Slashdot Mirror
How Pirated Software Impacts Free Software
jmglov writes "Dave Gutteridge has an unusual take on why people are not interested in saving money by using a free-as-in-beer OS like Linux or *BSD: because Windows is free. At least, that is an all-too-common perception, thanks to bundling and piracy. Bundling is a well-known problem to the adoption of open source operating systems, so Dave takes a look at the piracy issue in depth. His title may offend you, but his well-written article will most likely get you thinking hard about the question, 'how much does Windows cost?'"
I'm going to post this anonymously for obvious reasons. I have a few Windows XP licenses, but they are all OEM XP Home/Media Center licences that came with the computers. Those systems were so crapified by the OEMs and/or in such a bad state (my wifes computer was a mess when I took control over it) that even reinstalling the OEM version would have been a major headache.
I help exactly one person with an OEM XP Home machine and it gives more headaches than my custom installs. My custom installs are based on a Corporate Edition Windows XP Pro. Those never give problems unless it is hardware. Simply said: Windows XP Pro Corporate^WPirate Edition gives me better *value* for less money. It's the only software I pirate: all other programs are either free as in beer (iTunes) or free as in Freedom (OpenOffice, The Gimp, Firefox, Thunderbird.....)
Just to appease those that say I should switch to Linux: I'm typing this right now on Ubuntu Linux, but I have a long way to go to convert all machines that I maintain.
Ummm, that's not exactly an insight. Any story here about software in China mentions that point.
Does anyone have a mirror of the original article?
That's actually my exact reason for not using Linux, and that's what i tell people, windows, office, photoshop, they're all free! (to me anyway...)
So i can see his point.
-Taylor
Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
...server capacity, on the other hand, is too expensive.
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
it's the swords -
The following replies are posted by unwashed nerds.
OEM licences are cheap, but if XP lasts for 5 or so years and in that time you upgrade your computer 3 times then you've bought OEM Windows 3 times.
Even if you buy a boxed version of Windows XP then you will still have to pay for OEM XP with each PC. This is the injustice in the way Microsoft bullies OEMs into not selling naked PCs.
Maybe this is just tinfoil hat stuff, but could this all be part of Microsoft's strategy? Are they that smart?
A-Bomb
...only if your privacy means nothing.
Not sure why there is this pervasive myth that OSS is free. First, it costs people time to develop and contribute to OSS projects. Not all OSS is successful; a lot expects that others will contribute to grow the usefulness of the software.
Then there is the configuration and maintenance cost. It costs people time to install and maintain a Linux OS loaded up with software. Support isn't always free for applications. A lot of OSS software I've seen pushes the "Here is the *tool* free, now pay us to train you, and/or make it work for you."
Call me flamebait or a troll. I just don't think piracy equates to free. A lot of people know that copying Windows (or software of choice) is theft. The problem is the perceived value of the software, and OSS has a similiar perception issue...
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
Or this is what has happened in my case.
I pirate everything I can. Never paying for any of the software I use. I start using Debian on my servers. Wow this is better then NT!
I then start using it on my workstation, and discover I like it MORE then the free copy of Windows I had.
I miss the games that I played (but never payed) on Windows. I miss the Apps like CorelDraw, MS Office, and all the games. But then I discover FREE software that works almost as good.
I now use Linux exclusively on my workstation, my Moms, my Wifes, my In-Laws, and a few of my Clients PCs too. I use Linux because it is better not because it is free.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
Pirates are hurting free software? I think we are cutting ninjas way too much slack here.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Microsoft helps FOSS in many ways. 1. the forced pre-installed crap on all newly purchased PC angers people (it definitely angered me). Why couldn't i use my old install CD? Because I don't have it. It's like buying a new toothbrush every day. 2. the crappy DRM in Vista which prevents even rightful use of home-made content 3. Vista's craptastic performance itself What M$ could do to help us even more: 1. Create and leak more Halloween style documents (if you don't know what i meant, google for halloween documents) 2. Stop supporting Windows XP 3. When the first DX10.1 games appear, switch to DX10.2 4. Crack down on people writing software (addons/improvements) for M$ stuff 5. Anger governments/standard experts worldwide with ballot stuffing on OOXML
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Yes, windows is free for many people, whether pirated on bundled. However, it is the pain and grief (the viruses, the malware, the ridiculous restrictions, the evil DRM) that is caused by using windows that will make people want to switch, not a diffrence in retail price. And people seem to be switching, however slowly.
A lot... when you factor in things like your time maintaining Windows (downloading Windows updates, scanning for viruses, spyware, etc.), the cost of anti-virus/anti-spyware protection (Yes, I know there are free programs out there like AVG and Avast! but they have lower detection rates than Kaspersky and NOD32), etc.
Once in a while I can show someone Linux and they just use it. It doesn't matter if it's free or not. I just show them a better way. It doesn't always work but lately it's getting easier.
... he's a Microsoft-centric developer and his name happens to be Robert...). While he didn't want to install VMWare Server, I was able to find a means of translating a VMWare machine to a MS Virtual PC machine so he could run it that way. After he got this thing up and running, I couldn't get him to shut up about exactly how cool and powerful this thing running Linux and free software really is.
...and then there was this other guy who was actually spending MONEY on porn sites! I was aghast at how stupid that was... I installed Azureus on his machine and showed him "empornium" and a few other sites and told him to go to town and not to forget to cancel his secret credit cards.
On the laptop of a blonde college-girl, I installed F7 and then installed vmware server and client along with WindowsXP Corporate^WPirate Edition. (She calls it 'baby windows') From that platform, she runs all the stuff she needs or wants... Linux stuff for as much as possible and "baby windows" for anything she can't figure out. So far she's ecstatic about Linux... it doesn't crash, it doesn't slow down after it has been running a while and it doesn't get the spyware/malware crap that she managed to collect while running Windows. I have also given her other pointers when it comes to other activities such as music downloads... (simply, I advised her to NOT DO music downloads... share them on the school's LAN and if you can't find what you're looking for that way, ask any guy to download it for her...of course he will! She avoids the risk and the complication.)
I recently introduced a very handy VMWare appliance (ESVA if you're interested) to my brother (Let's call him Microsoft Bob
My point is, sometimes you just gotta find the right catch...
but I would say my sanity is worth something!
Monstar L
I think it is now safe to say.
When I started my career, Windows 3.1 was a joke compared to our HP Open view and Solaris workstations. They had cool GUIs, and robust Unix backends, and superior remote management and group management capabilities.
Now Windows has all these things and not much has changed in the Linux world. Other than it has replaced all those proprietary *nixes (good riddance). Windows still owns the app space and game space and they finally even fixed their joke of a webserver with IIS6+. They have remote management and group management and even robust shells and configuration by text files.
Linux will probably never go away in the server room and running backends for web apps and such, but I think the desktop war is over. Maybe Mac has a chance, but they don't have the games.
Clearly, Vista is a bust until they can give us a compelling reason to dump our nice 2003 servers and okay XP boxes, but they will optimize and debug, and we will wait. We may not pay, but we will wait for what MS says is the next desktop.
The only copy of Windows I've ever purchased cost $5. Directly, at least. That was Windows 98. My university cut a deal with Microsoft that allowed students to purchase Windows, Visual Studio and Office for $5 per CD. Back in Windows 3.1 days I think I borrowed a friend's copy. Since then (2k and XP) I've been using volume-licensed images obtained from my employers. Ditto for the Office suite.
The largest customers of Microsoft Windows are businesses, not home users. Businesses generally buy new OEM hardware and get the OS and Office with the machine. There are cases where they might get some older hardware together and run a not-so-ligit OS on it, but I think that's the exception. Most PHBs consider the warranty coverage of new hardware to far outweigh the advantage of trying to keep current hardware around.
If you want Linux on the desktop, then businesses are where it has to start, and home users will follow.
Not a typewriter
But there are many websites out there that will tell you the TWO changes you need to make to just about any WinXP CD so you can burn one that will be anything you need.
Start with a retail version and build an OEM version that will accept your OEM license key.
Is it "piracy" then?
I've done this when I want a completely clean install at work. None of the OEM crap. Just vanilla WinXP.
The only downside is having to hunt through the vendor's website looking for drivers for all the hardware. And you don't get the vendor specific apps.
There is definitely a valid point to be made about the circumstances surrounding "Free Windows." For me, though, Office is a better example. Consider the facts: Office is pretty much never part of an OEM pre-load unless you pay for it. So everyone is aware of how much it costs.
You can buy a $350 Dell and then add $150-$400 for Office. I'm not sure if non-students qualify for the $150.
Yet the fact that so many people "require" you to use Office makes me think they assume it is free, which can only mean that everyone pirates it. For example, I was interviewing for jobs once and submitted my resume as a PDF generated with OO. They kicked it back and said they needed it in Word format so they could index it properly. I know OO saves in Word format, but I don't trust it for someone as important as a resume. Without a test machine with Office, it is hard to know what formatting/conversion defects might appear that would make me look like a dufus to the prospective employer. (Now cue the "you shouldn't work at such a stupid place anyway" comments- you're probably right!)
Also I've heard some schools require kids to do work in MS Office at home. Are they really telling parents they have to go out and spend $150-$400? Or do they THINK they're telling parents and kids to use something they already have? If they already have it, how many of those are pirated copies.
So yeah, if it suddenly became impossible to pirate office, I really think that at a minimum, schools would change their tune.
I'm not a MS basher, and try to stay pretty objective. But the fact that we, as a society, have convinced ourselves that we HAVE to use Office and make our own policies enforcing it's use... well, it drives me nuts! It is such a cliche by now, but still so valid- most people don't use 10% of the features in Word or Excel.
*BSD and Linux are "Free as in Speech", not "Free as in beer"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_as_in_beer
brandelf -t FreeBSD
In my experience selling PC's for, many people expect the PC to come with Ms Office, or at least Word, and maybe Excel included. Windows is just the thing that makes Word and "the Internet" run.
When you mention the PC comes with Windows XP/Vista or whatever they seem to hear "Windows" as "Word". Much angst ensues after they get the PC home and realise they haven't paid for a copy of Office on their new PC, even after subtle prompting at sale time.
In regards to home users, not really much do discuss; most believe that MS Office is part of the OS and don't know where apps start and the OS ends, this will be a tough group to educate but the vast majority aren't pirates and just live with what their OEM puts on their PC. That article was nothing more than a perfect example of a classic Dvorak troll.
The 'offical' OEM version has all the crap off. It's just like windows xp, without all the extra crap OEM's put on. I think Newegg sells these versions.
