Slashdot Mirror
Coursey on Palladium
lrose writes "Check out this story over at ZDNet -- Microsoft is developing a secure operating system to be combined with hardware doing public key cryptography. The DRM aspect reminds me of something I read about an imaginary day in the not-too-distant future, where you can no longer install Linux on your own box because you don't have the necessary rights." Coursey's column is quite interesting, bringing a lot more of the backstory behind Palladium into public view. While geeks have been following and worrying about the TCPA, Microsoft has been working to spin the story with assorted columnists and journalists, so that when it broke it would be in the context that Steven Levy bought into hook, line and sinker: a scheme to protect you rather than one to prevent you from using your computer in unapproved ways.
prevent you from using your computer in unapproved ways
I already have a wife to do this for me.
Which they can. If new systems come Palladium-enabled, don't buy them. Unless you're a hardcore gamer, what would you need an 8GHz system with 2gb ram and 1tb hard drive for anyway?
Best Slashdot Co
I think it would make more sense if such a hardware crypto device would be viewed as such -- a device. The computer is not "self aware", If you were to install another OS on it, and it didn't have a driver for it then you won't be able to take advantage of the device. Just as if you have a video card that supports 3D acceleration but you don't have the proper driver. You can still view stuff but can't take advantage of the extra functions.
On fire :)
Hacker Media
Not worth a story of its own, but Robert Cringeley brags in this week's column that Palladium is the Microsoft attempt to replace TCP/IP that he was predicting a year ago.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
But hey, it's ok, I'll just be able to make millions of dollars in the blackmarket computer hardware trade, until the feds come down, and bust up my illegal drug...err. computer lab....
--Keeping the flame wars alive, one post at a time
when dealing with microsoft, i believe the phrase is "hook, line, and stinker"
On the X-box? You can only run signed programs. Modifying the X-box is a circumvention of a device that's illegal under the DMCA. All Microsoft has to do is port Office and IE to the X-box and voila. Dump Windows and get the masses using X-boxen for their secure and safe computing needs....
Baz
That would be this article linked to from slashdot some weeks ago. It is beginning to sound like the voice of prophecy.
This is just getting stupid at this point. I knew Microsoft wanted to "control" the desktop; I just didn't think it was going to be that way literally...
TCPA / Palladium Frequently Asked Questions
Version 0.1 26 June 2002
Ross Anderson
1. What are TCPA and Palladium?
TCPA stands for the Trusted Computing Platform Alliance (TCPA), an initiative led by Intel. Their website is here. Their stated goal is `a new computing platform for the next century that will provide for improved trust in the PC platform.' Palladium appears to be a Microsoft version which will be rolled out in future versions of Windows, will build on TCPA hardware, and will add some extra features. The Palladium announcement appears to have been provoked by a paper I presented on the security issues relating to open source and free software at a conference on Open Source Software Economics in Toulouse on the 20th June. This paper criticised TCPA as anticompetitive. This has been amply confirmed by new revelations over the past few days.
For the rest:
TCPA/Palladium FAQ
And Microsoft thinks we're gonna trust them? That will be a cold day in hell.
David Coursey is a blithering idiot. Surely you can't expect any better from him.
Provided that the *AA doesn't come up with enough money to buy enough of Congress to get the CBDTPA passed next time around, I am hopeful that we will continue to own our own machines, as opposed to having them 0wned by "rights" managers.
But just in case, I think I'll stock up on a few "pre-ban" mainboards, CD-RWs, analog monitors, and CPUs
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
This might be a good use for those funds going to that new GeekPAC thing-- some kind of publicity or public service ads explaining what Palladium is and what it means to the consumer, so that when MS gets around to promoting this themselves & misleading consumers, they won't be so easily confused into just assuming it'll make sense once they've bought it.
I think the industry will reject palladium all by itself, to be honest, but sometimes it's best to squash these things before they get a chance to start.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20020627. html
palladium
Cringley has a slightly self-congratulatory comment on Palladium too.
Who sets standards? Who paves the wave of the IT industry? Unfortunately it is companies like microsoft who are trying to get a head start, to "innovate" and to "revolutionize" the market. If security has really become such a huge concern as the Bush says it has, then the goverment needs to step and lay down some fundamental truths and facts. No company should be allowed to try to forge the course of an industry because ultimately that company will have too much control.
dam(pessimisticly accute)
Useless sig.
Only Outlaws Will Have {Free|Net|Open}BSD/Linux.
The imaginary day in the not-too-distant future is described at the GNU web site.
Remember, Trusted Computing means that large corporations get to trust your hardware because they don't trust you...
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Just thoughts, time to start stocking up on non crippled hardware.
Ad in classifieds: Pandora's Box (no box) $5
Where in this article, or the previous articles, does it say that the hardware would not let alternative operating systems be installed? Will only operating systems that use the key embedded into the hardware be "allowed" to install? And if so, how the hell can they accomplish this? It seems like if you can install linux or an older version of windows without using the public/private key stuff then it isn't as much the horrible linux-killing initiative some make it out to be. I'm not trying to troll, flamebait, etc., I'm just curious.
Nobody reads the register except those who are geeks already. I think it's safe to assume anyone who is aware of theregister's existence takes anything MS says or does with a huge grain of salt.
The problem here is that we need to see palladium questioned in front of the casual users, all of whom have learned to take Stephen Levy's word for just about anything because Levy has in the past been so incredibly good at cutting to the core of what technology news really means and stating it in a way that anyone can understand it. (OK, so he slipped up this time.)
I don't think there's been any response in a place that these people would see it.
The industry knows this and it will turn every company out there except perhaps AMD and Intel who would make the chips against MSFT. No company wants to be dependent on a competitor (especially MSFT) for having their software be seen as 'authorised' on systems in their target market. Even two years from now, ballmer and friends will not be strong enough to fight every other software company in the world united against them. Palladium will die, and MSFT will be pulled down with it if they cling to it strongly enough.
The number one thing everyone in the computer sales industry loves is the fact that people have to upgrade on a regular basis.
If Palladium comes through, I guarantee you that I won't upgrade beyond the chips that don't have this DRM tech on it. My computer is my device to control, not anyone elses.
I assume many other people out there would agree with me on this issue. Thus, MS is going have a very large failure to market unless they give a good reason other then "We'll be a good Big Brother".
IMO of course.
~ kjrose
I agree with one of the "talkbacks" to the article.
The name associated with this type of hardware/software shuold be called NAZIWARE.
The justification is the potential that it has for controlling the masses. (Just like the Nazi's did)
Promote the term. It would be a PR fiasco.
As long as the hardware (public key chips) that are going to be built-in don't require a monetary license fee to ineteroperate, Linux should be able to compete in this space. Of course that will also depend on complete specifications being published... Can you say SMB?
Drinkin' a venti Mocha.
Give this man a teddy-bear, he hit the target right on. What do you people think the purpose of the X-Box was in the first place? The X-Box is simply the first step. The X-Box + 1 will be none other than the MICROSOFT PC. DRM to the hilt, and only Windows can be run on it LEGALLY. And microsoft will push this over the 'traditional' PC...why? Because they can fulfil their dream of COMPLETE CONSOLIDATION.
Look at MS's plans for the X-Box + 1...a full PVR and DVD multimedia extravaganza! What a great way to sucker people into buying it...the public is already drooling for DVD's, why not offer an integrated PVR as well? It'll sell, and it'll sell very well, with the full backing and support of the alphabet-acronym media groups.
Even though mac os was usually better than dos and windows, Mac's monopoly on hardware caused the computers to be expensive and new hardware features to be slowly adopted.
If Microsoft goes that route i think they will soon become as relevant as apple.
Palladium may be good for large corporations, but won't be good for the home user. What I mean is that in the best case senario the corporations get something and the home user looses something.
Since this technology needs to permeate both places for it to be effective, why in the world would home users pay for this? Well, intelligent home users won't, but right now there are enough sheep out there to keep MS on top.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
With all these Linux companies, why can there not be a Linux PC or at least one that is not built around this new security hardware? Just because some of the industry heavyweights are behind it does not mean that all air will be pushed out of the room. Consider purchasing chips from Motorola and putting together motherboards based on the specs that IBM release a couple years back. BeOS use to run on it's own Be Box which was all custom hardware.
I for one would be happy to have a Linux PC made by VA, AlienWare or even Dell if they produce good hardware which works well with Linux.
Besides, who needs the hardware to do the security work? Sure you can use cipher/cryptography acceleration in hardware, but you do not have to be dependent on it. What Microsoft will find is they put all this work into a system which is still insecure because they still have a front door with holes through it. How long before a macro shares your private key with everyone on your Outlook Express mailing list. And when there is a hole that is found, do I now have to install a firmware update? That does not sound reasonable.
This sounds like a joke, but Microsoft is known for making these mistakes. They even released the Nimba virus on their Korean distribution of their development suite.
So instead of complaining that Microsoft, Intel and AMD are going to ruin the world for Linux, go out and build a business on better hardware which does not lock you into Microsoft. A modern BeBox similar to an Apple G4 system would be quite welcome as a Linux or FreeBSD system on my desk.
Redhat and the new Linux partnerships should put their resources together and actually produce something, instead of more spin on Linux. Make something significant.
Brennan Stehling - http://brennan.offwhite.net/blog/
I'm glad this is all coming out early, so it can be headed off before it gets too much momentum. On the other hand, it would've been nice if M$ had blown another half-billion on it first :)
Even Mom and Pop PC shops are in on these shenangins (one of my old favorites is now becoming a 'technology consulting firm'). If Microsoft tells them to jump, you bet they'll follow..the same goes with small hardware makers like D-Link and Intel.
In a world of increasingly proprietary hardware, the only solution is buying from a company you can trust. I would suggest a Sun box or Mac for your next PC...or you'll probably have to do a lot of hacking just to get it to play MP3s.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
But then some smart reporters--including Michael Cherry of Directions on Microsoft (a frequent radio guest of mine) and Newsweek's Steven Levy--discovered that Microsoft had filed for a patent on an operating system with built-in digital rights management features.
Um, where in the hell does this leave everyone else? Microsoft is asking motherboard makers to include public-key crypo on the board, and Palladium by law is the only OS able to talk to the mb?
Can you say monopoly, boys and girls?
Anyone who buys into this crap should be given free knee pads.
One concern I have about widespread distributions of current technology cryptography would be reliance on crypto that is based on difficult (and theoretically complex) calculations. If the only thing that keeps public crypto safe is, for example, the difficuly of factoring, it's safe to say that advances in technology will likely render that difficulty less implausible and more accessible. As Avi said (paraphrase): I want it secret until man is no longer capable of doing evil.
Naturally, this is not an argument for an anti-crypto position. It is merely a caution for overreliance on the secure technologies of today.
sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
Okay, here's a hypothetical situation. There is a company selling televisions (computers). And they like certaint television stations (operating systems). If I made a great television that had all kinds of fancy features, but it was biased towards certaint television stations in some way. or it did not function when VCRs of another brand were attatched to it. And this information was in the fine print and not made obvious when I purchased the television. Is that not illegal in some way?
Now if they make an operating system that is very secure, and has all kinds of fancy features. But it will not function properly depending on what I want to do with it, or it will not allow me to do what I want with it, even though it's mine. Isn't that equally illegal?
If it's not, it should be.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Last time I checked you couldn't circumvent fair use. By building a device that prevents fair use, this Trusted Computing group is creating a device that by its very nature defies the very statutes that the Supreme Court has said are legal!
Specifically there are limits to Copyrights in the following scenarios:
LIMITATIONS ON THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS
The copyright owner's exclusive rights are subject to a number of exceptions and limitations that give others the right to make limited use of a copyrighted work. Major exceptions and limitations are outlined in this section.
Ideas
Copyright protects only against the unauthorized taking of a protected work's "expression." It does not extend to the work's ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries.
Facts
A work's facts are not protected by copyright, even if the author spent large amounts of time, effort, and money discovering those facts. Copyright protects originality, not effort or "sweat of the brow."
Independent Creation
A copyright owner has no recourse against another person who, working independently, creates an exact duplicate of the copyrighted work. The independent creation of a similar work or even an exact duplicate does not violate any of the copyright owner's exclusive rights.
Fair Use
The "fair use" of a copyrighted work, including use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. Copyright owners are, by law, deemed to consent to fair use of their works by others.
The Copyright Act does not define fair use. Instead, whether a use is fair use is determined by balancing these factors:
* The purpose and character of the use.
* The nature of the copyrighted work.
* The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.
* The effect of the use on the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.
But nothing in this specification speaks of how you will still be able to maintain your fair use rights. If they build it, people should proactively sue them because its a rights violation for it to exist at all.
The same could be said about Sony. Those PS1 and PS2 mod chips are every bit as much of a circumvention as modifying the X-Box would be. The difference here is that Sony != Microsoft, and therefore doesn't get as much bad press here.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Two more reasons:
You have to remember that this is the same company that used the ominous variable "NSA_KEY" in some of its security software...
Not that I believe the NSA was responsible of this particular blunder... =)
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Seems another reason to switch
I believe that "that story [the poster] read somewhere" was Richard Stallman's "dystopian short story" The Right To Read. I'd recommend giving it a gander, as it appears RMS was remarkable prescient: his story was published five years ago in the Communications of the ACM.
[
Kinda makes mac hardware with yellow dog or OS X seem like an attractive prospect, huh?
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
Uh... if you don't want this Palladium, and other up-and-coming tools of the devil, why not stick with what you have? The frenzy of the switch from Win3.1 is over - mostly. I actually know some people who still use it. It works. I think - and hope - the public has discovered that buying the Latest Version doesn't necessarily help anything, and can be a royal pain in the ass. I believe we're reaching a point where consumers will demand that these Wonderful New Versions are worth their time and energy. Perhaps they won't be spoon-fed whatever crap MS spits out.
My 2 cents.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
Alright, it's simple, we DON'T have to upgrade to Palladium... but Microsoft has a way of incorporating *just enough* (except in the case of ME) incremental improvements to make it worth our while. What if this is the watershed Windows platforms that finally delivers on all its promises? Across the board, including security? I'm afraid far too many people, people who even ordinarily would know better, might be enticed by that. But seriously. This definitely warrants a serious grass-roots counter-PR campaign. I'm certainly game. *grin*
ShaunDon
"I swear I way more than half-believe it when I say that somewhere love and justice shines" - The Weakerthans
Go away Bill, Microsoft and corporate interests.
When I pass, they can then pry Linux from my cold dead hands...
The Palladium, as it was already pointed out, was a statue of Pallas Athenas, who protected the city of Troia. Ulyssed tried to snatch the Palladium, unfortunately got only a copy of it, not of the real statue. That was not a victory for the Trojans at all, since it didn't stop the Greeks from conquering and pillaging the city (who said "Trojan Horse"?), and it didn't even prevent Ajax's rape of Cassandra.
I Frown Microsoft's ignorance, and I really hope they get back the fruits they are seeding today...
A DIVX disc didn't had any additional content not available on a regular DVD. Maybe a DIVX-only title here and there, but nothing that will make you buy a DIVX, just so you could get something extra.
But Palladium does offer something: if you want to run new, Palladiumised software, you'd have to install a supported OS. You might get a discount if you use your Palladium-wallet(TM) to buy stuff online.
You will lose some privacy and freedom, but most users won't care, since they'll get some glitter in return. Look at WinXP: (almost) nobody cares about the activation.
However, I don't think Palladium will be mandatory. Intel and AMD does not care which OS you run: all they care is that you use their chips to run it. And if their boards will be restricted to running only Paladium-authenticated software, I'll just pay a bit more to get another machine - Linux is supported on many platforms.
Same goes for big online retailers: they'll have an SSL site and Paladium site, to get all the sales they can.
However, you'd probably need Paladium-certified OS to run a Paladium-certified site, thus we might see lots more of Windows based servers (I guess Intel and AMD would like that too, as they could sell more chips).
Unless, people will care for their privact all of a sudden. This might happen: after all, in theory, hell might freeze.
I dont care. I will NOT switch to their new scheme, just as I will NOT upgrade to XP. Win2k and Win98SE do the job just fine. I have enough games to keep my entertained for years. If it ever gets to the point where I "have" to get a new game machine, Ill get a console.
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
This is probably because a lot of the arab world is poor and illiterate, and oppressed by dogmatic, authoritarian regimes. But why is this relavent?
A digital rights management operating system protects rights-managed data, such as downloaded content, from access by untrusted programs while the data is loaded into memory or on a page file as a result of the execution of a trusted application that accesses the memory. To protect the rights-managed data resident in memory, the digital rights management operating system refuses to load an untrusted program into memory while the trusted application is executing or removes the data from memory before loading the untrusted program. If the untrusted program executes at the operating system level, such as a debugger, the digital rights management operating system renounces a trusted identity created for it by the computer processor when the computer was booted. To protect the rights-managed data on the page file, the digital rights management operating system prohibits raw access to the page file, or erases the data from the page file before allowing such access. Alternatively, the digital rights management operating system can encrypt the rights-managed data prior to writing it to the page file. The digital rights management operating system also limits the functions the user can perform on the rights-managed data and the trusted application, and can provide a trusted clock used in place of the standard computer clock.
It's actually pretty amazing to see such a MS toady as David Coursey (his column on "My Dinner with Bill" is useful either for laughter or antiperistalsis, depending on how you feel at the time) coming out with a column like this. Does anyone questioning Palladium have the kind of public forum that Levy has with Newsweek, though?
No, we didn't say you couldn't bid. We said you have to give us the source and let us modify it.
Thats Un-American!
Possibly. Fortunately, this is Europe.
This is probably because a lot of the arab world is poor and illiterate, and oppressed by dogmatic, authoritarian regimes
So is the United States. (Bush? Dogmatic? Nooooooooo! Never!)
What's your point?
Not legally, no. Microsoft holds patents on the methods necessary to do this.
DNA just wants to be free...
Coursey writes: Don't expect to see that OS anytime soon. Palladium is a long-term project that requires not only a new operating system, but new computers as well.
And one must wonder if the reason it requires new computers, besides our special friend, the Fritz Chip, perhaps MS realizes that it will require a minimum of 2.1 GHz, 10 Gb HD space and 1 Gb RAM just to load and run their new OS?
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
Disclaimer: opinion follows. Notice sig.
Once businesses change over to a Linux desktop to avoid subscription licensing fees, software lock-in, and improve interoperability (read: open standards), people will learn Linux. They will see how fast, easy, stable and simple it is to use for normal applications.
*Note: before you debate me on these points, please take the time to use a RH 7.x system with Ximian GNOME - install and usage really is simple for the avg. joe. At least it is for my family and friends.
Once employees see this, they'll want Linux at home. And the Linux desktop market will develop, much like it did with Windows in the early 90's. Wal-Mart and Fry's already sell lower-end Linux based PCs. I've heard speculation for a long time that the retailers would never sell a Linux box until a market developed.
Honestly, I don't see a feasible market at the moment, besides selling to Linux junkies like myself. Over about 95% of all desktops today are running Windows, a few percent are Macs, and even fewer (desktops, mind you, not total boxen) run Linux. Even so, Wal-Mart, a very large company, is investing in a tiny sliver of the desktop market.
Maybe they're willing to take a greater risk than many of us thought? Maybe their ITs have more insight into the future of the desktop than many of us thought? I can't find any other reason than those -- if anyone has any ideas, please say so.
One thought is that Macs are still around and don't have but a few percent. Although this is comparable to Linux, Linux is new and there is no guarantee of returned money on an investment. Mac junkies have been around for quite some time, and have continued to purchase Macs.
In either case, two years ago, I didn't think Linux was for anyone but developers. Now my mom can use it, and she's not even average when it comes to computer literacy. Linux has come so far in the last 2 years that I don't see how it can't go further. The user and developer bases are growing, and it looks like Linux is here to stay.
Stability and options have been here. Features (e.g. virtual desktops) have been here. Openness and freedom have been here. Ease of use is becoming more common, and the user base is growing. The only thing this Linux junkie sees missing is application/file-type support, but that is coming as well, and quickly.
I forsee Linux busting into the desktop market and becoming a serious contender within two years. Of course it will take time for a large change, but I think it's coming.
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
According to this article (sorry, german only) the EU knows exactly what Microsoft is up to with Palladium and they do want to work against it!
Here is a translation using Google.
"hmhmhm..."
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
Beh, quit yer whinnin! You know BSD will be the next thing to go after M$ is gone.
return 0;
}
The current US government and business climate seems to be obsessed with protectionism. Why is this suddenly a good idea when it didn't work for anyone else?
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
I am quite positive that motherboard manufacturers will not stop producing hardware than can run operating systems besides windows.
Besides, even if they do there is always Apple's hardware, and I am also sure that other companies will pop up to fill in the gaps if something like this happens.
I don't know about you guys, but I am not overly worried about this
After all, even if the U.S. and Europe legally require such b.s. drm, I don't think it will take over in Asia. China is really big on opensource (it seems commie, anyways ()), and one can only hope that that section of the world stays sane.
Who knows, these announcements might be the beginning of the end for U.S. technological dominance (which might not be a bad thing. .
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Just make sure not to patch WMP, either.
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
From the: Quotes-to-cringe-by dept.
MICROSOFT PROMISES--and I believe that they're serious--that users will control their own personal information.
Since when? Since when do people trust M$, the company that has time-and-again said that software is secure when it's not, that they provide customer support when they don't, that they're not trying to be a monopoly when they are, that they're not strong-arming 3rd party manufacturers when Craig Barrett is clearly wincing? If the EULA doesn't scare you yet, you aren't paying attention.
