Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RMS Urges Opposition to "Trusted Computing"

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the newspeak dept.

Editorial 522

Andy Tai writes "In this Newsforge article, Richard Stallman analyzes the "Trusted Computing" initiative and Microsoft's Palladium, points out that such initiatives are really means to ensure your computer can be trusted by Microsoft and Hollywood (you can't do things they don't want), and urges computer users to organize, to support the Public Knowledge and the Digital Speech projects and to use their consumer power to block "Trusted Computing" in its tracks."

cancel ×

522 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What a shock! (3, Funny)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507402)

I'm absolutely flabbergasted that RMS would oppose this. Flabbergasted. :P

Next week in slashdot -- water is wet! (1, Troll)

Codex The Sloth (93427) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507556)

My first reaction on reading this was "Well duh!" -- must be a sloowww day at Slashdot...

Re:What a shock! (1)

jimmyCarter (56088) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507710)

Anyone catch RMS on The Screen Savers [techtv.com] last night? He told a very interesting story of the night of fun he had recently at the Playboy mansion...

Re:What a shock! (0, Redundant)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507715)

I'm absolutely flabbergasted that RMS would oppose this.

He must have paced backed and forth for *months* trying to make up his mind. Gee, I bet there is a worn strip of carpet where he paced back and forth deciding whether to support TC or trounce it.

Then suddenly he settled, and like W on the stem cell cloning issue, popped outdoors and spoke his mind to the press, and shock was among their faces.

lol (3, Interesting)

Quasar1999 (520073) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507405)

Ya, just like I 'trust' the banks with my money, and I 'trust' the .... ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H

Wait a minute? I do... and so far it seems to work... BLOODY HELL! How am I supposed to make a point of how Microsoft's intentions are evil (which they clearly are), when I can't find a good example where trusted 'fill in the blank' doesn't work... Anyone???

Re:lol (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507422)

LOL, I like yr sig. I will probably steal it at some point. ;)

Re:lol (5, Insightful)

Anonvmous Coward (589068) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507442)

Well, the bank has incentive to not screw with you a whole lot. Mainly because of the competition and mainly because the Gov't takes that type of crap very seriously.

MS doesn't have niether competition nor federal mandates preventing computers from being restricted.

Paypal, CDNow, tons of examples come to mind (5, Insightful)

Brento (26177) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507446)

How am I supposed to make a point of how Microsoft's intentions are evil (which they clearly are), when I can't find a good example where trusted 'fill in the blank' doesn't work.

Well, start with Paypal, which a lot of people trusted as a bank but then got screwed when Paypal froze their funds. Google for Paypal frozen accounts and you'll find tons of horror stories.

Then move on to the online storage of credit card data, and think back to when CDNow got hacked and all their consumers' credit cards were tossed around to the public.

I'm sure you'll get hundreds of examples here, but come on, you really don't have to think too hard.

Re:Paypal, CDNow, tons of examples come to mind (3, Insightful)

kin_korn_karn (466864) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507496)

that was their stupidity for using Paypal as anything more than a clearinghouse. I would never do any banking with a "bank" that I couldn't just walk into and ask for all my money in cash.

Re:lol (5, Insightful)

Maniakes (216039) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507511)

I can't find a good example where trusted 'fill in the blank' doesn't work... Anyone???

Trusted CEOs of Enron and WorldCom?
Trusted polititicans?

In general you can trust people if:
  1. You through personal experience that they are trustworthy.
  2. You have thoughouly investigated their background.
  3. They believe the consequences of screwing you over are bad enough that screwing you over is not to their advantage.
  4. -- OR --
  5. The consequences to you of being screwed over are worse than the consequences of not trusting that person.
Of course, this doesn't apply to trusted computing, which actually means that your computer doesn't trust you, not that you trust your computer.

And remember, if you lend someone $20 and you never see that person again, it was probably worth it.

Re:lol (5, Interesting)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507570)

"Wait a minute? I do... and so far it seems to work... BLOODY HELL! How am I supposed to make a point of how Microsoft's intentions are evil (which they clearly are), when I can't find a good example where trusted 'fill in the blank' doesn't work... Anyone??? ?"

I'm puzzled how this is more 'flamebait' than 'interesting'. I think he makes a good point. There's nothing wrong with stopping and asking "Why should I follow the anti-MS stampede?". If you guys knee-jerk against every single thing that MS says or does, then how's anybody going to take you seriously when they do something that's really really bad.

As for my response: The main reason I'm against this is that the wrong problem is getting solved, and the consumers get burned for it. The problem is not that computers need to be restricted so that Hollywood can feel safe with digital content, the problem is that Hollywood needs to learn how to make it in this market.

Hollywood doesn't understand that people are happy to pay for service, but they can't pay until the service is provided. Right now, I could go download a bunch of movies from kazaa. What would that experience be like? Well, I get varying quality, unreliable connections, and it takes hours (sometimes days) to get a movie to come down. Now if I could pay $5 to download a guaranteed high quality movie at a speed of 100KB/s, why would I even care about Kazaa?

If the internet got to the point that p2p could work that fast, then the pressure is on Hollywood to provide a better service. "The first 100 people to buy this movie will also recieve a still from the movie..." or something like that.

PC's and the Internet are marketing opportunities, they are not exploits designed to put Hollywood out of business. If they're not willing to get with the times, then they don't have any reason to get computers regulated with technology like Palladium.

Re:lol (5, Insightful)

schon (31600) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507758)

There's nothing wrong with stopping and asking "Why should I follow the anti-MS stampede?"

True enough... but using logic like "I trust banks, so why not trust MS" is pure lunacy..

Banks are required (by law) to be FDIC insured. There is none of this "we take no responsibility for your money - if we get robbed, you'll lose it, even if it was our fault" mentality that MS seems to have (read your EULA some time)

If a bank decided (for no reason) to tell you "I'm sorry, I don't feel like giving you your money", they can be shut down, and the officers thrown in jail.

As soon as MS takes some responsibility for their products and services, maybe I'll start to trust them.

