Jump to content

[Rumour] Windows 9 revamped activation system (DRM)

qwertywarrior

You know, come to think bout. When Micorosft introduce the activation system with Windows XP, and that was at a time where you genuinly had no internet.

People complained... a lot.. with Windows 2000 for ever, especially that Windows 2000 was XP. Yet... "XP! Best OS evar!!!! Perfection in all aspects!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call a company who already threatened always-online DRM "innocent". In fact I am giving them the benefit of the doubt if you look at their DRM track record that intentionally tried to slow down and block Linux with the UEFI implementation.

I'm going to play devils advocate. Secure boot is spelled out as a UEFI standard. It is technically Linux developer's fault for not implementing it properly.

 

The uproar against secure boot wasn't because if was being implemented by default for devices that shipped with Windows 8, but rather that GRUB could not be used with secure boot because of a GNU GPL licensing issue. In order for grub to work with secure boot, the Linux foundation would have had to release their public CA key. Releasing the CA key would have made secure boot useless as malware developers could have used a legitimate signed key for other purposes, or the UEFI governing body may have void certain Linux keys.

 

Now, almost all Linux distributions have figured out secure boot:

http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/growing-role-uefi-secure-boot-linux-distributions

 

The main solution was to develop a pre-boot loader, know as shim, which then launches grub: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2012-June/035445.html

This avoids the licensing issue that was present with GRUB and the GNU GPL.

▶ Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. - Einstein◀

Please remember to mark a thread as solved if your issue has been fixed, it helps other who may stumble across the thread at a later point in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the system sending verification bits back to a central server an invasion of your privacy?

Well this is just speculation (all of it is, but it is very plausible) so take it with a grain of salt.

It is privacy intrusive because we don't know what info it will send back. I doubt that it will be in plain text either (since you could replicate it really easily if it was) so we won't have any idea what info it is sending back.

If you are okay with your OS periodically sending unknown info to Microsoft then good for you. I am not okay with that though.

 

 

You do realize you don't even own the software? You own a license to it, nothing more. 

And your point is? I don't like that model so that is a bad thing in my eyes.

Highlighting that something is bad does not make it good. I honestly don't understand your point here.

Your comment would make sense if I said that the current model they used was perfect but I don't think it is. On a scale from 1 to 10 their current model is a 3. This new model will be a 2. What they tried to do with the Xbone (which they will probably try to do with Windows later) is a 1, the absolute worst kind I can think of.

 

 

Stop the war mongering with "I would not be surprised if this turns into always online DRM". Whats to say this isn't yet another one time activation? Maybe it might even phone home when you use Windows Updates? Whats so different compared to what they do now?

The difference is mandatory Microsoft accounts needed and system specific disks.

It might also call home on a regular basis to check for the same key used on multiple computers. We don't have enough info about it to make proper judgement of it, but since it is Microsoft I am expecting the worst.

 

 

Hell, once was a time where you couldn't install certain Windows apps on Windows 7 if you didn't have a genuine installation of Windows. It was phoning home then too. 

Yes and I am against that as well. Again, your comment doesn't make any sense unless I was perfectly happy with the system they use right now, which I am not.

 

 

 

Guilty until proven innocent much?

Microsoft have been found guilty time and time again. If you've been caught with your hand in the cookie jar several times already then people should be suspicious when you go out to the kitchen

 

 

People complained... a lot.. with Windows 2000 for ever, especially that Windows 2000 was XP. Yet... "XP! Best OS evar!!!! Perfection in all aspects!"

I don't know what universe you live in but XP was not praised as "best OS evar!!! Perfection in all aspects!" when it was released. It was constantly bashed for being bloated (look at XP-tan and her huge breasts that symbolizes her massive RAM usage). It also lacks a ton of modern features (A ton of security features, better scheduling with multi cores, effectively use RAM, improvements for SSDs etc) as well.

post-216-0-42312800-1404846024.jpg

 

 

 

 

I'm going to play devils advocate. Secure boot is spelled out as a UEFI standard. It is technically Linux developer's fault for not implementing it properly.

 

The uproar against secure boot wasn't because if was being implemented by default for devices that shipped with Windows 8, but rather that GRUB could not be used with secure boot because of a GNU GPL licensing issue. In order for grub to work with secure boot, the Linux foundation would have had to release their public CA key. Releasing the CA key would have made secure boot useless as malware developers could have used a legitimate signed key for other purposes, or the UEFI governing body may have void certain Linux keys.

