![Wine Wine](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/wine_64.png)
![Software Software](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/software_64.png)
![Microsoft Microsoft](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/microsoft_64100.png)
![Linux Linux](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/linux_64.png)
Microsoft Blocking Wine Users From Downloads Site 895
IamTheRealMike writes "In January, Microsoft announced a new anti-piracy initiative called
Genuine Advantage. From this summer onwards all users of Microsoft Downloads will be required to validate using either an ActiveX control or a standalone tool. Yesterday Ivan Leo Puoti, a Wine developer, discovered that the validation tool checks directly for Wine and bails out with a generic error when found. This is significant as it's not only the first time Microsoft has actively discriminated against users running their programs via Wine, but it's also the first time they've broken radio silence on the project."
Lost another one to FF (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Lost another one to FF (Score:3, Funny)
the good news (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft cannot compete... (Score:3, Insightful)
The message: Microsoft cannot compete unless they have an unfair advantage.
Just like HP. Without the crazy, temporary, situation of being able to sell ink, that is mostly cheap solvent, for thousands of dollars more than the cost of the raw material, HP would be much smaller and poorer.
These people are not real business people. They survive only by being adversarial toward the world.
bah (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:bah (Score:4, Funny)
Re:bah (Score:3, Funny)
However, keep in mind too much Wine on a party might turn "it" Microsoft.
I think (Score:3, Funny)
Re:bah (Score:4, Informative)
Re:bah (Score:5, Interesting)
However, they don't. They only fail when Wine is emulating earlier versions of Windows, which might be a problem with Wine's emulation. Barring further evidence, I would look at the Wine check as a means to count Wine users, not to block them.
Re:bah (Score:4, Insightful)
Wasn't that judged illegal?
Now if they're doing the same thing with office or their games, and they're refusing to run on wine...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:bah (Score:5, Interesting)
unsupported != deliberately crippled. (Score:5, Insightful)
That means "unsupported" is not telling the whole story. It's deliberate deception.
Re:bah (Score:3)
It's a simple case of "You don't get a free gift unless you're our customer."
Slightly more complicated.
"You don't get a free gift unless you're our recent customer."
It's another prod towards the apathetic that would be content to use Windows 95.
Re:bah (Score:5, Informative)
Re:bah (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:bah (Score:5, Insightful)
From interview: [go.com]
JENNINGS: Everybody I talked to seems to, particularly if they are young, seems to think that open sourcing is important and that among the reasons it is important is that it enables them to run more secure systems. Is that true from your point of view?
GATES: Actually no, but that is the kind of competition that we have. Is that they will innovate in that space, we will innovate in our space. And in fact, we do a lot of work to make sure that these things can inter-operate so that a company can have a mix of Microsoft products, Unix products, Mainframe products, and then each time they do a project they can look and say - is the Microsoft solution best? Is the other solution best? And so there will just be a lot of choices there, no one approach is going to replace the other. (emphasis above added)
Now compare the above with this: [winehq.com]
" If you visit the download center with IE you get an activex control, but if you try with Firefox, you'll have to download a little program, that returns a code you have to copy into the download page, to get access to the download you selected. By quickly looking at the program, I noticed it looks for a registry key, this key is... SOFTWARE\Wine\Wine\Config the wine configuration key. the Windows Genuine Advantage program press release says that in the second half of 2005, all users connecting to the Microsoft download center or to windows update will have to validate their copy of windows. Interestingly if you run the validation program on wine, and the version of windows you're emulating is prior to 2000 or is windows server 20003, you get a message saying a validation code couldn't be found, because of technical difficulties or because you're running an unsupported operating system."
Re:bah (Score:4, Informative)
Re:bah (Score:5, Informative)
I'm inclined to agree with this assessment.
Re:bah (Score:5, Insightful)
Well spoken. The same goes for microsoft as well: think about all that effort they put in to all that code over the years to break other software and twist standards and spy on you and keep you from doing anything they don't want... and then think of how much better windows could possibly be if they had spent all that time making the product more functional and fixing all the damned bugs.
Boy can we learn from this... oh wait, we allready have.
I sure as hell don't use windows or windows based apps so news like this is just funny to me when I look at the triple digit uptime on most of the 5000 web servers we run from my own gentoo workstation.
Re:bah (Score:3, Informative)
Wine to Rob last night that we really cannot fix or workaround, and if I
can think of it they certainly can too.
Basically if we start integrating workarounds into Wine, it'll lead to an
arms race we cannot possibly win. Better to ensure our users don't need
anything from that website.
This ActiveX/tool is nothing new.
I run a windows emulation tool, called Cedega [trangaming.com], based on Wine. Cedega includes a lot of NDA covered hacks and proprietary tech to make Microsoft Windows base
Re:bah (Score:3, Insightful)
Let this be a lesson to you... (Score:4, Funny)
To be fair though... (Score:3, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL, but that sounds to me like leveraging a de facto monopoly on Office Suites to maintain their de facto monopoly on desktop operating systems...
Re:To be fair though... (Score:4, Informative)
Guess I'd better call my lawyer then... (Score:3, Funny)
Not the first time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not the first time. (Score:3, Informative)
Garg
So, it's working as designed.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't we be complaining if it *wasn't* working right?
It is, if obfuscation is part of the design (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So, it's working as designed.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft may have the right to refuse Windows upgrade downloads, but why do they refuse downloads of "productivity" apps like MS Office suite? As long as the software application is duly licensed, what right does Microsoft have to force the user to run it under "Genuine Windows" only?
Advantage Microsoft? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Advantage Microsoft? (Score:3, Interesting)
They are trying to make it look like they are trying to prevent the claimed "100 trillion" lost every year in software piracy.
It's not meant to help thier customers, it's meant to help themselves.
Re:Advantage Microsoft? (Score:5, Informative)
Mixed signals (Score:5, Funny)
"Ignore all that, turn ActiveX on again, else you won't be able to download from us!"
What the hell?
Re:Mixed signals (Score:4, Insightful)
They've realised that other crackers (not employed by MS) were using it too much, so they are now making it so only they can take over your machine with ActiveX. Makes perfect sense to me.
BTW, I'm being totally serious.
Re:Mixed signals (Score:3, Interesting)
If I need an update that bad, I'll find it somewhere else.
But it's also going to cripple the ability of legit user to patch critically vu
Re:Mixed signals (Score:3, Informative)
Aside: Funny the way even Microsoft-worshipping sysadmins (I'm not saying that's you and I'm not using "worshipping" lightly) often use GNU/Linux to get MSW installed.
What do you need MSW for? I'm sure people can suggest alternatives.Its Microsofts Right (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Its Microsofts Right (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Its Microsofts Right (Score:3, Insightful)
As to why it sometimes doesn't work if you have Wine installed on a Windows machine, that I can't say (but why would you have it installed anyway?). However, the fact that it works if Wine's set to emulate XP suggests Wine mi
yet another lawsuit waiting (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm guessing that the only real downloads a Wine user would be making are updates for Office, correct? I'm drawing a blank on what else it could be. I haven't had the time to read my MS office EULA yet, but I'm guessing it doesn't specifically call out that it has to be run on Windows. That doesn't mean that MS has to provide you support if you're not. This is an automated incarnation of what has happened for years:
me> I need support
support> You're computer case isn't blue, is it?
me> yes, it is, thanks for asking
support> We don't support our software on computers with blue cases. Thanks for calling.
me> argh!
I think we've all been in that boat at one point or another.
Jerry
http://www.syslog.org/ [syslog.org]
DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run. (Score:5, Insightful)
So... (Score:3, Insightful)
This was the only way for Bill... (Score:5, Insightful)
For me it's just another good reason to stay well clear from a software company with such business tactics.
Dr. DOS (Score:5, Insightful)
How MS played the incompatibility card against DR-DOS [theregister.co.uk]
Bad because.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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!
Re:Bad because.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bad because.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bad because.... (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe MS Should Sell Updates to Wine Users (Score:3, Informative)
Well, of they can. This move by MS won't stop that. They didn't buy perpetual upgrades, though, and MS didn't agree to provide perpetual upgrades at no cost to anyone.
