Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business Software Linux

OSIA Dismisses Gartner Linux Piracy Claim 248

Posted by CowboyNeal from the shooting-back dept.
Anonymous Coward writes "The Inquirer is reporting that a claim by Gartner that Linux desktops are used for pirated copies of windows has been dismissed by the Open Source Industry Association (OSIA). OSIA told The Sydney Morning Herald that 'if Gartner's conclusion that pre-installing Linux encouraged people to steal copies of Windows were correct.... It would be possible to state that pre-installing Windows encourages people to pirate application software.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OSIA Dismisses Gartner Linux Piracy Claim More

OSIA Dismisses Gartner Linux Piracy Claim

Comments Filter:

  • There should be an MS tax, no there shouldn't... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kentmartin ( 244833 ) * on Saturday October 02, 2004 @10:43AM (#10413356) Homepage
    OK, colour me not too bright, but I cannot see why pre-installed Linux is being targeted here by Gartner - their claim doesn't seems to be, pre-installing Linux is the same as shipping the machine with no OS whatsoever.

    To continue with their premise, any machine sold with no OS (or Linux) installed is destined for pirated software which would imply by there logic, if you want to take it all the way down the line, that there should be an international mandate that no machine should be sold without paying the MS tax.

    To be doubly sure, the only way to ensure this MS tax was paid in full would be to make sure that all PC components had a markup on them to allow for a the price of a copy of Windows on a fully assembled machine (otherwise home built machines would be "tax exempt") - it just all gets a bit silly.

    It would be interesting to know where these numbers come from (on both sides of this argument), and, how they can possibly be verified.

    It simply comes down to a case of MS saying: "You public who don't buy from us, and who we by some weird twist of logic, try to link with the opensource community, are probably stealing from us". Their claim is probably in part true, but to link it with the opensource community is mistifying.

    Oh - and then, shock horror, the opensource community comes back with: "We don't steal from you" (probably true on the whole) "and those who buy Linux desktops don't steal from you either" (probably, at least, significantly false).

    Oh - for the purposes of this comment it has been assumed that the independant research company Gartner is independently researching for the independent entity of Microsoft.
    • Oh - for the purposes of this comment it has been assumed that the independant research company Gartner is independently researching for the independent entity of Microsoft.

      Considering all the "independent" studies, reports, cost analyses, etc. that M$ has cited recently, it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

    • Re:There should be an MS tax, no there shouldn't.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pe1chl ( 90186 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @10:48AM (#10413380)
      Also don't forget that MS has been stealing from the OpenSource community. I significant portion of systems running Linux has likely been bought with a MS operating system pre-installed and its license paid. Efforts to refund that money have always been frustrated by MS and its OEMs.
    • "There should be an MS tax, no there shouldn't.."

      In Canada we call them 'Levies' and, in the same vein as the assumption that all storage media is presumed to be used for the storage and duplication of copyrighted music, it wouldn't surprise me to soon start paying an extra few cents on the gigabyte.

      The practical upshoot is I'll proceed to pirate MS Software with impunity -- after all, I'm paying for the privelage whether I do or not, may as well get my money's worth.

    • Re:There should be an MS tax, no there shouldn't.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by null-sRc ( 593143 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @10:59AM (#10413443)
      pre-installing Linux is the same as shipping the machine with no OS whatsoever.

      oh come on! linux isn't THAT bad! :P

    • OK, colour me not too bright, but I cannot see why pre-installed Linux is being targeted here by Gartner - their claim doesn't seems to be, pre-installing Linux is the same as shipping the machine with no OS whatsoever.

      This is the result of the "free market" : MS paid them to have an opinion. In other countries we have clearly understand the USA definition of "free market".

    • Re:There should be an MS tax, no there shouldn't.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Antique Geekmeister ( 740220 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @11:33AM (#10413630)
      Ahh, basic business tactics 101. If Microsoft can continue with their illegal monopolistic practice of forcing vendors to pre-install Windows on every CPU they sell, under the theory that "they're all being used to run Windows anyway", it helps their bottom line and helps them keep it pre-installed on all boxes so people won't bother to throw away the Windows and install Linux. They've already paid for the Windows anyway, and since most vendors won't sell the hardware without some OS and only provide Windows, customers don't see the Windows cost.

