What kind of "root access" doesn't allow a customer to run his own binaries? If a customer can't be trusted with root access without damaging anything other than his own resources, he or she shouldn't be given it. Now if these were removable, opt-in, devices (not just software switchable, but physically removable), I could support them in that sort of application.
So, the problem with this technology is that it will make it harder for people to pirate software
No--that's not it, but your saying so admits you know it will be used as a DRM measure, despite it's being sold as an "end user security" tool over which the user will have control. What it will do is stop a legitimate user from transferring a purchased license, say, at the time his machine dies to a spare.
There will continue to be plenty of computers without this feature.
But once they've reached critical mass, you'll still need one of them to run Windows. And the machine without the Fritz chip will cost much more, having lost economies of scale. I just don't understand why people are falling all over themselves to defend an obvious DRM measure.
Seriously, the chips the article is talking about are completely user-controllable. If they don't want to take advantage of the functionality, they don't have to.
Yeah, and they don't have to buy software from manufacturers that are able to require trust chips once enough of them are in place, either. All this stuff about end users gaining secure storage and control are a smoke screen for what this is: a dongle built into every computer, that has the ability not only to lock a software purchase to that machine but to ensure that only software signed by those making the keys will run.
Yes, I know that currently an endorsement key isn't required to run anything--that's because corporate America, while evil, isn't too stupid to know how to boil a frog.
I can assure that no processes run on my machines that I didn't authorize now. It's when I can't run any processes on my machines that Bill doesn't authorize that we have a problem. You can cry "tin-foil hat" all you want, but where this technology ultimately leads is to DRM locked-down boxes that won't run anything not signed by an endorsement key from an "authorized" developer.
You're talking about the Basque separatists vs. Al Queda? Seems to me that would have been a good place to start the investigation, even if it didn't ultimately turn out to be correct. Don't know that that constitutes a "lie" or a "coverup" as the terrorist appeasers now in power have spun it.
But there's been quite a bit of reporting that there will be compatibility problems because of the security enhancements. Nonetheless, I'm looking forward to spending less time cleaning up spyware infections on relatives' machines.
That was nicely pedantic. But not quite correct--the adverb "successfully" makes all the difference. Unless you'd say that O.J. Simpson was successfully tried for murder, in which case there's no way we can agree on this:).
No kidding. Of course, had there been any justice, Clinton would have been impeached successfully, and Bush would be on trial for war crimes right now.
On the plus side, the music industry appears to be getting away from expecting that people will share their DRM'd files with no compensation. A reward structure in terms of merchandise or better access to the network is absolutely necessary for them to leverage a peer to peer network.
Also, the music industry having been involved in these sorts of standards helps contradict the automatic demonization of any peer to peer network.
I find it amazing that these muppets geek squeal with no basis about the GPL. Tivo's code is in modules, separate from the GPL'd kernel. And even if they had a custom kernel, they would in no circumstances be required to distribute or allow distribution by third parties of disk images containing it.
The sort of rhetoric by those using words like "extortion" and "jackboots" only serve to discredit open source in the eyes of legitimate business.
Slashdot Mirror
should be reading John Walker's Digital Imprimatur to see what its real purpose is.
What kind of "root access" doesn't allow a customer to run his own binaries? If a customer can't be trusted with root access without damaging anything other than his own resources, he or she shouldn't be given it. Now if these were removable, opt-in, devices (not just software switchable, but physically removable), I could support them in that sort of application.
No--that's not it, but your saying so admits you know it will be used as a DRM measure, despite it's being sold as an "end user security" tool over which the user will have control. What it will do is stop a legitimate user from transferring a purchased license, say, at the time his machine dies to a spare.
But once they've reached critical mass, you'll still need one of them to run Windows. And the machine without the Fritz chip will cost much more, having lost economies of scale. I just don't understand why people are falling all over themselves to defend an obvious DRM measure.
Yeah, and they don't have to buy software from manufacturers that are able to require trust chips once enough of them are in place, either. All this stuff about end users gaining secure storage and control are a smoke screen for what this is: a dongle built into every computer, that has the ability not only to lock a software purchase to that machine but to ensure that only software signed by those making the keys will run.
Yes, I know that currently an endorsement key isn't required to run anything--that's because corporate America, while evil, isn't too stupid to know how to boil a frog.
I can assure that no processes run on my machines that I didn't authorize now. It's when I can't run any processes on my machines that Bill doesn't authorize that we have a problem. You can cry "tin-foil hat" all you want, but where this technology ultimately leads is to DRM locked-down boxes that won't run anything not signed by an endorsement key from an "authorized" developer.
You're talking about the Basque separatists vs. Al Queda? Seems to me that would have been a good place to start the investigation, even if it didn't ultimately turn out to be correct. Don't know that that constitutes a "lie" or a "coverup" as the terrorist appeasers now in power have spun it.
But there's been quite a bit of reporting that there will be compatibility problems because of the security enhancements. Nonetheless, I'm looking forward to spending less time cleaning up spyware infections on relatives' machines.
That was nicely pedantic. But not quite correct--the adverb "successfully" makes all the difference. Unless you'd say that O.J. Simpson was successfully tried for murder, in which case there's no way we can agree on this :).
No kidding. Of course, had there been any justice, Clinton would have been impeached successfully, and Bush would be on trial for war crimes right now.
Weak troll. Come back when you've got some game.
On the plus side, the music industry appears to be getting away from expecting that people will share their DRM'd files with no compensation. A reward structure in terms of merchandise or better access to the network is absolutely necessary for them to leverage a peer to peer network. Also, the music industry having been involved in these sorts of standards helps contradict the automatic demonization of any peer to peer network.
The sort of rhetoric by those using words like "extortion" and "jackboots" only serve to discredit open source in the eyes of legitimate business.
. . . my Taco gave to me FIVE GOLDEN RINGS,
four penis birds,
three fresh men,
two bubble tubs,
and a cartridge from Atari!