Yes, those applications that require low level access to memory will need attention if you are running in trusted mode. But if you are not running in trusted mode (using any OS that is available today), that makes no difference. I just don't see AMD delaying Hammer because of this. Hammer is too important to AMD.
BTW- I was thinking about the BIOS hibernation features. I assume the BIOS would need attention because unlike TCPA it is not part of the "trusted" software base. When the system wakes up from hibernation the BIOS is the first code executed (before the TOR can take over again), so I guess it would be possible for it (untrusted code) to access some of the "forbidden" memory locations. What do you think?
If the user wants to use palladium to secure his/her documents then the OS has to support it.
Yes- that is exactly what I said. Now why do I need to do my homework?
I was just saying that you can run a non-palladium OS on palladium hardware without any problems. So you could get a palladium enabled Hammer before the release of longhorn and install whatever the hell you want on it. Of course the system will not be "palladium" then, and it won't offer the same trusted mode features as palladium.
And its funny that you say that Microsoft should have picked TCPA- TCPA is even more strict that Palladium in a lot of ways. Plus I would have thought that you would want Microsoft to have picked neither TCPA or Palladium and left the hardware alone. Am I right?
For the same reason Dell PCs come with a Dell logo. Intel is not making the device- they are providing a reference design and selling the chips. It is up to the OEMs (like Dell) to make the actual devices.
While its true that Palladium hardware needs the OS to enter trusted mode, Longhorn is in no way needed to run Hammer or any other Palladium enabled hardware. Remember that Palladium is not involved in the boot process, and when it is enabled it runs parallel to the kernel. But we have already been over this, haven't we Billly...
Actually, privacy is maintained despite the hardware "identifiers" (which amounts to a public/private key pair). Under palladium, data that is encrypted using your private key is first prepended with a random nonce, so the outside world would never get the same ciphertext twice (and thus wouldn't be able to track any specific key).
Re:Not True. Stop Spreading Microsoft Hype.
on
"Squishy" DRM?
·
· Score: 2
Microsoft has never claimed that Palladium will prevent viruses. In fact, they have said the opposite:
Um, AMD announced support for Palladium long before Intel did. I'm not sure if it will ship with the first generation Hammer, but it will ship eventually.
I think you are getting confused- memory bandwidth has been Athlon's biggest bottleneck by far for a long time now. If you don't believe me, check out the Memory bench results. So far AMD just hasn't been able to compete with the 400 and 533 MHz FSB.
The TCPA has repeatedly said that the standard will be open for anybody to freely use. We all know that Microsoft has some patents that relate to DRM and palladium, but they have specifically said that the other operating systems will be able to make use of the standard. This includes how to make use of the TPM and use the encryption keys in it when entering a trusted mode. Any OS will be able to use the TPM.
And I'm still trying to figure out how you interpreted the line of the FAQ that said "the owner runs whatever OS or applications they want" to mean that you can only run what Microsoft wants you to run.
The fact is the TCPA standard is very open and it does not prevent you from running Linux. IBM's TCPA compliant Thinkpads have been on the market for over a year and plenty of people install Linux on them. The hardware is already out there and you can run Linux on it- I don't see how you can argue with that.
I'm hopeful that we can disable Palladium with a $.99 laundry marker.
Um, Palladium is an Operating System. You disable it by not installing it on your computer.
The TCPA hardware on the computer is "disabled" by not installing a TCPA complient OS. Case in point, IBM has been shipping TCPA complient Thinkpads for over a year now. No operating systems make use if that yet, so the TCPA hardware is effectively disabled. Oh, and plenty of people are still installing Linux on these Thinkpads- thats because the TCPA standard is not OS or even platform specific.
Well, considering that the TCPA standard specifies that the user determines what software is trusted (not the hardware), that will never happen. The hardware system ensures that the software executes within the trust level that the user assigns, but the TCPA does not certify the trust level of any software.
Instead of spreading the same worthless FUD about TCPA and Palladium, why don't you take a stroll through the TCPA specifications? Here are some good places to start:
4. Is the TPM based platform limited to a particular operating system or microprocessor?
No. The TCPA specification is designed to be platform and OS agnostic. The TCPA specification is not limited to a specific platform, OS or CPU.
9. Does TCPA certify applications and OS's that utilize TPMs?
No. The TCPA has no plans to create a "certifying authority" to certify OS's or applications as "trusted". The trust model the TCPA promotes for the PC is: 1) the owner runs whatever OS or applications they want; 2) The TPM assures reliable reporting of the state of the platform; and 3) the two parties engaged in the transaction determine if the other platform is trusted for the intended transaction.
18. Does the TCPA support open source systems?
Yes. The ability to use the TPM functionality is available to all developers of software. An open source project could determine to use TPM functionally today. The concepts of measurement, protected storage and attestation of measurements are fundamental concepts that hold true for any type of OS or application. The platforms that support TCPA today are not limited to only one OS and if open source developers provided applications that used the TPM functionality they would find support.
I think you need to replace all of the "Tux ignores him" with "Tux tells him his lemonade tastes like crap, insists that his ice water tastes better, demands that Billy make his secret recipe public, and compares Billy with the anti-christ"
I think the fact that millions of customers have bought these TCPA computers without even knowing it shows how much/. is overreacting. If customers can still do everything that they want to, then what is the big deal?
In fact, thinking about it, if Palladium is everything we fear, AND it becomes so that you can't even buy loose components that aren't palladium-based
Hardware that is "palladium-based" means that it meets the TCPA specification, and the TCPA specification is by definition platform and OS agnostic. IBM has been selling Thinkpads that meet the TCPA specification for about a year now, and people install other OS's on them all of the time. Even if your far-fetched worst case scenario becomes a reality, nothing will stop you from installing Linux/FreeBSD/DOS/CPM/etc.
I think you are getting confused. Palladium is only an operating system- it cannot prevent other operating systems from being installed. It could conceivably control the software that gets executed while it is loaded, but that's different.
Is the TPM based platform limited to a particular operating system or microprocessor? No. The TCPA specification is designed to be platform and OS agnostic. The TCPA specification is not limited to a specific platform, OS or CPU.
In fact, IBM has been shipping TCPA compliant Thinkpads for about a year now, and people install alternate OS's on them all of the time.
Also from the TPM FAQ:
Does the TCPA support open source systems? Yes. The ability to use the TPM functionality is available to all developers of software. An open source project could determine to use TPM functionally today. The concepts of measurement, protected storage and attestation of measurements are fundamental concepts that hold true for any type of OS or application. The platforms that support TCPA today are not limited to only one OS and if open source developers provided applications that used the TPM functionality they would find support.
Your argument supposes a non-existent right to watch movies the way you want to see them.
Non-existent right? What the hell are you talking about? That has to be one of the most basic rights that we have. Or do you live in a world where bathroom breaks during a movie is strictly prohibited and there are no power/mute/channel buttons on your remote?
If I choose to rent a movie, then put on the newest Back Street Boys CD and fast forward the movie pretending that the people are dancing to the music, nobody in this world is going to stop me. I couldn't care less how the director wanted me to see it- I will watch the movie how I want to watch it.
Parents that are watching edited movies are accepting the consequences- they are watching edited movies!!!
This is moronic. Don't like the content of a movie? Take the movie the way it is or don't watch it. End of story.
Your argument is moronic. If you don't like the edited version of the movie, then don't watch it. End of story. Nobody is taking away the original artwork (like your weak analogy of ruining artwork in a museum).
Clean Flicks petitioning for the right to censor.
This has nothing to do with censorship. The un-edited versions are still just as available as before.
Basically I think that the director's "artistic vision" is completely irrelevant to me. I want entertain myself as I see fit. Maybe I want to walk into an art museum with red sunglasses on so all of the artwork looks pink. I couldn't care less if the artist wanted me to see it differently.
I am not sure about the legality of this rental service, but the original business plan allowed people to bring in their own personal copies of a movie to have them edited. I think its a stretch even for hypocritical/.-ers like you to find something illegal about that.
Re:Of course the gov't acts based on faith beliefs
on
Australia Oppresses Jedi
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
And there is another small group of nitwits in the US that thinks that the establishment clause in the first amendment means that the Government can't even mention anything remotely religious. Don't you ever get tired of screaming "Separation of Church and State!" (a phrase that never appears in the Constitution, btw).
The P4 still has quite a performance lead. I just took your advice and checked the 2600+ benchmarks (on tomshardware). The Athlon 2600+ only beat the 2.8 GHz P4 in 3 of the 28 tests. The Athlon beat the P4 in just under 10% of the test- that doesn't sound like the P4 is a "grossly inferior product" to me. And BTW- those benchmarks don't include the SysMark tests that are in question here.
Intel's performance lead is even more impressive when you realize that the 2.8 GHz P4 is available to customers starting Monday, but the Athlon 2600+ won't be availble to the OEM's for another month (and even longer before customers have it).
Stockholders don't give a crap about technology- they care about money.
That said, considering the new Intel 2.8 GHz P4 beats the new Athlon 2600 in a majority of the benchmarks, I would say that both companies are designing kick-ass processors. The difference is that Intel markets itself tons better.
Um, the high end Intel isn't 3x the price. Its actually cheaper than the high end AMD... And by the time the new Athlons reach the customers, Intel will have slashed the prices of the high end P4s (the 2.5 GHz is going to get a 63% price cut) and released faster chips.
