Cringely: MS To Hurt Linux Via USB Enhancements 877
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Cringely: MS To Hurt Linux Via USB Enhancements
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"
Marketing hype? No, unfortunate reality. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Not the end of the world... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Marketing hype? No, unfortunate reality. (Score:1, Insightful)
I think you will be able to boot whatever you want, but MS products won't interface with "non-trusted" platforms (ie no email or file sharing).
Maybe some networks would take this step, but I doubt it.
I predict this will go the way of passport -- only hotmail will support it.
Linux will adapt (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate this guy (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Not the end of the world... (Score:1, Insightful)
Sure it will... if Microsoft supports something, I'm sure someone in the Linux world will copy it.
Re:Not the end of the world... (Score:3, Insightful)
Some first-hand insight would be good (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I usually find Cringely interesting, but this time (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Re:Wow, just wow.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not the end of the world... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Worse ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Not the end of the world... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Blogger meet Tin Foil Hat .... Tin Foil Hat ... (Score:5, Insightful)
USB security conerns (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Random picks. (Score:2, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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....
Deja Vu (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems that M$ is starting to focus on a strategy, one which should be familiar to most people: Use the monopoly under the guise of improving security/fighting piracy to crush the competition.
Re:Not the end of the world... (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Linux will adapt (Score:5, Insightful)
We Have Six Years (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Some first-hand insight would be good (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, just USofA-centrism and exaggeration (Score:5, Insightful)
2. In my country DMCA-style laws won't pass because (a) they would be inconstitutional (b) we would not like them
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:Not the end of the world... (Score:4, Insightful)
UPNP?
Fortunately, most MS hardware specs fail in the marketplace.
.NET isn't even able to save the pocketPC.
Geez, talk about FUD.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
one billion linux users can't be wrong! (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, like:
Re:I hate this guy (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Worse ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Wow, just wow.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.p
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I'm suspicious of this too... (Score:2, Insightful)
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 hate this guy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oh no! (Score:1, Insightful)
*sigh* (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
have they heard of the internet?????? (Score:1, Insightful)
Human problem - not hardware. (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Linux will adapt (Score:5, Insightful)
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:I usually find Cringely interesting, but this t (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting sued (and being found to be an illegal monopoly) has hardly slowed Microsoft's tactics.
and foreign complacency (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Marketing hype? No, unfortunate reality. (Score:2, Insightful)
Be grateful to China (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Linux will adapt (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Worse ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Who needs new hardware? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:I hate this guy (Score:2, Insightful)
They had no reason to be scared of Netscape, DRDOS, OS/2, or Sun's Java, but that didn't stop them from doing their best to sabotage them.
Re:But USB is an open standard... (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Marketing hype? No, unfortunate reality. (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Worse ... (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Nah, just USofA-centrism and exaggeration (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not the end of the world... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:3, Insightful)
My parents had a similar device. It was called fscking paying attention to what I was watching.
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:Best reason to vote Bush out (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Best reason to vote Bush out (Score:2, Insightful)
OH JANET RENO, WHERE ARE YOU WHEN WE NEED YOU?
Re:Worse ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:We Have Six Years (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Ha... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Best reason to vote Bush out (Score:2, Insightful)
And from my point of view, your perspective is myopic if you can't differentiate between a general respect for innocent human life and a willingness to defend that life from an unjust aggressor.
Re:Oh, the irony! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
planned obsolesence and viruses/worms (Score:5, Insightful)
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:bad presumption.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The way to stop "trusted computing" is to make Linux easily usable by joe user and then market the shit out of it.
Re:Not the end of the world... (Score:3, Insightful)
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:bad presumption.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Best reason to vote Bush out (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
yeah and nobody ever finds ways around DRM right? (Score:3, Insightful)
On a similar note, it seems that Microsoft's record at coming up with and implementing hardware standards is a little spotty [securiteam.com] 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:planned obsolesence and viruses/worms (Score:2, Insightful)
The step after that is to conclude that they engineer vulnerabilities into this generation so they can write exploits next year.
Re:bad presumption.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not the end of the world... (Score:1, Insightful)
Everyone in the USA freaked out. Everyone in Europe collapsed into helpless laughter at the spectacle of the Americans freaking out.
Re:Not a chance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:bad presumption.... (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Best reason to vote Bush out (Score:3, Insightful)
On a side note, ever take a look at the candidates tax returns [sptimes.com]? 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?
Re:Not a chance (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [microsoft.com] function available since NT3.1.
Not knowing how your target platform works is no excuse for creating an insecure application.
Copyright needs fixed. End of discussion. (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
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.
Re:bad presumption.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Not a chance (Score:3, Insightful)
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:bad presumption.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh, the irony! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:bad presumption.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
So
Re:bad presumption.... (Score:1, Insightful)
But one thing I can take consolation in, is that nature isn't black and white. I like the comparison to herding cats that I read in someone else's message. MS is big and powerful, and they may be able to monopolise some things for some time. But I think inherently in nature things evolve and change, rivers change their path etc. There is the OSS community which has a lot of money behind it from some big names, so I think no matter how much MS may wish their vision comes to full fruition, that they will not achieve it. Of course I'm the type of person to say, fine, I don't need it and I won't play with you any more. If there's enough people who take that stance then there will be viable alternate choices. I just don't think they will be capable of succeeding it a complete lockdown, not for any significant amount of time anyways.
There's a lot of talented people in this community and I'm in school working on building my own skills. I think there are enough of us that the MS way doesn't have to be the one true path. And supposing I'm wrong, I could always go get a cabin in the woods, and learn to whiddle [sp?]... no matter what happens, it's not the end of the world.
If vendors don't offer products that I like, they won't get my money. So MS own 90% of the market? How big is the market? How many people are in the world? It's certainly not 90% of all human's existing since many are still to busy being concerned about not starving than the new USB standard. If MS delivers something that all those people want. Good for them.
Re:bad presumption.... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Mod parent up (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:bad presumption.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
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.... (Score:3, Insightful)