Slashdot Mirror
Phoenix Sounds Death Knell for BIOS
Anonymous Coward writes "The sky will fall next.... Betanews is carrying a story about Phoenix ditching the trusty old BIOS and moving to 'Trusted Computing'... ya right... Time to stock up on those old motherboards boys!" A follow-up/analysis on this story.
How will LinuxBIOS fit into this? Will we be able to pop out a Phoenix BIOS and pop a LinuxBIOS into it?
I thought I read a while back that Microsoft was buying Phoenix or something and that in the future a lot of newer BIOSes were going to be made by MS? Am I on crack or is this what's actually going to happen?
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
..very fast that people don't want to buy pc's they can't run their own code on if they ever try that. though if they play it smart and make this worth something to the user it might catch on. but the horror scenarios.. well.. you really think that every manufacturer would jump into that when there's the easy way of selling the 'old' stuff what people want to buy? sure most people don't know what they stand for but they'd find out soon enough(when they can't install that ms office 3k from work, or play that copied game or install that crack, or view their divxes)!
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I can hardly imagine whatever "trusted computing" consortium allowing Open Source operating systems to have the specs to their protocols [after all, "security through obscurity" seems to be the favored method of both microsoft and the anti-virus industry].
Without those specifications, the routers will reject packets from Linux and BSD computers (because they will be seen by the routers as being infected because they cannot give the expected response) and therefore only 'approved' (read: microsoft, and perhaps -perhaps- apple) operating systems will have access to the internet.
And now, with the access to the hardware cut off by "trusted computing"'s subsitution for the bios; open source operating systems won't even be able to write to the computer hardware itself.
(my ex-gf pointed out that someone can crack that the way the xbox was cracked, but that is not taking the DMCA into account, which would prevent any 'respectable' projects from being able to use any code generated illegally).
To top things off, the final piece of the puzzle may be the fact that europe is on the verge of adopting 'software patents', which gives Microsoft the foot in the door to sue anyone who designs a half-way decent GUI into obscurity...and this will be coming soon to a formerly free democratic republic near you.
In short, Open Source computing is a concept whose day has come and now has gone, and it's time to either get back to chasing 'warez' or give up on computers entirely.
Unless there's something I'm missing here. But after reading slashdot for the last three or four years, I really doubt that there is.
Yeah, but it's firmware that does a lot of hairy shit. Getting the CPU to talk to everything on the board and doing it at the maximum possible speed is not for the faint of heart.
That said, I see now with AMD64 that the CPU is the memory controller, so maybe it won't be so bad.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
"Why? Because Microsoft has declared that thir next operating system will only run on Trusted Computing hardware and it is flat-out IMPOSSIBLE to sell hardware if it can't run Windows."
This is stupid. If no motherboards adopted trusting computing, it'd be fucking hard to sell Windows.
Customers using Cisco's network admission control system can permit network access only to compliant and trusted endpoint devices (for example, PCs, servers, personal digital assistants) and restrict the access of non-compliant devices.
ISP's can install these new Cisco routers and you will be denied internet access unless you submit to Trusted Computing.
The routers are advertized as fighting "viruses", but they do not in fact scan for or block viruses. What they do is first check if you are running Trusted Computing. If not they deny you a connection. They can then be configured to verify that you are running specific software such as up to date anti-virus software.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
So what's wrong with the standard most of the rest of the computer world (IBM, Sun, Apple) uses - OpenFirmware? You'd think Linuxheads would want an x86 motherboard with OpenFirmware. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
So, does this mean that Mac becomes the preferred hardware platform for linux?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
If I properly understand documents which I can found about Trusted Computing I think that no one except certified TC/MS tehnicians can legaly change BIOS software if it is protected by DRM rules.
That may be an bigger problem if other BIOS vendors do the same thing.
After all maybe we are all forced to back to old Altair 800 days. Or to stay with current owned hardware and wait on market selfregulation (if no one buy an new HW/SW combination vendors must change rules if they want to survive). Or to buy an hardware which doesn't have TC/DRM/... features.
I would argue the opposite. Look at the iPod. It's not obvious how to copy music to multiple song libraries, but it's not overly difficult either. Apple tends to place much more responsibility onto the end user. Even the iTunes Music Store follows this philosophy. The AAC's themselves are restricted to a certain number of authorized computers, but you can burn them to unlimited CDs. I feel that this strategy will continue with their hardware-some restrictions, but with most of the "trust" in trusted computing being placed in the users themselves.
Realistically, how many of these have been sold to ISP's? ISP's are not in the business of denying access... They're all about the openness. If someone's Macintosh is attempting to connect to the network, who do you think they will blame if they are denied service? How much do you think you will lose in service calls?
No, this most definitely for corporate networks... Some point-haired boss will approve the acquisition of these machines after listening to a sales pitch that came with free sushi and a lucky winner getting a trip to the Bahamas. Suddenly, the mailserver, corporate IM server, and print servers won't work.
"Why aren't these working?" The PHB will ask.
"Because that router you bought refuses the connection, complaining about 'trusted computing. I'm turning it off now," says the dirty haired sysadmin.
"Turning off trusted computing? Aren't we using all Microsoft solutions?"
"No, that would be an extra 20k per year, plus switching costs, downtime, viruses, worms, etc."
"They have scanners for that. Besides, Microsoft has better sushi chefs."
"It's a bad idea."
"Switch it all or I'll replace you with someone who will."
"O.K."
The Dirty Haired Sysadmin will dutifly switch all of the servers over, and will subsequently be fired after the fifth worm attacks the network.
The ______ Agenda
Industry standard company ditching their flagship product; consumer demand for said product remains strong; product still selling.
I'll use my contacts, call some venture capitalists, and get the ball rolling.
OK. Not really. But you get the idea. Whenever something like this happens, too many people pessimisticly assume that nothing can be done about it. They remind me of C3PO--"we're all doomed.".
No. You're not doomed. Crisis. Opportunity. Mmmmm... Crisitunity.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
If Microsoft ever did that in a product I own, I will sue them for using my CPU resources that cost me money on my electric bill. And yes, it adds up. And I quote from Folding at Home...
"Roughly, a CPU uses about as much power as a 60 watt light bulb. Here's a report on computer power management from Lawrence Berkeley government labs, and there are other referencs on the web you can find. Although power supplies on most computers are rated at 250 watts, average usage is much lower. On average, a Pentium-type computer uses between 45-70 watts (I've read various different sources on this) while it is on. If the computer has no idle mode, it will use the same amount of energy whether it is running a program or not. If it is on idle, it will consume around 25 watts. So, the daily difference between off and running F@H is about 24x(45 to 70) = 1.1 to 1.7 kWh. At $0.14 per kWh ( from PG&E here in California), this works out to about $0.15 to $0.24 per day, or perhaps $6 a month. The difference between an idled computer and one running F@H would be closer to $4 a month - and if the computer was already being used 8 hours a day, it would be closer to $3 a month.
Now, just imagine everyone running all those shiny new PCs with the latest version of Windows. And you thought power distribution was a problem in the US now. Damn...
Life is not for the lazy.
No. You are not breaking the encryption, you would be removing and replacing it. If you buy something, you have the right to do whatever the hell you want with it. If they (Microsoft and other DRM proponents) say you can't, then basically what that translates into is that you are no longer buying a computer, but you are *renting/leasing* it under *THEIR* terms. I don't rent or lease computers that *they* control. No fucking way!
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Here are some forces working against success of a transition to trusted computing the open source community should think about and could leverage to their advantage:
There is a huge installed base of non trusted machines. As soon as you start penalizing machines for being untrusted on the net there will be a lot of unhappy users that may balk at being forced to buy an all new hardware/software setup to gain entry. Instead the net may engage in the self repairing behavior its known for and just route around the trusted parts of the net. One way I can see getting around this is to sell a trusted hardware/OS for a number of years so the platforms is pervasive before trying to kill untrusted platforms.
Its doubtful China or many other country outside the U.S. is going to buy into a system as intrusive and big brotherish as this is, especially when dictated from the U.S. which no one trusts any more. Asia may manufacture trusted hardware to sell to the U.S. but I'm skeptical they they will use it themselves unless places like China develop their own mutation which they control and can use to control their citizens. Asia seems to be moving to Linux and working to develop their own processors to gaurd against being subjected to heavy handed dictates, like this, from Microsoft, Intel and the NSA. If the U.S. gets the EU's backing in this they might have some chance of success. If the U.S. presses ahead alone they might well manage to destroy their market dominance in computing to be replaced by Asia or Europe.
There is a huge pool of legacy software that people are going to insist keep running. Either TCP machines are going to run untrusted software or its unlikely people are going to accept it or want to buy it. Until TCP platforms have a compelling body of trusted software they wont succeeed. Maybe they can sandbox untrusted software but it seems like untrusted software goes against the grain of everything trusted computing is.
There are still a bunch of powerful hardware vendors including Apple, IBM, HP, Dell and SUN that are backing Unix/Linux to one extent or another that are unlikely to subscribe to a hardware lock in that would kill them. As long as we can switch to PowerPC and keep on trucking who really cares, especially now that PowerPC is close to parity with Intel.
Despite all the doom and gloom I think this could be a boon to Open Source. Microsoft has never really attempted a transition this disruptive to backward compatibility. If people are faced with a transition that destroys legacy software and hardware and appears excessibely intrusive and monopolistic, a lot of countries, companies, developers and consumers may take this opportunity to really opt out of Wintel's hegemony.
There is one real danger though. The U.S. government along with some kind of coalition of the willing could try to pass laws and trade restrictions to make Trusted Computing happen in the name of the "Never Ending War on Terrorism". I would have never believed this to be possible a couple years ago but at this point, especially if we get another four years of Bush and Ashcroft it seems extremely plausible. In this scenario it would be illegal to build or import hardware in coalition countries that did not conform to trusted computing standards and after some transition period it would be illegal to hook non trusted platforms to the Internet. This would almost inevitably lead to a fracturing of the Internet in to at least two disconnected pieces, one free and one not free. Would it be possible to create a clandestine, free, wireless network in the U.S. if the government outlawed a free Internet. How could we cr
@de_machina