Trusted Computing

[snarfblam]

In a recent thread about Windows Vista I went on a small rant about the Trusted Computing component of this new version of Windows. Now aware of how little attention the Trusted Computing (TC) concept has received in the general public (largely in part of how major software developers downplay its importance) I think it would be best to explain the implications of the TC platform and make myself sound a little less loony. In fact, this topic is actually very thoroughly discussed on multiple blogs, articles, and forums and the vast majority of the discussions are warnings of the perils of TC, so at the very least, I'm not alone.

First, I suppose people should understand how the TC platform works and what principles lie behind it. From that we can draw conclusions about what will happen, what may happen, and what won't happen if the Trusted Computing initiative succeeds.


How It Works
Trusted Computing is an initiative led by major software and hardware vendors such as Microsoft and IBM, called the Trusted Computing Platform Alliance. In current computing the visible extent of TC is DRM protected media such as movies and mp3s, where the user needs a license decrypt and examine content. This is implemented in software, such as Microsoft's Windows Media Player, which requires a license to view DRM protected media. However, hardware is now being released to enforce TC, generally referred to as a "fritz chip." For the time being this is implemented in new hardware as a chip on the motherboard, but the ultimate goal is to have fritz chips integrated directly into CPUs in not only PCs, but consoles, phones, and any computing device. The framework for this already exists and such CPUs have already been designed. They just need to be manufactured and distributed.

What does a fritz chip do? The crux of TC is encryption (2048-bit encryption to be specific). The ultimate goal is that all data and software is encrypted and can not be decrypted without licenses and permissions, which are not managed by users, but rather servers controlled by software vendors. This means that documents and programs can not be accessed without permission.

In its earliest phases the impact is minimal because TC is not very much enforced, but rather major vendors are implementing necessary hardware and software that will be required to enforce TC. In other words, for now they are just silently putting the pieces in place.

The desired outcome is that all hardware and software must be certified TC compliant and that TC will be enforced by law. The TCPA is already pushing for TC legislature. The end result would be that all software, data, and content would require licenses and permissions to be run, enforced in a practically unbreakable manner (embedded directly into your hardware).


Consequences
It doesn't sound very unreasonable for software vendors to want to be able to enforce licenses, and really, to enforce the law. The danger is in the many, many implications of Trusted Computing. The reality is that TC will irrevocable change the face of computing as we know it, but the change will be rather gradual. We've discussed some of the "pros" of TC, but let us examine the consequences.

Lock-In: TC compliant software and hardware will not work with non-TC software in hardware. What's more, TC compliant software can not access non-TC content and non-TC software can not access TC content. The conclusion could be drawn that this would give the user a choice between the TC world and the non-TC world. The computing world, however, is already in a certain state of lock-in. Most businesses use Microsoft operating systems and software for personal computers, and are not willing to change to cheaper or free alternatives because the immediate cost of the switch-over is greater than the short-term savings.

On a TC platform, Microsoft software will generate TC content, which means that e-mail, spreadsheets, and word processor documents are access-controlled. Microsoft software will deny access to these documents from non-Microsoft software. This will curtail open software initiatives of all kinds such as Open Office. It will magnify the state of lock-in. Most people will have TC hardware and a TC OS. All software must be TC, and so all content must be TC. The option of using non-TC alternatives is no longer viable, and the state of lock-in is magnified intensely.

Censorship: Not black bars across nipples and asterisks in place of F-bombs, but content deemed unacceptable can be blocked out. Even if you already have the content on your computer, when the access policy servers deny you permission you can't access it. What sort of content might be blocked? Pirated software, music, and movies. Anything that a court deems illegal can be censored. All pirate software can be stopped dead in its tracks instantly. Illegal MP3s can be traced, servers can be blacklisted, and distributors can be identified and prosecuted. The issue here is not that the law can be enforced, but that it can be enforced so utterly and invasively. The feeling of privacy is completely diminished.

Another aspect of TC is that it will enforce copyright and licensing in a completely robotic, rigid manner. We all regularly break laws and disobey licenses and agreements. We do it when we e-mail an interesting picture or article to a friend. We might distribute a DLL we aren't licensed to with an application that we are licensed to. TC would essentially eliminate this reasonable "fair use" and "casual use" of what will become controlled content.

Small Vendors and Open Software: There are major consequences for the computer industry. Presumably all software will have to be TC-certified. The impact might be lesser on general application programming, where developers are only allowed to use TC components to construct their applications and the product can be safely deemed trusted, but TC will hinder the processes of creating, for instance, standards, frameworks, and hardware.