You can torrent an 'offical' OEM version of Windows XP and use the cd-key on the sticker on OEM computers. I ditched my OEM XP disc since it would always install miscellaneous junk and nvidia's drivers, which I don't need now that I have an Ati card.
Back in my high school days I used Windows. I must have installed Windows (98, 2000 and XP) around 300 times on many computers, and all of them were pirated versions. The concept of paying for an OS was (and still is) foreign to me. Then I discovered Linux. I started dual booting with Slackware in college, and after a while realized I didn't need Windows anymore and made the complete switch, and haven't looked back since.
/. users).
The point is that it wasn't the price that made me switch, since I could get Windows for free. It was a matter of realizing that Linux really did do most things better. It's also worth mentioning that the Windows I used was a clean install, i.e. no pre-installed crap; so I guess one could say that the version of Windows I used was "better" than the versions that 95% of Windows users have (the other 5% is mainly made up of
I have now successfully converted about 10 people to Ubuntu and they are loving it. The two advantages of Linux over Windows that I hear the most from them are not having to load so much useless crap in their systray and not having to deal with spy-ware.
Slashdotted: use the Coral Cache: http://tlug.jp.nyud.net:8080/articles/Windows_Is_F ree
www.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net
I can't access the article. Maybe too much traffic? I can't see a google cache link in google either. I'll check again later
That's such a ripoff. Gateway probably paid 45 bucks for the XP Home OEM license. Since your computer is already licensed, the CD is just a spare part. Next time lie and say the CD won't read.
So, which DAW do you like most that works under Linux? I'm getting back into recording music, and the last time I did this was with a four-track reel-to-reel deck, so it's all pretty new to me.
http://www.networkmirror.com/3DfizwaRHHBaEFWy/tlug .jp/articles/Windows_Is_Free.html
Sadly, this is right on target in my case.
I still use Windows because I pirate it and so it's "free" to me. The fact it's "free" makes me too lazy to switch. If I was forced to pay for Windows, I would be much more motivated to use Linux.
I dabble in Linux, but I always come back to Windows because I'm too lazy to take the time to get comfortable with the Linux replacements of the apps I need.
..if anyone would buy Windoze if they had to actually buy it as an 'extra' with a new machine. It's pretty expensive to buy separately... The widespread piracy of Windows suggests that people don't think it's worth the asking price and they're only using it 'cos they have it already (or can easily get a free copy), are comfortable with it & don't know about better alternatives or are tied to it through work etc.
"People don't want Linux not only because Windows is free, but because Windows is much better."
This is the unpleasant truth that nobody wants to admit. Linux is free and yet every day, millions of people all over the world use pirated Windows instead. On a level playing field (Linux = free, Pirated Windows = free), people overwhelmingly choose Windows. If Linux was anywhere near as good as Windows it would be far more popular than it is today.
You can claim that Linux is better. That's your opinion. Just like people used to swear that Beta was superior to VHS.
The author of the article repeatedly claims that everyone should switch to Linux because it's "almost as good as Windows". Unfortunately it's not. When the best applications aren't available on Linux, that's not "almost as good". When you have to carefully pick and choose your hardware because only a few have Linux drivers, that's not "almost as good".
I've tried to like Linux. I really have. Redhat, Suse, Ubuntu. But it is vastly inferior in all the ways that matter. And the actions of millions of people all over the world shows that they feel the same.
A few years ago, I was investigating a cross-platform virtualised testing automation concept.
The problem came up that although all the free operating systems could be slung around freely, nothing could be done with Windows.
I needed essentially one license per running instance of the Windows virtual machine.
Refusing to pay the cost for full price licenses I looked around and found the Microsoft "Action Pack", which was a package of every platform and office product that Microsoft makes (The entire Windows family and all variations, plus the entire Office family and all variations) consisting of about 30-50 CDs of software.
For $700 you got not just the "everything we make" type collection, but you got up to 10 licenses of most of the client software, and 1-2 of all the server software.
So for me, I could have legal Microsoft software for essentially my entire collection of machines and business for only $700 per year for the whole collection of a dozen odd machines (Win XP Pro on the real machines, Win XP Home on the Virtual machines etc etc).
Which solidified for me the fact that it's not Microsoft Software I hate so much, but the price.
I really hate the idea of paying several hundred dollars per license for bloaty buggy software.
Once the price had dropped the equivalent of a few tens of dollars per machine, it seemed to me to represent much more reasonable value for money.
is the box/CPU confusion. When someone asks if they should bring their monitor and keyboard or just the CPU I still crack a smile. Same with the memory/hard drive. I've actually spent serious amounts of time trying to untangle that one with people who are really intelligent. But what the hell, I can't do taxes or balance a checkbook (you just spend money then it replaces itself!).
Quack, quack.
Another point that's being missed: Removing the preinstalled version of Windows on a PC (by installing something else over it) is NOT free.
The cost includes:
- the perceived risk of loss of the machine (and the money invested in it) if the install of the alternative OS goes wrong so badly that it can't be backed out and the machine recovered to its previous working configuration.
- the cost of porting his data and working procedures to a new environment and learning to be efficient in this new environment.
The cost is even higher if the machine isn't fresh, but he's been working on it for a while. Now he's risking his current working environment and the associated data.
(And yes I know about backups and having to reinstall Windows from time to time. So what? That's also fraught with risks of loss. The cost of having to recover from backups is something he knows in his guts from past experience. So now he should volunteer to incur this cost when he doesn't NEED to, in order to switch to an unfamiliar environment and incur the porting cost as well? You have to be perceived as a LOT better to get him over that hump.)
The way to break this cycle is what Dell is doing now: Provide new machines with Linux preinstalled for less than the same machine with Windows preinstalled. Then he has a known-good-system with support and only has to incur the porting cost, much of which he'd incur in migrating to a new machine. (And how good it is that this is happening at the same time as the rollout of Vista, increasing the porting cost for sticking with Windows by adding the migration to a new version.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
For many people, both computer hardware and computer software are cheap compared to the time they spend using their computer, dealing with computer hassles, etc. For someone who's a professional graphic designer, for example, the price of a nice mac with a big screen, and copies of all the Adobe stuff, are just tax-deductible fixed costs of running their business. For people like this, the most important consideration is maximizing their productivity. If they're already used to Photoshop, then switching to GIMP isn't likely to make them any more productive. Ditto for switching from Windows to Linux.
Since it's all about time for professional users, any time spent screwing around and getting the dang thing to work is a disaster. I'm not sure whether Linux is significantly less usable than Windows or MacOS X at this point; the question probably can't be answered because it involves a lot of value judgments, lifestyle choices, and personal issues like technical and educational background. But what I'm absolutely certain of is that any computer is a lot of hassle to set up and maintain. Slashdot users may consider that hassle to be a kind of fun, but that's not the case for most people. So let's say, for the sake of argument, that Windows, MacOS X, and Linux are all about equally full of hassles. Well, the person who is already running Windows has already worked out the hassles with Windows. It's going to take them a huge amount of time to work out all the new and different hassles of a different OS.
Now that was all about professional users. The article's points about cracked software are mostly relevant to students and casual users. To a student, it may really make financial sense to spend a weekend obtaining and installing a cracked version of Photoshop, because he simply doesn't have the money to buy a legal copy. The thing is, it's very common in the retail world for businesses to offer different pricing to people who have different personal priorities about money versus hassle. Airlines sell first-class tickets, but they also sell economy tickets. Supermarkets give their best prices to people who have membership cards and who are willing to clip coupons from the Sunday paper. The existence of cracked copies of Windows is another example of the same thing. Microsoft is very happy that a broke college student pirates Windows, because the student doesn't have the money to pay for a legal copy, and if he wasn't using bootlegged Windows, he might get in the habit of using some other OS.
Re cracked software, I think there's another phenomenon that the author of TFA isn't cluing in on. Commercial software tends to exploit users. For example, I've bought Mac software (Mathematica) that wouldn't work on my new Mac because it had a later version of MacOS; their response was that I needed to buy a new version of the software to work on the new OS. In the same era, I bought some Mac music software with a copy protection scheme that involved inserting a special floppy every time you wanted to run it; I bought a new mac, which didn't have a floppy drive, and the software company told me I needed to buy an external floppy drive in order to keep running the software. A very common experience is that you buy software, find out that certain functionality is broken, and are forced to pay for an upgrade in hopes that it will fix the bug. The whole computer hardware and software industry runs on principle of the upgrade treadmill: software companies arm-twist you into buying new versions of software, which then won't run or don't perform acceptably on your hardware, so you have to buy new hardware. One response to this (my response) was to switch to Linux. But a completely different, and not so unreasonable, response is to fight back by pirating your software.
Find free books.
I paid 250$ for XP Pro 5+ years ago. I plan to use it until it isn't supported anymore (probably 2-3 more years). That will come to about 3$/month over its lifetime. That may not be free beer in the strictest sense but it's pretty damn close (my budget column for actual beer in that period of time dwarfs it in any case). Getting a pirated copy isn't worth the hassle of manually downloading patches (I'm not 100% sure but I don't think automatic online updates work for pirated copies).
The Windows OS will live and die based on the quality of its competition (already there and then some) and third party support from developers (that part is annoyingly slow to come but it'll happen). The actual cost is no big deal either way (many many Linux users pay more than 3$/month for patches and aren't going bankrupt).
More telling is that people willing PAY for Windows, even though they know that Linux is free (I'm one of them). Awareness of Linux is certainly up, even though usage (on the desktop) is still as negligible as it has been for the past decade. It can be said that Linux makers literally cannot give it away. That says even more about Linux than many people would like to admit.
I don't respond to AC's.
So, in short, people would rather have a pirated copy of XP than Linux. Saw that coming.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Bundling and pirating make Windows *FREE*.
I think this is sort of Microsoft's marketing strategy to improve their marketing rate.
When you are customed to Windows, you can't leave it any more. Especially when there are so many good apps on it.
Well, by objective standards, Beta was better. One of the reasons that VHS prevailed was that VHS was the cheap medium of choice for pornography (at least according to current urban mythology). If this is true, does that mean Windows is the same as pornography?
It never ceases to amaze me that people inevitably leave out the critical element of software. In fantasyland, where all applications are web-based, OSes are on a level playing field. The Cost of Linux has to include the inability to use the software you want. Know 3D studio? You'll use blender and you'll like it, who cares if you took $3000 in training on 3D studio and need compatibility. 15 years using Photoshop? Try Gimp, it works. Screw the gigabytes of assets you already have, they weren't done on Linux! The list goes on. People use windows because it runs the software they want, and the $40 they paid OEM is worth that convenience.
