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."
This just amounts to FUD, trying to make Linux look like it has some involvement with piracy. It's the people who pirate, not the software.
Using basic logic wouldn't lead a normal, intelligent thinking to believe this. A logical conclusion would actually be that people want to use Windows, even when Linux is already pre-installed on their machines. If anything, this shows that not only can Linux not be given away, but even when somebody pays for it, they would still rather throw it out, then use it. You are the one spreading FUD.
I don't respond to AC's.
I have a funny comment on how Linux is better than Windows!
>You make it sound like this is something sneaky.
Isn't it? Well, I should say isn't it when you know 99% of all customers will install a pirated copy of Windows?
In a way that is similar to selling guns without checking buyers' background. Sorry, I didn't know!
Of course, resellers and h/w makers are not supposed to engage in anti-piracy activities on behalf of Microsoft, it's just that they're knowingly aiding end users who have no attention of buying licensed software.
That is a bit sneaky.
>Shouldn't resellers be able to do whatever they want? Isn't the opposite - forcing resellers to install Windows - a much worse scenario?
Yes, they should be allowed to do whatever they want, but in a way they're condoning piracy so it's not exactly a noble thing to do - if you see someone being mugged, turn your head away.
Why is installing Windows a much worse scenario?
Especially with the new low-cost Windows, I think it's well worth the money - it works with all/most h/w out there, it's self-maintaining, requires virtually no skills, it's well documented and lets h/w makers concentrate on manufacturing, marketing or whatever makes most profit.
Note that I'm not saying Windows is better or that they shouldn't bundle Linux too. My point is simply that there's nothing wrong with bundling Windows - as you say, they should be able to do whatever they want (as long as it's legal).
>Linux simply points out the ridiculous nature of Microsoft's licensing model.
I don't understand.
Bundling SuSe or Red Hat Linux probably costs the same as this el-cheapo Windows. Yeah, you don't pay for the software, you can make copies, etc., but the truth is most people don't give a damn. They just want to get to Yahoo, read email and browse pr0n, all one needs is to download OpenOffice and Firefox for Windows and there he goes!
Microsoft may as well next year make that licensing fee become "subscription fee" and then what? Will you still call the model ridiculous?