 

Now, almost all Linux distributions have figured out secure boot:

http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/growing-role-uefi-secure-boot-linux-distributions

 

The main solution was to develop a pre-boot loader, know as shim, which then launches grub: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2012-June/035445.html

This avoids the licensing issue that was present with GRUB and the GNU GPL.

Another problem that I was not a fan of was that Secure boot was mandatory and there was plans to not let people turn it off.

Microsoft could have just went "let's not give the users the option to add additional certs as trusted" and if they had done that, they could have blocked all GNU/Linux distros.

Secure Boot is good, but Microsoft *could* have implemented it in such a way that it would have been harmful. That's what they have done on Windows RT devices. You don't have any control over secure boot and it is used to block all OSes except Windows from the device.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to play devils advocate. Secure boot is spelled out as a UEFI standard. It is technically Linux developer's fault for not implementing it properly.

 

The uproar against secure boot wasn't because if was being implemented by default for devices that shipped with Windows 8, but rather that GRUB could not be used with secure boot because of a GNU GPL licensing issue. In order for grub to work with secure boot, the Linux foundation would have had to release their public CA key. Releasing the CA key would have made secure boot useless as malware developers could have used a legitimate signed key for other purposes, or the UEFI governing body may have void certain Linux keys.

 

Now, almost all Linux distributions have figured out secure boot:

http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/growing-role-uefi-secure-boot-linux-distributions

 

The main solution was to develop a pre-boot loader, know as shim, which then launches grub: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2012-June/035445.html

This avoids the licensing issue that was present with GRUB and the GNU GPL.

 

You're starting from the presumption that secure boot is a good thing and open source standards are bad. 

-------

Current Rig

-------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're starting from the presumption that secure boot is a good thing and open source standards are bad. 

I never said secure boot was good or bad, I also never said that open source software was bad or good.

 

I pointed out that secure boot was a standard as defined by UEFI Forum.

I pointed out that  GRUB had technical licensing issues with using Secure Boot

I pointed out that they found a solution by using a pre-boot loader known as shim

 

By the way, UEFI is an open standard and is royalty free. You might be surprised to find out that Canonical, the Linux Foundation, RHEL, and even SUSE are contributors to the UEFI standard.

▶ Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. - Einstein◀

Please remember to mark a thread as solved if your issue has been fixed, it helps other who may stumble across the thread at a later point in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Another problem that I was not a fan of was that Secure boot was mandatory and there was plans to not let people turn it off.

Microsoft could have just went "let's not give the users the option to add additional certs as trusted" and if they had done that, they could have blocked all GNU/Linux distros.

Secure Boot is good, but Microsoft *could* have implemented it in such a way that it would have been harmful. That's what they have done on Windows RT devices. You don't have any control over secure boot and it is used to block all OSes except Windows from the device.

You are right, I don't agree with Windows RT devices being locked down. But with that being said, Apple does the same thing on their iDevices. Now I don't like using Apple as an example, but it works for them to have their OS and hardware more tightly knit. Now I don't support this practice, but if you buy an Windows branded device from MS, it is no different than buying an iOS device from Apple.

 

But, consumers have choices, and like many have said before, people vote with their wallet, don't like an RT device because it is locked down, then don't buy it. Businesses will get the message sooner or later. 

This is why I don't have any Windows RT devices, Apple iDevices, or Chromebooks (http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/22465.html)

▶ Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. - Einstein◀

Please remember to mark a thread as solved if your issue has been fixed, it helps other who may stumble across the thread at a later point in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Knowing from the past (sim city anybody?) when companies tried to implement drm so people couldn't pirate it, It turned out to be easy to install for pirates and a nightmare for people who bought it legit. 

CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 3900x  GPU: ASUS Strix rtx 2080 Super RAM: Corsair Vengeance Pro RGB 8gb x4 PSU: Corsair HX850i Motherboard: ASUS Strix x570-E Storage: Samsung 840 pro, Samsung 970 evo 1tb nvme, segate 2tb Case: NZXT H510I Cooling: Corsair h100i

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, UEFI is an open standard and is royalty free. You might be surprised to find out that Canonical, the Linux Foundation, RHEL, and even SUSE are contributors to the UEFI standard.

 

You're delivering a lot of half truths about UEFI and secure boot. Microsoft took a desirable technology and twisted it to block all other OSes. The Licensing issue you refer to? It's because GNU doesn't allow the kind of anti competitive behavior Microsoft wanted. As for your argument about this names: Linux has deserters too and you basically named them, Linus Torvalds himself attacked Red Hat for bowing down to Microsoft and accepting their terms. 

