[Official]Send a cake to Microsoft!!

[mrugiero]

That's called an example. It demonstrates that Microsoft is willing and able to make code changes to prevent their products and/or services from working under Wine. They could do the same thing with, for instance, Microsoft Office. Or Skype. Or some other Microsoft product or service that would be missed by ReactOS users.

Indeed, they could, but I don't think they would, as every user of those products is business for them just as much as every user of Windows is. Take for example Skype and MS Office again. They maintain a Linux Skype client and, IIRC, an Android version of MS-Office.

[vicmarcal]

That's called an example. It demonstrates that Microsoft is willing and able to make code changes to prevent their products and/or services from working under Wine. They could do the same thing with, for instance, Microsoft Office. Or Skype. Or some other Microsoft product or service that would be missed by ReactOS users.

They can't do that.If they do, you can call the antimonopoly agency and sue this issue. Because it is a blatant monopolistic movement.
We have to differentiate two things:

- Manufacturers creating apps to be run in Windows-alike systems. Software manufacturers doesn't care where you run it, if in Ros, in Wine or in Windows, if that leads to more licenses sold.
- Manufacturers forcing an app to be run just in Windows. Mainly MS. When you pay for a Microsoft Office copy, you are paying for the Microsoft Office Suite and, as an user, you should be able to run in any Windows-alike systems. If the manufacturer just forces you to run it in Windows (by the addition of any voodo magic) you can sue him by monopolistic activity and killing your choice freedom.

It has sense that Microsoft doesnt send updates to ReactOS if it detects it is not Windows. Of course. Who needs that? But MS can't stop sending Updates to Microsoft Office if I have a legal Office bought since such support is included in the product price, even if i run that piece of software in ReactOS.

[vicmarcal]

That's called an example. It demonstrates that Microsoft is willing and able to make code changes to prevent their products and/or services from working under Wine. They could do the same thing with, for instance, Microsoft Office. Or Skype. Or some other Microsoft product or service that would be missed by ReactOS users.

They can't do that.If they do, you can call the antimonopoly agency and sue this issue. Because it is a blatant monopolistic movement.
We have to differentiate two things:

- Manufacturers creating apps to be run in Windows-alike systems. Software manufacturers doesn't care where you run it, if in Ros, in Wine or in Windows, if that leads to more licenses sold.
- Manufacturers forcing an app to be run just in Windows. Mainly MS. When you pay for a Microsoft Office copy, you are paying for the Microsoft Office Suite and, as an user, you should be able to run in any Windows-alike systems. If the manufacturer just forces you to run it in Windows (by the addition of any voodo magic) you can sue him by monopolistic activity and killing your choice of freedom. MS can't push the "This software just can be run in Windows" because that is obviously a monopolistic movement and an illegal EULA clause.

It has sense that Microsoft doesnt send updates to ReactOS if it detects it is not Windows. Of course. Who needs that? But MS can't stop sending Updates to Microsoft Office if I have a legal Office bought since such support is included in the product price, even if i run that piece of software in ReactOS.

[DOSGuy]

But MS can't stop sending Updates to Microsoft Office if I have a legal Office bought since such support is included in the product price, even if i run that piece of software in ReactOS.

I'm not talking about updates; I'm talking about allowing the application to run at all. Apple gets away with a restrictive EULA. Microsoft could make "a legitimate copy of Microsoft Windows" a condition of use in the EULA (that no one reads) and prevent Office from running on ReactOS or under Wine.

Anyway, these are examples. I don't know what Microsoft can, might, or will do if they start to see ReactOS as a competitor. I don't want to find out. I'm suggesting that flying under the radar is a better strategy than an attention-seeking gift of cake that may invite unwanted attention and get people thinking about how to mess with us.

[vicmarcal]

I'm not talking about updates; I'm talking about allowing the application to run at all. Apple gets away with a restrictive EULA. Microsoft could make "a legitimate copy of Microsoft Windows" a condition of use in the EULA (that no one reads) and prevent Office from running on ReactOS or under Wine.

Sure.Eula supports all, since they aren't reviewed by 3rdparties before being added. So the company can include anything on it like "It's illegal to run this App without being naked". Not kidding. And of course, it doesn't have any sense at all.

[fred02]

Indeed, they could, but I don't think they would,

I don't know what Microsoft can, might, or will do if they start to see ReactOS as a competitor.

They can't do that.

They can and did it in the past.

[mrugiero]

Indeed, they could, but I don't think they would,

I don't know what Microsoft can, might, or will do if they start to see ReactOS as a competitor.

They can't do that.

They can and did it in the past.

And they had to give the owners of the competing system $250m to settle a lawsuit, that's a sign they would lose in court. I don't know what you think about that, but $250m would be great news for ReactOS, IMO

[fred02]

Sure, but one need to pay his lawyers during the hearings, and I doubt ROS have this kind of money. This is actually a common practice for large companies to suffocate start-ups. Just start a law suite under any pretence and make it linger long-enough. You will note that in this case the suite was brought by a more "wealthy" acquirer, rather than the original author.

[Konata]

Speaking of crazy EULA's I was just skimming the WinXP EULA not long ago, they even say you can't run it using more than two processors! Like vic said, they can throw just about anything in there.
Of course I think you guys are over reacting, I don't think they care about directly attacking competition as much anymore, they even develop software for GNU/Linux. I think they're more lax now with their tried and tested vendor lock-in.

[middings]

They (Microsoft) can and did it in the past.

I found two of the external links at the end of that linked Wikipedia article to be fascinating: AARDvarks in your code and
So why didn't the Windows guys just remove the AARD code from the system? The second one describes an ugly bug that disappears as soon as one tries to look for it. The lone comment to that post is a broken link to a post at Raymond Chen's blog The Old New Thing that I found interesting for its discussion of the /3GB switch. Here is a link to the Raymond Chen post pointing to its current location in MSDN-land.

Speaking of crazy EULA's I was just skimming the WinXP EULA not long ago, they even say you can't run it using more than two processors!

It's only one processor in the Windows XP Home EULA. But relax. What that Microsoft EULA calls a "processor" is not cores or even CPUs but physical single-chip devices. As a rule of thumb, count your motherboard's sockets. Raymond Chen discusses this at his blog. Populate sockets with an Intel i7 device containing four hyperthreaded CPUs and one can run 8 cores on WinXP Home Edition and 16 cores on WinXP Pro. I do not see such a limit as "crazy". I see it as a reasonable business decision Microsoft should not be barred from making, similar to their recent offering of Windows without a licensing fee to makers of small-screen tablets and smartphones. For an example of torturous EULA restrictions, see Java's EULA.

I look forward to the day ReactOS is stable on more than one core. Maybe very far forward. (Patience, patience.)