Microsoft has led the computer worl into 1 boondoggle after another. Why would this one be any different?

MicroTrash seems to succeed at mostly whatever they put their hands on. Look at how they killed WordPerfect and Netscape. Its their approach which is going to indirectly hurt Linux :-( Salman

Could you please provide that AMD corporate droid e-mail address. I'd like to send him "warm and kozy" e-mail and ask my customers to do the same. May be we all on this list can take an action of sending personal e-mails to AMD executives with a demand to stop this insanity. By the way, are there any non AMD/Intel processors which could run Linux on PC desktops? I'm talking about CPUs that don't have any extra nitty gritty security and other spy-on-user features. Alex

I wrote my lette,r not e-mail, to AMD's Hector Ruiz letting them

know I

wont be buying anymore of their chips because of this.

The best places to complain about such things are to the company and to your CongersGuy or Guyette, only do it with a letter not email. It worked for Clinton, why not us?? Richard

AMD's Opteron won't reject unlicensed content http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5489 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anders Johansson" To: Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:48 PM Subject: Re: [SLE] Advanced Micro Devices will include Microsoft's Palladium(OT)

On Friday 20 September 2002 21.43, Alex Daniloff wrote:

...

Could you please provide that AMD corporate droid e-mail address. I'd like to send him "warm and kozy" e-mail and ask my customers to do the same. May be we all on this list can take an action of sending personal e-mails to AMD executives with a demand to stop this insanity.

The only insanity is what's going on on this list right now. Could we PLEASE use our minds and try to act a little less like lemmings!

//Anders

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

What other options do we have besides AMD and Intel? AMD was my choice before when Intel implemented the serial numbering, and AMD did not...now what do I do? I can't use a Sparc, because no programs I use are designed for it. *sigh* this really sucks, big time! Time for a Macintosh? Oh, I hope not! I can't believe they did this. Time to go write a snail mail letter to AMD, and remind them that it was us who got them where they are, and without us

At a local PC shop, I've seen VIA now has motherboards with VIA processors built in to them..........800MHZ - selling for $80!!! This is the motherboard and CPU all together. Installed in on a client's PC .....ran perfectly. Oskar ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeric" To: Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 6:49 PM Subject: RE: [SLE] Advanced Micro Devices will include Microsoft's Palladium(OT) they

are nothing.

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

* Salman Khilji (skhilji@tampabay.rr.com) [020920 18:11]: ::What is serial #'ing?? :: :: ::> before when Intel implemented the serial numbering, and AMD did not...now All Intel CPU's since the PII have a unique CPU serial number in the same vane as PPC and Sparc/Ultrasparc...it can be use to know exactly what computer did what. But only if the OS supports that type of spying...I do not think Linux does. -- Ben Rosenberg ---===---===---===--- mailto:ben@whack.org Tell me what you believe.. I tell you what you should see.

