Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft XP License Prohibits VNC

timothy posted more than 12 years ago | from the there's-an-interesting-clause dept.

Microsoft 798

jhml writes: "Looks like the monopoly muscles are flexing. According to this article in Infoworld, the XP license prohibits products other than from Microsoft's from being used to remotely control an XP workstation. So ... guess they were having a little trouble with VNC being widely used?"

cancel ×

798 comments

My Experience With Linux (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3178682)

My Experience With Linux

I am a long-time Windows user and avid fan of Microsoft products, but I decided to try Linux to see what the hype is all about.

The long and short of it is that Linux sucks. It is basically unusable in its current state. I mean, who needs 8 half-working text editors? Notepad beats them all anyway, hands down.

Luckily I was running a vmware session so I just killed the session and the pain was over.

Re:My Experience With Linux (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3178732)

Plz stopp spowting all tihs crapp. Linuz eeesely is teh bast opperating sistam in teh wurld and has teh most educatet userbais in teh wirld.

Re:My Experience With Linux (1)

VS1 (448806) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178756)

nice typing skills buddy. its linux, not linuz, by the way. and he has a point. Apparently the concept of a valid argument baffles you.

Re:My Experience With Linux (0)

ctxspy (94924) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178794)

Apparently, the concept of sarcasm baffles you!

Re:My Experience With Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3178857)

wow, and heer i thot it wuz EmEss yoozerz hoo wur the dummest shitz on the freekin plannit.

wow...

Re:My Experience With Linux (1)

efuzed (540985) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178758)

Bill, go back back to work and stop playing with the Internet.

Re:My Experience With Linux (2, Troll)

Tyreth (523822) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178784)

That is complete FUD. Linux is very usable in it's current form.

You say 8 half-working text editors? vi and other console editors are not half-working, and are very useful when you can't afford a remote graphical session, or any other situation where a GUI is not possible or unecessary. As for GUI text editors, gedit, kedit and kwrite all beat notepad hands down. I don't see notepad with features for highlighting based on the language you are saving the text document as. How can you possibly say that notepad beats these common text editors in linux?

You obviously haven't tried linux properly at all. Consider this hypothetical situation - someone is brought up for 20 years using only linux (never heard of windows) in it's current form (KDE 2.2.2, etc). Then they hear about this whizbang operating system called Windows. They decide to give it a whirl as you just did. I'm sure that 15 minutes into the session they would be frustrated when they:

  • Can't tweak the settings of the system
  • Can't flick into a console during a game or some other full-screen application to change options
  • Can't run it on a really old system at a decent speed without a GUI
  • Can't install software they need without having to fork out another $50 for each package
  • Can't enjoy the features of a full text editor like vi, gedit or kwrite.
  • Can't set up an account for their pesky brother or friend who knows just enough to be dangerous, and limit their ability to modify/delete vital system files. Or prevent them from overwriting your personal settings
  • Can't, if capable, create complex shell scripts to perform manipulations on files that GUI's can only dream of.
  • Can't customise much of their GUI at all (eg, can't remove start bar, can't add menu's or applets to the start bar, etc)
  • ...and so on.

Can you see what is wrong in this example? First of all, this hypothetical person used it for only 15 minutes, not enough time for a full evaluation. Also, this person had grown up using something different, so they favored all the pet features and benefits of their own operating system, while completely missing the good features of the rival operating system. Since they had grown up with this operating system, it's in their mind of how computers should work.

So, until you give it a proper try, it will remain obvious that you don't know what you are talking about.

Re:My Experience With Linux (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3178792)

I agree with tihs poast. Linuz iz a grate opperating sistam.

HOLY FUCKING APE POOP MY GAY FRIEND!!! (-1)

L.Torvalds (548450) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178793)

That troll got more bites then many in recent days. AND it was a FP. Wow.

Re:HOLY FUCKING APE POOP MY GAY FRIEND!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3178835)

Deer Mr, Torwaltz;

I wood leik too thank u fort tihs grate opperating sistam u wroat.

thnx. :)

That doesn't mean VNC won't run. (4, Informative)

Bonker (243350) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178688)

I was curious, so I installed XP a little while back. Ran just fine with two different versions of VNC

Re:That doesn't mean VNC won't run. (2, Insightful)

_J_ (30559) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178707)

Ditto,

I used it to control a buddy's computer and set up the software to allow him to take over my machine in turn. I had no problems getting it running - other than doing the IP forwarding thing on my firewall.

I understand it works for all sort of machines, too. Take that microsoft terminal server!!!!

The fact that it's free, performs the same functionality as TS but works on multiple platform means that it totally rules.

anyway....

J:)

Re:That doesn't mean VNC won't run. (2)

madenosine (199677) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178780)

Microsoft Terminal Server?

You mean remote assistance?

Assuming you do, remote assistance is much more efficient than VNC; instead of regularly sending JPEGs, like VNC, the remote assistance program simply can send the window styles, etc. to the other computer, the location of the windows, and the description of the contents, and after that it only has to send changes in things like window location, window size, etc.

