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."
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.
"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."
Main reason Linux v Apple (in my case) was I already own 3 or 4 different computers, and I'm not replacing them, just reformatting. Now I have a home server, a firewall/gateway server, and a few more usable workstations. Not just two junk computer sitting in a corner, and two pcs sitting there not talking to each other:).
But, for someone that isn't entrenched in hardware, I can see the option.
1) Proprietary system that is only in small part, OSS
2) Standard PC hardware with fancy plastic that is much more overpriced than the same hardware minus fancy plastic
3) A OS that is more expensive over it's life that even Winblows - and Apple CURRENTLY charges serious coin for major OS updates
4) A secure coding and patch release methodology that is *years* behind MS
5) Apple regularly lies about the performance capabilities of its' machines
6) Apple u
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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].
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.
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?
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;}
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday June 17 2007, @08:20PM (#19545679)
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.
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.
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".
Cracking WGA is of interest to the greater community if only because of pirates. The more people that are able to patch their Windows machines, the less likely they are to get infected with viruses, which translates to less computers attacking my network.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, damn Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Next up: "Please enter your credit card number" - Windows Update.
I hope so (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
I hope so-Fruit juice. (Score:3, Funny)
Or Apple. Which makes ME smile even more.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But, for someone that isn't entrenched in hardware, I can see the option.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or Apple. Which makes ME smile even more.
But should't Apple be most Linux fans' nightmare?
1) Proprietary system that is only in small part, OSS
2) Standard PC hardware with fancy plastic that is much more overpriced than the same hardware minus fancy plastic
3) A OS that is more expensive over it's life that even Winblows - and Apple CURRENTLY charges serious coin for major OS updates
4) A secure coding and patch release methodology that is *years* behind MS
5) Apple regularly lies about the performance capabilities of its' machines
6) Apple u
Re:I hope so-Fruit juice. (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Parent
To sum up - Microsoft just wants your money (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My vote is on Google!
Re:Rights matter. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Rights matter. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is it now necessary for my computer to stay up to date?
Why do you think that's ok?
Why?
--Jimmy
Parent
Re:Rights matter. (Score:5, Interesting)
"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.
Parent
Re:Rights matter. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Rights matter. (Score:4, Funny)
Which reminds me of this comic strip [tiraecol.net].
Parent
Re:Rights matter. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Yeah, damn Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:Yeah, damn Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you seriously complaining because your illegal software doesn't function correctly?
Parent
Re:Yeah, damn Microsoft (Score:4, Funny)
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
Parent
Re:Ubuntu Meme (Score:4, Interesting)
feel free to berate me on not including the distro of your choice, (but add your own findings if you have any...
Parent
Re:Ubuntu Meme (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.google.com/trends?q=dog%2C+cat&ctab=0&
This is more shocking, dogs and cats living together!! (but dogs still more popular)
Parent
Re:Yeah, damn Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Yeah, damn Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Guess again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps if MS would roll out new versions of its OS more often than once every 5 years this wouldn't be such a problem...
"This could spell the end of Microsoft's control"? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:"This could spell the end of Microsoft's contro (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Woah... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh wait...
Re:Woah... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Dual boot machine? (Score:4, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
This is bad for linux (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought WGA... (Score:5, Insightful)
... 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... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:I thought WGA... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
Parent
And this would be good because? (Score:4, Interesting)
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".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
MS has allowed this for AGES (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Windows Update alternative (Score:4, Informative)
My genuine copy (Score:4, Funny)
Embrace and extend language (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
They
I am shocked! (Score:5, Funny)
Wine now WGA certified 1.0? (Score:4, Funny)
Ugh (Score:4, Funny)
Phillip.
Re:Or you know, (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
And what exactly IS the point... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Or you know, (Score:4, Funny)
On the same (?) topic, I ate a hamburger today.
Parent
Re:Pfft. So what? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Parent