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"
Do you admit to targeting wine users?
Reply:
In all fairness, most alcoholics are Microsoft's customers. We need them.
The Linux/Unix market has already cornered the stoner folks. Just look at the latest release of Solaris.
Oh... That Wine...And you mean 'targeting' much differently. Are we on the air????
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
Microsoft is still not under ANY obligation to update YOUR emulator.
...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.
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.
We share a lot of Win32 code with Wine as we just build the Wine dlls for Windows and make drop in replacements for ReactOS. The Wine WinMM.dll uses the Wine key and as such ReactOS will fail the check as well.
-sedwards
Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
Microsoft releases updates and patches for wine?
Said updates actually work on wine?
If you go to the WineHQ site, they suggest that the downloads will not be needed to run wine in the future, since they will have completed their own versions of things like dcom95.
From the article: "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."
To those who were saying "what about me? I'm only using Office under WINE," you can still get updates.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
...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.
If I was Microsoft, I'd target whining users as well, preferably with a couple of large missles.. oh wait..
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
Why can't I dual boot and run the same apps under Windows and Linux?
Nice try, fanboy. How much did you get paid for that bit of astroturf?
(W)ine (I)s (N)ot an (E)mulator
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.
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 :-).
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.
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...
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
Why shouldn't we be allowed to use Wine with Microsoft products? Doesn't that sound like a monopoly? (Redundant) I like Wine (Offtopic) Microsoft needs to wake up and realize that they have like 80% of the market, and because of that, nothing is compatible with anything else. The most cherished programs anyone uses runs on Microsoft software, no matter what. Wine should be seen as a compliment by Microsoft, and seen that way because it shows that even though M$ shafts everyone with security, people still need and want to use their swiss cheese software.
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.
How is that limitation is related w/ WGA? Isn't it only supposed to check cd key?
more than a repeat?
All your Sybase are belong to us.
IE blurs the line between standalone app and integral part of the OS. IE is an integral part of every Windows since 98. However it's also available as a standalone installer for Windows 95 and NT 4.0 which never came with a web browser and also to upgrade IE on earlier Windows to a newer version. It's been a while since I installed Office on NT 4.0. Office 97 didn't require IE, but it's possible newer versions do.
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.
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 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....
And again a case for the seperation of OS and applications as stated above. I hate Microsoft for the following reasons: Buggy software Unethical business practices Its forcefed in soo many instances Bill Gates is an asshole and yes I have met him and speak from personal experience.
"It is not my intent to offend, but if offense is taken, the fault lies with the audience." attributed to Patrick Henry
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
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.
Microsoft is under no obligation to support updates to applications that are not running under the operating system listed on that magical little section on the side of the box that says "System Requirements."
...until Lotus won't run.
I don't need no estinkin'
Jeepmeister
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...
Get your box of Office. What operating system is listed in the "System Requirements" section?
Okay, then. You can't complain if they don't support running their software on an environment it was not intended to run on! That's almost like complaining that Ford doesn't go out of their way to make sure their engines work if I strap them onto my lawnmower, even though I also happen to own a Ford vehicle. Office is written for Windows. Not Wine.
Maybe they have a mac?
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?
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
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.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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?
You should get -1 for not RTFA.
You can still update MS software if your running WINE. What you can't do is run windows updater to update said software for you automaticly because windows updater is a windows service. And if your running WINE you obivously don't have windows.
Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
...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.
Oh, and Office updates *do* work with WINE.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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.
People install legally purchased microsoft software on top of Wine.
Some corporate environments require that you run MS Office, and wine lets users do that.
Microsoft are using their windows monopoly to stop users of Office on Wine from getting updates.
It isn't a matter of "not supporting", it's a matter of "specifically disabling".
If your Ford engine wasn't built to be strapped into, say, a Chevrolet chassis, that's one thing. But if it specifically checked to see if it was in a Chevrolet chassis and then refused to work in that case, Ford would be doing something wrong.
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
Just because most things M$ does are unethical doesn't mean all things they do are.
and cannot cancel rights granted by the Fair Use doctrine.
WINE is not an "emulator." You'd think Microsoft would understand something that obvious...
You have it completely backwards. Microsoft admits to checking and not running Windows Update on WINE. That's good, because WINE users are not running Windows. They're running WINE instead.
