Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: p2p working group/standards

Expand Messages
  • allenjs@hotmail.com
    ... Well, chips are just software that has been compiled into silicon, and strangely, when you comile your code into silicon, you don t have the same crowd
    Message 1 of 55 , Feb 12, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      > I've never been able to figure out what the heck Intel is thinking.
      > They make chips, not software, formats, standards or working

      Well, chips are just software that has been compiled into silicon,
      and strangely, when you comile your code into silicon, you don't have
      the same crowd yelling at you to GPL it. If you slow down innovation
      by making the code release cycle depend on chip fabs, and justify the
      expense by saying "well, you can touch it can't you?", then somehow
      people think you're not ripping them off. I mean, we software guys
      rip everyone off because we "live under the false assumption that
      software is manufacturing", but to artificially add manufacturing to
      the process by burning code in the chips is just fine... (Real
      efficient, too). Intel is getting into switches and routers now,
      which are the classic software-that-became-hardware. There is
      another nice thing about compiling your software into silicon, if you
      sell to large corporate interests -- hardware is a physical thing
      (you can touch it, can't you?) so you can depreciate it, and
      corporate budgets for physical assets are usually much more liberal.

      As for their involvement in P2P, I think I can guess.. Remember the
      outrage about five years ago when Intel put the unique identifier on
      every chip with instruction codes that could read it? At that time,
      they claimed it was being put there to make Internet transactions
      more secure. Everyone else thought it was "big brother", and the
      whole thing was scuppered. But believe it or not, the whole thing
      *did* have some merits, and I was sorely disappointed to see it go.
      I guess we're OK without it, but ... enter y2k+1, and P2P is the
      rage. Intel sees potential for security problems, and realizes that
      the only way to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks is with cooperation
      from the CPU (same as their claim in the last controversy, which was
      equally valid). So ka-bam! The chip_id scheme is resurrected, just
      in a different skin. I bet they figured out how to make a
      chip "trusted" this time without the same old privacy risks, but
      that's just speculation.. In any case, Intel is very much interested
      in digital media - video, audio, etc. as the next phase of PC
      evolution, and they know that their boxes will need to have the
      ability to protect content-owners from piracy, or else Sony will just
      ship a playstation/stereo/PC all in one box with the digital media
      protection built-in. They are pushing standards for digital media
      protection (and remember that P2P ala Napster is a *perfect*
      distribution mechanism for digital media, with a few changes -- I
      mean, you get edge-caching based on hot items built-in for free...).
      They are trying to be careful to not go too far, as the CPRM case
      shows. (see: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15718.html) So
      I think is not so much about P2P as it is about the PC of the future,
      and if Intel doesn't take leadership and figure out how to make the
      privacy/digital-rights thing work (that's pretty much what they've
      limited their code on sourceforge to so far), then they will be
      eclipsed by the "real" hardware vendors like Sony/Matsushita, who
      have utterly terrible track records on standards since their entire
      devices are proprietary.
    • Ben Houston
      ... Probably going to SHA-1 isn t too big of a problem. I ll bring it up with those that I know. Interestingly, there are ways to add file hashes within the
      Message 55 of 55 , Feb 20, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Justin Chapweske said:
        > ... switch to SHA-1.
        >
        > The biggest group that I havn't yet talked to about this is the Gnutella
        > guys, but I'm sure they'd be into it as well. Any Gnutellians on the
        > list?

        Probably going to SHA-1 isn't too big of a problem. I'll bring it up with
        those that I know. Interestingly, there are ways to add file hashes within
        the existing protocol specifications - it should even be backwards
        compatible.

        Cheers,
        -ben houston
        http://www.exocortex.org/~ben
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.