Text 6781, 871 rader
Skriven 2005-08-28 08:56:50 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 6779 av Robert Comer (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Mac OSX and TPM
===========================
From: "Rich" <@>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_02AA_01C5ABAE.6E133960
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My point is that it is arbitrary. Replace firewire port with network =
adapter with MAC address in apple assigned range or a specific memory =
controller or anything else.
Rich
"Robert Comer" <bobcomer@mindspring.com> wrote in message =
news:4311d400$1@w3.nls.net...
??
>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=20
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=20
news:4311983c@w3.nls.net...
> What I read didn't describe how a TPM is needed for osx in any =
way=20
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=20
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=20
what
is going on when the prerelease software and hardware are leased=20
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=20
if
>you didn't.
Nope, it's definitely not a positive to me -- if I have an =
identical PC=20
to
this Apple i386 machine and the only thing that stops me from =
running=20
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=20
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=20
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=20
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=20
like
>functionality (e.g. secure storage, hardware crypto) =
>provided by=20
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=20
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=20
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.=20
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=20
that
doesn't
mean I have to allow the DRM part to make any difference =
to what=20
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=20
technology
companies
> can enforce more restrictions on how we use technology =
in=20
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=20
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=20
hardware
for
> palladium
>> just like intel did.
>>
>> - Bob Comer
>
>
------=_NextPart_000_02AA_01C5ABAE.6E133960
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> My point is that it is=20
arbitrary. Replace firewire port with network adapter with MAC = address
in=20
apple assigned range or a specific memory controller or anything=20
else.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></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:4311d400$1@w3.nls.net">news:4311d400$1@w3.nls.net</A>...</DI=
V>??<BR><BR>>OSX=20
could just as well fail to run without a firewire port.<BR><BR>That is =
not the=20
case, and I can add a firewire port very easily if I don't <BR>already =
have=20
it, I can't do that with a specific TPM chip.<BR><BR>- Bob=20
Comer<BR><BR><BR><BR>"Rich" <@> wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:4311d0f3@w3.nls.net">news:4311d0f3@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p; =20
Exactly. OSX could just as well fail to run without a firewire=20
port.<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:4311983c@w3.nls.net">news:4311983c@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p;=20
> What I read didn't describe how a TPM is needed for =
osx in=20
any way <BR>more<BR> > than a claim that a firewire port is=20
>required.<BR><BR> It's far more than that, OSX wont run =
without=20
it. It's an artificial<BR> limitation to force you to buy =
the=20
proprietary (and more costly) hardware<BR> from Apple. =
That same=20
idea may be used by other companies in the <BR>future...<BR><BR> =
- Bob=20
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=20
more<BR> than a claim that a firewire port is required. It =
isn't=20
easy to judge <BR>what<BR> is going on when the prerelease =
software and=20
hardware are leased <BR>restricted<BR> use apple property. =
I don't=20
think you can infer much from what apple does<BR> in this =
restricted=20
application to what apple plans for public release.<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: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=20
on >apple systems combined<BR> with<BR> =
> the=20
reports that the dev systems have TPMs and some osx software<BR> =
component<BR> > uses =
>it.<BR><BR> =20
Actually a bit more than that, actual reports of what it does, but=20
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=20
an example btw, not my specific gripe.<BR><BR> =
>It would=20
surely is a positive if you wanted to run osx and irrelevant=20
<BR>if<BR> >you didn't.<BR><BR> =
Nope,=20
it's definitely not a positive to me -- if I have an identical PC=20
<BR>to<BR> this Apple i386 machine and the only =
thing that=20
stops me from running <BR>OSX<BR> is<BR> the =
TPM,=20
that's wrong. Purchased software is purchased=20
software.<BR><BR> >I think the negative to which =
you are=20
trying to refer is with osx which<BR> >will not =
run on=20
the large number of >computers that other operating<BR> =20
systems<BR> >like Windows =
will.<BR><BR> =20
Big negative, with no offsetting positive that benefits me. =
(I've=20
<BR>already<BR> stated I don't use a PC for anything =
that=20
would require DRM)<BR><BR> - Bob=20
Comer<BR><BR><BR> "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=20
apple's<BR> statements that they will support it =
only on=20
apple systems combined with<BR> the<BR> =
reports that=20
the dev systems have TPMs and some osx software component<BR> =20
uses<BR> it. If so, that doesn't make a TPM a=20
negative. It would surely is a<BR> positive if =
you=20
wanted to run osx and irrelevant if you didn't. I =
