Article: "Windows is Free"

[vexorian]

I think it is a very nice article, it is not usual (as in at all) to find good links in slashdot...

http://tlug.jp/articles/Windows_Is_Free

[heimo]

I think it is a very nice article, it is not usual (as in at all) to find good links in slashdot...

http://tlug.jp/articles/Windows_Is_Free

Didn't read it. Searched through and there seems to be no single instance of word "freedom", but there's several instances of "cost". So it's probably once again just about price, which misses point of Free Software by a mile. And hopefully I don't miss the point of this article: I think people choose(* Windows because they only think about price, convenience and they do not understand concept of freedom in context with software.


EDIT: *) And actually, they pretty much don't even think about it as a choice or decision. Choice is made for them by Microsoft and their channels. I'm asked sometimes: "should I choose XP or Vista?", people generally don't even consider other choices.

[vexorian]

Didn't read it. Ok, but well, it wasn't really promoting that kind of thought but criticizing it

[HumbleGod]

Didn't read it. Searched through and there seems to be no single instance of word "freedom", but there's several instances of "cost". So it's probably once again just about price

Well, sort of. In a sense, "free" is used here to mean "set free," as it's referring to cracked versions of Windows. But yeah, price is a key consideration of the article. I don't think it misses the point of "Free Software" as you and I mean it, simply because that's not even what it's aiming to discuss. It's mostly talking about piracy.

[Ozeuss]

nice article. too bad he uses the word "free" when he means gratis- it's less confusing to use "given at zero cost" for other people not fully aware of the concept of software freedom.

[Salpiche]

Didn't read it. Searched through and there seems to be no single instance of word "freedom", but there's several instances of "cost". So it's probably once again just about price, which misses point of Free Software by a mile. And hopefully I don't miss the point of this article: I think people choose(* Windows because they only think about price, convenience and they do not understand concept of freedom in context with software.


EDIT: *) And actually, they pretty much don't even think about it as a choice or decision. Choice is made for them by Microsoft and their channels. I'm asked sometimes: "should I choose XP or Vista?", people generally don't even consider other choices.

you should have read it, it is a good article, not just about cost or price.

[Dimitriid]

Good read, I disagree with the conclusions and the reasoning: Piracy is real and I can tell you windows is really 100% free forever in my country where piracy is so rampant ISP companies encourage it openly on their marketing campaigns.

His conclusion however, that Linux should contribute to things like WGA to boycott windows is just illogical. Linux does not needs to do anything more than presenting a viable option, we're dealing with dissatisfied customers ( and that right there is the #1 reason for the rampant software piracy ) and Microsoft refuses to acknowledge their customers needs and instead keeps pushing them harder and harder into DRM, WGA and locking them out of their systems adding to their already terrible reputation of instability with such measures.

It is coming to a point where windows users are saying "you know what, this is just not worth it, even if I get it for free". Like any capitalist corporation, Microsoft's initial success carries the seeds of their own demise, Linux just has to be there to pick up the pieces when ( not if ) it happens.

[jdrodrig]

I think people choose(* Windows because they only think about price, convenience and they do not understand concept of freedom in context with software.

I keep reading statements like those in these forums and I just dont get it!

I may *choose* to use a product for which I do not have the freedom to modify it.....there is nothing wrong on that...

I would even dare to claim that for *some* companies the fact that the software cannot be modified by anyone gives them a sense of security and predictability

[Ozeuss]

now i'm reading the first one on ZDnet. what a load of crap.
"too many distros" is seriously a stupid argument. no one's forcing anybody to burn 15 distros and try them out.

[bread eyes]

nice article. too bad he uses the word "free" when he means gratis- it's less confusing to use "given at zero cost" for other people not fully aware of the concept of software freedom.

It's even less confusing (and more honest) if you use open for libre.


"too many distros" is seriously a stupid argument.

Not really, most distros are often wastes of effort.

[heimo]

you should have read it, it is a good article, not just about cost or price.

Yeah, I should read it later, it looks interesting . :-) My comments were not meant against the article and I probably made too quick assumptions. People generally don't understand, or appreciate, or value - freedom in software. Which is sad.

[GFree678]

"too many distros" is seriously a stupid argument. no one's forcing anybody to burn 15 distros and try them out.
Perhaps, but then again, to the new user who wants to try out Linux for the first time, having a multitude of different distros is gonna confuse them. Which one do I try? If they choose poorly and start with Gentoo, they're gonna have problems. :)

[darksidedude]

my only concern is that does windows piracy help or hinder linux?

gratis windows I think hurts us because they can have their cake and eat it to

get (supposedly) better software "free"

[heimo]

Which one do I try? If they choose poorly and start with Gentoo, they're gonna have problems. :)

Let's see - search "linux" in google.com, hit "I'm feeling lucky", ends up in linux.org, click download... (I have a deja vu, I think this is how I started 10 years ago) ... click "distributions page", choose "english", "mainstream", "intel combatible"... first hit Debian, next one's Gentoo. Oh boy. ;-)

[zero244]

Interesting article.....the author has really given this topic some thought.
Thanks for the post.

[LookTJ]

Let's see - search "linux" in google.com, hit "I'm feeling lucky", ends up in linux.org, click download... (I have a deja vu, I think this is how I started 10 years ago) ... click "distributions page", choose "english", "mainstream", "intel combatible"... first hit Debian, next one's Gentoo. Oh boy. ;-)
And users should read the description of each distro listed.

[use a name]

I'd pay $200 for a radio in my car.

Piracy and preinstalls. What else?

[heimo]

I read the article and original one it responds to. Good points there. People don't care enough, or know enough, about values and principles of Free Software to switch. Pirated, virus infected, or costly proprietary software works for them just as well, as long as they get their email sent, photograps arranged and Word document written. They stick to what they already know and are familiar with, even if it means occassional inconvenience. And Free Software isn't always competitive in userfriendliness. Sometimes you even have to use the feared command line, which is pretty much useless in Windows where your only hope is to get software vendor provide double-click patch to fix your software problems.

[epee]

nice article. too bad he uses the word "free" when he means gratis- it's less confusing to use "given at zero cost" for other people not fully aware of the concept of software freedom.
Actually, the article is all about how free/gratis/zero cost are assumed by the OS user, meaning that any issue of choosing an alternative OS is going to be about compatibility, ease-of-use etc. It is pointless to try and make the 'concept of software freedom' and issue - because it has no bearing on the user's ability to use their computer.

On the other hand, having to familiarise themselves with a new OS is more likely to figure in their deliberations.

As is the matter of the vast number of distros. Even the Ubuntu homepage offers Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Edubuntu and Xubuntu, and another 20 derivatives! That's before you start considering any one of the 191 (English) distros listed a Linux.org - if you narrow that down to Englis/Mainstream/Intel, you're left with a bewildering choice from no less than 54 distros.

At this point, is the user - presumably not a full-on computer geek - is no longer faced with a Windows vs Linux choice - it's their familiar Windows vs a plethora of unfamiliar Linux distributions!

Let's be clear about this issue of what 'free' is about. Even at Ubuntu they state quite clearly:

Ubuntu is and always will be free of charge. You do not pay any licensing fees. You can download, use and share Ubuntu with your friends, family, school or business for absolutely nothing.I don't see anything there about 'freedom', so presumably that is NOT what it's all about either.

For many user, even if they think they'd like to consider using Linux, unless their chosen advisor makes the choice on their behalf - and then installs and configures it for them, of course - then having visited Linux.org they're most likely to give up on the idea.

[ndefontenay]

Yes the article is good and make a point.

I think the same:

People uses pirated copies of windows so why bother with something else and suffer the annoyance of learning something new?

What we should learn from this however is that when we try to sell Linux to someone, we shouldn't stick to the "It's free" argument. This one won't work.

For a great succes of Linux, we need a good, easy to sell product.

Because, even though it's free, what we do is sell it by arguing why it should be used.

So far, I do a pretty good job but I think improving our favorite distro would make it an even better sell.

Right now the wireless is still too complex and is tricky to answer to when I hear "Will my wireless work on my laptop". "Maybe" is not a good answer to sell a product.

Also, I've installed Linux to avoid the hassle of viruses and weird things happening to my software.

So, when I got someone asking me help because outlook do this or that pop up won't go, I just tell them to switch to linux or leave me alone.

If I've moved to be in peace, I don't want to be annoyed by others problem. Double that if it's cracked windows.

[M$LOL]

From the small bit I read, it's a piece of crap, and the people who wrote it are morons and don't know anything about the verbal diarroea they're spewing out.

[Hallvor]

From the small bit I read, it's a piece of crap, and the people who wrote it are morons and don't know anything about the verbal diarroea they're spewing out.

Something tells me you should read the whole article. :)

[Sp4cedOut]

Good points in the article. News flash for some posters, not everyone who critiques Linux is a moron.


Didn't read it. Searched through and there seems to be no single instance of word "freedom", but there's several instances of "cost". So it's probably once again just about price, which misses point of Free Software by a mile. And hopefully I don't miss the point of this article: I think people choose(* Windows because they only think about price, convenience and they do not understand concept of freedom in context with software.

Yes you did.


His conclusion however, that Linux should contribute to things like WGA to boycott windows is just illogical. Linux does not needs to do anything more than presenting a viable option, we're dealing with dissatisfied customers ( and that right there is the #1 reason for the rampant software piracy ) and Microsoft refuses to acknowledge their customers needs and instead keeps pushing them harder and harder into DRM, WGA and locking them out of their systems adding to their already terrible reputation of instability with such measures.

Actually Microsoft has done very well in acknowledging it's customers needs. In many ways their operating system is technically inferior yet it dominates the market. That wasn't just dumb luck or "evil", it was because Microsoft understood the needs of the customer better than Apple or IBM.

Microsoft has a terrible reputation amongst techies, but the average Windows user is satisfied with Windows.


It is coming to a point where windows users are saying "you know what, this is just not worth it, even if I get it for free". Like any capitalist corporation, Microsoft's initial success carries the seeds of their own demise, Linux just has to be there to pick up the pieces when ( not if ) it happens.

Like any capitalist corporation?


And users should read the description of each distro listed.

