Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Taking Over the BIOS
dtjohnson writes "According to this story,
Microsoft has entered into an agreement with BIOS maker Phoenix
Technologies to integrate the BIOS with Windows. This has the
potential to turn PCs into Windows-only machines and also could result
in widespread incorporation of Digital Rights Management (DRM)
technology into new PCs. It looks like Microsoft is beginning to
flex their marketplace monopoly muscles again, after taking a couple of
years off."
Looks like we need to start checking to be sure our next motherboard's flash can be reprogrammed with LinuxBIOS.
With any other company I would hold off before passing judgement. However, Microsoft's long history of abuses makes it only natural to assume they WILL implement a windows-only BIOS. I'll take this one step further. Expect a future version of Windows to REQUIRE this BIOS, giving Microsoft an even tighter lock on the market.
-- Will program for bandwidth
"The BIOS would also allow better control of unauthorised devices connected to a system, Microsoft said."
Why is a protection against "unauthorized devices" suddenly necessary on BIOS-level? Has anyone even been victim of a device that should really have been "unauthorized" (whatever that means in this case) that has been connected to a PC? It sounds like they're talking about hardware, and that's what's puzzling me. Are Microsoft telling us that future devices might be set as "unauthorized" because they don't fulfill Microsoft's demands and standards for an authorized device, or what?
Are Microsoft's customers saying "we should be able to protect ourself against unauthorized hardware" (I'm not hearing anyone), or are Microsoft just trying to shove a new feature down their throats because they need it for their plans?
"Phoenix's Core System Software (CSS) is a next-generation BIOS with a more sophisticated integration of operating system and hardware, for example making it easier for system administrators to remotely monitor the hardware configurations of their systems."
As with all computer software, complexity increases the chance of bugs and often also security exploits. How can Microsoft and Phoenix assure these "enhancements" to the BIOS don't do this? They can't? Well, then we might have an interesting future with really messy exploits ahead (with potential for viruses to gain direct hardware access and control), and also BIOS crashes due to the added complexity.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I think it's still too early to tell if this is a good or a bad thing. It all depends on how its implemented.
If Microsoft uses it to let companies build "Windows only" PCs or to enforce their form of DRM, then I suspect most I.T. managers and staff will realize it's *NOT* a good thing.
(Even if I work for a company that runs all Windows products on the desktop today, that doesn't mean I'd prefer products that don't let me have any other alternatives.) As computers age, they tend to become good candidates for alternate OS's - even in environments using strictly Windows on the user desktops. (If you're not going to elminiate your current crop of dated Pentium 1 and 2 systems, for example, they still make good Linux web servers or print servers. They also make good pseudo thin clients running the Citrix ICA connector. (You can still do that even under plain old MS-DOS, with some limitations, and serve Windows 2000 or XP desktops to an old 486.)
All kidding aside... I write BIOS code for a living, and this scares the crap out of me. What Microsoft wants is to basically eliminate the BIOS, except for the jump to the OS code (the "int 19" above). Windows already does just about everything that we do in the BIOS, like PCI device enumeration, etc...
No doubt, this would make Microsoft's life a lot more simple, but I think it would give them too much control -- way too much. DRM would just be the start of it.
I wonder what the EFI proponents (Intel) think about this deal...
they don't BLOCK the booting of OS 9. The ability to boot OS 9 was holding back the hardware development so they scrapped that ability. It's not like they said "ok, let's fuck the users of new machines that wish to use OS 9". they just thought that better hardware was more important than backwards compatibility with an obsolete operating system
Look at WinModems and their rise of functionality under Linux..
Excellent example. Look how long it took Linux to provide even rudimentary support for WinModems. There are still patent issues surrounding WinModem drivers. If even one part of this deal includes patented "technology," Linux will be locked out.
This *is* a dire issue, one that will require intense scrutiny. MS desires complete control of everyone's computing; this is clear both from statements made in the past, and actions leading into the future. If there isn't active and vigorous opposition, they will get everything they want.
At the moment, they are looking at methods of locking Linux out. In the past, they have tried hidden, proprietary software, marketting, and outright lies (which is, I guess, marketting); as this hasn't been too successful, they *will* try to lock Linux out using legal means. (That is, patents.)
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
"Microsoft said integration should mean simpler and more reliable computers."
I cant believe in the face of every virus MS has been responsible for spreading or allowing to spread due to crappy code they think a BIOS with MS system calls in it wont be a problem.
I can see the next ms.blaster worm that wipes your bios requireing you to replace the ROM.
Actually the OS9 restriction is at the OS Level. Apple simply didn't write a new System Enabler for the latest revision of their core chipsets. without that, OS 9 can't boot on the new Hardware.
This was done to forcibly EOL OS 9.2.2
"You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
Dell does their own Bios.
In fact, it was Compaq Ahh ... here's the story
- The Compaq Portable was the first 100% compatible IBM computer clone. Why make an IBM clone? Because the IBM PC was extremely popular, and taken very seriously by businesses looking for a computer system.
In any case, you would think Bill would remember this. He was around. Unless he's getting daft.Problem: Compaq couldn't just copy IBM's BIOS to make their new machine guaranteed IBM compatible, this would be illegal, and easily proven by IBM.
Solution: Reverse-engineer IBM's BIOS. Compaq used two sets of programmers, one group who had access to IBM's source code and another who knew nothing about it. The first group closely looked at the original code, and made notes of exactly what it did. The second group took these notes, and wrote their own BIOS that performed exactly the same. After one year and a million dollars, they were successfull. They had a legal BIOS identical in operation to that of the IBM computer.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
The Apple Power PC openboot firmware( The equivalent to a BIOS in that world ) is derived from the Sun OS boot prom. This searches for Java drivers and other thing to run during boot time.
I'm sure this is far more open, understandable and practical compaired to anything Microsoft is proposing.
Also with DRM built in I'm sure it's not going to be open since there only security they can offer is obfuscation.
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
I can still install and boot NT4 on a new machine (yes, it works). I've dual booted BeOS and many flavors of Linux on my Windows boxes. All the while, Apple (due to "technical reasons") restricts through restriction or omission what you can boot on their machines.
;)
Might MS do this horrible thing? Sure. But they've been rumored to do it for years now, in one form or another, and they haven't done it. But Apple has been doing precisely this for years now. It's all in the name of "progress," I know, restricting what you can boot on their new machines. Don't let that stop you from crapping all over MS for finally moving into an area where they can exercise almost 50% of the control that Apple does over a machine. Maybe 60% if you count the mouse.