Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Longhorn FAQs...And I am not impresssed
- Thread starter Mechcozmo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Mechcozmo said:Longhorn...I have to say, when it still is based on DOS (MS dons't know any other language except qbasic) You have a problem. It is ancient. Why use DOS?
It's not going to be based on Dos, it will have "dos compatibility". So it sort of emulates DOS. That's how XP is right now. There is no DOS code running under XP, however, if you need to you can open up a command terminal and use the DOS system as XP loads it.
FredAkbar said:Sounds like the classic Windows-user mindset: don't bother knowing anything about your computer, just let it do all the thinking for you. And people wonder why there can be spyware and hidden files all over the place
This was actually the classic Mac-user mindset back in the day. It's biggest attraction was that you didn't have to know anything about using a computer to use a Mac. How many times was the pitch "I plug it in and it just works" thrown out by Apple?
I'd consider it a sad day when Mac users need to be more educated in computers than their Windows counterparts.
grapes911 said:
Here's some more Paladium info.
Microsoft Press Release about 'Paladium'
Salon.com Editorial
ZDNet Editorial
Really long document about Paladium
Let me paint you the worst doomsday scenarios that could ultimately come to pass from Paladium so you can understand more easily why lots of people in this thread are so hotly against it.
You understand the MacOS, it's Unix roots, and the "root" user right?
The root user it like the computer itself, it can do all sorts of things the user accounts can't.
Now, imagine a chip on you motherboard.
A chip that can control what processes and documents are run on your computer to protect your safety and security. This is the hardware part of Paladium (by the way that's not its name anymore).
Now, imagine the chip is more powerful than the root account. The chip is above root.
The chip can keep viruses and spyware from ruining you system, stealing you identity, invading your privacy.
But this chip can do other things. This chip is tied to a public key encription system run on servers somewhere on the Net. The chips check with these servers to verify transactions and make your computing more secure for you.
Now, imagine what else this chip can do. The chip virtually controls your machine, what you do has to be appoved by it. This chip could keep you from using pirated software, music and movies you don't have DRM rights to, ect.
"Well, I don't pirate that stuff," you say.
Okay, now think harder.
Imagine Hollywood saying you can't make backup copies of your CD's and DVD's you own and being able to stop your computer from doing it. Imagine software programs that aren't approved by Microsoft not being able to run.
"We're sorry. Kazaa is not an application approved by Microsoft to safely run on your system. The file will not be run for your protection."
or worse
"We're sorry, this application is not written by Microsoft and cannot be run on this system."
Imagine not being able to email information about atomic bombs to your friends. You are only academically curious. But the paladium chip has recognised the information as that which has been tagged by the Dept of Homeland Security as a threat to national security. You email is not allowed out.
Now take it one step further...
Remember, the computer can check with the public key server for what's allowed and what isn't - rules that can be changed.
A large corporation has an internal study showing their new building material used in the last twenty years causes cancer in people as it starts to deteriorate with age. The internal memo gets leaked outside the company. The company can have the document flagged on the servers. If a Palladium computer is trying to open the document, the server can tell the computer not to. Not to let it be printed, copied, emailed, ect. (in case you haven't been paying attention Microsoft Office 2003 for Windows allready has this restrictive ability available to Office documents).
Now, you can take it even further if you use your conspiracy theory immagination:
The gov't has documents supressed that may be a threat to the people in power.
This one I came up with on my own:
Remember, transactions for so much of the world's computer systems will be run by Microsoft or whoever on a select number of servers.
Now imagine terrorists breaching security at these facilities, or just blowing them up. America's computing systems, hardwired to only work if told to, now have no master. Imagine the effects on the financial world, our lives, and the military if their machines stopped working?
I'm imagining a much larger impact than a disaster like 9/11, which was restricted to a relatively small geographic area. (not that I am not trying to belittle the impact of that disaster).
Now please remember this all sounds really far fetched, and I have exaggerated. But it all would be technically possible in the advanced stages of Paladium.
Searching....WTH
Spotlight seems like a cool idea and I'm curious about what Shorthorn will bring to the table, but for god's sake why can't anyone find their own damn documents?
Drop into the Finder, hit Cntrl-F. Don't know the name of your document? Why not?
I have thousands of documents on my computer, and I can easily find all of them, even the obscure Library files, because I know where to look. It's like using a filing cabinet, pick a system and follow it.
As for Palladium, great stuff, will work as advertised and will be as secure as any other Microsoft product, I predict that all those hackers out there will be so stymied they will abadoned hacking altogether and move to the country becoming Omish folk, while p2p will be stopped dead cold by such a grand piece of code.
With Longhorn the paperless office will be a thing of the past, people will be fed, nations peaceful, the lion and the lamb will lie together and bask under the glow of Bill's grand vision.
10 bucks says Palladium gets hacked before the Beta is finished.
Spotlight seems like a cool idea and I'm curious about what Shorthorn will bring to the table, but for god's sake why can't anyone find their own damn documents?
Drop into the Finder, hit Cntrl-F. Don't know the name of your document? Why not?
I have thousands of documents on my computer, and I can easily find all of them, even the obscure Library files, because I know where to look. It's like using a filing cabinet, pick a system and follow it.
As for Palladium, great stuff, will work as advertised and will be as secure as any other Microsoft product, I predict that all those hackers out there will be so stymied they will abadoned hacking altogether and move to the country becoming Omish folk, while p2p will be stopped dead cold by such a grand piece of code.
With Longhorn the paperless office will be a thing of the past, people will be fed, nations peaceful, the lion and the lamb will lie together and bask under the glow of Bill's grand vision.
10 bucks says Palladium gets hacked before the Beta is finished.
SeaFox said:
Thanks to your post I'm posting this while cowering in the corner curled around my Powerbook and sucking my thumb!
SeaFox said:
How is any of that far-fetched? You're not even tying in the outlying parts of the story yet.
For additional information, I suggest that people interested in Palladium and Microsoft's dominance strategy pay attention to the following topics:
-Sun/Microsoft Settlement
-Trusted Computing Initiative (the newer, more sanitized name for Palladium)
-The hardware push with Longhorn
-Windows Media being pushed as the DRM/codec standard for next-generation audio and DVD
-Microsoft's increasing attempts at legislation influence against FOSS
The overal gameplane looks something like this:
Step One - Pick a target in the Linux world, hammer it into nonexistence in the big enterprise market. This is best accomplished by legislation regarding software patents and closing the Office format even further, using lawsuits through the no-infringement agreement with Sun to cripple OpenOffice and any similar project. Some pundits think that Red Hat will be the first hit.
Step Two - Using the created precedent as justification, further slam the next Linux distribution, then the next. Apply cash reserves to legal battles that tie vendors up in red tape and push the smaller companies out because they can't afford the court costs.
Step Three - Back off of Linux when the DoJ gets involved, pointing out that Sun and Apple are still "viable competitors" to Windows in the business market. By now, the damage is done.
Step Four - Roll out Palladum/TCI wedded to new hardware, pitching at home and business users alike. The emphasis for home users will be secure, easily available media and transactions, while downplaying information control measures. Reverse for employers, emphasizing how media and unapproved content can be locked out of the system, along with a hardware-indexed papertrail of who's creating and doing what.
Step Five - Close the loop, blocking out non-Microsoft media codecs from the platform. By this time, Microsoft have arranged large contracts with major studios in film and music, ensuring they have all the content... for a price.
Step Six - Tie the noose, blocking any non-royalty paying software from the platform, requiring all developers to pay Microsoft for the privelege of developing on their platform. Move to a subscription based fee for end-users, requiring them to DRM all documents on their hardware.
Step Seven - We own you. Your information no longer belongs to you, tied up in legal mumbo jumbo that most people will click through. Microsoft now owns the rights to anything created on their systems.
Far fetched?
How long have people dealt with Windows, just for reasons as silly as games or having used it before?
hulugu said:
How would you hack a chip that gets it's information from servers and can basically shut down any software hack there is?
