[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Microsoft's plans to kill open source: TCPA



Bob Nielsen wrote:
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 07:52:39PM +1100, Russell wrote:
Alan Chandler wrote:
If we then have a situation where Windows software has all these controls
built in to it - with keys being controlled back at Redmond, and Linux  with
the keys being controlled by the owner of the PC (I am assuming the open
source community will still use the facilities provided by the hardware - but
will ensure that the software installer has the control) - then won't this
just provide greater commercial pressure for people to switch to open source
than now?

If intel or anyone else puts the DRM controls in their chips, it'll
sure be a big incentive to buy some chinese or russian clones without
DRM.

M$ relies on x86 hardware. Linux can be ported to anything. Someone
like Sun or some other hardware maker should mass produce non x86 PCs.
That'll jettison M$ *and* intel from everyones worries.


Hopefully AMD will make non-TCPA x86 chips rather than caving-in to
the M$/Intel collusion.

I read some stuff about this all and as it seems now:
-TCPA can be (partially) turned off, the 'piracy detection' feature would still be active
-The keys would _not_ be in the hands of the users because:
1) Signing is only available for lotsa $$$
2) The use of keys doesn't help much - everyone would have to register their personal copy of linux. That's not linux anymore. And every time you recompile you have to register again. 3) If M$ handles signing they probably won't make it easy for linux users. Luckily, they propably won't. But who knows... talk about antitrust. -TCPA will not be architechture dependent. In the beginning it will be a chip for motherboards. Then it will be integrated in x86 CPUs. Eventually everyone's gonna have one in their watch. That is, if they succeed. I'll never buy anything which is DRM / TCPA / Palladium enabled.


--
Johan Ehnberg
johan@ehnberg.net
"Windows? No... I don't think so."



Reply to: