Slashdot Mirror
Gartner Says Linux PCs Just Used To Pirate Windows
LostCluster writes "CNET is reporting results from a Gartner Group report that claims 40% of desktop machines sold with Linux on them are being used to run pirate copies of Windows! The report goes on to say that this stat reaches as high in 80% in 'emerging markets', the same places that the stripped down lite version of Windows is being aimed at. Gartner's making a bold prediction that the number of machines sold as Linux desktops may eclipse the number of machines actually running Linux."
The consulting firm issued a report on Wednesday stating that about 40 percent of Linux PCs will be modified to run an illegal copy of Windows, a bait-and-switch maneuver that lowers the cost of obtaining a Windows PC.
I wasn't aware that PCs were made by Microsoft. I realize that B. Crew wants every PC to be sold with Windows and makes in very difficult for vendors to do anything but sell them that way, but I am pretty certain it isn't a requirement for Windows to be on every single PC out there.
As a result, the number of desktop Linux PCs that ship will exceed the actual percentage of Linux machines that get installed in the real world. Desktop Linux will account for about 5 percent of desktops shipped in 2004, according to Gartner, with 10.5 percent of the desktops in Asia shipping with Linux this year. However, the installed base of Linux will come to only 1.3 percent.
In 2008, Linux will account for 7.5 percent of PCs shipped, but only 2.6 percent of the installed base, about the same that Apple's installed base will be then.
Star News reports that by 2009 15.29% of the The National Enquirer's stories will be completely false and that their own stories will overtake FoxNews as the most truthful news source on the planet.
My last machine came with XP installed. I didn't even get to have a CD of XP other than the restore CD. The key on the back of the computer was invalid anyway and MSFT had no suggestions for me other than using a valid key... So, we have to buy a computer with Windows on it because MSFT won't be friendly with vendors that don't offer 100% Windows only. We get that computer with Windows but we really can't use the copy on any other machine and we don't get the install CD and it may not even have a working key. Yet we are supposed to believe that this is acceptable and poor MSFT will lose money to piracy.
I paid for my copy of Windows XP and I expect to get my use out of it whether it follows MSFT's rules or not. I would assume the same rings true elsewhere. Who the hell wants to pay 20%+ of their PC cost for Windows if they can't even use it?
Welcome to hell.
So what's new? Microsoft pays its lapdog, Gartner Group, for another anti-Linux FUD piece. Next story, please.
That'll just about offset the number of machines that were bought with windows on them that are now running linux. Or do they not care about those?
"Piter, too, is dead."
It is said that a child learns wisdom from the parent,
but the truly wise parent learns joy from the child
Sure, if you want to install a pirate copy of Windows on a new PC, your only real choice is to order a PC with either no OS or one with a free OS (i.e. Linux). Since none of the big PC makers will even let you order a PC without an OS, guess which one you'll choose.
This doesn't have anything to do with Linux.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
Because you're not some guy looking to find a sweet deal on a PC at Wal-Mart. These are people buying cheap ass computers and putting the OS of their choice onto it. How is that any different from what the average Slashdotter does?
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
If we were to use the logic that the RIAA and MPAA use, then we should ban all Linux Distributions because they are used to pirate software. Then Microsoft will truly rule the world!
"Gartner's making a bold prediction that the number of machines sold as Linux desktops may eclipse the number of machines actually running Linux."
While I'm would expect that somewhere there are plenty PC's being sold with Linux pre-installed that get wiped and have a pirated copy of Windows installed, my personal experience is the opposite -- I have run hundreds of Linux machines (server farms, at home,at work, etc.), and aside from rack-mounted servers the only practical option is to purchase a PC with Windows, then wipe it and install Linux. In theory you can buy a PC in the US with Linux installed, but in practice, nobody stocks them, and it's easier to get a Windows PC now than to special order a Linux PC to arrive eventually, and do the install yourself.
So, while some percentage of the small number of PC's sold with Linux on them may be converted to run Windows, certainly a percentage of the very large number of PC's sold with Windows on them are converted to run Linux, and in my experience the numbers lean strongly towards the latter case.
On top of this, I would argue that the number of copies of Windows sold (irrespective of Linux) is artificially inflated by the pre-installed copies in other ways:
With consumer PC's you almost always need to buy a "real" copy of Windows, because the pre-installed copies don't come with install CD's, or even the right to make your install CD's. So if you buy a cheap PC and _anything_ happens to it that would cause you to need to reinstall (like, say, owning the PC for six months), the only (legal) option is to run a "restore" that wipes your hard drive and restores it to factory state.
On corporate desktops, if you by PC's with Windows installed, and then wipe the drive and install a standard disk image (which most companies do, to simplify management) MS insists that you need to buy a new Windows license, because the copy in the disk image is a new copy.
If you donate a used Windows PC to a school or church, MS tells them that it's illegal to use the copy of Windows on the PC unless it's accompanies by the original certificate of authenticity, and that otherwise they must by a new copy of Windows (which would often cost more than the PC itself is worth, and wouldn't run on older PC's in any case), and that without that, they must trash the PC's.
So if Gartner is trying to correct for artificial distortions on the sales numbers to determine true numbers of users, I think that they have some more work to do.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Making wild accusations without backing it up with a solid proof because of remote possibilities
Standard operating procedure for Gartner. The supporting data is an asset, they're not going to give it away.
So, would this mean that Microsoft is left with the dilemna:
a) try to stamp out this piracy by discouraging "after-market" installs (hey! don't install windows! You had better leave that Linux on there, buster!)
b) tacitly allow the after-market piracy, thus maintaining their marketshare but sacrificing revenue
It would seem that the obvious choice for them would be b), because so much of the MS revenue stream depends on a Windows OS on the machine.
To some degree, I have set up a false dichotomy, but I do know that these cheap Linux machines will only grow in number here in Asia. MS is stuck in a very tricky position, and will be forced to retreat from the OS to their apps and "higher functionality" for value-add. Good luck with that in China...
davejenkins.com |
The report makes bold claims so as to stand out from common_wisdom. This gives it an edge in its consulting business.
If the claims turn out wrong, they'll say that the companies/countries involved have made very good progress to stamp out piracy. They then go make a report of "How to combat piracy and reduce piracy figures by [claimed figure - actual figure]" and then teach these techniques to others.
If the claims are right, it's going to be "Told you so."
Well, it's a win-win situation.
They're just trying to hide the fact that they are shit scared that machines sold with Linux preinstalled WON'T end up with a pirate copy of Windows. The only thing worse than MS not getting paid for a copy of Windows is for a user to stick with the copy of Linux that comes with their machine. That is a sale MS will never get back.
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
Your argument presupposes that 'free' in Linux refers to price. It doesn't. There are other, more important reasons to run the OS than low cost of entry.
"Desktop Linux will account for about 5 percent of desktops shipped in 2004, according to Gartner, with 10.5 percent of the desktops in Asia shipping with Linux this year. However, the installed base of Linux will come to only 1.3 percent."
then:
"In 2008, Linux will account for 7.5 percent of PCs shipped, but only 2.6 percent of the installed base..."
Does anyone else notice that they are comparing shipments with installed base? Unless we were to assume that the entire installed base of PCs is thrown away and replaced each year, this is a bogus comparison.
It's similar in kind to comparisons of raw numbers with percentages. I start a new club. I'm the only member. Next year, I get someone else to join my club. I can report that I've grown my club's membership that year by 100%.
"This signature quote intentionally left blank"
I have always been told that the kind of statistical researches of companies like Gartner have some point or other to make. But having read the summaries of this research, one can only wonder which conclussion they are trying to reach? (I once saw a university medical statistical study proving that people living in the country and owning no cars are likely to have a higher risk of colon cancer!)
;-)
On all the new PCs I have ever bought over the years, some windows flavour had been pre-installed. In more than half of the cases, it was reformatted and promptly replaced by a Linux flavour.
Thus: if pre-installed desktop linux pc's are treatening for MS-sales and encouraging windows piracy, is the opposite not true and can it therefore not be concluded that pre-installed desktop windows pc's are treatening to linux and encouraging linux piracy?
Let's us conclude that this kind of statistical research is not conclussively written in numbers, but should rather be written with astrological starcharts!
Peace & Long Life,
MadMan-2
I've got a suggestion. Don't read your rental agreement and don't pay your rent. When they evict you, you can explain you never read the contract. See what happens.
True, but then every rental agreement that I know of has to be signed. I have never rented a place or bought a house where "by putting your key in the lock, you agree to the following rental agreement/morgage agreement. Your presence in the dwelling indicates legal agreement to this contract."
You don't pay your rent or your mortage, the Landlord or Bank has legal, signed documents that they can use to kick your ass out. A EULA doesn't (yet) have that level of validity in most States/Provinces/Countries.
Beware of Sleestak
Funny you should mention YDL. Terrasoft (makers of YDL) are the only Apple authorized reseller allowed to package an Apple product with a different OS.
By default they install a dual-boot setup of YDL and OSX. But from what I've been told you can simply request that you don't want OSX installed. which is good if you want to use the entire drive for YDL.
I'm sorry but Apple fanboys should just stay out of this conversation. Apple keeps far tighter control over hardware and OS than Microsoft.
I'm not sure what your remark about Apple fanboys is all about. Your post has basically asked that a person with an opposing viewpoint need not reply? Why did you bother posting at all if you don't wish to discuss things? (If you didn't notice, I've ignored your request)
Also what does it mean that Apple keeps tighter control over the OS than Microsoft. (obviously not the hardware since MS isn't a hardware company). There are secret APIs in Windows. You need to buy an expensive dev kit if you want to write drivers for Windows. but on OSX you can write a driver for whatever USB dongle you have the specs for, and you can just use the bundled compiler and debugger. And the API docs are posted on apple's website. I MS's site also has freely available docs on devel topics too. From my point of view Apple has kept no more tighter grasp on it's OS than Microsoft has. Perhaps even a looser grasp if you consider that Darwin is completely open source. Am I somehow misinterpreting the point of your original statement?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire