from around the globe. Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots: http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Open Source Software Costing Vendors $60 Billion Dollars!

  1. Open Source Software Costing Vendors $60 Billion Dollars!


    http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=844462

    Looks like they figured in all the time wasted trying to make "free Linux"
    work....



    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  2. Re: Open Source Software Costing Vendors $60 Billion Dollars!

    On 2008-04-17, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >
    > http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=844462
    >
    > Looks like they figured in all the time wasted trying to make "free Linux"
    > work....


    Try to actually read the article (which obviously was put on Business
    Wire for promotional purposes). The "cost" is not the expense of using
    open source, it is the "lost revenue from sales of closed source
    software".

    ``Open Source software is raising havoc throughout the software
    market. It is the ultimate in disruptive technology, and while to it
    is only 6% of estimated trillion dollars IT budgeted annually, it
    represents a real loss of $60 billion in annual revenues to software
    companies,"''

    Open source means that closed source businesses lose revenue.

    The perfectly mathematically correct way of restating the above quote
    is, "open source reduced software purchasing expenses by 60 billion
    dollars".

    I say, great story!!!

    i

  3. Re: Open Source Software Costing Vendors $60 Billion Dollars!

    Ignoramus29232 wrote:

    >On 2008-04-17, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >>
    >> http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=844462
    >>
    >> Looks like they figured in all the time wasted trying to make "free Linux"
    >> work....

    >
    >Try to actually read the article (which obviously was put on Business
    >Wire for promotional purposes). The "cost" is not the expense of using
    >open source, it is the "lost revenue from sales of closed source
    >software".
    >
    >``Open Source software is raising havoc throughout the software
    >market. It is the ultimate in disruptive technology, and while to it
    >is only 6% of estimated trillion dollars IT budgeted annually, it
    >represents a real loss of $60 billion in annual revenues to software
    >companies,"''
    >
    >Open source means that closed source businesses lose revenue.
    >
    >The perfectly mathematically correct way of restating the above quote
    >is, "open source reduced software purchasing expenses by 60 billion
    >dollars".
    >
    >I say, great story!!!


    LOL Not the first time a Wintard's fsckwitted trolling backfired, of
    course... 8)


  4. Re: Open Source Software Costing Vendors $60 Billion Dollars!

    On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:52:57 -0500, chrisv wrote:

    > Ignoramus29232 wrote:
    >
    >>On 2008-04-17, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=844462
    >>>
    >>> Looks like they figured in all the time wasted trying to make
    >>> "free Linux" work....

    >>
    >> Try to actually read the article (which obviously was put on
    >> Business Wire for promotional purposes). The "cost" is not the
    >> expense of using open source, it is the "lost revenue from sales of
    >> closed source software".
    >>
    >> ``Open Source software is raising havoc throughout the software
    >> market. It is the ultimate in disruptive technology, and while to
    >> it is only 6% of estimated trillion dollars IT budgeted annually,
    >> it represents a real loss of $60 billion in annual revenues to
    >> software companies,"''
    >>
    >> Open source means that closed source businesses lose revenue.
    >>
    >> The perfectly mathematically correct way of restating the above
    >> quote is, "open source reduced software purchasing expenses by 60
    >> billion dollars".
    >>
    >> I say, great story!!!

    >
    > LOL Not the first time a Wintard's fsckwitted trolling backfired, of
    > course... 8)


    Oh my, and look at the cross-posting. Poor Moshe, broadcasting he's an
    idiot for so many to see.

  5. Re: Open Source Software Costing Vendors $60 Billion Dollars!

    On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:16:22 GMT, Canuck57 wrote:

    > "Moshe Goldfarb" wrote in message
    > news:4y1z20jn7n1x$.xyta2dhqu4rf.dlg@40tude.net...
    >>
    >> http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=844462
    >>
    >> Looks like they figured in all the time wasted trying to make "free Linux"
    >> work....

    >
    > I read that differently. It is the software companies losing because so
    > many people are using open source. Probably paid for indirectly by
    > companies like Microsoft, Oracle and others.


