Microsoft prioritised making its anti-piracy tool prevent users of Wine, an open source toolkit that allows users to run Windows applications under Linux, from downloading Windows updates, the software giant said on Friday.
A Microsoft spokesperson told ZDNet UK it made sure the validation tool used by its Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) programme identified Wine users, so that only users are running a genuine version of Windows could download updates and add-on tools.
"As the most popular third-party translation technology in use, Wine was the first emulator to be specifically tested for via WGA," said the spokesperson. "Microsoft does not knowingly provide copyrighted Microsoft Windows OS files to users of third-party emulators or cross-platform API translation technologies such as Wine."
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.
Microsoft's public acknowledgement of Wine suggests a shift in corporate policy. Earlier this week Jeremy White, chief executive at CodeWeavers, which sells products based on Wine, said that Microsoft has until now had "a clear corporate policy to not talk about Wine".
For this reason, White 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."
Talkback
Well this is rare. Microsoft admitting potentially illegal practices and admitting they're scared of something. I think I've regained some slight respect for them.
I think it's outrageous that Microsoft is intentionally blocking users of legitimate Microsoft products just because the user chooses not to use Windows! Note to Microsoft: Hey guys, not everyone thinks Windows is the bee's knees! In my opinion it's buggy, bloated and downright insecure. Others may think differently. Regardless, I should be able to run my legitimately purchased copy of office on Unix if I choose and receive every update that i'm entitled. This is just one more incentive for me to move to open source equivalents of all the Microsoft software I currently use. If this isn't behavior becoming of a Monopolist, then I don't know what is!
Good move, nice, optimal, unexpected!!. Microsoft attitude will push users to get rid of Windows as soon as possible.
Minimum system requirements:
Microsoft Windows.
You knew what you were getting into when you bought the software.
pwn3d.
does anyone spell/grammar proof these columns, or should i consider zdnet of the same literary quality as most blogging sites?
What about those users running a legal, dual-boot system? Are the registry keys that MS is targeting still going to prevent the updates from working?
This is an outrage.
Microsoft has a responsibility to keep its products secure, regardless of whether its products are running in Windows or Wine.
The Microsoft products themselves have been legally purchased, so Microsoft should not discriminate against users of alternate operating systems.
"Minimum system requirements:
Microsoft Windows.
You knew what you were getting into when you bought the software.
pwn3d."
You sir are quite mistaken. If I purchase a piece of software, by God I will run it on whatever I want to. Fair Use states I am allowed to do so.
Good. Valid Windows users **paid** for it, so Microsoft gives them updates for free. Linux users didn't pay for anything, so why should Microsoft furnish them with software for free??? They have zero obligation to give away software that they paid for through the labor of their programmers to people that haven't paid for it. This is **not** illegal in any senses.
Do you guys read the entire article before bashing Microsoft ? Here is one paragraph that I read:
"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."
So, it stated that user can still download NON-OS patches. Which is fine. As long as you have a legal license of Non-OS app, you can download and apply the patch. It only stated that ppl without a legal OS license (as in the case of WINE), you cannot download the OS patches. Seem to make sense to me. In fact, if you're running WINE, chances are, you wouldn't wanted to download and install MS's Patch. Who knows what it will do the the WINE application. And, yes, WINE is just an application running on top of Linux (or other platforms).
Please people, please read the entire article before we start to bash other over their heads with things. It just seems like a mention of 'MS' would trigger all these bashing.
Wouldn't it be worst if you are running WINE and upon going to MS's download site, it automatically download and apply their patch on top of WINE ? Wouldn't that cause a much bigger stir with you bashers ?
Come on, at least be reasonable.
If a person pays for microsoft office, that person should be entitled to office updates, no matter what platform they run their office software under.
This move will only serve to further alienate people and encourage them to purchase non-microsoft products.
Re: Windows users **paid**; The article is talking about updates for Microsoft Office that are running under Wine. Customers using this solution have paid for Office just like any other Office user. Microsoft is discriminating based on the operating system that the product is running on, which may very well be illegal.
Most software also states what the minimum hardware requirements are.
If I am running Windows under a virtual machine (Virtual PC or VMWare) I am not running on the minimum hardware required, it is running on emulated not real hardware.
Does this mean the MS will not support it? Nope, they will. To the OS, it appears that it is running on real hardware.
Running Windows based software under WINE is no different. To the software it appears it is running on Windows.
Good for MS.
Let's be clear about something: You bought MS Office for WINDOWS. You didn't buy MS Office for SOMETHING LIKE WINDOWS. You don't expect MS Office for Mac to run on Windows, why would you expect MS Office for Windows to run on something else?
If you bought it then obviously it is your software and you can do what you want with it. Just don't expect MS to go to great lengths to help you run in an unsupported manner. It's like expecting Nintendo to help you get your ROM game running on a SNES emulator.
I know you all love to hate Microsoft but I think they are being quite fair this time. WINE uses dlls and modules that were written by Microsoft yet they have not paid for them. Is WINE violating copyright? No, they are asking you to do that for them.
I don't get the big deal anyway. What are you running Office on *nix for anyway? Shouldn't you be using that piece of crap, OpenOffice anyway you sellouts?
I think this is definately Microsoft's way of acknowledging WINE. Of course my way of acknowledging flies is to pull out a rolled up newspaper. It certainly doesn't mean I feel threatened.
=== QUOTE ===
Let's be clear about something: You bought MS Office for WINDOWS. You didn't buy MS Office for SOMETHING LIKE WINDOWS. You don't expect MS Office for Mac to run on Windows, why would you expect MS Office for Windows to run on something else?
=== QUOTE ===
Apparently, MS Office DOES run on "something like Windows", so why shouldn't they be allowed to get updates? Are they calling for technical support? If they were, _then_ I'd agree with your argument. However, if they are self-supporting and all they want to do is get an update to fix bugs, then I don't understand your objection.
Running MS Office for MAC on Windows? That's a strawman argument and is, therefore, absolutely rediculous. Macs aren't x86. Linux runs on the same hardware as MS-Windows, so adding a software compatibility layer shouldn't be a problem, except that Microsoft is desperate to maintain their OS monopoly.
=== QUOTE ====
I don't get the big deal anyway. What are you running Office on *nix for anyway? Shouldn't you be using that piece of crap, OpenOffice anyway you sellouts?
=== QUOTE ===
Because some silly people have decided that MS Office is a "standard" (tip: it's not!) and MS has gone to great lengths to not document the file format, so while that "piece of crap, OpenOffice[.org]" may open those PROPRIETARY Microsoft file formats 99% of the time, there's always that 1% where the formatting isn't right or OOo just can't open the file.
Think before you post next time.
RE: Good for MS. Let's be clear about something: You bought MS Of...
You I can understand them not supporting your Office installation if you are running it under Wine. But to deny updates to the software that you bought is just evil. A repuation that Microsoft has been living up to more and more lately.
Bret Baptist.
I'm just reposting this because this person has a good point
Do you guys read the entire article before bashing Microsoft ? Here is one paragraph that I read:
"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."
So, it stated that user can still download NON-OS patches. Which is fine. As long as you have a legal license of Non-OS app, you can download and apply the patch. It only stated that ppl without a legal OS license (as in the case of WINE), you cannot download the OS patches. Seem to make sense to me. In fact, if you're running WINE, chances are, you wouldn't wanted to download and install MS's Patch. Who knows what it will do the the WINE application. And, yes, WINE is just an application running on top of Linux (or other platforms).
Please people, please read the entire article before we start to bash other over their heads with things. It just seems like a mention of 'MS' would trigger all these bashing.
Wouldn't it be worst if you are running WINE and upon going to MS's download site, it automatically download and apply their patch on top of WINE ? Wouldn't that cause a much bigger stir with you bashers ?
Come on, at least be reasonable.
"You sir are quite mistaken. If I purchase a piece of software, by God I will run it on whatever I want to. Fair Use states I am allowed to do so."
I just saw this and I couldn't help but laugh.
This kind of haughty attitude is what makes me hate Linux, and their users.