Re:lol (3, Funny)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507731)

trusted 'fill in the blank' doesn't work

I think I've found a couple...Trusted:
Left-out Milk
Serial Killer
Steve Balmer's anti-persperant
Outlook Attachment
Full-Bladdered Dog
panhandlers
monopoly
little Brother/Sister
Moderation
Romulans
Slashdot the Grammar
Slahsdot Slpeeling
Slashdot Obituaries
Blind barbers
Stoned roommate & leftover pizza
Kazaa downloads
Fox news
Shadow Government
One calorie soda
Lite Beer
Heroin Junkie & nice sterio
Microsoft's User Testimonials
EULAs
Politicians
8 track Tapes
clean underwear
Transvestites
& blood transfusions in Hati.

Thanks, I'll be here all week.

banks (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507772)

There are people who don't trust banks, thanks in part of the Great Depression. The initial development of a bank was in fact a very questionable idea. Dispersement of funds to each family makes a lot less of a tempting target, especially if (at least during the time period) most everyone had a gun. Or do you not recall the numerous stories of bank robberies? How many of the tellers were allowed to carry guns? Of course, times are different now and with government backing of actual accounts instead of the vague notion of banks themselves has brought some higher assurance of trust with banks. Take this against stark contrast to MS which has been ruled a monopoly and the government is currently still deciding on adequate punishment. Before we can begin to trust MS or its partners, we need a working proof of concept..and then someone we can at least vaguely trust to back them beyond simply other companies (unless you trust profit oriented organizations, solely).

Misinterpreted (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507407)

He just wants it to be known as GNU/Palladium.

Re:Misinterpreted (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507543)

how the f was that funny??
someone change it to -1 stupidity

Re:Misinterpreted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507664)

how the f was that funny??

Well, personally I thot it *was* funny. So shut up!

Re:Misinterpreted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507656)

Haha, wow. Hilarious.

This is getting older than the "Al Gore invented the internet! Haha, LOL, ROTFL!" crap.

Re:Misinterpreted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507717)

Actually, c'mon, seriously, that was fucking hilarious! All your GNU/EVERYTHINGINEXISTANCE belong to us!

Re:Misinterpreted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507718)

Don't you mean

GNU/Al Gore?

RMS is A-OK! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507411)

That's all I have to say.

Rise up geeks of the world! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507416)

... RMS has spoken.

Waitasecond... This is RMS we're talking about... (1, Funny)

Bonker (243350) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507419)

He's not demanding we galled it 'GNU/Trusted Computing'?

Re:Waitasecond... This is RMS we're talking about. (0, Offtopic)

mishac (75996) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507576)

Why is this comment moderated as 0 Flamebait, but a very similar comment made 1 minute earlier got (justifiably) modded as 4 Funny?

Re:Waitasecond... This is RMS we're talking about. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507668)

Since you are apparently new here, let me be the first to say welcome to slashdot.

Re:Waitasecond... This is RMS we're talking about. (1)

Baikala (564096) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507696)

maybe because something that's funny the first time is not as funny the second time?

RMS May be a Kook!!! (3, Insightful)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507423)

I personally think RMS is a kook and an extremist.. Like most "spirtual" leaders are. BUT and this is a big BUT, thanks to people like him and L Lessig our world is being attended to...

I consider myself more of a business person and see the world in shades of grey. Sure that is great for earning an income, the problem though is that my shade of grey might change from a more white grey to a more black grey. And that switch is an erosion of power that I only realize when it is too late... At that point my black grey is a white grey for most people because they have "gotten" used to it.

So hats off Mr RMS...

Funny, I thought RMS stood for (0, Redundant)

lildogie (54998) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507474)

Root
Mean
Square

Re:RMS May be a Kook!!! (3, Funny)

L. VeGas (580015) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507476)

Yeah, he's pretty Naderiffic.

As far as your "grey" issues go, perhaps you should try Grecian formula?

Listen up, square (2, Funny)

YourMissionForToday (556292) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507512)

SerpentMage:Blah, blah, white grey, black grey, erosion, etc...

YourMissionForToday: and try new pink grey!

See how funny my post was compared to yours? And you know why? Because I use drugs. That's all you need to do. That's the key!

Re:Listen up, square (1)

shepd (155729) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507558)

ROTFL.

I hope you're not on my foes list. If you are you're going in the friends list.

Re:Listen up, square (1)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507569)

And how do you know that I do not use drugs? Huh? Putting labels on me based on assumptions of what I say? Maybe my drugs are hipper thans yours?

RMS May be a dangerous Kook!!! (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507538)

Way to throw the moneychangers [greed.com] out of the temple [senecac.on.ca] , RMS!

first post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507424)

yay!

For those who missed it... (5, Interesting)

Frothy Walrus (534163) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507428)

...RMS made quite a fool of himself at MIT's recent Palladium discussion. Highlights include taking the podium uninvited, having Ron Rivest (the "R" in RSA) tell him to please stay on-topic, and delivering his stock rant under the guise that it was topical.

RMS is a dork. A principled dork, but a dork nonetheless.

Re:For those who missed it... (4, Interesting)

Clue4All (580842) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507448)

Kernel developers also want to have him banned from the LKML for constantly spamming it with off-topic political discussions. Story here [linuxandmain.com] .

Re:For those who missed it... (2, Informative)

JordoCrouse (178999) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507671)

Kernel developers also want to have him banned from the LKML for constantly spamming it with off-topic political discussions.

Wrong! One missguided person wants him banned. Everyone else thinks that he is annoying but generally harmless.

Most ernel developers understand that censorship doesn't solve anything.

Re:For those who missed it... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507739)

First of all, he has not constantly spammed the list. Secondly, as anyone following those threads on LKML can see, most kernel developers have no problem with RMS.

Re:For those who missed it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507473)

Hey, I have had many people say that I am a dork. However, they are all losers. So no damage done, I guess.

Re:For those who missed it... (1)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507493)

Links? Maybe a video of it?

And you thought Ballmer looked dumb when he took the podium ;-)

Re:For those who missed it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507652)


Maybe a video of it?


Oh man ... I can just see it.

(RMS bounding across the stage chanting) Guh-NU Guh-NU Guh-NU...

Re:For those who missed it... (5, Interesting)

manyoso (260664) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507514)

It was definately an awkward situation, but RMS should be applauded that he is willing to put himself on the hook for something he believes in. Make no mistake, Palladium is an absolute nightmare and I'll bet Richard understands that better than most of us. Brian LaMaccia gave a pleasant talk, but he was also disengenious. Someone asked Brian how he felt about developing something that could be used for some horrendous purposes. He said that if and when that happened he would quit. Apparently he does not believe the elimination of Fair Use to be a horrendous purpose. Tells you a little about where these people stand.

