Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Blocking Wine Users From Downloads Site
IamTheRealMike writes "In January, Microsoft announced a new anti-piracy initiative called
Genuine Advantage. From this summer onwards all users of Microsoft Downloads will be required to validate using either an ActiveX control or a standalone tool. Yesterday Ivan Leo Puoti, a Wine developer, discovered that the validation tool checks directly for Wine and bails out with a generic error when found. This is significant as it's not only the first time Microsoft has actively discriminated against users running their programs via Wine, but it's also the first time they've broken radio silence on the project."
Is Firefox secretly paying for this great, new marketing strategy?
Didn't they do something like this with the Trillian protocol on MSN Messenger? They hate third parties.
There are 2 types of people in the world, those who find that stupid binary joke funny, and those who don't.
Microsoft is only making things worse for themselves in the long run.
http://download.microsoft.com/ possibly
Newsflash: Microsoft restricts Windows downloads to people that actually purchase their product!
Let's all get together on Slashdot and WINE about it...
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
I'll be honest here, I really must have no idea what Wine does. I thought it was a library, or some sort of API layer, that let native Windows applications run on Linux or BSD, etc.
I'm actually still pretty sure that is what it is, but then why would Windows have a registry key for Wine? Doesn't that imply that you installed it? So that you can run Windows applications on .. Windows?
I really don't get it. Someone please explain.
They require you to let you validate your copy of windows for any download. I suspect Wine struggles with that. But if you use their site for a little while you can take a survey telling them what a great idea you think that is.
Samurai Porn? Yes. Yes there is.
Don't drink and download.
Unknown host pong.
It isn't like there is anything particularly ugly about what Microsoft is doing. I mean, they really don't have an obligation to provide downloads of wine users, who are using a (somewhat) compatible competing system rather than theirs.
I use wine to run some things, and I have not paid a dime to microsoft, so I don't exactly expect them to provide me with any services.
What is this actually doing for fightung piracy? If someone codes an OS too look exactly like Windows, they won't be able to run Windows software?
It's useless.
Windows 3.1 deliberately refused to run under DR-DOS, the competitor to MS-DOS at the time. The deliberately vague error was caused by a block of obfuscated code--google for DR-DOS AARD.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Awesome. Oh well, Google will eat them in 10 years or so anyway.
It made me laugh. Can we slashdot the microsoft website....Quick, more links.
If it's checking to see if you have genuine windows, and it bails out because you're running WINE under Linux, then it is doing it's job correctly.
Wouldn't we be complaining if it *wasn't* working right?
My question is who gains from using the "Genuine Advantage"? I don't see how that would change my Windows expirience on a day-to-day basis.
root@allevil:~#
Blocking suspected software pirates from downloading security patches and their new anti-spyware software is bad enough.
Now they're blocking competing software applications from downloading them as well? They're fortunate that there isn't an outcry to make them pay to ship billions of CDs to registered users of Windows. They should be thrilled that people are willing to take the time to download their patches, regardless of whether they can prove their licensing or what other software they run.
This is just incredibly idiotic. Secure and spyware-free Windows boxes mean less spam and other nuisances for everyone on the Internet. I thought Microsoft has supposedly declared war on such things - I guess not.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Microsoft is just hastening their ultimate demise. It's been clear for several years that the commoditisation of their core product sectors - office suites and operating systems - was going to drive them out of business. Now, where are the great brave new strategies that will breath life into their products? Patches. Delayed releases. New anti-spyware and anti-virus aquisitions. Blocking Wine users from MSIE downloads.
MS are dead and their cash pile will disappear faster than a fridgeful of champagne in a brothel on Monday morning.
It's a shame. If only MS had released a suite for Linux about 2 years ago, they'd be sailing pretty by now.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
How is that bad? They're running code that, in essense, is telling the user "yes, this code is safe to run", and not allowing it to run against toolkits they do not know are safe is a bad thing?
While I disagree with the action, Microsoft does have the right to not allow "service" to whomever it wants as a business.
Will Wine fight back? Hmm...
I might not be running WINE, but i too am running the windows xp pro reduced cost edition.
I did get a proper license for my XP home edition, but after my harddrive got killed i lost my backup partition. Since OEM cds arent given out anymore its hard for PAYING customers to get their OS back.
Does this mean I too will lose my ability to update?
If so microsoft has once again screwed over their clients.
The thin line between me and linux at the moment is my unsupported wireless card.
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
"At Microsoft, security is our number one priority. You should turn off ActiveX controls and click 'no' to any dialog boxes. Service Pack 2 adds protection against these ActiveX controls, and with Windows Server 2003 ActiveX controls and other harmful content are blocked by default. This is for your own safety."
"Ignore all that, turn ActiveX on again, else you won't be able to download from us!"
What the hell?
Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
I was hoping this would be a story about Windows forcing users to take a breathalyzer test before being allowed to log on. Keep those damn drunkards off the internet I say!
Unless you can prove you have a license, they dont have to give you squat.
Having wine installed inst a license to use their DLL's. And in some
cases, even Microsoft applications you have *purchased*. Read your EULA's closely people.
Sure, its irritating as hell, and will make updating to run newer applicatinos a pain, but well within their legal rights.
Best solution is not to have to run wine if at all possible.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Sadly, the only people that are gaining anything, even when MS loses anti-trust cases, are the lawyers. I don't see this one getting that far, though.
I'm guessing that the only real downloads a Wine user would be making are updates for Office, correct? I'm drawing a blank on what else it could be. I haven't had the time to read my MS office EULA yet, but I'm guessing it doesn't specifically call out that it has to be run on Windows. That doesn't mean that MS has to provide you support if you're not. This is an automated incarnation of what has happened for years:
me> I need support
support> You're computer case isn't blue, is it?
me> yes, it is, thanks for asking
support> We don't support our software on computers with blue cases. Thanks for calling.
me> argh!
I think we've all been in that boat at one point or another.
Jerry
http://www.syslog.org/
It's just the same idea of 'compatibility' for Microsoft - changes are intended to break competitor's products.
In most cases Microsoft signs its executables so this will come around and bite them. If the patches are signed you can easily verify that they are genuine, regardless from where you got them.
-------
Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
Microsoft is committing one anti-trust violation after the other and continues to ignore any of the court decision that have been made regarding Microsoft's criminal practices. I simply can't understand how any company can get away with such violations over and over again, especially illegaly forcing vendors to bundle Microsoft's Windows with any sold computer system. This is a clear violation of existing law and previous court decisions in the Microsoft case.
"DOS ain't done until Lotus won't run!"
Why would someone need to get to windowsupdate from linux? Also, why would anyone run windows, using wine, from linux? Do people do that?
Well for what ever reason Microsoft did this, I am guessing it is alittle late to try to stop wine. I am sure the guys at Codeweavers have already started thinking how they will either trick Microsoft (in the case where you own the software) or replace Microsoft. Hell Codeweavers could just tell people the names of the Windows files they need and I am sure people will be trading them on a p2p somewhere.
just because your a schizophrenic doesn't mean people arn't really out to get you
Wouldn't (shouldn't?) this violate some sort of anti-whatever judgement they've been slapped with somewhere?
If your panties are in that much of a twist, why don't you just have a friend dl and burn to a cd? Or, go to your nearest windows machine, then share out the file? It's not the end of the world.
I haven't lost my mind. It's backed up on disk somewhere.
...to support his childish claims about OSS software having poor interoperability.
For me it's just another good reason to stay well clear from a software company with such business tactics.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Should have got a recovery disk with that box of yours..
If not id be bitching at the OEM..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So, if I own a legit copy of Office 2003 that I run in WINE then I try to go update it, I'm screwed because some ActiveX control keeps me from downloading it?
Next you will start complaining because Microsoft doesn't want to support you installing Office on Whine. 'Geez Microsoft is bunch of jerks, they won't help me install their application on any random configuration of hardware and software'
Reminds me of this...
How MS played the incompatibility card against DR-DOS
"Read your EULA's closely people."
I can't. My kids clicked on the "I Accept" button, and there's no way to check on the EULA now.
s/the/their own/
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Why would you try to download Windows patches if you're running Linux?
