Tcpa and palladium

[SolidSnake-(SNK) 0]

What are the news on TCPA and Palladium these days?

And when will this shit be implemented into new computers?

For you guy's that dont know what the heck i'am talking abouth take a look at: http://www.notcpa.org/

This is really scary stuff.

[General Mcclintock 0]

Want more? Against TCPA Yup it is scary, I am going to boycot them, especially Nvidia, ATi isn't on the list though...

[theavonlady 2]

Just for the record, TCPA has handed the baton to TCG.

[theavonlady 2]

I am going to boycot them, especially Nvidia, ATi isn't on the list though...

For the moment, I'm only going to boycott compliant products, which are only a handful.

[hellfish6 7]

I get the feeling that this will turn more people away from Windows in the long run. I mean, why would anybody want Microsoft telling you what you can and cannot do with what you buy?

I'm still burned over the fact that I spent a bucket of money on MS Office and I can't install it on any other computer besides the one I originally installed it on. Screw that - I'm not going to shell out more money for a product that I already own (and purchased legally) when I upgrade. I'm going OpenOffice all the way!

And what's the deal with Longhorn? I've heard that it's supposed to require nearly a gig of memory, plus it will ship on multiple DVDs. If thats true, I can't help but wonder what the hell all that is for. Fancy-pants new icons and menu colors? I already have more functionality with Windows XP than I need - in fact, I'm beginning to think that a lot of the features that came with it are more of a problem than anything else. I think we all know the saga of Windows Messenger. Why do we need more? All I want my stupid OS to do is run my software. That's it. I don't want it to say "Hello" to me when I turn it on, I don't want it to tell me what my favorite programs are because I already know.

Ok. Rant off. Down with TCG!

[theavonlady 2]

In all honesty, I would love a Linux world but we're just not there yet.

[General Mcclintock 0]

I am going to boycot them, especially Nvidia, ATi isn't on the list though...

For the moment, I'm only going to boycott compliant products, which are only a handful.

Not if you are going to buy memory or RAM for your computer.

Samsung is in there, they have the majority of the RAM market, Corsair, OCZ TwinMOS etc etc buys chips from them and builds it.

So you really can't escape unless you are sure that your RAM has Hynix memory.

I still can't understand what Raytheon is doing on that list, they make the AIM-120 AMRAAM and Sidewinder series for the US air force and navy, what are they going to do with TCPA? Prevent hacking of their missiles?

I am over to Linux as soon as Direct3D is cracked and I can run my games under Linux.

[theavonlady 2]

I am going to boycot them, especially Nvidia, ATi isn't on the list though...

For the moment, I'm only going to boycott compliant products, which are only a handful.

Not if you are going to buy memory or RAM for your computer.

Samsung is in there, they have the majority of the RAM market, Corsair, OCZ TwinMOS etc etc buys chips from them and builds it.

So you really can't escape unless you are sure that your RAM has Hynix memory.

Here is the hardware list. Relax.

Quote[/b] ]I still can't understand what Raytheon is doing on that list, they make the AIM-120 AMRAAM and Sidewinder series for the US air force and navy, what are they going to do with TCPA? Prevent hacking of their missiles?

Or spam you with special upgrade and trade-in offers when new models come out.

[SolidSnake-(SNK) 0]

Ok, but does anybody knows at what stage this crap is at, becos i want to buy a new computer before i get one with these restrictions.

Also what happens if i use WinXp on a new computer with TCPA, wont it start or?

[theavonlady 2]

Ok, but does anybody knows at what stage this crap is at

Read The FAQ.

[General Mcclintock 0]

Ok, but does anybody knows at what stage this crap is at

Read The FAQ.

I think I am going to check your FAQ The Avonlady... Maybe it is in there, you never know...

EDIT: Another missing thing in the FAQ, what a surprise

[denoir 0]

Although I'm no fan of palladium and I trully hope the whole thing will go down the sewer, I can understand why there are strong interests advocating the system.

The nature of software is currently being changed. Ever heard of "software as a service"? Well, get used to it, since that is the future. You'll no longer have the software on your computer, but you'll rent it over the net. This system is benificial for many reasons (especially for the software companies). For software as service to work, you need to have a form of strong identication and palladium is one way of achieving just that.

As for Microsoft, I'm currently changing my mind about them because they're changing. If you take a look at the .NET platform (core system framwork that's replacing win32 and that among other things Longhorn is based on), you'll see some considerable policy changes. Apart from being a kick-ass system (they actually made something the right way, it's built entirely on open standards. There are already Linux implementations of the .NET framework. Instead of a closed proprietary file formats, everything is XML now. This includes the new Office 2003 where everything can be saved as XML which can readily be used by a third-party application. Apart from that, they're trying really hard to change their public image. Their developers are today forced to have blogs and they have a very strong interaction with the community. Instead of keeping everything secret, they're actually talking about the development of their projects in public and they take a lot of public input.

