Linux-Advocacy Digest #60, Volume #35 Fri, 8 Jun 01 16:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Windows XP Ushers in New Era of Communications (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows XP Ushers in New Era of Communications (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (T.
Max Devlin)
Re: MS patches Exchange 2000 email spy bug (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 19:42:00 GMT
Said Christopher L. Estep in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 07 Jun 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[..]
>> Ultimately, I think DVD support on a PC is really pretty stupid.
>> Computers SUCK as DVD players, and CD-ROM is still the de facto
>> standard. If you've got money to burn on stupid toys, it might be worth
>> it. But, only if you got the W2K for free, obviously.
>>
>
>Have you *ever* used a computer as a DVD player?
Yes, indeed I have.
>You emphatically state computers suck as DVD players...have you ever used
>one?
Yes, indeed I have.
>Or are you so *scared* of the Big Bad Bill that you refuse to touch any
>computer with a DVD-ROM drive (most of which are running some version of
>Windows)?
No, I'm just not stupid enough to follow the Big Bad Idiot of popular
wisdom over the cliff. I don't recall mentioning any fear of "touching"
anything. I just pointed out that dedicated DVD players are vastly
superior to PCs for that purpose, and PCs benefit not at all from having
DVD drives. Do you have a problem with that, or something?
>CD-ROM is the de-facto standard for DATA because the DVD Recording Forum got
>into a needless pissing contest over format standards.
>(The same thing actually slowed down the introduction of the affordable
>CD-RW drive.).
I don't particularly give a shit about whatever political mumblings you
might provide. I'm talking about facts about what I do, not vague
explanations about why other people did whatever they did.
>If it weren't for that, even the CD-RW drive manufacturers admit that *any*
>of the competing DVD recording formats (DVD-RAM, DVD-R, DVD-R+W, DVD-RW)
>could kill CD-R *or* CD-RW on a cost/megabyte of stoage basis alone.
>However, the pissing contest over storage formats (egged on by the Motion
>Picture Association of America's concern over copying of DVD-sourced
>material) has kept recordable DVD in the professional/studio marketplace for
>right now.
Coulda woulda shoulda. You've yet to explain why I should give a fuck.
>(The *same* hting happened with CD-R and CD-RW technology in the early
>1990's. A pissing contest over formatting standards for CD-R media, along
>with the concerns of the Recording Industry Association of America over
>music CD cloning, kept CD recording out of consumer hands for *five years*
>after the first professional CD-R drives were introduced.)
Again; vague ramblings that have no bearing at all on the discussion.
[...]
Frankly, I am extremely surprised you didn't bring up VHS v. Beta.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 19:42:04 GMT
Said JS \ PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 8 Jun 2001 00:18:49 -0400;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said JS \ PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 5 Jun 2001 12:55:11 -0400;
>> [...]
>> >Then do it. Due to the fact that no one company has ever and can never
>> >possess a monopoly on operating systems your perfectly free to NOT use
>> >Windows XP.
>>
>> Please explain this "fact" again. Is this like the *fact* that you,
>> JS/PL, cannot tell the difference between a hardware and a software
>> failure? Or the *fact* that you are a sock puppet for the monopoly you
>> pretend 'can never' exist?
>
>I havent had a software failure, I'm running the same software I've had for
>years. Not so for my hardware though.
So you claim.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows XP Ushers in New Era of Communications
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 19:42:06 GMT
Said Christopher L. Estep in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 07 Jun 2001
>"LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> It is interesting, but wgaf has no argument so he avoids the subject.
>> What flavor of computer aided design is the same as a communications
>> program? How about financial analysis? How about word processing?
>> Can your braininess see a distinct difference between photo
>> production/editing software and a communications program? Computing
>> and communications are two distinct programs, clumped together by a
>> company which is trashing modular design in order to destroy other
>> businesses.
>
>How is the use of broadband for communications a threat to you (unless you
>own a lot of stock in long-distance companies or are employed by one)?
