Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wine Software Linux

Microsoft Admits Targeting Wine Users 541

Posted by Zonk from the why-wouldn't-they? dept.
Buddha Joe wrote in to mention that the lack of Windows updates for Wine users is the result of a Microsoft's active targeting of Wine users. ZDNet has the story. From the article: "As the most popular third-party translation technology in use, Wine was the first emulator to be specifically tested for via WGA"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Admits Targeting Wine Users More

Microsoft Admits Targeting Wine Users

Comments Filter:

  • The Interview (Score:5, Funny)

    by lecithin ( 745575 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @12:59PM (#11779343)
    Do you admit to targeting wine users?

    Reply:

    In all fairness, most alcoholics are Microsoft's customers. We need them.

    The Linux/Unix market has already cornered the stoner folks. Just look at the latest release of Solaris.

    Oh... That Wine...And you mean 'targeting' much differently. Are we on the air????

  • No obligation... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mythosaz ( 572040 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:00PM (#11779348)
    Microsoft is still not under ANY obligation to update YOUR emulator.

    • Re:No obligation... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Doesn't_Comment_Code ( 692510 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:04PM (#11779409)
      Microsoft is still not under ANY obligation to update YOUR emulator.

      That is true. And if it required additional effort to update the emulators, I would expect them not to. But it appears as if they are are putting forth additional effort to hamper emulators. And that just makes them look like jerks.

      • Re:No obligation... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mythosaz ( 572040 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:13PM (#11779535)
        The "extra effort" involved is pretty minimal. WINE has a registry value that identifies itself. Other emulators do the same.

        This entire forum would go ape-shit if Microsoft was publishing a patch from Windowsupdate that broke WINE simply because it conveniently "forgot" to read that registry key.

        Windowsupdate has simple checks in it to verify that it's updating actual installs of...wait for it...WINDOWS!

        • Re:No obligation... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by bersl2 ( 689221 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:27PM (#11779705) Journal
          This is just something to get us pissed off. We have no recourse nor reason to do this. "The spokesperson said users who are not running Windows XP or Windows 2000 natively can still download updates for Microsoft Office from the Office Update Web site." They are pushing our buttons. To quote a Fark cliche, "It's a trap!"

          How many ways should I say this?

          • Re:No obligation... (Score:3, Insightful)

            by amigabill ( 146897 )
            This is just something to get us pissed off. We have no recourse nor reason to do this. "The spokesperson said users who are not running Windows XP or Windows 2000 natively can still download updates for Microsoft Office from the Office Update Web site."

            Running Linux/Wine is mutualy exclusive to running Windows. You also likely didn't buy a Windows license or service contract for your Linux/Wine system.

            But it's quite possible that the version of Office you may be running is legitimately paid for, regardle

            • Re:No obligation... (Score:3, Insightful)

              by bersl2 ( 689221 )
              I don't think you understand why I put that there.

              The point of this, if anything, was to get us bent out of shape about nothing. A blocking of Windows updates makes us worry about them possibly blocking Office updates. As a couple of people here have pointed out, Microsoft is obligated to provide updates to all users of its software, even if that software is being run under an "emulator."

            • Re:No obligation... (Score:4, Interesting)

              by uglyduckling ( 103926 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @06:11PM (#11783022) Homepage
              But it's quite possible that the version of Office you may be running is legitimately paid for, regardless of the host operating system

              That's an interesting point. MS has been found guilty of abusing monopoly powers by insisting that OEMs don't remove MS products like Media Player. I think the general public find it hard to understand a legal process to stop a company providing 'free stuff' with their product. But here we have a case where a (hopefully - let's assume for the moment) legally purchased piece of software intentionally has features blocked when it's not used on an MS operating system.

              When OSs are mutually incompatible it's not unreasonable for MS to choose which OSs to support. No-one can force them to release a Linux version of Office. But now that Linux (on i386) is becoming increasingly compatible with Windows, MS has a problem - how do they prevent Linux users from installing Office and other flagship apps? And can they do this without abusing monopoly powers? I don't think so.

