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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
You don't use Linux, do you?
The vast majority of digital cameras work fine with Linux. Even most of the ones (a dwindling number) that don't support the USB Mass Storage spec can be made to work through gPhoto.
For home movies, I hear that Kino isn't bad. I do't make movies so I can't say much on this.
As for newsletters, see below.
Scribus is much better than MS Publisher (which isn't hard, since Publisher is a piece of crap).
Give me a break. X has supported TrueType fonts for ages. Just copy them across and you're done.
I don't know, but I suspect that there are far fewer users of such software than you may think.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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!
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.
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"
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.
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?