The Pirated Software Problem in the 3rd World 252
RockDoctor writes "Dark Reading carries an article by one Nathan Spande who works in Cambodia. Locally he finds that OpenOffice.Org and MS Office are the same price ($2), or $7-20 by downloading. He discusses why the economics of OpenSource don't work in this environment, and how it contributes to global computer security issues through the "little extras" (trojans, spambots and other malware) that typically accompany such "local editions" of software. The economics of software outside the west are very different to what most people are used to."
The same applies to South America... (Score:5, Interesting)
Broadcasting??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides putting it on the net, and distributing CDs, and USB driver, there's also the possibility of broadcasting it... A few minutes on a TV channel, either terrestrial or direct broadcast satellite, and you can transfer an entire CD. Just mux in some open source software into your DVB broadcast, perhaps only during times when the video can do with a lower bitrate, and some quite inexpensive equipment, that takes just one-time investment, can pick it up.
Also, in most of the underdeveloped parts of the world, I have to wonder if 802.11 isn't the perfect answer to all of this... Even if only a few people in all of the country can afford to download something, it may be able to be pushed to everyone else with 802.11 cards, through P2P apps such as Gnutella, (bittorrent is woefully inadequate here... and on unreliable networks in general).
And for the first open source program to be widely distributed through Asia with one of these methods... I nominate ClamWin.
Re:How Microsoft Kills Competitors (Score:3, Interesting)
I stay in India and out here a Microsoft employee would be looked up to, a Google employee would be recognized and a RedHat employee would be given condescending looks for not having been "talented enough to get a job with MS"
Out here, people adore Microsoft for doing the world a favour by bringing out tools like office and giving them an OS they can use. It is only the top universities where students get to use Unix. Every one else (barring software companies), pretty much runs on pirated Windows.
I suspect it actually helps Microsoft- more familiarity with their products, greater evangelism for their software, and may be some day, MS can get these people to pay for the same as well. Not sure if this was an intended fallout though
Re:good luck trying to stop that (Score:3, Interesting)
That's right. It all boils down to mentality. I live in a 3rd world country as well. I make enough to get by (it's downright pathetic by 1st world standards though). However, I always make it a point to pay for non-FOSS software I buy, even though, yes, I can get the disks for $1-2 or just download them off warez sites. Those I can't afford, I make an effort to look for a FOSS equivalent/alternative.
I also buy legit CDs and DVDs. If I can't afford something I like very much, I save up for it.
I'm probably more of an exception than the norm where I come from, but it doesn't mean its impossible. And I have a feeling a number of people in 1st world countries have a "third-world mentality" when it comes to this.
Microsoft will have to win, eventually (Score:5, Interesting)
I use Linux because it's a better environment for programming. They use Windows for free, because they play games (for free). The "because it's free" argument won't convince anyone to try Linux around here. It costs more to download a distro via dial-up, then to buy Windows for $2.
Re:Way I look at it (Score:3, Interesting)
Marketing does not always win the day--superior products and better prices usually do. The US car industry has vastly outspent their Japanese rivals year in and year out and they've lost market share to the Japanese year after year. Microsoft has spent a ton of money promoting products at various points in their historic with little if any pickup (e.g., TabletPC, Windows CE, MSN vs Google, Internet Explorer vs Mozilla, etc).
Meanwhile you ignore:
1) That Microsoft Office has been the standard for many years. Customers know the product very well because they've actually used it for thousands and thousands of hours. Open Ofice has only very recently approached some level of equality (features, UI, stability, compatibility, etc).
2) Customers would have to deal with less than perfect file compatiblity (my actual experience) or at least the chance that it won't be (no proof that it is). Even if you believe that it's 100% compatible with Office 2003 and all earlier versions, how are potential customers supposed to assess if and how quickly OO will handle the new Office 2007 format, say, when their business associations start sending them documents in such a format?
3) Customers have to learn a new UI. This takes time and money.
4) Customers have to contend with lack of VBA and lack of automation compatibility. You'd be surprised how many applications and corporations are wedded to Office because of this. Try exporting from Crystal Reports into a spreadsheet, many corporate DBs, etc.
5) Customers face business risk with potential uncertainty with Open Office due to their lack of business model (Sun is still driving most of the development... there's no obvious organic driver for continued growth and support).
6) Lack of features and stability for advanced users.
7) Just plain unknowable risk. Open Office is still an unknown quantity in the most corporate environments. If you spend many man hours assuring yourself that it's kosher you might sleep well, but it's far from plug and slug change.
These are just a few of the real concerns with respect to customer adoption. Yes, Microsoft Office is completely over-priced given its widespread adoption and I'd be glad to see OO take marketshare from MS, but to completely dismiss Microsoft's continued success here as simply owing "marketing" is nonsense.I was a CIO fairly recently for a mid-size corporation (and later for a division for a major corporation). I knew about Open Office and considered deploying it internally (instead of renewing SA - $$$), but I ruled it out due to some of the reasons I mentioned (e.g., cost of modifying internal applications, lack of compatibility with many shrinkwrapped packages, increased memory, having to deal with decentralized VBA scripts, potential issues with Citrix, etc). I wouldn't expect a CEO to know about this sort of thing if can't even make it past most IT managers.
Not Redmond, but vendors (Score:2, Interesting)
People barely can decide by themselves, mostly because if it's their first pc, they don't know anything about software so just try to get everything they could possibly need from start. If it's not their first pc, then all they know about software is what came with the first one, and ask for the same. Some people not even want the newer versions of the software they use, just the same they've been using so far.
