Slashdot Mirror
OSIA Dismisses Gartner Linux Piracy Claim
Anonymous Coward writes "The Inquirer is reporting that a claim by Gartner that Linux desktops are used for pirated copies of windows has been dismissed by the Open Source Industry Association (OSIA). OSIA told The Sydney Morning Herald that 'if Gartner's conclusion that pre-installing Linux encouraged people to steal copies of Windows were correct.... It would be possible to state that pre-installing Windows encourages people to pirate application software.'"
OK, colour me not too bright, but I cannot see why pre-installed Linux is being targeted here by Gartner - their claim doesn't seems to be, pre-installing Linux is the same as shipping the machine with no OS whatsoever.
To continue with their premise, any machine sold with no OS (or Linux) installed is destined for pirated software which would imply by there logic, if you want to take it all the way down the line, that there should be an international mandate that no machine should be sold without paying the MS tax.
To be doubly sure, the only way to ensure this MS tax was paid in full would be to make sure that all PC components had a markup on them to allow for a the price of a copy of Windows on a fully assembled machine (otherwise home built machines would be "tax exempt") - it just all gets a bit silly.
It would be interesting to know where these numbers come from (on both sides of this argument), and, how they can possibly be verified.
It simply comes down to a case of MS saying: "You public who don't buy from us, and who we by some weird twist of logic, try to link with the opensource community, are probably stealing from us". Their claim is probably in part true, but to link it with the opensource community is mistifying.
Oh - and then, shock horror, the opensource community comes back with: "We don't steal from you" (probably true on the whole) "and those who buy Linux desktops don't steal from you either" (probably, at least, significantly false).
Oh - for the purposes of this comment it has been assumed that the independant research company Gartner is independently researching for the independent entity of Microsoft.
preinstalling Windows does encourage people to pirate software.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Oh - for the purposes of this comment it has been assumed that the independant research company Gartner is independently researching for the independent entity of Microsoft.
Considering all the "independent" studies, reports, cost analyses, etc. that M$ has cited recently, it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
Also don't forget that MS has been stealing from the OpenSource community. I significant portion of systems running Linux has likely been bought with a MS operating system pre-installed and its license paid. Efforts to refund that money have always been frustrated by MS and its OEMs.
I wonder how many people over the past 10 years have purchased computers pre-installed with Windows, only to immediately remove it and install Linux?
In Canada we call them 'Levies' and, in the same vein as the assumption that all storage media is presumed to be used for the storage and duplication of copyrighted music, it wouldn't surprise me to soon start paying an extra few cents on the gigabyte.
The practical upshoot is I'll proceed to pirate MS Software with impunity -- after all, I'm paying for the privelage whether I do or not, may as well get my money's worth.
I can kind of understand. Nerd user has parent/friend/life partner/whatever wanting computer. Why pay the Microsoft tax? All you need is one of those cheep Linux Wal-Mart PC's... The ones that run Linspire (Lindows) or Lycoris.
Then nerd takes computer, and wipes OS because said parent/friend/life partner/whatever can't/won't get Gnome/KDE. Said computer nerd then installs pirated version of XP on said computer.
Not saying it happens as many times as is suggested, but I can see it happening a lot on those cheep-o PC's.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Now we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here.
What's next?
=) Installing cars with accelerators encourages drivers to speed?
=) Wrapping burgers in paper encourages people to litter?
=) Putting two idiots on the ballot in November encourages voters to make idiotic decisions?
People need to RELAX.
Sugapablo
You think they might come out and say "Well... yeah, they're right."? What *other* response would they have given other than the one they did?
Exactly. I have a dell laptop. I had no choice to get windows installed on it. I had no choice not to pay the fee. I had a choice to install Linux and that's what I did. I'd like to get a refund since I'm not using this software that I'm leasing from microsoft, but that's not going to happen. If I simply had a checkbox available on my next purchase to not install an operating system I'd be a happy camper. However, I believe the agreements the OEMs have with microsoft to get windows at a discounted rate is to require an OS shipped with the PC. I'm sure there is some free DOS sitting out there they could throw on.
In Malaysia (a country where the XP lite crap edition is targeted), most small vendors have a pirated Windows preloaded anyway. Gartner would have us think in 'emerging markets', buying a computer with Linux installed is an excuse to pirate Windows, but the reality is nobody needs an excuse to do so... heck most PC's probably come with a pirated Windows preinstalled :).
Over here in Malaysia, if anyone were to buy a computer with Linux pre-installed, you can bet it's because they were interested in Linux and didn't want to install it themselves (possibly due to inexperience with such things).
I don't know why, but all these "analysis" things all seem to stem from the arrogant assumption that everyone wants to use Windows, and will do anything to get it.
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
Of course, back in 1995 I bougth my Pentium 90MHz 16MB with preinstalled Windows for Workgroups.
I never bought SAP R/3. Am I a thief?
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
Do they have any data to counter the gartner claim? I agree that Gartner's logic is tenuous but they claim to have data to back up their conclusion. As much as I support open source, the open source movement can't afford to be in denial. Waht if the Gartner data really does prove that a lot of people who buy PCs with pre-installed linux wipe out the linux installation and install pirated windows.
It would be possible to state that pre-installing Windows encourages people to pirate application software.
In spades.
Garner is not claiming that people are using Linux to pirate windows. They are ACTUALLY claiming that PCs sold with pre-installed linux are then being reinstalled with pirated versions of windows.
This is still a somewhat unfair claim in my view
Gartner came up with the numbers, the open souce bozos cooked up some theory based on the dude they know, who un-unstalled Windows and installed Linux, and is a 45-year-old virgin, since we mentioned him.
I was at WalMart just the other day, saw two students looking at cheap Linux PCs. The first question? Does your Dad have a copy of 2000 or XP that I can borrow? The answer? Yeah. he has both, but remember, XP requires activation. They were planning on buying the PC, but removing the OS later on. For digital cameras, home movies and publishing church newsletters Linux simply doesn't cut it.
Where's Linux equivalent of Microsoft Publisher? Cool-looking Font CDs you buy at CompUSA for $5? Home design software?
Give me a break, grandma is not going to get all excited about GCC and kernel patching.
A lot of Windows users don't buy their software, apart from the games they play, and even then.
And a lot of people I know, haven't bought their Windows...
I have no stats, but you can be certain Gartner isn't reaching here.
Take away the spin and the bull, think about price of Windows versus annual income versus the price of pirated Windows and you're there.
My experience doesn't go further than Peru and El Salvador, but over there it's certainly true what Gartner says. But who cares...
I think, therefore I am...I think.
pre-installing Linux is the same as shipping the machine with no OS whatsoever.
:P
oh come on! linux isn't THAT bad!
-judging another only defines yourself
If so many people are shitcanning their copies of Linux for Windows it means that the threat of desktop Linux to Windows is still nowhere near as bad as it could be.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
I don't know a person in the world who runs Windows who doesn't have some pirated software on their machine.
I do. I have customers for whom I have certified that all the software on the system is properly licensed. They are not common but they do exist.
The real issue is that you have a difference in cultures which is fundamental. You have a "Windows Culture" in which "piracy" is largely OK in part because tracking licenses is pretty onerous, and because it is just easier to "pirate" software than to purchase it often.
On the other hand, you have the free source culture eschews piracy and appreciates software that gives them the freedom to modify and redistribute it (some software culturally qualifies,such as Qmail, without really meeting the FSF's Free Software Definition in its strictest interpretation).
