Linux-Advocacy Digest #296
Linux-Advocacy Digest #296, Volume #27 Sat, 24 Jun 00 01:13:06 EDT Contents: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: (Aaron Kulkis) Re: Why Jeff Szarka Has Zero Credibility When He Claims Problems With Linux (Donovan Rebbechi) Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski) Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (David M. Cook) Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Aaron Kulkis) Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Aaron Kulkis) Re: Certification? (Sean LeBlanc) Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Aaron Kulkis) Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Aaron Kulkis) Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy? (James Lee) Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Aaron Kulkis) Re: What UNIX is good for. (Aaron Kulkis) Re: What UNIX is good for. (Aaron Kulkis) Re: What UNIX is good for. (Aaron Kulkis) Re: What UNIX is good for. (Aaron Kulkis) Re: What UNIX is good for. (Aaron Kulkis) From: Aaron Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:56:06 -0400 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Loren Petrich wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Aaron Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have been in Russia three times. What they have is NOT capitalism. It is the newest form of communis (perestroika means "restructuring"...and that is exactly what they did...the RESTRUCTURED COMMUNISM), wherein they pass out all of the economic goodies to a few party insiders ... Calling that Communism is absurd; there is a name for that already in existence: "crony capitalism", which is common in Third-World countries. Regardless of what you call it, the Russian economy, and it's structure, is still under the COMPLETE, ABSOLUTE control of the Communist Party. There is a grim joke about this situation: "Everything they told us about Communism was false" "Everything they told us about capitalism was true" To my mind, saying that they are not real capitalists is like saying that the xUSSR had not been run by real Communists. The xUSSR had been far from the ideals of Marx's Communist Utopia -- and its government was not the sort that could easily wither away. In genuine capitalism, when large corporations are sold off, the stock shares wind up in the hands of large numbers of people, NOT a handfull of Communist Party insiders. I think that there is an interesting ideological convergence between Marxists and capitalist libertarians. Both believe in the eventual Oh god, you're so wrong. All of the "Capitalists" in Russia are Communist Party officers. There is NOBODY in Russia with significant assets who is not ALSO a member of the Communist Party. The communists said themselves..they are RESTRUCTURING the economy. They NEVER said that they were getting rid of Communism...and, they haven't. The tax rate on profits is STILL near 100%...only now, Party insiders can get THEIR taxes waived. withering away of the state, a utopia where everybody is a virtuous anarchist, that there are working and exploiting classes, that economic analyses are supreme, etc. how silly. -- Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html -- Aaron R. Kulkis Unix Systems Engineer ICQ # 3056642 H: Knackos...you're a retard. A: The wise man is mocked by fools. B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort. C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction that she doesn't like. D: Jet claims to have killfiled me. E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup ...despite (D) above. F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a response until their behavior improves. G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn. -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) Subject: Re: Why Jeff Szarka Has Zero Credibility When He Claims Problems With Linux Date: 24 Jun 2000 03:55:29 GMT On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 22:06:32 -0400, Jeff Szarka wrote: On 23 Jun 2000 03:43:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote: By the way, RH 5.2 was released November '98. You're still ahead of your time ! Wait... it's 2000 right? Wouldn't 98 be two years ago? Not November '98. That'd be just shy of 1 1/2 years. Oh, and you said "2-3 years". -- Donovan
Linux-Advocacy Digest #270
Linux-Advocacy Digest #270, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 03:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: X can't be that slow ("Robert L.")
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: It's all about the microsurfs ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Charles Philip Chan)
Re: It's all about the microsurfs (Charles Philip Chan)
Re: Certification? (Charles Philip Chan)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: Windows, Easy to Use? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Jeff Szarka Has Zero Credibility When He Claims Problems With Linux
("Ferdinand V. Mendoza")
Re: It's all about the microsurfs (abraxas)
Re: It's all about the microsurfs (abraxas)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 23 Jun 2000 05:26:54 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Curt Howland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am reminded of a recent article pointing out that IBM and Dell are
"cooperating" to sell pre-packaged Linux machines that come with
support.
Only VERY recently.
Isn't that exactly what Microsoft was prosecuted for? Negotiating with
hardware vendors to pre-package their software?
No, O whiner. For making 95% preloads significantly more
expensive than 100% preloads.
And here are some indications of M$'s character -- purely
anecdotal, but interesting:
When Linus Torvalds showed up at a Comdex last year, Bill Gates
got furious and threatened not to show up if Linus was to show up at
another one.
Bill Gates got furious when he discovered that Intel was
investing in Red Hat.
According to "Barbarians Led by Bill Gates", BG decided to do some
Internet market research -- and got furious as he discovered that next to
none of the Internet's content was in Microsoft formats.
Such anecdotes do *not* suggest a fair competitor who expects to
win on product performance.
Get real. The entire prosecution was contrived from the start. No one
was ever forced to use a Microsoft product, unlike the forced used to
support NASA for instance.
And you are not forced to live wherever you are living; you are
perfectly free to build yourself a floating city and declare it a
sovereign nation.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
--
From: "Robert L." [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: X can't be that slow
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 05:15:22 GMT
"OSguy" [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Robert L." wrote:
I never use X as root.
Good idea.
My user use qvwm, else, it's too slow. ( Do you know some other wm
faster
than that?)
I've never used qvwm, but I understand fvwm is fairly easy on the
resources (no
idea on how fast).
I know i have to start X before my window manager start.
I apologize to you. I misread your post, but too late to pull back my
response
which I cancelled (which is futile since the message always shows up
anyhow).
Next time I try to read your posts more carefully before replying.
I should make it easyer to read ( and trying to get a spell checker, don't
even know if i write it corectly ).
It was really bad ( my post ), i should read my post twice.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 23 Jun 2000 05:35:52 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Aaron Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been in Russia three times.