              It might be that MS doesn't mind abusing their powers - they pretty much get away with it every time (although the EU is having a pretty good do at stopping them). The difference here is - in a couple of years time, when Walmart are selling cheap Linux boxes that are compatible with 90% of Windows software, if the general public find out the MS is intentionally stopping it working with their computers - I think that could have some real traction.

        • Re:No obligation... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by JHromadka ( 88188 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:42PM (#11779892) Homepage
          And what would happen if a virus/trojan went and added that WINE registry entry? Would updates stop working so users wouldn't be able to install patches? Thanks Microsoft!
          • Excellent point. Security, as always, is subtle. Bill Gates claims that security is job one now, and yet there is now an easy way to make security updates fail. And this behavior is BY DESIGN!

            The answer, of course, is for Microsoft to stop worrying about piracy causing potential revenue loss and start worrying about security. Microsoft has enough cash reserves to buy ALL of google's stock (at least, they did last time I checked google's market capitalization). Microsoft's revenues are larger than the next

        • Re:No obligation... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by boarder ( 41071 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:43PM (#11779907) Homepage
          Windowsupdate updates other things besides... wait for it... WINDOWS!

          If you had bothered to pay any attention to what was being talked about, you might understand how stupid your posts were. Microsoft is under no obligation to keep your emulators up to date. That is correct. They are, however, under obligation to keep your Office up to date. Whether you are running Office under an emulator or not shouldn't be a factor if you legally paid for Office. You paid for their product and service, so they should keep you updated just like the rest of their legitimate users. This has nothing to do with installs of Windows and updating them... Wine makes it so you don't have to install Windows. This is about not allowing emulators to fully run their other, non-OS software.

          They are excluding a specific set of legitimate users who should have the same rights as other legitimate users to lock out a competitor. This has nothing to do with fighting piracy; it is purely about anti-competitive behaviour.

      • Re:No obligation... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by RonnyJ ( 651856 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:17PM (#11779589)
        And if it required additional effort to update the emulators, I would expect them not to.

        Well, if a Microsoft update accidentally broke a part of WINE's compatibility, some people might accuse Microsoft of deliberately breaking it. Why should they take the chance?

      • Re:No obligation... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by hcob$ ( 766699 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:24PM (#11779682)
        As much as I hate to admit this.... Microsoft is right on this one. They took the time to code software, and make a platform that has hard vendor tie-ins. By disabling free third party support, they are in effect fending off attacks on their intellectual property. Which, unfortunately IP in the US is enforceable through law or just plain old effort.

        • No you are wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @02:10PM (#11780223) Homepage Journal
          No one is asking Microsoft to update Wine. The updates are for software from Microsoft that runs under WINE.
          If someone PAYS for Office they should get the UPDATES for Office even if they are running the program under WINE.
          This so smells of anti trust it is not funny.

      • Re:No obligation... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Vectorferret ( 814726 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:34PM (#11779797)
        However, Windows update costs Microsoft money. WINE customers do not pay them any money. (WINE source is free and open after all, which is a good thing.) Although the usual argument that Windows shouldn't be broken in the first place might come up, some thing's really aren't known at the time a product releases. I think it's fair that they spend their resources (however infinite) only on teir own customers. Plus, I think most WINE users won't have much trouble patching thier WINE without windows update, there not typically the kind of person who isn't tech savvy, plus, vulnerabilities are less severe in WINE, since they (usually) can't compromise the rest of Linux/BSD etc...

        • Re:No obligation... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:59PM (#11780094) Journal
          What if someone paid to purchase Microsoft Office, and chose to run it on Linux using Wine? Why should they not have access to convenient updates like the rest of the people who purchased MS Office? There are a number of software packages that run on both Windows and Linux and have easy mechanisms to ensure they are updated. Frisk software's F-Prot virus update comes to mind as one (mind you, you do have to set up a cron job on Linux, but that is pretty easy to set up, even for a newbie). I agree with the rest who think that MS just comes off looking like a bunch of jerks... like a whiney kid who didn't like being scored against during a game: "it's my ball, and I'm taking it home!"

