Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu Linux Validates As Genuine Windows
bobbocanfly writes "Another crack in the Windows Genuine Advantage wall. A user at UbuntuForums.org managed to validate an Ubuntu installation as a genuine copy of Microsoft Windows and get to the download page of Windows Defender, using IE4Linux and Wine. (Here is an OGG video of the process.) Along with the advancement of LiveCD technology, this could spell the end of Microsoft's control over who gets their updates."
and their desire that only their customers have access to their updates.
Next up: "Please enter your credit card number" - Windows Update.
How we know is more important than what we know.
This might put an end to Microsoft using current techniques to control who gets their updates. If you push them hard enough, they will end up making the whole process a lot more intrusive than WGA already is. After all, they don't have to give you free updates at all and, if they care enough about this, they'll start charging you monthly fees for your Windows Update account.
> "This could spell the end of Microsoft's control.."
Please. They'll update the security.
Will there eventually be another way around? Yes. Of course.
Next story please.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
This must be what Microsoft was promising when they talked about interpolation? Look how far they have come! And yet we still love bashing it here in /. .
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
Does this mean that I can validate Ubuntu using my XP CD?
Oh wait...
If Microsoft goes too far with taking control of computers away from consumers (as they did for me with Vista, only been using linux 6 months) they'll just drive more consumers to Linux, which makes me smile.
My Babylon
WGA has become pretty sophisticated this year, as recently has OGA. I strongly suspect that the observed behavior is by design, though Microsoft may now choose to change it.
You kidding me? That's more interesting than anything else. I'd love to see *why* it does that, and *how*.
For one thing, WGA is supposed to check Product key, PC manufacturer, Windows version, PID/SID, BIOS information, BIOS MD5 Checksum, Language setting and version, and Hard drive serial number, among other things.
Since your winver and product key don't technically exist (I believe the former comes up as Win 98), I don't see how WGA gets a false positive in this case (which means it's also going to be an easy bug to track down).
But, theoretically, since xubuntu doesn't need a 'valid' key, it may throw random numbers out (which would be very unlikely to trip the 'pirated' check, but would mean WGA doesn't check if your key is valid.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
You could simply, like,
BUY A LEGITIMATE COPY OF WINDOWS.
I know I did, and more than once.
I've had zero problems with genuine advantage checks, it shows up once or twice a month when I go download something off Microsoft site, its completely transparent to legitimate user.
And what exactly IS the point of validating Ubuntu or whatever as genuine windows anyway???
I'd rather see bulletproof license control for commercial software.
If everyone who ran pirated software used open source instead, our user base would be several times as it is now. And that would encourage hardware vendors to give us better support, which is the main thing we need now.
When did they ever have control? All they've ever done is lock out legitimate users.
With earlier versions of Windows, prior to Windows XP, you can download any and all updates without having to validate your Windows.
"If Microsoft goes too far with taking control of computers away from consumers (as they did for me with Vista, only been using linux 6 months) they'll just drive more consumers to Linux, which makes me smile."
Or Apple. Which makes ME smile even more.
Now Microsoft label Linux users as pirates, when one of the big benefits of free software is not to pirate, or even have to if you're poor.
Or: I am who I am because of whom Microsoft thinks I am?
I'm guessing that WGA is set to return "genuine" if it is unable to retrieve the appropriate information. For example, it might try 5 times to get the product key, but the system always gives it an error since it doesn't actually have a product key. Since they can't get enough information to determine if you are genuine or not, they err on the side of caution and say you are genuine, even though they can't tell.
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
I just did an install of half a dozen boxes with a CD full of goodness. Along with FF and Tbird I included Defender. Works like a charm.
... was designed to find pirated versions of windows. Why would they care if a linux user can download the updates. He's not the target. It's the people and companies with fake copies and either don't know it or don't want to go through the trouble of downloading a version of each patch that the WGA step will get to buy Windows. So it probably worked to specs, and probably works via blacklisting rather than whitelisting (easier to disassemble a whitelist for one).
I know its bad form here to defend anything from M$, or announce that a story doesn't really mean their emminet death, but remember that WGA is just another step like serials designed to increase the geekiness or effort required for someone to pirate a copy.
Just like DRM. I mean, you can always use a professional quality camera to capture the movie, and put each output speaker in an anachoic chamber with its own high quality mike. The point of DRM and WGA is to make it hard enough that it's not worth saving the $10 (for bad movies) - $400 (for Vista Ultimate SuperDeluxe w. CoffeeMaker ) after all the effort.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Is it just me or does anyone else think the linked article was a little low on content...?
www.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net
Microsoft has every right to limit updates to valid licences. I don't understand how this is "good news". Well, apart from the "MS sucks again, ahaha" angle.
