fsfe-france
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Fsfe-france] [Fwd: [CLX] Fw: Trusted computing]


From: Fabien ILLIDE
Subject: [Fsfe-france] [Fwd: [CLX] Fw: Trusted computing]
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:43:19 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; fr-FR; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021213

Bonjour a tous,


Dans le genre bonne surprise, voici un CLXien qui se manifeste sur la
liste pour la première fois, je pense, avec une initiative personnelle
qui mérite d'etre encouragée.


La réponse d'AMI viens du service marketing, donc a prendre comme telle,
mais cela me fait penser qu'il nous est possible de rejouer la pièce
"Intel, le PIII, le numéro" avec comme optique le meme dénouement.

Guy soulève aussi la question de l'organisation d'une telle protestation
: pétition etc...

Ca existe ? (Pas à ma connaissance)

Sinon, ca vous parait utile de le faire ? (Ne me dites pas non...)

@+
Fabien

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [CLX] Fw: Trusted computing
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 09:24:45 +0100
From: Guy Cuvillier <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>

Bonjour la liste et bonne annee,
Je suis un lecteur passif de la liste depuis pas mal de temps,
conceptuellement converti a l'esprit libre, operationnellement toujours
victime consentante de Windows :).

Suite a une news concernant le premier BIOS type Palladium, j'ai eu un petit
coup de sang et j'ai envoye un message a leur service maketting precisant
que je
n'acheterai plus de produit AMI dans le futur du fait de leur support pour
Palladium (message original a la fin de ce mail).
Ci-suit la reponse qui m'a ete faite (dans la journee !). En gros, ils ne
supportent pas Palladium. Ils sont
bien obliges de proposer des fonctions (debrayables) TCPA parce que leurs
clients (fabricants et
fournisseurs de systemes) leur demande. Mais c'est pas "si pire" que ca !?
Linux n'est pas affecte !?
Et si les clients finaux ne sont pas preneurs, il faut qu'ils le fassent
savoir a ces fabricants.

Ca amene une question de ma part, j'ai participe a la petition sur eurolinux
contre les brevets logiciels. Avez-vous connaissance d'une petition
similaire a destination des fabricants de systeme sur le sujet TCPA et
Palladium ?
Sinon, pourrait-on se mettre d'accord sur une liste d'adresses ou envoyer
des messages de protestation individuelle, si la resistance n'est pas encore
federee ?

Pour le reste je vous laisse prendre connaissance de la reponse qui m'a ete
faite... D'autres que moi sont plus a meme de demonter les arguments.

Bonne journee,
Guy Cuvillier


----- Original Message -----
From: "Umbertina E. Vezzani" <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 5:17 PM
Subject: RE: Trusted computing


Thank you for taking time to contact us here at AMI.
We are sorry to hear of your decision to not seek out an AMI solution for
your next purchase.  While we respect your right to make that decision we
would like to take a minute to underline some relevant points about our
announcement that were not adequately conveyed in the "article" posted on
Slashdot.  We urge you to please give us a minute of your time to fully
understand what AMI  is offering and thus be able to make a fully informed
decision.

It must be noted that AMI has not announced support for Palladium.
Palladium
is an initiative by an OS entity that is slated for the future.  To be
honest, though we do know about it, AMI has not begun any development
related to it.  At this point we have not made any decisions on support
either.

TCPA does not equal Palladium.  While certainly there is some future
development overlap between the two, TCPA is being introduced by OEM's as
a
security option to protect systems through hardware and firmware.  This
feature is completely optional to our customers (OEM's, ODM's, CM's and
other system builders) that they may choose to make it available or not
depending on the needs of their market.  We have had requests from a
number
of customers for this technology.

Regarding the limitations of a system with TCPA I would offer the link
below
to the public specification for further information on compatibility with
different OS's, and hardware.  Based on that spec we can tell you that it
does not limit the ability to run Linux (or any other open source
solution).

As a smaller company itself, AMI has always supported innovation and
creativity as these have been our main tools in competing against much
larger companies in our industry.  We would not do anything that in our
minds would damage our credibility or reputation for world class BIOS
solutions and will carefully evaluate this type of feedback when it does
come time to examine any future technologies.  We would also like to
recommend that anyone who is opposed to a Palladium-type solution  in the
future, please make that known to OEM's and system builders.  As they are
our customers, we definitely listen to them in terms of what they (and
hopefully their customers) will want in future BIOS.

Thank you again for your time in contacting us and we hope that this and
some of the links below will shed some light on AMI's plans.



LINKS

Original Articles on theinquirer.net

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=7089
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=7103

AMI TCPA module Whitepaper
http://www.ami.com/support/doc/TCPA_whitepaper.pdf

TCPA Website
<http://www.trustedcomputing.org/>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden [SMTP:address@hidden
> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 3:46 AM
> To: address@hidden
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: Trusted computing
>
> Due to your support to the infamous trusted computing initiative, I will
> personnaly boycott your products in the future.
> You certainly don't care...
>
> =-=-=-=-=-= User Information =-=-=-=-=-=
>    Remote Host: 217.128.238.24
> Remote Address: 217.128.238.24
>  Prev. Referer: http://www.ami.com/ami/showpress.cfm?PrID=118
>        BROWSER: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)
>      TIME/DATE: {ts '2003-01-10 03:45:30'}
> =-=-=-=-=-= User Information =-=-=-=-=-=






reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]