And then they're already confused. The average user is not used to researching software. They're used to using IE to browser the internet, Outlook to do email, Word to write documents, and playing the occasional game of solitare.

"I just want Linux, what's all this 'distro' stuff?"

[M$LOL]

Something tells me you should read the whole article. :)

Oh fine. xD

[Bd0g]

Very well written article...

I've been reading 75% of it currently.. and came here to see if someone posted it already... This place needed a link to it :)

P.S Dont forget to go to digg.com and help it advance: http://digg.com/software/Windows_Is_Free (584 diggs currently)

[heimo]

Yes you did.

Yeah, probably I missed the point (or my comment's point was missed) because I didn't read the article at first (as I stated to be honest) - that's the danger of commenting something you don't read. ;D However I think there was a lot of stuff written between lines so to speak. Good piece.

[tigerpants]

Good article.

One thing that always perplexes me is this illusion that hardware support is so great in Windows. Oh yeah? I've had endless problems in Windows configuring wireless cards, printers, scanners, digital cameras and thats WITH the native drivers.

[vexorian]

Good points in the article. News flash for some posters, not everyone who critiques Linux is a moron. It didn't look to me he was criticizing Linux...

[igknighted]

Loved the article. I avoid pirating as much as possible, though I cannot claim to be 100% piracy free (although I'm pretty close). I had never really considered that people just take windows for granted... but its true. Kinda sad too. You get screwed if you do the right thing and buy a legit copy (overpriced and you put up with protection not intended for you), and the pirating still goes on unchecked.

Sadly I do not see a solution that is possible. You cannot restrict licenses and jack up copy protection without getting the backlash you see with Vista, but at the same time something does need to be done. First, a good start would be to lower the price. If the price is reasonable, people will buy. At least make the home version like $50 or so. Then advertise like crazy. The cable stealing adverts are very effective, I think "windows stealing" adverts could do the same. At least let people know that what they are doing is wrong. Some will still do it, but most really don't understand and would be disuaded by being told outright that it is stealing. Finally, windows need to innovate. Make people want the product, rather than groan. If I really want software I am more apt to buy it. If I need something but am not too excited about it, I would be less willing to open my wallet to the company/developer.


Good article.

One thing that always perplexes me is this illusion that hardware support is so great in Windows. Oh yeah? I've had endless problems in Windows configuring wireless cards, printers, scanners, digital cameras and thats WITH the native drivers.

I think the issue here is that people have a routine for fixing computer problems, and by switching to linux that routine is worthless. For windows, you start at the manufacturers website. For linux, you go to a forum for your distribution. This learning of a new troubleshooting routine (or stubournly holding on to your old one) is what makes linux problems SEEM harder.

[tigerpants]

I think the issue here is that people have a routine for fixing computer problems, and by switching to linux that routine is worthless. For windows, you start at the manufacturers website. For linux, you go to a forum for your distribution. This learning of a new troubleshooting routine (or stubournly holding on to your old one) is what makes linux problems SEEM harder.

Yeah you are right on with that. People are comfortable fixing Windows even though its a massive problem and collossal waste of time. Familiarity breeds contempt. My IT manager is reluctant to switch away from Windows, even though it wastes so much of his time with endless problems and glitches and maintainence, because he is comfortable with using it. Linux is alien and to be feared, even though by switching to it, it would save us thousands of pounds a year in time and money.

[@trophy]

Didn't read it.

Then don't post about it?

[@trophy]

From the small bit I read, it's a piece of crap, and the people who wrote it are morons and don't know anything about the verbal diarroea they're spewing out.

That's funny, I was just about to say the same thing about your post.

I mean seriously... read the damned thing. If you didn't like it, tell us why. Otherwise, DON'T POST!



Anyways, I agreed with the article entirely, and it brings up a point that I think we should start considering in the linux world:

Microsoft isn't stupid.

It sounds obvious, but some people forget it. Yes, Vista is so mind-alteringly bad that even some of the sheeple who have never even considered the existence of other OS's are now considering switching to OSX/Linux. This means that, for a while, we'll get some new converts. If we get enough, Microsoft will see the difference in their bottom line and decide to do something. Maybe they'll make Vienna better. Or, taking the easier path, maybe they'll make Vienna free to students or something. But most windows users are apparently willing to put up with quite a lot, so for us to remain dependent on "dis-satisfied windows users" is for us to turn down market share that we could and by all rights should get.

[ThinkBuntu]

I won't even try to lie: Give me a decent desktop with Windows XP, Norton, MS Office, and the entire Adobe Web Premium (CS3) suite, and I'll be a more productive web designer than I am working in Linux. I could certainly have all of the above mentioned software for free, too.

Why do I not use Windows? Because any essential software can be put on my Mac, Linux fills all the gaps, and I refuse to even marginally support Microsoft.

[heimo]

Then don't post about it?

Thank you for your not so valuable post, Trophy. I did read the article, as you would know if you read this thread before posting.

[@trophy]

Thank you for your not so valuable post, Trophy. I did read the article, as you would know if you read this thread before posting.

Yes, I did read the rest of the thread after I posted that, and I apologize if you feel slighted. But when your post begins "Didn't read it." you have to expect a little bit of "Then why are you posting about it?"

Anyways no hard feelings though. I think we've all learned something here today.

Oh, and I may have to change my user name everywhere... everyone always says "Trophy" It's meant to be "Atrophy". Show of hands: who thought "Trophy" and who thought "Atrophy"?

[daverich]

Yes, I did read the rest of the thread after I posted that, and I apologize if you feel slighted. But when your post begins "Didn't read it." you have to expect a little bit of "Then why are you posting about it?"

Anyways no hard feelings though. I think we've all learned something here today.

Oh, and I may have to change my user name everywhere... everyone always says "Trophy" It's meant to be "Atrophy". Show of hands: who thought "Trophy" and who thought "Atrophy"?

but then shouldn't it be @rophy

;)

[vexorian]

Not really, most distros are often wastes of effort.imho there's no evolution without mutation and there is no mutation without reproduction ...

[heimo]

Anyways no hard feelings though. I think we've all learned something here today.

Cool, @trophy. :D Yeah, reason I first didn't read it was because it's a long article and took some time for me to read. But it was well worth reading through. Much better than the article it responds to.

[@trophy]

but then shouldn't it be @rophy

;)

Yeah, but then I'd get people asking "What the hell is 'Rophy?' "

*Sigh* The only reason for putting the @ in in the first place was so that I could be reasonably sure it wouldn't already be taken as a username everywhere I went. Maybe I should just go back to plain old "Atrophy".

[DeadSuperHero]

Makes a lot of interesting discussion points.
Personally, I agree with the fact that if less people got cracked copies of Windows and Mac OS, then Linux and BSD userbases would change a lot.
Maybe with Vista and DRM, maybe it'll be happening.

[@trophy]

Makes a lot of interesting discussion points.
Personally, I agree with the fact that if less people got cracked copies of Windows and Mac OS, then Linux and BSD userbases would change a lot.
Maybe with Vista and DRM, maybe it'll be happening.

Yeah, but let's say that happens. Linux gets a bunch of extra users. Let's say we end up with 10% of desktop users. All MS has to do is make Vienna "better" in any number of ways... they could make it free/cheap to students, make sure a killer game comes out DirectX only, start making the OS suck less, etc. They'd gain most of those converts back as soon as it comes out. They don't even have to do a whole lot, because they already have the perception of ubiquity created.

Welcome to life under a monopoly. Barring any major acts of God, they'll be a monopoly for several more decades. :(

[DeadSuperHero]

True, but if Linux grows to be more widely accepted, it will genuinely threaten Microsoft. More and more of their users will be turning simply by "word of mouth", forcing them to take the approach of actually making something worthwhile (which hasn't happened really since Windows 95 to compete against Mac)
Times change. Technology continues to grow and develop.
If anything, we'll get more users, and a large amount will probably remain faithful. Also, Linux users aren't smarter than anyone else. They start off as regular Windows users and BECOME smarter. Hell, at times I find the terminal oddly comforting, like a friend that can help you with anything you need to do.
I'll end this post with one last example:
For a long time, the Encyclopedia Britannica was the best-selling encyclopedia around. They had thousands of requests, and pulled in a large annual budget. Then, something happened that would cause their downfall: books started going online. The Britannica decided to stay in print.
The Britannica is no longer in print, it's sales became a colossal failure. It has a website, I believe, but not many people know of it.
My point is, if someone isn't willing to move along with change (and that someone being Microsoft), then heads will roll. Open Source is beginning to make a huge difference both economically and technologically. Who knows? Maybe one day it'll be used to make the pacemaker connected to your heart? Who knows?

[regomodo]

i personally agree with the article's writer almost 100%. I see it all the time between non-techies and techies alike. Don't get me started on what happens throughout my uni for engineering apps. Someone always has an application if it is wanted.

However, i'd prefer it if Linux didn't go for world dominance. So i'm not too bothered about whats keeping Linux from being a market contender because when i see it Linux isn't in a market.

About the article, a good read if a little waffly and wandering.

[Lord Illidan]

But, I can't help but notice that among all my friends, all sorts of people I know from various walks of life, almost no one has paid for it. They usually know a guy who gives them a copy. They don't really ask where it's from. My friend bought a used laptop and it had Windows on it already. Not to mention it had the latest Adobe Creative Suite (http://www.adobe.com/products/creativesuite/) and Microsoft Office. All that, for about 300 US dollars. Did that price really include the software? Did the seller need to be compensated for anything other than the laptop? I know that all that software is cracked, but whether my friend thought about it or not, he didn't go out of his way to ask.

Quote above :

I agree 100%. No-one in my circle of friends has a legitimate copy of Windows XP or Vista, except if it was pre-installed, or else given by a cheap government grant. And yeah, expensive software does the rounds for 50p or even for free.

And why is this important? Because it removes one of Linux's great advantages, that it is gratis. Cos, if I say to my friends, look you can get a whole new OS for free, they'll say, why? I already got Windows for free! But it's illegal! So? No one has been arrested yet, right?

Free as in libre doesn't mean much to most users, directly. Indirectly, it means that they will benefit from better applications, perhaps..but not many users are going to look over the code to Linux or Firefox..or Windows, for that matter, even if it was truly free.

Also, regarding distros, it is somewhat of a valid point. How does one explain the difference between Ubuntu,Fedora,Suse,Mandriva for example. They're all "easy" desktops. Right. So which do I chose? Ask 10 geeks, get 5 different answers..not good.

Also, quoting from a relevant article :


3 - People want certainty that hardware and software will work
Name me five bits of hardware that lists Linux as a supported system on the box. I’ve just had a look around the office and I can’t find a single thing that lists Linux explicitly (I think I got a USB key some time ago that mentioned Linux but I can’t be sure). Until we see hardware vendors shipping Linux drivers for hardware as standard, this will remain a nightmare for anyone who doesn’t have a sense of adventure.
It’s worse for software. Anyone making the leap from Windows to Linux has to start from scratch with regards to applications. That’s a much bigger undertaking than the Linux community gives credit for. Having to come up with an alternative for every application you use is a big job.
Even with Dell’s plan to ship PCs with Linux pre-installed, it’s likely that the only people who will buy these will be people with enough experience using Linux to know what will work and what won’t (or who will know where to find the answers). I’m also left wondering how many people will buy an Ubuntu-powered Dell only to find out that there’s more to running a Linux distro than getting an OS for nothing. And how many will eventually give up and install Windows onto them?


I believe this is also a valid point. Most of us users have all our hardware working with Linux, or at least most of it. However, there are some exceptions. For example, I am typing this on a Sony VAIO, which has Ubuntu 7.04 installed. It also has a nifty camera..but, it's not compatible with Linux....yet...and there's no word that it will ever be. In sort, if I ever want to use that camera, I'd have to switch. Luckily for me, I don't..but then I'm not a multimedia guy.

Same goes for most soundcards. X-Fi anyone? And printers. No Lexmark. Most of HP range work, luckily. What if I end up with one that doesn't? ATI is another problem. Wifi. Winmodems. USB modems...

I am not saying that it is Linux's fault..somewhat what the author is implying here : http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=420&page=3 but it is holding it back, certainly. As for me, I don't mind so much checking every piece of hardware I buy to see if it is compat. with Linux. Others might feel different about it.

Now regarding this article here : http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=424&page=2


Here’s another reason why the Linux market share has been flatlined for years while the Mac share is increasing - Mac communities are on the whole friendlier than Linux communities.
I’m not sure if it’s just a case that there’s a small subset of the Linux community which is both aggressive and vocal or whether the problem is much broader, but this is a major turn off for people considering making the transition to a Linux OS. Even back when Mac communities were considered by many to be pretty hostile and unfriendly places Steve Jobs was clever enough to make sure that this kind of fanatical nonsense didn’t make it onto the Apple site and sales literature (although Apple is perfectly capable of coming up with their own fanatical nonsense, at least it’s not that aggressive). Negative campaigning seems to work for political parties but it doesn’t work for Linux - and the numbers prove this.
Seriously, given the passion behind some of the comments I come across from some Linux users, you’d have thought I was talking about something with life-or-death importance like a heart machine and not an OS.


I've seen this..and I've been guilty of this, too. Either being in a minority makes you different, but somehow, yes, I tended to get flared up when someone insulted Linux or teased me for being a geek..Nowadays, I'm more laidback. And yes, I've seen behavior like this on forums, even this one. Calling Microsoft as Microsucks, or Micro$oft or whatever..It's childish. And people who use Windows won't think Windows sucks because you say that Microsucks...




Bonus - Linux is not too geeky … really!?!?
One of my points was that despite recent attempts at making some Linux distros more accessible, there are still aspects of the OS that are too geeky and inaccessible. Many disagreed with me on this point but what they didn’t realize is that while arguing the point they proved my point. Here’s just one such example (http://gymnasmata.wordpress.com/2007/05/21/point-counterpoint-understanding-the-linux-community/) of someone proving my point:

Put a Windows user in front of a Gnome or KDE environment and I’m willing to bet that they will be able to find their way around.
OK, and talking about Gnome and KDE environments isn’t too geeky? Care to simplify that for the average user? The author of the post, having got that off their chest, then goes on to pretty much agree with that I said:

It may take a little while, but eventually they’ll figure out what applications are available and what they need.
Yeah, eventually.
Thoughts?


Ok this is a no-go. My sisters and dad use Ubuntu, and they find their way around alright. Sure, I have to guide them sometimes, but I used to do that all the time in Windows, too. And surprisingly, they ask less in linux, than in Windows... Still, I agree about one thing he indirectly mentioned...and that is quirky software names.

Gimp...Krita...Xsane...those are 3 things in my Graphics menu. Tell me...are those names worth anything to any new user? If they weren't marked like GIMP image editor, or Xsane Image scanner, I would never have thought that they had anything to do with graphics. Do they mean anything besides some wierd acronym? Photoshop, PaintshopPro, Inkscape, F-Spot, those at least do conjure something that leads to Graphics.

I can think of only a few OSS apps with wierd software names that made it to the top, and those are Firefox, Apache..Ubuntu for instance..but at least those are cooler sounding names than GIMP, for instance. Getting clever with recursive acronyms is a good way to show off your language skills and your geekdom, but not your marketing skills...such as..<shudder>...Hurd.

[vexorian]

Yeah, but let's say that happens. Linux gets a bunch of extra users. Let's say we end up with 10% of desktop users. All MS has to do is make Vienna "better" in any number of ways... they could make it free/cheap to students, make sure a killer game comes out DirectX only, start making the OS suck less, etc. They'd gain most of those converts back as soon as it comes out. They don't even have to do a whole lot, because they already have the perception of ubiquity created.

I don't see MS recovering firefox's market share...

[@trophy]

I don't see MS recovering firefox's market share...

That's because they were prevented from gaining a monopoly over the browser market, and they don't want to risk another run in with the law. In the OS and applications markets, however, they have a very effective monopoly.

[Ozeuss]

Yeah, but let's say that happens. Linux gets a bunch of extra users. Let's say we end up with 10% of desktop users. All MS has to do is make Vienna "better" in any number of ways... they could make it free/cheap to students, make sure a killer game comes out DirectX only, start making the OS suck less, etc. They'd gain most of those converts back as soon as it comes out. They don't even have to do a whole lot, because they already have the perception of ubiquity created.
Welcome to life under a monopoly. Barring any major acts of God, they'll be a monopoly for several more decades. :(

BECAUSE microsoft isa monopoly, they will keep on, in overall, to produce inferior goods at ourageous prices, just because they do not have enough incentive to evolve. Furthermore, because free/open-source software is inherently, on the long run, superior than proprietary software, it won't be worth it for MS to try and outperform any GNU/Linux or other software.
Even if GNU/Linux rises to 10% market share, the investment in Vienna will not be cost-worthy.
In addition, if we educate users about the concepts of software that is 'free as in freedom' and its benefits for the user, they will not choose ad-hoc practicality.

[GFree678]

Here's a question for ya:

Everyone knows competition is good (at least for the customers, companies hate it). Competition forces companies to compete on merit (at least in theory), and as such, if Linux becomes enough of a threat to Windows then Microsoft will, in theory, have to improve the quality/value for money of Windows.

Hence, if Linux becomes more prevalent and forces Microsoft to stop resting on their virtual monopoly and compete properly, is that such a bad thing if it results in a better product?

[Blondie]

On the moral point about pirating it clearly isn't stealing. It's like having a matter replicator device, pointing it at your neighbours car and creating an exact replica and driving it away.

Stealing is an act which results in
A) You gaining something
B) Somebody else being denied the use of that something

In software piracy B is absent. Even if we agree that piracy is wrong it is still not theft and if it is wrong then it is wrong for a different set of reasons to those why theft is wrong.

[Blondie]

I think the article misses the major point that what holds back a lot of people from using Linux is not anything to do with price at all but a perception of Microsoft's network effect. To use an old analogy a lot of people feel like Linux is Betamax to Windows being VHS. Even if they believe Linux technically superior, easier to use and cheaper they may prefer Windows so that they can run new software that might come up and they wont be left out if they run with the herd. If their boss emails them an excel file from work they want to be able to change it and save it without any incompatibilities when they send it back to her. They want to know that web pages will be displayed the way the author intended.

Some of this is FUD, though Linux has only quite recently solved some such issues. Some of this is still legitimate fair comment, for example in relation to the availability of commercial games.

[dptxp]

Microsoft never actually tried to stop piracy of Windows, it was allowed to get into every personal computer- paid or unpaid. It has been like distribution of drugs. Users got addicted to free stuff, worked on them and learned about them indirectly promoting the product by providing support. Lack of good alternate OS at right price (Linux took quite time to make it to the desktop) made Windows the standard.

Since Vista is not like the earlier versions of Microsoft OS, and Linux has come to a stage where the average user can use it, we see that Linux is getting popular. It will take sometime, XP is still around free-of-cost and does everything. And the guy next door can always help you out with Windows and Windows' programs, all free-of-cost.

Not only Windows, the programs that you run on it are free too.

[Dr. C]

I have read the article and the author makes some very valid points, as to why piracy of Microsoft Windows is a major if not the major obstacle to the adoption of GNU / Linux.

The author does make a very strange conclusion at the end of an otherwise excellent article. He tries to justify software piracy on the grounds that it benefits, the copyright holder, in this case Microsoft. In this the author is very wrong.

Copyright infringement (software piracy) is not a victim less crime. It is actually theft. What is stolen is the opportunity to make a sale, and I mean "sale" in the most general sense of the word. A download and installation of Ubuntu would constitute a "sale", in this case. What is forgotten is the very negative impact of copyright infringement on the competitors of the copyright holder.

If you pirate a copy of Windows Vista, are you stealing from Microsoft? The answer is most likely no. In fact Microsoft may actually benefit from your immoral and illegal act. You are actually stealing from the Free Libre Open Source Software community, because that pirated version of Windows Vista is most likely one less GNU / Linux installation, and that involves theft from everyone who has contributed that GNU / Linux distribution, including for example RMS and the FSF, so I must conclude that:

Piracy of Windows Vista is theft from RMS and the FSF!

Should FLOSS supporters fight the piracy of propriety software. Absolutely.