For a relevant demonstration, consider Windows Xp, which warns users about installing uncertified drivers for peripherals. Smaller hardware manufacturers (such as the manufacturer of my wireless mouse and my video game controllers) can't afford Microsoft's certification process. Even this has an impact as it causes concern among some casual users when they install this product which is in reality high quality, reliable, and well priced and perfectly safe. Consider the impact when this sort of product is simply not allowed to exist.

There is also an impact on open software. Projects such as WINE, MONO, Open Office, and React OS (an open-source OS whose goal is to be 100% compatible with Windows) will all be all but gone since they will not be granted permission to interoperate with software they need to or open documents they are designed to.

Then Why Is There So Little Fuss About Trusted Computing?
Software vendors downplay the importance of TC by using a slew of euphemisms and near-propaganda. They generally do not discuss the concept in public channels and when they do they discuss how TC will provide users with security and protection against viruses and other malware and unwanted content. The ironic reality is that this is not what the core principles of TC address. TC will not eliminate malware or mal-content, and in some cases may make it easier for software to operate in an undesired manner (for instance, there would be no more pop-up blockers).

Trust and Control
The term "trust" is intentionally misleading in its ambiguity. While trust is the central pillar of TC, the question is who is trusting who? It ultimately breaks down to control. The idea is not that users trust their computer. Rather, the idea is that software vendors can trust users and their computers to behave as they see fit, hence the control. The goal is that licenses and permissions are enforced in a manner that is practically impossible to circumvent. This sounds reasonable and fair. The threat comes in the implications, some of which were outlined above.

One of the biggest concerns with TC is control. Control is taken from the end user and given to major vendors. Vendors don't seek to trust you in the classical sense of the term--to have faith that you will behave as they would like you to behave. This trust is given a new twist: vendors will trust you because you are forced to behave as they would like. In this sense of the word, trust requires control.

 

[snarfblam]

My Two Cents
The first thing that I should say is that a huge factor in our opinions are core beliefs. I take computing and freedom seriously, and I take free computing very seriously. To the typical user TC might mean very little. To me TC is a very big deal.

The thoughts expressed above are not my original ideas. Concerns about TC tend to sound paranoid and a natural reaction is to treat TC concerns as something along the lines of conspiracy theory. But I am not unreasonable and unrealistic. I don't expect every possible thing that could go wrong to go wrong. What frightens me about TC is the number of doors it opens. We've only scratched the surface here.

I have my own opinions and I don't expect all, or even most, people to agree with them, but it is only fair to explain my thinking. My biggest personal concern about Trusted Computing is control. (Some of you might have heard this from me before). I believe that control of the computer should be in the hands of the user. Period. The problem is that this conflicts with the concept of intellectual property, of which end users are not legally granted control. My reaction to this is that the concept of intellectual property is vastly overrated. This is where I point you in the direction of Google's business model. I think that service should be the key asset in the computing industry. I think that modern technology has rendered the idea of intellectual property obsolete. In the past the availability of communication (or rather, the relative lack thereof) made ideas and concepts a commodity. Today, these things naturally flow freely just like the air we breath. In this age of communication it is absurd to claim ownership of intellectual entities and try to control the flow of ideas. TC forces an unnatural restriction on the flow of information for the sake of profit and control and while the end result has yet to be seen it will probably be less than utterly horrific. It is the principle and motives and possibilities that what are scary. (Plenty of people disagree with me on my opinion of intellectual property. I understand this and I understand why one might value intellectual property and the rights to their original ideas. So, lets just agree to disagree on the topic.)

Everyone should form their own opinion, but these opinions should be educated and relevant information should be provided in an unbiased manner (unfortunately, information from unbiased sources or pro-TC sources is exceedingly rare), so although my beliefs and opinions are obviously biased, I am doing my best to present objective information (below). I am glad to discuss the topic and I have an open mind. I just ask that those who put their two cents in do their research too. Reading the information out there will help answer many questions you might have without needing to ask them here.

Wikipedia - Trusted Computing
Palladium Blog
TC FAQ
TC Video
Q&A: Trustworthy Computing at Five Years (Microsoft)
Against TCPA

 

[MrPaul]

1984...

I personally don't have a problem with DRM - if people don't like it they can do without or shop elsewhere.

I find it unlikely that Microsoft, or any software vendor, would go as far as to lock users 100% into the TC concept - for example I would expect a TC-enabled application such as Word would also allow documents to be saved without the TC encryption, just like you are currently able to save to previous formats. Of course you wouldn't be able to do this to a file which has already been locked, but I expect the option will still be there. It would be dangerous to do otherwise - people don't all upgrade at once, and if users are worried that friends and colleagues won't be able to open their documents, they won't upgrade. The scenario presented of web sites that require their users to run a certain browser may happen, but the company in question would probably find they're shooting themselves in the foot by doing so. I doubt it will go anywhere near that far.

