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.
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...
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
I was surprised to see that somebody didn't pick up on Cringely remarks here, seeing as they support the enlightened opinion of skepticism of Microsoft, and document how Palladium is using Microsoft's security weaknesses as an excuse to make all internet technology closed proprietary Microsoft Technology.
A fairly damning read, and it lays it all out
The Microsoft solution to the problems caused by Microsoft is to give control of everything to Microsoft.
Usually, I thought the answer was to remove the sdource of the problem, not to strengthen it.
2002-06-29 01:24:55 Cringely On Palladium (articles,news) (rejected)
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
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.
Actually I would think that there are some motherboard manufacturers out there that would give us a nice little BIOS switch to turn it on and off. Hell, my last Gigabyte board came with a Windows utility to overclock it (never worked but it was a nice try).
Other hardware vendors aren't going to incorporated that code into non-updatable hardware chips. It'll either be software or the chips will be flashable. In either case somebody will hack it.
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
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...
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?
>The difference here is that Sony != Microsoft, and therefore doesn't get as much bad press here.
And Sony's box doesn't use Digitally Signed executables.
Rather, they just check the disc for authenticity through a corrupted TOC and such.
There's a big difference between the two, and that's why hacks for the PS/2 were available immediately, starting with serial number 1 (the first 1000 PS2s came with some utility disc that, if swapped with a burnt copy of a game at the right time, would allow you to play the CDR).
Not legally, no. Microsoft holds patents on the methods necessary to do this.
DNA just wants to be free...
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.
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
Step 1: create some virtual machine (in VBasic,
for example)
Step 2: port Linux to that virtual machine...
But will it be worth it?
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.
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
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.
Give it a little more time. I don't think that many XP users have gotten to the point where they've attempted to add or change the hardware on their PC and triggered the XP `you must reactivate' process. Once that starts to happen, I bet you'll hear more users begin squawking.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
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."
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.
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...
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."
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?
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.
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
The chip should have your unique key stored inside it in hardware and the key should not be accessible to outside software
:)
My understanding of what I've read so far is that this is a public key technique, and Microsoft will sign apps with their private key. Each machine wouldn't have a unique key. If the hardware developers are smart (and they probably are) the public key will be loaded by software into the rights management hardware at boot time.
Hardware developers aren't going to hand microsoft the entire PC software industry. They're going to create a general purpose solution in order to protect their other lucrative markets for these chips (read: embedded solutions that don't run windows). Even if they tried to do otherwise, you'd quickly start to see motherboards with sockets already on board for the mod chip
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.
This already came up as a front news story - the fact that some states have laws prohibiting the government purchasing items from criminals, and therefore shouldn't be able to buy any MS software.
Probably a better one would be to challenge the 'campaign contributions' from felons...
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
and I will live in a hut in the forest and be done with any damned piece of electronics made after 1985.
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.
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.
And those damn heartless corporations that disagree with me can sell proprietary binaries to hell!
;-)
You're acting like they don't do that already...
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.)
This was none too suprising when you consider that most DVDs are only watched once. So the net take for the movie companies would go down drastically.
Then the idea that circuit city would get a monopoly of the dvd rental business...
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Haven't we all wondered what Microsoft could have accomplished if they'd directed all the brain power devoted to screwing over their competitors to something more useful? Like a better product with world-class stability and security?
Hear, hear! That's what makes me somewhat skeptical that Palladium will ever be adopted. Microsoft's reputation has accumulated an awful lot of tarnish for the computer press to begin having the reaction that is has in the past few days. Normally, they'd be hailing this as the greatest thing since <fill-in-the-blank>. But who trusts Microsoft with anything (product, partnerships, etc.) any more?
(For some reason, thogh, part of me thinks that, if Palladium is widely dismissed, Microsoft will begin whining ``Well, don't go blaming us for these viruses. We offered you Palladium...'' Uh, yah right.)
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Here
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)
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.