Document Actions
Analysis of Microsoft's Suicide Note (part 1)
Oliver Day is a former corporate hacker turned student. While at eEye Digital Security he wrote audits for the Retina Vulnerability Scanner and was a Principal Security Consultant for @stake. He has written an unpublished book on SAN security and found a variety of exploits in web-based applications. He is contributing to BadVista.org a series of posts about the presence and implications of the “content protection scheme” in Microsoft Windows Vista. This post is the first in that series.
In a controversial technical analysis Peter Gutmann goes into fantastic detail about the recently released Vista operating system and its content protection scheme. One thing became clear to me after reading this analysis. Vista is being marketed to content producers, not consumers. If Windows XP was Microsoft’s attempt to embed a browser into the operating system then Vista is the attempt to embed DRM. Digital Rights Management technology has been applied to literally every ring of the OS architecture.
Vista's target market is content producers and the underlying philosophy of the user experience will be far different then what many consumers expect it will be. Microsoft has attempted to plug the infamous “analog hole” as much as is possible by forcing all data through encryption algorithms. For those unaware of the “costs” of encryption it is sufficiently high. Pushing HD audio and video content through encryption/decryption routines is a tremendous strain on any system currently available and in the near future. Even with the application of Moore's Law a conservative estimate could place affordable and usable systems within this new content system 5 years away. It will be interesting to see how these restrictions will be spun by the large marketing and PR teams since none of these innovations will benefit consumers in any way. The job that has been handed to these PR and marketing teams is to dress up a product designed with every restriction a producer has asked for and make a consumer want to buy it. One of the most quotable lines from the Gutmann analysis sums this up perfectly as, “breaking the legs of Olympic athletes and then rating them based on how fast they can hobble on crutches.”
In the past when I have delivered lectures to web application developers I would caution them to never trust user input. Perhaps developers took this philosophy a little too far. The entire operating system now seems to have turned against the user. Zero tolerance drivers and regulation code will lock the system down if any type of deviance is detected. So called “tilt bits” will signal an attack on the system if anything is found out of the ordinary. These changes won’t enhance user security unfortunately as they were designed to protect only “premium content”. Medical data, credit card numbers, and other private things that do deserve this level of protection are completly ignored. Untrusting of any environmental changes the system will shut down or degrade performance in response to a perceived attack.
This is a marked turn from the past versions of the Microsoft operating system. In the past one could take a hard drive from a Windows OS and drop it into an entirely different system. The new hardware would be detected and drivers applied on the spot. At most a single reboot would bring the user back into a usable system. This type of resilience was what impressed me during the early days of the new Windows architecture. In those days Microsoft was fairly dominant but still pursuing new customers. The new Vista scheme signals to me that they have exhausted new customer acquisition and are now focused on milking their existing market.
In the next post I will look at who benefits (Intel, Hollywood, code obfuscation providers) and who doesn’t (consumers) and some security issues (driver revocations for DDOS)
Analysis of Microsoft's Suicide Note (Part 2)
- Category(s)
- DRM
- The URL to Trackback this entry is:
- http://badvista.fsf.org/blog/analysis-of-microsofts-suicide-note-part-1/tbping
Grane in Vista?
Forgot your password?
New user?
It is myopic to say that consumers do not benefit. When content providers get properly remunerated for their efforts, higher quality programmes can be produced and delivered to viewers. A win-win situation for everyone.
I do not agree with microsoft on a number of fronts, but in this case, by affording basic intellectual property protection within the operating system, they are doing great service towards cultivating a more responsible public. As a market leader, they have the power and obligation to make great leaps in basic content protection.
The Free-Software-Foundation, by posturing against microsoft in this issue, is simply revealing their innate piracy roots.
The RIAA
Tha MPAA
Microsft
This is the party line. All users of technology are guilty of piracy until proven otherwise.
Peter Gutmann in his piece is discussing in detail about many critical applications that relate to the use of a whole spectrum of situations in which the user would not know whether of not the degradation of the system and schemes of Vista would kick in without the knowledge of the user.
Why is this not a problem ?
http://linmagazine.co.il/enterprise/analysis-of-microsofts-suicide-note/1
Uri
First of all, copyrigth protection does not directly benefit the user. Although it might seem a good argument that this gives more income to the developer which can be invested in better products, in the practice this is not real: most of big companies (specally, but not limited to, Microsoft), set exageratedly abusive prices on their products, of which only a minimum part is invested in improving the products and most of it goes to the pockets of high executives in the company.