I wouldn't call myself an advocate of the technology; it doesn't bother me a great deal either way. The only thing that does worry me a little from what I've just read about TC is transferring data when you upgrade (hardware or software) - if this isn't going to be possible then there will be serious repercussions. Therefore I doubt it will get so constrictive.

If Bill wanted to make sure that the people of China pay for his software, then that was up to him. It's a huge leap to get from there to the 1984 situation presented on the Against TCPA website.

 

[snarfblam]

The 1984 argument is a worst-case scenario of censorship, and censorship alone. This does not address the dozen of other perceived threats of TC. And DRM is far from the end of the world. It is here now and its impact is minimal, but DRM is not an issue that is central to TC. Rather it is a demonstration of the concept in a very, very mild form.

As far as locking users 100% into a TC situation, a platform can not really be considered TC unless the hardware and software is 100% TC. Any aspect of the computer that is not TC represents a broken link in the TC chain. All components must be in place. The TC world and non-TC world are incompatible. For the most part this aspect of trusted computing is as extreme as it sounds. A non-TC application would not be able to be trusted and TC would break down. The existence of non-TC documents would defeat the purpose of TC, completely circumventing the trusted-computing components of the computer. In a computer containing TC and non-TC components the two would have to be isolated from each other.

TC does not mean that friends can't read your e-mails. When you create a TC document you decide what permissions it has. You do not enforce these permissions (a policy server does), hence the fear of a potential censorship issue, but you can make a document fully accessible, so there would be no need for word to save non-TC documents. What's more, on a TC file system, there is no such thing as a non-TC document. Every document has an author, owning application, and permissions (similar to how every folder in NTFS has permissions associated with it). There might be an option to save in a format that other applications can open, such as RTF, but it wouldn't be unimaginable that Word would deny access to .doc files from Open Office (as is, Microsoft tries to make the Word format as difficult as possible to reverse-engineer and implement in open software), and because of the way TC is implemented, on a TC platform it is practically impossible for unauthorized applications to access documents (think of it as Microsoft's silver bullet for the open software movement).

You seem to have the wrong idea about how TC will be implemented. It won't be that one day Microsoft will release an operating system that is incompatible with the rest of the world and implements a tyrannical dictatorship over licenses. The transition to TC will be very (very, very) gradual, such that an average user would never notice. In fact, we are already in the process of that transition. DRM lays the foundation of encryption-protected license-based access to data. Fritz-chips are already being included in new computers. TC will probably be implemented in a manner along these lines: The next step would be to integrate fritz-chips into processors (which have already been designed). More and more software would appear that uses this software, and operating systems would introduce TC concepts. Non-TC software could be phased out until eventually it exists only as legacy software and can finally be disallowed without too much ruckus.

You can cite a dozen concerns and explain that they are unlikely and impractical outcomes, but that is from a point of view based on current computing. TC will be introduced gradually and computing will evolve. Only one or a few of our concerns would have to be realized for me to find the situation unacceptable.

 

[MrPaul]

Choice

The way I see it, it is all about choice. The TC video you mentioned suggests that the 'trust' aspect of TC is entirely one-way, in that it really only allows the software vendor to trust the user, not vice-versa. The fallacy of this argument is that the user at some point has purchased the software, thereby implying trust. If you don't trust Microsoft then you don't buy Windows, you install GNU/Linux or buy a Mac, or you do without (trust no-one). There is no reason to think this will change in future, with or without TC.

In the same way, somewhere along the line, users will be forced to choose whether to use TC or not - the transition may be gradual, but by the nature of software development it will still occur in small jumps. If users choose to use TC, how is that to be viewed as anything but an endorsement of the concept? As an extension of this, by purchasing and using Microsoft products right now, you may be inadvertently endorsing TC.

In a democracy, when people don't like their government, they vote against it. If the majority vote against it, the government changes. Consumerism is a form of democracy - if TC annoyed enough people then it wouldn't happen.

 

[Nerseus]

I haven't heard much about TC before, but it sounds interesting. I like the idea of DRM, as long as it doesn't make what I do on the computer harder. Computers are hard enough for people to understand. Trying to make them more secure is a very good idea, but if that makes it harder to understand then it would only seem to incite more distrust.

So I have two views: mine and my parents. I'm 35 and a very knowledgable "computer guy" - heck, I still think it's fun to build my own computer (though I'm getting closer and closer to giving up and buying a big box store computer). My parents are the opposite - my mom (59 now) actually cried when her boss told her she'd have to learn to use a laptop or resign. But she knows enough to look for the "lock" icon in IE when shopping online.

I think things like TC, if implemented nicely, will make computers easier to use and more trustworthy. The problem is that it almost NEVER works out that way. In an attempt to make things more secure, I get more popups than ever when downloading software and even I don't read the popups explaining what's what. I can't imagine what my parents would do with a "do you trust this certificate" popup. The average joe just doesn't want to have to care about that nonsense.

My take is that people are getting sick of computers that are hard to use. Computers are faster than ever yet they slow us down at every step of the way. People want an ipod - plug it in and it works. Simple. They want a computer they can trust, where they can shop online witout worrying about getting their Credit Card number stolen or getting identity theft.

If TC is easy and doesn't make computers harder, I'll buy into it. If I ever get stuck and can't do something I want to do, I'll b* and moan about TC everywhere and fight it tooth and nail. I don't hate it on principle, but man oh man, don't make me buy a CD and then say I can only rip it once. I'm going to fight that big-time.

In the end, I would guess this may turn into something akin to Beta Max vs VCR - the general public will move to whatever they prefer and their preferences can definitely be swayed. But if TC is the big push and it makes things harder, it may just turn into Microsoft Bob all over again.

-ner

 

[snarfblam]

I'm surprised by you, MrPaul. You are an intelligent person, but your arguments are naive.

The fallacy of this argument is that the user at some point has purchased the software, thereby implying trust.

I don't even know what to make of this statement. Fallacy? Buying a software product does not mean that you trust the vendor. It means that you have a need and you seek to have it fulfilled. It does not imply any kind of trust. Take Microsoft. I don't like their methods of preventing anti-piracy. And more than once a memo has leaked out where they (internally) used a "humorous" term to describe immoral (IMO) business tactics (have you heard of the "embrace, extend, extinguish" pun?). How many times have they been to court because of their business practices? I buy their software, but I do not trust them. This brings me to my next point:

If you don't trust Microsoft then you don't buy Windows, you install GNU/Linux

No. You don't. That is a hell of an over simplification that I am just sick of seeing. I've already addressed this, but I'll repeat. Microsoft is in a state of lock-in. This is not necessary an immoral or bad thing, but so many people use Microsoft products that it is often impractical to use non-Microsoft software. TC will (intentionally) enhance this state of lock-in, thwarting open software alternatives. (If you don't understand how, please re-read my original post carefully).

If users choose to use TC, how is that to be viewed as anything but an endorsement of the concept?

The question is what choice the users will be making. Will it be the choice to support TC? Or will it be the choice to exclude themselves from mainstream computing?

Consumerism is a form of democracy - if TC annoyed enough people then it wouldn't happen.

We don't live in an ideal world. In a democracy, not everyone votes (and there is no good reason why). In the computing world, just because someone doesn't like TC doesn't mean that they won't use it. Not everyone will get up and start posting on forums and writing articles. In fact, most people are oblivious to the concept. Microsoft does a very good job downplaying the concept. At least, to work properly, a democracy requires that people be educated and act to express their opinions.

I am asking you, now, to pick an anti-TC article and read it. Digest it. Be open to the possibility that TC might be a bad idea, no matter how much you might like Microsoft or IBM or whomever. I really do have an open mind. I have changed my stance on many topics that I had previously had firm beliefs in (I will name them if you doubt it). I don't expect you to change your mind, but I hope that you will come to find it as a possibility.


Nerseus: I completely understand your point of view. I've said this before, but TC probably would not rock the world of the average PC user. Security and ease-of-use are important and that these would be one's primary concerns is very reasonable. I have different concerns, though. Have you ever read Brave New World? (1984 could be an example, too, but not as good an example.) The people in Brave New World are very happy. They are provided everything they need to live happy lives. But they have no freedom (hence the main characters dilemma). Some would sacrifice freedom for safety or happiness. Others would like it the other way. As to the BetaMax versus VHS analogy, well, I don't think it does the TC concept justice. BetaMax and VHS are two roughly equivalent options, and TC software and open software are two very different beasts.

Besides, if TCPA gets its way (I'm not counting on it, but I won't dismiss the possibility), TC will be the law, not a choice.

 

[MrPaul]

Intelligence vs emotion

I'm surprised by you, MrPaul. You are an intelligent person, but your arguments are naive.
...
I am asking you, now, to pick an anti-TC article and read it. Digest it. Be open to the possibility that TC might be a bad idea, no matter how much you might like Microsoft or IBM or whomever.

You seem to assume that because I disagree with you, that I do so out of ignorance. I had a pretty good idea of what TC was before this discussion started, but nevertheless I have read every article you linked to in detail, and many of the articles those articles linked to. I understand the anti-TC argument, and agree that some of the possible scenarios are not nice. That does not mean, however, that I will automatically assume the position that TC is bad, because I don't believe such scenarios will actually occur.

In terms of lock-in, how is it that millions of people out there are successfully using non-Microsoft systems? I know many people, from both computing and non-computing backgrounds, that use GNU/Linux or OSX, and do it just fine. I'm not sure they would agree that it is "often impractical"; at least no more than it is when I try to use VS2005 to compile a library that was written for Linux.

You yourself mentioned that you might switch to an alternative OS if Windows continues down the TC route. What is stopping you now? As sick as you are of seeing people suggesting you switch, I'm just as sick of people moaning about Microsoft but not doing anything about it. You really can't have it both ways.

As I have said before, I am neither particularly pro- nor anti-TC. I'm not trying to change your mind about anything, and I appreciate your efforts to give us your point of view. However, please remember that it is still your point of view, and that disagreeing with it makes me no less intelligent or more naive than if I were to agree. I'm open to the possibility that TC is the devil, but I enjoy being an optimist.

 

[tfowler]

I agree with almost everything marble_eater said. Although, I am a little suprised that IBM would go along with Microsoft on this without securing some support on Linux. IBM has supported open source software for a while now. Are they changing their stance?

I am very, VERY wary about upgrading to Vista (stricter DRM, limited number of installations, etc). As far as I can tell Vista does nothing for me (except being prettier than XP). Microsoft has just released Vista to try to further lock up the market. Yeah, they talk about increased security, less viruses, blah, blah, blah. But if those "improvements" make it harder for me to work, then, no thanks.

A couple of months ago I was having some problems on my laptop with XP and decided to give Ubuntu Linux a try. So far I am very impressed. I am now thinking that I will stick with Ubuntu (or some other form of Linux) for all of my home machines. I've still got to test out some Linux PVRs to see if they could replace my Microsoft Windows XP with BeyondTV PVR. If so, goodbye Microsoft! FOSS all the way!

Unfortunately, I have less of a choice at work. I will have to continue using Microsoft products. Yeah, I could try and talk my work into switching, but that would entail a ton of work and money for very little return (in their view). I could also look for another job with a company that uses Linux, but those are very few and far between (especially here in Columbus, Ohio).

Todd

 

[snarfblam]

In retrospect my tone was a little more offensive than I intended, for which I apologize, but regardless of how poorly they were presented, I stand by the points I made.

I don't think that you disagree with me out of ignorance. I think you disagree with me for the same reason that most people disagree with anyone: they already have their mind made up. I did not call your opinion ignorant, I called your response naive. I did this because, for the most part, your response made points that I had already addressed. For example, you said that to use TC meant to condone TC when I had already explained why one would use TC despite his distaste for it. Similarly, you stated that the use of something implies trust. That is hard for me to respond to without being critical. A person might drive a car he doesn't trust because he can't afford to have it repaired. A person might work for a company he doesn't trust because he needs money. Surely you can see why someone would use software from a company that he doesn't trust.

You question the concept of lock-in, then you ask what is stopping me from switching OSes? The answer is lock-in. How much DotNet code have I written? WMV and WMA files? How much work would it be to find Linux equivalents to most or all of the programs I have? Software I have for certain devices requires Windows to run. Then, like tfowler, I am not given a choice at work. Our software runs on Windows. How about the games I play on Windows? And, like you, I know plenty of people who use Linux, but they run Windows with it side-by-side.

Am I one of those people moaning about Microsoft but doing nothing about it? I don't think that I am. This thread is intended to do two things: explain the compaints I made about Vista on the Vista thread, and educate more people about Trusted Computing, which is the most important thing an anti-TC person can do at this point because the general population simply isn't aware. Finally, I will stop buying Microsoft software if and when I find it necessary. I don't think that your assessment of my nature is fair.

Finally, I am not asking you to change your mind. But I am not simply sharing my opinion. I am asking you to look at information and examine others' points of view then consider revising your opinion. This is easier said than done. The normal human reaction in this situation is to read something with distrust, dismiss points made for any superfically substantial reason, and ultimately conclude that you were right all along. Why do I say this? Because I've been guilty of it in the past. We all have. Because we have already made up our minds. Or maybe because changing your opinion is admitting you were wrong. I am asking you to be above that.

I'm not looking for an argument, and I'm not looking for a feud. If your mind is already made up then we can agree to disagree. If I have offended you then I am sorry. Sometimes it is hard to express your thoughts in a completely neutral manner. Whether you have already tried to put yourself in someone else's shoes or have resolved not to (I do not and can not say which you have done), your mind is made up. Perhaps we simply have different views on fundamental concepts such as what constitutes choice and what constitutes necessity. After all, it is plain that we have different views on the Microsoft's nature, and I'm sure that my "intellectual property is nonsense" stance is hardly popular. I accept that you do not agree with me, so I will be glad that I offered you a different point of view and leave it at that.