It's bad because they, under the guise of anti-piracy, (which some may compare to anti-terrorism initiatives) blocked WINE, and made it seem as though it was a pirated product.
To my knowledge WINE is an emulator for windows, so that windows programs may be run without purchasing windows. It is NOT some sort of cracked version of windows. We all know Microsoft hates losing the bling bling, but few linux users are likely to front said bling on top of the cost for the windows program. It comes out to probably 100-2000$ depending on the program, and the cost of Windows Xp Home(which i use because it only costs 100 bucks for easy typing).
That said, WINE shouldn't be reliant on Microsoft for updates. The WINE community should fix it(if it is a bug), no handout thank-you. And Microsoft is not responsible for WINE, they should just plainly state "WINE is not a supported Microsoft product and therefore does not get updates"
Putting this under some cover is bad, and shows microsofts(already known) business tendancies, to be sneaky and mean.
Sneaky-snake!
Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
Why *should* MS allow WINE users to get to their updates site? The article links into a discussion where WINE developers are talking about how they should fix WINE so users don't need to go to the Microsoft site for needed software!
WTF?
Hell, if competitors were getting their customers to access my companies resources I'd be firewalling them out -- those services are for our customers. In fact, I think our company would have to sue them to stop this behavior.
Now, if they were blocking MS Office Updates for people running MS Office on WINE -- then we'd have a story.
Bill: "Hey Steve ! What goes with penguin, red wine or white ?"
Sanity is the trademark of a weak mind. -- Mark Harrold
So what does this mean for holders of a real windows license.
Do we now have to install their spyware just do download updates, 'free' tooks, and such from them?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Who wants to download something from Microsoft using Wine?
I don't get the point of doing that.
ajf
I've seen a post or two here complaining that they bought MS software and they can run it on any platform they choose.
Well, of they can. This move by MS won't stop that. They didn't buy perpetual upgrades, though, and MS didn't agree to provide perpetual upgrades at no cost to anyone.
So, what are people bitching about? Maybe they'd be happier if MS offered piad subscriptions to updates to non-MS users?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
On the flipside, I wonder if this means that WINE has moved from the part where MS ignored them and will begin laughing at them.
You have to figure that MS bought Connectix for their virtualization technology so that they could actually dump backwards compatibility from the core OS and just use limited virtualization for better backward compatibility. At the same time by dumping all that cruft from the core OS, they can make the OS something more advanced. XP was a pretty big leap from Win2K in that direction (dropping support for CPUs below P II for example). I would have to guess that Longhorn is going to be an even bigger jump which is why it's taking so long.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
If it is Microsoft downloads doing this, then does this apply to Office? I have a licensed version of Office 2000 Pro. It is not on my Windows box, which has a licensed copy of Office 2003. I have the Office 2000 Pro installed on my Linux box, running under Crossover Office/Wine. Does this mean that I cannot get updates for a licensed copy that is only used on one PC, as per the license? That seems to be a violation of my rights as a consumer - I purchased one license and am only using it on one PC, so give me my updates!
A lot of people are saying MS has the right to restrict downloads to people who own their software. I agree that they are liable to their customers, but some of their customers run wine.
I have a legal copy of Windows which is currently unused. I don't like dual booting. I don't like running under an x86 emulator. I like using Wine (or commercial variants of it) if I absolutely need to run win32 software. At the very least, my license to Windows should entitle me to downloads from MS--not whether or not I am using Windows to download them. They should at least give you the opportunity to enter in your product key. I'd still feel like this was obnoxious & be pissed at them, but at least people in a similar situation would be able to download programs from them.
How long is it gonna take for people to find a way around this. Over the years software manufactures have done their best to ensure we don't steal their stuff...but low and behold...I write this message from a pirated copy of windows. It's a cheap attempt by M$ and it will be beaten (just like Napster ;))
What do you actually download via Microsoft Downloads? Updates to th OS? Updates to Programs? What?
If you're running Wine, and you are prevented from d/ling SP2 or something, well, so what?
On the other hand, if you're running Wine so that you can run your legal copy of Microsoft Office on your linux box, and you can't download updates to Office, then this is rather unfair.
Would someone enighten me as to what exactly Microsoft is preventing? I don't use windows so I'm not really sure.
I think what many object to is that they're being vague, at best, about what is the source of the "problem". If a message came up saying something like "Windows emulators are not supported for this operation", then there would be little room to complain. However, this is not the case, and many, myself included, suspect that MS is deliberately being vague about it, rather than having the courage (and smarts) to just be upfront about it.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Fortunately there's no shortage of that on slashdot. Oh, were you talking about the beverage?
Samurau Porn? Oh yes. Believe it.
One other reason to bash microsoft for /. users. Wine is not a microsoft product and it is competing with MS products. Why should microsoft provide services for users using Wine. Grow up people. They do all sorts of things to make sure they are the dominant OS vendor and if they start providing services to Wine users that will be the stupidest thing from MS.
Circumventing the check might fall under the DMCA, and get Codeweavers in a legal bind.
Even if it doesnt, expect a crushing lawsuit that will put them out of business.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
...all this open source shit was so great and you didn't need MS applications anymore.
quit wining, this is not an argument for anti-trust, software/ms conspiracy.
I don't agree with alot of ms tactics but this case they are saying you risk running your machine as a mase mail spam tool, or help the spread of viruses, etc. to people who HAVE bought their product (and haven't patched their systems yet) if you don't buy our products. What's the harm in that?
Besides daddy bill is looking out for us with spyware tools which removes IE, crash the computer and being targets themselves. Can't you all see this will be a safe, virus free m$ world!
So wait, it works withe wine if it is set to xp? Does this mean the registry is handled differntly b/t the different versions and as such window's downloads check doesn't work?
... `till WINE won't run.
Good old Microsoft.
Same as it ever was.
I barely run Windows anymore. If I had a drawing program for Linux that was compatible with Visio (which I have to use at work), I wouldn't run it at all. Once I realized that Firefox, OpenOffice, and Thunderbird were meeting 90% of my needs, I set my system up as dual-boot.
Why do you people even care what Micro$oft does anymore? Just leave them alone and let them kill themselves off.
Just tested downloading using Internet Explorer running under Wine.
Installed the ActiveX component, and downloaded just fine.
Tried with the AntiSpyware product of theirs.
morcego
I thought Microsoft wanted security, but they don't want you running Windows the only way you that makes it secure. Under Linux.
END OF LINE
This is also remindful of BeOS. Be sued MS to force them to allow OEMs to be able to distribute dual boot machines. So much they got, BeOS was installed on the machines, but nothing more. You had to reconfigure the boot loader yourself if you wanted to even see BeOS on the list of options.
MS-DOS (starting with I can't remember what version) included code to keep GEM from running in order to force users over to Windows.
Compare software to drinks. Some is like a strong brandy. Some is like a fine wine. The OS you're using works like Diet Coke. /Paraphrased Pavarotti quote
I had to go through their process the other day when downloading a Windows Mobile SDK and eMbedded Visual C++. Seems pretty dumb, because it's not exactly like you can get an illegal copy of Windows Mobile. Fortunately, I have a legal copy of Win2K, but I did have to dig up my serial number...
For the past four years I've been managing a couple of Windows 2K Server farms from a Linux workstation. The simple combination of rdesktop and a WM that has virtual desktops makes for a pretty kickass KVM-a-like with a full workstaton behind it.
So just yesterday I'm at Microsoft's site grabbing a copy of Sonar, a file replication monitoring tool, and it wants to immediately verify my copy of Windows. But I'm grabbing the file from my workstation because the machines it will be applied to don't have direct access to the internet. Luckily for now, I can choose to skip the verification step, but eventually I know I won't be able to.
I would imagine that my scenario is far from unique. It certainly isn't deceptive in any way, but I've got the feeling that it won't be an option for me in the near future.
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
Didn't they mean Genuwine Advantage?
if you read the -second- post in the thread on wine-devel you can read that --->
When I run the validation program on my genuine Win2k system, I get the
message saying a validation code couldn't be found because of technical
difficulties or because I'm running an unsupported operating system.