          I know this has been alluded to before, but I thought a direct reply to this post that has been marked insightful was warranted.

    • Re:No obligation... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by A beautiful mind ( 821714 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:05PM (#11779414)
      ..unless someone owns a legal copy of Windows of course.

      • Re:No obligation... (Score:5, Informative)

        by mythosaz ( 572040 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:08PM (#11779472)
        A legitimate copy of windows, running under a hardware emulator, or a virtual machine (like VMWare or VirtualPC) will continue to be updated.

        A piece of software that performs windows-like-functions, like WINE, won't continue to be updated.

      • Re:No obligation... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DShard ( 159067 )
        What does owning a copy of windows have to do with a web service that updates microsoft products automatically? Just because you buy one product it doesn't entitle you to another. They don't even owe you updates at all as a windows user and owner, they do it for customer retainment.

      • Nope! (Score:5, Informative)

        by bonch ( 38532 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:20PM (#11779629)
        Microsoft is under no obligation to support updates to applications that are not running under the operating system listed on that magical little section on the side of the box that says "System Requirements."
        • What you have stated is not true. While Microsoft has no responsibility to uphold their quality guarantees if the product is used contrary to their expectations, they cannot deny their publicly advertised and generally available services to their own customers without violating consumer protection laws. Furthermore, the stated "system requirements" can recommend specific products, but it cannot mandate them. That would be product bundling, and that is illegal under anti-trust laws. Even if Microsoft doe

    • Re:No obligation... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by QMO ( 836285 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:05PM (#11779423) Homepage Journal
      True, but it is under (anti-trust) obligation to not exclude a person running an emulator from getting updates to their MS software (like office), even it that obligation hasn't been court tested, yet.

      MS says that someone running an emulator can get the updates somewhere else, but it is still a practical exclusion.
      • You can still get updates for their other software if you own it. Just download the updates.
        They're just blocking people that don't have windows from downloading through the windows update program.
        They aren't blocking you from updating software you own. They're blocking you from using a windows service because you don't have windows. That's perfectly legal.

    • Wait just a minute! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by zoloto ( 586738 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:07PM (#11779450)
      First of all, wine is not an emulator as noted [winehq.com] on their web page. And of course MS isn't under obligation to update the emulator, only their software. IE- WINDOWS. Their targeting of Wine and other API translators (like Wine) is nothing more than a stunt to anger the users of Windows within a Linux operating system.

      If you're going to post rants, make them obvious so we can mod them down. This is nothing more than the obvious BS it is.

    • Re:No obligation... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lawpoop ( 604919 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:09PM (#11779496) Homepage Journal
      NO ONE is ASKING Microsoft to update ANY emulator. They are asking Microsoft to UPDATE MICROSOFT SOFTWARE running under wine.

    • -1: RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)

      by p3d0 ( 42270 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:13PM (#11779536)
      The issue is not Microsoft updating WINE. It's Microsoft refusing to update copies of their own software because they are running under WINE rather than their own OS. Remember, these could be legitimately purchased copies of MS applications that MS refuses to update.

      • -1: RTFA (Score:4, Informative)

        by SlayerofGods ( 682938 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:30PM (#11779756)
        You should get -1 for not RTFA.
        You can still update MS software if your running WINE. What you can't do is run windows updater to update said software for you automaticly because windows updater is a windows service. And if your running WINE you obivously don't have windows.
    • Microsoft is still not under ANY obligation to update YOUR emulator.

      Is it me, or is this starting to look like another Dr. DOS [theregister.co.uk] issue?

  • If ever there was a case..... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ip_freely_2000 ( 577249 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:00PM (#11779352)
    ...for the separation of Microsoft's Operating Systems business from the Application business, this would be it.

    It's too bad this didn't happen a while back during the trial years.
    • The key point to this is valid. Microsoft will continue to supply Office updates for you if you're using Office on ANY platform that you can make Office run on; what they won't do, however, is provide updates for your non-Microsoft platform.
    • When I did support for WordPerfect Suite 7 and 8:

      Some beta version of IE had a substantial conflict with WP7 (been a while, specifics gone). WP worked around it so WP8 didn't have the conflict.

      WP8 came out, and shortly afterward the "final" of that version of IE did too, with a very similar conflict with WP8.

      Maybe it was just coincidence.
      • Given Microsoft's history of deliberately making their products not work with other companies' products at least once every couple of years, I wouldn't be inclined to think it's a coincidence at all.

  • Yup (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Quasar1999 ( 520073 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:00PM (#11779356) Journal
    Did you read the EULA? It doesn't give you the right to use windows update if you aren't using windows.

  • ReactOS also has the Wine registry key (Score:4, Informative)

    by isolation ( 15058 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:00PM (#11779360) Homepage
    We share a lot of Win32 code with Wine as we just build the Wine dlls for Windows and make drop in replacements for ReactOS. The Wine WinMM.dll uses the Wine key and as such ReactOS will fail the check as well.

    -sedwards

  • I'm confused (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Microsoft releases updates and patches for wine?
    Said updates actually work on wine?

  • MS downloads no longer needed (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:01PM (#11779372)
    If you go to the WineHQ site, they suggest that the downloads will not be needed to run wine in the future, since they will have completed their own versions of things like dcom95.

  • Office can still be updated, however (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rude Turnip ( 49495 ) <valuationNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:02PM (#11779383)
    From the article: "The spokesperson said users who are not running Windows XP or Windows 2000 natively can still download updates for Microsoft Office from the Office Update Web site."

    To those who were saying "what about me? I'm only using Office under WINE," you can still get updates.

  • The simple solution is... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...to give up on Windows. Wine is just a crutch. There are plenty of great alternatives that not only work well, but don't have some of the huge problems that Windows does such as viruses.

  • Wine users? (Score:4, Funny)

    by cmburns69 ( 169686 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:03PM (#11779397) Homepage Journal
    If I was Microsoft, I'd target whining users as well, preferably with a couple of large missles.. oh wait..

  • WINE (Score:5, Informative)

    by th1ckasabr1ck ( 752151 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:04PM (#11779402)
    Wine was the first emulator...

    (W)ine (I)s (N)ot an (E)mulator

    • Bullshit and GNU is not Unix.....

    • Yes, it is... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lxt ( 724570 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:20PM (#11779623) Journal
      An emulator is "a device that is built to work like another" (says the Google dictionary link). So what's WINE then - it's a software program that isn't Windows, but allows you to run programs that require Windows. ...sounds a lot like an emulator to me.

      • Re:Yes, it is... (Score:3, Informative)

        by brunes69 ( 86786 )
        An emulator is not "a device that is built to work like another", at leats when it comes to programming.

        An emulator emulates a CPU or platform. VMWare is an emulator, because it emulates an x86 host system.

        Wine is not an emulator. Wine is a 3rd party implimentation of the Win32 API. This is partially why Wine only really works well on X86 platforms (although work is being done in this area).

        • Re:Yes, it is... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Profane MuthaFucka ( 574406 ) <busheatskok@gmail.com> on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:58PM (#11780084) Homepage Journal
          Right. And Gnu's Not Unix. Except, it is UNIX in everything but the official license.

          So I take that to mean that Wine is not an emulator of Windows. It's Windows, from someone other than Microsoft.

          In the computer world, most uses of the word 'emulation' are referring to making a piece of software work like and replace a piece of hardware. VMWare works like and replaces an X86 box. A microprocessor emulator works just like a physical chip. Mame simulates a piece of hardware that is found in game systems.

          When we write pieces of software that work just like some other piece of software, we consider that to be an alternative implementation, not an emulation. Linux is not an emulation of UNIX, it's an alternate implementation. Wine is not an emulator of Windows, it's an alternative implementation.