MS Soft Takes over the world SOME SAY THE classic PC is dead. Certainly if the digital rights management crowd - led by the infamous Redmond crime family, the McSofties, manage to replace the independent PC the computing world will certainly change. Critics of the "freedom-to-compute-anything" PC would like to replace it with a box that only serves users with products that vendors of software and intellectual property(IP) permit, and get paid for. So the good old general purpose computer under the absolute control of the end-user may not be long for this world. For most folks who just use their computers for convenience, utility and game play, this won't seem like such a big deal, because you'll still get to send and receive e-mail, kill aliens, and calculate your income taxes. But the unseen consequences are mammoth. Thus when the next generation appliance comes out looking more like a bread-slice toaster than a grill, most folks will find their thin-sliced white bread still seems to fit into the machine, so what's all the fuss? After all e-mails, word processing, and accounting programs still work, and aliens still get killed. Where's the beef? The old model of the general computer that we still enjoy today is for the most part beholden to no-one. Generally speaking our computers answers to no vendor or manufacturer, and the entity accountable to third parties is you - the user. You are the contact, the purchaser, the user, the employer of the technology. Metaphorically speaking you can grill a steer a slice at a time as effectively as you can grill bread, and your grill is a private tool - with no-one able to see you work on your secret recipes. The new computer toasters though, are something completely different. Bad - if the future of computing follows McSofties vision, not only will you be restricted to grilling bread, any bread you choose may be rejected if the toaster doesn't recognise it - because the toaster's operating system get's a kickback from their relationships with the bakeries. Worse - your new computer/toaster will require ready access to the Internet, by which it will be able to dialogue with toaster central - to protect the rights of the bread makers. Worst - by the resulting abandonment of the general purpose model of the personal computer the world will suffer from a decline in the ability of the general population to freely engage in general purpose computing innovation. The Inescapable Bell Curve As with any general distribution, the users of personal computers can be classified in their creativity and innovativeness by a bell curve. With the e-mail and browser users on the far left, and the office application users and gamers increasing in their literacy and aggressive use of technology, until we drop off in numbers into the diminutive right end of the curve with innovators, explorers, and hackers. Intimidating as it may seem to the bureaucratic minded, the dangerous folk at the far end of the creative and hence dangerous end of the bell curve are perhaps the most useful to the future of society. After all, innovation fuels progress from which most of today's Western societies draw their economic fuel. The new computer toaster designs through are neatly drawn up and designed to deny access to the persons operating on the far right of the bell curve - hence stifling innovation, and robbing the future to line the pockets of past innovators, and magnate owner interests of IP and commercial art and craft. Political Criticism? Don't make the mistake of confusing the criticism of an specific economic model of computing with general Western economics. Secure next generation computing doesn't have to rely on the big brother model of the next generation computer toaster being floated today by the McSoftie families. Secure computing needs to follow a person, and be portable as a person, along with any supporting media. Any authentication devices should be highly portable - vendor independent, and fit in your wallet. By contrast, the secure computing, next generation personal computer technologies proposed today reduce the role of individuals to that of a wallet, and create legal and technological arrangements between an introducing vendor like McSoftie, and your toaster, with the end user license agreements (EULAs) reading like a seven year contract for a diabolic favour. "Agreements" that effectively see your interests pitted against a stable of lawyers that even Heracles couldn't clean up after. Two futures A decade or two from now we are either going to be lamenting the onset of the secure new toaster/PC appliance, or reminisce how we narrowly avoided that bullet. McSoftie has already been busy seducing Chip and Chimp-zillas though, and we are further down the smelly path than most realize. Eventually after enough fiascoes bruise our sensibilities, we may come out with some constitutional protections for privacy, that historically weren't necessary before the Internet, but until the general populations learn about the pitfalls of compromised privacy, and demand protections in law, all will be increasingly vulnerable to new predations against their digital persons. Oddly though, there is a tremendous economic potential to managing digital rights in a manner more mindful of personal freedoms and privacy, but as yet no large economic interests appear to be voicing a vision openly challenging to the proposed McSoftie monopoly. µ -- The Inquirer So hold on to your pants and keep your old pc's, cause soon there will be no freedom of choice. --Roman On Fri, Sep 20, 2002, Herman L. Knief wrote:

I love mutinies... sign me up!

- Herman

On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Alex Daniloff wrote:

->Could you please provide that AMD corporate droid e-mail address. ->I'd like to send him "warm and kozy" e-mail and ask my customers ->to do the same. ->May be we all on this list can take an action of sending personal ->e-mails to AMD executives with a demand to stop this insanity. ->By the way, are there any non AMD/Intel processors which could run ->Linux on PC desktops? ->I'm talking about CPUs that don't have any extra nitty gritty ->security and other spy-on-user features. -> ->Alex -> -> -> ->> ->> I wrote my lette,r not e-mail, to AMD's Hector Ruiz letting them ->know I ->> wont be buying anymore of their chips because of this. ->> ->> The best places to complain about such things are to the company and ->to your ->> CongersGuy or Guyette, only do it with a letter not email. It ->worked for ->> Clinton, why not us?? ->> Richard ->> -> ->

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

---------------------------------- Roman Shakin rshakin@unixfreak.org (email) +1 (949) 653-2188 (phone) +1 (949) 651-7563 (pager) -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.2 GCS/CC/O d-- s++:->:+ a-- C++(++++) ULB++ P+ L++ E--- W+(-) N+ o+ K- w-- O- M+ V- PS++>$ PE++>$ Y++ PGP++ t- 5+++ X++ R tv++ b+++>++++ DI+ D++ G++ e- h+ r++ z+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

On Friday 20 September 2002 3:33 pm, Niels Stenhøj wrote:

On Friday 20 September 2002 20:45, Richard wrote:

...

I wrote my letter not e-mail, to AMD's Hector Ruiz letting them know I wont be buying anymore of their chips because of this.

