Microsoft To Demo 'Palladium' At WinHEC

1010011010 writes "According to Microsoft Watch, Microsoft will be demonstrating Palladium (also known as 'Next-Generation Secure Computing Base') at WinHEC in May in New Orleans. The 'trusted root' is now called the 'Nexus' by Microsoft. Developers wishing to write 'Nexus-aware' applications will apparently have to pay a licensing fee to do so. The product manager for Palladium, Mario Juarez, says, 'It's important to note that nexus-aware applications will not hinder any apps or anything else running in the regular Windows environment.' I'm sure you can all hear the word 'yet' at the end of that sentence. There's talk of phasing in Palladium, starting with Longhorn Server in 2005. I wonder how Microsoft will convince consumers that loss of control is a good thing, and how long the convincing will take. I, for one, am already planning to transition my company away from Microsoft software. Hopefully that won't get messed up by and dumb mandatory-palladium legislation from the Fritz types."

Comments

The fees!

[alpharoid]

I don't like the part about the fees. Palladium does seem to have one strong point in making its applications hard to exploit (even the badly-written ones).

So won't this hurt Linux and Open Source software in general? High fees would keep Microsoft's good competitors (Apache, for instance) away from Palladium, and then we'd have all the unbearable boasting about how IIS is more secure.

That would be a cheap trick... but one to expect.

Security

[Axel2001]

While the idea of the technology isn't really all that bad, I question the intent of Microsoft in creating Palladium. If the technology is adapted in its "pure" form, Microsoft will be able to determine what you can and cannot do on your own personal computer - and they will make consumers pay for this "technology." It would be like adding the extra "feature" to an automobile that you can drive only to certain places - and charging more for this "technology." Where can you go today?

Re:why doesn't everyone....

[mao che minh]

Why doesn't everyone just sit back and wait and see what MS does?

Because we already know what Microsoft will do: employ whatever tactics neccassary to insure their continued monopoly status and success - even if it means eliminating the private ownership of data as we know it. The rabid MS bashing going on isn't a sign of premature paranoia, rather, it is the natural reaction of those that have studied the company's history.

Re:Mandatory access control for all!

[ewhac]

Well, here's a message for you: [your computer is] shared with all the people who write software for your computer. That's right, software has owners and when their software is on your computer they think they should have a say over how it is controlled.

They are wrong.

My home is "shared" with a Nerf arrow launcher, a Sonicare toothbrush, a Panasonic TV set, and a Revere tea kettle (among other things). Neither Nerf, Sonicare, Panasonic, or Revere have the right to enter my home and tell me how I can or can't use these articles. Why? Because they gave up all rights and claims to those articles when they sold them to me.

Yet, somehow, software vendors have gotten it into their minds that they not only have the right to impose constraints and restrictions on their customers post-sale, they think this is normal, even a positive thing. They are utterly incapable of seeing the yawning inconsistency between what they claim is happening (a "license" to use the software) and what is actually happening (a cash-for-goods sale).

If we were to presume the software vendors are correct in their beliefs -- if we were to accept that a retail marketplace seller can impose restrictions on a buyer with little more than a shrinkwrap "agreement" -- then lawful innovation becomes impossible. The TV show Junkyard Wars would be illegal, as all the articles in that junkyard would have been obtained under contractual restrictions forbidding their use for anything other than what the vendor deemed proper. Using an old camping tent as a parachute for your rocket would land you in prison, because the vendor only granted permission for it to be used for outdoor camping activities. Likewise, using the Unreal engine as a basis for architectural walk-through simulations would get you carted away.

Thus, the analogy must be deemed to fail. There is no "sharing" going on here, because the software was sold to end users. Once sold, the end user gets final say over how it's used. Any other interpretation raises caveat emptor to unreasonable levels. I should not have to take Lawrence Lessig with me every time I go shopping at Fry's.

Besides, the computer industry got plenty vigorous and prosperous without these restrictions. No one has yet presented a convincing argument why that should change.

Schwab