Software Piracy Hurts Linux Adoption, Research Finds

[Nowak]

6 hours ago, Albatross said:

Ubuntu is actually incredibly easy. Need an update? A window pops up and does that for you. Need to install software? Use the Software Center. Have a problem? Google it or get support at official website....just like with Windows, only you will find far more helpful people.

 

But yea, If only more support would come out for Linux. More support means more software/things people need/want as well as people working to make it more user friendly and less...all over the place.

Let's not pretend that Ubuntu is perfect. I used to use it as my main OS and I still needed to dive into the terminal to do some things. Now, I'm a techie so I don't mind using a CLI, but most people do.

If Linux were to reduce the need to use the terminal to do certain things (look at OS X, even though it includes a terminal you don't need to use it most of the time and only advanced users will ever need to use Windows' UNIX-influenced Powershell or even the DOS-influenced Command Prompt), that'd probably help adoption among non-technically-minded people.

[Albatross]

13 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

The last time I've tried it, it was a horrible experience. I download ubuntu because I wanted to play with those cool visual effects they have, but instead of doing a simple flip of the switch, I had to open terminal and download that feature. Then there are dependencies, and other bs, so when that dependency link is broken, then it's back to step 1. I went to the ubuntu forum to ask for help. No one bother cause of their smugness and elitism. Eventually I got it to work after hours of googling and research. In the end, I thought to myself, lucky I'm a tech person, who can handle these things, but what about the regular joe and jane. They won't have time to play with these nonsense. I do believe they have gotten better, but I haven't bother or got the time to try it again.  Ubuntu isn't the only linux I've tried. Others I've tried are OpenSUSE, Fedora, Red Hat, Sabayon, and don't know if it's part of Linux, ReactOS. This one looks exactly like Windows XP, works like it, and even behaves like it too. Just finish installing it. Open Computer (forgot what it's called) and that thing bsod. I uninstalled that thing immediately.

Ubuntu forums...smug? I think you may have just taken it as smugness. I've been on that community for 7+ years and the people there are nice and helpful, and if they can't help, they usually just don't respond or something. I don't think you should confuse the few for the majority...

 

May I ask when was the last time you tried to use Ubuntu? The average person isn't going to go into an OS wishing to mess with tricky visual effects, though. And Windows experiences the same dependency problems, you just don't notice it is the same thing because you have been using Windows for so long. Whenever you need to install X for some game or software, that's a dependency, and for a lot of people it installs just fine but a lot more people have to search up the file, download and install it themselves which is exactly what sometimes needs to be done on Ubuntu. And if they aren't lucky, they experience problems they need to google and google to hope to remedy to play their games, use their software or even use their Windows install.

 

OpenSUSE, Fedora, and Red Hat aren't the Linux distros thrown out for the "average" joe, so it isn't fair at all to compare them to the "ease" of Windows. Ubuntu and its flavors are far more agreeable to a comparison. But it all comes down to people and their comforts. Most people absolutely hate change and are unwilling to learn anything new if what they have now is comfortably learned (which already seemed hard for them) and convenient. If anyone gave an honest chance at Linux, they would realize it isn't hard, just like how people felt when they first start Windows.

 

8 hours ago, Daring said:

Let's not pretend that Ubuntu is perfect. I used to use it as my main OS and I still needed to dive into the terminal to do some things. Now, I'm a techie so I don't mind using a CLI, but most people do.

If Linux were to reduce the need to use the terminal to do certain things (look at OS X, even though it includes a terminal you don't need to use it most of the time and only advanced users will ever need to use Windows' UNIX-influenced Powershell or even the DOS-influenced Command Prompt), that'd probably help adoption among non-technically-minded people.

I didn't say nor pretend that it was perfect, only pointing out that stating that Ubuntu is "hard" or not "user friendly" is largely false. Not even Windows is perfect, but yet so many people think it is and simply because they have been using it for so long. Ubuntu's need for terminals has shrunk considerably unless you are doing some really tricky stuff, stuff that the average person is not ever going to do or need to do. The most people might have to do now is "sudo apt-get update" or similar, nothing hard about that at all. It is like opening google and typing, or using CMD for Windows.

