How big brother and big media can put the Internet genie back in the bottle.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/

by hmart • 14 years ago

54 32 14 years ago

asiekierka• 14 years ago

This article seems to focus on closed-source solutions. What about Linux? If the Trusted Computing code would be open-source, that creates another rather huge problem for the big brother and big media. Does that mean Linux machines would be unable to connect to the internet? Or would they need closed-source Trusted Computing drivers instead?

Jach4• 14 years ago

From the article:

> Consequently, a trusted computing platform must validate the signature of an operating system before booting it. Operating systems not certified as implementing all the requirements of Trusted Computing will not be issued certificates, and may not be booted on such systems.

This has already happened with Windows 8 verified hardware. If you want to run another OS, you (or rather, the OS maintainers) have to pay the $99 Microsoft (ed: VeriSign, see below) tax to get a Microsoft-signed bootloader and kernel. (Fedora has already done this.) A decent write-up is here with some comments from Linus: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/linus-torvalds-on-wind... It's kind of disturbing when the main reassurance is "Hackers will get around it. Probably."

yuhong• 14 years ago

The $99 goes to VeriSign.

daeken2• 14 years ago

> This has already happened with Windows 8 verified hardware. If you want to run another OS, you (or rather, the OS maintainers) have to pay the $99 Microsoft tax to get a Microsoft-signed bootloader and kernel.

No. While that is an option -- if you want to use Secure Boot -- MS is requiring certified x86 machines to allow disabling Secure Boot entirely. Does that make it more difficult to install? Marginally, yes; it adds additional steps. Does it mean that you have to jump through the signing hoops? Absolutely not.

batgaijin• 14 years ago

Wait, can someone explain what the hell is going on?!?!

Last I heard the no-images-except-signed ones was for for ARM devices only. Did MS just put this into x86? Can you turn it off in the BIOS?

InclinedPlane• 14 years ago

No, nothing's changed except for people getting hot and bothered at the possibility that it could be turned off for x86.

acabal• 14 years ago

Which, I think, is a valid fear to have considering MS is basically just decreeing this. Like they say, rights disappear in degrees.

rbanffy4• 14 years ago

That's how we lose freedoms. Little by painless little. This way, most people don't realize until it's too late.

If ever.

throwaway64• 14 years ago

Microsoft has mandated that OEMs must provide a way for users to disable secure boot, and a way for them to add their own keys, however we still do not know the exact nature of what "turning it off" entails.

The Microsoft requirements are very vague on this point, if early hardware is indication, disabling it could be quite complicated and error prone, IE having to re flash the firmware.

The biggest problem IMO is Microsoft is completely free to change this requirement at any time, and with stuff like ARM already being mandated as having no way to disable secure boot, or load keys, I don't think this is particularly far fetched.

Also consider the fact they never mandated having a way to disable it previously, until there was a massive outcry.

c3d• 14 years ago

Microsoft wants ARM machines to be locked in Windows 8 mode, probably to block Android. From what I can tell, it goes both ways. Existing Android tablets are not Windows8-certified, so they won't run it.

Microsoft being the runner-up in the tablet market, I find the move puzzling. What do they have to gain? Why would vendors want to lock themselves in the hands of Microsoft, given MS's past behavior?

More puzzling yet: what is the force in the Microsoft DNA that prompts them to systematically return to this kind of anti-competitive behaviors as soon as they get a chance?

Maakuth2• 14 years ago

People pretty much never change the operating system of their ARM devices anyway. They are a lot more heterogenous thing than PCs and getting any OS to run on some specific ARM device is always quite big a task. There's of course some examples of this happening, say TouchPad or N9 Android ports, but these devices already ran Linux kernel.

Supermighty• 14 years ago

But it doesn't have to be that way. Even with locked bootloaders on Android devices people are finding ways to install custom builds of Android. Why not custom builds of GNU/Linuix, FreeBSD or even Windows.

rbanffy4• 14 years ago

Sorry, but I did it (the tablet I'm writing this on runs a custom OS). The only reason for Microsoft to forbid changing the OS is to limit competition and thus harm the consumer who will have less, inferior (because if you have no competition, it's no longer worth investing in improvements) choices.

ams6110• 14 years ago

Remember the BCG matrix? I think Microsoft is desperately trying to keep Windows in the "cash cow" quadrant, while the consumer is starting to look at it as a "dog." For teens and people in their 20s, Windows is the OS that your mom and dad use. I just think the product has run its course. Just like GM couldn't revive Oldsmobile, Microsoft (the GM of the software world) can't revive Windows. Android and iOS already own the tablet/handheld space. That war is over, unless Apple and Google seriously stagnate. Microsoft had more than their fair share of shots at winning that and failed miserably, because their approach was always one of expanding lock-in to Windows rather than really building stuff that people enjoyed using.

manveru• 14 years ago

For people like me that hear about it for the first time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth-share_matrix

tankbot• 14 years ago

I mostly agree, especially your last sentence. With the exception of our Exchange/AD environment at work (which everyone uses Macs on top of) I only boot Windows when some piece of software I can't get around requires it. I've used a combination of OS X and various Linux flavors to do everything for a few years now and haven't missed MS one bit.

My father on the other hand (who told me I was nuts back in the 90's when I explained how Linux/OSS would change everything) still clings to Windows even though it's a major source of frustration for my folks. I would even raise the age you posited, as I am in my early 30's (though it could just be that I'm immature).

I disagree with your assertion that the war for mobile is won, however. I think MS is down, but certainly not out. If the last 10 years are any indication, things can turn around in the blink of an eye.

wmf• 14 years ago

what is the force in the Microsoft DNA that prompts them to systematically return to this kind of anti-competitive behaviors as soon as they get a chance?

"Only the paranoid survive"?

neilk• 14 years ago

This is from 2003. It's not entirely outdated, but it is rather quaint.

The author foresees a future where everyone has to use personal certificates to communicate, which has various pros and cons - while enabling commerce, it could be the end of anonymity. He didn't anticipate a world where the government is simply hoovering up all the plaintext.

accountoftheday• 14 years ago

These personal certificates are turning out to be Facebook accounts, which is arguably worse.

antithesis• 14 years ago

Are there any important sites (like news / discussion sites) that require this?

dnpfwfyuta• 14 years ago

How was this peer-to-peer Internet actually put to use, and why isn't it used that way anymore? I think I could name Usenet, but what else? Most of things I do on the Internet nowadays is using the www - a hierarchical structure. But were there p2p equivalents of any of the websites we use today?

How big brother and big media can put the Internet genie back in the bottle.

Related Stories