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"
...for the separation of Microsoft's Operating Systems business from the Application business, this would be it.
It's too bad this didn't happen a while back during the trial years.
...to give up on Windows. Wine is just a crutch. There are plenty of great alternatives that not only work well, but don't have some of the huge problems that Windows does such as viruses.
that it will block not just Windows updates, but *all* MS downloads. This includes specs and other miscellany that doesn't even require Windows of any kind to run.
Reject Fear - Embrace Hope
And I'm thrilled to have Microsoft say that Wine is the "the most popular third-party translation technology in use".
The one thing I felt she didn't emphasize enough though was that this is not a problem for Wine - we shouldn't (and mostly don't) need any OS component downloads from Microsoft. In fact, we're just finishing up work to make any need for DCOM or MSI or any other 'common downloads' from Microsoft unnecessary.
It's always nice when the other guy blinks :-).
So what does it do with Windows updates, anyway? I get why, for example, a Windows copy on Virtual PC needs to be updated, but how does WINE make use of them?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Is there any way Wine can change to get around Microsoft checking for it? I'm thinking something similar to changing your user agent settings on Firefox so you can get into "IE only" websites.
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
Microsoft Windows.
If you don't have it, why do you expect Office should run?
Still, this needs to be looked at closely by antitrust regulators..
I am the maverick of Slashdot
The article on ZDNet is REALLY short and there's no excuse for anyone not reading it.
As it's already mentioned you don't have the right to use Windows Updater if you don't own Windows. It's just like you can't use Redhat Network unless you own Redhat. Only Redhat is even more restrictive with their update services than Windows Update, granted their services are more comprehensive.
Some interesting tidbits from the article...
White, CEO at CodeWeavers (acompany that utilizes Wine), 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."
Also, the spokesperson for windows '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.'
So you can still get the updates manually, which is something anyone running Wine over linux probably has the expertise to do.
The only reason we have Windows machines where I work is because of Microsoft Office file compatibility. Wine and consequently Codeweaver's CrossOver Office is a HUGE threat to Windows OS, and it's a good sign that Microsoft is forced to recognize this.
--David
These are exactly the reasons why I have a +5 flamebait on.
Some folks should stop taking life so seriously.
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
I have Office sorta loading atm. Yes it is very unstable but getting better.
Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
Trying to run windows crap in OS2 is one of things that killed it. IBM spent so much time trying to run windows inside OS2, they completely missed supplying good OS2 native apps.
Wine is good for running old windows apps that you have ( I still Office 7 !!!???? and open office of course), but if anyone spends too much time trying to emulate windows (ala os2) then MS will simply screw you over. As soon as one thing works, they will break it.
If you are using a current MS app either 1) run windows 2) find/create a linux based alternative.
People will scream that yadddadda M$ app is just what they need. Trying to build a 'better windows than windows' is a game no one can win (not even IBM).
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
Presumably, they're admitting to it now because they've changed their mind and they don't consider it to be a big threat :-)
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"This check creates a possibile vulnerability for future trojans/viruses to exploit - they could just place this Wine key into the Windows registry, and thus block Windows updates for the user.
...a few old stories:
The mantra in Redmond when Windows 3.1x was being developed was: "Windows ain't done til Lotus won't run."
The Microsoft team who worked with IBM on OS/2 specifically designed certain key features of OS/2 so that they would - in the resulting form - not run under an SMP system. IBM had to invest significant time to correct these design "flaws" (or WAD [W.orking A.s D.esigned], depending on which company you ask) to get OS/2 to run on a 2 and 4 processor system.
There are a few other incidents that come to mind were Microsoft used its power in a manner that was dubious at best, monopolistic at best, yet they continue to skirt the line on the side of legality. Oy vey.
I replaced my XP box with a Mac mini and my 2000 Server install with Linux. Screw MS, it is quite easy to live without them for all but the most locked in of large business customers.
Except if you are an admin using Linux, and have to support other user's Windows boxes for updates. If I wanted to download Windows Updates to put on a CD so I can go to the PCs that aren't connected to a fast connection, etc, shouldn't this be allowed?
And what would happen if a virus/trojan went and added that WINE registry entry? Would updates stop working so users wouldn't be able to install patches? Thanks Microsoft!
"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." -- John Ashcroft
Windowsupdate updates other things besides... wait for it... WINDOWS!
If you had bothered to pay any attention to what was being talked about, you might understand how stupid your posts were. Microsoft is under no obligation to keep your emulators up to date. That is correct. They are, however, under obligation to keep your Office up to date. Whether you are running Office under an emulator or not shouldn't be a factor if you legally paid for Office. You paid for their product and service, so they should keep you updated just like the rest of their legitimate users. This has nothing to do with installs of Windows and updating them... Wine makes it so you don't have to install Windows. This is about not allowing emulators to fully run their other, non-OS software.
They are excluding a specific set of legitimate users who should have the same rights as other legitimate users to lock out a competitor. This has nothing to do with fighting piracy; it is purely about anti-competitive behaviour.
IANAL, but I play one on
Suppose I set this WINE registry key in a valid Win2k install (I actually own a legitimate copy of Windows, hooray for me). Would I thus be barred from these updates even though I have a perfectly legitimate installation of Windows? I don't think the EULA for Windows or Office includes "and thou shalt not set HKLM/SOFTWARE/WINE/CurrentVersion... etc."
So wouldn't they, in this instance, be denying a perfectly legitimate user the software updates that they are supposed to provide? Is there a legal case here?
I've spent the last few weeks working out how to swap as much of my current employers network over to Linux as possible. The Windows CD server has gone, the file servers are looking like they'll follow with Samba/Winbind and a couple of old PCs are being turned over to print serving.
Until now, I had not seriously looked into Wine/VMWare etc (time constraints mainly) as although they are well known to the Linux community, I don't have enough experience with them to talk my IT director into trying it.
The fact that MS are so anti-wine is probably the best indication yet of its effectiveness and given a few more months while Linux settles in it could swing the balance when it comes to replacing NT4.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
As I read in another article, since Microsoft has been ruled criminally guilty of abusing its monopoly to leverage its products in other areas, doing this is a blatant additional violation and the DOJ needs to be focusing on this.
In this case, they are attempting to ensure that their applications run only on MS Windows rather than on any competing OS. This has the effect of attempting to leverage their apps to keep Windows running on peoples computers. This is STILL a problem and should be addressed.
Microsoft, in this case, has clearly displayed what I would consider to be contempt of court and should be handled from that perspective first and foremost. They SHOULD force a breakup of Microsoft into OS and Software companies and be done with it. They were given an chance to straighten up and fly right. They read this as "hey, we got away with it! Let's continue to illegally tie the browser to the OS in our next release of Windows even though it was deemed criminal and let's continue to break competitor's software to keep them from running our apps and software."
Has anyone read where Microsoft has hired anyone formerly employed by the DOJ yet? I'm kinda wondering why the DOJ isn't jumping all over this... unless, of course, they've been bought like several politicians have been... (where's that site? Open Secrets was it?)
Anyway... this needs to be watched.
You know what's even better? That the vulnerability cannot be patched through Windows Update :)
I'd have modded you +10, Interestingly funny.
---- Take the Space Quiz!
Please tell me I'm not imagining things. A few years back, WINE quite simply stood for WINdows Emulator.
I'm sure the "IS NOT [AN]" bit got tacked on later when daft acronyms suddenly got popular.
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
Because they don't legally have the option to run it under Wine. The MS Office for Windows EULA states that it may only be run under Microsoft operating systems.
If that person doesn't like the EULA, they should use something else, like oo.org.
Yes, it's true. This man has no dick.
Once you are at the point of registry access, there are already tons of ways to disable Windows Update anyways; right now it is trivial to remap the Windows Update servers to 127.0.0.1 in the Hosts file. Other techniques include deleting the WU executable, I'm sure that I could go on forever.
uh.. because it's anticompative. They are screwing up their service in such a way to make one use their OS to use completely independant programs. And they are a monopoly, so those aren't cool together
WINE isn't only for running Office.
For most users' purposes, native Linux desktop apps are perfectly good. But some companies have Win32 code developed in-house that they can't afford to convert.
They could switch to OpenOffice, Firefox, Evolution, etc., and still need to run their custom stuff. That's where WINE comes in really handy. Rather than needing to rewrite these apps, they just need to tweak them to make sure they work well under WINE.
I've recently used WINE to deliver one such app to Mac OS/X users via X-windows. These users would have no other way to run that app. This is really cool stuff. I'd prefer to be able to build a native OS/X version uxing winelib, but getting winelib to work for the PowerPC is beyond me. This would be nice, even if I still had to use XDarwin, because remote X-Windows can't see the Mac's local drives (or launch Mac helper apps).
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Contrary to Windows users' "innovative" internet experience there is a difference between downloading and running.
No one is asking Microsoft to support their apps *running* on WINE. That is WINE's problem, and one they seem to be handling rather well.
Microsoft has no business preventing you from *downloading* updates to the applications you legally own. The fact that they are doing this based the OS you are running screams antitrust. It would be like denying you the ability to *purchase* Microsoft products unless you ran Windows.
No one is asking Microsoft to support MS Office under Linux. They just want MS not to specifically check for WINE when updating Office. If it just doesn't work than fine, the WINE team can fix it, but breaking it for no other reason than its WINE is wrong.
As for Open Office, its great for most things but some people still need some advanced featured that are only found in MS Office.... for now
That's an interesting point. MS has been found guilty of abusing monopoly powers by insisting that OEMs don't remove MS products like Media Player. I think the general public find it hard to understand a legal process to stop a company providing 'free stuff' with their product. But here we have a case where a (hopefully - let's assume for the moment) legally purchased piece of software intentionally has features blocked when it's not used on an MS operating system.
When OSs are mutually incompatible it's not unreasonable for MS to choose which OSs to support. No-one can force them to release a Linux version of Office. But now that Linux (on i386) is becoming increasingly compatible with Windows, MS has a problem - how do they prevent Linux users from installing Office and other flagship apps? And can they do this without abusing monopoly powers? I don't think so.
It might be that MS doesn't mind abusing their powers - they pretty much get away with it every time (although the EU is having a pretty good do at stopping them). The difference here is - in a couple of years time, when Walmart are selling cheap Linux boxes that are compatible with 90% of Windows software, if the general public find out the MS is intentionally stopping it working with their computers - I think that could have some real traction.