1 |
But who decides what is fair and what is not? It only works if you |
2 |
retain control... which supposedly you do with linux, but not if there |
3 |
are binary drivers that you can't examine the source code, or are |
4 |
incapable of examining the source code because it is too large. |
5 |
|
6 |
|
7 |
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 20:52 -0800, Anthony Gorecki wrote: |
8 |
> On Tuesday, November 22, 2005 15:15, Dan Noe wrote: |
9 |
> > This would enable enhanced |
10 |
> > virus/malware protection, because the evil code wouldn't be signed by a |
11 |
> > trusted party. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > I don't know much about the technology at this point, but like many |
14 |
> > things just because it /can/ be abused doesn't mean it is per se a bad |
15 |
> > idea. It can be used to make computing safer, especially in an open |
16 |
> > source environment where the uses are freely criticized |
17 |
> |
18 |
> I agree with the above. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> I will never tolerate the use of digital restrictions management technology if |
21 |
> it is required by a third party, however if I wish to use certain aspects of |
22 |
> trusted computing for my own purposes, I welcome the kernel's support of that |
23 |
> technology. Dubious uses of the technology are to be expected by corporations |
24 |
> such as Microsoft, but I believe that it can also be very valuable for |
25 |
> legitimate implementations. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> |
28 |
|
29 |
-- |
30 |
gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |