Software rental, "trusted computing", etc. (was Re: Is this for real -- a new C64/128)

From: Richard Erlacher <richard_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Tue May 16 18:48:28 2000

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed this trend. It's pointed out at
considerable length in almost ever Computer-Chronicles, or other
techie-targeted newsreel, that Oracle CEO Ellison (?) has been promoting the
notion of renting software for some time now. His favorite concept is a
resource-poor Internet-PC in every home, renting his software and using data
from his servers.

Unfortunately, though Bill Gates is not in the same camp with him, the
billionaire CEO seems to think the public would benefit by paying for the
hardware and the software more or less forever. I'm not in agreement with
anything that doesn't let me pick and choose which software I run on my
hardware. If they go ahead with this, who's going to keep every version
with every possible configuration option already installed exactly as each
user wants. It sounds more like a McDonalds approach to computers.
However, I don't like McDonalds these days nearly as much as I did when
there were only three things you could buy, and the guy at the window lost
his job if you didn't have them within 30 seconds of when you walked up.

Just in case, however, you'd best not dispose of that old reliable hardware
and software . . . it doesn't take up much space . . .

Dick

----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Smith <eric_at_brouhaha.com>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 5:20 PM
Subject: Software rental, "trusted computing", etc. (was Re: Is this for
real -- a new C64/128)


> "Richard Erlacher" <richard_at_idcomm.com> wrote:
> > Since there's a strong push in the direction of a hermetically-sealed
> > internet-PC, with no options, it makes me shudder to think there may be
a
> > time, soon, when we have to buy software by the drink, downloading it
each
> > time from the net and for a fee, as the Oracle folks would like us to
do. I
> > see no effort from anyone else to dispell the notion that that's a good
> > thing.
>
> A lot of people don't seem to recognize this threat, and some people
> refuse to believe it even when it's pointed out.
>
> This is what Intel's processor serial number was about. Intel tried
> to represent that the serial number would provide some sort of benefit
> to the user, but in reality it was not the end user whose interests
> they were trying to serve. One of Intel's architects was publicly quoted
> as saying "The actual user of the PC -- someone who can do anything they
> want -- is the enemy." Intel lost that particular battle, but the war is
> far from over.
>
> There's now a think called the "Trusted Computing Platform Alliance.":
> http://www.trustedpc.org/
> Such a pleasant-sounding, reassuring name. Until you think about one
> little detail. Trusted by *whom*?
>
> What the software companies, record companies, and movie studios want
> is a world in which they have complete control over what you can and
> can't do with their content, and TCPA is chartered with developing the
> technical infrastructure and standards to make it happen.
>
> However, they won't try to ram this down our throats all at once. They'll
> push it in small increments, and try to make us believe that each little
> piece is actually a good thing, or at least that it's not significant
> enough that we should worry about it.
>
> But if we allow them to do this, eventually we'll have computers with:
>
> * processors that compute a digital signature of the platform BIOS, and
> refuse to execute "unauthorized" code.
>
> * BIOSes that compute a digital signature of the operating system.
>
> * Operating systems that compute a digital signature of the BIOS
> (necessary to make sure that the OS isn't running on an unauthorized
> platform).
>
> And so on.
>
> Some cite free software as a force to prevent this kind of madness. Right
> now we can run both free operating systems and commercial operating
systems
> on the same inexpensive commodity hardware (with the exception of certain
> peripheral devices whose manufacturers won't release hardware
specifications).
> But eventually we might have a situation where commodity hardware can only
> run officially sanctioned operating systems, and hardware that is capable
> of running free software can't run the official stuff.
>
> As I see it, the only way this is likely to be averted is if free software
> develops a sufficiently broad deployment that the market for computers
> that can't run it is insufficient to satisfy the vendors.
>
> You probably don't want to read more of my ranting about this, but it's
> at
> http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/editorials/trusted_computing.html
>
> Eric
>
Received on Tue May 16 2000 - 18:48:28 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:33:09 BST