The best places to complain about such things are to the company and to your CongersGuy or Guyette, only do it with a letter not email. It worked for Clinton, why not us?? Richard

That's a good idea. Please, share the address with this list.

Cheers,

Niels

Hector Ruiz is the CEO of AMD I could not find an e-mail address for anyone but Marketeers and such. Besides, the ubiquitous 'they' all say use real mail to those sorts cause it has a much greater impact. His address : Mr. Hector Ruiz One AMD Place P.O. Box 3453 Sunnyvale CA 94088 From what i read of Palladium and associated cpu things it will basically put MS in our computers whether we want them or not. At any rate I am opposed to any kind of big brother stuff. I see enough abuses in Court already. We dont need more police action to head off real or imagined crimes. Having been in the legal busness for over 25 years and having served on a Federal Grand Jury I have seen first hand what overzealous crime ferreters can do. We sure dont need corporations getting into the busines that our constitution proscribes for the government! That;s my $1 worth and all I will say on the subject on this list. Cheers, ra

begin Anders Johansson's quote: | Dennis Powell's statement that it won't allow programs to run if | they haven't been signed by Microsoft is clearly wrong by the way. no, actually, it's not. palladium would run only "trusted" software, with the certification provided by microsoft. amd has been playing with hardware security, as witness the wave report, but that report was written more than two years ago. the actual palladium microcode is included in the patent that was awarded to microsoft last december. whether one *can* disable palladium in the chips is immaterial in that it may already be illegal in the u.s. and some other countries to do so; if cbdtpa is approved next year, it will certainly become illegal to do so. feel free to be unconcerned, but know that if you are, you may well regret it later. -- dep http://www.linuxandmain.com -- outside the box, barely within the envelope, and no animated paperclip anywhere.

Anders Johansson wrote:

There is an excellent in-depth 6 page article on the Palladium concern in the current issue of Linux Format, # LXF32. I highly recommend it's reading. dave

As I read the white paper, Palladium looks like a hardware implementation of ssh and encrypted file systems. I don't see the problem. Would anyone care to enlighten me? Let's not fire off impulsive emails until we know the extent of the problem.

Dennis Powell's statement that it won't allow programs to run if they haven't been signed by Microsoft is clearly wrong by the way.

//Anders

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

-- David C. Johanson Linux Counter # 116410 Powered by SuSE Linux 7.1 People who behold a phenomenon will often extend their thinking beyond it; people who merely hear about the phenomenon will not be moved to think at all. -- Goethe

On Friday 20 September 2002 22.52, dep wrote:

our story is accurate

The white paper specification of Palladium clearly states that any and all current software will be completely unaffected by the new hardware and will continue to run as it does today. It also states that *anyone*, not just "Microsoft and its designees" can sign software and data. Trust is a relative term. Doesn't that stamp your article as sensation seeking nonsense? Anyone who knows me knows that I'm very much not a fan of Microsoft, but let's try to get a grip //Anders

On Friday 20 September 2002 22.59, Nick Zentena wrote:

On September 20, 2002 05:00 pm, Anders Johansson wrote:

...

On Friday 20 September 2002 22.52, dep wrote:

...

our story is accurate

The white paper specification of Palladium clearly states that any and all current software will be completely unaffected by the new hardware and will continue to run as it does today. It also states that *anyone*, not just "Microsoft and its designees" can sign software and data. Trust is a relative term. Doesn't that stamp your article as sensation seeking nonsense?

And how many people are going to trust non-Microsoft software? You think it's hard now to get people to consider something else?

No it isn't. Lots of software in the world doesn't originate from Redmond. A quick example would be AOL. Do you really think any media company would leave out AOL? And that's just one example. //Anders

You're missing the point. The issue is adoption by contect providers of any sort. If they adopt, then unless you are running a "trusted" client (read M$) then you are screwed. - Herman On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Anders Johansson wrote: ->On Friday 20 September 2002 22.52, dep wrote: ->> our story is accurate -> ->The white paper specification of Palladium clearly states that any and all ->current software will be completely unaffected by the new hardware and will ->continue to run as it does today. It also states that *anyone*, not just ->"Microsoft and its designees" can sign software and data. Trust is a relative ->term. Doesn't that stamp your article as sensation seeking nonsense? -> ->Anyone who knows me knows that I'm very much not a fan of Microsoft, but let's ->try to get a grip -> ->//Anders -> -> ->

It's the difference of so many providers who already use "standard extending technologies" (as M$ likes to put it) that make some web sites only fully functional to IE clients. Now, if they add another layer that say's there has to be a trust relationship before they will server you data... then you are completely screwed if you are not running M$. It goes way beyond some sites using QuickTime or some other format. At least now, some sites are partially non-functional... if this make any progress, sites will become totally non-functional to any non-conforming free thinker. - Herman On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Anders Johansson wrote: ->On Friday 20 September 2002 23.06, Herman L. Knief wrote: ->> You're missing the point. The issue is adoption by contect providers of ->> any sort. If they adopt, then unless you are running a "trusted" client ->> (read M$) then you are screwed. -> ->That could be an issue yes, but the issue is exactly the same as content ->providers using proprietary file formats for which there are no linux ->clients. I see no difference whatever. And no, trusted clients needn't be MS. ->It could be RealPlayer, it could be QuickTime both of which are big enough ->that no content provider would dare leave them out. -> ->//Anders -> ->

Actually it goes much further than that. Imagine that you want an ebook for your Palm... Right now, you buy it, you dowload it and you enjoy it. Maybe you decide to copy it to your desktop for safe keeping, or to read it on a larger screen. In the future, if all this stuff gets embedded into PCs, PDAs, etc... you could buy it and download it to your PDA. But, you can forget about copying it to your desktop. You couldn't transfer it to another PDA if you uypgraded... because everything get's a custom embedded key based on the hardware it's originally loaded onto. Don't even think about buying Music online... because the only device you'd ever be able to listen to a song on, would be the device it get's downloaded to after you buy it. You couldn't move it to your PC or copy to a disk for your car... because your "trusted" app that was used to download it won't decrypt the file for use on another machine. I'm sure all this makes the MPAA and RIAA very happy... but it screws you as a consumer. So much for consumer rights and fair use. - Herman On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Anders Johansson wrote: ->On Friday 20 September 2002 23.25, Herman L. Knief wrote: ->> It's the difference of so many providers who already use "standard ->> extending technologies" (as M$ likes to put it) that make some web sites ->> only fully functional to IE clients. Now, if they add another layer that ->> say's there has to be a trust relationship before they will server you ->> data... then you are completely screwed if you are not running M$. It ->> goes way beyond some sites using QuickTime or some other format. At least ->> now, some sites are partially non-functional... if this make any progress, ->> sites will become totally non-functional to any non-conforming free ->> thinker. -> ->Well, I could very well be wrong about this. I haven't studied palladium ->nearly enough to make intelligent statements about it. But the way I read the ->white paper I got the impression that it was essentially a hardware ->implementation of ssh/ssl and encrypted file systems. In the scenario you ->describe therefore, it would be far more likely that what would happen is a ->sort of tunnel, similar to ssl, would be established between client and ->server. And that the data would be encrypted using that machines hardware ->encoded key, similar to what we have today with software keys. I can't see ->that that would put any new requirements on the client software, beyond ->having access to a driver/API for the encryption functions in the hardware. -> ->//Anders ->

Hi All & Anders, IMHO???? Greek Geek :-) Interfere? Of course we should interfere! Always do what you're best at, that's what I say. -- Doctor Who Anders Johansson wrote:

That's the first valid concern I've seen in this whole thread. If that's true then I agree, it's a very very bad thing.

On Friday 20 September 2002 23.49, Herman L. Knief wrote:

...

Actually it goes much further than that. Imagine that you want an ebook for your Palm... Right now, you buy it, you dowload it and you enjoy it. Maybe you decide to copy it to your desktop for safe keeping, or to read it on a larger screen. In the future, if all this stuff gets embedded into PCs, PDAs, etc... you could buy it and download it to your PDA. But, you can forget about copying it to your desktop. You couldn't transfer it to another PDA if you uypgraded... because everything get's a custom embedded key based on the hardware it's originally loaded onto.

Don't even think about buying Music online... because the only device you'd ever be able to listen to a song on, would be the device it get's downloaded to after you buy it. You couldn't move it to your PC or copy to a disk for your car... because your "trusted" app that was used to download it won't decrypt the file for use on another machine.

I'm sure all this makes the MPAA and RIAA very happy... but it screws you as a consumer. So much for consumer rights and fair use.