So, what are people bitching about? Maybe they'd be happier if MS offered piad subscriptions to updates to non-MS users?
It Had to Happen Eventually (Score:5, Interesting)
On the flipside, I wonder if this means that WINE has moved from the part where MS ignored them and will begin laughing at them.
You have to figure that MS bought Connectix for their virtualization technology so that they could actually dump backwards compatibility from the core OS and just use limited virtualization for better backward compatibility. At the same time by dumping all that cruft from the core OS, they can make the OS something more advanced. XP was a pretty big leap from Win2K in that direction (dropping support for CPUs below P II for example). I would have to guess that Longhorn is going to be an even bigger jump which is why it's taking so long.
What if I DO have a copy of their software? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
It's not done... (Score:5, Funny)
... `till WINE won't run.
Good old Microsoft.
Same as it ever was.
IE + Wine (Score:3, Interesting)
Installed the ActiveX component, and downloaded just fine.
Tried with the AntiSpyware product of theirs.
They're already doing it (Score:3, Informative)
At best it's an inconvenience for me (Score:5, Interesting)
So just yesterday I'm at Microsoft's site grabbing a copy of Sonar, a file replication monitoring tool, and it wants to immediately verify my copy of Windows. But I'm grabbing the file from my workstation because the machines it will be applied to don't have direct access to the internet. Luckily for now, I can choose to skip the verification step, but eventually I know I won't be able to.
I would imagine that my scenario is far from unique. It certainly isn't deceptive in any way, but I've got the feeling that it won't be an option for me in the near future.
Active X and Security .... (Score:4, Insightful)
My biggest problem with the way that Microsoft does a lot of things is this damned Active X stuff. In order to secure your system, everyone says turn this crap off because it's a huge gaping hole.
In order to do anything with Microsoft's site, you need to set your security settings to abysmal in order to use the damned site. I'm sure a more Windows-savvy user can set it up to have these settings off and still use this stuff.
I find it annoying and most people probably end up leaving themselves with insecure settings so they can get their security updates.
Silly.
Pay close attention Mono users! (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure, I know that you can do without Genuine Microsoft binaries for much of Mono, but being blocked from having updates sure hurts the compatibility argument to Mono. (ie. updates to the
I know that many Wine libraries are needed for the Forms libaries and this will be a blow for dll updates and changes there.
If Microsoft tries to enforce their patent protections on top of this kind of thing, it will be game-over for the new Gnome development on Mono. Score: Microsoft 1, Linux Desktop -1
Too funny (Score:5, Funny)
You should only have the inferior computing, viruses and vulnuerabilities that result from Genuine Windows products. Don't be fooled by immitations.
Wait there's more....
it also isn't the first time . . . (Score:5, Informative)
After winning awards and besting MS-DOS in virtually every comparison, DR-DOS had the rug pulled out from under it when Microsoft released a beta version of Windows 3.0 that detected DR-DOS and gave bogus error messages. [winnetmag.com]
print the article while you can. now that the records from the caldera trial have been destroyed [ksl.com] (along with the copy of the beta they managed to find for the trial, no doubt), microsoft will undoubted resume claiming it's an urban legend, if they have't already, and all mention of this little bit of history is rapidly vanishing from the virtual world as well. pathetic.
the destruction of the caldera trial documents has been mentioned on slashdot once [slashdot.org] or twice [slashdot.org], and i commented on it both [slashdot.org] times [slashdot.org]. pity nobody cared. oh well. history repeats itself again.
Did anyone RTFP? (Score:3, Insightful)
When I run the validation program on my genuine Win2k system, I get the message saying a validation code couldn't be found because of technical difficulties or because I'm running an unsupported operating system. When using IE and thus the ActiveX control there is no problem and my Windows is recognized as genuine. Looks to me the standalone validation program is seriously broken....
"You see, you have this mat, with different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO."
