It actually doesn't bother me that Windows/hardware licensing agreements are not readily available, many contracts between businesses are not. Of course calling them a "trade secret" to avoid court examination is total BS. And I agree with the author in that the bootloader issue is a much starker illustration of MS's abuse of its monopoly than the comparatively trivial browser bundling. This is one dangerous company. It's almost morbidly fascinating to see what things they actually get away with. Quoting "Troy.A Johnson" <troy.johnson at health.state.mn.us>: > ..and question to ask: > Why are there no dual (or multi) boot machines > available when one (or more) of the OSes is free, > especially in the age of monsterous hard drives? > > http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1115/byt20010824s0001/ > > We already knew this, but perhaps it is a > good thing to mention from time to time. And > what is the deal with a licensing agreement being > a "trade secret"? It seems like a perfect cover > for some shady dealings to me. > > :-/ > > Troy > > > > _______________________________________________ > tclug-list mailing list > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > https://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list > >