If only it would work on other platforms.... (which would be extremely hard to do, esp with the huge amount of window managers out there)

On an unrelated note, I saw XP ads all over that webpage

Re:That doesn't mean VNC won't run. (4, Insightful)

xonker (29382) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178841)

remote assistance is much more efficient than VNC

Maybe -- but the point of the discussion is whether you're even allowed to use something else.

Microsoft's remote assistance might be better than VNC -- but they should have no right to tell users that they can't use VNC. If you pay for XP (or get it preloaded...) you should be able to use it any way you choose.

I do wonder if that clause in the license was meant to prevent using VNC, or if it was an attempt to prevent multiple users from accessing a single Microsoft box and running multiple instances of Office or something like that. Perhaps the author of the original story should have contacted M$ and asked what their take was on that. I'm sure that they would likely have disavowed that they were trying to prevent using VNC in conjuntion with XP. (I doubt they could enforce it anyway...)

Re:That doesn't mean VNC won't run. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3178844)

remote assistance is much more efficient than VNC

Most likely because VNC is cross-platform. Remote assitance probably uses MS specific junk.

What is interesting is that with VNC, MS->MS sucks, MS->X sucks, X->MS pretty good, X->X Kicks royal ass, damn effn' near real-time (on a local net).

Re:That doesn't mean VNC won't run. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3178722)

Everyone has the right to break the law.

Re:That doesn't mean VNC won't run. (3, Informative)

secolactico (519805) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178723)

But it means the world if you ever get a software audit. The IT people where I work are paranoid on this case and the follow licenses to a T since it means a huge fine for the company (and the behind of the IT head).

Re:That doesn't mean VNC won't run. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3178802)

since it means a huge fine for the company (and the behind of the IT head).

At most companies the IT head's head is functionally equivalent to his/her behind.

Try using with xp firewall (1)

VS1 (448806) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178773)

try using it with xp's firewall. Change firewall preferences first to allow for it to work properly.

Re:Try using with xp firewall (1)

Rumble (6258) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178837)

What, can't you metamoderate every day?

No difference... (4, Funny)

JPriest (547211) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178691)

I never could get the sub seven client to run under wine anyway...

Anything to Limit MS (0, Troll)

littlerubberfeet (453565) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178692)

anything to Limit them, anything to promote competition. The limits only have to be in place long enough for other (better?) programs to become popular.

Re:Anything to Limit MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3178717)

Sure, punish success. That'll inspire people to create!

ssh ? (5, Interesting)

jkujawa (56195) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178693)

I wonder what they think of people using SSH to remotely log-in to a windows box. I believe that the openssh daemon compiles natively under cygwin.

Re:ssh ? (2, Interesting)

jallen02 (124384) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178739)

Not only that, I have the SSH daemon running as a service under W2K professional. I even use VSS command line stuff and work remotely using vim with a SSH daemon running on my office work machine. How is that for cool. I think I would go insane if I did not have Cygwin on my windows workstations.

Jeremy

As a wise man once said (1, Offtopic)

Clay Mitchell (43630) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178696)

Microsoft can KISS MY GRITS

I'm going to use VNC anyway I want. Is there any legally binding stuff that says you can't use it?

I've always thought it's funny you don't get to accept or decline the EULA until AFTER you plunk down your money for it...

Re:As a wise man once said (1, Redundant)

slickwillie (34689) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178737)

I guess the BSA goons would have to actually catch you in the act of using VNC.

And I once said: (1)

k2x (538620) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178818)

FUCK MICROSOFT.

This is pure M$ BULLSHIT. They think they can put anything in their EULA, 'cause customers have no choice but to choose M$.

Next thing we'll see in their EULA, "You must sell us your soul."

k2x

Re:And I once said: (3, Insightful)

danheskett (178529) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178840)

Instead of fucking Microsoft, why not just use something else.

Apple is very nice; so is RedHat, Mandrake, Suse, or any other Linux alternative.

You'll be much happier. And you won't have to agree to MS's EULA.

Re:As a wise man once said (3, Insightful)

analog_line (465182) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178866)

I've always thought it's funny you don't get to accept or decline the EULA until AFTER you plunk down your money for it...

I've always thought it funny that people get so damn surprised that Microsoft puts draconian restrictions like this into every new Windows EULA. You know they're going to do it, so why do you plunk your money down until you can find a copy of their EULA to review?

Besides, the BSA, which is the only organization that gives a damn and has the clout to go after people violating software licenses, won't go after you unless you're a business, or are dealing/distributing software. Microsoft/BSA couldn't care less if Joe Bob computer user manages their Windows machine with VNC. They do it so they can force corporations to buy more Microsoft software to manage their machines, and drive out any other competitors. Can you say "monopoly building"? I thought you could.

