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This discussion has been archived.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.
White dwarf seeks red giant for binary relationship.
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.
Re:Marketing hype? No, unfortunate reality. (Score:5, Funny)
By which time of course USB will be a distant memory.
Not a chance (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not a chance (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think Longhorn will be shipped by 2020.
It'll be here. Main new features:
Do yourself a favor, run Linux or get a Mac.
Re:Not a chance (Score:3, Funny)
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 ch
Re:Not a chance (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (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.
Re:Not a chance (Score:5, Interesting)
I stand corrected however. Kudos to Microsoft.
Re:Not a chance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not a chance (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Oh, the irony! (Score:5, Funny)
"... I'm pro-gun and pro-life..."
You really couldn't make this stuff up.
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 po
Re:Oh, the irony! (Score:4, Funny)
I suppose we should go for the Heinz BBQ sauce instead, huh?
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 wel
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 ho
Re:Best reason to vote Bush out (Score:3, Insightful)
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
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.
and foreign complacency (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:and foreign complacency (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [gnu.org.pe]) 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!
quid pro quo (Score:3, Informative)
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 [google.ca]
Re:and foreign complacency (Score:4, Interesting)
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: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: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.
Jaded Overreaction? (Score:3, Interesting)
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, yo
Re:Jaded Overreaction? (Score:4, Funny)
Most companies with an ounce of brainmatter use it only as a last resort.
Taken out of context, this presents a whole different meaning.
Re:bad presumption.... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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: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: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: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: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)
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.... (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: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...
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:Not the end of the world... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not the end of the world... (Score:5, Funny)
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... (Score:5, Funny)
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... (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: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.
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.
v-chip (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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
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:Not the end of the world... (Score:4, Interesting)
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... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Linux will adapt (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Linux will adapt (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Linux will adapt (Score:5, Insightful)
DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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. [corante.com] 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: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.
Enhancements (Score:3, Interesting)
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: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).
Is it bad... (Score:5, Funny)
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 (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.
Re:Some first-hand insight would be good (Score:5, Insightful)
Not Practical (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (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:I usually find Cringely interesting, but this t (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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.
But USB is an open standard... (Score:3, Interesting)
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
I'm suspicious of this too... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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:I'm suspicious of this too... (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:I'm suspicious of this too... (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Intel (Score:3, Interesting)
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.)
Blogger meet Tin Foil Hat .... Tin Foil Hat ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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....
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
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!
Bias (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:3)
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)
Several different scenarios (Score:5, Interesting)
IMHO, i think that manufacturers will just package generic USB drivers with there devices.
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.
*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.
Be grateful to China (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Cringely topic (Score:3, Interesting)
Yikes. (Score:3, Interesting)
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!
Sorry, but TFA is a total nonsense (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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.
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: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: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
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: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: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.
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: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:Thank god for firewire (Score:3, Interesting)
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