We complain that there is a MS tax. We complain that they hardsell licences. I would be very happy is Microsoft really had a way to limit the updates. Hell, even with Linux one *pays* for the updates in some distros, and there is nothing wrong with that. Plus, if piracy beneficts Microsoft - and it does - putting an end to it is all the better. Windows is "cheap" because many people are used to cracking all the software they have installed and then complaining about "there isn't a program in Linux/BSD that does *everything* I need and exactly the way I need".
Could be useful for people like my dad - he uses Linux for the internet stuff (and gimp) but boots in Windows (no internet connection for that) to use Excel etc. He doesn't want to expent the effort to keep Windows secure, but he might still want an update for a driver or something like that.
This article should probably be titled "Wine validates as genuine windows"
This is the old story of the "sheep in wolf's clothing" ...
this could spell the end of Microsoft's control over who gets their updates.
More like, this spells the end of another battle in Microsoft's war to control the world.
More will be coming.
NTITE
-You can cry, but you'll still die. There'll be no tears in the end.
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/08/ 2343248 2005 reference to the same thing.
MS is looking for copies of XP that are nongenuine. Think of it as a negative return check, not a positive return check. The fact that it passed means that MS is fairly certain you're not running a pirated copy of XP (which is correct), NOT that MS is fairly certain you're running a valid version of XP.
The GPL only stipulates that buildable source must be available, and encourages distributors to charge money for the service of making said files available. (Duplicating tapes takes time and effort and tapes cost money. Likewise, high-speed network links cost serious coin.)
I've always known that RH = MS.
What an ignorant dweeb. Have you even read the GPL?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
If a company, such as MS ever did make a "Bulletproof Piracy scheme" it would most certainly mean locking the BIOS down such that not only could you not install a pirated copy of Windows, but you couldn't install Linux or any other OS either because that would be the only way. (TCPA.) Because installing Linux means you are not buying Windows. To them, thats just as bad if not worse than pirating Windows.
So think twice about "Bulletproof Piracy to promote Windows." We want people to choose Linux because they want Linux, not because they are forced too.
Considering that WGA now extends back to Office 2000 (can you believe that?!), all cracks to this Microsoft, buggy, forced upgrade, crapware are welcome!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I've always used Windiz Update as an alternative to Windows Update.
whats even more interesting is this, ubuntu versus some [possibly] major other distributions...
feel free to berate me on not including the distro of your choice, (but add your own findings if you have any...
www.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net
GE isn't suppose to stop pirates, not yet anyway. It's so when Grandmama Miffi gets home and plugs in the new computa-r she got from the guy at the swap meet, she finds out she's been hornswaggled (well, her Grandson does, but you get the idea).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
My desktop at home is Debian GNU/Linux but I deal mostly with Windows at work. If I want to download some things to prepare for the next day, WGA gets in the way of my ability to support Windows systems. Having the ability to download the software without Windows is good for me (meaning I'm not sitting at my office waiting for things to download) and good for the Microsoft users that I support since I'm not downloading patches at their expense.
And what would happen then?
It's already difficult to get Windows users to patch their systems. Which is ONE of the reasons why so many Windows machines are zombies.
Making it more difficult would only mean that FEWER people patched their systems.
Which would NOT look good for Microsoft's "security" process. Showing that 99.99% of the zombies out there are Windows machines
And it would give alternative OS's even more publicity. Use Ubuntu! You get FREE PATCHES.
if you repeat the search replacing mandrake with mandriva and red hat with fedora, you'll see that both stay relatively constant, but indeed, your point is quite striking
% 2C+fedora%2C+debian%2C+gentoo&ctab=0&geo=all&date= all&sort=0
http://www.google.com/trends?q=ubuntu%2C+mandriva
I doubt that, considering how many false positives Microsoft manages to get with WGA.
Actually, him installing it in this case IS news, because it means that his copy of Xubuntu with Wine would pass the validation test that the software tries as well.
Don't they sound proud of themselves. Call me a troll if you want, I really dont care, but isn't it Microsoft's perogative to only supply these updates to their paying customers? Although it's quite clever, this is just the sort of ammunition MS need against Linux. "See your honour, they are illegally circumventing our registration software, they must all be pirates".
This sig intentionally left blank
WTF, I still can't even get my genuine copy of Windows to validate as genuine Windows.
[URL:http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionI d=6681]
I'm Rob M. by the way... I was really suprised that I could validate it (I wanted the MSI installer, and it's protected), but it worked...
NOTE: I have no connection with this article.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Why the hell doesn't he just use Open Office?
What's the deal with Esperanto being #1?
The more you know, the less you understand.
I really hate the whole "Genuine" part of the name. They're using "genuine" to mean "licensed", because as everyone knows, the only difference between the copy of XP my roommate bought from the store and the copy of XP I burned from his legit CD is that his copy is legally licensed and mine's not. They're bit-for-bit identical and there is no way to tell the difference.
I know the intent is to find the nefarious PC sellers who buy one copy of XP and install it on every machine they sell, but I'm still getting the exact same sequence of bits on my hard drive in that case that I would have if the nefarious PC seller had actually bought a license for each computer he sold.
Fundamentally, it's an attempt to conflate information "property" with physical property in the minds of the public -- even though we know that a "non-genuine" copy of Windows is bit-identical and functionally identical to a "genuine" copy, MS wants people to think that a non-genuine copy has something wrong with it. There IS a legitimate concern about illegit copies that have been modified to include spyware/viruses/etc., but it's entirely possible for such a copy to pass as "genuine" since the software that validates "genuine"-ness won't always know about malicious software (especially if said software is specifically designed to hide from WGA...).
I'm not against copyright and licensing (I'm in favor of much shorter copyright durations, and yes, I produce copyrighted material for a living), but I AM against this attempt to abuse the language.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
They
Maybe because OpenOffice still isn't that good/polished? It's an ever-closer approximation of MS Office, but it's not the same thing.
WinXP x64 always passes WGA, no matter what. Vista x64 doesn't, so it's not a bitness thing. I'd imagine, as you seem to conclude, that MS never implemented XP x64 ready versions of WGA, so in case of no result, it errs to the valid. I'd bet the Ubuntu install is falling into something similar.
The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
If someone did that to my Ubuntu PC, I'd boil it in bleach and expose it to some virus killing UV light for a day or two.
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
Maybe they special case Ubuntu. E.g. consider.
...
/ 01/1573160.aspx#1582487
Windows Developer: We tested Ubuntu with IE4Linux and we can catch it. It claims to be Win98 and it doesn't have the undocumented secret handshake to check for validity. And it hides the Bios too. If you look at the CS values Wine uses the same selector but you can't use that. But if you look at CS:Hardcoded_offset then all versions of Windows have some code that is not present in Wine. So we check for that.
Lawyer: Hmm. Could they change Wine so it passes
Windows Developer: Yeah, they could just set up a copy of the code code in Windows so the check is fooled. But that code is protected by copyright and patents.
Lawyer. So we release code that depends on undocumented details, they reverse engineer and fix and we sue them? Excuse me, I need to make a phone call.
Lawyer. Take the code out.
Windows Developer. What? I spent all night writing that! Then we'd authenticate Linux as genuine Windows. Why do we have to provide updates to people that didn't buy the software?
It's actually the same case as the AARD code which the lawyers got the developers to disable in the release build. Probably they could detect Wine and Ubuntu using undocumented details but the problem is that it would be artificial tieing updates to IE and Office to Windows which is illegal. In the AARD case, they disabled it really close to production by changing one byte in the data segment to minimise the risk. So technically it was possible - the code worked in Beta, but someone decided that the legal risk was too great for the release version.
There is some evidence that Microsoft developers are aware of these sorts of legal issues
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2007/02
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Why does it matter that Ubuntu can validate as a Genuine Windows install?
Personally, I dont have any desire to download software from Microsoft.
They have sloppy code and operate under a flawed philosophy, Were in linux
has a multitude of projects that thousands of people are working on. If one
does not like a project they can start there own or download a different one.
http://www.google.com/trends?q=dog%2C+cat&ctab=0&
This is more shocking, dogs and cats living together!! (but dogs still more popular)
How we know is more important than what we know.
If they used the "controversial" non-blockable Chinese serials for Windows, they didn't have much work to do at all.
The fact is; these serials don't need further cracking, just installing with them is enough.
HCQ9D-TVCWX-X9QRG-J4B2Y-GR2TT
There we go; no more hassles..
The same code used in the video also worked for me
Microsoft is not taking control away from users... Users are agreeing to MS terms when they purchase the product, therefore they are *giving* control to MS.
If your concern was control, then you were using the wrong OS from the start. Show me the version of a MS operating system that gave you more control than Vista, or that you were free to modify. If anything, UAC allows you to programatically control your system more so than ever before.
Anyhow, any person that believes the GPL should be respected (as I do) also needs to respect the TOS that MS sets forth.