 

The biggest problem Linux faces towards larger adoption lies in support of software and games. If that happens, more people will come to Linux, which means more feedback on needed changes. The UI is already so easy a rock could maneuver it and the changes that have been made in the past 5+ years has helped considerably to bring it towards a larger audience who have about zero tech skills/knowledge. Now its adoption has increased to the point that we now have developers pushing out for it.

 

It isn't perfect...that's true. But to say it is too hard/not user friendly to learn? I disagree tremendously. If you don't educate people on something they will always think it is hard. And that's the problem here. Not that it is actually too hard or difficult.

 

 

[Nowak]

22 minutes ago, Albatross said:

I didn't say nor pretend that it was perfect, only pointing out that stating that Ubuntu is "hard" or not "user friendly" is largely false. Not even Windows is perfect, but yet so many people think it is and simply because they have been using it for so long. Ubuntu's need for terminals has shrunk considerably unless you are doing some really tricky stuff, stuff that the average person is not ever going to do or need to do. The most people might have to do now is "sudo apt-get update" or similar, nothing hard about that at all. It is like opening google and typing, or using CMD for Windows.

 

The biggest problem Linux faces towards larger adoption lies in support of software and games. If that happens, more people will come to Linux, which means more feedback on needed changes. The UI is already so easy a rock could maneuver it and the changes that have been made in the past 5+ years has helped considerably to bring it towards a larger audience who have about zero tech skills/knowledge. Now its adoption has increased to the point that we now have developers pushing out for it.

 

It isn't perfect...that's true. But to say it is too hard/not user friendly to learn? I disagree tremendously. If you don't educate people on something they will always think it is hard. And that's the problem here. Not that it is actually too hard or difficult.

Ubuntu isn't hard to use at all, yeah. They chose not to use the usability disaster that is GNOME 3, so I guess that helps too  

[NumLock21]

5 minutes ago, Albatross said:

Ubuntu forums...smug? I think you may have just taken it as smugness. I've been on that community for 7+ years and the people there are nice and helpful, and if they can't help, they usually just don't respond or something. I don't think you should confuse the few for the majority...

 

May I ask when was the last time you tried to use Ubuntu? The average person isn't going to go into an OS wishing to mess with tricky visual effects, though. And Windows experiences the same dependency problems, you just don't notice it is the same thing because you have been using Windows for so long. Whenever you need to install X for some game or software, that's a dependency, and for a lot of people it installs just fine but a lot more people have to search up the file, download and install it themselves which is exactly what sometimes needs to be done on Ubuntu. And if they aren't lucky, they experience problems they need to google and google to hope to remedy to play their games, use their software or even use their Windows install.

 

For Windows, say a game needs .net framwork. all I have to do is download from Microsoft and I know it will be there. For Ubuntu, during that time, when I was trying to enable fancy visual effects, is it called Compiz-fusion? I had to open up terminal and type in that sudo command to get it. The download will begin and it starts to grab them off the net, like stages 1-10. Around stage 6 or 7, the link is broken so the whole thing just stops. I had to go back online to look for alternative sudo commands, but this part took hours cause 99% of what I've found has the same exact link to the original one. Copy and Paste much. Finally I found one that works. That Ubuntu was around the time when Vista just launched, so it was eons ago. I might give Ubuntu another try to see how user friendly they've become. Already have Ubuntu 14.04LTS burned to a DVD, but don't have time to play with it yet.

 

[SpaceNugget]

On 2016-02-21 at 1:10 PM, Enderman said:

i dont think so...

its not like 50% of the windows userbase are pirates or something lol

 

most people just dont like linux, or cant use linux for what they need

I don't think thats why there isnt higher adoption. I think its because why would most people? You can do what any regular user wants to, but they can already do what they want to do. Its not that they actively dislike linux, most havent tried it to dislike it. There just isnt an incentive to switch.

 

On 2016-02-22 at 4:48 PM, crisro996 said:

Yeah, sure. Make all versions of Windows piracy-proof and the market share distribution will be the same: Windows all, Linux and Mac almost nothing.

 

Most Linux distros have a weird interface and look like Windows XP or worse and all of them are just an attempt at a skin on top of the main feature of Linux - the terminal. Mac OS X is (pardon me Linux lovers) the only good "distro" (yeah, I know it's mostly it's own thing, but it's based on UNIX). People want Windows because it's fairly easy to use and because it offers something that doesn't really exist on Linux - GAMES!