          Emulation isn't about just the implementation, it's about the LEVEL of implementation. Emulation is about making a useful device in software that behaves just like a device in the physical hardware world.

          OK, this is the cue for anyone else to jump in with some counterexamples to prove me wrong...

    • Re:WINE (Score:3, Informative)

      by fm6 ( 162816 )
      Yeah, an irritating bit of semantic sloppiness. But "alternate API implementation" takes too long to say. Besides, the difference is too subtle for most people. We're probably going to have to live with this one.

  • DRM Mind Set (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nodehopper ( 839304 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:05PM (#11779429) Homepage
    This is just another example of how the DRM mind set values profit over innovation. Expect to see more of this type of thing as the DRM philosophy permeates society and business culture.

  • The whole thing is... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by afstanton ( 822402 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:06PM (#11779434) Homepage
    that it will block not just Windows updates, but *all* MS downloads. This includes specs and other miscellany that doesn't even require Windows of any kind to run.

  • That's a great acknowledgement from Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jeremy_white ( 598942 ) * on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:06PM (#11779438) Homepage
    I'm really impressed by how hard Ingrid worked on this; I told her I didn't think she get Microsoft to comment officially, and yet she did. Way to go!

    And I'm thrilled to have Microsoft say that Wine is the "the most popular third-party translation technology in use".

    The one thing I felt she didn't emphasize enough though was that this is not a problem for Wine - we shouldn't (and mostly don't) need any OS component downloads from Microsoft. In fact, we're just finishing up work to make any need for DCOM or MSI or any other 'common downloads' from Microsoft unnecessary.

    It's always nice when the other guy blinks :-).

  • Dumb question but.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:07PM (#11779451) Journal
    WINE Is Not an Emulator but rather a native API translation layer, right?

    So what does it do with Windows updates, anyway? I get why, for example, a Windows copy on Virtual PC needs to be updated, but how does WINE make use of them?

  • The real issue (Score:3, Insightful)

    by not-real-sure ( 859388 ) <d_carter @ k o m e t .com> on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:07PM (#11779461) Homepage
    The real issue is that microsoft wants to keep its dominance in the office productivity suite market. They have already started losing market share in browsers. The last /. article that i saw was talking about MS taking away the online activation feature in XP. Which may impact XP sales. Now its not supporting office on multiple platforms. Ms supports office on the Mac platform whats the big deal to support on a linux platform. Port the software over to the 4 most popular distros and sell the software and support. This is a battle they are not going to win so they might as well roll with the punches.

  • A true businessman (Score:5, Insightful)

    by No. 24601 ( 657888 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:09PM (#11779479)
    For this reason, White (chief executive of CodeWeavers) said he was excited rather than worried to hear that the WGA validation tool was blocking Wine. "The reason we love this is because this shows that Microsoft is aware of Wine at very high levels," said White. "For us it's exciting -- it is an acknowledgement of us as a threat."

    This is a true businessman at work. While everyone else is crying foul, this man is rallying around this news. Anyways, most of the updates coming out of MS might mess up a working Wine installation.

  • Arms race (Score:5, Interesting)

    by daveo0331 ( 469843 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:12PM (#11779532) Homepage Journal
    Is there any way Wine can change to get around Microsoft checking for it? I'm thinking something similar to changing your user agent settings on Firefox so you can get into "IE only" websites.

    • Re:Arms race (Score:4, Informative)

      by m50d ( 797211 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:55PM (#11780053) Homepage Journal
      This particular check can be beaten pretty easily. But the opinion of the wine devs is that that would start an "arms race" they can't win. They already know of one way of checking that would be impossible to fool without rewriting large parts of wine, and if they can think of it then MS with its much greater resources has almost certainly found it.

      • Re:Arms race (Score:5, Funny)

        by dajak ( 662256 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @02:59PM (#11780767)
        They already know of one way of checking that would be impossible to fool without rewriting large parts of wine

        I know! It must be related to bounds checking: MS can try out buffer overflow vulnerabilities to test whether it is dealing with the real MS product.

