Ubuntu Linux Validates As Genuine Windows

bobbocanfly writes "Another crack in the Windows Genuine Advantage wall. A user at UbuntuForums.org managed to validate an Ubuntu installation as a genuine copy of Microsoft Windows and get to the download page of Windows Defender, using IE4Linux and Wine. (Here is an OGG video of the process.) Along with the advancement of LiveCD technology, this could spell the end of Microsoft's control over who gets their updates."

Yeah, damn Microsoft

and their desire that only their customers have access to their updates.

Next up: "Please enter your credit card number" - Windows Update.

I hope so

If Microsoft goes too far with taking control of computers away from consumers (as they did for me with Vista, only been using linux 6 months) they'll just drive more consumers to Linux, which makes me smile.

Re:I hope so-Fruit juice.

"1) Proprietary system that is only in small part, OSS" I can agree there.

"2) Standard PC hardware with fancy plastic that is much more overpriced than the same hardware minus fancy plastic" You're going by old info. You can configure a Dell and an Apple with the same specs and the prices are quite close.

"3) A OS that is more expensive over it's life that even Winblows - and Apple CURRENTLY charges serious coin for major OS updates" $129 is serious coin? And remember, this is for the MAJOR updates. Also, they're lax on the DRM, since you usually have to have the hardware to run the OS.

"4) A secure coding and patch release methodology that is *years* behind MS" Patch and release when it's found, not once a month?

"5) Apple regularly lies about the performance capabilities of its' machines" For example? I'd love to see some examples here.

"6) Apple uses Solaris and Windows (Apple china ran it until 03) because of their superior stability compared to OS X." Proof please.

All in all, you're arguing against the Apple that no longer exists.

To sum up - Microsoft just wants your money

Apple wants your soul.

Re:Rights matter.

The GPL and Microsoft's EULA are NOT equivalent. The GPL regulates copying the software(well established copyright law), not use. As far as I know, the use licenses (like Microsoft's EULA and others) do not have the same standing under the law. The GPL ONLY covers copying and is actually very permissive when compared to most commercial copyright licenses.

As far as respecting the EULA, I wonder if it's even a valid contract. As I understand it, most contracts require both parties agree to the terms BEFORE the transaction (purchasing the software) takes place.

Re:Rights matter.

Genuine Advantage wasn't part of the agreement I signed. It didn't exist.

Why is it now necessary for my computer to stay up to date?

Why do you think that's ok?

Why?
--Jimmy

Re:Rights matter.

"I guess they are saying your computer is as up to date as they are going to make it without WGA.

In essence, they terminated your support for updates and you renewed it by doing the WGA thing. And no, I am not saying it is right. But even if you purchase the full version, you only get so much free support. the rest is basically MS acting as if they are doing you a favor. I don't remember anything in the license or on the box about updates being provided.

They really don't have a choice - either FIX the defective OS via patches or face a class-action suit for selling a grolssly defective product. Don't kid yourself - the only person who benefits from Microsoft's actions is Microsoft. Limited warranties don't add to your rights, they take away from them. Most jurisdictions have laws that state that a purchase has to be useful for its intended purpose for a reasonable amount of time. 20 seconds between connecting to the net and getting p0wned is not "reasonable" - especially when there are free OS available that don't have these defects.

Re:Rights matter.

Don't mistake the MS EULA (TOS) with the purpose of the GPL. The GPL governs *distribution* not use. Microsoft's purpose behind the TOS and EULA is to control what you can do with a piece of software to their own benefit. The purpose of the GPL is to make sure the end user has the power to modify and redistribute the software. The GPL says nothing about the use of the software. In fact as long as you're not distributing the code, you don't have to accept the GPL in anyway. This is dramatically different in purpose. You cannot redistribute MS's code without accepting the terms of a costly source code license, which is similar in purpose to the GPL.

I have complete control of my computer in every way by virtue of the fact that I *own* it. Putting Microsoft software on that piece of hardware removes control from me of my own computer. I also have to give up the right to modify (disassemble, etc) Microsoft's code once it is on my computer. Compare that to GPL'd software which generally are of the purpose to enable and empower my freedom to use my own hardware.

So your statement is based on the fallacy that the MS EULA or TOS serves the same purpose as the GPL. It does not.

Re:Rights matter.

Microsoft is not taking control away from users... Users are agreeing to MS terms when they purchase the product, therefore they are *giving* control to MS.

Which reminds me of this comic strip [tiraecol.net].

Re:Rights matter.

Anyhow, any person that believes the GPL should be respected (as I do) also needs to respect the TOS that MS sets forth.

Agreeing to the GPL gives you more rights than you would otherwise have had. Agreeing to the MS TOS gives you less rights than you would otherwise have had.

That's a fairly significant difference.

Re:Yeah, damn Microsoft

On the other hand, if they went to a torrent-style swarming download scheme bandwidth costs wouldn't be an issue (I assume that's what you are referring to.) Personally, I believe that if Microsoft wants to continue to enjoy their current status as the leading provider of security-challenged applications and operating systems, they should be required to provide free updates. Either that, or Microsoft should have to reimburse everyone else for the bandwidth costs incurred by the hundreds of millions of infected Windows installations worldwide. For that matter, how about all the millions of man-hours lost because of instabilities in Microsoft's products. Heck, I'd say providing Windows updates is the least that company can do, given the grief they've caused so many others.

I've often wondered what would have happened if Windows had never been, if some other OS (say a Unix variant of some kind, or perhaps one of the other OSes that Microsoft eclipsed) had become dominant, one that was fundamentally more secure than Windows. We might never have seen the billions of dollars being lost to spam and armies of rooted Windows boxes. Anyway you look at it, Microsoft has much for which to atone, and doing what it can to keep Windows users from being pwned the minute they jack in their systems or try to read an email isn't asking for much.

Re:Yeah, damn Microsoft

Yeah, cause it's not the consumer's fault for choosing to buy a product after it has been shown time and again to be faulty.

Re:Yeah, damn Microsoft

Heh, would it be such a bad thing?

On M$'s end, they're a business. If you don't give them money, why do you think they should be giving you free updates? You're not a customer, you're not going to be a customer, so it's only ever so slightly in their interest to keep you on the platform. Do you realistically think the third party software is going to disappear just because windows doesn't provide updates to people who don't pay?

On the pirate's end, who cares? When was the last update that was worth downloading?

Re:Yeah, damn Microsoft

Why would you expect it to work correctly in the first place if you hadn't paid for it, in which case they DO give you free updates?

Are you seriously complaining because your illegal software doesn't function correctly?

Re:Yeah, damn Microsoft

Are you seriously complaining because your illegal software doesn't function correctly?

Yes, yes we are... but we only complain about our illegal microsoft software not functioning correctly around slashdot. Any other illegal software not functioning is more or less ok ;}

Re:Ubuntu Meme

whats even more interesting is this [google.com], ubuntu versus some [possibly] major other distributions...
feel free to berate me on not including the distro of your choice, (but add your own findings if you have any...

Re:Ubuntu Meme

http://www.google.com/trends?q=dog%2C+cat&ctab=0&g eo=all&date=all&sort=0 [google.com]

This is more shocking, dogs and cats living together!! (but dogs still more popular)

Guess again...

This might put an end to Microsoft using current techniques to control who gets their updates. If you push them hard enough, they will end up making the whole process a lot more intrusive than WGA already is. After all, they don't have to give you free updates at all and, if they care enough about this, they'll start charging you monthly fees for your Windows Update account.

"This could spell the end of Microsoft's control"?

> "This could spell the end of Microsoft's control.."

Please. They'll update the security.

Will there eventually be another way around? Yes. Of course.

Next story please.

Re:"This could spell the end of Microsoft's contro

You kidding me? That's more interesting than anything else. I'd love to see *why* it does that, and *how*.

For one thing, WGA is supposed to check Product key, PC manufacturer, Windows version, PID/SID, BIOS information, BIOS MD5 Checksum, Language setting and version, and Hard drive serial number, among other things.

Since your winver and product key don't technically exist (I believe the former comes up as Win 98), I don't see how WGA gets a false positive in this case (which means it's also going to be an easy bug to track down).

But, theoretically, since xubuntu doesn't need a 'valid' key, it may throw random numbers out (which would be very unlikely to trip the 'pirated' check, but would mean WGA doesn't check if your key is valid.

Re:"This could spell the end of Microsoft's contro

I'm guessing that WGA is set to return "genuine" if it is unable to retrieve the appropriate information. For example, it might try 5 times to get the product key, but the system always gives it an error since it doesn't actually have a product key. Since they can't get enough information to determine if you are genuine or not, they err on the side of caution and say you are genuine, even though they can't tell.

patent deal promise?

This must be what Microsoft was promising when they talked about interpolation? Look how far they have come! And yet we still love bashing it here in /. .

Woah...

Does this mean that I can validate Ubuntu using my XP CD?

Oh wait...

Re:Woah...

duh, It just means your copy of Ubuntu is authentic :) it is a service given by MS for free! try beating that, Ubuntu

Dual boot machine?

It may well be that WGA allows Linux/Wine on the basis that it is too difficult to check if a valid Windows is being used alongside it. It would not surprise me, though, if the test machine was dual boot and WGA properly validated the available Windows system.

WGA has become pretty sophisticated this year, as recently has OGA. I strongly suspect that the observed behavior is by design, though Microsoft may now choose to change it.

Re:Dual boot machine?

It would not surprise me, though, if the test machine was dual boot and WGA properly validated the available Windows system.

It would surprise me.

For most intents and purposes Wine sandboxes applications from the rest of the machine reasonably effectively. For the WGA software to be able to detect a copy of Windows elsewhere on the machine it would have to be checking it was running under wine then taking deliberate measures to break out of the sandbox. It's possible, since wine is not a VM, but quite unlikely - after all, the entire idea of WGA is that Microsoft wants people downloading updates to be using them on a genuine copy of Windows. If you have Windows on the machine already, why would you be dual booting into Linux and running wine to access Windows Update? That would make no sense, and Microsoft making that possible by design would make even less sense.

This is bad for linux

I'd rather see bulletproof license control for commercial software.

If everyone who ran pirated software used open source instead, our user base would be several times as it is now. And that would encourage hardware vendors to give us better support, which is the main thing we need now.

Uh, you can just use Windows 2000.

With earlier versions of Windows, prior to Windows XP, you can download any and all updates without having to validate your Windows.

Oh, great

Now Microsoft label Linux users as pirates, when one of the big benefits of free software is not to pirate, or even have to if you're poor.

I thought WGA...

... was designed to find pirated versions of windows. Why would they care if a linux user can download the updates. He's not the target. It's the people and companies with fake copies and either don't know it or don't want to go through the trouble of downloading a version of each patch that the WGA step will get to buy Windows. So it probably worked to specs, and probably works via blacklisting rather than whitelisting (easier to disassemble a whitelist for one).

I know its bad form here to defend anything from M$, or announce that a story doesn't really mean their emminet death, but remember that WGA is just another step like serials designed to increase the geekiness or effort required for someone to pirate a copy.

Just like DRM. I mean, you can always use a professional quality camera to capture the movie, and put each output speaker in an anachoic chamber with its own high quality mike. The point of DRM and WGA is to make it hard enough that it's not worth saving the $10 (for bad movies) - $400 (for Vista Ultimate SuperDeluxe w. CoffeeMaker ) after all the effort.

Re:I thought WGA...

Please, for the love of god and all things holy, mod parent up!

I used to work at Microsoft. Posting anonymously for obvious reasons, so feel free to doubt what I'm about to tell you.

Parent is spot on. The purpose of WGA isn't to block all attempts to pirate Microsoft software. As we've seen with countless articles here on /., dedicated people will bypass WGA. People at Microsoft know this - come on!

WGA exists because unscrupulous PC manufacturers / PC builders will sell PCs with improperly licensed copies of Windows. i.e. they'll pay for one copy and install it on every computer they sell. Saves 'em what, something like $60 per computer? I forget the exact number of computers sold this way, but it's surprisingly high.

So the thought is: you (or your mom, or gramma) buy a PC from one of these guys, you find out that they sold you a computer with a bogus copy of Windows, and you no longer do business with them. And you tell your friends, and they don't do business with them.

As I said, feel free to think I'm lying to you. There are plenty of things to dig Microsoft about, but I'm afraid there's no delicious irony in an Ubuntu user validating their copy as Windows.

Re:I thought WGA...

There are plenty of things to dig Microsoft about, but I'm afraid there's no delicious irony in an Ubuntu user validating their copy as Windows.

Other than that being able to validate as genuine windows doesn't mean anything. What's to stop these same manufacturers that MS is trying to stop from just using one of the many ways around WGA on each of the computers they sell or install at the office?

Honestly, I have my doubts that it's really that big of a problem. I can't imagine that happens much outside of mom and pop shops that aren't exactly selling thousands or even hundreds of new computers per day.

So the thought is: you (or your mom, or gramma) buy a PC from one of these guys, you find out that they sold you a computer with a bogus copy of Windows, and you no longer do business with them. And you tell your friends, and they don't do business with them.

And the person who thought they legitimately paid for everything is stuck unable to get updates they may want and paid for unless they buy Windows again. Awesome.

While within their rights to do, it's stupid and only hurts the valid users in the end, which is really what most people's complaint is. Personally, I'm going to keep right on complaining about it.

Article low on content?

Is it just me or does anyone else think the linked article was a little low on content...?

And this would be good because?

Microsoft has every right to limit updates to valid licences. I don't understand how this is "good news". Well, apart from the "MS sucks again, ahaha" angle.

We complain that there is a MS tax. We complain that they hardsell licences. I would be very happy is Microsoft really had a way to limit the updates. Hell, even with Linux one *pays* for the updates in some distros, and there is nothing wrong with that. Plus, if piracy beneficts Microsoft - and it does - putting an end to it is all the better. Windows is "cheap" because many people are used to cracking all the software they have installed and then complaining about "there isn't a program in Linux/BSD that does *everything* I need and exactly the way I need".

Not likely

this could spell the end of Microsoft's control over who gets their updates.

More like, this spells the end of another battle in Microsoft's war to control the world.

More will be coming.

NTITE

MS has allowed this for AGES

http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/08/ 2343248 [slashdot.org] 2005 reference to the same thing.

MS is looking for copies of XP that are nongenuine. Think of it as a negative return check, not a positive return check. The fact that it passed means that MS is fairly certain you're not running a pirated copy of XP (which is correct), NOT that MS is fairly certain you're running a valid version of XP.

No bulletproof Piracy schemes

If a company, such as MS ever did make a "Bulletproof Piracy scheme" it would most certainly mean locking the BIOS down such that not only could you not install a pirated copy of Windows, but you couldn't install Linux or any other OS either because that would be the only way. (TCPA.) Because installing Linux means you are not buying Windows. To them, thats just as bad if not worse than pirating Windows.

So think twice about "Bulletproof Piracy to promote Windows." We want people to choose Linux because they want Linux, not because they are forced too.

All Cracks Welcome

Considering that WGA now extends back to Office 2000 (can you believe that?!), all cracks to this Microsoft, buggy, forced upgrade, crapware are welcome!

Windows Update alternative

I've always used Windiz Update [windizupdate.com] as an alternative to Windows Update.

That's not the point

GE isn't suppose to stop pirates, not yet anyway. It's so when Grandmama Miffi gets home and plugs in the new computa-r she got from the guy at the swap meet, she finds out she's been hornswaggled (well, her Grandson does, but you get the idea).

That's just wrong.

this could spell the end of Microsoft's control over who gets their updates

Don't they sound proud of themselves. Call me a troll if you want, I really dont care, but isn't it Microsoft's perogative to only supply these updates to their paying customers? Although it's quite clever, this is just the sort of ammunition MS need against Linux. "See your honour, they are illegally circumventing our registration software, they must all be pirates".

My genuine copy

WTF, I still can't even get my genuine copy of Windows to validate as genuine Windows.

I learned this in January

[URL:http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionI d=6681]
I'm Rob M. by the way... I was really suprised that I could validate it (I wanted the MSI installer, and it's protected), but it worked...
NOTE: I have no connection with this article.