think<BR> =20
the<BR> negative to which you are trying to refer is =
with=20
osx which will not run<BR> on<BR> the large =
number of=20
computers that other operating systems like =
Windows<BR> =20
will.<BR><BR> =
Rich<BR><BR> =20
"Robert 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=20
TPM?<BR><BR> None at the moment, unless =
you want=20
to run OSX on a PC -- who knows<BR> =20
about<BR> Windows and other software in =
the=20
future.<BR><BR> > Do you =
have or=20
have you seen a recent thinkpad with=20
one?<BR><BR> No, we don't buy that=20
often.<BR><BR> >How about a recent =
toshiba=20
laptop?<BR><BR> Never buy=20
those.<BR><BR> >Are these lesser =
devices=20
because of it?<BR><BR> Yes, and I'll =
watch for=20
it and plan accordingly.<BR><BR> - Bob=20
Comer<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR> "Rich" =
<@> wrote=20
in message <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=20
the negatives of having a=20
TPM?<BR><BR> Do you =
have or=20
have you seen a recent thinkpad with one? How about=20
<BR>a<BR> recent toshiba laptop? =
Are these=20
lesser devices 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=20
the future, I doubt that it's going to be<BR> =20
optional.<BR> Look at the =
beta x86=20
OSX -- it requires a specific=20
TPM.<BR><BR> >If you just =
want a=20
smartcard you could have had one for=20
years.<BR><BR> I didn't say =
I wanted=20
one, just that I maybe could live with in <BR>place<BR> =20
of<BR> =20
TPM.<BR><BR> >A TPM =
builtin=20
provides other =
benefits.<BR><BR> And=20
negatives as well.<BR><BR> - =
Bob=20
Comer<BR><BR><BR> "Rich" =
<@>=20
wrote in 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
<BR>you<BR> =20
just<BR> want a smartcard =
you could=20
have had one for years. A TPM builtin<BR> =20
provides<BR> other=20
benefits.<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:43108b95$1@w3.nls.net">news:43108b95$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
=20
> VT is=20
=
virtualization.<BR><BR> &n=
bsp;=20
Yep, know that, it's my=20
=
specialty.<BR><BR> =
>LT is security. Neither is what george likes to call=20
DRM.<BR><BR> =20
True.<BR><BR> =
>What=20
he tries to spin as something sinister is the smart card=20
<BR>like<BR> =20
>functionality (e.g. secure storage, hardware crypto) >provided =
by=20
<BR>a<BR> =20
TPM<BR> =20
=
>chip.<BR><BR> =
That's=20
the one I don't like. A smartcard idea I maybe could=20
live<BR> =
with,<BR> =20
but<BR> it would =
have to=20
be both optional for the OS and machine, and<BR> =20
portable<BR> =
between=20
machines. Like a key basically, I carry it to=20
whatever<BR> =
machine<BR> =20
I<BR> happen to =
be using=20
it at the time, rather than it being tied to=20
a<BR> =20
specific<BR> =
piece of=20
hardware, and you should have the ability to own more=20
<BR>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. =20
What he tries to spin as something sinister is the=20
<BR>smart<BR> =20
card<BR> like=20
functionality (e.g. secure storage, hardware crypto) =
provided<BR> =20
by<BR> =
a<BR> =20
TPM<BR> =20
chip.<BR><BR> =20
=
Rich<BR><BR> &=
nbsp;=20
"Robert 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=20
do<BR> about<BR> =20
=
it<BR> =
either -- it's for the masses to decide=20
=
about.<BR><BR>  =
; =20
For now, no DRM media stuff for me at all, I refuse to use it.=20
<BR>I<BR> =20
don't<BR> =20
=
do<BR> =
any=20
media other than broadcast TV on my PC. I'll probably get =
a<BR> =20
=
new<BR> =
=20
processor soon, with VT, dual or quad core, and yes, DRM, but=20
<BR>that<BR> =20
=
doesn't<BR> &n=
bsp;=20
mean I have to allow the DRM part to make any difference to what=20
<BR>I<BR> =20
want<BR> =20
=
to<BR> =
=
do.<BR><BR> &n=
bsp;=20
Eventually there will probably be some computer/OS company =
that<BR> =20
will<BR> =20
=
emerge<BR> &nb=
sp;=20
to satisfy our computing needs, but for entertainment, we're<BR> =
screwed<BR> =20
=
until<BR> &nbs=
p;=20
everyone else catches up and they=20
=
revolt.<BR><BR> &nbs=
p; =20
- 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
=
<BR>technology<BR> =
=
companies<BR> =
=20
> can enforce more restrictions on how we use technology in=20
<BR>order<BR> =20
to<BR> =20
=
extort<BR> &nb=
sp;=20
> more money for the same=20
=
shit.<BR> &nbs=
p;=20
=
><BR>  =
;=20
> Once it becomes possible to prevent you from upgrading your=20
OS<BR> =20
=
without<BR> &n=
bsp;=20
> upgrading your computer, or to prevent you from upgrading=20
your<BR> =20
=
computer<BR> &=
nbsp;=20
> without upgrading your OS, do you really think Intel or MS=20
<BR>will<BR> be<BR> =20
able<BR> =20
=
to<BR> =
>=20
resist the temptation? Do you think a computer sold with=20
<BR>windows<BR> =20
=
should<BR> &nb=
sp;=20
> allow the user to remove windows and install Linux cause =
I<BR> =20
somehow<BR> =20
=
think<BR> &nbs=
p;=20
> that's the kind of limitations we are headed=20
=
for.<BR>  =
;=20
=
><BR>  =
;=20
> Intel is going to have to include that type of tech to =
make<BR> =20
Apple<BR> =20
=
happy,<BR> &nb=
sp;=20
> especially in light of the recent news that OSX was running =
on<BR> =20
non<BR> =20
=
Apple<BR> &nbs=
p;=20
> PC's=20
=
already...<BR>  =
; =20
=
><BR>  =
;=20
>=20
=
Geo.<BR>  =
;=20
=
><BR>  =
;=20
> "Robert Comer" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:bobcomer@mindspring.com">bobcomer@mindspring.com</A>> = wrote
in=20
=
message<BR> &n=
bsp;=20
> <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
<BR>hardware<BR> =20
=
for<BR> =
>=20
=
palladium<BR> =
=20
>> just like intel=20
=
did.<BR>  =
;=20
=
>><BR> &=
nbsp;=20
>> - Bob=20
=
Comer<BR> &nbs=
p;=20
=
><BR>  =
;=20
><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_02AA_01C5ABAE.6E133960--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|