Slashdot Mirror
AMD Opteron to support Palladium
Jim Norton writes "This article is just a reminder that AMD is just as guilty as Intel in supporting TCPA / Palladium. AMD has announced that Opteron will be compatible with the Palladium Initiative and that AMD is part of the 'Trusted Computing Alliance'."
Might as well buy the cheaper, better, restricter of our rights. Still beats Intel.
Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=6, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=12. (not mine)
grr
It's not that companies like AMD and Intel particularly like this effort. As hardware/chip/part manufacturers, it's just more work for them. They support the inititive because they need to stay on Microsoft's good side in the up coming x86-64/itanium battle.
So no one is going to make processors that don't suck ass for one reason or another now? Perfect. Just perfect.
And please, don't say anything about Cyrix.
-Xuff
Homepage & W
AMD is no different than Intel.
Not to be Trolling or anything...
:-)
But every one should switch to the bunny foo-foo Macintosh.
*pats G4*
Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.
Karma whorin' since 1999
Note that apparently the Opteron (Autobots, transform!), will support untrusted/unlicensed content as well. [neowin.net].
What's the deal? Are AMD and Intel just trying to drive me off the x86 platform or what?
What I don't get is what AMD says about Opting-in. Will we really be able to just "turn it off" in CMOS or something? Or does that mean "if you don't like it, don't buy the chip"?
I don't see the point of it if we can just turn it off at will. Lets see, CMOS settings, Do you want Microsoft to be able to delete content on your computer without your knowledge and do you want this chip to refuse to run on many programs? Yes or no.
And here I'd been waiting for one of these to power my next computer. Oh well, Apple or Sun I guess.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
Sad they do this just to get microsofts support in the next windows for the hammer
AZTEK
Not a huge issue, just don't use an OS that supports Palladium.
Unless there is some killer feature Palladium has that makes unenabled OS's useless.
Ceck out the update on The Inquirer here. According to AMD, TCPA support will be optional, with users being able to opt out.
AMD also said you could opt in whether to use this type of technology or not. So it's not really a problem until it becomes illegal to use a non-palladium operating system (do you think we will see the day?)
But anyway, I digress. Read this post if you're too damn lazy to read the article and want to whine. AMD is not the one that should be flamed/beaten/death threatened -- they needed this so they can continue to support versions of Windows. This doesn't buh-bye Linux and OSS, and it doesn't mean we're all going to be the *AA's bitches. No, AMD is taking an opt-in, pro-consumer stance here. It's there, but it doesn't mean that it has to be used.
Karma whorin' since 1999
Another example of ineffective enforcement of questionable goals inflicted on the masses while not really hindering those truely bent on circumvention. I doubt many are jumping at the chance to add a DRM framework to the Linux kernel. I, for one, would help cauterize it.
All my previous sigs now look like this one, I wish they were permanetly recorded when used.
What's this one do?
I guess it's time to call Apple and start the screenplay for my 'Switch' commercial.
There -is- an upside, though... at least I'll get a really good Aqua interface. I haven't been able to get close enough with gtk/sawfish/gnome. =)
..start buying 'old' processors and set up your own cluster.. you won't need new CPU for a while :)
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
AMD will enable Palladium like they lock the multiplier. Connect the L2 bridge with a pencil and the DRM is gone. Lets keep our fingers crossed.
Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=6, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=12. (not mine)
To Run Linux on the opteron. Seriously, I think all these DRM moves by MS our great, /. should welcome them, it will just speed up the world migration to Linux. There even seems to be a lot more interest in Linux these past few weeks on usenet since certain "free" winxp installtions can't use sp1.
What is the point of this silicon wasting idea? That it will stop people from copying music? From downloading copies of the Internet or sharing copies with friends? ...
Will the rest of the chip still work as usual? _If_ so, I still don't get it
Sven
If so I don't see too much of a problem.
It will prevent terrorism. You're a terrorist if you are against the TCPA. The TCPA should be mandated by law with harsh prison sentences for those who don't follow it.
Here's the revised link: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5489
Thats the only way to go. Anyways, PCs just workl fine. How good is transmeta? or any of teh oterh chips? Any "free" chips around? mebbe we need a new GNU GPL type tag for chips too. Coporates will end up paying throuigh tehir nose over teh next few years for all this.
TCPA is more strict then palladium but TCPA is founded by Intel, IBM, HP and a few other players who are more sympathetic to linux then Microsoft.
TCPA is already secretly installed by default on most IBM machines but the good news is you can turn it off and run linux on them. IBM is one of the biggest investors of TCPA and has also invested more then a billion into linux. They will make sure linux will run on TCPA hardware or that TCOA can easily be turned off. However microsoft's palladium will be built into memory modules and the cpu itself. Ouch. I do not know if you can turn these off. Microsoft's palladium faq states that you can still run old non trusted apps but admits linux can not run due ot legal rather then technical reasons. TCPA is more strict from a technical standpoint but it has proven itself that it can be easily disabled and I trust IBM a hell of alot more then Microsoft concerning my interests.
If worse comes to worse macs are always an option. It will take forever before apple is done designing motherboards with the new IBM powerpc chip's( last quarter 2003) which means g4's will stay for another year or two with slow memory access(sdram). Sure the new macs come with ddr but the internal chipset slows it down to sdram 133 speeds because the g4's suck so much.
http://saveie6.com/
But it will also refuse to play certain content if it is not digitally signed by Microsoft or an authorised party.
I'm still very perplex by these assertions, since really, playing an mp3 has no tie to the kernel (you decode in user mode, you send to a wave device).
That implies that a) the chip will restrict access to the wave device, b) it will restrict access to files...
Both sound kinda ludicrous to me... Would that mean games will have to digitally sign their sound fx? If not, will the kernel have some way of knowing *what* a file contains (semantically)? CPUs are simple devices, they don't do stuff like "POUR cupofcoffe in eax IF coffeemaker = full" ... no they do simple stuff like "INC eax".
I really think there will be ways to circumvent this thing pretty fast. What scares me is the fact that they think having such a chip will somehow assert the OS currently running has not been tampered with, and hence it can't be a malicsious OS... and at that point send in work loads from different users (basically making a big trusted network). This is just an invitation for mass viruses and global chaos.
Well if there are more factors as you say then WTF are they? Why don't you share a few with us?
I have one: AMD wants to stay in business. M$ is THE ONLY OS that works with most every peripheral and software package on a consistant basis. Why? Because M$ is a monopoly and everyone knows it. I want to be a Linux fan but there is no Linux company that will get off their ass and make a version where I don't have to compile shit. The end user should not have to recompile the kernel. Linux has a great future but that is the FUTURE. AMD needs an OS NOW. Since linux can't do it who else will? M$. Businesses are here to make money and to stay afloat AMD went ahead an sold their souls. Would you have it that Intel was the only processor company out there? I certainly wouldn't.
You all run Linux!
Hey, are drugs on Slashdot allowed??
I read about this yesterday, and I got worried. However, I read more, and discovered that you can disable Palladium if you choose, unlike the Intel implementation (I'm assuming you can't, nothing was said about it).
Happy New Year, it's 1984!
Is this something from which we cannot Opt-er-out?
I'll get my coat.
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5489
/.ers?
"Comments that looked like they were from Pat Moorhead on an Aussie Web site are not from Pat Moorhead, the firm has just told us.
In fact, according to an AMD UK representative, AMD's Opteron products will run any kind of content in the future -- contrary to the report in The Age, on which our original report, below, was based.
Part of the content in The Age failed to distinguish between comments Moorhead made and conjecture, AMD said.
AMD, in fact, claims it is the "good guy", and even though it is a member of the "trusted computing" initiative, will allow users to opt in whether to use this type of technology or not.
"There is nothing [in Hammer] that could actually prevent a user running unlicensed content," the representative from AMD said."
Make damn sure to check the most current of facts before posting FUD, fellow
------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
Are geeks going to emigrate en masse to Via and IBM cpus?
This topic normally results in a knee-jerk reaction on my part, but now that i think about it, what good will this do. I'm not real worried about palladium making its way into my processor. How will they stop piracy in the processor (unless its something along the lines of a serial number--and we've been there once already). Seeing as how the cpu executes instructions (and doesn't have any idea what the hell its really doing, both decoding an mp3 and playing the latest game would logically seem the same--just a set of instructions). Do they have another way of doing this--figuring out the context of these instructions? I realize the next MS OS could tell the cpu not to execute, but then again, there's a lot easier ways to do this than by building in additions to the instruction set.
OTOH, I do see this as a precursor to palladium getting into the motherboards (and hard drives), which scares the hell out of me (too much power in MS's hands if you ask me). BUT, as has been pointed out, what about the nonMS OS's. We should be fine there for quite some time (I speculate).
The main effects I see coming from this are hindering mainstream (average) windows users (the casual computer user). Since I use windows regularly for work, but linux for personal. I don't see a whole lot to get me worked up just yet.
Anyway.. I digress..
E
Maybe... just MAYBE 1.8 Ghz with win98 or linux or whathaveyou is fast enough. I STILL use my old p166 for the majority of my "work" related activities (email, word processing, etc), I doubt I'm going to find an app any time soon that wont run well on my 1.8 Ghz monster. Bet my p166 is still chugging along 5 years down the road, too.
-jhon
AMD, Intel and ALI all will support Palladium, yes...but Intel's will be directly built into the CPU while AMD's and ALI's will be only chipset support.
With the AMD platform one can indeed avoid Palladium altogether with a VIA, SIS or Nvidia chipset...ones which will have no such support for Palladium.
I bet Steve Jobs is jumping for joy right now. He has a secure OS that doesn't intrude on the user or what he can do.
Apple just needs to market the hell out of this.
My G4 Tower looks like a better investment everyday.
