Slashdot Mirror
Will Microsoft Code-Checking Plans Cripple the GPL?
Infonaut was one of many readers to point out that "Thomas C. Green at The Register seems to think Microsoft is after far more than the 'ubiquitous security' they're pitching to the mainstream press. In this lengthy article, he contends that Microsoft's latest plans are in many ways an attempt to kill Linux by rendering GPL'ed software unusable. Yep, that's freedom to innovate, I'd say."
Sorry, you can't get there from here.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Thomas, if so, can you reply to this so that we may ask you questions in this forum ?
The general thrust of the article is that under the new security system, GPL programs will not be able to be "trusted" by MS' hardware/software security system, so GPL based systems (like Apache web servers) will become unusable with mainstream computers.
I doubt this will happen.
Because, frankly, the invisible success of opensource is too widespread. I haven't looked at server statistics recently, but a significant percentage of webservers run on some manner of opensource program. Microsoft isn't going to be able to force half of the web servers in the world to switch over, and if people know that buying this new board from MS/Intel (which has few tangible benefits) will render half of the internet unusable, nobody is going to go for it. I'm not even beginning to think about the various governments that have begun to standardize around Linux, the opensource core of Apple's OS X, etc. etc.
Frankly opensource is too big. If Microsoft renders its systems incompatible with the GPL, then it will be Microsoft, and not the OS community, that suffers.
I say, let 'em try.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
However this time they really win the game if they're succesfull. This is because if they can really implement this, they actually don't have to do the work of bastardizing the standard interfaces, they've inherintly done it.
What they're trying to do is make it so that a common interface is a MicroSoft interface from the start.
How many antitrust lawsuites do they want brought against them? I guess $30B can buy a lot of lawyers.
"Everybody knows the moon's made of cheese," Wallace.
In other news MS has decided to get into the meat packing business. Their first products will be Gnu and Penguin burgers. Rumor has Bill Gates himself helps butchers the animals and is under investigation by the ASPCA.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
you have a chip ON THE mobo that tells you if you can run an application. what if you're disconnected from any network? the chip must have some key that, applied to the application, will make it usable. Or will decrypt the application. Or will act as a general key to allow the cpu to run some code.
.NET thing. Just marketing hypes, nothing else. We've all seen what .NET has become... bugs even before it was launched. Palladium is just a way to scare vendors which would like to try linux.
;)
Still, it is something you have ON YOUR MOTHERBOARD. Like the CSS key... it's there, it will be just a matter of time before those evil linux users will find a way to bypass it, fake it, and run whatever they want. Bringing havoc on the pristine, certified, public-key signed microsoft world. Like a cancer...
....or at least I hope so. I have much more trust in a 15-years old linux north-european user, than in any chunk of Microsoft Engineers that live in their golden world, without Windows (hah! pun!) on the outside world.
However, this palladium-thing looks like the whole
Those guys at Microsoft are just playing the scary-announcement thing: to scare people before they make the next move. Then make them wait, then provide them a lot of useless marketing, then -before they will realize it- they have been embraced. And the empire extends itself.
Whops! sorry folks, I don't believe a word of this palladium thing until I see a working chip, and I see that it works better than current systems. THEN we can start talking about that, and hacking it. Unless the new DMCA won't make it illegal and punisheable by death
cheers.
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
This is the Steven Levy who has been writing about computers for two decades now, whose books include:
Obviously, with titles like these, he must be an ignorant Microsoft toady. On the other hand, Thomas C Greene, who has never spoken with anybody involved with the project, knows everything about it and what it is really about.
Let me explain:
IMO, the only thing that keeps Windows going is that people have so much software lying around that they have a hard time switching.
Now if the first PCs with this limitation come to the market that force you to replace all your software many would just switch to Linux because your software will become worthless sooner or later if you stay on Windows.
And if Microsoft is stupid enough to enforce Palladium in their OS, Wine/Linux will have BETTER WINDOWS COMPATIBILITY than Windows itself.
