6 ms·

» So no, it's not a completely invalid idea. No. Say no to TPM. It is worse than useless. Imagine Netflix or your bank participating in this nonsense. Would yo

by mcny 5y ago

» So no, it's not a completely invalid idea. No. Say no to TPM. It is worse than useless. Imagine Netflix or your bank participating in this nonsense. Would you buy a used computer?

orbital-decay 5y ago
How many cheats have you seen on consoles? I guess none. Besides maybe an occasional lagswitch, or a packet manipulation/sniffing thing, but that's due to developers' lack of expertise, because all of that is avoidable. That's because consoles are locked down completely. So yes, it is useful if implemented properly, and if your PC is totally locked down. It would be silly to deny that. (and BTW my bank already does that, requiring non-rooted stock firmware for its app on mobile. With Samsung for example, rooting amounts to warranty loss; maybe in EU it's different, but I'm not in EU) Whether you or me say yes or no to TPM is not hugely important. Most people are absolutely happy to trade freedom for convenience, and it aligns with Microsoft's incentive to lock everyone into using their products. This isn't new at all, I've seen loss of PC modularity and openness discussed since late 90s. However, there are several counterbalances for that incentive. 1. Platform fragmentation, the major one. This alone can delay the inevitable for any amount of time. 2. Backwards compatibility. 3. PCs being used for many purposes, not just as an appliance. This is a minor but noticeable one. 4. Some groups advocating for the platform openness. This one is of little relevance in practice. Expecting the x86/MS platform to stay open forever is not realistic, because the incentives are biased towards locking down. How much time it'll take to get to that state is a different question, though. It haven't happened yet is all that can be said.
- emptysongglass 5y ago
  Stop playing devil's advocate. It's worse than useless because it takes away the best part of computing: our freedom to own, operate and modify. > Expecting the x86/MS platform to stay open forever is not realistic, because the incentives are biased towards locking down. It's only unrealistic when these fatalist certainties are pushed as inevitable. Free, live free is more than the name of a novella, it's an act to be performed, to fight for. So yes, say no to the TPM and other such measures such as SafetyNet, which are worse than useless to the most important endgame, to live free.
- Brian_K_White 5y ago
  The purpose of my computer is not to protect anyone else's business model. If there is no way to deal with cheating at games other than relinquishing ownership, disposition, and functionality of my own hardware, that is not my problem, and, it's not true anyway. Consoles are just the easy way not the only way.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    > The purpose of my computer is not to protect anyone else's business model. It is if you want to use someone else’s software that requires it; you can’t have something on your terms just because the cost of using it is paid in something other than fiat currency.
    - Brian_K_White 5y ago
      Incorrect.

by mcny 5y ago

» So no, it's not a completely invalid idea. No. Say no to TPM. It is worse than useless. Imagine Netflix or your bank participating in this nonsense. Would you buy a used computer?

orbital-decay 5y ago

How many cheats have you seen on consoles? I guess none. Besides maybe an occasional lagswitch, or a packet manipulation/sniffing thing, but that's due to developers' lack of expertise, because all of that is avoidable. That's because consoles are locked down completely. So yes, it is useful if implemented properly, and if your PC is totally locked down. It would be silly to deny that. (and BTW my bank already does that, requiring non-rooted stock firmware for its app on mobile. With Samsung for example, rooting amounts to warranty loss; maybe in EU it's different, but I'm not in EU) Whether you or me say yes or no to TPM is not hugely important. Most people are absolutely happy to trade freedom for convenience, and it aligns with Microsoft's incentive to lock everyone into using their products. This isn't new at all, I've seen loss of PC modularity and openness discussed since late 90s. However, there are several counterbalances for that incentive. 1. Platform fragmentation, the major one. This alone can delay the inevitable for any amount of time. 2. Backwards compatibility. 3. PCs being used for many purposes, not just as an appliance. This is a minor but noticeable one. 4. Some groups advocating for the platform openness. This one is of little relevance in practice. Expecting the x86/MS platform to stay open forever is not realistic, because the incentives are biased towards locking down. How much time it'll take to get to that state is a different question, though. It haven't happened yet is all that can be said.

emptysongglass 5y ago
Stop playing devil's advocate. It's worse than useless because it takes away the best part of computing: our freedom to own, operate and modify. > Expecting the x86/MS platform to stay open forever is not realistic, because the incentives are biased towards locking down. It's only unrealistic when these fatalist certainties are pushed as inevitable. Free, live free is more than the name of a novella, it's an act to be performed, to fight for. So yes, say no to the TPM and other such measures such as SafetyNet, which are worse than useless to the most important endgame, to live free.
Brian_K_White 5y ago
The purpose of my computer is not to protect anyone else's business model. If there is no way to deal with cheating at games other than relinquishing ownership, disposition, and functionality of my own hardware, that is not my problem, and, it's not true anyway. Consoles are just the easy way not the only way.
- judge2020 5y ago
  > The purpose of my computer is not to protect anyone else's business model. It is if you want to use someone else’s software that requires it; you can’t have something on your terms just because the cost of using it is paid in something other than fiat currency.
  - Brian_K_White 5y ago
    Incorrect.