VNC vs. Remote Desktop (4, Interesting)

Peyna (14792) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178700)

Well, I've used both extensively, and I have to say that from my experience, remote desktop is much better than VNC. Unless you need to control your desktop from something other than XP or machine running IE6 you might have some problems. Never really ran into the issue myself, you could always carry around a disk with TSC if you needed to.

Anyway, remote desktop runs much better than VNC, and is sure a lot better than a screen capture... oh well. Besides, with VNC can you play a CD on the remote computer and listen to it at your local machine? =]

Re:VNC vs. Remote Desktop (3, Insightful)

iansmith (444117) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178744)

Of course remote desktop works better between two Windows machines than VNC.

Microsoft wrote support for it right into the OS.

When Microsoft wants to, they can beat any program by using resources (source code) that nobody else has.

Microsoft is *always* behind the curve with features.. they wait until something is popular, is proven in the marketplace... then copy it and do whatever they can to destroy the company/team that developed it.

If I hear Gates or Balmer mention 'innovate' one more time.. I'm going to loose my lunch. Do they really belive that is what they do? Or do they laugh themselves to teh bank on the way back from the courtroom? Err, their videotapes do anyway...

Re:VNC vs. Remote Desktop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3178781)

Gee, maybe those companies should patent their technology!

Oh wait, that would destroy your grand socialist vision of the future. Damn, better sic the State on them instead...

Re:VNC vs. Remote Desktop (1)

carleton (97218) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178774)

Maybe... check out http://linux-workshop.com/bybell/vnc/vncaudio.html . I haven't tried it; it's on my long list of things that peripherally relate to work but which probably can't be billed as such. Also, from what I've seen, tightvnc and remote desktop perform roughly equivalent over LAN; haven't tried remote desktop over modem, but vnc was usable if not great.

Re:VNC vs. Remote Desktop (1)

hurricanej (137721) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178834)

>Well, I've used both extensively, and I have to say that from my experience, remote desktop is much better than VNC.

It completely depends on what you are trying to do. RDP doesn't allow you to remote control the target machine, VNC does. VNC lets me and a user discuss what they are doing right/wrong. RDP does everything in the background.

-hj

Re:VNC vs. Remote Desktop (2)

danheskett (178529) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178848)

It completely depends on what you are trying to do. RDP doesn't allow you to remote control the target machine, VNC does. VNC lets me and a user discuss what they are doing right/wrong. RDP does everything in the background.

That is incorrect. That is how it is using RDP with Terminal Services (and to get around that, just have the user at the terminal login to the workstation with a TS session, then you can share the same session and work together).

With Remote Assistance, you can indeed share the same screen.

Uggh... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3178701)

Now don't just go jumping to conclusions. How long is it going to take fo an editor to make a retraction?

Re:Uggh... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3178748)

The editors retract their mistakes? This is news to me...

Finally, an end to the trojan problem! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3178704)

"the XP license prohibits products other than from Microsoft's from being used to remotely control an XP workstation"

Well, I guess Microsoft finally figured out how to take care of the thousands of trojans out there... Just forbid them in the EULA, and surely they'll all go away ;-)

What about PCAnywhere? (5, Informative)

Nailer (69468) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178706)

PCAnywhere 10.5 includes Windows XP support, and IIRC still uses its own protocol / mechanism for doing so, rather than MS RDP. Symantec have the Designed for Windows XP logo on the PCA box.

How is this affected?

Re:What about PCAnywhere? (2)

bconway (63464) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178754)

I'm sure that Symantec bought a hefty license to have PCAnywhere work with XP. "Rogue" applications like VNC are really the only ones in question.

Re:What about PCAnywhere? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3178776)

OK, but if I read my license and it tells me that it's a violation to use third party remote access software...well, hopefully Symantec didn't buy a hefty license....

Re:What about PCAnywhere? (2)

bconway (63464) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178795)

It most likely says "unlicensed third party remote access software." Nice way to make money, huh?

Come on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3178709)

We already had this article a few months ago. Surely the editors actually READ Slashdot, right? Five bucks a month or more for this crap...

Well yes.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3178710)

they do such things. Any news?

Too much corporate usage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3178711)

Talk about some BS..

how many people here use Remote Administrator among other programs..

I use it on a daily basis at work to access remote machines... saves so much time..

Many corporations utilize remote access software.. I do not know why Microsoft would want to slap them in the face by forcing them to use an inferior built in product..

Look, more FUD. (3, Informative)

NetJunkie (56134) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178712)

Read the agreement. What Microsoft doesn't want you to do is to use VNC to create a terminal services like server where you install an app once and share it with your network.

No one cares if you remote control it for administrative purposes.

Re:Look, more FUD. (5, Interesting)

steppin_razor_LA (236684) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178747)

Here is what the article quotes (I don't have XP so I'm not sure about it's license agreement)

The way I read this is that this prohibits software from remotely driving the computer - whether it is for serving applications or for administrative purposes.

Microsoft's XP license agreement says, "Except as otherwise permitted by the NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described below, you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display, or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product."

