Microsoft targets Wine
No more updates for virtualized Windows..
Tuesday, February 22, 2005 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize News
Microsoft's Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) validation initiative has set off a firestorm of protest throughout the open source community after programmers uncovered a special function in the software dedicated to detecting Wine, a compatibility layer for running Windows programs in non-Windows environments.
WGA authentication is set to become mandatory for all non-critical Windows updates starting in the second half of 2005. Customers must run a program that verifies their Windows license, or they will not have access to Windows Update or the Microsoft Download Center.
Full details at Betanews.com.
 |
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Brandon Paddock
Reply #2 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 3:27 PM
Reply #2 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 3:27 PM
Umm... what a bogus article.
The WGA ActiveX control only works for validating Windows XP.
They said Wine, when in "Windows XP" mode, gets validated just fine. They're complaining that it doesn't work when in Win98 mode?
Beyond that, Microsoft is well within their rights to ensure that Windows support files are only available to people that, you know, purchased Windows.
The WGA ActiveX control only works for validating Windows XP.
They said Wine, when in "Windows XP" mode, gets validated just fine. They're complaining that it doesn't work when in Win98 mode?
Beyond that, Microsoft is well within their rights to ensure that Windows support files are only available to people that, you know, purchased Windows.
Double Zero
Reply #3 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 3:36 PM
Reply #3 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 3:36 PM
I agree, people who have pirated windows by hacking the reg or using keychangers ultimately drive up the cost of not only the current OS but any future OS's to come. XP is reasonably priced today, the home version running about the same as Windows 98 did in it's later term. I agree, if they have stolen the OS, why offer them any support at all...makes sense.
Zero.
Zero.
brassblaster
Reply #4 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 5:42 PM
Reply #4 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 5:42 PM
Works for me. I paid for Windowblinds and get great support. Why should XP be any different?
ByronTodd
Reply #5 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 6:02 PM
Reply #5 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 6:02 PM
Did any of the responders actually read the article????
It wasn't about piracy or stopping pirates. It's about Microsoft Office users who are running MS Office on another operating system - Linux. Meaning that they have a VALID Microsoft Office license (PAID FOR) but are using WINE (a windows emulator) to run the software that was legitimately purchased.
It's an interesting article - for those who actually read it.
Let the flames begin - from those who reply but do not / did not read the article.
It wasn't about piracy or stopping pirates. It's about Microsoft Office users who are running MS Office on another operating system - Linux. Meaning that they have a VALID Microsoft Office license (PAID FOR) but are using WINE (a windows emulator) to run the software that was legitimately purchased.
It's an interesting article - for those who actually read it.
Let the flames begin - from those who reply but do not / did not read the article.
tjesterb
Reply #6 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 6:22 PM
Reply #6 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 6:22 PM
MS is certainly within their rights, but the fact that Linux users are using MS Office, instead of Open Office, would be something I would think MS would play up, rather than antagonize those who have purchased valid copies of MS Office, regardless of what platform they run it in.
It doesn't really sound like it will be that big a deal in the end, though. How many people can this really affect? Not more than a handful, I would think.
My personal opinion is that MS Office is a just a little more polished, and a little less buggy than Open Office. Obviously some share of Linux users feel the same way, or this wouldn't even be an issue. (yes, I do run Linux for some things, but I spend the majority of my computing time in Windows)
It doesn't really sound like it will be that big a deal in the end, though. How many people can this really affect? Not more than a handful, I would think.
My personal opinion is that MS Office is a just a little more polished, and a little less buggy than Open Office. Obviously some share of Linux users feel the same way, or this wouldn't even be an issue. (yes, I do run Linux for some things, but I spend the majority of my computing time in Windows)
Woodbridge
Reply #7 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 7:12 PM
Reply #7 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 7:12 PM
It'll just end up as a game of cat n' mouse - WINE devs will find ways of hiding WINE (untill Longhorn gets here at least)
Corky_O
Reply #8 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 8:40 PM
Reply #8 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 8:40 PM
Well, since I paid for both my Windows XP OS and my MS Office, I am glad I can get some added value over the years.
It sounds like MS is going to make "most if not all updates for MS Office available" no matter the underlying platform.
Seems pretty fair after seeing the report stating that "80% of MS Office installations, and around 70% of Windows installations around the world are illegal".
Those percentages can't look good to any company.
It sounds like MS is going to make "most if not all updates for MS Office available" no matter the underlying platform.
Seems pretty fair after seeing the report stating that "80% of MS Office installations, and around 70% of Windows installations around the world are illegal".
Those percentages can't look good to any company.
Island Dog
Reply #9 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 8:54 PM
The software was legitimately purchased to run on Windows XP, not Linux.
Reply #9 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 8:54 PM
| It's about Microsoft Office users who are running MS Office on another operating system - Linux. Meaning that they have a VALID Microsoft Office license (PAID FOR) but are using WINE (a windows emulator) to run the software that was legitimately purchased. |
The software was legitimately purchased to run on Windows XP, not Linux.
dissimuloorator
Reply #10 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 10:01 PM
Reply #10 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 10:01 PM
A license is a license. I do not remember reading, Windows use only. I might have missed it though.
