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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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...
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.