Smells like paranoia...
Even if all this rapid ms-controls-your-soul paranoia was true, it will never go down as described.
1. They will be wallowing in bad press from all directions, and it will only stir up a renewed exodus to non-microsoft platforms and opensource solutions and spur new competition.
Opensource isn't going away, this battle with Microsoft is a lot like an elephant trying to swat flies by jumping up and down on its own manure pile; it can never knock out enough of them at once, more new flies rise up with every jump, and the longer the elephant sticks around the more manure there will be to grow flies!
2. The implementation of all this will undoubtedly be as flawed as every other attempt by DRM control freaks, never mind MS's additionally poor record on software implementation in general, so a work around will inevitably exist within weeks, if not days, regardless of the supposed difficulties and safeguards. And someone in Taiwan will probably start selling re-chipping kits for your PC just like they did the Playstation. Maybe someone in Romania will host a fake MS server that authorises all the cracked machines. Who knows. The point is hundreds of aggravated programmers will just keep hacking and hacking away at this whole nest of vipers until it gets beaten into submission, and every part of it has been totally cracked.
Then some kind farsighted soul will distribute the whole crack as a virus.
3. Other computer and software manufacturers aren't going to simply roll over and die, and neither is innovation and the desire to open up new technologies for profit.
Instead I predict a new paradigm shift by about 2015, where operating a computer, as we understand it now, gets replaced by a new approach so obviously superior that MS and all its empire building cronies simply get made irrelevant, much like the manufacturers of typewriters were overwhelmed in the 80's when word processors first came out.
And then it'll be time for the next monopoly.
Even if all this rapid ms-controls-your-soul paranoia was true, it will never go down as described.
1. They will be wallowing in bad press from all directions, and it will only stir up a renewed exodus to non-microsoft platforms and opensource solutions and spur new competition.
Opensource isn't going away, this battle with Microsoft is a lot like an elephant trying to swat flies by jumping up and down on its own manure pile; it can never knock out enough of them at once, more new flies rise up with every jump, and the longer the elephant sticks around the more manure there will be to grow flies!
2. The implementation of all this will undoubtedly be as flawed as every other attempt by DRM control freaks, never mind MS's additionally poor record on software implementation in general, so a work around will inevitably exist within weeks, if not days, regardless of the supposed difficulties and safeguards. And someone in Taiwan will probably start selling re-chipping kits for your PC just like they did the Playstation. Maybe someone in Romania will host a fake MS server that authorises all the cracked machines. Who knows. The point is hundreds of aggravated programmers will just keep hacking and hacking away at this whole nest of vipers until it gets beaten into submission, and every part of it has been totally cracked.
Then some kind farsighted soul will distribute the whole crack as a virus.
3. Other computer and software manufacturers aren't going to simply roll over and die, and neither is innovation and the desire to open up new technologies for profit.
Instead I predict a new paradigm shift by about 2015, where operating a computer, as we understand it now, gets replaced by a new approach so obviously superior that MS and all its empire building cronies simply get made irrelevant, much like the manufacturers of typewriters were overwhelmed in the 80's when word processors first came out.
And then it'll be time for the next monopoly.
Deja vu all over again
Microsoft in 2004 is starting to sound like IBM in 1984. Similar market domination, similar tactics, similar attitudes ...
IBM would make directional statements and early development announcements of products designed to tie customers to its mainframe and minicomputer architectures. What was delivered (usually late) seldom matched the initial hype and often contained many "undocumented features" (aka bugs).
The "don't care where a document is stored" theme was touted by IBM during the 1980s when they were trying to flog PCs with Displaywrite 3, connected to AS400s and mainframes. Didn't work then and I don't believe it will work now for the reasons already given by others in this thread.
I agree - we are heading towards yet another paradigm shift.
Microsoft in 2004 is starting to sound like IBM in 1984. Similar market domination, similar tactics, similar attitudes ...
IBM would make directional statements and early development announcements of products designed to tie customers to its mainframe and minicomputer architectures. What was delivered (usually late) seldom matched the initial hype and often contained many "undocumented features" (aka bugs).