But how this plays in the real world, where users often have very little power, remains to be seen.
Ah, maybe in your little world of sheeple, but folks like me give ourselves power through OSes that don't patronize.
Microsoft has one key factor in its favor: the growing realization among its customers that we must do something, and that tomorrow's digital devices--and I'm talking much more than PCs here--need the trustworthiness that Microsoft claims Palladium will offer.
I think he's missing the boat on this one. Users don't give a rats banana about trust, or they wouldn't be using passwords like "mypassword" when checking Hotmail. They simply don't care about that. What they care about is the *big*bad*unknown* screwing up their ability to email, type letters to their friends, and have cybersex on AIM. If their OS provides that, they're fine. Trust is marketing B$ for "we're gonna cuddle you like a foster parent and shield you from the big bad world."
But is the world ready to trust Microsoft on something it has such a hard time explaining? and implementing, and supporting, and documenting, and....
Holy smoke-n-mirrors, Batman.
Blog,Twitter
Always remember the city of Troy eventually fell, ironically thanks to a trojan horse.
Hate me!
...rather than the motherboard? That way, you could take it out if you wanted to.
Oh... silly me.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Right on! Games are for the consoles, not the consolable!.
return 0;
}
Step 1: create some virtual machine (in VBasic,
for example)
Step 2: port Linux to that virtual machine...
But will it be worth it?
What is the difference between this article and http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/23/16 41205&mode=thread&tid=109 from over a week ago?
It's inevitable that computers will become appliances. Anything which is marketed to, designed for, and used by the masses will eventually become simple and easy to use, and probably a commodity unless one company holds a monopoly on its production. The original Apple was the first step; this is merely another.
But that doesn't mean computers won't exist to hack on for amateurs. Did the CD eliminate HAM radio, or the amateur musician? Does an electronics geek bemoan the fact that he can't put together his own DVD player, or does he spend his time doing more interesting things? When computers become appliances, they will become boring.
It also doesn't mean that professional computing will go this way. To use the same analogy: do you think a radio broadcasting station uses an off-the shelf CD player? Do you think they go to Best Buy, see the low-end consumer hardware sold there, and say "Damn, I need something better, more customizable, but I guess I just can't buy it anywhere." Professionals will use professional products, and that means many things: high quality, no frills, and expensive. Microsoft will NOT be able to convince any computer professional to use this "Palladium" crap for a server. They won't even try. They will probably have a server OS which can serve Palladium-enabled content; but that won't be the only option, unless it's so good that it's all professionals want.
The readers of Slashdot are all amateur computing enthusiasts, and many of them are computer professionals as well. We may end up using a commodity computer appliance, just like the rest of the world; but our Linux boxes will always be around to hack on.
Then we have a regression back to the days of the hardware hacking '70's and 80's. Gates is a child of that era of computers, surely he realises the difficulty of what they propose?
(I am thinking of soldering on a chip that spoofs the OS into thinking it is running on something other than what it is)
Vaporware that smells bad.
Microsoft steals OS components from non-GPL sources and never admits it (TCP stack from BSD)
Apple develops software to assist you in ripping your CDs, mixing them to your liking and burning them onto new CDs or DVDs (iTunes)
Microsoft "patches" software while changing the EULA to allow them to automatically shut off ANY software you might be running that they feel violates their interpretation of DRM (Media Player)
Hardly seems like parallel tracks to me.
--NBVB
It might just happen that in an extreme outcome of these kinds of measures, "obsolete" hardware will become a precious comodity. Underground hackers will get together and swap information on combining this into semi-super clusters to try and rival the power available in the "approved" hardware market, while maintaining the freedom of miscellaneous use.
;)
Linux is already a huge step in this direction, reviving and making old stuff useful again.
The contents of my basement will become a lot more valuable, and eBay my best friend.
Any spoon would be too big.
Excellent points, since there should always be alternative non Palladium compliant hardware around as long as there's a demand for it. =)
The answer to who needs hardware to do the security work would be everyone. You can find ways around any software solution. However, if your hardware denies you permission to do things, you're outta luck.
n this case, the hardware chip is not merely a cryptography accelerator. The chip should have your unique key stored inside it in hardware and the key should not be accessible to outside software (so hopefully no cheesy Microsoft viruses will be fishing for them). The purpose of the chip is not to encrypt more quickly than you otherwise could, it basically sits there and everything you do you have to ask it for permission first.
Who the hell cares?
I have a question. IANAL, but wasn't Microsoft convicted of felony monopoly? If so, then they are convicted felons right? Why should we trust anything from a convicted felon? Thats like trusting Al Capone with your bank accounts!
I'm going to rehash. So don't get annoyed when I do. Microsoft has tried things like this beofre. But not nearly as, well, let's say "comprehensive". And, yes, consumers buy computers to 'logde' into hotmail and look at 'all dem pretty websites'. Not to use the thing for anyting good. There _ARE_ exceptions, but, they usually don't use Windows :). Windows CE, the embedded stuff, Palladium isn't a new idea for Microsoft. And, it doesn't really matter anyway. John and Jane who know nothing about computers see Microsoft and think "it must be good". If Palladium doesn't allow you to install your own OS, people will build their own, or find a way around Palladium. So, basically, for anyone that is 'scared' of Palladium, heed this advice: You don't have to use it. You don't think Linux belongs in the 'Games' section of a software store.
It is a nice theory that it will die and the ISV's will refuse to go along, but in practice, I see this happening; Microsoft will court certain strategic companies who will be asked to publically endorse it, and then will be in a position to dominate specific market niches by the fact they will be able to provide Palladium enabled applications earlier than their competitors. After these other market segments consolidate more, like has happened with enterprise accounting, Microsoft will then buy out the strongest remaining player(s), or choose to give something similar away free to drive the remaining ISV's out of a given target market. That's what they need their 40+ billion in the bank for.
The idea that some software companies would see the threat and all would solidly refuse to cooperate is to be fantasizing and ignoring existing history. Go to the PC Expo I went to in NYC, and see the software vendors there, all shackeled, to the Microsoft "partners" booth. Yes, like Lenin one said, taken into this context, they will provide the rope to hang themselves!
Already the software market is considerably smaller than it was even 5 years ago and the number of products far fewer. While individual companies that survived may have grown, the ISV market as a whole, even adding Microsoft's growth, has actually shrunk considerably in total size, as well as in innovation and new products.
Your computer: put on the Fritz Chip, it goes on the fritz.
Your mind is squeezed by a blast of pain!
The DRM aspect reminds me of something I read about an imaginary day in the not-too-distant future, where you can no longer install Linux on your own box because you don't have the necessary rights.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't a great deal of Linux servers run on old hardware? If this is true, then the impact of Palladium wouldn't be a total disaster for Linux. It would not be favourable, by any means, but not a total disaster.
Smaller companies that run Linux servers on old hardware would not be forced to make the changeover, at least not for several years. Unless you're a large company that needs the latest technology, you could get away with not upgrading to a Palladium machine.
This space left intentionally blank.
Aside from the fact that the Palladium endeavor is monopolistic, it does suggest the possibility that the os could be hardened to protect users further from unauthorized code.
What about digitally signed apps? When the kernel is built it embeds a private key into itself that is used to unlock apps that are compiled for this kernel. Compiles can optionally require another password in order to futher secure the process.
A program must then be built for this kernel on the same system it will be used, and the public key is embedded into the binary. Legacy apps could still run, but they will prompt before execution indicating they may damage your system.
While this won't stop a Perl script from wrecking havoc, it will limit the kinds of trojans that can be dropped onto your system. Maybe scripted code requires a password to execute?
Hm. Just a random thought; Gentoo would be ideal for this. OTOH, maybe something like this already exists?
Eric Sarjeant
eric[@]sarjeant.com
I'm a little behind on the Palladium discussion. Since it is new to me, I am wondering if it is surprising to anyone else that Palladium can be found in Microsoft documents dating back 12 years? Search the page for "Palladium" and you'll find it at the bottom of the page.
http://www.askthevoid.com
I don't see how this fits the category of "Offtopic".
So Coursey admits that he sits on stories to get access to Microsoft. That's some journalistic integrity. Now he is crying that Levy broke the story before he did. Cry baby.
Now, please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance...
Thank you,
and now our National Anthem.
*play Microsoft Sound here*
Don't worry, be hacker. A mod chip will ship the day before the actual ship date. Let the MS Clones follow; the rest of us know better.
I'm assuming that by "commodity PC" you mean a standard x86 machine onto which you can install a non-MS x86 OS.
If the chips/BIOS are set up in such a way as to literally prevent the installation of a non-MS OS onto the bare machine, then there will be enough market demand for machines without this restriction that the market will fork. I'm not claiming that it will fork half-and-half, just that there will be enough demand in the world to create a market. The market may be too small or politically sensitive for the likes of Dell or HPAQ, but some Asian manufacturer(s) could make a good living off that market.
More likely, the existence of the extra crypto hardware can be accommodated by new designs in Linux/*BSD/etc. and might actually become quite useful to a user with complete personal control over its capabilities.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
Good news is that it's long term. With Linux making more and more inroads every day, I wish them luck (well I don't really).
Consumers might think it's a nifty idea being the sheep they are, but governments (like Peruvian Congressman David Villanueva Nuñez) would certainly beg to differ on this being "secure". A foreign entity having this kind of control on their machines?
NSA has already thrown considerable weight behind Security Enhanced Linux. The good news is that NSA has to pretty much approve all software installed on US government machines on any large scale. You can bet your booty that there will be some security/encryption protecting government machines but it will be the spooks behind the triple fence doing it and not M$.
We already see a fragmenting now between consumer and business. XP is being deployed on home user machines more and more while Uncle Sammy won't even consider it.
Too bad for M$, it was just enough time for the alternative to gain heavy credibility.
So for home users, sure they'll get "protection". Sadly for M$, you screwed up too badly for too long. The Linux genie will not go back into the bottle.
Thankfully for all of us.
Coursey is an obvious troll with a long term pro-Microsoft agenda. I wouldn't worry about him influencing anyone: his "Bill is good, Bill is wise" mantra is so blatant that even the most casual reader should be able to spot it.
Indeed, if he'd written anything other than glowing praise for Palladium, I'd be shocked. This is just advocacy trolling by the numbers.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Or maybe I just haven't seen one yet.
Remeber the Anti-DIVX campaign a few years back? That worked perfectly. DIVX (the DVD player, not the codec) was dead before it ever hit the shelves. Why is there not a www.fuckpalladium.com yet? or maybe www.getoutofmycomputer.com. There's no shortage of MS haters out there. This ball should get itself rolling.
All of this seems the same as DIVX - some company telling you what you can and can't do with shit you've already bought. People won't stand for it as long as someone gives it to them straight. All that you need to tell them is "Palladium won't let you burn CD's" and you'll have a backlash on your hands. Even the least tech-savvy users will understand what that means. If I had the time and resources i'd register www.nopalladium.com, but I don't. If everybody puts a link to www.fuckdrm.com on their website, people will get the idea and this will die on the vine like DIVX and the PSN.
