![Wine Wine](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/wine_64.png)
![Software Software](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/software_64.png)
![Linux Linux](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/linux_64.png)
Microsoft Admits Targeting Wine Users 541
Buddha Joe wrote in to mention that the lack of Windows updates for Wine users is the result of a Microsoft's active targeting of Wine users. ZDNet has the story. From the article: "As the most popular third-party translation technology in use, Wine was the first emulator to be specifically tested for via WGA"
The Interview (Score:5, Funny)
Reply:
In all fairness, most alcoholics are Microsoft's customers. We need them.
The Linux/Unix market has already cornered the stoner folks. Just look at the latest release of Solaris.
Oh... That Wine...And you mean 'targeting' much differently. Are we on the air????
Re:The Interview (Score:5, Funny)
Balmer: "Developers! Developers! Developers!
Re:The Interview (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Interview (Score:4, Funny)
Somebody's had tee many martoonis!
Re:The Interview (Score:3, Funny)
I use NetBSD. I am posting this from a NetBSD 2.0 box, X11R6 running, with icewm, viewing /. with Mozilla Firefox. I am neither stoner nor alcoholic.
I'm psychotic. Please get it right next time. After all, one has to be psychotic after seeing what GNU/Linux have done to the world of Unices. Like the select() call for example. Don't get me started.
Re:The Interview (Score:4, Funny)
Hey! No dying twice in the same post!
Re:The Interview (Score:4, Interesting)
Some folks should stop taking life so seriously.
Re:The Interview (Score:5, Funny)
Be careful what you wish for.
No obligation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No obligation... (Score:5, Insightful)
That is true. And if it required additional effort to update the emulators, I would expect them not to. But it appears as if they are are putting forth additional effort to hamper emulators. And that just makes them look like jerks.
Re:No obligation... (Score:5, Insightful)
This entire forum would go ape-shit if Microsoft was publishing a patch from Windowsupdate that broke WINE simply because it conveniently "forgot" to read that registry key.
Windowsupdate has simple checks in it to verify that it's updating actual installs of...wait for it...WINDOWS!
Re:No obligation... (Score:5, Insightful)
How many ways should I say this?
Re:No obligation... (Score:3, Insightful)
Running Linux/Wine is mutualy exclusive to running Windows. You also likely didn't buy a Windows license or service contract for your Linux/Wine system.
But it's quite possible that the version of Office you may be running is legitimately paid for, regardle
Re:No obligation... (Score:3, Insightful)
The point of this, if anything, was to get us bent out of shape about nothing. A blocking of Windows updates makes us worry about them possibly blocking Office updates. As a couple of people here have pointed out, Microsoft is obligated to provide updates to all users of its software, even if that software is being run under an "emulator."
Re:No obligation... (Score:4, Interesting)
That's an interesting point. MS has been found guilty of abusing monopoly powers by insisting that OEMs don't remove MS products like Media Player. I think the general public find it hard to understand a legal process to stop a company providing 'free stuff' with their product. But here we have a case where a (hopefully - let's assume for the moment) legally purchased piece of software intentionally has features blocked when it's not used on an MS operating system.
When OSs are mutually incompatible it's not unreasonable for MS to choose which OSs to support. No-one can force them to release a Linux version of Office. But now that Linux (on i386) is becoming increasingly compatible with Windows, MS has a problem - how do they prevent Linux users from installing Office and other flagship apps? And can they do this without abusing monopoly powers? I don't think so.
It might be that MS doesn't mind abusing their powers - they pretty much get away with it every time (although the EU is having a pretty good do at stopping them). The difference here is - in a couple of years time, when Walmart are selling cheap Linux boxes that are compatible with 90% of Windows software, if the general public find out the MS is intentionally stopping it working with their computers - I think that could have some real traction.
Re:No obligation... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No obligation... (Score:3, Insightful)
The answer, of course, is for Microsoft to stop worrying about piracy causing potential revenue loss and start worrying about security. Microsoft has enough cash reserves to buy ALL of google's stock (at least, they did last time I checked google's market capitalization). Microsoft's revenues are larger than the next
Re:No obligation... (Score:4, Interesting)
If you had bothered to pay any attention to what was being talked about, you might understand how stupid your posts were. Microsoft is under no obligation to keep your emulators up to date. That is correct. They are, however, under obligation to keep your Office up to date. Whether you are running Office under an emulator or not shouldn't be a factor if you legally paid for Office. You paid for their product and service, so they should keep you updated just like the rest of their legitimate users. This has nothing to do with installs of Windows and updating them... Wine makes it so you don't have to install Windows. This is about not allowing emulators to fully run their other, non-OS software.
They are excluding a specific set of legitimate users who should have the same rights as other legitimate users to lock out a competitor. This has nothing to do with fighting piracy; it is purely about anti-competitive behaviour.
Re:No obligation... (Score:3, Insightful)
"From this summer onwards all users of Microsoft Downloads will be required to validate using either an ActiveX control or a standalone tool."
This is what people have to use if they don't use IE... go to windowsupdate or officeupdate in firefox and see where it takes you. If you want to update Office under Wine, you have to go through this validation process (which is what this story is about). Actually, none of the links or even the blurb ment
Re:No obligation... (Score:5, Informative)
No, no, no, no no.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!
The spokesperson said users who are not running Windows XP or Windows 2000 natively can still download updates for Microsoft Office from the Office Update Web site.
You can't use WINDOWSupdate to update Office if you're not using WINDOWS. You have to use OFFICEupdate to update Office.
Re:No obligation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if a Microsoft update accidentally broke a part of WINE's compatibility, some people might accuse Microsoft of deliberately breaking it. Why should they take the chance?
Re:No obligation... (Score:4, Insightful)
No you are wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone PAYS for Office they should get the UPDATES for Office even if they are running the program under WINE.
This so smells of anti trust it is not funny.
Re:Did you purchase MS Office for WINE or WINDOWS? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no expectation that Microsoft will work to put effort into keeping Office Wine compatible. However if it can be shown that they are specifically breaking it then it strikes me as an abuse of their monopoly.
You should still be entitled to updates of any faulty software you've purchsed.
This would be like ford voiding my warranty for putting non-ford sparkplugs in my car.
Re:Did you purchase MS Office for WINE or WINDOWS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why shouldn't you use them how you like?
Nobody's expecting MS to go to any lengths to do anything to affect running in an unsupported environment.. Which is why you'll never find people using MS Office making support calls about it. It's the WINE team's job to do that, and they're doing that pretty well..
It's nothing like getting Nintendo to do anything to get their ROMs working on a SNES emulator.. In face, more like Nintendo rewriting all their ROMs to specifically NOT work on a particular emulator.
Largely a pointless task.
Now, if MS wasn't a monopoly, they'd be doing what they could to get business in (hey, WINE is just getting them extra revenue, by allowing Linux users to purchase and use Windows programs). Being able to arbitrarily turn away paying customers says something about a business.
As for not getting the big deal about using MS office on *NIX.. You've not worked in an office environment where people are throwing round documents with macros in just to format headings have you? They won't work in anything BUT MS Office.. Thus the need to run it in emulation..
Now, I can understand MS turning around and saying 'Buy what you like of ours, but we're not going to support it on anything other than the environment we sold it for'.. But actually changing their code to specifically look for certain things, and STOP you using stuff if you choose to use it other than where they expect you to?
It's like selling a town car, and specifically make it stop working if it detects mud under the wheels, as they only sold it to you to use on tarmac roads (and then only on the tarmac roads that you pay them a toll for).
Re:No obligation... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No obligation... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this has been alluded to before, but I thought a direct reply to this post that has been marked insightful was warranted.
Re:No obligation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No obligation... (Score:5, Informative)
A piece of software that performs windows-like-functions, like WINE, won't continue to be updated.
Re:No obligation... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope! (Score:5, Informative)
Consumer Protection Laws (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No obligation... (Score:5, Insightful)
MS says that someone running an emulator can get the updates somewhere else, but it is still a practical exclusion.
Re:No obligation... (Score:2)
They're just blocking people that don't have windows from downloading through the windows update program.
They aren't blocking you from updating software you own. They're blocking you from using a windows service because you don't have windows. That's perfectly legal.
Re:No obligation... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want WINE to be able to use windows updater it's up to the makers of WINE to find a way for to connect to windows updater and vaildate itself with your windows information.
It's not Microsoft's job to find out if you own the cd or not while running WINE.
Wait just a minute! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're going to post rants, make them obvious so we can mod them down. This is nothing more than the obvious BS it is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can find information here: http://http//www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2co f f=1&q=microsoft+antitrust+ruling+interoperability& btnG=Search/ [http]
Oh, and just to rebut before you retort with anything regarding using their "dll"
Re:No obligation... (Score:5, Insightful)
-1: RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
-1: RTFA (Score:4, Informative)
You can still update MS software if your running WINE. What you can't do is run windows updater to update said software for you automaticly because windows updater is a windows service. And if your running WINE you obivously don't have windows.