This article and much of the group think is missing a simple formula, the KISS factor. (see below for the Acronym)
If your on Slashdot your some form of Techie, but even with the Slashdot effect we won't make even a dent in Disney, CNN, or MSN. Most people are not Techies. So that colors your thinking, you think everybody should understand simple UNIX commands or be able to build a server from parts. We don't have the critical mass in the population thats why the world is run by monkeys in suits.
Linux has some fairly substantial flaws, mostly centered on the usability factor. Most users in general don't look under the hood. they don't want to. They are not geeks. Currently the LINUX user interface is about on par with Windows 95/98 at best. I do mean both Gnome and KDE. Linux has a lot of great features but then there are some things it is lacking. Your average non-techie can't just drop in the OS on a laptop and go to the Internet Cafe 30 minutes later. Apple seems to have got the message, they put a fairly slick interface over a UNIX-ish core. How many Apple users really know what their OS is capable of?
Has to pirating, it's a boogieman inflated by the Software companies themselves. Knock on your neighbors doors and ask them how much stuff they have that's pirated? Likely its not too much. Most people are Architects, Plumbers, Office workers, etc usually have a fairly short list of types of software they use. That being the OS (bundled), Browsers (free), Maybe some online games and Office-like products. That leaves Anti-Virus, Pirate copies don't last, the companies simple kill off the update service. How many times have you heard that Virus are spread by Anti-Virus companies to keep them in business? When was the last time you heard about someone being prosecuted? Speculation aside, the price is reasonable at about $50, so Anti-Virus get bought by most.
Then there are the off-site people who need to use VPN, they get it installed and configured by their companies IT dept not downloaded from Pirate Bay. The ex-employees who keep installed versions of Office etc don't really count in any meaningful way, their next boss will likely be ready with a new version even if they don't need it. I get the new versions of everything that way because my bosses need me to use them. The bean counters factor it in as part of my expense as an employee. I have ZERO incentive to switch to Open Office, other then simple masochism. If I can't open that Memo I get fired.
Nobody seem to be buying Vista, there have been a few articles about that this week. [Gosh I wonder why?] MS Works is bundled Office is cheap and a lot of people are not upgrading knee-jerk style to the latest version of Office 2007 has Office XP is fine for most of their needs. My landlady has Office 95 running on a Window 2000 box and the WOW she's got current legal copy of Quickbooks. So, if they got it, they got it bundled or dirt cheap.
Most gamers are Xbox/PlayStation users, not PC gamers. Online stuff like 2nd Life and the other big MMORPGs are dependent on the server side not the client software. Only people of moderate skill and with a lot of time on their hands are pirates, that being Music, Video, Games, etc. Read that as College Students why did you think they RIAA is after Colleges to pony up names? 80% of the music pirates are there. Even then they are short term, once they get out then other factors happen that do away with the pirate impulse.
People with regular non-techie jobs don't care about music or listen to radios/XM in their Car. they have Stereos and Big Screen TVs not high end gamer boxen. Some make copies of Video from Netflix/Blockbuster but really they get the first 50 dups and then lose all interest in keeping them. For $15 at Costco you get a case and everything, If you got small children they it's copies of CARS or some Disney thing. Once you get beyond collect, how much time do you spend making a dup that your could be using to make money? There is a cost vs time ratio at work.
I can't say how it works in much of the rest of the world but this model should be fairly common. If anything OSS has hurt pirating worse then crackdown ever will.
And as I promised - K.I.S.S Keep it simple stupid.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
... to get rid of the Microsoft monopoly, and happen to be proficient at C programming:
you could cooperate with the ReactOS project (a windows compatible OS) and lend them a hand or two.
I'd love to help them, but I have little spare time and I'm not very good with C - just C++.
That sticker with a license key and hologram? I've been told it's phoney key - Microsoft revoked the license keys for OEM machines and I guess is issuing ones they have no intention of honoring, so they can't be used to reinstall the OS from scratch.
See the OEM is just a hard drive image, so you can't install non-default features (like asian support).
AND you can't take a real Windows disk, install it on the machine and use the phoney license key that came with the machine to authenticate.
AND apparently, that phoney key doesn't entitle you to buy and install a replacement OEM image either - they don't replace the disk. The piece of paper is nothing!
Last I checked Linux had about 4% market share, even so, what percentage of those would you say are single boot systems, owned by someone without a second computer running Windows? Like it or not MS Office is the defacto standard, unless your going to email your stuff as plan text you have to live with it.
The irony is that slashdotters are the most vociferous defenders of piracy (or, at least, the most critical of any and all means to combat piracy) in the world. In fact, 90% of slashdotters that use Windows use pirated versions. Good job screwing Linus over, folks.
So you don't suppose familiarity has anything to do with it? I've used Windows and Linux too, and found Linux to be vastly inferior in no way that really matters. The only area that I can think of that a comment like this could actually be justified is games.
The average user simply doesn't change their OS other than to purchase a new computer. This combined with familiarity is more than sufficient to explain Windows larger user base, without having to go into one being better than the other.
I mean really, how many users, without super-computer-competant friends, actually upgrade their base OS?
I have upgraded my version of MacOS a twice, but I am a top end user. The Macs my parents own haven't been upgraded
in quite some time. In the time that I owned Windows PCs, I didn't upgraded th eOS, I got a new PC. This seems the
way it has been with most of the average users that I know. They use the same version of OS that was installed and use
it for a few years until the whole machine needs to be replace and they replace the whole lot.
In that sense, the OS is always free because they never made a line item payment for the OS on purchase, and never
upgraded the machine they originally purchased. People don't choose Linux because it requires them to do something
other than plug the box in. Unless they special order something, but your local big box generally offers PCs with Windows.
The home and business market began diverging no later than 1980.
When the PC became a viable game platform with the release of Commander Keen. King's Quest. Wolfenstein 3-D, Maniac Mansion...
It is only a step or two farther on to the PC as media player, the PC as a media center in the home.
Instant messaging. Social networking. P2P Networking.
There is nothing about the locked-down corporate Linux desktop that anyone would want to take home from work.
The apps? Who cares about the apps?
The sine qua non of success in open source - client-side - is a successful port to Windows.
I.e., Firefox. Open Office.
http://tlug.jp/articles/Windows_Is_Free/mobile
:)
It is 56K, which takes about 12 seconds to load on a DoCoMo FOMA phone in Tokyo. YMMV.
That is the facts of the matter. Linux may be a good copy of server room Unix but it is a poor copy of windows. All the things that Windows works hard at are actively avoided by Linux users and developers: Backwards compatability, working with all available hardware, installing easily, requiring no configuration.Ok, and after we give up on all that what do we get. Buggy software, source code that won't compile, rpms that still need another package (that usually doesn't exist, or else needs another package itself), driver installation that requires you to know exactly which processor you have and to compile against kernel source and ugly fonts. Oh and don't forget that the UI looks exactly the same as all the other UIs, there is no innovation, and the whole thing is a total copy. And at the end of all this, when the user complains about the crapness, they are told if they stopped complaining and started developing then maybe the world would be a better place. Well guess what - they are back on windows ASAP. If the Linux user community realised how dissappointing the actual user experience is for the typical end user, and that money is not really a big thing involved in something I spend 8 hours a day in front of, they would realise how far they have to go before they are anywhere near the desktop. Geeks only.
When they outlaw swords, only outlaws will have swords. Arrrgh!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
The OS should always be hardware-integrated like the Mac because for 99% of users the entire hardware is useless without it. Users see the OS as part of their PC. When the OS fails they want it repaired and they don't want to pay because they already had an OS. Cracking Windows is seen like a restore from backup. They never for a moment consider that naked is the natural state of their PC. Same as turned off is not seen as the natural state.
As we go to no moving parts the OS is going to disappear into the hardware like firmware, it will come on a chip on the mobo, and it will finally be where users want it instead of how Bill Gates and Richard Stallman think it should be done. Ubuntu should not come on a DVD, it should come on a PC. When the PC is one chip what will be the rationale for selling it with some assembly required?
To a student, it may really make financial sense to spend a weekend obtaining and installing a cracked version of Photoshop, because he simply doesn't have the money to buy a legal copy. The thing is, it's very common in the retail world for businesses to offer different pricing to people who have different personal priorities about money versus hassle. Airlines sell first-class tickets, but they also sell economy tickets. Supermarkets give their best prices to people who have membership cards and who are willing to clip coupons from the Sunday paper.
And Adobe sells Photoshop Elements for $90 or less, and Microsoft sells Works for much less than Office. (Argue that works isn't equivalent if you want, but the point is that software companies already have this price structure set up.)
If you've used Photoshop Elements, and you don't do advanced print work, you know that it does 99.9% of what you need and is well worth the money.
Comment of the year
IF you describe better as having more drivers and games and major apps then yes...windows is better. If you mean stable and secure you're off your rocker.
:)
I've got Macs, linux and windows boxes....and a few Amigas
By far the most fun to use is the linux boxes. Never a problem. The Macs have few problems. My windows box isn't really bad...it's just not as good as the macs or the lintel machines. The Amigas? They're out of date but it's nice to remember when computers had souls.
I enjoy using linux on my desktop. I don't really care if everyone else is using it. Linux has always been that way. I don't think there will ever be a day when joe six pack is using linux on his desktop. Does it really matter ? Joe six pack will spend $50 going out to eat...... 200 is not really a lot of money. For all the apps that joe six pack wants to run, windows is a bargain. For me, I enjoy figuring out how to run my stuff on linux. Linux rocks on the server. So, let it stay that way and only geeks use it on the desktop.
It's not just free software that loses. Commercial software does as well... if it's not the market leader.
That's because of the application barrier to entry, the ecosystem effect, whatever you want to call it. Software naturally tends towards everyone needing to use compatible software, and once one company gets to control what's "compatible" they actually benefit from piracy.
Okay, how can we help Microsoft improve its authorisation systems?
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
I was recently in one of Australia's largest technology retail stores (initals HN) looking to purchase a copy of Office 2007. When approached by the (young and cocky) salesman. I made the comment that I was dissapointed MS had chosen to remove Outlook from their 3 Licence version (Home and Student or whatever they call it). So I was weighing up getting PRO Academic to get outlook but limiting to one computer or just going with H&S so I could put it on the 3 windows boxes I have at home.
His advice "Just use pro on them all, it can have three also", when questioning the legality, his responce "it will work"
He then proceeded to tell me how I could just download and crack the demo version like he did and that it's "exactly" the same as what you get paying for it.
I'd be willing to bet that Microsoft, the BSA and the court systems are going to rule this installation "pirated" and I can't blame them. However, what was I to do? This machine was reinstalled way before Ubuntu became viable. (I reinstalled it in 2004 or so, I think...)