  • Minimum system requirements for Office.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by d_jedi ( 773213 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:14PM (#11779553)
    Microsoft Windows.
    If you don't have it, why do you expect Office should run?

    Still, this needs to be looked at closely by antitrust regulators..

  • Short Article, Good News (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dhj ( 110274 ) * on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:14PM (#11779554)
    The article on ZDNet is REALLY short and there's no excuse for anyone not reading it.

    As it's already mentioned you don't have the right to use Windows Updater if you don't own Windows. It's just like you can't use Redhat Network unless you own Redhat. Only Redhat is even more restrictive with their update services than Windows Update, granted their services are more comprehensive.

    Some interesting tidbits from the article...

    White, CEO at CodeWeavers (acompany that utilizes Wine), said 'he was excited rather than worried to hear that the WGA validation tool was blocking Wine. "The reason we love this is because this shows that Microsoft is aware of Wine at very high levels," said White. "For us it's exciting -- it is an acknowledgement of us as a threat."

    Also, the spokesperson for windows 'said users who are not running Windows XP or Windows 2000 natively can still download updates for Microsoft Office from the Office Update Web site.'

    So you can still get the updates manually, which is something anyone running Wine over linux probably has the expertise to do.

    The only reason we have Windows machines where I work is because of Microsoft Office file compatibility. Wine and consequently Codeweaver's CrossOver Office is a HUGE threat to Windows OS, and it's a good sign that Microsoft is forced to recognize this.

    --David

    • Re:Short Article, Good News (Score:4, Insightful)

      by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:43PM (#11779904)
      > As it's already mentioned you don't have the right to use Windows Updater if you don't own Windows.

      So what about me? I own a full version of Windows XP. Its not installed anywhere as I use Linux, but I presumably still have rights to download updates.

      Furthermore there was nothing in my XP EULA that said I couldn't install XP in a virtual machine, or that I couldn't use only parts of it(say, the system DLLs), or that it has to be the controlling OS.

  • The job's not done ... (Score:3, Funny)

    by jeepmeister ( 241971 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:21PM (#11779644)
    ...until Lotus won't run.

  • First they ignore you... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by technix4beos ( 471838 ) * <cshaiku@gmail.com> on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:28PM (#11779726) Homepage Journal
    With statements like these,

    ... said that Microsoft has until now had "a clear corporate policy to not talk about Wine."

    it is no wonder Linux is clearly gaining new users daily.

    Microsoft needs to change, or perish [healthhacker.com].

  • A better Windows than Windows..... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by big-giant-head ( 148077 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:29PM (#11779742)
    Trying to run windows crap in OS2 is one of things that killed it. IBM spent so much time trying to run windows inside OS2, they completely missed supplying good OS2 native apps.

    Wine is good for running old windows apps that you have ( I still Office 7 !!!???? and open office of course), but if anyone spends too much time trying to emulate windows (ala os2) then MS will simply screw you over. As soon as one thing works, they will break it.

    If you are using a current MS app either 1) run windows 2) find/create a linux based alternative.

    People will scream that yadddadda M$ app is just what they need. Trying to build a 'better windows than windows' is a game no one can win (not even IBM).

    • Re:A better Windows than Windows..... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by runderwo ( 609077 ) * <runderwo.mail@win@org> on Friday February 25, 2005 @02:02PM (#11780125)
      OS/2 was killed by glacial support from IBM and no Win32 support in WINOS2. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Windows 3.1 support built-in to it.

      Customers who were looking forward had no choice but to go with Windows 95 as opposed to the dark horse with no marketing. If OS/2 had Win32 support and OEM preloads, it would have been a completely different ballgame. Microsoft was in a position to prevent both of those, and that ended up sealing their strategy to kill off OS/2.