      Vendors *do* want to have some base OS installed on the hardware for testing and support reasons: giving the customer something they then have to install on takes away the vendor ability to say "it worked when it left the factory" or "what does this test say? Oh, your CD drive is dead, let's just replace that."

      Your points about the Microsoft tax are well-taken. In addition, keep a very close on Microsoft's "Palladium" initiative which is designed to require Microsoft-designed authentication keys to run key components, such as, say, your CD-R drive and DVD player and have your *CPU* and *BIOS* designed to prevent you from using features such as a read/write drive or even a bootloader unless it is signed by the authentication key signatories.

      Re-read that carefully, and look it up on the web. They want control over your CD-RW/DVD-RW drives and your boot loaders, under the guise of "controlling piracy". This would allow them to block the use of non-Microsoft boot loaders or boot CD's, preventing the use of any operating system but Microsoft.

      We're not paranoid: they *ARE* out to get us.

    • "OK, colour me not too bright, but I cannot see why pre-installed Linux is being targeted here by Gartner - their claim doesn't seems to be, pre-installing Linux is the same as shipping the machine with no OS whatsoever."

      It's very simple: Gartner comments on industry trends. Wal-Mart and other major retailers are selling a relatively huge number of PCs equipped with Linux. That's the trend, and that's what Gartner is commenting on. If Wal-Mart were selling non-bootable PCs with no OS whatsoever, then

      • It's very simple: Gartner comments on industry trends. Wal-Mart and other major retailers are selling a relatively huge number of PCs equipped with Linux. That's the trend, and that's what Gartner is commenting on.

        No, what Gartner did is take observations in Asia, where bootleg Windows CDs are available in computer stores, and try to apply that to world-wide Linux sales/usage.

        But this is not something that Linus Torvalds or anybody running Linux should take personally. If people choose to see this as a

  • Yes, but (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @10:43AM (#10413359)
    preinstalling Windows does encourage people to pirate software.

    • Re:Yes, but (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 02, 2004 @10:50AM (#10413384)
      Mod parent up. Their argument fell apart here for me. I don't know a person in the world who runs Windows who doesn't have some pirated software on their machine. It might even be Winzip whose shareware period has long expired but everyone has something. You can't do any work on a Windows box without apps and most apps are commerical software. Linux is the other way round.

      • They exist but (Score:5, Interesting)

        by einhverfr ( 238914 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [srevart.sirhc]> on Saturday October 02, 2004 @11:01AM (#10413447) Homepage Journal
        I don't know a person in the world who runs Windows who doesn't have some pirated software on their machine.

        I do. I have customers for whom I have certified that all the software on the system is properly licensed. They are not common but they do exist.

        The real issue is that you have a difference in cultures which is fundamental. You have a "Windows Culture" in which "piracy" is largely OK in part because tracking licenses is pretty onerous, and because it is just easier to "pirate" software than to purchase it often.

        On the other hand, you have the free source culture eschews piracy and appreciates software that gives them the freedom to modify and redistribute it (some software culturally qualifies,such as Qmail, without really meeting the FSF's Free Software Definition in its strictest interpretation).

        When a person who likes one culture buys a computer with an OS from the other culture preinstalled, they will react. In some cases, this means that Microsoft gets a license fee for nothing, in other cases it means that Windows gets pirated.

        In the balance, however, Windows encourages piracy much more than Linux because it is inherent in the popular culture of Windows users.

        • Re:They exist but (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Tim C ( 15259 )
          No, I think that the real issue is that the vast majority of Free software is also available for free, which anyone can afford and everyone is prepared to pay, while most software for Windows is pay for only, which a lot of people either can't afford or just won't pay for.

          *If* Linux becomes more widespread on the desktop, and *if* a significant amount of commercial, pay-for software appears for it, you'll start to see comparable levels of piracy in the Linux world too. I don't suppose many of the current u
          • Ok, but how do you pirate linux? Are you suggesting that all these windows pirates are going to download the linux kernel, make some modifications, and then only distribute the binaries without the sourcecode? That's about the only way I can think to actually violate the GPL.

          • Re:They exist but (Score:3, Insightful)

            by TheRaven64 ( 641858 )
            *If* Linux becomes more widespread on the desktop, and *if* a significant amount of commercial, pay-for software appears for it, you'll start to see comparable levels of piracy in the Linux world too.

