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."
I agree, they have a perfect right to do this. It is interesting news, however.
A valid and working code is returned if the version is set to xp.
So it doesn't even really stop you.
- Jax
Yahoo! has been known to block Trillian users too, as well as AOL.
The license for any non-OS product from Microsoft says nothing about having to run it on Windows. They assume you will, but WINE breaks that assumption. They are just pissed off about it... they may actually get themselves in trouble by not allowing people who paid for their products to update them. Just because somebody can run microsoft office on Linux doesn't mean it was pirated.
One reason to run Windows from Linux (using Wine) is that Linux has faster hardware access then WIndows and hence Windows will actually run faster in emulation mode in Wine then it would as the standalone operating system.
Now to answer the idiots who say that just because you are using Wine it automatically means they are pirating...that is bull!!! I could just as easily have a legitimate copy of Windows installed and I want to run it through Linux...I have every right to get the update to the software I purchased.
Micro$oft is just a bunch of pricks.
I've seen a post or two here complaining that they bought MS software and they can run it on any platform they choose.
Well, of they can. This move by MS won't stop that. They didn't buy perpetual upgrades, though, and MS didn't agree to provide perpetual upgrades at no cost to anyone.
So, what are people bitching about? Maybe they'd be happier if MS offered piad subscriptions to updates to non-MS users?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
ACtually last time I looked (some years ago) the license DID say you have to run Office and other apps under Windows (obviously not Mac version). Whether this is enforceable is less clear.
and a WINE does not run on any legitimate Microsoft operating systems
Yes it does.
I agree with your points, but MS are treading on dangerous ground if they actually plan to enforce the EULA clause that prevent you from using MS apps on non-MS operating systems.
Yes, updates to the OS, but for security and bugfixes, as well as some driver updates, updates for some Windows programs like Media Player and occasionally an "add-on pack" of some sort. Office has its own Office Update, though.
And let's not forget Windows for Workgroups 3.11... the only 'feature' added by that extra '1' on the end was it broke OS/2 for Windows.
Garg
Garg
Alumnus, Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters
They made that change so the login was more secure (ssl instead of md5 hashes)
I'm inclined to agree with this assessment.
EveryDNS. Use it. It works.
AC's need not reply
Trillan can still connect, but it cannot use the HTTP protocol to get through firewalls as the M$ version of the client does. In a corporate environment it would force the user to go and download M$ Messenger.
From what I read of the Office '03 licence, I didn't see that sort of clause there.
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...
Er...no. I can purchase Microsoft Office completely independently of purchasing Microsoft Windows, and run it under Wine. This is not illegal, and in no way violates a license.
If Microsoft plans to REQUIRE users who purchase Office to ALSO purchase Windows, that would most likely be considered tying, and be illegal.
See the IBM case, which is the landmark for tying--it was illegal to require purchasers of one IBM product (mainframes) to be FORCED (by a "your warranry is void unless...") to use a second IBM product (IBM manufactured punchcards) when third party alternatives were available.
s/Office/mainframe
s/Windows/punchcards
What planet are you from? These updates are not for wine, they are for MS products. Just because the product in question is running on wine doesn't mean it should not have access to updates.
If you look on the Microsoft Genuine Advantage site, the focus isn't nerds stealing single copies; would you validate your Windows if you were the one that hacked it? It's the chop shops and small sellers that are cheating their customers by loading illegal copies of MS software but still charging the user as if it's legal. A non-techie consumer that got ripped off was the victim of a crime by the business that sold them the computer and misrepresented the installed software.
I was at Novell also and worked in the same department as the guy who was tasked to figure out why Win 3.1 wouldn't load on DR-DOS. They didn't use a very sophisticated method to determine if MS-DOS or DR-DOS was running. The fix was simple. Just lie. Perhaps the WINE folk can do the same.
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
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.
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!
Yup. I agree with you there.
Remember when Windows 3.1 wouldn't run on DRDOS, but on MSDOS? After some digging people found the code that did it. It was encrypted (simply), so during Windows loading it was decrypted, and executed and specifically checked for DRDOS, and if found, wouldn't run. This smakes of exactly the same sort of thing.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe that this may have been one of the many MS behaviors that caused the monopoly suite to be filed. If this is the case, it's like "Will they never learn?"
I don't see any reasonable reason that MS should deny patch download access to any MS software running on Wine, or any other emulator for that matter. The implicite assumption is that the MS software was legally purchased. After all, it's their software quality that's being addressed with the patches.
On the other hand, given the already known security flaws and weaknesses of ActiveX, I'm not all that pleased about requiring an ActiveX control download and installation for demonstrating that I'm legal. No telling what that control is doing. It could be sending all my Quicken data files to MS or something. Well, at least I can run the standalone program.
But geez MS! Get a clue will you?
You have this almost exactly backwards.
When you buy a product, that's all you buy. You're not buying the product plus a lifetime right to patches. The software company provides those patches at its convenience, as a service to its customers. If it wanted to restrict the availability of patches to people whose last names when converted to ASCII sum to an odd number, they're entirely within their rights. You have no right to download any patches they don't want you to.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
If I saw you engulfed in flames, I would be under no legal or ethical obligation to give you the benefit of my fire extinguisher.
I am not a lawyer, in fact I don't even live in the United States of Attorneys, but I do believe you are blatantly wrong on both counts. I am fairly certain that most states have some kind of "Good Samaritan" law that requires you to help - I certainly would not want to be the defendant (legal) in this case, nor would I want to shoulder the social (ethical) implications of being the guy who watched someone burn while I stood by with a fire extinguisher.
That being said, Microsoft is not watching people burn - they are simply refusing a convenience (i.e. instant free downloads) to people who may not be paying them any money. I gotta side with MS on this one, although I will miss "webfonts.sh" and I am very curious of the implications for Codeweavers.
And lastly, who modded you "Insightful"? "Interesting", maybe, but not "Insightful".
Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
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?
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
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.
Microsoft has every right to block someone from updating Office when it's being run from a Non-Microsoft Operating System...
8 ba0-3d24-4f00-aab1-dd9ff4aacfc9/en_client_eula.pdf
No, they don't. Read the EULA and it says NOTHING of the kind.
I quote from the MS Word 2003 EULA found at http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/2/5/1253
"Installation and use. You may:
(a) install and use a copy of the Software on one personal computer or other device; and
(b) install an additional copy of the Software on a second, portable device for the exclusive use of the primary
user of the first copy of the Software."
If you can point out in the EULA where I missed it and there is a statement saying I have to run this software under MS Windows, I'd appreciate it.
Until such time, I have the right to run the software under any OS I want.
-Charles
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
The Office 2003 Standard Edition EULA (Original PDF, View as HTML) doesn't seem to say that.
excpet for those clauses that say "if one part of this agreement is found to be unenforceable, the rest of it shall still be enforceable until a judge says otherwise."
My understanding of U.S. Good Samaritan laws is that they protect those who, without obligation and any statutory protections that go with it, help strangers in need. Thus, a doctor who stops at a car crash and renders medical aid is protected from most liability by a Good Sam law. Again, this is needed because the doctor is not legally obligated to help, and might overlook his moral obligation in the absense of a Good Sam law.
I'm using a doctor as an example because many of the Good Sam laws target doctors, nurses, EMTs, et cetera, and may not apply to the general public. Minnesota's) Good Sam law does include those who aren't healthcare workers.
Some of the Good Sam laws (e.g., Minnesota's) create a legal obligation to render aid, in return for the partial immunity from liability. This further emphasizes that there isn't generally a legal obligation to render aid to strangers. There is a moral obligation to do what you can, and someone who beat you up for not rendering aid might be treated leniently by a jury.
See what I've been reading.
1. Mono doesn't use Wine for it's Windows.Forms implementation anymore. .NET implementation are the only ones that have merit, because the rest is basically a C# compiler and GTK bindings. All the Gnome applications you see that are based on Mono can't be affected by Microsoft.
2. Most open source applications based on Mono use GTK#, which is completely independent from anything Microsoft. Worries about the
They did this to Adobe Type Manager (which competed directly with their Truetype font technology), too.
The upgrade from Windows for Workgroups 3.1 to 3.11 was a big jump, and probably deserved to be called 3.2 or something. This was not a free upgrade, and had to be purchased. The most noticeable change (to me) was that WfWG 3.11 supported native TCP/IP for the first time, though you had to download the stack from Microsoft.
but I have my doubts that they're checking for Wine specifically.
T WARE\Microsoft\Windows Genuine Advantage
:)
Riddle me this, why does this appear when running strings on the program?
strings GenuineCheck.exe | more
ProductId
SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion
SOFTWARE\Wine\Wine\Config
SOF
Somehow I don't think that they are checking for Wine just to make sure they don't screw up your linux installation.
But please flame me if I'm wrong;)
Consider yourself toast
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
Yea, you are right about that. Not only that, the standalone program may very well install some stealth programs of their own, now legalized (http://billg.ms-bs.com/modules.php?name=News&file =article&sid=1225).
Geez, Washington is just giving away our rights all over the place, just like the east coast and the west coast. What is the world, or the country coming to?
I demonstrated a way of checking for
Wine to Rob last night that we really cannot fix or workaround, and if I
can think of it they certainly can too.
Basically if we start integrating workarounds into Wine, it'll lead to an
arms race we cannot possibly win. Better to ensure our users don't need
anything from that website.
This ActiveX/tool is nothing new.
I run a windows emulation tool, called Cedega, based on Wine. Cedega includes a lot of NDA covered hacks and proprietary tech to make Microsoft Windows based games work under a stock Linux install. Unfortunately, many programs from Microsoft Games such as Age of Mythology and Halo use nasty tricks to ensure they only run under 100% native Windows installations.
One favorite trick is forcing the MS memory loader to put the game's code in a specific location in memory[1]. Other VM systems often recognise this and refuse, thus blocking the game on non-Windows platforms. While this is but one trick used to lock gamers into M$ platforms, it is one that Wine would have to stoop pretty low to work around[2].
In fact, there is nothing stopping Microsoft from including this or similar code in a critical DLL or core API. If Wine couldn't port/replicate that code due to patent or other protection, Linux users could be stuck emulating old versions of Windows. And that would suck.
----------
1. M$ used to run VM's in special modes to support video games from the DOS era. If they didn't support people's old games a lot of people wouldn't upgrade for anything.
For example, to make the original SimCity run under Windows they check for that application and let it free memory and use that freed memory later. This, of course was a bug in SimCity but, being a closed-source program, Microsoft couldn't fix SimCity and instead had to hack up their VM for Windows 3.1.
2. However, instead of plying the code with hacks and workarounds, it would be nice if Wine supported plug-ins that could be used to adapt the system to certain badly written programs. Then Wine could develop normally and the plug-in writers could race Redmond for the desktop by themselves.
"You cannot have a General Will unless you have shared experiences. You cannot be fair to people you don't know."
Aside: Funny the way even Microsoft-worshipping sysadmins (I'm not saying that's you and I'm not using "worshipping" lightly) often use GNU/Linux to get MSW installed.
What do you need MSW for? I'm sure people can suggest alternatives.Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]