Slashdot Mirror
Paul Thurrott's WGA Woes Solved
David Horn writes "Last week Slashdot ran an article regarding the trouble Paul Thurrott had with WGA. It turns out that after talking to Microsoft, he was actually running a pirated version of Windows, legitimately purchased from an online vendor. Paul admits that 'the truth is, I just made a mistake. If we learn something from that mistake, fantastic, but I wasn't trying to set up a life lesson for anyone, let alone myself.'"
Yeah, I'd be _really_ pissed if I found out my Knoppix disc was actually some iso off Bittorrent...
What kind of self-respected techie doesn't realize a pirated windows disk when he sees it? This story doesn't add up.
If some company would sell me invalid copy (pirated) ofo software on purpose I would post EVERY DETAIL on that company that I have.
Just to make others safe from that company. He didn't that leads to conclusion that he is full of shit. Also posting such insult requires me to be real about it since if I wouldn't the resseler would sue my ass.
Now after reading (yes I did read that crap) a bit lenghty article on how MS is great, how they suprised him with their support and kindlyness, how it can happen to anyone, blah, blah, blah. I just see MS marketing bullshit in it and the guy getting kind of rich from just blogging what MS suggest him to blog.
It is too obvious. I am not a language expert but I can even see different style of writing/expressing in discussed post that in his other works.
Time to straighten out all those knees that jerked a while back. Time for everyone that gleefully thrashed Microsoft to eat a little crow and basically admit the system did exactly what it was supposed to do - block an illegal copy of Windows.
It's classic debugging to know that when you try to solve a problem and keep thinking, "But this HAS to work!" you are making an incorrect conclusion somewhere. In this case, trusted person who knows how it is supposed to work has (he incorrectly assumes) a legit copy of Windows, Windows says it's a copy, nobody believes it is a copy. Many jump on anti-Microsoft bandwagon (the knee jerk helps with the jump) and just assume it's evil Microsoft. Did anyone ever post in the thread, "Gee maybe he has an illegal copy?"
This is a great lesson in a new problem we'll all increasingly face. How do I know, when I buy a copy of some content (movie, song, app, OS, whatever) that it's "legitimate"? How do I know it's not bootlegged? For years I've wondered this about music records. How do I know that Italian import 1972 Pink Floyd show is a bootleg, and not just some label I never heard of? How am I supposed to know that the Uruguayan vinyl of Hendrix at the Isle of Wight is just the product of some latenight mixing by Jimi of not enough multitracks and too many contracts?
Microsoft has made a nuisance with its "Certificate of Authenticity", but something that actually works like that seems necessary here. We deride the "broadcast flag", but what about a "copyright hash" that lets us know our transaction was made with the legitimate grantor of even limited copyrights (for our consumption)?
So much DRM is just a hassle or a ripoff that the publishers have poisoned the debate. How do we do what we need to do with DRM, without hanging ourselves from all the extra red tape it creates?
--
make install -not war
If you downloaded it, it probably is pirated.
Send me a low fee of $9.95 and I'll send you an Knoppix Genuine Advantage copy. Afterall, you wouldn't want the BSA* to come after you.
*Bull Shit Artists
"Say, these are awful nice kneecaps. It'd be a shame if, y'know, something were to happen to 'em. And accidents do happen... like accidentally installing pirated versions of Windows."
I don't see any win here for the consumer, it's not like the price of Windows is going to come down as a result of this, the only thing we're going to see is this possibly helping Microsoft's bottom line at the expense of disrupting their users.
Wouldn't it be preferred if MS used another method to find their lost revenue? Instead of relying on end users to go through the confusion (and possible further consequences of WGA). Afterall, how many end users are going to call Microsoft to report that their vendor is selling pirate copies of windows(or even realise this, a basic user won't understand) versus just buying a new code online from MS right away.
So he was buying from a company that he knew was already playing a little loose with the rules.
So, a company willing to bend rules is also willing to break laws? Big surprise.
The real surprise is that he wouldn't check the software. And that he'd forget how he got it. And so on and so forth.
This story is just
Did you even read the update? He was using a virtual machine image. That's what the update was popping up on.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
I bought a Mandrake CD set off of eBay about a year ago. After paying for and receiving it, I got an ebay notice that they had deleted his account and I did not have to pay for the CD set, as it was not legal for him to be distributing it.
*shrug*
MS Rep: That's a real nice website you got there Mr Thurrott.
PT: Thanks.
MS Rep: It would be a shame if it was accidentally got blocked by IE 7 for being unsecure.
PT: Now how the hell would that happen?
MS Rep: You know. Things happen. Websites get added to lists. Thumbs get accidentally broken. It's a funny world.
PT: Come to think of it, I think I'm using a bad serial number.
MS Rep: Atta boy.
It's not stupid. It's advanced.
Firefox? Opera? Was it not compatible with anything but IE 6? Sounds lousy.
1. So which one is smaller then?
2. I find it amazing that Windows 2000 has a faster startup and shutdown time than anything. Am I alone here?
3. "The version of IE 6?" Correct me if I wrong, but I believe my IE 6 on Windows XP/SP2 saves web passwords?!?
He was selling the 'Official' Mandrake CD set, or copies of it, and you have to belong to their little club to get the 'official' CD images.
Similar restrictions apply to direct copies of the 'Official' Release CD of OpenBSD (I've personally bought two releases retail).
And hearkening waaaaay back, I remember in the mid 90's attending a Red Hat Linux event at a reserved hotel meeting room, where I asked the Red Hat marketing woman if I could make copies of my brother-in-laws Red Hat 5.0 retail CD set. She just gave me this uncomfortable look back like it wasn't a sincere question on my part.
With the WGA program, Microsoft says a user who unknowingly purchases a counterfit version of Windows will receive a free copy of Windows XP, if they report the seller.
Details
Perhaps Mr. Thurrott should persue his copy.
640YB ought to be enough for anybody.
. . . confiteor. Best not to have columunists with an audience complaining that WGA is screwing over legitimate purchasers, so after a a little quid pro quo, his copy conveniently became "inadvertently pirated." Hogwash.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
How do I know, when I buy a copy of some content (movie, song, app, OS, whatever) that it's "legitimate"?
You can't. There is no difference between the "legitimate" copy and any other copy and that fact demands a rethink of copyright laws designed to protect dead tree publishing.
Copyright law in the US was formed a devil's bargain from the beginning. The founding fathers understood the purpose of such laws was the promotion of creative arts. They never wanted people to own ideas, which they correctly understood as something other than property. They did not even want people to own their publications forever. The goal was to encourage as much expensive publication as possible so that as many people as possible could be exposed to the country's current thoughts. They liberated their presses in a way the old world refused. The goal was to share. Exclusive franchises were established because that sharing was fiercely expensive.
Today the cost of information is now entirely in it's creation. A worldwide network has been built where it is possible to transfer entire libraries without significant cost. The marginal cost of copies is neglegible. There is no reason anyone should be without any knowledge. Once the knowledge is create, it should spread without bounds. People will continue to solve problems and create knowledge because they must if they want to get things done. Most people want that knowledge spread in their lifetime.
The problem comes not from the creators of knowledge but from those who would own it. Large publishers and others, long used to being gate keepers of information, want to retain that position. Windows is an example. The code was acquired though means both fair and foul. Much of it has been used to suppress rather than express as the death of Word Perfect, OS2, Palm and a host of other superior "competitors." In a few cases, such as Netscape, the code was liberated. In other cases, like Fastback and other backup programs, the code was discarded. Outside the computer industry things can be even worse. For every book you see at the major chain stores, there are hundreds in warehouses and thousands that never saw publication. For every song you hear on the radio, the story is much the same. Music, writing and other arts are part of human nature which preceded and will outlast the growing tyranny of IPA ownership. People are trying very hard to get around these would be owners to share and profit from that sharing. The current owners are not offering any share of those profits and will be routed around eventually. In the mean time, they are encroaching further and further into our basic rights to maintain their position.
Copyright needs a complete rework. Strong protections and exclusive franchises are no longer required to promote the creation and spread of the usefull arts. Strong "IPA" laws are now the largest barrier to the innovation and education they obsessively promote.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Everything else on the planet requires you to register and logon. But MS in it's infinite wisdom decided that making it 'transparent' would be better. And in the real world this translates to making it more error prone, fragile, complicated and generally unsupportable.
