Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Admits Targeting Wine Users
Buddha Joe wrote in to mention that the lack of Windows updates for Wine users is the result of a Microsoft's active targeting of Wine users. ZDNet has the story. From the article: "As the most popular third-party translation technology in use, Wine was the first emulator to be specifically tested for via WGA"
Microsoft is still not under ANY obligation to update YOUR emulator.
Did you read the EULA? It doesn't give you the right to use windows update if you aren't using windows.
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
This is just another example of how the DRM mind set values profit over innovation. Expect to see more of this type of thing as the DRM philosophy permeates society and business culture.
"We will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. " Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
First of all, wine is not an emulator as noted on their web page. And of course MS isn't under obligation to update the emulator, only their software. IE- WINDOWS. Their targeting of Wine and other API translators (like Wine) is nothing more than a stunt to anger the users of Windows within a Linux operating system.
If you're going to post rants, make them obvious so we can mod them down. This is nothing more than the obvious BS it is.
The real issue is that microsoft wants to keep its dominance in the office productivity suite market. They have already started losing market share in browsers. The last /. article that i saw was talking about MS taking away the online activation feature in XP. Which may impact XP sales. Now its not supporting office on multiple platforms. Ms supports office on the Mac platform whats the big deal to support on a linux platform. Port the software over to the 4 most popular distros and sell the software and support. This is a battle they are not going to win so they might as well roll with the punches.
My Doom. The gift that keeps on giving
This is a true businessman at work. While everyone else is crying foul, this man is rallying around this news. Anyways, most of the updates coming out of MS might mess up a working Wine installation.
They don't need to prove OS updates to Wine users, but given they aren't blocking OS updates but updates to all of their products, including Office, that really isn't the issue.
If I purchase a license to use Office, and they are telling me that I must use Windows over any other OS to be able to use Office, especially if there are no technical reasons for this restriction, then they are breaking their settlement agreement from way back in the Windows 3.1/DOS days.
I could care less about the OS updates.
The issue is not Microsoft updating WINE. It's Microsoft refusing to update copies of their own software because they are running under WINE rather than their own OS. Remember, these could be legitimately purchased copies of MS applications that MS refuses to update.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Wine isn't seen as a compliment because Microsoft is in the business of selling an operating system. They lose money if you run Office under Wine, and not under Windows. Sure, they could probably do a native port of Office for Linux, but then they wouldn't sell that copy of Windows that Office currently 'needs'.
The problem isn't a monopoly by Microsoft. The problem is that there are a HUGE amount of businesses and individuals that are married to Office, and by extension married to Windows.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
RTFA. What you describe is exactly NOT what they're doing. You CAN get updates for Office running under WINE.
Someone complaining about an issue specifically noted in the article NOT to be a problem got +2 insightful?????
An emulator is "a device that is built to work like another" (says the Google dictionary link). So what's WINE then - it's a software program that isn't Windows, but allows you to run programs that require Windows. ...sounds a lot like an emulator to me.
If I'm not mistaken, interoperability with their products and open documentation of their APIs was one of the specific terms that Microsoft had to accept as a part of their settlement with the DOJ. How can they get around this? As far as I am concerned, sabotaging WINE users' ability to update their Microsoft products amounts to monopolistic abuse.
My guess is that they figure they'll just do whatever they want, loopholes in the settlement aside, since the DOJ has proved that it could really care less if MS was punished anyhow.
Anyone have a link to the settlement terms?
duh, there's Microsoft Office for Mac OS
With statements like these,
... said that Microsoft has until now had "a clear corporate policy to not talk about Wine."
it is no wonder Linux is clearly gaining new users daily.
Microsoft needs to change, or perish.
user@host$ diff
So, they check for a registry key to see whether or not it is on WINE. Do virii/worms/other malicious intruders now have an easier way to prevent software updates in a slightly secretive manner? Can't they just make the same key on a valid copy of Windows?
Your assumption is mistaken. Of course they aren't under any such obligation, but the fact that they're targeting users of WINE is indicative of violating antitrust laws (since they're a convicted illegal monopolist, a bad thing) when it comes to interoperability.
f f=1&q=microsoft+antitrust+ruling+interoperability& btnG=Search/
.NET) without having to use WU service. You can use their DLL's in systems like Linux privately but you can't redistribute. Not only that, but you get no support from them. In the case of binaries/dll's that come only with one of their Windows OS's, it would be a good idea not to pirate. Period.
You can find information here: http://http//www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2co
Oh, and just to rebut before you retort with anything regarding using their "dll" downloads or pirating MS-Windows OS's for use under WINE to make it functional; Microsoft has allowed downloading of libraries or platforms (ala
But a move to block users from an update service simply because of their choice to use an API translator for Win32 software is ludicrous
there is a huge difference between not making any effort to support something and deliberately working to break it.
and cannot cancel rights granted by the Fair Use doctrine.
> As it's already mentioned you don't have the right to use Windows Updater if you don't own Windows.
So what about me? I own a full version of Windows XP. Its not installed anywhere as I use Linux, but I presumably still have rights to download updates.
Furthermore there was nothing in my XP EULA that said I couldn't install XP in a virtual machine, or that I couldn't use only parts of it(say, the system DLLs), or that it has to be the controlling OS.
Spread in just about every interview with Gates. And this is what it look like.
