Re: Microslosh vision of the future
Karsten W. Rohrbach said: opensource projects need to converge efforts in designing new data formats, file formats being just a serialized representation of data in mem. being fully portable between several (OSS) applications will bring the giant to its knees. of course, all of you know that, and this is not operational content, i'm silent again ;-) Wasn't that what OpenDoc was supposed to be about? Curtis
Re: Microslosh vision of the future
Curtis Maurand([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2002.08.14 11:33:02 +: Wasn't that what OpenDoc was supposed to be about? ``you can get some coders out of a trailerpark, but you can't get the trailerpark of some coders...'' eg. it's a community communication thing. regards, /k -- Black holes are where GOD is dividing by zero WebMonster Community Project -- Reliable and quick since 1998 -- All on BSD http://www.webmonster.de/ - ftp://ftp.webmonster.de/ - http://www.rohrbach.de/ GnuPG: 0xDEC948A6 D/E BF11 83E8 84A1 F996 68B4 A113 B393 6BF4 DEC9 48A6 REVOKED: 0x2964BF46 D/E 42F9 9FFF 50D4 2F38 DBEE DF22 3340 4F4E 2964 BF46 REVOKED: 0x4C44DA59 RSA F9 A0 DF 91 74 07 6A 1C 5F 0B E0 6B 4D CD 8C 44 My mail is GnuPG signed -- Unsigned ones are bogus -- http://www.gnupg.org/ Please do not remove my address from To: and Cc: fields in mailing lists. 10x msg04379/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Microslosh vision of the future
on 8/12/2002 3:44 PM Brad Knowles wrote: Do you really think that they will ever again lift a hand against Microsoft? They only participated in the anti-trust action brought by the Clinton white house because they had no choice Yeah! The FTC actions res passport are just to throw us off the truth! http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/08/08/020808hnftcboost2.xml http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,449416,00.asp investigation started in this term, action concluded in this term please... somewhere else, thanks -- Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Re: Microslosh vision of the future
at Monday, August 12, 2002 2:17 AM, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] was seen to say: Microsoft can have whatever vision of the future they want and can use any resources at their disposal to bring their vision to light. Everybody has that right. Nope, monopolies don't - the rules for a monopoly are tighter for the very good reason the customer *can't* go somewhere else, he has to decide to buy from them or go without (and in a world where not accepting MS-formatted documents can lock you out of contracts you need to keep in business, the pressure to go with the crowd is very high indeed. There *is* a gun pointed at their head, but it is financial (and smoking :)
Re: Microslosh vision of the future
Microsoft has shown itself time and time again it thinks it can get away with something like that and going by Microsoft's past behaviorsdo not be surprised to see Microsoft try this exact scheme later on down the road...as it builds support with many other monopolistic parties(mainly the RIAA and MPAA..i will not touch on them directly here) to eliminate any and all competition. grin who knows..maybe we will get lucky and the Big Brother computer system of revelations will be a microsoft product and therefore will be easily hacked? Kevin Oberman wrote: While I find much to worry about in Palladium, the vast majority of the information in this post is simply not correct. Even Microsoft is not delusional enough to think that they could get away with such a coup. (Not that they would not want to.) Before going ballistic, read up on Palladium and how it works. Then we can all have a somewhat intelligent discussion of where it might lead. Palladium does a number of very good things. It certainly will NOT block running whatever OS you prefer. It is debatable just whether it does DRM. Microsoft says it is not a DRM tool, but it sure seems to have at least mot of the pieces required for full DRM. Slashdot has had some pointers to a number of excellent (and some not so excellent) articles on Palladium form a number of sources on both sides of the issue. I strongly urge that you read them before either panicing or causing others to do so. Opposition may be justified and it may not, depending on many small technical points that may not be completely clear at this time. R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 510 486-8634 -- May God Bless you and everything you touch. My foundation verse: Isiah 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.
Re: Microslosh vision of the future
StarOffice to the rescue. David Howe wrote: at Monday, August 12, 2002 2:17 AM, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] was seen to say: Microsoft can have whatever vision of the future they want and can use any resources at their disposal to bring their vision to light. Everybody has that right. Nope, monopolies don't - the rules for a monopoly are tighter for the very good reason the customer *can't* go somewhere else, he has to decide to buy from them or go without (and in a world where not accepting MS-formatted documents can lock you out of contracts you need to keep in business, the pressure to go with the crowd is very high indeed. There *is* a gun pointed at their head, but it is financial (and smoking :) -- May God Bless you and everything you touch. My foundation verse: Isiah 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.