There is something about piracy that seems not to be very known but is a true fact: there are two differentiated kinds of piracy, which I'll refer here as 'private' and 'commercial' piracy. Commercial piracy is the one that causes most loses to the product manufacturers: it would include every act of piracy with lucrative intentions (ie: selling pirated products).
The private piracy, on the other hand, does not cause a real harm to the manufacturer, due to its nature. By private piracy I refer to those people who download a certain product from Internet or otherwise make unauthorized copies of it only for self use. This is, of course, still illegal (although there are legal holes in many countries than enable it), but even so it requires a closer look: most of 'private pirates' (most probably more that 99%) copy the product just because they cannot afford buying it. So, if you disable such user from doing that, this won't make him/her to buy that product, since cannot afford it. Instead that user won't use the product at all. However, if that user had made a private copy of the product (even illegal), the manufacturer is not actually losing money, since that user would not, in any case, have paid the price of the product (remember, the user cannot afford it). Afterwards, if the user saves enough money and the product is actually worth the price, the user will probably buy either it or a later version, generating some income for the manufacturer. In addition, if the product is good and/or interesting, that user will speak of it to his friends, coleagues, etc. At the point when anyone buys the software referred by that user, his action of private piracy, although still illegal, becomes an indirect benefit for the manufacturer.
With this I'm not trying to justify any kind of piracy. I need this base of knowledge about piracy to explain why copy protections in Vista are mainly a mistake:
- You are always entitled to make a backup copy of any product media, as long as you use it only for backup purposes. If you have the means to make a backup copy, then you also have the means to engage into commercial piracy (remember, the one that hardly harms the manufacturer). I don't know by sure how will interact Vista with this 'backup right': if the system disables the user from exercising such right, then it will be harming the user; but if it doesn't then the door to commercial piracy is open. There is a right conflict between the intelectual property rights and the private backup right: enforcing one will cause the other to be easily breakable.
What I try to say with all of this is that an Operating System is not the point from where piracy has to be fought. There are local, federal and/or national authorities in the different countries of the world who has the mission of enforcing the law and, henceforth, fighting piracy as it's an illegal activity.
In addition, it must be noted that the means used by any OS to hinder piracy just hinder everything that could be done in the system. Also, Microsoft should already have seen that these techniques are worthless: Windows 2k and XP already have some characteristics that hinder piracy. Which are the results they obtained? Commercial pirates simply use Windows 98 and that's all; so everything included in Vista to stop piracy becomes useless. But those anty-piracy means included in the system use resources from the computer that can't be used for something else. So a legitimate user who never pirates anything will find that his computer works slower and performs worse in general just because there are other people who pirate anything. This is an injustice. That's why OS's should stay away from the fight against piracy. However, more and better work should be done by authorities: in Spain, I once saw a cop buying from a top-manta (Top-manta, that would literally translate as 'top-blanket' is a very common practice of commercial piracy in Spain, performed mainly by immigrants who have no other means to feed their families: it's as simple as a blanket spread on the street with lots of pirated disks on it... I must say that these people are extremely agile in taking the whole blanket and running away at the minimum signal of cops approaching...).
So, in summary: if cops did their job, there would be no need to put those anty-piracy mechanisms inside the OS, so people could enjoy a system that performs better. In addition, manufacturers could afford lowering their prices down to something more reasonable, hugely increasing their sales.
Finally, I want to point out something. Quoting sreiser's post: "The Free-Software-Foundation, by posturing against microsoft in this issue, is simply revealing their innate piracy roots."
Please measure your words. If you are accusing the FSF of piracing without any evidence, you're difamating, and that's punnishable under the law. In addition, I wan't to comment that this statement doesn't make sense: the FSF has achived something that Microsoft itself surely envies: creating software that absolutely nobody pirates.
I'd have wished to comment some other facts, but I'm hungry, so I'll leave them for another day.
Hardware improvement will invariably catch up with content decryption demands to make any performance degradation a mere temporary inconvenience.
If your answer is, yes, that's above and beyond, then sad to tell you sir, this is allready the case. People reinstalling WinXP have to call them up sometimes to get an activation code to be eligable for the latest security updates.
While the whole process goes by fast, the implication is clear. You don't own your copy. Microsoft does and you are lucky if they grace you with the ability to use it.
Even if temporary, the inconvenience is not only to Windows users. It affects everyone buying hardware meant for the Windows platform since the encryption/decryption is not trusted to software. Costs are increased for everyone.
Microsoft should go into the Media Player market then, not the Computing market. Computer is a machine that computes. A media player is a machine that plays media. The fact that you can computationally play media is peripheral.
While it's true that at the end DRM is always bad for end users there are some catches with it.
DRM is not MS invention. It existed before; MS just found out that some companies (or individuals) are interested in it. So they implemented it – but it is *optional* feature. If a company wants to use it, then they can, but they are free to choose. If MS didn’t offer them solution then companies would make their own implementations. However, that would be *much worse* because we would need thousands of codecs and applications for all protected media formats to watch.
I agree DRM is bad, because it limits you what you can do with your media, but hey - if I downloaded music from eMule - do I really have any rights??
Also I don't know where you get information about encryption making system slow. I have done some PGP public key encryption back on Celeron 366 and it was quite fast, I don't understand how that could be a problem with P4 or Core 2 playing HD-DVDs. (remember - to play normal DVDs there is no encryption used, beside protection that already exist in DVD format)
So what do you guys think about that? What would be the best solution that would be OK with everybody?
So I took the course, and Photoshop opened up a world to me that I had never imagined was possible. I went on to become an expert in the high end imaging industry, a non paid cheerleader for Adobe and the Photoshop product. In the course of my career I must have sold thousands of copies of Photoshop through word of mouth thought clients I have served and seminars I have run.
Since 2.5.1 I have regularly bought and upgraded every version of not only Photoshop, but every other produced created and sold by Adobe. My experience is like most peoples experience with these type of premium applications. You have to get you feet wet and find ways of making the conceptual breakthrough it takes to understand many of the best of class applications created for computers. dheerin makes and excellent point about the fundamental difference between 'private' and 'commercial' piracy and what that really means in the real world.
Microsoft, by caving in to the supposed needs of corporate giants as represented by the RIAA and the MPAA has sown the seeds of it's own demise, and in the process has betrayed the very customer base that is their bread and butter.
From my understanding of these things the writing is on the wall.
Shame on you Microsoft and your pathetic lack of backbone. My next PC will run on Mac system X of Linux.
re: MS's responsibility as an industry leader.
If they were making toasters I'd want them to make sure their product didn't burn my house down. It seems like MS's idea of responsibility is to make a product that burns at least as much bread as it toasts in order to help the bread manufacturers sell more product.
@sreiser:
Patent elitism & foolishness. Only the rich should use computers then? Aren't you lucky! Perhaps you need to investigate the concept of barriers to entry. Many young people today would not have been able to learn and become familiar with current technology if that was the stance taken. Instead, they would have to wait to obtain their surface level knowledge from a post secondary institution that could afford to front the thousands of dollars in licencing to loan them a temporary learner's laptop/system. This would contribute to a further decline of the mainstream's comprehension of how technology operates.
In your wonderful world, do you mean to say while I cannot afford a copy of Adobe Photoshop, Microsoft Office and Microsoft Windows, I really should not be using GIMP, Open Office and any breed of Linux?
You should choose your opinions more carefully and not base them solely on your own wealth and experiences.
-=-
I think there is a huge division amongst computer users who have a full understanding and those who do not.
There are people who treat computers like cars. They figure that limitations imposed on them are for their own good. They have this huge disconnect between what they are doing and how the computer gets it done, so their objectivity is impacted by a broad lack of understanding. These people in my eyes while entitled to use computers are not entitled to pass any opinion or philosophical perspective. Especially in a discussion like this, they simply do not have the big picture.
There are then people who have watched technology grow and can see the injustices. Concepts like DRM and software patents are a mad dash for the greedy. What Vista is doing is simply unthinkable and the complete definition of the editions of Vista violates the concept of an operating system. Windows looks more and more like an embedded system, people will stop using computers and stick to their cell phones at this rate - especially given the extortionate prices!
Many people seem to easily forget how much we spend on hardware these days to keep up with the inefficient programming work done in software today. They see a new edition and assume blindly that the next version rightfully can require more computational capacity for no benefit.
Stop for a minute and visualize how much is truly different between Vista and XP. Or even XP and ME. ME and 98? 98 and 95?
Since Windows 95 (which had certain degrees of innovation I am willing to admit), has there really been an evolution that changed the way you did computing? Can a Windows 95 machine today still allow you to do all your work? I bet it could.
Would you consider it acceptable then to pay performance to regain stability? Does that not in turn raise the question "Why not stabilize the existing code rather than introduce a new layer?"
If you think I'm getting off topic, I'll start to bring it together for you now. With DRM, Vista is adding that additional layer of no observable-benefit-code. Not only can we rely on Microsoft to take the quickest and least hardware-friendly way to achieve its DRM goals (Steven Sinofsky) - we can also rely on any updates to further increase requirements as time goes on.
