| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Is Microsoft Muscling In on the Market? | |
|
||
| Time: 12:54 EST/17:54 GMT | News Source: Business Week Online | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
On Jan. 15, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates sent out a companywide e-mail telling his minions to make security their No. 1 priority. Since then, the Colossus of Redmond has hired dozens of new security staffers and put its coders through boot camps on how to build secure software. The June launch of a new initiative dubbed Palladium underscored Microsoft's security ambitions. Palladium is supposed to be a "trusted" computing system. Translation? An operating system that, unlike Windows, is designed from the ground up to enhance security and prevent hack attacks. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 231 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:58:18 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2960 (156.80.64.132) at 11/19/2002 3:00:52 PM |
| Sigh.... There's that word again :( |
| #2 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 11/19/2002 3:42:30 PM |
|
I must say, the author is quite ignorant.
Windows NT was built "from the ground up" with security in mind, it's just that there focus was on features and not security. The author also makes it sound like Palladium is a replacement for Windows, however, he could not be further from the truth. Palladium is a hardware software combonation that together will yield enhanced security, among other things, and is not the base OS in which the users will see. |
| #3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/19/2002 5:00:20 PM |
|
CPU should hang out with Ballmer:
"Windows NT was built ... with security in mind, it's just that there focus was on features and not security. " "But I like our value proposition a lot on the notion of having a fixed-form, well-defined operating system, as opposed to something that doesn't do much and gets added on 180,000 different ways... We can make Windows much more easily componentized... We certainly can make it so these things are in smaller chunks and there's a smaller dependency chain to set Windows up in a special-purpose configuration." |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/19/2002 5:24:18 PM |
|
It's moronic doublespeak was my point, but I wouldn't have said that if you hadn't asked, montana. It was designed that way from the ground up, it was just secondary to features? What idiocy is that? What does from the ground up mean to you? The mere persistance of the Message Queueing issue, which isn't a flaw, should tell everyone that NT wasn't designed for security. Nevermind the entire interdependent mess that is COM. You cannot say this was designed with security from the beginning and through it's development at all. Plain and simple.
Same as Ballmer saying users want a fixed, consistent system, but that they wish it was modularizable, which isn't possible, because users don't want unnecessary features. |
| #5 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/19/2002 6:15:08 PM |
|
Someone could make that argument but they'd be the b!tch of the company that never considered security so it has no defense and can't compare itself to systems which are built for secuirty.
One could also argue that the more you consider security, the more secure an OS will be. OpenBSD for example. To take your car analogy, are you saying that years of safety testing and design by Volvo means nothing because once it's on the road it's as unsafe as the most poorly designed piece of crap? I didn't think so. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, November 19, 2002 at 18:59. |
| #6 By 1845 (12.254.206.177) at 11/19/2002 7:08:23 PM |
| TL, didn't you mention FUD without facts in another thread today? I believe you used it to attack Microsoft. I've asked you at least a dozen times, but you've yet to produce any downsides to Palladium. Perhaps you should shut the FUD up, unless you have some facts. |
| #7 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 11/19/2002 10:13:48 PM |
|
jerkweed - If Ballmer is "moronic", then I suggest you take his lead... and get dumb. Because it seems to be working QUITE well for him.
Or do you think you and the other $50K salaries have all the smarts? |
| #8 By 3339 (67.116.254.121) at 11/19/2002 11:19:43 PM |
|
miffed, mooresa, huh? I called his comments moronic doublespeak, that's it. He says people want one OS, then he says they want more modular options... This is doublespeak--that it is so obvious makes it moronic.
Am I really supposed to envy him or something? Insane wealth and hatred by many are two things I really don't desire. I have better people to emulate for better reasons. If those were my ideals, I'd pick C. Montgomery Burns's ass to be kissing instead. Ooo, you're right making $60G, living in the Bay Area with great friends taking 3 vacations a year and 20 amazing weekend trips, and partying in the city 3 nights a week has clouded my mind so much that I disagree with Ballmer not because I've always thought that way, but because I'm jealous. Your pathetic, mooresa. |
| #9 By 2960 (156.80.64.132) at 11/20/2002 9:01:47 AM |
|
Bobsmith,
And I've told you time and time again why I don't like it, you just don't want to listen. Palladium has the potential to control how I wish to use my computer. Whether voluntarily or involuntarily. It WILL be abused. I have ZERO doubt about that. Listen for a change instead of blindly following your mothership Microsoft. TL |
| #10 By 2960 (156.80.64.132) at 11/20/2002 9:03:19 AM |
|
"TL, didn't you mention FUD without facts in another thread today?"
No. I gave examples. Using scare tactics that in themselves provide NO facts are indeed FUD. You need to take your Microsoft Blinders off every now and then. TL |
| #11 By 1845 (207.173.73.201) at 11/20/2002 12:59:30 PM |
|
TL, I highly doubt that you understand Palladium. Your claim "Palladium has the potential to control how I wish to use my computer" is rather baseless. If it isn't baseless, the same can be said of any software application. My choice of operating system also has the potential to control how I wish to use my computer. If I installed Windows NT 4 on my laptop, I'd not be able to use my USB ports. You haven't really provided any details or evidence of your claim.
"Whether voluntarily or involuntarily" If it is voluntary, then there is nothing to be alarmed about. If I buy a Region 1 DVD player, I fully expect it to only play Region 1 DVDs. If I buy a Palladium based PC with a Palldium operating system, I fully expect it to have secure storage, memory, and stack space for my applications to use. If I don't want apps to use it, I don't install Palladium apps. I have choice, there is nothing to be afraid of. "It WILL be abused. I have ZERO doubt about that." This is supposition. This is a scare tactic. This is FUD. Fear - your PC will be taken over by someone other than yourself. Uncertainty - it will be abused but I don't know when, by whom, or how. It will be abused though. Doubt - you can't trust it. It'll be abused. TL, you have not provided any evidence for your claims. You have not even really explained what your claims are. Are you afraid that Microsoft will prevent you from running warez software? (Not saying you are a pirate, just wondering what 'control' you are referring to.) Are you afraid that Microsoft will prevent you from sending email to blacklisted domains? What control are you talking about that you think you'll not have? What and who will do the abusing and what abuse are we talking about? Until you explain your claim and provide evidence, your claims are a FUDded scare tactic and nothing more. Perhaps I do have Microsoft blinders. Perhaps you have anti Microsoft blinders. I seem to be quite able to attack Microsoft when the do dumb things. If I can see their faults, I guess that means my rose colored glasses are rather clear. |
| #12 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/20/2002 3:55:01 PM |
|
gg, I appreciate your response.
DMCA. I'm not aware of the suppressed crypto research you are referring to. If you can find a link, I'd like to read about it. Considering the gross copyright violations that occur on p2p networks, something like the DMCA is necessary. If folks were a little more honest, we wouldnt have need of so many rules. If people are dishonest (like Napster claiming fair use when blatantly fair use has no place in the discussion), then overly tough laws are often required to bring balance back. As far as what could happen if...you can say that about almost anything. I see little difference between Palladium and SSL. SSL is used to secure data transmition over the Internet. Most commonly it is used for financial transactions. What if you have data that you want secured on your own computer? Palladium can secure data on your own computer. This is will prevent virii, worms, keyboard sniffers, OS exploits, etc. from hacking Palladium applications. I think this is a very good idea. I'd love it if the billing system I've written for my clients could be secured in such a way that I was sure no other application could snoop and get sensitive data. Usage. In my opinion if Microsoft comes up with an idea and develops it, they should get paid for it if other folks want to use it. This is the idea behind patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc. If the Linux folks come up with great ideas, let them be patented and licensed too. If they want to give it up for free, then they have made their choice. Why should Microsoft be penalized because the Linux folks have a business model largely inconsistant with the rest of the software industry? Aside from that, Palladium is also a hardware based. Linux coders can develop Linux software on Palladium hardware just like Microsoft can. Multimedia client. That was an interesting example. Currently media is available on whatever platforms for which a client has been written. If, for example, content is in asf, wma or wmv it can only be opened via Windows Media Player. That limits the consumption of the media to Windows and Mac. With Palladium, nothing would change here. If the content were available in Real or Quicktime formats, then Real and Apple would be responsible to have compatible clients on other platforms. In short, I see no difference between the present and the future if there is Palladium. What I do see is that content companies are more likely to sell digital content if they can be sure that the license will not be violated. If other platform vendors don't make secure platforms to enforse content licenses, then they need to get going on it. I think with every new technology there is a lot to be worried about. Just because something bad might happen is not a good reason to be a naysayer. Just about every technology on earth can be used for good or not good purposes. Because SSL can be used to encrypt communications between terrorists is not a good reason to ban SSL. Certainly we need to cautiously approach new things. Being blinded by fear will result in stagnation not progress. |
| #13 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/20/2002 6:06:57 PM |
|
I just asked our resident Palladium links keeper (n4cer) for Pal links to answer your Palladium questions. I can answer your questions, but I'd rather let you get it right from the horse's mouth (Microsoft's Palladium FAQs and press releases).
