From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,8a402d78988bdf2b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-19 09:12:08 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!priapus.visi.com!orange.octanews.net!news.octanews.net!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!eusc.inter.net!cs.tu-berlin.de!uni-duisburg.de!not-for-mail From: Georg Bauhaus Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: [announcement] SYSAPI and SYSSVC for Windows Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:12:04 +0000 (UTC) Organization: GMUGHDU Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de X-Trace: a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de 1071853924 3822 134.91.1.34 (19 Dec 2003 17:12:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.uni-duisburg.de NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:12:04 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (HP-UX/B.11.00 (9000/800)) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3569 Date: 2003-12-19T17:12:04+00:00 List-Id: Ekkehard Morgenstern wrote: : : "Georg Bauhaus" wrote: :> Though I think that starting with NT4, Windows has given up the nice :> modularisation present in NT 3.51 among other things. : : Not in the least. As I said, XP contains all of 2000 and all of NT. Hm. So is it not true that they more or less have woven the shell and the graphics subsystem into one thing? (I know I can sort of replace explorer by cmd.exe, but then ...) Does someone remember the "light" edition of IBM's OS/2 workplace shell running on WfW 3.11? I remember a microsoft employee explaining (in 1996) that the NT developers would have wished to go on with the development of an O-O filesystem, they weren't allowed because of the new interface ... :> Let alone the much debated forcedness of "support" for no-copying :> soft/hardware, saluting the DMCA and Palladium. :> Did someone say something like "we need more trust"? : : This panicking in the face of TCPA efforts is not justified. (Who is panicking? :-) By trust I meant to refer to honest business. (The baker hands me a loaf of bread, I pay. X sends content to me over an internet connection, I pay.) Now you can't copy bread (except if you employ Jesus' trick), but you can copy software (and music and films, no news here). If your general attitude towards consumers contains, "People are stupid and selfish and have a tendency to be criminals, in particular if they have computers (you know they get all this free stuff how should they have learned to pay), they sure will make illegal copies, everyone knows this, no use explaining that producing media content is work etc", then you don't believe in a kind of business where a sufficient number of people will see that paying is the right thing to do. Or at least you presume it is more profitable to not believe in paying customers. This, IMHO, is what Palladium addresses. : The Palladium platform will support "trusted" and "untrusted" : operation. It just mimicks things present in MULTICS, and OS/400, : for example, namely the possibility of providing a secure : environment for running applications. : : The user can decide whether they want to run trusted or other apps. The users might have an option to decide whether they want to run "trusted" applications like media player, real player, and its ilk or not see anything at all -- because there is little to be seen without "trusted" programs. What other apps? In a sense, there will be trusted programs. But the concept of a trustworthy person is not currently preferred. Why? (All there is is threat, contemporary ad: "you know what the other prisoners will do to you in jail, movie pirat, do you?" addressing a *mass* audience, not professionally copying criminals). I'm glad there are some compiler vendors who seem to trust their customers and don't use all sorts of electric circuits but a plain contract, and payment. Why? Might they have reason to assume that customers aren't necessarily thiefs or fences? Lets see whether the prices for products that cannot be copied will adapt or whether Sony Music, Hollywood, et. al. will leave the prices at the current level and try to, uhm, "recover". (after all there is said to be a huge loss due to copying, everyone in the music and films industries (including pornographic films industries) seems to be starving, right?). -- Georg