Personally, I don't like seeing updates that consist of implementation specific obfuscation and omissions to push an update Microsoft would rather not have in the spotlight.
Really, this runaway train has no explanation for itself. It is basically marketing driving a product with no purpose. The dishonesty and shameless attempt to dominate computers by Microsoft is on par with the injustices of Sony that we've all seen throughout the past. Indeed it has always been my observation that Sony does not market to its consumers. Instead, Sony markets their consumers to large corporations as a platform for delivery. DRM and Vista will continue this trend in 21st century business ideals.
All in all, I didn't shell out top dollar for my system to page compulsively, perform as slowly as a system a quarter of its capacity, interfere with my intentions of use, become obsolete sooner, or set other limitations on me.
"It is myopic to say that consumers do not benefit. When content providers get properly remunerated for their efforts, higher quality programmes can be produced and delivered to viewers. A win-win situation for everyone."
I actually explore this angle more in the second installment of this series which should be up shortly. I don't know that I can agree with you that it is a win-win situation after reviewing all of the material published by Microsoft and ATI. At best I would say it is a win-draw and that is with the stipulation that you MUST have HD content playable on your PC and costs are significantly reduced.
What bothered me most about the materials I reviewed was the constant reference to "passing the cost to consumers". I don't see the pay off exceeding the cost passed off to the consumers. Consumers who don't have or expect to play HD content on their PC really lose out. They share the costs of implementing all of the DRM schemes to Vista, the additional costs to manufacture and certify all the video cards, and the PR costs to help downplay all of these efforts without any of the payoff of "premium content".
"It is myopic to say that consumers do not benefit. When content providers get properly remunerated for their efforts, higher quality programmes can be produced and delivered to viewers. A win-win situation for everyone."
Untrue in relation to DRM, and basically a red herring in the entire DRM discussion. The movie industry predicted the end of movies entirely when the VCR was introduced. Later they experienced a surge in revenue instead. Your assumption, that producing new and interesting content is what brings in the majority of revenue, is untrue, and revenue from things like iTunes is one example. Simply asserting that anyone who opposes DRM is a 'pirate' isn't logical, and an ad hoc conclusion at its best and has no real substance of any kind. Logically, its similar to asserting that everyone against high gas prices is a car thief.
DRM is an attempt by the record and movie industries to avoid adapting to a changing technological landscape by trying to legally/legislatively freeze technology. Its clear that the movie and record industries 'wet dream' of charging consumers every time content is viewed/listened to is a step closer to coming true with Vista. As in interim step, they want consumers to pay for each individual device that can play content. Consumers want to pay for acquiring content, not for each device they want to play it on.
"if I downloaded music from eMule - do I really have any rights??"
The irony here is that anything you download, including HD content, is likely to have any and all DRM stripped off. Vista's PVP-OPM system won't help any of the content producers should pirated copies already exist. HD DVD's system is already under attack and I would expect that Blueray is not too far behind. PVP-OPM will only affect consumers who have valid purchased content and want to play it on their computer.
"Also I don't know where you get information about encryption making system slow. "
Encryption is computationally expensive. That means that the processor has to work really hard to encrypt and decrypt things because of the complexity of the algorithm (in this case AES). Encrypting and decrypting a web page isn't such a big deal but HD content is something on the order of 15-30GB of data. According to the docs I've read from Microsoft the HD content will be decrypted from the HD disk and then encrypted again to push it across the PCIe bus (to the video card) before it is decrypted again. The second round of encryption/decryption is extremely expensive for a computer built today considering the fact that the computer must push 30 frames of video every second. That means that every second a Vista computer is required to decrypt, encrypt, and decrypt 30 images 1920x1080 in size. At some point in the near future (I'm predicting 5 years) processors will make this type of computation insignificant but as of today it is not. And if you are curious why that second layer of encryption/decryption exists the answer is really simple. The content producers are afraid that someone will "sniff" the PCIe bus and grab the unencrypted images to make pirated copies.
Any other new electronic equipment (HD TV and HD DVD players) already have content protection built in to their input/output ports, Vista is just a continuation of this theme, except that it doesn't just have input and output ports, it has so much more that allows someone to reach in and copy a stream of copyright content as it's being played. MS have complied with current entertainment industry requirements and made their OS like the TV's and DVD's you buy, copyright protected at every level. When the market for high quality, premium copyright content emerges they're hoping to reap the rewards.
In 2 years you probably won't be streaming high definition Rocky 15 onto your Linux or Mac OS PC, you'll be streaming it onto your Vista and then on to the TV
I know that Apple has announced that it will support DRMed media in MacOS X but I hope they take this opportunity to implement it in a more rational way realizing the utter folly of Microsoft's approach and takes them to the cleaners. Hmmm... time to buy some Apple stock I think.