- Herman

On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Anders Johansson wrote:

->On Friday 20 September 2002 23.25, Herman L. Knief wrote: ->> It's the difference of so many providers who already use "standard ->> extending technologies" (as M$ likes to put it) that make some web sites ->> only fully functional to IE clients. Now, if they add another layer that ->> say's there has to be a trust relationship before they will server you ->> data... then you are completely screwed if you are not running M$. It ->> goes way beyond some sites using QuickTime or some other format. At least ->> now, some sites are partially non-functional... if this make any progress, ->> sites will become totally non-functional to any non-conforming free ->> thinker. -> ->Well, I could very well be wrong about this. I haven't studied palladium ->nearly enough to make intelligent statements about it. But the way I read the ->white paper I got the impression that it was essentially a hardware ->implementation of ssh/ssl and encrypted file systems. In the scenario you ->describe therefore, it would be far more likely that what would happen is a ->sort of tunnel, similar to ssl, would be established between client and ->server. And that the data would be encrypted using that machines hardware ->encoded key, similar to what we have today with software keys. I can't see ->that that would put any new requirements on the client software, beyond ->having access to a driver/API for the encryption functions in the hardware. -> ->//Anders ->

On Saturday 21 September 2002 02.40, Haralambos Geortgilakis wrote:

Hi All & Anders,

who typed....

<snip>

That's the first valid concern I've seen in this whole thread. If that's true then I agree, it's a very very bad thing.

<snip>

I take Fred's original post as valid, since AMD do need the Borg, to help Opteron fly. This brings me back to another post on this thread, from me & Keith reposted the url. The heading of the url reads "AMD's Opteron won't reject unlicensed content -Updated, revised (By Paul Hales mailto:paul.hales@theinquirer.net: Friday 20 September 2002, 12:19)" & please note the sub-heading.....

Anders, I am puzzled why you would imply comments from AMD UK are invalid & ignore them?

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. I'm not ignoring AMD's comments. In this thread there was a lot of paranoid nonsense about how we wouldn't be able to run linux, we'd all be forced to run windows, which is clearly wrong as the link you give says.

The Inquirer is not just any site online, talking about Geek stuff, which is why when The Inq posted there first story, implying Opteron would only work in Borg environments, AMD UK contacted the Inq to correct them.

And that was my point from the beginning. If we send irate mail to heads of companies we'd better be sure we have our facts straight. If we send of a lot of mail complaining about "this newfangled thing that will force us all to run windows" we'll just make ourselves look silly. Valid concerns on the other hand, like the one Herman posted, are much more valuable and can potentially change a company's mind. //Anders

begin Anders Johansson's quote: | That could be an issue yes, but the issue is exactly the same as | content providers using proprietary file formats for which there | are no linux clients. I see no difference whatever. And no, trusted | clients needn't be MS. It could be RealPlayer, it could be | QuickTime both of which are big enough that no content provider | would dare leave them out. that must be why there are no files exclusively in media player format, and no sites that work only with internet explorer. -- dep http://www.linuxandmain.com -- outside the box, barely within the envelope, and no animated paperclip anywhere.

begin Ben Rosenberg's quote: | And after Herr Ashcroft is done over the next | few years..get ready to do hard time for stupid shit. It's probably | a real fear with the ChickenHawks that are running the U.S. Gov | right now..and maybe for the forseeable future..since most | Americans are SO scared right now that all those Chickenhawks have | to do is say *boo terrorist* and they will have the power to do | anything they damn please as long as people have the illusion they | are safe. It's all crap. not the least being the sentiments expressed above. it is without exception democrats who are pushing the copyright/patent stuff. the dmca was a teddy kennedy project. cbdtpa is fritz hollings. jack valenti was chief advisor to lyndon johnson. hop on over to opensecret and see who the entertainment industry is giving money to. hint: it ain't the current administration, it wasn't the current administration when it was seeking office, and it ain't republicans. the only reason the cbdtpa is not law right now is that republicans in the house would not even bring it before the committee. so you might have a problem with the administration, and that's fine, but you're barking up the wrong tree on this issue. -- dep http://www.linuxandmain.com -- outside the box, barely within the envelope, and no animated paperclip anywhere.

On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 08:33:40 -0400 Damon Register wrote:

Back to the subject, does anyone really know what this all means and what it means to Linux?