Of course its absulutely within their rights to do that, but its definitly going against "interoperability".
Some network-staff will not be amused "we can't download your servicepacks" - "you need a licensed Microsoft OS" - "We've got 2000 of them, but they're all firewalled off, policy, we can't use those".
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
What Microsoft is basically doing is refusing to offer support for their software running on any system they don't advertise the product working with. This is the same reason that if I call up Apple for support getting my iPod working under Linux, they're going to hang up the phone on me.
Microsoft isn't obliged to allow their automated update tools to function under WINE. They aren't even obliged to allow seperately downloaded updaters to work under WINE. The software you're updating is advertised to run on Windows only and you're not running it on Windows. Microsoft isn't breaking any rules, and whining about it just wastes oxygen
Either work on getting around the block, buy a copy of Windows, or work on switching over to one of the free software suites. Donate some money to the Open Office, KOffice, or AbiWord projects. I'm sure they can use all the cash they get, and it will help them add more and more useless features to the software so the pointy-haired types will be more impressed with them.
Slashdotians use the term "admit" as if Microsoft is guilty of something. They are simply preventing those are are not running Windows according to the agreed-upon EULA from accessing their resources and using their bandwidth. What happened to Microsoft's IP rights?
Why should Microsoft allow WINE users, who either don't possess a valid copy of Windows, or who are breaking Microsoft's EULA, to leech resources (server/bandwidth) from them?
My mind boggles that this is even being debated.
Customers who were looking forward had no choice but to go with Windows 95 as opposed to the dark horse with no marketing. If OS/2 had Win32 support and OEM preloads, it would have been a completely different ballgame. Microsoft was in a position to prevent both of those, and that ended up sealing their strategy to kill off OS/2.
I've heard people scream repeatedly that developers would simply target the Win3.1 API because it was included in OS/2, precluding OS/2 native applications and guaranteeing the failure of OS/2. First of all, I don't see how that guarantees the failure of OS/2 - it's a removal of a barrier to entry for the consumer, and the developers go where the consumer install base goes. Furthermore, if that assertion were true, then developers wouldn't have bothered writing Win32 native applications at all since Win3.1 compatibility was available - why lock out existing Win3.1 and OS/2 users?
The key here is who has a dominating market share and who has a forward path for compatibility with the dominating market share. Microsoft had a dominating market share, and IBM had no forward path for compatibility with it. OS/2 was doomed the moment Win95 was launched.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
No one is asking Microsoft to update Wine. The updates are for software from Microsoft that runs under WINE.
If someone PAYS for Office they should get the UPDATES for Office even if they are running the program under WINE.
This so smells of anti trust it is not funny.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I taught I hhad posted this already but I guess I was wrong.
Anyway..
Would it be possible to sent up a windows box that acts as a relay to WINE users? I am sure it is possible but I am not sure if re-distributing the updates are legal.
I'm not convinced.
There's no expectation that Microsoft will work to put effort into keeping Office Wine compatible. However if it can be shown that they are specifically breaking it then it strikes me as an abuse of their monopoly.
You should still be entitled to updates of any faulty software you've purchsed.
This would be like ford voiding my warranty for putting non-ford sparkplugs in my car.
You have a weird view there.. Using DLLs you've not paid for? You just bought office.. That means you've paid for it, fair and square..
Why shouldn't you use them how you like?
Nobody's expecting MS to go to any lengths to do anything to affect running in an unsupported environment.. Which is why you'll never find people using MS Office making support calls about it. It's the WINE team's job to do that, and they're doing that pretty well..
It's nothing like getting Nintendo to do anything to get their ROMs working on a SNES emulator.. In face, more like Nintendo rewriting all their ROMs to specifically NOT work on a particular emulator.
Largely a pointless task.
Now, if MS wasn't a monopoly, they'd be doing what they could to get business in (hey, WINE is just getting them extra revenue, by allowing Linux users to purchase and use Windows programs). Being able to arbitrarily turn away paying customers says something about a business.
As for not getting the big deal about using MS office on *NIX.. You've not worked in an office environment where people are throwing round documents with macros in just to format headings have you? They won't work in anything BUT MS Office.. Thus the need to run it in emulation..
Now, I can understand MS turning around and saying 'Buy what you like of ours, but we're not going to support it on anything other than the environment we sold it for'.. But actually changing their code to specifically look for certain things, and STOP you using stuff if you choose to use it other than where they expect you to?
It's like selling a town car, and specifically make it stop working if it detects mud under the wheels, as they only sold it to you to use on tarmac roads (and then only on the tarmac roads that you pay them a toll for).
What you have stated is not true. While Microsoft has no responsibility to uphold their quality guarantees if the product is used contrary to their expectations, they cannot deny their publicly advertised and generally available services to their own customers without violating consumer protection laws. Furthermore, the stated "system requirements" can recommend specific products, but it cannot mandate them. That would be product bundling, and that is illegal under anti-trust laws. Even if Microsoft does not put "or equivalent" after those operating systems, legally, that is how it is interpreted in a court of law.
If you would like an example, have you ever considered why the car industry cannot prevent you from putting a third-party stereo in your car or have a non-certified mechanic work on your engine, and yet you can still have your engine serviced by the dealership? If they denied you service on any similar basis, they would be breaking the law.
-Hope