[Linux-aus] Windows Is Free, The impact of pirated software on free software

[Kym Farnik]

On 8/16/07, Andrew Pam <xanni at glasswings.com.au> wrote:
> "A recent column on Zdnet, by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes, discussed the
> reasons why people won't change from a retail operating system to a free
> one. The implication is that Linux can't even give away their software.
>
> That sounds pretty dire. Windows retails for around 200 US dollars, give
> or take depending on which version and where you buy. If the above
> statement by Mr Kingsley-Hughes was true, it means that Linux is so bad
> that people would gladly pay 200 dollars to avoid it. Do users really
> think Linux is that lame?"
>
> http://tlug.jp/articles/Windows_Is_Free

Its a long item....

Some Extracts I like...

A recent column on Zdnet, by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes, discussed the
reasons why people won't change from a retail operating system to a
free one. The implication is that Linux can't even give away their
software.

That sounds pretty dire. Windows retails for around 200 US dollars,
give or take depending on which version and where you buy. If the
above statement by Mr Kingsley-Hughes was true, it means that Linux is
so bad that people would gladly pay 200 dollars to avoid it. Do users
really think Linux is that lame?
...
The Elephant in the Room

The fact is that there's a distortion in the idea that Linux can't be
given away. There's something wrong in the idea the price difference
between Windows and Linux is representative of the actual quality
difference. There's an elephant in the room that no one is talking
about.

Windows is free.

I'm not talking about the fact that Windows comes pre-installed in
most computers, with its price hidden in the cost of the hardware.
That contributes to the idea of Windows being free, but that's not the
elephant in the room.

"The elephant in the room that no one is talking about is cracked software."
...
Freer Than Free

In fact, a free copy of Windows might even be freer than free. What I
mean by that is, unlike most tangible consumer goods, pirated software
is often easier to obtain and set up than making a legitimate
purchase.

"... pirated software is often easier to obtain and set up than making
a legitimate purchase."
A friend of my father obtained a legitimate copy of Windows XP from a
local guy who sells custom computers. He tried to install it but he
was confused by the different serial codes, authorization keys, and
verification checks to pass through. My father, who is quite good with
computers, tried to help. When they finally had it all sorted out on
which number went where, it turned out that the length of one of the
serial codes didn't match the length of the input fields. They tried
calling a customer service number, but, after working their way
through 1-800 numbers and option menus, the net result was that the
situation was not solvable with automated service and there were no
live operators available because it was late Friday night. They tried
to persist in figuring it out themselves, but were stopped cold when
some maximum limit of install attempts was reached and it refused any
further action.

Eventually, a few days later with the help of the guy who originally
provided the copy of Windows, it all got sorted out and my dad's
friend can enjoy his legitimate copy of Windows.
This was an extreme case, but when you consider that he could have
downloaded and installed a cracked version within hours, you start to
get a sense of what I mean by "freer than free". To do it the
legitimate way, say by buying online or having to trudge out to a
brick-and-mortar store, he would get no more convenience than
obtaining a pirated copy. At worst, getting an illegal copy would take
much less time than the couple of days he actually experienced in
doing things the legal way.
...
What If Windows Wasn't Free?

This raises interesting questions. If Microsoft were to somehow
develop the security system that ensured every single user of Windows
paid for it, then how many people would start considering the actually
legal free and close enough option?

Theoretically, if everyone who had a cracked copy of Windows now
switched to a legitimate copy of Linux, then the user base might be
expansive enough that all sorts of things might change. Game companies
might start offering their titles for Linux. Hardware manufacturers
might distribute Linux drivers as often as they do Mac and Windows
drivers. Then more people might find Linux even easier. Perhaps the
situation might snowball. Perhaps people who had held back because of
lacking features or incompatible hardware would have their concerns
solved. Those same people who were about to pay for Windows would
consider going for the free option. Microsoft might actually lose some
sales and market share, and they'd feel it in their bottom line.

"... isn't it in ultimately in Microsoft's interest to allow pirated
copies of Windows to be out there?"

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but the next logical question is,
assuming I've made some sense up to now, isn't it in ultimately in
Microsoft's interest to allow pirated copies of Windows to be out
there?

The feasibility of that strategy would depend on how well Microsoft
could balance out letting pirated copies exist for general use, so
that people felt it was the operating system, while at the same time
ensuring that a substantial section of the market, mainly companies
probably, would not want to bother with any potential legal hassles.

Personally, I don't think that is Microsoft's strategy. It comes with
some risks that I think they would deem too high. One leaked memo
about acknowledging the benefit of pirated software would cause chaos
in all sorts of ways.

But maybe they don't have to have any kind of official position. If
cracked software helps keep Windows in business, and virus threats are
more effective than security measures in keeping cracked software from
eating too much into Microsoft's bottom line, then one might argue
that the main mechanisms for Microsoft's success come from outside
Microsoft. Just enough piracy to maintain dominance. Just enough of a
virus threat to keep it from getting out of control. That can't be
said with certainty, but it's food for thought.

But in any case, my point here is not about the causes of why Windows
is "free", just with the results.

My contention is that Linux would win over the hearts and minds of
more, maybe most, users if their wallets were actually involved in the
decision to choose one or the other.

**********

STOP people pirating Windows and Linux usage will go up (significantly)!

-- 
Regards, Kym Farnik
mailto:kym.farnik at gmail.com
mailto:kym at farnik.com
http://www.farnik.com Trivia: My 1st Computer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_1130
Phone:  +61 8 8265 5324
Mobile: 0438 014 007