HEY MICROSOFT: IF LOGONS ARE GOOD ENOUGH FOR MY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS RELATIONSHIP WITH AMAZON THEN IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOUR $79 OPERATING SYSTEM, YOU FUCKING RETARDS !!!!!!!!
No, all that is happening here is MS creating such a complex system of distribution and prices, with registration codes that are long and difficult, all while trying to personalize a commodity product. Start with the first item. MS fought for regulations that mean that any manufactured PC must, for all intents and purposes, have Windows installed. So, even if a site license exists, you are still paying for windows. Yet even in light of this, MS still insists on selling upgrade and full products, even though the percentage of people who have not bought a previous copy of windows is small. Of course a copy of windows is linked to a machine, which is another senseless complication. Such complications as upgrade versions, home versions, pro versions, etc, simply allows the crooks an opportunity to manipulate the already confused end user.
Which leads to the second issue. MS Windows is now a fully commoditized product. It owes it's success to being part of fully interchangeable system, which allows beneficial cost reductions for all concerned. The problem is, of course, that MS does not want MS Windows to be a commodity, and therefore treats it as a vertical market application. So, I can't take my copy of MS windows and choose to install it on a single given machine. I am told which machine it belongs to. This does not happen with any other component of the system. OTOH, every copy of MS Windows is all but identical, so the machinations necessary to create this leads to a rube goldberg machine.
If MS would just sell MS Windows for $100 and get over all the hubris that somehow MS WIndows is a special thing would go away. If they want to continue the fantasy that somehow MS WIndows is not a cheap commodity, then they should do something like individualized DVDs, each encoded with their own ID.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
"You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
There is an industry of service providers who provide opinions about products (or other services). You as the reader may be aware that the reviewer has a bias, but at least a minimum level of quality is expected. This Double-Barrelled story is *extremely* disturbing, because it involves logic flaws all across the scenario grid.
... is indeed fake. However, the story appears technically flawed. I grant he's not Alpha grade, but I would grant his technical knowledge at least a B to B+. From all kinds of approaches, his second post creaks heavily at best. This makes the Social eval very complex.
My initial opinions:
Microsoft: Huge company, containing some reasonably intelligent technical crews with a history of sloppy execution, hampered by an albatross code legacy, and a completely untrustworthy marketing department.
Paul Thurrott: A moderately skilled technical reviewer, who is financed by Microsoft-directed sources to make the process at least a little more open. Microsoft can usually take "a small amount of heat" such as the post about User Security, because the response "okay, the next build improved this" is still better than a nebulous perception of "what evil is the Redmond Behemoth up to?"
***
Episode 1: Harsh Report on WGA
A. Technics: Could be a Beta, pushed out too fast. Presumably at least "partially" operational. I understood the technical critiques as False Positives, not Silent Negatives.
B: Concern over social impact of False Positives, possibly sloppy code, and Distribution Ethics.
Eval: "Small Heat Microsoft can afford to take" to gain credence for Paul.
Episode 2: "Look, WGA found my copy was a fake!"
A: Technics: The entire point of the post is to rule out the False Positive. I would bet money that *however derived*, the copy tested
B: Social: "This post is all wrong, but *which way?*"
B1: Initial post meant as Small Heat, M$ told him it became Big Heat, and Post2 is a paid attempt to dissipate Big Heat.
B2: Paired post totally engineered by M$ over Paul's objection, with pay. This would be the variant of Straw Man, in which WGA "working" silences more serious concerns by distraction.
B3: If he did "just pick up a quick copy" which was flagged by WGA, he should have been nervous, thus avoiding the first post. If the initial post is straight up, which becomes a phenomenal technical blunder requiring the desperate "better bleed credibility fast and cauterize than let this fester". This would be "Career Ending Blunder barely saved by M$, who unhappily decides they have no one developed to fill his niche as Friendly Reporter".
B4: Some other weird mix of obscure mixed motives. Examples include: Paul takes a Faux Credibility Sacrifice. Casting aspersions on the 2005 edition, in which their lawyers failed to bust the "hardware loophole". Vague doubts about "trusted vendors". Adding to the "Ominous Mystique" of M$.