AMD has stated their plans for DRM many times and in those statements they mention that their next generation of CPU's won't feature true DRM functions. On the other hand their chipsets will...
This whole thing came up days ago in the cpu/hardware sites & AMD had the inquirer toss the trash out (they had picked up the story from The Age). Apparently that was some creative writing on the part of The Age with that story.
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
Do you think the CPU has any idea if it's rendering a 3D scene or playing an MP3 or decompressing a JPEG or spell-checking a document? Let alone know if the files are copyrighted or not.
That's up to the OS and individual applications to (try to) determine and enforce.
The only thing that changes in a "secure" CPU is the fact that programs and (especially) the operating system will be able to identify that CPU uniquely (by a serial number), similar to what the Pentium III already does (but you can turn it off on the PIII, and I think also on the P4). Then some programs will probably refuse to play certain files if they're not tagged with that CPU id. Ex., if you buy a "secure" song on-line, or if you rip one of your CD's, it probably won't play on your friend's computer (or on yours if you change the CPU, and that's why MS needs to work with CPU makers, to make sure the CPU id can be managed by the OS).
The rest is just a lot of marketing hype to get money out of the RIAA and similar associations. "See, we are working on this 'secure' hardware that won't play copyrighted music, but it's very expensive to develop and we really don't have enough money, what with this recession and everything, so if you could fork over a couple of million, we'd appreciate it..."
It's a potential gold mine for (some) IT companies, just like the Y2K bug.
RMN
~~~
Stick with what you got. Who needs another Ghz of CPU? Aside from gamers, who have my sympathy, most other users out there don't come close to really needing all the power currently in their CPUs. So just don't buy it. You won't feel the difference.
cleetus
Microsoft is a business.
All the movie/music studios are businesses.
AMD/Intel are businesses.
Businesses desire money.
Studios have outdated business models.
Studios scream for protection from this "evil technology"
MS sells protection from "evil technology"
(after garnering support from big chipmakers)
(speculation from here on out)
Studios get behind MS to promote new found friend in technology.
MS points finger to nonPalladium OSs as "evil"
Studios join propaganda bandwagon.
The computing world becomes a darker place.
Never underestimate cleverly planned business strategy, or it may just come back and bite you in the ass.
update your stock of chips now. you won't need this 10GHz chip that soon. Only Intel, AMD etc. try to talk you into believing you will.
maybe it's just me, but a lot of products, after they ship, have security flaws, despite best intentions and due diligence.
I wonder what AMD (or Intel) would do if the hardware the produce have flaws discovered after they ship.
-- Frank Hsueh, frank.hsueh@gmail.com
"Moorhead, AMD's vice-president of consumer advocacy, dismisses consumer complaints that the ever-tightening noose designed to stop online piracy, known as Digital Rights Management (DRM), will erode existing rights.
But he says AMD believes that these technologies should be "opt-in" - that the user should control it - not government mandates."
Two things. I wonder if Mr Moorehead would accept a full DRM computer? It's always easier to impose something draconian on others if you don't have to suffer them yourself.
Second if it is indeed an "opt-in"[1] then what's the point of having it in the first place?
[1] Some thing may indeed be switchable, but companies that want to excercise their "IP" could simple make it a "you want what we have, then you have to turn it on". Negating the difference between "opt-in" and "opt-out".
The Inquirer misunderstood TCPA and the article in The Age and posted a story entitled "AMD's Opteron will reject unlicensed content". AMD then contacted The Inquirer and told them that TCPA support can be turned off (in any case TCPA is about keeping licensed content in a "secure" sandbox and not somehow preventing the playing of MP3s etc), and so The Inq updated their article:
AMD, in fact, claims it is the "good guy", and even though it is a member of the "trusted computing" initiative, will allow users to opt in whether to use this type of technology or not.
Chris Tom of AMDZone then sees the update and the changed headline, fails to read or at least understand the article, and claims this means Opteron/K8 does not support TCPA. And so we arrive at this point, via a process of chinese whipsers and general cluelessness.
The {CPU,chipset,whatever} will refuse to load an kernel that is not signed with a "trusted" key (which you, the user, certainly will not have). The kernel, in turn, must limit the capabilities of un-signed programs (or just refuse to run them) in order to get signed in the first place. No compiling your own kernel, no running your own software, just an appliance that you pay for the privilege of continuing to use. Get it now?
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5489
But if you read [H]ard|OCP you'd have known this days ago. Go slashdot. Keeping up with the news.
Hollywood and the music industry are lobbying hard to make DRM mandatory in all new devices
Once the TCPA system becomes more widespread, Hollywood will have less room to bitch because there will be a Secure Memory Space(tm)(patent) in the most popular consumer operating system, and Hollywood studios will be able to provide Video On Demand services within that space.
and existing laws here and in the US make it a crime to switch it off.
Not exactly. The Palladium and TCPA systems simply provide a way to lock down data such that only specific applications running on one machine can use it. In order for Palladium or TCPA to actually restrict anything, the content provider must make the choice to lock down the data (conforming Compact Discs are not considered locked down). This doesn't give the RIAA labels an absolute oligopoly, as it's still possible for artists to Not Lock Down(tm) their .ogg files.
The public TCPA information stresses that only TCPA apps will use the TCPA memory space. Microsoft's Palladium materials make the same claim. And you'll apparently be able to turn off the systems in the BIOS setup, which will have only one effect: apps that use those systems will throw up an alert box to the effect "The locked document 'Love Me Now.wma' could not be opened because Palladium was not found." They do NOT force all documents to be locked documents.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Guys, remember again that even though AMD and Intel are the most well-known x86 chipmakers, they are not the best, nor the only ones.
Transmeta Crusoe processors are starting to beat their way into the mainstream, slowly but surely, and not only will they most likely not support the TCPA, but they have less of a thermal load, use less power, and are going to find their way into smaller devices, yet still be compatible with x86 software.
Then again, VIA, I believe, has its own x86 compatible chips on its Mini-ITX mobos.
So don't despair. But when Transmeta starts saying that they'll support TCPA, thats when I'm going to start stocking up on Coppermines and Xeon-4s.
ERROR - the application 'vmlinux' caused a general protectionnism fault in module mshwcheck.dll (0x00000000:00) [error code 1: microsoft-untrusted code]. please reinstall a microsoft operating system, or the ms-police will be notified.
"player 4 hit player 1 with 0 stroms"
Has Transmeta been forgotten?
so instead of forcing just lusers to upgrade their software and parting with their dirty money they can just change the hardware once in a while to force the upgrade, say lets make it every 6 months. yeah thats a good idea...
i dont know how this is different to all the other copy protection things there are since it really comes down to the software even though there is a hardware component. so 'fix' the software and potentially bypass the palladium chip.
drm chips will be in hard drives and all other hardware components. what a waste of clock cycles.
What I don't get is what AMD says about Opting-in. Will we really be able to just "turn it off" in CMOS or something?
Yes. If you turn off Palladium in your BIOS's setup program, then there will be only one effect: you won't be able to open locked documents. Publishers make the choice whether or not to lock a document. For instance, an independent recording artist could still publish unlocked .ogg files via HTTP or via Gnutella (PROVIDED that he has licensed the underlying musical works).
Will I retire or break 10K?
On their FAQ about Palladium they say several interesting things:
A nexus, what we used to refer to as a "nub" or "trusted operating root," is essentially the kernel of the "Palladium"-isolated software stack. so that would make it somewhat of the BIOS for the hardware Palladium features.
Anyone can write a nexus for "Palladium," but the user always has the ultimate authority over what nexuses are allowed to run on top of the "Palladium" hardware. That would mean very soon we have 'null-nexuses' out there that say "shhhhuuure RIAA, I'll encrypt and sign that CD I just ripped."
And last and probably also a lie: The users are always in control over whether "Palladium" is enabled on their PC and what nexuses have access to specific "Palladium" functions.
All of these and more on: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default. asp?url=/technet/security/news/PallFAQ2.asp
Todays systems are fast enough for just about anything you want to do in the next 10 years. Start stockpiling system. Hell, build a cluster in your basement and just keep adding systems to it.
We don't need to seekin DRM!
From the same FAQ you link to:
Q: Can Linux, FreeBSD or another open source OS run on "Palladium" hardware?
A: Virtually anything that runs on a Windows-based machine today will still run on a "Palladium" machine (there are some esoteric exceptions[1]). If you currently have a machine that runs both Linux and Windows, you would be able to have that same functionality on a "Palladium" machine.
[1] These exceptions include the following:
Some debuggers may need to be updated to work in the "Palladium" environment, but they can still work.
Some special performance tools may need to be updated.
Software that writes directly to TCPA hardware will need to be updated.
Memory scrub routines (at the hardware level) will need attention.
Third-party crash dump software may need to be updated.
BIOS mode hibernation features will need to be updated to work with "Palladium."
Chances are that I will want a processor like Opteron in my home computer. Of course at home I don't want the hassles of Palledium or any TCPA for that matter.
Still in a serious enterprise computing environment, I do not believe that Palledium or other TCPA systems will create more problems than they cure. There are probably a couple sys admins out there that might like to see their users using signed content.
In case you hadn't noticed, businesses are having a little difficulty in the integrity and confidence realm.
Enterprises spend a shitload of money on architecture. If they want tools to keep themselves honest, the market will oblige. But I don't think enterprises with money in the bank are going to be hurting to find a non-Palledium processor.
I have a sincere question.
If, as the article claims, the decoding of A/V happens at ChipLevel, and with Palladium, A/V without a license key will not decode, what does this mean for me? I am a musician, independent, and with little marketability considering the industries standards.
I do wonder if perhaps this will make it either next to impossible or seriously cost prohibitive to produce music without paying a distribution/cartel licensing fee to the content industry.