I have several friends and relatives that I've converted to dual boot. My dad will be moving to a Linux only system when he gets broadband. My boss at work can even use it.
If Palladium gets integrated into all x86 compatible systems, we can move. We can move to Sun or Macintosh systems with out losing any of our open source software.
If I unwittingly buy a system with Palladium, I will find a way to rip it out. If I pay for it, then it is mine. And those damn heartless corporations that disagree with me can sell proprietary binaries to hell!
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Yes, FUD is what we would call this story if it had come from the "enemy" (like the RIAA writing a story about a future without music or arts, because pirating has made it impossible to produce music for a living). Typical Stallman stuff. The truth, as always, will lie somewhere in the middle.
And yes, we should be ever vigilant about how our rights are possibly infringed by such technology, and Stallman does fight for a worthy cause. But personally I think the cause would be better of with the likes of him and their shrill protests.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I'm a fat bastard!!!
Your typical motherboard vendor could care less if Linux runs or not - they want the portion of the market that runs Windows.
That's not how markets work. Not everyone dreams of being yet another competitor in the most crowded market segment. If there is a demand for motherboards that allow you to install a non-MS OS, there will be manufacturers who will gladly target this less-crowded segment.
And lest you worry about Intel building the restriction right into the CPU upstream so the motherboard mfrs downstream don't even have a choice, remember that Intel wants to break free of the MS monopoly grip, not to enforce it.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
Not to be a cad, but how many of us have written a printed letter to be sent to congress on the necessity of internet/electronic freedom? I hate to say it, but they actually pay attention to the letters that come in the mail (instead of tallying the ones by email).
/. readers sent in a letter detailing the problems of every corporate ploy we see here... Or we could be like the French and demonstrate IRL
Why does Congress pay attention to mailed letters? Because the trouble it takes to mail something is equal to the difficulty of mailing in votes.
If 1/12 of the
I think he means, just make sure not to use WMP :)
Anyone want to guess how long until the word "terrorism" gets in somewhere?
Another terrorist attack or two, and Americans will be begging for this stuff. Hopefull that won't happen.
I was at first reluctant into saying this technology is all bad. Its easy to get into an anti-Microsoft jihad.
But this technology is all bad.
I can't believe that MSN article, I really can't. Its a silly spin on this technology that isn't going to last. Here's some stuff from the MSN article on what this stuff is going to do:
"Tells you who you're dealing with--and what they're doing. Palladium is all about deciding what's trustworthy. It not only lets your computer know that you're you , but also can limit what arrives (and runs on) your computer, verifying where it comes from and who created it."
We already have this, its called Public Key Encryption or alternatively Symmetric Encryption. Free Software users already have GNU Privacy Guard at our disposal.
Of course, the downside of this technology is that it isn't too useful over the internet without creating a rather large web of trust -- a very difficult task. I'd like to know how Palladium would rectify this?
"Protects information. The system uses high-level encryption to 'seal' data so that snoops and thieves are thwarted. It also can protect the integrity of documents so that they can't be altered without your knowledge."
First, we already have high-level encryption. And most anti-virus programs 'innoculate' your files anyway. This only sounds like Microsoft is targeting the anti-virus next -- by integrating them into the operating system.
"Stops viruses and worms. Palladium won't run unauthorized programs, so viruses can't trash protected parts of your system."
I haven't used Windows since Windows 95, but I know Unix-like systems have had multi-user security since practically forever. Its heavily suggested to new users to set up their own accounts on their system to use. "protected parts" os a Unix-like system is whatever root owns, which is quite a lot.
"Cans spam. Eventually, commercial pitches for recycled printer cartridges and barnyard porn can be stopped before they hit your inbox--while unsolicited mail that you might want to see can arrive if it has credentials that meet your standards."
So basically digital signatures for real this time...
"Safeguards privacy. With Palladium, it's possible not only to seal data on your own computer, but also to send it out to 'agents' who can distribute just the discreet pieces you want released to the proper people. Microsofties have nicknamed these services 'My Man.' If you apply for a loan, you'd say to the lender, 'Get my details from My Man,' which, upon your authorization, would then provide your bank information, etc. Best part: Da Man can't read the information himself, and neither can a hacker who breaks into his system."
This may sound interesting, depending on how its implemented. But what can this Palladium technology offer that a sane encryption policy can't? And whats going to prevent users from screwing up the security?
(side note: "My Man" sounds really funny)
"Controls your information after you send it. Palladium is being offered to the studios and record labels as a way to distribute music and film with 'digital rights management' (DRM). This could allow users to exercise 'fair use' (like making personal copies of a CD) and publishers could at least start releasing works that cut a compromise between free and locked-down. But a more interesting possibility is that Palladium could help introduce DRM to business and just plain people. 'It's a funny thing,' says Bill Gates. 'We came at this thinking about music, but then we realized that e-mail and documents were far more interesting domains.' For instance, Palladium might allow you to send out e-mail so that no one (or only certain people) can copy it or forward it to others. Or you could create Word documents that could be read only in the next week. In all cases, it would be the user, not Microsoft, who sets these policies."
And we're back to digital rights management. Does anyone know how to implement what they say with the Word document with the technology we have now? It almost sounds like an Actually Useful Feature. "This email will self-destruct," kind of thing.
But really, this thing is about enforcing what some people consider an unconstitutionally unlimited copyright system. Not to mention what kind of havoc would be caused if trademarks were decided to be under the umbrella of digital rights.
One thing the Coursey article confirmed is that Microsoft does have a patent on this technology -- it seems logical they would license this under the CIFS (no GPL or copyleft) pretty much excluding free software from implementing this.
Because this stuff was leaked so early, there is still time (they are saying like four or five years) for someone to build up a response to this. Or it will simply flop because the market won't like it. Or what I think is likely is that DVDs will only be allowed to play on Palladium-approved machines. Then we'll have a mix of Palladium and non-Palladium machines, one with a superset of the features of the other.
Which one will Mr. and Mrs. Ignorant want to buy for their son?
Okay mistrust of Microsoft aside, the only way of getting real security is through digital PKI based authentication and this needs to be tied to hardware in the same way as a smart card.
Think of Palladium as a smart card pre-built into your PC.
It can't be worse than the current level of security abuse, spam, worms, virus etc.
Again not saying that Microsoft are the best people to be doing this but the idea is basically sound.
So only one program runs at a time, when you're accessing "trusted content"?
Not surprising.
That's about all Window$ is capable of, anyway...
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
The current market favors commodity hardware. Should AMD/Intel try to make their motherboard proprietary, two things could happen:
1. Anti-trust lawsuit
2. Relegation of the new design to a niche.
The problem with making ANY commodity a non-commodity is that you attach some extra value to it, real or imagined. You also become a niche player of sorts. Apple, in keeping itself proprietary, turned itself into a niche producer. There are makers of coffee, water, soda-pop, etc that managed to uncommoditize these things and made good money, but only as niche players (you don't, for example, shower with bottled water).
Besides, with operating systems like Linux already ported to a variety of processors, how long would it be until some other company tries to create a commodity PC to replace the Paladium stuff? The original IBM PC freed people from using mini/mainframe computers, after all. Eventually, history will repeat itself.
Even if a proprietary hardware design DOESN'T appear, what's to stop people from running virtual machines ON TOP of the "secure" hardware/software? VMWARE comes to mind immediately. Maybe you can start mini VMWARE-like environment to play MP3's or watch movies. For good measure, this mini-environment could also store your files, effectively locking them away from the "prying eyes" of the paladium-enabled OS. Paladium will add more complexity to an already complex and powerful machine. Such complexity will demand more speed. More speed means you'll be able to run virtual machines more seemlessly.
In the end, I think, users will be able to do what they want.
The choice between GPL-style and MS-style will be all the more pronounced when the dirty details of this plan become apparant to the people of the world. So while the US is mired in content totalitarianism, the world, in greater part, will continue to use the open methods of computer hardware/software evolution.
Your next computer may be built in bulgaria and secretly shipped to you inside a gutted bread maker..
_KhlER3L
install and usage really is simple for the avg. joe.
Installation of a Windows or Mac software package is *nothing* like on a Linux box. Flame me if you will, I just don't know what to call this expectation on the part of Linux jocks -egoism, chauvinism- but downloading and manually building a package and its dependencies, sometimes rebuilding the kernel. It's just not the same as an installshield-type GUI installer, and I won't apologize for it.
Debian comes closer on this -this is my daily system. Even though I love it, I could never, ever expect family members or non-tech friends to support their own system. If they lived under the same roof, yes, of course. But to hand somebody a CD and say, go ahead, you can replace your Windows installation, is just silly. Your typical non-tech won't make it past disk partitioning unaided.
Take, f'rinstance, video formats. Yes, there is a package now for viewing AVIs under Linux. But to get it working is another matter. And compare Mac TCP/IP versus Linux -a single, simple dialog box versus the commandline (yes, I know various distros have dialogs too, but they mostly suck, and I'm talking about Linux common denominators here.)
In order for Linux to "rule" the desktop (as many hope it will), there needs to be the same simplicity in setup, maintenance and use as its competition- MacOS and Windows. Otherwise, Linux will never get more marketshare.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
> ... Their stated goal is `a new computing platform for the next century ...
Doesn't this make their intent clear? The next century starts in either the year 2100 or 2101, depending on your theory of century boundaries.
So this is the most extreme vaporware yet: It won't be functional for about 98 years.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Interesting idea, but according to Goodwin's Law, the first party in a discussion to mention "Hitler" or "Nazi" has lost the discussion.
Godwins Law is a joke.
Seriously, it was a tounge in cheek joke about USENET flames of its day. It was never considered by its creator to be an actual, accurate commentary on internet speech, much less some deeply wise insight into the human psyche, and certainly not as a new "rule" of debate.
In other words, Godwins Law was never intended to be used as relative newcomers to the net have come to use it today: to make the most potent lessons of modern history offlimits to any discussion that might benefit from contemplating those lessons, not least of which is a discussion of technology that is designed to excersize draconian prior restraint on how and perhaps even when people can use their own property, within their own home, by a large, convicted monopolist.
NAZIWARE is the most appropriate term I've heard for Palladium/DRM since this entire debate began a few months ago. We should not dismiss it because of some misguided references to a tired old joke being bandied about as though they were some kind of deep Internet Wisdom.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
that would be uh mmmm
oh I got this one
REPEAT!
I guess we will be expected into buying a licensed computer. Where the computer is not actually ours, but we can use it.
Sounds like a car lease or something... I wonder how they will determine the mileage on my 'puter?
tony
brainclone.com
a beowulf cluster of P4 2.533GHz machinces
I don't expect family members or friends to support thier windows system now.
When anything breaks they call tech support. Whats so diffrent about it being on linux?
This point is so moot that I'm really starting to get sick of hearing it.
I live in a giant bucket.
Why should M$ waste time developing a whole new operating system. By the time 2006 rolls around most everyone will be using Linux anyway. They can only hold their monopoly with an inferior product for so long.
...if you want to see where this is all heading.
There was an article on CNN the other day about mom and pop auto repair shops not being able to diagnose and/or repair newer cars because all the info is locked down. Even if you do lay out the big $$ for the diagnostic equipment so you can get the diagnostic data, in a lot of cases the doc for the data is not available.
Same goes for would-be hotrodders and shadetree mechanics. The hood could just as well be bolted on, there's little you can do or change without causing serious problems in some other system. Most auto engine control systems go into 'limp home' mode if you mess with them or try to fake any of the inputs.
All this seems to be doing is rasing the bar on s/w development costs, which will by definition cut out the little guys, and reduce the competition, which will reduce the progress in the long run. If this keeps up, you can say goodbye to 'mom and pop' software development.
And cars, btw.
When a technology starts, options abound. Variety (and makers) slowly decrease until theres one or a few models or makers. Just do some research to see how much more different cars were in 1910~1940.
Now, when a technical solution is sufficiently widespread, even less technically developed nations can start producing it. China and radios come to mind.
Living in a developing country myself, this of course benefits me. But for those in a more advanced (and rich) country I can only say: move over. Plan something new. Invent. Create, like you did before.
Theres a lot of creative ideas and needs waiting to meet each other. Some of these are even ecological, so you can get rich *and* save the world at the same time.
For starters, what about doing to notebooks (portable computing, generically) what has been done to desktop computing? You could get another 20~30 years of prosperity!
Good luck... to us all...
Godwin's Law states that as any discussion gets longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Essentially, any time you get a bunch of people together, talking about any subject, chances are that the conversation will wander to the point that someone compares something to Nazis. This happens for two reasons:
1) The Nazis made such a massive impact on the 20th century that you'll end up seeing some comparison eventually.
2) If you get pissed off, you generally go fishing for the worst insult that you can get, and calling someone a Nazi generally does it.
I'd expand this law to include "fascist" as well. People generally mean Nazi when they say fascist, and including that would probably make the law more closely match most discussions.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
but downloading and manually building a package and its dependencies, sometimes rebuilding the kernel. It's just not the same as an installshield-type GUI installer, and I won't apologize for it.
Notice my comment about Ximian -- utilities such as Red Carpet and up2date negate the need to do things by hand. True, there is less of an application base for these, but they are coming along quite nicely considering they're both relatively new.
And as far as installation and distrib., I should have been more explicit: Red Hat. Even the custom install is hardly difficult for someone who knows computing basics, especially given the help in the sidebar.
Take, f'rinstance, video formats. Yes, there is a package now for viewing AVIs under Linux. But to get it working is another matter.
Like I said, there are plenty of issues with file formats. While doc, xls, ppt, mpg, mp3, etc. etc. etc. are all supported, there are a few important ones missing -- I concur with you, my most sought after file formats are movie formats. Here is something I'm looking forward to become standard.
In order for Linux to "rule" the desktop (as many hope it will), there needs to be the same simplicity in setup, maintenance and use as its competition
Repeating myself:
Setup - RH Linux is just as simple as Windows on a "Workstation" install, not much more difficult on custom.
Maintenance - This is a problem in some areas. Groups like Ximian are working on it -- their new configuration panel (forgot the name -- similar to MS Control Panel) is nice, IMO, and getting better.
Use - Again, this area needs work in the area of common applications, but things such as Evolution, AbiWord, OpenOffice, GnuCash, etc. are making a lot of headway here.
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
I'm I the only one who noticed that one of the articles said microsoft would be publishing the source code??? Not saying open source, but publishing, meaning many more people besides coders at MS get to see the source code?? QUOTE: 'Microsoft is also publishing the system's source code. "We are trying to be transparent in all this," says Allchin.'
LinuxWorx
Spelling errors are intentional as are gramatical error
"Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness."
-- George W. Bush
If you buy a computer with a pre-installed OS such as Windows or if you are using a Mac Mac OS Z.XX does that automatically mean you accept the EULA? If so it seems a bit daft that you have to give up certain rights because a company decided to bed with another that sells OS software. Just a curiosity I've been pondering for a while.
( o ) one could say I'm rather baked
To comment on this:
-You do not need Windows tech support to view an AVI. I think that was his point.
Misc. comments:
-However, you cannot complain that Linux is "too hard" because of some of it's 'fixes'. If Windows breaks, TOUGH -- what can you do but reinstall? If Linux breaks, at least you can fix it. Just because you can fix it and that fix is difficult doesn't make it any harder than Windows -- it's just an option you never had. Note -- I'm not suggesting the parent was meaning to say otherwise, I'm adding this because people often seem to not understand it.
-There is a learning curve on Linux, just the same as Windows. I'm not suggesting that users should be forced into using the shell, but that some people blindly assume because a Windows -> Linux transition isn't 100% painless, Linux is too hard. Again, not suggesting that the parent meant otherwise.
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
...it was a tounge in cheek joke about USENET flames of its day. It was never considered by its creator to be an actual, accurate commentary on internet speech, much less some deeply wise insight into the human psyche, and certainly not as a new "rule" of debate.
Indeed.
And the literal interpretation of Godwin's law has been used heavily by anti-freedom posters (including neo-fascists) to shut down debate. They do this when someone:
points out how their proposal is similar to one of the programs of the NAZI party, or
tries to show how the NAZIs already took that nice-sounding idea and ran it into the ground.
So I now formulate:
Rod's Law of Internet Debate: "Anyone citing Godwin's Law against an opponent in a serious political debate has admitted he is an authoritarian and has lost the argument."
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
This much is nonsense:
"So I won't be able to play MP3s on my PC any more?
With existing MP3s, you may be all right for some time. But in future, TCPA / Palladium will make it easier to sell music, movies, books and other content packaged so that people can play them on their PCs but not copy them. You might be allowed to lend your copy of some digital music to a friend, but then your own backup copy won't be playable until your friend gives you the main copy back. Quite possibly you will not be able to lend music at all. (It looks likely that the music publisher will be able to make the rules - and to change them at will by remote control.) "
Digital rights management can NEVER work for products that are experienced by analog human beings because ultimately the must emerge in analog form... as images and soundwaves, and once they do that, they can be copied, redigitized, and the DRM scheme is defeated.... sure the people who copy will require some new equipment and new approaches but simple linear content... music and movies.... is
....(to continue previous)
is not protectable if it is available to the ear and the eye.
Not at all. Godwin's Law merely observes, it doesn't proscribe:
As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
While the implication is that, once this point has been reached, the discussion has outlived its usefulness, Godwin's Law itself does not say so much. In its accepted form it merely observes that, given enough time, any Usenet discussion will eventually degenerate into Nazi name-calling.
While by way of application of the Law it has become accepted Netiquette in many places that the Nazi comparison ends the conversation (the Nazi reference being the bellweather indicating the discussion had already burst into flames anyway) -- and that the one making the comparison ipso facto loses the discussion -- this is not a requirement of the Law itself, which is not proscriptive at all.
For more information on Godwin's Law, check out The Godwin's Law FAQ.
First of all, this technology COULD be used to take over TCP/IP since all code has to be signed by MS. Probably not the IP part, since all the routers need to be able to understand that and MS hasn't decided to make a line of routers (yet). But definatatly the TCP part since the routers don't determine things like sequence numbers or the checksum algorithm. .cmd, .bat files have to be signed with microsoft tools. Thus leaving all users who don't pay for the MS signing tools unable to use their own computers.
Don't forget that they can now force download and install of any software they want thanks to their new eula in Media Player.
Secondly, any virus that travels via script will still be able to inflitrate your system. That's how scripts work, you click on them, and then they run in the 'signed' interpreter. You're saying that all
I'd say that anyone who is slightly tech-savvy is capable of writing a bat file.
Don't forget about Office viruses either, a document can't be signed either, and if they are then it will be have to be eazy.
First, it is not offtopic.
Second, even if this is making the PC a closed architecture (like Apple after the Macs -- its been opening lately), consider what Apple does and what MS does.
Apple is dumb and I dont like them very much, but I honestly have to admit they play reasonably clean. Theyre interested in selling hardware -- if you hate OS X, install Linux and theyre ok with it.
MS, OTOH, couldnt find a way (yet) to profit on the Linux phenomenon. And boy, Linux surely reached the technical point of being a nuisance to them.
Godwin's Law states that as any discussion gets longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Unfortunately, one of the corollaries of Godwin's law is that any discussion where NAZIs are mentioned is effectively over, because (if it hasn't already) it will now degenerate into either namecalling, a flame war over NAZI Germany, or a flame war over Godwin's Law. And it is this corollary that is usually meant when the law is cited.
More here.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Heh.
I suspect you were wanting to say: "geist", a German word meaning the essence, the underlying idea or overall pattern (literally: "ghost", spirit).
Also, please note the correct pronunciation: its "g" like in "garment" and not like in "gim".
Thanks for your attention. I also forget odd words, so I can relate to this mistake.
Sony has this market down. You got to give it to them with respect to that because they have just enough encryption to make it hard to break, without costing too much to their production. Right now, nobody can burn a DVD or CD that will boot a stock PS2 except Sony. Same thing with MS only switch names of products and companies. Difference is that Sony, seems to have a cheaper system (implementation wise) then the X-Box does. This is because Sony designed the whole system from the ground up rather then using off the shelf components.
Advantage Sony. Yes, it has been hacked and you can get a mod chip that will cause your PS2 to play other region and copied games. However, it is hard enough to modify it, that only a small percentage of people will actually do it.
While the X-Box's system is more complex and harder to break, it also means that it's more expensive to produce and it's less flexiable.
The ps-one had make different motherboard designs. Probably, the designs were different in order to save on cost, however also consider the fact that every motherboard had a slightly different bios and place to solder the mod-chips in. So every revision of the motherboard sent the mod-chip makers back to the labs to re-create the mod-chips to work with the newer boards. Does the X-Box have this kind of flexibility? I don't have the answer to that question, but it seems like once the X-Box is cracked, it may stay cracked.
Think about it. How hard would it be for MS to require that AMD and Intel put region management into the CPUs. If you are in Region US, and your hardware doesn't return proof of Palladium to a Get request, you don't get to see the web site, and your IP address and the exact time is reported to Microsoft, the Department of the Treasury, and your ISP. You will be arrested and your computer seized for having 'illegal pirating devices'.
...or I should say, we will lease them like we used to lease phones from the phone company. MS will be like Ma Bell...Content providers will line up to get on board with MS to deliver and charge for content. It will be like a wierd mix of the phone company and pay-per-view and those sex booths where you put the quarters in and the sliding door gives you a peak at what love is all about. Hell, I don't know about you guys but I've got my pants down around my knees already...
I want to be alone with the sandwich
In considering what the NAZI's did to Germany (not to mention europe), I would argue that NAZI is more specific.
While the Labour force was not necessarily "enslaved", they were indeed influnced. However, when I think how the NAZI's got in power, I think of mass controled propaganda.
I believe that an internet made with this technology would not be used to directly to enslave. More, like the NAZIs, it would be used to influnce the thoughts of the masses.
Insight I read about how media controls the public:
Media does not tell you what to think, but it does tell you what to think about. Having a loud voice doesn't mean people will agree with what you think, but it does mean people will be thinking about what you are thinking about.
Let's see here, in the server market, where Linux excels, it has achieved, what, a whole 12% market penetration? Its desktop penetration is negligible. And contrary to what most techies think, PHBs make purchasing decisions, not techies.
If Linux were going great guns as you claim, why is VA Software (no longer VA Linux Systems) teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, its stock at a whopping $0.85 a share?
I'm not a Micro$oftie by any means, but I'm a realist. Much as I'd like to believe to the contrary, M$ isn't going anywhere in the near future. As long as they have the cartooney "point-and-drool" interface that the PHBs love ("it's so EASY to use!"), M$ will be alive and well.
I wonder how many copies of stand-alone XP have been sold vs. the number of copies Microsoft reports as being "sold" on pre-installed new machines ? I would hazard to guess that XP, as a percentage, has sold far fewer standalone copies vs. pre-installed copies than any previous Windows release, thus affirming that users are smart enough not to buy into Microsoft crap unless they ahve to. The only Palladium is going to succeed is if M$ and friends buys legislation to outlaw any non-Palladium hardware. Good luck getting the rest of the world to follow that :)
Biodiesel : domestic, renewable, clean, and in the fuel tank of my bone stock 2002 New Beetle TDI
Apple should really prepare themselves for the sheep migration by selling a Mac for under $350, w/out monitor of course. Not those god awful clones, just a white-trash version that's cheap. Maybe imac hardware w/out screen, just a little cube again.
For servers, dev work, and surfing - I'll use Linux. For photoslop, flash, DVD/MP3...I guess I'll have to buy a Mac so I can still use those.
I figure NT4 will be completely useless in a year or so, then I'll get a Mac.
I have no problem paying for software, as long as it works and installs without a hitch (Macs seem to be good at that). I'm never buying M$ again, becuase it doesn't work half the time. NT4 was my last stop on the BillyTrain.
Its most definetly the open nature of the platform. The ability to make hardware and software on a level plyfield has spured the advancement of the platform. Unfortunately the software ha been hampered by the applikation barrier upheld and defended by Microsoft. A good comparison between the advancement of hardware and software reveals that competition do make a big difference on both price and pace of development. Software has been almost in limbo compared to how hardware has ben advancing. If we get a lock in like the system Microsoft want us to have it is very likely that hardware development will grind to a halt too. I mean come on, when the only even remote competition is a free damn much better os it cant be very much competition can it?
Destroy the openness of hardware on the PC and it will suffer the same fate as software has done for the past 15 years.
HTTP/1.1 400
Palladium is basically MS's plan to do the same thing as 'my services' was supposed to do - store a central database of user information and data. This time, it's distributed - instead of being in a giant MS data center, each little piece will be stored on everyones PC - still ONLY accesible to MS, so bascially, its still the same thing@!! Very clever! Plus, they get the chance to include some DRM for HOllywood.
Juln
You use Debian, and I respect the choice. Its an excellent distribution, very easy to maintain *if* you're a techie. I've used SuSE on my desktop, and switched to Gentoo. I think its better *for me*. Debian and gentoo are both excelent. Neither one is advisable for my parents.
However, I have them using SuSE 7.3, with KDE 3. Again, not my choice of desktop or OS, but excellent for them. The machine never breaks as it used to with Windows, and they can do their work (mainly word processing, spreadsheets and digital image downloading). Linux is reaching readyness for the desktop. And it can only get better.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
No message.
Minix, Linux, NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD!
Down with Microshit!
Seriously though...this is getting a bit out of control. I can imagine a world where my computer is a digital rights pit hole. That will be the day I fire up my Apple II again, and say to hell with the rest of this shit.
I find it hilarious that Microsoft can leverage security as an issue to justify implementing an OS that is designed to kill open source OSes like Linux.
Microsoft: "We've been making a really insecure operating system that has cost the world billions in damages. But don't worry or consider existing operating systems that are already secure because we're going to design a new operating system. It will do exactly what WE want so YOU won't have to be bothered with choices."
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I would have to concede that Nazi is probably closer to what we would all consider the problem here. In the world of spin, however, it would never be taken seriously.
Also, "slave" is a word that better illustrates a lack of freedom specifically, without carrying a political agenda of any kind along with it.
This is not hard:
and its even easier on a debian system. Just write the command down on a piece of paper and tape it to the wall like they used to do in the old DOS days. And gnorpm, in my opinion, is more difficult to use!
And of course the possibilies of remote administration is strangely compelling...
GNU/Linux on the desktop is here.
mbbac
Q. How exactly will Palladium prevent the ILOVEYOU Outlook virus from spreading?
A. It won't since Outlook will be considered "trusted"
I use this example to highlight the nonsense of Palladium. The entire premise of this thing appears to be centered around the idea of "look people we have all these security problems, such as ILOVEYOU, so we need to solve them with a 'trusted computing platform'" when ILOVEYOU has nothing to do with lack of a low-level security device embedded into the PC and everything to do with a lack of concern for security by the Outlook designers at Microsoft.
For that matter, exacly how many recent security breaches could have have been prevented if we had Palladium? Could we prevent a buffer-overrun attack against Apache? Nope! Because for Apache to run it is going to be considered secure by Palladium. And since Apache is considered secure the rogue code placed in its process image by a buffer overrun will be seen by Palladium as a secure as well.
Security breaches typically come from defects in design (ILOVEYOU in Outlook) or coding defects (buffer overrun in Apache). Both of these cases won't be solved by lowlevel rights management that I can see.
True, a Trojan is a special case. Vectors for Trojan's like Java Applets and ActiveX components already have code-signing authentication mechanisims that seem to work despite the fact there is no lowlevel security device in your PC. You'll note for example ILOVEYOU wasn't delivered as an ActiveX component.
So the chances are extremely slim Palladium will deliver much in the way of increased security.
One of the principals of freedom many countries endose is a citzens right to privacy and the presumption of innocense. We value these freedoms so dearly that we do not invest any human authority with the power to suspend them no matter how lofty the purpose served. So while we as a people invent laws we place limits on there enforcement to protect ourselves from abuse of authority. So while it is against the law for me to copy a music CD and give it to a friend, we don't allow the police authority to seach my and my friends house simply because I *may* have done this illegal activity.
Palladium suspends both our right to privacy and pursumption of innocense so that content owners whoever they might be can enforce "laws" against all potential abusers.
Palladium is something all people who value freedom and privacy should reject.
Maybe I haven't had enough caffeine today, but what's to prevent someone from using software emulation for the hardware functions in Palladium? Wouldn't this allow the security and authenticity checks (and DRM) to be circumvented?
The problem is that a PC is a general purpose computing platform. It's not a DVD player, or a CD player or even an email station. It's anything the software makes it. And it has lots of free CPU cycles these days for things like emulation. If the software never invokes the CPU functions or uses a software protocol stack instead of the hardware stacks, you can do anything you want.
You can hack the firmware (like what's been done to DVD players), you can even patch the CPU with hacked microcode. If you can't, then you need to upgrade your hardware when Palladium 1.1 comes out. And 1.2, and...
Why not simply prove that the design is faulty before it gets out of the gate?
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
All of these "features" of the Windows+DRM are lies. Steven Levy bought it hook line and sinker, but not just because he ignored the downsides. DRM Windows is not going to stop your spam, because it would be inconvenient to make people choose who they can receive email from. So they won't do that. It would be inconvenient to make users decide exactly what privileges to give to apps they install. So those apps could still do malicious things to their computers. DRM Windows isn't going to stop that either.
The only features that will definitely be implemented perfectly are the ones that will limit our freedoms. Licensed debugging tools only, shrink wrapped OSes only, licensed media only, etc.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
As an "anonymous coward" I can't mark a post up or down, but I have to ask you folks why this shill's post got a 4 for "informative" when, at best, it was MISinformative.
/.
"downloading and manually building a package and its dependencies, sometimes rebuilding the kernel. It's just not the same as an installshield-type GUI installer, and I won't apologize for it."
Pretty out of date "informative" stuff. Mandrake installs 100% graphical, 100% from a CD. No "recompiling the colonel" OR his wife, NO "downloading" (unlike microsoft, which must be patched as soon as it is installed).
This, ladies, is 100% pure Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt straight from Redmond. I have few doubts the poster is eiether heavily invested in microsoft or employed by them. I do, however, doubt the scoring system at
Move along folks, nothing to se here.
until someone hacks the IIS server containing the list of authorized software?
BritneySpears.exe is an authorized Palladium program. Giving full read/write access to C:\.
Points taken, and I s'pose it's true that I'm out of date. I've been hearing good things about Mandrake and SuSE both, time I gave one of them a run.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
More importantly, while PCs have always been not as a relatively open platform vis-a-vis hardware, the whole point of this is that that is no longer going to be the case.
It is the PC chipmakers, Intel and AMD, who are in league with Microsoft on this plan. Motorola either wasn't invited, or declined to join. Mod all you want, but don't touch that chip that controls the DRM on your machine, or you're circumventing and you'll go to jail.
As for the "lot more sofwtare", how many programs do you actually use? You got 15 spreadsheets?
As for games, they are newer on a PC. And soon, you'll have to register with Microsoft every time you want to play them (for your safeties sake).
With the newest security patch, the two are effectivly synonymous :P
As much as I dislike some of the implementation, OS X is the closest thing to a unix with really decent automatic configuration and installation tools. True, like one poster said, I'm out of date, been using Debian Potato for ages. My next two installations will be SuSE and Mandrake, and maybe DeadRat, just to check out 7.2.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
Microsoft has announced today that it will be dissolving the US Government in favor of Windows Governing System, replacing the outdating democracy of the United States.
and perform an Xboxersism then.
FRA: STFU GTFO
Reason if they block you from installing linux just use an older hard disk with linux on it it's really simple.
.34 seconds of your time
Sorry for wasting
We're they in trouble for making pc makers install windows on their systems? Isn't this even worse? Hopefully the government will see this one.
"No, but the consequences of running that command can be. Kernel version, dependencies, editing configuration files. All that requires command-line knowledge for which there's no GUI substitute."
Okay, this is the way I see it. GNU/Linux requires computer literacy. Anyone who is computer literate should not be surprised of the fact that certain software requires other software to run. And anyone who is computer literate should not be afraid to either refer to the manual packaged with their software or look up the often superb online documentation.
