Design Hardware/Software for Global Civil Society 174
-cman- writes "White box builders and Gnome hackers take note! With the announcement of various oxymoronic "trusted computing" initiatives in recent week, Bruce Sterling, self-appointed Pope-Emperor of the Viridian Design Movement has announced a new design contest to design a '...genuinely trustable, cheap, well-designed, rugged, sexy, accessible computer system that is owned, manufactured and operated for, well, Global Civil Society.'" I'll buy one.
I'll buy one... (Score:1)
I object to the next
Re:I'll buy one... (Score:1, Offtopic)
Sorry you've been outbidden. Look at the actual text of the prize of this contest: (this is not a joke!!)
"Yes indeed! No fewer than 150 Euros, a staggering one hundred and fifty of 'em! And that's not all! Because if Microsoft (like so many other large American companies) turns out to have some major accounting skeletons in its closet, the value of these Euros could skyrocket overnight.
Furthermore, these Euro bills represent an intriguing state-of-the-art in high-security, trustable, paper-money design. Unlike feeble old dollars, they've got uncopiable color schemes, state-of-the-art security strips and big embedded holograms!
Win this contest and this cash will be mailed straight to you!"
In related news... (Score:3, Funny)
I'll pirate one.
Yeah, that's the problem, see... (Score:1)
Without letting Bill & Co. in the front door it would probably be much like the current Linux/BSD/OpenSource movement, letting them in is like inviting an enraged bull into your china shop.
Global Civil Society ? (Score:5, Insightful)
The box is one step in the process... (Score:1)
Book design (Score:1)
Re: Penny (Score:1)
Penny was fault redundant. She could seed herself as a trojan onto a floppy disk. This trojan would then in turn build itself into a full copy once run on an uninfected computer.
It was all fun and games until Penny started killing people.
Great book, indeed. Although I must express disatisfaction with the Doom-esqe ending.
What a good idea! (Score:1)
Re:What a good idea! (Score:2)
The prize money - and a "oooooh" (Score:1, Offtopic)
"That's right! The prize is cash! And none of that flaccid, green, American funny-money, either. Instead, it's this season's rapidly escalating, crisp, brand-new, supranational, global-standard currency:
EUROS!
Yes indeed! No fewer than 150 Euros, a staggering one hundred and fifty of 'em! And that's not all!
Because if Microsoft (like so many other large American companies) turns out to have some major accounting skeletons in its closet, the value of these Euros could skyrocket overnight."
It's that last sentence that grabbed my attention. Ye Gods, can you imagine what would happen if Microsoft's UberFortune turns out to be ficticious?
Ooooooooh.....
DG
Re:The prize money - and a "oooooh" (Score:2)
Re:The prize money - and a "oooooh" (Score:2)
Re:The prize money - and a "oooooh" (Score:1)
It is true - Microsoft has basically been running a WorldCom-esque strategy for quite a while, based on keeping the stock price high and using that paper to remunerate employees and consume other parts of the computer market. (OK, no massive internal accounting fraud (unless you count some serious "earnings smoothing"), but the Microsoft is another company like WorldCom that can only really survive by growing). Pending legislative attempts to require employee stock options to be accounted as expenses would be the worst thing to ever happen to Microsoft.
Hopefully the tech economy can survive the crunch when they fall.
Que Lingue? (Score:2, Funny)
Grok et Spock baby!
my design (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:my design (Score:2)
Viridians (Score:1)
Re:Viridians (Score:1)
Re:Viridians (Score:1)
Cannibalistic computing.
Hmm.. Banana skins and ketchup stuck to the side of the case might diminish sex appeal, though.
-Sara
OMG (Score:1)
Re:Viridians (Score:1)
Re:Viridians (Score:1)
Isn't this what standards bodies are for? (Score:5, Insightful)
IEEE [ieee.org], IETF [ietf.org], even the Liberty Alliance [projectliberty.org] could put together a competing system.
The key here is that any proposed security standard needs to be
Anything less than this *WILL* fail on a global market. MS probably has a shot at controlling the US PC market if the government and their anti-trust proceedings don't bitch slap them
Re:Isn't this what standards bodies are for? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Isn't this what standards bodies are for? (Score:3, Interesting)
BTW, Microsoft pretty much does control the North American PC market. A bitch-slap is about all that Microsoft is going to get, alas, when what they need is a really bloody nose (IMHO). Like saying something to the effect of "OK, so it's a standard now. Fine. Standards mean you publish the specs for anyone - and we mean anyone - to produce products that can inter-operate, or we shut you down and take them anyway. Your choice." I've said a few times before that internationally recognised standards should carry the weight of law.
Soko
Re:Isn't this what standards bodies are for? (Score:3, Insightful)
The way I see this shaking out is similar to the
While MS is clearly a monolithic company, they still can't really fight the hardware makers if they all decide to band together against MS. MS is still very much at the mercy of many companies. Intel and AMD acceptance is key to MS' success. HP/Compaq, IBM, Dell, etc. also have a pretty large say in the direction of the PC market. While Microsoft has a huge hand in guiding the future direction of the PC market, a determined group of hardware manufacturers can still stop them or steer a different course. Hopefully that's how things play out here.
Heh (Score:2)
and pay for ....! (Score:3, Interesting)
this way if you implement the standard you have to pay
you can't have an opensource MPEG 4 without paying 3million bucks when you distribute it and they call that a standard
ok real hardware and software
in terms of a kernel their is in My Humble Opinion
Linux [kernel.org]
Open BSD [openbsd.org]
netbsd for every arch under the sun [netbsd.org] (joke included)
then we have the problem of hardware
Opencores [opencores.org] provides some of the effort BUT my favorate is
LEON-1 VHDL model [estec.esa.nl]
- Functional SPARC compatible processor core integer unit. Runs on Altera, Mietec, Temic MG2, Xilinx. Developed for space missions. Implemented as a highly configurable, synthesisable GPL VHDL model.
Altera 10K200E FPGA [altera.com] or Xilinx XCV300 [xilinx.com] enable this you can also get a LCD and keyboard AMBA devices from www.gaisler.com [gaisler.com]
what I would like is a machine that you could say that the whole thing is opensource
regards
john jones
Re:Isn't this what standards bodies are for? (Score:1)
Can you seriously imagine the Chinese government backing a secure operating system that they don't have back doors to? Perhaps that's the background to Red Flag linux - the Chinese government can put in all the backdoors they want. Even the UK government is so far in bed with Microsoft that they're using hardly anything that's open source.
Any movements in this direction will have to come from the bottom up, not the top down. Hopefully we can point out the problems with Palladium and its descendents, and MS's rep. as a convicted trust abuser will help raise warning signs when they propose such things.
Of course, given their record of security screwups, does anyone think Palladium will actually work?
Why Palladium will kill or establish Microsoft... (Score:1)
What would you buy? a) Microsoft Palladium PC or b) Region/signed code free Computer that plays everything?
Basically, as I understand it, what Microsoft are trying to do is sell computers like consoles. You keep it for a couple of years and buy the next whiz-bang one that comes out. By the time someone has hacked the current "console PC" to the point where it is actually customisable and useful, Microsoft will have already released the next one.
The only way I see Microsoft winning this battle would be to sell these console PCs and their software at a very cheap price and get all the major developers behind them... hmm, aren't they already doing something similar with the Xbox?
Perhaps nobody will build them? (Score:5, Insightful)
So somebody is supposed to build computers for everybody on the whole planet, but that somebody shouldn't be big enough that they are capable of doing such a thing? Maybe we should put some plans on our desks and let the computer gnomes build them overnight?
Re:Perhaps nobody will build them? (Score:1)
Re:Perhaps nobody will build them? (Score:1)
Re:Perhaps nobody will build them? (Score:2, Interesting)
A good example of this: My DSL provider. The "DSL department" cannot communicate with the "Hosting department" to figure out which part of it is eating the mail for the domain they host. Hah.
Small companies tend to have their act more "together" because they do not need to have a board meeting to decide whether or not to take path A or path B.
All large companies have going for them is funding.
-Sara
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Perhaps nobody will build them? (Score:1)
I hate corporations that get so segmented and bogged down that the customer or end-user has to communicate with multiple departments that SHOULD be in communication with eachother. I don't feel as though I should be on first-name basis with the tech staff in 3 departments of a corportation, when they don't seem to know eachothers names. "Well your DSL department said that the Routing tables might be responsible, but the Routing department said that the DNS might be responsible. I know you say that the DSL department should take care of this, but everyone really seems to think it's on your shoulders."
It's when tech support seems to be playing a game of telephone using the customer they're supposed to provide support and service for that corporations make me froth at the mouth.
-Sara
Re:Perhaps nobody will build them? (Score:1)
Maybe we need to set up a new global bank for this very purpose - where money is invested in these projects - and some may harvest returns to go into the bank for furthar projects- yes sales, yes profits - but in the name of a community - non exclusive - not a company...
Maybe my head is in the clouds and we are too damn human to ever realise that kind of future- it is just utopian bull really. The long and short of it is I am not about to surrender the cash I could add the next module to my intended beowulf behemoth any more than the next slashdotter - even if its a really worthy cause. Maybe I should set an example and do so...
Oh and one more thing- I am not sure that US dollars are the best currency for such a venture. Although I'm a limey- I dont think GBP is either. But we have to start somewhere...
Prototype only (Score:2, Informative)
From the web page:
Re:Prototype only (Score:1)
"Trusted Computing" (Score:1)
Always alow user choice (Score:1)
Re:Always alow user choice (Score:2)
this is a funny post, laugh
PC (Score:1, Insightful)
This is doable (Score:4, Insightful)
Some computer systems are solidly reliable, but we don't think of them as computers. We call them consoles and PDAs. But technology has advanced so much that we could easily have a PDA with more horsepower in it than was used at Boeing to design the 777, or what animators had on their desks when working on Toy Story. It's a matter of breaking free from thinking of computers as generic "PC"s running generic operating systems. Smaller is better in this case. How much performance and time do we waste just to keep running the same generic, "modern" systems: Linux, Windows, MacOS. They're all the same, and they're all missing the point.
Re:This is doable (Score:2)
Funtionally they are quite close to each other, but as far as freedom goes - Linux and the *BSD win hands down.
I use to think RMS was a wacky nutcake - but with all the new legilation and DRM crap coming down the pipe, I'm going to spash some aftershave on RMS and join his cause in full. Not just to get a inexpensive operatin system and good software, but to protect my freedom.
Re:This is doable (Score:2)
And so, what exactly is the point?
Re:This is doable (Score:4, Insightful)
You could say that some people don't need all of the flexibility that a PC offers. The problem is finding a subset that satisfies enough people to make a profit. PDAs and consoles are one particular subset that (occasionally) make a profit.
But look at the number of net appliances that have come and gone: They failed for a reason, not completely related to marketing.
Word and Excel have four billion functions because someone finds every single one of those functions useful. What is the point of a PDA having a gigahertz processor if all you do is manage contacts on it?
Re:This is doable (Score:1)
re-read the guidelines: "This machine shouldn't be some commercial for-profit business gizmo which has been wrenched over (unwillingly and kicking all the way) to some few of the many noble purposes of citizenship and global democracy. This computer needs to be a primarily political and social computer. "
If you missed this point then you missed the point.
Re:This is doable (Score:2)
Choice mattered at one time. It matters a lot less now. It mattered if you wanted to do 3D modelling and all you had was 6502 processor. It mattered when first generation 3D accelerators for the PC were severely fill-rate limited. It mattered when you wanted to do video editing and your computer came with a 300MB hard drive.
What has happened, though, is that computer performance has gotten so amazingly fast, that processor speed, fill rate, and hard drive space are effectively infinite for a great majority of purposes. Note that I didn't say *all* purposes, just the majority. It has gotten to where only hardware collecting geeks care about new processors. Everyone else was fine when 300MHz was the norm, and now we can call Dell and get a 1.4GHz Pentium IV for $700. Games are a weird exception, but then again games don't take good advantage of general-purpose PCs. You see games on consoles that out-do PCs running many times faster. The console makers have the right idea: go for low price, low power consumption, and rock solid reliability.
If someone came out with the modern equivalent of a Commodore 64, a tiny 1GHz computer with half a gigabyte of memory, and a GeForce 2 quality video card, then went for a tiny form factor and a tiny price, then it would be decades before people stopped mining the capabilities of it. And it would be a relief to have standard parts and standard software and not have to mess with constant upgrades and flaky drivers. Seriously.
zen vs paperless paperwork (Score:1)
If you think about it, the majority of tasks done on today's computer is just a digital variation of paperwork. We read/write text, fill out forms, do mathmatical calculations, check schedules, etc. Most modern people covet the computer for letting them do all this in an efficient manner and rightfully so, but are our "digital" experiences being limited by technology itself? Is the 2-D navigation system, with window views of directories and icons, only allowing us more time to do more paperwork? Are we only allowed to do paperwork because the technology industry as a business sees "productivity" as its number one goal? What about other aspects of life like spirituality or health, should that part of the user's life not benefit from technology if possible?
If the hardware/software is to truly serve as an interface it needs to first recognize what its trying to interface. Its trying to interface people with people. Not people and information or data, those things originate from other people. The interface should serve more as a conduit rather than a storage cabinet.
I'm not sure what design I would submit for a prototype, but at this point I'm looking at the hacky-sack ball.
Maybe These Box Builders... (Score:2, Insightful)
...will wake up one day and realize they are just technicians not world saviors. Of course, actors and musicians would have to do that first. I'm not holding my breath.
Uh .. ah.. (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't get it. Mr. evironmentalist want's a espionage-free computer. And it has to look good, because it is targeted on the ever-fashion-aware Global Civil Society servants?
Why doesn't he go buy one a rugged laptop [dolch.com] [dolch.com] and sticks linux on it? No backdoors, no espionage, all trusted computing for the field?
I probably don't get it, do I?
We, who are about to salute you, die
Global Civility? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Global Civility? (Score:1)
Somehow your joke got moderated as "insightful" instead of "funny". Apparently some of the moderators don't know that "civil society" means "the democratic society of citizens, not governments" (for a more rigorous discussion, look here [cpn.org] and here [stanford.edu])
Re:Global Civility? (Score:1)
Yeah. Funny, ain't it? Actually, the moderators are on crack today. Nothing I've posted has been moderated with regard to content.
Practice what you preach (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Practice what you preach (Score:1)
rms would probably agree with you, i suppose, but viridian's preaching leans towards the tolerant-green, not the oss-zealot, and i see no conflict. unless your objection is to increasing shareholder value, which i rather doubt has happened in this case.
iow, the person who gives time to produce that page can do so any way s/he sees fit, and if you think it could be done better, i suggest you offer.
unrestrained access (Score:2)
How do you know someone doesn't have something monitoring network traffic? So if you send your magical super-key to a computer to open it up, you have to hope that they have no such software/hardware active. If they do have such hardware/software, then the 'bad guys' now have the super key of happiness that gives them total control.
I can imagine how a terrorist would love to see their system get 'hacked' by such a universal password.
Or am I totally missing something?
UN Invasion scam (Score:1)
government designed computers (Score:1)
does anyone else remember the computers that the canadian government designed and built in the late 80's and early 90's (i think they were called "icons"). they had a trackball and came with a built-in rabbit catching game. i believe that the entire school worked off of a single 5 1/2 inch drive... and it really sucked
if hardware/software is too closely regulated and controlled by the government or associations, then it will lose a lot of its coolness. i agree that some regulations are required, but don't fool yourself and let yourself think that the regulators know best.
kinky boy (Score:1)
Sounds like he will be "praying" on young developers; cover your asses!
:)
.
Design Spec nightmare (Score:5, Insightful)
1) "genuinely trustable, cheap, well-designed, rugged, sexy, accessible."
good, cheap, fast. Pick two. Seriously, rugged, cheap and accessible (presuming he means easy to use) are about the only things in this section that are actually design requirements. The "genuinely trustable" we'll look at below in the "open specifications" comment. "Well-designed" and "sexy" are not design specifications, as much as marketing pre-planning.