When using IE and thus the ActiveX control there is no problem and my
Windows is recognized as genuine.
Looks to me the standalone validation program is seriously broken....
Gé van Geldorp.
--------
so, what's the truth ? M$ blocking wine or M$ as a bug factory ?
Does no-one here remember a company called IBM? The largest computer company ever, it was in total control of the IT industry until a bunch of long-haired anarchists decided that "personal computers" were a lot more fun, a lot cheaper, and a lot more useful than mainframes or minis.
IBM _almost_ went to the wall, despite their "damned innovative stuff" and huge amounts of R&D. IBM are in good shape today precisely because they've moved up from software and hardware to services.
Microsoft are large but that won't save them from the inevitability of technological change, which is what my original post was about.
Commoditisation. You can't fight it.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
That's easy to answer. Suppose you have an XP box that has already been 0wned and you need to download updates. Why let that XP box get on the net when you can download updates off another computer? Heck, when Sasser came out, I sure didn't want to expose an XP box to the Internet. So I downloaded updates from Windows for Workgroups 3.11, and transferred it over to the XP box via a CD-RW.
And aside from a selected few who understand the whole of the story most of us eat it up as if it were divine mana.
Couldn't find a reference to running it on a specific OS ...
END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MICROSOFT SOFTWARE
IMPORTANT - READ CAREFULLY: This Microsoft End-User
License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between
you (either an individual or a single entity) and
Microsoft Corporation for the Microsoft software product
identified above, which includes computer software and
may include associated media, printed materials, and
"online" or electronic documentation ("SOFTWARE
PRODUCT"). The SOFTWARE PRODUCT also includes any
updates and supplements to the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT
provided to you by Microsoft. Any software provided
along with the SOFTWARE PRODUCT that is associated with
a separate end-user license agreement is licensed to you
under the terms of that license agreement. By
installing, copying, downloading, accessing, or
otherwise using the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, you agree to be
bound by the terms of this EULA. If you do not agree to
the terms of this EULA, do not install or use the
SOFTWARE PRODUCT; you may, however, return it to your
place of purchase for a full refund.
SOFTWARE PRODUCT LICENSE
The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is protected by copyright laws and
international copyright treaties, as well as other
intellectual property laws and treaties. The SOFTWARE
PRODUCT is licensed, not sold.
1. GRANT OF LICENSE. This EULA grants you the following
rights:
* Applications Software. You may install, use, access,
display, run, or otherwise interact with ("RUN") one
copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, or any prior version for
the same operating system, on a single computer,
workstation, terminal, handheld PC, pager, "smart
phone," or other digital electronic device ("COMPUTER").
The primary user of the COMPUTER on which the SOFTWARE
PRODUCT is installed may make a second copy for his or
her exclusive use on a portable computer.
* Storage/Network Use. You may also store or install a
copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a storage device, such
as a network server, used only to RUN the SOFTWARE
PRODUCT on your other COMPUTERS over an internal
network; however, you must acquire and dedicate a
license for each separate COMPUTER on which the
SOFTWARE PRODUCT is RUN from the storage device. A
license for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be shared or
used concurrently on different COMPUTERS.
* License Pack. If this package is a Microsoft License
Pack, you may RUN additional copies of the computer
software portion of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT up to the
number of copies specified above as "Licensed Copies."
You are also entitled to make a corresponding number of
secondary copies for portable computer use as specified
above.
* Reservation of Rights. All rights not expressly
granted are reserved by Microsoft.
2. DESCRIPTION OF OTHER RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS.
* Academic Edition Software. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is
identified as "Academic Edition" or "AE," you must be a
"Qualified Educational User" to use the SOFTWARE
PRODUCT. If you are not a Qualified Educational User,
you have no rights under this EULA. To determine
whether you are a Qualified Educational User, please
contact the Microsoft Sales Information Center/One
Microsoft Way/Redmond, WA 98052-6399 or the Microsoft
subsidiary serving your country.
* Not for Resale Software. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is
labeled "Not For Resale" or "NFR," then, notwithstanding
other sections of this EULA, your use of the SOFTWARE
PRODUCT is limited to use for demonstration, test, or
evaluation purposes and you may not resell, or otherwise
transfer for value, the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
* Limitations on Reverse Engineering, Decompilation, and
Disassembly. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or
disassemble the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, except and only to the
extent that such activity is expressly permitted by
applicable law notwithstanding this limitation.
* Separation of Components. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is
licensed as a single product. Its component parts may
not be separated for use on more than one COMPUTER.
* Trademarks. This EULA does not grant you any rights in
connection with any trademar
operator: Mr. Gates, all of china just logged on trying to download some patches..
Mr.Gate: what's the problem foolio??
operator: between all of them they had only 1 valid registration code.. it's valid tho
I decided to test it and went to MS's site. There is an amazing option now:
---- 8< ------- 8< ----
Validate Windows and obtain the download
Yes, please validate Windows and take me to the download. (If an ActiveX dialog box appears, please click Yes.)
No, do not validate Windows at this time, but take me to the download.
---- 8< ------- 8< ----
If I select the second option the download proceeds without verification. I suppose they will remove it later.
You know, the thing that caught my eye the most in the summary was that they use an Active X control to check.
My biggest problem with the way that Microsoft does a lot of things is this damned Active X stuff. In order to secure your system, everyone says turn this crap off because it's a huge gaping hole.
In order to do anything with Microsoft's site, you need to set your security settings to abysmal in order to use the damned site. I'm sure a more Windows-savvy user can set it up to have these settings off and still use this stuff.
I find it annoying and most people probably end up leaving themselves with insecure settings so they can get their security updates.
Silly.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
This is a sign of things to come for Mono.
.Net project can easily be withheld and apps written on the MS platform can be forced to link against them)
Sure, I know that you can do without Genuine Microsoft binaries for much of Mono, but being blocked from having updates sure hurts the compatibility argument to Mono. (ie. updates to the
I know that many Wine libraries are needed for the Forms libaries and this will be a blow for dll updates and changes there.
If Microsoft tries to enforce their patent protections on top of this kind of thing, it will be game-over for the new Gnome development on Mono. Score: Microsoft 1, Linux Desktop -1
That section if the EULA is not enforceable *legally*. In fact, it is a breach of contract for the other application to refuce to patch that application. You may not be supported under WINE, but the application is real.
I recently downloaded the new MS Spyware fighting tool for one of my friends.
Thankfully it allowed me to do it with my Linux/Firefox browser without checking for valid XP license.
If they checked for XP users, I would not have been be able to help him. (there is no way I'd allow him to connect his broken box into my home net).
...since I'm running Office on my Mac!
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
Turn on "Automatic Updates" on your server...*groan*
Hm. Not that I'm totally against emulating... but why don't ppl switch over 100% to *nix? If you can handle wine, you sure can handle a good alternative like OOo instead of emulating SM Office.
Okay, now I *know* this is a blunt statement to make: some *have* to work in an SM environment at work but don't want to give up on their 100% linuxness at home just so they can process an order or finish a report in Word or Excel properly. Wine is indeed a good alternative. Still, I don't see how emulating heretic software is going to help our crusade against the heathens from Redmond.
This is just another great example of how monopolistic behaviour from a few at key positions can affect everyone. It's a war and we are in the middle of it!
"Windows Genuine Advantage already helps protect millions of Windows users from an inferior computing experience, viruses and other vulnerabilities that can result from counterfeit software."
You should only have the inferior computing, viruses and vulnuerabilities that result from Genuine Windows products. Don't be fooled by immitations.
Wait there's more....
Microsoft is shurely at war against anything open source, shure they don't want everybody to know, but we can see it ;)
neo2k
It's not a troll. I don't know why it's be modded as one.
Just go to the Queue page, press the Pause button and then go about selecting/marking articles as usual. BNR will not start downloading until the Pause button is clicked again.
This is absolutely clear bundling of an OS/app by the Microsoft monopoly. Their cross-leverage of OS and app choices by their market control of each is usually implicit, with a "What can we do, sell two OS'es? And we do sell Mac software..." coverup. But by blocking updates to their apps because the owner didn't buy the OS from them, even if the OS is legitimate, Microsoft is showing its hand. This offense is at the core of their monopoly perpetuation power. If this abuse doesn't start a legal backlash, it's not clear what can.
