Gartner Says Linux PCs Just Used To Pirate Windows 815
LostCluster writes "CNET is reporting results from a Gartner Group report that claims 40% of desktop machines sold with Linux on them are being used to run pirate copies of Windows! The report goes on to say that this stat reaches as high in 80% in 'emerging markets', the same places that the stripped down lite version of Windows is being aimed at. Gartner's making a bold prediction that the number of machines sold as Linux desktops may eclipse the number of machines actually running Linux."
wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
I wasn't aware that PCs were made by Microsoft. I realize that B. Crew wants every PC to be sold with Windows and makes in very difficult for vendors to do anything but sell them that way, but I am pretty certain it isn't a requirement for Windows to be on every single PC out there.
As a result, the number of desktop Linux PCs that ship will exceed the actual percentage of Linux machines that get installed in the real world. Desktop Linux will account for about 5 percent of desktops shipped in 2004, according to Gartner, with 10.5 percent of the desktops in Asia shipping with Linux this year. However, the installed base of Linux will come to only 1.3 percent.
In 2008, Linux will account for 7.5 percent of PCs shipped, but only 2.6 percent of the installed base, about the same that Apple's installed base will be then.
Star News reports that by 2009 15.29% of the The National Enquirer's stories will be completely false and that their own stories will overtake FoxNews as the most truthful news source on the planet.
My last machine came with XP installed. I didn't even get to have a CD of XP other than the restore CD. The key on the back of the computer was invalid anyway and MSFT had no suggestions for me other than using a valid key... So, we have to buy a computer with Windows on it because MSFT won't be friendly with vendors that don't offer 100% Windows only. We get that computer with Windows but we really can't use the copy on any other machine and we don't get the install CD and it may not even have a working key. Yet we are supposed to believe that this is acceptable and poor MSFT will lose money to piracy.
I paid for my copy of Windows XP and I expect to get my use out of it whether it follows MSFT's rules or not. I would assume the same rings true elsewhere. Who the hell wants to pay 20%+ of their PC cost for Windows if they can't even use it?
Welcome to hell.
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:5, Insightful)
And vice versa (Score:5, Insightful)
Barebone machines (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Both of mine, for a start.
Not enough statistics to go on (Score:3, Insightful)
Therefore, there's no way to tell whether the number of Linux pre-installs that are replaced with pirate Windows are balanced with the number of Windows pre-installs replaced with Linux. Gartner's prediction is that more people replace Linux with Windows than vice-versa, but how do you get to that information without guessing?
Doesn't have anything to do with Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
This doesn't have anything to do with Linux.
What about retail hard drives ? (Score:1, Insightful)
what about dual booters ? what about CD distros ?
generalization is always wrong.
Re:That's preposterous! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you're not some guy looking to find a sweet deal on a PC at Wal-Mart. These are people buying cheap ass computers and putting the OS of their choice onto it. How is that any different from what the average Slashdotter does?
RIAA Logic (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not what they mean... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not suprising at all (Score:1, Insightful)
1. The only replacement for Windows on the desktop is Mac OS X. Linux is not that replacement.
2. A lot of people are unwilling to pay for what they want, or have a feeling of entitlement that they don't actually have.
You end up with the people who are willing to switch, and willing to pay, switching to Mac OS X. These are real people using their own computers, not terminals at a travel agency that end up accounting for the vast majority of Windows licenses (commercial terminals.) People who are unwilling to pay for a Win XP software license will buy a cheap PC and not a Mac anyway. Since they don't care about licenseing either, you end up with pirated copies of Windows software run on Linux-shipped PC's.
It makes logical sense to me. It may be a sad state of affairs from a plethora of angles, but it's certainly not a surprise!
Re:wow! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:wow! (Score:2, Insightful)
I paid for a piece of software that I should be able to use at my leisure. When someone ships a computer they shouldn't be tied down to what the vendor of the OS wants. They should be allowed to do what they want with what they got.
M$'s, not Linux's, problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh thats right they only attack the machines sold with linux cuz they have linux on them.
Sry MS Publicity machine i forgot the rules.
Tinfoil hat on full power
Windows sales are artificially inflated, too... (Score:5, Insightful)
While I'm would expect that somewhere there are plenty PC's being sold with Linux pre-installed that get wiped and have a pirated copy of Windows installed, my personal experience is the opposite -- I have run hundreds of Linux machines (server farms, at home,at work, etc.), and aside from rack-mounted servers the only practical option is to purchase a PC with Windows, then wipe it and install Linux. In theory you can buy a PC in the US with Linux installed, but in practice, nobody stocks them, and it's easier to get a Windows PC now than to special order a Linux PC to arrive eventually, and do the install yourself.