I think people are getting over-worried about this. First, what about all the legacy windows applications out there? Are you telling me that these new processors will refuse to run them? People are not going to drop all they currently have and buy all new Palladium apps. That sure will inhibit sales of processors. So there is going to have to be a way to enable and disable it, probably in the bios. I'll keep mine turned off. If they don't provide an on-off switch, you will see a whole bunch of "restraint-of-trade" lawsuits filed. Say I write some little c program to do some little job, and I won't be able to run it without a "Palladium-approved" signature on it? It would be a logistics nightmare just to process all the requests for signing. In other words, MS would have finally gained monopolistic control over software. That means lawsuits. The only way around that, is if the government sets up an "Office of Software Signing", where they impartially sign all software. I don't see that happening, plus it would defeat the purpose of Palladium, because alot of bad code would sneak thru the "government screeners". So in the end, Microsoft will have to sell "Palladium" to it's (L)users. You know, a big "splash" on the software box...."Palladium enabled for your safety and security"....blah,blah,gag. In the meantime, all us linux users will laugh, and just turn it off in the bios. -- use Perl; #powerful programmable prestidigitation

On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 21:33:34 -0400 gilson redrick wrote:

LinuxJournal, Oct.2002: Heather Mead, senior editor: "We are seeing more and more clearly that Hollywood has the money and the desire to turn the Internet into a super-regulated, privacy-invading, content-management system."

I think this is what Palladium is all about. They want to have something in each computer that acts like a "cable-box" content lock. When cable modems and fiber-optic home feeds become common-place, they want to make sure you have to pay to view their content. I don't see why they don't do this external to the computer in a separate blackbox. I guess they figure that programmers are smart enough to decode any scrambling scheme with their computers......so build the descrambler right into each processor. I can see the FBI confiscating computers because you have that "new Chinese processor" that allows you to watch first run movies without paying. Just like they do now with illegal cable boxes. -- use Perl; #powerful programmable prestidigitation

That would make for interesting marketing. "This computer contains the Microsoft Palladium inhanced processor." "This computer contains a processor without Microsoft Palladium limitations." Henry On Tuesday 24 September 2002 09:50, Alex Daniloff wrote:

I don't mind if Hollywood implements that Palladium for an average Joe Blow who uses computer to browse adult web sites, play games and watch licensed DVDs. What is about all others who use computers as professionals for their day to day work? Why they have to be viewed as a bunch of dorks who only think about stealing somebody's copyrighted material? It looks very rude to me. Why they can't split processor development into two lines? First line M$ OS software specific with all this protection scam. Second line all other (Linux,Unix,BSD) OS specific without any limitations.

Alex

-------------------

...

On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 21:33:34 -0400

gilson redrick wrote:

...

LinuxJournal, Oct.2002: Heather Mead, senior editor: "We are

seeing more and

...

...

more clearly that Hollywood has the money and the desire to turn

the Internet

...

...

into a super-regulated, privacy-invading, content-management

system."

...

I think this is what Palladium is all about. They want to have

something in each

...

computer that acts like a "cable-box" content lock. When cable

modems

...

and fiber-optic home feeds become common-place, they want to make sure you have to pay to view their content. I don't see why

they

...

don't do this external to the computer in a separate blackbox. I

guess

...

they figure that programmers are smart enough to decode any

scrambling

...

scheme with their computers......so build the descrambler right into each processor. I can see the FBI confiscating computers because you have that "new Chinese processor" that allows you to watch

first

...

run movies without paying. Just like they do now with illegal cable

boxes.

Then the FUD starts. " Well, if you don't have this type of hardware and your not running secure trusted software..how can we be sure who you and what you...how can the consumer protect themselves?" If we start this seperate but equal crap like the did with African Americans before the civil rights movement we will be screwed, blued and tattoo...most likely a barcode on the forehead stating our 2nd class status. This is worse then misrepresenting your browser ident string so that all these pundits can say " LOOK! LOOK! Everyone uses IE so just get over it." Which is crap. We need to start voicing that these companies can't control us. If we let Microsoft, The RIAA and the rest of them control what we see and what we hear on their terms we might as well just go back in time and hand the book burning Nazi's the keys to the Kingdom..after all isn't that what they wanted to do? No. I think this seperate but equal shite stinks. It smacks in the face of everything that was fought for in the last 60 years of the 20th century...and as has been said before. "Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it." Didn't we have enough of this with the stock market repeating the 1929 crash over the last year. Sheesh! *NOTE* Don't mention anything about bad business models...tons of car makers, Utils and other such new technology companies did the same crap in the 1920's..and they paid just as dearly as the companies who fell in 2000 and since. * Alex Daniloff (alex@daniloff.com) [020924 11:22]: ->You've missed a very important point in your imaginary adds. -> ->"This computer contains the Microsoft Palladium enhanced processor ->on which you can run only genue certified Microsoft Windows OS and ->Software." -> ->"This computer contains a processor without Microsoft Palladium ->limitations on which you can run all other non Microsoft Windows OS ->and Software." -> ->How about that? :) -> ->Alex -> ->------------------- ->> That would make for interesting marketing. ->> ->> "This computer contains the Microsoft Palladium inhanced processor." ->> ->> "This computer contains a processor without Microsoft Palladium ->limitations." ->> ->> Henry ->> ->> On Tuesday 24 September 2002 09:50, Alex Daniloff wrote: ->> > I don't mind if Hollywood implements ->> > that Palladium for an average Joe Blow ->> > who uses computer to browse adult web ->> > sites, play games and watch licensed DVDs. ->> > What is about all others who use computers ->> > as professionals for their day to day work? ->> > Why they have to be viewed as a bunch of dorks ->> > who only think about stealing somebody's ->> > copyrighted material? ->> > It looks very rude to me. ->> > Why they can't split processor development into two ->> > lines? ->> > First line M$ OS software specific with all this ->> > protection scam. ->> > Second line all other (Linux,Unix,BSD) OS specific without ->> > any limitations. ->> > ->> > Alex ->> > ->> > ->> > ->> > ------------------- ->> > ->> > > On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 21:33:34 -0400 ->> > > ->> > > gilson redrick wrote: ->> > > > LinuxJournal, Oct.2002: Heather Mead, senior editor: "We are ->> > ->> > seeing more and ->> > ->> > > > more clearly that Hollywood has the money and the desire to ->turn ->> > ->> > the Internet ->> > ->> > > > into a super-regulated, privacy-invading, content-management ->> > ->> > system." ->> > ->> > > I think this is what Palladium is all about. They want to have ->> > ->> > something in each ->> > ->> > > computer that acts like a "cable-box" content lock. When cable ->> > ->> > modems ->> > ->> > > and fiber-optic home feeds become common-place, they want to ->> > > make sure you have to pay to view their content. I don't see ->why ->> > ->> > they ->> > ->> > > don't do this external to the computer in a separate blackbox. I ->> > ->> > guess ->> > ->> > > they figure that programmers are smart enough to decode any ->> > ->> > scrambling ->> > ->> > > scheme with their computers......so build the descrambler right ->into ->> > > each processor. I can see the FBI confiscating computers ->because ->> > > you have that "new Chinese processor" that allows you to watch ->> > ->> > first ->> > ->> > > run movies without paying. Just like they do now with illegal ->cable ->> > ->> > boxes. ->> -> ->-- ->Check the headers for your unsubscription address ->For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com ->Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com ->Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com -> -> -----=====-----=====-----=====-----=====----- Ben Rosenberg mailto:ben@whack.org -----=====-----=====-----=====-----=====----- "Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal" -AE

For those of you who want to voice a concern, another alternative besides sending email and snail mail to AMD is a petition at: http://www.petitiononline.com/tcpa1/petition.html I don't know how well those things work, however. Personally, I think snail mail to AMD is the better then a petition to TCPA, as I don't think the TCPA really cares what people think, and I know M$ never gives a crap what people think.

* Alex Daniloff (alex@daniloff.com) [020924 12:06]: ->Haven't you noticed this right on the signature page -> -> ->"Eligible signatories: Any PC user who has a Windows OS" -> ->I can't sign it 'cause I don't have any winblows.:) ->What does this Petition have to do with Linux? ->Let me ask anoher question. ->Will implementation of Palladium really prevent user ->from installing and using Linux on his/her PC? It won't. But thing such as banking, online purchasing ..etc..etc. would be come more difficult because I am VERY sure they would have some server side query to see if you've got this piece of crap. And if the Open Source community made a fake out to fool these servers I'm sure someone would make it a crime and people would go to Jail. It would be up to RH, SuSE..or IBM to build this out for Linux and to pay for anything that needed paying for. Do google search for the debate over being tracked by the Intel CPU number that people had a few years ago. It was quite heated. I don't know about you but I don't want to run this hardware. I don't think hardware should have to make up for crappy OS design and ability to patch in a timely manner. All the tools to produce good software..secure software are there. But they would cause MS to go back to the drawing board on their OS which is something they just don't want to do. If this actually goes through. I may stop using computers. It's media companies policing what we view and Microsoft absolving themselves of the obligation of writing good, secure softare. -----=====-----=====-----=====-----=====----- Ben Rosenberg mailto:ben@whack.org -----=====-----=====-----=====-----=====----- "Competing with Linux is like nailing jello to a tree." -