Re: Microslosh vision of the future
Thus spake Alif The Terrible [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, gg wrote: Guess my home P.C. will no longer be an intel platform..hello mighty SPARC I guess you didn't actually read this, did you? It makes no difference what you use at home, if that machine can't talk to the rest of the world. 1. There will be CPU vendors that won't require Palladium-signed code 2. There will be OSes that won't require Palladium-signed code 3. There will be applications that won't require Palladium-signed code 4. There will be IETF protocols that won't require Palladium-signed code 5. The Net will not require Palladium-signed code and most importantly: 6. This article is completely incorrect on how Palladium will work. S
Re: Microslosh vision of the future
Alif wrote: snip I guess you didn't actually read this, did you? It makes no difference what you use at home, if that machine can't talk to the rest of the world. end snip Ummmyes I actually read it. I doubt that if Microsoft wants to implement the Palladium (signatures, etc on software) everyone will follow suit. There are many platforms that do not depended (or could care less) on Microsoft (Intel, Alpha platforms only [OS]). Mac being the strongest (no intel processor, and office for MAC doesnt count as an OS [although it does for apps]) in the end-user (home) user market. Sun uses SPARC processors, Cisco uses (mostly), etc. Now as crude as this sounds Microsoft has no influence in the halls beyond their direct partners and developers, etc. The day Palladium is used by every (chip, OS, and Application) vendor is the day my FreeBSD system has a Network Neighborhood icon and sends 1,000 NetBios Broadcasts every few minutes. WINS will no longer needs to query DNS servers as WINS will be the only standard throughout the internet. Because of this we will all run some flavor of NetBios (Over TCP/IP, and for the Novell folks over SPX/IPX) or NetBui. Let's not forget, that as strong as Microsoft looks or pretends to be, they did not build the NET (their wanna-be contributions or replacements are at times very humorous or outright senseless). The Bill Gates UTOPIA..NOT! - Original Message - From: Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Alif The Terrible [EMAIL PROTECTED]; gg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; blitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 8:49 AM Subject: Re: Microslosh vision of the future Thus spake Alif The Terrible [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, gg wrote: Guess my home P.C. will no longer be an intel platform..hello mighty SPARC I guess you didn't actually read this, did you? It makes no difference what you use at home, if that machine can't talk to the rest of the world. 1. There will be CPU vendors that won't require Palladium-signed code 2. There will be OSes that won't require Palladium-signed code 3. There will be applications that won't require Palladium-signed code 4. There will be IETF protocols that won't require Palladium-signed code 5. The Net will not require Palladium-signed code and most importantly: 6. This article is completely incorrect on how Palladium will work. S
Re: Microslosh vision of the future
The day Palladium is used by every (chip, OS, and Application) vendor is the day my FreeBSD system has a Network Neighborhood icon and sends 1,000 NetBios Broadcasts every few minutes. I believe you can enable this feature with a free download... WINS will no longer needs to query DNS servers as WINS will be the only standard throughout the internet. Because of this we will all run some flavor of NetBios (Over TCP/IP, and for the Novell folks over SPX/IPX) or NetBui. You can get around WINS if you enable forwarding of undirected broadcasts to all interfaces btw Steve Let's not forget, that as strong as Microsoft looks or pretends to be, they did not build the NET (their wanna-be contributions or replacements are at times very humorous or outright senseless). The Bill Gates UTOPIA..NOT! - Original Message - From: Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Alif The Terrible [EMAIL PROTECTED]; gg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; blitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 8:49 AM Subject: Re: Microslosh vision of the future Thus spake Alif The Terrible [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, gg wrote: Guess my home P.C. will no longer be an intel platform..hello mighty SPARC I guess you didn't actually read this, did you? It makes no difference what you use at home, if that machine can't talk to the rest of the world. 1. There will be CPU vendors that won't require Palladium-signed code 2. There will be OSes that won't require Palladium-signed code 3. There will be applications that won't require Palladium-signed code 4. There will be IETF protocols that won't require Palladium-signed code 5. The Net will not require Palladium-signed code and most importantly: 6. This article is completely incorrect on how Palladium will work. S
Re: Microslosh vision of the future
