Most regulators can only operate reactively. Even if you issue a complaint today there's a lot of hoops to jump through before anyone can even get Microsoft in a courtoom:
- Someone has to release a Windows 8 PC with secure boot. That hasn't happened yet. - The hoops necessary to disable secure boot need to be sufficiently complicated that its demonstrably a problem. This won't be apparent for some time after we see a serious number of Secure a lot PCs shipping. - organisations with some influence (not individuals) need to prepare and submit a complaint. This will take another few months. - A regulator needs to be persuaded that these things are somehow a problem. Government bodies aren't known for acting fast; they may not even investigate for some time after receiving the complaint, never mind take action.
Bottom line: you're talking 2 years before anyone is even in a position to take action. The action itself could take another couple of years before sanctions are applied. Plenty long enough to do serious damage.
I can think of three reasons to support secure boot rather than demand the user disable it without really trying:
- Avoid getting caught with your pants down later on when "ability to disable in a configuration screen" is quietly removed from the standard/Dell accidentally release an EFI firmware without that option then refuse to issue an update. - Make life easier for the end user. Canonical in particular are trying to do something about the "difficult to use" reputation of Linux on the desktop; requiring the user to dig through an EFI menu system full of jargon flies in the face of this. - Make compliance with various security standards possible. There's already a whole bunch of these that may apply depending on industry - healthcare has some, and there's PCI-DSS for anyone who wants to accept debit/credit cards. Many auditors already demand anti virus on systems where it's totally irrelevant; what's the betting that future revisions to such standards explicitly demand secure boot or similar technologies?
How will that work when you've got an entire apps ecosystem based on the assumption that the phone has a large touchscreen? Only way I can think of is you make the phone with both a large touchscreen and a keyboard and you have the thing somehow open up, but then you usually wind up with something about the size and weight of a housebrick.
That weighs four times as much, has half the battery life, requires anti virus that slows it down terribly and still doesn't catch every nasty so (assuming you don't have the wherewithall to do it yourself) you need to take it in for reloading once or twice a year.
So either Apple is committing massive fraud by not reporting more than half their profits, the manufacturing cost estimates are bull, or there are a few things you have to do to design, build and market a tablet other than build it.
Of course there are. How's Jony Ive and his team meant to be paid, magic beans?
They were talking about that almost as soon as it was grounded. Really it needs a rich benefactor to do that, and they seem to be thin on the ground right now.
IME, most are already quite sure that the government can tap any call they damn well please, regardless of the technology.
"News: Skype is no longer difficult for government to monitor!" will, by many, be met with a reaction of "What, you mean it used to be difficult? No way!".
Skype didn't become popular because of the encryption. It became popular because it was the first easy to use software phone that made a couple of simple promises: free calls between Skype users, no complicated setup, works through most firewalls.
Concorde at Filton isn't even open to the public - it closed in 2010 for inspection by engineers (really? What engineering work had they in mind on a permanently grounded plane? Mind you, British weather had probably taken its toll on the frame...) and there's no scheduled reopening. I imagine there isn't the money to do any work - it was pretty much entirely staffed by volunteers - mostly older people who'd worked on it in the past and had since retired.
We certainly do. But still, this man has the ego the size of a medieval castle and thought he was above the law. He himself lent the bad guys the weapons they used to destroy him. A pity, but a self inflicted pity.
But the thing is, that's an emotional reaction. It's not based on any scientific studies - for all we know, the well-publicised flammable tap water we've seen on Youtube lately is caused by something totally different.
Unless you're buying them by the thousand, though, they're typically a LOT dearer. So much so that it's usually cheaper to buy a cheapie mini ITX Atom-based board and live with the fact that it'll be three times the size.
I only hope it's better supported than the X8 that preceded it. "Support" in that case meant "Someone's managed to persuade CM7 to run on it, but it's still rather buggy".
It was explained way back in the early days how it's being done.
Broadcom originally agreed to keep the fab running when they get a big order and produce a small number of extra chips which they'll sell to the foundation for the bulk price.
It was pretty obvious some time ago that Nokia were on a losing streak. Samsung had better dumb phones, Symbian wasn't the success it could have been. I know one or two people who had Symbian phones but I don't know anyone who had more than one.
Could they have recovered? I don't see why not - Nokia always had great hardware, it was their software that was starting to look somewhat dated. The problem is they've spent so long thrashing around looking desperately for a software platform that wouldn't result in them building Just Another Android Handset that I wonder if too much damage has already been done.
A whacking great feature list on paper is not a selling point for most people. Conversely, a whacking great list of limitations isn't necessarily a deal breaker. The important thing is how much the end user values those feature(s).
Slashdot Mirror
Most regulators can only operate reactively. Even if you issue a complaint today there's a lot of hoops to jump through before anyone can even get Microsoft in a courtoom:
- Someone has to release a Windows 8 PC with secure boot. That hasn't happened yet.
- The hoops necessary to disable secure boot need to be sufficiently complicated that its demonstrably a problem. This won't be apparent for some time after we see a serious number of Secure a lot PCs shipping.
- organisations with some influence (not individuals) need to prepare and submit a complaint. This will take another few months.
- A regulator needs to be persuaded that these things are somehow a problem. Government bodies aren't known for acting fast; they may not even investigate for some time after receiving the complaint, never mind take action.
Bottom line: you're talking 2 years before anyone is even in a position to take action. The action itself could take another couple of years before sanctions are applied. Plenty long enough to do serious damage.
I can think of three reasons to support secure boot rather than demand the user disable it without really trying:
- Avoid getting caught with your pants down later on when "ability to disable in a configuration screen" is quietly removed from the standard/Dell accidentally release an EFI firmware without that option then refuse to issue an update.
- Make life easier for the end user. Canonical in particular are trying to do something about the "difficult to use" reputation of Linux on the desktop; requiring the user to dig through an EFI menu system full of jargon flies in the face of this.
- Make compliance with various security standards possible. There's already a whole bunch of these that may apply depending on industry - healthcare has some, and there's PCI-DSS for anyone who wants to accept debit/credit cards. Many auditors already demand anti virus on systems where it's totally irrelevant; what's the betting that future revisions to such standards explicitly demand secure boot or similar technologies?
Why do you think they couldn't do this? What's so magic about a corporate version of Windows versus an OEM one that makes this difficult?
How will that work when you've got an entire apps ecosystem based on the assumption that the phone has a large touchscreen? Only way I can think of is you make the phone with both a large touchscreen and a keyboard and you have the thing somehow open up, but then you usually wind up with something about the size and weight of a housebrick.
It does, however, grant you the right to say "Follow the policy or leave my property. Your call."
Except BT don't have a mobile phone network any more. They sold BT Cellnet to Telefonica some years ago.
Everything else comes over on a boat or a plane.
Economies of scale. It comes over on a whacking great container ship along with 49,999 other identical items.
That weighs four times as much, has half the battery life, requires anti virus that slows it down terribly and still doesn't catch every nasty so (assuming you don't have the wherewithall to do it yourself) you need to take it in for reloading once or twice a year.
So either Apple is committing massive fraud by not reporting more than half their profits, the manufacturing cost estimates are bull, or there are a few things you have to do to design, build and market a tablet other than build it.
Of course there are. How's Jony Ive and his team meant to be paid, magic beans?
Pretty sure newborns are still measured in imperial. It's so you can judge how close the newborn was to your preferred weight of bowling ball.
They were talking about that almost as soon as it was grounded. Really it needs a rich benefactor to do that, and they seem to be thin on the ground right now.
IME, most are already quite sure that the government can tap any call they damn well please, regardless of the technology.
"News: Skype is no longer difficult for government to monitor!" will, by many, be met with a reaction of "What, you mean it used to be difficult? No way!".
Skype didn't become popular because of the encryption. It became popular because it was the first easy to use software phone that made a couple of simple promises: free calls between Skype users, no complicated setup, works through most firewalls.
Concorde at Filton isn't even open to the public - it closed in 2010 for inspection by engineers (really? What engineering work had they in mind on a permanently grounded plane? Mind you, British weather had probably taken its toll on the frame...) and there's no scheduled reopening. I imagine there isn't the money to do any work - it was pretty much entirely staffed by volunteers - mostly older people who'd worked on it in the past and had since retired.
We certainly do. But still, this man has the ego the size of a medieval castle and thought he was above the law. He himself lent the bad guys the weapons they used to destroy him. A pity, but a self inflicted pity.
Are we talking about Assange or Garzon here?
Be that as it may, that couple of percent happens to represent a large portion of his income stream.
No, but it will prevent the hotel from ever reprogramming the lock - or for that matter getting in when the batteries fail.
Pretty sure one of the rules of the IOCCC is that code submitted must compile and execute without dying horribly.
That was actually my initial reaction.
But the thing is, that's an emotional reaction. It's not based on any scientific studies - for all we know, the well-publicised flammable tap water we've seen on Youtube lately is caused by something totally different.
Unless you're buying them by the thousand, though, they're typically a LOT dearer. So much so that it's usually cheaper to buy a cheapie mini ITX Atom-based board and live with the fact that it'll be three times the size.
I only hope it's better supported than the X8 that preceded it. "Support" in that case meant "Someone's managed to persuade CM7 to run on it, but it's still rather buggy".
It was explained way back in the early days how it's being done.
Broadcom originally agreed to keep the fab running when they get a big order and produce a small number of extra chips which they'll sell to the foundation for the bulk price.
No. Nokia killed Nokia.
It was pretty obvious some time ago that Nokia were on a losing streak. Samsung had better dumb phones, Symbian wasn't the success it could have been. I know one or two people who had Symbian phones but I don't know anyone who had more than one.
Could they have recovered? I don't see why not - Nokia always had great hardware, it was their software that was starting to look somewhat dated. The problem is they've spent so long thrashing around looking desperately for a software platform that wouldn't result in them building Just Another Android Handset that I wonder if too much damage has already been done.
10:1 odds that either Nokia or Microsoft are quietly pushing the show makers to ensure the Lumia is shown prominently.
Ding Ding! We have a winner!
A whacking great feature list on paper is not a selling point for most people. Conversely, a whacking great list of limitations isn't necessarily a deal breaker. The important thing is how much the end user values those feature(s).
That's never bothered Lucas before.