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.
Re:wow! (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:wow! (Score:5, Informative)
It's all about knowing what to buy and where to buy it. I bought a Compal CL56 notebook, which is a whitebook chassis used to manufacture many other notebooks (Such as one of Voodoo PC's 15" Centrino model). Because it's a whitebook, I buy the chassis and parts seperately (Though I chose to pay $29 Canadian to have the store assemble it for me).
Because it was not purchased from a big computer maker, but simply a computer store, there is no obligation to buy or run Windows on the notebook.
Re:wow! (Score:5, Informative)
I bought a computer at a local store. The guy fished through a boxed and handed me a nice shrinked-wrapped windows licence with Getting started guide and CD. I pushed it back to him across the counter and said: "Keep it for the next guy, this machine won't be running windows."
He smiled and said, "Cool".
Re:wow! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:where the f**k? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:wow! (Score:5, Interesting)
Turns out that most of them, even if they do claim to be contractually obliged etc, will oblige for the simple reason that it's a sale they wouldn't otherwise get.
+1 Insightful (Score:5, Interesting)
When piracy is defined as any use that the vendor does not approve of, it's hard to call it a moral issue and to think of the vendor as a victim.
Exactly. This is another variant of the problem that the entertainment content industry has created for itself: By making copyright terms so long that most people don't realize they ever expire, people no longer see copyright as a good trade -- or as any kind of trade at all -- and therefore have no compunction about violating the hell out of it.
It's a slashdot cliche, but it really is true: The more you tighten your grasp, the more copies will slip through your fingers, as the majority simply stops paying attention to your restrictions.
Re:+1 Insightful (Score:5, Funny)
Re:wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:wow! (Score:5, Funny)
That's odd, my laptop [apple.com] didn't even have the option of coming with Windows.
Re:wow! (Score:4, Informative)
As is expected, considering Apple makes both. If Microsoft made a PC, would you expect it to come with anything but Windows?
Re:wow! (Score:4, Interesting)
Good point, considering the lengths Microsoft goes to keep linux off its customers' xboxes, while Sony, otoh, even brought out a linux kit for its gaming console.
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)
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:wow! (Score:5, Interesting)
Since I keep all my CD keys seperately, I ended up calling MS to get a new key because the old one refused to install on the new computer.
Guess what, they refused to cancel the old one and give me a new one because the license is tied to the stolen hard drive. Great.
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.
validity of EULA (Score:5, Interesting)
I have never entered into a contract with Microsoft. Indeed, the last few machines I have bought had MS Windows pre-installed, so I never even had to click on "I accept" to install it. Under the doctrine of First Sale, in the absence of a contract I can do what I please with the goods that I purchase. Can someone explain to me how Microsoft's wishes could possibly be binding on me?
For me this is a purely hypothetical question since I have no interest in running MS Windows, but I am perplexed by the idea that Microsoft's EULA's can be binding on people who either never saw them until after they purchased the software or on people who have never even looked at the EULA. Haven't the courts ruled that such "shrinkwrap licenses" are invalid?
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.
Re:validity of EULA (Score:4, Informative)
The maxim is, "Ignorance of the law is no defense." Other kinds of ignorance often are.
IANAL, but IIRC you have to have had an opportunity to read a contract before you can agree to it. If you were never presented with it, like the above poster said... well, how can you be bound by it?
Re:wow! (Score:5, Informative)
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 distribu
Re:wow! (Score:5, Informative)
You are mixing and matching a bunch of cases that muddle the issue. There are at least 4 cases here in:
Software: Copying is easy, cheap, but illegal (except for fair use). This is the one that's at the core of the discussion. The main issue is that people license software instead of owning the copy they get, unlike just about any other product.
Natural material goods, like lettuce: Copying is impossible, but legal. I don't think anybody would complain if we could.
Manufactured material goods, like an automobile: Copying is hard, expensive, but generally legal (except if violating a patent).
Copyrighted material goods, like a book: Copying is relatively cheap and easy, especially if scanned in, but illegal.
From the above list, you'll see that software and books are very similar. Both can be copied cheaply and easily. Books can be scanned it and distributed through P2P. 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. 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.
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
Re:wow! (Score:3, Informative)
If you have a legal copy of windows XP you can find out what the key on your machine is by using the "keyfinder" utility found at:
http://www.magicaljellybean.com/
Re:wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
But my point is: this really has nothing to do with Linux.
Re:wow! (Score:3, Interesting)
BTW I do folks that pirate windows, but they usually build thier own boxes. My neigh
Re:wow! (Score:4, Informative)
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.Re:wow! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:wow! (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, in PA there is the "Employment At Will" law which means that an employee can quit anytime s/he desires, and a company can fire an employee anytime s/he desires. Neither party needs to give a reason, and they cannot be held accountable for terminating the employment.
