Windows XP SP2 is here... what you need to do

[Natalinasmpf]

That is the official spirit of TCPA. Sure its written in the specs, but the power of manufacturers to abuse this, and not to follow it, the risk is high.

Underhand methods can occur. Possibly, it may insert, an "you cannot run this, because it is not authorised by us" algorithm. It isn't declared, either. The chip itself cannot be altered, as well.

Is it explicitly declared, as a law, that companies cannot abuse it that way? If can't, then it is a severe threat to civil rights. Currently, I'm seeing a lot of lobbying for laws the other way round, that higher companies are guaranteed these abilities....

[Natalinasmpf]

Did it ever occur to you that consumers simply would not upgrade to software like that? Did it ever occur to you that even Bush's administration would not allow such blatant anti-trust breaches? Did it ever occur to you that the very notion of MS being able to do that is in violation of the TCPA spec?

Did it ever occur that the consumer masses are blind, accepting, generally blur, and stupid? That the neo-conservative Bush would probably encourage it? And that MS would go forth anyway, as long it wasn't official?

It is precisely because consumers generally are oblivious to such things, that there is a danger.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
Is it explicitly declared, as a law, that companies cannot abuse it that way?

Yes, it is. For one, it's in violation of anti-trust laws.

Did it ever occur that the consumer masses are blind, accepting, generally blur, and stupid?

They're not as stupid as you think. Word of mouth spreads fast, and if they find out the new version of Windows prevents you from doing what you could do before, why would they upgrade?

[Natalinasmpf]

and if they find out the new version of Windows prevents you from doing what you could do before, why would they upgrade?

Fear, uncertainty, doubt of the alternative?

They would mostly shrug it off, and continue. Also because they tend to be short-sighted, and most of what they are using right now won't be impaired, but future innovations they may need

Yes, it is. For one, it's in violation of anti-trust laws.

Not exactly. The laws are so vague and subjective, TCPA can easily bypass it because its regarded as good. They'll give them the power, because they think they would use it for good; but the abuse may be high.

[Asher]

If they use TCPA to block out competition, that's a blatant violation of anti-trust.

[Q Classic]

Sorry. It was?

what distro. check my second post, the one where i mention that i know everything on my windows partition and that's precisely why it's stable.

You might try what Linux was built for: compilation by source. Nothing easier than ./configure && make && make install.

there is.
emerge -uUavD world

and it does seem you're a bit paranoid about tcpa, seeing as i'm more than positive that f/oss will figure out how to work with it. what with them already having efi support and all...

[Natalinasmpf]

If they use TCPA to block out competition, that's a blatant violation of anti-trust.

To civic-minded citizens yes.

To the law, no. Not if they do it via underhand means and loopholes. Its funny, because different laws contradict each other, or in their spirit, ie. DMCA and the same antitrust laws.

Basically, one would have the authority to decide which "good" software, and which is "bad", and the law would not penalise them, because one is simply doing the duty of blocking "bad" software, never mind their actual intention.

what distro.

That I have? That would be Slack current.

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by Asher
Yes, it is. For one, it's in violation of anti-trust laws.

Like those ever stopped Microsoft

I ain't stepping into this one any more than that.

[Q Classic]

That I have? That would be Slack current.

respectable.

the 2.6.7 kernel does have some vulnerabilities which have been patched in gentoo. don't know about slack.

[Natalinasmpf]

Yes, the 2.6.x kernel is officially stable, but not reputably, empirically so, it would be common for a lot of vulnerabilities to be found. Generally, most servers should stay away from it, till it becomes more secure, and stick with 2.4.x Being a consumer, I don't see any signficicant risks.

Patching needs to be done, but not as much as Windows, I would think. Some of them are LOCAL root vulnerabilities, which are not as powerful as say, remote control vulnerabilities.

[Asher]

Originally posted by optimus2861
Like those ever stopped Microsoft

I ain't stepping into this one any more than that.

Providing consumers a free product is not anti-trust, preventing consumers from using a competitor's product is.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
Yes, the 2.6.x kernel is officially stable, but not reputably, empirically so, it would be common for a lot of vulnerabilities to be found. Generally, most servers should stay away from it, till it becomes more secure, and stick with 2.4.x Being a consumer, I don't see any signficicant risks.

Patching needs to be done, but not as much as Windows, I would think. Some of them are LOCAL root vulnerabilities, which are not as powerful as say, remote control vulnerabilities.

All you need is one vulnerability to gain access to the system.

It's funny to me how Mac/Linux people make fun of Windows every time there's a security patch, yet silently ignore it when their systems get patched. All the while smiling that they have no virus problems. If I wrote an OS with 2% marketshare, I bet it wouldn't have a virus problem either.

[Natalinasmpf]

Anti-trust has loopholes.

TCPA can go through them if companies are unscrupulous.

Its just like suddenly removing a branch from your 3 branch checking system. It could cause severe loopholes or corruption.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
Anti-trust has loopholes.

TCPA can go through them if companies are unscrupulous.

Worst argument, ever. Unsubstantiated rhetoric.

[Natalinasmpf]

Actually that was a summary; the substantial can be found in above posts.