Palladium means that anyone who wants to be able to view Palladium-protected media will have to have Palladium-compliant hardware. It's a goddamn goldmine for Intel and AMD! Imagine all the people who wouldn't otherwise bother to upgrade buying new chips so they can watch their DVD movies or whatever. That's a large amount of sales.
Software piracy is victimless theft.
companies that want to excercise their "IP" could simple make it a "you want what we have, then you have to turn it on". Negating the difference between "opt-in" and "opt-out".
Perhaps that could be true for movies given the current cost of feature film production, but for music in the popular genres, the RIAA labels have a lot of competition from independent bands who publish some of their singles via unlocked documents such as .ogg and .mp3 files. (Being independent has drawbacks: you don't get Clear Channel airplay, and licensing musical works to perform becomes expensive.) So what if opting out of Palladium means opting out of the RIAA?
Will I retire or break 10K?
the fact that http://www.transmeta.com/ is possibly working on great things that are under wraps, and by all logic it will be very Gnu/Linux compatable. ;)
Doesnt the logo look a WHOLE lot like the debian swirl?
Libranet GNU/Linux - Excellent Debian Based Distro http://www.libranet.com Check it out!
once theyre in place make aol/msn/etc require it
AOL Time Warner's "America Online" service wants the biggest market it can get, including older computers that were manufactured before the Itanium and Opteron processors will have become popular. I don't see AOL requiring Palladium in the foreseeable future, except perhaps for some premium Warner content.
Will I retire or break 10K?
What's a Transmeta?
...and the fact that you can turn off serial # identification by way of a simple bios option, I don't think it should be forgotten that Intel's initial plan was to hardwire the s# so that it would not be bios configurable. Only after puclic complaint did they rework it to allow bios configurability and make it optional.
As I see it a similar s# scheme, in conjunction with software, would be the only approach that might actually work. It would be difficult indeed to deny your actions if they can be directly correlated to a unique cpu serial number which cannot be defeated. (However, the conjunctive software might well be defeated, but that's another issue.)
On the topic of AMD I think they are as likely to reject such a plan as they rejected it for Athlon the first time Intel introduced it. The only thing in this regard which has a chance is the current cpu s# which is bios configurable, and that I'm not even sure about (too many loopholes there to ensure 100% reliability for transaction security.)
Shut the fuck up and buy a sparc. Sun has designed the CPU from the ground up to run unix. The cpu has features you would never dream of finding in intel or powerpc environments and solaris is the most advanced unix in the world, period. You can even run linux on your sparc if you feel the need to stick to stick to your GPL software or run OpenBSD if you are ultra-paranoid. The sparc platform is just hands down amazing. Intel and AMD are doing you a favor by driving you away from the x86 platform!
Ok, so the US gets all this restrictive legislation passed - the cabal has their way and implements hardware DRM to enforce it while the rest of the world has a good belly laugh. The arrogance to think that there won't be alternative hardware available from Asia - or anywhere else for that matter - is stupifying.
The emerging markets for new technology is not the US but the parts of the world that don't have it now. If MS, Intel, etc are only selling locked down software on 4GHZ chips, why wouldn't a consumer in say China choose Linux/BSD/etc on a say a VIA processor and chipset that doesn't implement DRM?
This is all such a waste... and economic suicide for US technology companies. To think they can impose their self interests outside their borders - after they thumb their nose at organizations such as the world court - is inexplicable.
This nonsense can't be enforced and in the end the 'bootleg' companies will win.
Prohabition, speakeasys and organized crime - funny how history repeats itself.
Oh shit, somebody forgot about Transmeta! Quick, somebody e-mail their 3 users!
Processor may refuse to execute code segment unless it is signed, so f.e. it (the processor) will expect a signature to be present in memory along with the code. Obviously the code mast be signed with a private key of some "authority", and publick key is the part of processor's microcode... In this scenario Linux or anything else, which is "not authorized", will never work, it won't even start...
Don't be stupid (though, after reading you message, I don't think you can help it), the CPU doesn't "load the kernel", it just executes instructions, one (or a few) at a time. It's like a calcualtor; it has no idea what it's being used for. 99.9% of the DRM is on the software; the hardware just has to report unique ids to the OS so the files can be tied to a specific computer.
Read this article...4 89
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5
somebody around here screwed up.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
"Send an Instant Karma to me" - Yes
what about crusoe? i haven't heard anything from transmeta about supporting any form of DRM.
"Martha Stewart can lick my Scrotum......do i have a scrotum?" -- Sharon Osbourne
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5489
someone from slashdot.... get an official comment from amd. please.....
thank you.
"Martha Stewart can lick my Scrotum......do i have a scrotum?" -- Sharon Osbourne
I personally would have no problem if my Linux Distribution was Palladium certified. That is, I would feel better if I knew that the linux distibution I was executing was the same, untampered version that was distributed by the organization that distributed it. I'm sure many businesses would love this feature as well.
The issue to me is not that the boot process can be digitally signed and certified. The issue is *whose* certifications can be used. Obviously, if only M$'s certifications can be used, this is completely unacceptable.
If I build my own kernel, *I* want to be able to sign and certify it. Every time I boot, I can then be guarenteed that no one has sneaked a modified version of this kernel into my system without me knowing about it.
The issue is: *who* gets to install their certificate into the boot process. If this is an open process, which allows the owner of the computer system to install *their* certificate (if they so choose), then I don't really see a problem here.
Instead of fearing Palladium, we should be trying to ensure that the owner of the computer has the right and capability of installing their own certificate into the boot process.
This would overcome one criticism of open source systems: that someone could change the source code and somehow slip a modified version of the executable in place of the original.
Let AMD allow us to turn this Evil off in the BIOS!
now didn't we? Maybe instead of flooding congress now we need to start a paper-war with the chip makers.
Buy a great machine right now, and hang on to it for as long as possible. For the future maybe there are smaller chip makers that are not planning on going this route. I predict a big surge in home-made PCs again, just so tech types can get what they really want. It's possible someone at the Mac front may see the opportunity here. After all, their motto is "Think different"
This is exactly why DRM on hardware can never work - hardware works at a very low level and cannot identify specific documents or files, those are controlled by the OS and by software.
So this is another good reason to run Linux or any other non-proprietary OS. The hardware by itself will never be able to detect / prevent you from creating, playing or copying files based on their content. The CPU just executes instructions. Simply don't run Microsoft software and you can ignore Palladium altogether.
I may end up buying a LOT of P4s in a big, big hurry.
Law 3) Require DRM hardware to ONLY run DRM-compliant software (not too hard to imagine).
Neither TCPA nor Palladium does this.
That's the end of legal free (and Free) software in the USA.
The federal government uses Free software. The news media use Free software (largely in BSD and Linux based web servers). Heck, two-thirds of the Big Nine media publishers (MPAA studios and RIAA labels), such as AOL Time Warner, Sony, BMG, Fox, Paramount, and Universal, run free web server software such as Apache or AOLserver on their web sites. (Disney and EMI run IIS, and MGM runs Netscape Enterprise Server.)
Will I retire or break 10K?
I didn't know what to think of palladium, but then I realized two things; this might make the MPAA less squeamish about releasing content specifically for computers, and I mostly make my own content anyway, or download it from other small, independant sources.
The only thing which this could cause problems with would be if I downloaded movies and MP3s off of kazaa, but since I have a 56k connection, I don't bother.
I can't blame the evil powers that be for trying *something* to protect their interests, and to be honest, I'd rather have it so I need the new kickass AMD processor than have it so the MPAA and RIAA can DoS everyone they please or suing the creators of a GPL'd DVD Player.
So who wants to do something about the latter measures?
It's been a long time.
"{CPU,chipset,whatever...}": the set of hardware that together enforces the rules. The "Fritz" chip does the validation, but the CPU and possibly other things are involved; it's not clear from the documentation I've had access to. If the entire extent of the CPU's involvement is that it has a unique ID, that doesn't change anything; it's unlikely that you'll be able to buy a Fritzless motherboard and handle the CPU in isolation.
Don't like Palladium - write to Intel and AMD and tell them
that you won't buy processors that support Palladium.
Intel backed-off CPU-ID's (for the Pentium III) quickly when
they realized that it would cost them sales. In general,
pissing off your best customers is not a smart long term
business practice.
If you write - remember: be concise and polite:
Intel:
Chairman: Andy S. Grove
CEO: Craig R. Barrett
Corporate Offices:
2200 Mission College Blvd.
Santa Clara, California 95052, USA
AMD:
Chairman: W. J. Sanders III
CEO: Hector de J. Ruiz
Corporate Offices:
One AMD Place
P.O. Box 3453
Sunnyvale CA 94088, USA
[Insert pithy quote here]
I'm moving to a country where big business isn't a total asshole. Geez, screw the whole bunch of jerk off over-stepping their boundaries.
Okay, so HardOCP was reporting on this twelve hours ago, and had a correction up almost immediately - and slashdot can't get it right the next day? This is just pathetic - and it can hurt public opinion regarding a company that, at least at the moment, will provide the only decent alternative to Intel's DRM supporting processor. Not a good thing, guys.
AIX supports something they call the Trusted Computing Base and it has to be chosen to be installed at install time. I basically has alot of things to make sure things stay as secure as possible. If this is anything like that, then I don't see how or why Palladium needs to be implemented in hardware. AIX does not have anything specific in the hardware to support TCB. It's a modified Kernel. I did not say that they don't have serials out the wazoo. They do. But noone is concerned about TCB on AIX. Even if it isn't the same, I see some of the same features in Palladium as the TCB has on AIX. Basically, I would like to see hardware and software first before I come out against it. It may be we are all just freking out about nothing. If it does come out, well, my computers fast enough now and does everything I need to do except for a vew things, and plenty of non palladium machines are out already. Just use the old stuff until they realize it won't sell. Passport flopped because noone wants it. Palladium could fail just the same. All I would like to see/fight against is the REQUIREMENT that this stuff be run.