The software says it requires Microsoft Windows. Your argument is about as stupid as someone complaining because HL2 can't run on Win3.1.
I'm glad Microsoft is doing this. About time they took some action against this kind of misuse and, in most cases, piracy (Linux users = free software).
"I'm glad Microsoft is doing this. About time they took some action against this kind of misuse and, in most cases, piracy (Linux users = free software)"
Whoa, hold on there pally, before you run off and start calling people stupid let's think about this for a moment. It's true that you can get most if not all distro's of *nix for free (legally). Granted. You can also get a copy OOo and a lot of other kinds of Office suites fro free (legally). OK... with me so far? Now, let's take a look at the situation as a whole.
Now, I what I'm seeing is that some people have made a decision to use another opperating system instead of the "tried and true" Windows. But for whatever reason, whether they are just more familiar with Office or just have to work with people who use Office... at there office, they need it. So they buy Office and get Wine to run it. No problem, right?
Alright, let's revisit something. 1) This attack won't effect people who already have office installed. 2) Like a talk back already mentioned - this is probably better for your average wine user because the development team will have a chance to see how different updates can or should effect the Wine application and then tweek it so that it work properly.
As far as Piracy is concerned... It has been my experience that a majority of the people who do piracy related to software for Window use Windows. I mean, one of the draws of open source is that it's free and when you look at a typical Window user, they are already spending hundreds to thousands of dollars paying for hardware and software (Did I mention that office included for free?) that some would probably not question looking into solutions that can save them a buck or two. In fact, when I mention to my friends that I'm going to buy some software, they look at me as if I just went crazy.
Whew... I'm a little all over the place with that one. Later.
"Jack Benetton, Occupation: software engineer
Commented: Good. Valid Windows users **paid** for it, so Microsoft gives them updates for free. Linux users didn't pay for anything, so why should Microsoft furnish them with software for free??? They have zero obligation to give away software that they paid for through the labor of their programmers to people that haven't paid for it. This is **not** illegal in any senses."
I think you are confused sir. We're not necessarily talking about pirated software here. When I go out to the store and purchase Microsoft Office, I can currently use WINE to run that legally purchased software on a Linux/Unix operating system, instead of Windows; if I choose. What Microsoft is doing is penalizing me for not choosing Windows and is blocking me from downloading any updates, bug-fixes or new features for my legally purchased software just because i'm not running it on their operating system (i.e., Windows.) That is NOT fair!
The following is what makes me not like Windows users:
-----
"This kind of haughty attitude is what makes me hate Linux, and their users.
-----
The software says it requires Microsoft Windows. Your argument is about as stupid as someone complaining because HL2 can't run on Win3.1."
No one is complaining about not being able to run MS Office on Linux! Wine helps them do this just fine. What they're complaining about is not being able to get updates just because their running it on Linux/Wine.
If I purchase software, and the developer provides bug fixes for this software, and they provide these fixes for free, there is no reason all customers should not be able to get them. Just because I have a peice of software that abstracts the OS from the application, is no reason to not allow me to receive the fixes. It's like telling Virtual PC users that they can't have updates to a piece of software because the ultimate underlying OS is not what's stated on the system requirements.
And like another person mentioned, their not asking MS to do anything they would not do for any other cutsomer, they'er not asking MS to alter Office to run on another OS, they just want to be able to get the updates that everyone else can get.
-----
"I'm glad Microsoft is doing this. About time they took some action against this kind of misuse and, in most cases, piracy (Linux users = free software)"
-----
How is this "misuse" and "piracy"? Just becuase Linux users benefit from free software does not mean they pirate software. These are people who have purchased the software from MS. And by the way, there is just as much MS compatible free software out there (Open Office runs on Windows!), and probabley more. So maybe MS should doe something about that too! This is just terrible! It's un-American! By golly anyone who is not charging for software, or atleast slipping MS some money, should be shot!
Is MS wrong in doing this? Yes they are. Just because I choose to use a competitors OS should not mean I am not allowed to update my over priced Office solution.