It's struck me before that what we need is a "rootless" Linux distro.
One of the main obstacles toward using Linux is installing software. Whenever I try to get my friends to switch over to Linux, and I'm talking about experienced computer users with Unix experience, the inevitable huge stumbling block is "well how do I install anything?"
What Desktop Linux needs is a semi-protected mode (no login) similar to the priveledges of the default Windows user, you can change settings, install software, view the whole directory structure, but you can't change anything that would cripple the system to the point where "click here to restore default settings" (another option we need) wouldn't fix everything.
Linux software should be as easy as download to the desktop -> click to install. Right now the learning curve of linux has been pushed back only a few steps, it's easy to setup a default config, and use the web and email and anything setup by the distro, but you still have to learn all sorts of crazy convoluted things to do anything beyond that. The difficulty of a task shouldn't be greater than the task's complexity.
Once that is done, someone needs to write a book/series of visible articles entitled "So, you're tired of paying Microsoft $100 per year"
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
The "safer" way for Microsoft, is to make their next version of Windows warn you whenever you try to do something "unsafe". Imagine if each time you connect to a webserver not running this security stuff, you get a window saying that you are connecting to an insecure site and that you should ask the site operator to upgrade to a secure system.
Then give users the option of blocking unsafe sites permanently.
Then after somewhere around 70-80% of all systems are "secure" they issue an upgrade that make your machine refuse to deal with unsafe data by default, hiding an option deep down in Windows to allow it. Possibly allowing you to "self authenticate" old applications.
After a while, you then make the authentication mandatory.
This has the possibility of working, if they aren't met with solid opposition from the start, and if they have the sense to do it gradually enough to not alienate too many people.
Keep in mind that Windows is based on obsoleting things. There's so much old software that stops working between versions of Windows, that that argument simply don't hold - your Windows software WILL become worthless sooner or later, but people still stick with it.
And as for switching to Linux, you might not have that option, as the entire point about Palladium was that it is mean to be enforced in hardware via alliances with Intel and AMD (for now).
Microsoft may be evil, but they aren't stupid... People can't afford to take the risk of discounting their ideas.
If MS starts this scheme in 2 years, it will take another 7 years until 90% of their users have it (and that's still not enough because 10% is still too much to lose).
Microsoft can afford to take the long view. The biggest driving force of Palladium/Longhorn will be the DRM technology. People want to consume media and the media companies will require rights management. The media companies can also afford to take the long view. They only need to keep crushing P2P upstarts through sheer weight until the laws and technology to support DRM are widespread.
If only "trusted" apps running on a "trusted" operating system can play music and video, then people will buy those. Remember the vast majority of people aren't interested in their rights - and before anyone starts, I didn't see any groundswell of ordinary people defeating the DMCA.
There is no "Linux" to defeat this. There are only distributions. The big commercial distros are the ones that will end up on ordinary people's desktops and they can either play along or not play - it'll be that simple. When it comes to pleasing shareholders I can guarantee that they will chose to play along.
You just can't afford to be complacent on this issue. This is the biggest failing of the Open Source movement - there is no movement, just a bunch of people writing open source software. This works fine when there's no threat to the freedom, but when there is there's no organisation.
The closest thing free software has ever had to a movement with principles and goals is the Free Software Foundation - and look at how ridiculed RMS has become.
People like sitting on their butts and whining a lot more than they like actively campaigning.
And, to top it all off, in the past 30 years or so, incidences of stress-related mental illness has increased by something like 500% (I forget which study I read that in, but anyway).
And what do we have to show for it? Do we have more time to spend with our friends and families? No, all we have is a few new toys (although, as a geek myself, I have to admit that they are fun toys). If we see an average person working one day a week and making enough money to support themselves and their families, then that would be a massive improvement in quality of life.
In fact, we have seen the opposite; the two-income family is so common that it has become difficult to be one-income anymore. The quality of life has decreased enough that the average two-income family now lives about the same as an average one-income family in the 1920's.
Remember, those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.
Hardware, software, and blinking lights!