a little bit of humor never hurt anything..not even nanog will be destroyed.. Sam Hayes Merritt, III wrote: does this belong on nanog? On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, William Warren wrote: Microsoft has shown itself time and time again it thinks it can get away with something like that and going by Microsoft's past behaviorsdo not be surprised to see Microsoft try this exact scheme later on down the road...as it builds support with many other monopolistic parties(mainly the RIAA and MPAA..i will not touch on them directly here) to eliminate any and all competition. grin who knows..maybe we will "get lucky" and the Big Brother computer system of revelations will be a microsoft product and therefore will be easily hacked? Kevin Oberman wrote: While I find much to worry about in Palladium, the vast majority of the information in this post is simply not correct. Even Microsoft is not delusional enough to think that they could get away with such a coup. (Not that they would not want to.) Before going ballistic, read up on Palladium and how it works. Then we can all have a somewhat intelligent discussion of where it might lead. Palladium does a number of very good things. It certainly will NOT block running whatever OS you prefer. It is debatable just whether it does DRM. Microsoft says it is not a DRM tool, but it sure seems to have at least mot of the pieces required for full DRM. Slashdot has had some pointers to a number of excellent (and some not so excellent) articles on Palladium form a number of sources on both sides of the issue. I strongly urge that you read them before either panicing or causing others to do so. Opposition may be justified and it may not, depending on many small technical points that may not be completely clear at this time. R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 510 486-8634 -- May God Bless you and everything you touch. My "foundation" verse: Isiah 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD. -- May God Bless you and everything you touch. My "foundation" verse: Isiah 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.
Re: Microslosh vision of the future
How about [EMAIL PROTECTED]? Wasn't this set up for this very purpose? Nobody goes there any more, it's too crowded. -- Paul Vixie
Re: Microslosh vision of the future
At 11:47 PM -0400 2002/08/11, blitz wrote: I just hope the anti-trust people are looking into thisi can't see a bigger case for them to spring into action... Bush just hired the former Microsoft head of security to be his go-to man for creating an infrastructure to protect the security of US computer assets. Do you really think that they will ever again lift a hand against Microsoft? They only participated in the anti-trust action brought by the Clinton white house because they had no choice -- their pulling out of the case would have been far worse than continuing to a settlement that resulted in less than a wrist-slap. And it didn't even take Billy-boy a billion to buy the US gov't. -- Brad Knowles, [EMAIL PROTECTED] They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++): a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI$ P+++ L+ !E W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+() DI+() D+(++) G+() e++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)
Re: Microslosh vision of the future
At 9:41 AM -0400 2002/08/12, William Warren wrote: StarOffice to the rescue. Only until they change the file format again. Microsoft can afford to change the file format on an even daily basis, and come out with patches for the previous patches, and call them all security patches so that everyone is either forced to apply them or dump Microsoft altogether. Open source projects can't possibly afford to keep up, if Microsoft decides to go down this road. -- Brad Knowles, [EMAIL PROTECTED] They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++): a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI$ P+++ L+ !E W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+() DI+() D+(++) G+() e++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)
Re: Microslosh vision of the future
SNIP Bush just hired the former Microsoft head of security to be his go-to man for creating an infrastructure to protect the security of US computer assets. END SNIP Now that scares me...knowing Microsoft's reputation in the Security Industry. I heard the new moto is over one billion vulnerabilities served. Gerardo - Original Message - From: Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: blitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Vadim Antonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 3:44 PM Subject: Re: Microslosh vision of the future At 11:47 PM -0400 2002/08/11, blitz wrote: I just hope the anti-trust people are looking into thisi can't see a bigger case for them to spring into action... Bush just hired the former Microsoft head of security to be his go-to man for creating an infrastructure to protect the security of US computer assets. Do you really think that they will ever again lift a hand against Microsoft? They only participated in the anti-trust action brought by the Clinton white house because they had no choice -- their pulling out of the case would have been far worse than continuing to a settlement that resulted in less than a wrist-slap. And it didn't even take Billy-boy a billion to buy the US gov't. -- Brad Knowles, [EMAIL PROTECTED] They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++): a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI$ P+++ L+ !E W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+() DI+() D+(++) G+() e++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)