    Of course that's the way it is.
    I just used a "creative subject line" just like Schestowitz does all the
    time.
    Funny how the Linux loons never seem to complain about that.



    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  6. Re: Open Source Software Costing Vendors $60 Billion Dollars!


    "Moshe Goldfarb" wrote in message
    news:124iiebua1zep$.1a56y4666x08p$.dlg@40tude.net. ..
    > On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:16:22 GMT, Canuck57 wrote:
    >
    >> "Moshe Goldfarb" wrote in message
    >> news:4y1z20jn7n1x$.xyta2dhqu4rf.dlg@40tude.net...
    >>>
    >>> http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=844462
    >>>
    >>> Looks like they figured in all the time wasted trying to make "free
    >>> Linux"
    >>> work....

    >>
    >> I read that differently. It is the software companies losing because so
    >> many people are using open source. Probably paid for indirectly by
    >> companies like Microsoft, Oracle and others.

    >
    > Of course that's the way it is.
    > I just used a "creative subject line" just like Schestowitz does all the
    > time.
    > Funny how the Linux loons never seem to complain about that.


    Lets face it, you saw the title and posted it without reading the story.

    Hahahaha ... nice find. Dispels the FUD about no one running open source.
    As if no one is running open source, how do you loose $60 billion?

    Say that was $1000 of Vista and MS-Office. That would be 60 million PCs. A
    tad bit more than 0.6% I would say.

    Try it, it is free, Open Office http://www.openoffice.org/ Works on Linux,
    Vista, XP and more.




  7. Re: Open Source Software Costing Vendors $60 Billion Dollars!

    Canuck57 wrote:
    > "Moshe Goldfarb" wrote in message
    > news:124iiebua1zep$.1a56y4666x08p$.dlg@40tude.net. ..
    >> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:16:22 GMT, Canuck57 wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Moshe Goldfarb" wrote in message
    >>> news:4y1z20jn7n1x$.xyta2dhqu4rf.dlg@40tude.net...
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=844462
    >>>>
    >>>> Looks like they figured in all the time wasted trying to make "free
    >>>> Linux"
    >>>> work....
    >>>
    >>> I read that differently. It is the software companies losing
    >>> because so many people are using open source. Probably paid for
    >>> indirectly by companies like Microsoft, Oracle and others.

    >>
    >> Of course that's the way it is.
    >> I just used a "creative subject line" just like Schestowitz does all
    >> the time.
    >> Funny how the Linux loons never seem to complain about that.

    >
    > Lets face it, you saw the title and posted it without reading the
    > story.
    > Hahahaha ... nice find. Dispels the FUD about no one running open
    > source. As if no one is running open source, how do you loose $60
    > billion?
    > Say that was $1000 of Vista and MS-Office. That would be 60 million
    > PCs. A tad bit more than 0.6% I would say.


    Open Office does seem to have gained a marginal portion of the market, yet,
    linux can't capture hardly any of the desktop market. I think it's the cost
    of Microsoft Office that drives people to OO. Too bad Microsoft hasn't
    raised the price of Windows enough yet to get people to install linux
    instead, huh.



  8. Re: Open Source Software Costing Vendors $60 Billion Dollars!

    chrisv wrote:

    > Open Office does seem to have gained a marginal portion of the market,
    > yet, linux can't capture hardly any of the desktop market. I think it's
    > the cost of Microsoft Office that drives people to OO. Too bad Microsoft
    > hasn't raised the price of Windows enough yet to get people to install
    > linux instead, huh.


    I think you're wrong. Since the Micro$haft Tax is charged when you buy
    almost any computer, most people already own legal copies of Windows. I
    know I do. Yet I still went to Linux... for many reasons. What finally
    drove me away from Windows was constantly updating and running anti-Spyware
    (more so than anti-Virus). I was fed up with sitting and watching my
    computer chug away finding malware -- and constantly worrying about it --
    instead of getting something done. A problem that is completely gone now
    that I use Linux.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"

  9. Re: Open Source Software Costing Vendors $60 Billion Dollars!

    On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:52:05 GMT, Canuck57 wrote:

    > "Moshe Goldfarb" wrote in message
    > news:124iiebua1zep$.1a56y4666x08p$.dlg@40tude.net. ..
    >> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:16:22 GMT, Canuck57 wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Moshe Goldfarb" wrote in message
    >>> news:4y1z20jn7n1x$.xyta2dhqu4rf.dlg@40tude.net...
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=844462
    >>>>
    >>>> Looks like they figured in all the time wasted trying to make "free
    >>>> Linux"
    >>>> work....
    >>>
    >>> I read that differently. It is the software companies losing because so
    >>> many people are using open source. Probably paid for indirectly by
    >>> companies like Microsoft, Oracle and others.