You might notice, however, if you read the article, that we are both OT right now.
Just thought I would raise a point.
Regards.
If I am reading this correctly Google is showing "trends" in search volume statistics for different Linux distributions. Also what is the search volume number? I would assume a value should be given otherwise the graph only shows what I would hope is the normalised relativity of the searches on different distributions.
Just because people may search for a particular Linux distribution does not actually mean that this indicates something like the total number of installed platforms out there. Now that IMHO would be much more interesting and could give certain Linux distributions some bragging rights.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
You don't have much clue about GPL / Red Hat, do you?
So all the hard work from the guys at http://www.linuxgenuineadvantage.org/ was for nothing?
It's interesting to compare Ubuntu with other Linux distros, but when you compare Ubuntu with Vista here, you see that Ubuntu has remained comparatively level with Freemasonry.
karma: ouch!
Yeah, I always thought Esperanto was more #2...
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
The site where the video is posted is annoying and crappy. Here is a torrent for the video. http://www.mininova.org/get/756266.
Do you actually think that most people who use pirated software would use open source if only "genuine Windows" were available?
Most people I know who pirate Windows aren't anti-Microsoft or even violently cheap. Instead, such "crimes" are usually crimes of opportunity: someone at school or the office offers to let them borrow their Windows disk, or hands out cracked CDs because it amuses them. It's obviously cheaper, so of course they'll use the illegal disk. But if such a thing weren't available, most people will bite the bullet and pay for Windows because it's what they're comfortable with.
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." -Richard Feynman
It's decelerating for all operating systems except possibly Vista, and that'll fade very quickly when the novelty wears off.C +osx%2C+xp%2C+vista&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0
http://www.google.com/trends?q=solaris%2C+linux%2
There's been nothing interesting happening in the OS field for more than a decade. That's what a monopoly'll achieve for you.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
This has been working for me for over a year. (since Breezy) Now the cat is out of the bag we can expect MS to nip this in the bud. Oh well.
Riiight, so you don't bill your clients for the time it takes you to get the resources you need to do the job? (I'm talking time to login and get it going not the download time)
That's just stupid!
err.. this is rather embarrassing, I wanted to install Linux but I installed genuine windows! fuck.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Um, Patching Ubuntu with Xp patches?
BORG!!!
The time has come...
Apple wants your soul.
Isn't it enough that we have to validate Windows... but now we have to validate Ubuntu through Microsoft too?? What's next? FreeBSD? OS X? Those Microsoft validating bastards have to be stopped!!
The Admin and the Engineer
Autopatcher offers monthly packs of Windows Updates for several versions, and it's free. :)
"In short, AutoPatcher combines the advantage of both Windows Update (presentation and description of updates and automated installation), and the special administrative updates (portability and installation without the need of an Internet connection)."
When has M$ ever done that? I can testify to the fact that this is not the case. If it can't find the key, it will simply start flashing the WGA banner on your screen each time you try to login and there after, requesting you to "call xxx-xxx-xxxx and obtain a genuine key". Who moderated this?
http://www.tatanka.com.br/ has been unreachable from at least my nameserver some time now. Does anyone have a mirror? It's really useful utility and I'm afraid maybe Microsoft shut it down. If someone has a tarball please post a mirror site for it. Perhaps, just the domain expired.
Thanks.
The article doesn't mention the product key. Perhaps a valid product key was entered, and Wine managed to come up with valid hardware data, so MS authenticated it.
I hate to break it to you guys, but this is amusing, yet adds nothing of any meaningful value towards bypassing WGA. WGA has been broken for quite sometime now. You can install commonly available cracks to get your pirated copy to validate as genuine. So what's the big deal? Like I said, this is amusing, but MS has bigger problems in the piracy game.
-- David
"Now Microsoft has even more excuses for making more of a pain in the ass for legitimate users to get updates."
And throw in their "We want to rent you the OS" for, say, $20 a month ... to start, over and above an "administrative fee" of, say, $199.00. And LiveCare for another $5.00 a month.
And make it so much per bogoMIP, so that people running faster machines pay more (like the RIAA cd-burner "math"). Running twin cores? Double the fees. Running 3 gigahertz? Triple.
Got more than 1 gig of RAM? A "random access fee". Dual monitors? An "expanded desktop real estate tax". Don't use Microsoft's search? An "interoperability fee" for Yahoo or Google. Don't use Microsoft keyboard, mouse, or nic? A "driver compatability bridge" rental.
And copy ISPs by capping "unlimited usage" of Windows at, say, 60 hours a month, after which you get "Windows Premium Access" at $5/hour extra.