            Only if the pay-for software is of higher quality that free (beer) equivalents. I don't think I know of anyone who would rather use pirated software, and risk a close encounter with the legal system than use free software - especially since it is usually easier to obtain free (beer) software than pirate copi

      • I don't know a person in the world who runs Windows who doesn't have some pirated software on their machine.

        I'm running Windows XP Pro, and nothing on my computer is pirated. I'm running free or Free programs for the most part, and the few that aren't (games, NAV, etc.), I pay for. All it takes is looking for alternatives, and I'm quite happy with the ones I've found.

      • Well, the only reason this laptop runs Windows is because I need Microsoft Publisher. I know it supposedly runs under Wine, but I've never gotten it to, and I don't feel like paying for XOver Office. I'll admit, there's some pirated software (other than Publisher) on here, too - MS VPC, which except for not having a Linux version, will be cracked as soon as I get a crack. I'm probably going to put a serial in WinZip so it doesn't nag me. There are others, too. I wouldn't have pirated anything (except VMWare

    • Re:Yes, but (Score:3, Funny)

      by X3J11 ( 791922 )
      ... preinstalling Windows doesn't encourage me to pirate software. Microsoft's inadequacy is what would (note would, not does) encourage me to pirate.

      Preinstalling Windows just encourages me to curse Microsoft even more than is normal, where normal is a whole bloody lot.

  • Pirating Linux (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 02, 2004 @10:50AM (#10413387)
    I wonder how many people over the past 10 years have purchased computers pre-installed with Windows, only to immediately remove it and install Linux?
    • Not many. What kind of Linux user would buy a computer with Windows preinstalled when he could just build his own and not pay the MS tax?

      • Re:Pirating Linux (Score:3, Insightful)

        by lachlan76 ( 770870 )
        Not every Linux user knows how to build a computer.

      • Re:Pirating Linux (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Rxke ( 644923 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @11:09AM (#10413498) Homepage
        Laptops are not that easy to cobble together from off-the-shelves parts... And seeing the laptop market getting bigger and bigger, it might be a significant number...

      • Re:Pirating Linux (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Mikmorg ( 624030 )
        The kind of people that buy laptops, such as me. The only company that I am personally aware of that sells a UNIX based OS as stock on their laptops are sun, and I'm not about to run Sparc on my laptop system, and pay out the @$$ doing it.

      • Re:Pirating Linux (Score:4, Insightful)

        by clarkie.mg ( 216696 ) <mgofwd+Slashdot.gmail@com> on Saturday October 02, 2004 @11:21AM (#10413567) Homepage Journal
        What kind of Linux user would buy a computer with Windows preinstalled

        All users who discovered linux *after* buying a complete computer. I payed m$ twice (3.11 and 95), because at that time, I was just discovering linux and discovering computers at the same time.

        In fact, it makes some sense that if you buy, your first computer, you are not going to build it yourself and install linux on it, unless you are close to someone who will help you to do it.

        Now, experienced users (older usually) are often busy and even if they can build a computer, they choose to buy a complete system.

        And as another comment pointed out, there is the case for portable computers.
      • Uh, a laptop-using kind of Linux user? Maybe you find assembling laptops easier than I do...

        Yes, I know that major manufacturers (HP) are finally starting to release laptops without the Windows tax, but that is a very new development. Hopefully more will pick up this on this trend, but for the vast majority of cases if you want a laptop you're stuck with also buying Windows.
      • I've bought hundreds, probably thousands that way: unfortunately, the best vendor prices don't yet come without the MS tax and pre-installed MS on it, and wiping the MS and replacing it with Linux on common hardware is much, much, much faster and cheaper than building hardware from scratch. Only a few vendors so far have been willing to pre-install Linux: Dell did for a while, but gave up under pressure from Microsoft.

    • Re:Pirating Linux (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kentmartin ( 244833 ) *
      Well, you run into a pretty reasonable point here. I find, that as a general rule, my desktop (laptop normally) is dual boot. Commercial reality when consulting, demands you occasionally need to run some proprietry windows only software (timekeeping and expense loggers/help desk ticket things are the most common).

