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

[David Lloyd]

Aaaargh,

> 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...

Are these all from the article or is someone commenting? I'm assuming 
that all the below (apart from the obvious signature) is from the 
original article....

> 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)!
>