linux is linux profitable

[conowizard]

how is making a free linux os profitable?

[Granular]

The Linux Foundation is a non-profit.

Hardware vendors and large companies using it donate money and developer time to improve it.

[NelizMastr]

The only money made in the Linux ecosystem is basically in the enterprise with RHEL and SUSE and support contracts.

[Hoeveer]

@NelizMastr You forgot about all of the individual people that are employed by companies and customers to install, maintain, and troubleshoot the install base of Linux.  They make a tidy profit, TYVM.

[Wild Penquin]

Hi,

 

I think it is profitable! I don't need to put any spyware OS on my computer nor pay to Microsoft since I'm not using their OSes!!!!!1!!

 

</jk style="but with a grain of truth; profitable as a concept is kind of vague>

[Sauron]

It depends, most linux distributions aren't looking to make a profit to begin with. Others, like Canonical, sell professional support to enterprises as opposed to ubuntu itself. Most projects also accept donations.

[jde3]

On 4/25/2018 at 11:07 PM, conowizard said:

how is making a free linux os profitable?

Nothing like software has been created before in history. It is a product but it is also information, it's information but it's also art, it's art but it's a tool. All software was originally visible and open because in order to use the system you had to be able to see the code. Microsoft was one of the pioneers of changing this model. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists ) And ushering in the dark ages of computing.

 

To answer your question, think how is sculpting or painting profitable?

Sometimes your commissioned for that work, sometimes not. Sometimes you have a supporter, or you take donations, or you do it for status symbol, sometimes you just do it because you want to.

[Ethann_AKA_CPU1]

the linux foundation is able to make money to support itself buy providing training iirc

[wasab]

They profit from offering support, although many are nonprofits and like to shame its regular users into donating like Wikipedia.

[vargvikernes]

oy vey I require money to ever put effort into a project, there are people out there would have no problem with making open source tools to help others also the GPL license that Linux and other opensource software is released under forces companies that use Linux to share any changes or improvements that are made to the kernel and other programs in the user space released under GPL. If cisco takes the Linux kernel and improves it they are legally required to release those changes under GPL.

[KhazAkar]

5 hours ago, vargvikernes said:

oy vey I require money to ever put effort into a project, there are people out there would have no problem with making open source tools to help others also the GPL license that Linux and other opensource software is released under forces companies that use Linux to share any changes or improvements that are made to the kernel and other programs in the user space released under GPL. If cisco takes the Linux kernel and improves it they are legally required to release those changes under GPL.

Not exactly. Look at Microsoft's Azure Sphere OS.

[Unimportant]

There's also the fact that the GPL license allows you to modify and use the software for commercial profit, as long as you then re-release your modified source code under the same license.

 

So, a company can modify and use linux to run their commercial widget, which is possibly lots cheaper then writing their own OS from scratch, but they have to share their modified source code, thereby contributing  to the development of linux while making a profit.

[Wild Penquin]

I'm not sure, but maybe vargvikerness was trying to be sarcastic or funny ;-).

 

In any case what you say is true. It's a common misconception that you are forced to release changes; it might seem like nitpicking, but it only applies to those who receive and use the resulting software (binaries). Nothing prevents from making changes and using the changed software only internally in a company (not sure it happneds a lot, though; the usefulness is quite limited). The software (binaries) can be charged for from the end users, but this kind of traditional profit (from software sales) becomes more difficult, if not mostly, unfeasible, as all end users are allowed to use the source(s), make binaries and re-distribute them.

 

One can (to certain limitations set by the open source licenses) mix open and closed source components. Take a look at OS  X; the underlying open source OS called Darwin is there, and actively developed by Apple (and others?). OS X is (roughly, someone correct me here if you have better information) Darwin + closed source stuff made by Apple. If there are clear distinctions between the closed and open source components, then yes, open source can certainly be profitable this way. Another good example is Android (phones, tablets, etc.).

[wasab]

You can very much profit from open sourced code. You don’t need to lock down every last bit of your sourced code in order to profit from it. 

 

Copy left has been proven to work commercially.