2) "a primarily political and social computer"
ummm....right. This isn't a design spec, it's...well....pointless, actually. We'll ignore it.
3) No corporate or national logos.
Okay. This is a valid design requirement, but probably an impossible one.
4) "The software and communications protocols in this device should be transparent. Honest. Aboveboard. Public. Public-spirited. Fair. Inclusive. Multi-culti. Legitimate. This Is What Democracy Looks Like. All that stuff that computer hardware and software never, ever is"
Right. The IEEE and the IETF are secretly planning to take over the world. Just you wait. and don't get me started on JEDEC. They never take input from the community. This is a design spec, but an insane one.
There's no way. You would, in effect, have to re-design every part of the computer to manage this. This includes a different card spec (PCI and AGP are apparently not multi-culti enough), a different CPU (they display corporate logos, after all), different BIOS (corporate logos again), etc. You would have re-design the entire computer, ignoring all existing specs. This is crazy.
Re:Design Spec nightmare (Score:2)
And I thought I was cynical . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
While I'll have to agree that Sterling's proposal seems off the wall and not very well thought out, it's still an idea that appeals to me for some reason. Maybe it's the thought that there has to be a better way (yes, even better than Linux). Maybe I'm just not cynical enough and I still dream of seeing a world in which a paperless office becomes a reality without losing our freedom of speech.
I refuse to just let the corporations steamroll over my rights - and yours. I've been through depression, but I've never given up, and I never will.
So you say it's crazy? So you say it's impossible? Oh, well let's just not give it another thought then! Let's let the CEO's of Microsoft and Enron do the thinking for us. Surely, they have our best interests at heart, and there's nothing we can do to improve our lot.
Well, I'll tell you what: you can sit on your rump, telling the ones who are out there doing the impossible that it's impossible. If that's what you really want, you can have it. I'll leave you with one last quote to ruminate upon:
SUBMISSION #42 (Score:5, Funny)
Like the VW Beetle (Score:1)
Build a machine to defeat DRM. DRM leads to centralized control of content. Content being technologically indistinguishable from expression, this leads wherever they want it to lead.
This isn't possible, and here is why.. (Score:2, Insightful)
What we need is a genuinely trustable, cheap, well-designed, rugged, sexy, accessible computer system that is owned, manufactured and operated for, well, Global Civil Society.
What is trustable? If the computer is trusted by the owner then that means the owner must have full control in order to guarantee no shoddy behavior is going on. However, this is the exact antithesis of what RIAA wants because it wants full control to do the exact same thing-- to guarantee no shoddy behavior is going on. In system's design, all of the above terms are meaningless. Everyone has different opinions on exactly what these terms mean which is why I have learned to steer well clear of them. To me, sexy is code that is well documented, simple, and broken into intelligent behavioral pieces. I also know people who think sexy is that all sections of code larger than 50 lines must be broken into a separate procedure. To me, that's a maintenance nightmare and hardly sexy.
The real issue, something that I've been arguing for a long time is that piracy is the natural balance to capitalism. When the demand for a product outweighs what the public feels as fair for the product, then fewer people feel bound to honoring a purchase. Unfortunately, there is a law of numbers in capitalism and the number of people who do not have the expertise to make a wise decision when purchasing technical goods versus those who do are far greater in number. Thus, regardless of the number of better alternatives out there, people will buy in the way they are used to, which currently is Microsoft. The only way to prevent what is going to happen is to educate enough of the public to make Microsoft believe it would not be financially wise to attempt to go that route. The advent of XP being rent-able was foiled when enough consumer backlashes were heard. But, in some form, XP was going to sell because they are the megacorp. And, as long as we allow megacorps, they are going to do whatever it is that will give the most dollars. They are always going to attempt to strive for that perfect goal of performing no effort and collecting money for it. Microsoft figured this out a long time back. They just want to make sure for every transaction that occurs, they get paid to allow it to happen. And, we all put them there because we, as a whole, have always voted by buying the cheapest. Now, the cost is always going to be the threat of being finally utterly controlled by one of those megacorps.
Globally/Socially Conscious PC (Score:1)
While it is a worthy cause in the long run, we'd probably be better off using our time and money on more . . . immediate problems. I realize this is easier said than done, etc . . .
Re:Globally/Socially Conscious PC (Score:1)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/sci/tech/newsid
Why the Sten-Gun dept.? (Score:2)
Ode to a Sten Gun
By Gunner. S.N. Teed
You wicked piece of vicious tin!
Call you a gun? Don't make me grin.
You're just a bloated piece of pipe.
You couldn't hit a hunk of tripe.
But when you're with me in the night,
I'll tell you pal, you're just alright!
Each day I wipe you free of dirt.
Your dratted corners tear my shirt.
I cuss at you and call you names,
You're much more trouble than my dames.
But boy, do I love to hear you yammer
When you 're spitting lead in a business manner.
You conceited pile of salvage junk.
I think this prowess talk is bunk.
Yet if I want a wall of lead
Thrown at some Jerry's head
It is to you I raise my hat;
You're a damn good pal...
You silly gat!
Source [freehosting.net]
Ya know, that's how I feel about my computer much of the time. "You are a piece of sh*t, except when I really need you."
Re:Why the Sten-Gun dept.? (Score:1)
The abacus? (Score:2)
Utopian talk give me the willies (Score:1)
Re:Utopian talk give me the willies (Score:1)
cheers
pull the other one (Score:1)
in- and ex-ternals of such a beast (Score:5, Insightful)
1) the keyboard can't suck. The best keyboards on laptops (IMO) are the ones found on IBM ThinkPads, though there is some competion from Toshiba. Most laptop keyboards are are not only awful feeling to begin with, they rapidly get worse and stay worse. Unless your entry has to be ultra-ultra lightweight, please consider putting a few justified ounces into a keyboard. Make it something that will be worth typing on in 10 years, like my IBM model M keyboard is.
Also, the keys should be tilted to a sane angle for typing, not a big rectangle of keys. Only a few laptops have ever tried escaping the wrist-killer of normal laptop keyboard layouts. No matter what keyboard layout one ends up using (QUERTY, Dvorak or something else), your hands still need a break.
2) The pointer can't suck, and they all do
IBM-style pointers are my favorite, but they are probably too troublesome and breakage prone: how about an optical trackpad with a replaceable window in the event that the original is scratched / scuffed beyond use? Or an embedded trackball like in the old Powerbooks, but with an optical ball as in current desktop trackballs?
3) Modularity, ports and jacks are all-important.
Realize (or at least grudgingly hypothesize) that some or all of the computer is going to break, and view it as an inherently leaky system. The screen will get pierced by an arrow while you're traipsing through the rain forest, or the hot foreign-aid worker you're respectfully dating will cause you to pour coffee on the keyboard, or the pointer will just decide to go on permanent vacation, or a purse-snatcher will leave you holding only the detachable screen. Gone.
There must be ways built in for the thing to go on functioning at least a little bit, and if at all possible to be field repaired.
Whatever the screen configuration ends up being (conventional clamshell? web-pad? little eye-piece?), it needs to be replaceable with no more than a (makeshift, flat-head) screwdriver and some human fingers.
Provision should be built-in to use number bad or other keyboard part as an alternate pointer controller if the main one busts.
Re ports: USB / USB2 seem like good choices these days for a low-cost machine. I think it would be smarter to provide a bunch of USB(2) ports than try to provide the whole range of ethernet, firewire, serial, parallel, etc etc. Let that be taken care of by emulation and adapters, and encourage everything in the world that could grow a USB port to do so. Has some downside, but simplicity and interchangeability is important. A low-cost computer could be a micro-ISP if it had 8 USB modems and an ethernet adapter hooked to it's 4 USB ports via a couple of powered USB hubs. Or a weather station. Or a Whoooznitz Whutzall Thingamajibber. Point is, modularity should trump built-in featuritus.
Now forget I just said that and let me hypnotize you with this idea: it should have a built-in camera. Randy Waterhouse had one in Cryptonomicon, but despite this obvious hint to the hardware industry, very few laptops really have a camera, and the one on the Sony Picturebooks isn't the dirt-cheap pinhole variety of Randy's.