Currently you have a better line of communication to the microsoft people than you have to the open source Linux people. If you have some suggestions for Longhorn, just go and talk to the devs doing it. From what I've seen they're very open and friendly and gladly listen to suggestions and ideas.

So Microsoft is changing into a better direction and I think they deserve some credit for that.

[theavonlady 2]

So Microsoft is changing into a better direction and I think they deserve some credit for that.

Zebras don't change their stripes!

Actually, a better analogy of MS might be the trapdoor spider:

Quote[/b] ]Trapdoor Spider

Scientific name: Ummidia sp.

(Araneae: Ctenizidae)

Facts: Trapdoor spiders dig a tunnel in the ground and seal it with a hinged lid. They wait patiently behind this trap door until they sense prey passing nearby. Then they rush out to capture the prey and drag it down into the tunnel.

[denoir 0]

Well, of course their change is not motivated by the goodness of their heart but because of business. They've been getting a bad rep during the last ten years and are being hit by all forms of anti-trust lawsuits. So being nice and open is of course just another business strategy. But who cares what their own motivation is as long as the effects of it are good?

[theavonlady 2]

But who cares what their own motivation is as long as the effects of it are good?

I have little faith in what MS says versus what they wind up doing.

With MS, I'll believe it when I see it.

[denoir 0]

With MS, I'll believe it when I see it.

Well, I've seen it as I've been working with .NET lately. Otherwise, you can always check out the microsoft developer blogs and form your own opinion. I'm telling you, they're making a 180 turn in their policy.

[kegetys 2]

So Microsoft is changing into a better direction and I think they deserve some credit for that.

I'll believe that when we will have full documentation and <insert favourite non-microsoft OS here> support of NTFS, the new WinFS, DirectX, Microsoft Networking (including active directory, reverse engineered results like Samba dont count), And why not this palladium too. Also, I want Ext2, Ext3, NFS and ReiserFS support for Windows... I dont see all that happening.

As for palladium and all this digital rights management, you can always disable all that... Sure it will leave you out from some software, but all I need windows for is games, and possibly photoshop... I dont see games requiring any of that palladium stuff, photoshop, maybe, but theres no such copy protection that cant be broken as long as the software is ran locally. For everything else I need I can use a GNU/Linux system already.

[denoir 0]

I'll believe that when we will have full documentation and <insert favourite non-microsoft OS here> support of NTFS, the new WinFS, DirectX, Microsoft Networking (including active directory, reverse engineered results like Samba dont count), And why not this palladium too.

The new WinFS, DirectX (9.0+) and the networking core are all now switching to a .NET base for which they provide full documentation. They're building everything on open standards now. I suppose it has something to do with all those anti-trust cases.

Quote[/b] ]Also, I want Ext2, Ext3, NFS and ReiserFS support for Windows...

That won't happen. And I don't really see why Microsoft should have a responsibility to support third-party standards. Instead, Linux should switch to a more general open standard of file system and networking. Not to mention a more modern one, not some patched up 70's technology.

[kegetys 2]

The new WinFS, DirectX (9.0+) and the networking core are all now switching to a .NET base for which they provide full documentation.

I'll believe that when we have full directx and winfs support for linux ;)

Quote[/b] ]Instead, Linux should switch to a more general open standard of file system and networking.

To what for example...? NTFS? Microsoft Networking?

Lets see, filesystems supported by the linux kernel version I use: Ext2, Ext3, ReiserFS, BeFS, Amiga FFS, Apple Machintosh filesystem, BFS, FAT16, FAT32, NTFS (read only), UMSDOS, EFS, SHMFS, JFS, Minix FS, FreeVxFS, HPFS, QNX4 (read only), System V/Xenix/V7/Coherent FS, UDF (read only), UFS (read only), Coda filesystem, intermezzo filesystem, NFS, SMB, NCP.

Filesystems supported by my W2k box: NTFS, FAT32.

Who's lacking support here? (Yes, linux only has read-only NTFS support since microsoft doesnt want anyone to know how NTFS works (and WinFS is built on NTFS))

[theavonlady 2]

I don't understand a thing Kegetys is talking about but I like what he's saying!

[General Mcclintock 0]

I don't understand a thing Kegetys is talking about but I like what he's saying!

Well the final part was new to me, I guess it is Linux systems parts that I haven't yet becomed familiar with.

But the first part sounded easy to cope up with.

I think if MS is so scared for Pirates I think it is ok for them to do it in software.

But once they start messing with MY HARDWARE then they cross a line I don't want them on!

And besides, not everyone has internet connection, not everyone has broadband, some places don't even have broadband support such as me.

So MS better stay away from my hardware, because I don't want them there.

[Dauragon 0]

I don't understand a thing Kegetys is talking about but I like what he's saying!

basicly he said what Win2k supports and what Linux supports

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Instead, Linux should switch to a more general open standard of file system and networking.

To what for example...? NTFS? Microsoft Networking?  