The "don't care where a document is stored" theme was touted by IBM during the 1980s when they were trying to flog PCs with Displaywrite 3, connected to AS400s and mainframes. Didn't work then and I don't believe it will work now for the reasons already given by others in this thread.
I agree - we are heading towards yet another paradigm shift.
SeaFox said:
I haven't gotten around to read the articles, but I wanted to thank you for posting them. This is why I love macrumers. I say I need more info and boom, someone posts more info. thanks alot.
Let's come back to earth
Implementing Palladium will be optional. It is the companies that buy the systems that will be locking them down. Companies that don't want their data leaving, will love Palladium. If you don't want to use it, don't.
Regarding Microsoft announcing products early. Well, they deliver SDKs as well. Microsoft must announce it's plans years in advance to allow ISVs and IHVs to develop as concurrently as possible. Years of man-hours in testing and development have to be conducted not only by MS, but by Intel, mobo makers, driver developers, GPU developers, etc. etc. It is simply not feasible for MS to develop an OS and when it's done deliver it to IHVs and ISVs and then have them start developing. That's actually a silly, impossible notion.
PS: A Palladium-type solution is necessary if technology keeps growing at it's current pace. A user can take a 40GB iPod or Creative Zen and steal quite a bit. 1GB on a key disk. Soon we'll be looking at 16GB compact flash. Everyone is getting connected, wirelessly, VPNs, etc. etc. It is not going to be possible not to have hardware/os-level security as technology continues to move forward.
Implementing Palladium will be optional. It is the companies that buy the systems that will be locking them down. Companies that don't want their data leaving, will love Palladium. If you don't want to use it, don't.
Regarding Microsoft announcing products early. Well, they deliver SDKs as well. Microsoft must announce it's plans years in advance to allow ISVs and IHVs to develop as concurrently as possible. Years of man-hours in testing and development have to be conducted not only by MS, but by Intel, mobo makers, driver developers, GPU developers, etc. etc. It is simply not feasible for MS to develop an OS and when it's done deliver it to IHVs and ISVs and then have them start developing. That's actually a silly, impossible notion.
PS: A Palladium-type solution is necessary if technology keeps growing at it's current pace. A user can take a 40GB iPod or Creative Zen and steal quite a bit. 1GB on a key disk. Soon we'll be looking at 16GB compact flash. Everyone is getting connected, wirelessly, VPNs, etc. etc. It is not going to be possible not to have hardware/os-level security as technology continues to move forward.
thatwendigo said:
I felt I needed to add that disclaimer. I was rushing to finish the post because it was the end of the workday for me and I needed to be leaving the building soon. I read through it right after I posted it and I thought it made me look like crazy man with all the doomsday scenarios.
thatwendigo said:
Also the TCPA (Trusted Computing Platform Alliance) - the manufacturer group which is working on the hardware/software interaction.
I was thinking about this on while walking home. There was the post by JLS back on page one of this thread:
JLS said:
Then there was an editorial piece I had read earlier in the day:
Lesser Computing: Less Might Be More
It's about how computers today are grossly overpowered for the majority of users' needs and cheaper machines would work just fine for most users but hardware manufactures would rather make people think they need the latest and greatest.
The original Mac could open a window and display the files inside. But it couldn't do it the way MacOSX does today. Because it can't do transparency and shading and such. There isn't any reason you have to have these features to compute. But software developers have to get you to upgrade to the latest version, so they make the new version more appealing. Fancier. That requires heavier hardware.
But this isn't news. It's just marketting. But by getting people to buy newer hardware and software, when the versions of everything they have work just fine they also get people to buy things like Paladium enabled programs, desktop systems with the required chips in them, ect. It's just another way to move people into the system, as JLS says. While making a tidy profit.
If someone were to buy the fastest desktop system they could that could run a version of Windows that has nothing to do with Paladium (say Win2000). They could hold out very well on the Windows platform without becoming affected by the system.
thatwendigo said:
It's already an official part of the next gen DVD specs.
Also don't forget .NET and Microsoft's Passport online ID system. They were quite synonomous with Paladium when they were both in their early stages a few years ago. .Net tied into Micorsoft's plan to end distribution of software "packages" with licenses purchased for unlimited use, and moving towards software used on a month-to-month or yearly rental license fee. But after the original Paladium announcements and the sh*t hit the fan in the media for awhile, Microsoft backed off on the rental thing for a couple years and .NET took a slight detour development-wise and a big one PR-wise along with Passport. Microsoft tried it's best to distance the projects from the Paladium name (hence the name change to the project itself).
The Passport system has become pretty much a failure for it's ambitions for the same reasons Paladium made a great splash with the public. Too much info held by a company people feel subconciously have too much control over their computing experience.
Edit: Oh yeah. And it wasn't free to implement. You had to pay Microsoft a licensing fee of corse if you wanted to make you website login Passport accessable.
Diatribe said:
You wouldn't be able to. The chip-user is above you.
I remember seeing a roadmap to how this is going to be implemented on the hardware side back when Microsoft was still calling it Paladium.
The chip will be a chip soldered on the motherboard, maybe sitting between the processor and main system controller or RAM if I remember right.
Now the probelm with making it a separate chip is people may try to hack it on a hardware level, replacing it with a "dummy" chip or some other mod. So in the advanced stages of Paladium the chip is integrated into the microprocessor itself. This is why Intel is on the TCPA. With the chip embedded in processors there would be no way to avoid it.
Unfortunately AMD is also implementing this AFAIK...Raven VII said:
I think the real looser in this NGSCB/Palladium deal is linux.
If you need to pay the respective licences to use palladium, you can say goodby to "free" linux.
Its actually pretty cunning!
Wow...I wonder if the media will blow this thing so far out of porportion that it just gets killed? They are quite good at that...and I really don't think that this is a good idea. Say someone finds a vulnerability in that chip (there will be one). Maybe you now only have...no accses to your computer? And the hard drive is locked to only that computer? So you loose EVERYTHING?
In OS X you can control user's accsess to files, and I can see that as a security feature you will soon be able to control a user's accses to USB and FireWire ports. And also, restrict their accounts to no attachments in mail? So far, everything can be done with software.
In OS X you can control user's accsess to files, and I can see that as a security feature you will soon be able to control a user's accses to USB and FireWire ports. And also, restrict their accounts to no attachments in mail? So far, everything can be done with software.
MorganX said:
Everyone wave to the Microsoft apologist.
For whatever reason, Morgan seems to believe that Microsoft doesn't want this to be a standard across the board, where they'll own the personal and business computer market in-toto. I've had this argument with him before and there's nothing you can say to convince him otherwise.
No, it's not.
My dad works in classified environments and the only truly secure system is one where your end-users can be trusted. Hardware lockouts won't work, software workarounds won't work. You can have all the firewalls in the world, but someone that can walk in and get on your network could do untold damage just by being there.
The solution isn't spying, it's having trustworthy employees.
Fifty years ago, a user could use paper or punchcards. Thirty years ago, a user could use floppy disks. Ten years ago, a user could use removable optical media.
The problem is ancient, and draconian measures won't fix it.
Is it any coincidence that someone who likes Windows has this attitude? My guess is no.
Raven VII said:
That's a good idea, for a brainstorming session.
But you didn't think hard enough. Move to AMD and what?
Remember, this is Micorosft's idea. They'll just build Windows so you have to use a TCPA approved processor to run the operating system. Problem solved for them.
Fukui said:Unfortunately AMD is also implementing this AFAIK...
I think the real looser in this NGSCB/Palladium deal is linux.
If you need to pay the respective licences to use palladium, you can say goodby to "free" linux.
Its actually pretty cunning!
Yes, but not quite in that way. Microsoft can just make a "signing" process apply to programs and documents the same way it does device drivers now.