Re:No obligation... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it me, or is this starting to look like another Dr. DOS [theregister.co.uk] issue?
Re:No obligation... (Score:3, Insightful)
1. To strive to equal or excel, especially through imitation: an older pupil whose accomplishments an style I emulated.
2. To compete with successfully; approach or attain equality with.
3. Computer Science. To imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system.
Sorry, but that third definition clear
If ever there was a case..... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's too bad this didn't happen a while back during the trial years.
Re:If ever there was a case..... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:If ever there was a case..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Some beta version of IE had a substantial conflict with WP7 (been a while, specifics gone). WP worked around it so WP8 didn't have the conflict.
WP8 came out, and shortly afterward the "final" of that version of IE did too, with a very similar conflict with WP8.
Maybe it was just coincidence.
Re:If ever there was a case..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yup (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yup (Score:3, Insightful)
The EULA is meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Internet Explorer comes with Office (Score:2)
ReactOS also has the Wine registry key (Score:4, Informative)
-sedwards
Re:ReactOS also has the Wine registry key (Score:5, Interesting)
This check creates a possibile vulnerability for future trojans/viruses to exploit - they could just place this Wine key into the Windows registry, and thus block Windows updates for the user.
Re:ReactOS also has the Wine registry key (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd have modded you +10, Interestingly funny.
I'm confused (Score:2, Funny)
Said updates actually work on wine?
MS downloads no longer needed (Score:3, Informative)
Office can still be updated, however (Score:5, Informative)
To those who were saying "what about me? I'm only using Office under WINE," you can still get updates.
The simple solution is... (Score:2, Interesting)
Wine users? (Score:4, Funny)
WINE (Score:5, Informative)
(W)ine (I)s (N)ot an (E)mulator
Re:WINE (Score:2)
Yes, it is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes, it is... (Score:3, Informative)
An emulator emulates a CPU or platform. VMWare is an emulator, because it emulates an x86 host system.
Wine is not an emulator. Wine is a 3rd party implimentation of the Win32 API. This is partially why Wine only really works well on X86 platforms (although work is being done in this area).
Re:Yes, it is... (Score:5, Insightful)
So I take that to mean that Wine is not an emulator of Windows. It's Windows, from someone other than Microsoft.
In the computer world, most uses of the word 'emulation' are referring to making a piece of software work like and replace a piece of hardware. VMWare works like and replaces an X86 box. A microprocessor emulator works just like a physical chip. Mame simulates a piece of hardware that is found in game systems.
When we write pieces of software that work just like some other piece of software, we consider that to be an alternative implementation, not an emulation. Linux is not an emulation of UNIX, it's an alternate implementation. Wine is not an emulator of Windows, it's an alternative implementation.
Emulation isn't about just the implementation, it's about the LEVEL of implementation. Emulation is about making a useful device in software that behaves just like a device in the physical hardware world.
OK, this is the cue for anyone else to jump in with some counterexamples to prove me wrong...
Re:Yes, it is... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no real opinion on this one way or the other, but I'd say it would hardly be surprising if a general purpose dictionary gets a definition wrong in the context of a specialized field. The American Heritage dictionary is not written for CS, Physics, Biochemistry, or any other such specialized purpose and isn't really reliable for them. A more reasonable thing to do would be to look at some cannonical sources in the field and see how they use the word.
Then again, I'd also suggest that this argument
Re:WINE (Score:3, Informative)
DRM Mind Set (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole thing is... (Score:4, Interesting)
That's a great acknowledgement from Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
And I'm thrilled to have Microsoft say that Wine is the "the most popular third-party translation technology in use".
The one thing I felt she didn't emphasize enough though was that this is not a problem for Wine - we shouldn't (and mostly don't) need any OS component downloads from Microsoft. In fact, we're just finishing up work to make any need for DCOM or MSI or any other 'common downloads' from Microsoft unnecessary.
It's always nice when the other guy blinks :-).
Dumb question but.... (Score:5, Interesting)
So what does it do with Windows updates, anyway? I get why, for example, a Windows copy on Virtual PC needs to be updated, but how does WINE make use of them?
Re:Dumb question but.... (Score:5, Informative)
The real issue (Score:3, Insightful)
A true businessman (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a true businessman at work. While everyone else is crying foul, this man is rallying around this news. Anyways, most of the updates coming out of MS might mess up a working Wine installation.
Re:A true businessman (Score:3, Interesting)
Presumably, they're admitting to it now because they've changed their mind and they don't consider it to be a big threat :-)
Arms race (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Arms race (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Arms race (Score:5, Funny)
I know! It must be related to bounds checking: MS can try out buffer overflow vulnerabilities to test whether it is dealing with the real MS product.