Office update does not check for WINE. Works fine. So Microsoft hasn't done a damn thing wrong. Jeremy White, Mr. WINE, posted here saying that everything is peachy. So... what's your problem?
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
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?
At last! They said it! Now... let's make tell them that Windows suck.
No sig for now.
Ford didn't get out of an anti-trust lawsuit by signing a consent agreement specificly stating they would not ever again tie two products together in a manner which required the customer to purchase the second product as well.
Microsoft did. This was during the time when they forced Windows to be sold with MS-DOS to kill off their compitition. They knew what they were doing was wrong and they signed a consent agreement with the DOJ as part of their settlement.
While the article states that you can download updates for Office off another website, Office is only one of the many products they sell. And it's also about the only one that has it's own update site. Admittedly, using Office was a bad choice for an example. However outside Office, they _are_ blocking anyone from updating.
All by itself, that EULA appears to violate the law
against product tying by a monopoly.
Plus there is the settlement.
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
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.
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.
Hi, think what you realy need and what you get for your money why not switch completly away to a different platform like minimc linux bsd or so. my 2 cent
"As the most popular third-party translation technology in use, Wine was the first emulator to be specifically tested for via WGA"
Last I checked, Wine was not an emulator.
in the registry of my legit native windows system? Gonna do that, try winupupdate and phone Bill asking what the heck is wrong.
RTFA. Office users can still use Officeupdate to update Office.
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.
Please report the facts. Wine is not an emulator.
WINE actually stands for:
Wine
Is
Not an
Emulator
It's am implementation of the win32 library.
Some might not see the difference, but there is a difference.
And they said zombies weren't real!
Wine Is Not an Emulator!
I mod down pyramid schemes in sigs.
Since Wine does not require an installation of windows, MS is under no obligation to provide OS updates or add-ons to wine users.
HOWEVER, I think the are required to provide updates to non-OS applications. Is MS provides an update to Word, they should be obligated to provide that service pack or hotfix to all legally licensed users of Word, regardless of the OS on which they are running Word. I bought a copy of Word, and how, when, and where I run it should not matter one whit.
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.
Long time listener, first time caller If you paid for the product, such as Microsoft Office, then your box cleary states what OS the product will run on. Why should Microsoft provide support for a product if it is not being run on the platform that it was developed for? http://www.microsoft.com/office/editions/prodinfo/ standreq.mspx
I'm all for WINE, I think it's a great tool; however I wouldn't expect to download updates from Microsoft for a product I am running in an environment not supported by the system requirements clearly printed on the box.
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.
No, you're not. Check the EULA for Office. If you don't run it under Windows, you're not licensed to use it.
Huh, where'd you get that from?
I just read the EULA for Office 2003 from here; it didn't say anything about having to run it on Windows.
Personally id be worried if the big gorilla didn't like me. It might decide to sit on me..
Unless I was wanting to be bought out...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
read this...
0
From the first Wine newsletter, very first line:
"This is the first release of Wine's kernel cousin publication. Its main goal is to distribute widely what's going on around Wine (the Un*x Windows emulator)."
http://www.winehq.com/?issue=1#Service%20thread%2
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
and NT 4.0 which never came with a web browser
Not quite. NT4 came with IE2.0 (essentially, the rebadged Spyglass Mosaic). The first thing most people used it for was to download Netscape.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I thought wine could do it's thing all by itself :S
;)
/mnt/crap/windows/system partition? Since it's a legal installation and files are not moved/copied/pirated, it laughs it's ass out of any M$ EULA.
.net, in that case just compile with mono heh
Have ppl been updating wine with windowsupdate? sounds to me like they are also installing antivirus/antispyware software and getting upgrades online and all hehe (maybe even getting viruses and all!?!??!?!)
Why not just make a dual-boot lin/win machine and tell wine to use the original
is this possible? anybody done it? how? heh
p.s. no wonder they came up with
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.
As the previous comment noted.