It is inferior quality to dedicated lines. Don't you get it?
>Or is that *exactly* why you don't want what Microsoft is doing to succeed?
I think his point was that it *won't* succeed, not that he didn't want
it to. Although that was obvious, I guess.
>IP telephony exists. Now. Large corporations have had it for years.
Yes, indeed. And I can tell you quite factually that the idea that it
is productive merits little more than an all-caps 'GUFFAW'. They've
used it for years, and it has sucked for years, and they have hoped that
it will improve for years, but frankly it still sucks. Both
technically, and fiscally.
>It is being deployed by smaller and smaller businesses every week.
More and more rookered into a pyramid scheme, essentially.
>Such programs have been available on the consumer level, but lacked the
>throughput to be more than a novelty.
Raise your hand if you haven't noticed the degradation in even basic
telephone service in our wondrous modern world.
>However, with the increase of broadband deployment (xDSL, cable, and two-way
>satellite such as StarBand) and faster hardware, it is *desktop deployable*
>on average desktops.
Too bad it isn't *desktop usable* by the average user.
>And the long-distance companies are rightfully worried.
Why? They make money on broadband. It is the local carriers who
*would* be worried, if IP telephony were worth the bother. It ain't.
It never will be, though eventually, I must admit, it is all we will
have left.
>Low-cost long distance calls are one thing.
Even local service monopolies are one thing. A monopoly on PC OSes is
something else altogether.
>*No-cost* long distance calls (with video) are too scary to contemplate.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Sure; the long distance call will cost you
nothing, but the OS will require a second mortgage.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows XP Ushers in New Era of Communications
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 19:42:08 GMT
Said Sean in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 02:13:20 GMT;
>Frank
>
>"Windows <snip> 90%+ market share"
>
>The good news is that Microsoft's market share can only go
>down......Linux is getting server market share and server
>"mind share".
>
>And, notwithstanding all the sock puppets and astroturfers,
>Linux is a great desktop OS.
>
>The evil empire has peaked....the only question is how long
>it will take to go down the toilet!
I'm still hoping that the appeals court will come through soon,
essentially supporting en toto the conviction and remedy, and Linux
desktops will be *the* Christmas gift to give in 2001!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 19:42:10 GMT
Said JS \ PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 8 Jun 2001 01:59:13 -0400;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Tell us, anonymous troll, what reaction can we expect from you if it is
>> not reversed 'utterly' at all, but substantially or entirely upheld?
>
>Come on :-\
Where?
>It saddens me that your that deluded.
Deluded? I asked a question. Are you planning on answering it, or just
babbling senselessly?
>The upcoming consumer switch to
>Windows XP will reign in billions upon billions of dollars for MS and
>secures Microsofts 96% market share on consumer desktop OS's for the next 20
>years. And it was attained solely on quality and consumer demand.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
>> Are you going to admit who you really are, explain you've been a
>> sock-puppet for an illegal monopoly, and reconsider how valuable your
>> purposeful ignorance really is?
>
>Come on :-\
>It saddens me that your that deluded. This whole lawsuit has been little
>more than a momentary distraction for Microsoft. I still laugh audibly when
>I read parts of the Gates deposition.
Yea; we do too. I suspect you sound more moronic. ;-)
>Some of the question and answer
>sessions are reminiscent of the Austin Powers/Penis enlarger skit.
>
>DOJ QUESTION: NOW, HAVE YOU EVER READ THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE?
>GATES ANSWER: NO.
>QUESTION: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER IN THE
>COMPLAINT THERE IS AN ASSERTION--I'M NOT TALKING
>ABOUT THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE. I'M
>TALKING ABOUT THE COMPLAINT THAT WAS FILED LAST
>MAY. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER IN THAT COMPLAINT THERE
>ARE ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING A 1995 MEETING BETWEEN
>NETSCAPE AND MICROSOFT REPRESENTATIVES RELATING
>TO ALLEGED MARKET DIVISION DISCUSSIONS?
>ANSWER: I HAVEN'T READ THE COMPLAINT, SO I
>DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. BUT I THINK SOMEBODY SAID
>THAT THAT IS IN THERE.
Obviously, Mr. Gates was not informed by his lawyer that he should
answer "yes or no" whenever possible. Why is he volunteering
information?
>QUESTION: DID YOU FIND THAT OUT BEFORE OR
>AFTER THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE?
>ANSWER: THE FIRST TIME I KNEW ABOUT THESE
>ALLEGATIONS WAS THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE,
>SO--
>QUESTION: THAT IS, THAT ARTICLE PRECEDED
>ANY KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAD OR DIDN'T HAVE RELATED
>TO THE COMPLAINT?
>ANSWER: THAT'S RIGHT."
>(PAUSE.)
>**[This is fricking comedy!]**
It sounds more like cross-examination to me. Are you *ever* going to
get to anything important, or are you just wasting time, trying to
tap-dance around the fact that, whatever Bill's testimony was, it got
Microsoft convicted?
>QUESTION: WELL, SIR, IN MAKING THE
>DECISIONS AS TO WHAT YOU WOULD ASK OF APPLE, DID
>YOU BELIEVE THAT WHAT YOU WERE OFFERING APPLE
>WITH RESPECT TO MICROSOFT OFFICE FOR MACINTOSH
>WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO APPLE SO THAT THEY OUGHT
>TO GIVE YOU SOMETHING FOR IT?
> ANSWER: I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING
>ABOUT WHEN YOU SAY "ASK."
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA! "I have no idea what you are talking about when you
say 'ask'"! That's funny!
>{snippage}
> QUESTION: WELL, SIR, LET'S READ IT. IT IS
>ONLY THREE LINES. YOU QUITE, QUOTE, I WANT TO
>GET AS MUCH MILEAGE AS POSSIBLE OUT OF OUR
>BROWSER AND JAVA RELATIONSHIP HERE.
>AND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT `HERE,' YOU'RE
>TALKING ABOUT WITH APPLE, ARE YOU NOT, SIR?
> ANSWER: I'M NOT SURE.
He doesn't even know for sure *what* he was talking about! Guffaw!
>QUESTION: WELL, THE SUBJECT OF THIS IS `FW:
>POST-AGREEMENT;' CORRECT, SIR?
> ANSWER: YEAH. THAT'S WHAT MAKES ME THINK
>THIS WAS PROBABLY POST-AGREEMENT.
Doh! That Gates, he sure is a smart one, eh?
>I'm waiting for Gates to say something like "I'm telling you man...crushing
>Netscape isn't my bag baby!"
>DOJ - Well we have exhibit 271- One book written by "Bill Gates" entitled
>"Crushing Netscape, this sort of this IS_MY_BAG_BABY"
Yea, that is a good paraphrasing of what happened at the trial,
certainly. The "cut off their air supply" quote really nailed that,
although I realize it wasn't Gates who said it, as far as we know.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 19:42:12 GMT
Said JS \ PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 7 Jun 2001 14:03:07 -0400;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said JS \ PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:55:21 -0400;
>> [...]
>> >> They DO have a monopoly, by definition. They can control pricing.
>> >
>> >Who's pricing are they controlling?
>>
>> "Market" pricing. "Competitive" pricing. Retail pricing.
>
>WHO'S pricing.
HEL-lo! "Market pricing". "Competitive pricing". "*Retail* pricing".
>Name a company who's product price is controlled by
>Microsoft.
Microsoft.
>Microsoft doesn't even control the retail price of their own product!
Not technically, no. But can you provide any evidence to prove this?
ANY evidence?
>Let
>alone anyone elses. This hardly fits the pricing control needed to show
>evidence of a monopoly.
According to YOU? You've already stated quite clearly that you don't
believe it is possible to show evidence of monopoly. Is it somehow
supposed to surprise us or convince us of your position that you don't
understand how monopoly pricing works?
