Hardware security in PCs to accompany new Windows

[James Knott]

Colin McGregor wrote:
> --- Henry Spencer <henry-lqW1N6Cllo0sV2N9l4h3zg at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> 
>>On Thu, 19 May 2005, Peter wrote:
>>
>>>Oh, [now] I see what you meant by 'not removable'.
>>
>>I was suggesting the 
>>
>>>possible use of a dallas ibutton or chipcard as
>>
>>the identifying device...
>>
>>Chairman Bill is likely to write his own specs for
>>this rather than
>>relying on existing designs.  I think it all too
>>likely that the specs
>>will demand that the identification hardware be an
>>integral part of the
>>CPU or motherboard chipset and *not* readily movable
>>from machine to
>>machine.  He *wants* you to have to buy new software
>>licences when you
>>replace old/dead hardware. 
> 
> 
> Very true, and the other thing Chairman Bill wants is
> to crush Open Source OSs (Linux and the BSDs), as
> Microsoft's true cash cow is the OS market. Microsoft
> will not let go of the OS cash cow without a major
> fight, and from what we have seen in the past
> Microsoft fights (very) dirty. If the hardware is
> set-up in a way that requires some sort of patented
> crypto code be passed around before the CPU will run
> it, then Microsoft wins on several levels, anti-virus,
> anti-open source, and a way to @#$% all other
> proprietary application vendors (who will have to bow
> down and obtain Microsoft's blessing in order to stay
> in business, plus pay some sort of licence fee...).
> 
> Now, a move like the above would be very clearly
> monopolistic, but given the sort of near non-existant
> slaps on the wrist Microsoft has received to date,
> well, the Bush Administration is very unlikely to
> anything real about Microsoft. Further 3.5 years from
> now Microsoft knows they may get another U.S.
> Government as unwilling to take serious action as the
> current administration.

Don't forget about IBM.  If all else fails, they can push the PowerPC or 
cell for running Linux and other.  And of course, they can always roll 
their own x86.  Then there's other countries in the world, such as 
China, that either want to run Linux or loosen MS's grip or both.  I 
suspect that even MS wouldn't be able to escape antitrust, if they set 
up a system, where only their software can run on hardware.  If the U.S. 
government allowed it, there'd be howls from around the world about 
trade barriers etc.

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml