Cringely: MS To Hurt Linux Via USB Enhancements

frogspit writes "In this article, Cringely suggests that MS's proposed enhancements to USB to address security issues have the added benefit (for them) of hurting Linux."

Comments

Marketing hype? No, unfortunate reality.

[garcia]

Oh, you'll be able to upgrade your 2004 or 2005 PC to Longhorn, but it will never work quite as well as a new 2006 PC actually designed to run the OS. This is called marketing, folks, and it is what keeps us buying new PCs and other electronic devices over and over again.

Nah, they are going to make it move from marketing hype to marketing reality. They want to DRM the OS, the BIOS, and the peripherals so that they can lock out whoever and whatever they want.

They have already made the deals w/Phoenix to make a MSFT certified BIOS that will enable them to not boot "insecure" OSs. They are in talks to get the RIAA to support a format to make CDs unreadable in machines other than those running Windows (I presume this would include insecure versions of Windows as well). They are working to get the MPAA to agree to allow them to distribute movie materials via WMP which will likely lead to DVDs "protected" with MSFT products.

So they aren't just going to have use buying PCs over and over again to keep up with their protection schemes... They are going to have us buying everything over and over again.

bad presumption....

[csmacd]

An "enhancement" could always be included in a service pack to allow DRM CDs on 95,98,etc.

What about legacy auto/component players?

Here's to hoping the OpenBIOS project can workaroud some of this junk.

Re:bad presumption....

[garcia]

An "enhancement" could always be included in a service pack to allow DRM CDs on 95,98,etc.

And MSFT knows this would make the original idea worthless. It won't happen. Upgrade or suffer with using old programs.

What about legacy auto/component players?

What about them? You want to listen to the new music then buy a new player. It's not exactly as if your VHS player plays DVDs. Sure, you can get VHS movies currently but I would go out on a limb to suggest that eventually they will be discontinued for DVD and its successors. You can continue to watch your old media no problem but you won't have access to the new features.

Here's to hoping the OpenBIOS project can workaroud some of this junk.

Sure, you can run all the free software in the world on your OpenBIOS computer. You will not be able to watch media, listen to media, surf the net, etc, because everything will require a "trusted" computer.

Yeah, it's paranoid, yeah it's probably unlikely, but this is where we are headed whether we like it or not.

Re:bad presumption....

[kantai]

Sure, you can run all the free software in the world on your OpenBIOS computer. You will not be able to watch media, listen to media, surf the net, etc, because everything will require a "trusted" computer.

There could also be a free internet or free media. Why not?
Yeah, it's paranoid, yeah it's probably unlikely, but this is where we are headed whether we like it or not.

What? You just said it was unlikely, then you said it was the way were heading.

Regardless, you're assuming the general public is much more sheepish than they actually are. Do you really believe that average joe user is going to put up with this? It's not like this is going to just happen unnoticed. It'll happen, and the public will through a huge shit fit.

Re:bad presumption....

[Ohreally_factor]

The public already puts up with Windows. 95% of average joe users already willingly eat up the crap put in front of them because MS calls it a meal.

The way to stop "trusted computing" is to make Linux easily usable by joe user and then market the shit out of it.

Re:bad presumption....

[PastaLover]

Regardless, you're assuming the general public is much more sheepish than they actually are. Do you really believe that average joe user is going to put up with this? It's not like this is going to just happen unnoticed. It'll happen, and the public will through a huge shit fit.

Many companies are really fed up with the way microsoft tries to squeeze every last buck out of them. The problem is, what is the alternative? Microsoft has been smart about using propietary formats for just about anything, so you're stuck with a whole lot of legacy data that will cost endless manhours to convert. If you do decide to switch you need not only replace all of your servers, get new support contracts, retrain your staff, etc.

Point being, many people will put up with this shit because it's just too much effort to choose another way. In fact, there are only 2 defences: people stop buying microsoft or somebody stops microsoft. The latter can only happen at the government/judicial level and we've seen that doesn't do much of anything. The former, well, see above...

Re:bad presumption....

[kantai]

Joe User doesn't notice the shit that Windows gives them because they think it's normal. They would KNOW that DRM isn't normal. The alternative would likely be Apple, not Linux, at this point. This is why, I believe, that Windows will get to an unacceptable point of intrusiveness, and finally will be forced to tone it down.

Re:bad presumption....

[jjhall]

That old saying applies... Place a frog in boiling water, he will jump out. Place a frog in cool water and slowly raise the temperature, he will cook to death.

Make the change overnight, and people will complain and throw a fit. Over time add a little DRM here, a little more here, require a secure PC for this premium media, then that regular media... Joe Sixpack will be cooked before he knows it.

Unfortunately, there will be so many Sixpacks out there that those of us who see it coming will be treated like Chicken Little until it is too late.

Re:bad presumption....

[Alsee]

WRONG-- the only thing you can't watch will be the media that is controlled by the big corporations

I wish it were that simple, but it can get far worse than you think. Some PC's are already being shipped with Turst chips, and the expectation is that pretty soon every new system will have a Trust chip built in standard. Everyone who replaces an obsolete computer will simply be HANDED a Trusted capable system. After about 4 years practically every PC on the Net will have been replaced. At that point ISP's could quite easily start installing Cisco's announced "Virus Blocking" routers. The way these routers work is that they (1) authenticate that you are running a Trusted machine and (2) use the Trust system to authenticate exactly what software you are running. If you are not running a Trusted system or you are not running exactly the mandated software then this router "quarantines" you, denying you an internet connection. At a Global Tech Summit the president's Cyber Security advisor called on ISP's to plan to do exactly that, to intall exactly this sort of hardware and to make Trusted Computing compliance a MANDATORY requirement for internet access terms of service.

That would be the final nail in the coffin - an internet death sentence if you refuse to submit to Trusted Computing. There will be a million other nails before that, making it almost impossible to function unless you submit. E-mail that will only be readable under Trusted Computing, countless websites only accessible under Trusted Computing, all sorts of software and files that will only be useable under Trusted Computing. It goes way beyond DRM for music and movies. BIOSes being Trusted, USB standards being inherently Trusted, networks being Trusted. They want to make it a mandatory part of every standard. Simply nothing will work unless you submit.

The only way to stop it is if there is a massive public backlash against Trusted Computing.

-

Re:bad presumption....

[Alsee]

It's not like this is going to just happen unnoticed.

They are already shipping some PC's with an embedded Trust chip. The plan is that soon every single PC will come with a Trust chip as standard hardware. It won't be advertized, they will simply hand it to you when you replace your old machine.

you're assuming the general public is much more sheepish than they actually are. Do you really believe that average joe user is going to put up with this?

Your "average joe" will be given various freebie music or movie disks, maybe in the cerial box, maybe with his Happy Meal, maybe as "bonus tracks" on the Titteny Spears CD he just bought. And when he tries to play it it will give an error message saying he has an old obsolete incompatible computer. Your "average joe" will then go out and but a new compatible "Trusted Media ENHANCED" computer just to make the bloody error messaged go away and to get the damned FREE files to work.

On old normal computers the old files work, but the new files give error messages not working at all.

On new "enhanced" computers all of the old files work and all of the new files work.

That's one of the insidious things about their plan, there is absolutely no reason NOT to have a Trusted computer. The Trusted computer can do everything the old computer can do, and more. As we start seeing more and more Trusted files and Trusted software and Trusted websites and Trusted periferals the old normal machines get more and more locked out of everything. None of the new stuff works on an old normal computer.

Sure Trusted Computing means crippled hardware and crippled software and crippled files, but if you submit to Trusted Computing at least it all works. If you refuse to submit to Trusted Computing then nothing will work at all. Average joe just wants the damn thing to work.

-

Re:bad presumption....

[sigaar]

"They would KNOW that DRM isn't normal."

No they won't. They already think it's normal that their brand new super fast computer running WindowsXP won't play some their new CDs. They think that's the way it has to be. They think the CD/DVD drive is not capable of playing audio CDs. Meanwhile that same drive will play the living shit out of that CD under just about any other OS.

They think it's normal that they can watch DVDs on their computer from only one region, or from a few but that it then locks on one region. They think that's right and it's they way it has to be.

They believe it's normal, and that's why companies are getting away with selling absolute bullshit like that to the public.

Re:bad presumption....

[Proc6]

I really wish Apple would develop OSX for PC hardware and sell it. Financial reasons for them NOT doing it aside I think it'd really put a dent in the Microsoft Windows Monopoly.

Re:bad presumption....

[ScrewMaster]

Most of this discussion seems to be rather U.S.-centric, because that is where Microsoft has its greatest influence. But that influence isn't without bounds. I will accept that there are many (even a majority) of governments that would love to have something like Trusted computing become standard within their own borders., so that they can control what their subjects, ah, citizens do with their computers. However, I absolutely cannot see a nation such as, say, China, accepting a Microsoft developed and mandated security technology. They'll just keep on going the way they're going with Linux, for the time being ... they "Trust" Linux because they can own the code, and would like nothing better than to get rid of all Microsoft products because they can't. I feel pretty much the same way myself, actually, but I live in the U.S. and I have to make a living.

Trusted Computing will, no matter how convincing a spin Microsoft, the RIAA, MPAA or the government tries to put on it, inconvenience people. Matter of fact, it will piss them off. Another poster commented that it will be accepted because Joe Average doesn't care about the ramifications of TC, he just wants to run his programs and load his files. I tend to disagree: Trusted Computing may make computing more "secure" but it sure as hell won't make it more convenient or easy to use. The most convenient system is one with no security at all ... anything beyond that will require users to accept that they are going to be told that they can't do certain things when they want to. I know too many Joe Averages that will simply return a computer to the store where they bought it if it refuses to play their music or video, whether that media was legitimately acquired or not. Trusted Computing may provide the media companies with an iron-fisted control of what used to be called "personal computing", but any significant exercise of that control will simply alienate their marketplace.

So ... unless the abovementioned corporate powers get the Feds to make unTrusted computers illegal (a very definite possibility) there will always be companies willing to sell computers on the basis of not being encumbered by useless "Trust". "Having problems playing your media files? Don't let the big boys tell you what you can do with your computer! Buy a PC from TrustNobody, Inc. and do what you want, whenever you want!" Remember where computers aren't made anymore: that's right, the U.S. Yes, we make processors and some chipsets: but motherboards and virtually all prepackaged systems are made overseas, and those guys have no love for Intel, Microsoft, Phoenix, the RIAA/MPAA or the Federal Government. My feeling is that market pressures, left to themselves, would eliminate Microsoft's vision of "Trusted Computing" from ever gaining wide acceptance. Whether the free market will have any say in the matter is up to Congress, but frankly, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them to do the right thing. They've disappointed me way too often lately. The Office of Homeland Security will be able to get way too much political mileage from the idea of Trusted Computing as an antiterrorism measure.

Re:bad presumption....

[AVee]

Cute, the perfect change to go back to the good-old days.
We'll build an alternative network on alternative hard/software and have lots of fun. Imagine an internet without al those people that are likely to buy that 'Trusted Computing' thingy. Imagine an internet without al those big cooperations...

The public will get the network it deserves, pity for them. But it won't hurt me that much...

Re:bad presumption....