--
make install -not war
Here in Brazil, most companies use legal copies of Windows and will be getting their updates normally. Most home users use pirated copies and never do any updates, so they wont care. Only a few geeks use Linux+Wine (I use Linux, but not Wine).
Maybe I'm missing something here, but as I see it:
Microsoft are specifically checking to see if you're running Wine. I'd guess it's not specifically necessary (unless MS decided to unofficialy support Wine users, but that's pretty unlikely), but there's nothing bad going on yet.
If your version of Wine is emulating a Windows version Microsoft doesn't support (or, like Win98, wouldn't support unless paying consumers force them to), it returns an error. That strikes me as sensible and fair - if that version of Windows isn't supported by Windows Update, it should return an error so you don't mistakenly install the wrong versions of software/patches/DLLs. It even helpfully tells you why - "because you're running an unsupported operating system.". Again, nothing bad yet - just some sensible precautions.
"If you set winver to win2000, you'll get a validation code that doesn't work, this may be a bug in wine, or in the validation program."
(My emphasis)
Ok, so emu'ing Win2K generates a bad validation number. But this may be Wine's fault, or a simple bug in the validator. Still nothing definitely bad there...
If you set Wine to emulate XP, everything works fine. Still failing to see the evil here...
Let's be honest, if MS wanted to discriminate against Wine users they could quite easily have the validator reject anyone who had it installed, simply for running their software on an unsupported operating system.
So people are complaining that:
Of course, this entire thing has clearly been whipped up by the asshat developer (Ivan Leo) who baselessly speculates that "even if this is only an initial attempt, they appear to want to discriminate wine users". No, they don't. They refuse to support versions of your software that they won't support of their own, and one of you has a single bug in your software. Pull your head out of your arse and strap down that jerking knee before your hurt somebody. And you might want to take something for that paranoia, too.
Look, I dislike MS as much as the next slashdotter, they have done evil things in the past and they will do them again in the future. I'm not an apologist, and I sincerely hope they eventually get what's coming to them. However, this kind of baseless accusation and knee-jerk reactionary idiocy isn't going to convince anyone that there is a valid, adult, mature alternative out there. For fuck's sake sort it out.
P.S. Good job exacerbating the problem, editors. You know, I used to defend you against the slagging off you get around here, but you honestly seem to be getting worse and worse. Try reading the article, then thinking about it for two seconds before approving. Might do wonders, y'know...
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
I though interoperability was supposed to be a good thing? I guess Wine turned out to be too interoperable.
What happens if this key is added to a real Windows system?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
What about when you buy a Microsoft app, run it on Wine, and get locked out of updates to the app? It's just a way to force people who use MS apps to use Windows, beyond the technical/binary requirements. Doesn't that sound like unfair competition, at the consumer's expense?
--
make install -not war
Two other occations come to mind:
- DR-Dos was prevented from running Windows 3.x in the same vay (i.e. detection and then an artificial failure).
- OS/2 network clients were prevented from connecting to NT Server networks, since the driver tested the operating system version, and failed artificially if the version was > OS/2 v 2.0.
Hmm...can you pronounce genuine with a "wine" sound at the end? Someone at M$ is having a laugh. Wait a sec..wouldn't GNU Wine sound like Genuine? Hrrrmmm
Caldera sued Microsoft because they deliberately broke win 3.1 on drDos. Here is an old article on it
I too own an office license that I run under crossover, so this makes me mad. If MS is deliberately breaking office updates from honest people running on other OS's they will lose in court. Go get 'em codeweavers!
Locking off someone from downloading is consider as ok; people will get the file from edonkey anyway(same as where their pirated OS comes from). What MacroShit is doing with w2k3 sp1 is much worse. They allow you to download and install anyway; but the system will refuse to let you login after reboot. (Give you some shitty warning msg about license then returns to login screen). Pirated w2k3 becomes a heavy doorstop after installing sp1.
That's the thing about being ruled as a monopoly. Just about anything they do to block competition, (including free software) might lead to legal action against them.
They are still a monopoly and have been found to have used their monopoly power for bad things. I think that's a significant difference between Microsoft doing this and just about anyone else. In this case, I don't believe they have a right to block downloads of anything they distribute in an otherwise free fashion.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I would like to see some sort of legal action taken against Microsoft for (again) singling out a competing product from operating with Windows. If this behavior continues unchecked, there will be lots more of this going on.
If I recall correctly, there was such an arms race when it came to the Samba project where I guess Microsoft just gave up trying to break Samba. I haven't heard anything about it lately... did they give up?
I'd be interested to know whether the updates mechanism explicitly breaks things like ReactOS, too.
When Windows XP was being coded they had a party and TOO MUCH wine.
You are incorrect on that. Apparently you dont fully understand how WINE works.
"Microsoft updates" provide updated libraries that various applications need to run properly. Having newer versions help with stability and helps more apps run in the first place.
Currently WINE does not offer all needed DLL's nor are they as bug free as the 'real' ones are.
While i suppose technically it doesnt help WINE, it helps what you want to do WITH it...
And if you read/understood the reason Microsoft instituted the entire process last month, you would figure out it IS about valid licenses.. And WINE users dont fall under 'valid'.
Geesh..
Dont call people Idiots until you actually have a clue what you are talking about..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You don't have to run Windows to be an MS customer... Our corporate Macs all run Office 2004, but not windows. We're considered customers, though.... And I hope this article is merely incomplete, since we don't run Windows and as far as I know ActiveX controls are dodgy at best on IE for the Mac... If we can't patch our machines, we'll likely be in the market for other office suites.
A more likely explanation is that MS offers a (sort of) competing product: Virtual PC. While its true VPC has recently been made useless by intentionally limiting you to only running virtual Windows computers, it is still in the same market. If MS doesn't get "bad PRed" out of doing this, look for VMWare to be similarly targetted in the future.
Who did what now?
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
So far the software industry has been able to avoid any implied warranties because of free upgrades, fixes, or reasonable paid-for arrangements.
In the US, law is made by judges and/or legislature. Anytime you create a new situation, you open the door for new "law." I think Microsoft didn't think this one through.
If there will be legitimately purchased products that are defective and those users have no easy way to get them fixed, that is a problem that we have had before in other industries and led to implied warranties there. Bottom line is, manufacturers will be held liable for their defective products. It is the definition of defective that shifts over time.
Unfortunately, people will first have to get hurt by Microsoft. But if they do, I hope they have to courage to fight Microsoft.
I would bet there would be lot's of people waiting in the wings for that opportunity.
And can't you just get the files, whatever you think you need, from them?
And if not, why not? I can understand not supporting their automatic patch detection in an emulator, but this would be another matter.
I think
Which is all well and good. However, one should note that it's decidedly NOT private as it was publicly accessable to anyone that wanted to download upates and all up until recently. I know, I've hit it many times with a Linux browser to snag updates for other people- which IS a legit activity even to Microsoft as the people in question couldn't get to the site for varying reasons and I was acting on their behalf.
This is a bad idea for Microsoft. Really, it is.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I use Mepis to read all my Windows stuff on HDA1 and fix up my Slackware config on HDB4. Could you not just copy the Windows reg keys from a windows partion into the fake windows drive in your home linux?
Virtual PC isn't the same sort of beast at all; Virtual PC emulates the hardware, you still need a copy of Windows. (It may have accelerators for some of the API entry points written in native code, but that is done on top of the installed Windows.)
WINE is a new and original implementation of the Win32 API from first principles (the documentation, such as it is), combined with a whole lot of experimental work to figure out just how Microsoft's various implementations of Win32 (Win32s, Win95 series, WinNT series) differ from the docs.
So, Microsoft can't claim you aren't running it on Windows with Virtual PC (or VMWare or other hardware emulators or virtualizers), because you do have Windows. You don't, necessarily, have an Intel CPU, but that's Intel's and AMD's problem.
With Mac OS, keep in mind, there's no such thing as a "Full Retail" copy of Mac OS X--in fact, of any Mac OS except the version that was licensed for clones. All Macs come with Mac OS, so all copies of Mac OS are actually upgrades, not full versions for an OS-less machine.
You know what Ghandi said... First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. And then you win.
Spelling mistakes: My is english spoken not tongue of mother.
And don't forget, if you want to remotely administrator your win2k3 servers using the web interface, it requires activex. And, so does administering any ANY guest OS you might have installed and running through virtual server 2005.
Isn't this all MS' anti-spyware software is? Just repartition your disk and re-install all your software.
:-)
I mean you have to do this every three months or so anyway don't you
A colleague of mine had gotten into trouble with his private laptop PC, an XP machine without network access. He uses it for games and music.
:)
For music he had a player from Creative, which now gave error message: "Jet Engine Error: Music Library cannot be opened because the database is corrupt". I looked around and found that he needed to upgrade something called Jet and also to "MDAC 2.8".
The laptop had USB ports and I had a USB memory thingie (actually a camera with USB2 and a CF card). So I plugged it into the only PC we had there with a USB port - a Linux PC, and tried to download. No go. I was blocked because I couldn't verify it was a MS OS. Idiots..
I then tried to download from a Windows XP PC, thinking i could ftp the file over to the Linux machine. Again: No Go. I needed administrator access to install the verifying software that could verify that I was actually on a Windows PC. But I don't have admin on that PC. Onced upon a time we had to decide whether to remove admin access or network access to the Internet - it got too many worms. So it was decided to remove our admin access.
In the end I had to wait till after work and download from my private PC's XP installation, then copy to the CF card, then bring it back to work the next day, transfer the broken laptop and install the files and upgrades there. Turned out it didn't work after all
Anwyays: It could hade taken me 2 minutes to realize I was on the wrong track. It took 18 hours instead. That's absolutly horrible and extremely poor service from Microsoft.
Let's create a worm that creates this key in the registry and have fun: SOFTWARE\Wine\Wine\Config :)
So Microsoft wants only people running Windows to download Windows tools and such from a Windows site? Those bastards!! ;)
Get over it. They can let anyone they choose into their downloads site, and all the whining in the world from a bunch of cheap bastards ain't gonna change that! :D
My corollary to that is "then they claim they were with you all along" (which goes before "then you win").
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
It looks like if you use IE with it's native ActiveX support that there's no problem with any OS version running over wine. From the 1st reply to the original wine email:
Wait, What?
Microsoft to consumers: Stop Wine-ing!!!
Read the article closely. It works fine if you set Wine to report its version as XP, and tries to work if you set it to 2k. MS has been trying to phase out 95/98 support for quite some time. Sounds like an extension of that policy to me
I hate WINE... it hasn't been working for months on my computer, winelib won't even compile, and my attempts to reinstall it are holding at a steady 0%. The only Wine I might think about purchasing is WineX, and even then, not for a while. If you need to use windows, I suggest using windows. Also, notice that there is nothing preventing you from running QEMU or Bochs with a windows system image.
Here's an article from Doctor Dobb's Journal. Definitely limited to the beta release, and not the retail versions.
Not that I condone piracy or anything, but the BSA just seems downright evil. I hope you don't work with the BSA at all, otherwise I'd have to question whether you deserve the food you're putting on your table.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I believe it explicity states in Microsoft's EULA that reverse-engineering of their products is prohibited... I would have to say that WINE definitely falls into this category (even more so if it uses MS' DLLs though I do not know the dynamics of how WINE actually works). I don't think you guys have the slightest hope of any legal action against MS. I always scoffed at the Linux people telling me that I could still use a list of apps that haven't been developed for Linux (or come close to the usability of apps on Windows) via Wine... I knew it was only a matter of time before MS cracked down on this. I wonder if this has any implications for Cedega? It's hard to make a compelling argument to use Linux for any gamer either it's so much trouble I'd much rather pay the $80-150 (or even less if you're a student) License for XP any day. Though your dedicated to Open Source is still quite comendable no doubt! I think Linux's success will continue to be in the Server sector... but still has a very, very long way to go as a feasible Desktop OS for most.
microsoft has used "generic error" messages to discriminate against users of software it doesn't like.
After winning awards and besting MS-DOS in virtually every comparison, DR-DOS had the rug pulled out from under it when Microsoft released a beta version of Windows 3.0 that detected DR-DOS and gave bogus error messages.
print the article while you can. now that the records from the caldera trial have been destroyed (along with the copy of the beta they managed to find for the trial, no doubt), microsoft will undoubted resume claiming it's an urban legend, if they have't already, and all mention of this little bit of history is rapidly vanishing from the virtual world as well. pathetic.
the destruction of the caldera trial documents has been mentioned on slashdot once or twice, and i commented on it both times. pity nobody cared. oh well. history repeats itself again.
Unfortunately, the fact is that MS's license does state that some software can only be run on Windows; wether this is enforceble or not is another discussion, but until something says that's it's not legal, they are probably within their right to do this.
I don't think this is a really big problem as most other programs (ie non-MS stuff) should work fine, if you have a need for them (which is what I would run Wine for only anyways).
AC comments get piped to
...when purchasing a productivity application, where does it state that you will be allowed future updates of any kind?
From my understanding, you purchase that product as-is, with no guarantee to future updates of any sort.
Everytime I've been prompted to verify wether or not my copy of windows is genuine it's been clear that it wasn't required and I could easily side step it. This also goes against everything they've said so far about the program, ie: they have no plans of making it manditory.
scott
but you can bet it'll be the end user who gets the book thrown at them. The thump of the BSA on the door at midnight, the mysterious disappearances, leaving behind only a trail of cheaply photocopied Genuine Microsoft certificates...
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Whoever's working on MONO should start seriously asking themselves when, not if this or something similar will happen to them.
This one is silly. As far as I can see, the check tests for the OS signature. With 95, 98, NT and other versions no longer being supported by Microsoft Update, it only makes sense to filter out anything other than XP, 2000, Longhorn and whatnot..
So Wine-users (I'm one, happily running Office 2000 without updates): This is just the drawback of an API-wrapper running proprietary software. It's not a permanent solution, Free Software is that.
Since downloads.microsoft.com seems to be down right now, I don't know whether it would work with win4lin. But it is an interesting question since Active X is imperfectly supported by win4lin even though it runs an actual Windows.
On the other hand, not likely to be a lot of recent updates to Windows 95.
Isn't this considered hacking of Wine (detecting third party and modifying behavior).. can't microsoft be sued under the DMCA?
to move in for the kill. Prepare to meet your maker, Micrososft! hahahahahaha...MWHAHAHAHA!
What?
Why dont you be a bigger asshole and go on head and block codeweavers and transgaming as well.
How long before this happens to the end user, where Microsoft scans a file and then denies the ability to download it because what it may call as malicious content ( anything with the word linux in it ).
"God of Rock, thank you for this chance to kick ass. "
Damn them.
Deserving got nothing to do with it.....shuffle
1. You're not a Microsoft Customer. In this case you've got expectation of free stuff from them, and frankly you're better off for it in the long run (although it may not seems that way to you at first).
2. You are a Microsoft customer, in which case you've just been snookered by them once again. Sure, they're not required to support you and your unsupported platform. When people treat you this way, stop giving them money. Perhaps this will motivate you to get back in the first category.
Morality aside, is that illegal under anti-trust laws? I can't sell you a car and refuse honor the warranty if you don't buy my brand of oil and filter. If someone buys MicroSoft Office and they want to run it under Wine, I would expect that they are legally entitled to product updates, especially bugfixes, even if the EULA says not because law would trump it.
If you look at the side of the software box, under "requirements", it will list the operating systems with which the software is compatible. I absolutely guarantee you "Wine on Linux" is not listed.
If you choose to use it on an unsupported platform, you're on your own.
Look, I'm a huge critic of Microsoft, but if they keep treating you this way, and you keep giving them money, what other outcome would you expect? Time to wean yourself off of their teat!
Wait. Why are such staunch, pro-Linux supporters complaining about not being able to run Windows? I thought that was the point of using Linux. If you want to run Windows software, buy Windows and quit complaining. Or, if you absolutely don't want to run Windows as your primary OS, buy a Mac and Virtual PC. But then, you're still supporting MS directly. If OSS is all it's cracked up to be, then you should be able to find a suitable alternative to whatever you need to run.
http://www.bynarystudio.com
why not just have a few people who have windows running on their machines download whatever updates and then torrent it up.
disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
While I'm a regular user of OO, I found that while working on my resume that it was nicely mangling my tables. Saving in an older word format seemed to fix that, but it was definately uglified compared to something written in actual MS-Word.
.doc), I pretty much had to install a real copy of word to get proper results (and believe me, when you're job-hunting you want your resume to look as good as possible).
In native OO format it was fine, but since I was making this resume copy for monster.com (which only accepts text or
It would be nice if monster would support PDF or some other format, but for the moment if I want to submit a proper resume there I'll have to use word (and yes, my productivity desktop of choice is linux).
Simple solution:
ftp ftp.microsoft.com
Problem solved. Next?
The System Requirements on the box for 2000 (pro) say :-
MS Windows 95 or later OS, or MS Windows NT Workstation 4.0+SP3 or later.
This is only the system requirements, not the support or license terms. Also is Wine later than Win95?
Now, with MS restricting updates to only legitimate copies, I would venture to guess that this will cause a decrease in the number of machines running Windows. Which means that there will be less machines running Longhorn than there are machines running XP, and hence more machines running alternate OSes. This is somewhat analogous to Apple restricting their software to their own hardware, and suffering as a result (in the PC business, of course).
Just a thought.
[i]Check the product specs on the side of the software box you purchased. I'll wager "WINE atop Linux" is not included as a supported OS. If you can hack around this, more power to you, but MS is under no legal or ethical obligation to support your efforts.[/i]
All I am asking is they support THEIR unaltered product that I bought from them. No one is asking them to support WINE. Just support Office, forget what I am running it on.
The Office apps were purchased and presumably have rights to be updated the same as any other user of Office apps. Same with the games.
Why don't you grab the box Office came in and look at what operating system the system requirements say is required to run it?
I now see the logic. If I want to keep my copy of M$ software updated, I must run it on a Windoze machine. After all, Micro$oft now tells me that they are cheaper at the level of the TCO and more secure. So, it is bye-bye Linux, bye-bye OpenOffice, bye-bye Nvu, bye-bye Mozilla, bye-bye Firefox. Now I know that I need Windoze Fisher Price (XP). Now I know I need M$ Office. Now I know I need FrontPage. Now I know I need Outlook. Now I know I need IE. How could I have been so stupid? How could I have not seen this before? Praise the Lord! Bill, can I have your babies too? [Would someone please pass the Soma!]
If I, as the IT person, can no longer manage my Windows server from my Linux box, then maybe it's day has come.
On a related note, Microsoft is the dominant player *ONLY* because of rampant piracy of their software. I pray for the day they stop all piracy of Windows and all Microsoft software.
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
I don't think this will be looked upon lightly in the courts (should someone push it there).
Provided you legitimately bought Windows... Microsoft really has no legal basis for doing this.
I wouldn't be suprised if someone decides to take this up. Perhaps it's time to get a little fund going.
Many corporate Linux users are forced to use MS Office, especially in shops where Linux is tolerated but not supported. We have lots of engineers where I work who do this.
As for me, personally, my work laptop still runs XP_SP2 because (1) I haven't had time to install Fedora Core 3 on it, and (2) my major client only supports the Cisco VPN client software on their RAS server, and I haven't had time to even think about getting that running.
At home, FC3, baby!
I think the other lesson to be learned here is not to buy anything from Creative, either.
What?
The more hoops they put in front of honest users to make them prove a negative, the more likely some of them will wise up and say, "F--- this!"
MSFT is their own worst enemy. I've never seen a big company work so hard at marginalizing their own customers. It sort of reminds me of the music industry, which apparently feels it has a devine right to continue reaping record profits while suing their customers. Forgetting that it's millions of individual CD and ticket buyers who got them to where they are.
To MSFT and the record industry you are nothing more than a revenue stream that needs to be kept in line.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
If Microsoft is getting so worried that people might be running their applications under Wine, then Wine must be getting pretty good. It's been a while that I have checked it out--I'll install the latest version and play around with it.
The .1 added NETWORKING. The biggest and greatest enhancement to the Windows 3.x line.
/.
Anyone that builds a Windows emulator (or any OS emulator) has a CONTINUOUS job on their hands keeping up with CONTINUOUS OS development!
I can't believe the number of people that seem to think that because a competitor builds an emulator for a product that the original company now has some sort of DUTY to never change that product!
This really is a great signal of the mass INSANITY that is
I expect the next worm to come out to do nothing except create a little registry key:
They say the mind is the first thing to
Beer users still have no problems getting to the site.
The message: Microsoft cannot compete unless they have an unfair advantage.
Just like HP. Without the crazy, temporary, situation of being able to sell ink, that is mostly cheap solvent, for thousands of dollars more than the cost of the raw material, HP would be much smaller and poorer.
These people are not real business people. They survive only by being adversarial toward the world.
When I run the validation program on my genuine Win2k system, I get the message saying a validation code couldn't be found because of technical difficulties or because I'm running an unsupported operating system. When using IE and thus the ActiveX control there is no problem and my Windows is recognized as genuine. Looks to me the standalone validation program is seriously broken....
"You see, you have this mat, with different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO."
But please flame me if I'm wrong;)
The system requirements on the box for your purchased version of Office say "Windows." Not Wine. Get over it!
With that way of looking at the world, you will never get hired at Google.
I don't see how this can be construed as bundling as I sure did not get Office when I bought windows.
It's more like getting Windows bundled when you buy Office.
Since I can get wine working on a linux box with out purchasing a windows license and wine uses win32 dll's to enable it to run non native software I have one question, where did those dll's come from
The DLLs are independent reimplementations of the same APIs, which has been known to be lawful in the United States ever since Compaq cloned the IBM PC BIOS. Every new version of Wine implements more Win32 APIs, and fewer apps need the DLLs from the Windows OS.
you need to take it straight up the ass like the rest of the legitimate Microsoft customers. So quit yer bitchin.
"Unsupported configuration" merely means "I'm not going out of my way to make it work for this configuration. If it happens to work, it works, if it happens to fail, it fails. Too bad. I'm not going out of my way to do anything about it." But what Microsoft actually does when they misuse the word "unsupported" is to deliberately cripple the configuration, adding EXTRA code to look for that configuration and deliberately fail on it. (As they did in this case) They go out of their way to ensure it fails.
That means "unsupported" is not telling the whole story. It's deliberate deception.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
They can code their software however they want to, provided that they are obeying the law.
But are they obeying the law? For one thing, Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, and under United States antitrust law, monopolists have to play by different rules. For another, many state commercial codes recognize "consumer expectations" that apply regardless of claims made on the box.
Now where the true stupidity sets in is setting this information as 'news'. Note that nowhere in the article does it say MS is preventing people from directly downloading the update files themselves- MS is only preventing people from using the automatic updater. So don't be lazy- when there is a new update, go to http://www.microsoft.com/downloads and look up the files you need. WOW! Problem solved...
There's actually a very simple solution too all of your WINE problems, Linux difficulties, etc.
Install Windows.
Using the wrong URL makes baby Jesus, and DNS, cry.
put simply...anticompetitive.
Microsoft hasn't learned anything from any of its trials and judgements except that they can afford to lose.
somedays I really wonder
first off, just consider that this new "Genuine Advantage" program is so poorly designed that it will obviously inconvenience people and so it must and will be modified
secondly, why MS doesn't already have a three tiered update server setup is just so totally beyond me
Tier One. Paid. Premium service via accounts.
Tier Two. Free. Verified via windows key / registration.
Tier Three. Free. Non verified. Low performance and only security patches.
Want to bet this is what we eventually see?
Words to men, as air to birds.
care to elaborate? I am really curious why wouldn't it be fixed or worked-around. Even if it was to create a fix or workaround (you know, some program that lies about stuff to the asking program, so you could run it encompassing the browser's run, etc)
/. you can send it to me in hmassa 'at' gmail...
if you don't want to post it on
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
"Until such time, I have the right to run the software under any OS I want."
True. But Microsoft clearly state you need a copy of Windows to run Outlook right on the box. They aren't obliged to support you if you're running it under the requirements they specify.
A flawed analogy (but the only one I can think of at the moment) would be thus:
You buy a car. You can change the tires. You can change oil filters. You can change the upholstery. None of this stops your support. But lets say you put it diesel by accident, and broke up your engine. The car manufacturer said in the manual "this car runs on unleaded". Your fault, you pay.
Similarly in software - you run it on WINE...well, WINE isn't Windows. Microsoft clearly state on the box of outlook that you'll need Windows to run it.
So just why do you expect them to provide support to you???
Taxation or theft. It's a matter of semantics.
Here's a useful definition to bring up in any political discussion involving funding of governmental programs...
tax: money extracted with threat of force from citizens (or subjects) by rulers.
Anyone disagreeing is encouraged to consider consequences of refusing to pay taxes; at some point, men with guns come into the picture.
Im running a cracked version of Windows 2000 Pro and it thinks everything is still valid. This whole thing seems like a big ploy to force people to use windows, even if they just go and download it from alt.binaries
To me the bottom line is that they are trying to guard against pirating with these new measures.
The bottom line problem is that they aren't just checking if the app you are updating is pirated but also the OS underneath; and in that check WINE fails as if it were a pirated Windows.
If the app is legal and the OS is legal (tho it be WINE) they should be required to allow updating (tho they don't need to SUPPORT WINE, they must allow it to try updating).
sqribbles.blogspot.com/.
I'll guess that the next round of spyware will likely also include a thing to make all Windows boxes "wine compliant".
I'm sure that there are a bunch of malware writers thinking "thanks billg"! (Well, I guess they already were, but now they have another reason.)
It's been a problem since Outlook 97 as far as I'm aware. If you get your OST or PST files over 2GB they become corrupt.
In high school and college I had a part time business cutting notches in the ends of cardboard tubes. The company my dad worked for made paper for thermal copying machines (long time ago). To force customers to use only that brand of paper, the copy machine maker built little metal pegs onto the hubs that held the roll, and they wanted my dad's company to cut notches in the tubes that the paper was rolled on, which would engage the pegs. My dad's company didn't have an accurate way to cut these notches, so through some wangling he got me the job as a subcontractor. For a while I used a table saw with a homemade jig to align the tubes. Later I designed a motorized notch-cutting machine and had a retired machinist down the road build it for me.
Little did I know at the time that I was probably helping them violate anti-trust laws. But it sure did help put me through college.
The moral is that this type of practice isn't limited to the software business or to the "big boys".
Remember that one?
How many times do we have to hit ourselves over the head with a hammer before we realize that it hurts?
We are the 198 proof..
Oh well, stuff Windows then
Besides, everybody knows WINE comes bundled with Gator anyway!
Seriously though, that is a pathetic move. I wonder what excuse they'll cook up.
People discover the meaning of life between getting piss drunk and the following hangover.
I already downloaded most of the stuff like SP2 for my Linux box!
Hey, wait a minute...
You are assuming that people are downloading Windows. This may not be the case. They may be downloading updates to other Microsoft products they have paid for, DLLs and all. In other cases they may hold a valid license from a third party who has a right to redistribute MS DLLs. So on that count it is pretty clear you are mistaken.
On the other hand you might choose to raise the question of whether MS is obligated to give anyone any updates at all. The answer is probably, no. It would be irresponsible and stupid, but they could in theory tell you you're on your own. The place that this breaks down is that if they offer any updates to anyone at all, they can't take deliberate steps to lock out Wine users, because they hold a monopoly and are not legally allowed to tie their products together to maintain that monopoly. It wouldn't even matter if they had not been convicted of doing this in the past.
They don't have to lift a finger to help Wine users with incompatibilities. But they can't lift a finger to introduce incompatibilities where there were none before.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if someone created a worm which did this, to screw up Windows Update - now the worm can keep users from downloading and installing patches to fix the bugs the worm used!
Wonderful...
SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618
Brilliant move, Microsoft. Now some dweeb living in his mom's basement will write an ActiveX virus that creates the Wine key in the registry, then exits.
The next time you go to Windows Update, whether you run Wine or not...
Ok, the only way to 'fix' this would be to change all 'authentic' windows configurations to contain a wine registry key. This would effectively cripple their updates, and would force Microsoft to 'fix' their software so it wouldn't find wine.
Perhaps.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
If you read the license agreements, you will find that there are varying degrees of restrictions.
Example is that you cant use Visual Studio to create a product that competes with Microsoft products.
They also restrict what you can run the software on.
You may not agree that a EULA is binding, but its there.
Other products have similar restrictions. Again we can debate the legality but you DID agree to the restrictions when you used the software. True, not *all* but they do exist.
Next time before you stick your foot in your mouth and look like a idiot, learn about what you are discussing..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If you read further into the thread, it looks like they're not really sure if MS is trying to block Wine or not. Look at this reply:
"
When I run the validation program on my genuine Win2k system, I get the
message saying a validation code couldn't be found because of technical
difficulties or because I'm running an unsupported operating system.
When using IE and thus the ActiveX control there is no problem and my
Windows is recognized as genuine.
Looks to me the standalone validation program is seriously broken....
Gé van Geldorp."
A later user suggests running IE under Wine might work, but the original poster responds with:
"Maybe, but I don't want to pollute my wine installation with IE.
Ivan."
So you can't really say for sure if this means anything or not, other than the original poster does say they seem to be checking for a registry key relating to Wine.
I have a Genuine Windows license for my HP desktop computer. I happen to not be using that Genuine Windows license, but I do have the license. That license came with the computer; I had no option to not buy it. Now that I have paid for it, I expect to have access to all the same updates that all other MS Windows license holders have, even though I am not actually running Windows. MS has forced all of us to pay an MS tax whether we run it or not. That's wonderful, I would like to take full advantage of what I have paid for, even if I'm not using it in the way that they intended me to use it.
I just got around to downloading the Antispyware tool which has the option (not required) to use the Validation process. I decided to test the validation and discovered the following.
First, if you have a software firewall installed (I have Kerio 2.4.15), it will block the GenuineCheck program unless you allow the firewall to ask you first and give permission. I don't think MS warns you about that, although people using a firewall should know it - but I bet most don't, especially if they are just using the Windows XP SP2 firewall which is on by default.
Second, Microsoft fails to validate my system, then goes on to require a download of a SECOND piece of software which ALSO requires permission to get through the firewall AND fails to identify my system.
For the record, my Windows 2000 on which this was tested was provided to me by a developer with a legitimate key based on his membership in the MSDN program in which he gets ten seats for every MS OS there is. I am one of his "seats" nominally. Therefore my Product Key should validate.
In any event, the Validation process is onerous, stupid and fails miserably. Any "grandma" trying to go through this process is not going to be amused.
Why they don't make this as simple as Windows XP "activation" is beyond me.
Oh, yes, and you have to run as Administrator for the process to work at all, apparently (I didn't bother)...
Really secure validation method, MS, way to go, Bill - you fucking moron...
More proof that Bill is only interested in MONEY, NOT security...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Later realized that it didn't refer to alcohol, had no idea what Wine is or what it does.
I now bow out acknowledging your geekiness is larger than mine.
(i know, i know - "all two of them.")
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Better yet, use Wine to run things other than Microsoft software, don't buy Microsoft Office to run on Wine, use OpenOffice instead.
Don't give your money to Microsoft, that solves the problem of having to deal with their crapware and "anti-piracy" baloney.
Insanity is a gradual process; don't rush it.
The last time I tried, only one of the programs I was interested would run under it, SAngband.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The latest version of gaim (gaim.sf.net) does well with msn over http.
Hasn't in the past, but does now. Try it out.
Strangely enough, that was the last release of the Win32s.dll series, at least as far as I know...
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
The two are not mutually exclusive, and I suspect most Linux users who also use Wine have a valid Windows 95, 98, etc., license around somewhere.
The EULA says I must have a Windows license, but it doesn't say I must use that licensed copy of Windows to run the software.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Wine is developed for Linux [...]
:)
No, Wine is developed for x86 systems that use X11. That includes Linux, BSD, Solaris, HURD, and possibly even Windows! (I don't know of anyone who's tried to get Wine to work under Windows, but I suspect it could be done, using, e.g. Cygwin.)
[...] a competing company.
Even if Wine were just for Linux, Linux is not a company. Even less are "x86 systems that support X11" a "competing company." While many of the companies that sell Linux are competing with MSFT, Linux itself is not - in fact, MSFT is free to modify/redistribute/sell Linux themselves, were they so inclined. It's not competition, it's part of the commons, and they have nobody but themselves to blame if they don't want to take advantage of that.
This is just simple business [...]
MSFT, as a convicted monopoly-abuser, no longer gets to operate by the rules of "simple business". In particular, requiring the use of official MS-brand Windows for updates to MS-Office and other applications almost certainly constitutes illegal product-tying. Thus, even if you were right about the stuff you said previously, you'd be wrong about this point.
[...] though a bad move by Microsoft.
At last! Something we agree on!
They just asked DR-DOS for its version. If the call failed, it wa MS-DOS; if the call succeeded, they crashed.
What was even more special and embarrassing about this was that there was just one encrypted slab of code in that version of MS-Windows - the DR-DOS detector. Pretty hard to argue that this was accidental, no?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Just ask the people who have to do commercial printing from it. They even prefer MS-Excel (no shit, people do submit stuff to be printed as .xls) because the layout is stabler (note: not "stable", just "stabler").
OO-Writer does most of what MS-Publisher does. No file compatibility, and no automated adding/linking-to of frames on new pages, but laying stuff out at arbitrary positions, interframe flow etc are all there. No direct WordArt equivalent, but numerous ways of working around that.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...and "bugger off" after a deliberate check not that the software is on a supported platform, but that the software is not on a particular competing platform.
If I was the antitrust enforcers I'd be all over this like ants on a dead elephant. This is exactly the same tactic that they lost to Caldera in court on: MS-DOS vs DR-DOS as the OS and Win 3.1 as the "application" against today's MS-Windows vs WINE-on-Linux/*BSD as the OS and MS-Office as the application, in each case with a check for a specific competitor which nobbles the application.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Think of it as "Service Pack MAXINT".
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Which unless you've got a binary debugger going is never something to be too cocksure about.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Noob question.. Do you purchase a legal copy of Windows and run it with Wine on Linux or does Wine emulate Windows without the need to purchase it? If it emulates.. what right do you think you have to the updates? They are proprietary Microsoft products and Microsoft is free to control the distribution in whatever way they see fit. However, if it runs true Windows, just on Linux, then yes, you'd probably have a case.
README (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
spyware get onto system , adds win reg key
spyware can always get back on using teh same vunerability if it is deleted.
Type unto others as you would have them type unto you.
Awww... if only I had mod points right now...
I prefer the ability to run MS programs under X-Windows. At our network each user has a valid Windows OS license, but for ease of administration we are moving their programs to all run from a single server so we never have to upgrade the workstations - Thin client style...
Microsoft gave IE away Free...
They did it to break the competition from Netscape out of fear of loosing the OS war.
MS cannot legally bundle their applications with their Operating System. IE is a seperate component from their Operating System. Any attempt they make at thwarting their software from running on alternate implementations of the Windows API should be prosecuted to the fullest extent the law permits. Does anybody want to start a class action lawsuit?
-Joseph William Baker
Burlington, Wisconsin
If you use the software you agree, its pretty damned simple. If you dont agree with THEIR terms, you dont have a right to use it. Period. End of story. Any court would back THEM up, not you.
Also you only bought a license to use. Nothing in that box belongs to you.
Nice little dream world you live in.
Explain your fantasies to the judge.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
well, because Moz/FF doesn't really host ActiveX controls, the ActiveX control that Microsoft wants to run, well, doesn't work. So you d/l a stand-alone program. And then, you have it generate your code. And then you enter the code in their webform. And it still doesn't work.
Great stuff, Microsoft.
Geez...
if thier server has updates for XP win2000 win2003 winME and what not...
and the website works with those... even on wine...
WHAT'S THE NEWS??!
nothing!
it works on wine!
I'm sure if you changed that registry setting to:
Imdum
it wouldn't work either.
Bah, Bah, Bah...
(of course I only skimed the article...)
Please use [ informative / summarizing ] SUBJECT LINES
Flame me here
Um, but the program doesn't check to see if it's running on WINE. The automatic updater does. The downloadable updates still work perfectly...
My parent comment was moderated up, and then moderated down as "Flamebait", for being too negative about Microsoft.
Funny thing, though, someone is even more negative than I, a few stories later: Richard Clarke on Microsoft security: "Richard Clarke, former White House cybersecurity and counterterrorism adviser, harshly critized Microsoft's security track record. 'Given their record in the security area, I don't know why anybody would buy from them.'
I just saw an ad as I opened this page that claimed that staying with Windows was much cheaper then switching to Linux. Isent that blatent enough for you?
Geek Code Version 3.0 GSS d? s++
Anyway the 'subway taxer' crews who steamed thru the trains a few years back seem to see the similarity :)
...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
The fifth version of the Win 3.1x series came with NT Server 3.51. It was known as Windows for Workgroups 3.11 with TCP/IP stack. Previously, there were Windows 3.1, W 3.11, WfW 3.1, and WfW 3.11. Hopefully that should clear up some confusion on the 3.1x series.
Oh come now. If it was required for his job, then his job would have given him a PC with a nice shiny copy of Windows on it.
Today's daily non-unique WAdv. hash = 4CXYXH
Just keep a throwaway windows box(they are pretty cheap on ebay)and download WUtool.It keeps the windows updates that you download in an easy to copy folder.Use a cheap cd burner an Bingo!Windows updates.With all the work you're doing to run emu,this really isn't that hard.Just my 2 cents.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
...but it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense for me to want to update an OS which I'm *not running.*...;) It stands to reason that an emulator is distinct and separate from the OS it is emulating--at least, that has always been my direct experience with "emulations."
Keeping that in mind, it seems reasonable to suggest that it is the responsibility of the parties making and selling/distributing OS emulations to keep those emulations current. I wasn't even aware that Windows update was *capable* of updating emulations of itself in the first place, or that MS had made such an announcement *about* Windows update.
Ah-ha, then, it seems here is yet another case of someone trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole and complaining that it won't fit--even though *he thinks* it should...;) Remarkable, really.
Of course, this is probably just someone's idea of how to criticize MS's OS validation through a back door called Wine. OK, when these people start criticizing Intel for distributing "genuine Pentium" check and evaluation software (which Intel has done for about a decade, IIRC) then maybe at least I can consider them Equal Opportunity square-pegs-into-round-wholers, if nothing else...;)
I'm just waiting for the worm to go around that adds the wine key to everyone's registry, and changes Windows' serial number to a generic one.i
SSL Certificate
I go to my boss'es m$ computer, add SOFTWARE\Wine\Wine\Config registry key and will watch how suportphone tries to figure this problem (why update doesn't work) for two days? Ya babe!
I know several people who have a legal copy of Win XP Pro, but chose to install a registration-free company version of XP, because they don't like the hassle, or that they have to call MS when they want to install the software...
... until Lotus won't run.
I don't need no estinkin'
Jeepmeister
Why do Wine users even need Microsoft Windows Updates? I thought the whole point of Wine was to replace Microsoft's code with an open source equivalents. Unless Wine's developers are cheating by taking Window's DLLs and passing them off as their own. In which case I don't see why MS is expected to help Wine.
There IS an alternative to Windows.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
-Aaron-
I can use gaim to connect via the http method to MSN messenger BTW.
On, NO! How will I upgrade my Must have MS app, Solitaire!??!?!?
(;-)
seriously.. WINE must be working well... they're scared.
ps. anonymously lazy is more like it
Seems like Bill Gates have enough of wine. Bad for his health.