[popch]

Piracy of Windows Vista is theft from RMS and the FSF!

Should FLOSS supporters fight the piracy of propriety software. Absolutely.

The conclusion of your post appears to be that Mark Shuttleworth et al. should sue anyone pirating MS Software, while MS should not, on the grounds that MS did not receive a damage by the non-transaction while Mark Shuttleworth et al did?

[igknighted]

On the moral point about pirating it clearly isn't stealing. It's like having a matter replicator device, pointing it at your neighbours car and creating an exact replica and driving it away.

Stealing is an act which results in
A) You gaining something
B) Somebody else being denied the use of that something

In software piracy B is absent. Even if we agree that piracy is wrong it is still not theft and if it is wrong then it is wrong for a different set of reasons to those why theft is wrong.

Under US Law, it is stealing. I cannot speak for other countries, but I was curious myself so I looked up the laws, and that technicality is not made. I posted a section in another piracy thread about a week ago, i'll see if i can find it.

[Dr. C]

The conclusion of your post appears to be that Mark Shuttleworth et al. should sue anyone pirating MS Software, while MS should not, on the grounds that MS did not receive a damage by the non-transaction while Mark Shuttleworth et al did?

Yes absolutly, because there is damage to the competitor of the copyright holder by copyright infringement in this case.

[popch]

Yes absolutly, because there is damage to the competitor of the copyright holder by copyright infringement in this case.

I do not think that your 'theory' holds any water.

First, you could start a lengthy debate on whose software was not being bought whenever someone illegally used product X. Let's face it, someone who illegally installs and uses product X when there was product Y available for free makes a clear statement about the subjective value he or she places on both products.

I would maintain that using windows without paying is damaging to J.K.Rowling because in the time it took you to install und use that instance of Windows without any support you could have read one of her books.

Second, using a train without paying is illegal when the service is being provided with the understanding that it has to be paid for by the transportees. The fact that the train company would have had the exactly same costs regardless of your being transported has nothing to do with it.

Third, copying and selling branded goods is both illegal and immoral. This has nothing to do with the quality of those goods, i.e. wether they are actually fit for any purpose. I think one could make a case against copying branded goods for private use as well.

[Dr. C]

First, you could start a lengthy debate on whose software was not being bought whenever someone illegally used product X. Let's face it, someone who illegally installs and uses product X when there was product Y available for free makes a clear statement about the subjective value he or she places on both products.

If the pirate considers Windows to be slightly better than GNU / Linux and to the pirate both are free as in beer then it makes economic sense that the pirate would choose Windows in this case, but if the choice is between paying $200 for Windows or $0 for GNU / Linux the slight difference does not justify the cost and the user, no longer a pirate would choose GNU / Linux. That is precisely the point of the article, getting the product that is perceived to be the absolute best is not the only consideration, cost must also be taken into account.


I would maintain that using windows without paying is damaging to J.K.Rowling because in the time it took you to install und use that instance of Windows without any support you could have read one of her books..

J. K Rowling is not a competitor of Microsoft, but the FSF is. If someone cannot install Windows because it is to expensive, and wants to stay legal the only realistic alternative is is Free (as in speech software), so the damage from the piracy in this case goes to the FSF. Getting Harry Potter, the wizard, to create legal software out of thin air is not the answer here. Sorry.



Second, using a train without paying is illegal when the service is being provided with the understanding that it has to be paid for by the transportees. The fact that the train company would have had the exactly same costs regardless of your being transported has nothing to do with it.

A good analogy, but if instead of not paying for the train fare, the user would have taken the bus and paid for it (maybe a cheaper fare) it is the bus company and not the train company who looses in this case.



Third, copying and selling branded goods is both illegal and immoral. This has nothing to do with the quality of those goods, i.e. wether they are actually fit for any purpose. I think one could make a case against copying branded goods for private use as well.

I agree but the point is that it can hurt the competitor of the brand more often than not.

By the way piracy of Microsoft Windows hurts the Free / Libre software movement in a big way. If pirated Windows, about 33% of Windows installs were to be replaced with GNU / Linux do you really think we would have problems with lack of driver support for hardware, or 3D games etc? I do not think so.

[popch]

if instead of not paying for the train fare, the user takes the bus and pays for it (maybe a cheaper fare) it is the bus company and not the train company who looses in this case..

I still think that this kind of logic is lopsided. When I neither buy nor use any product at all of some particular type, which party is being damaged? None. When I use a product without paying it, the producer of the product being used can prove his claim, and all his competitors can not.

I can understand the general feeling which leads to this discussion. It is, of course, quite comparable to the observation that advertising is to the advantage of all of the market and not only of the company which pays for it. In other words, the competitors of a company profit as well from the advertising done by that company. In the same vein, it is not only the company which is robbed of its profit which suffers damage, but all competitors as well. Actually, old hat.

What would make this discussion a bit more interesting if we had a fact or two. Up to now it's just mechanisms.

I know that my observations do not qualify as representative. However, by direct observation I see only a very modest part of the installed base being pirated.

[Dr. C]

The figure from the Business Software Alliance (BSA) is 35% for piracy worldwide
http://www.bsa.org

By the way they are offering up to $1,000,000.00 for reporting software piracy, something which I truly support.

What I have observed here in Canada (and Canada is a low piracy nation) for Microsoft Windows is very much inline with the BSA figures. I do know of many individuals who run pirated Windows, even more than one who suggested I should try pirated Mac OS X (on a PC) instead of Ubuntu!

I have also helped many replace pirated propriety software with legal Free Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS), including replacing pirated Windows with Ubuntu.

My experience is that piracy of propriety software is a huge threat to FLOSS and software freedom in general.

[popch]

The figure from the Business Software Alliance (BSA) is 35% for piracy worldwide
http://www.bsa.org

Unfortunately, they do not make it all that transparent how they arrive at that figure. It seems that it is mostly an estimate of the actual revenue against expected revenue, somewhat enhanced by a guesstimate as to the number of products actually installed. Keep in mind that the study and indeed the whole organisation is paid by the software industry.

That is not to say that there was no software piracy. It also not to say that I tolerate it. However, from the available data it is somewhat difficult to judge how much software piracy actually contributes to 'lost market shares' of linux.

[aysiu]

According to this article (http://news.com.com/2100-1023-212942.html), Bill Gates would rather have you pirate Windows than not use it at all:
Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, but people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though. As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.

[Dr. C]

According to this article (http://news.com.com/2100-1023-212942.html), Bill Gates would rather have you pirate Windows than not use it at all:

Actually this raises an interesting new angle. Software piracy actually allows Microsoft to dump software in developing countries. If Microsoft tried to sell Windows Vista in India or China for a fraction of the cost the Windows Vista in the United States, in order to prevent a local software industry based on FLOSS, they could get accused of "dumping" in contravention of international trade regulations. Software piracy lets them get around this since Microsoft can simply play "victim".

[u.b.u.n.t.u]

I found this via digg.com.

Windows is Free
http://tlug.jp/articles/Windows_Is_Free

The author writes in a fluid, concise and highly interesting manner. Plenty of examples and thoughts reaching logical conclusions. I was so impressed I "digged" the article and decided I would open a chat about it here.

Digg
http://digg.com/software/Windows_Is_Free

The thought that is in my mind at the moment is this. That Linux (and here I think of Ubuntu for obvious reasons), is technically on par with the best of Windows and Mac. Give and take, they are all contenders.

So why isn't Linux doing better given it is "free"? A conclusion the author offers is that Windows is indeed "free", again with the " " but you know what I mean here. So according to the author, as long as Windows is successfully pirated, then Windows maintains a dominant market position.

Basically that would mean than Linux would have to actually surpass Windows to such a degree, that even a pirated copy of Windows isn't worth it.

As a long time Windows user and very rare Mac user I do want to make a permanent shift to Linux (Ubuntu) but for me and many persons I know, the time isn't quite right but I am counting down the clock.

I think that Ubuntu will out value even a pirated Windows within five 5 years or to put it another way, before the next version of Windows sees the light of day - the one after Vista.

The article is a bit lengthy but if this area interests you, as it does me, then it is well worth the read.

After you have read it, I would be interested in your views. Do you agree, disagree, see other areas worth mentioning and so on.

I want Linux to succeed. I see so much potential here and I like the entire concept of Linux.

I would leave this thought with developers "the gui stupid", like "the economy stupid" - when asked what is one of THE most important areas of Linux development.

[init1]

I would probably pay 200 dollars for a nice graphical interface instead of having to run my computer at the command line all the time.

A waste of money IMHO.

[aysiu]

I've merged these two threads about the same article.

[sicofante]

The articles (this or the one at Zdnet) suggest something that has not been commented in the seven pages of this thread: when Microsoft piracy prevention gets tougher end users do not turn to Linux, but to Mac. It's Apple who's getting Windows' tired users, while Linux keeps "stealing" users from Unix, which aren't obviously home users.

Microsoft can give away a home version of its OS (and IMHO they will if they go below, say, 90% of market share). We better have something really better to offer, and not just "free". We just don't have it today. Not admitting this doesn't help making things better.

I would suggest two ways of making a better impression on the general public:

1- Make Linux more attractive to users. This is achieved by design. Design by committee is unattractive by nature. A firm (Canonical? Novell? Redhat?) might hire good designers and encourage guidelines for software development. This is exactly what happens in Macland.

2- Make Linux more attractive to vendors. And I mean software and hardware vendors. This is achieved by consistency. That Linux mantra of "Linux is all about choice" must fade steadily. Thankfully, the number of "real" distros is being reduced to a handful, the desktop environment of choice in these distros is clearly one of the two (you know which one...), and once the packaging issue is solved (be it rpm or deb, no one cares), the industry might start giving better support to the platform. Novell, Redhat and Canonical should sit down and reach a strong agreement on consistency.

I don't agree with the usual claims about Linux hardware issues, ease of use, etc. Any Ubuntu/OpenSuse/Fedora install will have less issues with detected hardware than Windows in 90% of the computers out there, and we all know that perfectly well. All of us who have installed Ubuntu to friends and family know as well that they don't have the slightest issue using the software. Not even grandma.

The article is quite accurate pointing out the real issue: being free is not the question, so we better stop claiming all those theoretical benefits of open source and start making things really more attractive.

[JAPrufrock]

Assuming that Windows is about as free as Linux, because of the proliferation of cracked copies, it would be true that few people would switch to Linux if the quality and usability of both was about the same. But I don't believe that they are the same. I have some friends who have shown a strong interest in switching to Ubuntu because I have made the point that Ubuntu, in many (and perhaps the most important) aspects, is much better than Windows. All the software and applications that they might need are already installed or easily downloadable. Viruses are virtually nonexistant, no unknown processes are running in the background, and the blue screen doesn't exist. No reinstallations every 6 mos. are necessary because Ubuntu is very stable and not degraded by viral infections. The things I hate about Windows are the same things my friends hate about Windows. So while I agree that people won't switch to Linux if Windows and Linux are about the same, they will switch if Linux is significantly better.

[Ozeuss]

I would suggest two ways of making a better impression on the general public:

2- Make Linux more attractive to vendors. And I mean software and hardware vendors. This is achieved by consistency. That Linux mantra of "Linux is all about choice" must fade steadily. Thankfully, the number of "real" distros is being reduced to a handful...), and once the packaging issue is solved (be it rpm or deb........
..
The article is quite accurate pointing out the real issue: being free is not the question, so we better stop claiming all those theoretical benefits of open source and start making things really more attractive.
Current situation is that the public is in vendor lock-in. the FOSS community should make more of an effort to change they way the industry looks and educate users more than just to try and gain popularity.
Linux IS very attractive to vendors. it's FOSS, so its totally transparent and can be bundled with hardware at no cost. secondly, as long as hardware's concerned, the kernel is the one that matters most, so that is consistent. if someone needs a binary package of a driver (deb, rpm), he can download it from a repo. but what we need is not binaries, but open specs from hadware vendors.

MOST important- being free software and open-source is very much the issue. linux owes it superiority to the open-source method. these aren't theoretical benefits but also practical ones. Free-software is superior by its nature to propietary software. and it is more moral. any distro that takes the propiretary path will die like linspire dies.

[sicofante]

All the software and applications that they might need are already installed or easily downloadable.
The same with cracked windows.


Viruses are virtually nonexistant,The same with proper virus protection.


no unknown processes are running in the background,As long as they don't interfere with my daily job, who cares?


and the blue screen doesn't exist.The BSOD is mostly a thing of the past.


No reinstallations every 6 mos. are necessary because Ubuntu is very stable and not degraded by viral infections.Simple care prevents that from happen. Besides, reinstalling takes a Sunday evening. No big deal.


they will switch if Linux is significantly better.The key word being "significantly". The articles make a point by showing there's no significant gain from switching.

[Epilonsama]

The same with cracked windows.

The same with proper virus protection.

As long as they don't interfere with my daily job, who cares?

The BSOD is mostly a thing of the past.

Simple care prevents that from happen. Besides, reinstalling takes a Sunday evening. No big deal.

The key word being "significantly". The articles make a point by showing there's no significant gain from switching.

Are you being sarcastic or just a troll?

[Sp4cedOut]

no unknown processes are running in the background.

LMAO.

Type "ps -A" into the terminal to see all processes currently running.


The same with cracked windows.

The same with proper virus protection.

As long as they don't interfere with my daily job, who cares?

The BSOD is mostly a thing of the past.

Simple care prevents that from happen. Besides, reinstalling takes a Sunday evening. No big deal.

The key word being "significantly". The articles make a point by showing there's no significant gain from switching.

This. Unfortunately Linux simply doesn't offer the average, non-techie computer user enough perks to switch. I've talked to a lot of my friends who use Windows and they say viruses aren't a problem, they've never seen the BSOD, and crashes are rare enough that it's not a problem.

[JAPrufrock]

This. Unfortunately Linux simply doesn't offer the average, non-techie computer user enough perks to switch. I've talked to a lot of my friends who use Windows and they say viruses aren't a problem, they've never seen the BSOD, and crashes are rare enough that it's not a problem.

Sorry, I don't buy it. I haven't used Windows in a while now, but I remember all the problems I had, viral and otherwise, with XP. My friends too.

[aysiu]

I think it depends on what social circles you run in.

If you hang around Windows power users a lot--people who have become the master of Windows, know the registry inside and out, and have learned over the years how to protect themselves from viruses--then I can believe they don't have problems with Windows. Hell, I don't have problems with Windows at work, because I'm not an administrator (I'm a limited user... and when they've given me administrative privilege at work, I just create a separate administrator account and then make my original account a limited user). I've learned over time how to navigate Windows. I think it's taken me a couple of decades (I've been using Microsoft operating systems since MS-DOS).

If, however, you hang around the mythical "Joe sixpack," "grandma," or "average user," you'll realize that most people have tons of Windows problems every day, and think of computers as troublesome and mysterious things that will just break at a moment's notice.

[popch]

If you hang around the mythical "Joe sixpack," "grandma," or "average user," you'll realize that most people have tons of Windows problems every day, and think of computers as troublesome and mysterious things that will just break at a moment's notice.

Very true. What's worse, they do not know that they are having Windows problems.

To make it still more ironic, these are the very people who will not have you remove Windows in favor of Linux, for fear of damaging the PC or voiding the warranty or whatever consumers fear when they don't know anything about the products they use.

[mangar]

Those are not "windows" problems, those are abstraction problems.
The personal computer is a truly abstract machine, without an existing corollary anywhere else.

The "windows" problems are usually plain usability problems, because (imho, etc), windows and most of windows applications UI and usability sucks in a really major way. osX and the gnome desktop are a lot better that windows desktop (in all versions, including vista), with the exception of office 2007, and some parts of the new windows file explorer.

Anecdote:
Yesterday I've installed windows 2000 on my gf 1ghz p3 laptop, and I was incredibly surprised to see how little has changed between 2000 and XP, and how limited and "clunky" are the user visible changes to vista. It is as close to nothing has changed in the last 9 years, and if I remember correctly, windows 2000 UI is almost identical to windows 95 UI.

In short, it is both an indication to how much there is to gain over windows in the usability department, and how troubling is the current situation, where the Linux stack is lacking in lots of areas usability wise.

[Ozeuss]

LMAO.
This. Unfortunately Linux simply doesn't offer the average, non-techie computer user enough perks to switch. I've talked to a lot of my friends who use Windows and they say viruses aren't a problem, they've never seen the BSOD, and crashes are rare enough that it's not a problem.

couldn't disagree more. i;m not a programmer, but I consider myself a sophisticated user. I never saw a BSOD, never encountered a virus,and still i was amazed with the power of Ubuntu and free-software in general. everytime i look at xp and vista i feel like puking on the screen. IMO, there are numerous perks to switch, especially if you have a friend to "hold your hand" during the switch. I didn't, and still got by. i took me 2 months to master in GNU/Linux what took me 15 years in windows. FOSS truly empowers the user.
ubuntu and linuxes in general are much better than windows for anyone that is interested in computers. luddites may use windows.

[amadeus266]

How would it affect Microsoft's "bottom line" if they decided to offer free upgrades (i.e. XP to Vista or Office 2003 to Office 2007) to all their Legitimate Users? The way Ubuntu and others offer them. That is the only way I can see that they may hurt to future of Linux. Linux will continue to improve and surpass windows as long as the developers have a desire to do so. I use Linux for a number of reasons that I won't get into here but I will say the the biggest reason at the time of my switch was price. I am a Windows power user and I still have to keep windows around due to my job, but I have learned to do everything I normally would do in windows on my Linux box freely (as in the way I want it to work) and more because I have more software available to me for free (as in price). If I had to use exclusively Microsoft software for all the different things I do, it would cost me a fortune!

[sicofante]

Joe Sixpack and Grandma will have problems with Windows the same they will have problems with Ubuntu (just of a different kind, maybe). Even Mac users need some geek nearby to help. Every power user is their family and friends customer service. I serve the three type of users in my social circle and I have to say no one suffers more than the other (maybe the only Mac user around me is the happiest one, but that's not enough to draw conclusions). Again, the issue here is: switching is a decision that takes a lot more than a few security glitches here and there. Once you decide you can crack the software you use, there simply is no comparison on the type of software you'll be able to run under Windows (even Mac) versus Linux (and those apps won't be available under Linux until Linux is a consistent platform for software vendors to feel even interested) . There are only a few areas where desktop Linux software does better than Windows or Mac. Why switch?

However, I'm seriously convinced of the potential of Linux. IF (and only IF) some serious investment is made in pushing the Linux desktop (design, design, design), switching might become something really attractive. Money has been poured to make a solid Linux server and the results are visible. I understand it takes some brave and imaginative investor(s) to put the same effort into the desktop but we can't expect much until that happens. Ubuntu is the strongest effort in that direction (and the results, again, are visible: no.1 distro in very short time) but design is still lacking too much.

[joe.turion64x2]

That's a nice article. I think I'll email it to many of my friends you use cracked software.

Joe.

[@trophy]

Sorry, I don't buy it. I haven't used Windows in a while now, but I remember all the problems I had, viral and otherwise, with XP. My friends too.

I'm going to have to put myself in the other boat, then. I used XP for years, happily, with no problems that didn't orignate with either WGA or too many services running. Neither did my friends, coworkers, teachers, or family. And they range from power admin gurus to 1337 h4x0rz all the way down to my utterly technophobic mom who is "afraid to click on buttons because it might break something."

Malware is different now than it was in the 90's. It doesn't normally do anything you'd notice to your computer other than slowing it down. Since it's for profit, it's to the malware author's benefit if you don't notice you're infected so that you remain a part of his or her botnet as long as possible. In fact, most of the malware I've found on friends' machines tries not to even slow it down enough for you to notice, probably out of fear that you'll take it to the Geek Squad, complaining that "It's slow."

Fanboys, look away. I'm about to utter blasphemy.

XP Pro is a perfectly decent operating system.

If you turn off the useless services, it runs great, even on REALLY old hardware, and the amount of applications available give it an edge compared to all other operating systems. Microsoft worked hard for years to build that monopoly, and it's paid off. I don't know ANYONE (even my rabid, kool-aid swilling apple fanboy friends, my RMS-like open-source zealot brethren, and my technophobic mom) who doesn't have at least one pirated copy of Windows XP.