Not true, look at gnome 3, plasma 5 or pantheon. nothing like xp. and games most definitely exist on linux, plenty of them.

 

I solely use linux at home, I currently have bioshock infinite, dota 2, terraria, and portal 2 installed. I dont have it installed at the moment but metro:last light works, as do the witcher 1 and 2. The witcher 3 is being ported to linux as we speak. League works with playonlinux.

 

Ubuntu is extremely easy to use, and its easier to navigate the system settings than windows is for sure.

[Albatross]

3 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

For Windows, say a game needs .net framwork. all I have to do is download from Microsoft and I know it will be there. For Ubuntu, during that time, when I was trying to enable fancy visual effects, is it called Compiz-fusion? I had to open up terminal and type in that sudo command to get it. The download will begin and it starts to grab them off the net, like stages 1-10. Around stage 6 or 7, the link is broken so the whole thing just stops. I had to go back online to look for alternative sudo commands, but this part took hours cause 99% of what I've found has the same exact link to the original one. Copy and Paste much. Finally I found one that works. That Ubuntu was around the time when Vista just launched, so it was eons ago. I might give Ubuntu another try to see how user friendly they've become. Already have Ubuntu 14.04LTS burned to a DVD, but don't have time to play with it yet.

 

The last time you used Ubuntu was during the Vista age? Well no wonder! You really gotta give the latest Ubuntu a shot.

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, DerakDerantick said:

Until Linux distros start having click-run installers like Windows does, Windows will be dominating the market. Your average user is by no means interested in the features of Linux when their existing OS already does everything they need, and all their friends use it so help is always close by.

They already do, .deb and .rpm executable packages.

[obsidian1200]

We needed a paper to highlight this? Of course piracy will harm adoption of lesser known systems. If someone can pirate Windows, something they likely already know, have software for (possibly also pirated), and it works, why would they transition to a free platform that's not as well known and without the software that's supported on Windows?

 

It sucks, but until Microsoft can somehow stop their OSes from being crackable/pirateable (never going to happen, since we have 7/8 cracks and those won't be undone), this will be an ongoing issue Linux distributions will have to face. It doesn't help that much of the public, not counting present company, is barely familiar with Linux (despite the fact many use it in one form or another). 

[Albatross]

3 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

They already do, .deb and .rpm executable packages.

Yup!

[Tech Enthusiast]

Try installing Mint on a pretty new machine. Try installing Ubuntu on a pretty new machine.

 

Both versions don't have native support for skylake CPUs or even a dedicated GPU from the nvidia 9xx line. 

If you finally find a version that actually boots up with a skylake cpu,... it will not run the GPU.

 

My GF just recently had to spend 2 weeks with daily new distros, just to get her work laptop working with Linux. Finally something from an Ubuntu Beta branch included the needed kernel. Manually updating the kernal is possible, but never worked correctly. The laptop either did not boot anymore, refused to accept the GPU again, or did not have working USB / HDMI ports anymore, ect.

 

Long story short:

Someone that has been working with linux on a daily basis, FIXING other peoples Linux PCs, for years,... took 2 weeks to get Linux running on a newly bought laptop. THIS is a huge reason why linux is adopted so badly. Just think about a person that tries to get into linux without years and years of debugging knowledge.

[suicidalfranco]

6 hours ago, DerakDerantick said:

Until Linux distros start having click-run installers like Windows does, Windows will be dominating the market. Your average user is by no means interested in the features of Linux when their existing OS already does everything they need, and all their friends use it so help is always close by.

ehm... *.deb *.rpm?

[suicidalfranco]

3 hours ago, Rattenmann said:

Try installing Mint on a pretty new machine. Try installing Ubuntu on a pretty new machine.

 

Both versions don't have native support for skylake CPUs or even a dedicated GPU from the nvidia 9xx line. 

If you finally find a version that actually boots up with a skylake cpu,... it will not run the GPU.

 

My GF just recently had to spend 2 weeks with daily new distros, just to get her work laptop working with Linux. Finally something from an Ubuntu Beta branch included the needed kernel. Manually updating the kernal is possible, but never worked correctly. The laptop either did not boot anymore, refused to accept the GPU again, or did not have working USB / HDMI ports anymore, ect.

