OSDN | Our Network | Newsletters | Advertise | Shop     X 
Welcome to Slashdot Microsoft Games United States The Internet The Almighty Buck
 faq
 code
 awards
 journals
 subscribe
 older stuff
 rob's page
 preferences
 submit story
 advertising
 supporters
 past polls
 topics
 about
 bugs
 hof

Sections
apache
Jun 18
(2 recent)

apple
Jun 20
(3 recent)

askslashdot
Jun 19
(8 recent)

books
Jun 19
(1 recent)

bsd
Jun 16

developers
Jun 20
(3 recent)

features
Jun 14

interviews
Jun 18
(1 recent)

radio
Jun 29

science
Jun 19
(10 recent)

yro
Jun 19
(3 recent)

Analyzing Palladium
MicrosoftPosted by michael on Thursday June 27, @08:15AM
from the looking-glass dept.
apeir0 writes "The Register has a story which proposes an ulterior motive to Microsoft's new Palladium: a GPL-killer. 'It's the very fact that this appears insoluble to me that helps me realize that MS has put tremendous, careful thought into it. To make the commons Linux-hostile, MS is taking dramatic steps to make it GPL-hostile. Very clever and admirably diabolical.' Is this a valid point or just paranoia?" Ross Anderson has been writing about this recently; we covered his paper a few days ago, and he's now got a Palladium FAQ up. Another submitter sent in this interview with the Microsoft manager in charge of Palladium. The Washington Post has a column. Update: 06/27 22:43 GMT by T: Bob Cringely also has a column on Palladium up, in which he says that several of his fears have been realized by it.

 

 
Slashdot Login
Nickname:

Password:

[ Create a new account ]

Related Links
· Palladium
· GPL-killer
· Palladium FAQ
· interview
· column
· T
· several of his fears have been realized
· More on Microsoft
· Also by michael

<  Interview with Joseph Cheek of Lycoris | World's First Photo  >
Analyzing Palladium | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 476 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2 | 3 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
Ignore them. (Score:4, Informative)
by IQ (dan.bitbucket@kcco.com) on Thursday June 27, @08:20AM (#3778000)
(User #14453 Info)
Our business runs Linux. We have depricated M$ and their products. We are fast. Our expenses went down hugely. Our services are reliable. We buy the best commodity components and build all our own machines. Life is good.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Ignore them. (Score:5, Interesting)
    by warpSpeed on Thursday June 27, @08:43AM (#3778121)
    (User #67927 Info | http://www.fredcom.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday March 02, @01:41PM)
    Congradulations!

    However I can't ignore this. It does worry me since most of my clients only know MS. It is very difficult to get your avarage joe user to break the MS habit, and some clients believe the FUD being spewed/parroted by media.

    We can't ignore it, MS have a monopoly and they are going to leverage to its fullest extent until it is (if ever) taken away.

    I cheer on your use of linux, but we are a minority, a well informed minority, but a minority non the less.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Ignore them. (Score:5, Interesting)
      by FreeUser on Thursday June 27, @09:45AM (#3778522)
      (User #11483 Info | http://jean.nu/)
      However I can't ignore this. It does worry me since most of my clients only know MS. It is very difficult to get your avarage joe user to break the MS habit, and some clients believe the FUD being spewed/parroted by media.

      The parent post to which you replied should never have been marked Troll, and I will enjoy ripping the moderator responsible a new one on meta.

      That having been said, I disagree with his suggestion that ignoring this problem is the answer, but not for the reasons you say (or at least, not entirely for those reasons). This must be fought tooth and nail, as we are being attacked from two sides:

      1) Microsoft, trying to leverage their monopoly to impose further, very detrimental, restrictions on the freedom of customers to deploy the correct technologies for their solutions under the guise of DRM.

      2) The entertainment industry, that is trying to legislate the very same restrictive technologies and require them in all digital hardware.

      We would be absolute fools to ignore this.

      Having said that, fewer and fewer people care about Microsoft's proprietary protocols. Even offices that deploy Microsoft on the desktop are, in my experience, deploying open protocols in place of Microsoft's wherever possible to avoid the sort of nonsensical moving target and deliberate breakage MS service packs often result in.

      The result, interstingly enough, has been a quiet movement on the part of several businesses away from Microsoft not just on the server side, but also on the desktop ... and in every case, it has been a very successful move.

      This is why Microsoft is scared, this is why Microsoft is trying to impliment coercive technologies that will remove the last vestiges of customer choice, and this is why their unholy alliance with Hollywood will likely succeed in creating a Revelations-esque dystopia if we sit on our hind ends and do nothing to prevent it.

      Unfortunately we as Americans are so thoroughly conditioned to not become actavists about any cause, no matter how much we care about it, that it is very possible we will do nothing about it in time.

      BTW - As another person who works at a company that has completely depircated Microsoft products and deployed GNU/Linux widely throughout our enterprise I can echo the original poster's comments (that were so unjustly marked as a Troll): Life as a non-Microsoft shop is damn good.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      • Re:Ignore them. by NoMoreNicksLeft (Score:2) Thursday June 27, @11:34AM
        • Re:Ignore them. (Score:5, Interesting)
        by JWW on Thursday June 27, @12:09PM (#3779682)
        (User #79176 Info)
        The funny part about this is that if Hollywood and Microsoft get what they want, they will be the ones whining in a couple of years that they aren't making enough money.

        This is a disabling technology and DRM management laws would be disabling laws. Take a look at prohibition to see what would happen. Most people will begin using computers illegally, black market devices and software will be developed, economic calamaty will eventually ensue due to the brakes being put on free commerce in many arenas, including Hollywood and Microsoft.

        It will be one hell of an ecnonmic downturn. I alos predict that all the financial pundits will not key on DRM laws being the cause, but they will be.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Ignore them. by anonymous_wombat (Score:1) Thursday June 27, @12:57PM
      • Re:Ignore them. by Citizen of Earth (Score:1) Thursday June 27, @01:05PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Ignore them. by RollingThunder (Score:2) Thursday June 27, @01:47PM
      • Re:Ignore them. by FreeUser (Score:2) Thursday June 27, @10:21AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      Re:Ignore them. (Score:5, Insightful)
      by bons on Thursday June 27, @10:04AM (#3778685)
      (User #119581 Info | http://www.nozen.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday June 23, @09:12PM)
      "and some clients believe the FUD being spewed/parroted by media"

      Which FUD are we talking about? This entire series by been a collection of FUD on both sides. In case you missed it Slashdot is also doling out large quantities of:
      FEAR: Of loss of privacy, of misuse by Microsoft, os loss of user's rights.
      UNCERTAINTY: of what's going to happen period. Almost everything I've read so far is speculation.
      DOUBT: Doubting Microsoft's intentions, doubting it will work. How much doubt do you want?

      As a community, we've not only grown a huge distrust for Microsoft, we've grown a love for their methods. Not only do we happily wage wars with FUD, we seem (as I look through the moderated up comments), apparently advocate licenses that prevent Palladium from working with "open hardware" (sorry, but that doesn't sound open to me, it sounds as exclusionary as Microsoft's standard tactics).