In other words, GNU/Linux is ready for the desktop.
But, the lack of computer literacy is a different problem that needs to be tackled differently.
DIVX didn't die because of savvy users, it died because most of the companies in the industry were against it. Many studios swore they would never put any movies on DIVX, and released vast swaths of their library on DVD, some at very low prices (Time-Warner) Many retail outlets wouldn't carry DIVX because they felt that would only be helping the competition (Circuit City). So in my area, I had to drive 30 minutes through traffic to get to a Circuit City or one other place now out of business whose name escapes me righ now, rather than going to the corner video store, or the grocery store, or any of a number of places that stock DVDs for rent or sale, and once I got there, there were many movies that were not available. It was not the technology that people objected to. Well, most people.
Notice that DVD prices have gone up about 75% since DIVX died.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
I'm not flaming you, but please try installing openoffice.org 1.0 or blender static binary or even spacetripper demo from pompom.org.uk, these are all downloadable gzipped files which you extract, run the autoinstaller (if the binary isn't already there - like blender) then run it!! you see, most the software your talking about is still under development and are libraries. Unfortunately Linux is a little too difficult under the bonnet for most people to be able to fully configure to how they desire. The best idea is to leave it as it is apart from stable release version software, then when a newer version of your linux distro comes out, backup your new stuff and upgrade.
Quoting Bruce Schneier from his Why computers are insecure article:
Security engineering involves programming Satan's computer.
And Satan's computer is hard to test.
(source)
Other memorable statements by Bruce Schneier can be found here and here.
"There are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare." - Blair Houghton
Apple should really prepare themselves for the sheep migration by selling a Mac for under $350, w/out monitor of course.
The box should have VGA out on a HD15 connector and PS/2 mouse and keyboard jacks so you don't even have to buy a new USB keyboard.
Your old PC getting slow & you were planning to upgrade? But a new PC requires Windows SS that wants to know your shoe size before booting, so you get a pcMac & just plop it where the PC used to go. Comes with Virtual PC & the last version of Windows that only sucked mostly instead of completely (2000).
I must admit, this is a masterful stroke. It appears to give users additional control over their computer's security, while limiting the options in such a way that it actually concentrates that control into others' hands.
[NOTE: Since real information about Palladium is pretty fuzzy right now, I'm theorizing a bit about its capabilities for now. Only time will tell...]
It can remove my power to choose what's authorized to run on my computer. It can prevent usage of "untrusted" or "unauthorized" code. Lovely turn of phrase, that. Notice how it uses the passive to avoid any implication of *who* is trusting or authorizing the code? "Palladium is all about deciding what's trustworthy. It not only lets your computer know that you're you , but also can limit what arrives (and runs on) your computer, verifying where it comes from and who created it." The implication is that the user is in control, but who decides?
I have not yet seen anything saying how programs are authorized. It would be logical to set up a coalition to do this, and use membership agreements to control the behavior and competitiveness of its members, and exclude undesirables. We can see prior art in the way the DVD-CCA controls access to the CSS keys and uses that control to enforce region controls and lack of digital output.
It can remove my power to access information, since Palladium "can limit what arrives" on my computer. In other words, the authorization control can extend beyond code to data. If a site does not have a valid Palladium authorization (however those are issued), then Palladium may be able to prevent access to it (and tell me that it has saved me from an "unauthorized site"). Again, the key to this control rests in the authorization process.
It can remove my power to customize my computer. No, I'm not talking about case mods, I'm talking about OS and program configuration. In order to maintain a "trustworthy" system, it will have to limit access to the configuration system. Assuming they keep something like the Windows Registry, I can see two options here. They may refuse to authorize regedit, et al., and remove OS authorization from any registry touched by those programs. Or they may remove the my ability to change anything "critical" (by some definition or other) in the registry.
Ultimately, it can force a choice between "all-Palladium" and "no-Palladium". If it can refuse to run unauthorized programs or access unauthorized sites while any authorized programs are running or authorized sites are being accessed, then I cannot work in both realms at the same time. I must either choose "Palladium" ("safe") or "non-Palladium" ("dangerous"). It could also deal with these realms asymmetrically: if I try to use Palladium resources, it could automatically close all non-Palladium resources (and tell me that it has saved me from danger), but if I try to use non-Palladium resources, it might refuse to load them until I had manually closed all of my Palladium resources, and perhaps rebooted.
Faced with this choice, how many users will be willing to give up some useful non-Palladium resources rather than giving up all Palladium resources? Immanentizing the false dichotomy, anyone?
I sure hope I'm wrong about this, and that I'm just being too paranoid. Unfortunately, recent history seems to show that we need a really healthy dose of paranoia when dealing with things like this. Again, only time will tell for sure.
This is no different than software install/update with Ximian red-carpet which goes: check next to desired software click on "ok" or just stick this in your cron and forget about it: up2date -u
I think people are looking to the wrong direction.
What we see here as a new MS technology is something that in the "not-too-distant" past was tried alread. This is the Clipper chip coming back big.
As similar technologies (smartcards / trusted OS) are used currently to secure appliances and the integrity of computers, firewalls, routers in DMZs or high secure areas none of these devices has a call home function or the possibilitiy to change configurations or behaviors from outside of the perimeter.
This type of functionality is per se not only completely undesirable within these environments, it also perverts the underlying reason / function why these devices or software agents where put there initially.
Furthermore as security is a weakest link game, this also implies to have similar security measures within the accessing network.
As this communications are planned to happen over an insecure network they are open to any kind of network attack.
Having said that, you can think for yourself who will control and monitor a Palladium computer.
What we really need is an idependently tested and fully documented operating system to trust.
The strategy from Intel, MS and others arising at the horizon seems to leave no room for this in their business plans.
Again, until you have tried Ximian's red-carpet, you shouldn't go on about Linux being too difficult.
Yes, red-carpet will supply you with open-office and place a handy icon in your programs menu.
I would venture to say that Linux "can be" easier to install/maintain software with than any other OS. With Linux, I don't have to buy a cardboard box, pull out a plastic disk, get that shrink-wrap crap off of it, get it into the cdrom drive and click through some installer I have never used before.
Instead I can choose a channel like "open-office" or "Loki-Games" or "Red Hat" or "CodeWeavers Wine" or "Ximain Gnome" or... click on the piece of software I want and then have a beer while it is downloaded and installed for me. What could be easier than that?
Totally bogus. Websites are not that easy to vandalize. Especially if they are running Apache under OpenBSD.
Rember Hailstorm? How is this going to solve your privacy issues, especially considering the new EULA in MS's latest security patch that allows them to root your computer and look around anytime they want?
Why is security now viewed as a threat to MS before January? Aren't they a Monopoly? Can't they make a user friendly OS without the chronic security holes? And why are there security holes is Windows Medai player?
Who's ability? My ability or Microsoft's ability? If its my ability: how so? If its anybody else: screw them.
What about privacy?
Please tell me how they are going to be snooping around my computer to begin with?
This comming from the company that run Hotmail. All I get there is SPAM. Then I get SPAM from MS telling me to buy more space because I might not be getting all email! Like I'm acctually going to spend money so I can have a bigger bucket for the SPAM.
Why would I want a third party involved in my transactions? The thrid party may not have access to your information, but they can tell what is going on. For example if Progressive insurance regularly access certain information, they can sell the information they do have about me, contact info and such, to a competing company like Farmers or Geico.
I seem to rember a courtcase where an author wanted a cut from or block off sales of used copies of his books. The Supreme Court shot it down. Right now if I buy something, I have the right to resell it, with DRM I don't
Palladium is a dead-serious attempt to finally make it happen,....He's right.
They were also afraid of VCRs. I don't see the industry bankrupt yet though.
Bullshit.
And how will this dilute MS's monopoly?
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
fferreres@fede:~$ head /etc/passwd
0 00::/home/root:/bin/bashm e/bin:m :x:1003:1004:adm:/home/var/log:p :/home/var/spool/lpd:e /sbin:/home/bin/sync
/etc/passwd /etc/passwd
/etc/shadow
/home/mp3/maddona.mp3
palladium:x:0:0::/root:/bin/bash
root:x:1000:1
bin:x:1001:1001:bin:/ho
daemon:x:1002:1002:daemon:/home/sbin:
ad
lp:x:1004:1007:l
sync:x:1005:1000:sync:/hom
fferreres@fede:~$ ls -al
-rw-r--r-- 1 palladium palladium 746 Apr 6 17:59
fferreres@fede:~$ su -
root@fede:~# less
/etc/shadow: Permission denied
root@fede:~# shutdown -h now
shutdown: must be palladium.
root@fede:~# mpg123
/home/mp3/maddona.mp3 : Permission denied. Autodelete triggered....Done.
unfinished: (adj.)
paladium offers time-based locking/unlocking. doesn't that mean that your computer has to be time-locked to a 'trusted' time source (which could kep track of you??)? does that mean that you have to be online (at least periodically) to read even local docs?
It seems clear to me that palladium will cost a lot of money. More than MS will lose to Linux, I'd bet. It seems more likely that palladium is designed for future downloading of movies, which can then be encrypted for a particular system. Therefore, you can't rent a movie, download it, and p2p it with the rest of the world until it expires. Only 1 pc can view it. This can be used for music, books, etc. as well.
This is the guy who wanted MS Word to replace
HTML as the standard for web content,
circa 1997 or so. Idiot.
So, there must be two kinds of people:
1. People who believe in DRM. Eventually, these folks decide that you need a secure DRM system. You can argue about whether or not MS should have a hand in this system, or whether or not it should be open (for crypto's sake at least), but you can't really believe in DRM and argue that you shouldn't have a DRM system.
2. People who don't believe in DRM. These folks probably don't believe in copyrights, either, or patents, or trademarks or the notion that "intellectual" is "property." (Although trade secrets presumably are still "OK," because they're secret.)
Is there a middle ground? Are there folks who think you should have DRM, but no technology solution? For music, that would mean that we stick with the status quo, except that we nuke the DMCA, but we all agree to exert peer pressure on "bad" MP3 copying the same way we exert peer pressure on spam. So far, I don't see this working, but perhaps it could.
Or is the nature of the Internet pretty bipolar? Do you have to choose between nuking all IP rights, or accepting ubiquitous DRM?
Currently Sun is working on a SECURE personal ID card. I believe that SUN needs to take advantage of the new secure chips developed by AMD & Intel and use them in conjuction with their ID cards. That way the only way to compromise the security of your files is if you are dumb enough to give your card to some one else! This would also allow the users to have a separation of OS and hardware.
I think that Microsoft has taken a look at the software industry, and seen who has the highest margins. Can anyone guess where they are? MMORPGs.
The monthly subscription fee gaming that was pulled off successfully Origin and the wildly popular Ultima Online, has since been emulated by other games like Everquest, Asheron's Call and Dark Age of Camelot.