      Every now and again there is a powerpoint or project file that won't open properly under any of my standard Linux suite of apps, so a reboot is in order there as well.

      That being said, my home m

    • Re:Pirating Linux (Score:3, Insightful)

      by igrp ( 732252 )
      I can't really give you any exact figures but at this site alone (a college campus), we're approaching ~250 licenses. That comes out to be about 40-45% of the total number of workstations. Microsoft has approached us (that's not unusual at all; almost all colleges offer student package deals on Microsoft software these days) and make it clear that they would be willing to "work with us" if we limited our Linux deployment.

      At this point in time, all of the student accessible terminals (mostly kiosk-type deal

    • I have 4 machines at work and 3 here at home that had legit window installs but now run Linux. As said, Dell refuse to ship without XP as OS on just the 'box'.
    • Or install Linux on the machine after it's been moved out of its first use.

      I've only installed Linux on a couple of new machines - most of the time I install it on machines that have been used for another application for a few years before being upgraded.

    • I wonder how many people over the past 10 years have purchased computers pre-installed with Windows, only to immediately wipe it and reinstall Windows?

      Seriously though, I always completely wipe a new computer. That gets rid of Windows Me or XP Kiddie edition to way for a 'better' windows. On the other hand nowadays I'd never purchase a desktop computer from anyone ever again. Laptops on the otherhand I still feel like I don't have much choice.
    • According to IBM marketing, there are about 30 million Linux desktops in the world. I estimate that about 10 million of those paid for an unused Windows license. Therefore MS siphoned about $500 million off the Linux community.

  • I can see their point though (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rainman_bc ( 735332 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @10:53AM (#10413402)
    I can kind of understand. Nerd user has parent/friend/life partner/whatever wanting computer. Why pay the Microsoft tax? All you need is one of those cheep Linux Wal-Mart PC's... The ones that run Linspire (Lindows) or Lycoris.

    Then nerd takes computer, and wipes OS because said parent/friend/life partner/whatever can't/won't get Gnome/KDE. Said computer nerd then installs pirated version of XP on said computer.

    Not saying it happens as many times as is suggested, but I can see it happening a lot on those cheep-o PC's.
    • I can see it happening, too. But "a lot"? Beats me. How do you quantify this? It could be 1% or 99% or anywhere in between. Gartner pulled their statistic out of their ass.
    • Yes, but that's not the point. Of course it can happen (and probably does, a lot); thing is the logic behind it is basically you buy a PC only to run Windows; any attempt to sell it without it (be it with clean hard drives, FreeDOS, Linux or whatever) is encouraging piracy... of Windows. The logic behind it has sense only to Microsoft, which would get to sell more OEM licenses. In fact, i don't even think they're concerned that much about pirated copies, as long as they can keep the OEM cashflow running.
      • Dude, I'm totally with you. I'd love to be able to buy a laptop with Linux preinstalled.

        AFAIK, aren't they now making laptop shells without mobos or processors that you can buy? And if you build your own, AFAIK you don't pay that tax do you?
        • Are they? I've been waiting years for "modular laptops", much like desktop PCs... i don't think they exist (yet). God knows how much i'd love one :)

          Of course, if you buy your parts and build your system with it, there's no "OEM tax" to be paid. That, and being able to upgrade a laptop easily would be a dream.

    • To me, that means Windows users steal. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Saturday October 02, 2004 @12:36PM (#10414019)
      Yup, I can see that happening. Maybe even as much as Gartner says. Maybe more, maybe less.

      But that still doesn't justify their spin on their story. It isn't Linux, it is those filthy, thieving Microsoft junkies.

      Why didn't Gartner frame the discussion as .....

      "Gartner says: Linux users 75% LESS likely to pirate software than Windows users"

      In a recent Gartner study, it was found that 100% of Linux users had paid for the OS that was installed on their PC's. Windows users frequently purchased Linux-based PC's and then installed pirated versions of Windows.

  • Scraping the bottom of the barrel... (Score:5, Funny)

    by sugapablo ( 600023 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @10:53AM (#10413406) Homepage
    Now we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

    What's next?

    =) Installing cars with accelerators encourages drivers to speed?
    =) Wrapping burgers in paper encourages people to litter?
    =) Putting two idiots on the ballot in November encourages voters to make idiotic decisions?

    People need to RELAX.

  • Feh... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Xpilot ( 117961 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @10:55AM (#10413415) Homepage
    In Malaysia (a country where the XP lite crap edition is targeted), most small vendors have a pirated Windows preloaded anyway. Gartner would have us think in 'emerging markets', buying a computer with Linux installed is an excuse to pirate Windows, but the reality is nobody needs an excuse to do so... heck most PC's probably come with a pirated Windows preinstalled :).

    Over here in Malaysia, if anyone were to buy a computer with Linux pre-installed, you can bet it's because they were interested in Linux and didn't want to install it themselves (possibly due to inexperience with such things).

    I don't know why, but all these "analysis" things all seem to stem from the arrogant assumption that everyone wants to use Windows, and will do anything to get it.

  • Of course, back in 1995 I bougth my Pentium 90MHz 16MB with preinstalled Windows for Workgroups.

    I never bought SAP R/3. Am I a thief?

    • Of course, back in 1995 I bougth my Pentium 90MHz 16MB with preinstalled Windows for Workgroups. I never bought SAP R/3. Am I a thief?

      Of course not. The owners of SAP are not an US corporation.

  • OSIA spin? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by andy1307 ( 656570 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @10:55AM (#10413417)
    Do they have any data to counter the gartner claim? I agree that Gartner's logic is tenuous but they claim to have data to back up their conclusion. As much as I support open source, the open source movement can't afford to be in denial. Waht if the Gartner data really does prove that a lot of people who buy PCs with pre-installed linux wipe out the linux installation and install pirated windows.

    • Re:OSIA spin? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bcrowell ( 177657 )
      Both the Gartner article and the OSIA article are completely data-free.

      I've bought three desktop computers with Linux preinstalled. In all three cases, I wiped the Linux distro they came with (ThizLinux or Lindows) and installed FreeBSD instead. These were generic PCs that Fry's sells, from a Taiwanese company called Great Quality. It was very interesting to see the documentation that came with these computers. There was absolutely no documentation on how to use Linux. What they did provide was many pages

  • There is a misunderstanding here (Score:3, Interesting)

    by evil_one666 ( 664331 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @10:56AM (#10413425)
    Garner is not claiming that people are using Linux to pirate windows. They are ACTUALLY claiming that PCs sold with pre-installed linux are then being reinstalled with pirated versions of windows.

    This is still a somewhat unfair claim in my view
    • It isn't if it's true.

      Maybe not worth wasting time debating if it's true, better look at where it's true, why it's true there (abject poverty, hint hint) and the percentage of people actually using Linux
      • Sorry I should have been more specific for those who have less knowledge of this debate like yourself. This claim is unfair, REGARDLESS of its truth (or otherwise) because-

        a) Most linux installations are on machines that originally shipped with another operating system (usually windows), so it is misleading to highlight cases of alleged windows installation onto linux bases- the problem is clearly the other way round.

        b) Gartner is renowned for making skewed and misleading research, which may not stric
    • This is still a somewhat unfair claim in my view

      What's unfair about the claim if they have the data to back it up? They're saying a lot of users who buy linux PCs go on to wipe out the linux installation and install windows, with a majority of the windows installation done from pirated CDs. A 100 people buy linux PCs doesn't mean there are 100 new linux users...something the open source community should be worried about.

    • They are really saying that PC's sold without windows tend to have a copy of windows magically appear on them. That's all they are really saying, but of course, that doesn't slam linux in some way. That's where the "pre-installed linux" comes along, and by using that phrase, they can make their whole thing a slam on linux to a clueless media journalist. I wonder how many Penguin Computing computers end up with windows on them?
  • A lot of Windows users don't buy their software, apart from the games they play, and even then.
    And a lot of people I know, haven't bought their Windows...

    I have no stats, but you can be certain Gartner isn't reaching here.

    Take away the spin and the bull, think about price of Windows versus annual income versus the price of pirated Windows and you're there.

    My experience doesn't go further than Peru and El Salvador, but over there it's certainly true what Gartner says. But who cares...
  • If so many people are shitcanning their copies of Linux for Windows it means that the threat of desktop Linux to Windows is still nowhere near as bad as it could be.
  • Hmm... hidden in the fine print of the Windows EULA, there seems to be a previously undiscovered reciprocity clause, based on the Golden Rule:

    For each copy of Windows (TM) that an End User has been required to purchase with a system that was used for installation of Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris x86, NetBSD, OPENSTEP, FreeDOS, OS/2, or other non-Windows system, the End User is entitled to purchase a bare system and install an instance of Windows for Worms (TM). Users may issue certificates to third parties,

  • Who are GARTNER anyway...? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bogaboga ( 793279 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @11:05AM (#10413475)
    Who are GARTNER anyway? Aren't they the ones who were analysed in some CNN article to the effect that...

    "...Several times, Gartner Group makes the mistake of equating Red Hat with Linux, which marks the company as completely clueless on the topic matter..." They also ranted..."Red Hat will not meet the Linux community's expectations of overturning Microsoft's dominance and becoming a billion-dollar software company..." Who said Linux's goal was to overturn M$' monopoly?

    Info like this especially from GARTNER is not worth a read. I walked into a store just yesterday and wanted to buy a [new] mainboard. I wanted to know from the salesman whether the board I eventually bought (an MSI one) was friendly to Linux. I was supprised that he knew what he was talking about. I slapped on an AMD CPU and 256 MB of RAM, then left with a very good feeling that Linux is surely catching on. I am now downloading SuSE Personal as I type this message. I can tell you, that Linux is surely doing well.

    Have a good weekend.

    Cb..

    • Re:Who are GARTNER anyway...? (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You're a lucky man. When I asked if it was Linux friendly, the chic behind the counter gave me this weird look and said "You're the virgin here, you tell me..." and then the Quake dude was like

      DENIED!!

      Bah!
    • Gartner is the group that estimated in 1999 that B2B commerce will be a 7.3 billion $ business in 2004...Just search for news reports from 1999..They're the people making predictions about (insert e-business here) being worth gazillion $ in the next 5 years...not a very impressive track record, IMO..

      Experts say Web will transform industry [advancedma...turing.com]

      A recent study by

      Gartner Group estimates that B2B e-commerce will skyrocket from about $145 billion in 1999 to $7.3 trillion in 2004, accounting for seven percent of

  • Microsoft protection (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This raises another point, this report assumes that the current form of Mickey$oft piracy protection does not work(granted most people here could crack it in short order, but not the average id10T). So either everybody is installing pirated 2000 or NT4 version.

    I buy them because I want a full install version, not a crappy bulk load.
  • The OSIA's analogy doesn't make sense. Gartner is claiming that people will buy linux/no-os systems because they are cheap and they can install pirated copies of windows anyway. How does that translate to people buying Windows to pirate other applications?
    • I can't wrap my brain around the analogy either. I think this is a case of OSIA arguing with idiots, being dragged down to their level, and being handily trounced by more experienced idiots.

    • Most vendors give you the option to buy, say, MS Office when you buy your PC. If you can argue that people who choose Linux do so to avoid paying for Windoze so that they can install pirated copies later, you could also argue that people who buy PCs with Windoze buy no Office do so so that they can pirate MS Office.

      Without hard facts, both arguments are equally valid.
  • I just saw this posting made the google news front page. Since when did /. count as an official news source. The link leads directly to the comments page. Color me impressed.

  • Ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Skiron ( 735617 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @11:19AM (#10413557)
    Why buy a machine with Linux installed and then install Windows? Beats me totally...

  • Uhhh (Score:3, Funny)

    by GoMMiX ( 748510 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @11:21AM (#10413566)
    "It would be possible to state that pre-installing Windows encourages people to pirate application software."

    O_O *whistles and walks away*

  • Using my magic babelfish to read the article: (Score:3, Funny)

    by tod_miller ( 792541 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @11:21AM (#10413570) Journal
    that pre-installing Linux encouraged people to steal copies of Windows So much BS in this, I had to feed it through 3 times.

    Iteration 1:

    By not forcing people to pay for windows are OEM level, we are opening up a chance that they will aquire a copy without paying for it

    Iteration 2:

    We have been able to ensure people keep buying windows by changing the requrements so much, people upgrade [usually through a new system] and we catch them through OEM upgrades [aside: haha they don't even pay for an upgrade license!]. If people were able to sidestep our monopolistic OEM don't-sell-PC's-without-windows-or-we-kill-your-fi rstborn happy licensing program, they may try to aquire windows for free.