And for your information Mr. Joe G. Linux Users = Free Software doesn't fly. I can and do use free software but I don't use pirated software. To imply all the software I use since I choose to run Linux is free, is not to know me. To imply all users of Linux do this just proves how little you actually do know. A surprisingly large number of us so called free software users support our favorite software makers in one fashion or another. IE: Memberships in the Mandrake Club. Donations etc etc etc.
Oh and just remember your thoughts on free software users the next time you look at a web page anywhere. Because there is a good chance that page is being served up by Apache a free for use web server or that bulliten board that uses MYSQL, another widely used free solution.
Minim Requirements are just that minimums.
If I have software that says manumit requirements Windows NT, does that mean that I can not run it on Windows 2000 or XP?
If I have software that say minimum requirements Windows 95, does that mean I can not run it on Widows 98, or ME.
In both situation I expect to be able to install and run the software. I also expect to be able to get updates.
No where in any Microsoft software does it say I must run this on Microsoft OS. It states the minimum requirements. As long as I provide an environment that meets those requirements, why does it matter what the environment is.
However, as others have pointed out. MS is NOT preventing me from getting updates, it is just preventing me from getting them using one specific method.
That's so stupid. WINE is not an emulator.
You dont need any windows files at all
why the hell would you need to update them. If you dont need them.
Except for maybe DCOM98 and Internet Explorer 6.
But why would want to use those. Really who wants IE.
Slackware 10.1 KDE user.
Latest Wine version runs pretty good.
http://www.winehq.org
2005-02-11 Version
""You sir are quite mistaken. If I purchase a piece of software, by God I will run it on whatever I want to. Fair Use states I am allowed to do so."
I just saw this and I couldn't help but laugh.
This kind of haughty attitude is what makes me hate Linux, and their users."
Go forth and hate all you want! IT Students who hate Linux
will find jobs a lot harder to come by in a few years.
Oh, and by the way, complaining of a "haughty attitude" is the natural response of incompetents to having to compete with somone like people who can do their jobs 10X as well in half the time.
"And like another person mentioned, their not asking MS to do anything they would not do for any other cutsomer, they'er not asking MS to alter Office to run on another OS, they just want to be able to get the updates that everyone else can get. "
Actually, they're asking MS to *NOT* go out of their way and block office/wine users from updating. They are asking MS to do less work, in fact.
"Good. Valid Windows users **paid** for it, so Microsoft gives them updates for free. Linux users didn't pay for anything, so why should Microsoft furnish them with software for free??? They have zero obligation to give away software that they paid for through the labor of their programmers to people that haven't paid for it. This is **not** illegal in any senses."
Just because my OS didn't cost me as much as yours, doesn't mean I burnt microsoft office from my friend. I bought it, you tool.
"That's so stupid. WINE is not an emulator.
You dont need any windows files at all
why the hell would you need to update them. If you dont need them"
Read the article. Hint: its about MS office, mate.
"Minimum system requirements:
Microsoft Windows.
You knew what you were getting into when you bought the software.
pwn3d."
Dude, the first version of office I bought said it needed win98 or better. So I ran it on linux. No problems.
Is there a reading comprehension problem on here? The article clearly states that Office updates are still available to Office users, regardless of whether they're running Windows or not. Despite the author's intentions of obfuscating the message, it comes through that she was wrong in the first place to imply that something due to legit Office customers is being kept from them.
Come on, people. Read the article in it's entirety before making yourself look silly. WGA is about OS updates and what need does a WINE user have for Windows OS updates?
Something not immediately apparent in the articles is that the method MicroSoft uses to determine if Wine is running is the presence of a registry key.
This has the potential of malware using this registry key to prevent Windows upgrades on infected machines.
MicroSoft may want to revisit their scheme from a denial of service PoV.
Just another way for babbling billy to squeeze out open source software! If he isn't making money off of it he wants it gone! I use windows not Linux and still think this closed minded thinking is s^&t! We need competition. It is the only way things get better be it software, hardware, electronics, Etc... If he has his way we'll all have to run windows with it's security flaws and have to live with it because there will be no alternative and it will cost you dearly!
[quote]
That's so stupid. WINE is not an emulator.
