To the proponents of Trusted Computing, Quit trying to pull the TPCI wool over our eyes!
If I want to run OPEN SOURCE software, because I can re-compile it, because I can change it, because I can fix that bug that no one else will fix because I am one of three people in the whole world who ever see it. When I re-compile my kernel to fix that bug because I am sick to death that my laptop crashes every time I visit my Bank Site. I re compile it with the fix (or with any other change I like) Trusted computing will either:
A: Flat refuse to load my shiny new kernel, because it can no longer be decrypted.
or
B: Allow my shiny new unsigned kernel to load, but now my Bank will not speak to me because I am no longer TRUSTED.
Who has to sign my shiny new kernel? The BIOS maker? Microsoft? Some random authority? Who will have to read my source code to be sure I have not done anything untoward and to whom I will have to pay a bribe er.. Fee. Perhaps a substantial fee. Surly I can't sign it myself - I may be an eeevil terrorist pirate trying to build myself a DRM busting back door. NO some "trusted" entity will have to sign it for me. That means I will have to ask someone's permission TO USE MY OWN COMPUTER.
If I have to ask permission of a third party to use my own computer, it is not "my computer" any more.
You can't have it both ways - either I trust (and control) my computer, or the Music/Movie Industry trusts it because they are able to control it (and me).
You were saying if I got the Master Key I could override any part , but if I do override then once again my machine is not trusted and I become a second class citizen on the Internet, If I am even allowed on. I can no longer bank at my bank, I can no longer see or hear any media.
What use it it to have the source code if you compile it, but you can't run it.
Unfortunately there is that standard problem with any slashdotter boycott. We are not a big enough percentage of the whole population to cause sony any grief. We boycott, they says "meh. bye bye."
Intellectual Property is as much property as the family farm. If we deny the existence and ownership of IP, then our economy is going to explode and die. Yes but many here (not you or I) believe that Intellectual property is not really property because the are quite OK with violation of the right to copy intellectual property.
This statement is bullshit and proves that you know nothing about how GCC works. So? Tell me... I am really not a programmer - just a system administrator for 20 years when I write
int main(void) {
printf("\n\nHello World\n"); }
where does the actual code that does the printf come from? A library right?
but sometimes the argument is whether a particular thing is actually "property".
For instance a large crowd of people believe that record companies don't have any property at stake when they (the large crowd of people) make and distribute copies of another's musical work.
(The views expressed above are not necessarily the same as the views of the poster, but are posted to explore a point)
Actually the freedoms RMS chooses to champion are not yours (A developer trying to make a living writing code) but others (users of free programs and people who write code to share).
Is it really the case that if you only link a library without changing it you must use GPL? You can't use GCC to write proprietary programs? (linking to the glibc contained in gcc) Is that new under GPL3?
But usually they guess about the outflow based on the inflow. If you back up a big tank truck filled with sewage and dump it down your toilet they might never know.
The only thing is that the pushers won't give up their lucrative trade willingly. They will market their drugs as "better" or "stronger" than the stuff you get at the government store. It will still sell for a lot. And the addicted will still burgle and rob to get the money to buy it. The dangerous criminal element does not go away.
Or you could just change to an ISP that doesn't impose stupid restrictions on it's customers. Well I am only paying for the "cheap seats" DSL $14.99/mo, If I want to realy be a server too at&t says I have to get a more expensive type of DSL.
NAT is a Bad Thing since it breaks peer to peer applications such as VoIP umm is skype VoIP? works for me. Anyway I would rather have all my machine face the Internet so I would be able to ssh into them from far away. My ISP would have to relax it's "no servers allowed" policy. Perhaps my ISP's rule should be - Free communications between all hosts in your group, Outbound/Reply only to other groups. Even if one of the machines in my group is not still connected at my house.
NAT doesn't provide any security,...If you don't believe me, set your NAT device "DMZ host" to your PC and watch your PC get pwned in a matter of minutes just as if it were not behind the NAT device. I effect your saying if I move my machine outside the protection of my NAT router, it wont be protected anymore?
Isn't that sort of like saying "Bank Vaults don't provide any protection, stack all the money on the counter outside the vault and watch it dissapear"
What if I leave it behind my NAT router? with a 192.168.x.x address mr eeevil hacker can't even really see it.
Perhaps we should all send him emails... kindly emails wishing him well and commenting gently on his recent work so he would not feel so all alone.. (oh wait that's another song isn't it..)
My ISP only allows me one dynamic address... I use a NAT router (with their blessing) and have several machines at honme. With IPV6, is there still NAT routing? Or do you think my ISP will say "IPv6 = you get as many hosts as you want"
Oh, and NAT firewalling? what about NAT firewalling?
Then there are these guys: http://noosphere.princeton.edu/ who have hardware random number devices placed all over, and purport to see non-randomness during major events.
