Slashdot Mirror
MS Palladium Patent
Concerned Citizen writes "cryptome has Microsoft's patent for Palladium. Including such gems as: 2. The computerized method of claim 1, wherein protecting the rights-managed data comprises:
refusing to load the untrusted program into memory. 14. The computerized method of claim 1, further comprising:
restricting a user to a subset of available functions for manipulating the rights-managed data.
And I'm sure we'll all be coerced to agree to Palliadium during a future security patch agreement."
No modifications to the EULA were made in the latest build of XP SP1... maybe the next?
And I'm sure we'll all be coerced to agree to Palliadium during a future security patch agreement.
:P
No, only those of you that use Windows.
I think I'm hearing "The Imperial March" in the background. Weird.
The only reason why I'm using windows is because MS office is still superior and there is no substitute for Director, Dreamweaver or QuarkXPress on Linux.
So if palladium does become reality I'll have to swap over to Mac.
But wait: doesn't M$ 0wn apple? (25% stock?) Does anyone know about DRM plans on mac?
Palladium is not going to be such a pain if users can sign binaries and data themselves and can be verified by any/some CA.
(cool: no clothes on centre court !)
Your hardware will refuse to load linux if you dont patch it either.
If nobody trusts this system, it will not get into widespread use. Amazingly, Micro$oft does not succeed at everything.
The only reason why I'm using windows is because MS office is still superior
MS office for Mac is superior to MS office for Windows. Go figure.
So if palladium does become reality I'll have to swap over to Mac.
Why wait?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't Java's sandbox model refuses to load untrusted program into memory (if set up o only run signed applets) and restricta a user to a subset of available functions for manipulating rights-managed data?
I find it very unusual to see MS pushing this at all. What's their interest in it? RIAA and MPAA money? Stoping windows isos being traded on P2P?
Lots of people here don't seem to get it. If Palladium is to work, it must be incorporated in all CPUs, including those running MacOS, linux, BSD or FrobOS. Can't imagine how big business and the State could slip that through so it becomes illegal to use a "pirating operating system"? Think again...
Be very afraid.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Damn, you described me exactly!
Well I do plan to take it off and install Debian as soon are version 3 is offical and stop using windows as much as possible...
Or maybe it won't require that. Microsoft does respond to angry buzz, and has changed direction when the wind blows hard enough. There's probably some formula on a whiteboard in BillG's office: Money / badPR + JusticeDept = Go and/or NoGo.
Then again, I am naive.
C'mon, baby, kiss The King.
To juxtapose the Patent against:
The Declaration of Software Freedom
(read the whole thing!) of which a subpart is:
"Current Software Commercial Organizations
hide source code to keep developers divided, disenfranchised and
dependent; tie inferior products to dominant ones; defiantly violate and
avoid court orders; quash promising competitive start-ups; leverage
dominant products into other, unrelated businesses; carve up markets to
eliminate real competition; utilize predatory pricing practices to
foreclose competition; commoditize and objectify their customers by making
them captive; cause developers to constantly re-invent the wheel by hiding
the source code; exercise general thuggish behavior in business dealings;
compel weak competitors to destroy their own innovative products to
protect established profitable ones; fail to respond to customer requests
and needs in a timely fashion; exploit natural "choke-holds" in the
economy for their own advantages; manipulate and delay technological
progress to maintain supremacy; hide coding bugs thereby jeopardizing
stability and security; de-humanize software developers by considering
them as "inputs" or "assets"; stifle innovation; "embrace and extend" or
otherwise pollute open standards in order to break and appropriate them;
use exclusionary contract provisions to enforce censorship over disclosure
of bugs and defects; shut-off or block channels of distribution to
legitimate competitors; announce vaporware to foreclose adoption of real
competitive products; frustrate, taunt and antagonize governmental
officials protecting the public interest; truncate choices; create
confusion and frustration in users by selling inferior code; take the
innovations developed by others as their own; practice differential
pricing to punish those that oppose them; misinform and exploit users;
use undocumented features as an anti-competitive device; suppress the
open, efficient and free nature of the scientific method by keeping the
code secret; purposefully break the code of competitors so that there are
code inoperabilities across products; prohibit friends from sharing
software with friends; coerce their users to fore-go promising competitive
technologies; use overly restrictive and exclusionary contracts against
weaker competitors; and perform other anti-social, anti-competitive and
improper acts to establish, maintain and extend their software
monopolies."
Patent, being a public accessiable document, can be turn into evidence
against MS, for which they cannot remove from public access?
At least it's a substantive patent; lots of diagrams and references and stuff... Some things get past the examiners that are little more than a napkin with "A method for doing the obvious" written on one side.
Hey, I'm trying to think positive here...
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
Oh, right, this is Slashdot. Damn near _everyone_ here is running Windows and leaving their 3 gig Red Hat partition untouched. I forgot.
If I had a 3gig Red Hat partition, I'd leave it untouched too, I prefer my 30 gig Debian partition. (or rather partitions)
This might be a stupid question but what is the Palladium? I guess I try to stay away from M$ as much as I can. :)
Atto
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
We can always count on the computer engineering students in college to find hacks for these sort of things =P
Editors:
For every 3 bits of FUD you post about Microsoft, you must either
A) Find something good to say about them and post it to the front page WITHOUT SARCASM
B) Post an anti-linux, anti-free software article.
Thank you, good day.
Troll
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
Don't buy hardware that has DRM, silly! I just bought a laptop (PII-MMX) and it might be the last one I buy. :( I don't want a PIII because of the number...
or good old titanium. even yrrbium and etrium. whats the recent one? kurchatovium? ahh mendelev and the old schooldays...
Imagine, people will give good money to have Microsoft lord over what one can do with a computer. Maybe I've overestimated the human race and would be better off selling magic beans or something rather than trying to find a job.
I used to have a Linux partition, but I got rid of it... ...for NetBSD!!! YEAH! (Actually, I have my harddrive neatly partitioned into root,swap,usr,local,var,home partitions)
void karma_burning_philosophical_schpeel()
//end karma_burning_philosophical_schpeel
{
I can't possibly know with 100% certainty what Microsoft's intentions are, but there stands a reasonable chance they are intended for their benefit and any consumer benefits are purely coincidental.
So what can we do about all of this? Pay attention and educate ourselves on this initiative and then pass on the news good or bad to the masses that aren't up to date on the geek speak. It is probably not a good idea to leave thsi job up to mass media.
It is possible for us to either make or break this technology. Look at the old Divx from Circuit City. Bad idea. It was DOA because many people (myself included) advised everyone not to buy it.
This is a controversial technology from a controversial company. This doesn't mean it is destined to be evil. It does mean it is the job of those in the know to keep those out of the loop informed.
}
Don't use Microsuck Windows at all. It may be inconvienient (I gave up ALL my games), you might not have Word, or a nice buggy web browser, but it's better.
If want to ask any questions to Microsoft(tm), why not ask at LinuxWorld?
I still think Paladins should be lawful good.
Not neutral evil.
If Palladium is to work, it must be incorporated in all CPUs
Nope.
Unfortunately Microsoft has a plausible route to getting Palladium out there. "Palladium Enhanced" computers will be able to do everything non-Palladium computers can do, plus they will be able to view DRM movies, DRM music, and whatever else. The content industries will jump on board. The only reason not to get a computer with Palladium in it would be extra cost, but Microsoft could subsidize that cost down to zero if they want.
Microsoft programs will start including extra options that only work if Palladium is present. Once Palladium is on a certain percentage of computers Microsoft can start requiring Palladium for basic functionality. They could even start requiring Palladium for all patches and installs. It's "for your own protection", Palladium will ensure the patch is legitimate and not a virus/trojan. They just won't offer bug fixes / security patches for non-Palladium. Once Palladium is in a certain percentage of computers they can start making people suffer if they don't have it.
Cracking the system is going to require cracking the hardware. It's not going to be easy, but someone WILL do it before Palladium hits that critical percentage of desktops.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The patent only specifies that drivers be secured but what if...
You have a special video card, made from a normal one. When you pay $50 for the latest movie to view on your computer you play it. The system trusts and you view it on your monitor but not before it was passed through the video card which sent the entire output of the movie one frame at a time to another computer which saved it to disk. You do the same with the sound card only easier. Then you upload the file to your P2P network. Oh well bootleg copies of the latest movies will float around the Internet.
Microsoft what do you want to pirate today?
-- RTFM:Slackware::Beer:Saturday
OS_X does almost everything Linux and Windows does. (no rebooting)
So Palladium won't load an untrusted program into memory... How would it accomplish that? In order to determine whether a program was properly signed, one would need to get its checksum. In order to do that, you would have no choice but to load it into memory of some form. I suppose you could bypass the RAM, DMA it through a dedicated calculator... But that would be inefficient; you'd need to scan it once, and then load it for execution. And you'd need to do it every time you ran the code, or someone could have compromised the data on the system's drive by editing it on a non-Palladium system.
And what's the big deal about having "non-trusted" code loaded into RAM anyway? Actually, it's very easy to put one's own binary code into the system's memory; load it as raw data. An OOB-type exploit can pass control to that nearly as easily as it can execute a program that's been loaded but not yet determined to be trustworthy.
I'd love nothing better than to see the geek revolution stop this shit from making it into the hardware, but lots of luck. EULAs are every bit as bad in the legal sense but if there was an overwhelming hue and cry from the masses that convinced the software companies to quit screwing us with them, I must have slept through it. This site will pump the hardware to our crowd as happily as it did Warcraft III; nevermind the fact that they just informed us about how the publisher wants to give the open source community a good legal rogering; and the Slashdot crowd will swallow every bit like a double frappichino. Oh, they'll be bitching about the evil corporate overlords all the way through the checkout line, but we all know what's gonna be in the shopping cart anyway.