    Iteration 3:

    If people buy linux desktops, they might not even bother to pirate our software, and stick with linux, we are worried that by not forcing new computer owners to use windows, they may chose a different operating system. We are trying to use piracy as a lever, because our bestest friends at the RIAA made it sound so cool.

    Piracy has nothing to do with iut, they are trying to legitimize the illegal manner in which they force people buying new systems [through mainstream vendors] to buy windows. They are loosing power on this, and realise that when companies see higher margins, they will sell PC's with an OS, the user will buy it, use it, and the worst thing, is never even know what windows is, or maybe was :-)

  • Based on this (Score:3, Funny)

    by base3 ( 539820 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @11:27AM (#10413598)
    It would be possible to state that pre-installing Windows encourages people to pirate application software.

    I, as will any responsible citizen who respects copyrights, intend to contact Orin Hatch and ask him to immediately add a rider to the INDUCE Act outlawing Microsoft Windows.

  • Breaking News... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gone.fishing ( 213219 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @11:28AM (#10413605) Journal
    Guns sold in gun stores are sometimes used in robberies. Cars purchased at dealerships sometimes are used to speed. Alcohol purchased at liquor stores sometimes gets used by people who then drive.

    Almost anything can be misused or used for criminal purposes. In most cases the shopkeeper does not know how the produce he is selling will be used.

    I submit that a computer sold with Linux installed is safer and results in less harm than the average gun, the average car, or the average bottle of booze. Unless (of course) you are Microsoft. In that case, you hire a large, influential consulting group to show how dangerous computers with Linux pre-installed is.

    To me, this report is a little like BP issuing a report saying that hybrid electric cars are bad for the environment. Or like a cigarette company publishing a report that says smoking is good for you becase it calms your nerves.

  • the problem with gartner is flawed maths (Score:3, Insightful)

    by lfourrier ( 209630 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @11:31AM (#10413618)
    They say that
    1)the number small percentage of linux shipped system result in
    2)a smaller percentage of installed base,
    3)so somebody must buy linux box to run windows.

    I think they obtained from somewhere the two first facts, and deduced the third.

    Let's use some numbers:
    It is a small island. The year start.
    There is an installed base of 900.
    A linux company deliver 10 boxes.
    At the same time, a Windows company deliver 90 boxes.

    So a 10 % shipping rate (10/(10+90))result in an installed base of 1%(10/(900+(10+90))). For sure, those linux users are pirate.

    The only reasonable conclusion is that manipulating percentage in public is just that : manipulation.
  • Pre-installing linux on a machine give them a reason not to steal windows. Because the machine is already working and has applications that can do the job.

    It is the closed mentality practices which cause them to want to steal. Web sites that work ONLY with IE or documents that can ONLY be read with Office are causing them to install Windows illegally. This is the problem that needs to be fixed.
  • ...in this [slashdot.org] comment earlier this week, Gartner's claims are ridiculous. Today's article is even closer to what I was saying before. Just like with my car analogy in the above linked comment, if you want to, you CAN buy a car without a car stereo and Bose has no right to force you to buy one with their stereo preinstalled. Nor does Kenwood or Mitsubishi. The fact that Microsoft seems to want all PCs shipped with Windows as the default OS is fairly criminal if you ask me. It should be an option among man

  • Walmart Laptop (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Walmart's [walmart.com] got laptops that cost about $600 in my part of the world. As I've said, the only reason I wouldn't buy one is it comes with Windows Home, pre-installed. Since it only comes with 128meg, I'd automatically order a 512meg SO-DIMM off the web, and slap that in there. I'd rather they keep the $80 Windows non-transferrable Home license, put me a cheap 512meg module in there, and sell it with a Fedora Core 2 dvd, for $650. They'd make more money off me, but it would still be an outstanding buy. It's a go

  • Some pre-installed linux boxes do encourage piracy (Score:4, Informative)

    by kbielefe ( 606566 ) <karl@bielefeldt.gmail@com> on Saturday October 02, 2004 @12:51PM (#10414115)
    My Dad, knowing that I prefer to support family and friends' Linux boxes, and having had a good experience with his previous Mandrake system, bought a PC with Linux pre-installed.

    The modem and sound card didn't work out of the box and were one of the more difficult to get working with Linux, even for a Linux veteran like me. The resolution on the video card was also very low and difficult to fix. I ended up completely installing a new distribution.

    The PC came with a disk of windows drivers for its non-standard modem, sound card, and video card. You can't honestly say that vendor expected anyone to keep that Linux distro on their machine.

  • Gartner/MS's argument is bogus (Score:4, Interesting)

    by spitzak ( 4019 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @12:52PM (#10414119) Homepage
    It is currently about 100 times easier to buy a "no OS" machine than a "Linux" machine. Go try it if you doubt me. Also you get more bang for the buck with no-OS because there is no limits on the hardware for Linux compatability and nobody has to install the system (I paid extra for network cards and Nvidia graphics boards and other stuff, so my Linux machine was more expensive).

    Anybody who buys the Linux machine with the intention of installing pirated Windows is a loon, when there is a much better deal available in a no-os machine. But telling the truth would mess up Microsofts carefully plannned FUD attack against Linux. Microsoft, you are truly the lowest of the low in this piece of carefully designed bullshit.

    I've paid for 2 copies of Windows I have never used, Microsoft, because I could not get a machine without it. I'd like my damn money back before you start these crocodile tears. (my newer machines are no-OS, however).

  • Simply not so (Score:3, Informative)

    by MichaelKaiserProScri ( 691448 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @12:54PM (#10414131)
    I just ordered a herd of Dell's. I could have ordered them with the following options: Windows 2003 Server, Redhat 9, no OS. Well guess what I did? The machines destined to run Windows were ordered with Windows. I considered ordering those machines without the OS, not because I was going to pirate it, but because I could buy Windows from CDW for $100 cheaper than Dell. I ultimately decided that $100 was a fair price to save the install time. On the Linux machines, I ordered those "No OS" because we use Debian, not Redhat, and Dell was charging $199 for Redhat!!!

  • What they are essentially saying ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by innerweb ( 721995 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @12:56PM (#10414143)
    ...is the biggest competitor to MS is mostly a venue for piracy of MS's product. This is useful for preparation for another attack through legislative and judiciary means to squash competition. This reads like the opening statement in a trial by media. I support MS locking all potential thieves of their software out of their software. What I really see this document paving the way for is Palladium and more DRM like controls on hardware (CD-Rom, bootstrap, DVD, HD, CPU, etc) to force the world to use MS.

    I think this is a case of follow the money. What value is there in a report that says people buy linux systems to install pirated windows? The only value is in making it easier to get more locked down hardware, and a bigger MS tax imposed. I believe, based on other things that have been published and reported in the past 2 years, that with Paladium coming out in a few years that MS is wanting to lock down the hardware to prevent competing OSs from being able to use it (or anything that might have been useable on it).

    Remember, MS is loosing market share to linux. The market is not growing as fast as it used to. MS is a company who's value is based on growth of sales base, not divedends. MS needs more ways of making money (which essentially includes not making less money).

    InnerWeb

  • It's quite simple... (Score:3, Funny)

    by monopole ( 44023 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @01:03PM (#10414188)
    The evil pirates (otherwise known as users or consumers) buy Linux in order to steal SCO's Intellectual Property and having acomplished that they then move on to pirating Windows and installing that!

  • Chasing Windmills That Aren't There (Score:3, Interesting)

    by reallocate ( 142797 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @02:46PM (#10414993)
    I've only read the reports about the Gartner survey (but,then, so have you). I don't read in those reports any attempt by Garnter to document a cause-and-effect relationship between using Linux and pirating Windows.

    What I do read is something rather obvious: If you live in a country where piracy is endemic, and if the cost of adding a legitimate version of Windows to a PC is enough to keep you from buying that PC, then it makes a great deal of economic sense to buy a Linux PC and replace Linux with pirated copy of Windows,

    What's so difficult about that? People want to run Windows, but can't afford PC with legal Windows. They want to see the PC work before they buy, so vendors install a no-cost OS that just happens to be Linux. Buyers stop off on the way home and buy a $3 pirated Windows CD. Everyone is happy.

    The reaction this story has received is indicative of the paranoia and lack of reason that exists in parts of Linuxland.

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close