Re: Executing Encrypted Code

[aaron@herringn.com]

>At 1:29 PM 12/20/1996, Bill Frantz wrote:
>>At 11:52 AM -0800 12/20/96, Peter Hendrickson wrote:
>>> If it's worthwhile having a backup processor around, then you just have
>>> to spend a little more to have backup software, too.
>
>> I thought your model was cheap processors and expensive software.  I.e.,.
>> The cost of the software is greater than the cost of the hardware.  Sounds
>> like more than just "a little more".
>
>There's no reason why one software package would cost more than the
>machine.  I was assuming you didn't need your whole software library
>to finish the report.
>
>I would expect software prices to drop because everybody using the software
>would be paying for it.  I would also expect more kinds of software to become
>available.

I doubt it- if everyone has no choice but to pay, why would software companies
lower prices? What would happen is a) less pirated software floating
around, and
b) software companies make much more money. I don't see prices coming down.

>At any rate, I just don't see this as a major problem.  Does anybody
>know how often processors break down these days?  My guess is that
>it is less common than getting into a car accident and much less common
>than all the other factors that make reports late.

It doesn't have to break.

Example: Advertising agency, each designer's machine has at least $10k worth
of software on it. We upgrade the machine, we have to spend another $10k to
buy new software, or go through administrative hassle with the vendor to
get 'new' copies of the software?

Speaking from a Sysadmin's perspective, I wouldn't use one if you gave me
the hardware for free. With this scheme, the programmers benefit, the
end-users don't, and it's the end-users who have to buy into this for it
to work.

[snip]