And a $50 per annum fee for "disk quota" for every 100 gigs of disk space accessable.
More than one account on the machine? A "per-user" license. Burn a lot of DVDs? A "data restricted media transformation (DRMt)" fee. Play games? A "directx 10 lease." The games aren't dirextx10? A "compatibility layer lease".
C'mon Bill, do it! TO TEH MOON!
Heck, you can differentiate yourself even further by CHARGING for an office suite, a compiler, and servers. Oops ... you already do that ...
Well, I guess Linux is finally ready for the desktop - certified by Microsoft no less.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
continuing in that stream.... Looks like Allofmp3 is winning!
Except in the USA.. Check the data below. I'm sure the USA numbers are in regards on fighting RIAA legal action, not finding music.
The truth shall set you free!
There is an enormous difference between your use of a spreadsheet program and a power user's use of Excel. Excel is the killer app for folks in securities, finance, accounting, marketing (at least the pricing side of marketing), etc. OpenOffice doesn't remotely bridge the gap between Excel and everything else.
Let's get drunk and delete production data!
Actually Microsoft has never had control. Pirated copies of Windows have always been able to get any Windows update they push, and for those they don't push you can find all over the net. Autopatcher rolls all the Windows updates up into a package, Windiz updates lets you get them sans validation, as do a ton of other sites. Heck, you can even setup your own WSUS with one valid copy of Windows and update all your pirated copies.
This doesn't change anything, Microsoft won't care. This doesn't break activation, or generate valid ID keys, those are some things Microsoft does care about (even if it can't do anything, both of those exploits are in the wild), but not WGA. As long as WGA keeps honest people honest (a la locks on a door) it is doing its job.
Oh this is just too comical. Makes one wonder why so many follow micro$ucks better still, why so many still put up with them... ~j
www.grrevolution.blogspot.com www.questionsandrandomness.blogspot.com www.USARSD.org
But in the end, nothing can beat porn.
You set the winver with the winecfg utility. Currently, the choices are
*Windows Vista
*Windows 2003
*Windows XP
*Windows 2000
*Windows ME
*Windows 98
*Windows 95
*Windows NT 4.0
*Windows NT 3.5
*Windows 3.1
*Windows 3.0
*Windows 2.0
The setting also affects wine's behavior, so you can run applications that only work with NT 4.0 (for a good reason other than a winver check) on the same machine as applications that require XP or newer.
FWIW, wine now stores much of its configuration data in the registry, so it would be easy to check for it.
This was possible from the beginning, I used it to download WPA2 drivers for a LEGAL(!) copy of Windows XP that didn't validate a few months ago already.
The more you tightend your grip, Steve, the more users will slip through your fingers.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So I'm not suprised that IE4Linux does the same.
Why can't I mod "-1 Idiot"?
It creates a CD (or DVD, if you want) of updates.
What I don't understand is why slashdotters would give a fuck about locking out legit users. Slashdotters themselves are not legit users (the piracy rate among slashdotters wrt Windows must be around 98%[citation needed]), so why do they care about WGA or the like?
...What interoperability is meant to be for Microsoft... has Mark Shuttleworth signed something with Microsoft....?!?! LOL
My Ubuntu installation would feel violated if it was made to be validated as a Microsoft Genuine operating system. Would probably reformat itself in protest.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
It's because of all those patens linux stole!
http://slashdot.su/
here:
http://windowsupdate.62nds.com/
Well, since you and the FOSSie community are playing violins for all the illegal users of Windows, why doesn't the FOSSies community come up with a way to patch the computers of all the criminal users of Windows?
Now while we know that the FOSSies can't even figure out how to fix Lunix, I'm sure that software theft is near and dear enough to their hearts for them be concerned about it.
So what say you, FOSSies? You going to step up to the bat, and help out all your fellow criminals?
Oh, wait, they do withhold updates & call their customers/users thieves... Hm... I'm sure they had their customers in mind when they allowed that feature for WGA to authenticate a foreign OS as Windows...
Sheesh...
M$ is a company with their own interests on their mind. They're not out to get us, just out to get our money. This is a bug. Simple enough.
Oh! And this one time, at band camp...
..last week on my FC6 laptop, I installed IE4Linux (IE5, 5.5 and 6.0) and proceeded to have fun downloading Windows Updates. It seems Ubuntu isn't the only distro that validates as genuine. I did nothing special, just installed IE4Linux and ran updates and it validated and proceeded to find updates my computer required and try and download them. Riotously funny. My coworkers in the office got a good laugh. It's likely that rather than validating as genuine, it just doesn't validate at all.