[sigaar]

I would like that too, but there are a few practical problems. For one, they'd have to deal with all the junk PC hardware out there. That would be a nightmare. Right now Apple only has to deal with a very small pool of hardware, and as far as the main parts go, they get to choos what they put in their computers, and they're able to use decent hardware. No winmodems or other crap.

They would also have to find some way to break into the Windows market. I mean, have a look at Dell's website and tell me they'll jump to get OS X. They won't. Microsoft will have their ass if they even thought about it. Geeks like me would buy it at the drop of a hat, of course, and I think a couple of artistic minded folk might just too. But a lot of miracles is going to have to happen before conditions are right for them to enter the PC market.

But yeah, I agree. Once Joe Everyman gets to play with OSX, MS market share will definitely take a knock.

Re:bad presumption....

[ScrewMaster]

No, I know what Trusted Computing is. So do you. You made my point when you said, "And sure, they can make a copy of that DRM encumbered file. Nobody else will be able to play it, though, because nobody else has the same key on their Trusted chip." The problem with that line of thinking is this line of thinking: if I bought the damn computer it better damn well do what I told it! That isn't going to change, unless we undergo some fundamental transformation in the nature of personal property. Would you be happy with a machine, any machine, from a simple screwdriver to a car to your personal computer, that decided, all on its own, to disallow you from doing what you bought it to do, based upon criteria set down by people with the ethics and moral fiber of a gangster? And did so for reasons that might not be very clear to you and that might cause significant problems? In an era where America is fast becoming one of the least signficant industrial and technological players, placing unnecessary and restrictive burdens on the uses of a key technology, the personal computer, just seems dangerous and stupid. That is particularly obnoxious when you realize that it is only being done to serve the needs of one insignificant (but politically-well connected) sector of the economy. The benefits to the media companies and Microsoft are obvious. The benefits to the millions of individual computer users are ... well. Somewhat more nebulous at best.

Advanced hardware-level DRM, which is the prime motivator of the push for Trusted Computing is nothing else than a mechanism from disallowing you from performing certain actions. Put it this way: Microsoft, the media companies and the Federal Government have little or no interest in making your computer more secure from outside influence (although that is the rationale for it ... odd that no-one seems to notice that only Microsoft operating systems seem to require such sophisticated protection.) It is, rather, a set of technologies designed to change which set of outside factors you are to be subjected! Even assuming that Microsoft is correct, that their brand of Trusted Computing is nearly 100% effective against the spread of traditional malware and other hacks, cracks, and attacks (I think we all know that it won't be ... this is, after all, a Microsoft proposal) the embedded hardware DRM will have a tremendous social and economic impact, and will make all of us subject to the large content holders ... anyone who thinks they have something valuable to protect and doesn't care who gets hurt so long as they can protect it. You will grasp the significance of that the day you realize you forgot to pay Microsoft your Office rental fee, and none of the documents you've written in it (those on your machine and on every else's that you've shared them with) suddenly become unreadable, and you have a big presentation in thirty minutes. I would submit to you that the Blackhat community, at its worst, has done far less economic and cultural damage to the United States than the media companies and their Congressional allies. With the DMCA and Congress on their side they already have a plenty big enough hammer to use on us: I really see no reason to put that hammer inside my PC.

From a corporate IT perspective, a Trusted computer does provide a lot of advantages, and I have no particular problem with a corporation or other organization which owns its equipment from implementing Trust if they wish. It provides what appears to be a cheap and easy way out of all the things that IT departments don't like to deal with: malware, document security, and so forth. I just do not think that Trust will have all the positive effects that they've been told it does, and by placing all of their trust in Trust they will be in big trouble when it gets cracked. The fact that there are existing technologies which can provide all the benefits without the layer of Microsoft hype also needs to be made a little more clear, I think

Re:bad presumption....

[Sun Rider]

The past is Europe, the present, USA, the future, Asia. If China doesn't want to be tied by Microsoft, they won't. With a simple wave of their hand.

Re:bad presumption....

[IamTheRealMike]

Given that one of my friends back home is a serious Mac fanatic (he wants to work for Apple and already works for a reseller, he goes to the expos etc) and has no qualms at all about warezing new OS X versions for his Mac I think releasing MacOS for IA32 would be a fast way to get lots of copies of the OS out there and zero profit for Apple.

Not the end of the world...

[g-to-the-o-to-the-g]

"To make USB ports really secure we'll need a modified USB standard," says one of the geeks. "The USB device makers will love this because they can sell another billion devices. We'll change the BIOS and the OS so that older, non-serialized, devices can be used but just for read-only applications. So you can still hook-up your older digital camera and download pictures. But to upload any data you'll need a new-standard USB device. Not only will these devices be more secure, but we'll earn a royalty on every one."

As a gentooer, I'm not too concerned. This sounds like a replay of the sender-ID thing. I somehow doubt that manufacturers will gladly adopt this standard. Also, this doesn't make older USB devices stop working. I doubt it will be the end of Linux as we know it. Windows can support or not support whatever they want, it's not going to change Linux.

To me, this sounds more like Cringely being Cringely.

Re:Not the end of the world...

[carlos_benj]

And how does this make things "more secure"? Allowing me to download from a USB device vs. upload seems less secure. Do I already have a virus on my computer and don't want it to get to my older USB device? I guess it's not possible to download a virus from existing USB devices....

Re:Not the end of the world...

[Daniel Boisvert]

As a gentooer, I'm not too concerned. This sounds like a replay of the sender-ID thing. I somehow doubt that manufacturers will gladly adopt this standard. Also, this doesn't make older USB devices stop working. I doubt it will be the end of Linux as we know it. Windows can support or not support whatever they want, it's not going to change Linux.

This is entirely different than the Sender-ID thing, namely because Microsoft has HUGE influence over the hardware vendors, whereas their mail servers are only a (comparatively) small part of the market. With Sender-ID, MS can't afford to do their own thing and break interoperability with the rest of the world, because they're not a large-enough player. With PC hardware, they can and want to do just that, because it helps to ensure they retain their monopoly.

If anything will stop them in my opinion, it's that the PC hardware vendors will hold off on implementing their DRM plans, knowing how much consumers hate them. Either that, or the first few chipsets sold with this DRM crap will fail miserably in the market, and hardware vendors will scrap it outright (much like the V-Chip crap with TV's awhile back).

To me, this sounds more like Cringely being Cringely.

Well, that much I can agree with. ;)

Re:Not the end of the world...

[thorjansen]

As a gentooer, I'm not too concerned. This sounds like a replay of the sender-ID thing.

It's not the same thing at all. Sender-ID is at the software level, and USB is hardware.

I somehow doubt that manufacturers will gladly adopt this standard.

Which would be a radical departure from what they've done in the past, if it happens as you think it will.

Also, this doesn't make older USB devices stop working.

If you read the article through, you'd have learned that older devices will become READ-ONLY. Meaning, you can download from the device to the PC, but not the other way. Not "stop working", but it sure cuts their functionality down quite a bit.

I doubt it will be the end of Linux as we know it. Windows can support or not support whatever they want, it's not going to change Linux.

No, it won't be the end of Linux. But if Microsoft is successful at DRM'ing more and more hardware, they will be able to lock out not only Linux users from using these devices, but also any other OS not approved (meaning, paid their license fees) by Microsoft.

Re:Not the end of the world...

[borroff]

Cringely will keep being Cringely as long as Microsoft keeps being Microsoft. The computer industry could put Cringe out to pasture just being limiting themselves to boneheaded errors instead of predatory behavior. It's possible that he overstates the case, but we've gotten so jaded by other examples of this type of behavior that he may have to make a stink just to cut through the pervasive air of apathy.

Sure, you can say that Microsoft is just trying to maximize their profit, but I would submit that in a perfect world, they would be doing that by offering a better product, rather than locking out the competition. Is it conceivable that they could have added these features in such a way that didn't make USB incompatible? Absolutely. And I bet everyone got a big laugh at that one.

Re:Not the end of the world...

[g-to-the-o-to-the-g]

If you read the article through, you'd have learned that older devices will become READ-ONLY. Meaning, you can download from the device to the PC, but not the other way. Not "stop working", but it sure cuts their functionality down quite a bit.

Uhm....asumming Linux doesn't adopt this lame thing, it won't matter. Older devices will only suffer from read-only'age on windows. MS's evil business practices haven't been getting the warmest of welcomes lately. They can only go on for so long bullying everyone else and building on their monopoly. Eventually MS is going to be reduced significantly, it's just a matter of when.

Re:Not the end of the world...

[Slime-dogg]

UPNP?

Fortunately, most MS hardware specs fail in the marketplace.

.NET isn't even able to save the pocketPC.

Re:Not the end of the world...

[clifyt]

" (much like the V-Chip crap with TV's awhile back)."

Huh? VChips are in most TVs today.

Its a great piece of work...it helps the gov't allow parents to restrict what the parents want the kids to watch without having to pass draconian laws censoring the general public. I would never use it, but it it keeps even one religious freak from screaming about whats on the airwaves and getting in my congressmans face about it, I'm all for it.

As a side note, I was trying to get an older TV of mine working as my current one just died last week...I was surprised when I went through the setup that it had the Vchip in it because I never messed with it. Simple to use and it doesn't screw with anything else. Thats the way technology should be...I have no problems with folks deciding what they want to watch in their own homes...

Re:Not the end of the world...

[Znork]

The idea is to prevent people from stealing corporate data via USB devices, as sources have noted that there has apparently been a huge upsurge in data smuggling by use of rectally insertable USB devices.

Now, some may say that there are other more practical ways of stealing data, like mailing it, ftp'ing it, dumping it over a http connection, reading it from a wlan or something, but as these things require a bit more thought than merely shoving the data up your arse, they are widely regarded as being unlikely security holes, so to speak. Others say that people have had access to cd's, floppy disks and printouts for a long time without data smuggling being a problem needing an industry-wide solution, but they apparently have not tried rectal insertion of these media.

So to nip this problem in the bud, we need a new USB standard. The only alternative would be supergluing every corporate employees arse shut to prevent this flow of intellectual property out from offices around the world.

Re:Not the end of the world...

[pohl]

but they apparently have not tried rectal insertion of these media....So to nip this problem in the bud, we need a new USB standard.

The new standard should go back to the 25-pin D-shaped subminiature physical connector, which would make such insertion painful and dangerous.

Re:Not the end of the world...

[killjoe]

If your employees are willing to steal your IP then you are deep shit and this isn't going to help.

If I was a disgruntled employee who had access to valuable information I would sell it to the competitor, if I could not carry the information with me I would sell my username and password to the competitor. While I was at it I would also ask a bunch of my co-workers for their passwords and sell them too.

If your employees are out to screw you then can do it very easily. If not one way then another. Maybe you should ask yourself why they want to screw your first place.

Re:Not the end of the world...

[ChaosDiscord]

Its a great piece of work...it helps the gov't allow parents to restrict what the parents want the kids to watch without having to pass draconian laws censoring the general public.

My parents had a similar device. It was called fscking paying attention to what I was watching.

Thats the way technology should be...

Dictated by the government, no longer an option for individual consumers, and increasing the cost for everyone when only a small minority will use it? I'm not entirely convinced that's the way technology should be.

Re:Not the end of the world...

[ChaosDiscord]

I completely understand that this isn't a free speech issue. The issue is one of Big Government. While I do err liberal, I'm no hippy. Government should minimize its impact on us.

