Seth Woodworth writes: > So as a fair practice I think it's clear that no special actions can > ethically be made to prevent Windows or any other OS from running on > the machine. So a Windows port for the XO isn't something that > could have been preventative.
Wrong. It's called tit-for-tat, otherwise known as fair-is-fair. It's perfectly ethical to defend oneself against an adversary who has no qualms about anything. Just look at the deal. Dual-boot costs $7 extra. Governments will not pay the extra $7 to allow dual-boot. I do believe in fairness. The XO should run Windows about as well as the Xbox 360 runs Linux. Note that the Xbox 360 has numerous hardware features which were purposely designed to impede Linux. Fairness mandates that we have hardware to lock out Windows. Hardware is costly of course. A slightly weaker solution would be to have the firmware use SMM/SMI tricks to regularly get a bit of CPU time to scan for Windows in memory. If the firmware finds that Windows is running, then it silently corrupts RAM. The ideal would be to make Windows survive about an hour before crashing. (keep the feature secret of course, to make debugging painful) _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel