Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Operating Systems Software Windows Linux

Ubuntu Linux Validates As Genuine Windows 401

Posted by kdawson
from the it-was-the-wine-talking dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ubuntu Linux Validates As Genuine Windows

Comments Filter:
  • by QuantumG (50515) <qg@biodome.org> on Sunday June 17, 2007 @07:41PM (#19545437) Homepage Journal
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ericrost (1049312) on Sunday June 17, 2007 @07:49PM (#19545489) Homepage Journal
      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.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        "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."

        Or Apple. Which makes ME smile even more.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by ericrost (1049312)
          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.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Heembo (916647)

          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

          • by hpavc (129350)
            the tco on apple desktops and laptops is superior to microsoft boxes. most apple users can easily throw away their install media and never need it for the life of their machine (many years).

            the benefits of mated os and hardware yields quite a bit over any proprietary issues, especially when looking at keeping the os inter-operable. we are talking about an company that since macos you can easily tool your own script to interact with any textfield for example for spell check or whatnot. that's the type of int
          • Lesser of two evils.

            Once MS is gone and everyone is using Mac, THEN we can get people to come to Linux.
            • by Heembo (916647)

              Once MS is gone and everyone is using Mac, THEN we can get people to come to Linux.

              HA! That's funny as hell, good show, chap. And as the parent poster, I must admit I'm saying this on a Dell 9100 XP Pro getting ready to buy *drool* one of the new Macbook Pro's, and I run Solaris for my servers. *sigh* All u*x desktops, other than Apple, look way to clunky to me. I love love Linux more ..... But how many of you leave the wives that you love to sleep with some slut? *sigh*

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by BrokenHalo (565198)
                All u*x desktops, other than Apple, look way to clunky to me. I love love Linux more ..... But how many of you leave the wives that you love to sleep with some slut? *sigh*

                Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I really like Gnome, and Apple's UI irritates me, because it gets in the way of the way I like to work. But I guess that's all part and parcel of the way Apple insists that you "think outside the box the way WE tell you to, dammit!".

                Having said that, I like the way Apple integrates nicely
          • by WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) * <sexwithanimals@gmail.com> on Sunday June 17, 2007 @09:19PM (#19546023) Homepage
            "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.
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Anonymous Coward
              >"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.

              He said minus the fancy plastic. Try pricing it on pricewatch and building it yourself. Yes, most people wouldn't do that. No, that vast majority of linux users would build it themselves, hence the vast majority of people reading your reply would build it themselves, being
          • by sien (35268) on Sunday June 17, 2007 @10:15PM (#19546439) Homepage
            Apple wants your soul.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            But should't Apple be most Linux fans' nightmare?

            Should any OS be a Linux fan's nightmare? Why should we care? I recently switch to Mac OS X and I have no complaints... Oh maybe that is what you mean, an OS that is feature complete (joke. Well... a little joke... OK maybe it's too close to the truth..). I did switch when I bought my MacBook Pro and am currently happy with my choice.

            My point is that I still use Linux for work and I do contribute to the OSS effort when my employer allows, and I don't think

      • Rights matter. (Score:3, Insightful)

        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.

        If your concern was control, then you were using the wrong OS from the start. Show me the version of a MS operating system that gave you more control than Vista, or that you were free to modify. If anything, UAC allows you to programatically control your system more so than ever before.

        Anyhow, any person that believes the GPL should be respected (as I
        • Re:Rights matter. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SiChemist (575005) * on Sunday June 17, 2007 @10:17PM (#19546459) Homepage
          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. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by crazyjimmy (927974) on Sunday June 17, 2007 @10:37PM (#19546565)
          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. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by caseih (160668) on Sunday June 17, 2007 @10:38PM (#19546569)
          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].
        • Re:Rights matter. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by UncleFluffy (164860) on Monday June 18, 2007 @12:59AM (#19547307)

          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.

