Linux-Advocacy Digest #98, Volume #35 Sun, 10 Jun 01 03:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:11:29 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 10 Jun 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001
>[snip]
>> >> Are you familiar with the phrase "turing complete"? One could write
>any
>> >> program to do anything.
>> >
>> >Yes, and I know what it means, too. It does not
>> >mean that you can write a program to do anything,
>> >but rather anything that a turing machine can do.
>>
>> I never claimed you could right a program to do "anything". Don't be a
>> such a putz.
>
>Er, to quote you back to yourself, "One could write
>any program to do anything."
>
>Which is indeed not so, but you did claim it.
No, I did not. Believe it or not, you are just playing games with
context. It is obvious, if you read the original context, that the
phrase 'to do anything' was meant as "to do anything specific that any
program can do." It is just a matter of your being dishonest again,
Dan.
>> >Turing machines can't emit DB/2 databases.
>>
>> Again with the 'turing machines'.
>
>Well, that's what turing completeness is
>all about. I have, as it were, heard of it.
>Well, you did ask.
And you wasted my time again. Can't you at least say something
*interesting*?
>>What is it with you? Do you think
>> any computer is a "turing machine"?
>
>No. They are stictly speaking deterministic
>finite automata- if you want to be picky.
>Finite memory will do that to you.
"Strictly speaking" my left tit. Computers "are" many things, including
finite state automata (theoretically), but that has nothing to do with
the question. Since I want to be picky, as a proper spanking for a
dishonest person should be, they are "not turing machines", and it is
because they do not pass the turing test, not because they have finite
memory. (That the latter is the 'cause' of the former is pointless
speculation at this point, though common.)
>But our programming languages (like
>Java) model them as if they *were*
>Turing machines.
So I was right; you don't know what a 'turing machine' is. The
vernacular, not some silly mathematics theory idea of infinite paper
tapes. It means artificial intelligence, Dan. And you can be sure no
programming language does that.
>Except they have extra features turing
>machines don't, like I/O support.
Oh, so you mean to say "my metaphysical idea of some abstract imaginary
thing a college professor once explained to me is a 'turing machine'."
Again, your ignorance precedes you. You are thinking of "a computer";
something that Turing modeled, but it is not "a turing machine". Not
until you can make it intelligent.
>> >Java *can*, because it has capabilities that
>> >turing machines do not- the ability to do stream
>> >I/O, in particular.
>>
>> Now not even that definition works. What the heck are you talking
>> about?
>
>I am saying that the ability to emit DB/2 databases
>does not follow, even if a language is turing complete.
That makes no sense. What makes it impossible for a turing complete
language to perform a computational process?
>[snip]
>> >Sometimes. What I have here is a question: how
>> >is IBM involved in WFC, really?
>>
>> I haven't the slightest idea. Why would it matter?
>
>I dunno. I tend to figure it's better to know
>these things.
Then why don't you know?
>[snip]
>> >That claim has not been made by anyone except
>> >you, so far. Care to substantiate it?
>>
>> You are mistaken. I only repeat the claim I have heard others make.
>
>Not on this thread.
OK. Is that supposed to matter?
>> These others are more technically aware of the details than I, so I'm
>> afraid you'll have to track them down for an explanation. I haven't a
>> clue who they might have been, but check Google; it was very recent.
>
>In other words, you can't defend you claim.
>
>Swell.
No, in other words, I can defend my claim, and would but that I know it
is a waste of time; you have no intention of being convinced. To
paraphrase, you have not provided any valid argument against my claim.
How far do you expect this ad hominem stuff to hold you up? That's thin
ice, you know.
>[snip]
>> >Hardly.
>>
>> Why? If I claimed I was a great author, but used ghost writers for
>> everything I wrote, would that not suggest I might not be as competent
>> at writing?
>
>As I said, the notion that the bulk of MS-labeled
>software was written outside of MS is unique
>to yourself, Max.
I'm afraid the fact that every major component in Office were purchased
falsifies your argument without a backwards glance.
>[snip]
>> >> They cannot handle even the OS; they lifted most of what is touted as
>> >> "benefits of Windows" from others, as well.
>> >
>> >MS does their own implementations of these
>> >things, though. They seem to be able to handle
>> >that much.
>>
>> What documentation do you have that this claim is true?
>
>It's what every history of the industry has to say
>on the point. You know that, Max.
I'm afraid you're mistaken; I've never heard anyone but you advance that
claim. Not that it matters; you would quibble endlessly about what
"their own implementations" means, and since it is proprietary code, you
could simply be lying to begin with.
>[snip]
>> >I think MS's software is frequently well
>> >designed, and often better designed than the
>> >competition.