""Also I don't know where you get information about encryption making system slow. "
Encryption is computationally expensive. That means that the processor has to work really hard to encrypt and decrypt things because of the complexity of the algorithm (in this case AES). Encrypting and decrypting a web page isn't such a big deal but HD content is something on the order of 15-30GB of data. According to the docs I've read from Microsoft the HD content will be decrypted from the HD disk and then encrypted again to push it across the PCIe bus (to the video card) before it is decrypted again. The second round of encryption/decryption is extremely expensive for a computer built today considering the fact that the computer must push 30 frames of video every second. That means that every second a Vista computer is required to decrypt, encrypt, and decrypt 30 images 1920x1080 in size. At some point in the near future (I'm predicting 5 years) processors will make this type of computation insignificant but as of today it is not. And if you are curious why that second layer of encryption/decryption exists the answer is really simple. The content producers are afraid that someone will "sniff" the PCIe bus and grab the unencrypted images to make pirated copies."
You haven't convinced me jet. I have done little test. I have created completely randomized 128 MB file and downloaded PGP trial software (bastards no more offer free editions). I have 1300 Mhz Celeron processor which is not able to play high definition videos and can barely support vista, but is able to run it. (Test was performed on XP)
Now to watch 30 GB HD-DVD movie in 90 minutes means 30GB/1,5h = 30 * 1024 / 5400 MB/s = 5.7 MB/s. To my disappointment - with PGP I could encrypt (with AES encryption) 128 MB in 62s meaning I can encrypt at only 2 MB/s. But then I remembered that I have system that was modern in last century and that my sisters Core 2 PC could play more than 6 videos simultaneously and I could not even 1 at any time (those were high res movies). Furthermore, barrier of 6 videos only stands because if I opened more movies the disk would start making noise and I firmly believe Core 2 (or probably any more recent P4) could eat even more videos and is probably able to encode faster than 6 MB/s. What I wanted to say is that technology is already here and more than capable to play HD-DVDs and it's still 1-3 years till HD-DVD will start hitting market.
Now I have done some (rather unprofessionally made) tests, it's yours turn to contradict to them. I mean nobody here has provided any *hard evidence* to support their statements. I want some references so that I could believe you because else I think my little theory is IMO more convincing.
You said: “If you can't afford a product, it means the product is not meant for you. You shouldn't benefit or enjoy it.”
Let’s look at this statement. Right now the Microsoft windows operating system is preloaded on nearly every PC sold in well, the world. So, the vendor that builds the PC you purchase installs Windows on it adding the cost of Windows to the purchase price. Because I can’t afford Windows and don’t deserve to benefit from it I tell the vendor to install Linux.
Wow! Guess what! You just flushed 75% of Microsoft’s market share down the toilet with that single statement. I will add that I hope you work for Microsoft and that your boss is reading this!
philo: Microsoft went way past "to the extend that allow the users interoperability." If all they did was make Vista able to read the protected content and not send it in full quality through DVI or S/PDIF, that would have been enough and the RIAA and MPAA would have had to deal with it.
If we add second pass (encryption and decryption) that means we need processor that could do 11,4 MB/s (at super-duper PGP encryption (well, I’ve chosen biggest keys possible) – does anybody know what encryption will be used in HD-DVD) . Now I said Core 2 is at least 6 times faster (and probably really is in all views, because it has much bigger cache and different architecture and so number of hz are completely irrelevant) so probably my sis's comp can do even more than 12 MB/s... but, well, I’ll try to test that when I come home tomorrow. Bye my Linux rebels :D
This isn't the case. I couldn't agree more to Eben Moglen who said (in http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Hardware_Wars_and_the_future_of_free_software),
----
"First, with respect to GPL3, and with respect to the attempts of the free software movement overall, we have a message to get across to people in our industry:
“No, we are not primarily fighting with you about movies. We are primarily fighting to protect our way of making software. Our efforts are designed to protect our right to modify and reinstall, improve, and share software. Don’t tell us that we’re off on some quixotic, romantic engagement with reshaping the movie business. We’re hackers, we make software. Our concern is protecting the integrity of the process that makes software. And all the legal devices that we recommend, and all the trouble that we are making, is to protect our homeland against somebody else, who wants to come in and prevent us from doing science and technology the way science and technology should be done according to us, the scientists and technologists.”"