Now the legitimate customers of Microsoft will probably have to jump through even more hoops.
Why does some assclown running F/OSS software think he's entitled to free updates from Microsoft? I don't have much love for Microsoft in general, but I have to side with them on this. Buy their software, get their updates. Don't buy it, don't get 'em. What's so fucking hard about that? These people would probably get all bent out of shape if someone violated the GPL, but for whatever reason, they don't see any reason to respect anyone else's licensing terms...
The last time I used it was to view a quicktime movie.
Cracking Microsoft products should **never** be an exercise in civil disobedience. Microsoft, while an abusive monopoly, certainly isn't a material requirement in most IT shops. If the PHB thinks so, (like the one I work in) so what. They pay me to test/build their applications in Linux while I'm waiting for 2003 to defrag.
When the PHB can't afford Microsoft's vig, then look who looks good bringing in a low-cost, completely viable alternative? BTW, I have an excellent PHB who's only fault is being married to Microsoft.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
More to the point, why not use Gnumeric, which is now more advised (and more powerful) than Excel.
Users are agreeing to MS terms when they purchase the product, therefore they are *giving* control to MS.
By reading this post, you are agreeing to give me control of your Slashdot account. Thanks in advance.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Not just replacing mandrake with mandriva. Better this way: ubuntu, debian, (mandrake|mandriva), (red hat|fedora), gentoo: http://www.google.com/trends?q=ubuntu%2C+debian%2C +(mandrake%7Cmandriva)%2C+(fedora%7Cred+hat)%2C+ge ntoo%2C&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0
So what you're saying is that in order to get service from MS, you have to prove you're entitled to it, including giving up personal information?
Exactly how is that different from any other service contract?
If my car breaks down, I not only have to produce my recovery club membership card to the mechanic, but before I even get that far, I have to phone the call centre and give them my name, membership number, address, phone number, current location, car registration, and even very private stuff such as whether I'm alone, or whether there's any young children with me. Little of that stuff is actually relevent; all they really need to know is my current location and whether I consider my party to be vulnerable- the mechanic can validate my membership card and confirm our vulnerability when he arrives.
Much the same for my washing machine repair insurance. Or my travel insurance. Or, heck, the milkman delivering me my two 454ml of semi-skimmed every day- I only live half a mile from the bloody dairy, he doesn't need to know my exact address, I can just collect it from the top of the hill!
Thinking about it, software licencing is much more like insurance or rental or a service contract than purchasing. You don't actually purchase the software; you can't sell it or modify it, all you can do is use it and get it fixed when it goes wrong.
If you trust a company to take your money and provide a service, it seems somewhat churlish to not trust them to know your personal details. Actually, it looks rather like shutting the stable door long after the horse has buggered off with your cash.
But then I live in Europe, and we have data privacy laws which protect the individual, rather than the US ones which seem only to protect the company.
(Hell, what do I care, I switched to Ubuntu a couple of months back. I only boot into Windows for GTA:SA and Paint Shop Pro.)
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
MS PR dept aside, I wonder what the true stance on pirated windows is. If a users is already decided against buying a legit copy of winblows, would MS prefer they go with linux, or a fake copy and they at least get to claim market share. If they had to choose between % points of market share, or nothing, would they really decide to go with nothing?
/.'ers owe thier living to supporting M$ products, and cleaning up M$ messes?
Just FYI, there are 4 XP machines in my home, and I own 5 lisences (long story)... I like to stick it to M$ as often as possible, but I do own my OS, I pay the M$ tax. M$ is what pays my bills. How many
Notice that all the posters said that they were trying to download the MSI installer, and they no longer can because the download is now blocked by Microsoft Genuine Advantage. But Microsoft has convinced most of its software developers to use the MSI installer (which requires a pre-loaded portion). In effect, they are illegally blocking Linux and Wine with this strategy (since they are a convicted monopolist), trying to further cement their hold on the PC industry.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Microsoft wants your money, your soul, AND your chair.
Ready to upgrade to Vista? Ok, bend over...
You are reading a sig. Cancel or allow?
> Microsoft is not taking control away from users... Users are agreeing to MS terms when they purchase the product, therefore they are *giving* control to MS.
_ vista_eula_analysis/
> Anyhow, any person that believes the GPL should be respected (as I do) also needs to respect the TOS that MS sets forth.
GPL
Section 0: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does."
Section 3, Item 5: "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works."