Gorkman
How will it prevent virtual machine from interacting with virtual hardware that doesn't happen to enforce any restrictions?
Windows will detect "VMware Brand PC without Palladium support" and refuse to load the Palladium driver, and Palladium apps will refuse to open locked documents. However, AOL's Winamp media player won't need a Palladium driver to play .ogg, .mp3, or any other unlocked format that independent recording artists publish (PROVIDED that they have licensed the underlying musical composition).
Will I retire or break 10K?
Yes, and for good reason.
Transmeta had something interesting in their code morphing software, but they didn't make use of it. Instead all they ever managed to produced is a butt-slow x86 processor that used an ass-backwards way of getting x86 compatability.
Their only saving grace was that, for a while, they had lower powered chips then the other companies out there, however even that has been eliminated with the ULV PIIIs and the VIA C3 chips. Once Intel's Banias chip is available, that'll be the final stake in Transmeta's coffin if someone hasn't bought them up by that time.
Ohh, and yes, I am aware that I have been speaking of Transmeta in the past-tense. They're a dead company. They'll probably be bought out by someone who has some potential uses for their code morphing software. My guess is IBM, but there are other possibilities.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of x86 computers...!
How many 8088 processors are still running? How many 80286's? Every time I find somebody's old IBM XT or AT collecting dust in a closet, it turns out the thing still powers up/boots just fine.
The point is, the expected lifetime of a modern CPU should be plenty long enough to outlast the next couple generations of new chips. If you need more processor power and refuse to move to the newer generation of CPU, you could very well add more of the older systems to a cluster instead. By the time they all reached their "end of life" - you'd probably be at the point where things changed so dramatically, DRM was the least of your concerns.
That's complete nonsense.
I disagree. He stated that Palladium can be disabled. It's a technical fact, and it also happens to be correct. Not nonsense.
Like playing Quake 3, or Counter-Strike? Better enjoy them while you can...soon you won't be able to play them without palladium enabled.
a) Learn about Quake. Quake's insane success was mostly because of massive online acceptance which was mostly due to piracy. This increased the value of the game, and sold more copies. id admitted as much. Quake is without a doubt the single *worst* example you could have chosen of a piece of software having incentive to have strong DRM. Almost any other piece of software would be a more valid argument.
b) This is tough for Windows warez-playing gamers. I have a tough time feeling sorry for them. It'll never affect Linux -- to do Palladium, you'd need universal blessed, signed binaries of the kernel. That will happen when hell freezes over, because Linus can't even stand distribution of binary code, much less universalized binary code.
May we never see th
Looks like Crusoe could be a nice alternative if you still want to keep on using the x86 instruction set and avoid Palladium. Otherwise, its time that maybe you asked yourself how much your freedom is worth and switched to the Mac.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
*Trusted* Computing? Jeze. Don't you mean Restrictive Computing?
These TCPA companies are so concerned with the wants and needs of consumer. Long live the free fucking market.
It does live on.
Suppose someone comes up with truly unstoppable, unbreakable DRM. (It sure as hell isn't TCPA unless the deadline gets pushed way the hell back. Hardware manufacturers are *not* used to, and many engineers are not inclined to lose sleep over implementing TCPA securely.) Then it just means that consumers have to pay for a given product. If a product costs too much...then guess what? No one busy it, the company goes out of business. Goods priced at zero will still have a benefit, and if that's really what the consumer wants, it'll be what the consumer ends up getting.
May we never see th
Doesn't the DMCA make this kind of thing illegal? I mean, you'd have to reverse engineer something to make that work, right?
I feel like it a chess game and we're losing and running out of moves.. (you know, like when you play against someone much better than yourself?)
...Apple will have to make a competing implementation, or else you'll find your precious lickable G4 unable to run an increasing number of things.
After all the time Apple's spent doing their own thing despite exactly this being true -- massive compatibility issues with the rest of the PC market -- you honestly think that TCPA will drive them back into the flock of sheep? Give me a break.
May we never see th
AMD and Intel are both doing exactly the same thing -- letting TCPA (and hence Palladium) be BIOS-disableable. It's a required part of the TCPA spec.
This is not news. Both AMD and Intel are supporting TCPA, both let you disable it.
May we never see th
Buy computer parts now, while you can still control them....
This isn't like pulling a Jonny 5, this is so much nonsense and some corporation gets to decide whats best for the consumer. I want to know how linux platfors are going cope with this pos hardware that hinders PC use.
BTW,
Los locos kick you ass,
Los locos kick your face,
Los locos kick you balls into outer space.
Love that movie.
I was using a P100 up until the summer of 2000 without any problems. This was a machine that was about 5 years old. I now have a 2ghz P4, and I suspect the same thing will happen with this machine.
Most people who have bought computers in the past year or so are probably going to end up like me to some extent (unless they are gamers). They'll be able to do whatever they need to do on the computer they already have, so what's their motivation for upgrading? Even if the government makes palladium a requirement in all new computers, how many of these new computers are actually going to get sold? Almost everyone I know right now is already running a shiny new machine they bought from the likes of Best Buy which, to them, is a bit like an appliance. It does what they want to do (which is usually web surfing, email, and word processing), so they have that computer need taken care of. Unless it breaks down or something, they'll be using it for several years.
With Sun becoming interested in Linux, it might be possible that when Intel and AMD ship these DRM-chips, they get some kind of new Sparc or something shipped without DRM. (Obviously the old ones are DRM-free, but for sake of having something closer the speed of Intel/AMD they'll need a new one...) Then they can build a low-cost system around it (no fancy memory) and make it available to non-corporate types.
Then all the Windows people are locked onto Intel/AMD, but Linux/Unix users with source code won't have a problem compiling for a Sparc (or whatever).
Drugs appear to be a prerequisite here.
On the other hand, Linux also runs on PowerPC!
That's just crazy talk! Pull yourself together!
but what about SUN boxes *NT*
That's how palladium will work AT FIRST. All the palladium hardware will be able to run in insecure mode.
Liberty.
Apple will make a commercial with the 1984ish style look, mentioning all PC's are invading their privacy, and the average Joe will boycot M$.
Sig: I stole this sig.
Is everyone really upset because your new Disney DVD is going to require Windows 2005 and a Palladium CPU to play? Instead of bitching about how you should be able to play/copy your new NSync CD anywhere you want, maybe people need to stop feeding the corporate beast that spawns this crap.
Support garage bands. See local shows with local talent. See an indie film at your local arthouse or the MFA. By a PowerPC, Alpha, or Sparc. Download a free or opensource MMORPG/RTS/MUD on the internet and spend a few hours making friends with humans all over the world, and in the process create your own DRM-free content!
I know this is slashdot, and we only care about freedom/justice/rights until Blizzard puts out a new game, Disney imports some anime, or George Lucas belches, but come on. There is so much good content available out there. You don't *have* to buy/rent your entertainment from Viacom. If you don't buy DRM enabled content, you don't have to worry about owning a DRM enabled machine. I am sure I will always have a unixy (Linux/BSD/whatever) box on which to run my indie content.
Of course, you can just ignore this message, and go back to downloading your Divx rip of AOTC on kazaa while bitching that your "rights" are being trampled.
Us in "sci.crypt" have for a while looked forward to a project that could pool all our skills together, for a worthwhile task.
Consider it done.
Ok, so it sounds like it STILL HAS PALLADIUM in it. This is how palladium hardware works, it can also run unsecured content, but not in secure mode.
WISE the fuck up folks. This is how palladium is designed to work at first. IT'S OPTIONAL. That's how they want to fuck us over, by getting most people without them even knowing.
Liberty.
GCC is open source, and even if someone convinced developers to add palladium code generation to it, someone else would come up with a patch to remove it.
If it exists, it's crackable. If it exists and it's designed by Micro$oft, it's easily crackable. Don't worry.
Try Ubuntu GNU/Linux, it's great!!!
There is no fucking way someone who works at AMD says by accident that they're including palladium. They either are or they're not and theres no internal confusion. It's a BFD.
The opteron still has palladium. Don't be fooled by comments carefully crafted to confuse you into thinking there's no palladium. When they say "it will still run unsecured content." They are just playing off the fact that palladium hardware allows you to run unsecured content when it runs in usecured mode.
Don't fool yourselves, most windows lusers will be running longhorn with secure mode on. That's how it all starts.
If you like your fair use rights, free software, competition in the software market, low prices, commodity computing... Get ready to bend over and be thoroughly pounded by the big devil in redmond for the rest of your breathing existance.
Liberty.
This is looking like a good time to look at a powerpc platform from IBM especially with those new chips they are bringing out. Every app on my system comes with source and the powerpc is a supported platform. I can't say I have any real ties of loyalty to the x86 platform. If AMD and Intel are both going in this direction then screw them and go somewhere else that is the freedom you have with an open platform like BSD and Linux.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
Many computer technicians have long complained about how flawed and completely inefficient the PC-Intel architecture is, and how alternative platforms like Apple and Sparc are so much better.
The only thing that the PC has going for it is that it's cheap, open, and completely commoditized.
After Palladium, I doubt very much that PCs will be continue to drop in price, and they definitely won't be open.
I'm willing to bet significant amounts of users will switch to alternative platforms, including, I imagine, the entire open-source community and many nations outside the US.
Intel and AMD have shot themselves in the foot, as well as all other hardware vendors who depend on making parts for PC's.
This space left intentionally blank.
I've been wanting to know how to do this for several months now.
Thanks.
