Boy, that article is a gross oversimplification. MS's trusted computing initiative really can't be summed up in 5 paragraphs. It's not just MS that is working on trusted platforms - as you may know, it's a joint effort with Intel and others. This FAQ is a little more comprehensive on the topic...

Last I heard, there is no reason that Linux cannot be made to run on (and benefit by) the TCPA architecture. I think there is great potential for good in such hardware security, though there is the possibility of MS twisting it to its evil whims. Frankly, after reading a fair amount on the subject, I seriously doubt that any intelligent consumer will put up with the restrictions that MS is (allegedly) hoping to impose.

This thread is pushing the line, so lets watch the attitude folks or it will get closed.

As anyone who knows me can tell, I personally prefer Linux over M$ for a variety of reasons. But open source is not all powerful. It is not possible for a business to be very profitable if it let its source out. Closed source definately has its place.

Not to defend Kurts snappy attitude, but he is right. If you as a consumer install a program or update and it states in the agreement of that update what is going to happen, you should not have any recourse.

This country is so sue happy, and the biggest reason is because no one will take responsibilty for their actions. And it is in fact their product to manipulate anyway they want. You dont own Windows.. you lease it. Yes you do own the hardware, so they really should not touch it. But if they said they were going to fiddle with it and you install the update anyway, you are agreeing for them to do so.