 

[BiteByter]

I agree heavily with Marble Eater and this opinion won't be dissuaded. It is ridiculous the directions software is taking and I won’t be treated like a crook.

I have been looking at UBUNTU as well as SUSE 10.2 and MONO and WINE are looking like viable alternatives. We have paid the price long enough and other people will eventually get it! I am guilty before innocent and this all plays into the government aspects … People who buy into this BS are living under a rock! Once this machine keeps rolling it won't be stopped! I will not live with such a machine!

In fact due to this onset I have been backing up data and planning the switch for a while now! Can't wait to be free from the lies called an OS by MS!

I don't think most people realize how good some linux distro's are not to mention they don't limit whta you do with your machine unlike windows whos owns you!

 

[mutant]

I agree heavily with Marble Eater and this opinion won't be dissuaded. It is ridiculous the directions software is taking and I won’t be treated like a crook.

I have been looking at UBUNTU as well as SUSE 10.2 and MONO and WINE are looking like viable alternatives. We have paid the price long enough and other people will eventually get it! I am guilty before innocent and this all plays into the government aspects … People who buy into this BS are living under a rock! Once this machine keeps rolling it won't be stopped! I will not live with such a machine!

In fact due to this onset I have been backing up data and planning the switch for a while now! Can't wait to be free from the lies called an OS by MS!

I don't think most people realize how good some linux distro's are not to mention they don't limit whta you do with your machine unlike windows whos owns you!

I don't disagree with your general idea, as I would like to use my computer excatly the way I want to with a good software support, but you make it sound like Microsoft is preparing a government overthrow and will rule the earth. I just don't agree with the idea that everything Microsoft does is a conspiracy.

 

[snarfblam]

The thing everyone, particularly those who are anti-TC, need to realize is that Microsoft is not fundamentally evil. They are a business, and as such, their goal is to maximize capital. Based on this goal, piracy and open software are percieved as threats (for anyone who doesn't like Microsoft, you will be glad to know that according to Wikipedia [Business practices: Intellectual Property] Microsoft has recognized open software, specifically GNU/Linux, as a threat due to its affordability and even its superiority in some respects). Microsoft has also been critisized for the poor security of their software for as long as they have developed an operating system. Given this, TC seems to sound like a magic bullet to Microsoft. But TC critisism, combined with Microsoft's shady business practices of the past make it all too tempting to regard Microsoft as the devil. BiteByter, I'm no huge fan of Microsoft, but a cinematic moment isn't going to win anyone over. I appreciate that you share my opinions, but being over-zealous is just going to cause people to regard anti-TC sentiments as extreme and dismiss them as nonsensical. Do you really want to be lumped in with conspiracy theorists and white supremacists?

My primary objection is not with Microsoft. My objection is with the concept of TC, whose biggest proponent happens to be that mammoth software company that everybody loves to hate.

 

[mskeel]

I think I share Nerseus's sentiment on this. The potential for something really good is there, but don't make it harder than it needs to be. Will Microsoft do a good job? Well, they got .Net and Office right so maybe they'll do ok here too.

One more point: we are finally reaching a time in technology where real alternatives exist and people are getting savvy enough to know what they want and ask for it by name. It used to be that you either have Windows and can play with everyone else or you don't and you're off in your own little click. Office is on Mac, Google docs reads/saves excel and word, Open Office is out there, and even Microsoft Office is outputting a more open format than ever before. The internet has opened a whole new world of services that compete with everything from photoshop to paint to visual studio and beyond. When it comes to TC, we need something. Maybe Microsoft has the answer but if not, there is nothing stopping most people from switching to something other than Windows.

Let the people decide.

 

[Nerseus]

On a similar note, here's the latest commercial (for Mac) between PC and Mac (safe for all viewers):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JheuLfWYSsc

Funny thing is, from my friends that have Mac, they say a Mac does the exact same thing (lots of popups asking if this site or download is Ok or "safe"). Vista takes the cake for the most, but like most of those messages, they're one time or can be disabled.

With VS 2005 eating up about 2 gazillion bytes of RAM and Office taking up another few megazillion, I wonder how much better these new PCs really are. I was hoping that at SOME point, the PC would be waiting on me, not the other way around. What am I talking about? I'm talking about making my PC seem as fast as it says it is - no more popups slowing me down, bulky programs eating up resources that slow me down, etc. I want my 3.4gz dual core 2gig machine to act like that.

