From: "Geo" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_006C_01C5CD62.DE1D04E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

You are saying I can take a pentium D machine and vista and have it boot =
without the special mode or you are claiming that and your definition of =
DRM are different somehow?

Geo.
  "Rich"  wrote in message news:4349cae3{at}w3.nls.net...
     Irrelevant to your claims of DRM and also false.

  Rich

    "Geo"  wrote in message =
news:4349c91d$1{at}w3.nls.net...
    None of those are a mandatory part of the boot process.

    Geo.
      "Rich"  wrote in message news:4349439c{at}w3.nls.net...
         No more or less than passwords, TLS/SSL, smart cards, tokens, =
or anything else someone wants to make a mandatory part of any process = they choose.

      Rich

        "Geo"  wrote in message =
news:434921c2$1{at}w3.nls.net...
        But the feature being discussed can not only "be used" for DRM, =
it can be used to FORCE DRM on those who don't want it and to prevent =
competition on the OS market by not allowing an OS that doesn't force = drm
to be used.

        Geo.
          "Rich"  wrote in message news:434839da$1{at}w3.nls.net...
             My objection to your use of the term DRM is that it doesn't =
apply and diverts the discussion away to off topic, often silly, =
emotionally charged claims.  A claim that something could be used for = DRM
could apply to anything as there is no limit to what someone might = use. 
Passwords can be used for DRM.  They are today.  TLS/SSL can be = used for
DRM.  It is today. Smartcards, tokens, or anything to identify = the entity
to which rights were granted can be used.

             None of this helps for secure boot whose purpose is to =
validate the software environment and has no need to identify the user = or
the machine.

          Rich

            "John Beckett"
 wrote =
in message news:7roek156s13jun0lt9u808ahvmc20pbmrj{at}4ax.com...
            "Rich"  wrote in message
news::
            >    Your reply falls apart immediately after "as you well =
know".
            >  In fact you have it exactly backwards.

            Maybe you're answering in automatic mode??

            Just because I mentioned the terms "Geo" and
"DRM" in the =
same message
            does not mean I am supporting all or any of Geo's assertions =
re DRM.

            In fact, I was pointing out that trusted computing is =
capable of good
            things, and I predict that with the rising sophistication of =
malware,
            companies really will need trusted computing systems for =
their laptops if
            the laptops are allowed to connect to the normal company =
network.

            I claim that the same features of trusted computing that =
provide the
            benefit of secure remote access are also capable of =
providing DRM. I am
            not commenting on whether that is good or bad.

            I would appreciate a clear correction if I have made a =
mistake in the
            above (i.e. which words are wrong, and briefly why).

            > What you approve is up to you and if you use it can =
provide you with
            > a degree of trust not available without secure boot.

            I understand that.
            =20
            > Many of george's opinions on DRM are ...

            That's an issue for another thread, IMHO.

            John

------=_NextPart_000_006C_01C5CD62.DE1D04E0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








You are saying I can take a pentium D =
machine and=20
vista and have it boot without the special mode or you are claiming that = and=20
your definition of DRM are different somehow?
 
Geo.

  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:4349cae3{at}w3.nls.net...
    
Irrelevant to your =
claims of DRM and=20
  also false.
   
  Rich
   
  

    "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>=20">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>=20
    wrote in message news:4349c91d$1{at}w3.nls.net...
    None of those are a mandatory part =
of the boot=20
    process.
     
    Geo.
    

      "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:4349439c{at}w3.nls.net...
         No
more or less than =
passwords,=20
      TLS/SSL, smart cards, tokens, or anything else someone wants to =
make a=20
      mandatory part of any process they choose.
       
      Rich
       
      

        "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>=20">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>=20
        wrote in message news:434921c2$1{at}w3.nls.net...
        But the feature being
discussed =
can not=20
        only "be used" for DRM, it can be used to FORCE DRM on those who =
don't=20
        want it and to prevent competition on the OS market by not =
allowing an=20
        OS that doesn't force drm to be used.
         
        Geo.
        

          "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:434839da$1{at}w3.nls.net...
            
My objection to =
your use of=20
          the term DRM is that it doesn't apply and diverts the =
discussion away=20
          to off topic, often silly, emotionally charged claims.  A =
claim=20
          that something could be used for DRM could apply to anything =
as there=20
          is no limit to what someone might use.  Passwords can be =
used for=20
          DRM.  They are today.  TLS/SSL can be used for =
DRM.  It=20
          is today. Smartcards, tokens, or anything to identify the =
entity to=20
          which rights were granted can be used.
           
            
None of this =
helps for=20
          secure boot whose purpose is to validate =
the software=20
          environment and has no need to identify the user or the=20
          machine.
           
          Rich
           
          
            "John Beckett" <FirstnameSurname{at}com=">mailto:FirstnameSurname{at}compuserve.com.omit">FirstnameSurname{at}com=
puserve.com.omit>=20
            wrote in message news:7roek156s13=
jun0lt9u808ahvmc20pbmrj{at}4ax.com..."Rich"=20
            <{at}> wrote in message >   =20
            Your reply falls apart immediately after "as you well=20
            know".>  In fact you have it exactly=20
            backwards.Maybe you're answering in automatic=20
            mode??Just because I mentioned the terms
"Geo" and =
"DRM" in=20
            the same messagedoes not mean I am supporting all or any =
of=20
            Geo's assertions re DRM.In fact, I was pointing out =
that=20
            trusted computing is capable of goodthings, and I =
predict that=20
            with the rising sophistication of malware,companies =
really will=20
            need trusted computing systems for their laptops ifthe =
laptops=20
            are allowed to connect to the normal company =
network.I claim=20
            that the same features of trusted computing that provide=20
            thebenefit of secure remote access are also capable of =
providing=20
            DRM. I amnot commenting on whether that is good or =
bad.I=20
            would appreciate a clear correction if I have made a mistake =
in=20
            theabove (i.e. which words are wrong, and briefly=20
            why).> What you approve is up to you
and if you =
use it=20
            can provide you with> a degree of trust not available =
without=20
            secure boot.I understand
that. > =
Many of=20
            george's opinions on DRM are ...That's an issue for =
another=20
            thread,=20
    =
IMHO.John=


------=_NextPart_000_006C_01C5CD62.DE1D04E0--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5