[117633] in Cypherpunks
Intel, why so coy? (Re: Build a better OTP?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Anonymous)
Tue Sep 7 17:05:49 1999
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 22:46:11 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <199909072046.WAA28048@mail.replay.com>
From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
To: cypherpunks@algebra.com
Reply-To: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
At 04:55 AM 9/7/99 +0000, Jim Gillogly wrote:
> What's the point of using a crypto-grade RNG on
>a tinker-toy security model?
Amen.
If Intel writes a device driver for Linux
>and Paul blesses it, I'll have some confidence in it. I'm not sure
>whether it would have to be closely coupled enough to get infected with
>the Copyleft Virus, of course; if so, then <everybody> can bless or
>curse it.
Frankly I don't know Paul, (though I greatly respect his
published works) so I need to see it for myself.
However, I don't require the socialist "copyleft"-variants of inspectable
source (other less onerous licenses include Open, Free,
copyrighted/patented, etc.).
>A "standard API" that runs only on Windows isn't the whole story.
>They don't have to write a Linux driver themselves -- they could make
>the interface public.
*Ding!*
>But I suspect even Intel can no longer ignore
>open source with impunity.
>
>Your points (not quoted here) about Intel's reasons for doing it the
>way they did are well taken, and I grant them -- modulo the
>Microsoft-OS-exclusivity.
Intel is probably responding to the vast market for MS stuff by
developing/hyping this first.
But, the only reasons for not releasing the spec to the bazaar (to get free
drivers) is either to allow
yourself change (but then why publish a MS API?) or you're hiding something
(But I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt here).
Strange. Its not like, in a year, someone in the right
lab couldn't have reverse engineered a sample bought at Fry's...
(including recovering a behavioral model from the masks)
