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.'"
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
I've bought hundreds, probably thousands that way: unfortunately, the best vendor prices don't yet come without the MS tax and pre-installed MS on it, and wiping the MS and replacing it with Linux on common hardware is much, much, much faster and cheaper than building hardware from scratch. Only a few vendors so far have been willing to pre-install Linux: Dell did for a while, but gave up under pressure from Microsoft.
I agree that Openoffice should implement a component to compete with MS publisher, as for fonts i am pretty sure linux can use true type fonts, not really sure on that though. and it's digital camera support, in my experience (Fedora Core 1) was better than windows.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
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.
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.
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).
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 $3 pirated Windows CD. Everyone is happy.
The reaction this story has received is indicative of the paranoia and lack of reason that exists in parts of Linuxland.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I'm one... had Windoze XP on the laptop I bought in Singapore - uniquely, the vendor offered to wipe the disk for me and delete the Micro$oft tax from the price... I used a Sarge install disk right there in the shop. He was fascinated... He e-mailed me a couple days ago that he's been able to boost his sales by a whopping 30% by offering TurboLinux preloaded on his machines... And thanked me profusely.
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?