Home "computers" which only run signed software? [LWN.net]

Home "computers" which only run signed software?

Posted Apr 24, 2003 18:45 UTC (Thu) by neoprene (guest, #8520) [Link]

Home "computers" which only run signed software.... will first have to be bought by someone.
Such devices are like the current "Tivo" or "Xbox", and cannot take the place of a flexible "PC". Unless "the PC" will be banned I doubt anyone will buy a emasculated "PC".

Home "computers" which only run signed software?

Posted Apr 24, 2003 19:15 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

> Such devices are like the current "Tivo" or "Xbox", and cannot take
> the place of a flexible "PC"

But what happens when Micorsoft release "The Internet Box", a box that runs media-player, Internet Explorer, and MS Word. What if MS release the "tablet computer" and give it a "specially enhanced" processor? All these things are possible and one can't trust individual consumers to choose based on social implication. MS can offer a $150 discount on such "PC"s, once critical mass is achieved they can put the price back up to (and over) the original price since they would have an even tougher monopoly.

(If you don't believe MS will do it, just sub in IBM (or SCO, HP, whatever))

> Unless "the PC" will be banned I doubt anyone will buy a emasculated "PC"

Senator Fritz Hollings (chairman of the Senate for Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee) is trying to ban[1] "TV" (as we know it) in America. Why not the PC?

Ciaran O'Riordan

[1] http://www.digitalspeech.org/cbdtpa.shtml
(plenty of other interesting pages on www.digitalspeech.org too)

Home "computers" which only run signed software?

Posted Apr 24, 2003 19:35 UTC (Thu) by pointwood (guest, #2814) [Link]

I think you're wrong. Most people isn't aware of those issues. If a certain device fits the users needs - they will buy it.

Home "computers" which only run signed software?

Posted Apr 25, 2003 2:52 UTC (Fri) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]

And that's precisely their point...

and I was wrong. I see, now, the point that the anti-signed-kernel crowd are making... and I have to say I agree with them. This is akin to the idea that Seagate and Maxtor will be strongarmed into manufacturing (only) harddrives which have encrypted bus interfaces, such that you can only talk to them if you're....

well, if you're Windows. Cause, y'know, they can't release the key to an open source driver writer.

And yes, this isn't remotely unlikely in the face of the DMCA and it's ilk. People have discussed manufacturing peripherals like this. Imposition by obsolescence. It's not impossible, and Microsoft overthrew the Justice Department, so why not Seagate and Maxtor?

Course, that's just what I think.

And I've been wrong before. See above. :-)

What's this?

Posted Apr 25, 2003 22:26 UTC (Fri) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link]

What just happened there? Did someone actually read the responses to his post and rationally reconsider his position? I don't think we're on slashdot anymore, toto... ;-)

Yeah; that's what happened.

Posted May 19, 2003 23:49 UTC (Mon) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]

Glad I could improve your day. :-)

Home "computers" which only run signed software?

Posted Apr 25, 2003 7:15 UTC (Fri) by dmantione (guest, #4640) [Link]

No you cannot use a license to prevent people running your software on
certain hardware. Copyright law is in the way.

In the Netherlands, the authors law says anyone is allowed to make changes
to software to make it interoperable with his hardware. Since all eu-memers
have compatible copyright laws this is most likely true in the entire Europian
Union. This statement is clearly there to protect end users. However, it also
means you cannot prevent people to modify your software to not run on
DRM-hardware, by law they have the right to modify it.

But, it is not entirely clear if they can accept the free software license then, so
they might then not have the right to redistribute the software.

Home "computers" which only run signed software?

Posted Apr 24, 2003 19:02 UTC (Thu) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]

I think that all such devices are inherently limited in usefulness, because they can't be used for purposes that the key holder doesn't intend them to be used for. Now, that's perfectly fine. My refridgerator can't run code I write, and neither can my VCR. Now, general purpose computing is getting cheap and, well, general, so you can make a VCR-replacement that has a general purpose computer inside; in fact, the best VCR for the cost (depending on what you want from a VCR) is based on a computer. The thing is that people don't want to have each device appear to be a general purpose computer, even if that's how it works inside.

So the situation is really that computer-based devices are replacing non-computer-based devices, and, in some cases, devices are becoming sufficiently capable that people who needed a computer before can now use a device that doesn't seem to be a computer, and thus don't need an overt computer at all. But then there are people who actually want computers, and these people won't be satisfied with a fridge or a VCR or a car, even if these are really a computer inside.

The thing about general-purpose computers is that you can specialize them, and this may be better than building a special-purpose device from scratch, but it's just different from having a general-purpose computer able to run arbitrary software.