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."
bah (Score:5, Interesting)
What? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's useless.
Advantage Microsoft? (Score:4, Interesting)
yet another lawsuit waiting (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm guessing that the only real downloads a Wine user would be making are updates for Office, correct? I'm drawing a blank on what else it could be. I haven't had the time to read my MS office EULA yet, but I'm guessing it doesn't specifically call out that it has to be run on Windows. That doesn't mean that MS has to provide you support if you're not. This is an automated incarnation of what has happened for years:
me> I need support
support> You're computer case isn't blue, is it?
me> yes, it is, thanks for asking
support> We don't support our software on computers with blue cases. Thanks for calling.
me> argh!
I think we've all been in that boat at one point or another.
Jerry
http://www.syslog.org/ [syslog.org]
Re:Advantage Microsoft? (Score:3, Interesting)
They are trying to make it look like they are trying to prevent the claimed "100 trillion" lost every year in software piracy.
It's not meant to help thier customers, it's meant to help themselves.
Diggin' the grave (Score:2, Interesting)
s/the/their own/
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:5, Interesting)
I run Microsoft Office under CodeWeavers' Crossover Office, both of which are licensed (read: I paid for it), so yes, I find the news disturbing.
It also appears to be a very shortsighted move on their part while under a worldwide antitrust microscope.
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:3, Interesting)
Last time I was at the mall's food court, the various food merchants kept all of their napkins behind the counter. I guess napkin loss from non-customers was somehow a huge profit drain.
I bet a car sales lot would not take too kindly if you just walked in, grabbed a donut or two, a cup of coffee, and then walked out, either.
There are a few exceptions, though. A restaurant owner may put up a sign that says the "restrooms are for customers only," but most states have health laws that allow the general public to use most restaurant restrooms without purchase. Anti-virus products should likely have the same proviso.
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:2, Interesting)
Why is this modded Insightful? Pretty much every computer you get these days is going to have the latest copy of Winders. These copies are legal and, technically, purchased. So why can't I, as a person who owns a legitimate copy of XP, use WINE to run windows programs in linux?
Re:To be fair though... (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL, but that sounds to me like leveraging a de facto monopoly on Office Suites to maintain their de facto monopoly on desktop operating systems...
It Had to Happen Eventually (Score:5, Interesting)
On the flipside, I wonder if this means that WINE has moved from the part where MS ignored them and will begin laughing at them.
You have to figure that MS bought Connectix for their virtualization technology so that they could actually dump backwards compatibility from the core OS and just use limited virtualization for better backward compatibility. At the same time by dumping all that cruft from the core OS, they can make the OS something more advanced. XP was a pretty big leap from Win2K in that direction (dropping support for CPUs below P II for example). I would have to guess that Longhorn is going to be an even bigger jump which is why it's taking so long.
Re:Dead software walking... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:bah (Score:5, Interesting)
However, they don't. They only fail when Wine is emulating earlier versions of Windows, which might be a problem with Wine's emulation. Barring further evidence, I would look at the Wine check as a means to count Wine users, not to block them.
IE + Wine (Score:3, Interesting)
Installed the ActiveX component, and downloaded just fine.
Tried with the AntiSpyware product of theirs.
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:3, Interesting)
Hell, I was a victim of their DR-DOS trick too. I was even more of a victim since I used to work at WordPerfect, and then Novell after that. But this is a totally different scenario. It's not like their restricting you from running Windows on a competing platform. They're just saying "don't expect to be able to use our bandwidth and download from us without being a customer first".
At best it's an inconvenience for me (Score:5, Interesting)
So just yesterday I'm at Microsoft's site grabbing a copy of Sonar, a file replication monitoring tool, and it wants to immediately verify my copy of Windows. But I'm grabbing the file from my workstation because the machines it will be applied to don't have direct access to the internet. Luckily for now, I can choose to skip the verification step, but eventually I know I won't be able to.