Re:For those who missed it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507544)

But the mature way to argue points is to stay on the topic and debate them.

By running off on tangents (like going into politics like RMS did), is just an ignorant approach that shows that A.) You don't have all your facts straight, and B.) You can't debate the matter at hand, so you have to sidestep.

Re:For those who missed it... (3, Interesting)

naasking (94116) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507616)

What makes you think computer science and politics are so unrelated that talking about one excludes talking about the other?

Re:For those who missed it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507698)

But the mature way to argue points is to stay on the topic and debate them.

But who controls the topics? The people in favor of palladium?

If the people you oppose control the debate what makes you think you will ever get a chance?

Ya i guess all the people protesting globilization should just wait for their turn to speak at the G8 summit...oh ya! That's right, they weren't fucking invited! Duh.

The ruling class loves tools like you.

Re:For those who missed it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507555)

I'll bet Richard understands that better than most of us

Once Richard starts to understand basic personal hygene, maybe I'll start listening to him.

Re:For those who missed it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507762)

If MS has their way, personal hygiene is the least of our concerns!

Re:For those who missed it... (0, Flamebait)

eyeball (17206) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507660)

but RMS should be applauded that he is willing to put himself on the hook for something he believes in.

Hitler also put himself on the hook for something he believed in. Should we applaud him as well?

Re:For those who missed it... (3, Insightful)

(void*) (113680) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507700)

Yuu should appluad his courage, but not his odious philosophy. You can admire the man and the strength of his convictions, but not the conviction.


BTW, you've just lost the debate according to Godwin.

Re:For those who missed it... (5, Insightful)

SirSlud (67381) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507737)

Perhaps the qualification is " .. something he believes in but which ultimately benifits the many over the very few."

If RMS's ultimate goal is to wield complete power over a populous, to the point of selectively exterminating a percentage of it, he sure isn't making enough friends to build the required army.

Which is to say, RMS' goals are altruistic. Even if on a personal level he's doing it for purely egotistical reasons, his end-game allows us more freedom, which I certainly support. The fact that he's willing to put himself on the hook (I'm sure hes aware of his public image) in order to preserve esotaric freedoms we should have, that he could probably keep (after all, its not like hes going to have to use Windows, right?) regardless of the outcome of this situation is commendable. I'm not sure how you could paint this otherwise.

Hitler, on the other hand, wanted to kill people.

I'd draw you a diagram, but I'm afraid you'll counter with "Hitler drew diagrams."

Aside from his goals being virtuous, in my opinion, you've certainly nailed the point (inadvertantly, I suspect) that the more important part is that the thing he believes in is your and my freedom.

Re:For those who missed it... (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507515)

I would like to thank you for including so many links supporting your post!

Re:For those who missed it... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507595)

sorry knobslobber. i was in the crowd and your dumb ass wasn't, so you are just going to have to trust me on this one.

or don't. i give 0 shits.

-frothy, not losing a drop of karma for crapfunnelers like you

Re:For those who missed it... (1)

Rascalson (542863) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507583)

Wow where did you get all those moderations..... ohh that's right this is /. what am I thinking

Sometimes I agree with RMS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507431)

Sometimes I actually agree with RMS but is there any chance we can put him in a box and let him float out to sea? We can all still remember him by just noting that every new thing that comes out he would be opposed to it.

Palladium Good, Linux Bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507432)

Anyone remember those old animations going against napster with the "characters" from metallica?

Racial Profiling (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507434)

why the hell are they profiling by pulling over white vans and not black vans. This is a disgusting racial profiling tactic. Where are assholes like ACLU when you need them?

RMS ate my balls! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507437)

Munch munch

mmm...balls!

so open and free!

BALLS!

GNU/Whatever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507444)

Gettin a mite tired of RMS gyrating for attention...

Re:GNU/Whatever (2)

thelexx (237096) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507738)

Yeah, people who are vocal about their ideals are real irritating aren't they.

do you ever wonder? (-1)

YourMissionForToday (556292) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507453)

why this [bloodystool.com] points to ebay?

Microsoft Palladium Nightmare Scenarios (5, Interesting)

manyoso (260664) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507454)

I've recently attended Microsoft's Palladium talk at MIT. Brian LaMacchia, a
former student, returned to his Alma Mater and gave a talk on some of the
technical aspects of Microsoft's Palladium project. Brian began the talk with
a quick overview of the goals of the project. He stated that Palladium's
goal was to 'Protect Software from Software'. He went on to enumerate some
of the nightmare scenarios that keep the Palladium team up at night, such as
a virus/trojan that launches something worse than a Denial Of Service (DOS)
attack.
These included:
  • A virus/trojan that trades stock thereby disrupting the market
  • A trojan that activates and places an order on Amazon.com
  • A virus that publishes sensitive information such as private tax records

After this brief introduction, Brian went on to describe a hardware based
software security system that would provide 'Fingertip to eyeball security.'
This system would consist of a hardware Security Support Component (SSC)
chip, a special security kernel called the 'Nexus' and user level security
applications called 'Agents'. Palladium would also require alterations to
the MMU for the curtailing of memory and USB for secure input/output.

Brian admitted that Palladium would offer no protection against DOS
attacks and that Palladium would necessarily include a universal serial
identifier (this
would be provided by the RSA key burned into the SSC chip). He also promised
that Palladium would run unmodified legacy applications and drivers.

Problems surfaced during the end of the talk when Brian began taking
questions. Richard Stallman correctly pointed out that Palladium was being
presented as a way of improving the security of personal computers. Indeed,
according to Brian, this was the focus of Microsoft's Palladium project, but
no where in his talk did he present any solution to the crucial nightmare
scenarios that are supposedly keeping the Palladium team up at night.
Indeed, as was pointed out by Stallman and others, if Palladium would run
unmodified legacy applications, then how could Palladium thwart the legacy
virus/trojans without upgrading Palladium enabled Outlook/IE/IIS?