----
I don't care about "premium content", neither copied nor purchased, and yet I, as a software developer, have to live with the fact that it's hard to use 3D graphics cards using free drivers. Thanks to the deal between the likes of MPAA-Microsoft-ATI, the situation won't improve, it will only get worse. To keep it from becoming unbearable in this and other areas of hardware, I gladly join the campaign.
If it weren't for the problems that Peter Gutmann describes, I couldn't care less about DRM in Vista, as I'm using a free OS anyway.
"I don't have money to buy Windows, so I don't use it"
Isn't it silly?
I think, that piracy is a only way of getting experience in new software.
As I know, noone from my friends uses legal software at home. And the most of them are programmers or system administrators.
For example, I have Win2003 Server (It's the most stable MS OS and I think is a good choice for a home OS) as my home OS and Ubuntu on notebook, because I need to develop software for both.
It is unnecessary. If you can't afford proprietary software and the high-end hardware that it requires--use Free Software*. If you don't want to break a law, even in the privacy of your home--use Free Software.
But I know that this doesn't answer your other question, what you should tell customers who use MS SQL. We all know that there are people who specialize in telling customers, "Don't. Use MySQL/PostgreSQL/... instead, and I'll show you how to save money," and earn a living by doing so.
Which means, there are specialists for everything. Being knowledgeable about free software can be a competitive advantage, when everyone else only knows about MS SQL.
In my daytime job, I also develop Windows applications for in-house use. Using purely free software at home (and trying to introduce as much free software at work as possible) hasn't been a disadvantage. After all, a programming language doesn't change from one OS to the next. Expertise in GNU/Linux is also often needed.
That's where I think the interesting new technology is. And you can always learn from it and improve upon it. MS doesn't really want you to learn, and they surely won't let you improve.
*) As always, free isn't a matter of prize here. I, for one, often pay for Free Software that I find valuable--in the form of buying a shrink-wrapped GNU/Linux box; by donating to Free Software projects to ensure continued development of their product; by donating to the FSF...
I'm not a manager, I don't make decisions in our organization ( I work in a big corporation, so there are corporative standarts for software. They are not strictly obeyd , but they exist). But even if I could make them... I know about good sides of MySQL and PostgreS, and I know, that MS SQL is a DBMS of another level. What about fast storage engines for MySQL, which have transaction support and constraints support? It becomes something interesting and RDBMS-like only in the last version (>=5.1.11), which are not even stable now. And about RDBMS. MySQL is good when you are working whith 1GB of data. And what about speed when your database is much bigger? (I am really interesting in some tests, if you have links)
PostgreSQL? I didn't work with it a lot, but it has one restriction, which I don't understand - why shouldn't I do requests to many databases?
And, for example, we decide to migrate to MySQL ( There are some projects for our local office.) But should we do it? It means we need to rewrite all our soft made by our developers. But what about other soft? (For example, brightstore arcserve? (Don't say me about bacula, we thought about it, but it doesn't suit us)).
Luckily for many applications we can use MS SQL Express, which is free. The one free system, which is recomended by policy is RHEL. And it is not a cheap system, as you know. Yes, nowadays we have FreeBSD servers - for mail,jabber, proxy and some other needs. But what about AD server? Samba? It's not funny. If you can make working kerberos/LDAP server, which will be used by Windows workstations I'll make you a monument :)
What about workstations? It means we need to make courses for every user. It's very expensive. I'm not speaking about insufficient of system administrators. You should remember that half of them don't know nix-like systems. So you should send them to study. And. The last thing. Our chiefs in Moscow made a contract with MS. :)
(About free software. In Russia most people think - it doesn't matter is sowtware GPL/BSD/... The main for our chief is - should I pay money for it? How much should I pay to the maintenance staff? And how much should I pay for support? Include in this list the cost of the migration and you will see, that full migration to GPL software is quite expensive).
You should understand, I'm not against free software. I only say, there is a big problem for a big organization to migrate to it.
And I have a question. How are you testing your Windows programs at home? Using wine? (It's not funny).
It's a interesting thought: "MS doesn't really want you to learn, and they surely won't let you improve."
And what about their educational courses? What about their msdn site? I don't know about such project for example from RedHat. You may say about ldn, but it's not such informative. Maybe in future it will be better. What about .NET MS platform? What about OLEDB/ODBC? COM? Isn't it their invention? No, I understand, that MS products don't cost their price. But it's a politic of commercial organization. It's politic may be agressive. But it doesn't give you right to speak that their corporation is not a source of many new technologies (such as any big corporation in IT as Sun,IBM and many other).
And you shouldn't foget about competition. I don't think that Linux or other os may become such user-friendly without competition factor with Windows or Mac.