4) Built in software, in two parts:
a) Really, any open-source operating system would work. Some variety of either BSD or Linux seems the obvious choice right now, either would work fine. Or some other variant, so long as the software's license is open enough to enocourage unhindered distribution, modification.
b) Lots of knowledge on the hard drive.
Why do hard drives come blank? Who knows, but should they? Remember, today's "tiny" hard drive holds more written knowledge than the world possessed in sum not long ago.
I'd like to see on this thing a copy of:
- a good serious world almanac
- a good non-serious or at least non-traditional world almanac like the HG2G or similar
- lots of maps
- a simple word-for-word translator with dictionaries for many languages, so documents could be at least looked at on a very coarse level even if you don't know the language.
- the U.S. Constitution (and heck, the communist manifesto, as a "see also" reference)
- diagrams for lots of things.
- classic literature of several languages
5) Other concerns
- must be workable on world current, at low power. Look at the capabilities of today's 800MHz transmeta chip, or 400MHz Xscale, and aim lower.
- should be built with solar in mind. Casing should have attachment points for a solar panel or two. Low-power LEDs to indicate charge level. Agressive power-throttling.
Phew.
timothy
Re:in- and ex-ternals of such a beast (Score:3, Funny)
The computer you want sounds like something not even Geordi + Data + Cheif O'Brien could make. But I do want one. :)
Re:in- and ex-ternals of such a beast (Score:1)
Maybe its time someone made the hardware version of the guide....
H2G2.com (Score:1)
And Yes, that's the sort of thing I'd like to see in hardware.
It really does bother me not that hard drives are sold blank, but that they tend (outside of operating systems, and very few of those) to only even be offered blank, when there are so many things they could be shipped with instead for a nominal cost
It would be interesting to constantly skim the cream off the top of H2G2.com (and / or similar sites) in 650MB chunks -- size of a CD -- so you could get one disk, two disks, or however many, but with the highest quality (by *someone's* measure, which I won't propose to outline for good reasons of impossibility!
timothy
Re:in- and ex-ternals of such a beast (Score:1)
Model M keyboards are fantastic. But if the goal is to minimize costs as much as possible, it'll be hard to justify the expense of using the buckling-spring technology that gives the keys their great feel and positive feedback (when you feel the spring click, you're sure that you've typed one and only one character). The reason is that each key needs its own individual mechanism -- as opposed to cheaper modern keyboards, which just rely on a single sheet of circuits covered with a sheet of rubber.
So the requirements list looks like... (Score:1)
So the specs are like this?:
It has to be so secure that when it's stolen it's not even worth the parts for anyone else but me.
It has to be easily searchable by law enforcement otherwise they will block the production of said box.
It has to be so simple to operate that Joe Sixpak can make it work. (He has trouble writing checks, much less balancing the checkbook.)
It has to have enough flexibility that young Ivan Hackski can make it dance and grow into a potential engineer.
It has to be cheap to make, to own, and to operate; US$99 to buy, $5 per month max to operate, and many people will want to run with no monthly cost at all.
Finally, it has to last at least seven years to be taken as a serious product. (Cars and refrigerators last seven years easy, right?)
#endif
Nice idea. Good luck.
Taking issue with one of Sterling's comments (Score:1)
I'm sorry, but did I just hear someone say that "software is never honest, aboveboard, public, public spirited, fair, inclusive, etc"? Excuse me, but has has Sterling ever read a certain vendor's social contract? [debian.org]
Other than that one glaring infraction, I'd have to agree with his points and endorse this as a Good Idea(tm).
Well, it sounded pretty good until... (Score:1)
Like adult Sesame street, right? Where the big birds and multiculturalists play... never is heard an exclusivity word - unless you're bashing Christians and defending some gays.
Puh-lease.
Unspoofable Hardware?? (Score:1)
This premise of trusted computing, as seen in the TCPA link, assumes that there is some hardware inside the machine that cannot be emulated in software.
THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE!!
Just what kind of embedded hardware on the motherboard are they talking about? It takes input, runs some algorithm on it, and gives output. SOFTWARE, on a different medium.
