On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 12:50:57PM -0800, Michael Cardenas wrote:
> Tim May wrote:
> >(Much has been made of how the Microsoft- and Intel-backed security
> >regimes will be "opt in" or "voluntary." This seems dubious. It is
> >precisely the non-volunteers who these companies, and Hollywood, and
> >the Nation States, will be most concerned about. So I would expect
> >this "opt in" approach to not be the full picture.)
> Microsoft is pushing hard to get palladium into the silicon, with intel
> and amd happy to comply. It's hard to imagine how it will be voluntary
> after that happens.
S. Jobs isn't all that hip on Palladium style stuff (although he'll do
what he's told), and linux runs on anything. The Europeans will be
incredibly dubious of any chip/os level security after what the NSA has
done to them over the years, so they'll probably form a committee to
design something similar but incompatible. Being that it'll come out of
a committee, it'll take 10 years to get a spec, and drive development of
single-die multi-cpu chip architecture, which will get us cheap SMP
boxes.
I'm not all that worried about it, after all, outside of graphic design
software Linux already does everything I need, and more than most people
need. Sure, it's not as polished, as integrated etc. But it's about
at the level of Windows95, if you use something like KDE or GNOME.
--
I stand on principle, because it's the only place where I | Quit smoking:
don't get shit on my boots. | 242d, 9h ago
| petro@
| bounty.org
