On May 13, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Ralph Green wrote: > On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 09:46 -0700, Bruce Johnson wrote: >> On May 12, 2011, at 7:33 PM, Ralph Green wrote: >> >>> I called Apple hardware treacherous. I did not come up with >>> that term. It is widely used, >> >> No it isn't because you're the only person I've ever read or heard making >> that claim. >> > I think it is interesting that because you have not heard it, that you > can assert it is not widely used. > > Here is a 5 year old reference to it. > http://www.linux.com/archive/feed/55765 > > Read one of the original documents about treacherous computing > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html >
Richard Stallman is one of the giants of computer science, but he's also pretty much an extremist. Unless you are like RMS and closely examine every line of the source code for every bit of software running on your computer, at some point you have to trust the creators of the hardware and software that they are on the up-and-up. Simply asserting a worst-case-scenario and comparing it to Franklin's beloved quote about security and liberty, is engaging in deceptive hyperbole, FUD in other words. It's like arguing that roads are an intolerable infringement on your right to drive anywhere your vehicle could travel, and a tyrannical imposition on personal liberty by the treacherous state. > If you doubt that Apple uses TPM, read about it: > http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/ Yes. Also read where it says, and I quote: "No TPM for You! Next! At the time of this writing (October 2006), the newest Apple computer models, such as the MacPro and possibly the revised MacBook Pro and the revised iMac, do not contain an onboard Infineon TPM. Apple could bring the TPM back, perhaps, if there were enough interest (after all, it is increasingly common to find TPMs in current notebook computers), but that's another story." > >>> because Apple sells hardware that obeys >>> Apple and not the person who owns the computer. >> >> That is complete paranoid BS based on a total misunderstanding of what EFI >> and TPM actually are. >> > I understand both EFI and TPM quite well. TPM is sold as Trusted. > Most people don't understand what the consortium means by trusted. It > has nothing to do with whether you trust your computer. It is about > whether some third party can trust that you can only run software they > approve of. TPM is about control and is a rather nasty thing. It has > some positive aspects, but not nearly enough to balance the negatives. Only if you assume the worst case scenario all the time. Your arguments are, if I may drag recent politics into it, akin to the "One percent doctrine" Ron Suskind describes in the book of the same name, about the Bush administrations response to 9/11 and the aftermath. It is derived from a quote by vice president Cheney: "if there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response." <http://www.ronsuskind.com/theonepercentdoctrine/> This was an attitude that helped lead to catastrophic errors in judgement and action by that administration. (I recommend the book, btw, it's an excellent portrayal of intelligence informed by politics and policy versus the other way around. Read it and you'll understand why it took ten years to find bin Laden, among other things) RMS and your arguments about TPM are engaging in the very same fearmongering. If there is any chance that Apple could prevent you from running any program you wanted on your Mac, you insist that it is a certainty that they would do so. >> If what you say is true, it should be trivial for you to point to me the >> place on Apple's website where they have the 'Linux Enablers' available for >> download. >> > I don't navigate Apple's web site often and I did not find it in a > quick search. I don't know why you think it would be trivial. Since > they don't really want you to disrespect Steve by running anything other > than OSX, why would they make it trivial. Nevertheless, I will follow > up on this. I don't know, they make it relatively easy to find the source code for the open source parts of the OS (which includes the kernel and hardware drivers): <http://www.opensource.apple.com/> -- Bruce Johnson University of Arizona College of Pharmacy Information Technology Group Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