Slashdot Mirror
To the proponents of Trusted Computing, Quit trying to pull the TPCI wool over our eyes!
If I want to run OPEN SOURCE software, because I can re-compile it, because I can change it, because I can fix that bug that no one else will fix because I am one of three people in the whole world who ever see it. When I re-compile my kernel to fix that bug because I am sick to death that my laptop crashes every time I visit my Bank Site. I re compile it with the fix (or with any other change I like) Trusted computing will either:
A: Flat refuse to load my shiny new kernel, because it can no longer be decrypted.
or
B: Allow my shiny new unsigned kernel to load, but now my Bank will not speak to me because I am no longer TRUSTED.
Who has to sign my shiny new kernel? The BIOS maker? Microsoft? Some random authority? Who will have to read my source code to be sure I have not done anything untoward and to whom I will have to pay a bribe er.. Fee. Perhaps a substantial fee. Surly I can't sign it myself - I may be an eeevil terrorist pirate trying to build myself a DRM busting back door. NO some "trusted" entity will have to sign it for me. That means I will have to ask someone's permission TO USE MY OWN COMPUTER.
If I have to ask permission of a third party to use my own computer, it is not "my computer" any more.
You can't have it both ways - either I trust (and control) my computer, or the Music/Movie Industry trusts it because they are able to control it (and me).
You were saying if I got the Master Key I could override any part , but if I do override then once again my machine is not trusted and I become a second class citizen on the Internet, If I am even allowed on. I can no longer bank at my bank, I can no longer see or hear any media.
What use it it to have the source code if you compile it, but you can't run it.
I want consolas on my DOS box!
Any way to convince MSDOS 6.21 to use a graphical font?
Do you think that the "original corporate engineering culture know as 'the HP way'" is returning or has returned to hp?
Unfortunately there is that standard problem with any slashdotter boycott. We are not a big enough percentage of the whole population to cause sony any grief. We boycott, they says "meh. bye bye."
int main(void) {
printf("\n\nHello World\n");
}
where does the actual code that does the printf come from? A library right?
but sometimes the argument is whether a particular thing is actually "property".
For instance a large crowd of people believe that record companies don't have any property at stake when they (the large crowd of people) make and distribute copies of another's musical work.
(The views expressed above are not necessarily the same as the views of the poster, but are posted to explore a point)
Actually the freedoms RMS chooses to champion are not yours (A developer trying to make a living writing code) but others (users of free programs and people who write code to share).
Is it really the case that if you only link a library without changing it you must use GPL? You can't use GCC to write proprietary programs? (linking to the glibc contained in gcc) Is that new under GPL3?
But usually they guess about the outflow based on the inflow. If you back up a big tank truck filled with sewage and dump it down your toilet they might never know.
The government did not take over the growing, processing and selling of the tobacco either.
The only thing is that the pushers won't give up their lucrative trade willingly. They will market their drugs as "better" or "stronger" than the stuff you get at the government store. It will still sell for a lot. And the addicted will still burgle and rob to get the money to buy it. The dangerous criminal element does not go away.
AND their funding...
[microsoft bash]After all who stands to gain by the discouragement of Firefox..hmmm?[/microsoft bash]
I use firefox, and I don't block ads.
I think Microsoft just likes to be able to FUD about linux's patent violations.
(hmm 'FUD' as a verb....)
a more expensive type of DSL.
Capabilities, Speed, Low Price -- Pick two.
That we have been sending to China. If they had stockpiled a few of them they would have cheap monitors to go with their .1k$ computers.
able to ssh into them from far away. My ISP would have to relax it's "no servers allowed" policy. Perhaps my ISP's
rule should be - Free communications between all hosts in your group, Outbound/Reply only to other groups. Even if
one of the machines in my group is not still connected at my house.
Isn't that sort of like saying "Bank Vaults don't provide any protection, stack all the money on the counter outside the vault and watch it dissapear"
What if I leave it behind my NAT router? with a 192.168.x.x address mr eeevil hacker can't even really see it.
Perhaps we should all send him emails...
kindly emails wishing him well and commenting gently on his recent work
so he would not feel so all alone.. (oh wait that's another song isn't it..)
My ISP only allows me one dynamic address... I use a NAT router (with their blessing) and have several machines at honme. With IPV6, is there still NAT routing? Or do you think my ISP will say "IPv6 = you get as many hosts as you want"
Oh, and NAT firewalling? what about NAT firewalling?
What GPL taketh from the developer, it Giveth to the end user.
Then there are these guys: http://noosphere.princeton.edu/ who have hardware random number devices placed all over, and purport to see non-randomness during major events.
Remember, the United States has a "Republic" -
A Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting for "what's for dinner".
(hmm, I wonder how you relate a republic to two wolves and a sheep...)