Apple and Trustworthy Computing

.Net as a programming lanaguage system/tool is a system for developing web "applications" as people call them. Simmilar to PHP/JSP/Perl/etc. C# (C-Sharp) is quite literally, Java, with a few changes to make the two inoperable together. It is basically the Java that things like J++ (MS' Java Development tool) create, renamed. Yes, you can use all sorts of languages with .Net. That doesnt necessarily make it good. As long as MS-products are designed to optimise their (MS) profits, and not to allow maximum interoperability with other systems (whether it be servers, applications, OSes, whatever) ease of use and good security practices, they can not, and should not be trusted, in particular by large corporations, and more importantly the governments of the world. The problem with governments these days, is that the vast majority don't have a clue about the current state of things in the IT industry. They know MS is big, so they assume it is good.

Yes, TCPA system probably can be turned off, but i doubt it is an option the end user has. It is more likely, a vendor option. Otherwise, it defeats the purpose of having it, doesnt it?? It is designed to stop people pirating, anything. You don't install a car alarm on your new $100 000 car, and put an "Turn Off Alarm/Immobiliser" switch on the dash, do you?
 
Sorry if this is a little off topic, but I remember hearing or reading that .Net was developed with a lot of input by developers - in effect, usability for developers which I think is a good thing (even though MS's concept of usability is often suspect). I only know of two developers, both pretty sharp people, who have worked with .Net and both said it was suprisingly effective and quick to work with. Does anyone else have an opinion or experience on this?
 
PHP rulez :D

I just finished the FAQ. If that ever became standard, I dunno what I'd do :mad:. And no, if you read carefully, disabling the Fritz chip is illegal.
 
What I do like about .Net is that apps get compiled into native code only once and stored away. Subsequent runs of the same app will use the now optimized native version. Java on the other hand has to JIT compile the app every time it is used.
 
Yes, I know disabling Fritz is illegal, and I probably wouldn't have a clue how to do it myself. But as Pengu said, it would defeat the purpose if the end user could turn it off, because, even if it still stopped warez (which would mean it wasn't actually off), it couldn't spy on your computer and allow its controllers to own you.
 
Hey that reminds me. Here's your kickback arden.

Heh. I love the flimpsons, and usually no one on here agrees with me :p
 
Best. Show. Ever.

It's actually "Trusted Computing", not trustworthy... same diff.
 
I read somewhere (I think at gnu.org/philosopy/can-you-trust.html) that one of the nasty things connected to Palladium was that e-mails and other documents could be made to self destruct in x number of days and that you would only be able to print them on a particular digitally signed printer (probably in the bosses office).

These things are much more nefarious imho than the possibility of overcharging for software. The market will control pricing, it always does (even if it takes time).

Where will we be when Enron-type execs can make their evil directives and illegal correspondence disappear altogether? Without evidence, how will honest middle managers blow the whistle? and how will the Justice Department mete out justice?

"Your mission, Jim, should you decide to accept it, is to rid yourself and your company of reliance on TCPA based systems"
(with apologies to Peter Graves and Martin Landau) ;) :) ;)
 
Hmm... I'm quite sure that it'll turn users off. And users will then turn those things off. I'm quite sure that they'll be able to use alternatives (Macs, Linux) even if all new computers with Windows would have those 'features'. It seems 'the industry' just doesn't get things like 'freedom of choice' and 'each responsible for his own'.

The whole discussion should be started at a completely different point of view: The user. The person. What are the things the user wants? What are the rights the user has? And then: How can we solve the user's problems? And only the third step should be to look at the content-providers. The customer is king? Doesn't seem like it, eh?
 
Q: How can we solve the user's problems?

A: Give him more money! Then he can buy your POS (privately owned software; what were you thinking!).
 
Originally posted by fryke
The whole discussion should be started at a completely different point of view: The user. The person.
Click to expand...

Completely so, if the desire is to benefit the other. But the point of Palladium and the misnomer "Trusted Computing" is to usurp the users rights (in the name of protecting those of copyright holders) and present the him with no choice, a fait accompli.

Hmm... I'm quite sure that it'll turn users off. And users will then turn those things off.
Click to expand...

I don't get who you mean? What will turn them off?

If and when it becomes evident that the Fritz chip technology will allow for all sorts of control on a corporate intranet level as well as on the internet, people may get turned off, but by then is it too Late? Lycander mentions that Linux distros are almost forced to deal with Palladium in their new codes.

I can't find the link I followed once in this whole Palladium thing that stated that once in place any organization with the keys to the technology would be able to shut down all the computers in a whole country (The link spoke of Iraq).

If that is not just overactive paranoia, it is too much power for anyone to have.
 
I doubt with linux it is likely to be as much of a deal. After all, the fritz chip itself is unlikely to be able to read and delete individual files on the user's hard drive. it is more likely that it integrates with the palladium crap and THAT removes "un-licensed" content. The fritz chip may however, be able to stop the machine from booting at all..
 
Originally posted by karavite
Sorry if this is a little off topic, but I remember hearing or reading that .Net was developed with a lot of input by developers - in effect, usability for developers which I think is a good thing (even though MS's concept of usability is often suspect). I only know of two developers, both pretty sharp people, who have worked with .Net and both said it was suprisingly effective and quick to work with. Does anyone else have an opinion or experience on this?
Click to expand...

Last semester, I was taking a programming course. My instructor was talking about the future, with specific regards to .Net. Microsoft was holding a conference, to explain .Net to professors, and to also give classes/demos.
When he came back, I remember his specific words were ".net is a mess" and that Microsoft has a lot of work, if they expect developers/programmers to jump aboard. He gave examples, but I can't remember them now.

In the end, it seemed the majority of people who attended the conference left more confused than originally (so he said)
 
Interesting j79! Then again, anything MS says about usability is highly suspect!

You know, I remember my professors (way way back) telling us we would have simple development tools in the "near future" - this hasn't happened has it! Sure we have VB and a few WSYWIG html editors (sort of), but it seems that so many really sharp developers are spending a ton of time and effort on doing what should be simple things and that takes away from them being able to do more interesting and clever things. It seems that those who create the developer tools (whatever environment) have largely failed to give developers efficient tools to work with.

Personally, I am always most impressed with the *nix geeks who seem to be able to do almost anything with scripts!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top