When a person who likes one culture buys a computer with an OS from the other culture preinstalled, they will react. In some cases, this means that Microsoft gets a license fee for nothing, in other cases it means that Windows gets pirated.
In the balance, however, Windows encourages piracy much more than Linux because it is inherent in the popular culture of Windows users.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler. -- Albert Einstein
Gartner's claim that Linux desktops are used for pirated copies of windows has been dismissed by the Open Source Industry Association (OSIA)
This is the result of the "free market" : MS paid them to have an opinion. In other countries we have clearly understand the USA definition of "free market".
"...Several times, Gartner Group makes the mistake of equating Red Hat with Linux, which marks the company as completely clueless on the topic matter..." They also ranted..."Red Hat will not meet the Linux community's expectations of overturning Microsoft's dominance and becoming a billion-dollar software company..." Who said Linux's goal was to overturn M$' monopoly?
Info like this especially from GARTNER is not worth a read. I walked into a store just yesterday and wanted to buy a [new] mainboard. I wanted to know from the salesman whether the board I eventually bought (an MSI one) was friendly to Linux. I was supprised that he knew what he was talking about. I slapped on an AMD CPU and 256 MB of RAM, then left with a very good feeling that Linux is surely catching on. I am now downloading SuSE Personal as I type this message. I can tell you, that Linux is surely doing well.
Have a good weekend.
Cb..
This raises another point, this report assumes that the current form of Mickey$oft piracy protection does not work(granted most people here could crack it in short order, but not the average id10T). So either everybody is installing pirated 2000 or NT4 version.
I buy them because I want a full install version, not a crappy bulk load.
I've read that it's possible to get Dells with FreeDOS instead of Windows, although that might only be true if you're a company ordering in bulk.
The OSIA's analogy doesn't make sense. Gartner is claiming that people will buy linux/no-os systems because they are cheap and they can install pirated copies of windows anyway. How does that translate to people buying Windows to pirate other applications?
I just saw this posting made the google news front page. Since when did /. count as an official news source. The link leads directly to the comments page. Color me impressed.
Sorry my bullshit sensor overloaded.
Why buy a machine with Linux installed and then install Windows? Beats me totally...
You can get desktops that way (if you look for them), but I don't think that you can get laptops without an operating system from Dell.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
"It would be possible to state that pre-installing Windows encourages people to pirate application software."
O_O *whistles and walks away*
that pre-installing Linux encouraged people to steal copies of Windows So much BS in this, I had to feed it through 3 times.
i rstborn happy licensing program, they may try to aquire windows for free.
:-)
Iteration 1:
By not forcing people to pay for windows are OEM level, we are opening up a chance that they will aquire a copy without paying for it
Iteration 2:
We have been able to ensure people keep buying windows by changing the requrements so much, people upgrade [usually through a new system] and we catch them through OEM upgrades [aside: haha they don't even pay for an upgrade license!]. If people were able to sidestep our monopolistic OEM don't-sell-PC's-without-windows-or-we-kill-your-f
Iteration 3:
If people buy linux desktops, they might not even bother to pirate our software, and stick with linux, we are worried that by not forcing new computer owners to use windows, they may chose a different operating system. We are trying to use piracy as a lever, because our bestest friends at the RIAA made it sound so cool.
Piracy has nothing to do with iut, they are trying to legitimize the illegal manner in which they force people buying new systems [through mainstream vendors] to buy windows. They are loosing power on this, and realise that when companies see higher margins, they will sell PC's with an OS, the user will buy it, use it, and the worst thing, is never even know what windows is, or maybe was
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Together. Cooperatively. Freely. Empowered.
(Start with a bootable Linux Live DVD, ask Dipl. Ing. Klaus Knopper. It works. Very well. Never seen anything like it.)
Well using the same arguments used in "copyright infringement" of movies, music, and books. It doesn't hurt the companies, in fact it's good for them. They still have the originals. Plus all we're doing is just "trying it out" before making a potential purchasing. Also there's no Usenet binary groups were copyrighted (No OSS License there) Linux software is available.
A laptop user.
Yes you can, we do that at work.
:).
You can get PC's, Workstations and Servers without an OS preloaded or FreeDOS (on a bootable CD) but don't know about laptops though since we primarily don't use Dell laptops anymore and all our laptops are Windows based anyway (except for mine
Not sure if you need company account or not, but it's highly likely.
I, as will any responsible citizen who respects copyrights, intend to contact Orin Hatch and ask him to immediately add a rider to the INDUCE Act outlawing Microsoft Windows.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
"=) Installing cars with accelerators encourages drivers to speed?
=) Wrapping burgers in paper encourages people to litter?
=) Putting two idiots on the ballot in November encourages voters to make idiotic decisions?"
Giving people cellphones encourages rude behaviour, and bad driving. Same with SUVs.
Guns sold in gun stores are sometimes used in robberies. Cars purchased at dealerships sometimes are used to speed. Alcohol purchased at liquor stores sometimes gets used by people who then drive.
Almost anything can be misused or used for criminal purposes. In most cases the shopkeeper does not know how the produce he is selling will be used.
I submit that a computer sold with Linux installed is safer and results in less harm than the average gun, the average car, or the average bottle of booze. Unless (of course) you are Microsoft. In that case, you hire a large, influential consulting group to show how dangerous computers with Linux pre-installed is.
To me, this report is a little like BP issuing a report saying that hybrid electric cars are bad for the environment. Or like a cigarette company publishing a report that says smoking is good for you becase it calms your nerves.
They say that
1)the number small percentage of linux shipped system result in
2)a smaller percentage of installed base,
3)so somebody must buy linux box to run windows.
I think they obtained from somewhere the two first facts, and deduced the third.
Let's use some numbers:
It is a small island. The year start.
There is an installed base of 900.
A linux company deliver 10 boxes.
At the same time, a Windows company deliver 90 boxes.
So a 10 % shipping rate (10/(10+90))result in an installed base of 1%(10/(900+(10+90))). For sure, those linux users are pirate.
The only reasonable conclusion is that manipulating percentage in public is just that : manipulation.
It is easy* to get a refund** for preinstaled Microsoft(tm) products.
* Including but not limited to: giving out personal information, agreeing to a BSA raid, hopping on one leg
** In the form of a voucher for Microsoft(tm) products
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Ahh, basic business tactics 101. If Microsoft can continue with their illegal monopolistic practice of forcing vendors to pre-install Windows on every CPU they sell, under the theory that "they're all being used to run Windows anyway", it helps their bottom line and helps them keep it pre-installed on all boxes so people won't bother to throw away the Windows and install Linux. They've already paid for the Windows anyway, and since most vendors won't sell the hardware without some OS and only provide Windows, customers don't see the Windows cost.
Vendors *do* want to have some base OS installed on the hardware for testing and support reasons: giving the customer something they then have to install on takes away the vendor ability to say "it worked when it left the factory" or "what does this test say? Oh, your CD drive is dead, let's just replace that."
Your points about the Microsoft tax are well-taken. In addition, keep a very close on Microsoft's "Palladium" initiative which is designed to require Microsoft-designed authentication keys to run key components, such as, say, your CD-R drive and DVD player and have your *CPU* and *BIOS* designed to prevent you from using features such as a read/write drive or even a bootloader unless it is signed by the authentication key signatories.