>> Perhaps people outside the US are not aware of an important point of
>> anti-trust conformance that has been mandatory in this country for many
>> decades. The "manufacturer's suggested retail price" is not called that
>> because it sounds cool; it is a legal requirement.
>
>More Max Fantasy?? There's no legal requirement to provide a MSRP on
>software.
I don't understand what you mean, "provide a MSRP on software". I never
said it was ever necessary to "provide a MSRP". The issue is whether
there is variation in retail pricing, not whether the manufacturer
provides an MSRP. Every retail box of Windows ever sold has had
MS-defined pricing; no discounts have ever been provided by retailers.
Now, explain why that *doesn't* mean that MS is dictating the retail
price.
[...]
>There isn't an alternative operating system source for OEM's to turn?
Indeed; how many other software vendors provide OSes that support Win32?
>Haven't you been following the links that I post?
>http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Software/Operating_Systems/
>There's always been 100 different operating systems for OEM's to pre-load.
And for consumer's to buy. Yet neither does so, and you can't explain
it, but you expect us to think it is because monopoly crapware that
fails routinely and gains the derision of the entire industry is somehow
a better product?
>The only problem is, the ones preloading UNIX aren't really what you'd call
>"catching on" with the masses.
Go figure. A little criminal monopolization goes a long way, eh?
>You know, the 96% who don't care what the OS
>is as long as they can click an icon to make something happen.
Yea; them. Why is it they spend more money on a crappier product? Huh?
Why?
>Microsoft
>merely saw market demand and met it.
Please be more specific. Demand for what? Be careful; most of your
answers will suggest contemporary products no longer available, with
Microsoft emails to document how they were anti-competitively prevented
from competing on the merits. If you are very lucky, though, you might
learn something new, so feel free to give it a try. What demand that
Microsoft alone saw and met is responsible for their current monopoly?
>No one else did. MS should be applauded
>for providing so many consumers with exactly what they want.
>
>Thank you Microsoft.
>
>tee hee
What a shithead. Guffaw.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: MS patches Exchange 2000 email spy bug
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 19:42:13 GMT
Said Sean in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 02:04:42 GMT;
>...but Microsoft is a **marketing** company....they know
>nothing about software.
>
>Maybe they know a bit about illegal monopolies, but asking
>them to produce high quality, secure, user-friendly software
>simply ignores twenty years of terrific marketing and twenty
>years of lousy software.
How exactly do you tell the difference between marketing and
monopolizing, Sean?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 19:42:17 GMT
Said Christopher L. Estep in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 07 Jun 2001
>"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:v%vT6.6328$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:LneT6.55484$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [snip]
>> > And WFC, like MFC before it, isn't even solely a Microsoft creation. In
>> the
>> > case of MFC, the other partner was (surprise) SYMANTEC (who made a
>pretty
>> > decent compiler for C++ called Symantec C++; is it still available?).
>>
>> I dunno. But I didn't know they had anything to do with
>> MFC; I suppose this means there's someone to blame
>> other than Microsoft. :D
>>
>> > In
>> > the case of WFC, the other partners include Sybase and (don't laugh!)
>IBM.
>> > DB/2 Universal includes the WFC for creating native DB/2 databases for
>> > Windows 2000 deployment; so does Sybase in the last two iterations of
>SQL
>> > Server.
>>
>> This I find quite surprising. As I understand it *only* Microsoft's
>> Java compiler and VM can use WFC, because only they support
>> MS's "delegates" feature, upon which WFC depends rather
>> heavily.
>
>That is only because Symantec's Java machine (which Netscape licenses) for
>some strange reason does *not* support the WFC delegates feature (even
>though Symantec could have done so, as they are one of WFC's creators).
They could have technically, but they needed access to MS source code,
so licensing probably would prevent them from doing something that might
directly help Java or Netscape. No such a "strange" reason, just an
anti-competitive one.
>> Nor do I see how WFC could benefit DB/2 Universal. I
>> understand that one could write a Java program that
>> emits a DB/2 database file, but I don't see why you'd
>> want to, or why using WFC would make that easier.
>
>To mirror the same functionality provided by Enterprise JavaBeans (which
>Sun, among others, has been hawking) but in a more memory-efficient manner.
>
>> > Microsoft could *not* have succeeded with Windows without the help of
>> > application and development tool creators *other* than itself...and they
>> > know it.
>>
>> Why not? So far you've claimed that MS partnered with others
>> to produce MFC and WFC, but this hardly suggests that it would
>> have been prohibitively difficult to do it themselves.
>
>I'm not saying that it would have been prohibitively difficult; I'm simply
>saying it wouldn't have made smart business sense.
Business sense for a profit-seeking competitive firm, or for a criminal
monopoly? Does what makes sense for a criminal monopoly actually
qualify as "smart business?" Considering it is illegal and all?
>Also, there was already
>a hue and cry (largely from IBM) about Microsoft's development tools being
>Windows-only (at the time this was going on, Windows 95 was in development,
>and if you were talking about 32-bit Windows, you were referring to NT).
>The core MFC creators/licensees (Microsoft and Symantec) also licensed MFC
>to other development tool creators (Borland, Powersoft, Sybase, and IBM,
>among others).
MFC is an API; no licensing is necessary or possible. Did these other
developers license Microsoft code to support this API? That is a
different thing; it indicates incompetence on MS's part, rather than any
third party, that you have to license MS code to get the MFC API to
work.
>> Who knows? MFC might have sucked less had MS done it
>> entirely on their own. :D
>
>Symantec was part of MFC from the beginning. In fact, Central Point
>Software used Symantec development tools to create PC Tools for Windows.
No, Symantic *developed* MFC, from what we can see. Microsoft was the
one that was only "part of it from the beginning." In fact, it gets
more and more obvious how incompetent Microsoft is when you examine how
rarely they can actually manage to develop anything at all themselves.
>Microsoft was also sensible enough to realize that some developers didn't
>want any part of Microsoft development tools for reasons having nothing to
>do with their quality (or perceived lack of it).
Thus, the churn strategy to ensure that quality had nothing to do with
selling Windows development tools. I do *not* understand why people
*assume* that a product has competitive merit, when it is sold by a
monopolist. It just makes no bloody sense.
>Microsoft concentrated
>mostly on the higher-order languages (C++, Cobol. Fortran, etc.). It took
>Windows 95 for Microsoft to release Visual Basic upon an unsuspecting
>planet.
Microsoft doesn't "concentrate" on anything but protecting what Gates
calls their "singularity". What the federal government calls a
violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
>> > Application *and* development tool creators/vendors are what keep any OS
>> in
>> > business.
>>
>> Yes, but MS can handle the development tool end of it
>> *themselves*. They cannot handle more than a small fraction
>> of the applications.
>
>True, they *could* handle it all themselves.
What on earth makes you think this is true? History clearly and
completely indicates that the truth is quite the opposite. They have
been unable to handle it themselves at all; why would you suddenly
assume that they could but simply 'choose' not to? Isn't that kind of,
I don't know, stupid?
>They now have development
>tools *across* the spectrum of tool users (newbies to enterprise). But why
>*do* it alone if you don't have to?
Profitability. Why not do it alone if you can? IOW, the fact it was
not done alone is rather convincing proof that they *couldn't* do it
alone, not even if their very existence depended on it. Thus, the
reliance on anti-competitive strategy to the exclusion of competitive
merit.
>> > Linux Torvalds knows it. Bill Gates knows it. And you had better
>believe
>> > IBM knows it.
>>
>> I've been rather harping on it, myself, actually. :D
>>
>> All that stuff about MS's toolchain was
>> just because Max does not seem to understand
>> how these things work. I thought I'd educate
>> him, that's all. :/
>>
>> > Even the Justice Department knows it.
>>
>> I wonder. The whole "application
>> barrier to entry" argument suggests that
>> they don't know it; they seem to think that
>> running Windows apps in a compatibility
>> box would somehow make an OS
>> competitive.
>
>Merely looking at OS/2 should disabuse Justice of that notion.
Why? OS/2's Windows compatibility is known to be imperfect. What
competitive value will you provide customers some reason to put up with
this inadequacy caused by Microsoft's poor design and keen-ness to use
"churn" to prevent competition?
>> But perhaps I read too much into their
>> arguments. It's possible that they are simply
>> looking to break Microsoft, and aren't
>> terribly concerned with the sort of esoteric
>> stuff we are bandying about here.
>>
>The majority of Microsoft's antagonists (Scott McNealy and Larry Ellison in
>particular) are those who bet on UNIX and mainframes as continuing to carry
>the day (both Sun and Oracle have their roots in the days before Windows
>3.x, and Microsoft, hit it big)....and lost.
Actually, neither Sun nor Oracle "bet on UNIX". They use Unix, of
course, but McNealy bet on the profitability of selling high quality
hardware, and Ellison pegged his hopes on providing high-performance
database software. I don't see what Unix has to do with it, other than
the obvious fact that there is no way in hell *Windows* could possibly
do anything but fuck up either market for anyone who adopts it.
>And are *continuing* to lose.
"Continuing to lose" while making a profit equals "continuing to win".
Market share is only an issue for monopolists.
>And they have taken the art of FUD to heights even Bill Gates never dreamed
>of.
There is some question over whether Oracle works anti-competitively.
There is no question at all that Sun is the most competitive company
around, and is thus free of FUD, churn, scams, and any other of the
various monopolist tactics Microsoft has refined to a fine point.
>Yes. Gates is arrogant. Yes. Gates is ruthless. Yes. Gates is
>single-minded at times to almost the point of paranoia.
Yes, Gates is a megalomaniac. Yes, Gates is a criminal monopolist. The
fact he is 'ruthless and arrogant' is really inconsequential, given
that.
>And *all* these qualities are the hallmarks of a successful businessman.
>And, imparted to the other employees, the hallmarks of a successful
>*company*.
Actually, all that is necessary is making a good product at a good price
and selling it in convenient ways. The whole 'necessity to be ruthless
and paranoid and arrogant' is just a smoke-screen thrown up by those
incapable of competing. The ones who, frankly, are not very competent
businessmen.
>Look at IBM in their heyday.
Was their heyday [sic] before or after the twenty years of consent
decrees they had to agree to in order to avoid a whole series of
anti-trust convictions?
>At WordPerfect Corporation in *their* heyday.
Now you're getting the idea. Tell me, what "paranoid and ruthless"
strategies did WordPerfect Corporation use?
>Even look at *Netscape* and *Sun* (or even *Oracle*).
Netscape is certainly a dubious issue; there is some likelihood that
they have relied on anti-competitive strategies. And Oracle is another
'maybe'. Sun, like I've said, is the most rigorously competitive
company around.
>Microsoft doesn't bar other companies from competing with it.
Well, technically, they don't have to. Merely having the ability to do
so is criminal activity, actually. I can't believe you think that a
company could or should have even the vaguest intent to 'bar other
companies from competing with it'.
>It just
>competes those other companies thoroughly into the ground.
So they say, sure. Those with a more objective perspective don't seem
to agree wtih your rather intentional cluelessness about the difference
between 'excluding from the market' and 'competing into the ground'.
Not that there really is much of a difference; all you have to do is
*plan* to "compete someone into the ground", and you're flirting with
criminal behavior.
>That isn't illegal. That is *business*. (And it's what any student of
>Introduction to Business could tell you.)
Actually, you might claim it is Business (in a sort of 'business for
dummies' sense) if you plan it, but never actually go through with the
plan. This is known as "anti-trust compliance", something that they
apparently don't stress enough in Intro to Business courses. Because if
you even try to implement the plan to run a competitor 'into the
ground', then you've already broken the law. You see, *attempted*
monopolization is just as illegal as 'successful' monopolization, so
even if the plan fails, you could still go to jail.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