-nerseus

PS I'm in a bad mood after learning about the release notes involved in going to VS 2005 SP1 - we have every possible "alternate path" for the release notes, such as "if you have Vista, if you have 64 bit, if you use WAP,...". It's going to be NOT fun testing that.

 

[mooman_fl]

Personally the idea of TC makes me shudder.

The Betamax/VHS argument was a bad analogy. If you actually know the history of that format war you would realize the best format didn't win.

Sony created Betamax and JVC created VHS. Betamax had superior picture quality to VHS and should have been a shoe-in for the win. The problem, and the reason they lost the war, was a licensing issue. Sony refused to license Betamax out to other vendors. Only Sony could make Betamax players. JVC however licensed out to anyone and everyone that wanted to make a VHS player. Because of that there was a glut of VHS players on the market for much cheaper than a Betamax player. People would tend to buy what was cheapest or what their friends had so they could share tapes.

As proof of the superior quality of Betamax, it continues to be used to this day by professional broadcasters. Up until the advent of HD it was used exclusively by TV networks for taping field reporters and even shooting sitcoms and TV shows. When in college (film and video major) I had the pleasure of editing on a Betamax editing system.

The problem with saying that people will gravitate to what is best, is that it just isn't true. The concept of what is "best" is very subjective and easily influenced. In reality people will more often take the path of least resistance. They use Windows because all of their friends do. Or maybe it is because the software and games they like are on Windows.

Try finding a version of most games on the Mac, or Linux..... good luck. Yes there are work-arounds. However the path of least resistance is just to buy windows. The average person is not an activist.

This is something that Microsoft understands VERY well and have utilized brilliantly. Do I think Microsoft is the devil? No, I think they are a business in the game to make money.... but now we are just talking semantics.

 

[mooman_fl]

As a side note, I think that if Apple really wants to compete with Windows they should make OS X for the PC. Yes I know that it is basically a Linux based OS with some enhancements.... but there you go.

I think the big drawback to Macs is that if you have been a victim of "Betamax Syndrome" so far and got a PC because it is what "everyone has", you might be more inclined to try Apple's OS X if you didn't have to buy an entirely new machine to do it. Part of Linux's problem to date has been the perception (ie. it is very technical, low name recognition, to many varieties to choose from, etc.) with the average user. However everyone is familiar with the Apple/Mac brands at least by name and reputation.

A move like this would also have the possible benefit of game and software developers taking OS X seriously. The natural increase of users of OS X from curiosity seekers and some serious defectors would finally make it worth their while to support the platform. Once that ball got rolling it would be hard to stop the momentum.

It would also benefit Linux as a whole since the more adventurous users of OS X would be more open to trying it out.

 

[snarfblam]

mooman_fl, while it was perfectly adequate to dismiss the Betamax comparison as nearly irrelevant (I don't mean any offense, Nerseus, the analogy did have some merit depending on persepctive), I certainly appreciate the spin you put on the analogy. You make a very compelling point that equates the commercial world with simple physics. You captured in one short phrase what I tried to express over multiple posts and a dozen paragraphs: people simply take the path of least resistance

It is naive to think that the TC conflict will be resolved in a manner dependant upon merit and ideals. Everyone seems to have an opinion about something, and the question is, what forces create and mold our opinions. Especially in an age of communication and corporations, in the end it breaks down to marketing and business strategy. Product quality is a surprisingly small factor in a world where people are so quick to believe what they are told by word of mouth (or the television or by a friend who was informed by the television) rather than examining the situation first hand. People have a strong tendency to form alliances with one product when they have no practical reason (and search for reasons after the fact to justify their position), like the VB critic who continues to reject VB.NET as a "real" programming language but would never consider questioning C#'s legitimacy as a programming language until confronted with the fact that the two languages are essentially syntactical variants of the same language.

The difference here is that it is not a matter of product quality, but rather a matter of ideals. Regardless, Microsoft is doing an excellent job of presenting TC as a nifty little tool that will stop viruses and prevent a few China-men from stealing Windows. The reality is that this is the ultimate form of job security for Microsoft, and only time will tell whether simple sociological physics will win over a mounting discontentment with Microsoft's direction, but if you are as serious as I am about the concept of Trusted Computing then you owe it to yourself to do something more than discuss it with your fellow discontents.

