It Pays To Use GNU/Linux On The Desktop

I found some data for the G20 countries, GDP per capita and StatCounter provides usage of operating systems for browsing. Consider the data from yesterday for GNU/Linux and from 2013 for GDP…
COUNTRY
Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Canada
China
France
Germany
India
Indonesia
Italy
Japan
Mexico
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
South Korea
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
GDP/Cap
14760
62822
11067
50577
7572
45384
47201
1626
3404
35512
37540
10837
14317
24901
6354
28739
10518
44141
54678
SHARE
1.52
1.16
1.44
1.92
0.6
3.33
3.01
1.99
1.08
3.48
0.95
1.29
1.63
0.53
1.1
0.34
1.1
1.47
2.81
Of course, it’s weak, and there are lots of deviation from the line but it’s hard to avoid that whether it’s a cause or effect, most are better off using more GNU/Linux, any IT that works rather than none/less.

Wealthier countries are using GNU/Linux to maximize the benefit of IT and poorer countries are using GNU/Linux to minimize cost/maximize coverage but GNU/Linux is the right way to do IT everywhere. India is that lowest point, yes, down there. It’s committed to using a lot more FLOSS and GNU/Linux. Within a few years, that should have some impact on GDP. They use GNU/Linux in education, business and government on desktop and server and plan to roll out GNU/Linux for most new acquisitions from here on in.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to It Pays To Use GNU/Linux On The Desktop

  1. DrLoser wrote, “there is no correlation at all.”

    Sure, there is. R2 = 0.185, >0. It’s weak but it’s there. Clearly there are many other factors affecting GDP but IT is probably one of them just gaining traction in much of the world. In the established markets, the really humming economies all use a lot of GNU/Linux on desktop and server, except, notably, for China which hung up on XP. Use of GNU/Linux desktops seems to be increasing just about everywhere and guess what, so’s GDP. Perhaps DrLoser can suggest why getting more IT for the money should actually harm an economy… He wouldn’t say that about bolts, hammers, or lumber. There is such a thing as stagflation but GNU/Linux should not have much affect on that. In France and Germany we clearly see lots of local businesses thriving using FLOSS and taxpayers love it when government gets more IT for less. Do the maths. There’s no downside to an economy using FLOSS and there are amazing upsides like permitting easier/faster startups, increasing connectivity of a population, hiring local talent, etc.

  2. DrLoser says:

    It’s interesting that GDP and GNU/Linux usage seem to be correlated.

    It would be, except that there is no correlation at all.

    More fantasy from another idiot.

  3. LinuxGentlesir says:

    It’s interesting that GDP and GNU/Linux usage seem to be correlated. If only we could study the relationship between IQ and GNU/Linux usage, which I would hypothesize are strongly correlated, based on observations on the level of usage in scientific organizations and high technology companies. There may also be a strong relationship between mental illness and defending Micro$oft.

  4. dougman says:

    TARDINESS?…ah, yes!!…M$ knows all about tardiness.

    “Google provided Microsoft ample time to identify and create a suitable patch for this issue. Microsoft had two full patch cycles to address this vulnerability before Google disclosed it publicly,” agreed Michael Taylor, lead developer at Rook Security. He added, “The question is why Microsoft was unable or unwilling to address these vulnerabilities in a timely manner.”

    http://www.techrepublic.com/article/security-experts-weigh-in-on-microsoft-google-vulnerability-disclosure-debate/

  5. DrLoser says:

    Anyway, back to the foolish proposition in the OP. Enough of GDP!

    Wealthier countries are using GNU/Linux to maximize the benefit of IT …

    I am going to be scrupulously fair here, Robert. I am going to pick Italy as our example here. Even if you include oil-rich states and offshore capital havens like the Bahamas, it’s still in the top thirty.

    And it’s quite big.

    And it’s up there at 3.48% Linux desktop web page views.

    Cor!!!!

    Which means 96.52% “other.”

    Now, I’ve never asked my many Italian IT friends this. But, and I am reasonably sure I know their answer, it is not entirely true that Italy is a weird, skewed, one-of-a-kind country that makes its living out of profitable Linux web pages and can just about cope with the non-profitable non-Linux web-page drag.

    I could be wrong, here.

    But I’m not entirely convinced that 3.48% of anything can be described as “maximising the [domain relevant] benefit.”

