On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 15:15 -0700, Bruce Johnson wrote: > 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. > You sure seem to like straw dog arguments. I don't assert a worst case scenario. I just avoid one. If I have 2 choices, where one leaves me in control and one gives some other person arbitrary control over my property, I pick the one where I have control. That is just rational, not extreme. I don't know what the odds of Apple trying to shut things down are. I think they are probably low, but His Steveness is such a control freak that it is naive not to consider the possibility. I have met Richard Stallman and spent time talking to him one on one. He is clearly an extremist and I disagree with him about a lot. His extremism has also benefited society quite a bit and I am grateful that he has been here. I referred to him as just one example that I did not invent the terms you acted like I did. Do you at least see that I did not coin the phrase treacherous computing and I am not alone in using the terminology? You said I was the only person you had heard or read making that claim and I pointed you to evidence. I work mostly within the open source community and I do hear the phrase fairly often.
> > > 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." > Perhaps Apple has removed TPM. It is in their interest to say so. Apple often acts like control freaks, but they are generally honest. I already said I plan to look for confirmation of this. I'll find someone with boards I can examine, but that will take a while. I really hope that Apple has reversed their early x86 decision to use TPM and then I'll consider Apple x86 hardware. I would still say that hardware with TPM is of zero value to me, as a rule. > > > > >>> 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. > >> This is so silly, I will just ignore it. > > 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. > I don't assume it. I just avoid it. > 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." > More straw dogs. I am probably more like the elder Bush here. It would not be prudent at this juncture. I will say if there is a 1% chance of catastrophe, it would be wrong to ignore it. > 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. > I insist on no such thing. I just steer clear of it. No fear mongering is involved. Just rational analysis. My computers should serve my interests. Have a good day, Ralph -- 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
