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"

24 of 541 comments (clear)

  1. No obligation... by mythosaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft is still not under ANY obligation to update YOUR emulator.

    1. Re:No obligation... by Doesn't_Comment_Code · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Microsoft is still not under ANY obligation to update YOUR emulator.

      That is true. And if it required additional effort to update the emulators, I would expect them not to. But it appears as if they are are putting forth additional effort to hamper emulators. And that just makes them look like jerks.

      --

      Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
    2. Re:No obligation... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ..unless someone owns a legal copy of Windows of course.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    3. Re:No obligation... by QMO · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True, but it is under (anti-trust) obligation to not exclude a person running an emulator from getting updates to their MS software (like office), even it that obligation hasn't been court tested, yet.

      MS says that someone running an emulator can get the updates somewhere else, but it is still a practical exclusion.

      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
    4. Re:No obligation... by lawpoop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      NO ONE is ASKING Microsoft to update ANY emulator. They are asking Microsoft to UPDATE MICROSOFT SOFTWARE running under wine.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    5. Re:No obligation... by mythosaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The "extra effort" involved is pretty minimal. WINE has a registry value that identifies itself. Other emulators do the same.

      This entire forum would go ape-shit if Microsoft was publishing a patch from Windowsupdate that broke WINE simply because it conveniently "forgot" to read that registry key.

      Windowsupdate has simple checks in it to verify that it's updating actual installs of...wait for it...WINDOWS!

    6. Re:No obligation... by RonnyJ · · Score: 5, Insightful
      And if it required additional effort to update the emulators, I would expect them not to.

      Well, if a Microsoft update accidentally broke a part of WINE's compatibility, some people might accuse Microsoft of deliberately breaking it. Why should they take the chance?

    7. Re:No obligation... by hcob$ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As much as I hate to admit this.... Microsoft is right on this one. They took the time to code software, and make a platform that has hard vendor tie-ins. By disabling free third party support, they are in effect fending off attacks on their intellectual property. Which, unfortunately IP in the US is enforceable through law or just plain old effort.

      --
      Cliff Claven
      K.E.G. Party Chairman
      Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
    8. Re:No obligation... by bersl2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is just something to get us pissed off. We have no recourse nor reason to do this. "The spokesperson said users who are not running Windows XP or Windows 2000 natively can still download updates for Microsoft Office from the Office Update Web site." They are pushing our buttons. To quote a Fark cliche, "It's a trap!"

      How many ways should I say this?

    9. Re:No obligation... by Vectorferret · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However, Windows update costs Microsoft money. WINE customers do not pay them any money. (WINE source is free and open after all, which is a good thing.) Although the usual argument that Windows shouldn't be broken in the first place might come up, some thing's really aren't known at the time a product releases. I think it's fair that they spend their resources (however infinite) only on teir own customers. Plus, I think most WINE users won't have much trouble patching thier WINE without windows update, there not typically the kind of person who isn't tech savvy, plus, vulnerabilities are less severe in WINE, since they (usually) can't compromise the rest of Linux/BSD etc...

    10. Re:No obligation... by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What if someone paid to purchase Microsoft Office, and chose to run it on Linux using Wine? Why should they not have access to convenient updates like the rest of the people who purchased MS Office? There are a number of software packages that run on both Windows and Linux and have easy mechanisms to ensure they are updated. Frisk software's F-Prot virus update comes to mind as one (mind you, you do have to set up a cron job on Linux, but that is pretty easy to set up, even for a newbie). I agree with the rest who think that MS just comes off looking like a bunch of jerks... like a whiney kid who didn't like being scored against during a game: "it's my ball, and I'm taking it home!"

      I know this has been alluded to before, but I thought a direct reply to this post that has been marked insightful was warranted.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  2. Yup by Quasar1999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  3. Wait just a minute! by zoloto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. A true businessman by No.+24601 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    For this reason, White (chief executive of CodeWeavers) said he was excited rather than worried to hear that the WGA validation tool was blocking Wine. "The reason we love this is because this shows that Microsoft is aware of Wine at very high levels," said White. "For us it's exciting -- it is an acknowledgement of us as a threat."

    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.

  5. -1: RTFA by p3d0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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....
  6. Re:Har. by SpacePunk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. Yes, it is... by lxt · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:Yes, it is... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right. And Gnu's Not Unix. Except, it is UNIX in everything but the official license.

      So I take that to mean that Wine is not an emulator of Windows. It's Windows, from someone other than Microsoft.

      In the computer world, most uses of the word 'emulation' are referring to making a piece of software work like and replace a piece of hardware. VMWare works like and replaces an X86 box. A microprocessor emulator works just like a physical chip. Mame simulates a piece of hardware that is found in game systems.

      When we write pieces of software that work just like some other piece of software, we consider that to be an alternative implementation, not an emulation. Linux is not an emulation of UNIX, it's an alternate implementation. Wine is not an emulator of Windows, it's an alternative implementation.

      Emulation isn't about just the implementation, it's about the LEVEL of implementation. Emulation is about making a useful device in software that behaves just like a device in the physical hardware world.

      OK, this is the cue for anyone else to jump in with some counterexamples to prove me wrong...

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  8. Re:Quote by raddan · · Score: 4, Insightful
    OK, how about this-- I bought Microsoft Office 2003. Aren't I entitled to updates for this product, even if I'm running it through WINE?

    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?

  9. Can this be exploited against Windows users? by Noksagt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  10. The EULA is meaningless by Peaker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and cannot cancel rights granted by the Fair Use doctrine.

  11. Not illegal, not even immoral by analog_line · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. No you are wrong. by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  13. Re:Did you purchase MS Office for WINE or WINDOWS? by malkavian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).