Text 6777, 716 rader
Skriven 2005-08-28 07:58:16 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 6768 av Robert Comer (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: TPM
===============
From: "Rich" <@>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0283_01C5ABA6.3F1CCCA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Exactly. OSX could just as well fail to run without a firewire port.
Rich
"Robert Comer" <bobcomer@mindspring.com> wrote in message =
news:4311983c@w3.nls.net...
> What I read didn't describe how a TPM is needed for osx in any way =
more=20
> than a claim that a firewire port is >required.
It's far more than that, OSX wont run without it. It's an artificial=20
limitation to force you to buy the proprietary (and more costly) =
hardware=20
from Apple. That same idea may be used by other companies in the =
future...
- Bob Comer
"Rich" <@> wrote in message news:43114d7f@w3.nls.net...
What I read didn't describe how a TPM is needed for osx in any way =
more=20
than a claim that a firewire port is required. It isn't easy to judge =
what=20
is going on when the prerelease software and hardware are leased =
restricted=20
use apple property. I don't think you can infer much from what apple =
does=20
in this restricted application to what apple plans for public release.
Rich
"Robert Comer" <bobcomer@mindspring.com> wrote in message=20
news:43112d9a@w3.nls.net...
> I'm guessing your repeated mac osx references is aluding to =
apple's
> statements that they will support it only on >apple systems =
combined=20
with
> the reports that the dev systems have TPMs and some osx software=20
component
> uses >it.
Actually a bit more than that, actual reports of what it does, but =
it
matters little, it's an example of what can be done with TPM. What =
OSX=20
does
with it is just an example btw, not my specific gripe.
>It would surely is a positive if you wanted to run osx and =
irrelevant if
>you didn't.
Nope, it's definitely not a positive to me -- if I have an identical =
PC to
this Apple i386 machine and the only thing that stops me from =
running OSX=20
is
the TPM, that's wrong. Purchased software is purchased software.
>I think the negative to which you are trying to refer is with osx =
which
>will not run on the large number of >computers that other operating =
systems
>like Windows will.
Big negative, with no offsetting positive that benefits me. (I've =
already
stated I don't use a PC for anything that would require DRM)
- Bob Comer
"Rich" <@> wrote in message news:431112c7@w3.nls.net...
I'm guessing your repeated mac osx references is aluding to =
apple's
statements that they will support it only on apple systems combined =
with=20
the
reports that the dev systems have TPMs and some osx software =
component=20
uses
it. If so, that doesn't make a TPM a negative. It would surely is =
a
positive if you wanted to run osx and irrelevant if you didn't. I =
think=20
the
negative to which you are trying to refer is with osx which will not =
run=20
on
the large number of computers that other operating systems like =
Windows
will.
Rich
"Robert Comer" <bobcomer@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4310dbd2@w3.nls.net...
> What are the negatives of having a TPM?
None at the moment, unless you want to run OSX on a PC -- who =
knows=20
about
Windows and other software in the future.
> Do you have or have you seen a recent thinkpad with one?
No, we don't buy that often.
>How about a recent toshiba laptop?
Never buy those.
>Are these lesser devices because of it?
Yes, and I'll watch for it and plan accordingly.
- Bob Comer
"Rich" <@> wrote in message news:4310c98d@w3.nls.net...
I disagree.
What are the negatives of having a TPM?
Do you have or have you seen a recent thinkpad with one? How =
about a
recent toshiba laptop? Are these lesser devices because of it?
Rich
"Robert Comer" <bobcomer@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4310c52a$1@w3.nls.net...
> You don't have to use a TPM even if your computer has one.
Right now, yes, but in the future, I doubt that it's going to be
optional.
Look at the beta x86 OSX -- it requires a specific TPM.
>If you just want a smartcard you could have had one for years.
I didn't say I wanted one, just that I maybe could live with in =
place=20
of
TPM.
>A TPM builtin provides other benefits.
And negatives as well.
- Bob Comer
"Rich" <@> wrote in message news:4310abaa@w3.nls.net...
You don't have to use a TPM even if your computer has one. =
If you
just
want a smartcard you could have had one for years. A TPM =
builtin
provides
other benefits.
Rich
"Robert Comer" <bobcomer@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:43108b95$1@w3.nls.net...
> VT is virtualization.
Yep, know that, it's my specialty.
>LT is security. Neither is what george likes to call DRM.
True.
>What he tries to spin as something sinister is the smart card =
like
>functionality (e.g. secure storage, hardware crypto) =
>provided by a
TPM
>chip.