Embrace and extend language

I really hate the whole "Genuine" part of the name. They're using "genuine" to mean "licensed", because as everyone knows, the only difference between the copy of XP my roommate bought from the store and the copy of XP I burned from his legit CD is that his copy is legally licensed and mine's not. They're bit-for-bit identical and there is no way to tell the difference.

I know the intent is to find the nefarious PC sellers who buy one copy of XP and install it on every machine they sell, but I'm still getting the exact same sequence of bits on my hard drive in that case that I would have if the nefarious PC seller had actually bought a license for each computer he sold.

Fundamentally, it's an attempt to conflate information "property" with physical property in the minds of the public -- even though we know that a "non-genuine" copy of Windows is bit-identical and functionally identical to a "genuine" copy, MS wants people to think that a non-genuine copy has something wrong with it. There IS a legitimate concern about illegit copies that have been modified to include spyware/viruses/etc., but it's entirely possible for such a copy to pass as "genuine" since the software that validates "genuine"-ness won't always know about malicious software (especially if said software is specifically designed to hide from WGA...).

I'm not against copyright and licensing (I'm in favor of much shorter copyright durations, and yes, I produce copyrighted material for a living), but I AM against this attempt to abuse the language.

DMCA

This sounds like a very bad idea; TFA is practically begging for Microsoft to file DMCA legal action against Ubuntu.

They

• Accessed a proprietary server
• Had no authorization to do so
• Bypassed all access controls
• Reverse engineered the validation handshaking mechanism

If someone did that to my Ubuntu PC...

If someone did that to my Ubuntu PC, I'd boil it in bleach and expose it to some virus killing UV light for a day or two.

Stupid

Why does it matter that Ubuntu can validate as a Genuine Windows install?
Personally, I dont have any desire to download software from Microsoft.
They have sloppy code and operate under a flawed philosophy, Were in linux
has a multitude of projects that thousands of people are working on. If one
does not like a project they can start there own or download a different one.

This is easy..

If they used the "controversial" non-blockable Chinese serials for Windows, they didn't have much work to do at all.

The fact is; these serials don't need further cracking, just installing with them is enough.

HCQ9D-TVCWX-X9QRG-J4B2Y-GR2TT

There we go; no more hassles..

Linux Genuine Advantage

So all the hard work from the guys at http://www.linuxgenuineadvantage.org/ [linuxgenui...antage.org] was for nothing?

Torrent of video

The site where the video is posted is annoying and crappy. Here is a torrent for the video. http://www.mininova.org/get/756266 [mininova.org].

Oh well, Now MS is going to kill this little gem

This has been working for me for over a year. (since Breezy) Now the cat is out of the bag we can expect MS to nip this in the bud. Oh well.

I am shocked!

err.. this is rather embarrassing, I wanted to install Linux but I installed genuine windows! fuck.

Patching

Um, Patching Ubuntu with Xp patches?

BORG!!!

The time has come...

What happen to the IEs4Linux website?

http://www.tatanka.com.br/ [tatanka.com.br] has been unreachable from at least my nameserver some time now. Does anyone have a mirror? It's really useful utility and I'm afraid maybe Microsoft shut it down. If someone has a tarball please post a mirror site for it. Perhaps, just the domain expired.

Thanks.

WGA - It's already broken

I hate to break it to you guys, but this is amusing, yet adds nothing of any meaningful value towards bypassing WGA. WGA has been broken for quite sometime now. You can install commonly available cracks to get your pirated copy to validate as genuine. So what's the big deal? Like I said, this is amusing, but MS has bigger problems in the piracy game.

Wine now WGA certified 1.0?

Well, I guess Linux is finally ready for the desktop - certified by Microsoft no less.

makes you woner why

Oh this is just too comical. Makes one wonder why so many follow micro$ucks better still, why so many still put up with them... ~j

I use the offline update from c't

I use this program from c't: [heise.de]http://www.heise.de/ct/projekte/offlineupdate/ [heise.de] (German, the English article is here [heise.de].

It creates a CD (or DVD, if you want) of updates.

Now I now...

...What interoperability is meant to be for Microsoft... has Mark Shuttleworth signed something with Microsoft....?!?! LOL

Ugh

My Ubuntu installation would feel violated if it was made to be validated as a Microsoft Genuine operating system. Would probably reformat itself in protest.

Phillip.

Actually..

..last week on my FC6 laptop, I installed IE4Linux (IE5, 5.5 and 6.0) and proceeded to have fun downloading Windows Updates. It seems Ubuntu isn't the only distro that validates as genuine. I did nothing special, just installed IE4Linux and ran updates and it validated and proceeded to find updates my computer required and try and download them. Riotously funny. My coworkers in the office got a good laugh. It's likely that rather than validating as genuine, it just doesn't validate at all.

Thanks, assholes

Now the legitimate customers of Microsoft will probably have to jump through even more hoops.

Why does some assclown running F/OSS software think he's entitled to free updates from Microsoft? I don't have much love for Microsoft in general, but I have to side with them on this. Buy their software, get their updates. Don't buy it, don't get 'em. What's so fucking hard about that? These people would probably get all bent out of shape if someone violated the GPL, but for whatever reason, they don't see any reason to respect anyone else's licensing terms...

WGA Worked In WINE....

The last time I used it was to view a quicktime movie.

Cracking Microsoft products should **never** be an exercise in civil disobedience. Microsoft, while an abusive monopoly, certainly isn't a material requirement in most IT shops. If the PHB thinks so, (like the one I work in) so what. They pay me to test/build their applications in Linux while I'm waiting for 2003 to defrag.

When the PHB can't afford Microsoft's vig, then look who looks good bringing in a low-cost, completely viable alternative? BTW, I have an excellent PHB who's only fault is being married to Microsoft.

Or it might prompt their first Linux lawsuit...

They haven't lost anything until their patents that relate to things like WINE are killed off or openly licensed. Either of those outcomes will only come after a court battle.

That's Great

Well like everyone else said, I think many businesses seeing Vista are going to like the idea of Linux as an alternative.

This happened to me too

I can't for the life of me recall why I decided to try this but I was able to validate my Ubuntu 5.10 install as Genuine Windows by downloading the GenuineCheck.exe program that they provide you if you're not using IE or the validation failed. In firefox no less! I wasn't able to reproduce it so I assumed that either they where distributing a broken validator or the server side checking they where doing was horribly wrong at that point. Windows Defender ended up proving useless for me but at least I got a funny screenshot out of it.

Ubuntu is genuine tho...

He was running a genuine copy of Ubuntu Linux, no pirated software on his box...

Wine, NOT Ubuntu

As somebody who uses Linux (openSuse at present) and Wine, but has been displeased by every single personal experience I've had with Ubuntu, I'm really quite tired of
A) people who assume that Ubuntu == Linux
B) People who assume that Wine == Linux (it runs on other OSs; it's not much more than some libraries plus a user-space program that converts Win32 syscalls to POSIX calls).

Wine is not Linux, and Linux is not Ubuntu (makes me want to start my own distribution, LinU, which would come with a complete build toolchain and a graphical package manager that doesn't suck, among other things). The fact that this validation was performed on a system running the Ubuntu distribution has NOTHING to do with the achievement of the Wine developers and the folks at IEs4Linux. The trick is that they managed to spoof enough of the tests that the WGA program checks for (product key, WGA-assigned system GUID, etc.) to fool WGA. It probably won't work forever, but for now that's a pretty impressive accomplishment (at one point, I believe validation checks explicitly tested for a Wine-specific registry key). Also note that this has very very little with pirated Windows software (which is what WGA is designed to fight) since without replacing a lot of the low-level stuff in Windows with Wine implementations, it won't help. That said, it's possible ReactOS will validate using this code.

Desktop Readyness

I believe that this makes it very clear: Linux, or at least Xubuntu, is now fully as ready for the desktop as Windows is. Microsoft's software said so, so it is so, or some such thing.

Re:Or you know,

And what exactly IS the point of validating Ubuntu or whatever as genuine windows anyway???

Touching trolls' nerves, apparently...

Re:Pfft. So what?

So anyway what is the point of downloading software that you can't install? Or maybe you can install Defender on unlicensed copy of Windows? Can you? And if you can - how is piracy good anyway?

