Microsoft Blocking Wine Users From Downloads Site 895
IamTheRealMike writes "In January, Microsoft announced a new anti-piracy initiative called
Genuine Advantage. From this summer onwards all users of Microsoft Downloads will be required to validate using either an ActiveX control or a standalone tool. Yesterday Ivan Leo Puoti, a Wine developer, discovered that the validation tool checks directly for Wine and bails out with a generic error when found. This is significant as it's not only the first time Microsoft has actively discriminated against users running their programs via Wine, but it's also the first time they've broken radio silence on the project."
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:5, Informative)
A valid and working code is returned if the version is set to xp.
So it doesn't even really stop you.
Re:bah (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Windows in Linux ? (Score:2, Informative)
Now to answer the idiots who say that just because you are using Wine it automatically means they are pirating...that is bull!!! I could just as easily have a legitimate copy of Windows installed and I want to run it through Linux...I have every right to get the update to the software I purchased.
Micro$oft is just a bunch of pricks.
Maybe MS Should Sell Updates to Wine Users (Score:3, Informative)
Well, of they can. This move by MS won't stop that. They didn't buy perpetual upgrades, though, and MS didn't agree to provide perpetual upgrades at no cost to anyone.
So, what are people bitching about? Maybe they'd be happier if MS offered piad subscriptions to updates to non-MS users?
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:2, Informative)
ACtually last time I looked (some years ago) the license DID say you have to run Office and other apps under Windows (obviously not Mac version). Whether this is enforceable is less clear.
Re:Worse (Score:2, Informative)
Yes it does [winehq.com].
Re:Its Microsofts Right (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Question fron non-windows guy (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Not the first time. (Score:3, Informative)
Garg
Re:bah (Score:4, Informative)
Re:bah (Score:5, Informative)
I'm inclined to agree with this assessment.
Re:bah (Score:5, Informative)
Re:To be fair though... (Score:4, Informative)
They're already doing it (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:1, Informative)
If Microsoft plans to REQUIRE users who purchase Office to ALSO purchase Windows, that would most likely be considered tying, and be illegal.
See the IBM case, which is the landmark for tying--it was illegal to require purchasers of one IBM product (mainframes) to be FORCED (by a "your warranry is void unless...") to use a second IBM product (IBM manufactured punchcards) when third party alternatives were available.
s/Office/mainframe
s/Windows/punchcards
Re:Bad because.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Advantage Microsoft? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry - I don't see what the issue is (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe I'm missing something here, but as I see it:
Microsoft are specifically checking to see if you're running Wine. I'd guess it's not specifically necessary (unless MS decided to unofficialy support Wine users, but that's pretty unlikely), but there's nothing bad going on yet.
If your version of Wine is emulating a Windows version Microsoft doesn't support (or, like Win98, wouldn't support unless paying consumers force them to), it returns an error. That strikes me as sensible and fair - if that version of Windows isn't supported by Windows Update, it should return an error so you don't mistakenly install the wrong versions of software/patches/DLLs. It even helpfully tells you why - "because you're running an unsupported operating system.". Again, nothing bad yet - just some sensible precautions.
"If you set winver to win2000, you'll get a validation code that doesn't work, this may be a bug in wine, or in the validation program."
(My emphasis)
Ok, so emu'ing Win2K generates a bad validation number. But this may be Wine's fault, or a simple bug in the validator. Still nothing definitely bad there...
If you set Wine to emulate XP, everything works fine. Still failing to see the evil here...
Let's be honest, if MS wanted to discriminate against Wine users they could quite easily have the validator reject anyone who had it installed, simply for running their software on an unsupported operating system.
So people are complaining that:
Of course, this entire thing has clearly been whipped up by the asshat developer (Ivan Leo) who baselessly speculates that "even if this is only an initial attempt, they appear to want to discriminate wine users". No, they don't. They refuse to support versions of your software that they won't support of their own, and one of you has a single bug in your software. Pull your head out of your arse and strap down that jerking knee before your hurt somebody. And you might want to take something for that paranoia, too.
Look, I dislike MS as much as the next slashdotter, they have done evil things in the past and they will do them again in the future. I'm not an apologist, and I sincerely hope they eventually get what's coming to them. However, this kind of baseless accusation and knee-jerk reactionary idiocy isn't going to convince anyone that there is a valid, adult, mature alternative out there. For fuck's sake sort it out.
