From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system


http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/04/05/mac_security_the_evil_drm.h
tm
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <1144564465.690627.128750@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
lucassen@gmail.com wrote:

http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/04/05/mac_security_the_evil_drm.htm

Wait, I think I see the map to the Holy Grail on that chip ...
--
W. Oates
Teal'c: He is concealing something.
O'Neil: Like what?
Teal'c: I am unsure, he is concealing it.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2006-04-09, fishfry <fishfry@your-mailbox.com> wrote:

http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/04/05/mac_security_the_evil_drm.h
tm

Well the Free Software Foundation advises against using Intel chips
in general:

http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/supportlinuxbios.html

Back when it first became apparent that Apple were planning a
switch to Intel it was clear that superior speed/power compared
to PPC was not the real reason - or at least not the only reason.

When Sun decided to move from SPARC to x86 for desktop machines
and low end servers they chose AMD. Why did Apple choose Intel?
Only because it is the obvious choice for implementing closed or
treacherous systems. Same goes for EFI which is designed to limit
user control of hardware (for example to prevent use of applications
which can capture the digital information going to the sound or
graphics cards).

I have been very happy with my first Mac, a G3 iBook which is still
serving me well after three years - but Apple's switch to Intel may
persuade me to switch to Linux.

Ian

--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <49tdk8Fqgqp0U1@individual.net>,
Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:

When Sun decided to move from SPARC to x86 for desktop machines and
low end servers they chose AMD. Why did Apple choose Intel? Only
because it is the obvious choice for implementing closed or
treacherous systems.

Who said that "closed or treacherous systems" was a consideration?

Same goes for EFI which is designed to limit user control of hardware
(for example to prevent use of applications which can capture the
digital information going to the sound or graphics cards).

Not because it is more advanced than the previous BIOS?

I have been very happy with my first Mac, a G3 iBook which is still
serving me well after three years - but Apple's switch to Intel may
persuade me to switch to Linux.

Whatever.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2006-04-09, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

In article <49tdk8Fqgqp0U1@individual.net>,
Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:

When Sun decided to move from SPARC to x86 for desktop machines and
low end servers they chose AMD. Why did Apple choose Intel? Only
because it is the obvious choice for implementing closed or
treacherous systems.

Who said that "closed or treacherous systems" was a consideration?

Not Apple, but they wouldn't would they:-) But lots of other people
were saying it. Of course they had no proof - just like we have no
proof that oil was a consideration in the decision to invade Iraq.

Same goes for EFI which is designed to limit user control of hardware
(for example to prevent use of applications which can capture the
digital information going to the sound or graphics cards).

Not because it is more advanced than the previous BIOS?

No, if Intel just wanted a more advanced BIOS they could have used
OpenFirmware - it has been around since 1994 and is an IEEE standard.
Problem is that OpenFirmware believes in computers being controlled
by their owners rather than by Hollywood - can't have that can we:-)

Here is a rather long discussion that covers it: http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/05/07/26/1226233.shtml?tid=137

Or check out what Linus has to say about EFI: http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0309.0/1301.html

Ian

--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <49tdk8Fqgqp0U1@individual.net>,
Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:

On 2006-04-09, fishfry <fishfry@your-mailbox.com> wrote:

http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/04/05/mac_security_the_evil_drm.h tm

Well the Free Software Foundation advises against using Intel chips
in general:

http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/supportlinuxbios.html

Back when it first became apparent that Apple were planning a
switch to Intel it was clear that superior speed/power compared
to PPC was not the real reason - or at least not the only reason.

When Sun decided to move from SPARC to x86 for desktop machines
and low end servers they chose AMD. Why did Apple choose Intel?

Partly because Apple ships a *lot* more systems than does Sun.

They didn't want to get caught out if their CPU supplier couldn't meet
demand; Intel could meet it, AMD has had problems in the past.

Additionally, Intel's roadmap promised better performance/watt in the
near future compared to AMD.

Only because it is the obvious choice for implementing closed or
treacherous systems.

Only if you happen to be of a conspiracy enthusiast bent.

Same goes for EFI which is designed to limit
user control of hardware (for example to prevent use of applications
which can capture the digital information going to the sound or
graphics cards).

Does it prohibit such behavior, or is it a case of being able to block
such behavior if desired? There is a difference.

I have been very happy with my first Mac, a G3 iBook which is still
serving me well after three years - but Apple's switch to Intel may
persuade me to switch to Linux.

Kewl.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

I recall that some years ago, it was discovered that the Pentium III processor has a "processor serial number", which alarmed many privacy advocates, in much the same way that news of this DRM chip is now
alarming many of us.

A considerable amount of public pressure was brought to bear upon
Intel over this issue, and eventually, they relented, and ceased to
include this feature in further CPU chips. What I perceived to be the
main web site regarding this issue is still there.

http://www.bigbrotherinside.org/

I wonder if any similar campaign might persuade Apple to drop this DRM
chip from its products.

--
"Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. ... Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful
a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. ... Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion."
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113