Please enumerate, in detail, any and all Fair Use rights that prevent Microsoft from doing what they've done.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
You know, one thing I relaly hate about this change is that it makes it more difficult for support staff to download patches, hotfixes, and the like without having a Windows machine to do it. So we have the famous "chicken or the egg" question. I plan on installing an administrative workstation from which to grab these hotfixes and service packs, but I can't legitimately put it on the network until all the hotfixes and service packs are installed! Firewalls help, but have had nasty little problems in the past. For example, in Win2k, the interface is live before the firewalls kick in to protect them. It could be anywhere from 5 seconds to a minute before you're legitimately protected. This is proportedly not true with WinXPsp2, but I'm not taking any chances. Keep the NIC unplugged until you reboot... I REALLY hate microsoft.
assert(expired(knowledge));
interesting that the concept of "supportability" hasn't seem to come into play for anybody here.
ignoring windows - microsoft, as a software developer has a responsibility to provide adequate support for the applications they sell. as a result, those said applications are written for specific platforms, which in most all cases is Windows (i think the frontpage extensions are still put out for *nix.) Anybody who has ever had the misfortune to be in product support will identify very quickly that it is impossible to legitmately support a product on a platform that an app isn't written for.
there's a reason newer versions of office don't work on windows 3.1, 95, whatever - is it because it's not technically possible? not necessarily - but since they weren't written for, weren't tested on, weren't marketed to those other operating systems, there's absolutely no way to determine if a given problem is legitimately with the application or something with the underlying operating system.
especially with apps that share dll's such as ms' does -- remember dll hell? i sure do.. i used to be in pss for the evil empire and know first hand what a pain in the ass it is to try and support applications that can be affected by another app dropping a similar dll (but oh yet not quite the same) in the wrong spot at the wrong time -- this is no different. for obvious reasons, WINE was never tested for compatibility by the software company and subsequently cannot be officially supported by them, now can it..
(and before anyone accuses me of just being a fanboi, i run suse on my laptop, so i'm an equal opportunity offender)
err.
oh. never mind.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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...
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.
Windows is legally a monopoly. They're not supposed to do this.
Okay, skimming through the posts there are some misunderstandings that should be cleared up. The first misconception has already been well addressed: Microsoft isn't being slammed for not updating WINE. An upgrade to the XP OS could not possible be applied to WINE anyway. They are being slammed for not upgrading things like Office when it is being run under WINE.
The second misunderstanding is has not been challenged yet so I'll do it here. I hate to because it's sort of coming to Microsoft's defense. A LOT of software does not run under WINE. If Microsoft makes a change to Office or some of their other products that do run under WINE, the change could prevent that product from working under WINE any longer. Would you want Microsoft to automatically apply a patch that broke your software?
So there could be a legitimate reason for excluding WINE users. I guess...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
How is a user going to be able to download the update that removes the update check?
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Dvorak, it seems, drunk not a little Wine before he wrote his splendid article. It's really too bad that Microsoft is taking him for granted...
This sig donated to Pater. Long live
My dictionary defines "pointless" as "devoid of meaning" or "devoid of effectiveness". I think what you want to say is that the argument is "pedantic," which means like a "pedant," "one who makes a show of knowledge" or "one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge." It is vital that you understand this distinction in your criticism!
Seriously now, can Ubuntu's installer create a boot floppy? Previous PC I tried Ubuntu on was "GRUB Error #whatever"-ish afterwards with, apparently, a damaged partition table, and my pathetic fixboot/fixmbr attempts (XP recovery console) probably messed it up completely. Yes, it was old and falling apart; I'm not blaming anyone.
Furthermore, that box for MS Office that you bought says explicticly on it that it requires windows, unless of course you bought the Mac version, which you guessed it, requires a Mac.
There is absolutely no legitimate reason I can think of that anyone can require them to support their product in any way, shape, or form on a system that does not meet the specific requirements.
Would you call them and complain because WindowsXP won't run on your 486? No, because the stated hardware requirements are right there on the box. So are the software ones.
And of course, I have a legal copy of MS Office 2000 that I use in Crossover Office. One of the advantages to buying Crossover is that they specifically state full support for certain products(such as MS Office 2000), and they are the ones I can register my complaints with if that software suddenly stops working with their product.
If there are problems with WINE itself, they are the ones you should be registering your complaints with. And as its a free and open-source product, your complaints are only going to go so far.
once you go slack, you never go back
interoperability (n)
The ability of software and hardware on multiple machines from
multiple vendors to communicate.
Wasn't it Bill gates who was recently harping about how 'Linux makes interoperability harder'?
Yes, yes it was.
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
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.
i wish the /. articles would start correcting misconceptions, so the whole discussion doesn't go like this:
1. microsoft shouldn't have to update wine because they didn't write it
2. the article is about updating office on wine, not wine itself
1. microsoft shouldn't have to update wine because they didn't write it
2. the article is about updating office on wine, not wine itself
etc
What makes you think MS is _required_ to give you any updates whatsoever for any of their products?