P.S. Good job exacerbating the problem, editors. You know, I used to defend you against the slagging off you get around here, but you honestly seem to be getting worse and worse. Try reading the article, then thinking about it for two seconds before approving. Might do wonders, y'know...
Not the first time (Score:1, Informative)
- DR-Dos was prevented from running Windows 3.x in the same vay (i.e. detection and then an artificial failure).
- OS/2 network clients were prevented from connecting to NT Server networks, since the driver tested the operating system version, and failed artificially if the version was > OS/2 v 2.0.
MS got sued over DRDos land lost! (Score:2, Informative)
I too own an office license that I run under crossover, so this makes me mad. If MS is deliberately breaking office updates from honest people running on other OS's they will lose in court. Go get 'em codeweavers!
Re:bah (Score:2, Informative)
Remember when Windows 3.1 wouldn't run on DRDOS, but on MSDOS? After some digging people found the code that did it. It was encrypted (simply), so during Windows loading it was decrypted, and executed and specifically checked for DRDOS, and if found, wouldn't run. This smakes of exactly the same sort of thing.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe that this may have been one of the many MS behaviors that caused the monopoly suite to be filed. If this is the case, it's like "Will they never learn?"
I don't see any reasonable reason that MS should deny patch download access to any MS software running on Wine, or any other emulator for that matter. The implicite assumption is that the MS software was legally purchased. After all, it's their software quality that's being addressed with the patches.
On the other hand, given the already known security flaws and weaknesses of ActiveX, I'm not all that pleased about requiring an ActiveX control download and installation for demonstrating that I'm legal. No telling what that control is doing. It could be sending all my Quicken data files to MS or something. Well, at least I can run the standalone program.
But geez MS! Get a clue will you?
Re:Pissed? (Score:3, Informative)
When you buy a product, that's all you buy. You're not buying the product plus a lifetime right to patches. The software company provides those patches at its convenience, as a service to its customers. If it wanted to restrict the availability of patches to people whose last names when converted to ASCII sum to an odd number, they're entirely within their rights. You have no right to download any patches they don't want you to.
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:3, Informative)
I am not a lawyer, in fact I don't even live in the United States of Attorneys, but I do believe you are blatantly wrong on both counts. I am fairly certain that most states have some kind of "Good Samaritan" law that requires you to help - I certainly would not want to be the defendant (legal) in this case, nor would I want to shoulder the social (ethical) implications of being the guy who watched someone burn while I stood by with a fire extinguisher.
That being said, Microsoft is not watching people burn - they are simply refusing a convenience (i.e. instant free downloads) to people who may not be paying them any money. I gotta side with MS on this one, although I will miss "webfonts.sh" and I am very curious of the implications for Codeweavers.
And lastly, who modded you "Insightful"? "Interesting", maybe, but not "Insightful".
RTA (Score:2, Informative)
It looks like if you use IE with it's native ActiveX support that there's no problem with any OS version running over wine. From the 1st reply [winehq.com] to the original wine email:
Nothing to see here, move along (Score:2, Informative)
it also isn't the first time . . . (Score:5, Informative)
After winning awards and besting MS-DOS in virtually every comparison, DR-DOS had the rug pulled out from under it when Microsoft released a beta version of Windows 3.0 that detected DR-DOS and gave bogus error messages. [winnetmag.com]
print the article while you can. now that the records from the caldera trial have been destroyed [ksl.com] (along with the copy of the beta they managed to find for the trial, no doubt), microsoft will undoubted resume claiming it's an urban legend, if they have't already, and all mention of this little bit of history is rapidly vanishing from the virtual world as well. pathetic.
the destruction of the caldera trial documents has been mentioned on slashdot once [slashdot.org] or twice [slashdot.org], and i commented on it both [slashdot.org] times [slashdot.org]. pity nobody cared. oh well. history repeats itself again.
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:5, Informative)
No, they don't. Read the EULA and it says NOTHING of the kind.
I quote from the MS Word 2003 EULA found at http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/2/5/1253
"Installation and use. You may:
(a) install and use a copy of the Software on one personal computer or other device; and
(b) install an additional copy of the Software on a second, portable device for the exclusive use of the primary
user of the first copy of the Software."
If you can point out in the EULA where I missed it and there is a statement saying I have to run this software under MS Windows, I'd appreciate it.