If we don't see (or grudgingly tolerate) the problem, what chance does Joe Sixpack have?
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
I get it. It means that the five computers that I own (the 286 laptop (needs a new $35 motherboard), the 386 desktop, the 486 laptop with slightly messed up screen, the 486 desktop that I accidently messed up while playing with the cards inside, the 586 laptop (which I'm using), and the 686 desktop) are the last ones that I'll buy legally. The rest will come from underground warez'd hardware markets, exchanging anonymous digital cash tax-free.
It seems the link is /.ed, so I can't check the details... Does anyone know whether the patent would be claiming established anti-virus techniques as well?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I wonder, with MS software usually being remotely exploitable, how will they make it so it can't be locally exploited?? Removing that 'XFLAGS=-DBUGS -DRANDOM_INCONSISTENCIES -DREMOTE_ENTRY -DRANDOM_BSOD' line might help. Oh, no! I posted copyrighted parts of Micr0$0ft sourcecode!
Neither Macs nor old hardware will be an alternative in the end ... when government legislation steps in.
- Everybody can install new hardware.
- Everybody can install new software, and, even worse, create new software that has access to all hardware devices.
- Everybody can exchange arbitrary data over the net.
So, the Palladium hardware won't have many relations to the PC any more, but become something like a mobile phone or a gaming console: a closed system. Probably, customers will be attracted with the argument that this new device will be easier to use and less complex. Maybe, Microsoft's XBox is even the first foundation of this new system architecture!By the way, this won't be anything new. It's only the continuation of a longer trend: Taking the user further and further away from the hardware. On Windows 95, you weren't able any more to write programs that controlled the hardware directly. You had to use Microsoft's API.
Now, you will have to use Microsoft's API for everything that happens on the computer. So:
Don't drink and su! antidisestablishmentariazationally
Palladium is just ActiveX revisited. Security is confusing because it covers two entirely different problems: 1) protecting the machine from rogue users, 2) protecting the machine from rogue software.
The second point bifurcates into two opposing camps: 1) most rogue software comes from unemployed college dropouts, 2) most rogue software comes from Fortune 500 companies.
Palladium is the approach of keeping the foxes away from the chickens by building a coop for the foxes.
I have been living in a Microsoft free house since 1995. I don't need it, I don't want it infesting my home.
Computing was supposed to give us freedom, but MS wants to use the computer to control us.
with the spector of this country becoming a police state, we must question the intrusive nature of MS and its cosy relationship with Ashcroft and other agents of dictatorial control.
I have friends in the intelligence community, they are rejecting MS products, turning to Linux and BSD for their personal use. I would suggest you follow their lead.
BTW, this is being posted on a G4 running OSX and Xwindows. There is no MS software infesting this machine.
photosMy Photostream
C'mon, Judge Kollar-Kotelly, make me proud. :)
Or better yet, scarry!
For every 3 bits AnalogBoy posts, there will be 3 bits removed from what AnalogBoy posts.
"The computerized method of claim 1, wherein protecting the rights-managed data comprises: refusing to load the untrusted program into memory."
;-) For instance, with Unices I can restrict the user to reading the data, writing the data, executing the data or some combination thereof... Thus Unix has been able to restrict 'a user to a subset of available functions for manipulating the rights-managed data'.
Hmmm. Seems to me that this 'art' has been around since the beginning of Unix. Hell, Microsoft has been providing a form of this 'art' with NT and 2000 for quite sometime. It's called permissions! And what would you call the recent advent of the NSA's Secure Linux? Administrators have been 'refusing to load the untrusted program into memory' for quite sometime to protect data... The only thing different about this scheme is Microsoft will be instituting a system where the company itself is root/administrator and the previous system admins are relegated to subordinate positions.
"The computerized method of claim 1, further comprising: restricting a user to a subset of available functions for manipulating the rights-managed data."
Ahh, this has also has seemingly been done since time began
Cheers!
Maybe now we can get all the DRM companies suing each other over patents and put a stop to this nonsense. :)
I should go file some DRM patents just so I can sue these idiots over them. Since DRM systems never actually work, it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a few more dumb ideas for DRM systems that don't work and patent them.
Are they up to 2.2 yet?
This ought to be a condition of public funding for public media. Anyone pushing DRM is probably up to no good, but DRM or no, a commons of high-quality independent media is an essential pillar of a free society and we ought to be demanding it.
-jhp
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
Ah, but the difference is, while you have been using permissions, Microsoft has been patenting them. Guess who's gonna get the money? [The guy with $40 billion to handle any lawsuits disputing the patent, of course...]
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Or they could just hire a bouncer to come along with every Windows computer, and order them to bash you into the wall every time you try to load disapproved content.
Microsoft does not own my RAM.
Microsoft does not own my hard-drive.
I will put on it whatever I want to put on it. Understand?
"You know you don't act like a scientist, you're more like a game show host." Dana Barret
Microsoft's patent on DRM technology will prevent anyone else from developing a similar scheme.
Just have to keep this one bogged down in the courts...
No. It's just that MS bashing is fun for lusers. I'm in a certain IRC channel, and people come in and bash MS. We version them. About 95% of the time, they're running mIRC:
[00:58:50] <beatNut> and oh yeh
[00:58:52] <beatNut> windows sucks
[00:59:30] <mydecember> just what i thought
[00:59:36] <mydecember> VERSION reply from beatNut of 'mIRC32 v5.91 K.Mardam-Bey
I hate ms-bashing 'tards
-- La1d, killed by a newt, while helpless.
I'm a former intelligence officer and I started using Linux in 1993. It's my office desktop and my home desktop and I'm not interested in MS helping make my life more secure.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
We are all Palestinian [sinkers.org]
Are Jewish children Palestinian when they are killed by Palestinian suicide bombers?
Just wondering.
it's so ironic that Microsoft is the company
which Verisign issued bogus certificates for
to some user pretending to work in Microsoft.
I wonder if after MS spends lots of money to
build Palladin, they will ruin it by having
compromised keys again.
Ok, I don't think you are quite getting it.
It doesn't matter whether Palladium is real or not, or if it's practical or not.
What is important is that the anti-MS sky is falling conspiracy theorists have something to shout about. That's it, nothing more... It doesn't seem to matter to them that not one of their prior predictions has ever come true.
"Palladium Enhanced" computers will be able to do everything non-Palladium computers can do, plus they will be able to view DRM movies, DRM music, and whatever else. The content industries will jump on board.
This is essentially what the Circuit City / DIVX people tried. They wanted to create a deviant standard for DVD movies that required special hardware and pay-per-view accounting of titles. For awhile, there was talk that some movie studios would only be releasing on DIVX, supposedly because it was more secure and profitable. But it failed miserably. Why? Because #1. Millions of people already had "standard" DVD players. and #2. There was a rather large popular campaign to stop / boycott the DIVX standard. Several people along the way asked me what was the difference and why they shouldn't just buy a DIVX-capable DVD player in case the standard caught on. I then explained why DIVX was harmful for the consumer and reminded them that if they didn't want this garbage, they should not vote with it with their dollars. And none of them did. We can do the same thing with Palladium: start a popular campaign to boycott it before it's even on the shelves. It's just a matter of spreading the word. Tell people that M$ wants to take away control of their computers and make it illegal to run anything but Windows on all new computer hardware. Tell them how much DRM is a bad idea. Tell them that the answer to viruses and computer security is secure software to begin with, not this pathetic attempt to plug up the holes in their flaky software.
Through public disclosure of all bugs and problems of Hailstorm by such sites as slashdot.org, scriptiong.com, and etc Hailtsorm was handed its won tombsotne and RIPed!
Its now time to do the same to MS DRM!
Okay the race is on who is going to first reverse engineer MS DRM so we can laugh about all the flaws?!
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Palladin is complex enough to identify both non-trusted 'code' and 'data.' It's in their patent. Their patent is actually quite thurough.
"And what's the big deal about having "non-trusted" code loaded into RAM anyway? Actually, it's very easy to put one's own binary code into the system's memory; load it as raw data. An OOB-type exploit can pass control to that nearly as easily as it can execute a program that's been loaded but not yet determined to be trustworthy."
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
I see other vets turning to Linux too.
photosMy Photostream
I will be the first to tell anyone that I don't know everything about computers. I come to slashdot and read the articles cause I like to see what's up in the technical world and I have seen some very intellectual conversations here. Lots of flames too but thats beside the point. When I ran across this Paladian thing a while back I was kinda confused. I sat there thinking "Ok Microsoft wants to tell me what I can and cant run and if I get something they havent approved then I will just be SOL." Least thats my take on it. Now in my mind I was instantly thinking this sucked. From what I can gather it looks like new HARDWARE is gonna be control my computer more than I can. If I wanted to be restricted in how I use a computer I would go to ba public library. Honestly I think this is a joke. Why is microsoft spending so much money to create new hardware, which we all know about M$ and hardware *points to Xbox sales*, when their best option to would seem to be education of the USER. When cars started rolling around this earth no one knew how to use them. They were just something that scared people. As they evolved over time they got more complicated but never once did we create a system in the car that suddenly decided if the driver is doing something wrong OR might do something wrong, that it just wont response. If you steer your car into a brickwall you are going to crash and if you put software on your computer that is plagued with virii then you are going to infect your system. Oh but wait that doesnt stop hackers, which I believe this new POS is suppose to help stop. Well using the car example again. A person can break into your car and steal it. There are tons of antitheft devices out there and usually the most effective arent the mysterious ones that the car owner has no idea about. Mines is a 12 gauge shotgun and a good aim. Computer users can do the same thing with a FIREWALL. They dont need this "new" system to help stop hackers cause for every good coder out there, there is a better one that will probably try to hack into your system. I guess what makes me so annoyed is that I feel that M$ is trying to force things apon the user cause its in their own interest and they say its for the user. The user needs to decide this and not some company that cant even get bugs out of their OS. *grumbles*
Contrary to what this "Anonymous Moron" thinks, there are plenty of us "Microsoftians" that regularly post to this over-rated BLOG of our own accord to somehow bring some sanity to the rabid Anti-Microsoft propaganda spewed-forth by linux-o-philes and penguin fetishists here.
/. supporting Microsoft is proportional to as every ad hominem, "rail-splitting" and/or "straw man" attack against Microsoft. Rabid Linux-lovers who get a cheap thrill out of appearing to be some sort of "Digeratti" by attacking Microsoft do more damage to their own cause than to Microsoft, but their left-wing liberalist yen-to-protest-against-the-establishment drives them to such sophomoric attempts at "self-expression" as the creation of the plethora of Microsoft parody websites.
/.), claiming that Apple was in league with Satan, etc. What's wrong, boys - don't like it when someone gets in your face like you do to others?
Everyone knows, and hackers acknowledge that Linux is the preferred OS for hacking, website defacement, DDoS attack GENERATION & CONTROL (notice I specifically said "GENERATION, ORIGINATION & CONTROL") and a host of other plain EVIL things on the Internet.
The volumn of post at
How funny it is that people who constantly blather-on about Bill Gates being the son of Satan, the Anti-Christ or actually being Satan himself laughed-off similar "religiously-toned" Anti-Apple web-sites that appeared recently (sorry - forgot the URL and I can't find it on
Utterly Incredible!!!
ScottKin
I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!
Soon it will not be just if you USE Microsoft products, but also if you communicate with ANYTHING microsoft ( a web page, email... anything.. )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Microsoft doesn't want the CBDTPA passed because that would steal their chances to use their own specified implementation to push out competitors' software from their Windows platform. MWAHAHAHAHA!!!
Really, what better way to keep DRM mechanisms out of the mainstream market than the strangeholds of patents combined with the intense (and well-justified, one might add) mistrust against Microsoft?
They'd have to give those things away in order to get widespread adoption.
DRM is doomed. The main-selling point of PCs are their versatility. Take this away and you got nothing but a glorified calculator. Establish laws protecting DRM and you give competing countries a huge advantage. The USA, a country which often refuses to regulate its industries citing international competitive reasons certainly can't cripple itself in such a stupid manner.
The more you expose the consumer to strict DRM rules the more they will come to reject it. I honestly don't believe people will keep investing in computer hardware when it doesn't let them play their favorite burned CDs or permit them to hear their own MP3 collection. The quicker it is implemented on a large scale, the quicker it will be destroyed.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...I know, the answer to the company directive that "security is the #1 priority": find someone else to blame. Classic. They can't really get their arms around security, so make someone else (the hardware mfrs.) take care of it. They must keep a whole farm of scapegoats somewhere. The sad part is, people will believe it. Nevermind that has security built int from the start.
1. DRM makes current software unusable (as it's not DRM, specification says that in case of running nutrusted software system will immidietly close all other programs, WILL THEY HAVE NO COPY, CUT and PASTE BETWEEN OLD AND NEW SOFTWARE???)
2. DRM makes compatibility with current software not possible. New version just won't open non certified data, HOW WILL SOMEBODY INTEROPERATE WITH OTHER NON-DRM PLATFORMS???
3. DRM forces honesty to that high point, that dishonesty will not be a feature, it will be a social need (I'm not speaking for my self, but people just don't buy 3000$ PC as they used too, it's all more like moving to a cheap PC platform as Wallmart) because people couldn't afford that kind of expenses. WHERE TO GET THE MONEY TO BE IN TREND OR AT LEAST ABLE TO USE PC???
And now reffering to Longhorn (as this is first true DRM platform)
1. MS cheated people with software licensing (people signed for three years, but Longhorn commes out in five, in this time all companys that signed new licensing are available get every new version for free, WHICH VERSION??? service packs should be free, and as there is no new version, WHAT HAVE THEY PAID FOR???)
2. As filesystem is incompatible with old filesystem and DRM is incompatible with non-DRM, this leads to a massive upgrade of every piece of software people own. I just can't imagine my self some DTP publishing or CAD house upgrading their software in that manner (there is another massive problem in this design, old systems won't be DRM, and this makes team work or network connections impossible, WILL THEY BUY ALL OFFICE AGAIN???)
3. Conclusion point of that is, if any company will accept that it is stupid. IT WOULD BE EASYER TO PUT MONEY IN ENVELOPE AND SEND TO BILL
This was just a bunch of thoughts that cross my mind. As for DRM, nobody will put me on a rope and restrict my barking. I'm not a dog. There are money concerns in that plan, especially for non-US states. But that isn't the only problem, with all the money people will loose rights and dignity too. For world to function correctly there is no need for strict representation of Orwells "1984", it is a need to be free and able to be honest to the point which you can achieve. In my case, I always buy software I use, if the company does not allow demo version I use pirated one, but if that one suits my self, I buy it. Music CD, download MP3, and if it's good then and after then I buy that CD. DVD, well I don't buy DVDs no more. OSS deCSS is just as illegal as DivX, but DivX is cheaper (I've bought substencial collection of them untill that law was passed, now if I break the law I'll just take care of my money too).
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
"The computerized method of claim 1, wherein protecting the rights-managed data comprises: refusing to load the untrusted program into memory."
The computerized method of claim 1, further comprising: restricting a user to a subset of available functions for manipulating the rights-managed data
The key terms here are "rights-managed data". AFAIK no OS out there has built in protection for rights managed dataThe words Microsoft and trust did not seem to go
together, until I looked up the word trust, in an
American Heritage Dictionary.
trust (trust)
Noun
1. Firm reliance; confident belief; faith.
2. One in which confidence is placed.
3. Custody; care.
4. One committed into the care of another; charge.
5. The condition and resulting obligation of having confidence placed in one.
6. Reliance on something in the future; hope.
7. A legal arrangement in which property is held by one party for the benefit of another.
8. A combination of firms for the purpose of reducing competition.
you said but pirates... butt pirates, get it? heh heh
I felt a great disturbance in the force, as if millions of server processes suddenly cried out in terror, and suddenly silenced.
...*** TO BE CONTINUED ***
I feel something terrible has happened.
*** SOME TIME LATER ***
KONQUEROR: Our position's correct except... no cryptome.org.
ME: What do you mean? Where is it?
KONQUEROR: That's what I'm trying to tell you, kid, it ain't there. It's been totally blown away.
ME: How?
It's been destroyed... by the Slashdot.
KONQUEROR: The Slashdot crowd couldn't take down the whole site! It would take ten thousand people with more free time than I've...
*Alarm bell goes off*
Snarkiness is inversely proportional to wisdom because it emphasizes feeling right rather than being right.
A patent is effectively valid until it's been officially declared invalid. Do *you* have enough cash to challenge MS in court? And to pay for the appeals, etc.?
That's why some people call the US a plutocracy. Because the judicial system is more strongly tilted in favor of those with more cash than in several other countries. (But they generally have their own favored groups. So select the evil that you choose wisely.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
For some reason, I highly doubt that this will prevent developers from making their programs. If every single windows programmer must register every single variation of every single stage of their program, then it will be chaos.
Most likely, you will still be able to run whatever you program.
The trick, then becomes figuring out how to set your 'MP3Thief.exe' to run in development mode.
since the 26th of June Slashdot has had five stories concerning palladium:
/ 16 41205&mode=thread&tid=109
2 27 &mode=thread&tid=109
7 21 8&mode=thread&tid=109
/ 13 14229&mode=thread&tid=109
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/23
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/27/125
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/07/02/161
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/07/04
and now this one... shouldnt the paranoia level be turned down a notch till we have something a little more concrete?
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
"...Including such gems as: 2. The computerize method of claim 1, wherein protecting the rights-managed data comprises: refusing to load the untrusted program into memory. ..."
#include "claim1.h"
refuse_to_load(program, memory);
}
If I had an article on this program published on Slashdot and sarcastically called this program a "gem" because it only included one step, I would be pilloried. Everyone on Slashdot knows that there is more to it than that. In fact, it is impossible to determine what the program listed above does without also knowing what is in the included file "claim1.h".
So why is it so hard to understand that the phrase "2. The computerized method of claim 1, wherein..." is the legal equivalent to a TEXT MACRO that includes everything in claim 1 into claim 2, and that it is just as hard to know what claim 2 is about without also knowing what is in claim 1?
" I see other vets turning to Linux too. "
Yeah, gnumeric is great for keeping track of those vaccination and neutering appointments...
graspee
It's mentionned earlier that Microsft's first atemt to create a closed system was the Xbox ... Well, the Xbox is cracked!
... that they can just jump in and fuck with my PC! No way! I Palladium ever becomes a reality, there will be cracks bot chips, fuck microsoft chips ... bla bla bla
...!
What does Microsoft think
I don't think they can make a system that aren't in some bypassable!
BTW: You can always use a pre-palladium PC
Huh? Maybe if you use a few less word, you can make some sense. I read you three times and you make no sense. You attack the penguin and you got ran out of town on a rail. Why you cry now? You got kiss-of-death-wich?
Our local Phone company have package for customer, to have a free mobile if the customer enroll into their service plan for, say two years. If I were MS and I see a big market of sell contents either software or movies, I would give out the computer for FREE if the customer agree to sign an agreement to watch 40 movies or install a total value of $1000 of software. It's a bait many people would bite. Its just a matter of time when the user base reach a critical mass, and you should not have any difficulty imagining how much support MS will received by the content industry.
YES, we can still boycott the MS while billions outside is using the DRM.
So while all you dorks think the scope of the invention is very broad, it's really very narrow because it further limts claim 1. The real issue is this: did claim 1 meet the requirements of patentability. For those that don't know there are two requirements - 1) is it novel and 2) is it not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. To show that it fails to meet requirement 1 you have to show that the invention was published or displayed in public one year prior to the filing of the patent applications. It's very difficult to prove that it doesn't meet the second requirement because what is "obivous to one of ordinary skill in the art" can be subjective. What's obvious to programmer without a degree may not be obvious to one with a Ph.D. or visa versa.
Since DOS has been dropped, they have to do something.
photosMy Photostream
it's spiel
OK, I just have to bite when the thread is d&d related...
It all depends on your point of view. Microsoft view themselves as lawful good, free OS zealots as lawful evil, and napster-happy consumers as chaotic evil.
For the free OS point of view swap evil for good and vice versa.
The whole AD&D alignment system doesn't hold up in the real world; the chaotic, neutral, lawful bit is fair enough, but as for good, evil and neutral you need to have an objective, externalized viewpoint to say what is good or what is evil.
This is basically the same "Is there such a thing as objective good and objective evil ?" question you might get on a philosophy exam.
My own opinion is "no", but most people fall into the "yes" category, either because they belive in some deity, are totally stupid or c) both of the above.
To properly frame the viewpoints of MS vs free OSs you need to replace good and evil with commercial and free.
So MS is Chaotic Commercial, free OS zealots are Lawful Free. Show me a company that is Lawful Commercial and I'll show you a company that covers its tracks well...
graspee
First, this guy thinks a lot of himself: FUD Notice the bold FUD. Oh my, that sounds horrible. We could have a market finally for digital releases, one where I get my media, and the seller gets his money. Sounds fair. Keeps me from making 10 copies of this new movie and giving them to my friends. And thus more speculation and FUD. OK, so now the open-source movement is AGAINST encryption/privacy? Does this mean PGP is bad now too? This sounds like technology I always assume US military intelligence organizations already use. I don't want a whistle-blower leaking confidential battlefield plans (we've seen it happen a lot in the last year). As for corporations, if a whistle-blower can't print, email, fax, save to disk some document, they'll find some other way to blow the whistle. This is a stupid argument as for why Palladium as a whole is bad. I'm sure the FBI would love it if the Mafia started using DRM certs on their data. It'd be much easier to ask a judge for the rights to sieze and open documents certified by this certificate, then say to ad-hoc monitor possibly private data in an attempt to get to Mafia data.
Note, it will never happen. Criminal elements will stay away from technology like DRM and pallidum. Elmer FUD would be proud. I went and pulled the membership on the EUROSMART list, and I see a lot of overlap with TPCA. I guess they don't hate it that much. First, that's not censorship, that's search (and possibly seizure) and it's pure FUD to presume the government will push a button and search you hard-drives and then drag you down to the police station, for your dirty little picture. However, even if they did... this picture would have to be signed somehow, and under DRM protection. Not sure why a child pr0n peddler would take the time to DRM his pictures. And if you want to view that sick stuff, turn off the DRM system before you do it. Yes, it does have an off switch. While off, you can't use the apps in DRM mode, meaning you can't open DRM certified media. Oh my god. It's at this point I have to stop reading this horrible FUD..er FAQ. Disable DRM, and the DRM enabled functionality in DRM enabled apps will cease to work, the apps will continue to work. Sure, you can't open your ULTRA-7 security level report, that the NSA sent to you, but theres good reason for that. Turn back on the trust management, and then open that report. And what's with saying it's like switching from Windows to Linux? First, what the fook is wrong with linux bitch? and second, that makes no sense!
I honestly went to this FAQ to try and see both sides of the Palladium debate. But this FAQ is a borderline paranoia conspiracy rant. It hurts the anti-palladium side more than helps. Stick to the facts, dissect it like a Vulcan would. Show me logical arguments, and keep your emotion and fear out of it.
-malakai
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
Considering that no details have been released about Palladium besides the fact that there is a burgeoning project at Microsoft that will use that as a codename I can't see how anyone can explain Palladium when no one (not even average Microsoft employees like myself) know what the details are. I read it and seemed to simply care about one thing and that was spreading FUD. In fact let's dissect this logical explanation Looks like someone has no idea what it does for sure but tells us what it obviously must do. There is a saying about assumption which fits right in here. Again, instead of concrete details we get speculation and assumptions. Maybe that's because there are no details so all one can do is leap to conclusions? This section is disgustingly similar to the "encryption is bad because terrorists can use it" argument. I guess its OK for such a narrow minded and ignorant viewpoint which has been derided several times to be espoused if one is bashing Microsoft (sorry I meant M$).
I could go on reading the FAQ but it devolves into paranoid conspiracy theories from that point on.
It is meant to be an objective requirement. It is true that it is hard to administer mostly because you are asking someone that already knows about the invention, whether it would have been obvious.
And the person applying for the patent should initially prove that his invention is non obvious.
The non-obviousness requirement has been reduced in importance lately but it is really key for having a sensible patent system.
...and if we 'penguin fetishists' voluntarily gave up linux/BSD/etc to increase 'security', does that really stop others from using them to attack our now 'secure' MS servers/networks? That would be akin to outlawing civilian's right to bear arms. That has never worked. This is the same mentality that dreamed up DRM. Technology is neutral, only the intent of use is not. Personally, I don't like artificially restricted technology. If I decide to rip my own cds, that is my business. If I decide to rip my own cds and upload them via P2P, fine, then press charges against me, but don't tell me what I can and cannot do with my computer. Copyright infringment is ALREADY illegal. If the RIAA and MPAA can't figure out a way to secure digital content ON THEIR OWN WITHOUT government intervention, then that is their problem. Maybe they shouldn't distribute their stuff on the 'net then. They have more money than most institutions in the world. They should be able to figure it out without artificial restrictions on all other consumer products.
MY experience with most 'microsofties' is that they want everything done for them and have an inherent inability to think for themselves. Usually, when sh*t hits the fan, they're out of their league and have to call in a 'consultant' as soon as they have to move beyond looking at event viewer and reading Technet. They LIKE having a big brother watch over everything they do.
This country is (supposedly) about CONTROL of one's life and property (and yes, that includes purchased DVDs and CDs. I OWN the disc, and as long as I dont' distribute the media to others, I should be able to do what I wish with it). Despite that, MS and their paid gov't lackeys and media companies want a technological dictatorship. Combined, they definately have the social, political, and financial influence to make it happen. 9/11 just gave them some extra 'fuel' for their fire. Guaranteed, if 9/11 didn't happen, we wouldn't be hearing so much about palladium.
Welcome to America, the land of the supposedly free. Sigh...
...is this whole idea flawed, because I remember hearing somebody saying a long time ago that, "on the internet, pirate copies of music and the real product are next to each other on the shelves".
Now, I am completely against illegal copying of copyrighted material, but from what I read, I seem to be in the minority. It seems to me that:
* Non-Palladium(tm) systems will be able to serve illegally copied content, and download it.
* Palladium(tm) systems will not be able to server illegally copied content, nor be able to download it.
Mines is a 12 gauge shotgun and a good aim.
I like the Mossberg 590A1 series.
First: If you've been kidnapped and locked in some basement in chains for the past 6 weeks, ignore my ranting and please accept my apologies. If not, read on...
AMD and Intel have both signed on to palladium. It is a done deal. The motherboard makers have no choice, they will be starved of the latest fastest CPUs, if they refuse to cooperate. Possibly even starved of the older slower CPUs... AMD and Intel will simply refuse to manufacture them (there is precedence, AMD clobbered the 486's that embedded systems engineers liked so much). The chipset manufacturers will either clone the DRM features, or be left out.
There is no escaping this. Laugh all you like, point at Circuit City's DivX if it makes you feel better. I could explain that too, if you cared to know. And when the marketing weight of 1 billion cluelesss idiots buying the computer the Dell dude tells them to crushes you, I'll be laughing at you. Admittedly, only a split second before I'm squished like a bug. *shrug* OS choices? What choice? Linux kicks ass, no argument here. But it simply won't run. "Yet more proof linux is insecure, it won't run with palladium!". We're all sooooo fucked. Does anyone have some lube? This is going to be a big one, and I'm afraid my virgin ass just won't be able to take the punishment...
Conclusion: You are simply a flaming retard, incapable of seeing the nearly immediate, and agonizingly obvious. You're standing there, admonishing us all not to panic, even though those that choose to look can see the 500 ft tall tidal wave getting ready to crash. If ever there was a time for panic, it's now.
*LOL* *Sobbing*
I love how ever time a patent comes out people yell prior art and give obvious examples as to why "it won't possibly hold up".
Fact is most of these "obvious" patents usually end up holding up. Do you really think with the Army of legal geniuses MS employs that they didn't think of what you just said? MS for the most part doesn't enter battles they will outright lose so easily.
So make fun of the patent if you want to, but if DRM OS's in fact do become the wave of the future, its endgame already for both your rights and OpenSource OS's as well.
"Chicken Little ain't got nothing on me"
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
If somebody had a program now, which ENFORCED digital rights management, and a later generation of a popular CPU will not run this code, due to it not being "trusted", would the new CPU designs be in breach of the DMCA?