To that end I present a list of common sense tips to keep in mind when emotion directs you to do otherwise:

• Be nice. Do not insult or disparage TC proponents, the undecided, or the disinterested. Not only is it unnecessary and a bad personality trait, but it will repel people from anti-TC sentiments.
• Don't go where you are not wanted. Simply put, your efforts could best be spent elsewhere. Explaining to Microsoft employees and enthusiasts why what they're doing is wrong won't get you anywhere. Anti-TC articles should not be published on CodeProject. No one wants to see their programming chat room flooded with an anti-TC rant. Present your case in the appropriate channels. Look for places where you can get people's attention, share your opinion without offending or inconveniencing them, and allow them to ignore you if they so choose.
• Honesty is you friend. Do not misinform for the sake of "the cause." Don't tell people that Microsoft or the government will watch over their every move and censor content to the degree of the increasingly popular 1984 analogy. Don't pretend that TC has zero merit or that it is fundamentally evil. Not only will you be lying to others, but you will be lying to yourself and you will be dismissed as a zealot.
• Don't be forceful. Sorry to make an example of you, MrPaul, but your reaction was unmistakable and, what's more, predictable. When I became critical and assertive, you became defensive.
• Be informed. Some people might have heard some of the concerns expressed by opponents of TC and, based on that alone, declared TC a dangerous and evil foe. Think for yourself and develop your opinion from fact and logic instead of reacting to someone else's emotion. Being educated means that you can give a compelling argument, cite examples, and back up your perspective. It means that you will sound intelligent and reasonable, and therefore much more believable. And, who knows, you might decide that Trusted Computing isn't so bad after all. Opinions are so much better when they are your own.

If you haven't noticed, there is a recurring theme above. When you really believe what you're selling, your attitude is positive, and you are polite you will accomplish much more.

 

[Nerseus]

On a similar note, I had an interesting discussion today with a friend over Linux vs. Windows - and not the typical "mine is bigger/better than yours" discussion, but a down to earth discussion. We're both developers and my friend was saying how he's been trying out Linux and mostly likes it. It's very fast to boot up, has most of the same features as windows and even has C# now, with Mono. He spent quite a bit of time learning all about it, including putting forth some effort into setting up his ATI card, which he said was quite a bit harder than an nVidea card.

His bottom line was that while he liked Linux just fine, he was "ready to go back to Windows" where he could be more "productive." That is, he has a few games he wants to play that only play in Windows. He likes to write C# programs and, while there IS mono for linux, is it really worth the effort right now? Meaning, if you run into a bug while programming how likely is it that it's truly a bug with .NET vs something you're doing wrong? With MS and Windows I've gotten a pretty high "non-bug" factor history, when I stay on the beaten path of .NET. With Linux, there's no such history. In the end, he liked learning about linux but won't be keeping it around for most of what he does - it's just not feasible to reboot into Windows, then linux, etc. and keep up the level of knowledge he wants in both OS's.

So, in light of that conversation, I still think that the Betamax vs. VCR is a great analogy. For me, it comes down to what you said - what does the average Joe want to use? Define "best" however you want, but I think most people would agree that a VCR was very easy to use and did exactly what it was intended for. I'd argue the same for Windows and the PC. For the most part, I've hard VERY FEW issues with any MS products - my games work, my applications work, the software I write works. Is Mac better? Define better. My definition is probably different. Because of the comfort factor alone, I'm vastly more productive in Windows than I am at Mac.

Now, if Windows becomes hard to use then I'll consider switching. If Mac is the easiest thing on the block and yet so is Windows, I'll be sticking with Windows because it's what I know. I think MS has a pretty good track record of keeping things "easy", though TC may certainly ruin that if there are more and more roadblocks to using my PC. I certainly see a general trend towards making software HARDER to use (more dialogs, more options, more choices that I just don't care about), and I wash that weren't true. I love the fact the Apple created the iPod - that, to me, is the perfect design in that it's so intuitive that ANYONE can use one the first time they pick it up. If all software were that easy, then maybe the OS market would even out.

I hope, in the end, that TC makes my computer experience "better." Now I gotta think about what "better" means for the next 5 years...

-ner

 

[mooman_fl]

Nersus,

I take back what I said before about your Betamax analogy. It was appropriate I think, but not just for the reasons you used it. You spoke as if they (Betamax and VHS) were equal technologies. They were equal only in a very superficial sense (i.e. they both record video and audio signal to tape). In other respects they weren't equal and in fact the lesser technology won. The analogy was actually more appropriate to marble eater's argument.

That being said, I respect your position. I don't happen to agree with it personally, but I respect it. I think Microsoft has had a bad track record in regards to respecting their customers. Unfortunately there is already a "lock-in" factor, as marble eater pointed out, in place already.

To make another physics analogy.... Microsoft has consumer inertia in it's favor right now. Bodies at rest tend to stay at rest. Right now the vast majority of consumers are using Microsoft's operating system and overcoming the inertia, or natural apathy, to change is going to be difficult to say the least.