    Forgive my minor statistical cavil on this one, Robert, but you’re talking utter nonsense as usual, aren’t you?

  6. DrLoser says:

    Need I remind you, luvr?

    Deaf Spy wrote, “How does producing FLOSS (price = 0) impact the GDP?”

    Oh, governments spend hundreds of millions per annum on licensing that other OS, for instance. They could instead pay the salaries of thousands of citizens who could buy more locally produced goods and …

    Where, in any of that, do you find a mention of anything but GDP?

  7. DrLoser says:

    So what??? As if GDP in and of itself means anything vis-à-vis general welfare or wellbeing.

    A little late to the party, luvr, and I appreciate that it takes quite a while for you to get your brain in gear, but that was actually our point.

    Robert claims that there will be a measurable improvement in GDP.

    Deaf Spy and I claim that this is fatuous nonsense.

    Now, if you want to change the subject, feel free to do so.

    But the original claim banged on about GDP and nothing else.

    And is therefore spurious and utter bollocks.

    We can only address the claims put in front of us, you know.

  8. DrLoser says:

    Two years to develop the Windows Vista startup sound…TWO years!

    That might count as “tardiness,” Doug-nut. But it doesn’t count as “bloat.” Unless the WAV file had a simply huge memory foot print.

    Let’s see. You don’t understand GDP. You don’t understand memory footprints. Can I ask you about exception handling? No? I’m guessing you don’t understand that, either.

    Do you actually understand anything relevant at all, Dougie?

  9. dougman says:

    Example of M$ bloat: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6466901

    Two years to develop the Windows Vista startup sound…TWO years!

  10. dougman says:

    M$ is having to compete on level playing fields for once in its life.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/07/18/microsoft_cuts_18_000_jobs_it_s_the_fourth_biggest_tech_layoff_ever.html

    http://www.businessinsider.com/microsofts-layoffs-are-not-yet-done-2015-1

    This is why it let go 18K of its workforce, Nadella is trimming the fat from M$.

  11. luvr says:

    Net loss to the global GDP: $90 billion.

    So what??? As if GDP in and of itself means anything vis-à-vis general welfare or wellbeing.

    You do realise that nowadays, according to international conventions, illegal drug dealing and illegal prostitution are to be accounted for in the GDP numbers, don’t you? In other words, if we were to dismantle organised crime worldwide overnight, global GDP would show a sharp drop. That’s hardly an argument to stop fighting organised crime, or is it?

  12. DrLoser says:

    Oh, and I’m also neglecting the obvious fact that all 90,000 or whatever it now is Microsoft employees will have to be paid off on standard redundancy terms. Well,, they’re scumbags. Let’s allot each one of them the bare legal minimum.

    Which is unlikely to be less than $10,000 per head. There goes another $900 million of something that used to be counted as GDP.

  13. DrLoser says:

    Easy, when one is not spending assets on software, they can purchase more hardware, simple economics.

    Ah, Common Sense from the Common Man. Except, it isn’t quite as simple as that, Dougie.

    Let’s say Microsoft vanishes tomorrow, and all its devil-works are replaced, fer free, by Linux.

    Net loss to the global GDP: $90 billion. (For simplicity, I’m ignoring the downstream GDP from things like support, which would massively inflate that number.)

    Let’s simplify things even further, and assume that stockholders are paid off, at parity. And let’s assume that the rest of the assets (less obligations) sit around, doing whatever it was they were doing for GDP in the first place.

    But that still leaves a net GDP loss of $90 billion to be accounted for. Not all of this $90 billion is going to be plunged straight back into GDP-worthy projects. Some of it will be used to pay off, say, national or corporate debt — a worthy thing to be sure, but it has zero effect on GDP. Some of it will be reinvested in, well, anything, really, maybe hardware as you say, but it’s not likely that you’ll see a one-for-one transfer of GDP. (You’ll almost certainly see a drastic drop in the short term.)

    And some of it will just sit around, wondering where to go. If the evidence of Quantitative Easing is anything to go by, this part will end up simply in asset inflation. With zero gain to global GDP.

    Now, this is very broad-brush macroeconomics, and it’s based on the impossibly unlikely premise that Microsoft vanishes overnight. But, broadly, it is true. If Microsoft were to disappear, the immediate result would be a massive loss of global GDP.