The truth is Brian was being disingenuous when he described the nightmare
scenarios that motivate the Palladium team. In all honesty, there are only
two nightmare scenarios that are relevant to the Palladium project:
  • The nightmare scenario of the large copyright holders who fear the
    internet
    has ushered in the end of there ever ballooning bottom line
  • The nightmare scenario that Palladium will allow the large copyright
    holders
    to effectively eliminate the fair use rights of the public

With Palladium, Microsoft plans to solve the former by introducing the latter.
To get to the heart of the matter, we have to ask _why_?

Brian says Microsoft is concerned that large copyright holders will refrain
from publishing works in formats compatible with the Windows PC. My theory?
Microsoft sees an opportunity to bolster there own
bottom line. Palladium is meant to do for DRM what .NET was supposed to do
for web services.

By providing the infrastructure, Microsoft hopes the content companies will
write applications and release content only for Palladium enabled systems.
Joe Consumer who wants to listen to the next Brittany Spears album on his
computer will be forced to upgrade to the next release of Windows/DRM. Of
course, it doesn't hurt that Palladium could provide quite a few wrench's to
throw at Microsoft's open source competitors.

Nightmare scenarios indeed!

copy/paste karma whoring (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507471)

The lowest of the low.

Re:copy/paste karma whoring (2)

manyoso (260664) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507536)

What the hell are you talking about?! I wrote the parent as soon as I came back from the talk. These are my own thoughts on the talk, nothing more. Why don't you try thinking before you speak!

Re:copy/paste karma whoring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507775)

Did you or did you not copy/paste pre-written material?

Re:copy/paste karma whoring (1)

The Axe (93018) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507610)

So when virtual reality is mainstream, Microsoft will rename "Nexus" to "Matrix" and send out "Agents" against all malacious hackers/virii/trojans?

I have a feeling this is going to get ugly...

Re:copy/paste karma whoring (2)

(void*) (113680) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507623)

Why should it be ugly? It's all a dream! It's only a dream!

Re:Microsoft Palladium Nightmare Scenarios (5, Funny)

Fiveeight (610936) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507693)

'Fingertip to eyeball security.' ? Sounds pretty low tech to me...
*POKE*
"Arrgh! I'm blind!"
"He won't be sharing any more images"

All they need now is 'Palm-to-eardrum' security, and they can wipe out MP3 sharing too.

Re:Microsoft Palladium Nightmare Scenarios (3, Interesting)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507708)

Indeed, as was pointed out by Stallman and others, if Palladium would run unmodified legacy applications, then how could Palladium thwart the legacy virus/trojans without upgrading Palladium enabled Outlook/IE/IIS?

Sandboxes and an agent watching the mail spool.

"Oh, Outlook 2000 is trying to write to the registry! "

"Oh, IE is attempting to send 5374 mail messages! "

Kick the user's head by requiring a certain security clearance for "", and an idiot warning to boot.

Man, I thought OSS folk were smarter than MS coders!

The truth is Brian was being disingenuous when he described the nightmare scenarios that motivate the Palladium team. In all honesty, there are only
two nightmare scenarios that are relevant to the Palladium project:


Stop thinking like a medieval catholic zealot, and start thinking like a modern-day person.

MS et al really, truly believe that what they're doing is the right thing. Their arguments are not "justifications" for "controling your computer"--they're honestly believed arguments.

I could as soon say that Stallman just wants to not pay for software because he's cheap, and be just as accurate as you saying that MS is driven by a desire to disallow fair use.

Of course, it doesn't hurt that Palladium could provide quite a few wrench's to throw at Microsoft's open source competitors.

Maybe... but MS knows that OSS is a competitor, and that OSS will hack its way into useabilty no matter what they try and pull (remember deCSS?).

I suspect that MS will push palladium, and succeed, and license their software along with the Palladium hardware chip--thus allowing them an effectively "free" Linux binary distribution angle, which means that there won't be as many coders working to crack it.

Stallman isn't an unbiased or "reasonable" person in this debate. Trusted Computing ideas are, in some ways, in direct competition with his agenda--but that doesn't mean that they're totally wrong or immoral, or "trecharous computing." It just means that it's not likely to be advocated by the FSF anytime soon.

d'oh! (2)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507730)

Let that be:

"Oh, Outlook 2000 is trying to write to the registry! [abort] [inspect] [allow]

"Oh, IE is attempting to send 5374 mail messages!
[abort] [inspect] [allow] "

Kick the user's head by requiring a certain security clearance for "
[allow] ", and an idiot warning to boot.


Make your own RMS news generator!! (0, Interesting)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507472)

Its simple, just add :
RMS Urges
Insert:
<a company that profits from something proprietary>
Or
<a company that supports something associated with a company that profits from something proprietary>
And finish with:
to stop their wicked income ways!
Or, replace the top like with:
RMS Urges you to oppose

Examples:
RMS Urges Microsoft to stop their wicked income ways!
RMS Urges you to Oppose Mono

Enjoy your new generator.

Trust this (-1, Troll)

ViZA (619397) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507477)

Yes, who can you trust these days? Well, no one. You never could trust anyone, ever. I think all computer users pretty much will have the same view as RMS. I think we would all be better off if we put our trust in this [www.msn.es] hot piece of a#$!

Re:Trust this(DON'T FOLLOW THE PARENT'S LINK) (0, Offtopic)

YetAnotherDave (159442) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507701)

wow, you figured a way around the 'display the domain' function in slashcode.

I bet you feel special...

Trust? (5, Insightful)

dacarr (562277) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507487)

So Hollyweird, the leading offset press for movies and music, and Micro$oft, to whom I've never paid a dime, don't feel they can trust me because inherent in my Linux based computer is my ability to work a warez server? Whatever happened to the days of normal commerce, where if something new and innovative came in and beat the snot out of the original people (in this case, what Linux (sorry, RMS, GNU/Linux) seems to slowly be doing to Microsoft), the original people adapted?

And what of Microsoft? Remember, I don't use their operating system at home - and to reiterate, I've never paid them for anything, so why should I bow to their dictates, especially since I don't use their product?

I thought that was how the free market was supposed to work, but I guess the market ain't so free now.

Re:Trust? (0, Troll)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507589)

What I hear you saying is that Hollywood and MSFT should support your linux OS for some reason.

So far I don't see how any of this is going to take linux away.

The worry seems to be that, if Hollywood decides to release films or music for commercial purposes on the 'net, then those releases will be solely for the Windows platform.

But, I really don't see what's wrong with this. They don't support my Betamax or the 8-Track in my uncles field truck either.