It just comes back to a private key, which would work fine anyway. Hardware just means that the USER cannot know their private key, or have access to the software that reads it. The MANUFACTURER does know it. It has to be stored in software somewhere, in Redmond or Taiwan or Palo Alto or Armonk. It can be discovered in some obscure way, and emulated.
If the USER has control, and true ownership of what they've paid for, then they can know their key, and the manufacturer cannot. So, software would work just fine, or user programmed hardware.
The only way something like this can work and also be fair is to use software keys. A user registers a key pair, or at least their public key, and buys content and uses trusted services with it. They get a new key pair after some time interval or if their key gets stolen and then migrate their content to their new key set.
It's not anonymous either, but it's identification, so it can't be. At least the user can control when a public key is sent.
We each get a private key and do everything we can to keep it PRIVATE. There would have to be laws against stealing people's private keys to back this up, and INDIVIDUALS would be authenticated by their private keys, NOT hardware. You can't do it with hardware on an open source system, and you just can't 'trust' someone else's closed system.
No system is perfect.
So, slashdot, please tell me if I'm wrong. Is there a type of hardware which cannot be satisfactorily emulated in software, which can be used for this?
If not, it's a good thing. This means that the answer to this design contest, if the user is to have any control, is a SOFTWARE system, possibly with a nice hardware trick for storing and protecting the private key. This is very good because it means that the design winner can run on existing hardware, possibly the stuff strewn all over every american city and most others. That would be nice.
The hardware solution is just another dongle, and no more effective than any other dongle. It's not a new idea.
=rMortyH
Someone please tell me... (Score:1)
Watch out Gandalf, Check your head Data..... (Score:1)
The specs in this contest are beyond the fantasy of Lord Of The Rings, and beyond the science fiction of Star Trek. The computer they ask for cannot be built for many reasons.
1-To manufacture a high quality product that is also cheap and international requires all custom parts that have no logo's. That means setting up a component infrastructure all anew. Expensive..
Many vendors will sell "blank" versions of products for alot of money but just plastic and metal. Circuitry is a different matter. I worked for an un-named company that sold "blank" componets but if you inspect certain parts with a 100X microscope w/blacklight the vendor logo was still there. No sane company makes something and not either plug thier name or identify the part somehow.
2-The OS. =) Well there are many ways to go. If you start from scratch you need a whole new company to handle just that. And they will have to work closely with the hardware company if they want a solid product. Does |ntel & Micro$haft sound familiar? Linux is also a good choice but you will still need to write alot of code to intergrate it tightly with the custom hardware, but the kernel is a good foundation to build on.
Plus it has to be an easy to use GUI with a suite of custom software.
3-The human factor. Any device has a learning curve. Typically the more complex the device the greater the learning curve. Its going to have to be simple and have few external moving parts for durability. The contest hints its a laptop in thier little story. Expensive. Laptops are mostly a throw away device. That means more junk and LCD chemicals that have to be made, stored, and disposed of safely....more infrastructure and money.
4- Security....a subjective concept. If you make a lock someone will pick it. Ill leave it at that. My rant has become too long for even my taste.
I have an idea, they should just buy Apple Titanium books. =) Seriously, Its great to inspire innovation and creativity, but lets be a little less broad. Also what I want to know....IF someone wins this contest does the contestant keep the rights to his idea? Or does a budding new enterprise get a "market shaking" product handed to them for 150 euro???
Simputer (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.simputer.org/ [simputer.org]
genuinely trustworthy (Score:1)
thi
Give me my 150 Euros, Bruce... (Score:2)
Just add inexpensive keyboard, inexpensive mouse, LCD screen, HD and RAM. A laptop CD-ROM will work, (Case Outlet sells one) and the thing netboots anyway so that would be a possibility for installing the OS anyway without the need for a CD-ROM.
Software? Why, the Debian distribution of Linux, or maybe Slackware Linux. Debian's more Politically Correct, though.
Remember, VIA hasn't signed on to Palladium yet, and hopefully they never will.
Bruce will be judging errors. (Score:1)
Re:i think (Score:4, Funny)
Not to flame them or anything, but you'd think a site that cares as much about design as they claim would have, well, a better design themselves.