If I paid for something and it's broken, then I expect the manufacturer to repair it free of charge. If, however, we're talking about additional features then I would agree with you.
What would Lemmy do?
That "Office Update Web site" will no longer exist as a separate entity - that's been the MS strategy for months and months, something the spokesperson certainly would have known about.
OK, so this is illegal product tying, right? Did their internal DOJ compliance office get hit by a bus?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Just in case you hadn't thought of it, it's most likely that virus / spyware authors read Slashdot like the rest of us. Therefore you can now expect that feature to be included in the next generation of viruses headed to desktop near you.
While I'm all for full disclosure to encourage vendors to fix bugs faster, lets not try to publicly disclose potentially innovative future virus features based on the results of our insightful analysis.
The world is tough enough without well meaning, skilled and talented technical individuals doing the virus / spyware author's design work for them.
It's probably futile to expect they wouldn't have thought of it themselves, but we could have hoped so. So please just be aware of what you're saying and moral range of your likely audience.
Its not users who are broken, it's systems not taking account their likely behaviour and fixing it technically.
"Furthermore, that box for MS Office that you bought says explicticly on it that it requires windows, unless of course you bought the Mac version, which you guessed it, requires a Mac."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but under this logic, couldn't they also drop support for Crossover Office? Crossover Office is still run on Linux. According to what you said, MS could make a check for Crossover Office and not let you run updates. Would you be fine with that? No?
What would you do in response? Bitch at Codeweavers? The only difference between running it in WINE and CO is that you paid for CO and CO support. If MS' way of blocking CO was completely sound, you'd be screwed out of running Office in the OS that, according to you, it doesn't have to run in, regardless of how it is run.
I suppose this would probably annoy you, as it wouldn't take any extra effort from getting the working in CO than getting it to working if the person had Windows. Same situation here.
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).
.. my CrossOver installation.
Worked just fine. It seems to think it is Windows 98 being updated.
There are two problems with your theory.
First, Microsoft can inform you of what operating systems it is guaranteed to run on. It cannot legally enforce this, directly or indirectly, without violating anti-trust laws regarding product bundling. It's already been convicted of doing just that, so we'll see what happens next.
Second, if Microsoft actively leverages its customers to cease using Wine in this fashion, they are guilty of "Contract Interference". See "Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage" for more information. Companies selling products based on Wine for the purpose of running Office could likely sue on this basis.
Now, whether anything becomes of this is a whole different story.
-Hope
Now with the WGA you actually have to pay for your ms software and run the software on windows. I wouldn't buy MS-stock at this point if I were me...
A computer is a tool, but I am not. I use Linux
Will they target VMware? Supposedly you need a full official copy of Windows to run office on a VMware emulator?
How could they ever tell?
Codeweaver's crossover office is awesome, if you have to use word, get it!
By definition, Wine Is Not an Emulator
Start releasing useful open source software for Windows that adds that Wine-specific key the Office update stuff is checking for into the registry and refuses to run without it. (obviously people can remove the check, it's open source after all, but that's not the point :-) )
Then watch poor people unable to install Office updates because they're not running a genuine version of Windows even when they are.
By that loose mass-media definition, Windows XP is an emulator too, since it is "a device that is built to work like another". That is, I can run Windows 98 software on it, yet some of the DLLs used are completely different except for the function names.
API compatibility via wrapper does not equal emulator. *True* software emulators do not execute binary code without interpretive translation or recompilation.
I'm going to go emulate a Ford with my Chevy now.
-J
Do you get made fun of a lot in school? You've got a hell of a lot of animosity towards people who are causing you no harm at all.
Hey man, just cause you're not as cool as the Linux guys who smoke pot and cut class doesn't mean that you have to take it out on them. Go back and play with LDA^H^H^H Active Directory and reboot your server a few more times.
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
And what if I happen to own said DLLs (ie, I happen to have bought a PC that came with the obligatory copy of Windows, therefore I have legal copies of everything required. What then?
Heck, at one time I had 27 unused copies of various flavors of Windows because of this nonsense (since discarded). You've bought into the "piracy" spiel hook, line, and sinker.
As for Nintendo, the money is in the ROM, not the system. They should care less if it runs in emulators, especially if that sells more ROMs.