Surely one could argue that replacing the old generation of CPUs with new CPUs, which CIRCUMVENTED THE DRM ENFORCEMENT SOFTWARE BY PREVENTING IT FROM RUNNING, was illegal under the DMCA?
Here's a suggestion...go hang on one of the Windows weblogs. Don't have one you say? Perhaps that's because NOBODY is enthusiastic about using/owing Windows. Oh yeah, been wondering about that major pain in your ass? It's M$. Guess they've been fucking you so long you don't hardly notice it any more. I can only imagine a guy like you colluding with the bean counters to move the budget items for the annual Microsoft upkeep out of technology and into operating expenses so your company doesn't even know how much Microsoft costs them.
cat
but what if microsoft's patch already has the virus inside. Just like the Visual Basic for the Blind, released in Asia, that contained a virus...
Would people use software that was known to crash regularly, costing them time and money and making them do the same work over?
Would people buy new versions of software when it was known to be extremely bloated, take much more resources than previous versions, and contain megabytes of dead useless code?
I submit that your expectation of the wisdom of the buying public has no basis in fact.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Well PIII s from 1.13A and above don't have the serial number, noe do any P4 processors, so that's no reason to limit yourself.
None of the AMDs have ever had it I believe.
(* On Windows 95, you weren't able any more to write programs that controlled the hardware directly. You had to use Microsoft's API. Now, you will have to use Microsoft's API for everything that happens on the computer. So:
.NET. Sun tried to make Windows irrelavent by making Java into a virtual OS.
The user will be even further away from the hardware Microsoft will control even more layers between the user and the hardware and become even more powerful. *)
MS witnessed Sun's Java trying to do the same thing, and so is now trying to out-Java them with
Table-ized A.I.
You *could* use a pre-palladium(tm) PC, or you could buy a machine from Sun(tm) Microsystems(tm), and run Linux on it.
manyoso: Hmmm. Seems to me that this 'art' has been around since the beginning of Unix. Hell, Microsoft has been providing a form of this 'art' with NT and 2000 for quite sometime. It's called permissions!
The difference being that you will not have root rights on your own hardware.
You know, that may actually prove cheaper in the long run. Rather than developing a whole new system, you could cut down on unemployment at the same time as performing DRM.
It'd probably be easier to bribe the bouncers though..
Feel the fear and do it anyway.
So now anyone running Linux is a potential "Rights-management" threat, which means if you're running Linux "they," e.g. RIAA, will be looking at you more closly and will be more apt to breaking into your house via S.W.A.T. and taking your computers and "political books."
http://www.mistersampo.com
A fundamental building block for client-side content security is a secure operating system. If a computer can be booted only into an operating system that itself honors content rights, and allows only compliant applications to access rights-restricted data, then data integrity within the machine can be assured.
After that it continues by saying if it can boot any OS the security is compromized. So i guess no Linux/xBSD/BeOS/whatever on this box. Of course noone in their right mind is going to buy a computer that comes with restrictions on what they can run on it.
The ideas widespread adoptation of this technology might be the same as for windows. Ie, if you only sell palladium boxen then you get to sell cheap palladium boxen, otherwise you have to pay big bucks for the privilege of selling them. And of course, if you only sell palladium content in your little store you will get it cheaper than if you make it compete with alternatives. If it gets any initial success the big content providers can stop providing non palladium content completely. In short: dang!
FRA: STFU GTFO
This is patents doing what they do best: Preventing technology from being used!
While I have no fundamental problems with the GPL, the philosophy upon which this document is based is flawed.
That to secure these Rights, and in particular the last, Commercial Organisations are created to serve the People, deriving their just powers from the consent and free choice and will of the People.
Wrong. Not in America. While this sentiment is one of pure democracy, the United States is not a democracy. Commercial organizations can be formed for whatever purpose the founders intend them to be formed. It is not a proper role of government (via public sentiment in a democracy) to decide which businesses are apropro and which aren't. Businesses which do not operate via force or fraud, no matter how despicable otherwise, have a right to operate. And hopefully fail.
That whenever any Form of Commercial Organisation becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Forms of Commercial Organisation, laying their foundation on such principles and organizing their powers in such ways, as to them shall seem most likely to secure their personal autonomy and continued happiness.
See above. This kind of thinking gives creedance to things such as prohibition, elimination of gambling, banning tobacco companies, etc. etc. Anything that doesn't fit the tyrannical majority's view of "right" no longer is able to exist. These are not Capitalistic values. They are not free values. They are certainly not American values. They are not Communist or Socialist values, either. What they are are democratic values.
And despite what the politicians will tell you, democracy is not good. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding who is for dinner. Majority rule, restrained by individual liberty (including the liberty to start a business) is fundamental to freedom. No individual can ever be free in a democratic society.
Think about it.
If you cant beat them(OSS), then make it where whatever computer they are later forced to buy will be forced to only run Windows. I sent of my comment on the DRM Workshop that is being held, and I suggest everyone else do so also.
I warned Microsoft would probably pull something like this to stifle competition. I just wish the government would see it that way too. Now I'm kicking myself in the ass, wondering why the hell I voted for George W. Bush.
Karma: Positive. Mostly effected by cowbell.
Bah, how silly! Who better to hate MS than their poor, long-suffering customers? I don't hate MS, but then I haven't used any of their products in nearly three years. For all I know, they actually have made improvements since Win95. LOTS of people feel coerced into running WinDOS and hate it. And (to stay vaguely on-topic) Palladium is obviously, at least in part, an attempt by MS to make it harder for people to escape, which in turn will increase the number of MS users who hate MS. Bashing these people is the kind of clueless "I'm so superior" crap I'd expect from IRC-addicted losers. You should either offer to help them escape from MS's control, or (if you're an MS fan) offer intelligent rebuttals. (I'm dubious whether there are any intelligent rebuttals, but, as I mentioned earlier, I don't know what MS has done lately, so I'm not qualified to comment.)
I'm sure there will be a way to get around it... I havnt heard of a single security function that is totally un-crackable... (128 bit decryption takes a while..[a LONG while] but....i'm sure palladium doesnt use anything that fancy.... it cant...) -- i'm sure that once a working software key for running programs is found... an appropriate change will be made to the kernel or whatever .. and like magic... everything works again..
i bet that the palladium system is no harder to crack than the x-box
p r m t h s
The Beginning of the End of Freedom on the Internet
2 00 2/07/2002-07.html#4202
http://portland.indymedia.org/archive/features/
Dream on, fucknugget. People will do whatever Microsoft tells them because they are essentially sheep. Brainless animals who will be easily fooled by shiny objects dangled in front of their faces to distract them while Bill steals their rights.
What, Linux is suddenly going to use Palladium and also start doing MS-style "security patches"?
I think not. ;-)
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
[C]laim 1, wherein protecting the rights-managed data comprises: refusing to load the untrusted program into memory
Microsoft finally patented software that doesn't work! I claim prior art!
And I'm sure we'll all be coerced to agree to Palliadium during a future security patch agreement."
Stop bitching and start switching.
Microsoft is not the only choice.
If MS does shove Palladium in as part of a security update/bugfix, I wonder what the legal status of the agreement you give would be? It would seem coerced, much like if your car got a recall notice due to a brake failure that rendered it unsafe unless repairs were done, and they had to be done by the dealer, and the dealer required you to agree to, say, installing a system so he could control where and when you drove your car as a condition of getting the repairs done. Generally the law doesn't require you to adhere to an agreement you were coerced into, and I think you could make a good case for this being coercion.
"Once Palladium is in a certain percentage of computers they can start making people suffer if they don't have it."
/.
:( Hopefully they browse /. on slow Sunday afternoons...
Of course this is a potential gold mine for a company that wants to corner the Linux/BSD (or non-windows) market. Their marketing could simply be a "Palladium Free" sticker on the case and a banner ad or two on
Since AMD and Intel have both been mentioned as being potential Palladium partners, perhaps another player will end up being the darling of the Linux crowd and the future will hold more alternative architecture boxes like the old IBM RS/6000 PowerPC series of workstations, and you'll have to search for a Linux distribution that still supports Intel processors.
It will be interesting to see just how the market reacts. Will we be strong enough to keep our freedom through the marketplace, or will everyone just roll over and accept remote control from Redmond?
If I were the CIO of a large bank, HMO, legal office, or any other company that is required by law to maintain accurate records for a long period of time I know that I would rather not have *any* DRM decisions on my systems made by Microsoft or AMD/Intel. Then I could potentially be held legally responsible for any "mistakes" that Redmond makes that alters, destroys, or accidentally exposes data when Palladium decides that my data files are really pirated MP3s. I am sure that their EULA will hold them blameless in such an event. However I'm not a CIO, and not likely to become one either.
null sig
http://www.didw.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=N
For some reason people seem to ignored this article and all the content provided therein. The most important bit follows: Again, if you don't want to use it, you don't have to. It's your choice. Only the content creators will be able to force this on you, NEVER microsoft. If SAP, or Sony, or id wants their program/mp3/game to run in this trusted environment, they can require it. But MS can never require it. They cannot prevent you from installing an OS on the machine that does not support this either. Does anyone read these things?
The problem here is the same as it's alway been. Fair use is largely the intent of the person making the copy. Until technology can read minds (fate forfend!) there won't be a DRM that won't abridge fair use in some way. As long as DRM abriges fair use, popular adoption of DRM technology won't happen willingly. This is an attempt to ram it down on an unwilling consumer population.
That said, the backlash that might build will depend largely on how intrusive Joe Six-Pack is going to find this new DRM technology. The second J.S.P. gets pissed off about it is the second elected officials are going to feel the heat. When they feel the heat, no amount of payola from ??AA is going to save it. MS is walking a fine line between control of content and pissing off J.S.P.