The same applies for companies, here people don't choose the software. It just happens to be in the computer and they use it.
Re:Well, he's partly right (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if one assumes that the owner of the establishment doesn't have their own spyware and keyloggers (software or hardware) installed, and some earlier visitor didn't install any (neither of these are great assumptions to make, but most people seem to anyway) I still assume somebody is, in effect, looking over my shoulder recording my keyboard and screen in video. These machines just don't get updated. Even the ones running SP2 will be using IE6 (forget Firefox). They might have Avast! or AVG, and it might even be up to date, but that's the best you can hope for. I'm sure somebody, somewhere uses Spybot S&D or AdAware SE Personal, but I haven't seen it... Of course there's no chance of Defender.
A friend of mine loaded a copy of AdAware and scanned one computer in an Internet cafe, and found eight different spyware or keylogger applications running. The owner of the shop sounded concerned (they're very polite in Thailand) but he did... nothing. Either he didn't care, he put them there himself, or there's nothing he could do.
Re:How Microsoft Kills Competitors (Score:5, Interesting)
(Background: I live and work in what the UN classifies as a Least Developed Country. Everything I offer below is based on my experience here, building ICT capacity in this country and the region.)
The same thing is happening here. But when I brought this issue up in a national-level mailing list (to which the majority of IT professionals in this country are subscribed), the issue was treated as a technical one, not a moral or ethical issue. Put simply, the debate went only as far as how to stop WGA, but did not extend there. Pirated software is a fact of life here, and given that this country hasn't signed the Berne Conventions on Copyright yet, people have no compelling legal reason to change.
That said, geeks here know what FOSS is about, and they're very interested in it. I recently did a demo of XGL/Beryl, and everyone in the room was lusting after it. On the server side, people recognise that if you don't have Linux on your resume, you aren't competitive. So where the geeks are concerned, Linux is the New Frontier, and they really like it. It's quite interesting that there's a direct correlation between Internet access and interest in FOSS. It more or less parallels our experience in North America and western Europe.
And now, management are beginning to feel the pressure to move to FOSS. More on this below....
You're overestimating the problem. I can tell you from experience that some of what you say is true, but not nearly to the degree that you assume. Geeks here actually really like Linux, and they love to get a chance to use it. I'm working a lot of overtime here providing Linux training to the people who run the government's IT infrastructure. Their intention is to reduce their dependance on Microsoft specifically because of licensing and support issues.
See, a Microsoft rep arrived recently and shook the government down. That is to say, he threatened to require that the government pay full retail for all its licenses unless it came to some terms. In the end, an agreement was reached wherein the government pays a flat fee for access to a number of supported applications, and it is required to buy an OEM OS license with every new PC.
Moving some of the servers from 2003 is seen as a gimme; the planning for that is already under way. There is a recommendation in place to move all standard workstations to OO.o, with exemptions being given to those who specifically require Microsoft (i.e. those who run VBA-powered automation utilities, or who create very sophisticated documents whose compatibility cannot be guaranteed).
Just about every business in town either has or is planning to integrate non-MS software into their systems. There are a variety of reasons for this, but the biggest one is cost.
So Microsoft is driving people away using exactly the tactics described in the GP post, and people are moving away, but you're right to say that there are interoperability issues (no thanks to MS), and that there is some trepidation. It's just not as bad as you seem to think.
People are planning the transition, and they are content to do it in small, achievable steps. But they are moving to FOSS.
Before you challenge someone (Score:3, Interesting)
Pirates fix virus indeed. Botnet are from elsewher (Score:4, Interesting)
I've actually seen it done.
There are a lot of pirate groups that try to polish their release : at least put in some cheats or trainer, in case of games, up to completly re-write the installer for some edition of pirate XP.
Never the less, viruses on the pirated CD tend to be rare (never saw any on the few I've encountered in eastern europe a few years ago).
I think the problems that TFA's author is complaining about, mainly that some developing countries are filled with zombie botnets, is not as much due to the few rare virus-containing pirate CD, as it is from :
- Microsoft trying to detect and lock out pirate versions from updates. (And thus some holes - that aren't considered as absolutely critical and auto-downloaded in background - aren't patched)
- The technical skill to control virus infection isn't as common as in countries where computers are widespread.
- When your small 32 kbits ISDN / Analog line costs a significant part of your salary, you only get on-line for very short periods of time, just enough to send your mails (and the one with advertisement for p3n1s enhancements that the trojan on your computer wrote). *You* can't afford to stay hours online to download megabytes of patches (and your machine is vulnerable), whereas, because of the distributed nature of a botnet, it's perfectly OK for the spam busyness, if only 1 or 2 mails are sent per day. When you multiply by the size of the zombie-net, the total number of mails sent in a day is enough.
And given the poor security on Windows XP, this lack of hole patching is enough to turn a huge percentage of the computer population into zombies spitting each one it's three daily mails about "ch3ap f4rm4cy m3dZZ !!!".
As TFA's autor said, only ISP are in position to help.
By filtering computers' access to the net, they can help stop zombies sending spam.
And, although it's hard to spot on Zombie from the computer it-self (it only sends a few mails per day), it's possible to spot a part of bot-net from the ISP level (if a group of 1'000 clients suddenly all send almost the same single mail, maybe they're part of a bot net. Or replying to some successful stupid chain mail).