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!
(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
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.
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....
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
Wine isn't seen as a compliment because Microsoft is in the business of selling an operating system. They lose money if you run Office under Wine, and not under Windows. Sure, they could probably do a native port of Office for Linux, but then they wouldn't sell that copy of Windows that Office currently 'needs'.
The problem isn't a monopoly by Microsoft. The problem is that there are a HUGE amount of businesses and individuals that are married to Office, and by extension married to Windows.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
RTFA. What you describe is exactly NOT what they're doing. You CAN get updates for Office running under WINE.
Someone complaining about an issue specifically noted in the article NOT to be a problem got +2 insightful?????
An emulator is "a device that is built to work like another" (says the Google dictionary link). So what's WINE then - it's a software program that isn't Windows, but allows you to run programs that require Windows. ...sounds a lot like an emulator to me.
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'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.
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.
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
and cannot cancel rights granted by the Fair Use doctrine.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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
You have a weird view there.. Using DLLs you've not paid for? You just bought office.. That means you've paid for it, fair and square..
Why shouldn't you use them how you like?
Nobody's expecting MS to go to any lengths to do anything to affect running in an unsupported environment.. Which is why you'll never find people using MS Office making support calls about it. It's the WINE team's job to do that, and they're doing that pretty well..
It's nothing like getting Nintendo to do anything to get their ROMs working on a SNES emulator.. In face, more like Nintendo rewriting all their ROMs to specifically NOT work on a particular emulator.
Largely a pointless task.
Now, if MS wasn't a monopoly, they'd be doing what they could to get business in (hey, WINE is just getting them extra revenue, by allowing Linux users to purchase and use Windows programs). Being able to arbitrarily turn away paying customers says something about a business.
As for not getting the big deal about using MS office on *NIX.. You've not worked in an office environment where people are throwing round documents with macros in just to format headings have you? They won't work in anything BUT MS Office.. Thus the need to run it in emulation..
Now, I can understand MS turning around and saying 'Buy what you like of ours, but we're not going to support it on anything other than the environment we sold it for'.. But actually changing their code to specifically look for certain things, and STOP you using stuff if you choose to use it other than where they expect you to?
It's like selling a town car, and specifically make it stop working if it detects mud under the wheels, as they only sold it to you to use on tarmac roads (and then only on the tarmac roads that you pay them a toll for).
What you have stated is not true. While Microsoft has no responsibility to uphold their quality guarantees if the product is used contrary to their expectations, they cannot deny their publicly advertised and generally available services to their own customers without violating consumer protection laws. Furthermore, the stated "system requirements" can recommend specific products, but it cannot mandate them. That would be product bundling, and that is illegal under anti-trust laws. Even if Microsoft does not put "or equivalent" after those operating systems, legally, that is how it is interpreted in a court of law.
If you would like an example, have you ever considered why the car industry cannot prevent you from putting a third-party stereo in your car or have a non-certified mechanic work on your engine, and yet you can still have your engine serviced by the dealership? If they denied you service on any similar basis, they would be breaking the law.
-Hope