Here's a nice article for you to read. http://tinyurl.com/6vkph
"In his statement, Gates had said: "Many of Microsoft’s products, such as Windows, Office, SQL Server, Exchange and Visual Studio, have significant functionality dedicated to interoperating with non-Microsoft products."
Kerberos, IE Browser, XML Microsofts track record isn't exactly sparkling.
| The software was legitimately purchased to run on Windows XP, not Linux. |
Here's a nice article for you to read. http://tinyurl.com/6vkph
"In his statement, Gates had said: "Many of Microsoft’s products, such as Windows, Office, SQL Server, Exchange and Visual Studio, have significant functionality dedicated to interoperating with non-Microsoft products."
Kerberos, IE Browser, XML Microsofts track record isn't exactly sparkling.
dissimuloorator
Reply #11 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 10:16 PM
Reply #11 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 10:16 PM
Additionally directly from the horses mouth.
"Microsoft software can talk to mainframes and minicomputers from IBM and other manufacturers; other operating systems such as the Mac OS and various UNIXes including Linux; NetWare or AppleTalk networks and native Internet protocols; dozens of programming languages, ranging from COBOL and RPG, through C++ and Java, to the latest experimental languages; hundreds of databases including Oracle, Sybase and DB2; popular business applications like SAP or Siebel; vertical industry standards like SWIFT or HL7; email systems; and infrastructure products providing message queues, directory, management and security. "
http://tinyurl.com/4dko6 [Microsoft.com]
"Microsoft software can talk to mainframes and minicomputers from IBM and other manufacturers; other operating systems such as the Mac OS and various UNIXes including Linux; NetWare or AppleTalk networks and native Internet protocols; dozens of programming languages, ranging from COBOL and RPG, through C++ and Java, to the latest experimental languages; hundreds of databases including Oracle, Sybase and DB2; popular business applications like SAP or Siebel; vertical industry standards like SWIFT or HL7; email systems; and infrastructure products providing message queues, directory, management and security. "
http://tinyurl.com/4dko6 [Microsoft.com]
tjesterb
Reply #12 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 10:23 PM
Reply #12 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 10:23 PM
MS still supports their Office products for Mac. You can even run them under VirtualPC for Mac http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/virtualpc/virtualpc.aspx?pid=virtualpc
(I know because we have about about a 70/30 Mac/PC ratio in our department at work, and they all have to be able to run MS word and Excel to be campatible with the PC environmetn in the rest of the company.) There's even a Mac version of Halo, MS's flagship game.
MS has pretty much stated that Linux poses their greatest threat. Do they have reason to worry? Apparently they think so.
MS could have taken two roads here. One: they could port versions of their best software (MS Office, games, etc...) to run on Linux. If MS Office weren't a better product than Open Office, why would Linux users even want to use it? This route could keep their foot in the door of open souce users, and they could still sell their software to users of alternate OSs. The one posible downside I see to this path is that it would give a level of validation to Linux that would run at odds with the current MS campaign aginst Linux and open source.
Two: MS could take their present path. Pull all products into the Windows fold. You want to run our software? Then you have to run our OS. Absolutely refuse to acknowledge anything positive about Linux. (There does seem to be some grudging respect toward the Mac camp, though)
Frankly, I find it interesting, but in reality, I could care less. When I use Linux, I use open source software designed to run on a Linux platform. When I reun MS Windows, I run apps designed for that environment, whether open or closed source depends on the quality of the app. When I use a Mac, it is to run Mac specific app or program. (I work in the printing industry, and the majority of the graphics/print industry runs on Mac platform) Who knows what level of platform convergence we'll see down the road. This current tactic falls in line with the whole MS anti-open source campaign. Only time will tell if it's a sound strategy, or if it will cost them in the end. (end of rant )
(I know because we have about about a 70/30 Mac/PC ratio in our department at work, and they all have to be able to run MS word and Excel to be campatible with the PC environmetn in the rest of the company.) There's even a Mac version of Halo, MS's flagship game.
MS has pretty much stated that Linux poses their greatest threat. Do they have reason to worry? Apparently they think so.
MS could have taken two roads here. One: they could port versions of their best software (MS Office, games, etc...) to run on Linux. If MS Office weren't a better product than Open Office, why would Linux users even want to use it? This route could keep their foot in the door of open souce users, and they could still sell their software to users of alternate OSs. The one posible downside I see to this path is that it would give a level of validation to Linux that would run at odds with the current MS campaign aginst Linux and open source.
