LWN: Comments on "iPod Linux lock-out defeated (PC Pro)"

Just say no

moxfyre — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:47:34 +0000

Yeah, I meant the Shuffle. Stupid me! <bangs head>

iPod Linux lock-out defeated (PC Pro)

Cato — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:31:29 +0000

On the 'strawman argument', I was responding to this post: http://lwn.net/Articles/250153/ - and I realise iPod Linux is a different topic, but it's similar in that it's getting Apple hardware to cooperate with Linux generally. I was making a wider point.

Just say no

jengelh — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:31:07 +0000

Exactly. In one point Theo de Raadt is right: "Buy Taiwanese." (or whatever is without restrictions) It is really only the fans (as in joyful supporter) and "fanatics" (as in "religious belief in one company, linux distro or other thing") who buy <big manufacturer with inferior products>.

iPod Linux lock-out defeated (PC Pro)

muwlgr — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 05:13:55 +0000

To my mind, one thing is to port&boot, say, RockBox or Linux kernel on an iPod. That I would call a reverse engineering feat which as a result brings more liberty to everyone using (not everyone selling, though) the device.

And completely different thing is to bend along latest Apple's software changes. This is like bullet vs armour competition : one day you solve and defeat Apple's locking trick, next day Apple invents a new trick against you.

I would compare this news item we are commenting now with something like 'Hack OSX to make it boot on plain PC'.

Just say no

beoba — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:00:30 +0000

The nano has a screen -- do you mean the shuffle?

iPod Linux lock-out defeated (PC Pro)

drag — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:49:16 +0000

DRM, for me, has always born some sort of relationship to attempts to prevent copyright violations.

That is you use some mechanism to try to enforce copyright law or some other semi-related thing.

This, to me, is just a attempt to make the Ipod even more broken then it is already. Apple is just being dicks and rather have you run itunes under wine or something.

Also since it's nothing to do with copyrights then there is no reason for us in the US to be worried about the DMCA. (don't know that for a fact, obviously.)

iPod Linux lock-out defeated (PC Pro)

proski — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:42:31 +0000

It's a bit harsh to say 'you bought Apple hardware, you should suffer by being locked in forever' - that sort of attitude means LWN should never report on iPod Linux ...

Strawman argument. Nobody is saying that. Besides, this story is not even about running Linux on iPod, it's about making it work with iPod. Linux has been supporting remote filesystems for ages. It's actually one of the great advantages of free software that it tries to talk to all other devices and support as many protocols and filesystems as possible. It has helped me many times. That's why I carry a Live CD around. Maybe I'll help someone extract his or her music from an iPod one day using free software.

iPod Linux lock-out defeated (PC Pro)

wrh2 — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:47:09 +0000

"I would like to understand why iPod deserves publicity at LWN"

I read LWN, but I use Linux only on servers, not as my desktop, and I don't use it solely because of the "free as in speech" advantages. Knowing that I would still be able to use my iPod if/when I eventually switch my desktop to Linux is useful information.

iPod Linux lock-out defeated (PC Pro)

proski — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:55:22 +0000

There are many iPod owners, perhaps even among friends of LWN readers. Maybe some of us will be asked whether iPod works with Linux.

iPod Linux lock-out defeated (PC Pro)

Cato — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:50:32 +0000

It's a bit harsh to say 'you bought Apple hardware, you should suffer by being locked in forever' - that sort of attitude means LWN should never report on iPod Linux, XBox Linux, and many other attempts to port Linux onto unfriendly systems, which all help to spread the word about free software.

As for the idea that this is not a DRM mechanism - if it was just an MD5 hash, it would be clearly just for database integrity, but this is essentially a digital signature that relies on secret information to sign the hash. So it's clear that Apple is trying to lock out third party modifications to the iPod, just as with the iPhone.

Just say no

moxfyre — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:14:29 +0000

> I look at it the same way I look at VLC supporting WMV formats.
>
> It's very good news because it lowers the barrier for people who want to use such things in Linux.
>
> It doesn't mean that we should encourage people to go out and use it!

I agree. I think it's good that Linux users can make full unfettered use of their iPod... but I won't buy one myself anyway.

I have a Sansa MP3 E130 player. It presents a standard USB mass storage interface (rather than the convoluted database format used by iPods), so it's easy to copy music on AND OFF from the command line. It includes an FM tuner, it supports SD cards, it uses a standard AAA battery, and it uses a standard miniB USB connector. And a screen. And costs half of what the screenless iPod nano does.

iPod Linux lock-out defeated (PC Pro)

drag — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:01:09 +0000

Then it's not even a half-harted attempt at DRM, is it? I mean it doesn't do anything to stop people from copying files off the device, does it?