So, while some percentage of the small number of PC's sold with Linux on them may be converted to run Windows, certainly a percentage of the very large number of PC's sold with Windows on them are converted to run Linux, and in my experience the numbers lean strongly towards the latter case.
On top of this, I would argue that the number of copies of Windows sold (irrespective of Linux) is artificially inflated by the pre-installed copies in other ways:
With consumer PC's you almost always need to buy a "real" copy of Windows, because the pre-installed copies don't come with install CD's, or even the right to make your install CD's. So if you buy a cheap PC and _anything_ happens to it that would cause you to need to reinstall (like, say, owning the PC for six months), the only (legal) option is to run a "restore" that wipes your hard drive and restores it to factory state.
On corporate desktops, if you by PC's with Windows installed, and then wipe the drive and install a standard disk image (which most companies do, to simplify management) MS insists that you need to buy a new Windows license, because the copy in the disk image is a new copy.
If you donate a used Windows PC to a school or church, MS tells them that it's illegal to use the copy of Windows on the PC unless it's accompanies by the original certificate of authenticity, and that otherwise they must by a new copy of Windows (which would often cost more than the PC itself is worth, and wouldn't run on older PC's in any case), and that without that, they must trash the PC's.
So if Gartner is trying to correct for artificial distortions on the sales numbers to determine true numbers of users, I think that they have some more work to do.
Standard operating procedure for Gartner. (Score:5, Insightful)
Standard operating procedure for Gartner. The supporting data is an asset, they're not going to give it away.
So, will Microsoft end up enforcing Linux installs (Score:5, Insightful)
a) try to stamp out this piracy by discouraging "after-market" installs (hey! don't install windows! You had better leave that Linux on there, buster!)
b) tacitly allow the after-market piracy, thus maintaining their marketshare but sacrificing revenue
It would seem that the obvious choice for them would be b), because so much of the MS revenue stream depends on a Windows OS on the machine.
To some degree, I have set up a false dichotomy, but I do know that these cheap Linux machines will only grow in number here in Asia. MS is stuck in a very tricky position, and will be forced to retreat from the OS to their apps and "higher functionality" for value-add. Good luck with that in China...
Re:And vice versa (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted they didn't really have that ongoing expense anyway, as they push ongoing support of products sold with a computer off onto the company that sold you the computer, but that's a different matter.
-Rusty
Re:wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:wow! (Score:2, Insightful)
However, what if you bought the PC used from someone? Did they keep that key for their own use but not remove it from the back of the PC? I could see that as a problem.
Re:wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
But my point is: this really has nothing to do with Linux.
Gartner has all to gain. (Score:4, Insightful)
The report makes bold claims so as to stand out from common_wisdom. This gives it an edge in its consulting business.
If the claims turn out wrong, they'll say that the companies/countries involved have made very good progress to stamp out piracy. They then go make a report of "How to combat piracy and reduce piracy figures by [claimed figure - actual figure]" and then teach these techniques to others.
If the claims are right, it's going to be "Told you so."
Well, it's a win-win situation.
Let's outlaw desks (Score:2, Insightful)
Smokescreen (Score:5, Insightful)
Sales. (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this PHBs just wanting to stick their fingers in their ears, point at this report, and say, La la la, no, you can't run Linux, it's bad.?
Interesting denial... (Score:3, Insightful)
But seriously, do they really believe their own lies? They clearly know that GNU/Linux has maybe far more than 6% of installed base - because most people which uses Linux is downloaded it from internet for free. It is nearly impossible to know the correct percentage of that.
And also - I think that most pepole who buys OEM computer with Linux do that with purpose - to use it! Because OEM will pay Microsoft tax anyway - look at the price, it is not so much difference. So what is the reason not to buy Windows computer directly? Nice spin, but...a little bit wrong logic.
And in the end, I just migrate and convert some ten computers each month (small/medium business stuff) to my Debian based distro. And I don't know why everyone claims 'Linux is not ready for the desktop!', 'Linux sux', 'GPL is viral', etc.
It works. It really works guys. That's all I know.
options c, d, e (Score:3, Insightful)
d) Require a liscensed "Microsoft Install Technician" to do all "after-market" installs, and don't give anyone else the disks.
e) Custom-make each Windows CD to only work with one CPU serial/ID number, pass extra costs on to the customer and blame the pirates.
Anyone want to work on options f, g, h?
Re:wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
You paid for a non-transferable, limited use license to run XP on the specific machine that you purchased. If you want a transferable license you can get one at Best Buy.
