I think you mean "should" not "shall".
Shall: this is a prediction of the future; this will happen.
Should: this is a recommendation; this is a desirable alternative; this ought to happen.
What you wrote is literally incorrect at present. But if I am right, you meant:
"They should learn from the masters (Microsoft): a pirated version should be easily available."
In which case, you're probably right.
IBM OS/2 is easily available, right up to Warp Server for eBusiness 4.52, the final IBM version.
Also, the first attempt to revive OS/2 is readily available -- eComStation 2.1 is on the Internet Archive. I installed it on a Thinkpad X61 tablet. It worked. I used all 32-bit releases of OS/2 and paid for the first couple (2.0 and 2.1) with my own cash, which I have never done with any other proprietary OS before or since.
I knew OS/2 pretty damned well. I am not skilled enough to get Firefox 45 to install on eComStation. I spent days on it.
Arca Noae really knows its stuff.
Footnote
I am a TEFL/TESOL teacher but not a linguist. I think that the way you use "shall" might have been a valid meaning up until roughly 100 years ago. I am not an expert on historical English usage. However, if you learned from very dated materials, this mistake would make more sense.