    >>
    >> Of course that's the way it is.
    >> I just used a "creative subject line" just like Schestowitz does all the
    >> time.
    >> Funny how the Linux loons never seem to complain about that.

    >
    > Lets face it, you saw the title and posted it without reading the story.


    Nope.
    I read it.
    I just did exactly what Schestowitz does which is post stories without
    reading them, only I made like I didn't read it.

    And you loons took the bait hook line and sinker.




    > Hahahaha ... nice find. Dispels the FUD about no one running open source.
    > As if no one is running open source, how do you loose $60 billion?


    There are a lot of people using Open Source software, just not on the
    desktop.

    > Say that was $1000 of Vista and MS-Office. That would be 60 million PCs. A
    > tad bit more than 0.6% I would say.
    >
    > Try it, it is free, Open Office http://www.openoffice.org/ Works on Linux,
    > Vista, XP and more.


    Open Office sucks.
    Bloated, slow and has problems translating MSOffice docs.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  10. Re: Open Source Software Costing Vendors $60 Billion Dollars!

    RonB wrote:
    > chrisv wrote:
    >
    >> Open Office does seem to have gained a marginal portion of the
    >> market, yet, linux can't capture hardly any of the desktop market. I
    >> think it's the cost of Microsoft Office that drives people to OO.
    >> Too bad Microsoft hasn't raised the price of Windows enough yet to
    >> get people to install linux instead, huh.

    >
    > I think you're wrong. Since the Micro$haft Tax is charged when you buy
    > almost any computer, most people already own legal copies of Windows.
    > I know I do. Yet I still went to Linux... for many reasons. What
    > finally drove me away from Windows was constantly updating and
    > running anti-Spyware (more so than anti-Virus). I was fed up with
    > sitting and watching my computer chug away finding malware -- and
    > constantly worrying about it -- instead of getting something done. A
    > problem that is completely gone now that I use Linux.


    Good lord, what did you do? I've never heard of anyone with that many, or
    that frequency of problems with windows systems. Don't you do anything to
    protect yourself? ...like practice safe surfing even?












  11. Re: Open Source Software Costing Vendors $60 Billion Dollars!

    some idiot forging chrisv wrote:

    >Open Office does seem to have gained a marginal portion of the market, yet,


    Ignore the forger.


  12. Re: Open Source Software Costing Vendors $60 Billion Dollars!

    some idiot forging chrisv wrote:
    > chrisv wrote:
    >
    >> Open Office does seem to have gained a marginal portion of the
    >> market, yet,

    >
    > Ignore the forger.


    Okay, *plonk*



  13. Re: Open Source Software Costing Vendors $60 Billion Dollars!


    "Rebecca" wrote in message
    news:20080417195604.A833D1C00081@mwinf6212.orange. nl...
    > RonB wrote:
    >> chrisv wrote:
    >>
    >>> Open Office does seem to have gained a marginal portion of the
    >>> market, yet, linux can't capture hardly any of the desktop market. I
    >>> think it's the cost of Microsoft Office that drives people to OO.
    >>> Too bad Microsoft hasn't raised the price of Windows enough yet to
    >>> get people to install linux instead, huh.

    >>
    >> I think you're wrong. Since the Micro$haft Tax is charged when you buy
    >> almost any computer, most people already own legal copies of Windows.
    >> I know I do. Yet I still went to Linux... for many reasons. What
    >> finally drove me away from Windows was constantly updating and
    >> running anti-Spyware (more so than anti-Virus). I was fed up with
    >> sitting and watching my computer chug away finding malware -- and
    >> constantly worrying about it -- instead of getting something done. A
    >> problem that is completely gone now that I use Linux.