Odds are good that said non-transferable license won't hold up in court, which is probably why Microsoft has never tried to enforce it through legal means. If it makes you feel better about yourself to carefully honor the terms of an invalid and one-sided agreement, go nuts, but don't expect everyone else to do the same.
The register (Score:3, Insightful)
A. It's not hard to build PCs and pirate Windows onto them (most companies won't 'cos the risk of audit is high, whereas consumers have less money so are less important market).
B. Even if true, so what? 80% of cars are used to break speed limits. There is no cogent argument here.
Re:Gartner Report is Right About "Emerging Markets (Score:5, Insightful)
Gartner Group is largely sponsored by Microsoft (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Because dell doesn't sell those barebones (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting use of statistics ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess if you assume that the shipped units will replace 100% of existing machines, I guess this would be a startling claim.
As it is, if say there are 100 machines already in use, and only 1 of them runs Linux, then you ship out 100 more machines, and 10 of them are Linux Desktop machines. None of these 100 machines are used to replace existing machines. Now, your shipped units are 10% Linux boxes, but (horrors) only 5.5% of the installed base is running Linux.
PIRACY! PIRACY! Men with eye patches and parrots are looting software boutiques looking for copies of XP!
Thing is, most people don't bother to think critically about information presentation. Even if the facts are all correct, the wording leads to false conclusions.
Re:Duh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:wow! (Score:3, Insightful)
Apples and Oranges (Score:5, Insightful)
"Desktop Linux will account for about 5 percent of desktops shipped in 2004, according to Gartner, with 10.5 percent of the desktops in Asia shipping with Linux this year. However, the installed base of Linux will come to only 1.3 percent."
then:
"In 2008, Linux will account for 7.5 percent of PCs shipped, but only 2.6 percent of the installed base..."
Does anyone else notice that they are comparing shipments with installed base? Unless we were to assume that the entire installed base of PCs is thrown away and replaced each year, this is a bogus comparison.
It's similar in kind to comparisons of raw numbers with percentages. I start a new club. I'm the only member. Next year, I get someone else to join my club. I can report that I've grown my club's membership that year by 100%.
The math doesn't add up. (Score:2, Insightful)
At the end of the report, it does say, (off report topic), that novice users use only a few tools; and windows.
This would make an interesting web site. The site would be an index of simple ways to do VERY simple tasks in linux. The index would be impressive itself, but the content need not be to 'overly stated'.
Re:wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
Utter bollocks. Microsoft, no matter what they say (or do) are not above the LAW.
They can say whatever they want in their EULA, but they can only have courts enforce what is LEGAL.Statistics are there to prove a point, but which.. (Score:5, Insightful)
On all the new PCs I have ever bought over the years, some windows flavour had been pre-installed. In more than half of the cases, it was reformatted and promptly replaced by a Linux flavour.
Thus: if pre-installed desktop linux pc's are treatening for MS-sales and encouraging windows piracy, is the opposite not true and can it therefore not be concluded that pre-installed desktop windows pc's are treatening to linux and encouraging linux piracy?
Let's us conclude that this kind of statistical research is not conclussively written in numbers, but should rather be written with astrological starcharts!
I didn't know... (Score:1, Insightful)
It should say the 60% of PCs which are sold pre-loaded with (a) Linux OS have had pirated versions of Micorsoft Windows installed after the customer buys the PC. I'm curious what the stat is for PCs which are sold without operating systems. ( I didn't rtfa, I assumed it wasn't in there. If I did rtfa, I wouldn't have time to post!)
Re:wow! (Score:3, Insightful)
Irrelevant. They aren't the same thing. This is where the whole F/OSS vs. Closed Source issue is founded. The book comes with copyrights, which says you can't copy it. You can sell that one book to someone else, but you can't make copies and sell them or even give them away. Similarly, the lettuce is a consumable and used only once by you (I hope). It's hard to copy a head of lettuce and sell or give it away.
Software is easily copied and distributed for little/no cost to the copier. Even copying the book would cost some consumable materials (paper, maybe a cover, binding, etc.). Software has no materials in this way (and requires very little time investment even to copy and distribute). An automobile has a material cost in just the cost of the steel, plastics, rubber, etc. if not in the expertese/equipment required to put it together. It isn't feasible to copy and sell or give away automobiles. The same thing goes for computer hardware. Physical material cost (for the item itself and the equipment required to build the parts) prevents it. There are no such preventatives against software. It's just electrons and magnetic fields and stuff. In the same vein, if IP has no value, then NDAs aren't required because there is nothing to protect.