Re: Microslosh vision of the future
Brad Knowles([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2002.08.12 22:47:31 +: At 9:41 AM -0400 2002/08/12, William Warren wrote: StarOffice to the rescue. Only until they change the file format again. Microsoft can afford to change the file format on an even daily basis, and come out with patches for the previous patches, and call them all security patches so that everyone is either forced to apply them or dump Microsoft altogether. Open source projects can't possibly afford to keep up, if Microsoft decides to go down this road. opensource projects need to converge efforts in designing new data formats, file formats being just a serialized representation of data in mem. being fully portable between several (OSS) applications will bring the giant to its knees. of course, all of you know that, and this is not operational content, i'm silent again ;-) regards, /k -- Q: What do you get when you cross Dracula with a used car dealer? A: autoexec.bat WebMonster Community Project -- Reliable and quick since 1998 -- All on BSD http://www.webmonster.de/ - ftp://ftp.webmonster.de/ - http://www.rohrbach.de/ GnuPG: 0xDEC948A6 D/E BF11 83E8 84A1 F996 68B4 A113 B393 6BF4 DEC9 48A6 REVOKED: 0x2964BF46 D/E 42F9 9FFF 50D4 2F38 DBEE DF22 3340 4F4E 2964 BF46 REVOKED: 0x4C44DA59 RSA F9 A0 DF 91 74 07 6A 1C 5F 0B E0 6B 4D CD 8C 44 My mail is GnuPG signed -- Unsigned ones are bogus -- http://www.gnupg.org/ Please do not remove my address from To: and Cc: fields in mailing lists. 10x msg04346/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Microslosh vision of the future
Well, I contend open source is much better positioned to make these changes, and in less time than M$ to the offending file formatI've seen changes made available in hours as opposed to weeks in the M$ case. If M$ decides to do this, they risk pi$$ing off a whole cadre of corporate customers who are slow to upgrade anyway. At 22:47 8/12/02 +0200, you wrote: At 9:41 AM -0400 2002/08/12, William Warren wrote: StarOffice to the rescue. Only until they change the file format again. Microsoft can afford to change the file format on an even daily basis, and come out with patches for the previous patches, and call them all security patches so that everyone is either forced to apply them or dump Microsoft altogether. Open source projects can't possibly afford to keep up, if Microsoft decides to go down this road.
Re: Microslosh vision of the future
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Stephen Sprunk wrote: Thus spake Alif The Terrible [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, gg wrote: Guess my home P.C. will no longer be an intel platform..hello mighty SPARC I guess you didn't actually read this, did you? It makes no difference what you use at home, if that machine can't talk to the rest of the world. 1. There will be CPU vendors that won't require Palladium-signed code CPU vendors will build cpu's to meet demand. If non-palladium cpu's are not in demand, they will not produce them. As it stands now, x86 (like it or not, and personally, I do not) is rapidly becoming the Lone Platform.B 2. There will be OSes that won't require Palladium-signed code Again, this will depend completely on non-technical issues at first, however, since Palladium provides a framework in which the execution of such non-approved code is [theoretically] controllable entirely by a third party (regardless of intent, which we could all argue back and forth all day long without resolution), this scenario, coupled with DMCA provisions IS possible. If I were a large monopoly, I would for certain want to do this - it is in my financial self-interest. 3. There will be applications that won't require Palladium-signed code TCPA as described currently, could well require you or I to submit our own (self-written) code for signing prior to execution. If this signing is financially prohibitive, and for an open source project even a tiny fee for each change IS prohibitive, then these applications will cease to exist. 4. There will be IETF protocols that won't require Palladium-signed code Youre missing the point: this isn't about the IETF requiring Palladium-signed code, this is about Palladium processors requiring signed code. 5. The Net will not require Palladium-signed code No, but to talk to any Palladium processor across the net WILL require palladium signed code, and therefore... and most importantly: 6. This article is completely incorrect on how Palladium will work. I would refer those interested to minds far better informed than you or I for reference: there is a current debate going on between some rather respected cryptographers, and a Palladium proponent using the AARGH! anonymous remailer, on the cypherpunks lists. The archives are available to catch up, if you are so inclined. Currently, the consensus is not promising. S -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place...
Microslosh vision of the future
So read about Palladianism, and tell me the different between Palladium and Server 2000 Windows Palladium, the end of privacy as we know it. This taken from various sources encluding UHA and deviantart, the register and slashdot., Disturbing news.. Earlier this week, Microsoft outlined their plans for their next generation of operating systems, codenamed Longhorn/Palladium. Among the features touted was the secure networking functions that OS would offer. Firstly: Microsoft plans to implement Palladium DRM (digital rights management) in a hardware chip, initially implanted on the mobo, but later on embedded in the CPU, and employing hardwired encryption throughout. The purpose of this is to flag every file on the computer with a digital signature telling a remote server what it is. If it's an unauthorized file, the remote server will tell your computer not to let you execute it. This is basically an attempt to stop the trading of mp3's and/or warez. Secondly: Before an application can run, it too must have a digital signature remotely verified by another server. If the program binary doesn't match with any of the authenticated binaries, your computer won't run it. This, again, is meant to stop your computer running unauthorized software - which might be warez, or it might just be a nifty freeware program that the authors can't afford to have certified. Microsoft will be able to control exactly what your computer can and can't run. Thirdly: As most of you know, Microsoft employ a strategy of making their software deliberately obsolete - they make it forward compatible, but not backward compatible. With the laws of the DMCA, it will soon be illegal to try to make a software product that is compatible with another programs file types (for example, take the many office applications there are for Linux which have had some success in translating their arcane file formats). This has the effect of killing any competition in the water - since you're not allowed to make your new product compatible with any of the others, no-one will use it. And eventually people will give up using any of the others instead, since no-one else can read their documents. So the entire world will be left with one choice only for software - Microsoft. Fourthly (I don't know if that's a word, but it should be): Palladium will effectively ban free software, not just free stuff for Windows platforms, but free stuff for Linux, Mac, in fact every OS that runs on a Palladium enabled motherboard/processor. Why? In order to get the program to run on a palladium platform, you will need to pay to have your binary certified as safe by Microsoft's software authentification branch. And who in their right mind is going to pay for a piece of software they spent hours working on? It just wouldn't be worth it. It gets worse when it comes to open source projects, such as Linux and BSD. Those of you who know about these things will know that open source projects are created by freelance coders all over the world who create programs in their spare time and then give them to the rest of the world for free. Many of them also release the source code for free too, so that if you wish you can alter the program (such as to fix bugs, add features etc). Now, it would be bad enough if the owner has to pay a certification fee. But EVERY CHANGE that is made to the source code will require a new, separate certificate to be created. Those of you who use Linux will know that so many things get updated so quickly, that this just isn't practical, and would cost the open source development people millions of dollars. This is money they just don't have, and Microsoft knows it. Fifthly: The secure network. This is the real clincher for Palladium. At first, they're going to make it so that it is possible to turn Palladium off at the hardware level. But it is created in such a way so that, if you try to connect to a Palladium web server, you won't be allowed to. Palladium machines will only be able to talk to other Palladium machines, and non-Palladium machines won't be able to talk to any Palladium machines. Hence, if Palladium reaches critical mass, there will be thousands of people the world over who won't be able to access the internet or even work on a network with Palladium machines, so by extension they will be forced to upgrade to Palladium machines. Sixthly: At first I thought: what the hell, this is only going to apply to x86 architecture (namely Athlon and Pentium chips, since it's only AMD and Intel who are involved at the moment). So, I could try another hardware architecture: such as the Mac/PPC, or the Sun Sparc, or an ARM, or any other kind of processor. But then I realside that even if I did, I wouldn't be able to access the Palladium network which could encompass the entire internet if this concept goes far enough. So all you Mac users would be effectively locked out; you too would have adopt a Palladium machine if you wanted
Re: Microslosh vision of the future
While I find much to worry about in Palladium, the vast majority of the information in this post is simply not correct. Even Microsoft is not delusional enough to think that they could get away with such a coup. (Not that they would not want to.) Before going ballistic, read up on Palladium and how it works. Then we can all have a somewhat intelligent discussion of where it might lead. Palladium does a number of very good things. It certainly will NOT block running whatever OS you prefer. It is debatable just whether it does DRM. Microsoft says it is not a DRM tool, but it sure seems to have at least mot of the pieces required for full DRM. Slashdot has had some pointers to a number of excellent (and some not so excellent) articles on Palladium form a number of sources on both sides of the issue. I strongly urge that you read them before either panicing or causing others to do so. Opposition may be justified and it may not, depending on many small technical points that may not be completely clear at this time. R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Re: Microslosh vision of the future
Guess my home P.C. will no longer be an intel platform..hello mighty SPARC Gerardo Gregory - Original Message - From: blitz To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 5:50 PM Subject: Microslosh vision of the future So read about Palladianism, and tell me the different between Palladium and Server 2000Windows Palladium, the end of privacy as we know it. This taken from various sources encluding UHA and deviantart, the register and slashdot., Disturbing news.. Earlier this week, Microsoft outlined their plans for their next generation of operating systems, codenamed Longhorn/Palladium. Among the features touted was the "secure networking" functions that OS would offer. Firstly: Microsoft plans to implement Palladium DRM (digital rights management) in a hardware chip, initially implanted on the mobo, but later on embedded in the CPU, and employing hardwired encryption throughout. The purpose of this is to flag every file on the computer with a digital signature telling a remote server what it is. If it's an unauthorized file, the remote server will tell your computer not to let you execute it. This is basically an attempt to stop the trading of mp3's and/or warez. Secondly: Before an application can run, it too must have a digital signature remotely verified by another server. If the program binary doesn't match with any of the authenticated binaries, your computer won't run it. This, again, is meant to stop your computer running "unauthorized" software - which might be warez, or it might just be a nifty freeware program that the authors can't afford to have certified. Microsoft will be able to control exactly what your computer can and can't run. Thirdly: As most of you know, Microsoft employ a strategy of making their software deliberately obsolete - they make it forward compatible, but not backward compatible. With the laws of the DMCA, it will soon be illegal to try to make a software product that is compatible with another programs file types (for example, take the many office applications there are for Linux which have had some success in translating their arcane file formats). This has the effect of killing any competition in the water - since you're not allowed to make your new product compatible with any of the others, no-one will use it. And eventually people will give up using any of the others instead, since no-one else can read their documents. So the entire world will be left with one choice only for software - Microsoft. Fourthly (I don't know if that's a word, but it should be): Palladium will effectively ban free software, not just free stuff for Windows platforms, but free stuff for Linux, Mac, in fact every OS that runs on a Palladium enabled motherboard/processor. Why? In order to get the program to run on a palladium platform, you will need to pay to have your binary certified as "safe" by Microsoft's software authentification branch. And who in their right mind is going to pay for a piece of software they spent hours working on? It just wouldn't be worth it. It gets worse when it comes to open source projects, such as Linux and BSD. Those of you who know about these things will know that open source projects are created by freelance coders all over the world who create programs in their spare time and then give them to the rest of the world for free. Many of them also release the source code for free too, so that if you wish you can alter the program (such as to fix bugs, add features etc). Now, it would be bad enough if the owner has to pay a certification fee. But EVERY CHANGE that is made to the source code will require a new, separate certificate to be created. Those of you who use Linux will know that so many things get updated so quickly, that this just isn't practical, and would cost the open source development people millions of dollars. This is money they just don't have, and Microsoft knows it. Fifthly: The "secure network". This is the real clincher for Palladium. At first, they're going to make it so that it is possible to turn Palladium off at the hardware level. But it is created in such a way so that, if you try to connect to a Palladium web server, you won't be allowed to. Palladium machines will only be able to talk to other Palladium machines, and non-Palladium machines won't be able to talk to any Palladium machines. Hence, if Palladium reaches critical mass, there will be thousands of people the world over who won't be able to acces
Re: Microslosh vision of the future
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, gg wrote: Guess my home P.C. will no longer be an intel platform..hello mighty SPARC I guess you didn't actually read this, did you? It makes no difference what you use at home, if that machine can't talk to the rest of the world. Gerardo Gregory - Original Message - From: blitz To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 5:50 PM Subject: Microslosh vision of the future So read about Palladianism, and tell me the different between Palladium and Server 2000 -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place...
Re: Microslosh vision of the future
Microsoft can have whatever vision of the future they want and can use any resources at their disposal to bring their vision to light. Everybody has that right. If I don't like it, I won't buy it. If they convince customers that they gain more than they lose, only a gun will make them buy it. I don't see Bill Gates packing heat any time soon. *yawn* -- David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Microslosh vision of the future
Microsoft already duped the software consumers into buying into fully proprietary software. Given the prevalent time horizon of average IT manager's thinking I fully expect Microsoft to get that stuff deployed before the poor saps start realizing they're being ripped. After that Microsoft will leverage their market power to exclude any competition. Exactly like they did it before on numerous occasions. Their PR budget is bigger than GDP of some nations. They're ruthless and show remarkable lack of respect to the notions of fairness or common good. Be afraid. --vadim On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, David Schwartz wrote: Microsoft can have whatever vision of the future they want and can use any resources at their disposal to bring their vision to light. Everybody has that right. If I don't like it, I won't buy it. If they convince customers that they gain more than they lose, only a gun will make them buy it. I don't see Bill Gates packing heat any time soon. *yawn* -- David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Microslosh vision of the future
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 18:43:17 -0700 (PDT), Vadim Antonov wrote: Microsoft already duped the software consumers into buying into fully proprietary software. I don't think duped is really a fair description. They simply provide a large number of users with what they want. There isn't currently an alternative. Given the prevalent time horizon of average IT manager's thinking I fully expect Microsoft to get that stuff deployed before the poor saps start realizing they're being ripped. After that Microsoft will leverage their market power to exclude any competition. Exactly like they did it before on numerous occasions. That's what everyone said about IBM, way back when. The reality is that you can't hold the market unless you continue to provide people with what they want. Their PR budget is bigger than GDP of some nations. They're ruthless and show remarkable lack of respect to the notions of fairness or common good. Be afraid. If they didn't show a lack of respect for the notion of the common good, they should be sued. Their responsibility is to their shareholders. It's not their job to protect your interests, it's yours. Obviously, Microsoft is going to have a vision of the future that involves Microsoft everything and their going to use all the resources at their disposal to make that vision come to pass. You should expect nothing less of them. If your vision of the future of computing differs from theirs (and I'm sure it does, I know mine does!) then you work to promote your vision. Short of correcting any false factual assertions made in this thread, I'm done with it. It has no operational content as far as I can tell. If you think Microsoft can make IP go away and replace it with something more secure, you're crazy. (Not that this would be a bad thing, I just wouldn't want MS to design the replacement!) DS
Re: Microslosh vision of the future
We have given up on M$ when they started invading our hard drives with XP...no reason to think their plans are anything less than nefarious, judging from their past behavior. At 16:10 8/11/02 -0700, you wrote: While I find much to worry about in Palladium, the vast majority of the information in this post is simply not correct. Even Microsoft is not delusional enough to think that they could get away with such a coup. (Not that they would not want to.)
Re: Microslosh vision of the future
Well, I may be a wet blanket to the chip houses, but how much speed DO you actually need? Any REAL reason to abandon the present working architecture? I don't personally think so, a 2 gig box is plenty fast for anything we have now, so why don't we just vote with our feet? DON'T buy this crap, the CPU or the OS...and let them stew in their own misfortune. We made Intel back down on the PSN issue with exactly those tactics... I'll go back to my old SGI Indy if necessary...heh.. At 18:51 8/11/02 -0500, you wrote: Guess my home P.C. will no longer be an intel platform..hello mighty SPARC Gerardo Gregory
Re: Microslosh vision of the future
I agree wholeheartedly, let 'em starve At 18:17 8/11/02 -0700, you wrote: Microsoft can have whatever vision of the future they want and can use any resources at their disposal to bring their vision to light. Everybody has that right. If I don't like it, I won't buy it. If they convince customers that they gain more than they lose, only a gun will make them buy it. I don't see Bill Gates packing heat any time soon. *yawn* -- David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Microslosh vision of the future
I just hope the anti-trust people are looking into thisi can't see a bigger case for them to spring into action... At 18:43 8/11/02 -0700, you wrote: Microsoft already duped the software consumers into buying into fully proprietary software. Given the prevalent time horizon of average IT manager's thinking I fully expect Microsoft to get that stuff deployed before the poor saps start realizing they're being ripped. After that Microsoft will leverage their market power to exclude any competition. Exactly like they did it before on numerous occasions. Their PR budget is bigger than GDP of some nations. They're ruthless and show remarkable lack of respect to the notions of fairness or common good. Be afraid. --vadim