>>
>> We know that; again, it is not really much of a surprise. One suspects
>> you must stupid or dishonest to have such an opinion, though I realize
>> you regard that as bigotry. Or, rather, you pretend to.
>
>No, no, no! It's not bigotry- it's a rhetorical tactic.
It would have to be rhetoric for that, and it isn't; it is opinion.
>But I'm surprised you feel that stupidity
>could prevent me from even *having* such an
>opinion.
"Prevent" you? Go back and read it again. I did not use the term
'prevent'.
>> >They rarely get the implementation right on
>> >the first try; it's the good designs they use that
>> >allow them to overcome this in later
>> >revisions of their software.
>>
>> So why bother with the forced bundling, leveraged licensing, intentional
>> use of 'churn' to deter competition, and all the other anti-competitive
>> strategies.
>
>Microsoft is extraordinarily aggressive; they don't
>turn down any chance to promote their stuff, as far
>as I can see.
Well, perhaps John Dillinger was merely an aggressive bank customer, who
didn't turn down an opportunity to withdraw funds.
>> I mean, really, if MS were competent to even take other's
>> good designs and implement them well, as you pretend, they wouldn't need
>> to do all that.
>
>I don't think they did need to do a number of the
>thigns they've done. Though distribution *does*
>count, and they'd have been putting themselves
>as a disadvantage if they played it your way.
Well, consider, Dan, that I know and can explain why they did what
they've done that doesn't leave me vexed to discern why they felt they
needed to do it. Having to compete is not a "disadvantage"; it is
merely the only legal option.
>I think they could have overcome that disadvantage,
>but Bill Gates got where he is today through
>paranoia- he wasn't going to assume they overcome
>it.
Why do you speak as if Bill Gates was somehow separate from Microsoft?
Obviously, if he could not overcome the "disadvantage" of being unable
to compete, then his company could not.
>> Considering the federal government seems to believe
>> they have laws against that kind of thing, you'd have to seriously
>> question whether you are just being stupid or dishonest in holding such
>> an opinion.
>
>Yes, the federal government does seem to believe
>they have laws against competition.
It doesn't help your case to so flagrantly mis-state the facts. The
government has laws against monopolization, engaging in
*anti-competitive* actions. There are no laws against competition,
though Microsoft does seem to believe the government has laws against
competition, but that they are allowed to break them, just like they are
allowed to break any others.
>Mores the pity- they may well be right about that.
You see, the reason I say that MS seems to believe the gov't has laws
against competition is that Microsoft has tried to sue other companies
on anti-trust grounds, using the same laws they ignore and claim
immunity from for themselves.
>> >Comparing the Macintosh's journey to OS X
>> >and Window's journet to Windows 2000 is very
>> >instructive in this regard.
>>
>> You're babbling again, Dan.
>
>Would it help if I said I meant "journey"
>instead of "journet" above? :D
Guess.
>More seriously- Microsoft's journey to
>32-bit protected mode was greatly simplified
>by their early decisions that OS data structures
>would be accessed through opaque handles,
>using only APIs.
That was the journey. Doh! They declared "this is the only way anyone
will be able to do it on the PC, because we own DOS, and are prepared to
break the law to ensure that the Windows API is the only PC platform
available."
More or less. <*BIG STUPID GRIN*>
>The Macintosh in many cases used
[...blah blah blah...]
>This is one reason why Apple could not
[...blah blah blah...]
>Another area were foresight paid off
[...blah blah blah...]
>Apple, though, had better implementation
[...blah blah blah...]
>Apple's regions are implemented using a very
[...blah blah blah...]
>Windows only supports non-rectangular
[...blah blah blah...]
As if I cared.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:11:30 GMT
Said Peter Köhlmann in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 9 Jun 2001
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I would be very interested in knowing how this is going. I will point
>>>> out that Scandinavia is rather socialist, so it doesn't have to be
>
>Go to scandinavia and tell them that. You will get a good laugh.
>Get an education and then come back to us.
Who should I talk to? Everyone there? What percentage of them are on
this "one big mainframe ISP" at the moment? What is their market share?
>>>> efficient to run a big ISP on a mainframe for them to do it with some
>>>> success. On the balance, I would guess this is just a stupid idea by
>>>> silly people with no regard for fiscal responsibility.
>
>Telia is not a governnment owned company, so your assessment is just
>talking out of your ass. You don´t know the facts, but that does not stop
>you in any way to tell your Bull.
I generally have a good guess when it comes to these foreign carriers; I
am not a stranger to the industry. Generally, they were previously
nationalized phone systems, which sometime in the last ten or twenty
years was privatized, and often then sometime in the last five or ten
years was purchased by one of the global carriers.