You dont need any windows files at all
why the hell would you need to update them. If you dont need them.
Except for maybe DCOM98 and Internet Explorer 6.
But why would want to use those. Really who wants IE.
Slackware 10.1 KDE user.
Latest Wine version runs pretty good.
http://www.winehq.org
2005-02-11 Version
[/quote]
Yes, Yes, Yes, thank you ! I was going to right that.
If Microsoft blocks it's products to run on Wine, I will kick off all it's products and turn to their open source alternative. For example OpenOffice. This may let me suffer for a while, but I will not go back to MS Windows any more.
It is true Office Update shouldn't be concerned by the Anti-Wine thingy. However, what miffs me is the fact that Windows Update covers the REST of MS' products: Mdia Player, IE, DCOM, MDAC, Journal Viewer etc. which are all softwares in their own rights, with their distinct EULA, and this check means I'll be unable to get them. Granted, most are useless under Linux since they have partially, totally or superiorly compatible equivalents OSS. However, some, like MDAC, can be needed by Office - and I won't be able top get them.
The point is, if they start closing the door, either Wine users will need to start considering migrating as many apps as they can, or be ready to run non-bugfixed satellites on their Office install.
I pull into a station for petrol and the attendant comes over to me. "Fill her up, thanks". "Sorry" says the attendant, "but I cannot do that". "Why not?" you cry. "Because you don't have the proper make of vehicle sir" he says.
"Now hang on" you say, "I bought this motor from your workshop, just last week, and it must have your fuel to work to its best" "Yes, well, sir, you can buy the petrol, just not from these pumps" "What do you mean, not from these pumps. The instructions for refuelling brings me here. Where, then, am I going to get it from." "Err, you can got to the other pumps for these motors, just a little obstruction course on the way, thats all, however if you put the motor into our vehicle, the one recommended for these motors, you can get the petrol right here".
If the above actually happened, the various consumer rights agencies (regardless of country) would have many things to say to the station. Why then, is MS allowed to do the same with immunity?
ps, It was stated above, the minimum requirements for Office are WinXP or "better", I would have thought it was a given that Linux is "better"
Would a Microsoft spokesman not have a name?
Lets be clear about something:
When you buy a copy of most software products on the market today all you are really paying for is a license to use that software which is kindly supplied on some media for you. The licenses are usually very restrictive. So anyone saying 'it's mine, I can do what I want with it' is very wrong (at least legally).
As for updating software running on Wine, why would they? They may well be breaking license agreements they already have, regarding distributing code only to Windows owners. I'm sure the box for Microsoft Office has a requirement on the side saying 'requires Windows'. I don't think it too hard to understand that if you want suppor from Microsoft you'd better use their software on a system they support.
Having said all that, I think Wine is only a good thing. I think Linux applications will mature quicker than Wine manages to support old software however. and i think Wine's life in active development will be short.
I use Windows and Linux at both my job and in my house. As someone that has seen both sides of the coin, I know that this can be somewhat annoying and yes, while I do like Windows *gasp*, I believe that this is just another example of jerk tactics from MS. Is it necessarily illeagal? No. Will it spark a major market shift away from Windows? Most likely not. Does MS owe anything to Linux user running Wine? Not at all. ou bought the software, and once you installed it, broke the TOS.
However, I will say that I don't condone what Microsoft is doing. I think that from a larger view it is wrong and will inevitably hurt them in the end. Mainly, because MS fails to see that there are Linux users our there that would like to use their products and instead of fostering that possible connection between the two user communities, has decided to takes steps to cut it off. In my opinion, that's just silly and is akin to a petulant chilc saying 'My ball! It's mine! You can't play with it'. Obviously, Microsoft had trouble with sharing in kindergarten or missed a couple episodes of sesame street.
Lastly, if you do some research, Microsoft hasn't cut of all updates from ever being downloaded. You can still get the updates you want, if you just look and put in the time. In fact they are still there on Microsofts site. How do I know? Because I had to install Office updates on two of our Linux boxes for a call center that we run. These boxes have to be Linux, but the users would also like to use Outlook, Word and Excel. It was a much cheaper solution that buying two computers for two users.
First, to those IT Students and others that dislike Linux/Unix and their users. I suggest you find another course of study or occupation soon. I've now worked for between 10-20 different organizations. *Every one* of them uses UNIX for their production or mission-critical systems because the MS software is too unstable to "bet the business" on. Furthermore, everyone of them has had instances where MS updates have resulted in downtime because a required security patch "broke" a critical application that they could not find a UNIX-based version of.
Most of them have had to cut other expenses (read "salaries/personnel/projects") in order to afford desktop software icenses and updgrades after MS license adjustments (which are never in a downward direction) or at the time that M$ decides to discontinue support for their current corporate desktop standard. These costs would totally disappear were it feasible to switch to an alternative desktop. M$, however has them locked into an expensive upgrade treadmill and they are now realizing it.
One way off this treadmill is to use OpenOffice on Windows where possible. Unfortunately, years of M$-indoctrination in schools has produced generations of "computer engineers" that only know M$ software. M$'s (illegal) anti-competitive practices over time have resulted in embedded business practices that cannot be transitioned without re-write/re-design. The M$ OS on desktops is becoming a major expense for businesses of all types due to virus patching/cleaning requirements / loss of productivity.
Businesses that successfully move to Linux are lowering their expenses and theirfore can make larger profits with lower consumer prices. Most UNIX to Linux conversions seem to be resulting in higher throughput per box with lower cost (over twice the throughput at half the cost is not uncommon).
But back on-topic, I will make the following predictions:
M$ will continue with this so-called "anti-piracy" option that to many is a thinly-desguised "anti-Linux" option.
The registry key details will be published allowing Wine users to make the appropriate registry entries and bypass this artificial restriction.
Virus/Trojan/Worm authors will use this registry key to cause M$'s own update program to deny OS updates to legitimate users - updates that could close off the holes used by itself or other virues to infect the Windows boxes in the first place.
This is actually an interesting development from the security standpoint in that it is now possible for viruses to utilize this registry key to prevent the installation of SP2 or updated M$ virus policies that might actually detect/clean the virus that had already infected the Windows box. Please note that once this registry key is set to indicate a non-M$ OS, *NONE* of the OS upgrades/patches will install, providing a safe haven for viruses and requiring users to call into M$ tech support ($200/hour) to be told how to edit their registry (shudder) to reset this key in order to get updated virus protection.
Where do you want to go today ? I switched to Linux years ago for reasons very similar to this.
Just say 'NO', to the 90,000 defined Microsoft virus.
Just say "Nyet", to the multi-convicted felon, Microsoft! Anyway, monopolies are always bad for innovation, invention, and creativity!
Go get one of the 377 FREE GNU/Linux distros,
http://distrowatch.com
OR, one of the 9 *BSDs! http://www.freebsd.org/
OR, one of these 191 LiveCDs http://www.frozentech.com/content/livecd.php
Hard to imagine a more ignorant post.
1. MS has every right to build software for a particular OS. HOWEVER, blocking WINE users running legally purchased MS products on Linux or Unix does not constitute providing "support" for those other operating systems.
2. On the contrary, intentionally making it more difficult for WINE users to make use of their legally purchased software equates to anticompetitive "bundling" that is in all likelihood illegal under current US antitrust law, and almost certainly is illegal under the corresponding EU regulations.
3. We all owe MS a debt of gratitude for the tremendous role it has played in bringing personal computing to the masses. Nevertheless, having opened the door, MS has engaged in a consistent pattern of sophisticated anticompetitive practices whose sole purpose is to benefit MS - NOT businesses or Jane Q. Public.
4. To those who spout free market platitudes of the "MS has the best mousetrap" variety, I would remind you that antitrust laws do not exist to create a level playing field. They exist to make sure there IS a playing field and that monopolistic giants like MS can't simply take the whole field home with them.