(no relation to narftrek--just coincidence)
People will be forced to consider upgrading not to view DRM-protected (or not) content, but due to Microsoft's refusal to support operating systems such as Win98 which still allow the user at least the illusion of being in control of his own computer. I'm not talking about "tech support" when I say support, I'm talking about:
- not certifying drivers any more for Win9x. I just bought an ATI Radeon 9700 and I am only able to use it on my Win98 machine because someone at ATI had the good sense to make drivers for WinME (which is still "certifiable", I leave it as an exercise for the class to find the irony in that term) that work fine on Win95/98 machines depite not being certified for those OSs. And made sure the word got out. I'm sure all you linux folks out there are rolling your eyes at complaints by a Windows user that drivers are getting hard to come by, but I wouldn't be using this OS if I didn't want nearly universal hardware support. And it's going to go away if I don't jump on XP, or whatever is coming next.
- not offering DirectX upgrades for Win9x. This will break more and more games in the next couple of years, since the new generation of gaming video cards work their magic through the expanded features of the new DirectX APIs (as well as existing OpenGL functions and proprietery extensions, but plenty of game developers ignore GL in favor of developing to the masses). And face it, since office productivity apps have run as fast as they need to for years now, gaming drives the upgrade market more than anything else.
Ultimately these and other similar factors will force users into hard decisions, balancing the pros and cons of driver support for newer hardware/playing the latest games vs. being Microsoft's bitch. And having chosen the path that leads to bitchdom, they will accept the burden of DRM crap. Or they won't accept it, but it will be too late.
Everyone that posted here will be put in prison for even discussing whether or not this is a good thing. Shame on you, you Unamerican bastards. And you foreigners who read Slashdot, we'll just bomb you.
Someone explain to me again how Palladium will NOT be crackable? I mean, I understand hardware is hard to crack, but, if the "software", say the latest copy of Adobe Photoshop is still just "software" that makes calls to a chip or whatever, that can still be removed/rerouted/patched/cracked, whatever right? Unless both Photoshop AND your computer are pieces of hardware, I dont see how Palladium will be any more effective than the hardware dongles that never stopped crackers either.
I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!
I think the only way that western civilization can survive the monopolists is for the marketplace to reject Censorchips from Intel, AMD and whoever else wants to produce them.
One good thing is that the US market is not the entire world. If China and the 3rd world has any smarts at all, they'll reject Palladium and related technologies.
The issue is trust. I think it unwise to trust Bill Gates or George Bush or even Richard Stallman with the power to decide which programs I can run and which files I can view.
We are part of the marketplace and we have to make sure censorchips fail in the marketplace.
And what's to say non-TCPA equipment, other than expensive studio gear, will be made illegal?
And what's to say studio equipment that lets you sign your own recordings will necessarily be prohibitively expensive for home-studio use? The laws of the fifty U.S. states already provide ways to deal with those who fraudulently sign recordings they don't own.
Will I retire or break 10K?
What's Microsoft going to do if both Intel and AMD tell Billy-boy to take his Palladium and shove it up his .NET? Seriously- what other chip manufacturers are there to fill in the gap? Here's a clue: None. So, either you have two absolutely spineless companies whose ONLY concern is avoiding Billy's wrath, or two companies with a bit of virtue that can not only recognize true nastiness when they see it, but work in a common direction to put it to rest. The fact that neither of them are willing to step up to the plate is bad news.
Now the battle is in the court of consumer acceptance. As [insert favorite deity here] is my witness, I will NOT buy ANYTHING that has anything to do with Palladium. Let's see how many others have the same resolve. Seeing what a crack habit the entertainment industry has become, though, I think I already know.
Why are we so worried ? Shouldn't it be possible to just crack or work around Palladium ? Heck, just emulate the Palladium opcodes or whatever it does, and "pretend" your system is running in secure mode.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Does anyone else think that the previously reported delay in ClawHammer production is due to this crap?
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Hello? We're talking about x86 hardware, which essentially owns 100% of the consumer market, where "content" is dispersed and consumed. I think the people buying brand new ultra-expensive Sun or SGI workstations to watch movies and listen to copyrighted music are in the minority, to say the least.
Software piracy is victimless theft.
Well SUNW is trading at less than $3 a share. Lets all kick in a few hundred bucks and stage a hostile takeover...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Doesn't anyone at /. bother to check sources, or even look for more current versions of articles anymore?
/. tomorrow when we learn that an alien being masquerading as Elvis Presley (employed by Microsoft) is the true force behind the Linux kernel. The domain name elvix.com has already been registered by Microsoft.
Breathe in. Breathe out. Repeat. Read this updated article: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5489.
This is rumormongering at its finest. Tune in to
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
Group A marched to death camps:Group B marched to death camps::Optional, disableable copy protection schemes:Linux users being branded terrorists and being arrested by the government?
I don't buy it.
May we never see th
I was waiting to buy a new box so I could have this chip. But I will _not_ be buying anything that support Palladium. Yes, I realize my choices are going to be very slim in the near future.
Here, a freebie for the marketing scum:
"What's that you're doing on your PC, Bob?"
"Hi, Paul. I'm running the newest office productivity software -- and watching special private sneak previews of the new Star Wars movie, with instant updates from George Lucas! And I'm always sure that all my software is legal, healthy and up to date."
"Wow. Can my PC do that?"
"Not if it doesn't do Trusted Computing."
"Trusted Computing? What's that?"
"Trusted Computing is the exciting new way to use my PC without fear of hackers or loss of privacy. See, Paul, Trusted Computing is a lot like like what members of the shadowy sado-masochism sub-culture call a 'butt plug.' It keeps out the bad things like computer viruses and unwanted fluids, even as its firm, lodged presence serves to constantly remind me of who's master! Because I'm not free to do anything wrong, I'm always certain to do what's right!"
"Gee, Bob, sounds great. I'd better look into Trusted Computing, too -- along with a zip-up leather mask for the wife, ha ha!"
I cannot wait for Palladium. I am hoping it will turn the internet from a lawless like wild west into something better. And let's face it - if you were stopped from doing something illegal online, BEFORE you actually get in trouble, and go to jail/pay heavy fine, I think that would be MUCH better than now!
And I'm serious. I Support the trusted computing alliance - if you are not DOING anything WRONG - why do you even have to worry? It's all the evil elements that should not even be online that will be removed.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtian!
The more I read about DRM the more I think that it is an idea that will not work. Here is my thinking on the subject. I'm sorry it's so long but I have tried to keep this short. There is already in the world a lot of 'stuff' that is not encrypted and does not contain the "magic digital rights access key" information. What happens when Microsoft release their operating system that uses their DRM ideas? Well they could block every single piece of non-DRM content. If MS do this then nothing much will work on the users machine. The website you always read in the morning will not work any more. The CD you like tio play won't play and the emails you want to read won't be there for you to read. Obviously this kind of future will mean the death of MS and their new OS. Therefore MS will not impose any kind of mandatory rule set that means you have to only use DRM content. What MS have said they will do is have the ability to run old applications and content along side the newer DRM content. Well this sounds to me like a huge open wide door. This also means you can continue to use your new DRM managed machine exactly how you did in the past. Any application you want to run you can, any piece of content you want to view you can. What does this mean? Well it means that someone could quite easily come up with a computer program that takes DRM content, the latest pay per view film for example, and the DRM signatures could be stripped from the data. This means you will then have a very copyable and freely distributable film that you could send to your friends. For the sake of example I could very simply write a movie player plugin using the MS developer example code sample. This movie player plugin could take each frame of the film as it plays and simply save the contents to my harddrive. Microsoft have to allow this kind of testing by developers to ensure products are bug free. In one day I have written a plugin that lets me break the whole idea of any DRM managed content. The best thing is that there is nothing to stop me giving this kind of plugin to friends or anyone else on the net. Remember that Microsoft are having to support old content and new alike. Microsoft will assure the vendors that all pathways are encrypted and secure however, as any computer programmer will tell you, there are always ways and means of bypassing security. The Microsoft XBox is a machine that uses encryption between the chips. The only company able to produce software to run on this machine is Microsoft. However this is no longer the case since a few very intelligent people have found a way to bypass this security. It only took a matter of months to break this hardware security. The DRM machine and OS does seem to offer the "holy golden carrot" to companies like Time Warner of never having to worry about illegal copies ever again. However someone should tell these companies that no matter how ingenious and secure nothing will keep out the combined efforts of millions of computer programmers. Especially since Microsoft have left the back door of needing to maintain backwards compatibility. I anticipate that if the DRM machine, with it's DRM harddrives, network cards, montiors, keyboards and mice ever gets built then within six months (a year at the most) the entire idea of a secure and workable DRM machine will be forgotten. The idea will be consigned to the bin as a very costly mistake. Microsoft will necver admit this of course, rather they will let the idea fade and die like they have with so many other ideas in the past.
Martin Piper
Owner - ReplicaNet and RNLobby
And IIS starts serving locked documents by default.
Which AOLers behind a Gecko browser (such as Compuserve users, Mac AOL users, and AOL 8.0 users who have turned on Gecko) cannot see. AOL has a lot of influence on the Web; if AOLers can't see your pages, you lose 30% of your market right there.
"this document must be locked to open it on a computer using Palladium" ... Think about what happens when all programs must be Palladium-safe to run.
Then the custom applications developed for use by the U.S. federal government will stop working, and Congress will repeal any CBDTPA-like legislation that it may have passed. I don't see anything on Microsoft's page stating that Windows will prohibit applications that don't use Palladium.dll from running on a Palladium-capable computer in the foreseeable future.
I think our only hope is the USA legislating itself into irrelevance and other nations picking up the slack and giving them the finger.
Why has the population of Greece declined over the last few weeks?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Right here we're all falling into "The Hollywood Trap." Their apparent belief is that all of us have computers for no reason other than to pirate their precious IP, which is why they're trying to push DRM so deep into the infrastructure.
Their starting point is simply wrong. The PC is a general purpose machine. Even if I'm using it to view/hear media, that's only one of the things I do with it. If I only wanted to view/hear media, I'd buy a DVD player and be done with it.
Especially since the DRM push includes Microsoft's Palladium, none of us believe it will be without glitches. There are going to be some PCs and PC parts that won't play some media. Sometimes it'll change from boot to boot. When booted in "DRM Mode" sometimes these PCs won't even boot at all, because there'll be a missed handshake of some sort in the DRM validation.
I'll put forth the guess that most of the time, DRM PCs will be booted in non-DRM mode, only booting DRM mode to view/hear DRM media. For several years, when booting DRM mode, it's going to be a hit-or-miss thing to hope the system really comes up, and really plays the media. (I'll guess at an 85-90% success rate to boot and play DRM media, elevated within 6-9 months to 90-95%, and slow progress after that.)
When the first PC maker gets to your step 5, that machine will be rejected in the marketplace.
Remember, the PC is a general-purpose machine, and DRM potentially impairs function, only allowing the PC to act like a DVD/CD player. It enables a side-purpose usually handled better by specialized hardware, and only gets in the way of the prime mission.
If all PC makers undertook Step 5 together, it might go, but that's not going to happen. Someone will be first with some model, and first the returns will be horrible, then sales will be dismal. Nobody will follow.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
although they claim you can disable it, how many web services, major software releases, and multimedia services do you think the media industries will allow to run on those computers not running palladium. While you will have the option to turn it off, by doing so you will no doubt have to give up the ability to use software/music/video/etc on your computer.
the above is speculation, but given other similar 'options', I would say there is a good chance of it ocurring.
on a similar, yet unrelated note, MS's windows media player has the 'option' to turn off digital rights management, but it still contacts their website every time you run a video, is there any way to disable this (aside from using a firewall, which I usually do)
That they hadn't jumped on the bandwagon was the only reason to hold onto their stock. Other than their supposed technical superiority, their stocks perform poorly. Oh well. Too bad for AMD.
The Inquirer has received comment from AMD that:
"Comments that looked like they were from Pat Moorhead on an Aussie Web site are not from Pat Moorhead, the firm has just told us."
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5489
"In fact, according to an AMD UK representative, AMD's Opteron products will run any kind of content in the future -- contrary to the report in The Age, on which our original report, below, was based.
Part of the content in The Age failed to distinguish between comments Moorhead made and conjecture, AMD said."
AMD has no choice in this matter. It needs to support palladium so that Microsoft ports windows to x86-64. Without windows, AMD is dead. Notice that Intel is doing the same thing -- again because it has no choice. Once again, Microsoft has everyone by the balls, so I suggest you instead direct your mail to One Microsoft Way.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
... which has since been clarified. The original article referenced on /. is misleading. The Opteron has no more and no less ability to support DRM than any other x86 processor on the planet.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5489.
Although AMD is a part of the Trusted Computing Initiative, it has not and will not for the foreseeable future optimize its processors for digital rights management. The reasons for the delay of CH and Opteron are the source of much speculation, but a sudden core revision to placate an initiative that hasn't even hit testing phase is most likely not one of them.
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
and all the rest become pointless diversions that CANNOT be used while any Palladium app is currently in memory.
This is incorrect. Palladium applications can certainly run on the same machine at the same time that non-Palladium applications run. They just can't see each other's memory spaces.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Simple. There's no *effective* difference between "opt-in" and "opt-out"[1], so why does Mr Moorehead even bring the issue up? As far as your latter statement. That only works when you have a relatively balanced market. In this day and age were monopolies are running rampent. The consumer truely get's the short-end of the stick. Look at the DOJ & MS case, and see how well "opt-out" worked. It took a "free" OS and a different methodology to crack that nut. An extreme measure to correct an extreme situation. Do we really want to do the same thing when it comes to our entertainment?
[1] There really isn't. Role-play the situation thru your head, and you'll see.
This has very little to do with running or not running a piece of hardware. This is a way of making sure the content plays only on a hardware/software platform that will not permit free copying of content. Once the hardware/software is available and working, the studios and music distributors will release content (release == sell) that will only play on the 'secured' platform. This is an attempt by the distribution companies (that is what studios and music companies are) to regain control of the channel.
The very amusing thing about this bears watching. These studios which are a rather incestuous group are selling their souls to who? Microsoft. Guess who will become redundant? Guess who will make the money?
I suspect that after 5 years or so the studios will long for the day when their wares were distributed from them to the consumer without a greedy middleman. The internet free-for-all will be fondly remembered as the good old days.
Derek
That would depend if the DRM enabled processor allows the deletion of data from the partition of a non-DRM enabled operating system.
If the chip gives outsiders (errm... authorized personel) the ability to rm stuff from my BSD box, then I see a huge problem.
They already said it will delete unauthorized content if the "server" says so. Whether that means only in Palladium or not is the real question.
Hmm. This is interesting. I've been going on what I know about TCPA, and just assumed that the Palladium people had been building on it. Evidently not.
Palladium, then, is more nasty and MS-specific. Hmm....
May we never see th
Also, while TCPA requires that it be user-disableable, I don't know whether Palladium does.
From the articles I just read, looks like MS may be doing Palladium specifically to do an end-run around the limitations placed on them in TCPA by the other members.
There are multiple TCPA key-signers. I'm interested to know who, exactly, other than Microsoft, can sign software.
If this is a Microsoft-only thing, it's pretty obvious what their goals are.
May we never see th
So they're the "Trusted Computing Platform Alliance"? Let's look at this one.
Alliance: A close association of nations or other groups, formed to advance common interests or causes
Seems accurate.
Platform: The basic technology of a computer system's hardware and software that defines how a computer is operated and determines what other kinds of software can be used
Yeah, they're trying to determin what kinds of software can be used.
Computing: To use a computer.
So far, so good.
Trust: Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.
Reliance on integrity? What, integrity of the consumer? To use their own computer without violating your DRM or IP? May this other denfinition is better:
Trust: A combination of firms or corporations for the purpose of reducing competition and controlling prices throughout a business or an industry
That's a little more like it.
(all definitions from www.dictionary.com)
What exactly do I need a faster computer for? if I got an unrestriced 2.5Ghz CPU, and some high quality video card and only continuted to upgrade the video card, how will I be affected by palladium? I don't see this being the demise of unrestricted file formats. CDs are restriction free, CDs can be ripped, CDs will be around for a long time.
I just think it's shooting themselves in the foot, how many people would actually WANT to restrict THEIR computer? AND pay for it?
Only problem with your rant,as well as others who argue along similiar lines. The people who recognize that their rights are being trampled on, are not the ones driving the demand for entertainment content (DVD,movie,music,etc). Telling us we need to do this, or that isn't going to have much, if any impact on the problem. The people who DO need to follow your advise are not HERE. They're out buying, DVDs, music, and other such.
Verily, such is luck that some damnations are more than others.
*wave AMD*
Hello, Mr. Jobs.
Please, does anyone really think Palladium can be turned off? *snort* Just like you can turn off IE support in MS Windows, right?
Dolts. This could be the greatest money making scheme in the history of chips. The MHz/GHz war has failed, long ended! AMD no longer publishes ratings for their chips! Why? CPU speed no longer matters as much as fast ram, a fask disk and a GeForce 42. And AMD knows it.
What would be better, then, than a reason for the sheep to have to buy millions of new processors so they can watch their DVDs on a shitty monitor instead of a decent-sized screen? What would be better than all the little kids bugging mommy and daddy to upgrade so they can play the latest games?
Palladium is to computers as DIVX was to DVDs. We stopped that, yes, but the powers behind DIVX were but toddlers where Microsoft and her cronies stride.
Yet, we can stop them as well. Spread your FUD now, lest ye be inconvenienced with not being able to watch your Hollywood drek for a few months when you're forced to switch to a Mac. Ah, but that wouldn't happen, now, would it? That those who whine so much about Palladium would sacrifice even something so pointless to fight it?
harumph.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
We all got on the AMD bangdwagon because then offered an alternative that was better, faster, and cheaper. We all rooted for them because we hated the RULER, the ENEMY, Intel. I've been a sworn supporter of AMD and every PC I've built I've used AMD. But this just might be what breaks me. Let's get Transmeta to crank up performance and let's switch. I can see it now, a new "SWITCH" program just like Apple's.
"In fact, according to an AMD UK representative, AMD's Opteron products will run any kind of content in the future -- contrary to the report in The Age, on which our original report, below, was based."
Of course they will, but palladium is built in and people can check whether you're running in secure mode or not. If you're not they can refuse to let you d/l their film/music/application etc. There is no way to turn palladium off completely no matter what this AMD rep is trying to imply.
Part of the content in The Age failed to distinguish between comments Moorhead made and conjecture, AMD said. Yes,the reporter made a mistake but this still does not deny that palladium will be present in the opteron.
AMD, in fact, claims it is the "good guy", and even though it is a member of the "trusted computing" initiative, will allow users to opt in whether to use this type of technology or not.
There's no fucking way AMD is the good guy. They are including palladium in their chips. It is an OUTRIGHT LIE that users can opt in whether to use this or not. There is no way to completely opt out of using palladium hardware because the hardware will always correctly report whether you are in secure mode or not.
"There is nothing [in Hammer] that could actually prevent a user running unlicensed content," the representative from AMD said."
Correct! because that's how palladium is designed to work. You can be in secure mode, where you will be able to access palladium content, or you can be in unsecure mode (where you WILL be denied palladium content).
This is NOT a good thing. This is the method that M$ decided to use to SNEAK palladium in under the radar. Let those who don't wish to use it run in usecured mode, while the majority of the population will be cluelessly utilizing the palladium secure mode. They hope that then most media will require you to be in secure mode and even though you can still opt-out, in the end it will mean opting out of all the now dominant palladium only media.