For example:
I have a cheap digital camera I got from Earthlink when I was with them a few years ago. It works fine on Win98, and MacOS9. But I can't use it on my WinXP machine. The drivers have not been written for WindowsXP. If I try to use the software cd to install it I am told it the drivers are not "signed" by Microsoft. The computer really doesn't want me to run the drivers! I haven't tried because I'm afraid it will hose my system. But the point is from what I know the drivers may be fine. But I've heard the process of getting Microsoft's official seal of a "signed" driver can be expensive. Prohibitively for some projects. SO I can not use my crappy camera in Windows now is the result.
The software situation can run the same way as in my first post as I said and you just mentioned. Microsoft can introduce a "signing" system for applications just like the driver thing for applications that meet Palladium standards, and then price these licenses out of Open Source budgets, or simply refuse to grant them at all.
It can also be more sneakily.
It can grant the licensing on the file format itself. Then all they have to do is deny OpenOffice format opening and site the lack of a Microsoft signed file format and "security concerns". OpenOffice looses the compatiability it had with MS Office sinnce the files are no longer openable on PallaidumWindows machines. OpenOffice is killed off.
x86isslow said:
As long as they don't put Palladium in the MacOS.
Just because the module is there doesn't mean the OS has to use it.
The problem becomes what to do when you find your platform locked out of interacting with 90%+ of the world's computer systems because you're considered an "unsecured system"?
Any file an "untrustworthy" system has created can be viewed suspiciously.
Any network interaction with a "untrustworthy" system can be denied for that reason.
The fact the operating system of the other computer is not being held to the same security standards as yours is reason to keep file transfers, email, document conversion, and even
<flashback to the Browser Wars>
... the Internet from functioning the same.
MorganX said:
ROTFL! Please tell me you don't believe that! That's like saying secure email will be optional. It simply DOESN'T WORK if everyone doesn't cooperate. The bad people will just use the lower class machine not in the "secure" bubble to do their dirty work. People will have to actively exclude communications with the unsecured class to stay safe, which they wont do, because it will cut them off from services or features (and in the email example: people) they want to interact with.
Also, you're ignoring the purpose of all this. Palladium isn't a security strategy being developed to help enterprise stay secure. It's a system being deleveloped to keep us all secure. Two of the biggest backers of the TCPA are the MPAA and the RIAA. They don't care anything about business security (in the matter you mean, obvious literal jokes aside) what they care about is keeping teenagers from giving away copies of a new pop/rock album they are trying to sell and making sure you don't see the new Star Wars movie without shelling out $7 at Lowe's Cinema.
Funny you mention that because Longhorn was supposed to be a major jump in the Palladium direction back when it was announced, and now that OS keeps getting delayed for some reason... hmmmmmmmmm?
Palladium isn't going to be implemented like that (at least not now). The press has been too bad for the project. Moving towards this will mean a long, drawn out, sneaky process of upgrading.
The first step will be to get the majority of the userbase on hardware that supports the TCPA specs. One good way to do this is introduce an earth-shattering OS and application upgrade sweep that requires the "latest in computing technology for the best user experience" as the marketing guys would say. Did Dell tell you what every chip on your motherboard does when you bought your new system?
Then they have to get you to buy that Palladium-filled operating system. Assuming you didn't get it when you bought your brand spankin' new computer, just arbitrarily raise the system requirements for the new versions of your apps to require the OS version they want.
You can also disguise the new security abilities as "features" (see the MS Office info I had in my doomsday post).
Or just lie to the users. People here who use Windows may remember a little tif over a "security update" for Windows Media Player 9 a few months ago. Some people with sharp eyes noticed new changes in the DRM department when they were using the software, right after running the update that was supposedly just a secuirty patch for WMP.
Everybody remember: You don't know what's in your OS. Windows, being a closed-source OS can have all sorts of features in it just waiting to be turned on. Just because you don't see a dialog box or control panel visible doesn't mean it's not there to be flipped on with a 46kb "Hotfix". Hey, and Micorsoft has been all about turning on auto-updates since before SP2 was released.
Wanna see how much farther I can take this?