I don't think it is even possible to set up VNC to be used on the Windows platform to set up application sharing -- the VNC instance is tied to the desktop -- IMHO that means it is only good for a single user and I don't see why it matters whether that single user is at the KB on the console or a remote console.

I also agree with an earlier poster -- for the Windows platform, the Terminal Services client is *FAR* superior to VNC -- of course it is -- VNC works by sending bitmaps across the pipe -- the terminal services client can send API calls -- same principle as behind Xwindows.

I often like to install both as there has been times when Terminal services has croaked but VNC hasn't and vice-versa.

telnet? (1)

fiftyfly (516990) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178813)

What about that, eh?

Re:telnet? (1)

danielrose (460523) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178843)

ssh!
you'll give away the secrets!

This is for "Citrix like" applications. (4, Insightful)

tshak (173364) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178714)

The reason this is even mentioned is because it has to do with "Citrix like" remote applications. Essentially, you can't setup a Windows box and have 50 Linux desktops connect to it ala VNC (for example) without having the appropriate licenses. This is no different then your usual CAL (Client Access License) for using a Windows network. The EULA just get's more specific about "Remote Desktops" since it's getting more popular.

Re:This is for "Citrix like" applications. (3, Interesting)

ThatComputerGuy (123712) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178820)

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but 50 Linux desktops connected to a single Windows box isn't exactly useful, unless you use 50 machines that you need to access the Windows machine from, in which case you've got other problems.

50 people on 50 Linux machines using 50 VNC clients connected to 1 Windows VNC server does not result in 50 people remotely running their own instance of Windows apps. Instead, they'll all be sharing the same mouse/kb cursor, and the same processes.

It would be nothing short of chaos... why does this need to be regulated again?

Re:This is for "Citrix like" applications. (5, Insightful)

markj02 (544487) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178823)

That's nonsense. VNC does not allow you to "setup a Windows box and have 50 Linux desktops connect to it"--VNC doesn't magically transform a single user Windows machine into a multiuser machine. I wish it did, but XP is such a primitive system that that's not easily possible. As far as Windows is concerned, VNC gives you the ability to remotely control a machine into which you are logged in, no more.

In any case, what matters is not whether VNC lets you do this but that Microsoft tries to impose such restrictions. It's just another indication of how much they are trying to milk and control their customers. Any rational buyer should run from that kind of company, and this should be added to the long list of anticompetitive practices to be investigated.

Re:This is for "Citrix like" applications. (1)

danielrose (460523) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178850)

Perhaps they were referring to Citrix Metaframe type setups, not VNC.

VNC doesn't magically transform a single user Windows machine into a multiuser machine.

I didn't see VNC mentioned anywhere in the EULA.
Citrix however, does this nicely.

By customer demand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3178715)

Extensive focus group research revealed a deep antipathy on the part of customers to VNC and other non-Microsoft remote access methods. Thus the license.

Hummm.. (1)

gregorio (520049) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178716)

They are trying to avoid this kind of application so noone develops an application that allows Windows XP Home to act as an Windows Terminal server (or something similar).

VNC this, you fucktards! (-1)

Serial Troller (556155) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178719)

  • 2002. Slashdot publishes 1,000,000th rumor passed off as actual story. The story generates 480 comments, 263 of which agree with the article, and 107 of which point out its a rumor and are modded down as redundant. The remaining comments are all first posts.
  • 2002. CmdrTaco married to Kathleen Fent. Many geeks believe Kathleen, a purported transvestite, outmeasures CmdrTaco.
  • 2002. Slashdot parent corporation VA Research^W Linux^W Software stock worth 35 cents. Rumors that AOL, Microsoft, or even Jimmy the hobo who lives under the Longfellow Bridge may buy it.
  • 2003. VA Software bought by Microsoft for a cup of coffee and a donut. All Microsoft-critical articles mysteriously disappear from Slashdot. Bill Gates as Borg logo replaced with Bill Gates as God.
  • 2003. Papperatzi videos of Miguel de Icaza caught going down on Bill Gates in his private yacht spread across Usenet. Miguel swears that recent decisions to rename the Gnome desktop to Windows NT 6.0 have nothing to do with it.
  • 2004. CmdrTaco loses hist virginity.
  • 2004. The WIPO Troll returns again, showering Slashdot in 45,000 copies of the same post: Lick my crotch hairs. Slashdot, despite running on 18 redundant IIS/8.0 servers, buckles under the load. The term Slashdotted is replaced with WIPO-Trolled.
  • 2004. Slashdot, the last vestige of VA Research^W Linux^W Software^W Microsoft, officially shut down. Millions of screaming, unwashed geeks invade Redmond campus and lynch Bill Gates. CmdrTaco is believed to posess the only remaining copy of the Slashdot database on several hundred CD-Rs.
  • 2005. The Linux is world is shocked when Linus Torvalds and Anal Cox are found dead along with six penguins, an empty tub of crisco and several used condoms. Millions of screaming, unwashed geeks invade Redmond campus and lynch Steve Ballmer.
  • 2005. CmdrTaco rumored to have had sex again.
  • 2006. CowboiKneel found dead in hotel room with 56 pizza boxes covering his bloated corpse. Three suffocated gay prostitutes are extracted from beneath his body as police remove it with a backhoe.
  • 2007. CmdrTaco actually has sex again. With a woman.
  • 2007. BSD is still officially dying. No word on when its demise will take place.
  • 2007. CmdrTaco starts new weblog to replace Slashdot, creatively named Dotslash. Remainder of Linux users flock to the site and immediate WIPO-Troll it out of existence.
  • 2008. CmdrTaco has sex with his wife for the first time.
  • 2009. After years of living under the heel of his domineering wife, and being deprived of companyof his life-long friend, Jeff Homos Bates, CmdrTaco commits suicide. Another unwashed geek mob gathers and tears Kathleen Fent to shreds. Geeks discover Ms. Fent was indeed a woman, but dont exactly know what that means. Driven by their sexually-repressed rage, they subsequently invade Redmond again and lynch the current CEO of Microsoft, Miguel deIcaza.
  • 2009. Richard Stallman mysteriously murdered. Conspiracy theories run rampant, most involving Microsoft in some way. Invasions of Redmond campus by hordes of geeks become commonplace.
  • 2010. Stallman murder solved when Eric S. Raymond confesses. Raymond blamed the collapse of VA Research^W Linux^W Software^W Microsoft on Stallmans dogmatic insistence on prefixing every open-source project with GNU. Raymond is subsequently committed to an insane asylum, again giving the horde of geeks an excuse to raze Redmond.
  • 2010. An ex-hacker reports witnessing CmdrTaco at a gas station in Tennessee. The nearly-defunct Linux movement is rekindled as CmdrTaco sightings become common.
  • 2011. Microsoft campus burnt to the ground by screaming, unwashed geek mob after Microsoft is blamed when a Linuxhacker in Cambridge, Massachusetts spills his coffee on his pants. Microsoft undaunted as their plans to buy out the Federal Government come to fruition. Washington, D.C. renamed Microsoft Capitol 2010.

this kind of license (1)

jrs 1 (536357) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178720)

to be honest, this part of the license will have no effect whatever and no-one, especially not microsoft, will enforce it. the bad publicity that they'd get would be too much.

ignore it, move on, do something productive. what? you think you're going to jail over this?

rdesktop on *nix (3, Informative)

Da_Monk (88392) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178721)

I don't see the advantages of vnc...
rdesktop is available for *nix (open source)
and works via the web. plus it can do sound forwarding... I think the reason for this clause is that running both on one XP machine can cause problems (you get an error with rdesktop (microsoft official)).

Is This Really Any Surprize? (0, Flamebait)

Shuh (13578) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178728)

Microsoft will brooke no competition anywhere when it comes to its OS. Ever notice how everyone brags about how much great software there is on the P.C. compared to Linux and the Mac, but all they ever use is the Micro$oft-branded versions? How does that saying go: "Freedom is slavery?"

Re:Is This Really Any Surprize? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3178767)

If the license for something bothers you, nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to use it.

BTW, surprize won't be found in any dictionary, and Brooke is a name; you meant to say brook.

Whiny dumbass.

Shocking... can you connect using any Non-MS OS? (0)

TheCeltic (102319) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178731)

I suppose the next step is blocking ANY and ALL access to windoze by other OS's? But really... they DON'T HAVE a MONOPOLY.. no, REALLY..

The accessing machine must have a liscense (5, Insightful)

asmithmd1 (239950) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178734)

from the article
Microsoft's XP license agreement says, "Except as otherwise permitted by the NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described below, you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display, or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product or Product's user interface,
unless the Device has a separate license for the Product."
So if you are running XP on the machine you are runnning VNC you do not violate the license

Re:The accessing machine must have a liscense (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3178766)

Mmmm - me thinks this says your remote 'device' or pc must have an independant license or EULA apart from the one for the OS it actually runs.

I'd like to see Microsoft or it's strong arm partner BSA enforce this one!

Re:The accessing machine must have a liscense (3, Insightful)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178836)

Microsoft's XP license agreement says,
"Except as otherwise permitted by the NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described below, you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display, or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product."

But what I highligted implies you can't do VNC either.

My interpretation of what it this says "You can access the system remotely using only MS supplied tools if you have enough licenses."

Not just VNC (1)

straponego (521991) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178743)

This license would appear to affect much more than just VNC. Any service installed on XP, for example-- including web, P2P, FTP, or SMB. After all, you're "accessing executable software" on the machine. For that matter, you could make a case that responding to ICMP pings is verboten by the EULA. In essence, you are not allowed to use Windows XP Workstation on any network. This is good to know; I'll implement this policy at my home and office immediately.

