This is from 2003. It's not entirely outdated, but it is rather quaint.
The author foresees a future where everyone has to use personal certificates to communicate, which has various pros and cons - while enabling commerce, it could be the end of anonymity. He didn't anticipate a world where the government is simply hoovering up all the plaintext.
Microsoft wants ARM machines to be locked in Windows 8 mode, probably to block Android. From what I can tell, it goes both ways. Existing Android tablets are not Windows8-certified, so they won't run it.
Microsoft being the runner-up in the tablet market, I find the move puzzling. What do they have to gain? Why would vendors want to lock themselves in the hands of Microsoft, given MS's past behavior?
More puzzling yet: what is the force in the Microsoft DNA that prompts them to systematically return to this kind of anti-competitive behaviors as soon as they get a chance?
Remember the BCG matrix? I think Microsoft is desperately trying to keep Windows in the "cash cow" quadrant, while the consumer is starting to look at it as a "dog." For teens and people in their 20s, Windows is the OS that your mom and dad use. I just think the product has run its course. Just like GM couldn't revive Oldsmobile, Microsoft (the GM of the software world) can't revive Windows. Android and iOS already own the tablet/handheld space. That war is over, unless Apple and Google seriously stagnate. Microsoft had more than their fair share of shots at winning that and failed miserably, because their approach was always one of expanding lock-in to Windows rather than really building stuff that people enjoyed using.
I mostly agree, especially your last sentence. With the exception of our Exchange/AD environment at work (which everyone uses Macs on top of) I only boot Windows when some piece of software I can't get around requires it. I've used a combination of OS X and various Linux flavors to do everything for a few years now and haven't missed MS one bit.
My father on the other hand (who told me I was nuts back in the 90's when I explained how Linux/OSS would change everything) still clings to Windows even though it's a major source of frustration for my folks. I would even raise the age you posited, as I am in my early 30's (though it could just be that I'm immature).
I disagree with your assertion that the war for mobile is won, however. I think MS is down, but certainly not out. If the last 10 years are any indication, things can turn around in the blink of an eye.
People pretty much never change the operating system of their ARM devices anyway. They are a lot more heterogenous thing than PCs and getting any OS to run on some specific ARM device is always quite big a task. There's of course some examples of this happening, say TouchPad or N9 Android ports, but these devices already ran Linux kernel.
But it doesn't have to be that way. Even with locked bootloaders on Android devices people are finding ways to install custom builds of Android. Why not custom builds of GNU/Linuix, FreeBSD or even Windows.
How many people do that to their PC? The vast minority. The situation that is on phones and tablets isn't all that different than what people do by choice.
The majority of people don't care. If the people don't care, why would a company do it?
Sorry, but I did it (the tablet I'm writing this on runs a custom OS). The only reason for Microsoft to forbid changing the OS is to limit competition and thus harm the consumer who will have less, inferior (because if you have no competition, it's no longer worth investing in improvements) choices.
what is the force in the Microsoft DNA that prompts them to systematically return to this kind of anti-competitive behaviors as soon as they get a chance?
This article seems to focus on closed-source solutions. What about Linux? If the Trusted Computing code would be open-source, that creates another rather huge problem for the big brother and big media. Does that mean Linux machines would be unable to connect to the internet? Or would they need closed-source Trusted Computing drivers instead?
> Consequently, a trusted computing platform must validate the signature of an operating system before booting it. Operating systems not certified as implementing all the requirements of Trusted Computing will not be issued certificates, and may not be booted on such systems.
This has already happened with Windows 8 verified hardware. If you want to run another OS, you (or rather, the OS maintainers) have to pay the $99 Microsoft (ed: VeriSign, see below) tax to get a Microsoft-signed bootloader and kernel. (Fedora has already done this.) A decent write-up is here with some comments from Linus: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/linus-torvalds-on-wind... It's kind of disturbing when the main reassurance is "Hackers will get around it. Probably."
> This has already happened with Windows 8 verified hardware. If you want to run another OS, you (or rather, the OS maintainers) have to pay the $99 Microsoft tax to get a Microsoft-signed bootloader and kernel.
No. While that is an option -- if you want to use Secure Boot -- MS is requiring certified x86 machines to allow disabling Secure Boot entirely. Does that make it more difficult to install? Marginally, yes; it adds additional steps. Does it mean that you have to jump through the signing hoops? Absolutely not.
Yes, ARM still doesn't allow unsigned kernels to run; I mentioned x86 specifically in my post.
That said, the "For now." is fearmongering. It's very possible that MS could change things, but that doesn't mean we should make that assumption -- that's just FUD. There are plenty of legitimate things to gripe about around the Secure Boot stuff, but potential future changes to the policies aren't high on the list.
When Microsoft claims Linux violates their patents, that it lacks the level of service companies require or that it destroys value, it is FUD. Microsoft does it very well.
But when we raise the possibility Microsoft will act in its best interest in the future (which is to block competition) I'd argue it would be a fair extrapolation from previous behavior. Microsoft consistently engages in anti-competitive behavior and it would be naïve to expect a sudden surge of morality from its top executives.
It's like they handled mandantory driver signing on win64: One of the reasons 32bit wasn't affected is that this requirements breaks old drivers.
Similarily, on x86 you have two inhibiting factors: old systems without UEFI+secureboot that can run windows 8, and new systems that have to run older windows versions for some reasons (business requirements).
In a couple of years, there are only secureboot-capable Windows versions out there (and still relevant), and only secureboot-capable systems to run windows 10 on. That's a much more comfortable situation to pull the plug on non-secureboot boot.
Fair point. While I think some concern is warranted in Microsoft's case given their history, FUD is FUD. Apart from whether MS will change its policies, I'm interested to see what the responses will be if the private signing key is compromised.
Hardware implementors suck at implementing firmware. Didn't you ever had trouble trying to boot from a pendrive? They couldn't get it right with BIOS, why should I think they won't screw it in UEFI? And if they screw it, what will be the workarond? Enable Secure Boot?
Microsoft has mandated that OEMs must provide a way for users to disable secure boot, and a way for them to add their own keys, however we still do not know the exact nature of what "turning it off" entails.
The Microsoft requirements are very vague on this point, if early hardware is indication, disabling it could be quite complicated and error prone, IE having to re flash the firmware.
The biggest problem IMO is Microsoft is completely free to change this requirement at any time, and with stuff like ARM already being mandated as having no way to disable secure boot, or load keys, I don't think this is particularly far fetched.
Also consider the fact they never mandated having a way to disable it previously, until there was a massive outcry.
How was this peer-to-peer Internet actually put to use, and why isn't it used that way anymore? I think I could name Usenet, but what else? Most of things I do on the Internet nowadays is using the www - a hierarchical structure. But were there p2p equivalents of any of the websites we use today?
The author foresees a future where everyone has to use personal certificates to communicate, which has various pros and cons - while enabling commerce, it could be the end of anonymity. He didn't anticipate a world where the government is simply hoovering up all the plaintext.