Please please please don't mod shit like the parent up anymore. Yes, the reporter made a mistake, but that doesn't take away from the fact that palladium WILL be included in the opteron.
All of these /. comments are copying and pasting AMD SPIN on the story designed to FOOL you into thinking palladium is not included, or that you can completely opt out.
The truth is palladium is going to be included and you CANNOT FULLY OPT OUT. If AMD wants to really give users a way to fully opt out, they need to make their platform able to report on demand that they are running in secure mode when in fact they are not. They will not do this. Please stop reposting AMD SPIN on the issue it's making me fucking ill to my stomach. Thanks in advance.
$0.02
Liberty.
So you're saying that when you're using, say, Winamp to play an Ogg file that you downloaded from the net, the CPU will be able to identify the song as "copyrighted" and will crash your system? Right...
Let me guess, the CPU includes a database with all copyrighted songs on Earth (plus all movies, all software, etc., and is able to compare all data that runs through it with this huge database)...? Then I guess we won't even need to rip our CDs anymore, we just have to find the song's address in this internal database...
For any piece of hardware to automagically identify a file as "copyrighted", it would need to have, hardcoded in it, intimate knowledge of the file format and decoding algorithms and it would need the file itself to have some detail that identified it as being copyrighted.
If you do it in software (ie, in the OS) the first part becomes easier. But the second part is still relevant. For a file to be tagged as "copyrighted", that tag must be added at some stage. In the specific case of music files, it would have to be added by the encoder. Do you think Microsoft would ever manage to convince, say, Xiph.org or Xing to support that kind of initiative?
I won't bother with the fact that this piece of Slashdot "news" has already been denied by AMD. I just ask you to think about it for a second. Do you think AMD would make a CPU that would refuse to run all software except Microsoft's? Especially a CPU that's aimed at small servers (hint: small servers don't normally run Windows)? And at a time when Asia (China particularly) is the fastest growing market for them (hint: China doesn't like Microsoft)?
And who cares about the RIAA or even american regulations? The world is a big place, you know? AMD's fabs are in Europe and Asia, and those two are their main markets (nearly 40% share, against only 15% in the USA).
Stop seeing conspiracies everywhere and start thinking about things for a change.
RMN
~~~
Guess what yerricde, the rights DO NOT belong exclusively to the publisher. There is something called fair use involved here, which palladium seeks to impinge upon. The simple fact of the matter is that I should be able to play content on any hardware new or old. If that requires conversion [i.e. cd->tape] then so be it. The point is that it is my choice as to how I play my content, as long as it is done within the law [i.e. no public performances, playing over the air, etc. w/o publisher's consent]. You see, MS and RIAA have no right whatsoever to do this, and undoubtly this *WILL* come up before the supreme court and the DOJ. Not only would I contend that this blocks fair use, I would also contend that Microsoft, Intel, and AMD are committing rackateering and various other RICO offenses. Don't believe me? Check out title 9 yourself.
It strikes me as absurd that people can seriously try to force a media player to remotely authenticate just in order to play some file or view an image... am I the only person who sees the fundamental problem with requiring internet connectivity for a pc just to play a music CD or some other innocent function?
...
...
It must strike someone else as odd, tho I havent seen many people comment on this. Nevermind if a persons ISP has a firewall which (rightly) inhibits the appropriate traffic for all the DRM stuff
I really hope the open source community can reverse engineer this stuff and set up some phantom authentication servers which just auto-authenticate everything
-Tim Smith
tim@jlc.net
Just what kind of support does a system such as palladium require in the cpu anyway? Pehaps extra registers for caching data? Special instructions for encryption/decription? Another operating privilage ring? And just what is palladium supposed to do anyway? The term 'trusted computing' seems to me to work in two directions. It 'protects' users from bad software, it protects software from 'bad' users. In one direction it is a virus shield by allowing only authorized software and data to be run. In the other direction it locks out access to data, the so called DRM system. DRM is nothing new, copy protected software in new clothing, only this time the copy protection is built into the OS perhaps with some hardware support. We all know what happened to copy protected software....user revolt. Seems like those that cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
"Never interupt yoour enemy when he is making a mistake." - Napoleon
It's all Politics
If I need a x86 Proc I will buy the latest non DRM based proc. Even if the later can be disabled I don't want to buy into this technology.
If I need to I'll run Linux PPC, or maybe on a sun server. BUT never DRM based hardware.(Disabled or not)
It's not that the two companies COULDN'T do that, it's that neither company WANTS to do that!
....everyone you can!...tell "PC Magazine", the marketing droids at your company, technical manager in your department....tell your aunt that's calling about "getting a Dell"...tell everyone that talks with you about comptuters that this sucks....it's crippled....."it's really bad, I wouldn't spend my money on it..."
The hardware makers are in a cage too, if either one of them DOESN'T support it, they could hand the market share to the one that does. They're both FORCED by the margins to go along!...
The only answer lays with the consumer....DON'T BUY THIS PRODUCT....EVER!...
DONT EVEN LET IT GET A FOOTHOLD!.....
YOU!...the person reading this...use your influence as a tech person reading this list....tell everyone you know that
that "this Paladium thing sucks!"
tell anyone asking you for tech advice..."...this Paladium thing sucks..."...
Work it into casual conversation..."..yeah, you know that this new Paladium thing REALLY sucks...."..
Need to kill this thing now...and we shouldn't take our collective power for granted on this one....you can bet that MS and RIAA are working up the "positive" buzz for this right now. I imagine that there will be a media campaign for this after Christmas season....
Nothing kills a new product faster than "consumer apathy," and for good measure, a heaping helping of distrust/dislike.
We need to start buzzing about this thing rather than quietly accepting defeat/takaway of our rights.
This article has already been exposed. Check out hardocp.com.
Listen to my experimental-industrial-techno!
The biggest problem will be for the game makers. There is little doubt that 'piracy' is marketing and many great games would be played by a few people instead of hoards if left to survive by marketing alone. There are not too many good games and until people get a chance to try them before buying then ...
There is something called fair use involved here, which palladium seeks to impinge upon.
Fair enough. Fair use (17 USC 107) does not guarantee to the owner of a copy the right to make an exact reproduction. A digital restrictions management system implemented on top of Palladium will never stop you from exercising fair use through two little analog holes on the back of your PC: the headphone connector and the video output connector. Watermark defeat devices are legal under the DMCA, 17 USC 1201(a)(2) and (b)(1), because the devices are marketed for their substantial non-infringing use of improving the quality of generic video signals.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Look at US laws and describe an instance in which a legal product has been banned. This hand-wringing and panic-mongering concerning Palladium/TCPA, etc, is just plain silly. Distributors of music and software have a right to control how their product is distributed (and Intel and AMD are answering the call to a new market with this new chip), but it is very unlikely congress could approve a law to ban any technologies because of any putative effects on such a business model.
Dawn of the Dead
we need an open alternative to palladium so intel and amd can support that as well, then when all data is encoded for drm, MS will still have to battle open source....it is called rolling with the punches.
True capitalism = lots of similar companies = jobs for everyone who wants one.
He wasn't talking about Quake 1 (or 2?), as you appear to be. He specifically said Quake 3, which requires a legit serial number to play. Same with (the FAR more popular) Counter-strike. So both of his examples were good examples.
:) As well, a better point you could have made regarding Quake 1 was how much more successful it was than his example of Quake 3, probably due to piracy like you stated. But then Counter-strike comes around and smacks that down, too.
Didn't want to nickpick, but you were so harsh in putting down his poor little accurate example that I just couldn't stay away.
You are right about your own example, Quake, but you are the only one talking about that game.
A game with no serial number to prevent making copies and playing them online is also a game I purchased two copies of. One for myself when it came out, and a second for $20 as a X-mas present for a friend. If developers make products worth buying, then they will sell many copies. cd-keys, and more draconian digital signing and activation nonsense only inconveniences legitimate purchasers when they try to use their *uncracked* licensed copies.
I know why i'll buy a imac (emac?) thing next year now...
/freddo
and anyway, i'm only playing pirated copies of c64 and amiga stuff, which works well on that platform, fuck the hell out of those bastards!
-- search the web
I ask the same question as I did when the latest Creative Soundblaster card came: How can they differentiate one bitstream from another?
What is the difference between sending one sequence of bits to the soundcard and another (trusted?) program doing the same?
Unless these new processors have special instructions that can decode an mp3 (or whatever) bittream in an optimal way, I doubt programms like XMMS (or Winamp) would care about these special CPU's and their special instructions.
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
I just replied to this article, and when I reloaded the page I noticed an ad for MSDEV .Net! ;)
I thought Slashdot was an anti-MS forum!
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
""Q: Could Linux, FreeBSD or another open source OS create similar trust architecture?
A: From a technology perspective, it will be possible to develop a nexus that interoperates with other operating systems on the hardware of a "Palladium" PC. The "Palladium" PC design is covered by patents, and there will be intellectual property issues to be resolved. It is too early to speculate on how those issues might be addressed.
"
The statement you mentioned would only apply if you could turn palladium off. If it can be disabled then yes linux could run with some modifications. If it stays on by default, then yes linux would be illegal under patent laws and you bet ms would go after linus and the kernel developers themselves. It would not make bussiness sense not to on their part. Their own halloween documents mentioning patents as a way to block it and they might have found a way. My guess is they view palladium as the final battle agaisn't it. IF we were are going to have drm wether we like it or not I would prefer an industry wide approach with big linux backers who could defend linus and linux with the court costs. I was modded as flamebait and believe me I do not support these technologies. Its just that they are comming whether we like it or not and we need to pick sides or go mac and watch Linux die. Microsoft would be shooting themselves in the foot if they did not force motherboard makers to have palladium on by default in an effort to thrawt off linux and doing these things is how they came to whom they are today.
http://saveie6.com/
Athlon 650, XP 1300, two k6/2 450s and enough for my wife and I to sit out the comming Paladium failure. As for hording, you should see all the Debian CDs I got sitting on the shelf, wink! If ever I get out from under bogus cable restrictions, I'll be happy to be a local mirror for software that does not suck so much processor that it does not work. My Debian installs have actually gotten smaller and faster in the last year. Tied togeter with simple ssh X fowarding, I won't feel an increase in processing demand if it ever comes.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I'm thinking that creators are people who still want capable computers, that is ones that:
CAN run recompiled kernels
CAN play a user's own original tunes and allows said user to copy said user's own tunes
still WORK with cheap off the shelf hardware which creators get to SAVE money for buying their creative tools like STEADYCAMs, EDITING video adapters, and MIXING boards.