 

The reality is that this has nothing to do with "security" and Microsoft wanted UEFI to implement secure boot and have control over which hardware partners they do business with under the threat of not supporting them at all by revoking the certificates for secure boot, something they reserve the right to do at any point. 

-------

Current Rig

-------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what universe you live in but XP was not praised as "best OS evar!!! Perfection in all aspects!" when it was released. It was constantly bashed for being bloated (look at XP-tan and her huge breasts that symbolizes her massive RAM usage). It also lacks a ton of modern features (A ton of security features, better scheduling with multi cores, effectively use RAM, improvements for SSDs etc) as well.

Sorry, I didn't explain myself properly. I am saying the view that people have now of XP.

I have always said that XP was not a great OS. Many times especially on post that people say that "every odd Windows release are bad", some mark XP not as good, but "best" and such similar level claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did microsoft not learn anything from the xbone drm policy?

 

No, because it was never implemented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I didn't explain myself properly. I am saying the view that people have now of XP.

I have always said that XP was not a great OS. Many times especially on post that people say that "every odd Windows release are bad", some mark XP not as good, but "best" and such similar level claim.

Yeah and they have to skip some releases in order to make the list make some sense, and they do stuff like claim Windows Vista was bad even though it was great in some areas (and bad in some).

Those lists are bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, because it was never implemented.

It was implemented and ready for consumer release, but following a public backlash after the e3 reveal Microsoft was forced to remove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF Microsoft...  just WTF

CPU: I7 3770k @4.8 ghz | GPU: GTX 1080 FE SLI | RAM: 16gb (2x8gb) gskill sniper 1866mhz | Mobo: Asus P8Z77-V LK | PSU: Rosewill Hive 1000W | Case: Corsair 750D | Cooler:Corsair H110| Boot: 2X Kingston v300 120GB RAID 0 | Storage: 1 WD 1tb green | 2 3TB seagate Barracuda|

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're delivering a lot of half truths about UEFI and secure boot. Microsoft took a desirable technology and twisted it to block all other OSes. The Licensing issue you refer to? It's because GNU doesn't allow the kind of anti competitive behavior Microsoft wanted. As for your argument about this names: Linux has deserters too and you basically named them, Linus Torvalds himself attacked Red Hat for bowing down to Microsoft and accepting their terms. 

 

The reality is that this has nothing to do with "security" and Microsoft wanted UEFI to implement secure boot and have control over which hardware partners they do business with under the threat of not supporting them at all by revoking the certificates for secure boot, something they reserve the right to do at any point. 

Half truths? Backed by references and links to prove the facts.

 

The reason linux can not use GRUB2 on secure boot is simple because it would force them to publish the Private CA. This is made apparent in the Ubuntu mailing list at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2012-June/035445.html

 

 

We have not been able to find legal guidance that we wouldn't then be required by the terms of the GPLv3 to disclose our private key in order that users can install a modified boot loader.  At that point our certificates would of course be revoked and everyone would end up worse off.

 

Microsoft can recommend to revoke a certificate, only hardware manufacturers can actually revoke a specific certificate.

 

Also I'm not saying that Microsoft is doing a good thing, but if Secure Boot is UEFI standard, then I don't see the issue in it being enabled by default. 

You mention "The reality is that this has nothing to do with "security" and Microsoft wanted UEFI to implement secure boot and have control over which hardware partners they do business with"

Nobody knows that this is true. That is merely an assumption.

▶ Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. - Einstein◀

Please remember to mark a thread as solved if your issue has been fixed, it helps other who may stumble across the thread at a later point in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be really cool if Microsoft moved forward and started providing 4GB-8GB flash drives with Windows on them, so we can start killing off optical. Of course, keep optical discs as an option, but slowly start killing them off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I'm not saying that Microsoft is doing a good thing, but if Secure Boot is UEFI standard, then I don't see the issue in it being enabled by default. 

You mention "The reality is that this has nothing to do with "security" and Microsoft wanted UEFI to implement secure boot and have control over which hardware partners they do business with"

Nobody knows that this is true. That is merely an assumption.

 

I say that Microsoft forcing all Vendors to ship with Secure boot enabled AND to this day still forcing ARM based vendors to make it impossible to disable secure boot on ARM devices that ship with Windows is more than just an "assumption" Microsoft has a long history of anti competitive practices trying to force vendors into windows and windows only, In fact lost in court precisely due to those practices.

