Talk:Trustworthy computing

message: Vaquerito - this really should be redirected.  This is just Microsoft PR obfuscation, I do not believe there is a shred of evidence that this is in any way different from ordinary TC - see  for example.  If you do believe it is different, you have to explain how  The current article (stub really) doesn't.  Even then, it probably makes more sense to have that stuff as a section in the other article.  As for this being used for a class: your students can contribute to the main TC article, that way they can benefit from contact with the other editors there.  I am against setting up "private rooms" in Wikipedia on general principles.  ObsidianOrder 07:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Vaquerito - I would have no objection if you had an article under "Trustworthy Computing" which was more substantial than a stub, and which addressed what the specific differences between "Trusted" and "Trustworthy" computing are, and why they are significant.  At a mininum the claim that they are not the same thing requires references.  I'm a supporter of pluralism, but I'm an even bigger supporter of citing sources ;)  Also: the "Trusted Computing" article is not specifically about the TCG, it's both the most general and most common term for all these proposed technologies.  On the other hand "Trustworthy Computing" is a Microsoft vanity page, unless you can demonstrate otherwise ;)  compare that with Intel Inside.  ObsidianOrder 09:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  it should be redirected 

message: The article posted 11/5 draws distinctions between trustworthy and trusted computing and sites sources other than and prior to Microsoft.
I believe it meets the requirements above, and I would request it not be redirected.
Colonel301 22:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the section headed 'Microsoft and Trustworthy Computing' is still a pretty blatant piece of PR blurb that needs rewriting or deleting for a start. --Aim Here 17:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Revised Article - Please Do Not Redirect 

message: Sigh. Some POV-warrior by the name of Robust Physique seems to want to keep this passage in the article. It's disgusting PR-type blurb and I'm not going to let it stay in without a VERY good reason.
"The computing industry recognizes the need to increase the overall level of trust and “trustworthiness” in computing. Computers have been successful for office and home applications, but are losing momentum and acceptance when it comes to new services and system integrations. In effort to move forward and build consumer confidence, Microsoft launched their concept of Trustworthy Computing focused on the framework of security, privacy, reliability, and business integrity. Despite criticism from the Open-source community, Microsoft’s ultimate goal of developing Trustworthy Computing is shared by the entire industry. The task of recovering and building consumer confidence goes beyond any single technical development or advance. It will take time, commitment, and industry cooperation to create a level of Trustworthy Computing required for the next generation of computing." 
It asserts without evidence that 'the computing industry', whatever that is, recognises some need or other, then makes claims about 'momentum and acceptance' and 'consumer confidence' without any indication of how those are to be measured, repeats some Microsoft PR buzzwords about security and reliability and whatnot, makes assertions 'despite criticism from the Open-source community', excludes the Open Source community from the computing industry, makes more assertions about Microsoft's ultimate goal and the goal of the computing industry and then assaults the reader with yet more vapid and meaningless PR fluff at the end. This garbage is biased, unsourced, speculative, largely meaningless, unencyclopedic, probably an advert and doesn't belong here. I'm deleting it. Anyone got a problem with that? --Aim Here 14:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  That is not the only such section in the article, though.  ObsidianOrder 17:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I totally agree, lose it. As noted, much of the article is in this tone. It reads like a Microsoft PR release. Classically enough it also fails to note any of the criticism or ambiguity in the term up front and defers all such discussions to miles down the page in a modest criticism section that most people won't get as far as reading. Nilbert 19:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blurb deleted 

message: This article is a load of crap. It should be one paragraph and simply say exactly what the difference is between trusted computing and Microsoft's version of it. Is it hardware or is it software. Does it use the Trusted computing chip. None of this "3rd pillar of faith and fairness" PR bullshit. If I wanted that garbage I'd go to microsoft's web page, not wikipedia.
Upon reading the article again I've realized that Trustworthy Computing means absolutely nothing except as an obfuscated reference to the vague idea that computers should be more reliable. This entire article is a waste of time and I feel stupider for having read it. I hope everyone that contributed to this article gets banned from Wikipedia. Windkin 20 March 2006.
:You are absolutely right. There is no Trustworthy Computing. --mms 22:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sucinctly put. I have added a disputed/factual accuracy template as I think that summarises what people have said. Comments welcome. Nilbert 19:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worst Wikipedia Article Ever 

message: Most of the information in the controversy section actually seems to refer to Trusted Computing.  The difference between the two is clarified in the begining of the article.  Can we remove this section? Superm401 - Talk 22:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been doing some research on and off and as far as I can see "Trustworthy Computing" is purely a Microsoft campaign. Unless someone can point me to some sort of independent origin of the term I will refactor the article to reflect that in a few weeks' time. This will include removing sections you mention. Nilbert 10:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: I removed alot of marketing-speak, and unsourced information, responding to the many, concerned editors and the same such concerns above. The only editor I see defending the unsourced text, and the criticism of it, is user:Warren. There seems to be a consensus that this article is mostly PR nd lacks legitimate content.  Scientus (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned up 

message: This line: "This initiative has changed the focus of many of Microsoft’s internal development efforts, but has been greeted with skepticism by some in the computer industry." should have a citation or a link.  What scepticism?
In general this article seems to provide little actual information.
Tsingi (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Controversy 

message: All the rest was un-referenced waffle, as has been stated here again and again. (It's still a deeply unsatisfactory article however...) Snori (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Now Microsoft-focussed

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Trustworthy computing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051025151904/https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/home to https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/home
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110517025956/http://liedra.net/misc/Controversy_Over_Trusted_Computing.pdf to http://liedra.net/misc/Controversy_Over_Trusted_Computing.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060509055122/http://download.microsoft.com/download/a/f/2/af22fd56-7f19-47aa-8167-4b1d73cd3c57/twc_mundie.doc to http://download.microsoft.com/download/a/f/2/af22fd56-7f19-47aa-8167-4b1d73cd3c57/twc_mundie.doc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I was fixing some links in this article when I noticed that the "Microsoft and Trustworthy Computing" section references Slammer, a 2003 virus, while describing a memo sent out in 2002. I don't know what the correct way to fix such an anachronism is beyond simply erasing the reference from the article, which seems like the most logical option to me. Anyone have any insights on the best way to go forward?
37.132.158.97 (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slammer reference