      It's about time we returned to our core beliefs, before we lose them entirely and become what we claim to despise.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • S'OK, they'll ignore us, and pay for it by Anonymous Brave Guy (Score:2) Thursday June 27, @01:50PM
    • Re:Ignore them. by shd99004 (Score:2) Thursday June 27, @06:34PM
  • definitions of Security by Alien54 (Score:2) Thursday June 27, @08:47AM
  • Re:Ignore them. by n9hmg (Score:1) Thursday June 27, @10:07AM
  • Re:Ignore them. by doodaddy (Score:1) Thursday June 27, @02:11PM
  • Re:Ignore them. by JebusIsLord (Score:2) Thursday June 27, @06:29PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Ignore them... by raga (Score:1) Friday June 28, @03:47AM
  • Ignore them and you'll vanish by SEWilco (Score:2) Thursday June 27, @09:22AM
  • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
Score -1: Troll (Score:2, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 27, @08:22AM (#3778004)
Until we fully know what Palladium encompasses, why are we jumping to these hasty conclusions? This is no better than when people believed that Windows XP would deny you the ability to play your mp3s, or play them at a much lower quality, because they weren't 'certified'.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
on a more serious note (Score:1, Interesting)
by ObitMan on Thursday June 27, @08:23AM (#3778007)
(User #550793 Info | Last Journal: Wednesday June 26, @02:20PM)
Ok so they do this, Does this "fritz" thingy get installed on all motherboards or just Dells, Hpaq's, Ibm's...
It seems to me that if the hardware isn't forced we end up with 2 distinct branches of the computing world. those that will still bow to the MS gods and those who do what the hell they want.
Basically nothing changes???
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Damn Him (Score:1, Informative)
by Niksie3 (nico@kist.nl) on Thursday June 27, @08:24AM (#3778014)
(User #222515 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
9. Why call the monitor chip a `Fritz' chip?

In honour of Senator Fritz Hollings of North Carolina, who is working tirelessly in Congress to make TCPA a mandatory part of all consumer electronics.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Damn Him by azzy (Score:1) Thursday June 27, @09:22AM
  • Re:Damn Him by fireproof (Score:2) Thursday June 27, @09:50AM
  • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
Between a valid point and paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)
by truthsearch on Thursday June 27, @08:26AM (#3778019)
(User #249536 Info | http://techperspective.blogspot.com/)
He makes quite a valid run through his logic. It's not impossible, so I wouldn't call it simple paranoia. However I still don't think MS finds the GPL or Linux that much of a threat to its entire business. They're putting way too much effort into Palladium if it were only to make the GPL useless. It's really all about control, as a lot of people said in previous /. articles. It's somewhat about money, but at this point it's about growing an empire and making it even stronger.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Lots of problems ahead for MS (Score:5, Insightful)
by tony_gardner (tony.gardner@dlr.de) on Thursday June 27, @08:27AM (#3778024)
(User #533494 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
Look, lets not get our knickers in a knot. It may happen, but it's never going to be the only,
or even a high-level verification method. Obviously not, it's embedded in hardware.

I would think that an identification code embedded in hardware is going to be cracked, and in short order. What happens to Charlie consumer when he finds that his version of Word no longer works because some cracker has a hold of his unique
identifier? And that he can't change that identifier without a new MOBO? Or that Microsoft is giving away his credit card number to anyone who can spoof his identity?

It's a common failing of software manufacurers to think that new hardware can solve problems that software cannot (CF pretty much every dongle ever made) Just let MS run with the ball until they realise that the same thing can be done in software at a fraction of the cost.

In addition, I think it would die in Anitrust. Just wait until those computers start being returned, because they won't play nice with my operating system of choice, and watch Intel turn on a dime.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • If I were an MS employee by truthsearch (Score:3) Thursday June 27, @09:00AM
  • Re:Lots of problems ahead for MS by Tripman (Score:3) Thursday June 27, @09:06AM
      Re:Lots of problems ahead for MS (Score:5, Insightful)
      by vandan on Thursday June 27, @09:42AM (#3778509)
      (User #151516 Info)
      The only problem I see with this argument is the legal aspect. All governments want more spying powers. This is especially true of the American government and their war on everything which is not in their economic interest. The organisations lobying for DRM have a lot of money, and the inclination to use it to get their way; the RIAA & MPAA, Disney, Microsoft - these are the people making laws. Do you think that the government sees any merit in allowing teenagers to download and rip music instead of paying for it like the western economy requires? And do you think that anyone in government understands the technical merits or failings of a hardware-enforced, legally required DRM? Or that they care? In their eyes, there is only one way forward. Computers are not for entertainment - they are for making a few people a lot of money. The internet is there to connect those computers for the same purpose.
      DRM is coming, and if people don't like it, they will have to move fast because with AMD and Intel promising support, there isn't much stopping DRM legislation - apart from some teenagers and some commie-hippy protestor types.
      So get ready to wear the mark of the beast...
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Lots of problems ahead for MS by WolfWithoutAClause (Score:2) Thursday June 27, @09:17AM
  • Re:Lots of problems ahead for MS by rhost89 (Score:3) Thursday June 27, @09:23AM
    • Re:Lots of problems ahead for MS (Score:5, Insightful)
    by Rogerborg on Thursday June 27, @09:59AM (#3778632)
    (User #306625 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
      I would think that an identification code embedded in hardware is going to be cracked, and in short order.

    Sure. Remind me, where do I download the software hack for Xbox?

    Sorry, you're just plain wrong on this one. Trying to impose security on an insecure OS with a dongle is wildly optimistic. But tying the hardware and the OS together is - demonstrably - not. Modding an Xbox requires a hardware hack, and Microsoft aren't idiots; they'll learn from the Xbox vulnerabilities and make sure that Palladium is harder to crack, or they'll have got their para-legal team hopped up and ready to take down any mod suppliers the instant they appear (note that one Xbox mod chip supplier went under today).

    I'm not saying it'll be impossible, but I am predicting that it'll be damn hard and will require more than just a soldering iron and a cavalier disregard for your warranty, the EULA and the DMCA.

    As regarding it dying in antitrust... well, we've seen how fast the DoJ moves on these issues. As for returning computers, what's your basis for believing that by 2006 you'll be able to buy a generic naked system without a Microsoft OS installed? And if we're talking about individual components, what will the market be for people who want to install a non-Microsoft OS but who won't realise that a stock consumer Intel/AMD chip won't talk to it? 2%? 1%?

    This is a big deal. It's the Son of SSSCA, dressed up in pro-consumer clothes. It's not mandatory, just de facto (i.e. zero difference in practical terms). The response to any legal challenge will be that if you really want to run a non-Microsoft OS, you can pay extra for "server" or "pro" versions of CPU's (and whatever other components have jumped on the bandwagon). Fine, but how long before the anti-piracy argument gets leveraged to push through either a consentual or compulsory scheme to license access to non-Palladium parts? Six months? Less?

    We can argue this until the cows come home, but let's agree to compromise. If you're right, you can say "told you so". If I'm right, I can say... well, whatever Bill allows me to say. Fair enough?

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Lots of problems ahead for MS by Dalcius (Score:1) Thursday June 27, @01:29PM
  • Re:Lots of problems ahead for MS by EZCheese (Score:1) Thursday June 27, @05:56PM
  • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
Where trust comes from (Score:4, Interesting)
by PMuse on Thursday June 27, @08:28AM (#3778028)
(User #320639 Info)
Call me crazy, but I think M$ just said that opening (some of) its source was the way to achieve trust.