For a while I ran a pirated version of EZ CD Creator. I freely admit it. How was it justified? I have an older HP computer that did come with a wonderful recovery CD. My copy of the CD burning software became corrupted and would no longer launch. No problem. Uninstall the corrupt one and reinstall from original CD.
The uninstall went fine without a hitch. The OEM restore CD was a problem. The entire disk was just a Norton Ghost image. There was no way to reinstall my legal copy of the CD burning software without completely dumping my existing configuration, files, data, and later installed software.
To legally reinstall my software comes with the penalty of wiping my hard drive! This was unacceptable, so a replacement was borrowed from a friend. I would gladly tell the software vendors that I would stay legal if they provided installation disks that work without hosing the installation for the products provided with the hardware.
This is one of the issues that got me to seriously consider Linux. Software that works, is legal, and can be reinstalled without problems.
I am no longer running the pirated software so at the moment I am safe from a BSA raid. The older machine came with Windows 98 SE. It came to the point of the annual reformat/reinstall cycle and things were back to normal except now it's dual boot with Ubuntu. I still use Windows with the serial port to use my GPS software and National Geographic "Back Roads Explorer" topographic map software. For the occasional gig, I use Freestyler. Qlight is getting better, but not yet as functional.
Now that MS Office 97 is getting obsolete, the real cost in upgrading was a prime reason to dual boot the machine. Windows 98 didn't come with MS Office. Ubuntu does come with Open Office. I couldn't justify the cost of Photoshop. I used Arcsoft software that came bundled with my camrera on Windows 98. I now use The Gimp. Instead of pirating a copy of a CD burning software when my Windows 98 copy goes south, I use Ubuntu. A Right click on an iso in the OS gives me the option to burn to CD. Nice. No 3rd party software needed at all. Instead of Voyetra for recording audio, I use Audacity.
When you add up all the costs with a Windows install and typical applications, Ubuntu was an easy switch. Of course there is still a dual boot partition for the occasional GPS map load and gig. The rest of my machines are not dual boot.
The truth shall set you free!
I disagree. I learned basic computing on some low end Win boxes. Slowly, the news discussions about the MS Trilogy of Windows-Office-IE Explorer began making me think.
... glitches! But wait... more deep breaths... weren't we complaining about IE6 glitches? So in the spirit of the article, "if each is free and both have glitches, then MS doesn't really have an advantage, do they?" (And who pirates IE? That's super-free, because of the whole MS bundle trick the DOJ became amused with.)
... but this is OSS Office software! The second part of the MS trilogy defeated! Sure I can survive a botch or three!
... as comfy.
... will actually enable me to take a crack at a Linux desktop ... *gasp*... in the company!!
... needs to be GOOD. Currently, I'm a gibbering hatchling. But one hysterical blunder at a time, I'll learn enough to only look like a fool instead of a menace. Then I can broach the idea. I am lucky enough that my boss is actually pretty pro-tech, even if he needs help on the details. I think he'll see what I'm trying to do.
... look! here I am! Free-Source software! MS has lost a prisoner! And who plays games at work anyway? So who needs DirectX 10?
Firefox proved to be the easiest switch. Easy install... and
Now, I did happen to glance at Open Office in the Version 1.x stages. I had my ideology all lined up... but it was so different, that time cost forced me to decline. Life progressed, and one day on a lark, I murmured, "Gee. What's Open Office up to these days?". Now, having first suffered horribly for 3 days on V1.x, I was *grateful* for the incredible improvements in the (then-beta) V2 next generation. I still run into amusements like printing workbooks instead of sheets,
But that last one is really tough. I am sorry to say, making the OS switch is NOT as easy as the app switches. My first day I managed to nuke my music player because I somehow turned off the GUI window. (A fit of completely inspired bravery into the command line and the manual got it back two hours later.) I'm still motivated. And I'm still researching, at a glacial pace. But that "comfy-MS" feeling is my vote for the reason no one has switched. The only reason Mac is surviving... is because Apple is pulling out every last ounce of strength they have to market themselves
Re: The resume point, I disagree. Borrow a friend's machine, whip up your resume, save the file, and that's the only windows-created file you'll ever need, right? If not, make the file yourself.. and get a friend to *check it* before you send it to HR.
Looking at the types of word docs I see being created, I have never heard of people rushing towards Office in stark terror *if they know of an alternative*. The problem is mindshare. "You mean, something *else besides office* can create a spreadsheet!?"
The kiss of death in business used to be the weird proprietary apps that only run on windows. However, we just switched to a unified server running clients... while not marketed as such, that windows server
The last remaining problem is - the advocate of anything new
I have a static workflow, so once I nail the pattern,
My email is visible. My remarks are sincere. Any of you Penguin hotshots who want to volunteer to be disaster-mitigation resources, let me know. I'm right on the money the perfect switch candidate. So for all the otbers like me out there, I'm game.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I spend hours every day surfing the net, downloading all kinds of software- from legit programs to ... not-so-legit. I visit adult sites, sites for cracks/serials, and online games. I have teenage family members that visit and load their chat programs and games on the computer.
Never been infected on any machine (except at work a few years ago, via an Outlook virus that hit everyone in the company). Is it because I use Firefox, or that I know not to click on misleading ads? (Not that I see any ads with Adblock installed)
Or am I just incredibly lucky? I'd like to know how many Slashdot users have the same luck, and if you do get infected- how does it happen?
Bundling is a well-known problem to the adoption of open source operating systems
Yeah, so is piracy. We've known this for years. Slashdot alone has dozens of articles on the subject ranging back about 10 years, including corporations being selective of how strongly they pursue depending on whether they're trying to grow into a given market. Yawn.
How should those people be handled? Is Piracy still piracy if it's the same version as what was there before?
Yes, it's absolutely piracy.
We need to be more tough on pirates and terrorists. In the music industry we use fines of $100,000 per 5MB of illegal pirated contraband. This should be increased to $500,000 per 5MB for Windows because it is such an important piece of software. Since Windows is about 1 GB in size that means we should be fining them about a gajillion dollars per theft. If you have multiple pirated copies then we must treat it as a commercial operation, and then clearly we are talking about *much* larger numbers.
Once the fine has been paid the pirates should then be sentenced to death by hanging. This is a good way to prevent re-offending.
I know that some of you think this is a little harsh but we must remember what the world was like when we were too gentle with pirates and terrorists. Do you want events like 9/11 to become a regular occurrence?
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Don't get too down on Linux though, it's the *only* thing driving Windows improvement and the only thing reining in truly oppressive DRM.
MS knows that if they rest on their laurels too long or get so abusive with DRM that it creates inconvenience then customers will start actively looking for alternatives.
(unfortunately this won't stop DRM, but it means they will use the "boiled frog" approach rather than trying the "instant police state" approach endorsed by the IP Mafia)
but that would be the point of the article. Microsoft offers YOU a cheap platform to develop on so they can charge your bosses and clients big bucks behind the scenes to run the software you write. So is it really a good deal? Or is Microsoft just hiding the price?
Why I finally switched to Linux on my Desktop - Money.
I think the author nailed it. I used my legit copy of XP for a long time - as long as possible. Why? I've been using Unix & Linux for 15 years, I was as admin for a long time. There was no technical learning curve. But XP was paid for and it was too much trouble to switch everything. It works fine. I can do everything I need to on either Windows or Linux, so why go through the trouble to switch?
But Vista gave me a reason. My machine was just not powerful enough to run Vista. I wanted new hardware but didn't want to pay for Vista, based on the price and negative rumors. I considered Mac and Linux. I decided to try Linux on the desktop for real, on my main machine. I chose the cheaper one even though I know Apple's product is better, just like in the car example. It's free and I can still do all the stuff I want to do.
If Vista is made truly "uncrackable" (yeah right) I think we'll see much the same thought process happen more and more often.
The name calls me a coward and I'm worse than it. I'm a College student that's spending time and money to acquire the skills to 'properly' become a Linux administrator before I switch my main system OS. Disclaimer: I use OpenOffice, Firefox and VLC to handle > 90% of my normal use.
but not everyone sees it that way.
I think piracy hurts Linux in developing and home user markets because when one uses pirated software, one is not required to make the decision on whether to spend money on the software or not. Businesses hav greater liability and hence this is less of a factor.
All else being equal, people wills stick with what they know because that always costs less time.
Because I know Linux really well, I generally find that Windows costs me an inordinate amount of time and the opportunity cost is prohibitive (I can do a lot of things on Linux that I can't even dream about doing on Windows without a much larger budget than I have). So I am not going to dismiss the idea that, for Windows power user, Linux adoption takes a lot of time. The systems are different and both have learning curves attached.
This being said, I think that Linux for *average* Windows users has been ready on the business end for quite some time (since at least 2000) and for home use are getting close. There are many applications which still pose obstacles in consumer space, but these will make it soon enough.
In fact, in the business sector, Linux is a no-brainer choice. I am starting to help customers move from Microsoft Access to Once:Radix (an open source web-based program similar to Access but with a real RDBMS behind it). And many of my customers are expressing a desire to get rid of WIndows desktop systems in their places of buisness.
Best Wishes.
Chris Travers
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I am writing this in my IBM T42 running gentoo, but bear with me...
I recently got my first contact with Vista, helping a friend with her new Vista PC. That clustered and confusing interface makes me want to slam her computer on the floor (after half an hour tackling with connecting to my router with WPA and failing that, I just went to the garage, clam her a new CAT-5 cable...). That's when I realized how the simple design of GNOME is so much better than that crap. When I mentioned that, she asked "what's Linux"? Then I show her my computer with the spinning cube and what not. Her impression? "That's pretty, but it looks hard..."
It is a vicious cycle. People like her is never going to hear about linux because no computer they see in BestBuy (or similar) show case it; but of course they don't show case linux because most people never heard of it. And without exposure, people are always going to perceive linux as a geeky niche.
Going back to the GUI, how's BB going to sell computer to JSP? It's going to show case the prettiest, most impressive interface that can impress JSP in 5 minutes, instead of one simple, minimalist, productive that's doesn't demo itself well. People just don't make informed purchase and I don't blame them. For JSP, a computer should just work, windows or linux.
I am sure what I just said have been ranted by /.er over and over...Need to let go of some steam.
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
Plain and simple - if I could be 100% guaranteed that I can play every game out of the box on linux, I would be there in a heartbeat.
Until then, it is more time efficient for me to pirate XP. Yeah, some games I could play in WINE, or whatever.. but I don't have the patience to deal with the issues. If I can't throw it in the dvd drive, watch annoying install bars and then get a fix of gaming fun without a half hour of troubleshooting and forum searches, I'm not interested.
A pirated piece of software saves me hassles that the free alternative that would be fine for everything else can't prevent.