-------

Current Rig

-------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the release of SteamOS not that far away, I see this as being completely inane.

 

So long as large companies punish paying customers to prevent those few that pirate, they will only sow the seeds of their own destruction.

 

When a person shoots someone, you don't arrest and imprison everyone that saw it happen and didn't do anything to prevent it, you go after the person that did it. WAKE THE HELL UP COMPANIES.

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont see how this is a bad thing. I guess you are out of luck if you usually pirate windows. I font see this as intrusive at all really.

Case: Phanteks Evolve X with ITX mount  cpu: Ryzen 3900X 4.35ghz all cores Motherboard: MSI X570 Unify gpu: EVGA 1070 SC  psu: Phanteks revolt x 1200W Memory: 64GB Kingston Hyper X oc'd to 3600mhz ssd: Sabrent Rocket 4.0 1TB ITX System CPU: 4670k  Motherboard: some cheap asus h87 Ram: 16gb corsair vengeance 1600mhz

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I say that Microsoft forcing all Vendors to ship with Secure boot enabled AND to this day still forcing ARM based vendors to make it impossible to disable secure boot on ARM devices that ship with Windows is more than just an "assumption" Microsoft has a long history of anti competitive practices trying to force vendors into windows and windows only, In fact lost in court precisely due to those practices.

Yes, Microsoft has had an its fair share of anti competitive practices, although Secure Boot is probably balancing on a thin line.

 

As for Windows RT devices, yes I agree with you that that is unacceptable. But our discussion was about secure boot in general.

As for forcing all vendors to enable it by default, there isn't anything anti-competitive by this. Vendors choose which certificates to add. Users can always modify the certificate database and add their own keys, See :http://jk.ozlabs.org/docs/sbkeysync-maintaing-uefi-key-databases/ on how this is done.

 

Just because there is no point and click way (yet), doesn't mean that users can't boot another distribution or anything that they want. Yes, this isn't user friendly, although that may change soon when this process may become automated (still requires user permission). 

▶ Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. - Einstein◀

Please remember to mark a thread as solved if your issue has been fixed, it helps other who may stumble across the thread at a later point in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually like this... to an extent. Will it be "always on" like they were trying to do with the xbone? I'm still thinking of getting windows 9/9.1, i hope this doesn't turn out bad.  Who knows Microsoft might do away with this if this is true i mean they were pressured into undoing some of the bad things of the xbone. like the always on and the privacy stuff.

My profile pic is the game i'm currently playing. I hope i remember to change it..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually like this... to an extent. Will it be "always on" like they were trying to do with the xbone? I'm still thinking of getting windows 9/9.1, i hope this doesn't turn out bad.  Who knows Microsoft might do away with this if this is true i mean they were pressured into undoing some of the bad things of the xbone. like the always on and the privacy stuff.

The problem is, to fix the problems on the xbone you had to get online at least once, or else you've essentially purchased a brick.

 

I wont write off windows 9 entirely, but when Steamos comes out I will definitely switch to that because obvious reasons.

 

Might dual (triple?) boot Windows 7 with SteamOS. Windows 10 is rumored to be more "cloud" based then previous versions.

How in hell are we already talking about win10? lol

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Microsoft has had an its fair share of anti competitive practices, although Secure Boot is probably balancing on a thin line.

 

As for Windows RT devices, yes I agree with you that that is unacceptable. But our discussion was about secure boot in general.

As for forcing all vendors to enable it by default, there isn't anything anti-competitive by this. Vendors choose which certificates to add. Users can always modify the certificate database and add their own keys, See :http://jk.ozlabs.org/docs/sbkeysync-maintaing-uefi-key-databases/ on how this is done.

 

Just because there is no point and click way (yet), doesn't mean that users can't boot another distribution or anything that they want. Yes, this isn't user friendly, although that may change soon when this process may become automated (still requires user permission). 

 

I disagree: messing with the boot process is far too complicated even for power users. But let's leave it at that.

-------

Current Rig

-------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

How in hell are we already talking about win10? lol

Well it's been "forever" that Microsoft has been talking about making Windows more cloud... I think back in Vista days, if I am not mistaken.

Windows 9 will be more cloud based, and the new activation system is showing this (as you can manage your activations with your systems), and I expect a few more things. Maybe more sync features like program settings sync is a possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so let me get this straight, they're going to allow me to upgrade my cpu and mobo, without having to buy another license? (assuming I'm no longer using the previous cpu and mobo)

 

At least that's what it sounds like. If they do this, then good.

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×