recompile your way out of this
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Bdragon Jun 01, 2009 12:49 AM EDT |
OK I can see a future in which all cpus have this feature. Whats to stop me form erasing the drive and installing my own custom kernel that just plain ignores that set of hardware features. Or does their little DRM monster hide in some firmware or cmos that I either cant clear or if I do I brick the system. |
| tuxchick Jun 01, 2009 1:24 AM EDT |
I was wondering about that too. Hopefully I'll have some time tomorrow to read up on it. |
| azerthoth Jun 01, 2009 2:39 AM EDT |
I see places where this would be a good thing, dropping back to my previously used medical equipment and cruise missile reasoning for things that I want not to function if they have been hacked. I have faith though that even the most aggressive DRM that greedywood can conjure up can and will fall in the face of coordinated effort. The annoyance of having to work around yet another obstacle to use what I have a legal right to use, thats another story and as commented is societal not technical. That the companies are allowed to pursue or prevent their paying customers needs to be addressed outside of the technical arena. Just my .02 ~Az |
| maxxedout Jun 01, 2009 7:43 AM EDT |
Azerthoth - You won't have a legal right to use this or any hardware after MS bribes law makers to pass laws that say other wise. This is the first steps to Trusted Computing and a means for MS to end Linux. |
| helios Jun 01, 2009 8:51 AM EDT |
I have no doubt that this is their motive Max, but the US is not the center of the Universe. While our most corrupt Congress can be manipulated, do you think for a moment that Neelie Kroes will stand for it? No, this will be litigation on a global scale and if the right arguments are made, it will be brought back on this shore and defeated with the same arguments made in Europe and Asia. Nice try buffoons...I just fought Acer over this and we're not done yet. |
| azerthoth Jun 01, 2009 2:23 PM EDT |
The downside to my rebuttal is that it seriously constitutes a TOS, or rather the topic it would open up would. I realize that political discussion happens here constantly and that there are a handful of people who drop right/left bombs on a regular basis. I have decided for my part to try and restrict myself from that arena (good luck). Lets just say my belief in the US system of government will be completely restored if it plays out the way it's looking like it might. |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 01, 2009 5:40 PM EDT |
Quoting:OK I can see a future in which all cpus have this feature. Welcome to yesterday. All CPUs since I think P4 already have this. |
| Bdragon Jun 01, 2009 10:04 PM EDT |
Darn! Sander that is what I get for being a life long Mac user. I am profoundly ignorant of PC hardware history. Wonder if IBM or Motorola ever did anything like this and more importantly can we code around this or just ignore it. My AMD X2 does not seem to have any DRM in it or none that affects Ubuntu. |
| caitlyn Jun 01, 2009 10:06 PM EDT |
Now, will the MIPS and ARM based systems have this feature? Is running non-Intel architectures a way of avoiding it? |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 02, 2009 3:05 AM EDT |
@Caitlyn: I have no idea. @Bdragon: AMD CPUs have it as well IIRC. Thing is, nobody ever used it. DRM only works if it's funny end-to-end, from the hardware and CPU, through the Bios, OS, software, cables and to the monitor. Ironically, Macintosh is the only platform I know that does use DRM and the TPM chips: http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/08/01/0421248.shtml?tid=1... |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 02, 2009 7:34 AM EDT |
Az, I don't think anything about this discussion is a TOS violation. The political attacks on Free Software may not be a technical issue, but they are a Free Software issue. I don't believe there can be a more on-topic subject than trying to force proprietary functions into F/OSS, and the issues and measures it inspires. |
| tuxchick Jun 02, 2009 9:53 AM EDT |
Hey, I know, let's have a dedicated forum for whining about LXer having a TOS. Then maybe the rest of the discussions can actually be discussions. |
| gus3 Jun 02, 2009 11:56 AM EDT |
Funny, my AMD64 documentation explains the purpose of the TPM under the SKINIT explanation, but the Intel counterpart mentions nothing of SKINIT. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!