 

Long story short:

Someone that has been working with linux on a daily basis, FIXING other peoples Linux PCs, for years,... took 2 weeks to get Linux running on a newly bought laptop. THIS is a huge reason why linux is adopted so badly. Just think about a person that tries to get into linux without years and years of debugging knowledge.

skylake CPU, playing games on the iGPU no fiddling required since day 1

[patrickjp93]

6 hours ago, Rattenmann said:

Try installing Mint on a pretty new machine. Try installing Ubuntu on a pretty new machine.

 

Both versions don't have native support for skylake CPUs or even a dedicated GPU from the nvidia 9xx line. 

If you finally find a version that actually boots up with a skylake cpu,... it will not run the GPU.

 

My GF just recently had to spend 2 weeks with daily new distros, just to get her work laptop working with Linux. Finally something from an Ubuntu Beta branch included the needed kernel. Manually updating the kernal is possible, but never worked correctly. The laptop either did not boot anymore, refused to accept the GPU again, or did not have working USB / HDMI ports anymore, ect.

 

Long story short:

Someone that has been working with linux on a daily basis, FIXING other peoples Linux PCs, for years,... took 2 weeks to get Linux running on a newly bought laptop. THIS is a huge reason why linux is adopted so badly. Just think about a person that tries to get into linux without years and years of debugging knowledge.

Your girlfriend screwed up. Intel had Skylake drivers ready for Linux nearly 6 months in advance of its launch. Either that or it's her laptop's OEM that screwed you over with embedded bloatware.

[SpaceNugget]

9 hours ago, Rattenmann said:

Try installing Mint on a pretty new machine. Try installing Ubuntu on a pretty new machine.

 

Both versions don't have native support for skylake CPUs or even a dedicated GPU from the nvidia 9xx line. 

If you finally find a version that actually boots up with a skylake cpu,... it will not run the GPU.

 

My GF just recently had to spend 2 weeks with daily new distros, just to get her work laptop working with Linux. Finally something from an Ubuntu Beta branch included the needed kernel. Manually updating the kernal is possible, but never worked correctly. The laptop either did not boot anymore, refused to accept the GPU again, or did not have working USB / HDMI ports anymore, ect.

 

Long story short:

Someone that has been working with linux on a daily basis, FIXING other peoples Linux PCs, for years,... took 2 weeks to get Linux running on a newly bought laptop. THIS is a huge reason why linux is adopted so badly. Just think about a person that tries to get into linux without years and years of debugging knowledge.

people like you with your "scary stories" of "tech pros" having difficulty with linux are holding back the adoption of linux. Ubuntu is easier to install than windows. If you have internet access, know where you live (to click the map to set a time zone) and can aim a mouse and click then you have the skills necessary to install ubuntu. The ubuntu installer even checks for other operating systems now and sets up dual booting beside windows, completely automatically! (you can tell it not to by selecting a different option).

 

Long story short:

If your GF cant even install ubuntu, she better not have been charging people very much to fix their linux PCs.

 

PS, what laptop was it?

[Tech Enthusiast]

Funny how Linux fanboys try to only read the parts they want.

Installing Linux worked for her, but no distro supported everything COMBINED. It was either Skylake, or the GPU. Never was it both, or some of the random crap that did not work out of the box. No Mint install but 17.3 even booted up, and 17.3 did not accept nvidia drivers but tried to use the integrated GPU all the time.

 

You can claim she is just bad as much as you want, but how can you screw up a single click install eh? Or better: How can you magically make something work that does not let you change anything anyways. It either does, or does not. This is exactly the same experience i had years ago myself and others report constantly. 

And no matter how awesome it may work for some people, the broad masses do not want to fiddle with terminals, slow updates and bad support for new hardware.

 

And why would you? Windows 10 is free as well and way more stable and everything just works out of the box.

 

We have Linux running on thousands of PCs in our university. Guess what? Most are unused and students prefer to use their personal laptops since we moved away from windows. well over 80% of them claim that their stuff just does not work like they expect or they need to invest way more time then they want / have.