Lastly, Office is never a "sorely missed" application. I wish everyone would send base documents in RTF, or the LCD format supporting the needed features. MS doc(uments) suck, have unneeded features buried within them, and, worse yet, are self-corrupting at times. 99% of folks running Office in emulation would prefer not to run Office at all. It's lazy Windows users with bad applications that force the issue (another major violator: Visio - not even compatible with itself in some cases)
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
That many people, eh? Sounds fat and bloated.
$500 dollars IS too expensive for a marriage to Office.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Actually, I do use Windows. I've been using MS software since the late 80's.. Been using UNIX since then too (and CP/M when it was in vogue back then, along with a dash of PrimeOS and VMS).
As to your allusion that they're saying 'Infringe MS copyright by taking the DLLs from MS Windows', I can only assume you're talking about all the DLLs they refer to that say 'Leave as builtin, as Windows native doesn't really run under WINE'.
A couple (mainly video decompression codecs) they say run better if you have the Windows native DLL, but it'll work with the WINE builtin. I have Windows (2000, fully licenced thank you). What copyright am I infringing by using a DLL from the Win partition on my dual boot workstation? None, I think.
If you think Nintendo should sue anyone that runs a ROM on an emulator, then, methinks you also believe that people who reverse engineered the original PC BIOS should have been sued into oblivion, leaving the PC as an IBM only, expensive, underpowered and underperforming business machine, leaving it dead in the water.
Maybe the Amiga would have picked up the slack to make a decent gaming machine, or perhaps even Apple but I can guarantee the IBM PC would never have been that.
In fact, without that reverse engineer and 'emulation' of the IBM BIOS, Microsoft would never have had their foothold they do now. And a lot of the apps you hold dear would never have been written in the first place, unless they were written for an Apple (or whatever machine took it's place.. Perhaps a Sinclair machine even?).
One of the Great things about the PC is the amount of things written for it (MS and Non-MS). So don't come whining because you hate all things non-microsoft. If you don't want to use something that's not the product of Emulation, go use a Mac. Just don't whine about all the apps you don't have that you had on Windows.
Deal with what you have and don't gripe, or sue your way out of your predicament.
I really can only imagine that you didn't grow up in the tech industry over the last 20 years (which I've been working/studying it for the last 24). I think the bit about the ROM letting them sell Nintendos is a bit of a giveaway about you not understanding the market.
The games are definitely NOT there to let them sell more Nintendo boxes.. The boxes are there to let them sell games. Games are where the real money is. If they run well under an emulator, and they can sell MORE legit copies (which they can, if they make them available), then Nintendo will be making yet MORE money.
Which, for any business, is a good thing.
Emulation letting Office run would be a great thing if MS had an 'Office' company, which the proposed split of years back in the Monopoly proceedings were hinting at. They'd have jumped at the chance of widening their install base.
However, MS, in the monopoly position are leveraging their strength to protect the core Windows OS (by stopping all periphery market software from running on any non-MS platform when it's perfectly capable of doing).
In fact, it's not the first time MS has persued this tactic. In Windows 3.x, they deliberately inserted a check to see if you were running a non-MS DOS. If you were, it threw loads of error messages at you. For most non-tech users, this worried them enough to ditch their non-MS dos (which was actually more efficient in many cases) for the MS version. They were hauled up in the courts over that, and found guilty. After they'd killed the effective competition, as the courts took forever to decide. Just like they steamrollered BeOS by illegal business practices.
No, I don't hate MS for competing in the days gone by with the likes of Lotus and Corel, and winning. What I do hate is what they do now to try and maintain their stranglehold on the industry.
Winning by merit I can take (and Windows does indeed have it's merits, which I can appreciate for what they are), but sheer malicious practice on their part makes me more reluctant to pay them anything in future (they won't get money from me for XP, and I won't use it, due to that crap activation. I change hardware too frequently. If they carry on like that, I'll simply buy Apple later for business apps, and Linux for the emulation of what I can get for Games).
There is a common misconception that you share which is that an object can be identified by a dictionary definition. This is not so, and let me explain why.
To identify an object, it is necessary to determine what it is not, rather than what it is. For example, if I define a car to be "a four wheeled passenger vehicle powered by a combustion engine" one would not be able to distinguish it from a van or a pickup truck or a school bus. In fact, no matter how much additional detail is added to the definition, there is a possibility that two dissimilar things may meet that description and not be the aforementioned object.