Until Joe Six Pack starts screaming not much is going to change. Unfortunatly, this might be after the Fritz chip is in most consumer electronics, and it will be too late to do much about it.
Don't forget that J.S.P. doesn't give a fart in the wind for the best technology. If he did, we'd have Betamax insted of V.H.S. We'd still have a Tucker auto, and not (fill in your most hated car). Zip and Jazz drives would be moldering in the dump, and we'd be using optical disks.
Is this new technology from MS a Open Source Killer? That's going to depend on someone making MoBo's available without the Fritz chip. Sure, those systems won't be able to run XP, but there are an awful lot of people out there running systems that don't run MS products. I can't quite see (at this point, maybe in the future?) a MoBo that flat won't allow a non-DRM OS to run, just that it won't run in the "Fritz here, you can control this system" mode.
That being the case, then I don't see Plaidium being quite the Open Source killer it is being painted. Not to say that it won't hurt Open Source, but it may not kill it. That's for the next evoloution of DRM. Which might be why MS is sending a sacrifice to Linux Expo. Calm down the Open Source zelots enough to get Fritz installed, don't use all of it's control capibillities until you reach market saturation, THEN whack those commie programmers when it's too late for them to save themselves. GAMEOVER.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
The biggest barrier to switching to a Free OS is, and has always been, technical difficulty. The second biggest barrier, and the biggest for people who are sufficiently clueful to handle the technical difficulties, has always been the number of activities that you still need Windows for (games, Office, and whatnot). Paladium is going to turn this problem on its head. Windows users are going to find that there are many things that their Paladium compatible OS simply cannot do. If they want to do those things then they will need a Free OS (or at least a non-MS OS).
The timing could not be better. Linux is ready for the desktop now. By the time Paladium products hit the stores it will be even more polished and ready to use. Just as Linux is getting to the point where is ready for widespread adoption, MS is getting ready to give everyone a reason to switch.
ha, thats funnier because I just shredded my Win 2000 partition becuase I never used it anymore!
"I've heard WinXP removed the cmd/command prompt."
No, they didn't remove the CMD.EXE or COMMAND.COM prompt from Windows XP. But Windows XP has reduced functionality, in many ways, not just in the command line. The command line is a big embarrassment because of its limited capabilities, but at least in Win 95 it worked. With every version since then it has worked less well. (There are two kinds of command prompt, and, according to Microsoft employees, the differences between them are not documented.)
The command line prompt sometimes begins to display short file names. Microsoft employees say that Microsoft has no fix, although someone not connected with Microsoft did make a work-around.
Cutting and pasting into a command line program often puts successive extra spaces before each line. Microsoft employees say that there is no plan to fix this.
The fast paste mode that is in Windows 98 is gone in Windows XP. Microsoft employees say there is no plan to fix this.
When using the command line interface, Windows XP doesn't always update the time. After several hours, the time reported to command line programs can be several hours in error.
People often say that DOS has gone away. But Microsoft still calls the command line interface DOS, and in Windows XP has added new programs for configuring the OS that work only under DOS.
Sometimes when you press a key while using Windows XP, it is seconds until there is any response. Apparently there is something wrong with the CPU scheduler in XP, because there are a lot of complaints about this in the forums and MS people have said that they are working on it. On one particular fresh installation of XP, on an Intel motherboard with either a Matrox G550 or an ATI Radeon video adapter, it requires 18 seconds to display a directory listing of 94 items. This is apparently related to a bug in the video software, not the adapter drivers.
Something is wrong with the Alt-Tab display of running programs under Windows XP. If there are a lot of programs, not all of them are displayed. The order jumps around in a seemingly random way.
Although articles often say negative things about Microsoft, I've never seen an article that fully documents how bad the situation really is. Microsoft's management is so bad that the company has become self-destructive. For example, Windows XP is spyware. Here is a list of ways Windows XP connects to Microsoft's servers:
- Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
- Fax Service
- File Signature Verification
- Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
- Microsoft Application Error Reporting
- Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
- Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
- Microsoft Help and Support Center
- Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
- Microsoft Management Console
- Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
- Microsoft Network Availability Test
- Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
- MS DTC Console program
- Run DLL as an app
- Services and Controller app
- Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
- Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies
your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
- Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect
to Microsoft computers.
These are just the ones I know. There may be others.So, if you use Windows XP, your computer is dependent on Microsoft computers. That's bad, not only because you lose control over your possession, but because Microsoft produces buggy software and doesn't patch bugs quickly. For example, as of July 7, 2002, there are 18 unpatched security holes in Microsoft Internet Explorer. This is a terrible record for a company that has $40 billion in the bank. Obviously, with that kind of money, Microsoft could fix the bugs if it wanted to fix them. Since the bugs are very public and Microsoft has the money, it seems reasonable to suppose that top management at Microsoft has deliberately decided that the bugs should remain, at least for now.
It seems possible that there is a connection between all the bugs and the U.S. government's friendly treatment of Microsoft's law-breaking. The U.S. government's CIA and FBI and NSA departments spy on the entire world, and unpatched vulnerabilities in Microsoft software help spies.
Windows XP, and all current Windows operating systems, have a file called the registry in which configuration information is written. If this one (large, often fragmented) file becomes corrupted, the only way of recovering may be to re-format the hard drive, re-install the operating system, and then re-install and re-configure all the applications. The registry file is a single, very vulnerable, point of failure. Microsoft apparently designed it this way to provide copy protection. Since most entries in the registry are poorly documented or not documented, the registry effectively prevents control by the user.
Note that Microsoft does not support making functional complete backups under Windows XP: Q314828 Microsoft Policy on Disk Duplication of Windows XP Installation. Only those who work with Microsoft software will understand the true meaning of Microsoft's policy. Since almost all programs use the registry operating system file, if you cannot make a functional copy of the operating system you cannot make a functional copy of all your application installations and configurations. There are other software companies that try to fix this, but Microsoft can, of course, break their implementations, as they have often done with other kinds of competitors.
Note that the registry tends to prevent you from moving a hard drive to a computer with a different motherboard. That's another implication of the above Microsoft article. So, if you have a failure, you may not be able to recover unless you have a spare computer with the same motherboard.
Note that Windows XP Professional can support only ten simultaneous incoming network connections. If you want more than that, you must use Windows 2000 server, and pay much, much more. (There is no Windows XP server yet.)
Apparently because the Windows XP GUI comes from Windows 98, Windows XP has the same problem with desktop icons that Windows 98 has. The icons sometimes flicker. Sometimes they move themselves around, particularly after the user switches monitor resolutions. Also, sometimes the taskbar settings un-configure themselves, as they do in Windows 98.
Only technically knowledgeable people know how to avoid signing up for a Microsoft Passport account during initial use of Windows XP. The name Passport gives an indication of Microsoft's thinking. A passport is a document issued by a sovereign nation. Without it, the nation's citizens cannot travel, and, if they leave, won't be allowed back in their own country. In Microsoft's corporate thinking, the company seems to be moving in the direction of believing that they own the user's computer.
Not only has Windows XP definitely gone further in the direction of allowing the user less control over his or her own machine, but with Palladium, Microsoft apparently intends to finish the job: Microsoft will have ultimate control over the user's computer and therefore all his or her data. Even now, under Windows XP, a recent security patch gave Microsoft administrator privileges over user's computers. If users want to patch their system against a bug which would allow an attack over the Internet, they must give Microsoft legal control over their machines. See this article also: Microsoft's Digital Rights Management-- A Little Deeper. You may need to be a lawyer to take apart the crucial sentence. "These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and [my emphasis] use other software on your computer" legally includes this meaning: "These updates may disable your ability to use other software on your computer." Note that the term "security related updates" is meaningless to the user because the updates have no relation to user security. So, the sentence effectively means that Microsoft can control the user's computer without notice and whenever it wants. That kind of sentence is known in psychology as "testing the limits". If there is no strong public complaint about this, expect to see more and stronger language like this.
This Register article shows the direction Microsoft is going: MS Palladium protects IT vendors, not you. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and Microsoft is well down that road. See this ZDNet article, also: MS: Why we can't trust your 'trustworthy' OS.
Microsoft's self-destructiveness does not mean that the user should be self-destructive. There is no need to apologize for using Microsoft software. The correct solution to abuse is persuading the abuser to stop being abusive. Once I posted to a Slashdot story a link to an article on a web site of mine. By far the majority of visitors from the Slashdot story used Microsoft operating systems. Rather than feel embarrassed because Microsoft is abusive, action needs to be taken to prevent the abuse. If you are against Microsoft abuse, you are not against Microsoft; you are more pro-Microsoft than Bill Gates.
These Microsoft policies mean that any government which wants to be independent of the United States government, and any government which represents itself as controlled by the people, cannot use Microsoft operating systems, or other Microsoft proprietary systems.
Corrections and additions to this comment will be posted at http://hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm
You think Apple will save you?
I suggest you think again for the following reasons.
First, this Palladium stuff was leaked -- we weren't suppose to know about until well into the future when Microsoft could put a good spin on all of this. So who's to say that Apple isn't already cooking up their own DRM technology? And they own the hardware *and* the software, they don't need to rely upon other companies to provide the hardware.
Second, DRM is getting mandated by the government. You really think MS is going to develop this stuff while watching all their customers move to other platforms? MS is doing this because they have to and Apple will also do this because they have to. Even if you have absolute trust in Apple and Steve Jobs, they're not going rebel against the government or anything.
Third, you really think you'd be allowed to run Microsoft Office on an untrusted platform?
Historically, Apple has been more secretive and lawyer-biting than Microsoft has. Moving to Apple computers would be like jumping from the skillet into the fire.