Re-read that carefully, and look it up on the web. They want control over your CD-RW/DVD-RW drives and your boot loaders, under the guise of "controlling piracy". This would allow them to block the use of non-Microsoft boot loaders or boot CD's, preventing the use of any operating system but Microsoft.
We're not paranoid: they *ARE* out to get us.
Yes this is about them here at the Dell website
Pre-installing linux on a machine give them a reason not to steal windows. Because the machine is already working and has applications that can do the job.
It is the closed mentality practices which cause them to want to steal. Web sites that work ONLY with IE or documents that can ONLY be read with Office are causing them to install Windows illegally. This is the problem that needs to be fixed.
You had the choice not to buy Dell.
We should have been
So much more by now
Too dead inside
To even know the guilt
"Key Analyst: Someone we've paid a lot of money to agree with everything we say".
The INQUIRER guide to marketing English
Well back in 2002, the laptops weren't as popular as they are now. I felt I was stuck with either a piece of crap HP, Compaq, or Gateway if I didn't chose Dell. They made the fastest laptop with a Pentium 4M chip I could find. It's a great machine and I hope it will last me a few more years. Desktops have become much much more of a comodity than laptops. You still have a handful of good companies for laptops while you have hundreds of comparable choices for desktops.
...in this comment earlier this week, Gartner's claims are ridiculous. Today's article is even closer to what I was saying before. Just like with my car analogy in the above linked comment, if you want to, you CAN buy a car without a car stereo and Bose has no right to force you to buy one with their stereo preinstalled. Nor does Kenwood or Mitsubishi. The fact that Microsoft seems to want all PCs shipped with Windows as the default OS is fairly criminal if you ask me. It should be an option among many OS offerings. The same goes for applications. A customer should be able to tell your PC vendor I want , with the following applications. The applications should extend beyond just web, mail and office functions. It should include CAD, Semi-pro and Pro level audio and video software, Scientific applications, etc... The fact of the matter is that 75-80% of the sutomers are still going to choose Microsoft products because it's all they know or barely understand. But, more intelligent users will have more options and by extension, people who would have previously chosen MS might choose an alternative. How's that for a way to break up the MS monopoly?
Un-news
windows 3.11 on 486 DX 33 4Mo RAM, upgraded to linux slackware 1 with TWM on four floppy disks (in 1993 I think)
windows 95 on P133 32 Mo RAM, upgraded to redhat 4 (in 1995 I think)
Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
Is that like it being alright to steal towels from a hotel room since the your room rate is marked up to cover towel theft anyways?
i dont think msft wants that problem fixed, they rather see usrs be forced and locked in to windoze only solutions even if it is pirated than see the loss of users because of open solutions such as Linux & OpenOffice
Did you try calling them and telling them you didn't accept the license agreement?
Although I know now adays Dell has some sort of bullshit license agreement built right into the BIOS and is displayed at first poweron.
he wouldnt be taking anything just making a copy of some software he had to pay for
Well when I bought the laptop, I preferred to use windows xp. Now, over two years later, I'm using linux. That's why I was referring to my next purchase.
But you bought the laptop knowing that it came with windows. It was part of your decision when you bought your Dell. You could have gone with a laptop with linux pre-installed but YOU made the DECISION to buy a Dell.
I'm not saying that was wrong but I really don't have any sympathy for those that knowingly buy a product with something extra and hope to get a refund. Its like me going into the GAP and saying "well.... I'm really not going to use this 6th pocket... how bout I cut it off, give it back to you, and you knock $5 off the price?", I'll try it someday but I don't think its going to fly...
You can't eat your cake and have it too!!
Walmart's got laptops that cost about $600 in my part of the world. As I've said, the only reason I wouldn't buy one is it comes with Windows Home, pre-installed. Since it only comes with 128meg, I'd automatically order a 512meg SO-DIMM off the web, and slap that in there. I'd rather they keep the $80 Windows non-transferrable Home license, put me a cheap 512meg module in there, and sell it with a Fedora Core 2 dvd, for $650. They'd make more money off me, but it would still be an outstanding buy. It's a good little laptop, but it doesn't come with any PCMCIA slots. It's got an internal Winmodem and RJ-45 adapter, WiFi 802.11b, a 14.1" LCD, and a DVD reader. You'd need a USB dongle or an external cd writer, for backup, both of which I already have.
A cheap, very useful, compact university laptop.
What kind of Linux user would buy a computer with Windows preinstalled when he could just build his own and not pay the MS tax?
The corporate kind! I have several machines at work that originally shipped with Windows (workstations) or were listed as Windows servers. But they now run Linux.
The older Compaq servers make great Debian servers. Their latest desktops run Knoppix beautifully.
The only problem I've had has been with the DL320 servers. They took too long getting the drivers released for Linux.
Dear Microsoft -- sorry, the world will no longer use Windows. Your X-Box belongs to us as well. Before Walmart I was happy to buy somebody a X-Box, install Linux, and sell them a nice home email, web, and file server setup ... at your expense primarily. Thank you. Now go away as a company. Good Bye.
Chances are it is not only Windows you are paying for, I purchased a Dell laptop, and was forced to tape MS Works, even though I did not want it (they have no option to not install it, only install it, or upgrade to Office)
I am however running XP on the laptop as Linux drivers for the hardware (truemobile wireless, lan and Bluetooth) does not exist, and the only (cough) alternate is to try to NDIS wrapper the drivers in Linux.
Yup, I can see that happening. Maybe even as much as Gartner says. Maybe more, maybe less.
.....
But that still doesn't justify their spin on their story. It isn't Linux, it is those filthy, thieving Microsoft junkies.
Why didn't Gartner frame the discussion as
"Gartner says: Linux users 75% LESS likely to pirate software than Windows users"
In a recent Gartner study, it was found that 100% of Linux users had paid for the OS that was installed on their PC's. Windows users frequently purchased Linux-based PC's and then installed pirated versions of Windows.
"OK, colour me not too bright, but I cannot see why pre-installed Linux is being targeted here by Gartner - their claim doesn't seems to be, pre-installing Linux is the same as shipping the machine with no OS whatsoever."
It's very simple: Gartner comments on industry trends. Wal-Mart and other major retailers are selling a relatively huge number of PCs equipped with Linux. That's the trend, and that's what Gartner is commenting on. If Wal-Mart were selling non-bootable PCs with no OS whatsoever, then Gartner might have written a report focusing on that.
I think the Linux community is taking this way too personally. There is a difference between cause and effect and blame. Of course people are buying those Wal-Mart Lindows PCs so they can avoid the Microsoft tax and load up a copy of Windows from a friend -- although it's naturally not stated overtly, that's the whole point. But this is not something that Linus Torvalds or anybody running Linux should take personally. If people choose to see this as an issue of "blame," then blame Wal-Mart and the other retailers who recognize a marketing opportunity when they see it, or blame those who'd use this Gartner report to promote an agenda.
"Oh - and then, shock horror, the opensource community comes back with: "We don't steal from you" (probably true on the whole) "and those who buy Linux desktops don't steal from you either" (probably, at least, significantly false)."
Agreed 100%. The OS community's umgrage is misdirected. And so what if Wal-Mart is selling a buttload of Linux-loaded PCs to customers who are loading Windows? Big deal, no more of a big deal than all those copyrighted MP3 files sitting on Slashdotters' PCs across the land. Not much difference in my book between the Wal-Mart customer who wants to save $50 by using his brothers' copy of XP vs. the Slashdotter who's sourcing music via P2P as a "social protest" to "make a statement about overpriced music."
"Oh - for the purposes of this comment it has been assumed that the independant research company Gartner is independently researching for the independent entity of Microsoft."
Precisely. Analyst firms will occasionally be commissioned by third parties to do reports and studies, but they remain independent.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
It does not make sense.
It cost more to put paid or pirated Windows on a PC pre-installed with Linux. First you already paid for Linux to be pre-installed and you are going to wipe out Linux. The cost of paid Windows XP installed on a PC pre-installed with Linux is more than on the same PC pre-installed with Windows. You can do the comparison on walmart's prices: they have exact PCs with Linux and Windows pre-installed and now add in the cost of paid Windows XP.
With a pre-installed PC with Linux, you have to know exactly what hardware you have on your PC. It is harder to install any OS an a PC factory installed with an OS than a generic white box.
I had Windows installs that miss out on configuring hardware. Then you have to find a driver. At least with a White Box PC with no operating system, they give you a checklist of the hardware on your receipt.
The enormous purchasing power of retail chains like Wal-Mart and direct sellers like Dell, makes talk of the "Microsoft Tax" sound utterly ridiculous to the mass consumer market.
The modem and sound card didn't work out of the box and were one of the more difficult to get working with Linux, even for a Linux veteran like me. The resolution on the video card was also very low and difficult to fix. I ended up completely installing a new distribution.
The PC came with a disk of windows drivers for its non-standard modem, sound card, and video card. You can't honestly say that vendor expected anyone to keep that Linux distro on their machine.
This space intentionally left blank.
It is currently about 100 times easier to buy a "no OS" machine than a "Linux" machine. Go try it if you doubt me. Also you get more bang for the buck with no-OS because there is no limits on the hardware for Linux compatability and nobody has to install the system (I paid extra for network cards and Nvidia graphics boards and other stuff, so my Linux machine was more expensive).
Anybody who buys the Linux machine with the intention of installing pirated Windows is a loon, when there is a much better deal available in a no-os machine. But telling the truth would mess up Microsofts carefully plannned FUD attack against Linux. Microsoft, you are truly the lowest of the low in this piece of carefully designed bullshit.
I've paid for 2 copies of Windows I have never used, Microsoft, because I could not get a machine without it. I'd like my damn money back before you start these crocodile tears. (my newer machines are no-OS, however).
chances are he bought the laptop from Dell because it was cheaper than the Linux equivalent even after paying the Microsoft "tax." expect no sympathy here
I just ordered a herd of Dell's. I could have ordered them with the following options: Windows 2003 Server, Redhat 9, no OS. Well guess what I did? The machines destined to run Windows were ordered with Windows. I considered ordering those machines without the OS, not because I was going to pirate it, but because I could buy Windows from CDW for $100 cheaper than Dell. I ultimately decided that $100 was a fair price to save the install time. On the Linux machines, I ordered those "No OS" because we use Debian, not Redhat, and Dell was charging $199 for Redhat!!!
I think this is a case of follow the money. What value is there in a report that says people buy linux systems to install pirated windows? The only value is in making it easier to get more locked down hardware, and a bigger MS tax imposed. I believe, based on other things that have been published and reported in the past 2 years, that with Paladium coming out in a few years that MS is wanting to lock down the hardware to prevent competing OSs from being able to use it (or anything that might have been useable on it).
Remember, MS is loosing market share to linux. The market is not growing as fast as it used to. MS is a company who's value is based on growth of sales base, not divedends. MS needs more ways of making money (which essentially includes not making less money).
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
For the markup? No. Were there a government mandated "towel theft levy" on hotel bills I'd say yes.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
The evil pirates (otherwise known as users or consumers) buy Linux in order to steal SCO's Intellectual Property and having acomplished that they then move on to pirating Windows and installing that!
I'm surprised OSIA even dignified Gartner with a response.
I wonder how many Windows machines are destined to have Linux installed on them. When a new Windows OS comes out and everyone is goaded to upgrade, some just can't afford the new OS, while the old one keeps breaking no matter what is done. (This happened to me with my Win98 box I got from Gateway in 1999 or 2000. Even now, a fresh Win98 install gets goofy in no time flat.) Solution? Put Linux on it. It won't arbitrarily freak out, and keeps the computer usable. This will vastly extend the lifespan of the hardware. I could go another 3 or 4 years with this aging Pentium3 if I stay with Fedora. The only thing driving me to upgrade is UT2k4 and Doom3.
The one major difference I have noticed between Windows and Linux OSes is this: A Windows install deteriorates over time, while a Linux OS keeps getting nicer.
Quote from http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18785: Gartner said that in 2005 over 11 per cent of PCs shipped in emerging markets will have Linux distributions installed. But, claims Gartner, three quarters of them are likely to end up running Windows and very often pirated versions.
While I can't say much about all of those emerging markets, I'm gonna describe you a situation in Lithuania, where I'm stuck.
Windows is hands down the most popular OS here. While businesses have learned to pay for Windows the hard way, home users are yet to be raided by IP cops... consequently more than 90% of home users are using pirated Windows.
Right now, goverment of Lithuania is running a nice campaign to "foster development of information society". The deal is simple - when you buy a new PC, you can get a significant government-sponsored refund. One of the many requirements to be eligible for that refund is that the new PC should have an OS preinstalled.
You can guess what happens next: 1. You buy a new PC with Linux preinstalled. 2. Erase Linux. 3. Install pirated Windows.
I would not be surprised if as much as 80-95% of all the Linux sold here in Lithuania gets replaced with pirated Windows.
Did anyone RTFA?
... if Windows cost $100 and Linux $200, then no one in these countries would buy a Linux machine either, they'd buy a Windows one and install a pirated version of Linux over it.
... very nice, even has a photo of Bill with "Bill Gates Edition" underneath in an elegant script font. Needless to say I won't be letting it (or any other version of Windows) near my hard drive, but funny nonetheless.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18785
The Gartner paper isn't making some kind of moral or logical argument, it's based on empirical research. Of X number of Linux machines sold in the developing world, Y wind up having Windows installed on them.
OSIA is making an ethical/logical argument: That it is slander to equate Linus with piracy of Windows. And that just because you install software A but not software B, it doesn't necessarily follow that you are encouraging piracy of software B.
Gartner is dealing in FACTS, while OSIA is dealing in opinions (spin/damage control for the open source industry). You may or may not agree with OSIA's point of view, but it doesn't change the facts (assuming Gartner's data is accurately measured).
Keep in mind when you talk about buying whitebox machines from walmart.com that the Gartner data is about desktop PCs sold in the *developing world*, not in Europe or the good ol' USA. A place where PCs aren't normally bought from Dell or Best Buy or other retailers that conform to U.S. law. A place where there is little enforcement of copyright laws, where standard practice is to pick up copies of Windows and Office for 50 cents from your neighborhood convenience store and install it on all 5 or 50 or 500 machines at the office and NEVER have to even worry about the FBI or anyone else doing anything about it, because it's all perfectly legal or not enforced.
In an environment like that, *no one* is going to pay for Windows (which is *really expensive,* relatively speaking, in these countries) when they can get it for free and use it with impunity. Chances are, the whitebox vendor they buy there PCs from will install the pirated Windows for them. But if not, they'll buy a PC with nothing on it, or something free on it, and install Windows themselves.