Also, with the tech wreck and general economic instability, upgrade cycles in the corporate sector have slowed or been postphoned. Microsoft want a steady, predictable cashflow instead of having to do crazy things like innovate to entice people into upgrading their software. I predict people will get pissed off in the short term, but I can't imagine any dramatic defection away from MS.
You need to call Windows tech support to view a DivX. You need to call windows tech support to view an AVI after installing realplayer and uninstalling it.
You don't need to call Linux tech support for anything except password issues, if you only do what the system was designed to do.
Choosing something that was designed to be supported by the OS as an example isn't the best way to get your point across.
This will backfire in MS's face!
This could be the best thing MS ever did for it's competitors. I believe that as time goes on and more info on Paladium becomes available more and more ppl and groups will oppose it. If the techies, privacy groups, and Nader types make enuff noise then the rest of the ppl will follow and oppose it as well and it will become history. This happened with the clipper chip, Pentium tracking ID, and it can happen with Paladium.
Just look at what the Intel's Pentium ID idea did for AMD! Sure the Athlon is a great chip, but I bet a rather significant number of Athlons were purchased because ppl still felt they could not trust Intel. Paladium could be the best things for the competition as ppl refuse to buy into it and turn towards Apple or Linux,.
"where you can no longer install Windows on your own box because you don't have the necessary rights."
What the wicked wizard of Micro$haft does not realize is that I completly trust my computer when it is running linux. I do all of my personal work on my linux box (at work I'm stuck); the WinDoze boxes on my home network ARE NOT ALLOWED ONTO THE INTERNET! I assume (rightly it turns out) are SPYING ON ME.
And Mico$haft can talk all they want about the next "great innovation". But I assure you that 1) I do not/cannot/will not "trust" them and 2) WILL NOT buy this stuff! Where the hell do they get their balls big enough to tell me what my box will run? I can/have/will hack ANYTHING they release. In fact anyone (RIAA/MPAA/M$/ETC) who places redicouslus "limitations" and who overcharges or places insane licinsing restictions on their "products" that I PAYED FOR; just insures that not only will I pirate it but I will go out of my way to give it away to as many people as possible!
I have no problem paying for quality software. I buy redhat, I send contributions to the KDE team and I pirate M$ stuff on priciple.
The day composulary DRM happens is the day I stop upgrading, PERIOD! End of story! Is "fritz" going to greak into my house and force me to buy a new "trustworthy" copmuter? Yea not!
One of these days these idiots will figurwe out that they produce
This technology means that if I want to upgrade my BIOS, I can't just download the latest BIOS image from DELL. Now, DELL needs to jump through the M$ hoops and get the code signed by a private key.
Sure, you might assume that many vendors will hold a signing key, and that they will all be able to sign their own code. However, you only need to compromise one master key to defeat the system. It is unlikely that there will be more than a handfull of signing keys (One each for Microsoft, Intel, AMD, and IBM).
This means than any software vendor who wants to write code that runs in kernel space (device drivers... goodbye Ethereal) or handles digital media (music, video, images... goodbye Mozilla, GIMP, etc) or interacts with any of these things, will need to be signed. Once they've won the initial battle, they sign IE, WMP, and Office, but create a bureaucracy to sign competitor's products. (You thought OS licensing was expensive?) Also, every new release will need to be signed. Sound like an open-source killer? Sounds like blatant anti-trust to me.
You might think this is not a big deal, because open source media players suck anyway. But if this catches on, then a few years from now, you won't have a choice of media players (or web browsers or whatever...) Not that it would matter which one you picked because M$ gets royalties for them all... And since they can sign a piece of code with an expiration date, they can always force you to upgrade to the latest version!!! (They call it a "feature" which requires you to apply security patches...)
The best part of all this is that it's now enforced by Hardware! Which means that you won't be able to turn it off. It could prevent you from booting from a (non-signed) floppy disk. Goodbye Linux... Goodbye BSD...
Guess I'll be getting an Apple...
Here
I touch computers in naughty places
Changes like this in the EULA have been used before to the disadvantage and inconvenience of the consumer. I see no reason to daoubt that they won't be used this time.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
...a beowulf cluster of those? No? Neither do I.
...and probably in 30 years they'll barely play my 3d ripped movies :)
I'd rather buy as much hardware as I can right now, before those computers will be mandatory, so I'll be happy for the next 30 years with my 120-old-PC cluster.
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
Yes, it is. That is much more complex. First, you have to leave you desktop and go into your software install application, then you have to look for the application you want to install (check it), and then add that as a cron job.
On the Mac you just download your application to your desktop, drag the icon to your Applications folder and you're done. Or, if you're installing from a CD you drag the icon from the CD to your Applications folder and you're done.
Much easier.
mbbac
But don't pretend that windows DOESN'T require computer literacy. Installing a random package, even with the pretty GUI installer, can break a windows box. You need someone with skills to go in and work out why installing a new game caused three other games to stop working.
This is 2002. We've had computers with GUI desktops for, what, 15+ years? Why, in order for a set of well-engineered, long-accepted graphical metaphors to work consistently, do we now require (for Linux to be the desktop o/s) that users learn and know arcane command language from a 30 year-old mainframe-oriented (originally), text-based timesharing operating system? That's regressive, man.
And especially since computers are so damn powerful now, it's almost absurd that most system management isn't handled automatically. Of course, this last applies to all three major desktops, not just Linux.
But the answer is, Linux is a server O/S, with roots steeped in, yes, mainframe timeshare systems, that has a GUI grafted on top of it. Users of spreadsheets, wordprocessors, games -most applications- should not have to be bothered with this stuff. That they are (Mac, Win or Lin) is almost shameful. Man, as a kid when I looked to the future of computers, I expected things to get drastically better. (Mac does come out on top in this regard.)
But instead, they got incrementally better. The last loudly touted new O/S, BeOS, was pushed on the basis of its multitasking fundamentals -techy/geeky features about which typical desktop users just couldn't give a flying.
From the ground up, without regard for current binary executable compatibility, an operating system designed today could be substantially better. In some ways, game consoles and PDAs (excepting wince) present an ideal exponent of latter-day interface and environment design.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
The attempt to tie Palladium to 'security', in the sense we understand it, is dishonest. Palladium is a scheme to shift power from computer owners to Microsoft and content owners.
I basically agree with you, but I can see how a draconian scheme like Palladiium could end spam. Spam inherently relies on deception and anonymity. Imagine that every message in your inbox has a full name next to it like "Robert H. Smith". The message was signed through a Microsoft-issued key; otherwise it would never make it to your inbox. If you click on "Robert H. Smith" you see his driver's license picture and address. You're in a good position to sue this guy, because you don't have to spend much effort figuring out who he is. Maybe Microsoft gives you a button to report the sender for abuse. A few thousand clicks later, Robert H. Smith is suspended from Palladium email for 90 days.
There's more - each message would probably have to be individually encrypted and signed. This might be too burdensome for spammers. Also, would their spamware be "trusted" under Palladium? For a really ambitious idea, Microsoft could issue each user 100 "stamps" per month. When you send someone a message, you give him your stamp. So if a spammer wants to send 8 million messages, like Ronnie Scelson, he'd need 8 million inbound messages first.
Of course, these measures would impact legitimate mailing lists. Microsoft could sell "enterprise certificates" to big corporations. And if the LKML is a casualty in this "war on spam" I don't think Microsoft would be too upset.
Yeah, that would work.
But I think it would be inconvenient. The initial users of Palladium-only email would be inconvenienced by non-Palladium users that they would like to receive email from. If this meant that the first Palladium-based email systems defaulted to allow email from untrusted sources, that it would not provide the push that would require, say, AOL, to switch.
Now, if sending any unsigned email at all were considered a circumvention, and Microsoft told AOL that they would be required to shape up or be kicked off the microsoft platform, I can't imagine the resulting anti-trust litigation would end in our lifetimes.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
"This is 2002. We've had computers with GUI desktops for, what, 15+ years? Why, in order for a set of well-engineered, long-accepted graphical metaphors to work consistently, do we now require (for Linux to be the desktop o/s) that users learn and know arcane command language from a 30 year-old mainframe-oriented (originally), text-based timesharing operating system? That's regressive, man."
The first problem with your reasoning is when you say "designed for mainframe computers". It was designed with time-sharing in mind. And the basic command set was more designed for tree structured file systems, which we still use today.
Also, rather than arcane the basic GNU commands are actually straight forward. Again, these commands are designed for manipulating a tree-structured file system.
Unless you want to remove the user's ability to manipulate the file system, what is your complaint?
I am almost in agreement with you about system management. My only problem is in understand what sort of management you are speaking of. RPM does a really nice job on managing software. Its only problem is with dependencies. Of course, the very existance of dependencies is a good sign and shows that the system is reusing a lot of software.
Also, the online documentation is often quite good.
The cron thing was if you want the computer to upgrade all of your software for you without ANY intervention.
How does the new software package get onto your mac's desktop? I am assuming you have to use a web browser or some other app to get it there? Am I right, or does the Mac read your brainwaves or something, and know what software you are about to install on your machine?
Well, think of red carpet as a web brower, but instead of having to go to each developer's site and navigate through their Mac inspired flash based intros to the download button, red carpet gives a simple list of almost all software available for your platform, regardless of vendor. Then you click the ones you want, they get downloaded, verified and installed.
Either way I don't think anyone can contend that software installation on Linux is fundamentally easier OR LESS EASY than on a Mac, or a win32 for that matter. There are ALL easy enough for my parents to handle and that's what counts.
'all code has to be signed by MS' At what point was this ever mentioned? Anywhere?
'..new eula in Media Player' And what does this have to do with Palladium?
"... they run in the 'signed' interpreter." So what?
Nothing can stop someone from running bad code. Schemes like Palladium work on two fronts. First they identify the creater of the code. Second they allow the user to make decesions based on the who created the code.
Palladium differs from the rest because it's supposedly more secure due to it's OS/hardware infrastructure. Whether that actually pans out remains to be seen.
'a document can't be signed'.
Ah, sure it can. Even without palladium. But Palladium would allow the signed document to be traced back to the machine it was created on.
"First, you have to leave you desktop and go into your software install application"
Difficult.
"then you have to look for the application you want to install (check it)"
Please explain the process of getting an application to your Mac desktop. I suppose it just *poof* appears, eh?
"and then add that as a cron job."
This is redundant in relation to the other reply to your message, but this last part shows your ignorance of installation proceedures on Linux.
I won't claim to be perfect, so take this with a grain of salt, but you didn't do your research and your logic is obviously flawed. Opening a program, browsing for a piece of software, checking it and clicking install isn't "Much more complex" than browsing for a program on the 'net, downloading it and dragging it.
In fact, I'll venture that it's simpler just because the application list is centralized in Red Carpet, although this is a limitation as it won't install a package that isn't on the list (so far as I know).
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.