On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:17:07PM +0100, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> On Monday 12 January 2009 03:16:55 pm Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 03:13:04PM +0100, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> > > 99.998% of all machines work fine with the current, spec conform
> > > implementation.
> > > T
On Monday 12 January 2009 03:16:55 pm Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 03:13:04PM +0100, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> > On Friday 09 January 2009 13:34:16 Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > If you know of any machines that behave this way, I'd be
> > > impressed - and it'll be far easier to
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 03:13:04PM +0100, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> On Friday 09 January 2009 13:34:16 Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > If you know of any machines that behave this way, I'd be
> > impressed - and it'll be far easier to dmi whitelist them than the other
> > way around.
> What do you mean
On Friday 09 January 2009 13:34:16 Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 01:16:15PM +0100, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> > IMO this cannot generally be done, because chances are high that machines
> > which do not support Windows likely will break.
> > Chances are high that a machine which d
