Slashdot Mirror
Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection
David Gerard writes "Security researcher Peter Gutmann has released A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection, a detailed explanation of just what the protected-content paths in Windows Vista mean to you the consumer: increased hardware cost and even less OS robustness. 'This document analyses the cost involved in Vista's content protection, and the collateral damage that this incurs throughout the computer industry ... The Vista Content Protection specification could very well constitute the longest suicide note in history.'"
Our company did last year, cities of Vienna and Munich did, French parliament did, it should work out very nicely for you too. Our former XP users love KDE.
No need to put yourself through pains when you can improve security, save money and achieve a good deal of vendor independence all at the same time. Why support the Microsoft monopoly by paying ridiculous prices for bug ridden software with DRM restrictions, when you can run Free software on the industry standard (and thus inexpensive) hardware?
Knowing everything I know now, I only regret that we did not migrate to GNU/Linux sooner.
It really doesn't matter. Before long each new Dell and every other new computer will be shipping with Vista. It could be the worst operating system ever, and within a few years everyone will be using it. There is virtually no way for Vista to fail, given the circumstances.
Every time I see an analysis of what DRM means to the consumer, I see all this crap about how it's going to make things more expensive and lower quality. And that's true - SOME things will be more expensive and lower quality.
But these analyses never stop to consider HOW MUCH will be more expensive and lower quality, or exactly what changes we're discussing. What will be lower quality and more expensive is the DRM-protected content. And DRM sucks. People will complain. Vendors will eventually listen.
At the moment, we have a lot of content providers who refuse to provide any content without DRM because they can't imagine making a profit otherwise. DRM gets them to provide something instead of nothing. Historically, unprotected content outperforms protected content; because you spend nothing trying to stop people from stealing it, you recover more revenue than you were losing to theft anyway. If we just let providers choose, they will eventually make the right choice. We can't force them to make the right choice NOW, because they won't make it. They'll provide zero content.
That's the false dilemma. Everyone seems to think the choice is protected content or unprotected content, but it's not - it's protected content or NO content. Fighting the protected content is not going to get you what you want. You have to let the providers make their stupid DRM plans and try them, so they'll see for themselves that it's stupid.
Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
The Vista Content Protection specification could very well constitute the longest suicide note in history.
If hysterical stuff like this is the best the anti-Microsoft forces can come up with (and this guy isn't the first one, just the latest in a long line of hysterical essays), it's pretty clear that Microsoft ain't that bad as a company, despite what some people want to believe. Maybe, just maybe, if you have to resort to that kind of rhetoric, maybe your position isn't that strong?
Disclaimer: I don't hate Microsoft. I am, however, frequently annoyed by their mediocrity, and unbelievably frustrated that someone doesn't have the balls to start a company dedicated to making an absolutely, positively 100%-compatible Windows clone based on a Unix-like operating system.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
Well, Gutmann is known in my circles for having done some good work, and having a track record that goes back for years. Things like trying to get the word out on how bad RC4 encryption was (and I wish IEEE had paid attention before the absurdly-named WEP was created--the RC4 issue was *not* all about key length, despite Microsoft claims), breaking early Windows pasword encryption, breaking a couple of disk encryption schemes, pointing out some serious flaws in Linux VPN software, etc. The list is fairly long. Apparently some people here think he's some sort of standardized media pundit--just another talking head. Uh, no.
Although some of what he said is new to me, I know he's dead right on some other bits. I know I'm very much prepared to give the man the benefit of the doubt on the parts that are new to me. Which sucks. To me, the best thing about Windows is that it was the central force that drove hardware into commodity status, and lowered all of our costs. Now we may have to give some of that benefit back. That isn't something I'm happy to do, particularly for the sake of Vista, which I'll never use.
I don't see how you can say the piece wasn't about costs. That thread was all through it. You expected actual numbers? That's *very* proprietary information to any vendor. Nor is it likely that the vendors themselves have much hard data yet, in the specific case of Vista, as it's very early innings. They can't even be sure of the adoption rate yet, so fabrication contracts, and a myriad other details are likely to change fairly rapidly over the next few months.
Yet it's very clear that the broader picture in one of increasing costs for hardware vendors. Some of that will probably just mean lower margins, but even that doesn't mean that only investors will be hurt. It also means less R&D, which isn't good for anyone, in the long term. And some of those costs *will* be passed on. Investors will demand it.
There are other issues, of course--reduced functionality and stability, yet more difficulty in avoiding binary blobs in GPL kernels, etc. None of this is good news to assorted non-Windows people, though much of it will hit Windows users as well. It's not the end of the world (and wasn't presented as if it were) but it's certainly bad news.
What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
You know, this point is apparently harder to understand than you realize. After all, even some people who aren't affiliated with the publishing industry still support DRM, because they mistakenly think it'll help them "protect" their own data. They fail to understand that that doesn't require DRM, but works perfectly well with plain encryption (in which the owner knows the key).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You get to talk to frequently talk to lovely ladies in India and swap very long strings of digits with them. Isn't re-activation fun? And if it is a stressful day at work, just hold the phone up to your ear while you rest and tell anyone that bothers you that you are on hold with Microsoft - you should be able to get away with an hour at a time before anyone gets suspicious. What fun! Every disaster recovery plan gets to add a few hours to acoount for waiting on hold to get new activation numbers for each rebuilt system.