It's true

Posted Oct 1, 2004 16:36 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
Parent article: Desktop Linux is Windows piracy aide (Silicon.com)

Folks,

Let's not drink our own kool-aid. Sometimes there are bad things to say about our side too, and sometimes they are true even if the analyst redacts their report, and it's better to acknowledge the truth than to exercise knee-jerk naysaying.

It is absolutely true that many PCs sold with Linux, especially in the third world, have received a bootleg copy of Windows after sale. I first found out about this while working for HP, which sold a Linux PC in China all the way back in 2000. They had lowered the cost of everything in the PC but the operating system, and then they lowered that, too. But HP never publicized outside of China that they were selling a Linux PC way back then, because they knew well that many users were loading bootleg Windows on the computer after the sale. It was a very cynical play. But China really took up Linux, which wasn't in the plan. So, this "buy Linux, run Windows" is not the case so much any longer.

Also, this sort of cynical play is not going on in other parts of the world where the $14 price for the initial Windows load doesn't matter as much. Did you really think that you were paying the retail price for Windows in new PCs? And that those "Windows refund" efforts were going to win you back one or two hundred bucks per PC? That initial load is something that Microsoft wants there to get you addicted, and they can afford to give it away. No doubt the reduced-capability "home" Windows loads we are finding in some PCs these days are there for the same purpose as Linux in China was playing in 2000. Microsoft can afford to put that software on the PC for nothing or even pay the manufacturer to put it there, as long as the user purchases one upgrade in the PC lifetime.

But yes, at one time Linux was a component in what was predominantly a Windows bootleg play. And it might still be going on in some places.

Bruce

It's true

Posted Oct 1, 2004 20:05 UTC (Fri) by zutman (guest, #5077) [Link]

<i>Sometimes there are bad things to say about our side too</i>

Hmm, you're making the same mistake as Gartner did.

I'm not a member of 'our side' but just a linux user. Who dutifully
adheres to the licenses of his software. Of which he most likes the GPL,
as it is most to his advantage. That doen't say anything about my
morality per se. In general I think 'our side' does not exist and
morality (in its broader sense) is irrelevant for this discussion. Your
opening remark has the ring of a non-sequitur.

However, statements about Microsofts monopolistic practices remain
relevant. And always happen to be 'blanket' (coincidence?).

It's true

Posted Oct 1, 2004 21:15 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] (8 responses)

Sometimes there are bad things to say about our side too, and sometimes they are true even if the analyst redacts their report, and it's better to acknowledge the truth than to exercise knee-jerk naysaying.

Who are you and what have you done to Bruce Perens, Open Source advocate?

That's not my side you are talking about.

It's true

Posted Oct 1, 2004 22:23 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (7 responses)

It's one thing to advocate Free Software. It's completly other thing to say "it can not be true since it can not be true". I've seen a lot of systems sold with Linux with bootleg Windows installed and I've seen a lot of systems sold with Windows with Linux installed (basically situation in Russia is simple: almost 100% of new notebooks with Linux preinstalled is retrofited with Windows right after purchase while older systems often are not upgraded to last version of Windows but used with Linux instead). Unless you can present comprehensive study or point to severe error in Gartner's study you can not just dismiss Gartner findings as irrelevant.

It has nothing to do with advocacy of Linux and/or Windows.

It's true

Posted Oct 1, 2004 22:46 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] (6 responses)

Yes, but you too are making the slight mistake of forgetting that there is no connection at all between Linux (and its community) and Microsoft software piracy. Anyone can shamelessly abuse the freedom that comes with Linux, but that doesn't make me part of the scam, for instance. Other people have written much better explanations of why this is ridiculous -- no one is saying there is no Windows piracy.

I would have expected someone like Bruce to understand and explain these things, and I cannot believe that he actually wrote that. (If he's serious it's even worse, he was HP's Linux guy at the time.)

It's true

Posted Oct 1, 2004 23:27 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (5 responses)

Well, yes I help make Linux for people who really want to use it, not for the people who want to make a scam of it to support bootleg software. But the fact is that people do abuse it as part of a bootleg scheme, and I'm not at all happy to see my software being used that way. Why should I be?

Bruce

It's true

Posted Oct 1, 2004 23:40 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] (1 responses)

Getting back to your original point: why are you making me part of it then? Or am I reading too much into your "confession"?

It's true

Posted Oct 2, 2004 0:18 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

Well, I think we'll win more often if we don't allow ourselves to be blinded by our own rhetoric. Yes, there are panderers to software pirates who use the free software community as some sort of "human shield". It's best to admit that it goes on and deprecate the folks who do it, rather than deny it and sound insincere. I don't believe the premise of the (withdrawn) Gardener report, which is to discount the figures quoted for Linux sales. We all know about lots of systems sold with Windows that don't run Windows. But we should also admit to ourselves that sometimes it works the other way.

Bruce

It's true

Posted Oct 2, 2004 0:14 UTC (Sat) by zutman (guest, #5077) [Link] (2 responses)

Please give me a break. People will use Linux in every useful way
imaginable. But only when it is considered useful. Don't want that? Don't
publish under an open source license.

(Or you could recognise that you should go into politics.)

But I digress. My point: windows piracy has nothing to do with linux. Not
in this particular case, never.

It's true

Posted Oct 2, 2004 7:17 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (1 responses)

But I digress. My point: windows piracy has nothing to do with linux. Not in this particular case, never.

Directly, no. But indirectly... Few years ago RoverBooks was sold with Linux preinstalled but without support for half of installed hardware (winmodems, etc). It had CD with drivers for Windows attached - and for all hardware in this case. Now think: why they will ever do that ?

No, Linux is not directly responsible for "windows piracy" - yet it's used for that purpose quite often. You can say what you want about it but it'll not change basic facts.

There are also were versions with PTS-DOS - and then most of hardware was unsupported (including RAM above 16MB range LOL) and you were more or less forced to install some modern OS. So Linux is not alone in such usage.

It's mostly the same story as DeCSS: while initially this thing was not developed for piracy later it become widely used by pirates. Linux is going the same way. Do we need to fight it ? Probably not - it's not our fight. Do we need to admit and accept it ? Yes - it's fact of life. That's all.

It's true

Posted Oct 3, 2004 18:06 UTC (Sun) by zutman (guest, #5077) [Link]

Do we need to admit and accept it ? Yes - it's fact of life. That's all.

I'm also happy to admit that the sky is blue and that knives are used to kill people. But wait a minute -- I don't want to admit that, because it would imply that I was trying to hide these facts. And I never did that. I just do not consider them very relevant.