Soon, its going to be a decision between trusted computing and untrusted computing. I'll be running free software (where the "free" has always stood for freedom) and I'll do without them applications or find substitutes. Perhaps I can help in developing one...
But then, perhaps they'll have to make free software illegal.
He's entitled to. He's an established expert with credentials in the industry, and it's quite possible that his understanding and information on this subject is ahead of most people's, including the MS guy posting on this thread.
It's nothing of the sort; it's a very real issue. If you provide a means to lock people out of data -- which is essentially all DRM is -- and then appoint MS as the effective custodian of that data, what is to stop them abusing the technology to stop you loading a document you created in MS Word with, say, a translator for OpenOffice? As those crying "FUD" are shouting so loudly here, there is precious little solid information available and even fewer guarantees, and MS has a demonstrated history of abusing any power it gets through its dominant position in the market. A little caution is more than justified here. It's only paranoia if they're not all out to get you.
It's also a market where critics could potentially be stopped from using controlled material in a legitimate way. Worse, that potential is controlled by whoever owns the DRM controls -- MS in our current scenario -- and not by a suitable legal system. This is not in the interests of the common consumer of these products.
This is a bad caveat, because I doubt anyone here would have any sympathy if a child pornographer got screwed to hell; the ability to do this in such cases is a definite plus point of the proposed approach. The problem is that the same technology could be used to prevent the distribution of, for example, information certifying that Microsoft's accounting practices are highly dubious (such as is currently freely available on the web), and once again, the control is in the hands of the DRM guys, not the duly appointed government.
There are far fewer applications currently available for Linux, and hence you are limited in what you can do with it. If you can't see the parallels to the DRM scenario, and the problems potentially created, I'm afraid you really aren't looking very hard.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
are illegal under commercial law...
Not that any corporation would EVER LIE about how much money it REALLY has! Gee, that would be dishonest :D
I'm with you on the panic and all, but you're in for some very big surprises. To you, they will be pleasant surprises. To others, maybe not-so.
Perceived cost/benefit ratio is a bigger factor in consumer acceptance than you might think. Don't forget that Betamax cost about twice what VHS did at the time, and didn't do anything radically different (watch one type of tape, or watch the same material on another type of tape -- functionally the same task). Jazz and ZIPdisks cost a fraction of what optical disks cost (store data on one or the other, no functional difference).
:(
People will buy what they perceive as being most cost-effective. Make the DRM/Palladium solution sufficiently cheaper to buy up front, and most consumers will not care if it's not the "best" solution, so long as it more or less does the task of the moment.
DIVX died not only because it was a bad idea, but mainly because it cost about as much as the concurrent alternatives, AND the consumer had immediate negative financial feedback ("What? I just paid for this and it's no good already??") If it had been radically cheaper, or if the downside hadn't been so quickly apparent, it may well have succeeded.
If DRM/Palladium were incorporated in a cheap consumer system (frex, the eMachine market) and in workstation-grade OEM machines (frex, Dell), it could succeed and take over very quickly, despite clones' current 40% of marketshare.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
If I understand this right, MS is going to have to convince/coerce hardware manufacturers into providing hardware support for this DRM, at least to some degree.
What if folks got together and filed a class action lawsuit claiming monopolistic coercion, naming Intel and AMD (who I've seen are thinking this is a good idea) and Microsoft. Clearly, this whole nonsense is going to be a threat to open source OS's like Linux, or for that matter ANY new OS for a PC.
"I can't write an OS for this because they refuse to give me the information to run on this platform without signing away all my rights."
Would this work?
"Sometimes the truth is stupid." - Lawrence, creator of Prime Intellect
You know nothing. I repeat nothing about patent law.
The patented invention is not just the claim you highlighted. It's claim 1 + what you highlighted. So to be good prior art you need to find a single invention that contains all the elements in claim 1 and 14 or whatever dependent claim you're looking at.
You and you geek friends had nothing to do with the demise of Divx. People didn't buy the disks because it was a dumb idea. Despite what many Slashdotters think, the market can sort itself out without evangelism.
Um, are you being sarcastic, or did you just misunderstand my position/predictions?
Does anyone notice how Microsoft has been broadcasting all the security problems with their current OS? And now, given the enormous problem that has to be solved, is the solution which everyone will have to pay additional money for. They are absolutely brilliant in turning a negative into an asset. This is why Microsoft has dominated the market - they just figure out the smart thing to do.
The world is increasingly demading secure computing, so Microsoft are having to respond with there new "Palladium" marketecture.
The question is, will Government and Military organisations really want to trust a security architecture that has been embraced by the Entertainment industries? Can Microsoft put "Palladium" into every lounge room (just for all those teenage script kiddies), and then expect sales in the serious mission critical systems market.
Scary thing is, our monocultural software society that is activly retricted by a greed based patent system is going to allow this to happen....
Neither will Palladium be.
Businesses get a slightly different version with the objectionable stuff omitted.Retail customers get very little in the way of warning ... and no K-Y.
I'm not a Palestinian. I'm of the Left, and I have no time for Sharon - But I don't just jump on the "underdog" bandwagon. The Palestinian leadership is an utter failure, and their Arab neighbours have only done them harm. Arafat doesn't want Peace. he just wants to March on Juresalem and drive the Jews into the sea before he dies. Saying that I don't think Sharon cares much for peace.
What is needed is some younger leaders with a little more investment in the furture, and a little less invested in the battles of the past.
Perhaps you should think a little more before you jump on the next lefty bandwagon that comes past. I certainly want no association with the current Palestinan regime.
* * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
The flaw is not a technical one, but one of logistics. There are too many comanies/individuals which would need to agree to this in order for it to become ubiquitous. The users need to *believe* it is for thier best interests, the hardware makers need to redesign thier motherboards to accommodate it and software companies need to make their programs "trusted".
If even one of those links breaks, then the scheme will fail. The cost/benefit is just not there.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
read fucking claim 1 you moron as the two claims you posted are dependent on it.
You will find that it is both new and inventive.... just because you couldn't invent anything if someone pissed some ingenuity and innovation in your brain.
patents are here to stay, so wake up and smell the Java.
I'm sure most of the people who hang out on this site do not want your drm built into a processor that we'll be forced to buy. Secondly, I doubt there will be any drm content that I will want to purchase. So what gives you the right to force what I consider nasty (what will surely be undocumented) microcode in my processors.
"Yes, if Company A or Person A signs/certifies a piece of intellectual property (be it some internal private corporate email/report, the schematics of a nucelear weapon, or a letter from Johnny's teachers marked Parents Eyes Only) then they should have the right to determine what is done with it. "
Not in all cases. If I buy a CD today, I can listen to it, rip it to mp3, play it in my car, play it in house, I can loan it to a friend.
Why should owning a copyright give you control over my computer?
What you're proposing is a solution in search of a problem. Report cards? Nuclear weapons? Why do I need DRM for those? It doesn't make them more efficient. It seems more likely that you're torturing examples to make them seem like a good fit for day to day usage.
The only purpose of DRM today is to essentially wipe out free use that allows people to do things like borrow books and listen to music they purchased wherever they want.
All the while, I'm expected to pay more for less functionality?
Aren't you a little too willing to give up all your fair-use rights for a digital copy of star-wars? You strike me as very shallow.
Unless these DRM controlled data are cheaper, then people will understand the difference.
Current CD - $18
DRM'd CD - $5 ???
I doubt it
Current PC - $900
DRM'd PC - $400 ???
I doubt it.
My guess is that it will cost slightly more while having significantly fewer interesting uses for most people.
I think it will die, unless our goofy congress forces it into law.
[-- irrational demands edited --]
I am a strong believer that nothing good ever comes from FUD. FUD consists almost exclusively of lies designed to mask the usefulness of a product; usually so that it can be replaced with an inferior one. Any product should survive on its merits alone: survival of the fittest should exist on the product level, rather than the producer.
So if you see any inaccurate comments regarding a Microsoft product, the appropriate response would be to correct them. But accusing others of using FUD tactics when you have no real evidence of such is, in fact, a FUD tactic in itself.
My own understanding of Palladium is limited: I've read the reports, and I have a friend who's a programmer for Msft working on the project. He seemed very excited about the project, saying that it was designed to revolutionize the server industry: for the first time Microsoft would have an implementation that could back up their security model (which is not that bad, mind you). He was certain that it would replace all other OSes on its merits alone.
What I've heard since, though, (from both sides of the fence) doesn't impress me. I can't find anything it gives me that I would want. Furthermore, I see many of its "features" as obstacles that would decrease my computer's usefulness.
If you have any evidence at all that could give me any hope for the new OS, I'd love to hear it. I don't want to be tricked into thinking a useful product is worthless, but at the same time, I don't want to be tricked into thinking that a worthless product has some value.
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
RFC 1925
For everyone out there saying that "this will never fly" or "those bastards are stealing our privacy" etc., this has been a long time in the making.
:)
Anyone remember a few years back when Intel decided to ship a serial number with all of thier P3 chips? A bunch of people got all pissed off about it, and Intel said they would let people turn it off.
Just to refresh those that don't remember this article at cnn.com covers how hackers found a way around the option to turn off the code and still grab the number.
Know how much people cared at that point? Jack shit.
MS will just placate the average user and tell them that their concerns have been addressed, and show some stupid little ways in which changes were made to make things better, people will buy into it and it will ship just like it was supposed to in the first place.
For those who say that mfrs won't buy into it, esp. MB's mfrs, I would disagree. How hard would it be for MS to tell these folks that if they want to produce x86 boards, they damn well better implement their hardware schemes. AMD has already signed on, I'm sure Intel will as well. Who's left in the x86 world? I don't know a single company that would be able to compete and survive if they lost out on 94% of the computer market.