But please flame me if I'm wrong;)
Re:Did anyone RTFP? (Score:3, Informative)
Riddle me this, why does this appear when running strings on the program?
strings GenuineCheck.exe | more
ProductId
SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion
SOFTWARE\Wine\Wine\Config
SOF T WARE\Microsoft\Windows Genuine Advantage
Somehow I don't think that they are checking for Wine just to make sure they don't screw up your linux installation.
But please flame me if I'm wrong;)
Consider yourself toast
Enjoy,
Short anti-trust story from the past (Score:3, Interesting)
Little did I know at the time that I was probably helping them violate anti-trust laws. But it sure did help put me through college.
The moral is that this type of practice isn't limited to the software business or to the "big boys".
We're here to protect you (Score:5, Funny)
The next time you go to Windows Update, whether you run Wine or not...
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:5, Informative)
A valid and working code is returned if the version is set to xp.
So it doesn't even really stop you.
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:3, Interesting)
Hell, I was a victim of their DR-DOS trick too. I was even more of a victim since I used to work at WordPerfect, and then Novell after that. But this is a totally different scenario. It's not like their restricting you from running Windows on a
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:3, Interesting)
It really depends what 'lie' means. In the case of DR DOS, my understanding is that they exploited some difference in how DR DOS and MS DOS implement an arcane and seldom-used system call. If they're pulling something like this with Wine, that's going to be a very tough arms race to keep up with. It's unwinnable too, depending on how far Microsoft
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they are not. Your assessment is wrong.
If I purchase Office, run it under WINE and want to update it, I'm screwed -- yet I am a legit customer of Microsoft.
Considering you can't really update WINE thru WUS, WTF is the point?
-Charles
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:5, Informative)
No, they don't. Read the EULA and it says NOTHING of the kind.
I quote from the MS Word 2003 EULA found at http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/2/5/1253
"Installation and use. You may:
(a) install and use a copy of the Software on one personal computer or other device; and
(b) install an additional copy of the Software on a second, portable device for the exclusive use of the primary
user of the first copy of the Software."
If you can point out in the EULA where I missed it and there is a statement saying I have to run this software under MS Windows, I'd appreciate it.
Until such time, I have the right to run the software under any OS I want.
-Charles
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:3, Informative)
excpet for those clauses that say "if one part of this agreement is found to be unenforceable, the rest of it shall still be enforceable until a judge says otherwise."
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait a sec... (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't have to run Windows to be an MS customer... Our corporate Macs all run Office 2004, but not windows. We're considered customers, though.... And I hope this article is merely incomplete, since we don't run Windows and as far as I know ActiveX controls are dodgy at best on IE for the Mac... If we can't patch our machines, we'll likely be in the market for other office suites.
A
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:5, Insightful)
What does this have to do with anything, and who said this is what was happening?
I read the article, and unless I missed something, this is NOT the complaint.
I don't use WINE to run Windows(c) OS, I run it to run some (work required) Office apps and some games.
The Office apps were purchased and presumably have rights to be updated the same as any other user of Office apps. Same with the games.
But Microsoft is saying that, because I am using a valid purchased version of their software on an OS other than Windows (by using WINE) they will not allow updates from their servers.
This is the mirror image of their antitrust loss - they were accused of using their market possition (monopoly) in the OS to maintain and grow their market position in other markets, while here they are using their market possition in the other areas to maintain their possition in the OS market.
You say you were a victim of the DR-DOS 'trick', where a competiting product was specifically checked for and then bogus 'error' messages were given, or the applications just didn't work as expected - not because of a problem with DR-DOS, but because the app was PROGRAMMED to work differently when used with DR-DOS. Like is happening here?
You say you worked at WordPerfect. Isn't that the company that worked with Microsoft to be compatable and competitive, then Microsoft changed the APIs and didn't publish them to competitors of their Office (specifically Word(c)) and royally screwed WordPerfect over?
Novell - didn't I hear their networking applications were deliberately 'broken' by Microsoft so that Microsofts' market share of networking would not be threatened? Like here?
They're just saying "don't expect to be able to use our bandwidth and download from us without being a customer first".
