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.
Bollocks. All my work machines come with XP on them. The first thing I have to do is purge the damn thing and install Linux.
Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird -- Proverbs 1:17
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
Don't tell anyone, but I'm using my Windows PC to run a pirate copy of Linux! I downloaded a copy from the internet and didn't pay a cent for it! Suckers...
Read reviews of shopping cart software
Big deal - that's been known since 2000.
I have heard it first hand from resellers and h/w makers in Asia Pacific - "we bundle Linux just so that MS leaves us alone and it's up to the end users to get their copy of Windows".
In some places shipping systems (assembled computers) without OS is either disallowed or frowned upon by MS and/or anti-piracy watchdogs, so bundling Linux is a nice excuse to avoid pre-installing Windows....
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
"...Gartner's making a bold prediction that the number of machines sold as
Linux desktops may eclipse the number of machines actually running Linux."
Funny that. Its a bit like Windows if you take into account crashes - The
number of machines sold as Windows desktops is far greater than the number
of machines actually RUNNING Windows.
Windows in 6 Bytes (IA-32) : 90 90 90 90 CD 19
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!
100% of PC's sold with Windows ME, run Pirated copie s of Windows 2000
Its actually quite true. Here in germany many retailers have "ultra-cheap" PCs, in the 200-300 range, without operating system(well, not without, but with dr-dos or linux,ect). Windows XP is a 50 or 100 addon.
How many people are willing to buy that addon instead of visiting suprnova.org?
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Gartner finds Linux is not only a dangerous tool actively being used by terrorists to avoid detection, but a psychotrophic drug that causes terrorism, delinquency, malaria and AIDS.
Linux is also subverting good, honest children to criminal behaviour, communism and encouraging them to move to harder drugs such as Heavy Metal music. Not to mention occultism and role playing games.
Linux on an IBM mainframe is also less cost effective than Windows on a dual Xeon! Quick, in the Holy name of Redmond, call a priest and bring out the holy water!
I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
It's really more than that, everything Gartner says is suspect, whether it has to do with Windows or not. This is the same company that over-hypes offshoring, and just by chance happens to have an offshoring consulting unit. No conflict of interest there......
Monstar L
"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 |
I've known this for a long time.
Even here in the US, what do you think happens with the Wal-Mart linux machines that they sell dirt-cheap. They get turned into 'grandma's-email/XP machine' by some kid that installed a pirate copy of XP.
I dont see this message from Gartner as Anti-Linux. So many of you people have blinders on so that whenever you see MS and Linux in the same sentence you think "OMG Micro$oft Sux0r5!1!"
This is the same as buying one of those MP3 players with a huge CF card, and taking the CF card out to use in your camera.
People just buy cheap crappy PC's that come preloaded with Linux, they wipe the drive, and install XP.
Its purely economical from their point of view. Cheap PC + Pirated software = WIN.
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!"
"How is that any different from what the average Slashdotter does?"
We complain about it more. Next question.
The Register had a good story about this yesterday, basically stating that they weren't even aware of the story until Gartner sent them out a rather insistent correction to a press release they hadn't actually received. As they say:
What the correction actually said, seemed to be a rather more reserved opinion:
El Reg themselves then add:
That's circular logic there. If you define the average computer user as someone who uses Windows, then of course, you will find that 100% of average users use Windows.
On the other hand, I've seen Open Office handle Word documents more reliably than Office. The only reasons I have Windows at home are I'm lazy and don't want to install a new operating system, and the games.
However your parent post has a point, I don't want to run Windows, I'd rather not actually. My next computer will not have Windows on it, and I have no intention of ever installing Windows on it.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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.
Of course, not only Microsoft is unhappy with this phenomenon. The Linux community is not amused either, since of course we would have preferred to see the customers continuing the use of Linux instead of wiping it from the drive and replacing it with Windows, pirated or not.
:)
But perhaps there is a solution that could kill two bird with one stone: make Linux-systems deliberately incompatible with Windows by supplying them with a legacy-free OpenFirmware-implementation, such as OpenBIOS, which could be optimised specifically for Linux.
Many experienced UNIX and Linux users have been desiring OpenFirmware/OpenBIOS acceptance in the x86-market anyway, and this may be just the chance to make it happen!
It's a perfect solution: On the one hand, Microsoft can no longer complain about Linux-systems being a merely a method to use pirated copies of Windows. On the other hand, selling Linux systems solely with OpenBIOS firmwares (and making some modification to make the motherboards imcompatible with pirated legacy BIOS-versions) guarantees that buyers will be running Linux (or other open-source/free-software OS'es) instead of Windows on it.
And of course, as we all know, an Openfirmware-based BIOS would provide additional technical advantages and features over legacy BIOS implementations.
And finally: true OpenBIOS-enabled Linux-systems would be free from any DRM-crap.
Take the problem, and turn it in to an opportunity Wonderful!
"Oooh, does that mean we get to kick some puffy white mad zionist butt?"
When piracy is defined as any use that the vendor does not approve of, it's hard to call it a moral issue and to think of the vendor as a victim.
Exactly. This is another variant of the problem that the entertainment content industry has created for itself: By making copyright terms so long that most people don't realize they ever expire, people no longer see copyright as a good trade -- or as any kind of trade at all -- and therefore have no compunction about violating the hell out of it.
It's a slashdot cliche, but it really is true: The more you tighten your grasp, the more copies will slip through your fingers, as the majority simply stops paying attention to your restrictions.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I really don't see what all the fuss is about.
"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 never entered into a contract with Microsoft. Indeed, the last few machines I have bought had MS Windows pre-installed, so I never even had to click on "I accept" to install it. Under the doctrine of First Sale, in the absence of a contract I can do what I please with the goods that I purchase. Can someone explain to me how Microsoft's wishes could possibly be binding on me?
For me this is a purely hypothetical question since I have no interest in running MS Windows, but I am perplexed by the idea that Microsoft's EULA's can be binding on people who either never saw them until after they purchased the software or on people who have never even looked at the EULA. Haven't the courts ruled that such "shrinkwrap licenses" are invalid?
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
Most likely the original user is trying to use an Install disk to do a dual-boot, but because the only available OEM copy of Windows is an "FDISK, Format and Re-install" recovery disk, he's S.O.L. on using a Retail disk.
The best thing to do is contact the seller of the PC, and ask for a Windows XP OEM installation CD that doesn't FDISK the system first.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
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