Doctor John wrote:
> Just pointing out to those who expect to pay nothing what the actual
> value of what they're getting is.

Value and cost are two entirely different things. That's kind of the point.

(Also, his estimates apparently leave out the cost of developing UNIX 
before Linux was started.  But that's just an aside.)

"The important thing is that Linux distributions have a very large 
inherent value"  -- Wrong word. The word there is "cost", not "value."

Put it this way: the "value" of one Fedora is supposedly $10b. Would 
anyone pay $300m today for the source code and exclusive right to 
distribute something new that does exactly what Linux does right now?  I 
doubt it.

Would anyone pay $300m today for the source code and exclusive right to 
distribute something that does exactly what MS Windows and Office do 
right now? I bet you could find a taker for that.

Linux has value, but you can't equate the value with the cost if you're 
not selling it.   It doesn't matter how much it cost if people don't 
want it even when you're giving it away free.  (Indeed, for something 
like software, it's almost impossible to equate cost with value either.)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message