| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Home "computers" which only run signed software?Home "computers" which only run signed software?Posted Apr 24, 2003 18:45 UTC (Thu) by neoprene (guest, #8520)In reply to: Home "computers" which only run signed software? by coriordan Parent article: Linus on digital rights management
Home "computers" which only run signed software.... will first have to be bought by someone.
(Log in to post comments)
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
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 (subscriber, #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 (subscriber, #755) [Link] Glad I could improve your day. :-)
|
|
||||||||||||