Claim: Microsoft Alt-F4'd Chilean government open-source install bid Microsoft successfully lobbied against a law that would have seen Chile's government adopt open-source software, says Elmostrador, a newspaper in the South American nation. The publication's report tells the tale of Vlado Mirosevic, a left-leaning politician who is the leader of the Chilean Liberal Party and its only …
Ironically, the biggest security hole in Android is Microsoft's fault.
By intentionally not adopting a free filesystem for memory cards, everyone else has been forced to use FAT32 so that usbsticks etc. wlll work on windows computers without additional drivers (which would be a show-stopper because it would bugger up their portability advantage)
The /sdcard and /extsd card are therefore FAT32, with all the problems of no ownership rights on any of the stuff (which would include your docs/photos etc.) within.
I heard somewhere that Google are now attempting a kludge to control fine grained access to memory cards, but if MS hadn't exploited their monopolistic position in the first place, this wouldn't be necessary.
> but if MS hadn't exploited their monopolistic position in the first place, this wouldn't be necessary.
trans: If Google had been allowed to just steal[*] work from other people like they do in the fields of literature (Google Books), Photography (everywhere), music, film and TV (youtube) there would have been no problem at all. Curse you Microsoft and your evil objection to Google stealing!
[*]Stealing by other corporate entities is MEAN and WRONG and should be PUNISHED but Google have beanbags so that's okay.
Yes, well that's where some of us disagree strongly. A file format for any kind of removable or portable storage should never be proprietary, because it prevents interoperability.
In your mindset, some ancient art dealer should have been allowed to copyright the concept of hanging pictures on a wall, because the wall is part of the same visual environment as the pictures on it.
"trans: If Google had been allowed to just steal[*] work from other people like they do in the fields of literature (Google Books), Photography (everywhere), music, film and TV (youtube) there would have been no problem at all. Curse you Microsoft and your evil objection to Google stealing!"
In what parallel universe could that possibly be even close to a translation of what I said?
This has nothing to do with paying MS to use the crappy single-user FS from the DOS days, that should have died 20 years ago.
They dould have adopted an implementation of one of the better, FREE alternatives, but they used their monopoly to refuse. Some of the very early cameras had different formats, and you had to insfall theor drivers to be able to download them.
As they got more popular, and started to double up as portable drives (before USB sticks / mmc cards as we know them came about) it soon became clear that it wasn't really porfable uf every computer you tried to interface too needed software installed first.
MS stuck to their guns, and now everyone uses the inferior FAT32 format.
See? Nothing to do with getting things from MS for free, or expecting them to pay for something, nothing related to "Microsofts objections to Google stealing" - a phrase you've picked up from your alterbate reality....
Anyway, I'm fully expecting that if you've just read this, no doubt in your mind I've just insulted Obama, accused Bill Gates of killing kittens, and blaned MS for the disapearence of Lord Lucan.
Go on... tell me..... am I close?!
Ironically, the biggest security hole in Android is Microsoft's fault.
Why is it a security hole? Can I pwn an Android system if I insert a FAT formatted SD card into it?
Your whole rhetoric is complete garbage anyway because Windows has supported UDF for a long time. Just like all the other Operating Systems.
Most malware programs for Android are Trojan apps with no self-propagation mechanisms that get distributed from non-official app stores.
Why is it a security hole?
Umm... because FAT doesn't support ownership or security of files?
Until recently, apps can read the files created by other apps. For example, any app is able to access your naughty photos, passwords, etc. from your SD card.
Sorry, I can't dumb it down any further.
"Umm... because FAT doesn't support ownership or security of files?
Until recently, apps can read the files created by other apps. For example, any app is able to access your naughty photos, passwords, etc. from your SD card."
Nice one, AC! I thought the point was clear, but apparently not. Thanks for spelling it out for them :-)
"Sorry, I can't dumb it down any further."
Well get practicing, because you may have to!
This post has been deleted by its author
"Why is it a security hole? Can I pwn an Android system if I insert a FAT formatted SD card into it?"