    You can argue many other benefits, such as (I mentioned above) debt reduction, or lowered taxation, or a renaissance in technology, or even simply “freedom for slaves.” None of which would come true, but they’re plausible arguments.

    What is not plausible is that you would see a growth in global GDP.

    That is the very last thing you would see.

  14. dougman says:

    Re: How does producing FLOSS (price = 0) impact the GDP?

    Easy, when one is not spending assets on software, they can purchase more hardware, simple economics.

    Windows Server w/ Exchange is a VERY expensive proposition, this is why businesses are moving to Google.

    For example: Here is a pricing for an 800-employee company.

    CALs at retail pricing is $67 x 800 = $53,600.
    Exchange Enterprise Edition is $3,999.
    Software Assurance CAL of $35 x 800 = $28K.
    Two servers at $10K each = $20K.
    Two full time Exchange administrators at $100K/year = $200K.
    NET = ~$310K a year

    …but when you add in the extra stuff the cost goes through the roof!

    Ancillary costs such as spam filtering, security, archiving and disaster recovery is another layer that adds costs as well!

    So Exchange costs (CALs, SAs and the like) paired with Postini is around $500K and when you take unified messaging, storage, DR and admin costs which come to $500K and add the original $500K we were looking at $1 million USD per year as a total.

    Google’s solution is $120/year per user, M$ was $1250/year per user. A decrease by a factor of 10!

    However, back on subject, Robert is correct. Linux, is by far the less costly solution. This is why OEM’s around the globe has used it for a plethora of devices.

  15. Deaf Spy says:

    M$ takes out $billions from the world’s economy annually and gives back nothing but pain.

    But greatly increases USA’s GDP. And pays salaries and dividend, which help people buy from both local and foreign business, knowing USA is a great importer. Everyone wins, Pogson.

    Btw, just for your info. One can grow by saving costs but that is limited. Your costs cannot go below certain level. One grows faster and steadier if increases income via output and productivity. Economics, level 1.

  16. Deaf Spy wrote, “How does producing FLOSS (price = 0) impact the GDP?”

    Oh, governments spend hundreds of millions per annum on licensing that other OS, for instance. They could instead pay the salaries of thousands of citizens who could buy more locally produced goods and …
    In the case of India:
    “Benefits realized by a few organizations:

    • In Kerala (an Indian state), the government replaced Windows software with FOSS on 50,000 desktops in school across the state. They saved nearly $10.2 million USD.
    • The Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), one of the largest insurers in India, replaced their entire IT structure of 3,500 servers and 30,000 desktops with FOSS. They saved $8.75 million USD.
    • The New India Assurance Company, with IT infrastructure of 1,500 servers and 7,000 desktops, saved $16.67 million USD by adopting FOSS.”

    M$ takes out $billions from the world’s economy annually and gives back nothing but pain. Investing that money locally can make a real difference, especially in poorer regions of the world where incomes are very low. It can stimulate local businesses too for they may be able to afford to grow and hire more employees. Even USA is robbed by M$ because they keep much of their revenue off-shore where it is not taxed by USA. Every country on Earth shares that pain. M$ claims its impact is 8X their revenue. It’s a huge impact globally. It certainly had a huge impact where I taught, allowing us to more than double the number of PCs in schools.

  17. DrLoser says:

    How does producing FLOSS (price = 0) impact the GDP?

    Well, someone has to sell that FLOSS, Deaf Spy.

    Oh … wait …

  18. Deaf Spy says:

    Let me ask you something, Robert. How does producing FLOSS (price = 0) impact the GDP?

  19. DrLoser says:

    Within a few years, that should have some impact on GDP.

    You’re not kidding, Robert.

    On your theory, if Linux even manages ten times its current market penetration, say ~30%, then GDP worldwide should shoot up by about 5% per annum!

    Naturally, there are certain other small details about GDP that might have to be cleaned up along the way. But, as you say, the likes of Russia and China can, at least in good years, afford “crime and tyranny.”

    Laisse’ les bons temps rouler!

  20. DrLoser says:

    I long for the days when you were dismissing Statcounter as a “statistically inadequate way of measuring things,” Robert.
    You were so much more honest to yourself back then.

Leave a Reply