Here too with WINE, certainly it is similar to an emulator. It shares many of the same traits as an emulator. What an emulator is not however, is a native implementation of an API. That alone invalidates any possibility of WINE being an emulator.
Faulting the dictionary for not providing enough information to invalidate WINE as an emulator is to fail to understand what the dictionary is providing. It states: if you have an object, and that object is an "emulator", then one or more of the following definitions is true. It makes no other assurances, and thus, if you have an object and it is not an emulator, the dictionary can tell you absolutely nothing about it.
In summary, a dictionary can tell you what something means; it cannot tell you if something you have can be called by a particular name. That is determined largely be consensus which you have accurately pointed out to be muddled. However, the authority for establishing criteria for identifying an object rests with the people who created the criteria in the first place, the experts in the field, so it is their consensus alone that matters. Everyone else is simply incorrect.
Most languages have words in common usage that differ from their correct usage. The common usage does not become more correct as the number of people using it increases. This situation is no different.
-Hope
"It's probably futile to expect they wouldn't have thought of it themselves, but we could have hoped so." Geez... of course they think about it. You really think that black hats are idiots? And without good Slashdot people they will be like child in mist? Please!
What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
This sort of thing happens a lot. Experts define a word in a way that makes sense to them. ("Modem", short for "Modulator-Demodulator": a device for translating from analog to digital and back.) Then non-experts come into possession of a word and use it in a completely contradictory way that makes sense to them. ("DSL Modem": an all digital device used as a DSL endpoint.) The experts protest for a while at the corruption in jargon, but eventually give in. It'll take longer this time, though, because we'll have "Is Not an Emulator" to remind the nit-pickers.
I beleive it's called, implied warranty of merchantabilty..a rranties.html
http://www.wvs.state.wv.us/wvag/faq/consumer/impw
This is US specific, but the UK has a similar one as well.
IANAL
Someone asked me the difference between ignorance and apathy, I told them I don't know and I don't care.
What makes you think MS is _required_ to give you any updates whatsoever for any of their products?...If they aren't required to support Windows 95, how are they required to support the latest MS Office under WINE?...Furthermore, that box for MS Office that you bought says explicticly on it that it requires windows,
Since you seem to have missed the news:
MICROSOFT WINDOWS HAS BEEN LEGALLY DECLARED A MONOPOLY
This means that it is ILLEGAL for them block use of their other products, such as Office, on other platforms. It is an anti-trust violation. All your other handwaving about Win95 and 486s is completely irrelevant.
If there are problems with WINE itself, they are the ones you should be registering your complaints with.
The problem isn't with Wine. The problem is being caused by Microsoft, and since THEY are the ones who are blocking updates to their products for certain customers, THEY are the ones who need to recieve the complaints.
Oh, and Crossover Office IS Wine.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Notice the double negative?
The grandparent was indeed implying that even if it wasn't discussed here, the blackhats would have thought about it, not that they only get their ideas from others.
of course it is an emulator - dont be stupid.
Well what I'm saying is that it's one thing to point out that checking for the registry key for Wine constitutes a security vulnerability and that it needs to fixed/not done and another thing to say that virus authors could / should create the Wine registry keys to block future patches and that this could increase the viability / resistance of a (or any) virus.
One is full disclosure and with the other the virus author has to do his own analysis and think of using the vulnerability in his code.
I know some smart Blackhats that are in the "of course I'd see that, it's in my next rev" camp, but there are beginning Blackhats for whom it would not be so obvious. I want to make it as difficult as I can to come up to speed on doing this, while still fully disclosing.
I suppose it shows a deep conflict in my opinion on full disclosure and this is undoubtedly true. I don't like full disclosure, I just think there isn't anything better out there (maybe responsible delayed full disclosure, but the jury is still out on that one) and we've tried really hiding vulnerabilities and it didn't work.
So now we're stuck with full disclosure's lesser evil. I'd prefer no evil at all, but nobody's come up with a practical way to do that.
Its not users who are broken, it's systems not taking account their likely behaviour and fixing it technically.
Let's be clear about something: You bought MS Office for WINDOWS. You didn't buy MS Office for SOMETHING LIKE WINDOWS. You don't expect MS Office for Mac to run on Windows, why would you expect MS Office for Windows to run on something else? You've been lucky so far, but now your luck has run out. Here's the thing: We do expect it to. This isn't asking them to go out of their way to support something on another operating system. This is asking them to NOT go out of their way to PREVENT something from being run on another operating system.
Tluin natha Linux xxizzuss uriu olt bwael mon'tun.
I note that a lot of people arguing Microsoft's case are neglecting a minor point.
It seems that people are asserting Wine = Pirate. But this isn't the case. In fact, I'd like to make the assertation that people running Wine are probably less likely to be pirates.
Consider this: People who're using Microsoft Office in Linux are usually running it because they need some bit of functionality that OpenOffice doesn't have. These people would, I think, be found more in a business setting, where you have people who (gasp) have the liscense to the product.
Meanwhile, people in a non-business setting who run Linux are, like it or not, more likely to be geeks; and as such, will probably use OpenOffice over MSO on Wine, for reasons ranging from "I like it more" to "It's already there" to "M$O suXXorz, LOL".
On the flip side, guess which people probably run pirated versions of MSO...? Right in one, boys and girls; the people who're running Windows. Percentage-wise, I'd say that the ratio of people running pirated versions of MSO with WINE, compared to the number of people running pirated versions of MSO with Windows, is probably something on the order of 1:200. Conservatively.
Not, of course, that running pirated versions on any operating system is good (), but would it not be a better use of Microsoft's resources to work on a better way of keeping pirates in general away from their software, rather than try to mildly irritate an entire subset of their Office users?
Of course, this is just my opinion. Flame away.
Tluin natha Linux xxizzuss uriu olt bwael mon'tun.
"They sold you the game to run on a Nintendo didn't they?"
That is the problem in a nutshell. The idea that things are sold for a specific use, rather than sold to be put to use as the owner sees fit. This denies the utility attribute of possession. It denies fundamental property rights. This concept is fundamentally wrong and *should* be legislated against...
Actually what right do they have to even take notice of what OS you are running Office under? The "System Requirements" is a suggestion, not part of a contract or EULA. You can't possibly think that if I used my Office CDs to balance a short leg of my coffee table the BSA would find it actionable? The "Systems Requirements" is *not* magic.
Maybe you should learn a little something about how Wine works before you start leveling baseless accusations. Unless, perhaps, you like looking like an idiot?
Yeah, Wine can use DLLs from an existing Windows installation. As long as that copy of Windows is legit, the owner is perfectly free to do that (it's called "First Sale", look it up). If the copy of Windows isn't legit, well, it was pirated already, and that has fuck-all to do with Wine, especially since it's been years since Wine has actually needed to have any part of a real Windows installation available in order to function.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Uh huh, and can you please cite to the ass out of which you pulled this law? I'd like to look it up please. IAAL
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
What i said was that MS is not obligated to support WINE, I didn't say a thing about them intentionally breaking things in their products.
My complaint is still valid: If MS Office does not work in WINE, you need to talk to WINE developers. If this is because MS has something illegal, thats between the WINE devs and MS.
Calling MS for support for MS Office in WINE makes as much sense as calling them for support for Corel WordPerfect in Windows. They didn't sell you WINE, they sold you Office, and you aren't following the manual.
Nobody supports you not following the goddamn instructions. If you are running WINE, you are on your own, and anyone involved in WINE will tell you as much.
once you go slack, you never go back
Oh? Then explain how this is not tying Office to Windows.
As for reading, how about the Sherman Act, followed by the MS anti-trust settlement.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
It is _not_ WINE, it is ... WINE
Uh-huh.
What i said was that MS is not obligated to support WINE, I didn't say a thing about them intentionally breaking things in their products.
Well, that's exactly what they are doing.
MS is under a legal obligation not to tie Office to Windows. If they take action to prevent non-Windows users from updating their copy of Office, they are going against that obligation.
For any other company I would agree with you, but Microsoft, because they have been declared a monopoly, has to play by different rules.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Where is the press release on thier website? How come WHen the assholes announce something they include it on thier own hosting site, but when they screw over something that is providing compatibility in the name of 'anti-piracy' (I knew the US gov would help M$ through all this anti-monopoly stuff) they just nod and wink to zdnet?
Post a full damn page and explanation on your site you fscking whoring bitches.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
No it'd be like Honda saying that they would replace defective sparkplugs in your engine because you put it in a ford car.