Could be useful for people like my dad - he uses Linux for the internet stuff (and gimp) but boots in Windows (no internet connection for that) to use Excel etc. He doesn't want to expent the effort to keep Windows secure, but he might still want an update for a driver or something like that.

Re:Or you know,

I've had zero problems with genuine advantage checks, it shows up once or twice a month when I go download something off Microsoft site, its completely transparent to legitimate user.


Good for you. I have had problems with a legit install of Vista Home Premium on my new laptop. It took me a week to find all of the drivers, but I went back to XP.

NTITE

Re:Or you know,

He was talking about WGA, not fucking driver problems. :-p

On the same (?) topic, I ate a hamburger today.

Re:Pfft. So what?

Fucking Red Hat does not give binary updates to people who do not pay for their service.

The GPL only stipulates that buildable source must be available, and encourages distributors to charge money for the service of making said files available. (Duplicating tapes takes time and effort and tapes cost money. Likewise, high-speed network links cost serious coin.)

I've always known that RH = MS.

What an ignorant dweeb. Have you even read the GPL?

Re:Or you know,

And what exactly IS the point of validating Ubuntu or whatever as genuine windows anyway???

Slashdot SOP: you didn't RTFA.

Re:Pfft. So what?

My desktop at home is Debian GNU/Linux but I deal mostly with Windows at work. If I want to download some things to prepare for the next day, WGA gets in the way of my ability to support Windows systems. Having the ability to download the software without Windows is good for me (meaning I'm not sitting at my office waiting for things to download) and good for the Microsoft users that I support since I'm not downloading patches at their expense.

Re:Pfft. So what?

Actually, him installing it in this case IS news, because it means that his copy of Xubuntu with Wine would pass the validation test that the software tries as well.

Re:Or you know,

Well... IIRC, updates for MS Office are only allowed if you're running on a genuine Windows OS. Let me run that by again in case it sounded too crazy to be true: you can only get product updates for Office if you [i]also[/i] buy Windows. [i]And[/i] use it ;-) The updater explicitly checks if you're running Office under Wine and fails to auto-update if you are... To me this seems to be blatantly anti-competitive: "buy our other product, or we won't support this one properly".

If being able to validate successfully under Ubuntu would give me the ability to get updates for a product I've paid for then yes, this is worth it.

Side note: I also have a legitimate copy of Windows I run in a virtual machine. An upgrade of the virtual machine software made the virtual hardware look different, so Windows decided I was a pirate, refused to reactivate and is currently holding my data to ransom. If I'd got a pirate cracked Windows and bypassed such checks entirely, I assume I'd still be able to access my data. Since I've already paid for the license, I'd feel justified in dropping a cracked install onto that disk to get back the functionality I paid for in the first place.

And what exactly IS the point...

And what exactly IS the point of validating Ubuntu or whatever as genuine windows anyway???

The point is that it's a very nerdy thing to do. Whether it actually makes sense to do it is a secondary concern. Besides, Linux being validated as 'Genuine Windows' is pretty damn funny so the humor value alone is another good reason to do it.

Re:Or you know,

I've had problems... there are many circumstances where a genuine copy gets flagged. Fortunately, somewhere, there's a Microsoft tool that tells you why it thinks your copy isn't genuine - we had one example where the cause was the date being about 6 months wrong. I would worry if that copy was fake - it was downloaded straight from MSDN!

Re:Pfft. So what?

You don't have much clue about GPL / Red Hat, do you?

Re:Or you know,

And what exactly IS the point of validating Ubuntu or whatever as genuine windows anyway???

Service calls. I run Ubuntu. I frequently get asked to fix a broken/owned/hosed winbox. Often the box is not on broadband, but on dial-up or has no connection whatsover. Having copies of updates and such to install on machines being rebuilt saves much time.

Have you ever re-imaged a Dell machine and then tried to use dial-up to update it? Sorry, but I don't plan on spending the entire weekend there babysitting the update.

Must it?

What I don't understand is why slashdotters would give a fuck about locking out legit users. Slashdotters themselves are not legit users (the piracy rate among slashdotters wrt Windows must be around 98%[citation needed]), so why do they care about WGA or the like?