Perhaps instead of pretending that Microsoft has never done anything right, we should look at what was successful for them in the past, and use it to our advantage in the future.

[southernman]

Nice article... thanks for the link!

[oldos2er]

>I don't know ANYONE (even my rabid, kool-aid swilling apple fanboy friends, my >RMS-like open-source zealot brethren, and my technophobic mom) who doesn't >have at least one pirated copy of Windows XP.

Now you do.

[@trophy]

>I don't know ANYONE (even my rabid, kool-aid swilling apple fanboy friends, my >RMS-like open-source zealot brethren, and my technophobic mom) who doesn't >have at least one pirated copy of Windows XP.

Now you do.

I salute you, sir. As soon as I can de-photoshop myself I shall be joining your ranks. I swear, that stupid program is like one of them elvish rings...

[steven8]

now i'm reading the first one on ZDnet. what a load of crap.
"too many distros" is seriously a stupid argument. no one's forcing anybody to burn 15 distros and try them out.

I've burned about 40. . .but then I think it's fun. Heck of a lot more fun than shopping with sister as she tries on 100 different 'outfits' only to buy the first one she'd tried. I've never heard of anyone walking out of a store with nothing because they had too many things to choose from. :guitar:

[goumples]

I have a friend who asked me to fix his computer... turns out it didn't have any software on it but a corrupt version of Windows 98. I asked him did he want Linux on it, and he said no put windows on it.. I told him it'd be expensive and he said: "Nah don't buy a copy, just put windows on it". Point made.

I actually considered downloading a cracked win xp, but I just can't commit to do it. Not because I think its wrong, it's not, I just don't wanna get found out by people who think it's wrong.

[Ozeuss]

Fanboys, look away. I'm about to utter blasphemy.
XP Pro is a perfectly decent operating system.
....
Microsoft worked hard for years to build that monopoly, and it's paid off. I don't know ANYONE (even my rabid, kool-aid swilling apple fanboy friends, my RMS-like open-source zealot brethren, and my technophobic mom) who doesn't have at least one pirated copy of Windows XP.
Perhaps instead of pretending that Microsoft has never done anything right, we should look at what was successful for them in the past, and use it to our advantage in the future.

I would agree that it is 'decent' but nowhere near 'good' and absolutely not for its price.
Microsoft has done a lot of things right, but not in technological aspects. it is a brilliant company from the marketing aspect and in setting strategy. It's always been the retarded OS compared to apple, and now major distros surpass it also (talking desktop, server is the case even more).
and more importantly- microsoft is a horrible company if you look at its conduct over the years. i'd rather that ubuntu be at 0.1% market share than to copy the tactics of that disgusting company.

[@trophy]

i'd rather that ubuntu be at 0.1% market share than to copy the tactics of that disgusting company.

Yeah I should have made that clear, sorry. I'm not suggesting we use their underhanded tactics like dumping. Although... our product is free, so technically for us to be dumping we'd have to include a shiny new $10 bill with every ubuntu disc. Somehow that idea makes me smile. But I digress.
I am suggesting that we could definitely use a little bit of their marketing (come on, completely buying "Start Me Up" was a stroke of genius). Also, XP has some technical merit as well.

[Tundro Walker]

Good read, I disagree with the conclusions and the reasoning: Piracy is real and I can tell you windows is really 100% free forever in my country where piracy is so rampant ISP companies encourage it openly on their marketing campaigns.

You've pointed out an interesting reason why pirates wouldn't want folks to go to Linux or other OS'. If the pirates are making money off selling hack copies, then the LAST thing they'd want is folks to go to Linux. Talk about sleeping with the enemy. Microsoft may not like pirates, but it appears it keeps Microsoft in the public eye in your country. Now there's a catch 22.

[sicofante]

now i'm reading the first one on ZDnet. what a load of crap.
"too many distros" is seriously a stupid argument. no one's forcing anybody to burn 15 distros and try them out.
Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything. The point is, once you decide you want to try Linux, which distro should you try? One? (which one?) Five? (which five) Fifteen? (which fifteen?)

If you can't see an ordinary consumer being confused about the excess of variants, then I understand you consider that argument stupid.

Of course, if you think Linux is not for ordinary consumers, then you have answered yourself why people wouldn't switch.

[popch]

Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything. The point is, once you decide you want to try Linux, which distro should you try? One? (which one?) Five? (which five) Fifteen? (which fifteen?)

If you can't see an ordinary consumer being confused about the excess of variants, then I understand you consider that argument stupid.

Of course, if you think Linux is not for ordinary consumers, then you have answered yourself why people wouldn't switch.

That also explains why nobody buys cars or cameras or cell phones. For each of these products there is such a bewildering number of distros that people prefer walking, painting in oil and talking or perhaps phoning over land lines or signalling with smoke.

[aysiu]

Just take this quiz:
http://www.zegeniestudios.net/ldc/

[popch]

That quiz is great fun. It recommends for me four distributions. I have been using two distributions during the last few years, and both of them are recommended by that quiz.

[southernman]

Just take this quiz:
http://www.zegeniestudios.net/ldc/

Great test! That should be on the front page of distrowatch!

[aysiu]

The quiz isn't a mind-reader, but a for a new user who's lost and confused by all the choices, it at least points you in a good direction to start.

[hobieone]

iteresting read. some interesting poitn to make you think about. the one that got me thinking could pirated windows copies be in fact hurting linux adoptation there by inadvertantly helping microsoft??:-?

[aysiu]

iteresting read. some interesting poitn to make you think about. the one that got me thinking could pirated windows copies be in fact hurting linux adoptation there by inadvertantly helping microsoft??:-?
Of course. Read post #61 (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=3213140&postcount=61) for more details.

[sicofante]

That also explains why nobody buys cars or cameras or cell phones. For each of these products there is such a bewildering number of distros that people prefer walking, painting in oil and talking or perhaps phoning over land lines or signalling with smoke.
Funny and nicely ironic... but just fallacy. Appliances have a very short set of usability conventions and the differences between different models are just negligible for any user. Some (like cars) even have their usability conventions enforced by law (at least in my country). Also, most of these are the end product. Operating systems are 1) infinitely more complex than any appliance and 2) the basis for other applications. So choosing an OS has a lot more implications than choosing an appliance.

The thing is, Windows is well known, the Mac is not so well known but someone approaching it will have a clear picture shortly. Linux, on the contrary, is like a dark forest for the newcomers. And, unlike the other two, Linux just sits there, waiting for the newcomers to find out by themselves. Since Linux commercial efforts are directed to the enterprise, ordinary home users get no beckoning at all. Why would they be interested? Why would they wander the dark forest? Why would they even go to that nice test Aysiu pointed us to? (Thanks, by the way.) Why when windows is free?

The article is yelling hey guys do something to make Linux more interesting or nobody will get out of their coaches!

[sicofante]

Just take this quiz:
http://www.zegeniestudios.net/ldc/
I started taking it and acted as if I was totally new to Linux and computers.

I choose Spanish, my mother tongue.

The first question is if I know what a Linux distro is. I say "no" and I'm given two links, one about what Linux is and another one about what a distro is. Either opens a new window showing an article from the Wikipedia. Two mistakes so far:
The test shouldn't open a new window. (See Jakob Nielsen recommendations for web usabiity and navigation). The user gets lost easily by doing so.
The article opens in the English version of the Wikipedia, when a Spanish article for the item is available.The explanations given in the Wikipedia for any of these questions is more or less OK, but the one about "What is an operating system" is way overkill and probably will confuse the user much more.

Let's go ahead, though.

At a given point, I'm asked again how's my knowledge of Linux. Errr... right at the beginning I was clearly stating I don't even know what an OS is, so why asking that again?

Finally, the tests recommends me 4 (four) distros. And there are other 3 more, in case I find that too little... That's very wrong, IMO. (Remember I told the test I was about as ignorant as someone just landing from Mars, computerwise).

Don't get me wrong. The test is a nice attempt, but I suspect it really doesn't expect a user completely ignoring what Linux or an OS is, let alone a distro.

I would suggest:

1. Assume zero knowledge from the user.
2. Keep explanations inside the test and make them simpler than the Wikipedia articles.
3. Keep real track of the type of user you're dealing with and make appropriate questions throughout the test.
4. Make a brave decision and recommend just one distro to the real newbies. Allow more results for midlevel to experienced users. Or just ask how many distros the users wants recommended.

[popch]

Appliances have a very short set of usability conventions and the differences between different models are just negligible for any user. Some (like cars) even have their usability conventions enforced by law (at least in my country). Also, most of these are the end product. Operating systems are 1) infinitely more complex than any appliance and 2) the basis for other applications. So choosing an OS has a lot more implications than choosing an appliance.


You have hit squarely on the point I was trying to make. Thank you for your feedback. However, I think you did not make the final step:

Most people do not buy operating systems; they do buy appliances, though. This applies to companies and government agencies as well. And even when they actually buy an OS, they do so in the sense of buying a replacement part for an appliance they already own and use.

In most cases, the argument does not run 'windows (or linux or VM/370) is a valuable thing to own'. The argument does and should go, of course, 'a computer running applications is a valuable thing'.

Once you have arrived there, the discussion reduces itself to how the choice of the OS and of the applications influences the value of the appliance.

If you're quite sophisticated, you can start discussing architectures, much as motorcar fans discuss carburetors. On a more basic level, you could discuss petrol vs diesel engines or track widths for railways and so on. And, yes, you would regulate the properties of the UI (user interface): placement of accelerator and brake pedals, position of the steering wheel, construction of the column holding it, and so on.

In this context, I find it quite interesting that we can endlessly discuss whether or not Windows on the desktop was useful, harmful, expensive or free while practically no one cared when cell phones started depending on Windows.