Software patents. Since software patents already exist, if they were going to stifle innovation, they'd have been doing it for decades. If they don't, then they haven't been stifling it for decades. I think some patents are foolish, but some are very valuable and the company that produced them should be well compensated for its research. I don't see a difference between this and any other industry that has patents. Software choice. This is an interesting subject. If I as a content creator CHOOSE to Palladium protect (assuming that there is no means to use the content on anything other than a Windows OS), then I made a choice. Microsoft didn't force my hand. Linux didn't force my hand. The government didn't force my hand. I made a choice. If you want my content, then you need to make a choice - is it worth it to you to have a Palladium enabled Windows OS to view my content. If it is, then you choose Windows and view my content. If not, you choose to not use Windows and you don't get my content. If I like Apple's iTunes, I have to buy a Mac to use it. If you want to run Windows apps, you need a Windows OS. I don't see any coersion here. Microsoft has produced many, many failed or not very accepted concepts in many areas - Active Channels, UltimateTV, web classes (VB 6), WFC, XDR, VisAct, PhotoDraw, etc. If Microsoft, like any other vendor, doesn't give good value to developers, third party integrators, consumers, etc., then the concept will fail. If Palladium is boycotted it, it will fail. If it is embraced, quite obviously, it will succeed. In either case, it will be everybody but Microsoft that makes that decision. |
| #14 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/20/2002 6:15:03 PM |
|
http://www.activewin.com/awin/comments.asp?HeadlineIndex=12918&Group=1 n4cer's posts have a good deal of Palladium info. Particularly read:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/security/news/PallFAQ2.asp http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2002/jul02/0724palladiumwp.asp http://www.microsoft.com/PressPass/features/2002/jul02/07-01palladium.asp The first link, I think, will answer most of your questions about what Palladium really is, what it offers. |
| #15 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/20/2002 6:18:58 PM |
|
If you are a Paul Thurrott fan...
http://app2.streampipe.com/vtc/switch.tc?c=10156&cn=renaissance&s=20253&e=1999# "The Future of Microsoft Security: Windows .NET Server and Beyond" talks all about future versions of Windows and also Palladium. The Palladium info begins at 23:20.929 into the presentation. |
| #16 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/20/2002 6:37:18 PM |
|
Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.
Software patents. If RSA did the work, they should be compensated. If Exxon patents a new oil refinement process, they should be compensated. If GM patents a new fuel combustion system, they should be compensated. If..... I don't see why sofware is any different than any other industry. There are dumb patents like Amazon's one click shopping. Dumb patents can exist in any industry. Refusal to license patents or charging high fees (that which would stifle innovation) also exists in every industry. If it is bad for software, it is bad everywhere. If it isn't bad everywhere else, why is it bad for softare? Software choice. I see your point, but I also don't see it. If I as a vendor (of software platforms or of content) am forced to be multiplatform (as a platform vendor, I'm now competing with myself, as a content creator my ability to choose has been taken away). Choice isn't just for end user consumers. Content creators are consumers of the creation softare, servers, etc. End users, are consumers of the content itself. Both need to be able to choose. Neither should be forced to do anything. The platform vendor should be free to offer what it likes as well. If the middle user or end user doesn't like the platform vendor's offering, they have the choice to not use it. Smart businessmen seeing that gap, will make a product to fill the void for those users. This is competition. This is capitalism. This is unregulated business. This is a good thing. I guess my point is, if the consumer has chosen for a monopoly to exist, then it should exist. I can agree to disagree. I'm glad that we can both share our views without the caustic and venomous remarks that have become rather commonplace here. |
| #17 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/20/2002 8:00:50 PM |
|
If Mr. Ford had a patent on cumbustion engines, tires, etc, then Ford Motor Company would have been the only company able to make cars. This, in fact, is what happened with BetaMax. Sony held patents for BetaMax and had rediculous licensing terms. A competing standard (VHS) won out because it was more open. The market was free to choose either standard, and it (for the most part) chose VHS.
I think if a company in any industry (chemical, software, financial, etc) patents an idea, the terms of the patent should be the same for that industry as for any other. Whether such broad patents should be granted is really the issue you are arguing against. Well, it seems that's what you are arguing against. RSA Pattents. Who says PKI is the best way to go about encrypting? If RSA wanted to keep their patent and not license it well, then someone should have produced a competing encryption technology and licensed it better. This is competition! This is the heart of American business. It is the same for every industry. I don't see what thought and physical machines have to do with the discussion. Choice: Open standards do solve the issue. But (and this is a huge but) companies should still be free to choose proprietary technologies. As a programmer, there are apps I can develop many times faster using proprietary technologies than open ones. I should be free to develop using whichever I choose. My clients/customers should be free to buy from me if they like my app, or not buy if they don't like it. It is my belief that the market will tend (eventually) toward openness. That doesn't mean at any given moment that open is the best. Often times open is the worst. I can write an open OS which will pale in comparison to proprietary offerings like Windows and Solaris. Open doesn't equal best. If the proprietary companies don't license their goods well, then a more open competitor is likely to kill them in the marketplace. I'd argue that this is exactly what is happening with Sun's Solaris. If the market really thinks that Microsoft is overcharging for Office and for Windows, then the market will search out and find better options. That is the way business works. |
| #18 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/20/2002 11:34:02 PM |
|
You're awesome, gg!
I know you talked about duration. I was trying to steer you away from that. The reason I brought up the car was that you brought up the word processor. If someone wrote a better word processor than the patented one (and the would be great incentive to write a better one if the patented one wasn't licensed well), there would be no stagnation. PKC. I roughly understand PKC. I've read up a bit on the subject of encryption and some of the major algorithms. I am by no means well versed on the subject. I suspect you know it far better than I do. That said...is PKC (according to the RSA patent) the only way to encrypt data? If it isn't (and I know it isn't) then others were able to find alternative solutions to use instead of RSA's solutions. I think that there are some dumb patents. Since you say "it seems a bit rediculous" to you to have been able to patent the RSA PKC stuff to begin with, I think you agree with me. Rather than affect duration of patents, why not only enable good patents? If you took 5 years and several billion dollars to develop a concept, a 2-3 year patent is pretty lame in my opinion. More than likely if with that time and money, your patents are based on good, solid concepts - not junk patents like one click checkout(i mean write a cookie, read a cookie). Do you think that if bad patents weren't offered, and from what I understand of PKC the RSA patent falls in this category, that a longer duration (like the present duration) is OK? |
| #19 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/20/2002 11:42:22 PM |
|
Open standards. I'm not sure what I think about this. I like open standards because as a developer, I don't have to pay fees to use them. This is very happy to me. I also like defacto proprietary standards (like the Windows PE format for .exe's) since I can count on them in my application and can just assume they are there.
When I look at Microsoft, I see some interesting things. I see them hardcore proprietary (wma, wmv) and getting significanly higher quality than the open standard (mpeg, mpeg2, mp3, mpeg4). I also see them hardcore open standard with such things as XML, XSD, XSL, SOAP, etc. I really like XML, XSL, etc. I use them often. Also, I love wma, wmv even though they require Windows to use them (well Windows or Mac, I think). I choose what matches my needs then weigh that against my wallet. In a world without money where we all worked for the benefit of our fellow man, then open standards would surely be the way to go. Since we aren't in such a society, proprietary quite often has more money behind it and as a result is often much better. This leaves me torn between idealism and reality. |
| #20 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/21/2002 4:40:08 PM |
|
RSA. This must be a dumb question, but if the RSAREF library was so buggy, why didn't RSA fix it?
Patents. I don't see that it is faster to dev software than it is to dev physical stuff. Anyway, I do thing the patent system needs fixing, but I'm just not sure what to do about it. It seems that shortening the to 3-5 years is way too short. Hmm, I need to do more thinking about this. Big companies moving into new markets. Hmm. This is a tough one. I don't have a problem with monopolies. Then again, I also don't think that because you have a monopoly now, that you'll have one tomorrow. I think that money from corporations is the catalyst for moving us forward technologically. Stifling a company's ability to use its revenue from one source (even if it is a source that the company monopolizes), will severely stifle the economy. Sun, for instance, was dominant in server when they used that money to create Java. Also, you DNA example, I think, is kind of flawed. If all software used the same open standards, and the standards themselves were flawed, then all software would be flawed as a result. We can look at the IPv4 to see this. All IP based networks are inhibitted by the limitations of IPv4. This isn't bad, per se, but is a universal problem (like an extremely harmful disease) that effects many hundreds of millions of IP based devices. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 231 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:58:18 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