    >
    > Good lord, what did you do? I've never heard of anyone with that many, or
    > that frequency of problems with windows systems. Don't you do anything to
    > protect yourself? ...like practice safe surfing even?


    All it takes is for one untrained user to say "Hey Dad, you just got email
    saying you won $1M and I clicked on it....". Helps though if you are
    running FireFox and use a hardware based firewall.



  14. Re: Open Source Software Costing Vendors $60 Billion Dollars!

    Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    > On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:16:22 GMT, Canuck57 wrote:
    >
    >> "Moshe Goldfarb" wrote in message
    >> news:4y1z20jn7n1x$.xyta2dhqu4rf.dlg@40tude.net...
    >>> http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=844462
    >>>
    >>> Looks like they figured in all the time wasted trying to make "free Linux"
    >>> work....

    >> I read that differently. It is the software companies losing because so
    >> many people are using open source. Probably paid for indirectly by
    >> companies like Microsoft, Oracle and others.

    >
    > Of course that's the way it is.
    > I just used a "creative subject line" just like Schestowitz does all the
    > time.
    > Funny how the Linux loons never seem to complain about that.


    So you're aspiring to be indistinguishable from this Schestowitz twit
    that you're constantly complaining about?

  15. Re: Open Source Software Costing Vendors $60 Billion Dollars!

    On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:21:32 GMT, Grinder wrote:

    > Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:16:22 GMT, Canuck57 wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Moshe Goldfarb" wrote in message
    >>> news:4y1z20jn7n1x$.xyta2dhqu4rf.dlg@40tude.net...
    >>>> http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=844462
    >>>>
    >>>> Looks like they figured in all the time wasted trying to make "free Linux"
    >>>> work....
    >>> I read that differently. It is the software companies losing because so
    >>> many people are using open source. Probably paid for indirectly by
    >>> companies like Microsoft, Oracle and others.

    >>
    >> Of course that's the way it is.
    >> I just used a "creative subject line" just like Schestowitz does all the
    >> time.
    >> Funny how the Linux loons never seem to complain about that.

    >
    > So you're aspiring to be indistinguishable from this Schestowitz twit
    > that you're constantly complaining about?


    Of course not.
    I just wanted to conduct a little experiment to confirm the double standard
    in COLA.
    It worked rather well don't you think?

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  16. Re: Open Source Software Costing Vendors $60 Billion Dollars!

    Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    > On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:21:32 GMT, Grinder wrote:
    >
    >> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:16:22 GMT, Canuck57 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Moshe Goldfarb" wrote in message
    >>>> news:4y1z20jn7n1x$.xyta2dhqu4rf.dlg@40tude.net...
    >>>>> http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=844462
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Looks like they figured in all the time wasted trying to make "free Linux"
    >>>>> work....
    >>>> I read that differently. It is the software companies losing because so
    >>>> many people are using open source. Probably paid for indirectly by
    >>>> companies like Microsoft, Oracle and others.
    >>> Of course that's the way it is.
    >>> I just used a "creative subject line" just like Schestowitz does all the
    >>> time.
    >>> Funny how the Linux loons never seem to complain about that.

    >> So you're aspiring to be indistinguishable from this Schestowitz twit
    >> that you're constantly complaining about?

    >
    > Of course not.
    > I just wanted to conduct a little experiment to confirm the double standard
    > in COLA.
    > It worked rather well don't you think?


    Well no, I don't think that. That's an opinion that comes from
    disinterest in, rather than from perspective on, your dispute with the
    Linux community.

  17. Re: Open Source Software Costing Vendors $60 Billion Dollars!

    Grinder wrote:

    >So you're aspiring to be indistinguishable from this Schestowitz twit
    >that you're constantly complaining about?


    The Flatfish/Moshe troll is a pathological liar. You can't believe
    one word it says, whether it's the post that started the thread or the
    post where it claims "just kidding".

    There's zero value to any of it's ****e.. That's why it's best
    filtered.


+ Reply to Thread