Don't get me wrong- what AMD has done with the aging Athlon core is impressive. We all win by this competition. But I still give Intel the long term advantage (although Hammer could change that- we'll have to wait and see).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, those applications that require low level access to memory will need attention if you are running in trusted mode. But if you are not running in trusted mode (using any OS that is available today), that makes no difference. I just don't see AMD delaying Hammer because of this. Hammer is too important to AMD.
BTW- I was thinking about the BIOS hibernation features. I assume the BIOS would need attention because unlike TCPA it is not part of the "trusted" software base. When the system wakes up from hibernation the BIOS is the first code executed (before the TOR can take over again), so I guess it would be possible for it (untrusted code) to access some of the "forbidden" memory locations. What do you think?
Oh great. Not again.... :)
If the user wants to use palladium to secure his/her documents then the OS has to support it.
Yes- that is exactly what I said. Now why do I need to do my homework?
I was just saying that you can run a non-palladium OS on palladium hardware without any problems. So you could get a palladium enabled Hammer before the release of longhorn and install whatever the hell you want on it. Of course the system will not be "palladium" then, and it won't offer the same trusted mode features as palladium.
And its funny that you say that Microsoft should have picked TCPA- TCPA is even more strict that Palladium in a lot of ways. Plus I would have thought that you would want Microsoft to have picked neither TCPA or Palladium and left the hardware alone. Am I right?
For the same reason Dell PCs come with a Dell logo. Intel is not making the device- they are providing a reference design and selling the chips. It is up to the OEMs (like Dell) to make the actual devices.
While its true that Palladium hardware needs the OS to enter trusted mode, Longhorn is in no way needed to run Hammer or any other Palladium enabled hardware. Remember that Palladium is not involved in the boot process, and when it is enabled it runs parallel to the kernel. But we have already been over this, haven't we Billly...
Actually, privacy is maintained despite the hardware "identifiers" (which amounts to a public/private key pair). Under palladium, data that is encrypted using your private key is first prepended with a random nonce, so the outside world would never get the same ciphertext twice (and thus wouldn't be able to track any specific key).
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default
Um, AMD announced support for Palladium long before Intel did. I'm not sure if it will ship with the first generation Hammer, but it will ship eventually.
I think you are getting confused- memory bandwidth has been Athlon's biggest bottleneck by far for a long time now. If you don't believe me, check out the Memory bench results. So far AMD just hasn't been able to compete with the 400 and 533 MHz FSB.
Where is Intel losing their grip? They increased their market share by 3% this year...
*sigh*
The TCPA has repeatedly said that the standard will be open for anybody to freely use. We all know that Microsoft has some patents that relate to DRM and palladium, but they have specifically said that the other operating systems will be able to make use of the standard. This includes how to make use of the TPM and use the encryption keys in it when entering a trusted mode. Any OS will be able to use the TPM.
And I'm still trying to figure out how you interpreted the line of the FAQ that said "the owner runs whatever OS or applications they want" to mean that you can only run what Microsoft wants you to run.
The fact is the TCPA standard is very open and it does not prevent you from running Linux. IBM's TCPA compliant Thinkpads have been on the market for over a year and plenty of people install Linux on them. The hardware is already out there and you can run Linux on it- I don't see how you can argue with that.
You might want to read these notes on Palladium and how it relates to TCPA from Seth Schoen. They are also very informative:
http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/2002-07-05.html
I'm hopeful that we can disable Palladium with a $.99 laundry marker.
Um, Palladium is an Operating System. You disable it by not installing it on your computer.
The TCPA hardware on the computer is "disabled" by not installing a TCPA complient OS. Case in point, IBM has been shipping TCPA complient Thinkpads for over a year now. No operating systems make use if that yet, so the TCPA hardware is effectively disabled. Oh, and plenty of people are still installing Linux on these Thinkpads- thats because the TCPA standard is not OS or even platform specific.
Well, considering that the TCPA standard specifies that the user determines what software is trusted (not the hardware), that will never happen. The hardware system ensures that the software executes within the trust level that the user assigns, but the TCPA does not certify the trust level of any software.
Instead of spreading the same worthless FUD about TCPA and Palladium, why don't you take a stroll through the TCPA specifications? Here are some good places to start:
% 20FAQ_0703021.pdf 2 .pdf . pdf
http://www.trustedcomputing.org/docs/Website_TCPA
http://www.trustedcomputing.org/docs/TPM_QA_07180
http://www.trustedcomputing.org/docs/main%20v1_1b
Here are some of the highlights:
4. Is the TPM based platform limited to a particular operating system or microprocessor?
No. The TCPA specification is designed to be platform and OS agnostic. The TCPA specification is not limited to a specific platform, OS or CPU.
9. Does TCPA certify applications and OS's that utilize TPMs?
No. The TCPA has no plans to create a "certifying authority" to certify OS's or applications as "trusted". The trust model the TCPA promotes for the PC is: 1) the owner runs whatever OS or applications they want; 2) The TPM assures reliable reporting of the state of the platform; and 3) the two parties engaged in the transaction determine if the other platform is trusted for the intended transaction.
18. Does the TCPA support open source systems?
Yes. The ability to use the TPM functionality is available to all developers of software. An open source project could determine to use TPM functionally today. The concepts of measurement, protected storage and attestation of measurements are fundamental concepts that hold true for any type of OS or application. The platforms that support TCPA today are not limited to only one OS and if open source developers provided applications that used the TPM functionality they would find support.
I think you need to replace all of the
"Tux ignores him"
with
"Tux tells him his lemonade tastes like crap, insists that his ice water tastes better, demands that Billy make his secret recipe public, and compares Billy with the anti-christ"
I think the fact that millions of customers have bought these TCPA computers without even knowing it shows how much /. is overreacting. If customers can still do everything that they want to, then what is the big deal?
In fact, thinking about it, if Palladium is everything we fear, AND it becomes so that you can't even buy loose components that aren't palladium-based
Hardware that is "palladium-based" means that it meets the TCPA specification, and the TCPA specification is by definition platform and OS agnostic. IBM has been selling Thinkpads that meet the TCPA specification for about a year now, and people install other OS's on them all of the time. Even if your far-fetched worst case scenario becomes a reality, nothing will stop you from installing Linux/FreeBSD/DOS/CPM/etc.
Palladium is Microsoft's software implementation of the TCPA standard. If you talk a stroll through www.trustedcomputing.org, you might notice that the hardware specification is platform independent. In fact, from the TPM FAQ at http://www.trustedcomputing.org/docs/TPM_QA_07180
In fact, IBM has been shipping TCPA compliant Thinkpads for about a year now, and people install alternate OS's on them all of the time.
Also from the TPM FAQ:
Your argument supposes a non-existent right to watch movies the way you want to see them.
Non-existent right? What the hell are you talking about? That has to be one of the most basic rights that we have. Or do you live in a world where bathroom breaks during a movie is strictly prohibited and there are no power/mute/channel buttons on your remote?
If I choose to rent a movie, then put on the newest Back Street Boys CD and fast forward the movie pretending that the people are dancing to the music, nobody in this world is going to stop me. I couldn't care less how the director wanted me to see it- I will watch the movie how I want to watch it.
Parents that are watching edited movies are accepting the consequences- they are watching edited movies!!!
This is moronic. Don't like the content of a movie? Take the movie the way it is or don't watch it. End of story.
/.-ers like you to find something illegal about that.
Your argument is moronic. If you don't like the edited version of the movie, then don't watch it. End of story. Nobody is taking away the original artwork (like your weak analogy of ruining artwork in a museum).
Clean Flicks petitioning for the right to censor.
This has nothing to do with censorship. The un-edited versions are still just as available as before.
Basically I think that the director's "artistic vision" is completely irrelevant to me. I want entertain myself as I see fit. Maybe I want to walk into an art museum with red sunglasses on so all of the artwork looks pink. I couldn't care less if the artist wanted me to see it differently.
I am not sure about the legality of this rental service, but the original business plan allowed people to bring in their own personal copies of a movie to have them edited. I think its a stretch even for hypocritical
And there is another small group of nitwits in the US that thinks that the establishment clause in the first amendment means that the Government can't even mention anything remotely religious. Don't you ever get tired of screaming "Separation of Church and State!" (a phrase that never appears in the Constitution, btw).
Whoops. I meant that 3/28 is just over 10%.
The P4 still has quite a performance lead. I just took your advice and checked the 2600+ benchmarks (on tomshardware). The Athlon 2600+ only beat the 2.8 GHz P4 in 3 of the 28 tests. The Athlon beat the P4 in just under 10% of the test- that doesn't sound like the P4 is a "grossly inferior product" to me. And BTW- those benchmarks don't include the SysMark tests that are in question here.
Intel's performance lead is even more impressive when you realize that the 2.8 GHz P4 is available to customers starting Monday, but the Athlon 2600+ won't be availble to the OEM's for another month (and even longer before customers have it).
Stockholders don't give a crap about technology- they care about money.
That said, considering the new Intel 2.8 GHz P4 beats the new Athlon 2600 in a majority of the benchmarks, I would say that both companies are designing kick-ass processors. The difference is that Intel markets itself tons better.
I think you pretty much just summarized why Linux will never be mainstream, too.
Um, the high end Intel isn't 3x the price. Its actually cheaper than the high end AMD... And by the time the new Athlons reach the customers, Intel will have slashed the prices of the high end P4s (the 2.5 GHz is going to get a 63% price cut) and released faster chips.
Don't get me wrong- what AMD has done with the aging Athlon core is impressive. We all win by this competition. But I still give Intel the long term advantage (although Hammer could change that- we'll have to wait and see).