It's nothing to do with Linux. These people want Windows machines from the get-go (never considered running Linux at all) and just go the cheapest route to getting them. In most cases, it just so happens that the "cheap" option is Linux
P.S. A friend showed me a nice copy of "Windows 2004 Bill Gates Edition" he picked up someplace"
``It would be possible to state that pre-installing Windows encourages people to pirate application software.''
Well, isn't that exactly the case? I personally see very few Windows computers that have only legally obtained software on them, no matter if they were sold with Windows installed.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
If Windows didn't connect to my network that's okay as long as I could output to some kind of storage media or shared drive. Printing would be nice but similarly not necessary. And not connecting to the Internet would be a bonus.
I could live with the three app limitation as long as it didn't count background applications.
I think a killer combination would be a factory installed Linux distro with a dual boot option to XP Lite. Users get an OS that works and is safer to use on the internet and can still play their Windows only games and utilize the handfull of Windows only apps worth using. That way MSFT would still get a bite of the factory installed OS even where they were losing to Linux, which is just about everywhere these days.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
These are all good points, but I don't think the end result will be nearly this frightening. Palladium is dead in the water. Nobody supports it except Microsoft and the music and movie industries. Sure, they all have powerful lobby groups, but there would be so many people against this that they could overpower those efforts. No corporation wants to be complete slaves to Microsoft, even if they usually have a habit of purchasing MS products. They still want to at least have some choice in the matter. IBM is a giant corporation that would oppose this idea, so they could certainly make a difference. PC manufacturers don't want to be completely beholden to Microsoft either, so they will demand the ability to sell a non-MS PC, whether they actually do this or not.
I read the headline quickly and said "What does the Order of the Sons of Italy in America know about linux piracy?!" I mean, my paisanos are good, but are they THAT good?
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
For once, no one's whining this is unfair...they're just pointing out that it's a bit absurd for MS to start whining about the opposite. Sure, people who didn't get a machine with Windows sometimes illegally use Windows, but plenty of people who legally got a machine with Windows don't use Windows. (This is why MS doesn't want you to resell Windows, and claims you are prohibited by law from transfering an OEM copy to anyone else.)
In fact, nearly all machines that currently run Linux and are older than a few years almost certainly have some random MS OS license that just basically got thrown away, whether XP or 2000 or 9x or even DOS and Win 3.1. Thanks to 'anti-piracy' measures, they're nearly impossible to sell.
I know, because I have a copy of Microsoft Office XP Professional that I was given, for free, by MS, at a developer convention, and wish to sell. I have another copy I was randomly mailed out of the blue because I apparently picked up a demo of something and a demo of Office and the demo of Office didn't work with the demo of the other thing, so they mailed me a real copy without asking me, in addition to the other copy I 'purchased' for free. (This second copy has 'not for resale' on it, which they can't actually do...you can't impose terms on goods randomly mailed to people. I didn't in any way order that second CD. And I never installed that copy, so I've never agreed to the EULA, or even seen it.)
It's a perfectly normal, legal thing for me to do, to sell these two copies, but MS has manipulated eBay into refusing to let me list them. They do the same thing with OS copies.
(Before anyone complains about me selling things I got for 'free', I have to point out that I spent a day of my time, at one of their stupid launch parties, to get those things.)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
The workstation this is being written on was bought with RedHat preinstalled at a lower price than if it had Winders on it and is still running RedHat. Price was not a factor in buying it this way. I would have paid more to have RedHat if I needed to. Why did I buy it that way??? I wanted it that way and it will remain to be a Linux box.
I'm fixing to buy a new laptop and HP is at the top of the list. Why? Linux pre-installed! I am not paying for software that I am not going to use. For the record I don't steal software either I am happy to PAY someone for their labor in producing software, and yes this workstation I am on has Linux apps that I PAID gladly for. Its not so much about free software. For me it is about what works and what is secure.
Anyone want to buy some Windows software? We ain't using it anymore.
If your grandmother is interested in device driver development, she'll find that it's easier to do that in Linux than in MS-Windows. Does she do a lot of VxD development in MS-Windows? I ask because that would be the only explanation why she should worry about GCC and kernel patching in Linux.
IBM isn't the big buyer. Intel, by manufacturing the chips to support the technology, is, and Microsoft has been collaborating with them to integrate the capability into the motherboard/CPU.
.NET project, is still apparently up to his armpits in it, and they've learned not to make announcements or discuss plans for it in front of people who know enough to see the potential abuse by a central authority controlling MBR and hardware activation.
As near as I can tell, this project is far from dead, it's just been renamed a few times. Brian LaMacchia, formerly of the
What company sold him this piece of unfortunate bodily fluid? Take a look at www.pcsforeveryone.com and even if you don't care to buy from them, select your components based on the Linux compatibility reviews there. I find them to be a gold mine for Linux hardware reviews.
1. You never agreed to the EULA. Whether or not the EULA is even legal (or enforceable) is another matter.
2. You signed no form of pruchase (license)agreement with the seller (or I am assuming that you did not).
3. When you obtain a product from a seller that you have paid for, the expectation of ownership is very real.
4. Under copyright law the right for first sale should apply here regardless of what is written in the EULA which you never agreed to.
Simple solution.
Make a copy of the microsoft sticker on you machine. Remove the sticker to the best of you ability. Type a letter that states the purchase conditions and sign the letter. Sell the three items for whatever you can get for them thus reducing the cost of your machine.
You clearly never agreed to or signed the EULA, copyright law clearly restricts the copyholders rights here to the right-of-first-sale.
Tom
Please, enough. Machines bought with MS then converted to Linux are measured in the thousands to tens of thousands. Machines bought with Linux and converted to MS with pirated software are in the millions in developing countries.
The amount of 'stealing' MS does from the open source community is insignificant. The number of people willing to 'steal' from MS is significant.
I put steal in quotes because, at least from MS's point of view, it really isn't stealing. It boosts MS's market share, therefore increases the number of OEM's and folks willing to write software for Windows. So kind of a win-win thing...
I had no choice to get windows installed on it. I had no choice not to pay the fee.
You didn't have to buy a Dell. Dell gets significant discounts (much less than the typical $25-$30 per box that is usually quoted) for putting Windows on each box. This is a very common and legitimate business practice - it's called a volume discount. You could have easily bought a Mac but then you'd be "forced" to paying the "OS X fee". It's not your right to choose how a hardware company bundles its software, but if it's so important to you, you can always buy a generic laptop or "barbones" laptop with no OS.
No matter how you look at it, I'm not sure how you were forced, or why you deserve a refund. Next time don't buy a Windows machine if you don't want Windows, and don't buy an Apple machine if you don't want OS X.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Yea, and to boot...
I have a few machines from dell, ibm, and compaq that were, when sold, pro-loaded with Windows.
None of the machines run Windows.
I have two home-built machines that run Linux.
People that use this as a way around the MS tax are bad, sure...but I bet there's people like me, that own machines that have been sold inclusive of the tax, but no longer for MS software (for so many damn fine reasons).
How would anybody pirate Linux? It's free!
i wonder how many of these windows "lite" versions that are sold to asia & russia, are destined for pirated software?
.. )
why on earth would you buy a machine with linux if you are going to install pirated windows over it ? why don't you just buy a machine with no os?
