The Pirated Software Problem in the 3rd World

RockDoctor writes "Dark Reading carries an article by one Nathan Spande who works in Cambodia. Locally he finds that OpenOffice.Org and MS Office are the same price ($2), or $7-20 by downloading. He discusses why the economics of OpenSource don't work in this environment, and how it contributes to global computer security issues through the "little extras" (trojans, spambots and other malware) that typically accompany such "local editions" of software. The economics of software outside the west are very different to what most people are used to."

Comments

Re:"the economics of open source don't work..."

[kripkenstein]

From the information in the article, it appears that the economics of open source work much better than the economics of closed-source, proprietary software. The business model of OpenOffice.org is perfectly happy when local vendors sell their software at $2 per disk. The business model that Microsoft Office is based upon is violated when that happens.

Well said. But there is another perspective on this: the economics of FOSS and the real economics of Microsoft share some things in common. Both are based on the simple fact that software can be copied at virtually no cost; this lets FOSS exist (and explains why you don't see FOSS automobiles), and this allows Microsoft to (1) benefit from their product being pirated, as it creates market share that may pay later, (2) bundle whatever they want into the OS (it doesn't cost them any more), and kill competitors.

Piracy in the third world is really just part of MS's business plan. Bill Gates has even admitted as much (I can find the link if anyone wants it).

Re:Nice Suttle FUD in the article.

[numbski]

Heh. You seem to overlook the obvious crap that's inserted:

Windows Media Player
Internet Explorer
Windows

That's reason enough to avoid it, IMHO. :)

I am not particularly thrilled with how it glosses over OSS. I've learned over the years there are benefits to not being 100% compatible with everyone else, and not having a computing environment that's not identical to everyone else too.

I'll give you a tiny example: my wife and I combined have 6 computers in this house - we each have a desktop, I currently have two laptops (will change shortly) and a server. We're both IT people, I'm a network engineer and unix admin, she's a part-time unix geek and a Windows Network admin by day. It's not uncommon for her to sit down at my machine for one reason or another, usually because she manages her music library logged into her account on my box. Occassionally, she'll be lazy and ssh into the server from my machine on my account, and want to look something up on the web. She *hates* using Firefox on my account. I have JavaScript pared all the way down, I have NoScript, Flashblock, and Adblock all enabled. She'll go onto Amazon and want to check on something, and nothing works. Now, she could of course figure out how to "temporarily allow" amazon.com in noscript, and to check the adblock sidebar if a key graphic is missing, but instead she logs into her account, launches a second instance of Firefox view amazon in it's ad-encrusted glory.

What's my point? The point is I don't have anyone else, my wife included, screwing with my Firefox profile because it's unique to my tastes and preferences. My home directory doesn't get filled with crap, and this is a mac we're talking about, so virus and malware are nearly non-existent. This could be Linux just as easily, or FreeBSD for that matter.

Once upon a time I would have suggested they use Knoppix, and although that may work, I think everyone here can agree that Kubuntu or Ubuntu (I still prefer the former to the latter) would fit the need nicely. None of this BS of "it's not what everyone else uses" fits. Win32 binaries can and do run. You just don't want to do it more often than necessary. :)

The FUD has to stop, seriously. I hate the term, I really do "Linux is/isn't ready for the desktop." I don't care when it's ready. It works, it works at very least "well enough". If I had to give it a par rating on usability in the form of Kubuntu, it quite easily is up there with Windows 98 or Windows 2000. I take Windows XP as a step backwards in many cases, so that's not really fair. OSX still beats Linux in Desktop usability, but we're not talking the widest of gaps here though. There are huge benefits to be had when you determine precisely what hardware your OS runs on, and it shows.

So now that I've wasted my breath preaching to a choir that left already....ugh. Let me toss up my company's website-that-isn't-quite-ready-yet:

http://www.oss-solutions.com.nyud.net:8080/

Yes, it's coralized. I really am that afraid of Slashdot. :)