What they have is NOT capitalism. It is the newest form of
communis (perestroika means "restructuring"...and that is exactly
what they did...the RESTRUCTURED COMMUNISM), wherein they pass out
all of the economic goodies to a
Linux-Advocacy Digest #271
Linux-Advocacy Digest #271, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 05:13:03 EDT Contents: Re: Linux, easy to use? (abraxas) Re: A Better Wintroll Than Wintrolls (was: Re: Desperately Seeking Intelligent Windows Advocates...) (Ray Chason) Re: It's all about the microsurfs (Charles Philip Chan) Re: Windows, Easy to Use? (Martijn Bruns) Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? Re: Linux is awesome! Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh Linux is easier now ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh Re: Processing data is bad! Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (Martijn Bruns) Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use? Date: 23 Jun 2000 07:10:47 GMT Gary Connors [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: abraxas wrote: Gary Connors [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You snipped a lot of stuff. I assume your silence is from the foot in your mouth. Anyhow, it is you who have missed the point. Linux without a GUI or tools its absolutely useless. Wow. Youd better run off and tell the good folks at Google this important news. They run a 4000 node linux cluster RIGHT NOW, which theyre expanding to 6000 nodes to handle their search engine. AMAZING HOLY SHIT!!!...So they have taken the Linux Kernel and added Database ability to it, an HTTP server, and other stuff need to run a search engine. OR, did they create "TOOLS" (see above) that run on top of the kernel that does that. If they did, my point still stands. I assume your silence is from the foot in your mouth. Actually, I couldnt find anything coherent enough to which to respond. It doesnt have a GUI! UH OH! HOW CAN IT POSSIBLY WORK? Never said that. Watch the stawman die. Actually you did: Give the dejanews reference. I did not You did---I quoted you, you snipped it. Clearly another sophomoric attempt to obscure your own idiocy. Anyhow, it is you who have missed the point. Linux without a GUI or tools its absolutely useless. You used the operative 'or'. What youve said is that linux without a GUI is useless, AND (exclusively) linux without tools is useless. If on the otherhand, you had said 'GUI AND tools', you may have had a very, very small point. Linux without GUI or Tools is useless. Seems to say something different from Linux without GUI is useless and Linux without Tools is useless. You really need to take a class on logic and critical thinking. So now youre twisting your own words around in the face of argument, and breaking rules of linear aristolian logic right and left. What was your point again? That you don't you obviously 1) dont know what you are talking about. You havent supported this conjecture at all. 2) you need to turn off your flame thrower I do exactly as I wish. 3) and you are a jerk. Thats a fair cop. The part where you replaced your 'or' with an 'and', doubtlessly to obscure your own error. Your point is invalidated by virtue [sic] of error of argument. The point stands. Respond to it after you take the foot from your mouth. More obscurity through downright lying. The point doesnt stand, as I demonstrated its enormous, gaping logical flaw. You're not doing a very good job of diverting the crux of my focus away from your horrific argument building skills and complete lack of logical ability. But you can go ahead and keep trying if you like. You'll get better with practice. Rather than using the "arguement by insult and agression" you should try the "arguement of logical response". I did, but amazingly you missed it. =yttrx -- From: Ray Chason [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: A Better Wintroll Than Wintrolls (was: Re: Desperately Seeking Intelligent Windows Advocates...) Date: 23 Jun 2000 06:17:34 GMT Jeff Szarka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess that stack of man pages and how-to files really does add up after a while. Given your mindless habit of screaming "Linux sucks!" without justification, it doesn't surprise me that you have to RTFM every time you need to copy a file. The rest of us remember the tasks we do most often. -- --===[ Ray Chason ]===-- PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc Delenda est Windoze -- Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs From: Charles Philip Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 23 Jun 2000 02:38:25 +0500 "tsm@palindrome" == tsm@palindrome org
Linux-Advocacy Digest #272
Linux-Advocacy Digest #272, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 08:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ??? (Daniel Haude)
Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ??? (Daniel Haude)
Upgrade rh 6.1 kernel to 2.2.16 (Francisco De La Cruz)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Stuart Krivis)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (2:1)
Re: Number of Linux Users ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: I've got reiserfs. Drestin, now bash Linux. (Sean Akers)
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (mlw)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Haude)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ???
Date: 23 Jun 2000 09:21:11 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 22 Jun 2000 12:27:21 GMT,
J Bland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
in Msg. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The minimum install for SuSE 6.4 is ~80MB. Which would easily fit onto the
| harddrive, and that's with Perl iirc.
Sure, I was just talking about the default assumptions of what the
customer wants. There, I'd judge Slackware and Debian as "small" and SuSE
as "big".
--Daniel
--
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy
way to factor large prime numbers." -- Bill Gates, "The Road Ahead"
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Haude)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ???
Date: 23 Jun 2000 09:23:08 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:44:58 -0700,
Chris Harshman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
in Msg. y0u45.17$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| We've been running SLS on an AMD
| 386sx/40 with 4MB RAM and an 80MB hard drive, and we're only using 17MB of
| space on the drive (not including swap)!
C'mon, why don't you scrap the swap. You don't really need it.
--Daniel
--
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy
way to factor large prime numbers." -- Bill Gates, "The Road Ahead"
--
From: Francisco De La Cruz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Upgrade rh 6.1 kernel to 2.2.16
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 05:18:57 -0400
For the last couple of days I've been trying to bring my kernel
to 2.2.16. No matter the method i get this error:
no setup signature found
Now i know rh released rpms for that kernel. I hope that
does not mean i can't "manually" upgrade. Anyways, the first
time I tried 'make oldconfig' for as you might remember, use
my old .config file. That didn't work. So i said, ok let me just
try 'make xconfig', but after going through the emotions i got
the same error...What am i'm doing wrong?
Thanx in advance, Francisco.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 01:46:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000 15:33:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another interesting benchmark would be mail programs. I use Outlook,
which has a sophisticated indexed system. My mail box has more than
5,000 messages, and Outlook can open this mailbox (on a dual Pentium
133, my main Windows workstation), in less than 2 seconds. Unix mail -
Outhouse can infect your system and all your friend's computers in mere
seconds. :-)
which uses nothing but a huge text file, and has to parse through every
byte (!) to open the mailbox, is very slow. On fast Unix systems, such
as Sparc's, it takes several _minutes_ to open a mailbox of 200-300
messages (compared to 2 seconds for a mailbox over 10x bigger on
Windows). Mailboxes over that length are absolutely unwieldy for Unix,
but no problem with a sophisticated mailer (security issues
notwithstanding).
You are either lying, or you have never used a Sun. I use them daily,
and Pine or Mutt will open a mailbox far faster than "minutes."
As for sophisticated mailers, Mutt is capable of doing more than Outlook
in terms of mail.
--
Stuart Krivis
*** Remove "mongo" in headers for valid reply hostname
--
From: Phillip Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 23 Jun 2000 11:09:39 +0100
"Mark" == Mark S Bilk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mark In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Phillip
Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Mark" == Mark S Bilk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mark Nope -- I didn't say any of that stuff; attributions fixed
Mark below.
My apologies if I screwed up my attributions. I try to take
care to get this right, but occasionally fail.