I'm just a bit concerned here. See, Microsoft has made me financially independent in that I own a mobile computer repair business. I have made my money on the back of Microsoft and their crappy software. Pity, because at the core, XP is a work of genius. The problem is that core is wrapped in garbage. Now if everyone gets the red-ass at Microsoft and switches to Mac or Linux, how am I going to afford my lake house. Everyone...shhhh, lets just keep this bit of MS treachery between us.
The funniest part? I use Kanotix/Knoppix to fix Little Billies screw-ups.
Whatever...............Using M$ software without an honest license. (i.e. "the mark") is just plain wrong. So is what M$ tried to do to people who bought (i.e. "rent" - "lease") there software the proper way.
I have paid my fair share to "rent" there piece of crap swiss cheese OS, and also supported the billion dollar software world that has to produce "fix's, anti-virus, OS suites". No more.
Linux is my choice. The Apple Mini that just came out is my choice. You can have your choice to support a co. that has been found to be a bunch of thieves. What does that say about YOU?
I have paid for my last 3 Linux OS (Lycoris, Xandros 2 & 3) and will continue to do so. M$ has stepped on too many toes, and tho the US market seems to be chicken to stand up to this Mafia, the rest of the world see's them for what they are.........and are taking steps to get them out of there life. No matter what FUD is spread, the next generation has a choice we didn't have, and they will show what that choice is with there wallets.
Notice that my name is here. I believe in what Linux stands for, even with it's shortcomings, and yes even it's a-hole people, just like in the real world. Anyone remember that?
Up until last Monday, my business ran a split operation. One MS Server one Linux server. Desktops were about 50/50. My customer base requires that I use MS Office and a few MS-native apps in order to compete. We used win4lin to accomplish this and on some machines, Crossover Office.
Upon this announcement, I took a couple of days to think about it then ordered the complete migration of our three city operation to Linux. It is going to cause us a few problems yes, but it is the only right action to take. It is bad enough when you are restricted by the software you use. It is quite another when you are punished. I sincerely doubt that Microsoft will miss my $9000.00 to $12.000.00 in annual licensing fees but I am guessing that certain distro developers will welcome that money in donations.
Let the lawsuits begin.
Imagine the outcry if General Motors were to sell a car but provide no service in say Kentucky and Maine. What MS are doing is a restrictive practice, they may get away with it in the US but they certainly wont in Europe.
MS is right. This is no different from Ford purposely making a transmission that won't fit into a Chevy vehicle. Nothing wrong with that.
what can i say, its typical microsoft momopolistic behaviour
If apple were to block the use of the Microsoft Windows emulator for the Mac, is Microsoft telling us that they wouldn't call foul?
I just want to say to Joe G and others that Linux users are NOT pirates.
Indeed, the pirates are would be M$ customers, if they could afford the extremely high cost of M$ software. Ergo, the solution to that problem lies with M$.
Blaming Linux for Piracy is just FUD, but careful, mud sticks.
Notwithstanding the above, I am sure M$'s action is, or certainly should be, illegal. As someone else said, bring on the legal action.
Microsoft routinely violates, and encourages people to violate W3C standards on the internet, so that people will be forced to use IE6 to access many sites. Fortunately, Opera has a feature that allows it to pretend to be IE. Whether the new version of IE, forced into existance by the success of Firefox will block Opera or not, remains to be seen.
This is a highly immoral act by Microsoft, but what is new? It isn't as if they could obtain market dominance by the quality of their coding or customer service. . .
Another analogy would be if they made cars that only ran on Microsoft-branded gasoline, and that if you put that gas in a Ford, it would deliberately wreck your car.
ps, It was stated above, the minimum requirements for Office are WinXP or "better", I would have thought it was a given that Linux is "better"
If it is why don't you organise a survey, have it published.
If half or more of the internet community respond that linux is better, well the users of wine can then surely file a claim against microsoft.
You read the microsoft statement it, is your interpretation that counts. Microsoft has to ensure that the statement clearly reflects their stand/point of view.
HPUX is clearly better in my view, linux is clearly better.
I have had to restart my companies HPUX server 23 times in 3 years.
twice for complete rebuilds 10->11.1->11.23
The other 21 times have be due to MS shit software crashing.
Fuck Microsoft