Hi Loungers.

I don't usually dwell much on old articles (like 11 months), but I make an exception here.
A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection
Never mind the article - Just read the part of the table of contents!

Disabling of Functionality
Indirect Disabling of Functionality
Decreased Playback Quality
Elimination of Open-source Hardware Support
Elimination of Unified Drivers
Problems with Drivers
Denial-of-Service via Driver/Device Revocation
Decreased System Reliability
Increased Hardware Costs
Increased Cost due to Requirement to License Unnecessary Third-party IP
Unnecessary CPU Resource Consumption
Unnecessary Device Resource Consumption
How Effective is it Really?
Gutmann's rant appears to conclude that if, in the end, DRM is applied to the point a universal machine (like a PC) no longer has the functionality users expect, then users will buy dedicated hardware (without a PC) developed to to deliver the (high definition etc.) content. A little box for each?

New Linux users only get to have the "initial surprise" that a functioning non-Microsoft OS is even possible, because of the dedicated work in producing hardware drivers. I have even had it suggested my Linux box is somehow "illegal"!

If the pervasive, nearly universal OS will only deliver non-degraded content on hardware running only their OS, and guaranteed not to run at all on hardware not designed to implement these knobbles, then could the future get dirty?

Where the attempt is to ensure open source drivers cannot be written in the first place, do we really have to slug it out until until all sides are on their knees?