 

The Idea behind Linux as a whole was awesome, back quite a few years ago. Nowadays it is just like windows was pre xp. A buggy mess. But it is free so i guess people accept that.

[SpaceNugget]

1 hour ago, Rattenmann said:

Funny how Linux fanboys try to only read the parts they want.

Installing Linux worked for her, but no distro supported everything COMBINED. It was either Skylake, or the GPU. Never was it both, or some of the random crap that did not work out of the box. No Mint install but 17.3 even booted up, and 17.3 did not accept nvidia drivers but tried to use the integrated GPU all the time.

 

You can claim she is just bad as much as you want, but how can you screw up a single click install eh? Or better: How can you magically make something work that does not let you change anything anyways. It either does, or does not. This is exactly the same experience i had years ago myself and others report constantly. 

And no matter how awesome it may work for some people, the broad masses do not want to fiddle with terminals, slow updates and bad support for new hardware.

 

And why would you? Windows 10 is free as well and way more stable and everything just works out of the box.

 

We have Linux running on thousands of PCs in our university. Guess what? Most are unused and students prefer to use their personal laptops since we moved away from windows. well over 80% of them claim that their stuff just does not work like they expect or they need to invest way more time then they want / have.

 

The Idea behind Linux as a whole was awesome, back quite a few years ago. Nowadays it is just like windows was pre xp. A buggy mess. But it is free so i guess people accept that.

Funny how you didn't read anything. Skylake support isn't based on a distro its based on the kernel. as are the open source drivers. The reason what you are saying is meeting resistance is that you are categorically wrong.

 

Linux DOES support those things. You not being able to make something work is not the same as it being unsupported.

 

Go tell people that changing the oil on a Ford truck is unsupported, tell them a story about how you tried really hard, and how you swear you have been fixing other peoples ford trucks for years but its just not possible. You will get laughed out of the building, because people know the truth. Same thing telling people who already use Linux, about how it doesn't work.

 

You are lying and spreading misinformation about something simply because you do not like it. Your credibility is spiraling down the toilet. If you don't like Linux that is a reason enough not to use it. Don't use it. But don't lie to people who might not know better.

[SpaceNugget]

Just now, DerakDerantick said:

Far majority of software for both of those distros don't actually utalize that system, though.

On Windows, practically everything is installed by an .exe or .msi, on Linux, you can expect to need to terminal.

Do you prefer standalone installers to package mangers like synaptic?

[Misanthrope]

21 hours ago, Albatross said:

Ubuntu forums...smug? I think you may have just taken it as smugness. I've been on that community for 7+ years and the people there are nice and helpful, and if they can't help, they usually just don't respond or something. I don't think you should confuse the few for the majority...

 

May I ask when was the last time you tried to use Ubuntu? The average person isn't going to go into an OS wishing to mess with tricky visual effects, though. And Windows experiences the same dependency problems, you just don't notice it is the same thing because you have been using Windows for so long. Whenever you need to install X for some game or software, that's a dependency, and for a lot of people it installs just fine but a lot more people have to search up the file, download and install it themselves which is exactly what sometimes needs to be done on Ubuntu. And if they aren't lucky, they experience problems they need to google and google to hope to remedy to play their games, use their software or even use their Windows install.

 

OpenSUSE, Fedora, and Red Hat aren't the Linux distros thrown out for the "average" joe, so it isn't fair at all to compare them to the "ease" of Windows. Ubuntu and its flavors are far more agreeable to a comparison. But it all comes down to people and their comforts. Most people absolutely hate change and are unwilling to learn anything new if what they have now is comfortably learned (which already seemed hard for them) and convenient. If anyone gave an honest chance at Linux, they would realize it isn't hard, just like how people felt when they first start Windows.

 

I didn't say nor pretend that it was perfect, only pointing out that stating that Ubuntu is "hard" or not "user friendly" is largely false. Not even Windows is perfect, but yet so many people think it is and simply because they have been using it for so long. Ubuntu's need for terminals has shrunk considerably unless you are doing some really tricky stuff, stuff that the average person is not ever going to do or need to do. The most people might have to do now is "sudo apt-get update" or similar, nothing hard about that at all. It is like opening google and typing, or using CMD for Windows.

 

The biggest problem Linux faces towards larger adoption lies in support of software and games. If that happens, more people will come to Linux, which means more feedback on needed changes. The UI is already so easy a rock could maneuver it and the changes that have been made in the past 5+ years has helped considerably to bring it towards a larger audience who have about zero tech skills/knowledge. Now its adoption has increased to the point that we now have developers pushing out for it.

 

It isn't perfect...that's true. But to say it is too hard/not user friendly to learn? I disagree tremendously. If you don't educate people on something they will always think it is hard. And that's the problem here. Not that it is actually too hard or difficult.

 

 

I highlighted the parts I consider kind of smug-ish. I agree with em, but I am so smug I consider myself a fucking asshole so bad example.

[SpaceNugget]

Just now, DerakDerantick said:

Personally, whichever gets the software installed properly. Billy and Bob from 9th grade, however, will shy away from anything that requires more than 3 clicks and an "Are you sure?" prompt.

Then I don't see what the problem is with linux, most distros package most of the software you could want in their repos for easy installation. its like an app store for desktops, except its useful, and free. You rarely need to open a web browser and navigate the web to install something on linux, just look for it in your package manager, virus free, no fake download buttons, no sketchy websites, its already laid out there for you by catagory. want to install VLC? click VLC and click install. Want firefox? click firefox and click install. so on and so forth.

[ForsakenLive]

The article's point goes like this as I interpret it:

There is a huge amount of people that doesn't pay for Windows licenses (pirated OS). And in a world that would have very little piracy, users without the knowledge to do so, moral consent, or would fear breaking the enforced law, wouldn't be running a pirated OS; which could make them either pay Microsoft, or just run Linux.

 

And partially it's a fair point, I have many friends who wouldn't pay $100 for Windows, and without much choice would jump to the Linux wagon if they have to (calling me for help to do so )-.

However, in our current world this is not really hurting Linux development in a direct way. Linux adoption is being hurt by companies themselves, hardware companies that don't care to make good linux drivers (Intel/AMD/Nvidia), software companies that don't mind the platform at all (adobe), or that provide little to no support (pretty much every printer I've used).

Mainstream users won't jump to a platform that doesn't have any of the software they know how to use! They need their Adobe reader, their skype (linux's one is cancer), etc. Personally I believe that, if the companies develop for the platform and give proper support, users would jump to it in a blink; and it starts in companies, Most companies that can rely solely on Linux software without issues or without the need for complex learning curves, would put Linux on each one of their systems, saving a lot of money on software costs and saving themselves from many headaches. And with mainstream users (employees of the world) getting familiar with the OSes on their workspace, would use it on their homes as well; just like it happens with the Mac platform.

[SpaceNugget]

5 minutes ago, DerakDerantick said:

Limited to the Repo. You're missing the point.

 

I really don't see how im missing the point (which is probably why im missing the point). I cant really think of any programs that you might want that arent either in package manager installation formats like .deb or .rpm, or arent in any repos. The only thing that I can remember recently installing like that was an old game wolfenstein, and it had an installer.sh that you run and it installs itself.

[Albatross]

6 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

I highlighted the parts I consider kind of smug-ish. I agree with em, but I am so smug I consider myself a fucking asshole so bad example.

Now that I re-read it, that does come off kinda smugish, but I wasn't trying to be. I was just trying to explain the situation and forgot that bluntness like that can be received negatively...

[Burusutazu]

13 hours ago, DerakDerantick said:

Far majority of software for both of those distros don't actually utalize that system, though.

On Windows, practically everything is installed by an .exe or .msi, on Linux, you can expect to need to terminal.

Most of my software was installed using .deb packages. Chrome, Skype, dropbox, foxit, tixati, wps office, and more all offer .deb packages on their websites if you look.

[Nowak]

13 hours ago, Albatross said:

Now that I re-read it, that does come off kinda smugish, but I wasn't trying to be. I was just trying to explain the situation and forgot that bluntness like that can be received negatively...

It happens to the best of us.

[patrick3027]

On 23/2/2016 at 11:37 PM, Dan Castellaneta said:

Who said that the tally counted pirated copies.

Who said it doesn't?

 

If you want to dismiss my comment, at least try to back it up.

 

Often these numbers come from internet usage, so I'm pretty confident all Windows machines are counted.