In fact I only wanted to say - the free software is vey good thing, but you shouldn't see panacea in it and devil in commercial soft.
As far as encryption overhead goes to achieve your quoted rates of decryption /encryption I am sure you are maxing out your CPU. I multitask I almost always have music or a movie going on one monitor while I work on the other. Even if my computer can handle the task with some room to spare it still slowing everything else I am doing down in the name of a benefit that is not seen to me.
I also think we are now at a point more than ever where people simply have no reason to upgrade their computers. There are many computers like the one you quoted who could very well play the content if it was not for the encryption. Why should you or anyone else should be forced to upgrade for the sake of the content producers. I think they have every right to protect there copyrighted material do not get me wrong; I just don’t think it should be at the consumers expense. Everyone is going to have their own tolerance so what I think is acceptable another person may not but for me I this is a completely unacceptable level of overhead.
---
I think there is a huge division amongst computer users who have a full understanding and those who do not.
There are people who treat computers like cars. They figure that limitations imposed on them are for their own good. They have this huge disconnect between what they are doing and how the computer gets it done, so their objectivity is impacted by a broad lack of understanding. These people in my eyes while entitled to use computers are not entitled to pass any opinion or philosophical perspective. Especially in a discussion like this, they simply do not have the big picture
---
I could not agree more. I do not wish to take away a person’s right to free speech or to voice their opinion without fear of persecution but there is a time and a place for everything. I personally am a system administrator by profession an engineer by schooling, and a programmer/hacker/reverse engineer by hobby.
If the software policy at your company basically says that you can use any RDBMS as long as its MS SQL, then that probably means you'll end up with MS SQL, no question about that.
I was trying to make a different point:
You presented the question as if it was an absolute necessity for students to use unlicensed copies of proprietary software, or they would never find a job (certainly not in the company that you're working at, I agree). I just wanted to point out that there is an industry beyond the proprietary software industry, and noone will be forced to use proprietary software if they don't want to "waste" the money (your choice of word; I couldn't agree more).
Secondly, I'm not even sure whether it's necessary for an MS SQL admin to have MS SQL at home. Or do the scientists at CERN need a particle accelerator at home?
When I said MS doesn't want its users to learn, I was referring to the fact that proprietary software always remains a black box to its users. Being a software developer, I cannot really compare learning how to _use_ some software with the ability to look under the hood, to improve, to tinker with the software. (Noone will build a better car by learning how to drive. You have to know how the thing works in order to improve it.)
In contrast, the EULA of proprietary software will say things like, "don't use the software for this or that; don't dare to reverse engineer; and if you do a benchmark test, you're not allowed to tell anyone what your results were."
(Lastly, there's no need to convince me that .Net, OLEDB, or COM came from Microsoft. I never denied this.)
This is a point that I wanted feel I neglected a little in the posts. When I say "usable system" I mean one that doesn't require 100% of the CPU to simply play a movie.
No more, I am joining them now because MS has crossed the line this time with VISTA.
I have installed VISTA 6000 Ultimate Trial and will not be buying VISTA.
For one thing my VISTA installation crashes on a regular basis because of Audio and Video issues and lots of my hardware has become a paper weight because no drivers will be written according to the manufacturers. Go to the Creative VISTA Forum and read what they have to say about VISTA audio. Most
of their cards will not function under VISTA.
http://forums.creative.com/creativelabs/board/message?board.id=Vista&message.id=1694
VISTA Activation
MS has no right to enter your home without a search warrant to validate your software but they are now going to use this to leverage a brand new spy business.
I predict they will set up a new company to validate all of your software through Windows Defender. They will sell this validation scheme, anti-piracy database, to other Software companies for a fee of course and if they do not participate, they will be shut out by not allowing their software to install.
They just purchased the guy that exposed the Sony Root kit so now he works for MS, Sysinternal's, Mark Russinovich. I wonder if he will publish how window defender phones home for MS?
VISTA by definition is Spyware
Hardware Has To Be Compliant
For us consumers it means higher prices and we are being forced to buy hardware that will be compromised by design to comply to AACS standards that MS is going to try and force down our throats. They will force hardware manufacturers to comply or they will not be able to make hardware for the new OS.
Do you not see a problem with MS telling everyone which kind of hardware we can buy that will work in the new OS?
Do you see any warning labels about the Content Protection measures in all the hype that MS using to promote VISTA? The VISTA EULA is an outrage that gives them all kinds of rights they do not have using DRM to create a whole new business model.
This is much worse than the Intel fiasco, which tried to ID all of our CPU chips.