Two: MS could take their present path. Pull all products into the Windows fold. You want to run our software? Then you have to run our OS. Absolutely refuse to acknowledge anything positive about Linux. (There does seem to be some grudging respect toward the Mac camp, though)
Frankly, I find it interesting, but in reality, I could care less. When I use Linux, I use open source software designed to run on a Linux platform. When I reun MS Windows, I run apps designed for that environment, whether open or closed source depends on the quality of the app. When I use a Mac, it is to run Mac specific app or program. (I work in the printing industry, and the majority of the graphics/print industry runs on Mac platform) Who knows what level of platform convergence we'll see down the road. This current tactic falls in line with the whole MS anti-open source campaign. Only time will tell if it's a sound strategy, or if it will cost them in the end. (end of rant
)
Island Dog
Reply #13 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 10:25 PM
A license is just not a "license". You just can't legally do what you want with it. You can't intall it on your neighbors pc, or use an academic "license" if you are not qualified to.
And here are the system requirements for Office 2003 from Microsoft.
"Microsoft Windows® 2000 with Service Pack 3 (SP3), Windows XP, or later"
It doesn't say anything about Linux.
Reply #13 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 10:25 PM
| A license is a license. I do not remember reading, Windows use only. I might have missed it though. |
A license is just not a "license". You just can't legally do what you want with it. You can't intall it on your neighbors pc, or use an academic "license" if you are not qualified to.
And here are the system requirements for Office 2003 from Microsoft.
"Microsoft Windows® 2000 with Service Pack 3 (SP3), Windows XP, or later"
It doesn't say anything about Linux.
dissimuloorator
Reply #14 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 11:03 PM
Reply #14 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 11:03 PM
I think you are misunderstanding system requirements, rather than a licensing necessity. But the truth of the matter is that MS actually intended to break WINE, by using a call for identification and if WINE is returned..then it returns an unspecified error, and becomes Broken.
Brandon Paddock
Reply #15 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 11:14 PM
Reply #15 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 11:14 PM
#14 - That's not true. It specifically checks for Windows XP. If WINE is in "XP mode" the check passes. The fact that they are checking for WINE indicates that they're counting the number of users, not trying to block them from WGA. The problem is that Wine isn't very stable in "XP mode" at this point.
#5 - The article linked to didn't provide the whole story. ZERO Office downloads even offer WGA right now. Microsoft has said they have no intention of making any Office updates require WGA. WGA is only for Windows 2000/XP, and doesn't even apply to updates there yet. It currently is used to offer special "bonuses" like PhotoStory 3. They've said that a future version of the technology may be used to validate users to access non-critical Windows XP updates - and may be used for all updates in high-piracy areas like South America and Eastern Europe.
However, they've never once implied that Office updates will require WGA. If they do ever require validation for Office, it will most likely be checking that your Office version is legit, not the Windows installation it is on.
Furthermore, the system requirements as stated on the box very clearly establish that Windows versions of Office require Microsoft Windows 2000 or later (version dependent of course).
Just as you wouldn't complain about Apple not supporting Safari under PearPC, you cannot blame Microsoft for not offering support to those running Office under wine.
#5 - The article linked to didn't provide the whole story. ZERO Office downloads even offer WGA right now. Microsoft has said they have no intention of making any Office updates require WGA. WGA is only for Windows 2000/XP, and doesn't even apply to updates there yet. It currently is used to offer special "bonuses" like PhotoStory 3. They've said that a future version of the technology may be used to validate users to access non-critical Windows XP updates - and may be used for all updates in high-piracy areas like South America and Eastern Europe.
However, they've never once implied that Office updates will require WGA. If they do ever require validation for Office, it will most likely be checking that your Office version is legit, not the Windows installation it is on.
Furthermore, the system requirements as stated on the box very clearly establish that Windows versions of Office require Microsoft Windows 2000 or later (version dependent of course).
Just as you wouldn't complain about Apple not supporting Safari under PearPC, you cannot blame Microsoft for not offering support to those running Office under wine.
Corky_O
Reply #16 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 11:19 PM
Reply #16 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 11:19 PM
I must have misunderstood.
I thought MS was requiring verification of OS license and the WINE developer was testing the verification software and found that WINE does not get authentication?
I thought MS was requiring verification of OS license and the WINE developer was testing the verification software and found that WINE does not get authentication?
Island Dog
Reply #18 Wednesday, February 23, 2005 7:50 AM
Reply #18 Wednesday, February 23, 2005 7:50 AM
Office 2003 is made for Windows, or a mac version is available. If there wasn't a mac version do you think Microsoft wouldn't mind that Apple somehow found a way to use MS Office on a mac? Why is it different for Linux?
Dark-Star
Reply #19 Wednesday, February 23, 2005 8:26 AM
Reply #19 Wednesday, February 23, 2005 8:26 AM
Oh well, we can always find hacked service packs...
dukeofchutney
Reply #20 Wednesday, February 23, 2005 8:28 AM
Reply #20 Wednesday, February 23, 2005 8:28 AM
Good grief - did anyone read some of the comments below that article - there's no quarter spared there, sheeesh those people were fairly ripping each other apart, whatever happened to "live and let live" I wonder?
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 3:00 PM