They are generally still their own entity, though, and when you build a
national phone system in the hide-bound manner that governments are
going to do, then it isn't uncommon at all that they have no sense of
competitive realities, and often make rather stupid investments in
technology.
For comparison, I give you all those people in the neural networking
field who claimed that the new Denver International Airport's advanced
luggage-handling system was proof of their approach to operations and
problem solving. Two billion dollars overbudget and several years
later, they still had trouble admitting the failure of the idea when
they pulled the plug on the super-automated method. Their luggage
system is now a major bottleneck of getting planes and people through
their new airport, and this inefficiency will last for fifty years after
the advanced luggage idea was given up.
So at the VERY least, if you want to use Telia as an example, you're
going to have to give it a couple years. The fact that they are
*planning* on doing this is hardly convincing.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:11:32 GMT
Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 09 Jun 2001 19:43:45
>On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:34 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 15:33:51
>> >On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 04:05:34 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 05 Jun 2001 15:45:03
>> >> >On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 14:37:22 GMT, T. Max Devlin
>> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> In theory, an ISP could run thousands of hosts on one mainframe. Such
>> >> >> an ISP would go out of business, though. It is not an efficient way to
>> >> >> spend money, that's all.
>> >> >
>> >> >Have you actually calculated the costs?
>> >>
>> >> No, but I presume that ISPs have.
>> >
>> >So, you haven't calculated the costs, and you don't know what
>> >conclusion ISP's who have done so have come to.
>>
>> Sure I do. Their conclusions, if they have considered the matter, were
>> obviously that mainframes were not cost-effective platforms. This is
>> conclusively proven by the dearth of ISPs implementing mainframes.
>
>Max, your logic is mistaken. That few ISP's have implmented mainframes
>does not prove that they aren't cost effective. It proves that they
>haven't been seen as a viable solution, but says nothing about the
>reasons.
You are correct, but that is why I do not believe I am mistaken. It
does say nothing about the reasons, you are right. That is because "the
reasons" are fanciful musings. All we know is that it isn't done. Now,
you claim that it is efficient, but that it isn't done for some other
reason. I say it doesn't matter "the reason", "the reason" is just how
the fact that it is, in fact, inefficient is *expressed*.
Maybe it is just conjecture, that "the reason" it hasn't been seen as a
viable solution is that it is NOT a viable solution. But it is other
people, not me, that get paid to consider those possibilities, and if
they haven't don't see it as a viable solution, I'm not willing to
second-guess them.
>I may be wrong, but I thought that IBM ported Linux to their
>mainframes in part to overcome some of those objections so they could
>sell some mainframes into the ISP market.
That someone wants to sell it is not convincing either, unless there are
people who want to buy it. Sure, if mainframes get REALLY cheap, it
might be cost-effective. But it *still* wouldn't be *efficient*. There
are other factors involved.
>There are, in fact, lots of non-economic reasons that have prevented
>mainframes from being used to support virtual hosts, the largest being
>software. As in, there wasn't much, and what there was was alien to
>the customer base.
Okay. What gave you the impression that this is not a fiscal issue,
when considering if you want to buy a mainframe? You see, I am not the
one who claimed it was dollars-and-cents to begin with. It is simply
what makes sense. Nobody is using mainframes for ISP work because
mainframes are not efficient to implement for ISP work.
>Now, because of IBM's work, you can set up a virtual host with Linux
>and Apache, which customers are familiar with. It still won't be cost
>effective until you get to over a thousand hosts (by my rough
>estimate), but some providers are at that level. I'm sure they are
>watching what happens at Telia, even if you are dismissing it out of
>hand.
I am not dismissing it out of hand. I am just not claiming it is
something it is not.
>> I also "presume" you have the intelligence to discuss things reasonably.
>
>Well, gee, that's sure nice of you Max. So far you haven't managed to
>go two posts with me without telling me how dumb I am. Maybe there's
>hope for me though, if you presume enough.
I think you are projecting, but then, maybe you were just being dumb and
I pointed it out?
>> >At least one ISP has done exactly what you say is so illogical.
>>
>> So you agree it is illogical, and that one ISP doing it doesn't
>> magically make it logical, then?
>
>I agree that you said it was illogical. I agree that there are lots of
>factors that go into determining whether it is the right thing to do. I
>don't agree that Telia is doing because they like to waste money.
"Like to waste money"? You're at risk of being called dumb again. I
don't agree with that, either. Why are you suggesting I said it when I
didn't? Perhaps I should give up on "dumb" and consider you
"dishonest". Is that your goal?