How about PCAnywhere? GoToMyPC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3178746)

Does this mean that Symantec's PC Anywhere and that web service called Go To My PC (www.gotomypc.com) are also in violation of Micro$oft's license?

I know a few folks that use these products/services for accessing their Windows impaired systems.

How do these companies feel about this?

Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3178753)

Why would I care if I am notallowed remotely administer XP with non-MS softare? There are a variety of free operating systems available, which are far superior to Microsoft's offerings and offer a wider range of applications?

Damn Micrsoft (-1, Flamebait)

BILL the BEST (567113) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178757)

Damn Microsoft to hell, what the fuck do they think there doing this is just plain stupid. If only there was 1 decent opetating system and operation system company out there. DONT YOU FUCKIN SAY LINUX CAUSE ITS A HEAP OF SHIT. no one want 10 programs that do the same thing although none work yet, anwseri always get is it'l be ok in the next versaion. aaarh i hate big bill attitude & lunix is just plain shit what do i do.? By a --Microsoft Hater--

Re:Damn Micrsoft (-1)

propstoalldeadhomiez (444303) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178846)

One decent operating system? OS X

One decent OS company? Apple

Sure, it's based off OpenBSD. It's still excellent.

Here is a mirror in case it goes down.... (0, Redundant)

JPriest (547211) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178760)

XP bandwidth brouhaha

THE NEWNESS OF Windows XP -- with its sometimes addled approach to license restrictions, copy protection, and security -- lends itself to confusion. Reader Tom Gleason sent me an example, quoting Web sites that claimed XP needlessly consumes 20 percent of your PC's network bandwidth.

Like a lot of online talk, this is misinformed. Windows 2000 introduced QoS (quality of service) features using an Admission Control Service and the Internet Engineering Task Force's RSVP signaling. XP doesn't support these two protocols but provides its own QoS components. The QoS Packet Scheduler dialog box in XP Professional shows a default "bandwidth limit" of 20 percent. This created a buzz on the Web to the effect that XP artificially withheld one-fifth of your bandwidth, even if its Packet Scheduler was turned off.

Not to worry. There's no restriction unless your network specifically supports XP-style QoS and it's requested by an application, such as a streaming media player. Even then, by default only 20 percent is set aside. (See www.techtv.com/screensavers/windowstips/story/0,24 330,3365585,00.html.)

But it is worth looking into QoS, because some applications can benefit from increasing it or, conversely, terminating it. For example, high-speed Internet access through the DirecTV satellite service will not work unless XP's QoS is disabled. (See www.direcpc.com/xpinstall/install.htm.)

Reader Frank Brown sent me a completely different concern about XP, relating to VNC (Virtual Network Computing), a free remote-access application I described last week (see "Your virtual network," InfoWorld, March 11).

Microsoft's XP license agreement says, "Except as otherwise permitted by the NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described below, you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display, or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product."

That means using any software other than Microsoft's to view an XP desktop from Windows 2000 or any other operating system would violate the company's license agreement, in case you care.

"I use VNC extensively to manage several hundred desktops daily," Brown says. "So for me this is a big deal, and a good reason to stay away from XP until I see significant value added compared to Win 2000. So far I haven't."

I'm interested in hearing any surprising facts you've discovered in your own experience with QoS, XP, or any other Windows technology.

Readers Gleason and Brown will receive gift certificates for a free book, CD, or DVD of their choice for being the first to send me a tip I printed.

Re:Here is a mirror in case it goes down.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3178865)

You fucking karma seeking cunt. Do you really think that the web site is going to go down under the load of the Sunday night crowd? If you're going re-post the story, do it as an AC so that I don't have to load it twice, or only do it if the site truly gets ./ed. Don't be such a goody-goody two shoes mother's boy. Posting it "in case the mirror goes down" is just a euphemism for "I've got nothing intelligent to say but I really want to get karma, so I'll copy and paste some copy-righted material as that's really easy to do."

Doesnt affect large companies.. (1)

Trebuchet (98044) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178763)

Most large companies probably wont be affected, since they buy site licenses for all their OSes anyway.

finally: Microsoft will stamp out trojans? (1)

UnderAttack (311872) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178764)

Will Microsoft now start suing all the IRC kidies playing with tojans?

Hi (-1, Offtopic)

BILL the BEST (567113) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178778)

XBOX is the best. --Microsoft Hater--

Re:Hi (0, Offtopic)

danielrose (460523) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178860)

PS2 is better! Muwah!

I've said it before and I'll say it again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3178786)

Pirate Windows if you're going to use it. Get Windows XP corporate edition from your local piracy source. No product activation on that one. Or whatever version of Windows you want to use (my choice is Win2k). Sure you're kinda forced to use their OS, by why should you have to pay them for it? Fight criminals with crime.

So no cygwin then? (2, Redundant)

WasterDave (20047) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178787)

And I quote: "you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display, or run other executable software residing on the Workstation".

Presumably this would include a telnet/ssh daemon and the cygwin installation needed to make them useful? Cygwin is the life blood of unixen trapped in a windows world - what now if the pointy haired ones 'upgrade' to XP?