    • by kimvette (919543)
      Fair enough, but what about other programs and updates that require Genuine Advantage? How does one download these programs to bring to clients? They're forcing not only their customers to run Windows, but also the people who support their customers.
      • by QuantumG (50515)
        Cry me a river. It costs money to supply these updates ya know.. would you prefer "please enter your credit card?" Or do you just want Microsoft to suck up the cost. I know they can afford it, but it's a bit hard to justify that to their shareholders don't you think?
        • by ScrewMaster (602015) on Sunday June 17, 2007 @09:39PM (#19546183)
          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.
          • by QuantumG (50515) <qg@biodome.org> on Sunday June 17, 2007 @09:54PM (#19546305) Homepage Journal
            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: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by drsmithy (35869)

            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'

    • by alisson (1040324) on Sunday June 17, 2007 @08:47PM (#19545863)
      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?
    • by bit01 (644603)

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

      Since those updates are pointless for anybody not running windows it's all about maintaining their "Windows Disingenuous Disadvantage" deceptive marketing practices.

      M$ reaps what it sows.

      ---

      WGA. Guilty until proven innocent. For millions. Again and again.

  • Guess again... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ari_j (90255) on Sunday June 17, 2007 @07:42PM (#19545445)
    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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Mr_eX9 (800448)
      I think Joe Average would sooner go without updates to his operating system than pay for them.

      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...
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Yeah, they could do lots of point releases and charge $129 for each! Profit! Oh wait, that's Apple's business model.
    • 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.

      And what would happen then?

      It's already difficult to get Windows users to patch their systems. Which is ONE of the reasons why so many Windows machines are zombies.

      Making it more difficult would only mean that FEWER people patched

    • by couchslug (175151)
      "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."

      Excellent idea!
    • by bl8n8r (649187)
      > After all, they don't have to give you free updates at all

      Wanna bet? Watch a bad situation get worse; updates aren't optional considering the mess microsoft has created/ignored with their products in regards to security. If you really want to see a worm outbreak, watch the internet melt down when zillions of zombied windows boxes don't get updated because people didn't want to pay the 19.95/month subscription. It's bad enough now with most people *getting* the updates. I'm pretty sure there would b
  • by popo (107611) on Sunday June 17, 2007 @07:42PM (#19545449) Homepage
    > "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.
    • 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.
      • by Bender0x7D1 (536254) on Sunday June 17, 2007 @08:01PM (#19545575)

        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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Darundal (891860)
          I doubt that, considering how many false positives Microsoft manages to get with WGA.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Hal_Porter (817932)
        Maybe they special case Ubuntu. E.g. consider.

        Windows Developer: We tested Ubuntu with IE4Linux and we can catch it. It claims to be Win98 and it doesn't have the undocumented secret handshake to check for validity. And it hides the Bios too. If you look at the CS values Wine uses the same selector but you can't use that. But if you look at CS:Hardcoded_offset then all versions of Windows have some code that is not present in Wine. So we check for that.
        Lawyer: Hmm. Could they change Wine so it passes
        Window
  • Woah... (Score:5, Funny)

    by GFree (853379) on Sunday June 17, 2007 @07:49PM (#19545487)
    Does this mean that I can validate Ubuntu using my XP CD?

    Oh wait...
  • Dual boot machine? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Mostly a lurker (634878) on Sunday June 17, 2007 @07:50PM (#19545499)
    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.

    • by choongiri (840652) on Sunday June 17, 2007 @09:37PM (#19546161) Homepage Journal

      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.

  • by astrashe (7452) on Sunday June 17, 2007 @07:53PM (#19545529) Journal
    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.

    • Kind of a chicken and egg, isn't it? While your comment makes sense, the support has to be there before the users will come.

      As close as it is, It Just Has To Work(TM) isn't there.

    • Would they really? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ajdecon (233641)
      Do you actually think that most people who use pirated software would use open source if only "genuine Windows" were available?