The folks who want to copy and sell/give away any software claim that this is OK because no material is involved/consumed in the process. Others claim Intellectual Property is the "material" and is therefore limited by the same restrictions on automobiles or that book you mentioned.
Re:validity of EULA (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
You've obviously not looked very hard. Try the Yellow Dog website [terrasoftsolutions.com] for machines pre-installed with Yellow Dog. On the other hand, since they cost the same amount as OS X machines, you'd be better off buying one from Apple and then selling the install DVD (which is transferable and can be used, for example, by someone with an older version of OS X)
Re:Not suprising at all (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:wow! (Score:3, Insightful)
It can be even easier.. I bought a Mac!
Re:validity of EULA (Score:5, Insightful)
I've got a suggestion. Don't read your rental agreement and don't pay your rent. When they evict you, you can explain you never read the contract. See what happens.
True, but then every rental agreement that I know of has to be signed. I have never rented a place or bought a house where "by putting your key in the lock, you agree to the following rental agreement/morgage agreement. Your presence in the dwelling indicates legal agreement to this contract."
You don't pay your rent or your mortage, the Landlord or Bank has legal, signed documents that they can use to kick your ass out. A EULA doesn't (yet) have that level of validity in most States/Provinces/Countries.
Yes it is. (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because the figures are true doesn't mean there aren't ulterior motives for a report to be funded to bring those numbers to light.
MS should crack down on pirates (Score:4, Insightful)
A)Stop patching pirated copies of Windows.
B)Have Windows Update sabotage pirated copies of Windows.
C)Break compatability with newer versions of MS apps (Office, Outlook Express, Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player) with pirated versions of Windows.
D)Legally crack down on pirates like none-other.
Right now, we exist in a world where it is okay to get Windows for free (pirate), and the cost is subsidized by the rest of the world.
If EVERYONE that used Windows was forced to considered the market(monopoly) value of it, Windows marketshare would fall off considerably.
I used to pirate Windows. One day, I made the decision to keep all my systems 'legal'.
This brought the level of problems I've had with my Linux systems into focus.
Of course, this hasn't been hurt by the general improvements in Linux distros. SuSE 9.1, IMHO, is a very polished, easy to use distro.
Force people to understand the true costs of using MS software, both upfront (end piracy), and TCO (patching, clearing viruses/worms, spyware crap, other generalized Windows issues), and the costs of using Linux don't seem to bad (have to be picky with hardware, much smaller software base (counterweighed by tons of free software), training needed to become familiar with the layout of your particular distro).
In order for the Free Software community to become more succesful than it already has, and continue to claim more and more marketshare, we need to have a VERY strong respect for Intellectual Property rights.
The very same protections that gave us the GPL highlight the BEST economic advantages of F/OSS.
Buy you can buy Macs with YDL preinstalled (Score:5, Insightful)
By default they install a dual-boot setup of YDL and OSX. But from what I've been told you can simply request that you don't want OSX installed. which is good if you want to use the entire drive for YDL.
I'm sorry but Apple fanboys should just stay out of this conversation. Apple keeps far tighter control over hardware and OS than Microsoft.
I'm not sure what your remark about Apple fanboys is all about. Your post has basically asked that a person with an opposing viewpoint need not reply? Why did you bother posting at all if you don't wish to discuss things? (If you didn't notice, I've ignored your request)
Also what does it mean that Apple keeps tighter control over the OS than Microsoft. (obviously not the hardware since MS isn't a hardware company). There are secret APIs in Windows. You need to buy an expensive dev kit if you want to write drivers for Windows. but on OSX you can write a driver for whatever USB dongle you have the specs for, and you can just use the bundled compiler and debugger. And the API docs are posted on apple's website. I MS's site also has freely available docs on devel topics too. From my point of view Apple has kept no more tighter grasp on it's OS than Microsoft has. Perhaps even a looser grasp if you consider that Darwin is completely open source. Am I somehow misinterpreting the point of your original statement?
Re:-1, Mac Zealot (Score:3, Insightful)
The Mac is the only true desktop replacement contender. When Microsoft Office becomes available for Linux, that's when Linux will become a serious contender.
I would love to sample some of that iCrack you're smoking. 1) not everybody needs or even wants an office suite. even counting "business machines" which are the vast majority of windows licenses, only about 30% have any sort of office suite installed. I can't cite a source, but my company does very large scale samplings of global business machines annually. 2) microsoft is not the only source of excellent [openoffice.org] office [ibm.com] suites. [koffice.org]
Re:wow! (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, but it takes a bit of time to do that. That is where the cost is. I don't know how long it would take to scan a 400 page book, but it would be boring and probably take up an afternoon or so.
The original question I think asked how come I can buy a book and do with it as I please (except copy it) but not the same with software for which we license it, sometimes with severe and inconvenient restrictions? It is a valid question.
I'm not sure I understand what the "do as I please" part is. You have a copy of the software and you have a book. Legally, you can't copy either for distribution. However, if you desire to set them on fire, you can. Give it to someone else? Yeah, as long as you remove your copy (the copy the other person uses is the only one). The normal licensing of the boxes of Windows you get at BestBuy have all these things. It seems that he bought a very restrictive version that said that he couldn't. I could buy a book and sign an agreement that I wouldn't sell or give it away, just like that licence. I say the guy bought the wrong thing and is unhappy with his decision. Things like that happen all the time.
The ease and cheapness of copying does not differentiate books from software, both are generally quite easy and cheap. The difference seems to lie in the fact that software naturally comes in a form that can be copied and a book has to be converted from physical to electronic (via scanning, for instance). It's not as clear a difference as some would believe.
I think ease and usefulness add into it though. You *can* copy a 1000 page book if there was reason enough to do so, but I don't know of anyone who would do so simply because it is boring and would take a long time. Also, when you are finished with a book you can simply give it to your friend or let him borrow it. Software is more like a tool you may want to use all the time and can't (or don't want) to stop using it while your friend uses your licensed copy.
Re:validity of EULA (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:wow! (Score:2, Insightful)
I take it you have never purchased heard of restricted (non-refundable, non-transferrable) airline fares.
Let's just settle the dramatic misunderstanding. The license for which YOU PAID FOR is a restricted license which is sold to you at a discount in exchange for the ability to transfer the license to another machine. Check newegg.com or your favorite vendor: XP Pro OEM = $142, XP Pro Retail = 241. That's a pretty substantial discount. The typical user who buys machines from a major OEM doesn't want to transfer licenses. They get a machine, use it for 3-5 years and replace it with a new OEM box. To the majority of Dell's, Compaq's and HP's customers the upfront cost of the machine is obviously more important than being able to transfer the license to a different machine later on. If the majority thought otherwise, then each of these machines would be marked up $100 and sold with retail license of Windows XP.
As to being required to pay for a Windows license, well that's not particularly Microsoft's problem. After the anti-trust they're no longer allowed to discriminate OEMs based on whether or not they sell hardware with other OSs. If you're unable to buy a machine without Windows from a major vendor, then your beef is with the vendor and not Microsoft. Consumers (not businesses) who want to buy hardware without Windows installed are a minority and thus until people like you become numerous enough to make it a competitive disadvantage for Dell to only be pre-installing Windows, no major OEM will bend over for you. Suck it up and exercise your right of choice by sending your business towards an OEM that will sell you what you want.
Re:Dear dirty, jobless loser... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:wow! (Score:3, Insightful)
Surely you mean "fewer restrictions."
Linux has fewer restrictions still....
And BSD has essentially no restrictions.
SO if you want the OS without the restrictions, go with Linux or BSD, depending on your needs....
Re:wow! (Score:2, Insightful)
It is certainly understandable from the PC manufacturer's prespective that technical support would be much easier if there was a common OS image on their PC products.
I agree with garcia that if I purchased a PC with XP and did not receive an installation CD, a valid key or no ability to move it to different hardware. (think crashed or destroyed HDD) To think I would pay money for an XP license, then go to Best Buy (not likely) to purchase yet another license for the same OS to run on the same PC is a little naive. I would agree that this situation does not occur with most people but only those of the Digirati. However, for those of you who have had to deliver the bad news to your neighbor when you try to replace their fried HDD, I believe you might see my point. The manufacturers should make this condition more explicit instead of kowtowing to Microsoft or at the very least, provide the option to exclude OS & its fee from the purchase price. (However, it was my understanding the the OEM pricing for the PC manufacturers was contingent on not providing this option, I could be wrong)
When I purchase Quicken, I would fully expect to move it and use it on whatever PC I chose.
In the end & only because I can, I build and upgrade my own PCs, so I purchase a standalone XP license for my two PCs...the OEM version, keep the box, the book, and the shrinkwrap. However, I will abandon MS when the cost per year of service for my OS exceeds $50/year/PC, meaning, If I paid $150 for XP and get 3 years of life from it, I am happy. If I had paid $300, I would run Linux on the Desktop. I think that Microsoft is learning that lesson very quickly in the pacific rim, XP lite or not.