The future WinFS that will be XML based on a low level. You can't get more open than that as XML is self-describing. (The first iteration will though be a mix of NTFS and the new concepts, but in the end the MS filesystem has a goal of becoming a relational database built on an open distributed standard)

Microsoft Networking is being phased out in favour of .NET SOAP (also XML) based distribution of components.

Quote[/b] ]Lets see, filesystems supported by the linux kernel version I use: Ext2, Ext3, ReiserFS, BeFS, Amiga FFS, Apple Machintosh filesystem, BFS, FAT16, FAT32, NTFS (read only), UMSDOS, EFS, SHMFS, JFS, Minix FS, FreeVxFS, HPFS, QNX4 (read only), System V/Xenix/V7/Coherent FS, UDF (read only), UFS (read only), Coda filesystem, intermezzo filesystem, NFS, SMB, NCP.

My point exactly. It's a mess out there. Linux has the ambition of patching things up .NET has the ambition of introducing a general open standard that will replace all that.

Don't take me wrong, Linux and Unix in general certainly has its charm and uses, but face it - it's antiquated. And most of all, it lacks standard. Even with KDE and Gnome, which are nice tries, it's nowhere near as consistent and user friendly as Windows. And while it certainly is superior to Windows ME et al, it is in most ways inferior to Win2k, XP etc. Not because it's bad, but because it's a 30 year old architecture that doesn't quite cut it today when you need component based distributed computing and n-tier solutions that integrate web services, databases and standard applications.

The irony of it is that it's probably going to be Microsoft that saves Linux through the .NET framework. In the end, the matter of OS is going to be fairly irrelevant as everything you run will be distributed across many platforms.

Now, Microsoft's products are far from ideal or being the optimal solution, but they have one thing that nobody can compete with today - they set a standard which everybody follows. And that is alpha and omega in computing. Unix got nowhere because there were 200 different flavours and standards. When did we get the PC revolution? When we got a standard platform. When people stopped running everything on specialized computers. The same goes for software. What Microsoft offers is standard which is good per se, regardless of the initial quality of the product.

Software has evolved a lot the last 30 years. It's used by everybody now and learning Emacs commands by heart just doesn't cut it any more. Linux tries to compensate for that through systems like KDE et al, but the fact remains that it was built by programmers for programmers with efficiency and not usabilility and user friendliness in mind.

[kegetys 2]

My point exactly. It's a mess out there.

Not quite. Many supported filesystems does not mean a "mess", you dont use many of those one time. It only means more support for different platforms, and better interoperability between those. Sure, it would be nice if we would have a perfect filesystem, perfect networking, and perfect everything that everyone would use and share. but thats not the case, especiall with microsoft stuff. Right now, you can set up linux boxes and different favours of unixes, beos, macos, qnx, whatever non-microsoft and they come along quite well, understanding the same protocols and standards. Throw in a microsoft box, and you are going to have to start using reverse-engineered "hacks" like samba, and all that leads to alot of headache due to microsoft's way to to want to make everything themselves.

I guess it would be nice if MS would change their policy to _really_ share everything and _really_ want their systems to interoperate with linux/unix/etc. but they dont. They want you to use MS products everywhere: desktop, workstation, server, pda, mobile phone, home entertainment systems... microsoft microsoft microsoft everywhere.

[benu 1]

Oh man, one of those linux vs windows threads. Oh well...

First: unix are from design still superior to windows. Look for example at library handling, which is the cause of the many reboots. Unix systems have to rebooted when you install a new kernel (for all you windows users out there: this is equivalent to an "me to xp upgrade" kind of install, except that it only takes a few minutes and leaves your services and date as it was before). When i look at the windows and at the unix systems from an administrators point of view i have to laugh about windows. Our win admins are sometimes afraid to install patches because you never know what they might break and if you can go back to the old state. Although they don't have the opportunity to reboot the system all the times. And that is only one thing.

Second: unix has standards for decades. MS perverted nearly all standards it used to force it's users to stay with ms. How come that i can e.g. take a postscript (open standard for a long time) document from an apple and print it out with solaris but that no other system can print out an windows postscript file? So your made all your postscript files with ms software? Sorry, you can't take them to any other platform then. Stay with windows. No other platform does this to open standards. And this is only one of the examples of the standards that ms perverted. Hell, even within the ms line... ever tried to open an office 2003 dicument with an older office version? With most other software up- and downward compatibility is the norm, but not with ms. The reason is: if they make it incompatible then the people using older versions have to buy the new one just to be able to READ documents sent by customers/clients/partners.

Third: open standards are a joke. Everything is patented and afaik only some apis or something are made public. And those can be changed. And ms told in interviews that it still wants to destroy other platforms. The strategy seems to be to make .net seem open til it is adopted as a "standard" and then use legal force to push all other platforms from the market.

What really is the advantage of windows is that because of it's nearly monopoly all hardware and software supports windows. But this is not something that is to be accredited to microsoft. Well, the monopoly is, but not the compatibility. That many vendors support ms tells nothing about the quality of windows, only about windows presence in the market.