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.
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?
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..
Sorry I should have been more specific for those who have less knowledge of this debate like yourself. This claim is unfair, REGARDLESS of its truth (or otherwise) because-
a) Most linux installations are on machines that originally shipped with another operating system (usually windows), so it is misleading to highlight cases of alleged windows installation onto linux bases- the problem is clearly the other way round.
b) Gartner is renowned for making skewed and misleading research, which may not strictly speaking be untrue, yet certainly gives the uninformed observer a false impression. This is the latest in a long line of misleading reports from Gartner
Thanks for your reply. Hope this helps.
Why buy a machine with Linux installed and then install Windows? Beats me totally...
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.
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.
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.
"Key Analyst: Someone we've paid a lot of money to agree with everything we say".
The INQUIRER guide to marketing English
Only if the pay-for software is of higher quality that free (beer) equivalents. I don't think I know of anyone who would rather use pirated software, and risk a close encounter with the legal system than use free software - especially since it is usually easier to obtain free (beer) software than pirate copies of non-free software.
By the time an open source desktop becomes popular enough for us to see this kind of thing happening, I suspect that the vast majority, if not all, of commercial software that the an average user would want will have free equivalents that will probably come pre-installed. The one possible exception to this I see is games.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
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.
I've bought three desktop computers with Linux preinstalled. In all three cases, I wiped the Linux distro they came with (ThizLinux or Lindows) and installed FreeBSD instead. These were generic PCs that Fry's sells, from a Taiwanese company called Great Quality. It was very interesting to see the documentation that came with these computers. There was absolutely no documentation on how to use Linux. What they did provide was many pages of very detailed instructions on how to erase Linux and install Windows. However, it's not obvious to me how to interpret this. A couple of possible interpretations:
- Great Quality has no idea how many of its users plan to install Windows, but since installing an OS is generally a pretty difficult thing for the average user to undertake, they decided to give good documentation.
- Great Quality may have gotten huge numbers of tech support calls from people trying to install Windows on these machines, and therefore they wrote good documentation on how to do it. This would indicate that quite a few people are wiping Linux and installing Windows, but it still wouldn't prove what the percentages are.
Also, if people are wiping Linux and installing Windows, there's more than one possible interpretation:The thing is, nobody has a shred of data. There's no way of knowing which of these possibilities are more frequent and which are less frequent.
Find free books.
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?
Most vendors give you the option to buy, say, MS Office when you buy your PC. If you can argue that people who choose Linux do so to avoid paying for Windoze so that they can install pirated copies later, you could also argue that people who buy PCs with Windoze buy no Office do so so that they can pirate MS Office.
Without hard facts, both arguments are equally valid.
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.