Verily I say unto thee, that thufir spake thusly:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:43:21 +0100, Homer wrote:
>>> Hmm, I might google it if I have time, but my belief is that the
>>> separate assembly stem from a legal requirement, not technical.
>>
>> Perhaps I'm missing something obvious here, but what possible legal
>> requirement could their be to keep different operating systems on
>> separate production lines?
>
> A requirement from Microsoft to segregate production lines by OS, so
> that only Vista gets installed in the Vista production line (maybe
> XP, definitely not Vista). It's just my understanding, I'm not
> certain, that this is a condition to distributing Vista or
> what-have-you.
Oh I see, you mean the "law" according to Microsoft (i.e. their sinister
"Memoranda of Understanding") as opposed actual laws passed by Congress,
which take precedence. Of course these private "laws" (i.e. contracts)
can be overruled if they violate actual laws, like say the Sherman Act.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining
| armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos
| neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate
| technology, led them into it in the first place." ~ Douglas Adams
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
11:12:50 up 206 days, 7:48, 3 users, load average: 4.36, 4.48, 4.46
|
|