Minimum system requirements for Office.. (Score:3, Interesting)
If you don't have it, why do you expect Office should run?
Still, this needs to be looked at closely by antitrust regulators..
Short Article, Good News (Score:5, Interesting)
As it's already mentioned you don't have the right to use Windows Updater if you don't own Windows. It's just like you can't use Redhat Network unless you own Redhat. Only Redhat is even more restrictive with their update services than Windows Update, granted their services are more comprehensive.
Some interesting tidbits from the article...
White, CEO at CodeWeavers (acompany that utilizes Wine), said 'he was excited rather than worried to hear that the WGA validation tool was blocking Wine. "The reason we love this is because this shows that Microsoft is aware of Wine at very high levels," said White. "For us it's exciting -- it is an acknowledgement of us as a threat."
Also, the spokesperson for windows 'said users who are not running Windows XP or Windows 2000 natively can still download updates for Microsoft Office from the Office Update Web site.'
So you can still get the updates manually, which is something anyone running Wine over linux probably has the expertise to do.
The only reason we have Windows machines where I work is because of Microsoft Office file compatibility. Wine and consequently Codeweaver's CrossOver Office is a HUGE threat to Windows OS, and it's a good sign that Microsoft is forced to recognize this.
--David
Re:Short Article, Good News (Score:4, Insightful)
So what about me? I own a full version of Windows XP. Its not installed anywhere as I use Linux, but I presumably still have rights to download updates.
Furthermore there was nothing in my XP EULA that said I couldn't install XP in a virtual machine, or that I couldn't use only parts of it(say, the system DLLs), or that it has to be the controlling OS.
The job's not done ... (Score:3, Funny)
First they ignore you... (Score:4, Insightful)
it is no wonder Linux is clearly gaining new users daily.
Microsoft needs to change, or perish [healthhacker.com].
A better Windows than Windows..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Wine is good for running old windows apps that you have ( I still Office 7 !!!???? and open office of course), but if anyone spends too much time trying to emulate windows (ala os2) then MS will simply screw you over. As soon as one thing works, they will break it.
If you are using a current MS app either 1) run windows 2) find/create a linux based alternative.
People will scream that yadddadda M$ app is just what they need. Trying to build a 'better windows than windows' is a game no one can win (not even IBM).
Re:A better Windows than Windows..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Customers who were looking forward had no choice but to go with Windows 95 as opposed to the dark horse with no marketing. If OS/2 had Win32 support and OEM preloads, it would have been a completely different ballgame. Microsoft was in a position to prevent both of those, and that ended up sealing their strategy to kill off OS/2.
I've heard people scream repeatedly that developers would simply target the Win3.1 API because it was included in OS/2, precluding OS/2 native applications and guaranteeing the failure of OS/2. First of all, I don't see how that guarantees the failure of OS/2 - it's a removal of a barrier to entry for the consumer, and the developers go where the consumer install base goes. Furthermore, if that assertion were true, then developers wouldn't have bothered writing Win32 native applications at all since Win3.1 compatibility was available - why lock out existing Win3.1 and OS/2 users?
The key here is who has a dominating market share and who has a forward path for compatibility with the dominating market share. Microsoft had a dominating market share, and IBM had no forward path for compatibility with it. OS/2 was doomed the moment Win95 was launched.
Re:A better Windows than Windows..... (Score:3, Informative)
The problem was, by the mid-90's Microsoft had begun a shift to 32-bit code, with NT and Win95 introducting new APIs beyond those contained in OS/2. IBM never quite managed to keep up compatibility once users started using software more modern than Windows 3.1.
(Internet applications were an especially big nail in OS/2's coffin -- Netscape 2.x for Windows wouldn't run under OS/2, even after you shelled out $99 for the OS/2
WINE is best for custom WIN32 apps (Score:4, Interesting)
For most users' purposes, native Linux desktop apps are perfectly good. But some companies have Win32 code developed in-house that they can't afford to convert.
They could switch to OpenOffice, Firefox, Evolution, etc., and still need to run their custom stuff. That's where WINE comes in really handy. Rather than needing to rewrite these apps, they just need to tweak them to make sure they work well under WINE.
I've recently used WINE to deliver one such app to Mac OS/X users via X-windows. These users would have no other way to run that app. This is really cool stuff. I'd prefer to be able to build a native OS/X version uxing winelib, but getting winelib to work for the PowerPC is beyond me. This would be nice, even if I still had to use XDarwin, because remote X-Windows can't see the Mac's local drives (or launch Mac helper apps).
Can this be exploited against Windows users? (Score:5, Insightful)
This reminds me of... (Score:4, Interesting)
The mantra in Redmond when Windows 3.1x was being developed was: "Windows ain't done til Lotus won't run."
The Microsoft team who worked with IBM on OS/2 specifically designed certain key features of OS/2 so that they would - in the resulting form - not run under an SMP system. IBM had to invest significant time to correct these design "flaws" (or WAD [W.orking A.s D.esigned], depending on which company you ask) to get OS/2 to run on a 2 and 4 processor system.
There are a few other incidents that come to mind were Microsoft used its power in a manner that was dubious at best, monopolistic at best, yet they continue to skirt the line on the side of legality. Oy vey.
Re:This reminds me of... (Score:3, Informative)
That was DOS, not Windows.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1640917,00.aTwo simple steps to fix this.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Theory (Score:3, Interesting)
So wouldn't they, in this instance, be denying a perfectly legitimate user the software updates that they are supposed to provide? Is there a legal case here?
Gates: We're big believers in interoperability. (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course its absulutely within their rights to do that, but its definitly going against "interoperability".
Some network-staff will not be amused "we can't download your servicepacks" - "you need a licensed Microsoft OS" - "We've got 2000 of them, but they're all firewalled off, policy, we can't use those".
Funnily enough...... (Score:3, Interesting)
Until now, I had not seriously looked into Wine/VMWare etc (time constraints mainly) as although they are well known to the Linux community, I don't have enough experience with them to talk my IT director into trying it.
The fact that MS are so anti-wine is probably the best indication yet of its effectiveness and given a few more months while Linux settles in it could swing the balance when it comes to replacing NT4.
Not illegal, not even immoral (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft isn't obliged to allow their automated update tools to function under WINE. They aren't even obliged to allow seperately downloaded updaters to work under WINE. The software you're updating is advertised to run on Windows only and you're not running it on Windows. Microsoft isn't breaking any rules, and whining about it just wastes oxygen
Either work on getting around the block, buy a copy of Windows, or work on switching over to one of the free software suites. Donate some money to the Open Office, KOffice, or AbiWord projects. I'm sure they can use all the cash they get, and it will help them add more and more useless features to the software so the pointy-haired types will be more impressed with them.
Admit isn't the right term (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should Microsoft allow WINE users, who either don't possess a valid copy of Windows, or who are breaking Microsoft's EULA, to leech resources (server/bandwidth) from them?
My mind boggles that this is even being debated.
No obligation? (Score:3, Interesting)
In this case, they are attempting to ensure that their applications run only on MS Windows rather than on any competing OS. This has the effect of attempting to leverage their apps to keep Windows running on peoples computers. This is STILL a problem and should be addressed.
Microsoft, in this case, has clearly displayed what I would consider to be contempt of court and should be handled from that perspective first and foremost. They SHOULD force a breakup of Microsoft into OS and Software companies and be done with it. They were given an chance to straighten up and fly right. They read this as "hey, we got away with it! Let's continue to illegally tie the browser to the OS in our next release of Windows even though it was deemed criminal and let's continue to break competitor's software to keep them from running our apps and software."
Has anyone read where Microsoft has hired anyone formerly employed by the DOJ yet? I'm kinda wondering why the DOJ isn't jumping all over this... unless, of course, they've been bought like several politicians have been... (where's that site? Open Secrets was it?)
Anyway... this needs to be watched.
ah well (Score:3, Informative)
1. microsoft shouldn't have to update wine because they didn't write it
2. the article is about updating office on wine, not wine itself
1. microsoft shouldn't have to update wine because they didn't write it
2. the article is about updating office on wine, not wine itself
etc
Re:Har. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't a monopoly by Microsoft. The problem is that there are a HUGE amount of businesses and individuals that are married to Office, and by extension married to Windows.
Re:Quote (Score:4, Insightful)
If I'm not mistaken, interoperability with their products and open documentation of their APIs was one of the specific terms that Microsoft had to accept as a part of their settlement with the DOJ. How can they get around this? As far as I am concerned, sabotaging WINE users' ability to update their Microsoft products amounts to monopolistic abuse.
My guess is that they figure they'll just do whatever they want, loopholes in the settlement aside, since the DOJ has proved that it could really care less if MS was punished anyhow.
Anyone have a link to the settlement terms?
Re:Quote (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Quote (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone complaining about an issue specifically noted in the article NOT to be a problem got +2 insightful?????