Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel PIII: Is Big Brother Inside? (1999)

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 88 posts

Re: Intel PIII: Is Big Brother Inside? (1999)

#21

Post by bcrl »

dehrmann wrote: post #7
monocasa wrote: post #2

> Q: I've never heard of software "expiring." How is that possible? What a beautiful world that was

serial number Seems so quaint to think of that as a privacy concern.

I look back over the last 22 years, and we had very different attitudes towards privacy back then. It's sad to think that almost 2 generations are now growing up without knowing what privacy was, or how much actual freedom there was in being a free range kid with the only obligation being home for supper.

We overestimate the change over the course of a year, but seriously underestimate it over a couple of decades.

Re: Intel PIII: Is Big Brother Inside? (1999)

#22

Post by tyingq »

monocasa wrote: post #2

> Q: I've never heard of software "expiring." How is that possible? What a beautiful world that was

Pretty sure I remember Sun compilers, Veritas Volume Manager, and several other pieces of software having license keys that expired in the 1990's. Several of them used something called FlexLM.

Re: Intel PIII: Is Big Brother Inside? (1999)

#23

Post by forgotmypw17 »

ttt0 wrote: post #12
sn_master wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With subscription, even continuing to pay increasing amounts isn't a guarantee than the product will remain available once the vendor decides to cancel it. And, piracy isn't an option for developing countries where the software price is over a year's average wage.

It's never guaranteed, no matter what payment model. There is plenty of discontinued closed-source software from way before a subscription model became a thing that everyone does, and some of it managed to stay alive only thanks to piracy. With subscriptions it's way worse, because it has to rely on a central server, sometimes for no good reason at all, and you can't even do that. It's just bound to happen that the c…

my Word 97 still works great (and blows away today's software, both foss and not)

Re: Intel PIII: Is Big Brother Inside? (1999)

#24

Post by ReactiveJelly »

Emendo wrote: post #6
monocasa wrote: post #2

> Q: I've never heard of software "expiring." How is that possible? What a beautiful world that was

> A software product could even "seek permission" from the vendor -- via the Internet or your modem -- each time it ran, so that the vendor would know whenever you started the program. Now it is the norm.

And better yet, whenever you complain about how invasive it is, someone will appear to take up page space to call you names for wanting things to be better.

Re: Intel PIII: Is Big Brother Inside? (1999)

#25

Post by wmf »

illys wrote: post #9

"Big Brother Inside" for just a unique id? What should we say now about Intel Management Engine?

This was a self-own by Intel where they claimed that the processor serial number would be used for online authentication which was then exaggerated to "the processor serial number will be a super-cookie sent in every HTTP request" which does sound pretty big-brotherish.

The ME, on the other hand, is obviously good since it "allows" you to watch 4K Netflix on your PC.

Re: Intel PIII: Is Big Brother Inside? (1999)

#27

Post by whoopdedo »

moonbug wrote: post #20
dehrmann wrote: post #8

> But didn't you say it'd help to prevent counterfeiting of chips? The stolen part I get, but did it used to be easier to counterfeit chips? There's a lot that goes into making something that looks like a PIII, and even then, I assume Intel had state-of-the-art fabs, so I'm surprised this was a concern. The hardware scams I've heard of stamping better specs on something, for hard drives, a firmware hack that makes it…

a common problem back then was chips getting remarked as higher clock bin parts.

I felt at the time that when Intel said "counterfeit" they really meant "clones".

Re: Intel PIII: Is Big Brother Inside? (1999)

#28

Post by tails4e »

tyingq wrote: post #22
monocasa wrote: post #2

> Q: I've never heard of software "expiring." How is that possible? What a beautiful world that was

Pretty sure I remember Sun compilers, Veritas Volume Manager, and several other pieces of software having license keys that expired in the 1990's. Several of them used something called FlexLM.

Flexlm is alive and kicking. All of thr EDA software I use daily is protected by it. Its so archaic I can only assume its been broken seven ways from Sunday, but its still there. Id be interested to know if anyone here knows why it's the de facto standard for on premises software licencing.

Re: Intel PIII: Is Big Brother Inside? (1999)

#29

Post by JohannMac »

Common to have unique SN in a processor. Let the SW vendors do copy protection too. E.g. at Sonos we used them to associate with the software signed certificate such that you couldn't run a given Players software on another Player without the same SN. When making products via contract manufactures, especially in China, it was a wise procedure.

Re: Intel PIII: Is Big Brother Inside? (1999)

#30

Post by M277 »

whoopdedo wrote: post #27
moonbug wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a common problem back then was chips getting remarked as higher clock bin parts.

I felt at the time that when Intel said "counterfeit" they really meant "clones".

Yes, this was what immediately came to my mind as well.

For an interesting, albeit slightly unrelated read, see:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_art

>"Prior to 1984, these doodles also served a practical purpose. If a competitor produced a similar chip, and examination showed it contained the same doodles, then this was strong evidence that the design was copied (a copyright violation) and not independently derived."

Post reply on HN