      I've heard people scream repeatedly that developers would simply target the Win3.1 API because it was included in OS/2, precluding OS/2 native applications and guaranteeing the failure of OS/2. First of all, I don't see how that guarantees the failure of OS/2 - it's a removal of a barrier to entry for the consumer, and the developers go where the consumer install base goes. Furthermore, if that assertion were true, then developers wouldn't have bothered writing Win32 native applications at all since Win3.1 compatibility was available - why lock out existing Win3.1 and OS/2 users?

      The key here is who has a dominating market share and who has a forward path for compatibility with the dominating market share. Microsoft had a dominating market share, and IBM had no forward path for compatibility with it. OS/2 was doomed the moment Win95 was launched.

    • In my experiences with OS/2 Warp, it was able to run 16-bit Windows crap flawlessly.

      The problem was, by the mid-90's Microsoft had begun a shift to 32-bit code, with NT and Win95 introducting new APIs beyond those contained in OS/2. IBM never quite managed to keep up compatibility once users started using software more modern than Windows 3.1.

      (Internet applications were an especially big nail in OS/2's coffin -- Netscape 2.x for Windows wouldn't run under OS/2, even after you shelled out $99 for the OS/2

    • WINE is best for custom WIN32 apps (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Rob Y. ( 110975 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @03:04PM (#11780813)
      WINE isn't only for running Office.

      For most users' purposes, native Linux desktop apps are perfectly good. But some companies have Win32 code developed in-house that they can't afford to convert.

      They could switch to OpenOffice, Firefox, Evolution, etc., and still need to run their custom stuff. That's where WINE comes in really handy. Rather than needing to rewrite these apps, they just need to tweak them to make sure they work well under WINE.

      I've recently used WINE to deliver one such app to Mac OS/X users via X-windows. These users would have no other way to run that app. This is really cool stuff. I'd prefer to be able to build a native OS/X version uxing winelib, but getting winelib to work for the PowerPC is beyond me. This would be nice, even if I still had to use XDarwin, because remote X-Windows can't see the Mac's local drives (or launch Mac helper apps).

  • Can this be exploited against Windows users? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Noksagt ( 69097 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:30PM (#11779751) Homepage
    So, they check for a registry key to see whether or not it is on WINE. Do virii/worms/other malicious intruders now have an easier way to prevent software updates in a slightly secretive manner? Can't they just make the same key on a valid copy of Windows?

  • This reminds me of... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Foolomon ( 855512 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:31PM (#11779762) Homepage
    ...a few old stories:

    The mantra in Redmond when Windows 3.1x was being developed was: "Windows ain't done til Lotus won't run."

    The Microsoft team who worked with IBM on OS/2 specifically designed certain key features of OS/2 so that they would - in the resulting form - not run under an SMP system. IBM had to invest significant time to correct these design "flaws" (or WAD [W.orking A.s D.esigned], depending on which company you ask) to get OS/2 to run on a 2 and 4 processor system.

    There are a few other incidents that come to mind were Microsoft used its power in a manner that was dubious at best, monopolistic at best, yet they continue to skirt the line on the side of legality. Oy vey.

  • Two simple steps to fix this.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bob670 ( 645306 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:32PM (#11779776)
    I replaced my XP box with a Mac mini and my 2000 Server install with Linux. Screw MS, it is quite easy to live without them for all but the most locked in of large business customers.

  • Theory (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DeltaSigma ( 583342 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:48PM (#11779971) Journal
    Suppose I set this WINE registry key in a valid Win2k install (I actually own a legitimate copy of Windows, hooray for me). Would I thus be barred from these updates even though I have a perfectly legitimate installation of Windows? I don't think the EULA for Windows or Office includes "and thou shalt not set HKLM/SOFTWARE/WINE/CurrentVersion... etc."

    So wouldn't they, in this instance, be denying a perfectly legitimate user the software updates that they are supposed to provide? Is there a legal case here?

  • Gates: We're big believers in interoperability. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kirth ( 183 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:53PM (#11780038) Homepage
    Spread in just about every interview with Gates. And this is what it look like.

