I'm sorry for not laying out my point more clearly.
I was trying to point out that the Linux people will find a platform
that allows them to continue working "F"reely on the programs they love.
I would assume that if the future has TC dominating the desktop/server
landscape Linux users will once more be locked out of many of the
"essential" things. Heck I can even see a loss of email. But we will
still have Linux...
All that being said. TC is BAD!!! And it's another nail in the coffin
of liberty. I just don't believe IT is THE final, or even the most
important, nail they want to drive home.
Cheers,
Patrick
P.S. when I say "they" I don't mean a grand conspiracy...there are
plenty of well meaning (and/or greedy) people who will happily take us
down the path for short sighted goals.
P.P.S It looks like it comes down to semantics. I don't think Linux
will end because of TC but you seem to be saying something along the
lines of "the network IS Linux". If that's your general thrust then yup
your right, assuming we don't end up creating an alt.net.
On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 18:08 -0800, Eric A wrote:
> > > But don't forget about the main message: Trusted Computing = The End of
> > > Free.
> > >
> > > I absolutely guarantee you that if Trusted Computing gains a foothold
> > > in PCs, Linux with either disappear for good or be effectively
> > > converted into software as proprietary as Microsoft Windows.
> > >
> >
> > I think that, while a good rally call, it's a bit to extreme, Linux as
> > we know it might very well change, but it seems unlikely that "Linux"
> > will become proprietary. At the worst it'll go fringe and use non-PC
> > devices. Just my 2 cents
> >
>
> I'm sorry for putting forward such a strong statement without any
> facts to back it up. Here are the facts:
>
> *The net effect of Trusted Computing is to allow a single company to
> regulate what software may be run on general purpose computers. In a
> Trusted Computing future, people who choose to load non-approved
> software on their PCs or to disable the TPM chip in their PCs will
> have a functionally crippled computer, or possibly a computer that
> does not work at all.
>
> *What keeps Linux (or GNU/Linux if you prefer) Free with a capital F
> is the license under which it is distributed. The license does this by
> insuring all that all users who have a copy of GNU/Linux can:
> 1. Get the source code.
> 2. Modify the source code.
> 3. Redistribute modified copies of the source code.
>
> *However, when binaries produced by compiling modified copies of the
> source code either _cannot_ be run or will _cripple_ the system if
> run, the benefits provided by the license no longer have the effect of
> keeping the software Free.
>
> *So, Linux will remain licensed under the GPLv2 (or, perhaps, some
> future FOSS license), but the altered technical environment created by
> Trusted Computing will prevent software from being truly Free, no
> matter the license. Only kernel binaries approved by the central
> authority will work properly, but those kernel binaries may
> incorporate restrictions on what the user of the computer may do.
>
> For what it's worth, the Free Software Foundation says the same thing:
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html => "Treacherous
> computing puts the existence of free operating systems and free
> applications at risk"
>
> WARNING: I ###DO NOT### recommend reading
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html in order to get
> educated about Trusted Computing. When I read it, I feel a subtle
> implication that a computer incorporating Trusted Computing technology
> is somehow less capable or limited in some way, which is not true. The
> network effect created by the presence of TPMs in most PCs is what
> will take away your freedom and choice.
>
>
> Eric
|