I don't like the idea of Palladium, but IMO, this is the wrong argument to oppose it with. Because it doesn't make sense.

Perhaps you can get linux users covered by the ADA act, and then force Hollywood et al to support it?

Curse the scurvy ridden bastards...MS that is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507488)

It seems, with the recent statements of Ballmer regarding modifications of the XBox, that Microsofts intentions are clear. "We want to own your box...whatever it is or used to be."

Their argument behind the Mod chip issue is that it doesn't fit into their economic model...which is to own and receive money for everything you used to think you owned.

good article. (2)

jericho4.0 (565125) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507497)

i generly find rms's writing a bit, uhhhh, well, you know. But he always has something interesting to say. This article is dead on. Unfortunately, he's preaching to the converted.

You may not like the guy personally (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507513)

But he is doing the right thing for regular people and computer programmers.

He is quickly becoming one of the most important people in the short history of computers and computing.

"Shit!" says Larry Ellison "Another guy who is more famous than me!"

Trusted computing creates a potential clique. (5, Interesting)

Kaz Kylheku (1484) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507523)

Okay, so you have a piece of hardware with a proprietary operating system. So far so good. But now with trusted computing, that system won't load any component that is not signed by a trusted party. It's not about you trusting what you run, but about Microsoft choosing who gets the privilege of writing software for the platform. If Microsoft doesn't like you, for whatever reason, they can just refuse the signature that is needed for your software to load. This is basically where it is headed; it's the one sure way to use your monopoly to crush the competition, in particular open source. Even if some open source developers get Microsoft to approve their program, that signature will be applied to a particular binary release. The users cannot roll their own binary from the sources, because that won't carry the signature of a ``trusted'' certificate. So basically the operating system vendor regains control as the gatekeeper who determines what will run on your machine. What's worse, if the hardware vendors follow suit, then a certificate will be required by an operating system to boot on the hardware. If you are lucky enough to get a signed version of your favorite free kernel, good luck rebuilding it. The developers may be forbidden from giving you the certificate, if they get to d the signing themselves. That key is copyrighted bits, right? Letting everyone have it would be against the DMCA.

Richard Stallman is a TROLL! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507527)

Yes he is, his goal is get make it mandatory for EVERYONE in the world to prefix gnu/ to EVERY word. A look at his [stallman.org] homepage reveals a polethera of flamebait articles and links. He takes everything so fucking seriouly that he is up there with RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS. Come on, he basiclly wants TO LEAGILIZE WAREZ. You really want to add him to your foes list and he should be added to the No more trolls list [slashdot.org]

He is a filthy pervert. He created a slow and 1980s like desktop with his FEET as its logo and HE HAS SEX WITH GOATS! [geocities.com]

Finally hes trying to DEFORM THE ENGLISH LANUAGE BY MAKING G a non silent letter. Guh-nome, G-nu, Guh-zip, and so on.

REMEMBER! RICHARD STALLMAN IS THE WORLDS BEST TROLL. HE IS FAR SUPERIOR TO UBERTROLLS LIKE KLERCK AND WIPO. PLEASE MOD HIM DOWN!

The Commons, revisited (5, Interesting)

JumpingBull (551722) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507546)

Although RMS does arouse some passions within the slashdot community, in this, I believe, he is right.

There is, in English Common Law history, a subject area, called the Enclosures Acts, where vast quantities of land were removed from common use, and awarded to landowners in what was a thinly veiled land grab.

It had justification, of course. Private Ownership was deemed more efficient by those that grabbed the land. Far be it for the government to disagree. The whole idea of common weal ( as in commonwealth) was called The Tragedy of The Commons.

It would appear that history is attempting to repeat itself. If computing can be controlled by a trusted source - Who will that trusted source be?

This age old problem, can be solved in a number of ways - a dictatorship, or, a democracy, or...

Not quite trusting my fellow man, I think I would rather do my own choosing. But then, I use GPL'd software. A lot. And your choice will be?

Re:The Commons, revisited (1)

Didion Sprague (615213) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507756)

Maybe this is a dumb question, but I'll ask it anyway.

Is the only "trusted" source going to be Microsoft?

And if that's not the case -- if there are other trusted sources -- then what's to prevent someone from setting themselves up as a trusted source and signing all sorts of drivers as "trusted?"

Apologies, if this is a dumb question.

This might be more Believable from RMS if.. (1)

linuxislandsucks (461335) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507575)

He actually used any modern media that this DRM ssytem want sto mange such as mp3 files, pdf files, and etc bvut we all know that RMS uses nothing commercial..

Thus it kind of kills RMS arguemnt on any grounds..

Re:This might be more Believable from RMS if.. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507745)

If you're a fucking retard, maybe. I hadn't pondered it from that point of view, I'll admit.

Get a job writing the TCPA bios for trusted linux (5, Interesting)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507587)

I applied for this last night before I fully realized what I was submitting my resume for:

JOB DESCRIPTION Do you want to change the way people see, hear and play? Our client is looking for a Boot-Level Programmer for their San Jose offices. Music, motion picture, television, computer entertainment, and online businesses make our client one of the most comprehensive entertainment companies in the world.

As the Boot-Level Programmer, you will modify the boot code of an embedded Linux platform to incorporate communications to a new hardware chip (TCPA /TPM) and check the system integrity. You will have to take the source code for an existing boot ROM and integrate calls to a TPM chip to check the system integrity as consistent with TCPA. You must understand TCPA and embedded devices.

I figured TCPA was just some buzzword I could pick up out of a book if I got the job. I do that all the time. But no:

Trusted
Computing
Platform
Aalliance

The blurb about "changing the way people see, hear and play" just didn't register.

I hope they do call me though. I'll give them a piece of my mind, followed by the URL of my DeCSS mirror [goingware.com] .

Now I ask you this: if they're verifying the "system integrity" of a linux box with the TCPA, are they complying with the GPL?

Typical RMS (4, Interesting)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507601)

Man, I can see DRM and Palladium getting closer every day.

Stallman's examples this time are rather simplistic. His concerns about "DRM", aside from the "I want to be able to shock myself" degree of control he wants for PCs, aren't all they're chalked up to be. Calling it "trecharous computing" makes him sound like a kook, not a serious voice.

To wit:

"Your boss's e-mails will be written in disappearing ink!"

"You won't be able to send incrimiating documents to the press!"

Any corporate system that causes the main focus of communication to automatically expire with no way to retrieve it is a poor business model, not an aspect of trusted computing. Investigative and Corporate preferences aside (after Enron, do you REALLY think that it'd be hard for Congress to slap a "records requirement" on corporations?), someone should be able to mark their e-mails as "archived." And you can always just print out the document...

And, if some company is too paranoid to keep any e-mails and advanced enough to be truly paperless, there's still a digital camera and the on-screen display. Or the simple expediency of calling the cops...

As for the rest--if MS wants Word to be Word-only, more power to them. It'd keep some large usability problems from arising, and quickly tone down word e-mail.

Postscript 2 really irks me. I'm no programmer, but even I can imagine a system where "untrusted" code & docs are run in a "sandbox," where they can't do any real harm and the user can still use them. Given six months of speed increase, the user probably won't even notice the difference between "game on new system's emulated layer" and "game on old system raw."

*sigh*

Re:Typical RMS (1)

IceDiver (321368) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507740)

Calling it "trecharous computing" makes him sound like a kook, not a serious voice.


To wit:

"Your boss's e-mails will be written in disappearing ink!"

"You won't be able to send incrimiating documents to the press!"

[SNIP]

And you can always just print out the document...

[SNIP]

Or the simple expediency of calling the cops...

This assumes you are given the right to print the document by the system. Even if you can, I can see the scenario now.

Cop: This is pretty incriminating stuff. Unfortunately, we have no record of such an e-mail existing in the system.

Employee: That's because company policy is to expire all rights after 14 days.

Cop: Uh-huh. Your Boss is claiming that it's a forgery because you heard you were about to be laid off. That's a pretty serious offense.

Employee: That's ridiculous! I was never told about any layoff!

Cop: Right. Hold out your hands please. (Cuffs employee).

Employee: What are you doing? Hey! They're the crooks! Not me!

(Cops bundle employee into waiting van.)

The Nightmare that is Palladium (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507602)

I've recently attended Microsoft's Palladium talk at MIT. Brian LaMacchia, a
former student, returned to his Alma Mater and gave a talk on some of the
technical aspects of Microsoft's Palladium project. Brian began the talk with
a quick overview of the goals of the project. He stated that Palladium's
goal was to 'Protect Software from Software'. He went on to enumerate some
of the nightmare scenarios that keep the Palladium team up at night, such as
a virus/trojan that launches something worse than a Denial Of Service (DOS)
attack.
These included:

  • A virus/trojan that trades stock thereby disrupting the market
  • A trojan that activates and places an order on Amazon.com
  • A virus that publishes sensitive information such as private tax records


After this brief introduction, Brian went on to describe a hardware based
software security system that would provide 'Fingertip to eyeball security.'
This system would consist of a hardware Security Support Component (SSC)
chip, a special security kernel called the 'Nexus' and user level security
applications called 'Agents'. Palladium would also require alterations to
the MMU for the curtailing of memory and USB for secure input/output.

Brian admitted that Palladium would offer no protection against DOS
attacks and that Palladium would necessarily include a universal serial
identifier (this
would be provided by the RSA key burned into the SSC chip). He also promised
that Palladium would run unmodified legacy applications and drivers.

Problems surfaced during the end of the talk when Brian began taking
questions. Richard Stallman correctly pointed out that Palladium was being
presented as a way of improving the security of personal computers. Indeed,
according to Brian, this was the focus of Microsoft's Palladium project, but
no where in his talk did he present any solution to the crucial nightmare
scenarios that are supposedly keeping the Palladium team up at night.
Indeed, as was pointed out by Stallman and others, if Palladium would run
unmodified legacy applications, then how could Palladium thwart the legacy
virus/trojans without upgrading Palladium enabled Outlook/IE/IIS?

The truth is Brian was being disingenuous when he described the nightmare
scenarios that motivate the Palladium team. In all honesty, there are only
two nightmare scenarios that are relevant to the Palladium project:

The nightmare scenario of the large copyright holders who fear the

internet
has ushered in the end of there ever ballooning bottom line
The nightmare scenario that Palladium will allow the large copyright

holders
to effectively eliminate the fair use rights of the public

With Palladium, Microsoft plans to solve the former by introducing the latter.
To get to the heart of the matter, we have to ask _why_?

Brian says Microsoft is concerned that large copyright holders will refrain
from publishing works in formats compatible with the Windows PC. My theory?
Microsoft sees an opportunity to bolster there own
bottom line. Palladium is meant to do for DRM what .NET was supposed to do
for web services.

By providing the infrastructure, Microsoft hopes the content companies will
write applications and release content only for Palladium enabled systems.
Joe Consumer who wants to listen to the next Brittany Spears album on his
computer will be forced to upgrade to the next release of Windows/DRM. Of
course, it doesn't hurt that Palladium could provide quite a few wrench's to
throw at Microsoft's open source competitors.

Nightmare scenarios indeed!

publicknowledge.org (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507609)

The only problem I have with this site is with the positioning of that laptop.

FAQ (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507614)

The Anti-GPL Mindset FAQ v.00001

1. The Free Market

Freedom is a very important, albeit often misused, word. Freedom refers to the ability
of a person to perform unhindered exchange with other people.

Just as freedom does not mean the ability to do what you want, like punch your
neighbor, it does not mean the ability to take whatever you want. People often
confuse freedom as meaning unrestriction on action, where it actually means
unrestriction on TRADE.

The physical manifestation of freedom is the free market, where people have the
option, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to exchange items with one another. These
exchanges are not forced, which is why they are free. Both parties agree to the
exchange.

2. The GPL is legit

This is not going to be a document which says the GPL is illegitmate and should go
away. The GPL merely is a way for authors to ensure that their work is used as
intended, negotiating a free exchange between the author and user.

The problem is not the GPL, but the mindset and assumptions it has brought about
regarding freedom and capitalism. The other problem is that it's generally
assumed that there is an impossible rift between commercial and free software,
scalable only by tech support, manuals, and service contracts. I won't settle
for that.

3. The Need for Money

A large chunk of the Linux community has never written a line of code or contributed
to the world of Linux whatsoever, aside from their misguided rantings on Slashdot.
Despite their opinions, we are currently, thankfully, living in a free market society.
The medium for exhange in this market is cash, as we've evolved beyond the barter
system. With this in mind, the prominent way to obtain physical goods is to
perform an exchange of value with others.