No, they are just saying "don't expect to be able to use our bandwidth and download from us without being a Microsoft Windows OS customer first (even if you are a valid Microsoft Office customer)." Very different than what you posted.
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:3, Insightful)
That part is clear. If you're a paying customer who bought Office they should supply bugfixes and updates regardless of your OS.
What gets unclear is OS updates, and specifically in the case of Wine, Internet Explorer updates (remember IE is a part of the OS). Now take a look at the EULA for the KB834707 update for IE6.0sp1 (Microsoft's caps):
NOTE: IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALIDLY LICENSED COPY OF ANY VERS
What if I have a Win license *and* use Wine? (Score:3, Insightful)
The EULA says I must have a Windows license, but it doesn't say I must use that licensed copy of Windows to run the software.
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems to me that if such terms are in a license, then you don't really NEED any trial to speak of to get a conviction for antitrust. All you need is Exhibit A, the license that *ties* the two products together.
Of course the product that benefits from the tying (the OS) is itself a monopoly. But given that Office is also effectively a monopoly, though it hasn't been declared so in court, doesn't this qualify as a "monopoly maintenance" device, which is also illegal under antitrust.
I believe Microsoft is justified in not giving support for its products running in an unsupported environment. But to restrict patch availability to a product based on the OS running underneath is kind of like a car parts store requiring your Ford registration before you can buy Ford accessories.
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:5, Interesting)
I run Microsoft Office under CodeWeavers' Crossover Office, both of which are licensed (read: I paid for it), so yes, I find the news disturbing.
It also appears to be a very shortsighted move on their part while under a worldwide antitrust microscope.
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:3, Insightful)
IMO just because one uses software in an "unsupported" manner, does not mean they should be actively denied updates. If the update fails on its own because its being used in an unsupported manner, fine. But to actively sabototage an update just because you don't support the way its being used is simply wrong in my book.
So now we know why Jeff Goldbloom's character used a Mac to save the world in Independence Day. If he
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:3, Interesting)
Last time I was at the mall's food court, the various food merchants kept all of their napkins behind the counter. I guess napkin loss from non-customers was somehow a huge profit drain.
I bet a car sales lot would not take too kindly if you just walked in, grabbed a donut or two, a cup of coffee, and then walked out, either.
There are a few exceptions, though. A restaurant owner may put up a sign that says the "rest
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, there's a difference between not supporting your efforts, "accidentally" breaking your efforts, and actively trying to stop your efforts from working. This appears to be a pretty clear case of the third item in that list.
Daniel
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:3, Informative)
I am not a lawyer, in fact I don't even live in the United States of Attorneys, but I do believe you are blatantly wrong on both counts. I am fairly certain that most states have some kind of "Good Samaritan" law that requires you to help - I certainly would not want to be the defendant (legal) in this case, nor would I want to shoulder the social (ethical) implications of being
Re:Bad, bad Microsoft.... no cookie for you! (Score:3, Informative)
My understanding of U.S. Good Samaritan laws [medi-smart.com] is that they protect those who, without obligation and any statutory protections that go with it, help strangers in need. Thus, a doctor who stops at a car crash and renders medical aid is protected from most liability by a Good Sam law. Again, this is needed because the doctor is not legally obligated to help, and might overlook his moral obligation in
Re:Dead software walking... (Score:3, Insightful)
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... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dead software walking... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:3, Insightful)
Legal Issues (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if it doesnt, expect a crushing lawsuit that will put them out of business.
Re:Pissed? (Score:3, Insightful)
If I bought MS Office, and MS is putting out patches for it, I have the right to get those patches. If MS refuses to service me, then they can refund my money.
Why should I have to jump through hoops just because Microsoft says so? I am the customer, dammit.
Re:Pissed? (Score:3, Informative)
When you buy a product, that's all you buy. You're not buying the product plus a lifetime right to patches. The software company provides those patches at its convenience, as a service to its customers. If it wanted to restrict the availability of patches to people whose last names when converted to ASCII sum to an odd number, they're entirely within their rights. You have no right to download any patches they don't want you to.
Re:While I disagree with the action (Score:5, Insightful)