>> >I guess you'd better clue Telia in then:
>> > <http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4028271.html>
>>
>> What are you trying to say? I don't do the 'this link refutes you'
>> game. If you have information, give it to me. If not, admit it.
>
>I'm just pointing to an example of somebody who did think it was the
>right solution. You claim that they are government funded and therefore
>don't care about profit. Can you back that up? They do seem to have an
>investor relations page on their web site, BTW. I would presume
>(there's that word again) that if they have investors that they care
>about profits.
You are milking the point, Bob.
>> >Now, _that_ is funny. You haven't calculated any costs, checked on
>> >what others have done, or posted any actual facts at all,
>
>> This is a discussion, not a research project. You have done none of
>> these things either.
>
>Actually, I did. I did not make a lifetime project out of it, but I did
>bother to look up how much Telia spent on the mainframe and how many
>virtual hosts it was going to run. The numbers look reasonable on the
>face of it.
Wow. Bob's got a spreadsheet that looks good; let's invest several
hundreds of millions of dollars?
>> You seem to have missed the fact that these simplistic calculations have
>> already been provided. They are convincing, maybe, if you have a
>> simplistic idea of the requirements. It isn't as simple as that,
>
>Ok, what am I missing? What ISP requirements does the mainframe
>solution not fulfill?
Flexibility is the word that fits best, in many scenarios of why a
mainframe is not a good choice. Hell; just the business model of the
'ISP' itself is not stable enough to make such a huge capital investment
ever pay off. You're going to be playing catch-up with the industry in
six months, as they take advantage of development and you desperately
try to update your million-hosts-on-one-big-box software, which
unfortunately you've only managed to sell two hundred thirty four and a
half thousand slots.
It is just a silly idea. Not that there are any shortage of business
people who don't grasp technology, or technology people who don't grasp
business, and are willing to go with a silly idea. More power to them;
if it weren't for silly ideas that end up working, there would be no
innovation at all.
But a mainframe-based ISP is not going to be anything but a silly idea.
Maybe it is because, in fact, it isn't really very innovative.
CompuServe's been there and done that.
>How does having a hundred minicomputers or a
>thousand PC's fulfill these requirements better?
You can buy fifty minicomputers; you can't buy half a mainframe.
>If it is so obvious
>you ought to be able to explain it.
Did that work?
>> though, and you will find that any ISP that tries to use a mainframe
>> platform for network services is going to start losing money,
>
>Why? You keep claiming that, but you haven't given any reasons for it
>other than vague hand-waving about mainframes not being suitable for
>ISP use even on a very lage scale. Well, why aren't they? Please
>elaborate.
You don't understand. You have to come up with some compelling reason
it is suitable, before there is any reason at all for a more elaborate
explanation. At the very least, it is an unproven approach.
--
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
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:11:34 GMT
Said "JS | PL" <winxp beta@ home .com> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat,
>"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 12:39:56 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> ("JS \\ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>
>> >"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> >> >Do you remember about 5 years ago?
>> >> >When 2GB HD were the hottest item? And all of Windows was 35MB on
>disk,
>> >> >100MB installed?
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, but JP \ PL thinks you can buy a 1GB hard disk for $2.60
>> >
>> >Actually I didn't say that. Your just not bright enough to read very
>well.
>> >What I said was (for the third time), the storage portion XP requires on
>an
>> >80gb drive which currently sells for $208 at pricewatch.com is about
>$2.60.
>> >Get it yet Einstein? The cost to store Windows XP is $2.60.
>>
>> Erm, no it isn't. You can't just get the 80GB drive for $208 and cut
>> off a 1GB portion. You either buy the whole thing or get a smaller
>> drive. You can't just pay the $2.60
>
>You can use the $2.60 figure when you calculate the storage cost of the
>data.
>Actually, if you need to buy a drive to accomodate WindowsXP, you needed a
>bigger drive anyway. Hard drives produced in the last few years can easilly
>handle the tiny footprint that XP requires, it's a total "non issue" that is
>causing you way too much concern.
See how easy it is to spend Other People's Money?
--
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
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:11:35 GMT
Said JS \ PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 9 Jun 2001 20:08:00
>"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> I somehow think not. You're looking at at least £60 for a new hard
>> disk.
>
>No I'm not looking at spending a dime on more storage, my HD is more than
>enough to fit Windows XP. So is most every other installed hard drive on
>earth (except yours I guess). Don't blame Microsoft if you can't afford a
>hard drive manufactured for this millenium. If all you can find wrong with
>WindowsXP is five guys on earth might have to finally upgrade their 50mb hd
>then I guess that's actually ADVOCATION of XP.
