|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 22 2012 @ 07:48 AM EST |
"me and you may have no choice about what is available in the market"
We do have control over what's avalable on the market. See Linux and Stallman
for how.
That sort of consumer attitude is one of the problems with the world.
If not you, then who?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: FreeChief on Thursday, November 22 2012 @ 12:04 PM EST |
It's a lesser evil if the initial purchaser has control of the computer, but it
doesn't solve the problem.
I am sending this comment from a second-hand IBM
Thinkpad that came without any manuals, and with pass-word protected MS Windows
installed. (Children had been playing with it. It had been in the rain. The
person who gave it to me thought it was trash and did not know the password.)
It
would have been completely useless if I had not been able to wipe the disk and
install GNU/Linux.
Will this be impossible in the future?
Will good
hardware become toxic landfill just so it doesn't cut into the software
monopoly? Granted, not many computers are found in the weeds, but the
second-hand market is non-trivial. Many churches and non-profit organizations
get computers that way.
— Programmer in Chief
PS: IBM
makes durable hardware. I'm impressed.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 22 2012 @ 12:32 PM EST |
The quote you provide from the article where you say it does not include the
key demand:
...FSFE strongly recommends to exclusively purchase IT
devices which grant their owners full, sole and permanent control over
security subsystems...
Bolding mine. The white paper quote you
provided says:
"device owners must be in complete control of
(able to manage and monitor) all the trusted computing security systems of their
devices."
Bolding mine again.
I understand the first talking
about the concept that the owners must have full control over the computing
device they purchased. I understand the second quote expressing the same
concept.
I'm curious how you see them as not expressing the same
concept:
However, that specific "key demand" is not mentioned in the
second article
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|