Abstract
The open-source software operating system Linux is a free-of-charge substitute to proprietary systems like Microsoft Windows. By using a cross-country data set, this paper finds evidence that increased piracy of proprietary software has a negative impact on adoption of desktop versions of Linux. The interpretation of this result is that the availability of pirated versions of Windows, as well as pirated applications compatible with Windows and OS-X, lead to fewer individuals installing a Linux operating system on their desktop computers. Thus, in the absence of software piracy, Linux would be a more widely used operating system.

Source: Software Piracy and Linux Adoption

I just skimmed the paper so it's possible I missed something, but it doesn't seem to account for other factors than just "I can get Windows for free so I won't get Linux." For example, how comparable is ease of use of popular Linux distributions to ease of use of Windows? How many of the pirates have tried a Linux distribution and migrated back to pirating Windows?

In general, making any assumption about the effects of software piracy (or any form of copyright infringement, for that matter) without doing careful studies is not a good idea. The effect of software piracy on sales, for example, should not be assumed to be negative unless you can find a way to measure it.

This, though it's not 100% accurate.

Windows is not free, they just managed to insert themselves into the PC brand to such a degree that PC manufacturers include Windows by default and hide the cost in the base product price.

When you shop for computers, who often do you have the option: 'Include Windows [+ X$]". I'm not talking about upgrade from Windows Home to Windows Pro, I'm talking about slashing any cost of Windows, period.

Not very often right? Exactly. It'd a sad fact that unless you buy at a niche Linux place, you automatically get Windows slapped on and give Microsoft some money hidden in the base price. It's not a completely fair comparison anymore, though it was 10 years ago. Linux got a late seat at the 'user experience' table and by that time, every PC user had grown up with Windows.

I'd say that at this point, the most friendly distros are 90%-95% there in terms of user experience. In some ways, they are better because they tend to be more secure by default.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates

"Get Windows for free" I meant as in pirate the system. Sorry for the confusion.

OP: No shit. It's the law in Russia -- specifically, slashing the cost of Windows on an opt-out basis. The cost used to be negligible, though (far below the cost of a standalone version), so people by and large didn't do it. I don't know what the cost is now -- I assume if it's unchanged in dollars, people opt out and pirate.

I call bull. The biggest reason for Linux not hitting to the big audiences is the lack of software. If propreriety software developers would start doing native Linux versions of their products, people would start using Linux more.

I'd say, with glancing the study, that the writer of it has petty much decided what he'd want to find and surprisded himself by finding it.

Years ago back in 2001 or so, I ended up going more with Windows than Linux simply because I had a lot of problems trying to do CD burning on Linux. Beyond that I would have been far more interested in Linux than Windows.

Biggest reason for low adoption rate is far more likely people won't give themselves a damn chance on the OS, easy or not. It's too big a hurdle, and they are familiar with the OS that every laptop, desktop and tablet that comes with when it returns from the store(s). Plus they don't understand how to install an OS in general and are thus locked into whatever OS they get at POS.

As for the larger reason to use Windows rather than Linux, is probably games. There's more games on Windows than Linux, but main apps and programs, drivers, and tools, free and publicly avaliable seem much better on Linux in my opinion; Even stringing commands together using piping does a good job when you read just a tiny bit of documentation of what commands you want to use.

In short it's because people are lazy... And that's too bad :(

Well, I didn’t really want to read further than that…
"a substitute for Windows" is the most inaccurate description of GNU/Linux I’ve read in years. Actually going Linux looking for a Windows subsitute is the best way to get disappointed very quickly.

(despite what I wrote, I will most probably read this study)

I'll have to agree, very very poor. Sounds more like it should be a study on the adoption of Lindows, which WAS suppose to be a drop-in replacement/substitute for windows.

I glanced over a couple pages and it starts getting very boring very quickly, I haven't a clue what it's talking about 2-3 pages in and gave up.

You're pretty much spot on with this one. I think the writer of the abstract meant to use language/terminology that'd get the point across, but missed the target with more knowledgeable crowd. I just mean that since most new pcs sold ships with Windows or OSX(yes, Mac is personal computer, running on PC hardware) it'd be natural for some people to use term " substitute for Windows" instead of "operating system". But how accurate this terminology would be, you should validate yourself. If you're looking for drop-in replacement for Windows, how about ReactOS? And if Linux-based operating systems are substitutes to Windows, what about BSD-derivatives? Or another, more obscure operating systems? :^)

Aside of those semantics, the article itself seems to be pretty much well-tought, and it raises few good points(such as ICT industry being biggest adopter of Linux(due to licensing fees and such), whereas Wintel rules on consumer desktops) and software piracy affecting adoption of Free Software(as defined FSF)/Open Source software statistically. And I think it might just make sense, people aren't likely to learn how to use different kind of approach to computing(UNIX-like vs. Windows) if there's "free"(as in "free beer") approach of obtaining software. It also should be noticed, how article words it, "For an average country with a 1% Linux user share, abolishing piracy would increase the Linux share to around 1.5-1.65%.", meaning that there isn't really that much demand for what is essentially a hobbyist OS in the first place(most consumers just want to buy a computer, and use it until it gets old).

The reason I'm not using Linux but a (paid for) Windows is not some fancy piracy fairytale but plain and simple laziness. Dumb double-click, install than run game with out worry about the OS.

YMMV. The single biggest issue I find people have is that they already have a library of Windows only games/other software. Confusion about things like the lack of a "C: drive" / misunderstanding about how Linux is organised is another big issue. Also unwillingless to learn anything different.

It should be noted that most people who have no Linux experience will need some instruction in using it, otherwise they're just going to try treating it exactly like what they already know (i.e. Windows) and will have a bad time as a result. The same thing would happen with OS X.

Also a lot of people convince themselves that it's so difficult, to the point that they effectively sabotage themselves & give up at the first hurdle.

Nobody I've shown Mint to IRL has ever complained about the UI; it works almost exactly the same as Windows. If you don't like the default theme then you can change it... there are even themes available to make it look like just about any given version of Windows. Some things are in a different place, but it's easy enough to customise. The UI differences are much like the differences between e.g. Win9x --> 2k/XP or 2k/XP --> Vista/7 (or to a much lesser extent Vista/7 --> 8.x/10).

Which is entirely to be expected; this happens even between different versions of Office. Even with 'open' formats Microsoft has been known to diverge a little from the spec, causing headaches with other software. I'm reminded of another Bill Gates quote: