×

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 Blocking Wine Users From Downloads Site

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the they-could-use-some dept.

Wine 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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

895 comments

Lost another one to FF (4, Funny)

cookiej (136023) | more than 9 years ago | (#11698909)

Is Firefox secretly paying for this great, new marketing strategy?

Re:Lost another one to FF (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11698929)

Try. To. Form. Complete. Sentences. Thanks.

Re:Lost another one to FF (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11698972)

"Stop whining" say microsoft.

bah (5, Interesting)

chalkoutline (854917) | more than 9 years ago | (#11698912)

Didn't they do something like this with the Trillian protocol on MSN Messenger? They hate third parties.

Re:bah (4, Funny)

hplasm (576983) | more than 9 years ago | (#11698919)

I hate parties with no Wine...

Me too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11699127)

Fortunately there's no shortage of that on slashdot. Oh, were you talking about the beverage?

Samurau Porn? [samuraiwar.org] Oh yes. Believe it.

Re:bah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11698996)

No, in fact they went out of their way to make sure Trillian was aware of security updates, so they could update as well.

AOL is the one who keeps gimping Trillian at every chance.

Nah, longer than that (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11699012)

"DOS ain't done until Lotus won't run!"

Re:bah (1)

greypilgrim (799369) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699085)

Back in October 2003 I think it was they went and announced they would be switching msn to a new protocol, which would deny 3rd party applications from connecting. IIRC it was a close one, gaim had a new version out like a day or two before the new protocol came into effect. Give it time and I'm sure wine will find a way around, just like gaim did.

Worse (0, Redundant)

DoctorSlicer (679375) | more than 9 years ago | (#11698922)

Microsoft is only making things worse for themselves in the long run.

Re:Worse (1)

DaHat (247651) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699070)

Because they deny Microsoft downloads designed for Windows from running on other platforms and the possibility of support issues involved? I see this as a good strategy, only those who are running legitimate versions of the operating system should be able to run free tools that they choose to give away... and a WINE does not run on any legitimate Microsoft operating systems... I fail to see the problem.

Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (1, Insightful)

illumin8 (148082) | more than 9 years ago | (#11698926)

Newsflash: Microsoft restricts Windows downloads to people that actually purchase their product!

Let's all get together on Slashdot and WINE about it...

Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (4, Informative)

JaxWeb (715417) | more than 9 years ago | (#11698963)

I agree, they have a perfect right to do this. It is interesting news, however.

A valid and working code is returned if the version is set to xp.

So it doesn't even really stop you.

Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (5, Insightful)

stevew (4845) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699073)

I've got to say that they DON'T have a right. I was a victim of their DR-DOS isn't compatible trick. I was forced to go buy Dos 6.0 and then it ATE MY DATA! I became rather negative towards this convicted monopolist when I found out they had done that on purpose!

Oh - did you notice that last sentence - CONVICTED MONOPOLIST. They have to play by a different set of rules.

If they are selling a package - say "Office" and someone wants to run that on another platform, then MS doesn't really have the right to restrict where it runs. They may imply they do through EULA's, etc. but this would like be easily proved as monopolist behavior - and oh yeah - they've been convicted of that already!

This behavior fits that model EXACTLY!

Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (1)

mzwaterski (802371) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699128)

MS doesn't really have the right to restrict where it runs

Of course I haven't RTFA, but the headline says they are restricting updates. They haven't restricted where you run the software, just who they give updates to.

Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11698968)

Hush! This is Slashdot! The information wants to be free... and anthropomorphised... but mostly free.

Oh, and Microsoft is always evil. Even when Bill Gates is donating over a US$1 Billion to charity...

Deep rooted beliefs die hard, even when they're not always true.

Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11699025)

No, people that have had no choice in what OS their PC runs have given money to Microsoft, which has gone to Bill Gates, which has then gone to charity.

Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11698974)

I purchased MS-Office! MS has no say in the platform i run it on though of course they would like to

Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (1)

shawn(at)fsu (447153) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699033)

I'd imagine they do, on the system requirments I bet it doesn't list wine.

Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (1)

BorgDrone (64343) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699101)

That means they won't guarantee it to work, but not that they should actively try to prevent it running on another platform.

Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (1, Insightful)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699108)

I purchased MS-Office! MS has no say in the platform i run it on

Check the product specs on the side of the software box you purchased. I'll wager "WINE atop Linux" is not included as a supported OS. If you can hack around this, more power to you, but MS is under no legal or ethical obligation to support your efforts.

If I get the latest SUSE distro to run on my toaster oven, but have trouble getting the 5.1 audio to play out through the speakers in the dishwasher, no maintenance agreement in the world is going to get them to return my call...

Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (5, Informative)

memphisITguy (860300) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699046)

The license for any non-OS product from Microsoft says nothing about having to run it on Windows. They assume you will, but WINE breaks that assumption. They are just pissed off about it... they may actually get themselves in trouble by not allowing people who paid for their products to update them. Just because somebody can run microsoft office on Linux doesn't mean it was pirated.

Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (1, Informative)

jpc (33615) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699098)


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:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (5, Interesting)

mcleodnine (141832) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699075)

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! (2, Interesting)

Speare (84249) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699079)

Microsoft restricts Windows downloads to people that actually purchase their product!

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! (2, Interesting)

me at werk (836328) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699083)

Oh no, if you run linux and WINE there is no possible way you didn't also purchase XP or a computer with XP preloaded! It's unpossible and inplausable as well as imcredible.

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:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11699093)

I got the OS for Free why can't I have the Updates for free too.

How dare them to require I have a legal copy of the software....

Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (1)

slux (632202) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699095)

You do realize that Wine users could be wanting to run a perfectly legitimate copy of any other Microsoft program than Windows and want updates for it? This is also mentioned in the mailing list message linked to in the summary.

Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11699119)

I purchased XP Pro however I installed a cracked corporate copy after being treated like a criminal by customer service because I needed to reinstall my os too many times.

Need some help please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11698927)

I'll be honest here, I really must have no idea what Wine does. I thought it was a library, or some sort of API layer, that let native Windows applications run on Linux or BSD, etc.

I'm actually still pretty sure that is what it is, but then why would Windows have a registry key for Wine? Doesn't that imply that you installed it? So that you can run Windows applications on .. Windows?

I really don't get it. Someone please explain.

Re:Need some help please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11698964)

Wine runs EXE files, it does provide some of the windows API. I had MIRC running on linux once, but it was very unstable.

It's worse than that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11698930)

They require you to let you validate your copy of windows for any download. I suspect Wine struggles with that. But if you use their site for a little while you can take a survey telling them what a great idea you think that is.
Samurai Porn? [samuraiwar.org] Yes. Yes there is.

Let this be a lesson to you... (3, Funny)

k4_pacific (736911) | more than 9 years ago | (#11698932)

Don't drink and download.

Re:Let this be a lesson to you... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11699040)

I do not drink .. WINE. (Windows, the Official OS of Vampire Bloodsuckers.)

To be fair though... (3, Insightful)

hanssprudel (323035) | more than 9 years ago | (#11698938)


It isn't like there is anything particularly ugly about what Microsoft is doing. I mean, they really don't have an obligation to provide downloads of wine users, who are using a (somewhat) compatible competing system rather than theirs.

I use wine to run some things, and I have not paid a dime to microsoft, so I don't exactly expect them to provide me with any services.

Re:To be fair though... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11698987)

What if you have a valid purchased Office running on Wine and want to get updates for it?

I can understand Microsoft not supporting Windows downloads for Wine, but they should support Office downloads for Office, regardless of how it is run.

Re:To be fair though... (1)

gareth6889 (745319) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699084)

(although im too lazy to install office and see) i thought the eula said you must agree to run office under windows only????

Re:To be fair though... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11699102)

IIRC, the Office EULA specifically prohibits you from running it under anything but a MS Operating System

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...

Re:To be fair though... (1)

Daravon (848487) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699031)

To me, it's not so much Wine being broken, it's the inconvenience of not being able to download from them unless you're using their product.

For my job, I occasionally go to Microsoft's download area to make a patch cd for systems that come into our office to be fixed (I work for a small ISP).

What about Crossover? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11699037)

So, if I own a legit copy of Office 2003 that I run in WINE then I try to go update it, I'm screwed because some ActiveX control keeps me from downloading it?

What? (3, Interesting)

Predflux (851314) | more than 9 years ago | (#11698939)

What is this actually doing for fightung piracy? If someone codes an OS too look exactly like Windows, they won't be able to run Windows software?

It's useless.

Not the first time. (5, Insightful)

base3 (539820) | more than 9 years ago | (#11698942)

Windows 3.1 deliberately refused to run under DR-DOS, the competitor to MS-DOS at the time. The deliberately vague error was caused by a block of obfuscated code--google for DR-DOS AARD.

Re:Not the first time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11699017)

This is probably a little more mundane than that. If you want something from them. Pretty much anything really. You have to let them validate your copy of windows, so they can educate you about how you're an unwitting victim of piracy. I suspect checking for Wine is just to keep their page from ralphing. They're a big company, everyone goes to their sight, I wouldn't be surprised if they checked for Safari too. They're not doing anything to the linux people that they're not doing to everyone.

Samurai Porn? [samuraiwar.org] What the internet was ment for.

Slashdot effect to good use (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11698946)

It made me laugh. Can we slashdot the microsoft website....Quick, more links.

So, it's working as designed.. (3, Insightful)

DelawareBoy (757170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11698947)

If it's checking to see if you have genuine windows, and it bails out because you're running WINE under Linux, then it is doing it's job correctly.

Wouldn't we be complaining if it *wasn't* working right?

It is, if obfuscation is part of the design (5, Insightful)

benhocking (724439) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699123)

I think what many object to is that they're being vague, at best, about what is the source of the "problem". If a message came up saying something like "Windows emulators are not supported for this operation", then there would be little room to complain. However, this is not the case, and many, myself included, suspect that MS is deliberately being vague about it, rather than having the courage (and smarts) to just be upfront about it.

Advantage Microsoft? (4, Interesting)

PaisteUser (810863) | more than 9 years ago | (#11698950)

My question is who gains from using the "Genuine Advantage"? I don't see how that would change my Windows expirience on a day-to-day basis.

Re:Advantage Microsoft? (2, Interesting)

mobiux (118006) | more than 9 years ago | (#11698994)

I see this as nothing more than something to appease shareholders and discourage the low end pirate.
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.

Idiotic Policy (2, Insightful)

bigtallmofo (695287) | more than 9 years ago | (#11698954)

Blocking suspected software pirates from downloading security patches and their new anti-spyware software is bad enough.

Now they're blocking competing software applications from downloading them as well? They're fortunate that there isn't an outcry to make them pay to ship billions of CDs to registered users of Windows. They should be thrilled that people are willing to take the time to download their patches, regardless of whether they can prove their licensing or what other software they run.

This is just incredibly idiotic. Secure and spyware-free Windows boxes mean less spam and other nuisances for everyone on the Internet. I thought Microsoft has supposedly declared war on such things - I guess not.

Re:Idiotic Policy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11699050)

get over yourselffffffffffff. fo sheezey. WINE != WINDOWS BOXES.

Dead software walking... (1, Troll)

ites (600337) | more than 9 years ago | (#11698959)

Microsoft is just hastening their ultimate demise. It's been clear for several years that the commoditisation of their core product sectors - office suites and operating systems - was going to drive them out of business. Now, where are the great brave new strategies that will breath life into their products? Patches. Delayed releases. New anti-spyware and anti-virus aquisitions. Blocking Wine users from MSIE downloads.

MS are dead and their cash pile will disappear faster than a fridgeful of champagne in a brothel on Monday morning.

It's a shame. If only MS had released a suite for Linux about 2 years ago, they'd be sailing pretty by now.

Re:Dead software walking... (2, Insightful)

treerex (743007) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699066)

If only MS had released a suite for Linux about 2 years ago, they'd be sailing pretty by now.

No they wouldn't. Linux people don't want to pay US$400 to use MS Office.

Re:Dead software walking... (5, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699091)

Realistically, Microsoft isn't going to put themselves out of business, with this stupid trick or any other. They'll be around, and be a damn big company, for a veeery long time.

What I do hope and halfway expect will happen is that they'll find themselves "in trouble" by Wall Street standards -- steadily declining profits turning into steady losses, with a corresponding implosion in stock proce -- and that this will force them to become a good company making a good product at a good price in order to gain their customers' trust and support. It's happened before; if someone had told me 20 years, hell, 10 years, ago that IBM in the 21st c. would be considered one of the good guys, I'd have laughed my ass off.

Re:Dead software walking... (1)

l4m3z0r (799504) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699107)

Yes because without WINE users no one would be around to use Microsoft products.

Wait a second, slow down here. (0)

tgd (2822) | more than 9 years ago | (#11698962)

How is that bad? They're running code that, in essense, is telling the user "yes, this code is safe to run", and not allowing it to run against toolkits they do not know are safe is a bad thing?

Interesting... (-1, Troll)

KennyP (724304) | more than 9 years ago | (#11698966)

I thought Open Source was supposed to be soooooo much better. At least, that's what you read DAILY here on /.

Why haven't the open source community come up with the killer apps to once and for all vault them into the REAL arena? I would think they'd be sick of standing in the shadows.

And if you're not running the OS you seek an update on... Switch - or don't bitch.

Visualize Whirled P.'s

While I disagree with the action (2, Insightful)

jasonmicron (807603) | more than 9 years ago | (#11698969)

While I disagree with the action, Microsoft does have the right to not allow "service" to whomever it wants as a business.

Will Wine fight back? Hmm...

Maybe Microsoft used this (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11698970)

Troy Hurtubise, inventor of such far-out things like the Ursus grizzly resistant suit, is at it again [baytoday.ca] . Maybe Microsoft can see directly through your walls to see what you are using?

Thats just great (1)

scenestar (828656) | more than 9 years ago | (#11698976)

I might not be running WINE, but i too am running the windows xp pro reduced cost edition.
I did get a proper license for my XP home edition, but after my harddrive got killed i lost my backup partition. Since OEM cds arent given out anymore its hard for PAYING customers to get their OS back.

Does this mean I too will lose my ability to update?

If so microsoft has once again screwed over their clients.

The thin line between me and linux at the moment is my unsupported wireless card.

Recovery Disk? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699035)

Should have got a recovery disk with that box of yours..

If not id be bitching at the OEM..

Mixed signals (5, Funny)

tehshen (794722) | more than 9 years ago | (#11698978)

"At Microsoft, security is our number one priority. You should turn off ActiveX controls and click 'no' to any dialog boxes. Service Pack 2 adds protection against these ActiveX controls, and with Windows Server 2003 ActiveX controls and other harmful content are blocked by default. This is for your own safety."

"Ignore all that, turn ActiveX on again, else you won't be able to download from us!"

What the hell?

Re:Mixed signals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11699039)

how else can microsoft get it's "you're a pirate" trojan installed on your box?

activex

Re:Mixed signals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11699087)

it comes preinstalled if you buy from Dell

"Microsoft Blocking Wine Users" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11698981)

I was hoping this would be a story about Windows forcing users to take a breathalyzer test before being allowed to log on. Keep those damn drunkards off the internet I say!

Its Microsofts Right (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 9 years ago | (#11698985)

Unless you can prove you have a license, they dont have to give you squat.

Having wine installed inst a license to use their DLL's. And in some
cases, even Microsoft applications you have *purchased*. Read your EULA's closely people.

Sure, its irritating as hell, and will make updating to run newer applicatinos a pain, but well within their legal rights.

Best solution is not to have to run wine if at all possible.

I can't! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11699056)

"Read your EULA's closely people."

I can't. My kids clicked on the "I Accept" button, and there's no way to check on the EULA now.

yet another lawsuit waiting (5, Interesting)

confusion (14388) | more than 9 years ago | (#11698991)

Sadly, the only people that are gaining anything, even when MS loses anti-trust cases, are the lawyers. I don't see this one getting that far, though.

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]

DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run. (5, Insightful)

Peeteriz (821290) | more than 9 years ago | (#11698992)

It's just the same idea of 'compatibility' for Microsoft - changes are intended to break competitor's products.

Signed executables (1)

Jacco de Leeuw (4646) | more than 9 years ago | (#11698993)

From a follow-up post:

... the pirates will just grab the patches and circulate them on the pirate sites anyway.

In most cases Microsoft signs its executables so this will come around and bite them. If the patches are signed you can easily verify that they are genuine, regardless from where you got them.

another anti-trust violation by MS (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11699006)

Microsoft is committing one anti-trust violation after the other and continues to ignore any of the court decision that have been made regarding Microsoft's criminal practices. I simply can't understand how any company can get away with such violations over and over again, especially illegaly forcing vendors to bundle Microsoft's Windows with any sold computer system. This is a clear violation of existing law and previous court decisions in the Microsoft case.

Windows in Linux ? (0, Redundant)

a1programmer (860298) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699013)

Why would someone need to get to windowsupdate from linux? Also, why would anyone run windows, using wine, from linux? Do people do that?

Re:Windows in Linux ? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11699074)

One reason to run Windows from Linux (using Wine) is that Linux has faster hardware access then WIndows and hence Windows will actually run faster in emulation mode in Wine then it would as the standalone operating system.

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.

Re:Windows in Linux ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11699117)

office updates

To little to late (2, Insightful)

gremlins (588904) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699014)

Well for what ever reason Microsoft did this, I am guessing it is alittle late to try to stop wine. I am sure the guys at Codeweavers have already started thinking how they will either trick Microsoft (in the case where you own the software) or replace Microsoft. Hell Codeweavers could just tell people the names of the Windows files they need and I am sure people will be trading them on a p2p somewhere.

So... (2, Insightful)

keiferb (267153) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699020)

Wouldn't (shouldn't?) this violate some sort of anti-whatever judgement they've been slapped with somewhere?

Pissed? (1, Insightful)

opposume (600667) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699022)

If your panties are in that much of a twist, why don't you just have a friend dl and burn to a cd? Or, go to your nearest windows machine, then share out the file? It's not the end of the world.

This was the only way for Bill... (4, Insightful)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699027)

...to support his childish claims about OSS software having poor interoperability [slashdot.org] .

For me it's just another good reason to stay well clear from a software company with such business tactics.

whine whine whine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11699045)

Next you will start complaining because Microsoft doesn't want to support you installing Office on Whine. 'Geez Microsoft is bunch of jerks, they won't help me install their application on any random configuration of hardware and software'

Am I missing something? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11699067)

Why would you try to download Windows patches if you're running Linux?

Bad because.... (3, Insightful)

UlfGabe (846629) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699069)

It's bad because they, under the guise of anti-piracy, (which some may compare to anti-terrorism initiatives) blocked WINE, and made it seem as though it was a pirated product.

To my knowledge WINE is an emulator for windows, so that windows programs may be run without purchasing windows. It is NOT some sort of cracked version of windows. We all know Microsoft hates losing the bling bling, but few linux users are likely to front said bling on top of the cost for the windows program. It comes out to probably 100-2000$ depending on the program, and the cost of Windows Xp Home(which i use because it only costs 100 bucks for easy typing).

That said, WINE shouldn't be reliant on Microsoft for updates. The WINE community should fix it(if it is a bug), no handout thank-you. And Microsoft is not responsible for WINE, they should just plainly state "WINE is not a supported Microsoft product and therefore does not get updates"

Putting this under some cover is bad, and shows microsofts(already known) business tendancies, to be sneaky and mean.

Sneaky-snake!

Why are WINE users going to MS Updates? (1)

Titusdot Groan (468949) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699071)

I'm not a MS fan (I'm typing this on my Mac and my company uses FreeBSD) but ...

Why *should* MS allow WINE users to get to their updates site? The article links into a discussion where WINE developers are talking about how they should fix WINE so users don't need to go to the Microsoft site for needed software!

WTF?

Hell, if competitors were getting their customers to access my companies resources I'd be firewalling them out -- those services are for our customers. In fact, I think our company would have to sue them to stop this behavior.

Now, if they were blocking MS Office Updates for people running MS Office on WINE -- then we'd have a story.

Legal Windows (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699080)

So what does this mean for holders of a real windows license.

Do we now have to install their spyware just do download updates, 'free' tooks, and such from them?

But... (2, Insightful)

ajaf (672235) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699088)

Who wants to download something from Microsoft using Wine?
I don't get the point of doing that.

Maybe MS Should Sell Updates to Wine Users (2, Informative)

reallocate (142797) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699092)

I've seen a post or two here complaining that they bought MS software and they can run it on any platform they choose.

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?

Seriously... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11699097)

why hasn't some nut job gone off and offed Bil yet? I mean I would never do anything directly to harm anyone... but I'd be quite happy to have him dad if I could I say it wasn't my fault at all.

Maybe the next place for U.S. troops sahould be Redmond...

It Had to Happen Eventually (4, Interesting)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699104)

I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner. When I first installed Windows Media Player 6 a few years back, I was surprised to see that it was actually downloading codecs from MS. I figured they would have blocked non MS clients from doing this way back then. I can't say this comes as a shock.


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. :) I also wonder how much code from the WINE [winehq.org] project (and probably DOSBox [sourceforge.net] ) made it into Windows XP for backwards compatibility? ;P I think DOSBox does a much better job of running old DOS games on XP than XP does.


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.

What about Licensed copies of Office? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11699111)

If it is Microsoft downloads doing this, then does this apply to Office? I have a licensed version of Office 2000 Pro. It is not on my Windows box, which has a licensed copy of Office 2003. I have the Office 2000 Pro installed on my Linux box, running under Crossover Office/Wine. Does this mean that I cannot get updates for a licensed copy that is only used on one PC, as per the license? That seems to be a violation of my rights as a consumer - I purchased one license and am only using it on one PC, so give me my updates!

What if I DO have a copy of their software? (5, Insightful)

Noksagt (69097) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699113)

A lot of people are saying MS has the right to restrict downloads to people who own their software. I agree that they are liable to their customers, but some of their customers run wine.

I have a legal copy of Windows which is currently unused. I don't like dual booting. I don't like running under an x86 emulator. I like using Wine (or commercial variants of it) if I absolutely need to run win32 software. At the very least, my license to Windows should entitle me to downloads from MS--not whether or not I am using Windows to download them. They should at least give you the opportunity to enter in your product key. I'd still feel like this was obnoxious & be pissed at them, but at least people in a similar situation would be able to download programs from them.

Not A Big Deal (1)

RU_Areo (804621) | more than 9 years ago | (#11699116)

How long is it gonna take for people to find a way around this. Over the years software manufactures have done their best to ensure we don't steal their stuff...but low and behold...I write this message from a pirated copy of windows. It's a cheap attempt by M$ and it will be beaten (just like Napster ;))

Question fron non-windows guy (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11699120)

What do you actually download via Microsoft Downloads? Updates to th OS? Updates to Programs? What?

If you're running Wine, and you are prevented from d/ling SP2 or something, well, so what?

On the other hand, if you're running Wine so that you can run your legal copy of Microsoft Office on your linux box, and you can't download updates to Office, then this is rather unfair.

Would someone enighten me as to what exactly Microsoft is preventing? I don't use windows so I'm not really sure.
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...