mixedmediashop.com

My head is spinning. Windows 8 is on its way and with it comes something called ‘Secure Boot’. The controversy about this security feature has been brewing for at least a couple of months now and just a few days ago the Free Software Foundation posted a form on their site urging visitors to add their names to the following statement in the hopes of influencing government, Microsoft and computer manufacturers;

“We, the undersigned, urge all computer makers implementing UEFI’s so-called “Secure Boot” to do it in a way that allows free software operating systems to be installed. To respect user freedom and truly protect user security, manufacturers must either allow computer owners to disable the boot restrictions, or provide a sure-fire way for them to install and run a free software operating system of their choice. We commit that we will neither purchase nor recommend computers that strip users of this critical freedom, and we will actively urge people in our communities to avoid such jailed systems.’

In the opposing camp, which I assume contains many Microsoft operating system users as well the company itself, the word is that this is all a big fuss over nothing. After all, how many Linux users are there out there anyway, and why would OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) want to take on more irrate service calls from frustrated users by locking down the boot system on a computer?

Neither camp seems to be complaining about the security feature itself, which as I understand it would prevent a Windows 8 system from being infected or booted up by any other software while the computer is in the process of booting up.

The problem lies in the fact that Microsoft will only allow manufacturers to display the Windows 8 logo on computers that have this ‘secure boot’ feature enabled. Microsoft is insisting that including ‘secure boot’ controls, which might include something like say, a reasonably easy way for the user(owner of the computer) to turn the feature off or to enable an other operating system to boot up the computer, is entirely up to the manufacturers of the hardware, or the OEMs.

For more on Microsoft’s position on ‘Secure Boot’ and to get more technical details, read this blog post at ‘Building Windows 8, An inside look from the Windows engineering team’.

After considering both points of view I thought about what I want as a computer user. What I want is a good old reliable machine. I like it when a computer can get old and still be useful to someone. I know that installing a Linux operating system is one way to extend the useful life of my machine. That should have settled the issue for me but I still wanted to find out more.

Opposing points of view can be found at Zdnet.com, with Ed Bott’s post supporting Microsoft’s ‘secure boot’ and Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols’ post agreeing with the Free Software Foundation position on the issue.

It might be a ‘small’ freedom that we as computer users are giving up if we ignore this issue. Regardless of Microsoft’s intention, given the fact that there is always market pressure on manufacturers to produce their products for the lowest cost, I think that it is highly likely that many if not most of the OEMs will be producing machines that don’t contain an off button for this new security feature.

And why should they? Uninformed consumers, happy to be offered a more secure operating system, may never realize that they have lost any kind of freedom at all. Then there’s the question of what will happen to all those machines when they are old and Windows 8 is no longer the latest shiny thing. Maybe even more old computers will head to the landfills in the future?

It would be easy enough to just ignore this issue and hope that it goes away soon. After all nobody really knows just how ‘secure boot’ will be installed on most computers yet. We can hope that the whole issue will be as one blogger wrote, ‘a tempest in a tea pot’. But me, I think it might be better if more computer users check out this approaching storm now and don’t just try to wish it away.

Just last week the Free Software Directory was relaunched. The directory provides a listing of 6887 different types of free software. If you know what all of them do, you are probably a computer programmer, but even if you aren’t or you haven’t tried free software before you might find a program that helps you get your work done.

The Free Software Foundation was founded in 1985 and is located in Boston, Massachusets. Many computer users are not aware of free software or the ideals that lead to its development. According to the Foundation web site; “Free software is simply software that respects our freedom — our freedom to learn and understand the software we are using. Free software is designed to free the user from restrictions put in place by proprietary software, and so using free software lets you join a global community of people who are making the political and ethical choice assertion of our rights to learn and to share what we learn with others.” The organisation also points out that the software is ‘free’ as in liberty but not free as in ‘free beer’.

This is a social and political movement supported by individuals who believe strongly in promoting every ‘computer users’ right to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs.’ That this license does not restrict the right of individuals or businesses to sell copies of free software sounds a little confusing. But what this means is that the software may be sold, but its use may not be restricted. So if someone buys a copy of software under this license there are no restrictions on installing it on a friend’s computer for example, or on making changes to the source code and taking the software in a new or different direction. But that direction may not involve changing the license or putting restrictions on the new version of that original free software.

The free software movement has splintered from time to time and programmers who have worked on the source code for many of these projects may hold different opinions on social and political issues but they have continued to work together to create an astonishing range of software and along with many others are working towards the goal of maintaining these freedoms for computer users around the world. What is known as open source software can be seen as the result of one of these rifts, or depending on who you talk to or where you find your information, might be considered to be pretty much the same thing as free software.

Visit the Free Software Foundation site and/or sign up for their newsletter if you are interested in learning more.

About a week ago news organizations all over the world were abuzz with the news that ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) is making changes to the current system of domain name endings; that is your .com, .ca, .org or whatever. Officially these domain name endings are called generic top-level domains (gTLDs) and there are currently 22 of them. What is in the works is a plan to open up the system to applications for more gTLDs.

Take a look at ICANN’s video explaining these changes if you want to find out more;

“ICANN has opened the Internet’s naming system to unleash the global human imagination. Today’s decision respects the rights of groups to create new Top Level Domains in any language or script. We hope this allows the domain name system to better serve all of mankind,” said Rod Beckstrom, President and Chief Executive Officer of ICANN.

There are certainly high hopes and great expectations at ICANN these days.

Applications for the new .somethings won’t be accepted until 12 January 2012 to 12 April 2012. Then too, the application fee will be 185,000 dollars and only 1,000 new .things will be approved annually. After that there will be the cost of maintenance, which according to a recent article in the Globe might be rather much too.

So obviously this opportunity won’t be for the average person but rather for large organizations and corporations. I do not envy the folks at ICANN their job as big business moves to take branding to new and wonderous forms online.

Anyway I was left wondering how all this might affect me and all the rest of us who are not the decision makers in big business or non-governmental organizations. The opinion that that the gTLD .com would be devalued by the these changes came up in a couple of articles that I read.

That got me thinking about how people pick domain name endings for their sites or blogs. Most everyone I know goes for a .com first and then a .ca. After that I don’t know; maybe a .net or .org or .biz depending.

Apparently the country of Columbia has done pretty well with it’s .co and the Polynesian island nation of Tuvalu has been making income with its .tv as well. But the reasons someone would choose these .things is pretty obvious. Maybe after the ICANN changes come about we will be able to choose our .addresses with the aim of helping out and promoting a cause dear to the heart.

But all of the new gTLDs won’t necessarily be available to the public and that makes sense too. Why would you want a .thisisthebrandofmycar or a .greatgirlydoll for your website if there was no relationship to the content of your site? And certainly the corporation that owns the .something might have a few good reasons not to sell it to just anyone. They will in any case have the choice of who to sell to and what price to charge.

I think most of us are likely to stick with the .thing that is most memorable and recognizable to the audience we would like to attract. Me, I’m just hoping the browsers can handle all the new .somethings as they arrive and that the memory on our servers doesn’t brown out.