Linux-Advocacy Digest #273
Linux-Advocacy Digest #273, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 11:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is awesome! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ??? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Dave Vandervies)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (z)
Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! (2:1)
Re: [OT] A contrived strstream performance test. (Neil Cerutti)
Re: Windows, Easy to Use? (Secretly Cruel)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh ("George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: MacOS X sceptic (was Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes) (void)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (void)
Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows (Sean)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:43:57 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 23 Jun 2000 03:32:48 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is good stuff for you, and anyone else talented enough to do the
same but my arguments apply to average folks and most can barely
figure out how to find their own files :)
No, not really. In particular, your argument was addressed at Mark.
Do you have any information as to whether Mark is "talented enough"
or not?
For a person like you, Linux is perfect. Students, people who need,
want and can utilize control and power over the computer Linux is
perfect. I have always said that, and I mean it as a compliment when i
use the term computer geek. I am sort of one myself.
So what happened to "The only reason you use linux is because it fits
in with your left wing ideology" (slightly paraphrased, I don't have
the original handy)?
This is one reason why I rarely try and directly dissuade a newbie
from using Linux. I offer constructive advice when I can and in fact
have recommended Mandrake to many a newbie in this group.
Uhm, may I suggest you reread your own postings on Deja? If you for
some reason can't do that, I'll be more than happy to send you your
complete works (well --- everything you posted from this email address;
I am not going to hunt down a dozen or so different identities) by
email.
Bernie
--
The beginning of knowledge is the discovery of something we do
not understand
Frank Herbert
American science fiction author
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ???
Date: 23 Jun 2000 21:49:58 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Chris Harshman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For that kind of hardware, take a look at the Soft Landing System (SLS)
distribution, as that hardware will be more than enough to accomodate that
distro with plenty of room to grow. We've been running SLS on an AMD
386sx/40 with 4MB RAM and an 80MB hard drive, and we're only using 17MB of
space on the drive (not including swap)!
;-)
Uhm, much as I fondly remember downloading the various versions of SLS,
I seem to recall the last one being more than half a decade old
While that might result in lower system requirements, it will also
mean that none of the current crop of precompiled software will run on
it, very little of the current documentation will still apply, and lots
of current hardware will be utterly unsupported.
Bernie
--
A free society is a place where it's safe to be unpopular
Adlai Stevenson
Democratic Presidential candidate for the 1952 US election
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Vandervies)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: 23 Jun 2000 12:40:16 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Charles Philip Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"nobody" == [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:40:34 -0400, Aaron Kulkis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steven Smolinski wrote:
Aaron Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthias Warkus wrote:
Vim is what we got when vi finally caught up with Emacs.
At 1/10th the diskspace footprint.
[...and another skirmish in the editor wars begins...]
I don't want to start a Vi-Emacs Holy War here but aren't you
forgetting that Emacs is much more than an editor. For example I am
writing this right now on Gnus under XEmacs. You should see Emacs more
like a variant of Lisp which happens to have an editor build on top of
it.
Editor, mail reader, news reader, web browser... Have they put in a
compiler yet, or does it still call an external program for that?
Hey, I use and like them both. Can't we all just get along?
So do I, I use VIM for quicky jobs at the console.
*ahem*
This *is* an advocacy newsgroup, gentlemen; if you're going to agree,
take it somewhere else. :)
dave
--
Dave Vandervies
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux-Advocacy Digest #274
Linux-Advocacy Digest #274, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 11:13:07 EDT Contents: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski) Re: Linux faster than Windows? (The Ghost In The Machine) Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski) Re: Processing data is bad! (aflinsch) Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski) Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (void) Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski) Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski) Re: Boring (Matthias Warkus) Re: DirectX equivalent (Matthias Warkus) Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy? (Matthias Warkus) Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich) Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! (Martijn Bruns) Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich) Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich) From: Henry Blaskowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh Date: 23 Jun 2000 14:31:29 GMT In talk.politics.libertarian Donovan Rebbechi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 23 Jun 2000 03:01:55 GMT, Henry Blaskowski wrote: I lean in this same direction, for a very simple reason. When in doubt, leave people alone. That means, if two people or groups can come to a voluntary, informed consent, it should take an overwhelming burden of proof to overturn that, such as clear evidence of direct harm. This is rarely if ever shown in anti-trust cases, and certainly not in the MS case. I disagree. I think that in a lot of cases, what you have is not "voluntary, informed consent". I think Microsoft have thrown their wieghht around and used coercion, and I believe the evidence presented in the trial makes this pretty clear. But "using your weight" isn't really a crime, or shouldn't be. After all, that's really how business works. If you want a product I produce, the more you want it and the more people who agree with you, the more I can charge. In fact, MS did the opposite -- they used their weight to charge LESS in return for concessions. This, also, is a common practice in all industries. the burden of proof should weigh heavily on those who wish to interfere with voluntary peaceful consensual agreements, because otherwise, there really is nothing off limits. IMO a lot of the evidence presented in the trial points to several agreements that are certainly not deserving of the term "peaceful". "Peaceful" is a term related to violence, to physical force, not to "having a product other people really, really want". All true monopolies are government sponsored/enforced. The free market dominance that is often called a monopoly just means the competitors are having trouble understanding the market. But they No, it doesn't. Take a look at what the definition of a monopoly is some time. You are wrong, both in the sense of the dictionary definition and legal definition of "monopoly". I've looked up the dictionary definition, and it says "having no competitors". That is common usage. Any legal definition that disagrees with that is immoral. 20% is 1 in five. That is a lot of competitors. It is not a monopoly. Whether or not something is a monopoly is not determined by the number of competitors, so in this instance you and the person you are replying to are both wrong. If is not about the number of competitors, then the term is meaningless, and we may as well just call it "punishing success", because that's what it really is. -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows? Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:32:20 GMT In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Stuart Krivis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Fri, 23 Jun 2000 01:46:11 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sat, 10 Jun 2000 15:33:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another interesting benchmark would be mail programs. I use Outlook, which has a sophisticated indexed system. My mail box has more than 5,000 messages, and Outlook can open this mailbox (on a dual Pentium 133, my main Windows workstation), in less than 2 seconds. Unix mail - Outhouse can infect your system and all your friend's computers in mere seconds. :-) which uses nothing but a huge text file, and has to parse through every byte (!) to open the mailbox, is very slow. On fast Unix systems, such as Sparc's, it takes several _minutes_ to open a mailbox of 200-300 messages (compared to 2 seconds for a mailbox over 10x bigger on Windows). Mailboxes over that length are absolutely unwieldy for Unix, but no problem with a sophisticated mailer (security issues notwithstanding). You are either lying, or you have never used a Sun. I use them daily,
Linux-Advocacy Digest #277