Juarez: ... As a side note, we will publish the source code on that Trusted Operating Root. We will make sure that people have the opportunity to really go deep on that and kick the tires and know that what we're doing in there is what we say we are doing.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
No big shocker here. (Score:4, Interesting)
by NetRanger on Thursday June 27, @08:28AM (#3778031)
(User #5584 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
I can see this kind of technology being abused to the 1,000th degree. Imagine software that would automatically use your previous usage data to force you to buy individual features that you use the most, the next time your annual subscription fee comes around? Or deleting all your home movies because they didn't carry a copyright tag, and thus could be illegal? Or finding the cops at your door because little Timmy downloaded his favorite song on MP3 or Ogg?

It seems that we, the mass public, are expected to give up the idea than when we buy something, it's ours. Now that even seems to include our hardware, not just our software.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Devices hostile to 3rd party peripherals (Score:5, Interesting)
by AgTiger (agtiger@[ ]rr.com ['kc.' in gap]) on Thursday June 27, @08:29AM (#3778041)
(User #458268 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
From the article:

> For example, some mobile phone vendors use challenge-response
> authentication to check that the phone battery is a genuine part
> rather than a clone - in which case, the phone will refuse to recharge
> it, and may even drain it as quickly as possible. Some
> printers authenticate their toner cartridges electronically;
> if you use a cheap substitute, the printer silently downgrades
> from 1200 dpi to 300 dpi.

I wonder if there's a list of printers and/or phones that perform in such a manner. I'm not sure if the law would deem such behavior as "anti-competitive", but I as a customer certainly find it so, as well as offensive.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
MS is Silly (Score:5, Insightful)
by YanceyAI (yanceyai@yahoo.com) on Thursday June 27, @08:30AM (#3778045)
(User #192279 Info)
The notion of hard-wired authentication rings alarms for conspiracists who sense a plot by which Microsoft might exert even more control over what kind of software could run on future computers. The Redmond behemoth dismisses such talk as silly.

Apparently the US government does not think it's silly. Nor did the judge in the case who ruled against them.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Masters at work (Score:5, Insightful)
by rant-mode-on on Thursday June 27, @08:30AM (#3778050)
(User #512772 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
Whilst Microsoft does not produce the most robust software in the world, they have repeatedly proven that they are masters of strategy and marketing. Getting into games consoles, PVRs and just about every other major electronic device that you use is just a prerequisit to being able to make this successful. Palladium is something to be feared.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Masters at work by scsirob (Score:1) Thursday June 27, @09:14AM
    • How are Microsoft experts? (Score:4, Informative)
    by alexhmit01 on Thursday June 27, @10:15AM (#3778788)
    (User #104757 Info | http://www.feratech.com/about/bios/ahochber/)
    They have failed, miserably, in the PVR market. They have failed, miserably, in the game console market… twice (WinCE in the Dreamcast, Xbox). They have failed, miserably, in the personal accounting market (Intuit has repeatedly cleaned their clocks). Their entrance into the handheld market has been anything BUT a runaway success, though they leveraged confusion at Palm to grab a nice chunk of the market.

    They have 4 major successes. They took the OS monopoly granted them by IBM (as a result of IBM facing an antitrust suit) and built a successful empire. They leveraged internal knowledge of “Chicago,” (Windows 4.0/95) to get Office 95 on release and establish a near monopoly on desktop office suites. They leveraged their OS and finances to establish a near monopoly of Internet web browsers. They also used financial muscle to clip Borland off at the knees and establish a near monopoly in development software.

    However, in the cases of their successes, they really leveraged a critical mistake by their competition. Even NT Server’s rise was a combination of marketing and boneheaded moves by Novell. Novell has let everyone believe that they are dead, so NT ate a lot of their market. Linux is now a huge portion of the market.

    I really don’t understand why everyone believes that Microsoft is invincible. Look at how WordPerfect, Netscape, and Novell dropped the ball. Also look at how Apple dropped the ball.

    Microsoft is great at release early and release often. They put out near beta code quickly to establish a beachhead. They then keep running at you, hard. Fail to innovate (Netscape and Real) and they will clobber you. Keep running ahead, and you can be the Intuit of the world.

    Microsoft has a LOT of failures. MS SQL Server has NOT defeated Oracle and DB2 for the Enterprise “mass” market of databases. MS SQL Server gets most of its success from MS Shops that web deploy apps with VBScript ASPs. Low end web publishing uses MySQL+PHP, while the higher end does Java+JSP+Oracle. Those of us in the technically complex world without the heavy Enterprise backing do either PHP (or Perl) with PostgreSQL in the Unix camp OR ASP with MS SQL in the NT camp.

    MSN has never defeated AOL, despite its early predictions (and 7 years of being pushed in MS’s monopoly Oses). You’re insane if you think that Xbox is competitive with the PS2 or Game Boy Advanced. It has been running even with Nintendo’s Gamecube in 1 of the 3 major markets (trounced in two others) while Nintendo hasn’t released a major title yet.

    UltimateTV was a total flop. There are lots of failures, not just Microsoft Bob.

    Get a grip people,
    Alex
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
Flattening (Score:1)
by ultrabot on Thursday June 27, @08:32AM (#3778056)
(User #200914 Info)
Many of the sources ignore the possiblity to "flatten" or serialize the data to plain ascii. I assume no software can restrict taking stuff out of binary documents, and then sending that flat data to a friend. How stupid do they think we are?

And there ought to be equally flat formats for video and audio. Making things just "hard to do" won't help much. The physical/logical realities of the universe make all of this DRM thing a futile effort.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Flattening by tshoppa (Score:3) Thursday June 27, @09:06AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
No, it still won't work. (Score:5, Interesting)
by Noryungi on Thursday June 27, @08:32AM (#3778057)
(User #70322 Info | http://www.multimania.com/frenchbsd | Last Journal: Wednesday March 13, @01:41PM)
I can add at least one more reason this darn Palladium thingie won't work (for the previous reasons I mentioned, see the previous discussion on Palladium):


  • Economics & the rule of profit.



Think about it for a second: a lot of people, though not the [MP|RI]AA, are going to be royally pissed off about this.

Therefore, they will be tempted to do something about it. So, we'll see one of these solutions:


  • Clever hacks, designed to completely fool the Palladium/DRM solution into thinking some software/hardware combination is legit and acceptable. This is highly possible, given the fact that no secuity is foolproof, and the abysmal track record of Microsoftin security and stability.

  • The appearance of "GNU Hardware": open designs, based on a strict "No Palladium" clause, along with an explosion of small, customized hardware shop based on these designs. For instance: small computers, based on accepted -- and fairly open -- industry standards such as IDE, PCI, USB and ARM processors.

  • The fact that somebody, somewhere is bound to remark that this whole Palladium thingie hurt sales, profits and image. When enough PC builders realize their mistakes, they'll backtrack faster than you can say "GNU/Linux kernel" back to non-DRM, non-Palladium (non-MS?) machines.

  • All of the above!!



Finally, I think the US .gov could go along with this hare-brained scheme, but do you think the EU will? And what about most third-world countries who, even as we speak, are flocking to open-source solutions in droves?

Again: I believe M$ is just testing the waters here. It's probably either a marketing test balloon or vaporware, designed to please the US government in these post-9/11 times.

Remember: Palladium can only work if every company joins the conspiracy. Some, maybe even a lot, won't.

YMMV, IANAL, Standard::Disclaimer and so on and so forth.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:No, it still won't work. by proj_2501 (Score:3) Thursday June 27, @08:38AM
    • The Cartel Problem (Score:4, Interesting)
    by xtal (smanley@nyx.net) on Thursday June 27, @08:43AM (#3778124)
    (User #49134 Info | http://www.nyx.net/~smanley)

    Remember: Palladium can only work if every company joins the conspiracy. Some, maybe even a lot, won't.

    This, IMHO, is why it won't succeed for the same reason cartels designed to artificially restrict supply sooner or later all fall appart. Initially, people might go for it. When an economic disadvantage is passed on to consumers - designing this, after all, isn't free, and developers who can't or won't pay the fees required to have their code "Certified" will be unable to develop for that market - and consumers of Palladium PC's will be unable to use their wares.

    This will result in a incentive for a manufacturer of CPUs or motherboards to produce a non-Palladium product. People will move to those platforms for a variety of reasons, producing an incentive to produce non-palladium products, springing up a non-MS taxed industry. It probably would motivate a lot of busy people like me to start working on GPL products to fight against the mark of the beast. Sooner or later though, a hardware manufacturer will spring up to produce hardware to meet the demand. That's inevitable.

    This, frankly, sickens me to think about. I'll become physically ill if Apple announces they're going to soil their OS X and Powerbooks with this platform.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:The Cartel Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
      by slow_flight on Thursday June 27, @09:07AM (#3778254)
      (User #518010 Info)
      This, IMHO, is why it won't succeed for the same reason cartels designed to artificially restrict supply sooner or later all fall appart.

      Cartels like the diamond industry? That was has been going strong for ages! Cartels like OPEC? It may not have the strength it used to, but it still has a tremendous amount of control over oil pricing. I hope you're right on this one, but it's not a given.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Absolutely Right (Score:4, Insightful)
        by FreeUser on Thursday June 27, @09:28AM (#3778405)
        (User #11483 Info | http://jean.nu/)
        Cartels like the diamond industry? That was has been going strong for ages! Cartels like OPEC?

        Absolutely right.

        Then, lets not forget cartels like the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), who have successfully lobbied for and purchased legislation to enshrine their oligarchy into US law.

        These are the very people who are pushing for this sort of nonsense, and a software monopoly as a result would be fine with them (indeed, perhaps even preferable to a free market, since it is only one point of pressure/influence they would require).

        We are absolutely kidding ourselves if we do not think this is a serious threat to Free Software, the GPL, and our very freedom as human beings.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      • Re:The Cartel Problem by pmz (Score:2) Thursday June 27, @11:57AM
    • The natural direction by Aceticon (Score:2) Thursday June 27, @09:53AM
    • Re:The Cartel Problem by BoVLB (Score:1) Thursday June 27, @04:10PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:No, it still won't work. by justsomebody (Score:1) Thursday June 27, @09:14AM
    • Re:No, it still won't work. (Score:5, Insightful)
    by sphealey on Thursday June 27, @09:23AM (#3778359)
    (User #2855 Info)
    The appearance of "GNU Hardware": open designs, based on a strict "No Palladium" clause, along with an explosion of small, customized hardware shop based on these designs.
    That might have worked in the 1970s or even 80s, when chipmaking systems had "reasonable" prices (say in the 50 million USD range), there were many companies making chips, and there was competition among microprocessors.

    Today, chipmaking systems cost in the billions of USD. No one is going to start a garage shop to fabricate these things - they will have to come from established (read: large) manufacturers. Large companies are very susceptible to government pressure: "no DRM instructions in your new CPU? I guess we will have to cancel that big secret contract with the NSA, and also sic the SEC on your financial statements."

    Similarly on the CPU side: Intel and AMD are really the only games in town now. Any new systems would have to "play ball" with one of those two. And again, as large organizations (in Intel's case with large US Government contracts) they will fall into line if pushed.

    sPh

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • Re:No, it still won't work. by Ryan Hemage (Score:1) Thursday June 27, @09:50AM
    • Re:No, it still won't work. by fermion (Score:1) Thursday June 27, @10:42AM
    • Re:No, it still won't work. by KJSwartz (Score:1) Thursday June 27, @11:04AM
    • Outsourcing by Paul the Bold (Score:2) Thursday June 27, @11:41AM
      • Re:No, it still won't work. (Score:4, Interesting)
      by Noryungi on Thursday June 27, @12:01PM (#3779628)
      (User #70322 Info | http://www.multimania.com/frenchbsd | Last Journal: Wednesday March 13, @01:41PM)
      Sorry, I have to disagree here: RISC chips could be the perfect answer to that problem.

      One of the most successful chipmaker of all time is ARM. The first version of the ARM chip (a 16-bit RISC chip) was created by just two people, with no money, no help and no support from the main company (Acorn, at the time). If I remember well, these two people did not even have a lot of experience in chip design.

      The great-grandchildren of this chip can now be found in millions of devices all over the world. iPaq, Nokia, HP, you name it: they all use it (even Palm, in its latest models).

      Even when ARM1 came out, it was touted as more powerful than anything Intel had to offer at the time. It was also easier and cheaper to produce and consumed less power than all other CPU models.

      And there are ARM clones out there, including one on Open Cores.org [opencores.org]. Not that I think that desiging an ARM clone is necessarily good, just that that designing a cheap RISC CPU can be done.

      So, designing a complete "GNU Hardware" system is possible, and it could even be a way of ditching the mess which is the PC architecture.

      Think about it:

      • No Palladium, no DRM, no Micro$oft. Ever.

      • A new, open architecture, open CPU core, based on open standards and free for everyone to take, copy and reproduce.

      • Your choice of operating system: Linux, NetBSD, OpenBSD, you name it. Plus, a huge amount of quality software that will stay free for ever, thanks to the GPL.

      • Can't produce it in the US? Ask European firms! No luck? Try Taiwan, or China, or Korea or whatever.



      Let's face it: some people (including me) would pay good money for a "no-Palladium" system. Especialy if I have no choice!

      Operating Systems such as Linux are a commodity -- but a commodity that break M$ monopoly. I think it's time for the hardware itself to become a "free speech" comodity as well. And Palladium could push the Open Source community to do just that...
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • Re:No, it still won't work. by pmz (Score:2) Thursday June 27, @12:05PM
    • Re:No, it still won't work. by TheIrishScion (Score:1) Thursday June 27, @01:35PM
    • Re:No, it still won't work. by mitchskin (Score:1) Thursday June 27, @05:55PM
    • Re:No, it still won't work. by SN74S181 (Score:1) Thursday June 27, @11:31AM
    • Re:No, it still won't work. by |(Score:1) Thursday June 27, @08:09PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:No, it still won't work. by Tripman (Score:1) Thursday June 27, @09:27AM
  • Just don't underestimate.... by 2g3-598hX (Score:1) Thursday June 27, @09:45AM
  • Re:No, it still won't work. by Rogerborg (Score:3) Thursday June 27, @10:23AM
  • Re:No, it still won't work. by Alsee (Score:2) Thursday June 27, @01:00PM
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
its the SSSCA (Score:1)
by nervlord1 on Thursday June 27, @08:33AM (#3778060)
(User #529523 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
its the SSSCA dressed up to look like something consumers would want, the entire thing reeks of "ca-ching" by the copyright holders (MPAA and RIAA respectively). Move along, nothing to see here.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Anyone notice the inherent similarities (Score:5, Insightful)
by tony_gardner (tony.gardner@dlr.de) on Thursday June 27, @08:33AM (#3778061)
(User #533494 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
between this and biometric security methods. Very strong security. When the single layer is cracked, there is no backup mechanism, and resecuring and reverification of user are almost impossible.

Although, I guess if I had to choose between getting a new MOBO and new eyeball I'd pick the MOBO. Maybe this is Microsoft's attempt to be least-worst.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Paranoia and Microsoft (Score:1)
by Locke!Erasmus on Thursday June 27, @08:34AM (#3778063)
(User #588304 Info)

I don't think one can be too paranoid about Microsoft and their self-serving interests. It would be incredibly naive to assume that they are working on Palladium because of their altruistic and generous motives.

Personally, all I see here is more of the same anti-competitive behavior that got them into hot water in the first place.

I can't wait until their "accounting discrepancy" scandal leaks!

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Palladium, Microsoft’s future? (Score:5, Insightful)
by JonathanTWilson (wilsonj@@@indigo...ie) on Thursday June 27, @08:35AM (#3778071)
(User #588645 Info | http://indigo.ie/~wilsonj/)
Palladium, Microsoft’s future?

Palladium if it ever actually comes to pass is probably the biggest and most profitable enterprise Microsoft could ever possibly have imagined. Why? Secure software running on a secure platform. But what steps do you take to make this idea a reality?

A trusted hardware base. All hardware must meet certain operational standards that are set out by a central organization. For hardware to be "compatible" it must live up to the minimum of these standards. Similar to government regulated health and safety standards on all current hardware, but in this case software regulated. While this might not appear in Palladium version 1.00 it will definitely feature in its future, as all the big media companies want hardware copy protection.

All software needs to be certified by the above central organization. It wouldn’t be out of the question for Microsoft to create an "external sub-company" to administer this side of the business and not seem like it’s trying to be a monopoly. This new company would deal with Sun, Linux, Oracle, etc, in the same way it would deal with Microsoft. Why this might happen I’ll explain later.

How will this software be certified? If a software company just uses any old computer language to create a binary, what will get certified the source code or the binary? This is an important question, how do you check that the software that’s certified has no backdoors? As backdoors are the single biggest problem within a closed "secure" system.

Here is what I think Microsoft is making a play for:

The answer is a trusted programming language a.k.a .NET framework. Microsoft’s new byte-code compilers (look’s like Java might just have missed the boat). With a trusted compiler creating trusted byte-code running on a trusted computer. It now becomes possible to create different levels of certificates for different levels of access to computer hardware and personal data. In this way Microsoft will have completed their "finial software solution".

Microsoft is predominantly still a software-based company. While the IBM PC compatible hardware is Microsoft strong hold it’s not the only hardware option. To a large extent Microsoft has won the desktop market. The only way they will lose it is if there’s a change in the Client/Server (Desktop/Internet) relationship. Microsoft saw with Java how this relationship could change and Windows could become no more then a footstool for Java applications. If Java had become the programming language of choice for creating Desktop/Internet applications Windows would have become a very easily removed part of the equation. Enter all the dreams of the Net-PCs, a slimed down computer running cheap to free operating systems with a Java run-time on-top. Here’s the twist. Microsoft liked the idea and with its power in the desktop arena knew it could succeed where Sun failed. Microsoft Windows might not be the flagship of Microsoft for much longer, as Palladium could become the software platform of the future. Two reason why I think this: 1) They could create a more "open" version of Windows knowing this would help them in their antitrust cases. But really knowing that all software by default will have to run under Palladium anyways. 2) Palladium will be run on all trusted hardware footprints (PC, Apple, etc). But Microsoft will use its power over the desktop market to implement Palladium through Windows. Once it has been accept as the standard that Microsoft believes it will be, demand from users of other hardware platforms to support Palladium will create the need for all client operating systems / hardware to support an implementation and because its all based on .NET byte-code this will not be a problem.

With this move Windows steps back becoming primarily a desktop only environment running Palladium for all import tasks. Windows users will still be able to play all their games and fun applications, which might not be trusted but Internet access

Read the rest of this comment...

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
a million times: no. (Score:5, Funny)
by denttford on Thursday June 27, @08:35AM (#3778075)
(User #579202 Info)
"Palladium is all about deciding what’s trustworthy. It not only lets your computer know that you’re you..."

I refuse to have my computer settle any existential problems before I do.

Especially when running software sold by the pasty white guy with a red light on his head.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Apple anyone? (Score:1, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 27, @08:36AM (#3778081)
I'm with Apple, and as far as I know they fully respect my privacy. Hell, they even make it easy to share my MP3 stuff and software, thanks iPod!,br.Besides, Apple is commited with the OpenSource movement and it even use GPL'd software as EMACS in MacOSX. Apple hardware may cost more, even more if you live in a 3rd World piece of country like me (I'm from Brazil), but at least you can keep your freedom and privacy!

Victor Hogemann - hogemann@mac.com
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
If if changes the Unix/Linux security model, fine (Score:2)
by duffbeer703 (duffybj1@ y a h oo.com) on Thursday June 27, @08:37AM (#3778088)
(User #177751 Info)
The whole concept of having a "root" super-user who can so anything and everything erases whatever security models we erect.

If this Palladium project encourages general-purpose Unix to move towards a more trusted model with ACLs and other features, then it is a good thing for all of us.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:If if changes the Unix/Linux security model, fi by GigsVT (Score:1) Thursday June 27, @08:52AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:If if changes the Unix/Linux security model, fi by duffbeer703 (Score:2) Thursday June 27, @08:51AM
    • Re:If if changes the Unix/Linux security model, fi by MindStalker (Score:1) Thursday June 27, @09:29AM
      • Re:If if changes the Unix/Linux security model, fi by duffbeer703 (Score:2) Thursday June 27, @09:32AM
        • Re:If if changes the Unix/Linux security model, fi (Score:4, Insightful)
        by Zeinfeld on Thursday June 27, @11:12AM (#3779252)
        (User #263942 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
        I really don't know windows very well, but I'm sure there is one account (superadmin??) that can change these privilages. Which is basically root.

        I find it amazing how folk can start a sentence 'I don't know anything about this' and then go on to pontificate. Examples of this behavior include practically every Senator's reaction to the pledge of allegiance rulling (I haven't read the rulling but I'll make a dumb-ass statement to protect my base) and 50% of the posts on Slashdot by Linux people on WNT.

        Under WNT you can set the O/S up with very strong file access permissions. It is not unusual to configure a WNT machine so that administrators don't have access to user's files and if you read the manual you can set the system up so that nobody has system privillege, administrators who can mod user accounts cannot modify the system log etc.

        With W2K and later you can turn on the encrypting file system. By default the administrator still has the ability to recover files via the recovery root. But you can export that to a floppy disk and put it in a safe. You can also integrate more powerful Key Recovery systems from third party vendors that enforce dual control over recovery.

        UNIX was not designed to be a secure O/S. The security it does support is a subset of the security mechanisms of MULTICS. The design observation made at the time being that the machines of the day (early PDPs) could not support a complex security model.

        It is unfortunate that so many people mistake age for security. By the time VM-UNIX was developed the VAX 11/750 VMUNIX was developed on was capable of supporting a sophisticated security model as VMS proved. But like so many UNIX design features what had originally been a shortcut had been elevated to the status of dogma.

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
Hardware based security is bunk (Score:2, Insightful)
by EvilTwinSkippy (yoda@et o y o c . com) on Thursday June 27, @08:38AM (#3778091)
(User #112490 Info | http://www.etoyoc.com/~swoods)
So how preciesly are are supposed to know, across a network, that the signals you are recieving come from a chip or come from a piece of software emulating a chip?

And how do you patch hardware when you find, 6 months in, that there is a flaw? This is a giant step backward in technology, designed to make people go out an buy yet more useless crap for their computers.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
DRM similar to P3 ID? (Score:1, Interesting)
by Organic_Info on Thursday June 27, @08:38AM (#3778092)
(User #208739 Info)
Will hardware DRM functionality go the way that the Pentium 3 CPU ID fiasco did. There was a lot of attention about the invasion of privacy and in the end it never got used. Will hardware DRM go the same way. Present but not used.

Lets face it for the H/W manufacturers to implement this it's going to cost them money. How will MS get everyone to co-operate? Lets face it Big businesses don't play nicely together very often - why this time. What will be their incentive.

If this is an MS ploy to rein in the renegade Linux lovers its very subtle and very clever - it definately needs to be watched. MS is very good at thinking about the long run when it comes to competition.

Then again it could be bollocks and we're all wasting our time :)
.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
guess (Score:2)
by jukal (jukal+slashdot@cyberian.org) on Thursday June 27, @08:40AM (#3778109)
(User #523582 Info | http://www.cyberian.org/)
Something like this takes place,but:

1. The PKI spec and reference implementantion is public.
2. PKI chips are manufactured my multiple 3rd parties.
3. The validation to get your keys will be done by trusted third parties.
4. Nothing changes. In the beginning, things might be easier for those running Windows.

The world is not dumb enough anymore to be fooled by MS, it does not have ultimate control anymore, they are under pressure from many directions in which an OS is used(mobile terminals, embedded devices, consoles, desktop computers, servers) - all of these have multiple serious contenders now with differing interests. No one is strong enough to kill everyone else.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Invisible hand (Score:3, Interesting)
by Dilbert_ (maarten.schenk@nospam.planetinternet.be) on Thursday June 27, @08:42AM (#3778118)
(User #17488 Info | http://brusselsblog.blogspot.com/)
I think the market is silently going to take care of this. Would you rather buy an intentionally crippled product, or an 'open' competing product? Yeah, they might make those illegal in the US, but the rest of the world won't follow, so there will always be a steady supply of 'open' hardware (which will probably be cheaper, too). After which the American industry will scream bloody murder because of the unfair competitive advantage of foreign corporations using all this open stuff. Then they will buy some senators to overturn this initiative, and all wil be well...

Or so I hope.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Invisible hand by big.ears (Score:2) Thursday June 27, @09:11AM
  • Re:Invisible hand by slow_flight (Score:3) Thursday June 27, @09:15AM
  • Re:Invisible hand by TulioSerpio (Score:1) Thursday June 27, @09:17AM
    • Re:Invisible hand (Score:5, Insightful)
    by Anarchofascist (pad@pee_cee_holt_dot_com) on Thursday June 27, @09:53AM (#3778584)
    (User #4820 Info | http://pcholt.com/)
    "I think the market is silently going to take care of this. Would you rather buy an intentionally crippled product, or an 'open' competing product? "

    They're going to let you switch it off. However, if you switch it off, you wont be able to generate or use "trusted" content, and if 80% of people do not accept your "untrusted" content (with a little help from some cunningly-worded MS error messages), you're up shit creek (to use a common engineering term).

    The carrot will be Hollywood DRM content, and the stick will be in creating the perception that MP3s, Oggs and Linux are in some way "untrusted".
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
What about a 'FAQ' for dummies? (Score:2, Insightful)
by Man Eating Duck on Thursday June 27, @08:45AM (#3778131)
(User #534479 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
The FAQ is a good effort which I appreciated a lot, but if I show it to my less-techie friends, they won't want (or be able) to read and understand all of it.
Anyone know where one could encounter a well written introduction to the problem, and a summary of the main points in the FAQ?
This would be good for people who's not technically oriented, but still use computers for variuos tasks. Those are the ones that must know about the implications of Palladium, to be able to protest against it with their wallets...

I'd write one myself if I posessed the insight and eloquence, but I suspect that many others could do a far better job than I.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Transmeta to the rescue? (Score:1)
by blackholebrain (YOUblackholebrainKNOW@hotmail.com) on Thursday June 27, @08:47AM (#3778141)
(User #90909 Info | http://blackholebrain.com/)
I don't know what's up with Transmeta lately, but doesn't their code-morphing architecture [transmeta.com] *theoretically* allow for a possible entry point through which [serious] hackers might be able to deceive or disable such technology?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
of course it's valid (Score:2)
by Erris on Thursday June 27, @08:48AM (#3778150)
(User #531066 Info)
Have we been sleeping, or is this the same microsoft that has forbiden linking to GPL code by EULA and has wasted so much money and time attacking the GPL? Anyone who has so much as owned a computer with any non M$ software on it in the last ten years knows that M$ is hostile to all other software writers, including their own Studio trained writers, VB etc.

Microsoft will redefine free as "without reward".

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
is this the intel hardware key in another wrapper? (Score:1)
by fenux on Thursday June 27, @08:48AM (#3778153)
(User #193823 Info | http://www.verborgh.be | Last Journal: Sunday February 17, @03:55PM)
Remember intels hardware key? no one wanted it. it could meam more security but most customers were against it, and besides, dotnet is the attempt(failed?) to get control of linux users, if they cant control our os, they try to put an extra level between the os and the apps. either way, i do like the "this email will self destruct in 20 minutes and take your entire computer with it" idea
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Won't work (Score:2)
by corebreech (corebreech@yahoo.com) on Thursday June 27, @08:49AM (#3778157)
(User #469871 Info)
Even if it is expensive to crack the Fritz, someone will do it and then turn themselves into a fountain for copyrighted content.

They'll rip the latest Hollywood blockbusters and Britney Spears' album and put it on something like FreeNet [freenetproject.org] and everybody will take to downloading it and more importantly, we'll all feel really good doing it.

Ditto running something like Microsoft Word. Once it gets hacked so that it is Palladium-neutered it can be transmitted to everybody in a flash and we all get to run it and feel good about doing so.

Fuck Intel and fuck Microsoft.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Fritz from NC? (Score:1)
by sailor420 on Thursday June 27, @08:50AM (#3778162)
(User #515914 Info | http://www.theravenel.net/)
From the FAQ:

9. Why call the monitor chip a `Fritz' chip?

In honour of Senator Fritz Hollings of North Carolina, who is working tirelessly in Congress to make TCPA a mandatory part of all consumer electronics.


Please, don't get it mixed up. Fritz Hollings is from South Carolina, not North Carolina.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Palladium Isnt Evil.... (Score:1)
by LordMyren on Thursday June 27, @08:52AM (#3778173)
(User #15499 Info | http://www.bitwrench.com/)
The DMCA that backs it is. No DMCA, no problems.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Another brilliant strategy by Microsoft (Score:2)
by ackthpt (WildBillCatt@DeathTöngue.com) on Thursday June 27, @08:52AM (#3778176)
(User #218170 Info | http://www.dragonswest.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday May 02, @12:22PM)
Another brilliant strategy by Microsoft to discourage me from buying any products or hardware from them or their partners. Way to go, such a strategy. More neanderthal thinking to bolt some awful junk into a system and make it less flexible (and ultimately more vulnerable) and probably be further used as a method to encourage me to upgrade hardware more often..
  • "Here's a latest version, buy it!"
  • "Oops we left out a feather which will be in the next release for your buying pleasure."
  • "The bug which has been reported was very dangerous and those who reported it should be tried as terrorists, by the way, the fix will be out in 2 months only costs $$$ to have an authorized technician take care of."
  • "Completely new design, as we Listen to You, expect it as soon as our current anti-trust trial is resolved."
  • "Bill Gates and Hillary Rosen deny tryst even as users find all CD's placed within 10 feet of PC's suffer damage from XPQ radaition (thanks to that special new chipset!)"

    And of course, cattle will just wallow into stores and buy it without giving more thought than whether it comes with a shiny, candy-like button.

    • [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    so... 20 years late? (Score:3, Insightful)
    by Multics on Thursday June 27, @08:52AM (#3778177)
    (User #45254 Info)
    It sure begins to look like George Orwell was only 20-21 years early in his estimate.

    Fritz H. needs to be un-elected. Anyone got good pointers on how to do that?

    -- Multics

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Call me paranoid... (Score:2, Interesting)
    by Elledan on Thursday June 27, @08:53AM (#3778181)
    (User #582730 Info | http://www.tadi-project.com/)
    It almost seems like the big companies are doing everything they can to make Orwell's book "[i]Nineteen Eigthy-Four[/i]" come true. They want to total control over what everyone does with their copy of some software, music or a movie. It'll be only a matter of time before some big company proposes tracking every single individual in a country. Hang on, I seem to recall this already having been proposed in a similar form...

    So, what are we going to decide? Will we allow the big companies (the 'Party') to take away all of our freedoms one by one? Today fair-use, tomorrow anonymity?

    It sounds to me like this would be the ideal time to use the united force of all people around the world who value their freedom to fight the sickening proposals being made by those who stand above the possible effects of their ideas.

    Certainly, this technology might be useful in certain situations, but it should never be used to limit the freedom of the individual.
    Are we willing to sacrifice our freedom for the sake of the profits of the 'entertainment' industry? It would hardly surprise me if after a successful introduction of TCPA, the number of sold CDs/movies and the profits made on movies in theatres would rapidly decrease, instead of rise, like they did before the introduction of TCPA (profits made by the entertainment industry has continued to rise in the past few years, despite the doubling of the number of sold illegal CDs and the exponentially growth of P2P software over 2001).

    I propose that we, the people, make our final stand here and let utter defeat be the fate of our opponent(s).
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Monopoly.. (Score:1)
    by Idimmu Xul (idimmuxul at technologist dot com) on Thursday June 27, @08:53AM (#3778182)
    (User #204345 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
    Isnt this going to be the 'Ultimate Computing Monopoly' ever?

    Palladium is all about deciding what’s trustworthy

    Microsoft control Palladium.. MS control what is and isnt trustworthy..

    Yippee!

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    And the Antitrust trial is even over yet. (Score:2)
    by crovira on Thursday June 27, @08:53AM (#3778183)
    (User #10242 Info | http://www.softwareprototypes.com/)
    That takes "cojones". Does he think everybody's an idiot?

    I hope CKK kicks Gates in the "cojones." :-)
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Uh-oh... (Score:1)
    by Zzootnik on Thursday June 27, @08:58AM (#3778206)
    (User #179922 Info)
    You know, We've all seen the little things..processor serial numbers and Wank-XP and the like....

    ...but this scares me....

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    A new version of the GPL (Score:1)
    by flonker on Thursday June 27, @08:58AM (#3778207)
    (User #526111 Info)
    Perhaps we need a new version of the GPL that says "you can't have signatures of the executable be required by the hardware" or something along those lines.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Interesting piece of FUD (Score:2)
    by bertok on Thursday June 27, @09:01AM (#3778222)
    (User #226922 Info | http://www.peter.bertok.com/)
    I've noticed one particularly transparent piece of FUD in the propoganda released by Microsoft: They claim that Palladium will eliminate SPAM. This is totally false, it cannot possibly prevent SPAM any better than existing technological solutions. The press release doesn't give a lot of technical details, but based on the wording and the nature of DRM/Crypto technology, it seems that Palladium can do one of two things:
    • Automatically drop incoming mail not cryptographically signed by a user in the address book of the recipient.
    • Only allow mail from users in Microsoft's Passport database. Spammers are simply removed from the database, preventing them sending mail to Palladium protected machines.

    The first method is similar to what ICQ-like programs do, but ICQ was not designed to facilitate one-off messages from unexpected people. For example, all businesses have to have "open" email addresses, as do a lot of other people, including students and faculty, and so forth.

    The second method might seem superior at first glance, but requires perfect security in both the central database and every client machine that stores a digital ID locally. I think that that is going to be most unlikely. We all know that spammers will find it all too easy to create fake IDs, steal the IDs of innocent home users who think a firewall is a sheet of insulation used to stop a fire in a building, and generally make a mockery of Palladium.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    How hard is the authorization to hack? (Score:2)
    by MongooseCN on Thursday June 27, @09:01AM (#3778226)
    (User #139203 Info | http://www.mongeese.org/)
    It says Palladium will only run "authorized" applications. How hard is it going to be to hack the authorization code into any Open Source program? Maybe someone can make an authorization library anyone can include in their project.

    I'm sure some hacker will figure it out.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    disobey the law! (Score:2)
    by kipple on Thursday June 27, @09:01AM (#3778227)
    (User #244681 Info | http://www.muug.it/k/index.html)

    palladium CAN definitively be circumvented. Maybe a mod chip will be required to avoid querying the palladium chip, but it's just hardware. A few days ago I posted a comment [slashdot.org] here on slashdot, which generated a nice amount of discussion about that.

    I understand now that if it's about public key cryptography on the chip it will definitively be a tough job to circumvent it. But it has to be done, no matter if it's illegal under the DMCA.

    Some 30 years ago it was illegal for people with skin color different from white to sit in front of a bus. It was the law. Was it right to obey that law?

    Mod me down as a troll, mod me down as useless. But I say that it is time to embrace our cyber weapons, our mind, our smartness, and fight out all those absurd laws - by disobeying it. No reason to fight back, definitively not in a court. The best ways to do that are:

    • don't buy motherboards with palladium chips on it
    • advise your company not to buy any more microsoft products; instead, to donate a tenth of what they would pay microsoft to open source developers to improve GPL-based software.
    • boycott Microsoft: don't buy their products, or if they are required, give them away for free. USE COPIES, make them loss revenue on that. Yes it's illegal. But they cannot be stopped legally.
    • use your brain to find new, better ways to circumvent their protections: being that an 'activation code' or any authoritative chip itself

    I know I do sound trollish, but I do firmly think it's time to fight back against that. A law is supposed to protect the people - not the corporations!

    last thought - if Palladium gets introduced in the US, and all vendors apply it, and the DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent it... do you, GNU users in the United States of America, really want those laws to block your creativity and your freedom? Do you know that other countries will probably not introduce anything like the DMCA, nor implement Palladium? Do you really want to be left alone in a world that will improve GNU systems, stuck on stupid law questions?

    Now flame me.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    The obvious hole (Score:2, Interesting)
    by Shillo (silovic@zesoi.fer.removethis.hr) on Thursday June 27, @09:01AM (#3778228)
    (User #64681 Info)
    The entire system, even with Fritz in the CPU, absolutely depends on the single private key: The one required by Fritz to boot the machine. And there is another key, the one used to sign the trusted software.

    Frankly, I think it HIGHLY unlikely that one of these keys won't be uncovered, either by an insider or by a large distributted cracking project. And once a key is out, ALL THE MACHINES CAN USE IT TO BYPASS PALLADIUM.

    Nuff said.

    --
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Am I missing something? (Score:2)
    by mark-t (markt@@@lynx...bc...ca) on Thursday June 27, @09:02AM (#3778230)
    (User #151149 Info)
    MS is taking dramatic steps to make it GPL-hostile. Very clever and admirably diabolical.
    ... and emminently unprogrammable, in the common meaning of the word that it has had since the dawn of computer science. It appears Microsoft has completely forgotten what actually has made computers as powerful as they are. My gut tells me that this too shall pass.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Palladium=Anti-trust violation (Score:1)
    by doghouse41 (roger@do.not.spam ... house.demon.co.uk) on Thursday June 27, @09:02AM (#3778232)
    (User #140537 Info)
    It seems to me that Palladium is essentially trying to create an illegal monopoly in something.

    There must be enormous scope for an enterprising lawyer to tie this up in the courts in an anti-trust suit for years.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Megalomania (Score:1, Funny)
    by DiscoBiscuit on Thursday June 27, @09:03AM (#3778238)
    (User #585436 Info)
    I for one am worried by this, as a previous poster said...very 1984 like...

    Despite all the DOJ stuff Microsoft continues to try and rule the world. Where will the madness end. The megalomania shown by M$ is terrifying. Maybe bill has issues with his penis size or something and this is some kind of release..
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    Lithuanian genius (Score:1)
    by Anonymous Custard (jamesSlashdot@dai ... et ['buz' in gap]) on Thursday June 27, @09:07AM (#3778255)
    (User #587661 Info | http://www.dailybuzz.net/)
    As long as there are administrators of a security technology, the security can be compromised. Any sysadmin in the world knows that with all the security they may put in place, revealing the root password means the front door's wide open.

    There will always be measures available to circumvent security; as hard as the corporations are at work developing security, there's some 15-year old Lithuanian genius breaking it in a week. Still, I hope there will be alternatives (AMD to the rescue?) available to users who prefer to administer their own hardware.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    M$ & Linux/GPL comments... (Score:1)
    by GeckoFood on Thursday June 27, @09:12AM (#3778277)
    (User #585211 Info)
    I would imagine that a good number of those that hang out at this website remember the infamous "Halloween" memo that was an internal M$ document (it came to light during the big Nestcape/M$ trial back around 1998) that described what to do to keep Linux from rising like a fiery phoenix. The gist of it was, if my source was accurate, to change the standards every few months and force the hardware people to keep up. That way, Linux would constantly be trailing Windows on current hardware support. Of course, M$ said it was only an engineering whitepaper that was designed to be "information only" and no plans to implement said ideas were in the works. Umm...Yeah...Right. You say it, I'll believe it, Mr. Ballmer... This article describes a situation that eerily looks and smells like the Halloween document. Not good.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Thank God I am a Mac user (Score:1)
    by blakespot on Thursday June 27, @09:14AM (#3778293)
    (User #213991 Info | http://www.ipodhacks.com/)
    Sheeeesh... Nasty stuff. I don't think "Fritz" will be paying a visit to the Mac's motherboard anytime soon.

    What's next, MS requiring a webcam mounted in each user's bedroom, sending images back to the Dark One?

    blakespot
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Intel Serial Number Deja vu? (Score:2)
    by redelm on Thursday June 27, @09:16AM (#3778308)
    (User #54142 Info | http://users.ev1.net/~redelm)
    Hasn't this sort of hardware solution cratered dismally just recently? How does Palladium differ from Intel's Pentium!!! serial number debacle?

    Why does Bin Gates think his effort will fly when Intel's didn't? People just won't buy his stuff any more than they did Intel's! This is a market economy -- people vote with their dollars [euros,yen,etc].

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    And we all know what happened to the Trojans (Score:2)
    by tibbetts (tibbetts.acm@org) on Thursday June 27, @09:18AM (#3778332)
    (User #7769 Info | http://www.toad.net/~tibbetts/jason | Last Journal: Friday June 14, @09:45AM)

    I almost spewed up my iced mocha latté when I read the opening paragraph of the article:

    In ancient Troy stood the Palladium, a statue of the goddess Athena. Legend has it that the safety of the city depended on that icon's preservation.

    Even someone with the most rudimentary liberal arts education knows what happened to Troy and the Trojans, right? No? Well, here are the relevant parts of Homer's Iliad [tufts.edu] and Vergil's Aeneid [tufts.edu] boiled down into one paragraph:

    The Greeks went to war against the Trojans because one of their kings' wife, Helen, skipped town to hop in the sack with a Trojan prince. The war went on for about ten years or so with no clear victory in sight for either side. Finally, however, the Greek soldier Odysseus (a.k.a. Ulysses) hatched a clever plan--the Greeks would build a huge, wheeled wooden horse and offer it to the Trojans as a sign of surrender. Unbeknownst to the Trojans, however, Odysseus and a crack team of Greek soldiers would be holed up in the horse's body. Lo and behold, the Trojans accepted the horse and opened the gates to let it in. That night, Odysseus and his posse got down and started kicking some serious Trojan ass from inside the city. In fact, the shrine of Pallas Athena (the Palladium in question) was where the Trojan king Priam and his remaining family members took refuge. But it didn't matter; the Greeks came in and slaughtered them.

    Three thousand-odd years later, the term "Trojan horse [tuxedo.org]" has taken on a special meaning in tech jargon. Perhaps whichever marketing dweeb at Microsoft came up with the name "Palladium" for a security product should have paid more attention in that world literature class.

    (As a side note, with this story in mind, using the brand name "Trojan" for security tool of a different sort [trojancondoms.com] is also ironic.)

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 20 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • (1) | 2 | 3 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
    		  I went to a Grateful Dead Concert and they played for SEVEN hours. Great song. -- Fred Reuss
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2002 OSDN.
    [ home | awards | contribute story | older articles | OSDN | advertise | self serve ad system | about | terms of service | privacy | faq ]