zlacker

>>gjsman+(OP)
Remote attestation or not, "Software freedom" fighters should understand that things happen based on some user base need. Somebody needed this and they added it, whoever needs it doesn't care if they can't run linux on it. If the user cares about running anything else on the hardware, they will add a way to disable the feature. it is all about the user need.

if you are a secondary priority user on some hardware, the way to fix it is to focus on becoming important enough to be prioritized instead of fearing some technology will limit things.

>>robot+ig
This. All these comments (and this article) worried that this is MS coming to take their Linux or whatever are missing that this is something their biggest customers want.

We need this in our corporate client device fleet to counter specific threats. We need this in our servers for the same reason — we do remote attestation today for Linux servers in semi-trusted locations. We’ve conveyed to our vendors that this is a desired capability in next-gen network equipment.

We’re not doing this to control data once it’s on an end-user’s computer. We’re doing it because we have a regulatory (and moral) obligation to protect the data that is entrusted to us.

We’re not Intel/AMD/NVIDIA/etc’s largest customer, but when we defer orders or shift vendor allocation it gets mentioned in their quarterly earnings reports. They tend to listen when we ask for features, and when our peer companies (not to mention governments) ask for the same thing because we have similar data security requirements?

Cloud and Business products is what, ~2/3rds of Microsoft’s revenue at this point? This isn’t being driven by the MPAA or whoever looking for better ways to screw over consumers.

>>jauer+lm
>We’re not doing this to control data once it’s on an end-user’s computer. We’re doing it because we have a regulatory (and moral) obligation to protect the data that is entrusted to us.

>Cloud and Business products is what, ~2/3rds of Microsoft’s revenue at this point? This isn’t being driven by the MPAA or whoever looking for better ways to screw over consumers.

Except... Yes it is. When your Ur business case was "do computation on someone else's computer, but ensure the operator cannot have full transparent access to their own computer's operational details", you are in the end casting the first stone. Just because I don't have an LLC, or Inc. or other legal fiction tied to my name, doesn't mean I'm not bound by the same moral imperatives you claim to be, but more importantly (I am not willing to sell everyone else's computational freedom up the river for a pole of quick bucks).

Get your collective heads out of your arses. Get back out in the sun. This nonsense is ripping every last bit of potential computing ever had and ripping it out of the hands of the lay consumer unless they dance the blessed dance of upstream.

You do not know best. You think you do. You've gotten where you are without that which you seek to create, and once created, that which you make can and will never be taken back. It creates and magnifies too much power asymmetry.

My god, have you never really stopped to think through the ethical implications? To really walk down the garden path?