HOWEVER, companies make contracts all the time in PA regarding employment terms of services. These contracts supersede the "Employment at will"
gartner is on drugs (Score:3, Interesting)
you need a written order from God to get a branded computer without the windows virus on it. you can also buy a box full of random parts anyplace, and build a kickass computer with no OS any time you want.
where gartner is pulling this "data" from, I don't know, and I am not about to spend hundreds of dollars to find out. it is so bogus on its face that I can't see how gartner is staying in business.
They are missing the point (Score:3, Informative)
This is a huge logical fallacy to imply that Linux has an
Re:wow! (Score:3, Interesting)
According to his vendor and the local MS fortress his key was valid
Re:wow! (Score:5, Informative)
This was probably due to using the wrong install CD. The Key checking algorithms are keyed to the versions that are shipped with the machine, so you can't use a consumer key with the Volume License Install CD, or vice versa. Its a pain in my behind, because some of my images got built with the Dell CD, and need a Dell key, and some got built with our VL CD, and need a VL key.
Its possible a smaller vendor is distributing the wrong CD with his legitimate keys (shows horrible QA, BTW)
Of course, given the number of licensed to run Windows PC's I have that are actually running Linux, this just reinforces my thoughts that Gartner sells its soul to whomever is buying this week. "Yes sir, you want an independant study? What would you like the conclusion to say? 3 = 5? Not a problem sir!"
Nit Picking ... (Score:5, Informative)
Most likely the original user is trying to use an Install disk to do a dual-boot, but because the only available OEM copy of Windows is an "FDISK, Format and Re-install" recovery disk, he's S.O.L. on using a Retail disk.
The best thing to do is contact the seller of the PC, and ask for a Windows XP OEM installation CD that doesn't FDISK the system first.
Re:wow! (Score:5, Funny)
If I could short every moronic "market X will expand by {number over 300%} in the next 2 years!" prediction that Gartner produces, I'd be richer than Gates. Anyone who back-checks their predictions can't take these guys seriously. In this case, past performance is a predictor of future results.
Re:Gartner Report is Right About "Emerging Markets (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bollocks (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bollocks (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps you should resell your copies of Windows to others who might want them for barebones systems - and split the Microsoft tax 50/50.
Microsoft says you can't do this. But the courts have indicated that you can.
Re:Bollocks (Score:5, Interesting)
One could, theoretically, use this for pirating. Or one could use this with a legit copy.
Re:Bollocks (Score:5, Informative)
The case was Softman v. Adobe. It is several years old, and it's been a while since I've looked into it. Basically, the court said, the customer bought the product, he owns it, he may redistribute it like any other product. You do NOT have the right to tell him what he can and cannot do with it via an EULA once he buys it.
You'll want to double check all this stuff to make sure I got it right, and that nothing has changed since. But there is legal precident on our side.
Re:Bollocks (Score:5, Informative)
It's call the doctrine of first sale.
It's a legal concept that says when I buy a copy of something that is copyrighted, I get a certain set of rights by default. One of those is the right to resell it.
MS would have to believe that their EULAs constitute a valid legal agreement, and remove that right, but that's about as legaly enfocable as someone selling a house and leaving a sticker on the door that says, "by breaking this seal, you agree to these additional terms...".
You can't force someone to argee to a contract, by putting a sticker on something that's legally THEIRS.
If MS wants their EULAs to be legally valid, they need to be "signed" when the money is exchanged.
Imagine if you bought a new car and there was a sticker on the lock that said "By removing this sticker, you agree never to resell this car".
It's total nonsense.
In the case of ebay, you want to point them to THIS [freerepublic.com] news item:
The judge, in the case Adobe vs Softman heard in the Central District of California, has ruled that consumers can resell bundled software, no matter what the EULA, or End User License Agreement, stipulates.
Then tell ebay that they are attemping to enforce liscense restrictions that the supreme court has ruled illegal.
You could point out that by having such a policy they are therefore opening themselves up to lawsuits frow people who just want to execise their own legal rights.
And vice versa (Score:5, Insightful)
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 diff
Barebone machines (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Barebone machines (Score:4, Informative)
Because of the strong Microsoft campaign against selling those machines as 'encouraging piracy', many vendors don't offer them at all. Others only offer this if you buy components and assemble them yourself - this is beyond many users who do want to run Linux.
Which is what the fuss is all about - a nice MS marketing ploy is falling apart and they're taking notice.
--
Re:Barebone machines (Score:3, Interesting)
Second, it's much cheaper. Dell makes price mistakes, and they also have huge sales at the end of their fiscal quarter. Makes for some great bargains!
Re:Because dell doesn't sell those barebones (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Both of mine, for a start.