    Of course its absulutely within their rights to do that, but its definitly going against "interoperability".

    Some network-staff will not be amused "we can't download your servicepacks" - "you need a licensed Microsoft OS" - "We've got 2000 of them, but they're all firewalled off, policy, we can't use those".

  • Funnily enough...... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mormop ( 415983 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:55PM (#11780060)
    I've spent the last few weeks working out how to swap as much of my current employers network over to Linux as possible. The Windows CD server has gone, the file servers are looking like they'll follow with Samba/Winbind and a couple of old PCs are being turned over to print serving.

    Until now, I had not seriously looked into Wine/VMWare etc (time constraints mainly) as although they are well known to the Linux community, I don't have enough experience with them to talk my IT director into trying it.

    The fact that MS are so anti-wine is probably the best indication yet of its effectiveness and given a few more months while Linux settles in it could swing the balance when it comes to replacing NT4.

  • Not illegal, not even immoral (Score:5, Insightful)

    by analog_line ( 465182 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:58PM (#11780089)
    What Microsoft is basically doing is refusing to offer support for their software running on any system they don't advertise the product working with. This is the same reason that if I call up Apple for support getting my iPod working under Linux, they're going to hang up the phone on me.

    Microsoft isn't obliged to allow their automated update tools to function under WINE. They aren't even obliged to allow seperately downloaded updaters to work under WINE. The software you're updating is advertised to run on Windows only and you're not running it on Windows. Microsoft isn't breaking any rules, and whining about it just wastes oxygen

    Either work on getting around the block, buy a copy of Windows, or work on switching over to one of the free software suites. Donate some money to the Open Office, KOffice, or AbiWord projects. I'm sure they can use all the cash they get, and it will help them add more and more useless features to the software so the pointy-haired types will be more impressed with them.

  • Admit isn't the right term (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hkb ( 777908 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @02:00PM (#11780105)
    Slashdotians use the term "admit" as if Microsoft is guilty of something. They are simply preventing those are are not running Windows according to the agreed-upon EULA from accessing their resources and using their bandwidth. What happened to Microsoft's IP rights?

    Why should Microsoft allow WINE users, who either don't possess a valid copy of Windows, or who are breaking Microsoft's EULA, to leech resources (server/bandwidth) from them?

    My mind boggles that this is even being debated.

  • No obligation? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @02:06PM (#11780175) Homepage
    As I read in another article, since Microsoft has been ruled criminally guilty of abusing its monopoly to leverage its products in other areas, doing this is a blatant additional violation and the DOJ needs to be focusing on this.

    In this case, they are attempting to ensure that their applications run only on MS Windows rather than on any competing OS. This has the effect of attempting to leverage their apps to keep Windows running on peoples computers. This is STILL a problem and should be addressed.

    Microsoft, in this case, has clearly displayed what I would consider to be contempt of court and should be handled from that perspective first and foremost. They SHOULD force a breakup of Microsoft into OS and Software companies and be done with it. They were given an chance to straighten up and fly right. They read this as "hey, we got away with it! Let's continue to illegally tie the browser to the OS in our next release of Windows even though it was deemed criminal and let's continue to break competitor's software to keep them from running our apps and software."

    Has anyone read where Microsoft has hired anyone formerly employed by the DOJ yet? I'm kinda wondering why the DOJ isn't jumping all over this... unless, of course, they've been bought like several politicians have been... (where's that site? Open Secrets was it?)

    Anyway... this needs to be watched.

  • ah well (Score:3, Informative)

    by mattyrobinson69 ( 751521 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @04:18PM (#11781699)
    i wish the /. articles would start correcting misconceptions, so the whole discussion doesn't go like this:

    1. microsoft shouldn't have to update wine because they didn't write it
    2. the article is about updating office on wine, not wine itself

    1. microsoft shouldn't have to update wine because they didn't write it
    2. the article is about updating office on wine, not wine itself

    etc

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close