Text 6779, 301 rader
Skriven 2005-08-28 11:11:20 av Robert Comer (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 6777 av Rich (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: TPM
===============
From: "Robert Comer" <bobcomer@mindspring.com>
??
>OSX could just as well fail to run without a firewire port.
That is not the case, and I can add a firewire port very easily if I don't
already have it, I can't do that with a specific TPM chip.
- Bob Comer
"Rich" <@> wrote in message news:4311d0f3@w3.nls.net...
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
> than a claim that a firewire port is >required.
It's far more than that, OSX wont run without it. It's an artificial
limitation to force you to buy the proprietary (and more costly) hardware
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
than a claim that a firewire port is required. It isn't easy to judge
what
is going on when the prerelease software and hardware are leased
restricted
use apple property. I don't think you can infer much from what apple does
in this restricted application to what apple plans for public release.
Rich
"Robert Comer" <bobcomer@mindspring.com> wrote in message
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
with
> the reports that the dev systems have TPMs and some osx software
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
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
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
the
reports that the dev systems have TPMs and some osx software component
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Apple
happy,
> especially in light of the recent news that OSX was running on
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
>
>
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|