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:3, Informative)
At home I have four computers (firewall, SO's desktop, my desktop, server) all of which were purchased with Windows on them. One still runs Windows full-time (SO's), one runs it every now and then (my desktop for games) and the other two have been purged of Windows and Linux is the only OS on them.
I also have a laptop for work that I use for support. It dual-boots, and I have a p
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?
Shhhh! (Score:5, Funny)
Nah! (Score:4, Funny)
Big news! (Score:5, Informative)
I have heard it first hand from resellers and h/w makers in Asia Pacific - "we bundle Linux just so that MS leaves us alone and it's up to the end users to get their copy of Windows".
In some places shipping systems (assembled computers) without OS is either disallowed or frowned upon by MS and/or anti-piracy watchdogs, so bundling Linux is a nice excuse to avoid pre-installing Windows....
Doesn't have anything to do with Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
This doesn't have anything to do with Linux.
Re:Doesn't have anything to do with Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
I have MSDN Universal, which give me 10 XP, win2k, win2003, etc. not to mention the multilingual stuff - if I was mad enough I could buy dozens of machines, all with valid licenses (my last workplace worked entirely like that, although we had on MSDNU for every 3 developers).
Obligitory Windows Putdown. (Score:5, Funny)
Linux desktops may eclipse the number of machines actually running Linux."
Funny that. Its a bit like Windows if you take into account crashes - The
number of machines sold as Windows desktops is far greater than the number
of machines actually RUNNING Windows.
Perfectly Legal (Score:3, Informative)
But I bet they would count this as a hit for their study.
RIAA Logic (Score:5, Insightful)
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
This isnt FUD... (Score:5, Interesting)
How many people are willing to buy that addon instead of visiting suprnova.org?
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Linux is also subverting good, honest children to criminal behaviour, communism and encouraging them to move to harder drugs such as Heavy Metal music. Not to mention occultism and role playing games.
Linux on an IBM mainframe is also less cost effective than Windows on a dual Xeon! Quick, in the Holy name of Redmond, call a priest and bring out the holy water!
Why is this so surprising? (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't find the report on Gartner's site [gartner.com] and therefore can't say anything about its methodology. (And if the report isn't free, I ain't shelling out the bucks for it.) But it strikes me as telling that of the people rending their clothes and screaming here, very few of them are actually arguing with their numbers beyond saying that it's "justified," or "MSFT gets what's coming to them," or "this is offset by," etc.
Oh, and by the way: the headline is stupid and wrong.
Dodgy figures (Score:3, Funny)
Slashdotters working for Gartner? (Score:3, Funny)
Making wild accusations without backing it up with a solid proof because of remote possibilities... When did slashdotters start working for Gartner?
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.
M$'s, not Linux's, problem (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
The RIAA have really missed out on this argument.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The RIAA have really missed out on this argumen (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember
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...
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?
Duh... (Score:4, Interesting)
Even here in the US, what do you think happens with the Wal-Mart linux machines that they sell dirt-cheap. They get turned into 'grandma's-email/XP machine' by some kid that installed a pirate copy of XP.
I dont see this message from Gartner as Anti-Linux. So many of you people have blinders on so that whenever you see MS and Linux in the same sentence you think "OMG Micro$oft Sux0r5!1!"
This is the same as buying one of those MP3 players with a huge CF card, and taking the CF card out to use in your camera.
People just buy cheap crappy PC's that come preloaded with Linux, they wipe the drive, and install XP.
Its purely economical from their point of view. Cheap PC + Pirated software = WIN.
Re:Duh... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Smokescreen (Score:5, Insightful)
El Reg... (Score:5, Interesting)
The Register [theregister.co.uk] had a good story about this yesterday, basically stating that they weren't even aware of the story until Gartner sent them out a rather insistent correction to a press release they hadn't actually received. As they say:
What the correction actually said, seemed to be a rather more reserved opinion:
El Reg themselves then add:
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.
Gartner said, he said, she said (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed, let's look back in 1999 when (according to this CNN article [cnn.com]) some among the "prestigeous" Garnter analysis predicted
The Gartner Group finding is that Linux will fade from the scene following the release of the first service pack for Windows 2000.
Service Pack 2 was really so terrific ?! Man, if Service Pack 2 can do that imagine what could an hotfix do..maybe cure plague ? Guess Nostradamus is spinning in his grave as he finally found some serious competition.
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.
Yeah, I admit it (Score:4, Funny)
Deliberate incompatibility through OpenBIOS (Score:5, Interesting)
But perhaps there is a solution that could kill two bird with one stone: make Linux-systems deliberately incompatible with Windows by supplying them with a legacy-free OpenFirmware-implementation, such as OpenBIOS, which could be optimised specifically for Linux.