(SUNDANCE FILM FEST are you listening?)
I'm currently doing an experiment:
Can An Amiga 2000 with:
1) some driver code for BIG fast SCSI drives (the 80-pin to 50-pin converters work but there's no speed advantage)
2) a design-philosophy layer that allows Linux to take advantage of the power of the architecture
3) and modular cross platform service sets like internet, renderfarming, and active editing (text produced by the GIMP bouncing live - via live mouse control - on live recording video)
MAKE MAX, PCs, and THE NEW WORLD ODOR (Palladium)
Run For The Hills?
I bought 10 9.1 SCSI drives for 40 (-S&H). I bought the converters. Amiga 2000 boxes are being dumped for $50 - $100 lately.
Shall we see?
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
US Companies shall soon lose the entire China market, then the rest of the world. How ironic.
Basically, they says to the effect that when a Palladium application is in memory, the OS will fail to allow non-Palladium applications to also be in memory.
That doesn't mean that they can't spawn a new virtual machine for each Palladium application. Microsoft doesn't have to implement exactly the system described in the patents. According to Microsoft's Palladium FAQ:
Applications that don't load Palladium.dll just won't be able to open any locked documents.
Will I retire or break 10K?
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5489
Non windows users can best look upon Windows users as people in an abusive relationship. If your best friend's boyfriend wants to beat the shit out of her, it's often better to convince your friend to leave the boyfriend, rather than to try to convince the boyfriend to play nice.
Such is the case with this Palladium stuff. I'm not going to complain when people start putting copy protection in my CPUs if it's just optional to turn it on or not. I'm going to keep focusing my efforts on getting the Windows users away from Pladdium's inventor, and use to real OS!
Hey, couldn't email you personally, but that quote about asimov has two ways of interpreting it...
the first is obvious, the second is: the competent leader will plan ahead as to not fall into a situation where he *has* to use violence.
So yes, everyone can be put into situation that calls for violence, but more clever people can avoid it. All along the lines of "in politics, it's best to speak softly and carry a big stick"...
neways. just had to share my pov.
Won't a firewall block this new OS from accessing the internet? How will that work?
How do we know you're not with AMD and trying to cover up the inadvertent admission of one of your execs?
"Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
You don't think Jack Valenti knows what webserver software the MPAA's running, do you?
But when the papers[1] print stories about the media companies' technological hypocrisy (using free software but wanting to ban it), then you can be sure Valenti will know.
[1] I specified newspapers rather than TV because the TV news networks are affiliated either with MPAA members or with Microsoft, the publisher of IIS. CBS, UPN = paramount; Fox News = fox pictures; ABC = disney; CNN = AOL(tw); NBC, MSNBC = microsoft
Will I retire or break 10K?
postmaster@amd.comm
InvestorRelations-CA.Communications@amd.com
amdliterature@comac.com
eurolit@amd.com
latinamerica.support@amd.com
hw.support@amd.co
web.feedback@amd.com
A Google search on the phrase "boycott Palladium" reveals no results. What I'd like to see is a website where individuals could sign their names, pledging that they will not upgrade to or support any chip manufacturer which supports Palladium. The site should also include information on why Palladium and the DRM OS are ideas with terrible consequences not just for computing freedom, but for freedom in general.
For those who could give a rat's ass about freedom -- and there are quite a few -- the website should remind them that Palladium will lead to a world of pay-per-use content.
AMD's line about Palladium being "optional" is just a smokescreen. To defeat Palladium, we have to defeat it AS an option. Anyone wanna list their favorite candidate for the site I described above?
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Dear Inteel And 4MD, phok yr!
what other chip manufacturers are there to fill in the gap? Here's a clue: None.
today, there are none, but if the (larger) non-american market realy rejects TCPA and the hardware, AND intel and AMD will refuse to fill that need (highly unlikely, IMHO, they will go where profit is), then new contenders will arrise. Not in a day. Not in a year. But they will.
Now the battle is in the court of consumer acceptance. As [insert favorite deity here] is my witness, I will NOT buy ANYTHING that has anything to do with Palladium. Let's see how many others have the same resolve.
again, I tend to think foreign goverments and buisnesses will be quite shy about such "improvements". Not because they like freedom (goverments seldom do), but because they understand the meaning of control, and will NOT want to give it to MS, AMD, or intel.
Working for necessity's mother.
And we all know nobody outside the US had crypto until those laws was lifted, right?
It's not like the rest of the world couldn't design, program and build it's own stuff.
My (non US) university had courses in crypto where implementing RSA was a mandatory exercise long before US export restrictions were lifted. And I imagine every halfway decent CS program across the globe had it too.
DRM will be a huge ball and chain for the US hardware and software industries.
Even if europe plays along (not entirely certain) there is always asia.
I think the US is really digging the grave of their domestic tech industry, and I am not sure how I feel about that.
But, hey, less US dominance in software will probably curb Microsofts plans for "world domination".
We may actually see more real innovation and competition.
And hopefully a rise in marketshare for Free software.
Guess that would be a good thing.
A lot of USians may lose their jobs though...
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
I don't know about digital media rights, but I'm more interested in the value TCPA/palladium could provide for Linux. :-)
If TCPA really is as good as they claim, I guess I could make, for example, all binaries in the system signed with my CA and force the system not to run anything else. I'd love to see the face of the scriptkiddie who came in through the latest ssh remote-root-exploit when his neat rootkit won't run.. I eagerly wait for the day LIDS supports TCPA.
One other thing I'd really like is secure netbooting. If TCPA could authenticate PXE-booted images, it could eliminate (at least some of the) inherent insecurity of netbooting.
Hasn't it always been the chore of linux-people to really make use of all the features of the computer?
For all I care, Microsoft can terrorise it's users as much as it likes. I guess we'll have many more linux users when palladium/DRM really launchess off
Maybe AMD should release TWO versions: one WITH Palladium, one WITHOUT. Linux users, please, a step forward!
--Drake 2c
... follow the link. Mike Magee is not AMD. If I am AMD I am under-fucking-paid.
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
That works when you have a choice. I can see HP/Compaq embracing the technology and most consumers won't have any clue what hit them.
"What, you're trying to tell me my shiny, new computer is purposefully broken? Well, what can I do about it?" "Nothing, except return the computer." "... that I just spent $799 on?"
I can only hope you're right.
mpaa.com would be immediately switched to IIS and the guy responsible for using Linux/Apache would be out on his ass.
Sure, out on his ass with respect to the record labels and movie studios, but in an article on the editorial page, where he helps convict the studios in the court of public opinion.
I haven't checked netcraft to see what mpaa.com is actually running; this is just an example.
www.mpaa.org and www.riaa.org run IIS on Windows 2000, but as I mentioned previously, a majority of the actual labels run Apache or AOLserver.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Yes, and computers will also read our lips and lock us out of our spaceships.
RMN
~~~
Can you read, man? AMD has already denied all this. In fact, they denied it before it was even posted on Slashdot.
Plus, the Hammer has already been designed and validated by a lot of companies and it doesn't have any DRM built into it. Adding it now would mean it wouldn't be released for another year or two, and AMD can't afford that. What's the RIAA gonna do about it? Bomb the rest of the world?
Also, if it was possible to do effective DRM in hardware at all, it would already be in CD and DVD players, and it's not (in fact, there are more and more region-free players, CD duplicators, DVD rippers, etc).
And like someone said, who gives a fuck about the RIAA? It's an american association. 90% of the world is "foreign", a lot more civilised. At worst, americans would start importing the european / asian version of stuff, like they already do when they want uncensored DVDs.
Try looking into RedHat sometime.
You click on what you want to install, or choose one of the default options.
Then, horror of horrors, you have to type in a root password, and maybe, just maybe, add a user account. (Last time I checked, you need an account on XP now.)
No compiling involved. Oh, you don't want to use the default kernel?
Funny. You don't seem to mind using the default kernel with MS Windows.
This just raises the question of how an OS is signed and certified. If I am not connected to the net when I boot, how will the BIOS know that the certificate on the OS is valid? Either the cert or the BIOS would have to have a pointer to the cert authority that could verify the cert. This implies that I have to be connected to the net when I boot and that the cert authority's ip addr cannot be moved since I don't know how to translate names to ip numbers when I boot.
And if it can't know how to check the OS's cert, then why can't I compile a kernel and self-sign it with my own cert issued by my own installed openSSL cert authority? If I can do that, then a TCPA version of Linux is just an extra step in the kernel make process.
This could actually be a GoodThing(tm) for Linux since it would enable TCPA checking of binaries downloaded from the net. This would be a kind of automated checking of GPG signatures that too few of us take the time for today. As to DRM, I am confused about how my self-signed TCPA enabled Linux would interoperate with an MS Palladium DRM server. Likely no differently than a non-TCPA enabled OS - it wouldn't play the content either. What other implications are there for a self-signed OS?
FreeSpeech.org
I love losing karma because some pimple-faced kid thinks that by rating down posts critical of /. that his stories are more likely to be FP'd.
God forbid anyone would dare question a story's accuracy.
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!