This concept was considered in Star Trek: Deep Space 9's "Hard Time", in which Miles O'Brien spends a few hours being subjected to the experiences of a couple decades or so in prison.

Just because you can does not mean it's supported.

Guess what? It's not supported.

* Apple has Boot Camp because they have to allow Dual Booting in order to lure in the majority of computer users—Windows users. They sure as hell aren't helping Linux users out.

* Apple introduced Boot Camp when they were still user-friendly—before they started constructing their walled guarden (located at 1984 Infinite Loop).

* Of course Apple provides the Windows drivers for Apple's own machines; every vendor that supports Windows has always had to do so.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." —Jonathan Swift

As I already said:

The purpose of CLAs is to maintain the hegemony for the ruling clique; the very point of a CLA is to provide the entrenched bureaucrats with a publicly acceptable reason for shutting the door on those pesky newcomers.

Corporations couldn't buy so much power if the government didn't have so much power to sell in the first place.

In other words, either the problem is economic success through voluntary interaction, or the problem is a centralized monopoly on involuntary interaction for hire to the highest bidder. Which one is it?

Bankruptcy is defined by the government.

Corporate liability firewalls are defined by the government.

Taxpayer cleanup is established by the government.

Competition in regulation was destroyed when a monopoly on regulation was declared by the government.

The existing regulation was establisehd by that government.

I see one common element throughout all of the details you dislike. Can you spot it?

You'll get better regulation from this than from anything that could possibly be concocted by government bureaucrats.

Note: This requires the real threat of economic loss, so an organization that can demand payment regardless of its performance—i.e., the government—cannot implement something similar.

The insurance company pays only because the insurance company is "legally responsible" to do so.

Are you getting it yet? When you purchase insurance, you are essentially offloading liability; indeed, if I don't have to pay everything (let alone anything), then why do I care whether you call me "solely liable" or not? At that point, it's just word games.

You are making a distinction without a difference.

So, the insurance company is "liable" for up to $1M...

Liability is obligation.

Not according to my definition of "regulation".

That's a distinction without a difference.

There's an industry that manages risk.

Regulation (e.g., insurance) always develops spontaneously, because there is a market for reducing chaos.

There's a reason that George Orwell's 1984 prominently features the redefinition of language.