Hence, for those of us not still living off of our parents, or who are unsatisfied
working at Subway by day and exclusively using our programming talents for free at
night, money is a necessity. Working on the latest build of GIMP is fun and exciting,
especially if you have the physical goods you need provided for you by someone else,
but it is impractical to exclusively exchange your work for source code through the
GPL when you need to exchange some work for money as well to survive.

4. Making Money is Not Evil

It seems that a lot of people have fallen into the trap assuming that making money
is inherently evil. They point to Bill Gates as an example.

Though the ethics involved can be questionable, making money is not inherently evil.
Why? Simple -- both parties involved in the exchange of money are doing so
voluntarily. Don't like Microsoft? Don't buy their software. Don't like the fact
that your car payments are so expensive? Don't drive. The reason freedom is such an
important word is because it implies a lack of force. You are not FORCED to do anything
you don't want to.

People argue that a Microsoft monopoly provides no choice. The choice is simple: use
Windows, or don't use Windows. If not using Windows means you have to settle for a
lesser product, or no product, well, then maybe you understand why Microsoft has so much
money :)

People argue that not using Windows or having a car are impossible, but seem to forget
that in reality the only reason they even have an opportunity to use these things are
due to the creators who made them.

5. What about source code?

The commercial software model in the past has often neglected to include source code
with their products. The reason for doing so is most likely because algorithms, techniques,
or even the entire product itself could be re-branded by a competitor and sold on
the free market as their own work.

However, for most users who are not software houses looking to steal the work of
others, source code can be a useful tool. An ideal system would:

1. Allow software distributors to include their source code without fear of a
competitor theft.

2. Allow end-users to modify the software for their own needs.

3. Allow these changes to be exchanged in the free market, with compensation being
given to all parties involved in creating the current product. (The original
developers, and the end users.)

This surely strikes a chord in many people who are accustomed to repeating the
axiom that the GPL is the "one true way" to freedom. The GPL makes source code
available, overcoming point 1 and 2, but does so at the cost of allowing developers
to participate in the outer free market. Some of us, believe it or not, would
love to be able to have end users jump in, or jump in ourselves as end users,
in developing our favorite products. However, we would not like to do so at the
cost of our ability to eat.

In other words, for those of us who want to develop software as a living, the
most viable action to take is to work on GPL stuff as a hobby on the side and
work by day for a traditional software developer. We don't want to get paid
for tech support or "service," we want to get paid for our work on the code.
Despite the cries of the masses, working on GPLed software 24 hours a day does
nothing except make our computers work better and get us a few lines of praise
in IRC.

The challenge is twofold: 1) Getting people to evolve their mentality past the
"GPL is always #1" axiom and 2) Developing a new methodology which allows these
points above. It won't be easy, it might be impossible, but the first step, as
with most mental deficiencies, is realizing that you have a problem.

As a final analogy: Someone writes a 1200 page book over the course of two years.
If they "GPL" the book, they exchange their two years of work and potential ability
to trade it on the free market for the editing and updating ability of the masses.
If they sell the book, they can exchange on the free market but they lose the
publics' help. These are not the only options. If the public could be brought "on board"
for writing an extra chapter here and there, being compensated accordingly,
all parties could be satisifed in a different way if they do not want to sacrifice
one thing for the other.

6. Source code is just speech!

Sure. And so are an architect's plans, a musician's written compositions, an author's
well researched thesis, and an artist's latest painting. If you honestly think that
someone's statement of "George Bush Sucks!" should be considered of the same moral value
as a symphony, then you're beyond help.

Source code is more than speech. One could argue that it's analagous to an architect's
plans, but it's even more than that. Only if there were a universal house machine
that could take an architect's arbitrary drawings and instantly turn them into a house
would this be the case.

Source code, for 99% intents and purposes, IS what it DOES. A 10 line "Hello World" program
is not, and should not be considered, just a 10 line text document. It should be
considered as an entity which prints out "Hello World." The source code to Microsoft
Windows is not merely set of text files, but is an operating system.

It amazes me that programmers can downplay their work so much as to categorize the 10
lines of code they potentially spent weeks writing in the same category as the idiotic
rantings of a drunkard: "speech."

7. So why not just trade source code?

This is what the GPL offers now. But, as stated above, there is potential for another
alternative. No system exists which allows me, with peace of mind, to trade my source code,
my hard work, for cash, both as the original developer or an end-user.

8. But I cannot afford it!

Such is life. You have a few alternatives. Don't use it. Work to earn it.
Build your own alternative. Steal it and risk the consequences.

In any case, don't dilusion yourself that you are somehow entitled to the work of others
by the nature of its existence.

Everything is politics (5, Insightful)

dh003i (203189) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507625)

FACt: everything is politics.

You're more than welcomed to just code in your own little world, do all your work in your own little world, etc. But politics is still involved, whether you choose to ignore it or not, and it still affects you.

RMS realizes this and thus considers politics as integral in any software project.

Palladium is all about politics. Its about the polics of the BSA, the RIAA, and the MPAA conrolling what you do through MS, which will undoubtedly make unholy alliances to please these parties and profit. Palladium is about MS trying to make the GNU/Linux OS an impractical choice for users, as no hardware would run it. MS may say this about technical matters -- i.e., security, virus-prevention, etc etc -- and it is in part; but there is also politics running through the fibers of this idea. Politics is ubiquitous in this Palladium project.

As is predictable, everyone's been more than willing to jump on the "bash RMS" bandwagon. It actually reminds me of the Michael Jordan situation in the NBA. Here's a guy who's done alot for the NBA, alot for his team, and alot for basketball in general, and people are constantly criticizing him for making personal decisions which he had the right to make (i.e., to come out of retirement). Similar thing with RMS.

Many criticize RMS for what he says or where he says it; i.e., mentioning such things in newsgroups or forums which are "not meant for discussing those issues". But the politics of what he talks about is relevant to kernel developers and coders, even if they're too stupid to realize it. RMS is not an extremist. Or, if he is, extremism in defense of liberty is not a bad thing.

Re:Everything is politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4507697)

Oh please. Don't you DARE compare RMS to Michael Jordan!
Face it, that RMS article was just plain stupid. I hate MS, I think Palladium is horrible, but the logic used in that article was atrocious.