* Anders Johansson (andjoh@cicada.linux-site.net) [020924 12:21]: -> ->I'm all for fighting the misuse of this technology that the RIAA and whatever ->else acronym we're talking about wants to implement, but I wonder if there ->aren't any valid uses of this technology. Yeah, we have boxes like these in our servers that are the same size as a CDROM by a company called nCipher. My point is that one should have the choice whether or not to use such a device. We do this for extra protection and because when your webservers are servicing 2000-3000 hits per second..you need something fast. I doubt the average home user needs this kind of thing. I think that will 2,3 and sooner or later 4Ghz CPU's..for the home user this isn't an issue. It's about choice. What they are talking about is requireing this...which would effect Linux because I'm sure someone *cough*Microsoft*cough* will patent it..and charge lots of money to be compliant. -----=====-----=====-----=====-----=====----- Ben Rosenberg mailto:ben@whack.org -----=====-----=====-----=====-----=====----- "Competing with Linux is like nailing jello to a tree." -

The whole identification problem is going to have to be addressed sooner or later, especially since it will eventually be possible to vote in elections from your computer.

ssh combined with username/password should work fine for that, or something a tad more graphical perhaps. Voting safety problems have already found solutions. It's more a matter of choosing a solution than finding one. :)

Then the only argument will be about the government using the iris scans to locate people without their consent. You will need to have an iris scan to get on an airplane, get into a court room, stopped for a traffic violation, etc.

I agree that this technology _could_ be used for such purposes, but I doubt it will. Consumer acceptance is also needed for this, and I doubt they will accept this type of privacy intrusion. Acceptance of DRM might be a different matter of course, and will depend greatly on the restrictions placed on it. The public has removed DRM driven solutions from the marketplace before after all. What frightens me about this 'solution' is that it seems to be accepted by so many technology companies, and it may be supported by legislation banning all other technologies. Luckily there's also a mounting support for alternative legislation and solutions. There may be hope still...

You know this is coming. I was just watching a news broadcast, about people implanting "locater chips" in their children to protect them from kidnapping, but that is getting way OT.

This is a tad extreme perhaps, though the button transmitters seem a tad more popular than implants. This way the children decide if they wish to be located. Regards, Pieter

On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 17:35, Ben Rosenberg wrote:

* Pieter Hulshoff (phulshof@xs4all.nl) [020924 13:11]: ->What frightens me about this ->'solution' is that it seems to be accepted by so many technology companies, ->and it may be supported by legislation banning all other technologies.

Well, how else are they going to make us all go out and buy new software and new hardware. It's forceing it to be obsolete. :)

There is another way to force people to upgrade their hardware...Doom3! At least, that may be enough for me ;) Best Regards, Keith -- LPIC-2, MCSE, N+ Sing blue silver Got spam? Get spastic http://spastic.sourceforge.net

Pieter Hulshoff writes:

Oh, I can think of a few possibilities in games and multi media, but I agree: unless they're going to come up with good AI or speech recognition it's not going to be needed in the office space.

Which brings up another problem with these so call "trusted" system strategies. Many (especially larger corporate) offices run in-house written bespoke software and there are more programmers employed to write/customise this in-house software than to write software for sale. Will these "trusted" systems be able to run this 'un-regulated' software or will they only run 'approved' software which has been signed?

To my understanding, initially no, it will not prevent Linux from being installed. However, once it is in full swing it is very possible, and with microshaft's backing (and their common unethical business ethics) it will be a reality as soon as they possibly can manage it :( : -----Original Message----- <snip> : Let me ask anoher question. : Will implementation of Palladium really prevent user : from installing and using Linux on his/her PC? : : Alex :