Until such time, I have the right to run the software under any OS I want.
-Charles
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:3, Informative)
excpet for those clauses that say "if one part of this agreement is found to be unenforceable, the rest of it shall still be enforceable until a judge says otherwise."
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:3, Informative)
My understanding of U.S. Good Samaritan laws [medi-smart.com] is that they protect those who, without obligation and any statutory protections that go with it, help strangers in need. Thus, a doctor who stops at a car crash and renders medical aid is protected from most liability by a Good Sam law. Again, this is needed because the doctor is not legally obligated to help, and might overlook his moral obligation in the absense of a Good Sam law.
I'm using a doctor as an example because many of the Good Sam laws target doctors, nurses, EMTs, et cetera, and may not apply to the general public. Minnesota's [falcon-heights.mn.us]) Good Sam law does include those who aren't healthcare workers.
Some of the Good Sam laws (e.g., Minnesota's [falcon-heights.mn.us]) create a legal obligation to render aid, in return for the partial immunity from liability. This further emphasizes that there isn't generally a legal obligation to render aid to strangers. There is a moral obligation to do what you can, and someone who beat you up for not rendering aid might be treated leniently by a jury.
Re:Pay close attention Mono users! (Score:2, Informative)
2. Most open source applications based on Mono use GTK#, which is completely independent from anything Microsoft. Worries about the
Re:Not the first time. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Not the first time. (Score:2, Informative)
The upgrade from Windows for Workgroups 3.1 to 3.11 was a big jump, and probably deserved to be called 3.2 or something. This was not a free upgrade, and had to be purchased. The most noticeable change (to me) was that WfWG 3.11 supported native TCP/IP for the first time, though you had to download the stack from Microsoft.
Re:Did anyone RTFP? (Score:3, Informative)
Riddle me this, why does this appear when running strings on the program?
strings GenuineCheck.exe | more
ProductId
SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion
SOFTWARE\Wine\Wine\Config
SOF
Somehow I don't think that they are checking for Wine just to make sure they don't screw up your linux installation.
But please flame me if I'm wrong;)
Consider yourself toast
Enjoy,
Re:bah (Score:2, Informative)
Geez, Washington is just giving away our rights all over the place, just like the east coast and the west coast. What is the world, or the country coming to?
Re:bah (Score:3, Informative)
Wine to Rob last night that we really cannot fix or workaround, and if I
can think of it they certainly can too.
Basically if we start integrating workarounds into Wine, it'll lead to an
arms race we cannot possibly win. Better to ensure our users don't need
anything from that website.
This ActiveX/tool is nothing new.
I run a windows emulation tool, called Cedega [trangaming.com], based on Wine. Cedega includes a lot of NDA covered hacks and proprietary tech to make Microsoft Windows based games work under a stock Linux install. Unfortunately, many programs from Microsoft Games such as Age of Mythology and Halo use nasty tricks to ensure they only run under 100% native Windows installations.
One favorite trick is forcing the MS memory loader to put the game's code in a specific location in memory[1]. Other VM systems often recognise this and refuse, thus blocking the game on non-Windows platforms. While this is but one trick used to lock gamers into M$ platforms, it is one that Wine would have to stoop pretty low to work around[2].
In fact, there is nothing stopping Microsoft from including this or similar code in a critical DLL or core API. If Wine couldn't port/replicate that code due to patent or other protection, Linux users could be stuck emulating old versions of Windows. And that would suck.
----------
1. M$ used to run VM's in special modes to support video games from the DOS era. If they didn't support people's old games a lot of people wouldn't upgrade for anything.
For example, to make the original SimCity run under Windows they check for that application and let it free memory and use that freed memory later. This, of course was a bug in SimCity but, being a closed-source program, Microsoft couldn't fix SimCity and instead had to hack up their VM for Windows 3.1.
2. However, instead of plying the code with hacks and workarounds, it would be nice if Wine supported plug-ins that could be used to adapt the system to certain badly written programs. Then Wine could develop normally and the plug-in writers could race Redmond for the desktop by themselves.
Re:Mixed signals (Score:3, Informative)
Aside: Funny the way even Microsoft-worshipping sysadmins (I'm not saying that's you and I'm not using "worshipping" lightly) often use GNU/Linux to get MSW installed.
What do you need MSW for? I'm sure people can suggest alternatives.