It's just a half-assed, and very blatent, attempt at lock-in. Similar to, say, if a software vendor had some sort of hash restriction on a file format.. say for a CAD drawing or something. Except this is just a hardware device instead of a file format.

So if there is no attempt to protect against any sort of copyright violation then there is no tie in to the DMCA... right? So it's legal to include in US-destined software.

Just speculating, I am no lawyer.

Just say no

drag — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:29:38 +0000

I look at it the same way I look at VLC supporting WMV formats.

It's very good news because it lowers the barrier for people who want to use such things in Linux.

It doesn't mean that we should encourage people to go out and use it!

Personally I am only going to buy devices that are easy to support. I don't want to fight my own hardware in order to follow some social fad or fasion like what Ipods are.

For example Iaudio has nice devices that are used like any other simple mass storage device. They even advertise Linux support. (even though none of the supplied software works in Linux)

Plus they are generally cheaper, plus they generally sound better then Ipods.

iPod Linux lock-out defeated (PC Pro)

bluss — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:14:59 +0000

> Do we have any indication at all that this change by Apple was ever intended to lock out competing programs (e.g. on Linux) feeding an iPod?

The indication is that the hash was not based only on the database; it was the hash of a blob of database data combined with some kind of device-specific id number and some secret sauce (a "formerly secret number", as mentioned in the article). If data integrity was the only concern, then the database would be the only thing to hash.

iPod Linux lock-out defeated (PC Pro)

rfunk — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:08:10 +0000

There are lots of Linux programs that (used to) work with the iPod. If
not for this news I wouldn't have even known that Apple was trying to
lock out Linux people.

iPod Linux lock-out defeated (PC Pro)

xuxa — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:55:17 +0000

I totally agree that we should do our best to spend our money in line with our ideals. But don't be too hard on these hackers... there's good in what they do too.

Most people new to the free software movement come with locked devices. It's a fantastic thing when these new members' devices can be freed.

Reverse-engineering also empowers the reuse of older devices. There are now a lot of first and second-generation iPods that the latest-hottest-coolest-device-seeking consumer doesn't want anymore, but that can be put to good use as linux audio recorders, for example. To me, these redeployments of old hardware through reverse-engineered software are the very best, most revolutionary options -- all the freedom without so much of the consumption.

iPod Linux lock-out defeated (PC Pro)

hpp — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:32:26 +0000

Do we have any indication at all that this change by Apple was ever intended to lock out competing programs (e.g. on Linux) feeding an iPod?

Adding a checksum to a database file is avery useful mechanism to detect corruption or incomplete syncs and Apple can make changes like that without intending to lock out other programs. A hash-based checksum is quite a different thing than a digital signature, which is well within Apple's means to implement and would have been much harder to defeat.

iPod Linux lock-out defeated (PC Pro)

jamesh — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:31:49 +0000

A "Plug in your iPod here for free sample tracks!" kiosk be an interesting social experiment.

Given that plugging most music players into a USB dock grants both read and write access, such a kiosk could covertly record the user's listening preferences (for iPods, they could probably get away with just downloading the itunesdb, which they'd need to modify anyway to upload a new song). I bet most people wouldn't even consider that such a thing was possible.

iPod Linux lock-out defeated (PC Pro)

muwlgr — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:55:04 +0000

I would like to understand why iPod deserves publicity at LWN. Why any poor souls working hard on cracking Apple's protections should get any light here. They chose to be locked in what Apple offers to them. Let them live with that. Who is aware about vendor lock-in, should just ignore Apple in favor of more open and replaceable technologies.

Just say no

dskoll — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:33:45 +0000

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, it's good to defeat DRM. On the other, this might encourage Linux users to buy Apple hardware, and that's a bad thing. We should make it clear with our wallets that we will not buy restrictive hardware. Otherwise, there's no incentive for manufacturers to behave decently.

iPod Linux lock-out defeated (PC Pro)

dmarti — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:14:27 +0000

DRM doesn't have to be good enough to defeat the user -- under the DMCA, it only has to be enough of a barrier to deter any VCs who might have invested in a company that offers a compatible product or service. (Imagine a "Plug in your iPod here for free sample tracks!" kiosk at a mall, a less time-consuming competitor for those "free song on iTunes" promotions.)