[sicofante]

In this context, I find it quite interesting that we can endlessly discuss whether or not Windows on the desktop was useful, harmful, expensive or free while practically no one cared when cell phones started depending on Windows.
Phones depending on Windows? Sorry I don't quite follow. But you made an interesting point. It's true that ordinary people just buy a computer. They are afraid that if it doesn't run Windows they'll be disconnected from the rest of the world. This is of course an exaggeration, but the perception isn't completely absurd. The users would be inclined to do some research if that would save them money. The article points to the fact that Windows being free stops people from doing that research. The myth of Windows being a requirement for compatibility with the rest of the world keeps growing under such circumstances, which can only be good for Microsoft.

[popch]

Phones depending on Windows? Sorry I don't quite follow.

One of my cellular phones as well as my pda run what they used to call Wince, now Windows Mobile or some such.In other words, those phones are in actual fact comupters and use an OS. Some use Windows as OS. They 'depend' on Windows.


It's true that ordinary people just buy a computer. They are afraid that if it doesn't run Windows they'll be disconnected from the rest of the world. (...) The users would be inclined to do some research if that would save them money.

Near the point, but not quite there.

A great many people buying computers do not even know that there was a choice in operating systems. Since computers are delivered with the OS in place, they would suspect that replacing the OS would in the best case void the warranty and in the worse cases stop the appliance from working.

A typical consumer (and even some quite sophisticated once) simply refuse to believe that some of that software is - er - not best of breed.

If you spend any time in a shop where consumers choose and buy their computers, you will realise that most of them do not question the OS in the machine, for the simple reason that they are completely out of their depths, and the are often being made to feel it, too.

[sicofante]

I see. Windows Mobile is a whole different story than Windows for PCs. There's no monopoly in smartphones (if any, it's Symbian, not Windows), relatively few people use smartphones as opposed to regular phones and many buying those smartphones don't even know they can put apps in there.

In my experience people ask "it comes with Windows and all, right?". I know they don't even know something else exists, but they do know Windows exists and their friends and colleagues use it. They know they've learned to use Office and Internet Explorer and Outlook (they usually mean Outlook Express). It took them a lot to learn that and they don't want to learn anything new. They are asked by friends and colleagues to read attached .doc files with Word. Again, the point is they don't want to take the risk of using anything different because there's no price tag involved.

(My customers are mainly professionals, and they won't face the risk of a BDA inspection, so all of them buy original software. I'm referring here to friends and family who ask me for advice, current prices, etc.)

[aysiu]

This may have already been mentioned in the 100 or so posts, but if not, it bears mentioning: some of the analogies in that article are not appropriate to the Linux/Windows situation.

A free Hyundai car may not appear to be the same quality as a Honda or Toyota of the time, but it still drives on the same roads and takes gas from the same gas stations. If free Hyundais could not take gas (or petrol) from regular stations and needed special stations, some of which you had to drive 100 miles to get to, then, no, people wouldn't necessarily take the free Hyundai. Or maybe they'd take the Hyundai and then not use it.

If the Cowon iAudio player were free but couldn't play MP3 files, only Ogg, people wouldn't still take the free players, because they'd consider that player essentially useless, since most people who use portable audio devices have hundreds or thousands of MP3 files in their music libraries.

Same deal with Linux. If people have Microsoft Publisher files, need to use InDesign to make a living, or play Windows-only games; and a free operating system that doesn't allow them to do those things... well, then, the free operating system is useless to them, so Windows is worth paying an extra $200 for. The author spends a lot of time talking about piracy. I know piracy is rampant, but there are people I know who buy legitimate copies of Windows, and they do so because they need Windows for the programs they use. No, Linux will not cut it for them. Sorry.

Linux works just fine for me, but it is not for everyone and does not fit everyone's computing needs, and people may, in fact, pay $200 for Windows sometimes.

One friend of mine who paid for a legitimate copy of Windows XP uses Windows-only programs, has her music files ripped to AAC or encoded to AAC when bought through iTunes, uses a Hotmail email account with Outlook, and has a Samsung printer that does not work well with Linux (even with the Samsung-provided Linux driver!). Was it worth it for her to buy Windows XP? Definitely. With Linux, can she play her AAC files bought through iTunes? No. Can she check her Hotmail account with Thunderbird or Evolution? Well, there's some webmail hack that sometimes works... until Microsoft changes the HTTP protocol for email clients. She tried Hotmail through Thunderbird with webmail extensions, and it kept downloading every message twice. Is she going to take the time to troubleshoot running Windows-only programs through Wine? No. No. And people might find a free car tempting at first, but if they have to drive 100 miles to get to a gas station, then the free car will just become a free pile of useless metal.

[evil316]

One thing that bugs me about the article is when it is mentioned over and over agan how the CLI in Linux is intimidating to users. It shouldn't be. With the GUI you can essentially do everything you can do in Windows. What the CLI brings to the table is flexibility to do things a different way, a faster way, a more complete way. It most certainly is a plus and never should be viewed as anything but that. If Windows came out with a CLI that allowed you to interface with the kernel directly if you so desired people wouldn't freak out about it, they'd view it as just another tool they don't need. I think some people have the idea in their head that they HAVE to know and understand CLI in order to use Linux and that simply is not the case.

People need to understand that first of all viruses, trojans, spyware, etc are much less of a problem on linux, security is much better, and applications are almost entirely free although some companies make software for a fee for linux. There doesn't need to be guilt over using pirated software or anxiety that you'll be caught, not if you use Linux. I firmly believe people will come around and linux will be in much greater use very soon. The last couple of years I think Linux has exploded relatively speaking. The GUI and software available is tremendous. It's ease of use and stability exceed that of Windows. My wife loves Ubuntu and will never go back to Linux, my 13 year old daughter loves Ubuntu and will never go back to Windows and now my 8 year old daughter is pestering me to have it on her computer. Out of 5 computers in my house, only one has XP, the rest are 3 with Ubuntu and one with IPcop. As the article mentions people just want to surf, read e-mail, play music, watch some videos, and maybe do some other things like photo editing and Ubuntu, at the very least, rivals Windows when it comes to that stuff.

I laugh every time I hear someone say that Windows is more user friendly than Linux. My wife says it best, Linux speaks my language, Windows doesn't. Windows says "This is how it's done", Linux says "How would you like to do it?"

I do beleive MS likes pirated copies for consumers. They make a lot of money off of their server end stuff, support, and enterprise licenses. Just look at Sun. They make money off of the server market entirely and give Solaris away for free to end users and they certainly aren't hurting profit wise. MS makes enough on the consumer market that the pirating simply keeps MS with a high market share and MS doesn't want to do anything to upset that apple cart.

[toupeiro]

This article is very skewed. especially in his comparason of free as it relates to cars. Something cracked isn't free, its "stolen"

If I picked a lock on a car, and disabled its alarm system, and drove away with it, the car wasn't free, it was stolen. I don't care if its a hundai or a DeTomaso.

Thats the worst justification to pirate software I've ever seen. Broke? can't afford it? That has more meat to it, even though its still stealing it. You just don't care even has more meat to it. But, don't pretty it up by saying "it was free." If the world worked that way, your house would be as busy as wal-mart on the 1st and the 15th.

Sure, I've used pirated software before. I also didn't work before, have any source of income, but I had a computer, and some form of remote access. Does that justify it? no, but it at least explains it. Sure, I knew piracy was illegal, I also knew ripping that tag off my mattress was illegal. Some laws are indeed ridiculous, and I considered this one of them. It was also the infancy days if the internet and piracy wasn't as rampant as it is now. However, as I got more involved with technology, I was able to wrap a few more morals around the way I conducted myself in regards to software. If the software does what I want it to do, and has a reasonable price, I will buy it. If the price is not reasonable, I will try to find an alternative. I'm not judging people who still pirate software, but come on. Free?? At least admit that its stealing, or at the very least, Borrowing, if you plan on deleting it.

[aysiu]

I think some people have the idea in their head that they HAVE to know and understand CLI in order to use Linux and that simply is not the case. Well, since most Linux users have to install and configure Linux themselves and troubleshoot hardware compatibility issues themselves, they can easily get the impression that you have to know and understand the CLI in order to use Linux. Also most support for Linux is not in-person but over text-based forums/mailing lists, so most of the support is also text-based, giving the impression that the only solutions are CLI solutions.


People need to understand that first of all viruses, trojans, spyware, etc are much less of a problem on linux, security is much better Viruses will probably never be a problem with Linux, but if Linux marketshare takes off, trojans and spyware will become problems. An OS, no matter how securely designed, cannot prevent social engineering or mandate user discernment.
I laugh every time I hear someone say that Windows is more user friendly than Linux. My wife says it best, Linux speaks my language, Windows doesn't. That's a great way to put it.
I do beleive MS likes pirated copies for consumers. Of course it does. Bill Gates himself has said:
Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though. And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.

[evil316]

As for support in regards to Ubuntu, canonical provides support for a fee. Both desktop and server as well as training and certification.

[fiddledd]

Came across this (http://articles.tlug.jp/Windows_Is_Free) interesting blog. Well I think it's interesting.

mods, please delete this post if it's old news, as the blog isn't a new one, thanks. :)

EDIT: Sorry, it appears this was posted last year. Although my accidental bump of the old thread has at least given newer Forum Members a chance to read it. :)

[Miguel]

I had already read this, but it's still a good read. In any case, I do agree, and I'd even add that, to a large percent of the population, computer=windows and thus, "no windows"="broken computer".

My girlfriend once told me that, when working at Telefonica a client (back then Telefonica offered cheap PCs to surf) was complaining that his computer was broken and that the client felt like he had been given a raw deal. The reason? The computer didn't include MS Office and couldn't open xls or ppt and probably not even doc files.

I also had one conversation with my cousin, who bought a laptop one year ago. The thing is, he phoned me to tell me (after one month) that his laptop was broken. His exact message was "Miguel, my computer is broken. Windows won't let me write anything". You may think the keyboard was fubar, but no way. The real meaning of his sentence was exactly "My trial version of MS Office 2003 has expired and, thus, word won't let me edit my documents". See the difference?

[Canis familiaris]

Wow! Such a long and great article that. I feel the same way as well.
The number of people who say they cant run MSOffice, Photoshop, or games in Linux, there is only a microscopic minority among them who really paid for their software.

But I feel it IS Possible to prevent piracy and a very easy ways are there.
If PS3 could not be modded, Windows could be prevented being cracked too.