      Most people I know who pirate Windows aren't anti-Microsoft or even violently cheap. Instead, such "crimes" are usually crimes of opportunity: someone at school or the office offers to let them borrow their Windows disk, or hands out cracked CDs because it amuses them. It's obviously cheaper, so of course they'll use the illegal disk. But if such a thing weren't available, most p
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Chandon Seldon (43083)

        Most people I know who pirate Windows and Windows software don't consider Linux as an interesting alternative because "Windows is free too and has free games". If Windows really cost $100 and Office really cost $300 and Photoshop really cost $400 then a lot of them would think that Ubuntu was the obvious choice - going for Windows + Software would double the cost of the computer. Hell, for that money most of them would figure out how to run their WoW and COD3 under Wine.

  • by urbanriot (924981) on Sunday June 17, 2007 @07:56PM (#19545541)
    With earlier versions of Windows, prior to Windows XP, you can download any and all updates without having to validate your Windows.
  • Oh, great (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Dasher42 (514179)
    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... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) on Sunday June 17, 2007 @08:05PM (#19545591)

    ... 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)

      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.

      • by Jimmy King (828214) on Sunday June 17, 2007 @08:41PM (#19545809) Homepage Journal

        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.
        • by Nimey (114278)

          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.


          IIRC if a dupe turns in the PC maker, they get a free copy of Windows for their troubles, and maybe something else.
  • by fsmunoz (267297) <fsmunoz@@@member...fsf...org> on Sunday June 17, 2007 @08:10PM (#19545631) Homepage
    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".
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by daeg (828071)
      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.
  • Not likely (Score:2, Insightful)

    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
  • by batkiwi (137781) on Sunday June 17, 2007 @08:23PM (#19545685)
    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.

    • by pb (1020)
      Yep. I did this last year with Wine (and "GenuineCheck.exe") on Gentoo; I thought it was amusing, took a screenshot, downloaded whatever it was that I was downloading at the time, and went on my merry way. Yawn.
  • 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
  • Considering that WGA now extends back to Office 2000 (can you believe that?!), all cracks to this Microsoft, buggy, forced upgrade, crapware are welcome!
    • Considering that WGA now extends back to Office 2000


      Not all that surprising, since O2K was the first product to require activation.
  • by AncientPC (951874) on Sunday June 17, 2007 @08:32PM (#19545749)
    I've always used Windiz Update [windizupdate.com] as an alternative to Windows Update.
  • 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).
  • by techstar25 (556988) <techstar25@cf l . r r . c om> on Sunday June 17, 2007 @08:51PM (#19545875) Homepage Journal
    WTF, I still can't even get my genuine copy of Windows to validate as genuine Windows.
  • [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.
  • by Dirtside (91468) on Sunday June 17, 2007 @09:09PM (#19545949) Journal
    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 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sunderland56 (621843) on Sunday June 17, 2007 @09:10PM (#19545953)
    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
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kidcharles (908072)
      How did Ubuntu do any of those things? First off, it was the user who accessed the server. All he or she did was go through the process exactly as one would if they were using Windows, so when exactly did the bypassing of access controls and reverse engineering occur? Also, the software used is not special to Ubuntu. How exactly would Canonical be liable for anything?
  • 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.
  • This is easy.. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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..
  • Torrent of video (Score:3, Informative)

    by Nate Eldredge (133418) on Sunday June 17, 2007 @09:42PM (#19546221)
    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].
  • by Vexorian (959249) on Sunday June 17, 2007 @09:50PM (#19546283)
    err.. this is rather embarrassing, I wanted to install Linux but I installed genuine windows! fuck.
  • by flyingfsck (986395) on Sunday June 17, 2007 @11:45PM (#19546929)
    Well, I guess Linux is finally ready for the desktop - certified by Microsoft no less.
  • Ugh (Score:4, Funny)

    by horza (87255) on Monday June 18, 2007 @07:17AM (#19549215) Homepage
    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.

Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.

Working...