Okay, so basically, the way you've calculated it, Microsoft is just
chewing up two dollars and sixty cents worth of every XP users hard
drive. Is that right?
So you will admit that software bloat costs users incrementally?
--
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
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:11:36 GMT
Said JS \ PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 9 Jun 2001 16:22:09
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> WinDOS is evidence enough that neither Microsoft nor sock puppets could
>> possibly recognize a 'superior codebase'. W2K didn't prove otherwise,
>> much to Microsoft's chagrin (their sales figures for 2K have been
>> *extremely* embarrassing); only a fool would consider XP to be any
>> different.
>
>Windows 2000 Server shipped 1 million in it's first year. Do the math,
>that's about 2700 a DAY switching or upgrading to the Windows 2000 server
>family. One million times $1188.00 is over a billion dollars. I wouldn't
>call that extremely embarrassing. I have no information on how many Pro
>licences have been sold, no doubt considerably more than have been sold for
>the server OS. Add em all up and your "extrmely embarasing" claim really
>turns out to be "extremely successfull".
Actually it was so extremely embarrassing in comparison to their
projections that MS didn't even release any figures during the first
year. Silly morons that they are, they actually expected it to fly off
the shelves. Later, they had to increase the price and decided to
discontinue some WinDOS because nobody wanted to fork out the extra
money for W2K like they hoped. ALL of the W2K sales were essentially NT
replacements, and MS was really desperately hoping that this would
finally be the version of NT that made the desktop user pay $300 for
their OS.
And the fact that, even with this disappointing performance, MS revenues
on 2K were in the billions, as you claim, they could afford to sell it
for $2 at this point and they'd still turn a profit. Which is enough to
turn "embarrassing performance both commercially and technically" into
"monopoly crapware".
--
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
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:11:37 GMT
Said JS \ PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 9 Jun 2001 22:10:40
>"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> JS \\ PL wrote:
>> >
>> > Windows 2000 Server shipped 1 million in it's first year. Do the math,
>> > that's about 2700 a DAY switching or upgrading to the Windows 2000
>server
>> > family. One million times $1188.00 is over a billion dollars. I wouldn't
>> > call that extremely embarrassing. I have no information on how many Pro
>> > licences have been sold, no doubt considerably more than have been sold
>for
>> > the server OS. Add em all up and your "extrmely embarasing" claim really
>> > turns out to be "extremely successfull".
>>
>> The figure is for licenses. Who knows how many NT sites merely did
>> an upgrade to all of their servers? Good for Microsoft, though I'm
>> sure they expected to do much better.
>>
>> 2700/day? That's like 54 per day per state. Maybe like 1 per day per
>> city? Ooooh, that's a lot! Probably more people buying Linux servers
>> than Win 2000 servers, eh?
>
>Do the math - A billion in sales in first year minus half a billion to
>develop from scratch equals half a billion in the black....and
>counting....
>Not to mention MS is sitting on 20 billion in cash that they don't know what
>to do with. "embarrasingly low sales" isn't a problem at Microsoft as T Max
>Devlin likes to claim.
When did I claim it was a problem?
>Rumor had it they were going to get rid of some of
>the excess cash by simply buying Yahoo and all it's holdings outright, for
>cash. MS themselves deny that rumor though.
That's cute. I point out how embarrassing W2K's adoption rate is, and
he starts babbling about them buying Yahoo. 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]>
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:11:38 GMT
Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 09 Jun 2001 21:39:29
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> Said Dan Pidcock in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 10:10:16
>> >I think that Philip is talking about the law suit that apple brought
>> >against MS alleging they 'stole' the look and feel of MacOS for use in
>> >windows rather than for a program. They failed, and Xerox then sued
>> >Apple saying they had 'stolen' the look and feel of a GUI from Xerox'
>> >work at PARC.
>>
>> That last part about Xerox is a myth. Apple did have an agreement with
>> Xerox concerning their use of the PARC work as a basis for their GUIfied
>> OSes, but that was all years before the "look and feel" suite, and
>> nobody got sued, AFAIK.
>>
>AFAIK there never was an agreement between Xerox and Apple for "look and
>feel" of a GUI interface.
I think you misread me. The agreement with Xerox didn't have anything
to do with "look and feel" in particular.
>But Xerox did sue Apple over "look and
>feel" after Apple lost their "look and feel" suit against Microsoft but
>the judge tossed it out in March 1990. See:
>http://www.me.utexas.edu/~me179/topics/copyright/case2articles/case2artile5.html#In
Thanks for the link. I'll check it out when I'm online.
--
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
******************************