Linux-Advocacy Digest #277, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 13:13:05 EDT Contents: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Neil Cerutti) Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski) Re: Number of Linux Users (Leslie Mikesell) Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future. (Roberto Alsina) Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski) Re: It's all about the microsurfs (Nathaniel Jay Lee) Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Mark S. Bilk) Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Bob Hauck) Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Bob Hauck) Re: It's all about the microsurfs (Nathaniel Jay Lee) Re: It's all about the microsurfs (Nathaniel Jay Lee) Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Bob Hauck) Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Leslie Mikesell) Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Bob Hauck) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti) Crossposted-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh Date: 23 Jun 2000 16:11:28 GMT Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henry Blaskowski posted: In talk.politics.libertarian Aaron Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This created SEVERE economic hardship upon ANYONE trying to sell competing products...becuase even if you bought DR-DOS rather than MS-DOS, you still paid $100 to Microsoft, and even if you bought Corel Office, you were STILL charged for Microsoft office. Do you even understand how business works? Microsoft said, if you want our product at a discount, you have to agree to sell a copy with every machine you sell. You are free to buy it at full price, or you can get it at a discount with conditions. You have failed to see the implications of what you have just written. If the computer system you are selling, which contains exactly the same hardware and software as a competitor's product which costs hundreds of dollars less, what do suppose will happen to your business? Further, as a result of your choice, Micros~1 will with-hold the documentation you that you need to use to create a properly configured system in time to beat your competitors to the market with the latest Micros~1 offering. So, your product costs more, is not configured properly, and gets to market later than your competitors product. Some choice. My grocery store does a similar thing to me all the time, but you don't hear anyone running around crying "monopoly". Your grocer forces you to pay $200 for a 200lb bag of hog-balls with your regular groceries, even though you don't want them? -- Neil Cerutti [EMAIL PROTECTED] In Windows, there's some good thing, some bad thing and some very bad thing. In Linux, there's some bad thing, some good thing and some very good thing. -- Robert L. -- From: Henry Blaskowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh Date: 23 Jun 2000 16:38:02 GMT In talk.politics.libertarian George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I disagree. I think that in a lot of cases, what you have is not "voluntary, informed consent". I think Microsoft have thrown their wieghht around and used coercion, and I believe the evidence presented in the trial makes this pretty clear. Andy Grove of Intel was apparently furious when MS muscled Intel into killing off their program to make JAVA run much faster on Intel CPUs. Notice the use of loaded language here... "muscled". Please explain how the CEO of MS has more power over Intel than the CEO of Intel. If this is really true, Andy Grove should be immediately fired for incompetence. And since that makes me waste a ton of time, makes millions waste a ton of time, causes the govt to lose billions in taxes from production burned up by this purposeful destruction of productivity, don't we have an interest in that "voluntary" decision? No, you don't, because you didn't produce either product. You are free to purchase other computers if you are unhappy with the ones from those companies. Reality is, it's a non-issue. You are using it as a smokescreen to try to have your personal opinions enforced in federal court. Whether or not something is a monopoly is not determined by the number of competitors, so in this instance you and the person you are replying to are both wrong. The judge describes the legal standard: An immoral and arbitrary legal standard -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users Date: 23 Jun 2000 11:35:07 -0500 In article 8ive4a$oo2$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Davorin Mestric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and of course, ten downloads, ( or even ten sales) can result
Linux-Advocacy Digest #278
Linux-Advocacy Digest #278, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 13:13:05 EDT Contents: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (MK) Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (MK) Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs? Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill (Nathaniel Jay Lee) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK) Crossposted-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:07:13 GMT On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:40:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) wrote: I quoted the text of the article. I don't have link, but you can find it on site of Reason magazine, http://www.reason.com. Went and read it. There's a lot to disagree with there. 1. The author starts with the premise that "social choice" is the correct economic theory to use to evaluate anti-trust laws. Public choice, IIRC. According to the article, this theory assumes that government action is driven by whichever interest groups have access to the government. Apparently it is not possible for the government to actually do anything on behalf of the public good and government power is "bad" while corporate power is at least "not bad". That seems as misrepresentation to me. First off, it assumes that everybody is for their own interest: ""We do it just for you!", per Ronald McDonald Well, not really. Politicians do not devote their lives for yours and my benefits anymore than McDonalds does. Strangely, however, many people think so -- including university professors that teach politics and philosophy. The most important contribution of Public Choice Theory is that it recognizes that politicians are motivated by self interest -- just like you and me. In fact, more so than you and me! If that is so, and it is, then our expectations of politicians changes dramatically. One point worth noting here is that the Founding Fathers of the U.S.A. understood that and they tried to organize government in such a way as to minimize the impact of self interest. They did a good job and the fact that we are having so much trouble with our government today results from our losing sight of the reality that politicians are self-interested. To summarize this most important aspect of Public Choice Theory, I will quote a paragraph from an essay by Paul Starr, "The Meaning of Privatization": "Public choice," ill-named because the only choices it recognizes are essentially private, is both a branch of microeconomics and an ideologically-laden view of democratic politics. Analysts of the school apply the logic of microeconomics to politics and generally find that whereas self-interest leads to benign results in the marketplace, it produces nothing but pathology in political decisions. These pathological patterns represent different kinds of "free-riding" and "rent-seeking" by voters, bureaucrats, politicians, and recipients of public funds. Coalitions of voters seeking special advantage from the state join together to get favorable legislation enacted. Rather than being particularly needy, these groups are likely to be those whose big stake in a benefit arouses them to more effective action than is taken by the taxpayers at large over whom the costs are spread. In general, individuals with "concentrated" interests in increased expenditure take a "free ride" on those with "diffuse" interests in lower taxes. Similarly, the managers of the "bureaucratic firms" seek to maximize budgets, and thereby to obtain greater power, larger salaries, and other perquisites. Budget maximization results in higher government spending overall, inefficient allocation among government agencies, and inefficient production within them. In addition, when government agencies give out grants, the potential grantees expend resources in lobbying up to the value of the grants--an instance of the more general "political dissipation of value" resulting from the scramble for political favors and jobs." It is not at all surprising then when he concludes that anti-trust actions are driven by the special interests that benefit from them. But that is standard. Read on what Mancur Olson had to say about this. In essence, society generates SIGs much faster than it gets rid of them. But the root problem is that the govt officials are in it not for public benefit, but for their own benefit first and foremost -- even if they superficially believe otherwise. Ergo, anti-trust will act not when it really is in public interest, but when it is in interest of anti-trust. IOW, the govt officials are not what public romantically assumes they are or should be. They're just as altruistic as McDonald's. Not worse or better or good or bad; just self-interested, limited people adapting their arguments, beliefs and actions to their own
Linux-Advocacy Digest #279
Linux-Advocacy Digest #279, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 14:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! ("2 + 2")
Re: Wintrolls in panic! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the (Cihl)
Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Re: Wintrolls in panic!