>It would be interesting to know where these numbers
>come from (on both sides of this argument), and, how
>they can possibly be verified.
The numbers are just statistics. all the machines that are sold can potentially be used with pirated software, it simply makes no difference whether you put linux on it or not. If 90% of linux machines are used with pirated windows, it can propably be shown that 90% of all machines ever sold are used with pirated software, be it a newer version of windows or pirated office etc.
but i wouldn't worry about this study: this is really just a little something to give to the shareholders when the expected next years' financial results come out. (yeah, we lost some marketshare and income this year but we are still a monopoly don't worry about a thing
Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
"This is the result of the "free market" : MS paid them to have an opinion. In other countries we have clearly understand the USA definition of "free market"."
You're correct that it's the result of the free market. It's the free market which has caused the explosion of Linux pre-loads, and lots of people are buying those Wal-Mart PCs because they'd rather save the money and just load Windows themselves using a friends' copy. No big deal; it's economics at work. But if things had gone a little differently and, say, AmigaOS were today a free, open source Windows alternative, then the Gartner Group might have written a report about that. Either way, the Gartner Group analyzes the market.
I lost you on the "MS paid them to have an opinion" part, though. I was not aware that Microsoft commissioned this report. Do you have a citation for that? The Gartner Group are well respected as call-em-as-they-sees-em analysts and have slammed Microsoft on several occasions. And, when Gartner (or another analyst firm) releases a report that can be spun by a third party, they'll spin away.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
I've only read the reports about the Gartner survey (but,then, so have you). I don't read in those reports any attempt by Garnter to document a cause-and-effect relationship between using Linux and pirating Windows.
What I do read is something rather obvious: If you live in a country where piracy is endemic, and if the cost of adding a legitimate version of Windows to a PC is enough to keep you from buying that PC, then it makes a great deal of economic sense to buy a Linux PC and replace Linux with pirated copy of Windows,
What's so difficult about that? People want to run Windows, but can't afford PC with legal Windows. They want to see the PC work before they buy, so vendors install a no-cost OS that just happens to be Linux. Buyers stop off on the way home and buy a $3 pirated Windows CD. Everyone is happy.
The reaction this story has received is indicative of the paranoia and lack of reason that exists in parts of Linuxland.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
> Why would anyone make efforts to invite into
> their hard disk an operating system that is so > full of security vulnerabilities, crashes a
> lot, and generally is slower and less easy to > use?
With 95% of the world using Windows, you still trying to figure this out?
Yes, you are genius and the world bows to your greatness for embracing Linux but 5minutes at a help desk would explain it ti you very well.
I am replying to your comment from a Wal-Mart PC running Linux..
the issue here is that the powers that be (ms/dell etc) basically want it so you HAVE to buy hardware/software from them. They're trying their damnedest to make homebrew hardware illegal, or at the very least, grey market. As it is, there's no real choice for the avg consumer because most of them cannot assemble their own machines.
The EULA states something like
If you do not agree to the terms in this EULA, then the reseller, at their discression may offer a refund or replacement.
So either the EULA is binding and the refund or replacement (whose replacement will have the same EULA) is a necessity or the EULA is not binding.
You misunderstood...shipping a PC with MS windows is MUCH WORSE than shipping a PC with no OS...;-)
;-)) that MS windows attracts as soon as it is connected to the net...:-)
A PC with no os means you can install linux on it immediately, with having that gawd awful Windows junk showing up the first time you turn on the machine...all those polluted bytes of MS code on a hard drive can't be healthy for a PC...;-)
Well, I guess we already know that, considering all the STDs (System Transmitted Diseases
With a wealth of seemingly redundant stories on Linux's total cost of ownership (such as Linux on the Desktop: The Whole Story) you can learn to separate the cost of all other Microsoft software from the cost of the Microsoft operating system alone and other tricks that make Windows XP appear cheaper. This and other gems of wisdom await you. Although their motivations are different than mine, I agree with their point that you can save money by buying Star Office without change OSes. (I would have said Open Office and used the word free many times)
Don't be confused if you see they recommend Linux sometimes. They recommend Linux if you have little or no applications or for low-function workstations, such as data entry, call center or bank teller/platform automation. In other words, if you need a dumb terminal, then you might save money by using Linux - but watch out for those hidden costs! (FUD, FUD)
This is not a case of stupidity, they know damn well what type of analysis will keep them funded. My favorite article is a story called "There Is No ROI in Spite" [$95 per copy]. That they even consider this story necessary warms my heart. Other the other hand it may indicate that people need to get really pissed off before they'll switch.
I hope the seemly illegal barriers that protect MS from competition will continue to erode. Once companies are not artificially locked-in to Windows then I would expect every company will have to include in their business plan how they will use open source software to reduce operating costs. (kind of like how they have to say today that they are planning to outsource labor)
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
If there's something I've learned during these intese days of political "debate" in U.S. is that each side has its pundits, some more some less, some times more successfull at persuading the voter sometime not so much.
I guess it could be applied by analogy to the Windows vs Rest of the OSes and their respective pundits, Gartner being one currently more noticed then others.
I'm not really worried about which side has the better pundits, as on the long term there will be people using Windows and using Linux or whatnot as pundits don't have any significant influence on pratical decision : some will find Win to be better for them, some will find Linux to be better and to the hell with the hot air generators.
What worries me is the attitude of those who, more or less secretely, would like to reduce user alternatives ; for instance by forbidding them to tinker with the software or with the hardware and make themselves the solution they really like or need. For Microsoft that's a paradox, ex-garage innovators trying to kill garage innovators..as they probably know (as IBM learned well) garage innovators are potentially very very dangerous to well established market dominators who (by design of capitalistic markets) have little interest in innovation, unless it's under their very strict control.
Consider that without IBM-AT compatible clone makers and (what seems to be a paradox) without Microsoft we probably would still be under strict IBM control ; arguably, both exploited technologies not really developed by them to expand or create new markets (for instance Personal Computer)..but damn according to at least one of them, nobody else should be bright enough to follow on their footsteps.
Machines are already shipping with the Trust chips, a vital component of it.
When there is bad news about the Free Software community, and it's true, we should admit it, rather than resort to knee-jerk denials. This time it's true.
When I worked at HP in 2000, this strategy was already in use. We sold, way back in 2000, a Linux desktop in China. We'd reduced the price of everything else in the system to meet the China price point, and then we reduced the operating system price too. But HP never publicized that it was selling a Linux workstation way back then. I never heard an official statement to this effect, but of course the lack of publicity was because they suspected that a bootleg copy of Windows would be installed on most of those systems.
You and I make Linux for people who really use it. But we need to admit to ourselves that there are people out there who use our work to pass off a system as having an operating system installed when they know full well that the computer is going to get a bootleg copy of Windows.
It's better to admit this, deplore the people who do it, and go on with our lives than it is to simply deny that it happens. Sure, a system with no OS can have any OS put on it, as can one that is assembled from parts. But sometimes Linux is the fig leaf applied by people who would facilitate Windows bootlegging.
Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens.
The point is is that a machine bought with Linux costs less because linux is free as in beer in most cases. Then the OS is wiped out and a pirate copy Windows installed. The point is that Linux desktop numbers are inflated because many so-called Linux boxes sold are now running pirated copies of Windows. There's no implication that Linux encourages piracy by Gartner.
lots of people are buying those Wal-Mart PCs because they'd rather save the money and just load Windows themselves using a friends' copy
First, the study was based on anecdotal evidence from Asia. From that, Gartner is extrapolating a very dubious conclusion. Second, how many people have a "copy" of Windows to lend, since computers don't come with Windows CDs anymore?
Either way, the Gartner Group analyzes the market.
Gartner doesn't do anything out of the goodness of their hearts. They are paid to do these so-called studies, and they won't remain in business very long if their conclusions aren't similar to their customer's expectations.
The Gartner Group are well respected as call-em-as-they-sees-em analysts and have slammed Microsoft on several occasions.
And they have recommended MS on several hundred other occassions. Sort of like they how they were recommending everyone use IIS until the security problems became so bad they had to withdraw the recommendation. They are hardly well-respected by anyone who knows how they work. This is the same outfit that has bilked companies out of millions for determining their Cost of IT, a totally worthless and meaningless magic number distilled from total WAGs and secret methods.
It's very simple: Gartner comments on industry trends. Wal-Mart and other major retailers are selling a relatively huge number of PCs equipped with Linux. That's the trend, and that's what Gartner is commenting on.
No, what Gartner did is take observations in Asia, where bootleg Windows CDs are available in computer stores, and try to apply that to world-wide Linux sales/usage.
But this is not something that Linus Torvalds or anybody running Linux should take personally. If people choose to see this as an issue of "blame," then blame Wal-Mart and the other retailers who recognize a marketing opportunity when they see it, or blame those who'd use this Gartner report to promote an agenda.
You've completely missed the point of the so-called study. The conclusion goes something like this: "Since people in Asia are installing bootlegged Windows on Linux PCs, the number of people world-wide using Linux is much smaller than the number of PCs sold with Linux, and that trend will remain so in the future." This ignores the people who don't bootleg Windows, those who buy a Windows PC and wipe it, and those who build their own systems. The study is just plain dodgy.
Precisely. Analyst firms will occasionally be commissioned by third parties to do reports and studies, but they remain independent.
Of course they do.
Step this way sir, if you would be so kind as to just jump through this hoop ...
We also did this at work, however it's not an option on Dell's website, it's something you have to ask *them* for.
While its true you can go get one of those cheap boxes from your local grocery store and install whatever OS you want. But keep in mind they are CHEAPO...
Unfortunately if you want a GOOD piece of hardware, you end up having to pay the MS tax in the process..
Or you can look for a dealer of used equipment from businesses that 'upgrade'.. as they normally don't have an OS, or that Microsoft 'tax'..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
How many terrestrials do you need before you have extras?
"First, the study was based on anecdotal evidence from Asia. From that, Gartner is extrapolating a very dubious conclusion. Second, how many people have a "copy" of Windows to lend, since computers don't come with Windows CDs anymore?"
Piracy's huge in Asia, with retailers often loading up customers' PCs with pirated software. Judging from the amount of spam I get offering me "OEM" copies of XP, pirated versions of Windows are readily available. Not sure if your last question was rhetorical, but I know tons of people who've installed XP off of a CD-R using somebody else's serial number. It might very well be that you haven't yet personally run into this or gotten that spam (and lucky you if that's the case), but it happens.
"Gartner doesn't do anything out of the goodness of their hearts. They are paid to do these so-called studies, and they won't remain in business very long if their conclusions aren't similar to their customer's expectations."
Interesting, you're the second person who's stated that this study was commissioned. Do you know who commissioned it, and do you have a citation? I'm aware, of course, that analysts will do both the write-then-sell approach as well as doing specific research projects on behalf of customers, but I wasn't aware that this one was one of the latter.
At any rate, in my line of work, reports, forecasts, analysis and the like from analyst firms are valued because they contain reliable information, and not because they tell me what I want to hear. Are things different in your business?
"They are hardly well-respected by anyone who knows how they work."
That's a very broad statement. The article you linked was interesting, but I think that it's a given that whenever a well-known entity passes judgement about { Microsoft | Linux | Apple | Playstation 2 | XBox } there's bound to be a contingent who'll rebut it. Do you have any other citations?
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
"You've completely missed the point of the so-called study. The conclusion goes something like this: "Since people in Asia are installing bootlegged Windows on Linux PCs, the number of people world-wide using Linux is much smaller than the number of PCs sold with Linux, and that trend will remain so in the future." This ignores the people who don't bootleg Windows, those who buy a Windows PC and wipe it, and those who build their own systems. The study is just plain dodgy."
Interesting! Naturally, I haven't spent the 5,000 clams or whatever they're asking for the full study, but from reading third-party accounts of it, all I can see that they're claiming is that 75% of PC's sold preloaded with Linux will end up running Windows. From what I've seen, this tidbit's effect on overall Linux desktop usage (taking into account the other methods of acquisition that you've mentioned) is beyond the scope of the Gartner report. I'd love to find a link that has more details on their conclusion -- perhaps there is a point that I've missed. Can you provide a link?
Thanks in advance.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
You guys just don't understand what it's like for an IT business analyst. There's all this stuff going on that you have to make sense of so you can sell what you've learnt. And there's all these other people trying to beat you to it so they get the money from the IT media and companies. If you don't say something different, noone will listen. And look at all the work Forrester got from M$ and SCO lately. It's not fair. Just because you said it looked like M$ wasn't going to make more billions this month than last month.
:)
And then a bright spark comes up with the great idea: claim that no-OS OR linux OS PC's are really just for pirating Windows. Looks like we won't have to close down the Cleveland office after all.Thanks, M$! We'll keep the good news coming
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
OSIA to Gartner: Get A Clue over Desktop Linux
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Australia -- 1st October, 2004
This week we have seen numerous reports in the trade press referring to
Gartner UK analyst Annette Jump claiming that pre-installing Linux on
PCs encourages piracy of Windows.
We dispute Jump's conclusion and her figures. Without a fully specified
methodology and a presentation of all the raw numbers and polling
methods, these findings are extremely dubious. Additionally, Jump's
logic is problematic at best and farcical at worst.
"Firstly, let's get the key fact out of the way," said OSIA spokesperson
Steven D'Aprano. "There is no advantage to PC resellers in using Linux
as a means of shipping lower price PCs, which in turn are used to pirate
Windows. These PC vendors can simply ship a PC without any operating
system at all! This would make the resulting computer even cheaper than
deploying Linux on it, as zero effort is needed to image the system. If
PC vendors are selling computers with Linux pre-installed, that can only
mean there is demand for Linux on the desktop."
The Linux community is opposed to software piracy in all its forms.
There is no advantage to the Linux community in using pirated Windows.
The only one who benefits from piracy is Microsoft itself. As Jump
herself admits, "Microsoft closed its eyes to counterfeiting, actually
preferring that users turned to phoney versions rather than go to Linux.
[This would] lock users into other Microsoft products."
If Gartner's conclusion that pre-installing Linux encourages people to
steal copies of Windows were correct, then we can extend this tenuous
logic by stating that pre-installing Windows in turn must clearly
encourage people to pirate application-level software; if there was no
Windows OS on the PC, then users couldn't pirate other products like
Photoshop, Microsoft Office or Dreamweaver which need Windows in order
to be used. One can quickly see how this process of thought leads to
ridiculous conclusions and we are surprised that Gartner started down
this path.