Sure you'll get a fringe player or two, but they'll be the odd ones out. Building your own machine will no longer have those nice low cost benefits, 'cause that non DRM board will cost a fortune to make. This has ugly written all over it.
'Course, OSX on an iBook is a pretty decent substitue. Glad I got WC3 on here too.
oops, link didn't survive. http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9905/03/squabble .idg/
that's better
You seem to place great significance upon the term 'rights managed data'. I fail to see the difference between this and every file on any unix system! Every file has a corresponding set of permissions. So the only real leap you must take is to declare that files contain data. Not much of a leap there ;-)
You run command.com if you want to use a DOS program that relies on DOS calls to other DOS programs, eg TSR's. command.com is also used to run batches. In terms of DOS support, this may make the prompt show short file names.
You run cmd.exe and .cmd files if you want 32 bit stuff. They will also run in .bat files, but command.com isn't loaded in the process.
All versions of NTVMDOS.EXE have some sort of bug that makes it look like the system is about to crash. It adds an un-needed latency to the processing of keystrokes. Both OS/2 and Win9x process DOS in the same way as NT, but this latency is not there. I mean, it's only the keyboard input. The programs run quite fast, and you can use a DOS program as a cycle-soaker, if you want to: I use UBASIC in this way.
Many of the bugs that I gather are in NT have been in Windows NT 3.1 code. I have not seen a version of Windows that can run a pipe of several commands, and keep the windows command window open. I found documentation on these bugs, and a whole neat range of tricks, under the Microsoft TechNet thingie under NT v 3.1. Windows 2k will run the OS/2 1.3 cmd.exe, complete with rexx support!
I would have thought they would had fixed these bugs up before NT went prime time, but no.
Windows NT has two different command prompts with a different set of bugs. You run the one that has the bug fixed in it, and hope for the best.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
I've been using the command prompt on Windows for ages. While it's nothing like Unix shells, it still gets the job done. Fact is, MS doesn't want to develop it further and it shows. However, if it's SOMETIMES slow or dir listings take forever on ONE installation, you really don't have enough data to generalize. I get it to lock up my keyboard once in a while but even then I don't generalize.
Then on to the registry. IMO it's a stupid decision to group all that data in one messy registry. However, I have never had a single corrupted Windows registry. While it's possible that it gets corrupted, it doesn't happen often enough to warrant this outcry.
Lots of what you wrote (or quoted) is full of words like "may" and "seems". That's very convenient as everything may happen. Finally it ends with a lovely if-you-don't-agree-you-are-against-us-conclusion.
I could go on but I suppose this is already enough to burn karma. What the hell were those three moderators thinking who modded that rant up? This is definitely not the way we should fight Microsoft/XP/whatever. This is fanatical FUD and anyone can see through it.
So people cannot entertain themselves anymore?
Well, people in the US need to buy DVD, Software (same apps many times a decade really), gadget, go to the movies, etc. Basically, if piracy goes to a high level, it means American will have more money to buy: hamburgers, cars, vacations, etc.
If that ever happens, then you will no longuer be able to:
- Sell those movies, music, soft to everyone else in the world (no critical mass). Ie: no more 100% revenues with no cost. Less capital inflow.
- Buy food, housing, etc. at the same price. As more people buy Real Stuff, you'll start to see prices going up.
Basically, the only way an average American can earn 3x what people earn in others countries is by having a cool way of neutralizing that purchasing power with "Soft Goods".
Meaning you do NEED DRM to keep the american dream alive. They day people stop buying software, music, movies, etc. and that at the same time, the rest of the world stops buying your movies, software, apps (and weapons) is the day the US will decline (economically). Anyway, you will still be able to live through rents (if the rest of the world honors them).
So hidden and buried in an economistic view, DRM will keep your soft industries alive and kicking. And that's good for you (and it's bad for the rest of the world).
For's good for the economy is good for you!
unfinished: (adj.)
Well hate to tell you but the average computer user does NOT read /.. Just look at all the AOL users. So the average person 18+ years old, wants e-mail, internet, e-greeting cards, wordprocessing, and downloadable media like .asf, .rm, and so on. The Love bug and a few others scared quite a few AOL and like subscribers that have no freaking clue on what they can do with a computer. You can argue the technical aspect as to why YOU don't think M$ could pull it off, but then again what is the ratio of /. readers or even Linux users compared to AOL users?
Trust me the market potential is out there, and M$ is trying everything to get it, they have the money and the research to do it, so don't dismiss it as impossible.
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
well, if this shit ever hits the fan, im definately buying up all the non-DRM hardware I can get my hands on.
hell we've gotten to the point where CPUs have gotten fast enough to do pretty much anything we want to do, and if one isn't fast enough, we cann run two or four of them in parallel. i'm still on a celeron 300a (non-overclocked), with a geforce4 and 40gig HD, and the CPU speed really doesnt get in my way at all. i play unreal tournament, soldier of fortune, alice, etc and never have had a problem with CPU speed. not to say that i wouldn't love to have a new 1 or 2 ghz CPU/mobo, preferably AMD.
In the late 80's I sold and supported AT&T PC graphics products, such as Topas. They all had dongles, the little hardware things screwed into the seriell or parallel ports(can't actually remember) , and without which the software would not run. Autocad also had one. In no time whatsoever, there were hacks floating around (and this was before the internet) that bypassed these things, thereby effectively making them expensive (in development terms) toys.
MS' Palladium will almost assuredly go the same way. Why? Because, given MS's track record in security I simply cannot believe that someone will not find a method to bypass this.
It seems as if security within MS has always been subservient to marketing and planned obsolesance, because I don't believe that MS' coders are that bad, but that they are forced into the regimine of making products that neeed upgrading for no real purpose except to ensure MS profitability.
Palladium is, IMO, nothing more than yet another MS ploy to
1.Turn it's negative image in security around.
2.Work with the RIAA and MPAA in order to control what you play on your computer.
3.Stymy OSS by locking them out of the hardware. (Yes I know that theoretically it's open architecture, but theoretically Hailstorm services could be provided by others as well)
4.Generate an endless stream of revenue by making built in subscription/obsolescence etc.
Like Hailstorm, I think a large part of the industry will be very very skeptical with a company that no one, and I mean no one, trusts. Unlike Hailstorm, hardware manufacturers stand to make money here, by forcing upgrades on customers (You need a new computer to run WindowsPalladium) and some of them will, in light of poor sales in recent times, almost certainly jump on the bandwagon.
It's not the same case i think. Microsoft can upgrade whatever they want from your computer as they see fit. And if people don't like it, they can go to hell. The have the means to make it so that they DON'T care. They never cared and never will.
I was trying to explain to my ex (girlfriend) what DRM and Palladium where, and she couldn't grasp why it they could be bad. After all, she doesn't mind. She just buys DVD, uses a pirated Office to write some articles, and send emails and browses the web.
Truth is she is defenseless, and Microsoft can do anything they want with her (computer) and she wouldn't care/notice.
So well, we lose for now. But it's not the final word. It's just something that we'll have to deal with in the future. If most people don't care, it will become dominant, and we'll be locked of from accessing it legaly.
unfinished: (adj.)
I don't know about America, but what is the legality of this in the rest of the world? Since the UK has no DMCA or RIUK (and thats not a cue to start one!) how would all this effect other countries, especially ones with PRIVACY laws (thank god for being a UKian). BTW, I think i'll be staying with linux. All I need is dreamweaver for linux, and perhaps a slightly better office suite...
the rights in "rights managed data"' is used in the sense of copyright and not rights as in "permissions", so there is a real leap here..
That depends on your area of work. Mainstream applications -- office suites, internet connectivity, development tools -- are fine. I don't want to get into which platform's apps are "better", since it's not really relevant to my comment, but the choice is certainly there.
OTOH, in many speciality industries, Linux simply has no answer to the tools and libraries available for Windows. I know, because I've worked on several developments where the target OS was open to debate, and I've been part of the teams doing the research about what is or is not possible on each, and how hard it is to do. I'm afraid that there is no question about which platform has wider support in many such specialist areas. This is the context for my comments, and in that context, I stand by them.
(BTW, I do like Linux and I do oppose DRM in the proposed form as much as you. I just think the guy had a point in this case.)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Sadly if this happens, Palladium probably will make security far worse and may depend on flawed algortithms and insecure theory. MSIE, MS-Passport, MS-Outlook, IIS, root holes in XP, do not suggest otherwise.
The big trick may be for MS to get this through before the U.S. administration turns over or MS gets an Enron / WorldCom style audit. MS could be very possibly be one audit away from chapter 11 and additional criminal charges.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Wow! I thought it'd never stop. Actually, one of my biggest concerns was money, and my PII was $575, so I was happy. (Actually, I spent another $200 for a 20gig HD).
http://www.worldtechtribune.com/worldtechtribune/a sparticles/buzz/bz07082002.asp
This means that nobody else can duplicate what microsoft is doing on the palladium front. Glad I am that I will now only have to fight one giant corporate entity to keep my freedom to play TuxRacer!
Right.
And for every 3 articles mentioning things like "evolution", "DNA", and "science", you must post one article talking about how Bob the Cosmic Wonder Hamster (fuzzy be His name) created the Universe out of twigs and duct tape just 5,000 years ago.
I just Dled the imperial march, wow its a nice effect but back on topic now. Im not going to put up with this msbs , Linux and AMD forever (intel has fritz chip) im scared im going insane but I just actually considered mac a serious option (crap am I going insane??) (v) (( )) tux i i
Moo!