Android leverages the Unix security underneath in that every installed app runs as a unique and seperate user. But of course, FAT32 doesn't have the concept of file owners and permissions, so, yes,
A dodgy app with sdcard access has access to your photos etc., or manipulate their data files if they are residing on the sdcard. i'm not saying Google is innocent here for allowing this to occur, but as I said, the root cause has bern down to MS using their monopoly to force the crappy FAT.
Now, you could be forgiven for not knowing that, which is why I briefly explained why in my original post, assuming it was enough for a techie to grok. My apologies for not dumbing down enough for you.
"Your whole rhetoric is complete garbage anyway because Windows has supported UDF for a long time. Just like all the other Operating Systems."
So, tell me why all flash media uses FAT instead of UDF? Errr, maybe because Flash isn't a frigging optical disk, where even R/W disks can't have sectors changed as easily as on flash or a hard drive.
I hope you are trolling this shit. It would be scary if you were being sincere.
Anyway, I'm slowly removing FAT32 from everything. USB drives and flash cards are now UFS2+SU partitioned with the bsdlabel. (No MBR bollocks or GPT over-engineering who's purpose will come into effect the exact ZERO times I use them in a Windows machine)
For convenience, the android cards will be ext3 or 4, but there are still some apps that don't play well.
So, tell me why all flash media uses FAT instead of UDF? Errr, maybe because Flash isn't a frigging optical disk, where even R/W disks can't have sectors changed as easily as on flash or a hard drive.
If you knew the subject matter better you'd be aware that UDF is not limited to optical media. Which neuters your criticism completely. Perhaps I'm unable to dumb this down to your level.
You're also claiming FAT32 to be the biggest security hole. Without references of course. The biggest security hole - after users - is Google and their lax attitude for security - "Fake ID Fiasco" and the news about apps spying on other apps without permissions and so on.
"Anyway, I'm slowly removing FAT32 from everything. USB drives and flash cards are now UFS2+SU partitioned with the bsdlabel. (No MBR bollocks or GPT over-engineering who's purpose will come into effect the exact ZERO times I use them in a Windows machine)"
Erm yeah - I'm sure that will work fine - until you need to take your data to a friends machine - or print your photos in Boots, etc. etc.
Personally I just put the card in and it works. No need to screw around changing file systems.
"Ironically, the biggest security hole in Android is Microsoft's fault."
Since when were Microsoft responsibile for Davlik? Or Linux?
"The /sdcard and /extsd card are therefore FAT32, with all the problems of no ownership rights on any of the stuff "
Which 'ownership' would usually be meaningless when transferred to another device anyway.
> Er, that's you dead then.
Yeah, my Umberto Eco fandom causes endless flamewars on the Reg's forums.
(debian file/media/web server, samsung android tablet, Asus Win8 laptop, Lumia 920 and Motorola V3xx, houseful of herself's iStuff - I am no tech fanboy. I merely object to all the crap you ignorant bigots spout as if it were true).
"I merely object to all the crap you ignorant bigots spout as if it were true"
Like the MS bigots that read something about MS refusing to support anything other than FAT32 in mobile drives, and grok it as "MS won't give away theud software for free and would be upset if we stole it, the evil bastards".
Get off your high-horse - the lack of oxygen up there is turning you into a hypocritical sanctimonious twat.
Incidentally, whilst I am a Android user and developer, I've been very critical about Android in the past, and often still am. I've also had far more downvotes for negatively perceived Linux comments than windows ones, feel free to confirm that yourself, so I wonder what pigeonhole *your* biggotted close-minded brain would put me in now.
"Just one reason why I won't buy a Windows phone.
Other reasons are the words Microsoft and Windows which are synonymous with the phrase Malware Magnet."
Interesting you should mention Windows Phone - which has zero known Malware. Compared to say Android which has tens of thousands of types of Malware...
The problem is not who is lobbying, the problem is the politicians who bend their positions to whoever is offering the most advantages.
In this case it is a bit difficult to side with anybody. On the one hand, a politician with a just cause is miffed because an apparently good idea got left on the floor. On the other hand, the politician lost support. Microsoft is being blamed, and it is a lot of fun to point fingers at any big corporation, but we're being told that Microsoft didn't do anything bad, it just lobbied.
Objectively, it is not Microsoft that is at fault here, it is the politicians that withdrew their support. The people who had initially announced support for the idea of sparing government money by going for Open Source, who recanted and decided that throwing money at Microsoft is a good idea.
There is alcohol in every supermarket. The temptation is there. The fact that I do not take a bottle is my choice, not the bottle's. So Microsoft lobbied ? The coat-turners didn't have to take the bait.
In the end, it's all just another round of politics. I hate saying it, but maybe there is an acceptable reason to stay with Microsoft products for them, for the time being.
In the long term, though, Open Source will be the norm. It is inevitable.
Objectively, in an ideal world, all government contracts would be awarded only by the analysis of bids by technical experts employed by the government who are forbidden to receive any gifts from vendors, and any lobbying of politicians by vendors of anything would be illegal. Software, office stationery, arms, makes no difference. Businesses should be awarded contracts only on technical merit and cost grounds. If this was strictly adhered to, even the subtle corruption of the revolving door would go away, because the main reason behind it is that today's official uses his contacts after going to work for the vendor. Ban lobbying, no use for contacts, only for the actual technical expertise of someone who can tell a vendor what to do in terms of technology and price to maximise the chance of getting a contract.
Lobbying and kickbacks are corrosive and they always result in bad value for money.
Of course I know reform won't happen, but it is still the case that, taking human greed out of the equation, an equitable solution to procurement could be devised.
"On the other hand, the politician lost support. Microsoft is being blamed, and it is a lot of fun to point fingers at any big corporation, but we're being told that Microsoft didn't do anything bad, it just lobbied."
I think you are supposed to read between the lines here.
The reality is lobbying isn't democratic at all. It isn't an activity of equal opportunity. I have zero opportunity to lobby my government. All I can do is write to my MP about any issues I feel strongly about. On the two occasions I have tried this, both times I received a response to a letter I didn't write. On both occasions I replied pointing out this error. the explanation was that for any hot topic they get inundated by 'form' letters from grass roots campaigns and in turn create a 'form' response to those form letters.
So for the average Joe, the interaction between constituent and "democratic representative" is pretty much an automated ignore everything system.
Even if they were to listen, for an MP to reflect the wishes of their constituents would often mean defying the *whip and thus be punished by their own party.
Who tells the whips what to say? Ultimately the lobbyists after all those meetings on luxury yachts in the med & promises of future lucrative board positions etc...
We all know it's true, but no-one is willing or able to change it.
* This is a British party politics mechanism which basically removes any true representation from our so called democracy. I don't know if other "democratic" systems have a guy going round saying "you have to vote with the party line regardless of your opinion or that of the people you represent on this or we'll be slamming your bollocks between the door & door frame until the next election"?
And I think you nailed the problem.
In Chile the FOSS movement does not have a one and only voice, and of course can not hire a press agency or some experts to talk for them.
Our politicians are the most common of the lot: they don't really know what they are talking about, but get to make laws about it anyway.
To bridge that gap, they are supposed to gather information and use consultants or hire experts, something for which they have a special budget.
But of course, they don't.
The amount of money we could have saved was in the range of USD60 M/year (EUR46.5 M, GBP37 M). May be is not a big lot of money for developed countries, but for a small economy like the Chilean, it is.
Anyway, that is not the main point of the matter.
And this is not a left leaning or right leaning kind of thing.
As was eloquently expressed by Peruvian congressman Dr. Edgard Villanueva in his letter to MS representatives in Perú**, is a matter of accessibility, proprietary formats, security, interoperability and the fact that we are being held hostage by a company.
It is a shame that our congressman did not read that letter.