(NB: this is also why I can't be bothered with Vista - first bluescreen I had loading up a game, it was outta there)
VHS recorded 2 hours out of the gate, Beta recorded 60 or 90 minutes. With a VHS deck, you could record a movie, with a Beta, you could not. Further, VHs has the longer play modes that looked horrible but recorded 4 or 6 hours on a tape.
When tapes were expensive, that made the difference.
But the biggest issue is that for what people wanted, recording 120 minute movies, VHS fit the bill, while Beta did not. The pornography angle is cute, and might have made a difference, but the biggest thing was recording time.
Lesson, uses of the technology trumps quality. Hence SA-CD and DAD-A died on the vine (high quality) was MP3s succeeded (convenient travel).
The point is simple-- because you choose to do one thing, you cannot do another thing without added cost. This is opportunity cost in economics terms.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The reason no one bothers with the real free software and decides to pirate is because most free software is shit. It's plain and simple.
Well, I'm doing my share for free software. I have used Linux since about 1995 (Slackware, 1.0.9 kernel...) but at that point I wouldn't pretend it was good enough to just throw on someone's box; it was easy to use but needed a system administrator to install software or anything... well, Ubuntu takes care of that. Therefore, it used to be:
"Do you have a copy of XP?" (or 98.. one weirdo even asked for ME.)
"I don't use Windows, but I have the disk.. with serial #. It's even cracked!!!"
Now,
"Do you have a copy of Windows?"
"Nope, I don't use Windows. I'll burn you a copy of Ubuntu if you want, it's got office software, web browser etc. included."
(then usually it proceeds...)
"Oh but I NEEEEED Windows......" (then the person trails off like I'll change my mind.)
"That's nice, go the store then. It's about $200."
So far I've had like 1 person take me up on the offer. Plus my dad, after Vista pissed him off to bad on his new notebook. After I threw Ubuntu on it, he was like "Do you want to copy these games off before they expire?" (His Dell came with some popcap games that would expire pretty quickly.) He was pretty flabbergasted when I mentioned those games came with ubuntu and weren't going to expire 8-).
I used to figure I was sticking it to Microsoft by handing out Windows copies, but now figure instead that this will just help Microsoft maintain a monopoly position. The best way to help free software is to not "help out" anyone, including friends and relatives, with pirate copies of Microsoft products.. if all their geek friends say "no" then they'll be far more likely to try out some free software (at first due to the free cost, then appreciating the actual freedom over time.)
Look, probably about 80%+ of the U.S. population has no clue what BitTorrent, or DC++ or even P2P programs even entail, and those are usually how those cracks are obtained. The only pirating software that goes "mainstream" is stuff like Napster or Kazzaa(sp?), easy stuff that specializes in music downloads. The only elephant in the room is that Windows got its big, fat foot in the door first (a long time ago) and most people will likely default to it because they still believe "none of my stuff will work on anything else" or "other OS's [like Linux] take too much to learn."
When Vista was reported to have sold millions of copies a lot of the tech articles sounded surprised. But, dude, Bill Gates got on the freaking Daily Show! What more do you need to see how Windows is able to target the everyday joe America?
You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
.....not even beer. Everything costs time. Some people like computers and will pick Unix or Linux. Those that are educated will compile everything and adapt it and truly spend __hundreds of times__ the inflated cost of Windows in their valuable time. Anyone who has the slightest hint of science in their education knows, that by all having the exact same system, is contrary to the most basic laws of biology and science in general. It must be said the cost of Windows is __extreme__ and please consider your poor provider? I know, I own one!
..... direct quote 'from somebody at Microsoft who knows what they're talking about', many of you know who. (Perhaps all of top management?) Lets keep an anonymous coward anonymous on this one. Of course readers should be aware only "Office" has ever made a profit, therefore, as bad as it sounds, the best strategy of Microsoft would be to give away "no cost" copies of the latest Windows. They REALLY do. (not just to large, slow and dumb companies to be able to say they use their server) This was the biggest scam of the 20th century, I told you so.
"Microsoft would not be where it is today if we didn't tolerate piracy"
KeyUpdateTool is a small tool from Microsoft that will let you convert a VLK XP to a regular OEM Pro XP if you have the license key for the OEM. However, it can NOT convert it to a Home XP.
Oh, and you can freely lend out your Corp CD, just don't give anyone your legit CD key, generate a new one instead. It will install and receive security updates, but if they install WGA it'll turn into Nagware and Media Player 11 is a no-go. After they've had those hassles for a while, give them a Ubuntu LiveCD.
Money for nothing, pix for free
This is a really thoughtful article. I think the discussion of the moral psychology of the many "normal" people who "steal" software is really interesting. Gutteridge mentions several times that people who steal software would never consider stealing something more tangible, like an ipod out of an Apple store. The implication here is that the mass of software "thieves" suffer from some sort of moral delinquency, but not as bad as that of outright criminals.
I think this argument misses something though and part of the problem lies in the language we use to describe this phenomena: "theft," "piracy," etc. What we miss when we talk like this is the difference between taking something that can be digitally reproduced at almost no cost vs taking something tangible that has no digital existence. If a hungry person steals a loaf of bread, the baker cannot sell that loaf to anyone else, and so he suffers a real financial loss. If someone who can't afford a piece of software "steals" it, it does not prevent Microsoft, et al, from selling a perfect digital reproduction of the same thing to someone else. And notice, if the software thief couldn't afford the legitimate product to begin with, then the "theft" causes no direct financial harm to Microsoft, because the thief was never going to buy the product. (Of course one could argue that rampant piracy by a mass of poor people, if left unchecked, will undermine the conditions that make a market, and profit, possible.)
Microsoft and organizations like the BSA disregard these facts when they create utterly ridiculous estimates of the financial losses caused by piracy. When the "product" is digital, its "theft" by someone who cannot afford it causes no direct financial loss. This means that poor people who steal software really aren't doing anything as bad as criminals who steal bread and ipods.
There are further implication to this argument that are often overlooked, but which play a subtle role in the moral psychology of software piracy. If the poor person who steals software really isn't a criminal - because he or she causes no direct financial loss to Microsoft - then it follows that there is something morally defective about organizations or individuals labeling this person a criminal. Indeed, one could turn the moral argument on its head and say that if software piracy by poor people causes me no financial loss, then actually I may have a moral obligation to provide my software to the poor at no cost!
Microsoft does have programs in place to provide cheaper versions of software to some groups, but it develops these programs while also continuing to harass and mislabel others who are not able to afford their products.
If a poor person is not in a morally dubious position when they "steal" software they cannot afford, what about someone who can afford to purchase it? Isn't that person more like a criminal? Why do people who can afford software steal it, if not because of some moral defect in their character?
The answer that Gutteridge is on the verge of seeing is this: people steal software because it is so easy to do. On the surface that sounds like a moral defect. "I took it because it was there and so easy to take." But the implications of this are much more profound. We have created technologies that are making it increasingly trivial to distribute software and other intellectual products on a scale never before possible in human history. What rampant software piracy demonstrates is that almost all the traditional costs associated with getting things to people are absent in regard to digital goods. Further technological progress in this direction is going to make it increasingly difficult to maintain the social, political, moral and legal conditions that make digital markets and profits possible. If pirated software is everywhere and available over the Internet in an instant, it will become impossible for normal people to understand why they shouldn't take it. This isn't a moral defect, it is a normal adaptation t
If you must have keyboard & mouse, get a PS3 instead.
Everything has a cost. Linux generally costs me a lot of time -- more time than it's worth to me
Not as much as Windows. Windows installation and maintenance is a bitch.
from compatibility issues and poor hardware vendor support to the general PITA of learning the nuances of a particular version of a given distribution.
Yes, that about sums up Windows.
Right here you've pretty much fallen off the turnip truck. If it wanted to be Windows, it would have been ReactOS, not Linux-as-a-distro.
>>>All the things that Windows works hard at are actively avoided by Linux users and developers: Backwards compatability, working with all available hardware, installing easily, requiring no configuration.
Another indication that you haven't done a serious day's work with a modern Linux distro - ever. As someone who oversees a production server running Linux, and has been "in the trenches" for 10 years now, I can say that most of your objections are current - for 1995. I've run 4-year-old software on new distros (backwards compatibility), used hardware new-out-of-the-box with no problems (works on available hardware), done 7-click installs (easy installs), and had all my hardware detected on a first run (no config).
>>>Ok, and after we give up on all that what do we get.
Um, a functional system?
>>>Buggy software, source code that won't compile, rpms that still need another package (that usually doesn't exist, or else needs another package itself), driver installation that requires you to know exactly which processor you have and to compile against kernel source and ugly fonts.
All software, having been written by imperfect human beings with imperfect languages of expression, have bugs. As far as one having bugs and not another, that's the pot calling the kettle black-with-shades-of-chartruse. The implication that Windows somehow passes a "sniff test" for no bugs implies that you really, really haven't worked with it in a production environment, or if you have, not for more than a few weeks. Don't go there - really - it's dark, and a grue might eat you.
I suppose you download your source code for Windows applications and build from scratch? This is a complete strawman argument.
Yup, Windows DLL hell ... erm... wait... RPM dependencies...were fixed, a few years back, with dependency-resolving installers. I'm sure that Windows has fixed this issue as well - doesn't it run out to the internet and download any missing software that is needed by another 3rd party software install (yes, I know it will download drivers and patches, but I'm talking about full dependency resolution, right)?
Must be some good glue you're sniffing there. Of course, we both know that distros come with pre-compiled drivers ready-to-go out of the box. Um, you did know that, right?
You know, the fonts kinda do look ugly on my Windows 2000 install at home...wait...sorry, wrong software. I forgot, we're talking about Linux fonts, you know, the ones that end in TTF on the filename? And there's all these other font systems I've never heard of, but they seem to work fine with those pesky TTF fonts, you know the ones I'm talking about, the ones that don't scale past 1200dpi on professional printing presses by design. I guess my eyesight is failing, because now they look a little fuzzier and softer, not so harsh. I wish my Windows 2000 install would look that way.
>>>Oh and don't forget that the UI looks exactly the same as all the other UIs, there is no innovation, and the whole thing is a total copy.
So, fluxbox looks like enlightenment, which looks like gnome, which looks like KDE, which looks like ratpoison, which looks like twm/motif? Microsoft's "innovation" is fairly overrated, given that the vast majority of their products come from 3rd party vendors they have bought out and rebadged. And yes, it's a copy - that's the whole point of it, dumbass.
>>>And at the end of all this, when the user complains about the crapness, they are told if they stopped complaining and started developing then maybe the world would be a better place. Well guess wha
He constantly mentions $200 as the price of windows. Which is surely a wrong number.