As for being unable to police your children all of the time, that's really your problem, not mine. If you can't afford enough time to monitor and educate your kids, perhaps you can't afford to have children. By your own admission, you had access to pornography as a child, yet somehow you managed to turn out alright. Perhaps a combination of parental monitoring and a focus on what is right and wrong? It seems to have worked for me.

Ultimately your argument seems to be that you don't have time to raise your children and protect them from images on television. Instead of living without television (which many families do), or restricting access to the television (with a locked door if necessary), you'd prefer that we additional laws and force everyone to pay to help you parent. That doesn't seem like a reasonable option to me.

Re:Not the end of the world...

[Alsee]

I somehow doubt that manufacturers will gladly adopt this standard.

Really? I suggest you try to find a soundcard that isn't Secure Audio Path (SAP) compliant. Practically none of then advertize that fact because SAP is an anti-consumer intentioanlly crippling of the soundcard, however every Windows Compatible soundcard has it. They all have it simply because Microsoft announced that they HAD to have it to be Windows Compatible. If you try to play certain flagged WindowsMedia format files Windows will pop up an error message and refuse to play the file unless the soundcard is SAP compliant. Anyone who attempts to complain about the problem to Microsoft will simply be told that the problem is that their incompatible soundcard.

It just isn't possible to survive in the PC hardware market if your product doesn't work with Windows. How many people will buy a USB-product that doesn't work when you plug it into a Windows PC? How many support calls and returns would they get when the product doesn't work and Window pops up a message saying there is something wrong with the product?

Every BIOS maker is making a Trusted Computing BIOS simply because Microsoft dictated that only a Trusted Computing BIOS will be fully compatible with the next version of Windows. The expectation is that Trust chips will be standard on ALL motherboards in a few months simply because Microsoft dictated that only a Trusted compatible motherboard will be fully compatible with the next version of Windows.

Microsoft now has the power to dictate virtually any hardware they like because any manufacturer who does not comply will be driven out of the business by those competititors that do comply and have their hardware shipped with every new Windows PC.

-

Re:Not the end of the world...

[dbIII]

Is it conceivable that they could have added these features in such a way that didn't make USB incompatible?

You are talking about the company that couldn't even get "ping" right after they were handed the source code for it from Berkeley, with surprisingly nasty consequences. They aren't very big on standards and compatability - others are supposed to work with whatever MS decides to do (eg. other companies had to patch their server OS so a badly configured ping client couldn't take them off the net).

in a perfect world, they would be doing that by offering a better product

Microsoft have never operated that way, and as a consequence have a huge market share. They sell a good enough OS and good enough word processing software that runs on very cheap computers. Cheap and nasty machines can work as low volume servers, and a lot of the time it does the job, so everyone bought or stole a MS OS. The problem MS has with linux, *BSD etc is that they run on the same cheap hardware, which gets rid of a major advantage of using their products in the first place.

Microsoft is not in the business of offering a better product, that has always been what IBM, DEC, Honeywell, Sun and Apple have tried to do. The cost difference has meant, as an example, that if you are publishing books only those that do the typesetting have historicaly used Apples, while everyone else uses a PC with as old a version of MS operating system they can get away with.

Re:Marketing hype? No, unfortunate reality.

[TopShelf]

BAH - Microsoft would never get away with such blatantly anti-competitive, monopolist tactics. I predict the DOJ would be able to stop such activity by 2020 or so...

By which time of course USB will be a distant memory.

Linux will adapt

[Tyndmyr]

Now, before this becomes flooded with people screaming against the latest evilness from MS, I'd like to say that, while I haven't actually seen the lisence, I highly doubt it prohibits someone making an alternative driver for the USB port. Certainly, some bright coders will be working on this. I'm just not seeing this as a major problem for linux, though I do agree that MS does dominate hardware standards.

Re:Linux will adapt

[GreyPoopon]

Somebody mod the parent up, or please post a reason why this is any more a Linux kill than any other new piece of hardware. I'm trying to find some information about why somebody couldn't just create a Linux driver to interact with the new USB devices. Is there a patent at work here that I'm not aware of?

Re:Linux will adapt

[Mysticalfruit]

I'm sure some smart coder would create an alternative driver to work with the USB port. The problem would be the gackle of MS lawyers that would come after him. Barring him, they'd go after every ISP that hosts the driver. Then they'd go after every person who every downloaded the driver, etc.

I actually don't think that USB will be what the big fight will be over. I think Cringely has the right idea, just the wrong piece of hardware.

My fear is MS getting into bed with the BIOS people and creating a closed standard DRM BIOS. So when you go pop in the boot CD of your favorite distribution you get the bios error:

"Bootable Media doesn't not contain valid authentication signature".

That's my fear.

Re:Linux will adapt

[transient]

No, there is nothing at work here. This article is about something that Microsoft could do, not something they're actually doing. It's beyond speculative, and it's hard to talk about without sounding like a raving loony.

Enhancements

[Zorilla]

If enhancements were to be made to USB, information on the specs would have to be provided as well, and hopefully not just to those who fork up the dough for it. In this case, saying it would hurt Linux would be saying that the development for an enhanced USB interface would take a really long time. I doubt it would be true if support was important enough. Was supporting USB 1.1 and 2.0 in Linux really a pain at all when it came out?

I hate this guy

[stratjakt]

There IS a new USB standard in the works and it is at the heart of Microsoft's sudden interest in USB security. Co-developed with Intel, the new USB standard specifically excludes Linux and probably OS X devices as well. I'm told the Intel folks are quite embarrassed about this, but feel powerless to do anything about it.

Links? Can you back this up with any actual facts?

Show me the new published standard that "specifically excludes linux and probably OS/X".

And if he's so sure it specifically excludes Linux, why is he doubtful about OS/X?

I call bullshit and flamebait on this entire article.

MSFT isn't scared of linux on the desktop, they have absolutely no reason to be.

Re:I hate this guy

[Anonymous Coward]

MSFT isn't scared of linux on the desktop

That's not what Ballmer has been saying recently.

Re:I hate this guy

[CatGrep]

And if he's so sure it specifically excludes Linux, why is he doubtful about OS/X?


In the case of OSX, Apple may be able to pay a licensing fee to get the new USB hardware standard included in their machines. Apple controls it's own hardware and though they make heavy use of Open Source (Darwin, FreeBSD) they have no problem with paying licensing fees if they're reasonable.

MSFT isn't scared of linux on the desktop, they have absolutely no reason to be.

And they had no reason to be scared of losing the browser wars either (which they had assumed they had won), but lately IE has been losing quite a lot of market share to the likes of FireFox, Mozilla and Opera (but especially FireFox).

Re:I hate this guy

[seamelt]

What you should probably consider is that Cringely has been doing this sort of thing (writing columns about and predicting future trends and strategies in the computer industry) for a very long time. He has a lot of people who are "in the know" about emerging technologies and trends and when he says things like this he is correct maybe not most of the time but enough that people give head to what he says. Go back in his archives and check out his predictions for the coming year and see how many things he is right about. I have no particular love for Cringley either (mostly the tinge of egoism in every column) but you gotta give it to the guy, he tends to be right.

Is it bad...

[revery]

Is it bad that after reading this article, my sole reaction was to run through our building yelling "USB belt buckles!!" like some sort of geek version of Paul Revere...

I'm so embarrassed....

--

Was it the sheep climbing onto the altar, or the cattle lowing to be slain,
or the Son of God hanging dead and bloodied on a cross that told me this was a world condemned, but loved and bought with blood.

Some first-hand insight would be good

[poot_rootbeer]

Cringely and his sources seem to believe that Longhorn's USB device restrictions will be based on the concept of "trusted devices", that the hardware itself will have to know whether or not to let the USB host access it.

I don't see it that way. The implementation I envision is a "trusted user" approach, in which it is access rules defined in the computer's operating system that determine how USB devices can be used.

A flag in the Registry for each user. When a USB device is connected, depending on its value, the OS will give the user either full read/write access, read-only access, or no access, and will mount the USB volume accordingly.

Perhaps there are real advantages to the method Cringely believes MS will implement, but I don't see them.

Re:Some first-hand insight would be good

[bmwm3nut]

but the hardware will treat all devices as "not trusted" unless the (microsoft) OS says "this user is trusted" open the device. the problem isn't that devices (or users) aren't trusted by the OS, it's that the hardware is enforcing the trust. and that to beable to talk to the hardware you'll need to license the protocol or something from microsoft, which will lock out open source/free solutions.

Not Practical

[Timber_Z]

As big as Microsoft is, they can't simply make useless all usb drives out there with a flick of a switch, as the artical sugests.

More likly, Longhorn will by default allow standard behavior from usb devices.

If and only if the administrator of the OS flips a switch will the usb port be (Disabled / Read only / {Custom USB Writeable})

So while they may require a Longhorn only usb drive, in certain scenario's, regular ones should still work in most situations.

This is of course only conjecture, only time will tell for sure what will happen.

I usually find Cringely interesting, but this time

[Assmasher]

...he's the one actually spreading FUD.

Given Microsoft's already tenuous relationship with the Department of Justice's anti-trust division, sure you don't think they would attempt to lock out Linux and OSX do you? They would get the hell sued out of them.

Second, what's to stop Apple or another hardware company from coming up with a different solution to the problem that works with Windows and therefore does not suffer from diminished market application?

Third, and here's where I get crazy, I believe that at some point in the next five years, Microsoft is going to produce Linux software (for crazy reasons that I'll keep to myself until they begin to sound less crazy.)

But USB is an open standard...

[brucmack]

How are they making the open standard somehow Windows-only? Doesn't the fact that it is an open standard mean that someone can just put the support for the new standard into Linux and be done with it? Or does the new standard actually rely on some propriatary software from MS?

Re:But USB is an open standard...

[CatGrep]

Doesn't the fact that it is an open standard mean that someone can just put the support for the new standard into Linux and be done with it?

No. First off, you assert that USB is an open standard. It may currently be, however, M$ intends to make some changes to the USB hardware that would require anyone who wants to put the new USB hardware on their motherboard to pay a licensing fee to M$. The licensing fee would be minimal and probably only used as a pretext to assert that there is IP that needs to be protected (and is thus not 'Open').

Secondly, the issue isn't putting support in Linux for the new standard; it's a hardware issue. M$ will develop some hardare IP that can't be used without paying a (probably very small) licensing fee. Motherboard makers will be willing to do this (and I'm sure that M$ will make it appealing for them - "The next version of Windows won't work without it!"). Then there would be the issue of drivers. M$ would probably supply binary drivers only, and this would be what would lock out Linux (apparently). Cringely implies that Linux hackers would probably come up with a way to get around this, however, they would be in legal danger (see DMCA, the upcoming INDUCE Act, and who knows what other laws will be passed by then).

The other side of this is that the USB drive makers will need to also add some new hardware to their drives to let the USB master know that they're 'trustworthy'. Old USB drives would still work, but as read-only devices. Again, M$ would probably license this IP to the USB drive makers for very cheap so they wouldn't have any qualms about using it and so their drives would work with the newest motherboards.

Re:Wow, just wow....

[einhverfr]

Something that occurred to me....

I remember when everyone said that USB put Linux at a serious disadvantage becuase of driver requirements. In the end, most USB devices work well on Linux and Linux had USB 2.0 support before Windows!

Unless Microsoft wants to patent these USB enhancements we can safely assume that Linux will support these enhancements. Otherwise, it is probably safe to assume that many device manufacturers will not impliment them. Either way, Linux is OK.

I'm suspicious of this too...

[Anita Coney]

I just don't get why USB hard drives are such a security risk. Any employee who wanted to steal a bunch of data is not going to be stopped by this. All he would have to do is open up his computer and borrow the HD for a weekend.

Heck, he could just email the data to himself at home!

And let's be serious, how many employees really have access to valuable and confidential information?!

When I first heard about this alleged security problem I immediately thought, what's Microsoft's real purpose? Cringely might be on the right track.

Re:I'm suspicious of this too...

[Tyndmyr]

Some locations have armed guards, metal detectors, etc, for this type of thing. A hard drive is both larger and far more metallic than a USB drive is. CD-burners are easy...dont have them. Same with disk, tape, etc drives. Floppies don't hold much anyhow. External drives of any sort fail the same criteria as a hard drive would.

Any place that allows unrestricted access to email in conjunction with private material deserves to have it stolen...

USB devices are currently the second highest threat to infosec, only behind stupidity, IMO. What do I know about security? Im sure slashdot can track my IP if they're really curious.

Re:I'm suspicious of this too...

[MonkeyCookie]

It's a lot easier to smuggle a USB drive in and out than to take apart a computer and remove the hard drive. Taking apart a computer when you're not supposed to is not exactly inconspicuious.

Places that are really security-conscious will put any computers with sensitive data on an internal, secure, non-Internet-connected network, make their machines physically secure so that they cannot be opened without a key or special equipment, and disable any ports on the machine if they can. Apparently, USB ports are still a vulnerability that these security-conscious companies would like to take care of.

Of course, companies who are really *that* security-conscious shouldn't be running Windows in the first place. Linux would be much more suitable in that type of environment.

Re:I'm suspicious of this too...

[sglane81]

And let's be serious, how many employees really have access to valuable and confidential information?!

More than you would think apparently. Sysadmins, DBAs, developers... depending on your business model of course. At the very least, your organization would have sysadmins who would have full access to all the systems. Not one guy, but a group of sysadmins.

Even if MS gets all those hardware manufacturers on board with DRM, TCPA, etc, I am not concerned. There will always be that one company who makes a system which doesn't comply with MicroSofts TCPA. That one vender will be made into a very profitable company overnight.

Microsoft can flex its muscles all it wants. They've tried it for years. Like MSN blocking all but IE (failed), Sender-ID (failed), IIS not working with anything but IE (failed). MS Office is their only real stronghold, but that happened over 10 years ago (noting that wordpad was formerly known as MS Word 3?). I still run a windows 98 game for gaming. Mainly because it isn't as bloated. Windows 95/98 still run win32 binaries just like XP. There have been a few nice updates with 2000 (better SMB auth), but nothing worth upgrading for. What sheeple don't realize is that Microsoft can't break the binary compatibility of thier last OS version without cutting off tons of people. In order for TCPA and this USB lockout to work, there would have to be a MAJOR shift in PC hardware and most vendors won't cut off their customers.

Microsoft is just not big enough. By that I mean, there will always people out there who do not conform and succumb to marketing hype.

Re:I'm suspicious of this too...

[flabbergasted]

Extrapolating from your limited experience to the rest of the world is fun and easy! You too can make ignorant comments regarding things you know nothing about!

I work at a place where signing hard drives in and out of safes when you want to boot a computer is a standard procedure. Visiting other businesses is just as cumbersome. Just try and visit Lockheed or Boeing or a military base. Cell phones, USB memory sticks and (frequently) laptops are held at the lobby or the security office.

I went to a meeting a month or two ago with my laptop. We were all sitting around working with our individual machines around a table. Someone wanted a file from me, so I went to burn it to a CD for them. The host company had conveniently provided a stack of blank CDs for our use.

I pulled a disk off the top of the stack and popped it in my drive. It turned out to have data on it already. I said this out loud and everyone in the room froze. Fortunately, the data was innocuous, so I got to keep my hard drive. But for a moment there, I faced the real possibility of having my drive confiscated and either classified or destroyed.

Intel

[roman_mir]

PC companies build what Microsoft tells them to because doing otherwise risks having their hardware go uncertified, or even worse, simply not function with Windows. - I wonder what processors would MS software run if not Intel's, I don't completely understand how MS came into position to dictate its terms to the hardware manufacturer. I wonder how much time will it take MS to come up with their own processor and the rest of it (sort of like Apple but without IBM) maybe they MS will can even cooperate with Sun on this front.

In any case USB is definetely an important piece of hardware and ubiquitous at that. I don't believe that the home users will care about the security of their USB devices more than they care about security of their browsers and email clients. If the new standard is released it maybe picked up by very security minded folks, like the security services, but MS will have tough time convincing most companies to switch to yet another hardware platform (at least within the next 5 years.)

Worse ...

[gstoddart]

Someone is suggesting Microsoft is doing something to further their existence and bring their competition down, sound the alarms!

No. Someone is pointing out that a convicted monolopist is using their position to change a standard in such a way as to be able to exclude all competition who don't pay a license to Microsoft to implement it.

Since it will probably have a bunch of patent/license encumberance that will have the effect of saying "Microsoft gets to decide who is in the industry" and everyone else can go home.

It will have the rather un-nerving effect that Microsoft can effectively lock out any open source projects from ever speaking to hardware ever again. Wanna reverse engineer the USB to allow for interoperability? Well, if it's encumbered technology reverse engineering would be illegal.

Oh, sorry. Can't afford a new USB device? Bought yours on sale? Well, we have decided that Microsoft gets to be the sole arbiter of what people can do with their devices. Which means you could eventually find scenarios where you don't own your data -- you have a license from Microsoft to give them your data which becomes their property and they get to assign DRM/usage rules to it.

The fact the government isn't really leary about the fact that Microsoft is in effect saying "all your base are belong to us" with how the industry handles hardware.

If Microsoft wants to go to a totally closed shop mentality as far as every single piece of hardware is concerned, they will probably quickly find Apple overtaking them.

Re:Worse ...

[TheRealMindChild]

Actually, this may not be as horrible as everyone makes it out to be. What I think we will see happening is Microsoft will be responsible for another type of proprietary (maybe the wrong word) machine, like a Mac. Only one operating system was thought of when designing it, while a couple others might pop up on the radar ever so quickly. The only difference between this and Apple with their Macs is there are more 3rd parties involved in this one.

In the meantime, the PC platform will keep on being there, like it has for over 20 years... and companies actually entertaining leaving the PC platform for the Almost-PC-Microsoft platform will come around. I promise.

Re:Worse ...

[gstoddart]

How about licensing the damn scheme? As long as you have the option of buying the license, Microsoft can't be accused of exercising an illegal monopoly.

Rubbish I say. Let's say my favourite license is FreeBSD. The freest license you'll ever find since it places zero encumberances on you.

There would be absolutely no open source license which would be compatible with a scheme in which Microsoft required that DRM was implemented at the level of the definition of the USB spec.

Because they would apply an NDA clause to it and say you can't give out the source, because someone could a) see something that is patended, b) remove the code to actually obey it, or c) tell someone how weak the security actually is.

Since the courts have upheld that once I buy a piece of electronics, I'm allowed to reverse engineer it for purposes of interoperability, you can bet this new standard would take away that right. It would become a crime to try and figure out how to push data onto your old USB keychain.

In university, I had some wonderful opportunities to get some introduction to poking at hardware interfaces. This was because they were documented specs that people were free to use. What IBM always did right back in the day was make sure everyone could find out how to make their hardware go.

This would make activies that might be reasonable in an Operating Systems course illegal. Oh, sorry. We can't teach you how to communicate with hardware since the school can't afford the NDA and liability insurance in case you actually use that knowledge.

This change in spec would mean that only closed sourced vendors who have been graced by Microsoft will be allowed to participate in an entire industry.

At which point Microsoft will figure if they can do it for hardware, they better come up with something so that only 'accredited and approved' software could be executable. At which they'll set up windows to only run code generated by their development kit which will cost eleventy-two bajillion dollars.

Computers are moving in the direction of (hopefully) becoming commodity items like toasters that nobody gives a second thought about. While Microsoft would like very much to be able to say that from now on, all things need their approval so they can lock in a perpetual revenue stream. I'm sure as hell not willing to support them in securing a complete strangle hold on what remains of the industry.

The general purpose computer is under a lot of attack nowadays. This is just one more way in which a lot of parties want to control every facet of how you use them.

Re:Worse ...

[citiZen2010]

If Microsoft wants to go to a totally closed shop mentality as far as every single piece of hardware is concerned, they will probably quickly find Apple overtaking them.

Whoa, I was there right with you until that last line. Let's see, exactly how is Apple different from a "totally closed shop mentality as far as every single piece of hardware is concerned"? The very reason that Apple has been so marginalized is that they did not take advantage of the economies of scale inherent in open standards at a critical time in the birth of the PC age. They won't make the same mistake at the birth of the "all your data are belong to us" DRM age. I see Apple adopting the new technology along with everyone else, assuming they're allowed to.

Re:Worse ...

[jedidiah]

Well, Duh. If we consider Microsoft to be a "convicted monopolist" then we probably think that the intent of the Sherman Act is a pretty good idea.

The real question is: Why should an insignificant peon such as yourself support the ability of capitalists to run amok?

Even the early captialist economists thought that monopolies were a bad idea and nullfied the advantages of capitalism.

Blogger meet Tin Foil Hat .... Tin Foil Hat ...

[telstar]

I expect USB ports to disappear about as fast as 3.5" floppy drives....

USB security conerns

[methodic]

If Microsoft does have the muscle to push this as a standard (which hopefully will fail) -- I'd imagine most motherboard companies will have the 2 "onboard" USB slots the Microsoft way, but also include a USB header with their motherboards that work the same ole-fashioned way. Think about it -- a lot of these MoBo places are Taiwan shops that absolutely adore Linux -- they would be shooting themselves in the foot too if they went down the Microsoft road.

Re:Random picks.

[stratjakt]

So how can commands be sent to the older devices?

Cringely knows very little about computers or technology. If you read his articles, you'd see that. He's just a PBS windbag. Don't pay this dork any heed.

You think Apple is going to start shipping iPods with a USB interface that "specifically excludes OS/X"? Hell, as much as I think they're a waste of bucks, I'd be the first to agree that the iPod is the "killer app" of USB at home.

What a moron this guy is. 100% pure tinfoil hat speculation.

MSFT added an option to be able to disable USB ports as part of the security policy. The Xbox controller ports are merely USB ports that are shaped more like something you would expect to see on a console.

Bobby Blowhard needs to publish X words per month or he's fired. So he took 2 and 2 and came up with 6.

USB is, and always will be, an open spec. That's what the "U" is for - universal. MSFT can propose all the changes it wants, and the kernel hackers can go ahead and implement them.

Can we define abusive monopoly?

[erroneus]

One such abuse that I came away with was using your monopoly status to influence other industries. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but it seems to kind of fit as I'm sure other people are writing at this very moment.

I can almost see this initiative getting spat upon basically because one of the brilliant and golden features of USB was the ability to use the device "universally" not only between like computers, but also unlike computers such as Macintosh. If Apple had any say in the development of USB standards, they should be gearing up their legal engines right about now because this "Universal Serial Bus"s claim to fame is now being threatened.

As far as making it also as a "Linux hurter/killer" I'm not quite so sure about that. It seems to me that we can use Windows drivers WITHOUT worrying about patent infringement issues. It is being done with various Wireless cards and stuff, so why not enhance what's already been done and link-n-load the Windows drivers for the new hardware right into our systems? I think this approach barely presents a hiccup for the next few years unless MS rewrites the kernels of every OS they are currently supporting and rumos has it Win98 will be extended due to popular demand AGAIN.

I think a lot can be prevented with protest and also with clear and active development in the area of using Wine and Windows drivers with Linux. They'll see how futile their effort really is and it makes me wonder if they really think this stuff through....

We Have Six Years

[hirschma]

This is all well and good, but it isn't going to happen any time soon. But, it is very likely to happen, given today's reality.

See, XP wasn't as big a success as Microsoft anticipated. Right now, about half the PCs out there are still running older versions of Windows. The majority of those are running Windows 98 (!). The rest of running some form of XP. Yes, half the PCs sounds like a big success, but it doesn't ensure hegemony. No one is going to ship an XP only piece of hardware, today. Tomorrow, possibly.

Keep in mind, also, that this is about three years since XP appeared. Longhorn isn't going to install on any current machines, most likely.

Now, given this statistic, how long is it going to take for Longhorn to get to 50%? You'd best believe that product is going to be shipped, during the Longhorn period, that works on the last two version of Windows, - Win2k and XP. USB device producers aren't going to come up with new models of anything that won't work with the majority of computers out there. Well, maybe Microsoft will.

I'm guessing that it will take at least until 2010 before the majority of PCs have are Longhorn enabled. When that happens, it'll be a the beginning of a problem. Possibly longer if corps go kicking and screaming, which they will.

Non-MS computer enthusiasts/anti-DRM advocates have at least 6 years to get enough alternative desktops out there to prevent this. I hope that the commercial Linux distro makers and Apple are listening. They need market penetration _now_ to prevent eradication later. Or we'll see the end of personal computing as we know it next decade.

Re:We Have Six Years

[IOOOOOI]

This is all well and good, but it isn't going to happen any time soon. But, it is very likely to happen, given today's reality.

Maybe Cringley is "just being Cringley" or "the one spreading FUD this time", but the point to be drawn is not that Cringley is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

No, the point is that in the present technology/legal climates, it _could_ happen. Do we need to rally for change pre-emptively, or can we just wait and see and take action later if something bad happens?

That my freinds, is for you to decide.

I don't get it...

[misleb]

Can someone explain to me why you can't just include access to USB devices as part of a user's policy in Windows? In linux, you can easily set permissions on devices just like files. Why does there need to be some hardware level standard? Is it so people can't boot off the USB/CD/floppy and grab data that way? Seems like a losing battle to me. If someone has access to data at work, there are any number of ways to get it offsite. Somehow I doubt the convenience of USB will encourage people to steal data that they wouldn't otherwise take. There are any number of security issues that should be considered before USB storage.

Why wasn't this an issue years ago (when data were small) with floppy drives? Couldn't people also burn sensitive data to CDs and take that home? Most PCs and Macs come with CD burning capabilities as a matter of course. Want to get the data offsite? Drop the CD/floppy into the mail and send it.

Then again, maybe USB storage is just that convenient and hard to detect. Still, it seems as though if someone has access to the data and wants to get it offsite, they'll find a way. Maybe USB devices will be the next "microfilm" of future spy/thriller movies.

-matthew

Re:Wow, just wow....

[stratjakt]

If MS patents any enhancements, they won't be part of any official USB specs, and few manufacturers will jump on them anyways.

They could come up with their own new connector and protocols, but that would be like saying that MSFT corrupted OpenGL with DirectX.

And it'd be stillborn anyways, USB is now ubiquitous. MSFT has no more power to redesign USB than they do the order of the power rails on the molex connectors of your PSU.

Everytime Cringley opens his mouth, you can hear his ass sucking wind.

Microsoft... security....

[KD5YPT]

I see a lot of problem here...

No, more then a lot...

Nah, just USofA-centrism and exaggeration

[hummassa]

1. I won't buy any hardware that hash such encumbrances, as an end-user.
2. In my country DMCA-style laws won't pass because (a) they would be inconstitutional (b) we would not like them ... obviously GWB&cia can come here and "liberate" us from our democratic constitution or protect the rainforest or other gibberish like that, but somehow I hope not.
3. I won't buy any such hardware as a sysadmin because of vendor lock-in and associated costs. I can graft a spreadsheet proving it as a bad business move in 5 minutes. I did it before.
4. People in the USofA may buy stuff again and again but in other, not-so-rich parts of the world, we tend to make our stuff last a little bit more. My government-owned day-work computer is 4 years old and I'll have to cope with it for 2-3 more years. If USB ports were a problem here, they would be disabled in the BIOS and/or soldered.
I probably had more to say, but I'm not feeling very well today.

Re:Nah, just USofA-centrism and exaggeration

[vrt3]

1. I won't buy any hardware that hash such encumbrances, as an end-user.

Let's all hope that it will be possible in the future to even buy hardware without said encumbrances, and that it will interoperate with other machines.

Geez, talk about FUD....

[fzammett]

Look, we can all sit around all day and come up with conspiracy theories about how MS is trying to kill this competitor or that competitor... And some of the time those theories are even going to prove correct because, well, MS *is* exceptionally savy to the point of being bullies and even worse many times... But this article is nothing but FUD from someone on the OSS side of the fence. He might be right in the long-run, but for now it's just a glorified conspiracy theory.

The FUD flows both ways folks, let's not forget that. You think MS is the only one using dirty tricks? The OSS side has a massive contingent of zealots to go along with the truly gifted, intelligent, talented and insightful members of the community, and they many times have a much louder voice than the good ones. MS has plenty of legitimate flaws, but so too does the OSS community. The sooner we all come to that realization, the sooner we might be able to change the world.

This article isn't a good example of fulfilling that goal, indeed it's a good example of what we should be trying to avoid!

v-chip

[Detritus]

Every TV, 13" or larger, sold in the USA, has a v-chip. It's an FCC regulation and mandate. The vendors don't have a choice about it.

Re:I usually find Cringely interesting, but this t

[Asprin]

I vote: not so crazy. I am of the opinion (and have been for a couple of years now) that they have a top-secret lab in an underground bunker where they are secretly working on a Windows desktop environment running on a Linux kernel, as well as Linux versions of Office and all their main applications.

Why?

That's what I'd be doing if I were them. They can afford to hedge their bets on this one if they are really as scared as everyone says they are. One of the serious advantages of FOSS platforms is because the up-front costs are so low, you can start development before you decide if you have a product or not.

Bias

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

This story is ripe with bias. Microsoft isn't stupid or powerful enough to force everyone to abandon all of their USB devices.

That's why neither this nor NGSCP (Palladium) are of any concern.

Everyone wants to FUD about how Microsoft is going to make a BIOS that "locks out linux", or a USB standard that locks out old devices. It's not going to happen. 5 years from now, you're still going to be able to run Linux on your computer, and you're still going to be able to access your USB devices in Longhorn and Linux.

Now, certain devices - music players, primarily, will probably be "secure" (DRM encumbered). But you'll probably still be able to use them in Linux, so long as someone writes the drivers. The new Microsoft USB-spec is just a way for media players to confirm to the OS (and DRM framework) that they will obey the DRM restrictions.

It's pointless to debate this anyway. It hasn't happened yet. Remember back in 2001 when Slashdot was spreading FUD about Palladium? As it turns out, we can still run Linux on our computers, and we will be able to do so for the immediate future.

What about floppy disks?

[OrangeTide]

Wouldn't a floppy disk have posed the same problem years ago? Especially since data was a lot smaller back then and you could really fit all your customer data on a 360K double-sided double-density 5.25" floppy?

So basically Microsoft is just realizing a problem that is 30 years old? It's so easy to "hide" a floppy inside a notebook or calendar. The only solution back then was diskless workstations (which is something only Novell did back then, at least for x86).

Personally I have no use for some Windows machine that won't support USB 1.1 and 2.0. From the article it looks like MS is wildly considering not having USB support in Longhorn. And instead substituting something that isn't USB and defining it to be the "new" USB, even though it's not completely backwardly or forewardly compatible with "old" USB. Plain old Linux, MacOS X and Solaris will continue to support USB.

I don't really care if I will no longer be able to get some flakey $3 USB device, I'm fine with paying $30 for an equivalent device of higher quality. It's not like the super cheap commoditized USB devices work in anything but Windows. (and only older versions of windows, since the two-bit asian company isn't updating their buggy drivers)

one billion linux users can't be wrong!

[Thud457]

"Microsoft has HUGE influence over the hardware vendors"

Yeah, like:

• Apple
• IBM
• Sun
• oh, and:
• Taiwan
• and:
• China

DMCA

[GoMMiX]

D...M..C.A...

And copyrights...

Watch, MS will copyright some key element that allows the OS to interface with the USB devices - prohibiting anyone from making compatible software.

On top of that, if you simply bypass their key element - it's copyright circumvention because it bypasses that security check or whatever that MS implemented.

I'm not saying that's the way it's going to be - but it's a possibility.

In the end, though, it doesn't matter what MS tries to do - they're not going to cripple FOSS. The nastier they get, the less people care for their company and products. That means more people to FOSS and other competition - and less political influence for Microsoft to continue out it's battle. (Not that I want to see MS gone, but perhaps when they're not the biggest kid on the playground they'll have to behave themselves a bit more.)

Re:DMCA

[Pig Hogger]

Watch, MS will copyright some key element that allows the OS to interface with the USB devices - prohibiting anyone from making compatible software.

The DMCA only works in the USA. Hence it won't prevent anyone from hosting the proper driver on a site outside the US (say, in Windsor, Ontario) and publishing instructions on how to install it.

Voilà, problem solved!

Re:DMCA

[optimus2861]

Watch, MS will copyright some key element that allows the OS to interface with the USB devices - prohibiting anyone from making compatible software.

On top of that, if you simply bypass their key element - it's copyright circumvention because it bypasses that security check or whatever that MS implemented.

Ahh, but this avenue of attack has taken a severe blow from the courts recently. In the Chamberlain v. Skylink case, Chamberlain did much what you suggest with their garage door openers: put some software code in it that handled the key exchange between its transmitter and receiver. When Skylink came out with a transmitter that could open Chamberlain door openers, Chamberlain claimed Skylink was circumventing an access-control mechanism and took them to court over it.

Chamberlain lost. The court basically said, if it's your hardware, you've got the right to access it, and that Chamberlain's proposed construction of the DMCA was too unreasonable to accept. There had to be a genuine case of copyright infringement at hand before the DMCA's anti-circumvention provision could be invoked, and the court found there wasn't one in Chamberlain's case. (That in itself is a good statement; the DMCA itself doesn't actually state that, and until that ruling I had been thinking it could very well make an end-run around public domain works or fair use.)

I would think that trying to pull the same stunt around accessing your own USB device on your own computer would meet with a similar result. (Although, there's the matter of printer cartridges, which the courts haven't seemed to have issued a similar slap-down on...)

Re:DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch, MS will copyright some key element that allows the OS to interface with the USB devices - prohibiting anyone from making compatible software.