If Jordan starts telling everyone that they need to start calling it the Nike\NBA, then maybe I'll believe you...

Ok, Barry... (1, Flamebait)

HBI (604924) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507748)

RMS IS an extremist and a kook. In politics, the appearance of reasonableness is a requirement for gaining widespread support of your pet issues. RMS appears UNreasonable and therefore will gain about as much support as a KKK member at a civil rights rally.

RMS is about the most ineffective spokesman this issue could possibly have. No one in the general public gives a damn what he has done in the past. They care how he appears now. So go ahead, Stallman. Sink the cause.

You, with your sycophantic attitude towards him, are dooming it as well. Breaking those who oppose the goals of Palladium into splinters of opposition (all over Stallman's ego) is pathetic.

security idea (1)

Twillerror (536681) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507681)

I know this is a little off-topic, but I just had an idea about how to make secure transactions. It would require some kind of smart card technology, so it may be cost hindered.

The basic idea is that a card, something you have, generates a number unique to you and the card. This number is based upon the time of day etc. This number is then transfered into the computer via some kind of terminal. The number is really not your identifier, but can verify it, almost like a hash.

Once the number is inputed the number is transferred to a firm like Verisign along with the time of day, address, and a password (stuff you know ). Just to make it harder to actually verify that the number is right and of course to identify yourself.

The hard part would be to supply the cards, and to create code that generates these numbers.
If you had lots of algorithms it would be hard for a hacker to guess which one your card used, even if he was able to get some kind of info about your card behind your back.

Now Verisign or the agency responsible has to be trusted, but with proper legislation and safeguards it wouldn't be that hard. On top of that you still have to get around all the other safeguards in place. I mean you can't just use someones credit card without eventually getting caught. But in cases of stock trading and thing, proper identity may be crucial.

Just an idea, I'm sure it is full of holes. It also sounds like a better way for atm cards to work.

So what's to be done? (5, Interesting)

Jezza (39441) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507683)

I don't think this is a question at all - we have to stand against this latest MS evil plan. Not everyone agrees with everything RMS says (though I do think that GPL style free software is a blessing, I'm not against software that's more restrictive - but there needs to be a choice) but on this issue I don't think there can be too many who think he's wrong.

Afterall wasn't it Microsoft who lied in court? Or just last week about the "switcher"? They can't be trusted, it's that simple - they've shown that time and time again.

As for Hollywood, well again why should my computer put the needs and wishes above my own? So I buy a DVD, why can't I play that everywhere? Why can't I create my own player? Who says I shouldn't be able to buy a DVD while on holiday and be able to watch it when I get home? If I save a little money by buying it overseas isn't that my good fortune? Why should a commodity like a DVD have such wide differences between price and terms in different places?

No there are legitimate reasons why I might want to do things that MS/Hollywood want to stop - I don't see why my computer should help them take away MY FREEDOM?

Personally I think it's time we started something like FSF for hardware (FHF if you will) so that we can escape the clutches of "the evil Empire".

What happens next? The PC refuses to run any OS without a Microsoft signature, and we're blocked from reverse engineering it? This seems to be happening already with the Xbox, is this just a test case for the whole PC?!

Perhaps Red Hat should make a PCs, and allow anyone to copy the design. For no other reason than to protect THEIR business model.

RMS and Trusted Computing (2, Insightful)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507692)

Before we all get too carried away, let's try to remember a few basics ok?
1: Trust is a human phenomenon, not a
machine state.
2: Trust implies motives. Last time I checked,
machines don't have motives. People do.
What are RMS's motives? Microsofts?
Trusted computing's motives are ???

Personally, I think the whole thing stinks of pot, kettle, black on the above mentioned bases. Regardless of all that, I fully intend to look out for myself online using Free Software/OSS to the extent I am able. (currently 100%) I believe I know what's best for me, and don't need much help from M$, RMS, or any "Initiatives".

Strategy (2)

Dirtside (91468) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507706)

I really wish RMS would think more about long-term strategy. He spends time ranting about the name you use to refer to your OS, which hurts his credibility when he argues against things that actually are worth arguing against. There's a reason that "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" is a common folktale.

Fight back with FUD! (1)

Arkham (10779) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507709)

This article on a first read is great. The reason, I realized, is that it's because I agree with it. This article boils down the problem (oversimplified maybe, but works for the AOL users out there) to a level where non-geeks can understand how bad this really is.

I think this article would make a GREAT spam campaign. Any slashdotters also spammers at night? Take this article, and blast it out to those 20 million AOL users. They'll be so scared of "Palladium" that they won't consider buying a PC that has it.

The real truth is that this technology will appeal to companies a lot more than individuals. But if individuals refuse to use it, applications outside of Microsoft won't bother to use it, and just maybe we could prevail.

Prohibit connecting old computers to the Internet? (2)

burgburgburg (574866) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507714)

In the middle of his article, RMS stated that there were already US law proposals to "prohibit connecting old computers to the Internet." He states that the CBDTPA is one such law proposal.

While I knew that the CBDTPA contained language that all new products would have to have the proposed restrictions, I don't recall seeing anything about shutting out old, non-CBDTPA, computers. Is this an accurate reading of the proposal, or a stretch meant work us up?

RMS.. (2, Interesting)

deego (587575) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507753)

BTW, he issued a book recently..

See the GNU flash on: gnu.org [gnu.org] .

(i even submitted a story on that.. but ya know how it goes..)

Trusted is Really Only LogicaL (2, Funny)

EggplantMan (549708) | more than 11 years ago | (#4507769)

I agree the issues RMS raises with trusted computing, specifically the loss of control over one's system and possibility for abuse, are valid, and even frightening.

OTOH I hold some opinions of my own. RMS says that trusted computing should be called treacherous computing but his reasons are weak. I fail to see how stopping people from illegally trading media over the web should be considered treacherous, in fact it is commendable.

Instead of leaving the internet as a 'wild west' with no laws, Microsoft and the RIAA (along with some politicians) are benevolently expending time and effort to establish some sort of order. I look forward to the day when I can buy Trusted hardware and engage in Trusted computing. That will finally let me sleep at night, knowing that Hollywood and the RIAA are not being robbed of their hard earned money.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>