But MS would never work for a foolproof method to prevent piracy because even admit they would rather users pirate their software rather than use rival's software.

My complete personal opinion on this issue:
http://dogbuntu.wordpress.com/2007/06/05/how-piracy-hurts-open-source/

[spoons]

Miguel, what happened? Did you install OpenOffice for him?

[Sand & Mercury]

Good article, it's funny how in all these discussions the topic of piracy gets swept under the rug, even on this forum I've seen. Nobody wants to be incriminated, so it's all kept hush-hush.

[Miguel]

Heh, no. I am 100% certain he has the economic means to buy a legal copy of MS Office, so I told him what the issue was and directed him to buy one. I also made some small "footnote" on OpenOffice but knowing him, I'd rather have him buy MS office than bug me because a ppt slide he got by e-mail doesn't display correctly. Furthermore, he could appreciate the value of sofware.

However, he told me another cousin of him had told him about a "windows CD" he had (pirated MS Office 2003 pro) so, a week later, he had a pirated copy of office in his computer. I'm no saint, though, and I must admit I have installed a pirated copy of windows on my girlfriend's pc. It's funny when you consider that I don't have MS Office installed on my windows partition, even when, being a worker at my university, I am legally entitled to a license in a work computer.

[Sand & Mercury]

(Please disregard this post, 'twas accidental)

[blastus]

Touting Windows doesn't really need the command line because its GUI does everything is completely false.

Yesterday out of curiosity I decided to try Bitlocker to see how it works. I tried to use Windows Update to download the preparation tool but that failed so I had to create the partition layout manually. After reinstalling Vista a few times and fumbling through the recovery feature of Vista DVD I managed to create the partition layout required by Bitlocker.

Then I tried to turn Bitlocker on and was informed that I can't because my BIOS doesn't support TPM. Great. Then I found a post from some guy saying that you don't need TPM to use Bitlocker. You have open a command prompt and type all this stuff in it using a CScript tool called manage-bde. After several minutes I couldn't even figure out how to run the manage-bde program. Everytime I tried to run it it said that manage-bde is a CScript tool and you have to invoke it by "cscript manage-bde.wsf" That didn't work.

I was expecting that somewhere where you install Vista you would be given the option to turn on Bitlocker. But there is no such option...Bitlocker +1 stupid. Poor documentation and having to rely on the recovery feature of the Vista DVD to prepare your partitions (who knows what it does and what it installs)...Bitlocker +2 stupid. Having to drop to a command line and run some undocumented tool that doesn't work because you don't have TPM...Bitlocker +3 stupid.

[Dr. C]

"It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not" Bill Gates

This quote is from Fortune Magazine http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/07/23/100134488/index.htm and furthers the case that piracy of Microsoft Software involves theft from the Free Software and Open Source Movements.

So if you pirate Vista you are stealing from the FSF!

[YaroMan86]

Thank the Programmer I'm not prone to pirating crappy software where good software is available for free legally anyway.

[rune0077]

This quote is from Fortune Magazine http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/07/23/100134488/index.htm and furthers the case that piracy of Microsoft Software involves theft from the Free Software and Open Source Movements.

So if you pirate Vista you are stealing from the FSF!

You can't steal free software, that just makes no sense at all. It's free, see, they're giving it away. Pirating Windows is not stealing from Open Source, it's simply chosing not to use Open Source. That's not the same as stealing, that's just freedom of choice (though, pirating Windows is stealing from Microsoft, and hence illegal, but it has nothing to do with Open Source or free software).

[Canis familiaris]

You can't steal free software, that just makes no sense at all. It's free, see, they're giving it away. Pirating Windows is not stealing from Open Source, it's simply chosing not to use Open Source. That's not the same as stealing, that's just freedom of choice (though, pirating Windows is stealing from Microsoft, and hence illegal, but it has nothing to do with Open Source or free software).

But it slows down open source movement neverthless

[rune0077]

But it slows down open source movement neverthless

Just pointing out that it ain't stealing, 'coz you can't steal what's free.

As to whether pirating Windows hurts Open Source, I've heard the argument many times over, and read more than one article postulating it, but I'm still not entirely convinced. Not that I care, I have a Vista license if I ever felt like going back to Windows again (fat chance), and am not planning on pirating it. If I were planning it, I'd probably just do it anyway.

[YaroMan86]

This quote is from Fortune Magazine http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/07/23/100134488/index.htm and furthers the case that piracy of Microsoft Software involves theft from the Free Software and Open Source Movements.

So if you pirate Vista you are stealing from the FSF!

Hmmm... that quote sounds liek Bill Gates is both promoting Windows and FUDding free software in one fell swoop.

SCARY efficient.

[Canis familiaris]

Just pointing out that it ain't stealing, 'coz you can't steal what's free.

As to whether pirating Windows hurts Open Source, I've heard the argument many times over, and read more than one article postulating it, but I'm still not entirely convinced. Not that I care, I have a Vista license if I ever felt like going back to Windows again (fat chance), and am not planning on pirating it. If I were planning it, I'd probably just do it anyway.

Read my article to be convinced ;)

http://dogbuntu.wordpress.com/2007/06/05/how-piracy-hurts-open-source/

Of course pirating does not mean sealing FSF

[rune0077]

Read my article to be convinced ;)

http://dogbuntu.wordpress.com/2007/06/05/how-piracy-hurts-open-source/


I see the point you're making, but it has to come down to a cultural thing. I live in a country that has some of the highest minimum wages in the world, and the price of a Windows-license isn't that big a deal (though it's still overpriced compared to other software). A similar survey amongst my Windows-using friends and family would probably show that well over 90% of them were using perfectly legal versions of Windows. For the few remaining, they're just being greedy, and if they couldn't have pirated Windows, they would just have bought it instead, not switched to Linux. So maybe saying that pirating hurts Open Source, makes more sense where you live than where I live.

[BwackNinja]

It isn't realistic to say that all people who pirate windows would use FLOSS if aforementioned pirated windows wasn't available. Maybe only half, maybe only a quarter, maybe even dramatically less. After a certain point of work in free software, we could boast "Full Microsoft Compatiblity," which in itself is sad. Not for the work spent making this possible, but for that it has to be done to begin with. We are not looking so much to provide an operating system alternative, but to pretty much replace windows as a backend to a certain point. After everything, the only thing that remains with us and makes us unique is the philosophy, which doesn't and won't matter to a great percentage of the users we could gain. People not just want, but NEED a microsoft compatible operating system, and nothing can give you that better than a microsoft operating system, legal or not.

Most people, including the people posting on this forum talk about how great they think FLOSS is, may not really have the fact that it is free as in beer affect them so much. If ubuntu was instead only free as in beer (talking about it at its current state, not taking into account the differences software would have due to it not being free as in speech), it would still have a userbase and probably a strong one, because it costs nothing and works well. It fits the need. Despite how much I personally like how it is FLOSS, it only matters that it is FLOSS when I'm compiling something from source, especially applying a small patch to make it just a little different for myself, file a bug report and help fix it maybe just providing information, or learning from it, and most likely never for anyone who will never learn how to do that much. Heck, half if not more of the people you install ubuntu for won't ever know what FLOSS means.

I only learned and accepted the FLOSS mentality after I'd been using ubuntu for a while. I had used firefox in windows and liked it, and probably other opensource apps too, but I didn't know that they were opensource, just free and IMHO, better.

Windows XP was never a problem for me, I learned all about it, through and through, uxtheme patch and made (not just downloaded) my own theme. I'm proficient with regedit and all the other admin tools including the command prompt, which to this day has features shown in it that aren't shown in the gui, even in windows (example: simple fixmbr in the vista recovery, fix for vista network and sharing center in home premium) which helps me a bit playing around in wine (and fixing other peoples computer problems) The distinction remains though, gui if you want to find what you're going to do and cli if you know what you want to do. Someone said it before, XP PROFESSIONAL IS A DECENT PIECE OF SOFTWARE. It works, gets the job done, but not perfect and restricting. The latter reason is part of why I gave it up.

As a geek completely immersed in this operating system, nothing else installed, I still can and do give windows help. Windows help can come from just about anywhere, a reason pointed out, but with linux help, its "you installed it for me, you maintain it, especially because I don't have anyone else to do it." For someone to be able to solve their problems and be self-sufficient requires them to be geekier, to learn more, to delve into the intricacies of the machine, something most users never want to (and thankfully for them and unfortunately for also great for microsoft) they don't have to because other people can.

I think this was a long post, and I probably ended up rambling some time in there >.<

[damis648]

My reply is short and sweet: Windows is NOT free in ANY sense of the word at all.

[sicofante]

The article is great and shows perfectly well that Linux has still too much zealots that can't see elephants in a room... I absolutely love it and agree with it 100%.

[Canis familiaris]

My reply is short and sweet: Windows is NOT free in ANY sense of the word at all.

It is in terms of cost for those who are willing to pirate or pirate unknowingly.

[Dr. C]

If "only half" of pirated Windows users were to move to GNU / Linux that would mean an over 15 fold in the increase of GNU / Linux users.

With Windows at approximately 90% of the marketplace and pirated Windows at 35% of 90% or 31.5% (http://www.bsa.org/country/Anti-Piracy.aspx) one has pirated Windows on the desktop with a worldwide market share over 30x the roughly 1% for GNU / Linux.

Now picture this if GNU / Linux had say 15% market share does one think we would have many of the lack of support issues regarding hardware, software, websites, vendors, file formats etc?

Once can see how the Windows pirate is stealing from the Free Software and Open Source communities not just Microsoft.

[Canis familiaris]

If "only half" of pirated Windows users were to move to GNU / Linux that would mean an over 15 fold in the increase of GNU / Linux users.

With Windows at approximately 90% of the marketplace and pirated Windows at 35% of 90% or 31.5% (http://www.bsa.org/country/Anti-Piracy.aspx) one has pirated Windows on the desktop with a worldwide market share over 30x the roughly 1% for GNU / Linux.

Now picture this if GNU / Linux had say 15% market share does one think we would have many of the lack of support issues regarding hardware, software, websites, vendors, file formats etc?

Once can see how the Windows pirate is stealing from the Free Software and Open Source communities not just Microsoft.
Exactly