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (Adam Smith)
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is awesome! (Pete Goodwin)
From: Pete Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:59:08 GMT
In article 8it5q2$1pbg$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
"The tough"? Perhaps you meant the "two".
Sorry, I learned to type phonetically.
Tough is said as "tuff" not "too".
And prove yourself to be an utter moron to every single person who
knows just a *little* bit about the way linux works. Even the ones
who dont like it.
I am aware of the distinction that Linux and KDE are two seperate
objects. However, it does not seem unreasonable to me to lump the two
together as KDE is an example of a Windowing system on Linux.
As for calling me a moron, this is a typical response from a Linux
rent-a-gob. I see it all the time. Yawn, yawn, yawn.
You dont know what youre talking about at ALL. You would do best to
stay with windows.
But you guys are telling me Linux is so much better. The fact that I'm
trying to tell you were it isn't really pisses you off doesn't it. It
doesn't matter if I'm telling the truth, now does it? You label me a
moron simply because I don't agree with your statements.
My points still stand, your comments are merely
noise.
I see. So KDE *is* linux, eh? Please, do go on...
Well, duh, of course KDE isn't Linux. But I'm using KDE with Linux.
Would you be happier if I titled this whole thread as "KDE, easy to
use?".
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
--
From: Pete Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:02:15 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
No-Spam wrote:
You've had **dozens** and ignored them Goodwin, beat it
Wintroll.
Dozens huh. I've had a look at the few that appeared; nothing special.
Nothing actually posted by the Laughing-Linux-Gnome Charlie boy! It
would seem he needs others to post for him.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
--
From: Pete Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:04:58 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Charlie Ebert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OH! I'm sorry Pete!
Yes, I still recognize you as a Wintroll also!
Sorry if I've been ignoring you lately.
Yes, you love to ignore people who try to pin you down, don't you,
Charlie boy. You let others post for you, with a few smatterings of
things you're talking about. How about backing up your statements next
time for a change.
Either that, or I guess I'll have to label you a Laughing-Linux-Gnome.
Ranting your way, hither and thither. Nobody takes you seriously, you
know!
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:10:12 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:58:24 GMT, Bob Hauck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 06:01:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In fact, I'd say that a majority of Unix programmers I know are
completely dumbfounded by the sight of assembly language on their native
machine.
I'd say that a majority of programmers in general are dumbfounded by
the sight of the assembly language of any machine. This is not a Unix
specific disease (if it is a disease). Your trying to portray it as
such is, well, silly.
Then again: not all assembly languages are created equal.
If one's primary experience with assembler is x86, then I
could certainly see why that programmer would be scarred for
life and have a horrible fright anytime they see assembler
of any kind.
--
|||
/ | \
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: mind hours in
Linux-Advocacy Digest #280
Linux-Advocacy Digest #280, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 15:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Pete Goodwin)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! (Tim Kelley)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (void)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux is awesome! (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski)
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski)
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: 23 Jun 2000 08:24:59 GMT
"gooeydad[spammerssuck]"@excite.com (Dave) wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
And if I get a program that misbehaves, I simply {kill -pid} it Can you
do that in windows without the whole o.s. coming down with it? I am not
a guruI just read one book. It does not take a rocket scientist to
use linux. If I did not play games, I could lose windoze altogether.
And with wine, I can use about half the games I do play.
I select the task manager and kill it. Oh, sorry, I'm talking about Windows
2000. Windows 98 SE, trying to kill something is usually an excercise in
futility. Kill process... wait... kill process again... wait... dialog
popups saying its busy, so kill it again. Process dies. Well, sometimes.
Sometimes it blue screens with 'System busy', and after that, its pretty
much dead.
Windows 98 SE is not a robust system. Take a look at how it was designed
and you'll see why. Windows 2000 is _so_ much better.
--
Pete Goodwin
--
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: 23 Jun 2000 08:29:29 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bobby D. Bryant) wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You know, sometimes I honestly wonder whether that isn't the great
divide between those who love the command line and those who hate it.
I.e., those who never learned to type hate it because they haven't
mastered the skills necessary to use it, and those who did learn to type
love it because it's so powerful.
Then there are those of us who started on the command line, who moved to a
GUI way of working and never looked back. I still use command line stuff
for scripts but I rarely use it for day to day things. It's old fashioned
and not as much fun as a funky GUI interface.
Oh, but then I write GUI tools for a living.
--
Pete Goodwin
--
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: 23 Jun 2000 08:18:40 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Palmer) wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
That I find highly doubtful. Typically when one IE5 window
tank they all tank. This can be quite annoying.
More Linnux FUD.
I think he's confusing Explorer with IExplorer. Explorer runs as one
process with loads of threads. If you kill explorer, they all die. If you
run up two copies of Internet Explorer, they're two seperate processes. I
checked with PVIEW and sure enough, two seperate processes.
--
Pete Goodwin
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:48:04 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:27:27 GMT, Pete Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Work on a high throughput database, and get back to us.
Yes, done that. Your point? I still didn't need to know anything about
how the scheduler works then.
At the time, it was more interesting to me to know how to present 50,000
records to the user in such a way that he didn't have to wait for ages
You claim that you have worked on a high throughput database yet
you speak of a mere 50,000 records as something significant.
Does anyone else see the inconsistency here?
loading _all_ the records, but only the first 20 or 30 and then grabbing
the next page. All done on a Windows GUI.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
--
|||
/ | \
--
From: Pete
Linux-Advocacy Digest #281
Linux-Advocacy Digest #281, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 15:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski)
Re: Certification? (Mikey)
Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux, easy to use? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (The Tibetan Traveller)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Mikey)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh ("Robert Bennington")
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:25:49 -0500
Henry Blaskowski wrote:
In talk.politics.libertarian Joseph T. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Liberty requires freedom from the initiation of force and fraud.
It seems very clear that Microsoft has committed fraud against
competitors, customers, and end users alike. (Examples abound in the
I know you think this an obvious fact, but I have yet to see anything
that MS did that differs significantly from what every other
successful business in the US does. Feel free to 'rehash' this
issue, since it has never been 'hashed' in the first place.
[snip]
This is a new claim. Are you saying that Dell didn't know what
Microsoft was offering? That their lawyers couldn't figure out
the terms of the deal? Do you have evidence of this?