"If Microsoft has a problem with piracy, it shouldn't be blamed on OEMs
who sell PCs with Linux pre-installed or no operating system at all,"
continued D'Aprano. "Should we discourage supermarkets from selling
plain bread, because shoppers might steal butter from elsewhere? To
discourage vendors from selling PCs with Linux installed because of the
hypothetical loss of revenue to Microsoft goes against the spirit of the
free market. While Microsoft seeks to avoid competition in the market,
the Linux community believes in the free market. We have a better
product at a cheaper price and Microsoft can't compete except by blaming
us for piracy."
"Gartner would have been better served by observing the historically low
incidence of illegal copying of open source software products and the
clear business benefits this provides to economies. As such open source
software can contribute billions of dollars to local economies by
reducing software piracy. After two decades of closed source's failure
to address rampant piracy, open source provides the only credible, and
successful solution to the problem. If it was serious about the piracy
problem Gartner would be out there supporting preloaded Linux,"
concluded D'Aprano.
- - -
About Open Source Industry Australia, Limited.
OSIA is the industry body for Open Source within Australia. We exist to
further the cause of Free and Open Source software (FOSS) in Australia
and to help our members to improve their business success in this
growing sector of the global Information and Communication Technology
(ICT) market.
http://www.osia.net.au/
Spokesperson/Contact: Steven D'Aprano
Phone: 03 9621 2377
Email: media@osia.net.au
- - - END - - -
Just a thought, but how about the many windows licenses many people, even people who DO pirate their copies of windows, have? I know that I got XP on my current laptop (currently running Debian quite happily), and I still have a copy of ME from IBM for a long dead thinkpad, not to mention at least 3 licenses for 3.1, and a few for 95 as well.
:P
If I burn a copy of 2k at work because I can't stand the XP UI, doesn't the fact that I've got legit windows licenses coming out of my ass count for ANYTHING?
It's been a long time.
Company X's computer comes with Windows. X computers always come with Windows. You hate Windows. Why on earth would you buy computers from company X then?
In a recent bulletin from the Department of Homeland Monopoly, it was reported that 86 percent of licenced Windows users used their machines to pirate Macintosh applications, which were reported by an unidentified source to crash less often on Intel based PC's than native Windows applications, despite the fact that they would not run at all.
In a related development, a man with strange hair explained that most Apple applications were actually designed by a secret lab at the Zerox corporation in 1972, whose employees were much smarter than any of us anyway.
I have never had a problem buying a desktop computer with no OS at all. I buy local so I have easy access to support. From my experience, you can buy a PC without an OS easier than one with linux. PC sold with linux installed tend to emphasize economy and and usually tend to be low end performance wise. If I was going to install a pirated version of linux, the PCs sold with no OS offer more of selection. Certainly this is irrelevant to countries not signatory to our copyright laws, where you would be lucky to find that 20% of the entire country's versions were legal copies.
Every PC I have installed Linux on (since 1997) came with a factory installed copy of Windows. It was not until last year that I started to buy my PCs from a computer parts wholesaler that would build and test (with my copy of Linux) custom machines for me.
I never once bothered to claim back the OS tax from M$ and now don't need to.
Some times my wholesaler has "corp off-lease" machines for very good prices, those PCs all came with Windows and are now running Linux.
How many other people are there like myself?
Our Linux PCs are built from scratch or sold with Windows and then removed in favor of Linux.
The real number of Linux machines out there is much higher than anyone in the corporate world would admit.
From what I've seen, this tidbit's effect on overall Linux desktop usage (taking into account the other methods of acquisition that you've mentioned) is beyond the scope of the Gartner report. I'd love to find a link that has more details on their conclusion -- perhaps there is a point that I've missed. Can you provide a link?
In a perfect world, you would have asked this while I was still online yesterday. This looks similar to the link I followed in from Google yesterday, but now it asks for registration, and I'm not going to pay the $795 either. Either I'm missing the trail I followed previously, or Gartner plugged the hole. I can't prove it, but the tables I saw yesterday showed Linux usage remaining at a tiny percentage of the total (basically static) while sales of Linux PCs increased. Note the table of contents on the Gartner page - it's not beyond the scope of the report.
If Linux is being blamed for this, then are they saying they want these machines to come with a feature that prevents Wincrows from being installed?
...like Longshoehorn is supposedly going to be, paired up with its own lock-in BIOS?
...or like those machines with a BIOS that prevents booting from CD?
...or like those low-end machines with a WinModem and closed specs to prevent people from writing Linux drivers?
They have been trying to lock people in for years. Now it sounds like they want to lock people out? They should make up their minds.
OK, colour me not too bright, but I cannot see why pre-installed Linux is being targeted here by Gartner - their claim doesn't seems to be, pre-installing Linux is the same as shipping the machine with no OS whatsoever.
To continue with their premise, any machine sold with no OS (or Linux) installed is destined for pirated software which would imply by there logic, if you want to take it all the way down the line, that there should be an international mandate that no machine should be sold without paying the MS tax.
WOW!!!! You've made the point I just didn't get! Thanks, I'll friend you now!
I'll repeat it again for myself:
The computers that are sold without Windows are sold to pirates (in our humble opinion)
I love that kind of logic!!!!!
But... It's too late. The "MS tax" is broken down by vendors. Now they can sell Pcs with whatever OS they (and their customer) like. Good.
WYSIWIG, but what you see might not be what you need
f I burn a copy of 2k at work because I can't stand the XP UI, doesn't the fact that I've got legit windows licenses coming out of my ass count for ANYTHING? :P
As far as M/Scam is concerned, if you dont have spare S# to go with it you gotta pay again.
Insane, unless your a M/Scam stock holder.
D.
...Or like a cigarette company publishing a report that says smoking is good for you becase it calms your nerves.....
Or aids in your digestion. Hah, I remember an old color (comic) newspaper ad selling Camel cigarettes, supposedly promoted by a famous figure skater. A friend of mine and I were rooting out an old barn attic, to use for a "hideout" (still in high school, then), when we stumbled upon that.
Man, we had a laugh.......
I wonder if that inspired Gartner's FUD? Let's face it, folks, Gartner has lost an awful lot of credibility, this early in the century.
I don't get it. Why do people bother putting Linux on a system they know is going to be wiped? Why not sell it empty and save yourself the effort and cost?
Oh wait, I think I see, you are saying that the vendor is helping the purchaser conceal their bootlegging. OK, that's deplorable, but the same thing applies to Windoze.
Do you blame Dell and HP for piracy when they sell a Windoze box with no applications? Windoze by itself does next to nothing and the above logic would blame the vendor when the user puts on a bootlegged copy of Office, AutoCAD, Matlab or any of that jazz.
The whole argument looks like Microsoft marketing to me. It says, Linux is used to "pirate" Windoze and that Windoze is somehow more desirable than Linux. Neither, by common sense, is true and I'd like to say that the practice does not exist. For 99% of desktops, the purchaser is better off with Linux.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Twitter, you're a petulant cock-gobbling sycophant to Linux Torvaldyos! Quit taking DP from ESR and RMS's feculent cocks and why don't you try to stop sucking quite so much? Get out of your parents' basement and see the real world - maybe then you'll see how pathetic you sound, with your neverending stream of bullshit about how Microsoft is stalking you. Wasn't it you who said that Microsoft believes your insane ranting is actually a threat to them, so they PAY PEOPLE to reply to you on Slashdot? No sir, I don't get any money. I do it for the love. Someone has to go up against your paranoid whining. So get back in your cage and shut the fuck up already.