Contrast with the Vista EULA which requires acceptance merely to run the program and this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/29/microsoft
Yeah, it's a bit old, but there are plenty of objectionable things left. See also the TestDriven.net scandals and catch-all clauses forbidding things like "working around technical limitations." It's hard to imagine wanting any software that doesn't do that.
In other words, one can hate that particular EULA without hating all software licenses. One can believe that that EULA is not worthy of respect without thinking that all software licenses (the GPL is NOT a EULA) are bogus.
Also, how exactly does one negotiate the EULA? If they're not taking rights away from me and I'm voluntarily giving them up, exactly how can I negotiate less onerous terms? From what we learned about contract law on Slashdot the other day (IANAL), that seems to be procedurally unconscionable because there's no real opportunity to negotiate. Now, is it substantively unconscionable? I feel like it should be, but I don't know enough about the law to be very sure of that. Ironically, the existence of GPL software that lacks those nasty terms might save it on that point, but it's a legitimate question people would need a lawyer to answer. Oh, and if you're wondering, apparently a license has to be both procedurally and substantively unconscionable for a court to void any part of it on those grounds.
Is there a zombie mechanism in windoze to phone home? I wonder if ms really IS happy that all the daily geographical zombie reports indicate such computers with the above non-blockable key are in use. I mean, to ms, these could be pirated copies running alone, in which case they may assume the user is running *doze and will later buy a legit copy of it, or of other *doze cottage software. OTOH, machines with that non-blockable serial could be part of a Linux environment (or a business on the sly), in which case ms will send the BSA or others after such machinese when/as they pinpoint them....
Not smart, I think, using such numbers.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Let's think about this for a second. I may be way off-base, but I'm thinking back to some discussions where F/OSS folks were describing how, and why, you *could* successfully and morally profit from F/OSS software. The idea is that GPL does not permit you to conceal source code from your customers, and so you cannot sell the product-- to anyone will to build it from source. Now, this is /., so I'm sure there are thousands of people here who would say, "I would happily build M$ Winblows from source-- wait, no I wouldn't-- hold on..."
If Microsoft opened the source code and made all patches available as source code, could they then offer Windows Update as a for-pay service? Would your employer pay for it? I know mine (the US gov't) would.
Interesting this furor over WGA, which seems actually to be moving Microsoft one step closer to Red Hat's business model.
They haven't lost anything until their patents that relate to things like WINE are killed off or openly licensed. Either of those outcomes will only come after a court battle.
Well like everyone else said, I think many businesses seeing Vista are going to like the idea of Linux as an alternative.
Apple support? What?! The apple support that I have seen is:
Give apple your laptop/imac/ipod
you get hardware fixed and the machine completely wiped (or a different ipod if ipod)
If the hard drive went bad I could see the machine being totally wiped but to replace a broken DVD drive? Why is formatting the hard drive needed to replace a broken DVD drive? I have seen this 7 times in the last 2 years. If the machine is fine except for the broken DVD drive, formatting and reinstalling shouldn't be needed.
I can't for the life of me recall why I decided to try this but I was able to validate my Ubuntu 5.10 install as Genuine Windows by downloading the GenuineCheck.exe program that they provide you if you're not using IE or the validation failed. In firefox no less! I wasn't able to reproduce it so I assumed that either they where distributing a broken validator or the server side checking they where doing was horribly wrong at that point. Windows Defender ended up proving useless for me but at least I got a funny screenshot out of it.
echo 'Header append X-HD-DVD "0x09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0"' >>
He was running a genuine copy of Ubuntu Linux, no pirated software on his box...
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Ugh, I know the "mod parent up" bit might seem passé to most dotters, but in this case it's a very good suggestion. If I had points I'd use them.
I believe you are correct. One of the early cracks for WGA was to create a few files and make them read only...
No, I don't bill a specific client time to download something that I would normally need at multiple client sites (like SP2 for Windows Server 2003). Also, on occasion, I'll update my CDs without having a particular client in mind. Anything that I take the time to download on my own time is something that I will use at multiple clients.
Usually I stay out of these kinds of things on Slashdot, because the community is so full of people like you that I despair of ever changing anything. But I'll give it another shot today...
Windows update DOES NOT REQUIRE WGA! Is that clear enough? If not, how about WGA DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY KIND OF REGISTRATION?
At worst, Windows update requires exactly one type of significant information about your computer: what patch version of the OS you have. Since I'm assuming you don't mind Microsoft knowing what Windows patches you have so far; this is hardly personal information.
