From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Apr 09 2003 - 00:58:17 MDT
Hal Finney wrote:
> Samanta writes:
>
>>If I cannot use the OS of my choice and work the code on my
>>machines as I desire without losing the ability to see broad
>>sections of the net or to work with a lot of trusted hardware
>>(there is talk of making peripherals only work fully in such a
>>"trusted" environment) then I most certainly am being coerced
>>into a scheme not of my choosing in order to line the pockets of
>>its perpretrators. It is a species of racketeering or perhaps
>>we need another category of force altogether to cover such things.
>
>
> I can understand that if you feel that way, you would certainly oppose
> trusted computing technology, or indeed any technology which might
> decrease the acceptance and utility of the OS and tools you prefer to use.
> People felt the same way about those damned horseless carriages driving
> good old dependable horses off the road. Many horsemen felt they were
> "being coerced into a scheme not of their choosing in order to line the
> pockets of its perpetrators." And, indeed, it is quite difficult to
> get around cities on horses these days.
OS is no horesless carriage nor is it a simple preference. It
is the actual freedom of choice and the power to maximally
innovate and benefit from software, nothing less. Losing the
ability to see broad sections of the information space unless I
run technology that limits and cripples open and maximal tools
is to limit the speed at which we move to our shared goals. To
compare that to obsolescence technology is to evince a clear
failure to understand what is at stake. Perhaps if you correct
this clear lack of understanding and speak to what I am actually
saying instead of a caricature of it we can hold a meaningful
exchange on the subject.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 09 2003 - 01:00:38 MDT