[snip]
Because it's not fraud. MS customer's knew exactly what they were
getting. That's not fraud.
I believe that we are seeing either a lot of un-informed people
protesting on Microsoft's behalf, or a lot of people that have vested
interest. I do know that most non-technical people don't understand
exactly what has happened and tend to think that what Microsoft is
saying "We are being punished for success" is the only obvious truth.
What has happened, and what started the lawsuit, is not the same sort of
thing that happens in other industries. In other industries you get a
discount depending on how many copies of the product you manage to
sell. There are not any sort of binding ideals that say "If you sell
our competitor's product you will be dropped from our support or have to
pay twice as much for our product." Microsoft has done this on numerous
occassions. Not just with Windows. Anytime they see a new potential
market, they take it over by saying, "Either you sell our version
exclusively, or you pay double for all of our software." When they came
out with Office there was a huge discount given to OEMs that would sell
Office and Windows "bundled" together, and not sell Wordperfect, Lotus,
or other office software. When Microsoft wanted IE to succeed they
tried the same tactic. Sell IE and only IE or else. When that failed,
they forcefully bundled IE into the operating system itself so that it
couldn't be removed. These are just the tip of the iceburg.
If an OEM decided to sell an alternative operating system, the
alternative would fail. Why you ask? Simple. You (as the end
user/customer) would have to pay for the copy of DOS/WIndows and not get
it. There were per-processor licensing fees for these OEMs that said,
"Whether Windows ships on this system or not, you must purchase the
license for Windows." Now, this is the most devious of the crimes. It
would make any alternative appear more expensive than MS DOS/Windows
because even if the cost of the alternative was only $1 you were still
paying $1 more than the same computer with MS software. These are the
types of practices that Microsoft is being punished for.
Since people keep bringing up the car analogy I will ask this: If Ford
were to become the most popular (say 90% of the market) car manufacturer
and you decided to purchase a Chevy instead (sharing the last 10% with
other manufacturers) would you have to pay for the Ford and the Chevy?
This is the real question. If that were to happen, I garauntee you that
Ford would be investigated and punished just like MS is being
investigated.
I think I understand why the original poster cross posted this to so
many groups. There are a lot of people out there that just don't
understand computers and will believe whatever the latest MS press
release says (after all, MS get the most air time). But, for those the
understand the industry, a large percentage of us know what is really
being investigated. It is not the success of Microsoft that is being
punished. It is the use of that success in one area (operating systems)
to push into other areas (office productivity, internet software,
etc...) and the use
Linux-Advocacy Digest #283
Linux-Advocacy Digest #283, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 16:13:11 EDT
Contents:
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Tim Palmer)
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? ("KLH")
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski)
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh ("salvador peralta")
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski)
Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs? (Craig
Kelley)
Re: democracy? (Desmond Coughlan)
From: Tim Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 23 Jun 2000 15:20:36 -0500
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:19:51 -0500, Bobby D. Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Palmer wrote:
But it doesn't force you to tipe password EVERY TIME you use Windows like UNIX
does. UNIX makes
you tipe a password even when your on the consoul.
Which happens to be pretty convenient when you don't want unauthorized parties
screwing around with
your system.
If they can get to the consoul all they half to do is use a boot disk.
But LinuxLosers like to brag that their CLI can multitask without the GUI running.
I say who cares?
People who run servers and scientific/engineering simulaters often care. I get a lot
of good out of
GUIless Linux systems when I run days-long number crunching jobs on Linux batch
servers.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
--
From: "KLH" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:22:36 -0700
Wow. Every reply to my post said about the same thing. I feel like I'm
talking to a cult or something :) But I hope to reply to most of the
comments in one post---I hope everyone reads this.
mlw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
KLH wrote:
Okay, the subject line definitely sounded like flamebait, but its not.
I am skeptical.
I don't consider GNU/Linux a great OS, just marginally better that
everything else I have used, at least for my needs.
GNU/Linux is a "good" OS. It isn't a great one, then again, it ain't
expensive. When compared to any of the Windows variants, it is far far
better.
That is what I've been trying to avoid. The people in this newsgroup have
such a compulsive habit of comparing everything with Windows. I think that
is a shoddy way to advocate any OS.
A true advocate would have to admit:
* that the Unix model doesn't extend well into the graphical user
interface
And just why would that be? Are you saying DOS lent itself better to a
GUI (ala Windows?)
No!
This is why I made the above statement. We now have hundreds of command line
utilities and applications along with hundreds of X utitlities and
applications. The trick is that many of them are interdependent. GMC depends
on MC. In addition, changing something at the command line isn't readily
apparent from the GUI. If you change the color of your windows by editing
the conf file, the color doesn't change until you restart your window
manager. If you delete a few files in your home directory, your filemanager
won't know until you operate the refresh command. Until then, may get errors
or perhaps something more disasterous may happen.
So what you end up instead of a seamless coherent system, you get a
dichotomy of the GUI and the command line---like two separate operating
systems that the user must deal with independently. This is what I mean when
I say that Unix doesn't lend well to a graphical user interface. For years
Unix was command-line based. It is quite a stubborn creature.
* that having two competing desktop enviroments will be causing
inconveniance to users for years.
One mans inconvenience is another mans opportunity. An app written for
GNOME will run under KDE, and vice versa.
But the users experience suffers. Especially as the desktop enviroments get
more advanced. You will not be able to import a gnumeric into kword. The
developer will have to develop to two different APIs if they want there app
to work on every GNU/Linux system. And both desktop enviroments have their
slightly different way of doing things...conditioning the user to deal with
their system differently if their app is based on the QT or GTK+ widget set.
This is the type of inconveniance that in this small way, makes another
non-free system somewhat more pleasant to use.
* that perhaps we need to get rid of these middle-level C-like
languages
that make it easier for even great programmers to introduce memory leaks
and
core dumps into large applications that we depend on.
Again, are you saying that Windows, or ANY OTHER PLATFORM, has
Linux-Advocacy Digest #284
Linux-Advocacy Digest #284, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 16:13:11 EDT Contents: Lost Cause Theater!!! (Charlie Ebert) From: Charlie Ebert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Lost Cause Theater!!! Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 03:46:24 GMT Goodevening, Welcome to another episode of "LOST CAUSE THEATER!" This evening we will examine the comments of a man known to us only as Simon777. Simon777 has posted around 200 messages to COLA in the last say, 3 weeks. Simon777 is a typical representation of the windows community today. They are fearful that Linux is taking over their PC world and rightfully so. Linux is beginning to take serious chuncks our of the Microsoft market, starting this year. Simon777 isn't the only Windows nut we have on COLA, we have others. Simon777 is the BEST reason to leave Windows and use Linux as I see it. Why else would somebody post over 200 messages to COLA in less than one month? Why? Is Simon777 a psyco destine to hurt some school kids in some school yard somewhere? Maybe rape some woman and cut her throat? Or do people like Simon777 really feel threatened by the Linux advance? I'm going to say they are fearfull of loosing Windows to Linux. After all, there have been no mass murderer's write to Cola in the past that anybody's aware of!!! Why ELSE would somebody post all these messages, over 200 in say just 3 weeks time over Linux. Why? The reason why is even the top windows supporters agree that Windows is dead. Why else would they spend their precious time and do this on COLA? If Windows is the operating system of the masses then why are we seeing more and more whiny butt Wintrolls in Cola? Over 200 in 3 weeks however, this is obsessive behavior for the Wintroll Simon777. I think there is a real FEAR amongst the Microsoft community Windows is on it's way out! And it's a justified fear folks! But just read this brilliance and then verify it, then make your own determination. I've reposted just a small fraction of this one guy's posts. We have dozens of Wintrolls doing the same thing? Geeze! If Linux is NO-THREAT then why??? Text Begins. *** Subject: Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ? Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 02:28:24 GMT From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 It's amazing how twisted the folks around here are. Linux is a stone age system that quite frankly the public at large, at least in the USA, has ignored and continues to ignore. Think about it. Person goes into CompUSA with $100 and is confronted with Windows for $89.00 and Linux for $29.00 or better yet for free. Yet they go for Windows every time based on market share. They can't even GIVE LINUX AWAY Linux is for lusers. It best serves folks who like to fiddle and fuss with their computers. I stopped that routine 10 years ago. When the Linux zealots start listening to what REAL people want(hint compilers and editor wars need not apply) maybe, just maybe they will gain market share, until then forget it Subject: Re: how to configure corel linux boot to GUI? Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 02:32:15 GMT From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy References: 1 , 2 And if it's not documented you are screwed...Typical Linoshit..Read this read that read everything to accomplish which would normally be an easy task. Linux is a waste of time. Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 02:33:39 GMT From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.os.linux.hardware References: 1 You have a brain dead operating system, not a brain dead printer. Linux is braindead. Your printer works fine under Windows... Subject: Re: Font deuglification ?? Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 02:35:15 GMT From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy References: 1 And you never will find it. Linux looks ugly and like shit comapred to Windows. It is the dirty ugly secret, among others, of Linux. Do your eyes a favor and run an operating system that at least looks decent. I would
Linux-Advocacy Digest #285
Linux-Advocacy Digest #285, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 16:13:11 EDT Contents: Linux Was Already On The Desktops In 10% Of Companies One Year Ago! (Mark S. Bilk) Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! (abraxas) Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! (abraxas) Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski) Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! (Oscar) Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski) Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski) Re: Linux Usage Surveys (was: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future. (James Lee) Re: MacOS X sceptic (was Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes) (Raymond N Shwake) Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski) Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Donovan Rebbechi) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) Subject: Linux Was Already On The Desktops In 10% Of Companies One Year Ago! Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:42:36 GMT By going to this web page, and clicking on the free data link, one can access various industry surveys taken as late as one year ago -- 2Q99 (more recent ones cost a dollar a minute to access): http://www.infotechtrends.com/freedemo.htm Thanks to WhyteWolf for posting this one, which you get by checking the "web" box: 99Q2 - Percent of Web servers using each operating system. Percent of Web servers using each operating system. Windows NT 26% Linux 21% Solaris 16% BSDI11% SGI (IRIX) 9% Free BSD 8% JOURNAL/SOURCE/TITLE DATE PAGE VARBUSINESS/ 12-Apr-99 58 Netcraft/ *GENERATION LINUX - NIPPING NT's HEELS So, Linux had almost caught up to Windows NT in web server market share a year ago, and the most popular Unix systems combined exceeded NT's share by 2.5 to 1 (.65/.26). But if you instead check the boxes for "software" and "systems", you can get this report: 99Q2 - Percent of information technology managers using or planning to use Linux as a general purpose desktop or workstation operating system. Currently Use 10% Use Within 12 Months 20% No Plans 68% Don't Know 1% JOURNAL/SOURCE/TITLE DATE PAGE VARBUSINESS/ 12-Apr-99 54 InformationWeek/ *GENERATION LINUX - NEXT STOP: DESKTOP One year ago, when KDE and Gnome, along with hardware and installation support, were much less developed than they are now, Linux was already in use on the desktop/workstation computers of 10% of all businesses. The figure may now be 30%, if the managers planning to switch to Linux have followed through. GNU/Linux/OSS is not only growing in market share, it is so much fun to use and to develop software for that many thou- sands of people are working to improve the operating system and the applications, and to add new apps. There are hundreds of such projects with teams of people working on them. Almost all are independent of any corporation and are under the GPL, so as long as *anyone* is interested in them, the work will continue. For those who want to use various MS-Windows software, some of which is not yet ported or functionally duplicated for Linux, there are three systems that will allow Linux to run some of it -- Wine (free), VMware ($99 for personal use), and Trelos Win4Lin ($49, like VMware with easier file access but no sound support). These three systems are constantly being improved. The next LinuxWorld Conference and Expo is August 14-17 in San Jose, Calif. The last one was huge! Meet Linus and RMS. Pet a real penguin! Register now to get in to the exhibits (Aug. 15-17) for free ($25 at the door). http://www.linuxworldexpo.com/ Life is good! -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) Subject: Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:46:42 GMT In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or do people like Simon777 really feel threatened by the Linux advance? What advance? It's like the Polish army riding over the hill on horses while the Germans had tanks.. I'll bet the Germans were howling with laughter, just like Winvocates do every time Linux and how it's taking over the market is discussed. Aaaahhh...Comparing winvocates to the german army during WWII. Apropos, tek. Dresden? Care to comment? =yttrx -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) Subject: Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 19:25:54 GMT In comp.os.linux.advocacy Martijn
Linux-Advocacy Digest #287
Linux-Advocacy Digest #287, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows, Easy to Use? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Neil Cerutti)
Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ??? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux Was Already On The Desktops In 10% Of Companies One Year Ago!
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh ("salvador peralta")
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Windows, Easy to Use?
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:36:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Brian Langenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 23 Jun 2000 15:25:58 GMT 8ivvi6$m2m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
TimL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Ah, another loveley afternoon dealing with a Windows Protection Fault.
stability problems snipped
Even if we ignore Windows' lack of robustness, the GUI itself remains
difficult to use on a daily basis for a variety of reasons that are
not easily remedied.
