Bitfrost and dual-boot
echerlin at gmail.com
Fri May 30 01:15:02 EDT 2008
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Albert Cahalan <acahalan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Edward Cherlin <echerlin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Albert Cahalan <acahalan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I do believe that, practically speaking, all of this is moot.
>>> Windows uses both SD card storage and the NAND flash storage.
I haven't seen it and you haven't seen it. What's your source? Are you
talking about the version in the Windows-only trials during the next
month or two?
>>> (NAND storage being what you'd hoped to protect)
>>> The most you could protect would be the firmware itself, but
>>> it is silly to imagine that a laptop would have OpenFirmware
>>> when the NAND storage doesn't even have Linux.
>> The question was, how to protect Linux from Windows, in particular
>> from malware allowed in by Windows. (Or possibly from malware designed
>> into Windows, a "marketing" practice not unknown in the past.)
>> Protecting Windows-only machines is Microsoft's problem, not ours.
>> We can be quite certain that script kiddies and others will attack
>> Fedora and OFW on dual-boot XOs.
> Why do you keep believing that dual-boot XOs will actually ship?
Because Microsoft and OLPC announced dual-boot. Because Microsoft
can't buy XOs for resale, and OLPC has no intention of shipping
Windows-only XOs. Egypt wants dual-boot.
OK, so Microsoft could arrange to wipe out Linux after delivery. Then
what? Do you think that the world will stand still for that kind of
overt sabotage? I can't imagine OLPC signing a contract that would
allow it. I gather that you can. You're on crack, Albert.
> Windows XP is **using** the NAND storage.
> There is no support for partitioning it. Even if both Linux and
> OpenFirmware were to support such a thing, you'd have to get
> Microsoft to agree to something that makes no business sense
> at all.
Sources, please. Who says what the dual-boot architecture will be? If
you won't be able to run Linux after the first time you run Windows,
as you seem to allege, in what sense is this dual-booting? Are Mitch
and Scott such technical idiots that they wouldn't spot this?
> Supposing you managed to get that miracle, you'd have to
> convince countries to ship a system with two OSes that are
> both about to run out of space. Microsoft will of course be
> pushing for a better Windows experience, meaning all space
> is allocated to Windows. (but this is theoretical, because you'd
> need a miracle to get partitioned NAND support into Windows)
> BTW, if NAND size were doubled, that would mean more NAND
> available to Windows. If there were so much NAND available
> that Windows had no use for it, Microsoft would find a way to
> purposely waste the additional NAND.
>> Also, I think you completely misunderstand the market. The ability to
>> use Open FirmWare instead of a proprietary BIOS will be of intense
>> interest to all PC vendors. I expect OFW to sweep through most of the
>> market in no more than two or three years.
> I can't imagine why. LinuxBIOS (now coreboot) didn't.
> Even EFI didn't. Your wishes are not their wishes.
Albert, I'm not talking to you any more until you start making sense.
Linux BIOS never booted any Windows other than 2000 (with ADLO), and
EFI isn't Open Source.
End Poverty at a Profit by teaching children business
"The best way to predict the future is to prevent it."--Alan Kay
More information about the Devel