Whichever version is true, generating Warm Fuzzies for Microsoft is nowhere in sight. I'm still trapped by circumstances to Windows, but I will work to migrate to OSS replacements of office & web apps, and urge&assist others to do the same.
--TaoPhoenix
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
As an MSDN subscriber and software license manager at my company, I actually read the EULAs that govern the use of MSDN licenses for products like the OS, Office, and everything else. It is not legal to use them for commercial purposes.
Leave Paul's little 'oversight' with MCE 2005 aside. He states in his article that he generally uses MSDN for all of his software. Given that he runs a site about MS stuff and is clearly a big user of their software, it stands to reason that he uses Windows servers, XP workstations, SQL, Frontpage for site authoring, Office for email and all sorts of other things. None of this is legal under the terms of the MSDN license.
I don't have the EULA handy, and there are many subscription types, but all that I have seen clearly state that it cannot be used for commercial purposes, or to develop/maintain your own IT systems.
Just thought I'd point this out.
# Erik
That's what I said in a related comment when this story broke out.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
For one site that he can't use IE7 on he's decided the best course of action is to run WinXP in a VM so he can use IE6. Do Firefox and Opera not run on Vista? Or are they also unable to post to WinInfo?
This guy, his favourite OS and the sites he is affiliated with are poster childs for stupidity.
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
It might be the actions of a man receiving a sufficient paycheck from a corporation, eager to demonstrate that their dubiously named "Genuine Advantage" program actually detects and makes the user aware of a "counterfeit" copy of Windows that they might have bought unknowingly, when in fact it's widely perceived to be nothing but obnoxious spyware, of no tangible benefit to the consumer at all.
Just tossing that out there as a possibility. People trade dignity, self-respect and the respect of others for money all the time.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
When you buy a legitimate OEM copy of Windows - from someone like Dabs.com or NewEgg - it comes in a cellophane wrapper with a hologrammed CD inside and a license sticker on the outside. There's also a scantly little booklet in there entitled "Welcome to Windows XP" or somesuch.
I could understand Thurrott not expecting the hologrammed CD if he's never bought a separate copy of Windows before. Windows 98 & 2000 used to come with a screen-printed CD, and I guess many PCs with Windows pre-installed still do; for some reason if you're a small OEM then you get the full pack of hologrammed CD, sticker & leaflet that I describe above, but it seems that if you're a major-volume OEM like Dell or Packard Hell then you're allowed to buy the stickers separately & stamp your own "restore CDs" or (as many big OEMs are now doing) offer to let the user burn their own restore CD. I guess they get a discount for this.
But does Thurrott really expect us to believe that he doesn't know what an OEM sticker looks like? When he purchased this alleged copy of Windows, the license number must have been printed on something! Wouldn't you be a little suspicious in this day and age if you were buying an OEM copy of Windows "just like all the PC manufacturers use" and the license key was hand-written on a scrap of paper? Ok, I'm exaggerating, but everyone knows what an OEM sticker looks like - Thurrott must have bought a laptop with Windows pre-installed; he may build all his own PCs, but he must have worked on a friend's PC, or handled an OEM-built PC in someone's office. All these computers will have a proper OEM licence sticker on them - stuck on the underneath of the laptop, for sure; on many PC towers I see nowadays the sticker is on the top of the PC, right at the front, but they're rarely hard to find. Microsoft deliberately make these stickers distinctive and hand to fake - the one I have here even has hologramming along the edge.
If Thurrott bought this copy of Windows for an article then he would have kept the receipt to claim against tax. And I concur entirely with Kosmosik that if he was burned by a retailer sending him a dodgy copy in this way then he'd be shouting their name to the rooftops! Also, as a tech-savvy computer professional * cough* there's no way he'd throw away the original disk and license number that they sent him - it's obvious that you might need it to reinstall some day, and it's no effort at all to drop the disk in a file or folder with all your other software licenses.
So something here really doesn't add up. He might not be prepared to admit that this is a copy he pirated because he didn't have the MSDN subscription disk handy at the time, but that's the only conclusion I can come to.
Stroller.