R
** article in El Reg with the letter of Dr. Villanueva: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/05/19/ms_in_peruvian_opensource_nightmare/
Thanks for the link to that article. Dr. Edgard Villanueva's letter is awesome!
I especially like this...
". If the transnational software companies decide not to compete under these new rules of the game, it is likely that they will undergo some decrease in takings in terms of payment for licences; however, considering that these firms continue to allege that much of the software used by the State has been illegally copied, one can see that the impact will not be very serious."
Unlikely - subsequent reports have stated that the (recently elected) mayoral staff were talking out of line, and the rest of the council have rolled their eyes at them so hard that their eyes nearly fell down the back of their throats.
Munich has sunk a lot of physical and development time into this (reportedly, not as much as subsequent MS updates would have cost) and it'd be financial suicide to rip the whole lot up and start again with current MS tech. Which no-one in Munich actually plans to do, from all accounts.
Steven R
As far as I understand the Munich thing was a case of "if it makes sense to go to MS, then we'd do it". When you put it like that, it's perfectly fine to think like that and the Munich tax payers (not sure how it is funded) should expect no less.
So I personally think the whole thing is a bit of a press invention.
"Munich has sunk a lot of physical and development time into this (reportedly, not as much as subsequent MS updates would have cost)"
According to the only third party review - it has so far cost Munich over 30 million Euros more than to stick with Microsoft would have - not including the approximately €50 million that it cost IBM to develop the 'Limux' OS that they use. And they still have to maintain Microsoft environments for ~ 20% of their users as Linux doesnt cut it. So presumably those dual support costs are still stacking up. And of course as per the user complaints - the result sucks too.
There is still huge potential gains on Munich's transition. Even *IF* it cost more on this initial transition (and right now a good chunk of this is transition/startup costs like all new ventures), most of the money stayed inside the EU, Germany, and to a lesser degree Munich itself. Thats opposed to Munich, Germany just sending a fat check to Seattle, Washington. There is a fair amount of Munich/German Government money that stayed close by in their own greater economy as it got spent instead of disappearing half a world away never to be seen again. Right now they are in the "sunk cost" initial phase, it gets cheaper from here. Kinda like building a class of ship. The FIRST one is godawful expensive, but successive ships in the same class get less expensive as economy of scale and engineering/process improvements occur.
I wonder if Bill is involved, did he promise something or perhaps promis not to. That I suppose would not be against the law. Lobbying is a fact but taking bribes, and surprise, surprise giving bribes is against the law. In this case the politicos "gave in" for reasons we don't know. The sad thing is that this happens in poor countries, like in eastern Europe, where open source would fit very well, more often.
No one really wants to end up with an Open Source desktop - it's a vastly inferior solution. This is just a common negotiating tactic against Microsoft.
After the failure of Open Source after trying for over a decade at Munich and the current consideration of migration back to Windows, together with the lack of any widespread momentum for further Open Source migrations it probably doesn't work that well these days...
MS also went in back in 2000 when then-new President Fox was eyeing FOSS for the Mexican Federal Government. Suddenly a lot of cash changed hands, and magically everything went for the Microsoap platform. However, Chile just went back to the left-leaning party, I do wonder why did they let this proposal die?
There is also no proof that Microsoft did not pay-off Chilean politicians to oppose the bill, on threat of funding their opposition and wrecking Chile's economy, much like the NRA Gun Lobby bought and subjected politicians to oppose "sensible" Gun registration regulations here in USA.
Equal consideration for Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) as viable alternative to proprietary software in quality, reliability, security and Rerturn-on-Investment (ROI) should "never" be a political football.
For Chileans to fall prey to the Mafioso style blackmail and intimidation tactics used substantially in Italy and here in USA, means that country is signing it's economic independence death certificate.
Previously there was Monsanto, US Based Tobacco companies and now draconian, bullying tactics fron technology corporations. South and Central America is further reduced to backward banana republics, controlled by money and subservience to greedy, oppressive "Capitalistic" behemoths.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
