Posted on 02/17/2005 7:32:53 AM PST by N3WBI3
As some of you may know, Microsoft is planning to totally restrict access to the Microsoft download center to all non-genuine windows users. So you would expect some check for pirated copies of windows to be involved. If you visit the download center with IE you get an activex control, but if you try with Firefox, you'll have to download a little program, that returns a code you have to copy into the download page, to get access to the download you selected. By quickly looking at the program, I noticed it looks for a registry key, this key is...
SOFTWARE\Wine\Wine\Config
the wine configuration key. the Windows Genuine Advantage program press release says that in the second half of 2005, all users connecting to the Microsoft download center or to windows update will have to validate their copy of windows. Interestingly if you run the validation program on wine, and the version of windows you're emulating is prior to 2000 or is windows server 20003, you get a message saying a validation code couldn't be found, because of technical difficulties or because you're running an unsupported operating system. If you set winver to win2000, you'll get a validation code that doesn't work, this may be a bug in wine, or in the validation program. A valid and working code is returned if the version is set to xp. Still, even if this is only an initial attempt, they appear to want to discriminate wine users, while this may be acceptable for operating system components/updates, this is probably a violation of anti-trust law for all other downloads. It's also the first time Microsoft acknowledges the existence of Wine.
The problem is you are using the computer industry that HAS a monopoly and comparing it to the automotive industry that DOES NOT have a monopoly.
The Automotive industry has a long history of competition and working together.
When people make claims like Ford should be forced to install Chevy transmission, it shows an obvious lack of knowledge.
I spent 25 years as a mechanic and I tell you the Automotive industry doesn't suffer from the same problems that the Computer industry does.
We don't see Ford breaking standards, and causing problems for Chevy or Dodge.
In fact it was Ford that broke up the monopoly on the automobile see:
http://www.cojoweb.com/us-patent-2.html
If you are going to use a 'hypothetical analogy' please use a different one.
The problem is you are using the computer industry that HAS a monopoly and comparing it to the automotive industry that DOES NOT have a monopoly.
The Automotive industry has a long history of competition and working together.
When people make claims like Ford should be forced to install Chevy transmission, it shows an obvious lack of knowledge.
I spent 25 years as a mechanic and I tell you the Automotive industry doesn't suffer from the same problems that the Computer industry does.
We don't see Ford breaking standards, and causing problems for Chevy or Dodge.
In fact it was Ford that broke up the monopoly on the automobile see:
http://www.cojoweb.com/us-patent-2.html
If you are going to use a 'hypothetical analogy' please use a different one.
Ooops! Sorry for the double post.
The problem with that analogy is that OOo does make a Windows version of its suite. MS Office does not make a Linux version of its suite. With OOo, you have the choice of which OS to use--you just get the version of OOo that meets your needs.
With that said, I don't think (personally) that MS should be forced to make it available for anything they don't want to. However, the file formats should be freely available so that other software can read and write for their suite.
Would it be ok if Automakers who lease cars require you to use a certain brand of gas when driving? how about a certain brand of shoe to put on the pedal?
Your analogies are insipid. Automakers sell neither gas nor shoes. Here's a better one: You buy a third-party chip for your engine. You end up throwing a rod. Would you expect the manufacturer of your car to honor the warranty?
No, it's Ford saying they are not going to honor the warranty on your Chevy.
Sir, go find your dictionary and look up the word, "Hypothetical" It should change your whole take on this thread. To make things perfectly clear, again: I do *NOT* think Ford should be forced to install Chevy transmissions. MMmmmmKaaaay?
Ummm...sofware always includes the recommended and minimum hardware and OS specs. If you don't meet those specs, don't expect support. Period.
That is an excellent analogy.
The problem is Xen does not yet support Windows. Under Xen, the OS must (currently) be ported to Xen for it to work properly.
That was actually a horrible analogy, since these people did buy Office, and that a transmission is an integral part of a car, while Office is not an integral part of the OS.
Okay then, VMware Workstation seems to have a nice spread of supported guest and host OSes, and the price isn't bad either.
How does the saying go?
Windows says "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux says "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
Mac OS X says "Are you guys coming, or what?"
Ummm What is it with the endless projection by windows guys? Who ever said OpenOffice was perfect. I think its damn fine for what most people use but Excel alone makes MS office better for many people.
I think I have a better analogy for all that gets away from factual car problems:
Say I buy a kitchen with appliances from Company A, but I like the stove from Company B (the industry leader who also sells kitchens) so I buy the stove from them. This stove comes with no restrictions on where I can install it, but it does come with a nice warranty.
Six months later Comany B finds a fault in the stove (say, faulty wiring can burn-out a heating element), and issues a recall, offering to fix the problem for all the people who bought their stoves.
But when I go to get my stove fixed, I'm told they won't fix it because I installed it in Company A's kitchen.
No matter what spin you put on that, it's simply not right. Add to that Company B's previous conviction for anticompetitive practices and history of immoral attempts to shut out competition, and it might even be illegal.
If they want to restrict their software to running on P4's that would need to be on the box where people can see it before they buy, because it's not a limitation that would be obvious. If they don't want the software to run on Linux or Unix under Wine, that's also their prerogative, but only if they notify the user beforehand. If they present him with a EULA that doesn't say he cant run it on Linux (as another has posted), what's he supposed to think? They can't change the EULA after it's already been accepted by the user.
< grin > yeah--that's what I use.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.