Linux Grows 27.1% in China 224
prostoalex writes "Boosted by government purchases and SCO UNIX replacements, Linux grew by 27.1% in China in 2005 and generated $11.8 mln for the companies involved."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Linux Grows 27.1% in China
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android
$51 million in revenues by 2010? (Score:1, Insightful)
Hmmm interesting (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder now if choosing the right OS is becoming a matter of national security. In any case, I really hope this news gives a nudge to the US, saying "see? The chinese use it, why shouldn't we?"
Chump change (Score:2, Insightful)
Imressive growth numbers, but a 51.1 million dollar market is puny. ( Especially, if you consider that there's 1.2 Billion people in China. ) Hopefully, it'll grow large enough to warrant the large investment needed to market over there.
You see, for a small company such as mine, I don't have the resources to park there until the market is large enough to support my operations - unlike IBM, MS, SAP, etc... That's were globalization fails. Small companies can't compete with the large multinationals. That's kind of the whole falacy with the globalization raising everyone'sstandard of living.
There's only so much inputs (oil, raw materials, etc...) to go around. Think I'm wrong? Well, I guess the markets are wrong too. Oil, steel, and other raw materials and fuel prices have been skyrocketing (Because the whole world wants to live like the US). But my market is just here in the S.E. US and I don't have the resources to expand into China. So, my costs go up, but my revenues stay the same. My demand curve is quite, how do the ecomonists say it?, elastic. I can't raise prices. But the multinationals, can go and move into China or whereeever and take advantage of the lower labor costs. The result, small entrepreneurial companies can't survive and the multinationals will take over everything. That's just the way it is.
I'm all ears for anyone who says the a small company can survive in this environment - please post solution.
Also, if we in the US are using 25% of the resources (inputs) and we're only 5% of the world's population, how can 100% of the world live like US? They can't. everyone's standard of living will have to be reduced (I'm trying - I'm using much less fuel and food!) or there's going to be very rich and the other 5 billion people will live in poverty -like now.
Server or Desktop (Score:5, Insightful)
Meaning of market revenue? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:in comparison to.... (Score:5, Insightful)
For two reasons. One because you're probably the most obese people on earth, which doesn't get any better by you sitting in cars and at desks all day. Getting to the public transportation is tiresome because you don't get the exercise of using public transportation. The 10 minute walk to/from public transportation actually makes a difference.
Secondly, you don't have much of public transportation because noone would use it. Why should you, your car gets you where you want at almost no cost at all, and I admit the convienience of going exactly when you want it to go, to exactly whereever you're going is an advantage. In order to run it at any profitability, there must be people willing to use it regularly, not as a last ditch emergency when the car breaks down. If you expect public transportation to act as a taxi service on demand, it's not going to happen.
If you tell me it can't be done, bullshit. Our population density is *half* of yours, we pay about $6/gallon already. Sure, the people in the outskirts need a car but you don't even have proper public transportation where you could. In fact, everything there seems to be designed for driving. Let me take a small detail, last time I was there we bought some stuff in a grocery, and the plastic bags were completely unsuited for carrying. They were barely usable enough to get them out to your car in the parking lot. So if you're stuck in a corner, I'd say that's because you're painting yourself in there. Other countries cope, if you can't you need to blame something else than geography.
Re:Generate? (Score:4, Insightful)
How does an operating system generate millions of dollars? Do they mean save?
Save would be in the billions. Say you have 200 million children and you wanted to give them computers. 200,000,000 times $1,000 for office, windows, email (servers and client), powerpoint, database, compilers and tools, etc. is not going to cut it.
One thing most of us don't understand is that they will not pay M$ prices, they can't. Linux probably runs $1 or less a copy. Saving, 199.9 billion. Comes with source and having a million programmers improve it is real and economical. It might take a generation but once established there will be no room for expensive western products.
Microsoft has a dilema, if they want a piece of the worlds biggest single market they have to license their entire suite for less than $20 to stand a chance. Explaining this to the western pricing models will send the market into kaos. And it still does not address the open sources issue.
It may not be just Microsoft that has issues, imagine what would happen if China produced a x86 chip that was 90% as fast as AMD or Intel but cost $10 or less.
Like most things, it is only a mater of time and North America will import database appliances and ERP systems from China for a fraction of current costs. It might take 10 years to be viewed as a issue but it is already happening. Linux in in almost every $49 wireless home AP out there.
In the end, every business that makes it will be services orientated. The OS is a commodity.
Re:in comparison to.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I also noticed the envy people had with large yards -- something you can only get far away from cities (for affordable prices.) I think some of this is the "keeping up with the jones'" effect -- everyone in america feels they are middle class, and so no one accepts that they can't afford a house with a yard. so they find a place where they can.
That and people here like bargains. They are happy to drive 20+ minutes to go to the discount shops.
And T.V. I can't remember what the exact numbers are, but the average household has the T.V. on for something like 8 hours. But when you live in the sub/ex-urbs... what else is there to do? You can play in parks, I guess. But you can't really walk anywhere else.
Re:in comparison to.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Seriously, most of the back streets were I live are simply unsafe for cyclists. There's no sidewalk (and, no, cyclists wouldn't be there), there's no shoulder, there's no bike lane. So instead you have cyclists who have to ride in the single lane with no room to pull over when yet another obese SUV driver forces them off the road since he's too busy talking on his cellphone to bother paying attention to little people on bicycles.
It's obvious America is the most obese nation on Earth when you try and get around without driving. It almost seems like the roads are explicitly designed to prevent people from biking or walking down them. No sidewalks, no bike lanes, no driver education on sharing the road with cyclists...
Mod parent up (Score:3, Insightful)
For more info, read "Suburban Nation" by Duany et al.
Also, as a counter example, consider San Francisco, which still has a traditional city layout, and functioning mass transit.
The Myth of American Obsesity Re:in comparison to. (Score:3, Insightful)
Kjella, I think we have spoken before, you are Norwegian right? I recently got back from a trip to Europe, so I would like to point out a few things. One, Americans are not that fat. I saw plenty of fat people while I was in Spain, Italy and yes, even Norway. The main difference is that there are more truly obese people in America than in other countries. The average guy in the US is just slightly more overweight than the average guy in Europe from my experience. (Actually, my experience was that the British I met on the continent, were fatter than the Americans I met there). In fact, several times I was the one suggesting walking here or there, when others wanted taxis.
The 10 minute walk to public transportation is why New Yorkers are more in shape. I agree with you there. The problem is that even in a big city, such as the one where I live (Tampa, FL), my work is at least 15-20km away. By car, it takes 15 minutes to get there. By public transport, I would have a 20 minute walk (I know many people, who couldn't even get out of their neighborhood in 20 minutes of walking), a 1 hour trip and then a half an hour walk back to my job site. So almost two hours, and when you arrived you are soaked in sweat...assuming that you don't have to change buses. Because it is predominantly poor people riding buses (not as true in really large cities) the bus stops are in bad neighborhoods and are usually dangerous. Not my idea of a good time. Nor would it be yours. Many Europeans asked me about this subject while I was there, and I think I figured it out. Europe is conducive to losing weight. I dropped 40 pounds (~20 kilos) in 9 weeks. Heck, walking in the US, is usually not the safest. The streets are loaded with cars, the sidewalks are next to the road and you are always a sneeze away from being killed. I think the lifestyle difference comes down to two things:
1.) You walk...everywhere. I was averaging 3-4km a day (more or less)
2.) Because of all that walking, you are buying your groceries on a daily basis, this means you are eating fresh vegetables, fresh breads, and generally more healthy food.
It is a HUGE advantage! In Europe, it is a pain to find a place for your car. Not true in the states. We had measures that dedicated a lane on the highways for two or more passengers. It was still more convenient for people to bypass that opportunity and wait in longer lines, than find someone who works where you do, who is interested in being dependent on you to get to work. Unless you living next to the person, forget about it. A lot of cities have removed them because the added wait times on the commutes were pumping out more pollution.
Like I said earlier, people aren't going to use it as long as driving a car is inexpensive. I prefer public transportation. If I lived in Alexandria and worked in DC, I would be taking the metro...it is fantastic! DC is made for that though. Large population, hard to expand the roads etc. Ditto with New York.
Re:in comparison to.... (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all, I totally disagree with the premise of this post. Cars are a good thing. They allow people to travel and get a broader perspective, enjoy time with their families, communte to work, be more productive, etc. But enough of stating the obvious. It's true that they emit CO2, but were quickly solving this problem as we speak and hybrids cut the emissions down by a lot. I would not be surprised to see electric cars that actually work in the next 10 - 20 years.
Incorrect. See this URL: here [ifpri.org] there are more overweight people in the Middle East, Latin America, and Easter Europe.
Secondly, you don't have much of public transportation because noone would use it.
Again wrong. In big cities like San Francisco, New York, etc...many people do use public transportation. Maybe the reason many americans don't is because they live in rural areas. It just doesn't make sense to have the rapid transit go out to the ranch. With such a huge amount of land and 300 million people, it's pretty spread out.
Our population density is *half* of yours, we pay about $6/gallon already.
Not sure where you live, but many countries tax gasoline excessively. That is most likely why you pay more for gas. This is very unfortunate, but it's not American's fault that your government is doing this.
Re:Hmmm interesting (Score:2, Insightful)
And when megacorps behave badly at least there are people trying to do something about it - most of the Chinese people at my university (Cambridge, UK) don't seem to be aware / care about the terrible human rights breaches that go on back home.
I know where I'd rather live.
Re:in comparison to.... (Score:2, Insightful)
And as for unsustainable, you ever try driving on an L.A. freeway at rush hour? Contrast that to New York's transportation system, which actually operates at peak efficiency during rush hour. It's true that in L.A., at least you get to sit inside your own private space while you wait... but you're still stuck. Point is, L.A. can't take any more, but New York has room to grow.
Taxing gasoline may not be "excessive" in the sense that we'd do better to discourage problems like these from developing, but as disincentives go, a gas tax is fairly roundabout. In Britain, I believe (someone please correct me), I heard they're introducing a per-mile taxation system, using GPS, based on traffic flow and the marginal costs "to society" of your one additional automobile. California's eventually going to have to implement something similar, I fear.
Who's to blame? The self-destructive modernist attitudes of early twentieth-century automobile companies and of President Eisenhower, who built the interstate freeway system, encouraging Americans to build out, is a quick answer. There's another perspective entirely--that sprawl is the American way of life, and we Americans do what we please, and if we have to bleed oil and get immobilized in traffic twice a day for the sake of our American lifestyle, then so be it, energy efficiency be damned. That's an argument I don't want to get into.
Re:in comparison to.... (Score:3, Insightful)