Dave

Tempest in a teapot (1)

Pussy Is Money (527357) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178789)

Tempest in a teapot! Tempest in a teapot! Waste your life spinning license terms to get your name in the papers! News at eleven! You heard it here first!

moronic (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3178790)

A developer can put anything they want in their license agreement. It doesn't mean it is legal and it certainly doesn't mean they can enforce it. It certainly won't stop me from running VNC on Windows. Fuck 'em.

This was discussed in an earlier /. thread (2)

PotatoHead (12771) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178791)

Annoying but true. Maybe the mainstream coverage will get people thinking about just what a license is and what is should be.

2-Borg Limit (5, Funny)

unsinged int (561600) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178801)

Okay people, we've reached the 2-Borg limit on the main page...

Time to find something non-Microsoft to post before the whole page gets assimilated.

Netscape (5, Troll)

Deanasc (201050) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178806)

Why didn't they just ban Netscape Navigator in the lisence agreement. Then they wouldn't have had to write IE. What other competing software don't they want people to use? Put that into the lisence too.

Misinterpretation? (3, Insightful)

Peyna (14792) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178807)

From the article: Microsoft's XP license agreement says, "Except as otherwise permitted by the NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described below, you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display, or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product."

It's hard to tell without the context of the quotation, but I would assume 'the Product' to refer to Windows XP or Remote Desktop. The emphasis also seems to be on "unless the Device has a separate license for the Product.". That seems to me to have a significant different implication than we are led to believe by the article. Does anyone have definitions for 'The Product' and 'the Device' from the terms of the license agreement?

WINUX or LINUX (i like WINUX) (0, Redundant)

BILL the BEST (567113) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178808)

Damn Microsoft i hate them.

And this is a problem...why? (0, Flamebait)

cscx (541332) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178809)

Remote desktop is included. Free. It is also much better than VNC anyday. First of all, ever try running a web browser through VNC? Try scrolling a web page and you'll soon discover how much it sucks (refresh that screen!). Two, RD is a whole lot more polished... I find the interface with the desktop is a lot more "solid" than VNC. Also, it's more tightly integrated within the OS... IOW, you have more control over some things... like, whether or not you want wallpaper to be displayed (to improve speed), the color depth you want used in the remote connection, and the sound quality as well. That is the most awesome part... you can play an MP3 file on the remote computer and have it play through the guest computer's speakers by way of the RD sound driver! (It's transparent to the user). RD will also dynamically change transmitting sound bit rate encoding according to available bandwidth/net congestion. The only thing I couldn't do under RD flawlessly is play a Divx-encoded AVI video clip. Also, RD makes you log in with your workstation's username/password combination. VNC doesn't - one password for all. Also, last time I used VNC, the password went over the net unencrypted. RD uses 128-bit encryption for their net connection. All in all, all VNC basically does is forward mouse clicks and movements and show you a crummy screen capture. RD is more of an application. RD client is also available for almost every OS imaginable, too.

Unless you're one of those anti-Microsoft jackholes, once you've tried RD you'll see there is no going back to VNC, ever. Plus did I mention it's free with XP pro? Yeah, I think we all know that. This is like saying you own a Ferrari and a Yugo but Ferrari says you can't drive the Yugo if you want to drive the Ferrari. I don't see a problem there. :D

I'm not bashing VNC. It's a great tool, and I used to use it constantly to manage NT4 Server back in the day. But now that I have something better available for free, I just don't need it anymore. It's as simple as that.

this is not earth shattering (1)

spir0 (319821) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178811)

they are trying to protect their licences. being far from a microsoft advocate, i will try to look at this from an objective point of view.

they are trying to say, you have paid for one license, therefore you can only view it on one machine. simple. and understandable.

however - this may be turned to set a legal precedent for people breaking into your computer via programs like back orifice and sub seven, etc...

if the court won't do anything about them breaking and entering, maybe microsoft and the BSA can slap a fine on them for illegally using your software without a license.

of course, I've not studied this and may have already happened, in which case I spew forth redundant bile.

Re:this is not earth shattering (2)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178849)

if the court won't do anything about them breaking and entering, maybe microsoft and the BSA can slap a fine on them for illegally using your software without a license.

Are you sure they won't charge you with allowing someone to use your software without a license?

MS can suck it! (1)

Nickovsky (245391) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178821)

Im on XP Pro using VNC. So fuck em!

VNC is just a side effect ... (0)

Trygve (75999) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178822)

Their real reason for doing this is more likely related to cDc's [cultdeadcow.com] well known Back Orrifice [sourceforge.net] .

It claimed to be a remote administration tool to compete with MS's Back Office, despite it's more common malicious use, and detection as a trojan app by most antivirus manufacturers.

Does anyone really care? (1)

danielrose (460523) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178824)

I mean, like who really is going to obey and quit using VNC? Maybe those same people who download vast amounts of pirated music? movies? software? Oh yes, maybe they will get rid of VNC.. they wouldn't want to run it on their pirated copy of XP now, would they?

I still don't get this: (4, Interesting)

nahtanoj (96808) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178829)

That, because we are running their software, this means that they own the computer it runs on. What else could the deal with the "registered programs" and such be about? I own the damn network card, so doesn't that mean I can choose how to use it? It's the same ownership/license debate.

I sick of it all...

Nahtanoj

How can Microsoft tell you what to run on your pc? (1)

grink (116056) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178830)

If you bought Windows XP you should be allowed to run what even software you want on it. Doesn't this break fair business practices anyway? Just my 2 cents.

A sure sign of despiration... (5, Funny)

ChrisKnight (16039) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178831)

When you can't crush your competition through weilding the club of monopoly, exercise your 'right' to stick innane clauses in your license agreement.

Next up, and likely to be in Windows TX (Total eXtortion):

- You may not use any fax package other than from microsoft to send faxes from Windows.

- You may not use any compiler other than c# to compile software for Windows.

- Tou may not use any internet tools that were compiled without .NET on Windows.

- You may not use any installer tools other than from Microsoft to package software for Windows.

- You may not read web sites with any software other than from Microsoft. (Oops, already did that one.)

- You may not read Slashdot from a Microsoft Browser.

I must say, I am starting to enjoy the sheer humor factor that Microsoft provides. While not yet having been punished for behaving in a monopolistic way, Microsoft goes out of their way to make sure everyone knows just how wide thei are willing to swing their axe.

-Chris

VNC woes (1)

TheHawke (237817) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178832)

I drive VNC to tend 2 other machines, cross-platforming between two win98 chassis and a win2k Pro... Now you tell me that M$ is going to shut down VNC just for XPlective. VNC is still neeeded in the real wold folks.. What M$% dosent realize is that there are alot of older machines out there that cannot and will not handle XPlective, and VNC is quite happy with it.
Just for kicks i took VNC and lit off Unreal on a win2k host from a win98 client, and by god, it worked! It looked crappy but it ran fine by all means.. It ate up my 100 base switch tho but the key word was OPERATIONAL. No way am i going to late m$ stuff VNC down the tubes.. if they order it shut down ill post VNC on my website for downloading, and i do suggest to everyone else to do so when this happens..

Both VNC server and client work perfectly well (3, Funny)

Vicegrip (82853) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178838)

in XP Professional.

I have no tolerance for this kind of invasiveness on how I use my computer and I sincerely hope Microsoft chokes itself on these crappy EULA restrictions. Stunts like these make me so mad... next thing you know, the BSA is going to start suing people for NOT using Microsoft Word.

Mac, here I come. I'm saving for one starting today.

Re:Both VNC server and client work perfectly well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3178856)

They don't want to restrict how you can use your computer, they want to restrict how you can use *their* operating system.

Just another nail in the M$ coffin (1, Troll)

dcavanaugh (248349) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178851)

How many reasons do we need to abandon M$ server platform? Evidently, M$ thinks we need even more reasons, so they "embracing & extending" the "Dump M$" movement.

Keep it up, M$. Make the EULA tricky enough, and people will start thinking they have a license problem with every product in the M$ world.

FUD is a two-edged sword. If I have to wonder about the licensing viability of remote-controlling a Microsoft server, then it doesn't have to stay as a Microsoft server.

An Observation (3, Interesting)

inquis (143542) | more than 12 years ago | (#3178852)

I understand that this particular license clause is designed to keep you from using Windows XP as a terminal server without buying licenses. However, in our world of lawyering even though the SPIRIT of the clause may be indifferent to VNC, by the LETTER using VNC is against the license agreement.

The point I want to raise is this: VNC is an innocuous program. It's not Napster or Morpheus, which I could see Microsoft actually blocking. It's instead something you throw on a box to make your life as an admin easier. In short, VNC is about the /last/ program I would expect the Windows XP license to prohibit you from using.

My question: Windows XP has been out there for what, a year? It took people that long to realize that the license agreement disallows the use of VNC? How much longer is it going to be before someone finds the clause that disallows the use of OpenOffice? If such a clause existed, would people be able to find it and realize its implications? Furthermore, how much longer is it going to be before network admins decide that they'd rather not use an operating system where they don't even have any idea what applications they are allowed to run on it? Again, VNC is an extremely common and handy tool, it seemed like the LAST app MS would disallow. If VNC is disallowed, what's next?

-inq

Terminal Services (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3178862)

Well, first of all they piss me off because they updated PocketPC 2002 and left all us MIPS and SH3 users out in the cold with dated devices...

Secondly, they stopped all development of applications for PocketPC 2000 - most notably Terminal Services, Messenger, pretty much all the connectivity stuff they mention...

Thirdly they tell me I can't connect to my XP box using my PocketPC and VNC!?

Bloody Hell! If you have a monopoly, at least fscking use it properly!!! BASTARDS!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...