That's the one I don't like. A smartcard idea I maybe could =
live
with,
but
it would have to be both optional for the OS and machine, and=20
portable
between machines. Like a key basically, I carry it to =
whatever
machine
I
happen to be using it at the time, rather than it being tied =
to a
specific
piece of hardware, and you should have the ability to own more =
than
just
one
key.
- Bob Comer
"Rich" <@> wrote in message news:430ff6af@w3.nls.net...
VT is virtualization. LT is security. Neither is what =
george
likes
to
call DRM. What he tries to spin as something sinister is the =
smart
card
like functionality (e.g. secure storage, hardware crypto) =
provided=20
by
a
TPM
chip.
Rich
"Robert Comer" <bobcomer@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:430fdaf8$1@w3.nls.net...
Yep, it looks like it's coming, probably not anything we can =
do
about
it
either -- it's for the masses to decide about.
For now, no DRM media stuff for me at all, I refuse to use =
it. I
don't
do
any media other than broadcast TV on my PC. I'll probably =
get a=20
new
processor soon, with VT, dual or quad core, and yes, DRM, =
but that
doesn't
mean I have to allow the DRM part to make any difference to =
what I
want
to
do.
Eventually there will probably be some computer/OS company =
that=20
will
emerge
to satisfy our computing needs, but for entertainment, we're =
screwed
until
everyone else catches up and they revolt.
- Bob Comer
"Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote in message
news:430fbaa3$1@w3.nls.net...
> All this DRM crap is nothing but a power grab so that =
technology
companies
> can enforce more restrictions on how we use technology in =
order=20
to
extort
> more money for the same shit.
>
> Once it becomes possible to prevent you from upgrading =
your OS
without
> upgrading your computer, or to prevent you from upgrading =
your
computer
> without upgrading your OS, do you really think Intel or MS =
will=20
be
able
to
> resist the temptation? Do you think a computer sold with =
windows
should
> allow the user to remove windows and install Linux cause I =
somehow
think
> that's the kind of limitations we are headed for.
>
> Intel is going to have to include that type of tech to =
make=20
Apple
happy,
> especially in light of the recent news that OSX was =
running on=20
non
Apple
> PC's already...
>
> Geo.
>
> "Robert Comer" <bobcomer@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:430eed74@w3.nls.net...
>> I don't know if any do yet, but they agreed to do drm =
hardware
for
> palladium
>> just like intel did.
>>
>> - Bob Comer
>
>
------=_NextPart_000_0283_01C5ABA6.3F1CCCA0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2722" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Exactly. OSX could =
just as well=20
fail to run without a firewire port.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Robert Comer" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:bobcomer@mindspring.com">bobcomer@mindspring.com</A>> = wrote
in=20
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:4311983c@w3.nls.net">news:4311983c@w3.nls.net</A>...</DIV>&g=
t; =20
What I read didn't describe how a TPM is needed for osx in any way =
more=20
<BR>> than a claim that a firewire port is =
>required.<BR><BR>It's far=20
more than that, OSX wont run without it. It's an artificial=20
<BR>limitation to force you to buy the proprietary (and more costly) =
hardware=20
<BR>from Apple. That same idea may be used by other companies in =
the=20
future...<BR><BR>- Bob Comer<BR><BR><BR>"Rich" <@> wrote in =
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:43114d7f@w3.nls.net">news:43114d7f@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p; =20
What I read didn't describe how a TPM is needed for osx in any way =
more=20
<BR>than a claim that a firewire port is required. It isn't easy =
to=20
judge what <BR>is going on when the prerelease software and hardware =
are=20
leased restricted <BR>use apple property. I don't think you can =
infer=20
much from what apple does <BR>in this restricted application to what =
apple=20
plans for public release.<BR><BR>Rich<BR><BR> "Robert Comer" =
<<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:bobcomer@mindspring.com">bobcomer@mindspring.com</A>> = wrote
in=20
message <BR><A=20
=
href=3D"news:43112d9a@w3.nls.net">news:43112d9a@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p;=20
> I'm guessing your repeated mac osx references is =
aluding to=20