;-)
You should not calculate the price of the OS from a single release, but from the lifetime cost.
Each release and update costs money, so the price difference is a *lot* higher during the lifetime.
If you only used non pirated software the difference is even higher.
Will you rather send your kids to college or use free software?
Max M - IT's Mad Science
Admittedly, I missed out as a kid. I never went through the 'I want to
be a fireman' phase. No endless days are spent in horror realizing
that, as I approach 30, I will really not become the pilot, policeman
or professional soccer player of my childhood dreams, for I had none.
I always envisioned myself still playing with lego all those eons
later. Since I am a programmer by profession, it could be argued that
this is actually the case. I will let that subject rest for now.
It's not that I don't realize that, by saying this, I am actually
showing the world how pitiful a character I am, sobbing over a
surrogate lost childhood dream, but I really have to express it if I
want to feel somewhat sane ever again: I want to join the BSA! These
are the real men of noble blood, in their shiny uniforms, protecting
the intellectual property rights of the poor unsuspecting software
giants, defenseless against the malevolent forces of evil software
pirates, who are bottom-feeding on these companies' revenue streams as
we speak, probably within a 100-yard radius of your house!
Before you think that I am trying to fantasize away years of social
repression and torment by projecting myself into membership of a
totalitarian copyright gestapo, let me tell you why I think it is
important to protect intellectual property rights: If you don't pay
for criminally bad software through the nose, you will never realize
how much you are being ripped off! Just think of it! All those home
users and small offices running pirated copies of Windows and Office,
they are the silent backers of the Microsoft near monopoly. Let them
pay $500 on operating system licenses and $20 per seat licenses for
using email from their WebTV like the rest of us would, had we been
lobotomized and not running BSD or Linux.
I went to the BSA website. What an interesting read! Billions of
dollars of revenue are lost to pirated copies of commercial
applications. Imagine a world where millions of companies were given
the choice between actually paying for the odd ten thousand dollars'
worth of bug-infested agonizing doofusware or going for a quality free
software solution that isn't being pushed on them like bad cocaine!
How wonderfully nice does all this software, currently labelled "Not
ready for prime time yet," actually start to look! Programs that have
been under development shorter than it took Microsoft to figure out
that DOS is not a good base line for a graphical operating system
suddenly look "promising" again. Bliss, I tell you!
Unfortunately, there is no "jobs" button on the homepage. No mention
made of job openings, not even for volunteer positions. I would
sacrifice a weekend every month to this worthy cause of making losers
pay till they bleed for the executable excrement they so worship! Hey
guys, if you are reading this, contact me! I want to join your army of
the twelve monkeys and sail the seven seas to weed out all those evil
software pirates!
Also, I want to congratulate Microsoft on their decision to move to a
subscription system for their software. The best way to make people
realize that they are being ripped off and spat upon is not just to
give them crappy applications; The secret is to make them keep paying
even after they die! The subtle never ending pain is an important part
of the message and I'm glad Microsoft are realizing this fully now.
Anyway, be aware that I am now a self-appointed BSA Auditor. Don't
make me catch you running an unlicensed copy of Windows 2000 or,
heaven forbid, Exchange Server! I will give you seven days to erase
the illegal data off your harddrive. On request I will supply you with
a Linux or BSD CD to recover the lost functionality or the address of
the nearest Microsoft dealer to quote you on the small fortune you will
have to pay to better your evil copyright violating ways. Pirate!
Cheers,
Pi
I just tar'ed the restore partition to an USB disk and wiped the drive clean with a fresh install, all from the Kubuntu install CD in one glorious session.
Q: Why are pirates pirates?
A: Because they just arrrr.
They don't see a huge problem with using pirated Windows partially because of what I've outlined and partially because of the negative media Microsoft has got where the FOSS advocates go on about how big and how much money MS have. It's a kind of own goal really.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
You definitely don't have a good handle on the street prices in Bangkok, sir.
Put identity in the browser.
It's just not possible to get a good WinXP *with* SP2 that's cracked and doesn't contain a virus.
Faced with the choice of: pay for Adobe Photoshop, pirate Photoshop, pay for a simple graphics editor which will do what they need or pirate simple graphics editor, people will pirate Photoshop every time. If you sell a simple graphics editor that can be used to retouch photographs (red-eye removal, brightness / contrast adjustment, cropping / resizing, obliterating ex-boyfriends with copied bits of background) you will get absolutely nowhere -- and that's all because of piracy. And the crazy thing is, nobody ever has to make a single pirate copy of your program! Everyone's using pirate copies of Adobe Photoshop that they got from "a friend". They don't get the Adobe manuals, but they can get a book for about £20 that will explain how to use Adobe Photoshop to do all the stuff they could have done in that cheap graphics editor.
The publishers of all these "$EXPENSIVE_PACKAGE for n00bs"-type books have to bear some responsibility for this. They are next-to encouraging wholesale piracy of $EXPENSIVE_PACKAGE. Unfortunately, I can't see any solution that doesn't make things worse. If you insist for someone to prove that they have a valid licence for $EXPENSIVE_PACKAGE before they can buy the n00b's guide, you make it harder to give software and books as gifts (e.g. the software from your mum and the book from your little sister). And you can't read the book before you get the software. If you give the publishers of $EXPENSIVE_PACKAGE some right of control over third-party manuals, you're damaging the free market (to the extent that such a free market exists, what with the damage already done by widespread tolerance of rampant piracy).
The only thing that might come remotely close to cutting piracy is to introduce the concept of laches in copyright -- make it so that if copyright holders don't do something to protect their IP, they lose it. Then this would encourage them to go after home users and casual pirates. But I suspect many copyright holders wouldn't really want this either. They want to eat their cake and have it; they'd rather you were using a pirated version of their software than a legitimate version of anyone else's software.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Impact means one object physically striking another. So unless the headline means that someone threw a pirated CD with Windows XP at a CD with Ubuntu, the headline should say "affects". Besides, impact is a noun.
But someone blithers "but, but, but common usage".
NO, bad smitty!
Marketing and Journalism majors with shitty grammar and diction are buggering up the English language. It matters because when some tard starts blurring words together ambiguity increases. We have a word that means "causes change", use it. Common usage can choke on it.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
I'd love to understand the sociology behind the fact that computer makers put their own name on poorly designed software. Don't the computer makers have anyone smart enough to understand their crud software is self-destructive? Are they so stupid they don't know their software is poorly designed?
I guess that often the non-technical people at technically-oriented companies don't know and don't care what they do. For them, it's just a job. For a technically knowledgeable person, their work is often a satisfying intellectual challenge. But non-technical people seem to be part of an incompatible culture; they lead somewhat robotic lives in which things don't have to work.
How else to explain Toshiba's brainless slogan, "In touch with tomorrow"? Woooooo--oooooo. Spacey. Do Toshiba managers smoke dope? A better slogan would be "In touch with reality."
I once asked a Toshiba technical support representative for tomorrow's stock quotes. Apparently the company has no special connection with tomorrow, unfortunately, in spite of the fact that they say they do, every time I turn on my laptop.
Let's start a campaign to move all the non-technical managers of technical companies into retirement, where they can watch the blinking clocks on their VRCs.
It is not the Windows that makes the difference. It is the other pirated software that makes the major difference.
Take for example Photoshop, or CATIA CAD. None of those are available for Linux and those applications legally cost hundreds or thousands of dollars. But you can easily obtain them for few bucks in the far East or eastern Europe or download online from pirated websites.
Even MS Office makes the big difference. I disagree with author, that Open Office is a free "equivalent" of MS Office. Please. If Open Office is an "equivalent" of MS Office, then MS Paint is free equivalent of GIMP and MS WordPad is free equivalent of OpenOffice word processor. This is one thing, that Linux crowd is using often and is really dishonest to the public. Most open source applications are not quite equivalents of commercial products. GIMP is not as good as Photoshop and OpenOffice lacks many features that are available in MS Office. They maybe 80-90% as good as commercial products but they are not eqivalent. In case of OpenOffice if anybody needs VisualBasic in Excel, OpenOffice is exactly 0% - null - nada equivalent.
ge versions of windows everywhere
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
A couple decades ago, when I worked at a major university and lived near campus, I was buying new furniture and needed to dump a couple of old things. One of them was a yellow leather couch that was too wide (4 seats) to let me fit in the new stuff. So I set it out by the street with a sign on it that read "Free couch". 4 days later the landlord told me to get rid of that couch if no one would take it. So I got an idea. I made a new sign. I marked on the sign "Couch $50" in big letters with a fake phone number in small digits under it. Then I crossed out the "$50" and wrote slightly smaller "$35" under it. I put that on the couch around 9:30 AM. I came back at 12:00 noon and the couch was gone.
Who the hell wants free stuff?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Wow, I can't even believe that you laid this up so nicely.
Betamax WAS superior to VHS, you fucking nimrod. If you're going to compare apples then do compare them to other apples and not to imaginary oranges. VHS had a lower resolution and originally recorded less material than Beta did. Sure, you could record VHS in long-mode but originally this was a hack from manufacturers and not part of the original specs. Beta was the same way, but after Beta upgraded the specs you could record crap on Beta for up to six hours or something - I remember in school when we watched two 3-hr movies recorded onto the same Betamax-tape in long-recording mode. Sure, the image and sound was really crappy but what could you expect?
The reason why VHS came out victorious was simple: manufacturing costs associated with hardware and tapes. Beta machines required more parts and were more complex to construct which increased the costs. Same went for tapes, VHS tapes were easier and cheaper to manufacture than Betamax tapes.
The urban legend that the Porn industry decided to go with VHS probably has a grain of truth, and considering what I just said this probably helped spur the adoption rate of VHS.
Windows is very similar. It's an inferior product that none the less receives a heavy market penetration not by being necessarily better. Instead it derives it's popularity from related issues and the ignorance of new users who don't know better.
The only way that a pirated Windows is free is in pure cost, because the associated work needed to maintain that installation will be greater than the cost of your time and effort installing something truly free. Not only do you have to fuck around with cracks, you have to spend time finding and cracking good antivirus software and firewall software, as well as fighting off Windows built-in decrepitude AND fight off getting black-listed or infested with the bullshit Windows Genuine Advantage.