Many experienced UNIX and Linux users have been desiring OpenFirmware/OpenBIOS acceptance in the x86-market anyway, and this may be just the chance to make it happen!
It's a perfect solution: On the one hand, Microsoft can no longer complain about Linux-systems being a merely a method to use pirated copies of Windows. On the other hand, selling Linux systems solely with OpenBIOS firmwares (and making some modification to make the motherboards imcompatible with pirated legacy BIOS-versions) guarantees that buyers will be running Linux (or other open-source/free-software OS'es) instead of Windows on it.
And of course, as we all know, an Openfirmware-based BIOS would provide additional technical advantages and features over legacy BIOS implementations.
And finally: true OpenBIOS-enabled Linux-systems would be free from any DRM-crap.
Take the problem, and turn it in to an opportunity Wonderful!
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.
As quoted by Bill Gates himself... (Score:5, Interesting)
I really don't see what all the fuss is about.
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%.
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!
How Dare ! (Score:3, Interesting)
But to say this when it is so difficult to find any high street store or OEM that will sell you a computer without Windows -- because of the penalties imposed by Redmond... Man this fires me up badly.
Is it so difficult to swallow that some people actually prefer an operating system that doesnt have all the flaws that Windows has ? Is it so bad that OEM's and other companies are starting to notice this? what next ? It really amazes me who dreams up these new and wonderful FUD stories to try and blacken Linux, whos very existance is borne from love?
The increasing trend of OEM's selling PC's with linux pre-installed is because there is a certain amout of demand for it - in the server space and increasingly as an alternative desktop for developers and in some cases just ordinary folk.
Once again this simply emphasizes how worried they are in Redmond about the linux trend that they dont seem to be able to do anything about except generate lies and FUD which is usually ill informed - made up - or just twisted statistics. If these people are failing to see the merits of Linux and the community of people behind it creating software- well then there is no hope for Windows getting any better.
It's not happening with Gateway hardware! (Score:4, Interesting)
Basics, P4-2.6ghz, 512m, 120m, Nvidia, CRT & MF PSCF, and, Winbloz XP home.
He ordered the machine, $1,500 (about $800 more than I could have built one from scratch)
He brings the whole thing, brand new in the box to me and says, "Install Suse 9.1 Pro on it please." and takes off.
Guess what? This Gateway machine will NOT BOOT AT ALL if it detects a Linux formated hard disc (0x83) plugged into it via ANY means. IDE, IDE on a card, even a USB drive formated for Linux stops the boot from happening. It won't boot Linux from CD or DVD, it won't touch Linux at all. It is coded into the bios to NO BOOT if it detects a non windows drive connected to it.
It won't boot with XP as the OS on the primary drive and a Linux formated drive connected as a secondary drive. I spent a week verifying this. I tried dozens of different drives, CD's, DVD's, distros, and combos thereof. I had to re-install XP back on it and tell my friend, "You screwed the pooch, take it back." He won't, he claims he signed a contract to make payments on it. Screw that, I say it's broken and should be at the very least replaced with a usable machine. So my dumb friend is going to keep it, pay for it and give it to his daughter.
So, Gateway and M$ have found a way to prevent anyone from using anything but M$.
Oh, and one last comment, these so called XP pirates that would use Linux to pirate XP? Nope. They are too stupid to figure out how to use Linux just to get free winbloz. To do this they would have to spend way to much time figuring out how to setup their PPPOE, then finding using GTK-Gnutella or BitTorrent & Python and finally K3b to burn it to disc. Right.
I've seen these low end PC's that have Linux pre-installed, ThizLinux. Total, unusable GARBAGE. Trust me, they will never accomplish the task. Just go to any of the alt.os.distro.linux groups and read any of the multitude of "Linux sux!" posts....
These retards will just get a copy from a buddy that's already online. XP is easier to find than crack or meth. Something they need to quit smoking. Oh, and if Linux is such an easy to use pirating tool, why is it that M$ is the number one delivery system for pirated warez?
Someone should sue these morons for slander and liable.
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.
Looks like they got bought (Score:4, Interesting)
What is next, a report from them on 'pirate-2-pirate'.
Truth often gets lost when the other side has control of the media/marketing machine.
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?
Re:That's preposterous! (Score:5, Funny)
We complain about it more. Next question.
Re:That's preposterous! (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, I've seen Open Office handle Word documents more reliably than Office. The only reasons I have Windows at home are I'm lazy and don't want to install a new operating system, and the games.
However your parent post has a point, I don't want to run Windows, I'd rather not actually. My next computer will not have Windows on it, and I have no intention of ever installing Windows on it.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Funny)
When was this?
Re:Not suprising at all (Score:4, Insightful)