You might be confusing Windows Update with Microsoft Update, which is a service to update a variety of non-OS MS software. This does require WGA validation at least once. While this involves transmitting more identifiably useful information than, for example, most OSS update programs, it's important to remember that WGA is a response to a problem that OSS doesn't have. Consider the list of info that WGA sends, from the WGA Privacy Info page:
Computer make and model: Useful for maintaining hardware profiles, and possibly for tracking down sources of mass software piracy. If you consider this info private I'm a bit worried about your priorities... you do realize that by visiting this web page you probably told Slashdot what type of browser and OS you use, and quite possibly what version?
Version information for the OS and software you're validating: See above comment about patch version info.
Region and language setting: This almost certainly is used the same way as the make/model info: in aggregate and possibly for help tracking down major operations.
A software-assigned GUID for your computer: Can help detect hardware updates or piracy (in combination with the hardware info) or software reinstalls (identical hardware and software key but different GUID).
Hash of product key and product ID: Needed to identify keys and install discs that are being misused.
BIOS name, revision, and date: Probably the same as the make/model and regional info, although it might be useful to detect hardware updates on the same system or the mass distribution of unlicensed copies, especially when combined with the other hardware info.
Hash of HDD serial number: Used to detect people creating images of a valid copy, then distributing those images (either already on hard disks as in hardware sales, or as installable system images).
Which of these constitute "personal information that I KNOW microsoft doesn't need"?
For those who claim "MS is treating me like a thief..." I trust you all don't shop at stores with scanners at the door that chack for any tags in your purchases that weren't deactivated at the register? Why the fsck do you assume it's so personal? MS isn't treating 'you' like a thief, they're treating you as a member of a general public that has shown an incredible trend towards theft. What makes you so special, from MS's point of view, that you're automatically worthy of trust? (Incidentally, have you ever noticed how the same people who say that WGA means being treated like a thief insist that software piracy is NOT theft?)
How else do you propose the problem be solved anyhow? There's Apple's route (require a trusted platform chip in every system running the OS) but I suspect that would be very unpopular (if for no other reason than because most computers still don't have one). Software piracy IS a problem too; to the parent poster and everybody else who whine about how they don't use their legit versions because of validation, don't bitch to MS, bitch to all the people you know who use unlicensed copies (I doubt anybody on Slashdot doesn't know at least a few, even if they aren't one themselves). Especially, focus on not paying anybody for unlicensed copies; supporting the black market is not a good way to m
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
As somebody who uses Linux (openSuse at present) and Wine, but has been displeased by every single personal experience I've had with Ubuntu, I'm really quite tired of
A) people who assume that Ubuntu == Linux
B) People who assume that Wine == Linux (it runs on other OSs; it's not much more than some libraries plus a user-space program that converts Win32 syscalls to POSIX calls).
Wine is not Linux, and Linux is not Ubuntu (makes me want to start my own distribution, LinU, which would come with a complete build toolchain and a graphical package manager that doesn't suck, among other things). The fact that this validation was performed on a system running the Ubuntu distribution has NOTHING to do with the achievement of the Wine developers and the folks at IEs4Linux. The trick is that they managed to spoof enough of the tests that the WGA program checks for (product key, WGA-assigned system GUID, etc.) to fool WGA. It probably won't work forever, but for now that's a pretty impressive accomplishment (at one point, I believe validation checks explicitly tested for a Wine-specific registry key). Also note that this has very very little with pirated Windows software (which is what WGA is designed to fight) since without replacing a lot of the low-level stuff in Windows with Wine implementations, it won't help. That said, it's possible ReactOS will validate using this code.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
I believe that this makes it very clear: Linux, or at least Xubuntu, is now fully as ready for the desktop as Windows is. Microsoft's software said so, so it is so, or some such thing.
Yeah but Windows 2000 is dead. No longer supported by Microsoft. For example, you can't run IE 7 on Win2k and many of the latest development tools don't work on it.
Don't get me wrong, I still use Windows 2000 in my primary development VM but it's slowly going away as more and more stuff needs something newer like at least XP.
Other than Adobe's development tools (DreamWeaver, etc.), which of the latest dev tools don't work on Win2000? I'm using MSVS 2005 on Win2000 just fine (indeed, if reports are to be believed, better than on Vista, at least until recently). Borland's latest dev tools also run on Win2000. JDK6 runs on Win2000, so NetBeans and other Java-based IDEs & tools should work as well as they do on 32-bit WinXP & Vista.
MS will support Win2000 through 2010, maybe longer if they encounter the same situation as they did with Win98. Sure, not being able to install IE 7 on Win2000 is a real problem if you develop web applications, but would you contend that MS no longer supports WinXP because you can't install DX10 on it?
- T