Take a real-world example: my girlfriend. She stuck with Windows for several years. She wasn't very computer-literate when we met, and she had this little HP machine with Windows XP Home that she'd bought in 2k3 or whenever. She had constant problems with it, and after she installed a pirated XP Pro over it (since she wanted to get around a few things) she spent a lot of time maintaining it. I asked her a few times if she wanted to try other things (i.e. Linux) but she persisted since she was used to Windows and didn't want to have to relearn her ways. But about two months ago she caved in and asked me to install Ubuntu - she was tired of having to fight the computer rather than using it. I installed it with the admonishment that she'd have to accept that things would be different, and she would have a period of confusion and irritation which later would dissipate. Sure enough, the first few days were hellish, since she was deeply set in the Windows-mentality. But now she runs everything she needs it for just fine, and has even poked around in the terminal. Whenever asked what she prefers and what she recommends she always says the same thing - Ubuntu. She has no need to install cracks or bloated software, everything she needed was installed right along the OS.
When I also explained to her the concept of truly free software (free as in free speech) and the motivation and mentality of FOSS-developers and how they do most of the work from the grace of their own hearts she was truly inspired.
So, I converted someone to a happy Ubuntu user, who is no longer constantly frustrated by her computer and who can use it withouth having to fight it. Isn't that something to consider in this overall rather stupid debate over what's "better"?
What I mean by that is, unlike most tangible consumer goods, pirated software is often easier to obtain and set up than making a legitimate purchase. ... He tried to install it but he was confused by the different serial codes, authorization keys, and verification checks to pass through. ... When they finally had it all sorted out on which number went where, it turned out that the length of one of the serial codes didn't match the length of the input fields. ... after working their way through 1-800 numbers and option menus, the net result was that the situation was not solvable with automated service and there were no live operators available because it was late Friday night.
Amen, brudder!
With all the damned hoops that they make legit users jump through to prevent piracy, they are actually forcing piracy just for the convenience/time factor.
And how about all the OEM computers being distributed now with nothing but an image on the hard disk for restore? What is the most common failure you run into? - hard disk failure. If the hard disk dies and you can't read the image to restore it, you quickly find out that the OEM wants more than a retail version of Windows for a disk to restore the OS that was alredy purchased with the computer! They are forcing customers to pirate the software or pay twice for the same thing!
I think the strongest point he makes is that Microsoft could give away Windows for home use. Not dissimilar to the free version of Oracle with the crippled database size and limited SMP that should discourage many people with small business and department needs from looking at PostgreSQL, and MySQL.
This is an unfair game. I mean how much have a Windows user actually used Linux? While Linux users could most often go take a seat as a Windows sysop from day to day, with no training needed, because Windows is practically impossible to avoid when being an IT professional, unless you run your own business or other exceptions like that.
There's some truth in Linux not being easy to apply future drivers to, and you got to know the version and you won't find drivers for a legacy kernel. The solution is to update the kernel, and all the drivers will be built in, of course most modern distros makes that awfully easy, so the gradual upgrading of Linux saves it on that point. Linux is hostile to vendors, or maybe i should call it "not very encouraging", so community shouldn't whine when vendor support is lacking, instead applaud when a few vendors actually dare to step up to the task.
On the other hand, there's also hardware that won't work under Windows 2000, not only have MS cut support of this great OS, but I believe they also do their best to fight that any "new" technologies finds their way back to good old 2000, they've done it before, and it often has to do with USB and standard drivers. I'm thinking of how there's no UVC driver for Win2k and how the USB Mass Storage driver is not available to all versions with USB support, even though those versions of Windows were supported at the time it came around.
But the argument that cannot be disputed is that, if you happen to run short of a functionality you need, you have all the options you don't want as an end user: develop it yourself, rant about your desire and hope for mercy from developers or do the simplest and most common thing, wait until someone gets that bright idea and make the feature you long for. Users today have been lulled into sleep and wouldn't think about suggesting their ideas to the developers, nor would they think of or be able to afford to hire a developer, to do the development for them. Which both would be valid contributions to community, but for people to contribute in ways like that, it has to be as easy as click-type-send almost like the automatic bug reports, perhaps even with the possibility of putting more weigh behind the wish by donating 2, 5 or 10 euro.
Of course it would seem a little silly to have such a system built into the system in the beginning, with such a limited user base with such a high percentage of developers, but I believe it'd attract its actual audience.
Regarding the article, I've tried to say it before, but was voted overrated, I do not approve pirated software, even amongst those who can't afford the expensive packet, as long as there are free alternatives of adequate quality. And if students are to be taught about some particular software, their academy must borrow it to them, or the software house may actually give it to them for free (to get some free future marketing), even if that fails, I'm a living example that you can take a MS Office exam preparing only with OpenOffice.
If I was as pragmatic and objective as I claim to be, would I be commenting?
Windows is not better than Linux, but Windows has advantages in terms of support.
Don't blame MS for your lack of Windows support skills. For where to lay the blame, go look in your bathroom mirror.
I've set up Windows NT 4.0 servers which have had uptime of over 12 months, I've set up daily used Windows 2000 workstations which have likewise remained running for months without a problem, and my own Dell Windows Media Center is on all the time... again without any problems.
So I know, from over a decade of personal experience, that it's perfectly easy to set up a Windows machine without any problems. Most troubles, in my experience, either arise from the person doing the setup having no clue as to what they are doing (and thus setting everything up wrong), going psycho and installing all kinds of stuff which doesn't belong on there (like Firefox, which is superfluous since Windows already has a browser, and FF is buggy as all hell), or else they are using the cheapest and junkiest hardware they can find... which of course has cheap and junky drivers.
So in summary, stop blaming Bill Gates because you can't set up a machine. It's not Windows' fault your computer sucks.
Just because something has a bug doesn't mean it wouldn't run out of the box once the bug is fixed.
It just means you have a little more power without delving into the code of making that bug GET fixed.
That's the same reason I use american power outlets instead of the euro kind that prevents you from ever touching the exposed live wires. It's better. Not because I'm used to it or because I need things to work the same way they do everywhere around me.
In Windows, I can't watch video on my secondary monitor because NVidia crippled their driver. In Linux, I can.
i guess i can safely say, this is yet another article i was definitely not waiting for. isn't anyone else getting tired of this linuxwindowsmac bs?
de gustibus et coloribus non disputandum est... let it go hippies
me and my thinkpad, sittin' in a tree, c-o-d-i-n-g...
For crying out loud, just because someone doesn't or can't do something you can do they are not an idiot. Yeesh.
By far the most fun to use is the linux boxes. Never a problem.
Have you ever tried to install software that isn't part of your distribution?
It took me 4 hours of configuration/googling and all the last time I did it compared to a... double click on setup with windows or MacOSX.
I do find Linux extremely useful, flexible, powerful...I do find financial/technical reasons to use it and sometimes I have fun using it. But it has its share of problems especially when you try to install new stuffs.
Fedora claims few hundred thousands installations of their recent Fedora 7.
I would gladly sell that amount of naked PCs to someone. I just have to figure out how to build up component purchases, manufacturing and packaging, order processing and distributions, all that in at least few "western" countries at the same time.
And all that while trying to compete with big, established companies like HP, Dell, ... who I suppose have very good deals to buy components so are able to offer good prices even if they have to pay some fees to Microsoft.
So much for business plan. :)
But IMO it's not that bad. Ussualy there are companies who sell just components (so no fees for OEM Windows, etc. while buying from them). Then, there are local small businesses who buy those components and make whole PCs from them. And are thus able (and I suppose also willing) to sell naked PC to anybody who is interested.
So if we want naked PCs, we just ask local vendors. Sure, they do not have world-wide brand and presence and maybe their company name does not sound cool, but do we want naked PCs to do Linux computing or a style item for dick contest? :)
hany
I had a laptop which I have installed OpenOffice. They didn't want to use it because it didn't have Word. They wanted me to install a pirated MS Office on it. They were increduluos that I wouldn't install pirated MS Office on my computer.
He who said 1,000,000 monkeys on 1,000,000 typewriters would eventually type the great novel, never saw an AOL chat room
Piracy itself has become such a huge hassle to deal with on it's own, that I ultimately made the switch to Ubuntu Linux as my main OS. Vendor updates and/or patches often break a pirated copy of software; anti-piracy techniques are constantly being updated; and recently, rootkits and spyware are also another threat. These days, pirated software requires it's own brand of maintenance that frankly, I got tired of. On top of this, consider that: Windows lacks many utilities and features that Linux has natively; many of the programs I had been using under Windows are also available under Linux; spyware and virus issues are relatively unknown on Linux; Ubuntu Linux is very easy and fun to use and learn from. Is it really so hard to believe that I would eagerly switch? Though I still dual boot, I rarely ever have a need to boot into Windows except for gaming - and considering how far console gaming has already progressed, I predict that gaming under Windows won't be that big of a reason to keep Windows around much longer.
My brother did his final-year marketing project on this very topic: His thesis was that Microsoft is permissive of software piracy, and has been even more so in the past, as a calculated marketing strategy to establish their software (windows, word, etc) as the market standard. He did a survey of university staff and students. I'm not too sure about the results, but I think he had some support for the thesis.
The article's main hypothesis is that piracy negates the price differential between Linux and Windows.
/ microsoft.china.idg/
c hive/2007/07/23/100134488/index.htmd ustry_sectors/technology/article2098235.eceo ft-software-piracy-in.html
Specifically, one of the hypothesis towards the end of the article is that Microsoft unofficially acquiesced to piracy and maybe even encouraged it. Well, I thought I would point to Bill Gate's own words in the matter. In an article that I originally read on Cnet magazine, but that has since been commented and reprinted everywhere, he actually stated that piracy helps Microsoft by making the OS pervasive and that they were not worried about the Chinese pirating Windows, because if they are going to pirate "something", Microsoft and him would prefer that it be Windows.
"Then a comment made by Microsoft Founder, Chairman, and Chief Software Architect Bill Gates in 1998 and reprinted widely and often in the official media became a lightning rod for criticism of the software giant. Fortune magazine reported that, in a presentation to business students at an American university, Gates said rampant software piracy might turn out to be a positive thing for Microsoft.
"Although about three million computers get sold every year in China, people don't pay for the software," Gates reportedly said. "Someday they will, though. And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."
Source: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/02/23
And here's a more recent and yet more poignant articles and quotes from Bill Gates as it specifically mentions Linux.
Sources: http://www.digitaltippingpoint.com/?q=node/103
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_ar
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/in
http://labnol.blogspot.com/2007/07/we-love-micros
I think the article would benefit tremendously from including the information above as it strengthens the author's main thesis a great deal.
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
For example, if you want to use Nero, you have to have not only a copy of Nero, but the specific copy that came with your drive, because it's licensed per-drive, not per-computer or per-user.
You could always download InfraRecorder, I guess, but I've seen other, similar things happen. It seems like there's always one or two like that, before they get absorbed into Windows proper (XP can burn CDs itself, though not as well).