I think this action by MS is not because of Hollywood but a perverse attempt to increase their monopoly power over the Computer Business. If they pull this off, they will have a total monopoly over the PC along with Intel and other co-conspirators.
They could tell Hollywood to pound sand as they have over 90% of the OS installed base.
I will be seriously looking at the New Mac OS or Linux because I have not intention of letting them spy on me or prevent me from using my computer the way I want to use it. That is if they have not decided to join the Insane DRM measures too.
We need to boycott VISTA until they remove the draconian Copy Protection Scheme that violates our Constitutional rights and our freedom to use the PC open source included.
BTW-I do not support Piracy and I buy all my software but this is getting insane.
Time for another anti-trust Lawsuit. IMHO
I think it is outrageous that this OS changes content by encrypting it without the consent of the user. I am a GNU defender. I can't approve a corporate OS that messes up with my data in the same way I don't approve corporations that release closed-source software containing open source code under GNU GPL. If you think about it, it's the same principle. After all, it is a big corporation that messes up with my data, and therefore, my binaries and source codes.
If your software at york is open source, then excuse me for my pesumption.
...this...work...presumption.
>
>FSF,
>
>It is myopic to say that consumers do not >benefit. When content providers get properly >remunerated for their efforts, higher quality >programmes can be produced and delivered to >viewers. A win-win situation for everyone.
>
>I do not agree with microsoft on a number of >fronts, but in this case, by affording basic >intellectual property protection within the >operating system, they are doing great service >towards cultivating a more responsible public. >As a market leader, they have the power and >obligation to make great leaps in basic content >protection.
>
>
>The Free-Software-Foundation, by posturing >against microsoft in this issue, is simply >revealing their innate piracy roots.
>
Dear sreiser:
My name is not FSF, but I would proudly bare that name if i could.
Being thus introduce, I know you don't need introduction, since I know you must work for Microsoft.
GNU and FSF is not about piracy, by the oposite, is to prevent piracy that big corporations do all little programmers of this world by 1)stealing their code and claiming it as their own and 2) stealing the rights from the users to use the software they purcharsed in a way that could only benefict that user without no harm to others (including corporations).
Copyright originally was to protect a work by claiming that certain guy was the author, so impostors could not claim the work as theirs. The copyright principle has been subverted and stretched so far so the user can't change one bit (and I'm saying bit of information) without breaking the law.
It looks like an FDA principle: if you mention that ketchup avoids cancer, you are breaking a law, because now ketchup is a drug.
But I guess that's not what you were referring to.
A few notes about the GPL: I won't get into detail about the kinds of free software that any given company might be using, especially not the nameless one that I'm working for. ;-)
But remember that the GPL does not preclude commercial usage, so it's not a contradiction when someone mentions the words "company" and "free software" in a single sentence.
Secondly, there is the area of "private modification", which includes companies. Any company can use GPL'd software, modified or not, without having to disclose their changes. (Some might disclose their changes nonetheless and not feel bad about it.)
Thirdly, there are the permissive free software licenses, eg., the BSD license. The software is free, but any company can (unfortunately) incorporate the software in proprietary projects, which includes Microsoft, I am told.
Finally, there are companies that are fully aware of the terms of the GPL and follow its letter just as if it were the Microsoft Windows EULA.
I just wanted to clear this up, so that readers won't get the impression that free software is "anti-commercial" or something (as is sometimes believed).
Sorry about the misunderstanding.
I am aware that open-source and commercial software can be the same. But also, although some closed source companies release free (as in gratis) software, most of them release parts under GNU GPL, gratis or not. Thats why I'd jumped to a conclusion, because it's not uncommon. Most of them are not sued and may sue after claiming authorship.
If you use GPLed software, you have to play by the same rules (make all software open source, even for commercial uses, and even if the binaries are free, but to get the source you pay a fee - of course others can freely redistribute the source, payed for or not, as they can charge for a source that is available gratis in the original distro). If you don't want to play by the same rules, you better use LGPLed instead (Lesser GLP is mainly for libs to be included in proprietary software)
http://menan.info/blog/?2007/01/21/3-une-analyse-de-la-lettre-de-microsoft-annoncant-son-suicide-1-partie
I have posted a French translation of this article here:
http://menan.info/blog/?2007/01/21/3-une-analyse-de-la-lettre-de-microsoft-annoncant-son-suicide-1-partie
Encrypting the FS is simply a way to avoid file sharing between users. I don't know how to name this, but it can't be named 'privacy' :)
That's why I say 'No!' to Windows Vista!
Traduction française de Analysis of Microsoft's Suicide Note (part 1)