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.
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.
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.
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
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...
"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.
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.
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!"
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?
...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
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.
Reminds me of this...
How MS played the incompatibility card against DR-DOS
s/the/their own/
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
If only MS had released a suite for Linux about 2 years ago, they'd be sailing pretty by now.
No they wouldn't. Linux people don't want to pay US$400 to use MS Office.
It's bad because they, under the guise of anti-piracy, (which some may compare to anti-terrorism initiatives) blocked WINE, and made it seem as though it was a pirated product.
To my knowledge WINE is an emulator for windows, so that windows programs may be run without purchasing windows. It is NOT some sort of cracked version of windows. We all know Microsoft hates losing the bling bling, but few linux users are likely to front said bling on top of the cost for the windows program. It comes out to probably 100-2000$ 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.
Bill: "Hey Steve ! What goes with penguin, red wine or white ?"
Sanity is the trademark of a weak mind. -- Mark Harrold
I've got to say that they DON'T have a right. I was a victim of their DR-DOS isn't compatible trick. I was forced to go buy Dos 6.0 and then it ATE MY DATA! I became rather negative towards this convicted monopolist when I found out they had done that on purpose!
Oh - did you notice that last sentence - CONVICTED MONOPOLIST. They have to play by a different set of rules.
If they are selling a package - say "Office" and someone wants to run that on another platform, then MS doesn't really have the right to restrict where it runs. They may imply they do through EULA's, etc. but this would like be easily proved as monopolist behavior - and oh yeah - they've been convicted of that already!
This behavior fits that model EXACTLY!
Have you compiled your kernel today??
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 run Microsoft Office under CodeWeavers' Crossover Office, both of which are licensed (read: I paid for it), so yes, I find the news disturbing.
It also appears to be a very shortsighted move on their part while under a worldwide antitrust microscope.
one better than mcleodeight
Last time I was at the mall's food court, the various food merchants kept all of their napkins behind the counter. I guess napkin loss from non-customers was somehow a huge profit drain.
I bet a car sales lot would not take too kindly if you just walked in, grabbed a donut or two, a cup of coffee, and then walked out, either.
There are a few exceptions, though. A restaurant owner may put up a sign that says the "restrooms are for customers only," but most states have health laws that allow the general public to use most restaurant restrooms without purchase. Anti-virus products should likely have the same proviso.
[
Oh no, if you run linux and WINE there is no possible way you didn't also purchase XP or a computer with XP preloaded! It's unpossible and inplausable as well as imcredible.
Why is this modded Insightful? Pretty much every computer you get these days is going to have the latest copy of Winders. These copies are legal and, technically, purchased. So why can't I, as a person who owns a legitimate copy of XP, use WINE to run windows programs in linux?
For context, click Parent.
Who wants to download something from Microsoft using Wine?
I don't get the point of doing that.
ajf
Realistically, Microsoft isn't going to put themselves out of business, with this stupid trick or any other. They'll be around, and be a damn big company, for a veeery long time.
What I do hope and halfway expect will happen is that they'll find themselves "in trouble" by Wall Street standards -- steadily declining profits turning into steady losses, with a corresponding implosion in stock proce -- and that this will force them to become a good company making a good product at a good price in order to gain their customers' trust and support. It's happened before; if someone had told me 20 years, hell, 10 years, ago that IBM in the 21st c. would be considered one of the good guys, I'd have laughed my ass off.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
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
and a WINE does not run on any legitimate Microsoft operating systems
Yes it does.
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.
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?
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 ----
one better than mcleodeight
... `till WINE won't run.
Good old Microsoft.
Same as it ever was.
If I bought MS Office, and MS is putting out patches for it, I have the right to get those patches. If MS refuses to service me, then they can refund my money.
Why should I have to jump through hoops just because Microsoft says so? I am the customer, dammit.
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've got to say that they DON'T have a right. I was a victim of their DR-DOS isn't compatible trick. I was forced to go buy Dos 6.0 and then it ATE MY DATA! I became rather negative towards this convicted monopolist when I found out they had done that on purpose!
Hell, I was a victim of their DR-DOS trick too. I was even more of a victim since I used to work at WordPerfect, and then Novell after that. But this is a totally different scenario. It's not like their restricting you from running Windows on a competing platform. They're just saying "don't expect to be able to use our bandwidth and download from us without being a customer first".
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
If you can hack around this, more power to you, but MS is under no legal or ethical obligation to support your efforts.
Of course, there's a difference between not supporting your efforts, "accidentally" breaking your efforts, and actively trying to stop your efforts from working. This appears to be a pretty clear case of the third item in that list.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
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.
If that is in the license and is enforceable... then, knowing Microsoft, I believe they would've cracked down on Codeweavers by now. Probably will have to have somebody with a law degree read the EULA just to see what it says about OS.
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
...since I'm running Office on my Mac!
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
"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....
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
They're just saying "don't expect to be able to use our bandwidth and download from us without being a customer first".
No, they are not. Your assessment is wrong.
If I purchase Office, run it under WINE and want to update it, I'm screwed -- yet I am a legit customer of Microsoft.
Considering you can't really update WINE thru WUS, WTF is the point?
-Charles
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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!
When Windows XP was being coded they had a party and TOO MUCH wine.
I was forced to go buy Dos 6.0 and then it ATE MY DATA!
.. and concluded that FORMAT wasn't really a great tool to convert old data to the new standard.
Obviously IANAL...
Seems to me that if such terms are in a license, then you don't really NEED any trial to speak of to get a conviction for antitrust. All you need is Exhibit A, the license that *ties* the two products together.
Of course the product that benefits from the tying (the OS) is itself a monopoly. But given that Office is also effectively a monopoly, though it hasn't been declared so in court, doesn't this qualify as a "monopoly maintenance" device, which is also illegal under antitrust.
I believe Microsoft is justified in not giving support for its products running in an unsupported environment. But to restrict patch availability to a product based on the OS running underneath is kind of like a car parts store requiring your Ford registration before you can buy Ford accessories.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
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?
It's not like their restricting you from running Windows on a competing platform.
What does this have to do with anything, and who said this is what was happening?
I read the article, and unless I missed something, this is NOT the complaint.
I don't use WINE to run Windows(c) OS, I run it to run some (work required) Office apps and some games.
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.
But Microsoft is saying that, because I am using a valid purchased version of their software on an OS other than Windows (by using WINE) they will not allow updates from their servers.
This is the mirror image of their antitrust loss - they were accused of using their market possition (monopoly) in the OS to maintain and grow their market position in other markets, while here they are using their market possition in the other areas to maintain their possition in the OS market.
You say you were a victim of the DR-DOS 'trick', where a competiting product was specifically checked for and then bogus 'error' messages were given, or the applications just didn't work as expected - not because of a problem with DR-DOS, but because the app was PROGRAMMED to work differently when used with DR-DOS. Like is happening here?
You say you worked at WordPerfect. Isn't that the company that worked with Microsoft to be compatable and competitive, then Microsoft changed the APIs and didn't publish them to competitors of their Office (specifically Word(c)) and royally screwed WordPerfect over?
Novell - didn't I hear their networking applications were deliberately 'broken' by Microsoft so that Microsofts' market share of networking would not be threatened? Like here?
They're just saying "don't expect to be able to use our bandwidth and download from us without being a customer first".
No, they are just saying "don't expect to be able to use our bandwidth and download from us without being a Microsoft Windows OS customer first (even if you are a valid Microsoft Office customer)." Very different than what you posted.
Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
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...
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.
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
In which case, software sold without patches and ongoing support should come with a big red sticker on the front saying "not guaranteed to work".
Otherwise the software company would be misleading customers about a very important aspect of their product.
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.
You mean the "I will sell you the soul of my firstborn child" EULA? EULAs don't count unless you accept the whole argeement. If parts of the agreements are legal bullshit, the the rest doesn't apply either.
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."
Enron was a short-lived conglomeration built on financial smoke and mirrors from the beginning, and AT&T made not a few but an unbelievable string of incredibly dumb decisions over the course of decades; I don't see either of those as being true of Microsoft. I will also note that AT&T, as of now, still exists, and is still huge. However, I'll admit the possibility of Microsoft's stock falling to the point where it could realistically be bought out by another giant -- but I rather suspect that if that happened with anyone but IBM, the new company would then call itself "Microsoft," to capitalize on the name.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
"I don't use WINE to run Windows(c) OS, I run it to run some (work required) Office apps and some games."
That part is clear. If you're a paying customer who bought Office they should supply bugfixes and updates regardless of your OS.
What gets unclear is OS updates, and specifically in the case of Wine, Internet Explorer updates (remember IE is a part of the OS). Now take a look at the EULA for the KB834707 update for IE6.0sp1 (Microsoft's caps):
NOTE: IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALIDLY LICENSED COPY OF ANY VERSION OR EDITION OF MICROSOFT WINDOWS 95, WINDOWS 98, WINDOWS NT 4.0 WINDOWS 2000 OPERATING SYSTEM OR ANY MICROSOFT OPERATING SYSTEM THAT IS A SUCCESSOR TO ANY OF THOSE OPERATING SYSTEMS (each an "OS Product"), YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO INSTALL, COPY OR OTHERWISE USE THE OS COMPONENTS AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA.
Good Samaritan laws protect those who choose to assist others. They do not create an affirmative duty to assist others. The true social implication is whether the law should put a duty on those who can help, which would in turn create a liability for those can, but who choose not to, help. Instead, the American system leaves it in the hands of the Samaritan to make the ethical decision whether to assist or not to assist, but the Good Samaritan laws protect them against liability for any innocent mistakes they make.
Anyway, the whole analogy is a bit strained. I'm not sure that anyone who can't update their MS Office is going to catch on fire.
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.
Sean.OutaHere()
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.
It really depends what 'lie' means. In the case of DR DOS, my understanding is that they exploited some difference in how DR DOS and MS DOS implement an arcane and seldom-used system call. If they're pulling something like this with Wine, that's going to be a very tough arms race to keep up with. It's unwinnable too, depending on how far Microsoft wants to push it.
Microsoft has actually been on the losing end of this sort of thing before. Remember the great AOL/MSN Messenger interoperability battle a few years ago? Microsoft wanted to connect to AOL IM, but AOL kept blocking Microsoft. For every block AOL set up, Microsoft would figure out how to circumvent it...until finally AOL implmenented the 'nuclear option'.
Basically, AOL implemented a server-side sniffer that exploited a buffer overflow in their own IM client. MSN messenger was not bug compatible, so it didn't have this buffer overlow. They were faced with an unwelcome choice--either duplicate the same buffer overflow in MSN messenger, or concede defeat. Interoperability...or security?
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;)
"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.
What does "supported platform" have to do with it? Nobody's asking for platform support.
IMO just because one uses software in an "unsupported" manner, does not mean they should be actively denied updates. If the update fails on its own because its being used in an unsupported manner, fine. But to actively sabototage an update just because you don't support the way its being used is simply wrong in my book.
So now we know why Jeff Goldbloom's character used a Mac to save the world in Independence Day. If he used Windows in a life-or-death situation (an unsupported use according to the EULA) he would have been denied the updates to prevent the aliens from infecting his computer the next time around.
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".
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...
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.