I would imagine that my scenario is far from unique. It certainly isn't deceptive in any way, but I've got the feeling that it won't be an option for me in the near future.
Pay close attention Mono users! (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure, I know that you can do without Genuine Microsoft binaries for much of Mono, but being blocked from having updates sure hurts the compatibility argument to Mono. (ie. updates to the
I know that many Wine libraries are needed for the Forms libaries and this will be a blow for dll updates and changes there.
If Microsoft tries to enforce their patent protections on top of this kind of thing, it will be game-over for the new Gnome development on Mono. Score: Microsoft 1, Linux Desktop -1
Re:Not the first time. (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
It's worse - they block all that's "Not WIndows" (Score:2, Interesting)
For music he had a player from Creative, which now gave error message: "Jet Engine Error: Music Library cannot be opened because the database is corrupt". I looked around and found that he needed to upgrade something called Jet and also to "MDAC 2.8".
The laptop had USB ports and I had a USB memory thingie (actually a camera with USB2 and a CF card). So I plugged it into the only PC we had there with a USB port - a Linux PC, and tried to download. No go. I was blocked because I couldn't verify it was a MS OS. Idiots..
I then tried to download from a Windows XP PC, thinking i could ftp the file over to the Linux machine. Again: No Go. I needed administrator access to install the verifying software that could verify that I was actually on a Windows PC. But I don't have admin on that PC. Onced upon a time we had to decide whether to remove admin access or network access to the Internet - it got too many worms. So it was decided to remove our admin access.
In the end I had to wait till after work and download from my private PC's XP installation, then copy to the CF card, then bring it back to work the next day, transfer the broken laptop and install the files and upgrades there. Turned out it didn't work after all
Anwyays: It could hade taken me 2 minutes to realize I was on the wrong track. It took 18 hours instead. That's absolutly horrible and extremely poor service from Microsoft.
Re:bah (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:3, Interesting)
It really depends what 'lie' means. In the case of DR DOS, my understanding is that they exploited some difference in how DR DOS and MS DOS implement an arcane and seldom-used system call. If they're pulling something like this with Wine, that's going to be a very tough arms race to keep up with. It's unwinnable too, depending on how far Microsoft wants to push it.
Microsoft has actually been on the losing end of this sort of thing before. Remember the great AOL/MSN Messenger interoperability battle a few years ago? Microsoft wanted to connect to AOL IM, but AOL kept blocking Microsoft. For every block AOL set up, Microsoft would figure out how to circumvent it...until finally AOL implmenented the 'nuclear option'.
Basically, AOL implemented a server-side sniffer that exploited a buffer overflow in their own IM client. MSN messenger was not bug compatible, so it didn't have this buffer overlow. They were faced with an unwelcome choice--either duplicate the same buffer overflow in MSN messenger, or concede defeat. Interoperability...or security?
Re:unsupported != deliberately crippled. (Score:2, Interesting)
Short anti-trust story from the past (Score:3, Interesting)
Little did I know at the time that I was probably helping them violate anti-trust laws. But it sure did help put me through college.
The moral is that this type of practice isn't limited to the software business or to the "big boys".
Re:Mixed signals (Score:3, Interesting)
If I need an update that bad, I'll find it somewhere else.
But it's also going to cripple the ability of legit user to patch critically vulnerable machines. Know how long it takes unpatched NT to get hacked? 30 seconds or less. I personally know sysadmins who had to borrow someone else's already patched machine (or find a suitably secure non-Windows box), download the needful patches, burn 'em to CD, then drag the CD over to the server and manually apply the patches -- because the fresh new server was being attacked before they could even get to M$'s site to FIND the damned patches.
So what happens if you're in the field, and you have available an already-secured linux box and an unpatched NT box that you need to download patches for? M$'s new requirement means that your unpatched NT box MUST be used to download patches; you can't sensibly use the linux box to fetch 'em.
This sort of shit is I yearn for the day when everything I need and do on Windows can be seamlessly handled by some other OS.