On Tue, 10 May 2005, Richard Hoffbeck wrote: > If you look at the requirements of 'trusted computing' there is no way > that it can be good for OSS. Can't we come up with another name for it? I think "trusted computing" sounds like a marketing phrase - designed to manipulate our feelings. We should call it something else. What should we call it? > The usual argument is that you can just turn off the 'trust' and run > Linux as usual, but the ultimate goal is to build a trusted net where > trusted systems will only talk to trusted systems. That certainly kills > spam, viruses, worms, etc. but it also leaves untrusted systems only > able to talk to untrusted systems. I don't really understand this. If an executable file cannot be executed unless it is "trusted," how does that stop perl, say, from doing something nasty? Perl is the executable, but it is interpreting a script, and the script could do bad things. If I have a "trusted" computer, how does that stop me from sending an unsolicited e-mail message to another "trusted" computer? I'm sure Microsoft would love to do away with TCP/IP altogether and replace it with MSnet, or whatever, but they'll never be able to do it. "Trusted computing" sounds like a move in that direction, but I don't see how it can work for them. Mike