Copyrights and patents are not the same thing. You can't copyright a way of doing something. They'll certainly copyright their code, but that doesn't matter to anyone developing alternate drivers -- since they never see the code, they can't possibly infringe on the copyright.

Patents are another issue. If they can patent something critical and get it adopted as a standard (even a de facto standard), they can cause serious problems for free software. Is it just me, or does that seem to be what they've been trying to do lately?

Several different scenarios

[moberry]

The consumer population will not go along with the idea of "sorry, your old device won't work. please buy a new one". Why do you think there are RS-232 ports on computers STILL, i havent seen a serial device in years. Two things could happen

• MS does this, and everyone switches to firewire, or some other hot new standard
• Manufacturers write drivers for there devices, and go on supporting them

IMHO, i think that manufacturers will just package generic USB drivers with there devices.

Re:Random picks.

[Anonymous Coward]

"So he took 2 and 2 and came up with 6."

Bah, that's just the new math.

Let x = y
x - y + y = y
x - y + y y
--------- = ---
(x - y) (x - y)
y y
1 + --- = ---
x-y x-y
1 = 0
Since 1 = 1
1 = 0
1 = 1
1 = 1
Summing both sides
3 = 2
Therefore
2 + 2 = 3 + 3 = 6
Simple, really.

Not a chance

[unicorn]

I don't think Longhorn will be shipped by 2020.

Re:Not a chance

[yokimbo]

I don't think Longhorn will be shipped by 2020.

It'll be here. Main new features:

• New default desktop background picture.
• New "My Computer" icon.
• New "Recycle Bin" icon
• And lastly, a brand new "My Documents" icon.

Do yourself a favor, run Linux or get a Mac.

Re:Not a chance

[ConceptJunkie]

Don't forget, new security holes. Given that we've now seen how Windows machines could be compromised with BMPs or JPGs (with suitably old versions), it's just a matter of time until someone figures out how to root a Windows box through an edit control.

Also, you forgot to add, another in Microsoft's long running series of increasingly ugly boot screens. Even since Windows 3.1, each successive version of Windows had an uglier boot graphic.

Oh, yeah, the new desktop theme will make everything looks like chrome balls over checkerboard planes. You know it's coming.

Re:Not a chance

[spectral]

It's already possible to root Windows through an edit control, unless they patched that bug. The way the windows security model works, if there's an edit control in an app that has system privileges (I think McAfee virus scan used to show one), and you get the HWND of this edit control, you can send a WM_TIMER message to it and tell it to callback to a function pointer, and execute arbitrary code. The problem comes from the fact that any user can send a message to any other HWND, and the code executes as the owner of the control, not the person who sent the message.

Anyway. There's been slashdot articles about other media format interpreters being susceptible to buffer overflows recently as well, so you can't even claim that it's only Microsoft here. Yes, even on linux. *Gasp*

I'm not even trolling here, I much prefer Linux to Windows, but this damned zealotry has to stop. I am, however, probably feeding a troll.. *sigh*

Re:Not a chance

[ConceptJunkie]

No you're not. I'm actually a Windows developer. I'm just absolutely sick of Microsoft talking a good game but not backing it up.

Just like a presidential candidate, MS has been promising to take security seriously for about 4 years now and yet, nothing ever seems to get better. Candidates make all kinds of bold promises, knowing full well that when it comes time to deliver, excuses can easily be made. Bugs get fixed reasonably well, but the rate new exploits show up has, if anything, increased. Linux is real competition, but MS's main strategy seems to be FUD and flexing their monopoly (see the USB story today).

I often spend more time trying to get MS software to work than I spend writing my own code from scratch, so if I troll against MS now and again, it's for reasons like that.

Re:Not a chance

[Baseclass]

Yes, Microsoft has done the impossible. I've always told my family and friends that it wasn't possible for image files to maliciously damage their PCs.

I stand corrected however. Kudos to Microsoft.

Re:Not a chance

[Ann Elk]

You forgot the new & improved "ta-da" sound played when you boot the computer. This is a critical component -- it must be pleasing to the ear, as all Longhorn users will hear it several times a day.

Re:Not a chance

[damiam]

Never mind the similar holes recently found in Mozilla and GTK, let's just bash Microsoft some more.

Re:Not a chance

[Foolhardy]

McAffe created an insecure program. It's not the first time a third party program has comprimised security. They failed to follow Microsoft guidelines (since NT 3.51), and I quote:

Services running in an elevated security context, such as the LocalSystem account, should not create a window on the interactive desktop, because any other application that is running on the interactive desktop can interact with this window. This exposes the service to any application that a logged-on user executes. Also, services that are running as LocalSystem should not access the interactive desktop by calling the OpenWindowStation or GetThreadDesktop function.

You are supposed to create a client process that runs as the current user and use a pipe to communicate with your service.
Interactive services are abused so often Microsoft would like to stop supporting them, but it would break too many third-party apps.
Also, every window has an ACL; if a process isn't on the allowed list then it can't send messages. McAffe could have used the SetUserObjectSecurity function available since NT3.1.

Not knowing how your target platform works is no excuse for creating an insecure application.

Re:Not a chance

[craXORjack]

History. Accountability.

Saying Windows 2000 is a different OS than NT 4 would be like Ford renaming the 2005 Explorer to be called the Ford Expansionist then Car and Driver saying 'The new Ford Expansionist has a perfect safety record. It's tires have never disintegrated during use and no one has ever died driving one of these.' But the only difference is just a different grille and a wing at the rear and new paint colors while 98% of it is really the same old thing.

Re:Not a chance

[rabidcow]

It's already possible to root Windows through an edit control,

You do need to find an edit control running as "root" on the same desktop though. Which means that if someone really hates you, "Run As" is not safe.

you can send a WM_TIMER message to it and tell it to callback to a function pointer, and execute arbitrary code.

You can avoid that hole. Well, sometimes you can avoid that hole. Anywhere that you control the message loop, you can validate WM_TIMER messages before handing them over to DispatchMessage. Of course this means that you have to handle any modal operation in your own code, including message boxes and common dialogs. Not pleasant at all, but somewhere within the realm of possibility.

The problem comes from the fact that any user can send a message to any other HWND, and the code executes as the owner of the control, not the person who sent the message.

The problem comes from the fact that WM_TIMER passes a code pointer in its parameters, that it execute the code at all. And it's not that messages are insecure, allowing anyone to send messages to any window is a valuable IPC pathway. (well, blocking cross process WM_TIMER would probably be fine.) It's that Windows trusts them despite their insecurity.

A similar bug probably exists with window properties and drag&drop. (I haven't actually tried changing the pointers from external code.) Windows trusts code pointers stored in insecure locations. Bad stuff.

Re:Wow, just wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

True regarding the USB 1.0/2.0 support, but when i read this article i cant help but think about older winmodems. When I first stared using linux (96/97) dialup was my only option and while there were non winmodem modems out there, they were definatly not in my price range.

i think if micro$oft gets these hardware vendors to require proprietary drives like they did with winmodems, then linux could see a serious hurt on the supportability side. At leats at firs, but i never really remember winmodem drivers for linux being any good, others have better experience?

though, when it comes right down to it, i also really doubt microsoft will ever loose support for older versions of USB. While the author of the article states lifespans on USB keyfobs are like 18 mo. i have a 256M that i always keep in my pocket, and unless it breaks, or all the files in the world start becoming > 256M, i really doubt i'll ever get rid of it.

This is how Microsoft sets back CS progress.

[phkamp]

The problem here is that Microsoft is acting on a legitimate and actual problem which gives people headaches in the real world.

If they they attempt to implement a longhorn only solution, they will likely get so many people up in arms that it will never happen, and as a result another legitimate problem becomes taboo and remains unsolved.

We've seen this already more than once. Just think about harddisks with built in encryption.

I would LOVE for my bios to ask me for the password to my disk so that if somebody steals my laptop they don't get my data.

(Shameless plug: In particular I would love it if a sensible encryption was used, see http://phk.freebsd.dk/pubs/bsdcon-03.gbde.paper.pd f.)

Unfortunately, Microsoft tried to own the multimedia market by having harddisks with encryption where only _they_ had the keys.

Now nobody even dares discuss the idea and concept of encryption in the harddisk.

One taboo after the other...

He seems to count on MS being followed

[SmallFurryCreature]

His entire argument hangs on the assumption that the tech industry will swallow the poisoned new USB hook line and sinker. Yet he himself points to several instances when the tech industry did not follow what the "ruler of the PC" said was to be done. The fact that compaq broke IBM-compatible by going to the 386 and all the bus standards IBM tried to introduce that failed.

Intel recently tried that rambus and failed. Motherboard makers knew their market and went against the leader. MS has tried soundcards and failed. People stuck to creative labs (soundblaster).

MS has tried to flex it muscles often enough and yet it rarely works and seems to be working less and less. Name a big PC company that is not doing linux however small. Do you really think MS likes that Dell ships linux machines?

If MS really had as much muscle as this guy seems to think then we wouldn't have had a fraction of the linux stories that we have had.

So hardware makers have not bowed to MS before (well not always) so why should they with USB? His scenario just doesn't make sense. You see there is the tiny little problem of people not upgrading their OS. Oh I am not talking about the /. people and their like. I am talking about the millions still running windows 98, according to MS own figures.

Say I make a new device and make it a requirement that you first have to upgrade your OS? Oh yeah that would work. Companies don't even like to say "Windows 98 or later" to avoid scaring away the 95 crowd. Exactly how many products do you see that only work with windows XP SP2? Do you remember how long things like joysticks and mice came with both USB and either a PS/2 or a gameport cable?

Also MS can not exclude old devices. If they could they would have ditced ISA support ages ago. They haven't. If longhorn suddenly wouldn't work with your old MP3 player you wouldn't buy a new one, you simply wouldn't upgrade.

What they can do is create a win-usb. Like those win-modems and win-printers that exist. Are they a threath? Well only if you care about the "my crap piece of cheap tech that everybody told me was crap but it was such a deal and now it doesn't work with linux it sucks" people.

If MS really plans to do it they would fail as they have failed as they and others have failed before when trying to control the PC.

The PC is free and there are to many players who have everything to loose by MS or anyone else gaining control.

*sigh*

[dacarr]

Microsoft, if this is much more than conspiracy theory, is blowing it out their hole.

If there's a new USB standard by Microsoft that's back compatible with everything, one of two things will happen: it will be ignored (ergo, nothing will happen), or it will be adopted, ergo it will be reverse-engineered or otherwise documented, then redeveloped for Linux, then - guess what - included in the Linux USB modules, if not the base kernel itself, probably sprinkled with holy penguin pee within a few hours of the release if the intellect of the Linux dev people is any indication.

Gotta admit, though - Cringely has really outdone himself.

Re:I usually find Cringely interesting, but this t

[BridgeBum]

Third, and here's where I get crazy, I believe that at some point in the next five years, Microsoft is going to produce Linux software (for crazy reasons that I'll keep to myself until they begin to sound less crazy.)

Why is that even a little crazy? Microsoft has been quietly writing Mac applications for a long time now, and will for the forseeable future. Granted, Windows won't run on Mac hardware, so it's not a direct comparision. However, if Linux does make a deep market penetration with Joe Homeuser or makes it to the desktop of MyCorporation LLC, why wouldn't MS want to offer it's Office suite and other products for those platforms? With Linspire PCs now being sold at Walmart, is it such a large extrapolation to see home users chosing to go down that road in ever growing numbers?

If that does happen, wouldn't it make financial sense for MS to start writing Office, Outlook, etc. for Linux?

Human problem - not hardware.

[Skiron]

And let's be serious, how many employees really have access to valuable and confidential information?!

And people that have sensitive information are trusted Company employees anyway (or should be). This is a human problem, not a USB/stealing data problem.

I will get on to my HR Dept. It will give them something to do. Nick

Re:I usually find Cringely interesting, but this t

[Astadar]

I don't think MS has any fear of "getting the hell sued out of them." They can stall the procedings until their move has crushed the competition (see all previous disputes) and then offer a token "We're sorry, we won't crush Netscape again" apology.

Getting sued (and being found to be an illegal monopoly) has hardly slowed Microsoft's tactics.

and foreign complacency

[Doc Ruby]

The DMCA is unconstitutional here in the USA, too, but that hasn't stood in its way. Don't get too smugly complacent. Watch out for the creep of DMCA laws in your own country, and support the development of tech that keeps us free from such laws and these marketing conspiracies.

Re:and foreign complacency

[hummassa]

It's really difficult to do such down here. To change the Constitution is kind of hard. We have a lawsuit called ADI ("Ação direta de inconstitucionalidade" -- inconstitutionality direct strike) that can be entered directly in our Supreme Court by any of our 30+ political parties, by our General Independent Counsel, or by any interested party (me for instance), and has been used a lot to strike unconstitutional laws passed by our Congress.

But beyond that, our current political climate is pro-FreeSoftware, anti-USofAn-monopolies, anti-MS, very, very strongly. The country and the politicians (mostly) agree with Peru's Congressman Edgar Villanueva (see here) arguments in favor of Free Software as a mean to save money in dollars that escape our borders when they go to MS, as a mean to protect our national security because we don't know the possible backdoors in proprietary-closed-sourced-software, as a mean to generate jobs in services, as a mean to generate know-how inside the country, etc.

And, on top of it, many many techs like me are ready to get "in arms" in the case DMCA-shit/Software-patenting-shit creeps into our legislation -- we're watching it!

Re:and foreign complacency

[Doc Ruby]

In the USA, any action by a person or a court can be argued before a court, and liability shown if the action is prohibited by the constitution. Any law applied to a person in a court can be argued to be unconstitutional, in which case the accused person is free of liability, the court usually assigns changes in the unconstitutional procedure, and future attempts to apply the law are much easier to argue against, by citing that decision. Laws must all be consistent with the Constitution, which is the basis for all laws in the USA. That determination is the sole function of the Supreme Court, decisions of which are the "highest law in the land".

Moreover, the USA has a legal principle called "jury nullification". Most accusations of crime can be argued before a jury of people, overseen by a judge. The jury decides the guilt of the accused. In the event that a jury decides the accused has broken the law, but that the law is unjust, the jury can find the accused "not guilty", and nullify the law, which is a less-strong precedent if it is cited in later defenses. The nullification is independent of any "constitutionality", which can be decided only by judges in high courts.

But that's just the law, and the legal principles. American justice is a game, a vast complex one, highly circumstantial and procedural. Juries are usually never instructed about their option to nullify, and recently such instruction from defense lawyers has even been prohibited by some judges. And until a substantial case has been brought through a succession of lower courts to the Supreme Court (or just below it), its constitutionality is not evaluated. So if it the case doesn't make it, perhaps through success on grounds other than unconstitutionality, such an additional finding about the law (in addition to the accused's guilt) is never explicit.

It's difficult, time consuming, expensive and risky to pursue the unconstitutionality of a law, so it rarely happens. Only the lawyers always win the game of American justice.

Re:Marketing hype? No, unfortunate reality.

[Stripe7]

I doubt that this will work. The firmware that is in use on most devices is a Linux or BSD derived type of Unix. Making USB incompatible with Linux would exclude the firmware on a lot of devices.

Re:Thank god for firewire

[AJWM]

You were probably joking, but in case anyone else was wondering, there are already plenty of Firewire hard drives, DVD drives, and uncompressed-video cameras out there.

Oracle has released software to allow multiple Linux boxes to share a Firewire hard drive in a "poor man's SAN" arrangement.

Firewire (IEEE-1394) has many advantages over USB -- including speed (USB 2's theoretical 480 Mbps in practise comes in slower than 1394a's 400 Mbps, and far short of 1394b, which goes to 800 Mbps now and 1600 and 3200 RSN), and the fact that it isn't a MS/Intel standard.

Be grateful to China

[igorsway]

China is supporting the development of a Chinese-centric version of Linux. Assuming it takes off, China carries enough weight in the market-place that there will always be a viable hardware alternative to MS-only devices. Any standard that doesn't support the marketplace in China will die a quiet, unmourned death.

Who needs new hardware?

[peacefinder]

What PC makers (and to a lesser extent device makers) risk with this is irrelevance.

If Microsoft locks in the next motherboard standard, people may stick to the current standard in droves. Maybe I lack imagination, but it seems to me that just about any PC on the market right now is Fast Enough for most everone's daily use. While special purposes (like gaming) need special hardware, there's little reason for the bulk of home or business users to do a performance upgrade on the desktop in the near future. Several companies already thrive on producing processors and machines a generation or two off the leading edge... why would this change?

Several big manufacturers may go along with this, since they need to generate a reason for consumers to upgrade. But not all will, and not all who do will throw out the current open standards.

Cringely's example of IBM and Compaq is a good one. IBM tried to lock in their PC standards while viable alternatives existed, and they got creamed in the marketplace every time. Apple did the same thing, and they got creamed too.

Why should it be different this time? Microsoft could maybe have pulled this off a few years ago, but now all the PC and USB device manufacturers know that viable alteratives to Microsoft Windows exist. (OSX, Linux, BSD.) It's too late.

Surely some manufacturers will place a bet on Microsoft's competitors and support dual or open standards. Those that do may struggle for a time, but they will reap the marketshare reward in the end.

Re:Marketing hype? No, unfortunate reality.

[Matey-O]

I'm not, in any way, disagreeing with your assessment. But I think what will happen with the public at large is: If the financial burden is light enough, they'll go along with it. Microsoft just needs to find the threshhold of pain the public is willing to withstand and shoot just under it.

IMHO (and this jusy may be because I've got a good paying job) I have no problems paying DishNetwork for their protected access to AV content. How is THAT different from a Microsoft Cartel doing the same thing for the same (or less) money?

Sooner or later, you're going to want to jump over to that processor that's 5 times faster, and the drive that holds a TB or two, or your system will fail and you're stuck buying the stuff whether you want to or not.

It's _kind_ of like the Froenhofer(sp?) MP3 licensing...did you notice it when you bought your mp3 player? I'm fairly certain you DID pay for the priveledge of using mp3s.

As for buying stuff over and over, that's the primary tennet of 'planned obsolecense' economics.

Re:Oh no!

[Master of Transhuman]

You're sorta both right.

Microsoft has not actually been a TRUE monopoly because it can't use government force to restrict Linux. It has TRIED to be a true monopoly by using restrictive contracts with hardware suppliers which appears to be failing as more and more of them allow Linux to be distributed on their machines - thanks to Microsoft being convicted under the government's definition of monopoly.

HOWEVER, Microsoft with this new scheme IS trying to use government force to support its monopoly position. This is because the new USB devices and software can not legally be reverse-engineered because of the DMCA and because they will patent their new handling of the USB system.

So while Linux is still a competitor to MS, MS is now not only a convicted monopolist according to the government's definition, it is now a monopolist by MY definition.

Cringely topic

[eddeye]

Cringely walks a very thin line between troll and pundit. The only divider is that line at the top of your browser which says "pbs.org". Can we get a Cringely topic in the prefs? His columns appear here with some frequency.

Oh, the irony!

[Anonymous Coward]

"... I'm pro-gun and pro-life..."

You really couldn't make this stuff up.

Re:Oh, the irony!

[Grishnakh]

I think there's a certain logic to this platform.

The Right is both pro-life and pro-gun, because this means that more people will be around to shoot at, which will help the arms industry make more money.

I'm not sure if I'm Left or Right, however: I'm pro-choice and pro-gun. I guess I just don't like people very much.

Re:Oh, the irony!

[Grishnakh]

I completely agree. I'm pro-gun as well, but that's one of the few issues I agree with the Republicans on, and completely disagree with the Democrats on.

The way I look at this election, I need to cast a vote that will set the best possible course for our country.

So, if Bush wins, I feel certain that, while I may not have to worry about any new gun bans getting passed, I can look forward to a crummy economy, more outsourcing of jobs in my industry, bigger and bigger corporations with no checks on their power by the government, one big media company controlling everything we see and hear thanks to Powell's FCC policies, and four more years of war in the middle east (probably in Iran next), while not lifting a finger to help anyone that's not sitting on oil (such as the genocide victims in Darfur). The environment will also get more polluted, while the government looks the other way.

If Kerry gets elected, it's not going to be a panacea either, but at least as a Democrat, we shouldn't see lots of needless war, complete refusal to decide policy with science instead of religious extremism (stem cell research), and overt pandering to big corporations. Maybe the DOJ might even get serious about dealing with the Microsoft menace.

Personally, unless you're a multimillionaire and want to hoard more cash and make everyone else work their asses off for slave wages, or are a religious nut who totally falls for Bush's hypocritical appeal to Christians, I really don't understand why anyone would want to vote for this guy.

Re:Oh, the irony!

[bwalling]

Seriously, many Christians just eat up that shitty rhetoric like smoked Italian sausage sandwiches with mesquite flavoured BBQ sauce. I mean, how could they resist, if it's that tasty to them. Although, you'd think that after four years of eating it up, they'd realize it was actually just sausage flavoured hot dogs(with extra rat hair swept up from the factory floor) with Kraft BBQ sauce(yuck!).

I suppose we should go for the Heinz BBQ sauce instead, huh?

Re:Oh, the irony!

[sigaar]

"The Christians have to right to have a different value system." Just like the rest should have the right not to have the Christian value system enforced on them by law. There's a reason why abortions should be legal. It's so that it can be done properly in a controlled and appropriate environment. People are not going to stop having abortions if it's made illegal. They'll have it done in in a dark alley somewhere or by an illegal immigrant doctor who, for all you know, isn't really a doctor. And then die of aids or some infection or bleeding. Like the girl who died of brain damage after a illegal cuban "doctor" treated her for an inner ear infection...

Yikes.

[Enahs]

I'm sitting here at work, posting a comment on Slashdot, and as I type this, a Lexar JumpDrive is plugged into my keyboard.

To think that at some companies there is at least one immediate-termination violation here is frightening. My company seems to love the fact that I take stuff home; as an hourly employee, I don't get paid for the work I do at home! ;-D

Re:Best reason to vote Bush out

[V8Juice]

I'm pro-gun and pro-life So buy a gun and don't have an abortion as is your right. However, don't try to dictate how I live my life. That's the problem with conservatives, they feel like they can dictate how people should live thier lives (abortion, gay rights, prayer in schools, etc). What business is it of yours how I choose to execise my reproductive rights?

Jaded Overreaction?

[TiggertheMad]

I read the story, but my take on it is this: It's jaded overreaction. My arguments:

Microsoft has historically bent over backwards to make their software backwards compatable. You can run all sorts of outdated hardware on the Windows OS. The only reason that current versions of Windows won't install on a 386 (via software lockout) is because MS doesn't want your computing experience to be ruined because of hardware issues. ("Hey, W2003 is crappy because it runs too slow on this 386!")

Think about it, you still can run crusty old 16 bit apps on windows. Unless they had pressure from customers, why not do away with them, amd make people use software that would be more stable in a modern OS? So, my first point is, MS would get real heat if the tried to aggressively obsolete things. (gad-I just verbs a noun again.)

Second, don't forget that MS lives under the shaddow of the DoJ case. While they got off with a wrist slap, no sane manager at MS (Yes, I know...) is going to suggest a course of action that causes them to tangle with anti-trust issues again. BG has stepped down as #1 cheese. Why would he do that? Because he wants to get back to working with coders? Or, because his leadership style was percieved as too agressive? That is a pretty big step to take unless you REALLY have an issue with leadership.

While MS would like LINUX to go away, they aren't about to do anything that could get them into another round of lawsuits. Litagation is expensive and risky, even to Bill. Most companies with an ounce of brainmatter use it only as a last resort.

The big C writes some interesting stuff, but this strikes me as a little too reactionary. The sky isn't falling on LINUX (yet).

Re:Jaded Overreaction?

[DunbarTheInept]

Most companies with an ounce of brainmatter use it only as a last resort.

Taken out of context, this presents a whole different meaning.

Sorry, but TFA is a total nonsense

[Maljin Jolt]

Nothing in this universe can technically prevent to do in software what can be done in hardware. And vice versa. Future Secure USB emulator in some old PDA will do the job well.

More, I bet my hat the OSS implementation of anything standardized will be more compatible, more secure and less buggy than Microsoft one. Linux drivers included.

Funny part of it is, banning USB disks will bring on alredy existing technology: ethernet disk drives. SATA over IP. With Microsoft's history of networking code nonquality, there is nothing to be afraid of.

Re:Best reason to vote Bush out

[ophix]

and liberals dont? both sides want to dictate how things should be in their ideal fantasy world.

im probably best defined as a libertarian(sp?) with some conservative qualities.

ignoring the flaming i am sure i will recieve over this upcoming can of worms...

as far as abortion, what about the rights of the baby? at what point is it considered an entity with rights? conception? 1st trimester? 2nd trimester? 3rd trimester? birth? when they reach legal adulthood(18 in the US)? if the latter, should parents be able to kill their born children since they arent old enough to be considered a legal adult and therefore have rights? there is an old quote that goes somewhat like "my right to swing my fist ends at the other man's nose". so while you might have these reproductive rights you referenced, does not the baby have the right to life and by killing it you are infringing upon those rights?

quid pro quo

[why-is-it]

Watch out for the creep of DMCA laws in your own country

You got that right! In return for joining Bush's coalition of the willing, Australia's reward was a free trade agreement with the US. But before that takes effect, Australia has to harmonize their copyright and IP laws with those of the US - including an Australian version of the DMCA and software patents.

Don't take my word for it - read about it here

planned obsolesence and viruses/worms

[McFly777]

Upgrade or suffer with using old programs.

Although I doubt that Microsoft would want the negative press that surrounds the critical bugs, it does make a convenient way to create forced obsolesence; have a 'vulnerability' that is only discovered after you have EOLed a particular version.

For example, "Gee, you can keep using win95/office97/etc., but we are no longer releasing security updates, so you are likely to get a virus or worm, if you do."

Re:Best reason to vote Bush out

[Ohreally_factor]

Because Bush Snr. and Reagan, the two previous Republican presidents didn't run up the two previous records for budget deficits - no, wait, they did.

The Republicans didn't control both houses of congress under either Bush Sr. or Reagan, so you can't lay all the blame for those deficits on them. You're on target, though, on both parties being pigs at the trough.

I'm not voting for the one that will "grow it slower", though. I'm voting for the one that hasn't engaged in unprecedented levels of corporate welfare and crony capitalism that basically robs you and I to put money in their friends' (or their own *cough* Halliburton) pockets.

Reagan went into deficit spending to boost the military because he thought we were close to breaking the economic back of the Soviet Union. Turns out he was correct. Unfortunately, he also made questionable decisions and delegated power to people that turned out to be criminals (Iran Contra). We should also remember that the Taliban and Al Kaida have their roots in the groups that Reagan funded in Afghanistan. Boy, has that come back to bite us in the ass.

My point is that Reagan didn't betray the conservative cause, while Bush Jr. clearly has.

George Orwell was a socialist, but he wrote Animal Farm and 1984 because Lenin and Stalin and their ilk had clearly betrayed socialism. I'm hoping we'll see a new Orwell that will document how this current set of thugs have betrayed conservative principals in their bid for wealth and power.

I can deal with 4 years of liberalism if it means we can get these criminals out of the Whitehouse. Four years of liberalism won't destroy the country beyond repair. Four more years of Bush and Friends may well do irreparable damage.

Whatever...

[jo42]

So we stop using Universal Stupid Bus devices and go back to Firewire.

Carry on, nothing to be see here you insensitive clod.

yeah and nobody ever finds ways around DRM right?

[Mars Ultor]

Let's see, I believe the Xbox was "locked down" to prevent people from using it as a cheap console-style PC right? And let's all admit that as far as security hardware control goes, it's been a real success.

On a similar note, it seems that Microsoft's record at coming up with and implementing hardware standards is a little spotty at best (think about how well-used uPNP is these days).

My point is that the market will dictate whether or not this becomes widely used - Ma & Pa computer user are not going to be buying a new PC every year just because microsoft says "jump", just as there son and/or daughter will be more than happy to "fix" that old computer to make sure that there usb key fob still works fine.

Whether it's a hardware or software hack, there's always going to be ways around any system such as this, and I have faith that Linux developers will find a [legal] way to address this issue if it comes up. Oh and seriously, some references would be nice when I read this kind of hyperbole. Don't know where he obtained his journalism credentials, but I bet I could get my rocket scientist diploma from the same place with no problems.

Re:Best reason to vote Bush out

[LilMikey]

Just because an article picks on both candidates doesn't make it balanced. Money caters to those with... err... money. Much more-so the top 2% recieving the largest tax breaks than those of us working for every dollar.

On a side note, ever take a look at the candidates tax returns? In 2003, amazingly Bush made most of his money on *gasp* oil and Treasury Notes. A large bulk of Cheney's income came from *shocker* Haliburton payouts. Kerry, on the other hand, made a large sum of money by selling art however he hid his wife's earnings by filing seperately. Regardless, I don't think it would be far fetched to assume she didn't make her money off of war.

Is this picture slightly askew or just plain crooked?

File permissions

[GombuMstr]

Microsoft is funny. I could do this in FreeBSD and Linux right now. Isn't usb in linux/freebsd manageable via file permissions. I mean really. I want to disable access to the usb devices I will make a seperate group for the usb devices and lock everyone else out. This meets everyone's needs. the hobbiest who doesn't care the corporate who can lock accounts out. You just can't do that with Windows. that's the beauty of file based system.

Copyright needs fixed. End of discussion.

[MysticalMatt517]

We can spend all day yelling about how evil Microsoft is, we can whine about the future of the industry, and we can shout our declarations that we will never purchase DRM'd material.

It still doesn't change that copyright needs to be fixed.

Microsoft isn't the only evil corporation out there using copyright as a weapon instead of what it was intended to be. We can bat down stuff like Sender ID, heck, we might even get this USB stuff licked, but the abuse is just going to keep coming. Sooner or later there will be too much of it for our protest signs to even make a difference. The real fix to this whole mess is to update copyright law so that it is relevant agin.

Re:Best reason to vote Bush out

[silicon not in the v]

It's not a baby until it's born. Calling a fetus or embryo a baby in this sort of discussion is using emotionally loaded language to win your argument, and is usually a sign that you can't make your argument based on logic or reason.

And you are using your personal opinion to arbitrarily create a definition (baby = after birth) which supports your opinion. Since you seem to think that the physical location of the fetus (inside the womb or one foot away outside the womb) determines whether it is a person or not, how about the pregnancy that goes a week overdue? Logically, this should be a baby already, but the mother's body has just not decided to push it out yet.
I think of it in terms of a continuum. I think it's fairly obvious that a fetus at its due date is a baby--it just needs to get out. What about the day before that? ...and the day before that?... Trace back day by day to the day of conception. At what point did the switch suddenly happen? Before conception, however, there was no life/fetus/whatever, so there is no debate. I think "reproductive choice" is the choice to have sex or not or to use birth control or not. Once the pregnancy happens, a life has begun.

How about this? Think of a seed that is put in the ground and watered. At what point does it become a "plant" instead of a "seed"? You would apparently say that it is when it shows above the dirt. So the day before that it's not a "plant"? What about two seeds that are planted next to each other at the same time, but one is planted 1 inch deeper than the other? One becomes a plant first because there's a little less dirt over it?

I'm turning off my Karma bonus on this because I just wanted to respond to you, rather than try to make myself heard to everyone. Sorry if this was off the main topic, but it's worth it here.

How will this work?

[jridley]

How are they going to make USB devices that work on legacy OSs like Windows XP but won't work on Linux or OS X?

Is he suggesting that hardware manufacturers are going to build a piece of hardware that will only work on Longhorn?

OK, I'm starting to see devices that require Windows XP so I guess so, but I can't imagine that one day we'll wake up and find that it's impossible to buy USB drives that work under Linux. If they do start making these drives that are compatible with the Longhorn standard, they'll be reverse-compatible with the older standard as well so they can maintain the OS X/WinXP/etc market. No problem.

The result if this happened would be that those with Longhorn would be unable to use their existing devices except as read-only, and those with older/different OS's would be able to use whatever they heck they wanted. Not exactly good publicity.

The only way something else would happen is if Microsoft told vendors "You can't make dual-mode driver chips; we own the standard and we'll hunt you down if you try to mix our new standard with the old standard." This seems like asking for a lawsuit though.

Mod parent up

[True Grit]

How about this? Think of a seed that is put in the ground and watered. At what point does it become a "plant" instead of a "seed"? You would apparently say that it is when it shows above the dirt. So the day before that it's not a "plant"? What about two seeds that are planted next to each other at the same time, but one is planted 1 inch deeper than the other? One becomes a plant first because there's a little less dirt over it?

Agreed, and its going to get worse to as medical technology blurs the lines. The Constitution doesn't help us here. The authors referred to natural birth as the beginning point, but what happens when we can bring a human being into existance without ever putting him/her in a female womb?

Most "reasonable" people believe contraception or a day after pill isn't murder because the egg/sperm, or the small collection of undifferentiated cells the next day, aren't a human being anymore than cells from our skin are, but at the same time, at some point late in the pregnancy the "fetus" becomes a "human baby" which should be protected. But what point is that? The old idea, that the point is where the fetus becomes "viable" outside the womb, will eventually get blown out of the water by medical technology that will allow us, for example, to save a fetus at any stage of development from the death of its mother. Where is the dividing line going to be when the mother's womb becomes optional? Sorry, but I don't have an answer. We need a way of defining what "human life" is, a definition that can survive the technology and medical science advances that are coming in the relatively near future.