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Maybe I'm just more familiar with Ubuntu than with Fedora, but here:
Can't help you there. Maybe weird hardware, maybe an old kernel. What happens when your desktop loses network connectivity? Does everything still work then?
Way back when I was using Gentoo, there were no decent tools -- or none I was using -- to deal with battery status, so I had to write my own scripts.
But still, this kind of behavior is all userland, and probably a combination of config files and scripts that should be really easy to deal with. Should be... But that's just me.
But hey, solve it once and it's solved forever. I still have my old Gentoo /etc from that laptop, complete with things like remapping the power button to switch me to vt1 (that's ctrl+alt+f1).
On my system, I'd fire up aptitude, or apt frontend of choice, really, and wipe the bcom43xx kernel module. It would probably require a few big "let's depend on everything" packages that are used for upgrades, but that'd be it. And it never overwrites settings that I've touched myself without asking me.
But actually, the kernel module has always worked better for me, you just need to get the firmware. There's a separate program that you need to slice the firmware out, but once you do, it's got to be at least as easy as ndiswrapper -- it'll probably use the same Windows DLL. Bonus: Works flawlessly on PowerPC macs.
I admit, it's a hassle, and it really should be better. We could assign blame all day, point fingers at each other (and mostly at Broadcom), but it should be better.
But even with that cost, I still use Linux everywhere. I count problems like this as part of the cost of setting up a new system -- and it's a small part, compared to the amount of customizing I do.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
The fact that the author has a girlfriend significantly undermines his credibility regarding technical matters :-)
That comment is meant for your girlfriend, not you.
...and...
Look...
I know computers are scary...
But just put the CD in the drive...
follow the instructions on the screen?
If you'd been smart enough to put it in the drive in the first place, we wouldn't be having this conversation! It'd be obvious from what shows up on the screen...
Shit, I'm no car nut, but I know how to change a flat tire. I'm no accountant, but I know how much money is in my bank account, and how I'm going to spend it (and how I have been spending it, and how to check it online). When my air conditioner and coffee maker blow a circuit, I don't call an electrician, I go down, open the breaker box, and flip the switch. I'm no gun expert, but I know which end the bullets come out of!
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I'm thinking I may pick up a little contract work doing this kind of thing.
Basically, you give me ssh access to come in and fix stuff, do upgrades, and so on. I keep your systems up to date and stable, and you don't have to either be your own admin, or hire a full-time admin.
I'm not ready to do this yet (other stuff going on in my life), but is there a market for this kind of thing?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
"If Linux was anywhere near as good as Windows it would be far more popular than it is today."
I think the real problem is standardization and people not wanting to learn new things, not operating sytems. Bill gates quote: "Let's face it, the average computer user has the brain of a Spider Monkey." That pretty much sums up the whole "OS" debate. The way the computer world is right now, going with another OS then windows is's like owning a car that runs on biofuel or some other exotic (in terms of availability) substance, you can't just go and fill up ANYWHERE, the infrastructure costs are enormous. Operating systems are like experimental cars with limited fuel availability. I'm sure if microsoft relesaed an operating system that broke all backwards compatability with most software to start fresh it wouldn't sell. There's the whole chicken and egg problem, not to mention alienating your customers. Who just want the damn software to work.
Think about transportation, when you go to buy a car it does the same exact thing as every car in terms of basic function (getting you from point A-->B) most regular people just don't care, as long as they can do what they want. They also want a standardized OS / Application base that's compatable, they don't want to have to deal with things 'not working' they just wnat it to fucking work the first time, no errors, no patche, etc, or if patches nad drivers need updating it should just 'do it automagically'.
Finally, people don't want to learn complex things to simply get (what should be accessable and simple). They just want to do, so make it easy for them (user friendly). Microsoft learned this with windows, although their is a lot of power user complexity in any OS, most people don't give a damn about that complexity. If you look at many applications themselves, they are 1) Time saving and 2) have complexity and tedium reducing functionality making people's computer experience less frustrating.
I think the biggest reason linux didn't catch on was not because of windows but because it didn't market itself aggresively at the right times (and still now) because there is no econommic incentive to do so. Microsoft had tonnes of incentive to get people to use their software, Linux enthusiasts don't have ANY incentive to get others to use linux. There is no monolithic entity who has economic power and incentive to 'spread the linux gospel'. Sure there are rare success stories but for the most part Linux and operating systems in general show the general flaw of "Selling operating systems". The truth is operating systems SHOULD be able to run everything everywhere, we are starting to get to that point now with virtualization, etc, which should be interesting. Operating systems have a lot in common with console emulators, for instance how do console emulators get popular and reach mass market? They do so if you work with as many games as possible with little or no quality degradation over the originals.
Not to mention that linux came from a command line environment like DOS. There was a reason microsoft went away from dos with Windows, Windows from about 3.0 and 3.1 on was 'better then DOS' for most people, then add in windows 95 and you get a major step up and Win98 / ME refinements of the user interface and underlying hidden complexity.
Linux is a specialist, enthusiast, expert and hobbyest OS, it is the 'tinkerers operating system'.
What linux developers really need to do is to comb all the complains people have about people using their computers, bill gates while people love to rip on the guy is a very perceptive and smart guy in his own right... he said:
"Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning." Business quote
The truth is linux as an OS and as a loose connection of individuals, groups and developers have no unified vision, funding and what have you to really tackle the OS space. The truth is if you want to get mass market penetration you better pony up in terms of making computers so seemless to operate that its like a stove or toaster. It just works and you don't have to fucking thing about it, tinker with it, and solve convoluted software problems.
It was something like 50 centavos an hour -- that's half a Sole. The conversion rate is something like three Soles to the dollar.
Pretty much every computer there was some flavor of XP, many on crappy old computers, and always insanely cheap like that. Either it's MUCH cheaper to get Peruvian Windows, or there's a lot of piracy going on. Wouldn't be surprised by either.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
That depends what you mean by "near as good". I'd say, it has to be hugely better than Windows -- at least as much as OS X is better than OS 9.
No, but that's not Linux's fault either. Apps won't be ported, drivers won't be supplied by manufacturers, until Linux is more popular. Linux won't get more popular until there are apps and drivers.
Chickens and eggs. It's actually impossible for any new OS to enter the market and beat Microsoft right now, because Windows has more stuff because everyone uses Windows because Windows has more stuff.
How many millions of people eat white bread? I was raised on wheat, and I think it tastes better.
How many of the people born and raised on white bread have actually tasted whole wheat bread?
The market share doesn't prove anything other than that more people use Windows. Many of these people may simply not be aware of Linux.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Offtopic, and I know what you mean, but if you know C++, it will be even easier to learn what you're missing of C -- which is basically tips and tricks with how it's used.
But I'd rather fix Wine than ReactOS... Oh well, good luck to both of them.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
The key words here are "mother" and "I set up the box."
The words that frame almost every conversion story posted to Slashdot. The problem is the most people don't have a reisdent Geek on 24-hr call. They aren't accustomed to looking to IRC or Google for support.
What they do have is a toll-free number, a service contract or a desktop help link, an icon for Dell, for RoadRunner and so on.
Walmart - with its enormous purchasing power - couldn't undersell OEM Windows by $75 - by $50. On systems with marketable specs and something approaching a recognizable brand name.
OEM Linux at Walmart is dead and buried.
While I don't doubt that pirated copies of Windows abound, I don't think that is the reason linux hasn't taken off. Most of us (especially non-geeks) have expensive software that runs on Windows. Even if you discount the purchase price, what does someone like me who uses Adobe Photoshop (which I purchased!) do with linux? If there were an equivilant linux product, what is the cost of the time I need to expend in order to learn the new application? Multiply that by Dreamweaver, Word, Excel, ACDSEE, etc. It isn't the 200 bucks. It's everything else. Now I have a freeBSD box that is my web server and email server. There's nothing wrong with the 'nix operating system. Even the command line isn't so bad. Linux is like the Mac. The real price of moving over isn't the OS, it's all the other stuff that has to be replaced. It's way too easy to claim that the reason linux isn't more popular is due to the fact that Windows is free. The real reason is that most of us do more than surf the web and download MP3's, and we don't want to find replacement programs and climb new learning curves. $200 is cheap to avoid that hassle.
All that is true. It takes time and investment to create an OSS project. It takes time and investment to keep a computer system running, be it Windows or Linux or BeOS or OS2/Warp or whatever.
But there are things I want my system to do that are difficult to make it do under certain operating systems and easy to do under others.
Take a bog-standard, new-install Windows system and a fresh off the install disk Ubuntu system. One has given me the freedom to create new software by having programming languages installed, and one doesn't. And it's the Free (and Open Source Software) one that does.
In terms of the entire philosophical issue of "Free Software..." (are you listening here, FSF?)
Neurologically/socially NORMAL people DO. NOT. CARE.
People with girlfriends, people with families, people who live above ground...they see a computer purely as a convenience; a means of hopefully making their endlessly busy existence somewhat less busy. Being a member of the Stallmanite cult is the last thing they want. They want nothing other than a computer that works.
This is the entire reason why the FSF have to rely on the closest thing we've got to earthbound extraterrestrials - isolated, disaffected freaks - both to spread the "message," and to fill out their membership. Normal people don't care, because normal people have lives and far more important things to think about.
It isn't simply that people are turning their backs on Linux - they are choosing Windows over the typical Linux distribution with its 20,000 or so free and open source apps. That is a hell of a comment on the perceived value of F/OSS.
I know that I would switch to Linux in a heartbeat if I could just play my games on it, and I know several people who say the same thing. There are a good number of gamers out there who I'm sure would switch, except we have to have our games.
Then I must say you have chosen wrong distribution. Every application who is actively supported has deb or rpm packages. Up to date. For your distro. And nevermind that you can double click (Ubuntu for example) that and Grant installation, it will find even depencies for you.
And if you have bloating edge stuff to test, then use Ubuntu or Fedora betas, or even Gentoo. Sometimes blamed as geek distro, in fact it is very good for experimenting a new stuff, until you get past all building process, because it compiles everything and isn't binded by need to create special binary package.
And let's not talk about installing stuff on Windows or OS X. I am sysadmin and it is NIGHTMARE to install stuff on Windows sometimes. Installs simply don't launch, installs but nothing is copied, version checks doesn't work, hell of depencies which never can be resolved, etc. and OS X....oohhh, joys of copying everything in Applications. It doesn't matter that it seriously slows down whole system because of library duplication.
So, maybe installing stuff on Linux was well, hard some four years ago. Now such claim is bullshit, in my humble opinion.
People on Windows tries to install/configure weirdest things. So don't tell me that users are also stupid too.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Does cock taste good?
Writers imply. Readers infer.