Microsoft moves to integrate Windows with BIOS

Quote:

---

I guess this explains the ignorance.

---

It isn't a matter of ignorance vs knowledge, but a matter of opinion.
In my opinion, the integration of Microsoft Windows with the PC BIOS
would not be in my best interest.

Look at Apple Computer. The reason so many consumers steer clear
of the Mac is because the total integration of hardware and software
gives Apple total ownership of the Mac user. Why does a Mac
cost so much more than a pc?

The last time someone tried a power grab like this was when IBM
introduced the PS/2. Was in better? Yes. Did it sell? No, because it
was totally IBM proprietary, and people didn't want to be owned
by IBM. We don't want to be owned by Microsoft either. We want
hardware that gives us a choice of OS, and that is what
we will spend money on.

That is why Palladium, and all other such "trusted computing"
initiatives are doomed to crash and burn.
:cool:

Quote:

---

That is why Palladium, and all other such "trusted computing" initiatives are doomed to crash and burn.

---

Then I guess you have nothing to worry about.

But to say that hardware integration is not a part of high security systems is an ignorant comment. At the end of the day, computers are purely binary logic, the only ones holding opinion are those with not enough knowledge of fact.

While your opinion may be that it is not best for you, the fact of the matter is that no one else has given a better answer to all the questions on the table that are answered by this integration.

Here is my standpoint on this, Intel and AMD are both on board, so are IBM, HP, and Microsoft. This means, it will be a reality... so you'd better get used to the fact, this isn't some Microsoft "power grab." You have two real choices, you can fight here and on other message boards accomplishing nothing or you can accept the fact and research the project to discover it's strengths and weakness and develop an approach to dealing with this inevitability. Since I am burdened with a job that requires my making decisions about such things so natually I choose the latter. As for you, the choice is yours... however rather than arguing opinion, I think you all would be a little better off with a few more facts under your belt on the subject.

catch

Heres one for ya i was involved with a company that built an autoresolution technology,we were the only ones in the world with it.Now Amazingly Microsoft has the same technology,They must be incredibly smart to read our minds and get the "autoresolution"design.lol i will leave that thought with ya all

Quote:

---

develop an approach to dealing with this inevitability.

---

Bullies always try to claim that their ascendency is inevitable, but
none of this stuff is inevitable. It only has a chance if it is forced
upon us by law. And, in fact, they want government to mandate
some kind of DRM requirement in hardware. This would dovetail nicely
into their hopes of destroying all alternative OSs like Linux.

In the end the market will decide, as long as we still have
a market. Meanwhile, it is perfectly appropriate for us to treat it
as a political issue, rather than a technological one.
:cool:

This scares me.....It's like big brother, on your BIOS........."We are watching..........."

Quote:

---

This would dovetail nicely into their hopes of destroying all alternative OSs like Linux.

---

What a narrow viewpoint.
This is why Linux is losing and is going to lose. You try to make everything that MS is so awful and they just want to destroy Linux.

This isn't about Linux, not now, not ever. It is not even about AMD, HP, and IBM. (all of which are Linux supporters yet have signed on with the TCG) It is about the fact that like the dot com flash in the pan, the current way of managing digital rights and copyrighted material is handled. People had a lot of fun stealing whatever they could and the laws were wishy washy enough to allow it to happen, but big business has decided that that era needs to come to an end.

The number of players here go well beyond Gates v Torvalds. Nearly every company in the country would be aided by this as a more efficient manner to control use of their computer systems and proigation of their copyrighted materials. The RIAA and MPAA are behind it, so is not only the American government but many other governments world wide. The only people to be hurt by this are the people who wish to continue stealing material. And sadly enough they have a pretty lame lobby.

I am not sure that you, any of you understand the full benefits of this... no more viruses and trojans, no more pirated software, no more pirated movies and music, system administrators jobs get much simpler. On the other hand, blockbuster.com could rent movie digitally and when it expires it deletes itself. Companies can lease software more effectively which can lower costs dramaitcally and reduce monatary barriers to entry in assorted industries. Companies can more finely control data access, read but no print, print to X printers, but not Y printers or email, etc etc.

If linux was smart they'd get on board... otherwise... what processor are you gonna use? Intel and AMD will eventually have the fritz chip embedded very deeply.

But really, please stop being so simplistic and trying to just blame Microsoft. They are just providing an answer to a question that the open source community has remained silent on... a potentially fatal mistake...

catch

Quote:

---

They are just providing an answer to a question that the open source community has remained silent on... a potentially fatal mistake...

---

They're providing an answer to a problem that doesn't exist. They want the
'fritz" chip and all this other stuff because they don't want us to have
computers at all.

All of the stuff that these copyright holders have for sale is just "consumer
content" that could be presented by "consumer digital devices"
like TVs, word processor machines, game machines, or communication
machines, nicely packaged and marketed to supply yesterday's
hot apps.

The real revolution in computing came when they reached the level
where you could not just run some software supplied by
the high and mighty, but your machine is now powerful enough
and flexible enough to write and compile software on it.

This is what the DRM advocates want to take away, the open architecture
that makes a computer a computer and not just a game box
or a DVD player. No, it's not just about Linux, it's about the future
of the personal computer, and whether we will accept some crippled
gadget in its place.

And really, who gives a damn about their copyrighted content?
If they don't want people to copy it they should STFU
and get real jobs.
:cool:

Quote:

---

And really, who gives a damn about their copyrighted content? If they don't want people to copy it they should STFU and get real jobs.

---

Wow, ok then... not much left to say beyond...

have fun "keepin' it real."

catch

Quote:

---

Wow, ok then..

---

Really, you don't propose outlawing the printing press just because
it could potentially be used to illegally print someone else's content.

Why should content owners propose severely crippling computer hardware
to protect their useless movies and barbaric music. Then you are surprised that
I get passionate and angry at them. They are the ones that are way out
of line. Why should I pay for someone else's illegal copying
by being forced to give up the benefits of an open hardware design?
:cool:

rcgreen

Quote:

---

Really, you don't propose outlawing the printing press just because
it could potentially be used to illegally print someone else's content.

---

nicely put!

CATCH
I'm glad you like my use of quotes, here are a few more:

Quote:

---

My original thread on this was stating how this step is a critical part of the Palladium plan and everything there after was response to stupid, illogical comments. Like this one:
"For security purposes I think the OS should be separate from the BIOS. Period. "

---

Let's get back to that one later.

Quote:

---

Which explains why all of the most secure systems: XTS-300, SMG, SecureOS, LOCK, and AITS (all of which target the TCSEC's A1 criteria, with XTS-300 having eventually fallen as low as B3) all use bios integration? Perhaps you should learn a little more about trusted systems design before you open your mouth.

---

Yes, you are correct, I do not know much about these systems. Please enlighten all of us.

XTS-300, Wang's Unix-like Secure Trusted Operating Program

Quote:

---

The new XTS workstation is the first such system to run on standard PC hardware. It carries the Wang label and is built on an Intel Corp. 486 50-MHz DX2 processor and commodity PC parts.

---

The Logical Coprocessing Kernel (LOCK) through which SMG ( SNS Mail Guard ) came about. On what systems did this run ??

SecureOS based on Linux ??

Oh, and lets not forget TCSEC's A1 criteria
Cost Profile of a Highly Assured, Secure Operating System

Quote:

---

Project participants noted that formal methods provided a discipline, structure, and system wide perspective to the software design of both projects which helped identify and eliminate numerous potential flaws as designs initially evolved. Nonetheless, the overall experience casts serious doubt on the cost effectiveness of A1 formal assurance.

---

Etc.

These systems you so BOLDLY mentioned seem to run on systems which inherently do NOT allow access to the the BIOS.

So what was your point ?? How did they get around the built in safe guards ?

Back to my “ stupid, illogical comments” Many of the systems which ran your “most secure systems” used at the time jumpers which prevented ANY alterations to the BIOS by programs. And that WAS and IS my point!!

Quote:

---

The only people to be hurt by this are the people who wish to continue stealing material. And sadly enough they have a pretty lame lobby.

---

Here again I disagree; this is a narrow minded, self serving, stupid, illogical comment. ( you're the expert on statements like this, did I get that right ? )

For the record, I do not download music ( except occasionally some sample clips provided by the artists, like Douglas Yeo ) I do not use pirated software, and I do not spread around my purchased versions of copywrited software with others, nor do I condone such things. I do use Freeware, I do try Shareware ( and have made contributions to some, those that I continued using, even purchased full versions ). To the best of my ability I try to adhere to the licensing agreements.

Maybe I am in the minority. But you would remove MY freedom because there are others that would abuse the system, and/or because it would make your job easier.

I have seen what government entities, left unchecked, will do with peoples' freedom. This intigration of the BIOS and the software could allow others to control ( censor ) everything I do on MY computer.

What would be a better approach would be for those that are making the money off the Internet be held more responsible for how they secure it and one's freedom. That includes hardware, software, and provider venues. It will also require some degree of intelligence! Gee, can we legislate this ??