apple's<BR> > statements that they will support it only on =
>apple=20
systems combined <BR>with<BR> > the reports that the dev =
systems have=20
TPMs and some osx software <BR>component<BR> > uses=20
>it.<BR><BR> Actually a bit more than that, actual reports of =
what it=20
does, but it<BR> matters little, it's an example of what can be =
done=20
with TPM. What OSX <BR>does<BR> with it is just an example =
btw,=20
not my specific gripe.<BR><BR> >It would surely is a positive =
if you=20
wanted to run osx and irrelevant if<BR> >you =
didn't.<BR><BR> =20
Nope, it's definitely not a positive to me -- if I have an identical =
PC=20
to<BR> this Apple i386 machine and the only thing that stops me =
from=20
running OSX <BR>is<BR> the TPM, that's wrong. Purchased =
software=20
is purchased software.<BR><BR> >I think the negative to which =
you are=20
trying to refer is with osx which<BR> >will not run on the =
large=20
number of >computers that other operating <BR>systems<BR> =
>like=20
Windows will.<BR><BR> Big negative, with no offsetting positive =
that=20
benefits me. (I've already<BR> stated I don't use a PC for =
anything that would require DRM)<BR><BR> - Bob =
Comer<BR><BR><BR> =20
"Rich" <@> wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:431112c7@w3.nls.net">news:431112c7@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p; =20
I'm guessing your repeated mac osx references is aluding to =
apple's<BR> =20
statements that they will support it only on apple systems combined =
with=20
<BR>the<BR> reports that the dev systems have TPMs and some osx =
software=20
component <BR>uses<BR> it. If so, that doesn't make a TPM =
a=20
negative. It would surely is a<BR> positive if you wanted =
to run=20
osx and irrelevant if you didn't. I think <BR>the<BR> =
negative to=20
which you are trying to refer is with osx which will not run =
<BR>on<BR> =20
the large number of computers that other operating systems like=20
Windows<BR> will.<BR><BR> Rich<BR><BR> =
"Robert=20
Comer" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:bobcomer@mindspring.com">bobcomer@mindspring.com</A>> = wrote
in=20
message<BR> <A=20
=
href=3D"news:4310dbd2@w3.nls.net">news:4310dbd2@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p; =20
> What are the negatives of having a TPM?<BR><BR> =
None at=20
the moment, unless you want to run OSX on a PC -- who knows=20
<BR>about<BR> Windows and other software in the=20
future.<BR><BR> > Do you have or have =
you=20
seen a recent thinkpad with one?<BR><BR> No, we =
don't buy=20
that often.<BR><BR> >How about a recent toshiba=20
laptop?<BR><BR> Never buy =
those.<BR><BR> =20
>Are these lesser devices because of it?<BR><BR> =
Yes, and=20
I'll watch for it and plan accordingly.<BR><BR> - =
Bob=20
Comer<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR> "Rich" <@> wrote in =
message=20
<A=20
=
href=3D"news:4310c98d@w3.nls.net">news:4310c98d@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p; =20
I disagree.<BR><BR> What are the =
negatives=20
of having a TPM?<BR><BR> Do you =
have or=20
have you seen a recent thinkpad with one? How about=20
a<BR> recent toshiba laptop? Are these lesser =
devices=20
because of it?<BR><BR> =20
Rich<BR><BR> "Robert Comer" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:bobcomer@mindspring.com">bobcomer@mindspring.com</A>> = wrote
in=20
message<BR> <A=20
=
href=3D"news:4310c52a$1@w3.nls.net">news:4310c52a$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
=20
> You don't have to use a TPM even if your computer has =
one.<BR><BR> Right now, yes, but in the =
future,=20
I doubt that it's going to be<BR> =20
optional.<BR> Look at the beta x86 OSX =
-- it=20
requires a specific TPM.<BR><BR> =
>If=20
you just want a smartcard you could have had one for=20
years.<BR><BR> I didn't say I wanted =
one, just=20
that I maybe could live with in place =
<BR>of<BR> =20
TPM.<BR><BR> >A TPM builtin provides =
other=20
benefits.<BR><BR> And negatives as=20
well.<BR><BR> - Bob=20
Comer<BR><BR><BR> "Rich" <@> wrote =
in=20
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:4310abaa@w3.nls.net">news:4310abaa@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p; =20
You don't have to use a TPM even if your computer has one. If=20
you<BR> just<BR> want a smartcard =
you=20
could have had one for years. A TPM builtin<BR> =20
provides<BR> other=20
benefits.<BR><BR> =20
Rich<BR><BR> "Robert Comer" =
<<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:bobcomer@mindspring.com">bobcomer@mindspring.com</A>> = wrote
in=20
message<BR> <A=20
=
href=3D"news:43108b95$1@w3.nls.net">news:43108b95$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
=20
> VT is=20
virtualization.<BR><BR> Yep, =
know=20
that, it's my =
specialty.<BR><BR> =20
>LT is security. Neither is what george likes to call=20
DRM.<BR><BR> =20
True.<BR><BR> >What he =
tries to=20
spin as something sinister is the smart card=20
like<BR> >functionality =
(e.g.=20
secure storage, hardware crypto) >provided by a<BR> =20
TPM<BR> =20
>chip.<BR><BR> That's the =
one I=20
don't like. A smartcard idea I maybe could live<BR> =20
with,<BR> =20
but<BR> it would have to be =
both=20
optional for the OS and machine, and=20
<BR>portable<BR> between=20
machines. Like a key basically, I carry it to whatever<BR> =
machine<BR> =
I<BR> =20
happen to be using it at the time, rather than it being tied to=20
a<BR> =
specific<BR> =20
piece of hardware, and you should have the ability to own more =
than<BR> =20
just<BR> =20
one<BR> =20
key.<BR><BR> - Bob=20
Comer<BR><BR><BR> "Rich" =
<@>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:430ff6af@w3.nls.net">news:430ff6af@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p; =20
VT is virtualization. LT is security. Neither is what=20
george<BR> likes<BR> =20
to<BR> call DRM. What =
he tries=20
to spin as something sinister is the smart<BR> =20
card<BR> like functionality =
(e.g.=20
secure storage, hardware crypto) provided <BR>by<BR> =20
a<BR> =20
TPM<BR> =20
chip.<BR><BR> =20
Rich<BR><BR> =
"Robert=20
Comer" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:bobcomer@mindspring.com">bobcomer@mindspring.com</A>> = wrote
in=20
message<BR> <A=20
=
href=3D"news:430fdaf8$1@w3.nls.net">news:430fdaf8$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
=20
Yep, it looks like it's coming, probably not anything we can =
do<BR> =20
about<BR> =20
it<BR> either -- =
it's=20
for the masses to decide=20
about.<BR><BR> =
For now,=20
no DRM media stuff for me at all, I refuse to use it. =20
I<BR> don't<BR> =20
do<BR> any media =
other=20
than broadcast TV on my PC. I'll probably get a=20
<BR>new<BR> =
processor=20
soon, with VT, dual or quad core, and yes, DRM, but=20
that<BR> =20
doesn't<BR> mean =
I have=20
to allow the DRM part to make any difference to what =
I<BR> =20
want<BR> =20
to<BR> =20
do.<BR><BR> =
Eventually=20
there will probably be some computer/OS company that=20
<BR>will<BR> =20
emerge<BR> to =
satisfy=20
our computing needs, but for entertainment, we're=20
<BR>screwed<BR> =20
until<BR> =
everyone else=20
catches up and they=20
revolt.<BR><BR> =
- Bob=20
=
Comer<BR><BR><BR><BR> &nbs=
p;=20
"Geo" <<A href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>> =
wrote in=20
message<BR> <A=20
=
href=3D"news:430fbaa3$1@w3.nls.net">news:430fbaa3$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
=20
> All this DRM crap is nothing but a power grab so that=20
technology<BR> =20
companies<BR> =
> can=20
enforce more restrictions on how we use technology in order=20
<BR>to<BR> =20
extort<BR> > =
more=20
money for the same=20
shit.<BR> =20
><BR> > =
Once it=20
becomes possible to prevent you from upgrading your =
OS<BR> =20
without<BR> > =
upgrading your computer, or to prevent you from upgrading=20
your<BR> =20
computer<BR> =
>=20
without upgrading your OS, do you really think Intel or MS will=20
<BR>be<BR> =20
able<BR> =20
to<BR> > =
resist the=20
temptation? Do you think a computer sold with=20
windows<BR> =20
should<BR> > =
allow=20
the user to remove windows and install Linux cause I=20
<BR>somehow<BR> =20
think<BR> > =
that's=20
the kind of limitations we are headed=20
for.<BR> =20
><BR> > =
Intel is=20
going to have to include that type of tech to make=20
<BR>Apple<BR> =20
happy,<BR> >=20
especially in light of the recent news that OSX was running on=20
<BR>non<BR> =20
Apple<BR> > =
PC's=20
already...<BR> =20
><BR> >=20
Geo.<BR> =20
><BR> > =
"Robert=20
Comer" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:bobcomer@mindspring.com">bobcomer@mindspring.com</A>> = wrote
in=20
message<BR> > =
<A=20
=
href=3D"news:430eed74@w3.nls.net">news:430eed74@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p; =20
>> I don't know if any do yet, but they agreed to do drm=20
hardware<BR> =20
for<BR> >=20
palladium<BR> =
>>=20
just like intel =
did.<BR> =20
>><BR> =
>> -=20
Bob Comer<BR> =20
><BR> =20
><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0283_01C5ABA6.3F1CCCA0--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|