First is the bar. Not only do all iconified windows appear on it
(and *only* on it) - severely limiting the size of each after only a
few windows have been iconified - but the bar is reduced further by
a clock on the right, start bar on the left and even more junk on
either side. The bar can be oriented vertically (making it even more
useless since the window titles become virtually unreadable), or
enlarged (throwing more good screen space after bad), but there's
little to help it.
Pedant point: try lifting the bar by placing the mouse cursor near
the top of the bar, and clickdragging (would be nice if there was
something that indicated one can do this; in GTK, for example, a
draggable separator (Paned) is indicated by a grip widget that looks
like a small raised button near the edge of the widget, sitting on
the separator).
This will give you more space in the icon bar -- of course, subtracting
the space from the rest of the desktop. Is this a good thing? Dunno.
But wait, it gets worse! Rather than place the start button and
iconified windows flush with the screen's edge, Microsoft has
decided to put a couple of pixels between the edge and the buttons
themselves. It looks pretty, but results in more precision than
should be necessary to un-iconify a window or bring up the
dreadful start menu.
Ahh, the start menu. It seems everything that doesn't have a
place anywhere else winds up on it. But if you'd actually like
to execute an app from it, prepare to navigate several levels
of sub-menus for the privilege. Fortunately there's no
shortage of unpleasant alternatives.
The amusing thing about the "Start" menu is that it contains
"Shut Down" as one of the entries. The bizarrity of this is
not lost on this astute user.
KDE, to its credit, uses an icon with a big "K" and a gear
on its leftmost control panel, as opposed to "Start".
(Gnome, IIRC, uses a foot -- its logo.) The gear is a
reminder that one's wrking with the guts of the system.
However, the apps also appear here -- a slight drawback.
If you'd like Windows to start an app automatically when you
click a file, Microsoft has an unpleasant half-assed implementation
waiting for you. If the *file name's suffix* is something
Windows recognizes, it'll happily send the file to the given
app. Oh, and whether or not you should see the suffix is
something else Windows hasn't quite decided yet - God
forbid you should name your file improperly. And if the
suffix isn't something Windows knows, it'll give you a
list of *every damn app* that you can choose among.
Windows, either give me the burden of picking my apps for my
files or implement it properly. Spare me the "part time idiot,
part time guru" routine.
Indeed. Opening a text file ending in ".doc" is ... interesting.
Note, however, that Windows has an option in Explorer as to
whether to show suffixes or not, and whether to show all files,
or to hide files with a fixed set of what might be called
"geeky" suffixes: .DLL, .SYS, .VXD (on NT?), .386 (ditto),
.DRV, and .PNF. (Who thought them geeky, I've no idea.
But then, I'm a developer. :-) )
The menu entry is View - Options in a Desktop Explorer window
(I call it that; I don't know what its "official name" is. It's
the explorer that comes up when double-clicking on the "My
Computer" icon.)
But that's okay, since Windows seems hell-bent on reducing the
number of tasks a user can perform at a time. If you'd like
point-to-focus, virtual desktops/workspaces or a remote-able
display, you'll have to look to 3rd parties and hope you don't
break Windows too much.
I'll admit, "focus-follows-mouse" or "sloppy-focus-follows-mouse"
Linux-Advocacy Digest #288
Linux-Advocacy Digest #288, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 17:13:04 EDT Contents: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (Cihl) Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future. (Mig Mig) Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Nathaniel Jay Lee) From: Cihl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:53:23 GMT KLH wrote: Wow. Every reply to my post said about the same thing. I feel like I'm talking to a cult or something :) But I hope to reply to most of the comments in one post---I hope everyone reads this. mlw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: KLH wrote: Okay, the subject line definitely sounded like flamebait, but its not. I am skeptical. I don't consider GNU/Linux a great OS, just marginally better that everything else I have used, at least for my needs. GNU/Linux is a "good" OS. It isn't a great one, then again, it ain't expensive. When compared to any of the Windows variants, it is far far better. That is what I've been trying to avoid. The people in this newsgroup have such a compulsive habit of comparing everything with Windows. I think that is a shoddy way to advocate any OS. You are absolutely right about that! I think, as i have said many times before in other posts, the Linux community should ride it's own race, so to speak. There are times, however, that some comparisons are necessary to point out weaknesses in Linux operation. Right now Linux is heading towards desktop use, so many people tend to compare it to Windows. For the server market, Linux really would have to compare itself to Unixes, like Solaris, SCO, HP/UX and such. That would be much more effective. A true advocate would have to admit: * that the Unix model doesn't extend well into the graphical user interface And just why would that be? Are you saying DOS lent itself better to a GUI (ala Windows?) No! This is why I made the above statement. We now have hundreds of command line utilities and applications along with hundreds of X utitlities and applications. The trick is that many of them are interdependent. GMC depends on MC. In addition, changing something at the command line isn't readily apparent from the GUI. If you change the color of your windows by editing the conf file, the color doesn't change until you restart your window manager. If you delete a few files in your home directory, your filemanager won't know until you operate the refresh command. Until then, may get errors or perhaps something more disasterous may happen. So what you end up instead of a seamless coherent system, you get a dichotomy of the GUI and the command line---like two separate operating systems that the user must deal with independently. This is what I mean when I say that Unix doesn't lend well to a graphical user interface. For years Unix was command-line based. It is quite a stubborn creature. What the community is generally trying to do basically, is to create a desktop-environment for business use. This means that the office secretary would be enabled to do his/her work without being bothered by anything like a Unix CLI. The administrator of the same box, however, would still need the power and flexibility of a CLI to administer the computer quickly and effectively. The desktop part of Linux is, as many have probably seen, still a work in progress. I think it has come a long way, and after having seen beta version of KDE2, i think the desktop is becoming very usable and should be fit for office use in about 6 months from now. The creation of gratuitous office suites like Gnome Office and KOffice really helps a lot. The administration part of Linux has, however, been completed for years. A sysadmin can very easily log into the office-user computer without him/her noticing and make any changes as necessary. Most work here goes into debugging and security issues. There is also a (smaller) trend of making graphical frontends to administrative tasks. This is abviously aimed mainly at the home user, who wishes to have an install and administration that is as easy as possible. For these same home-users, and to gain ground in other areas as well, Linux is at the moment also being adapted to be flexible and fast enough to play games and get high-performance multimedia. You can see the results of this in novelties like XFree86 4.0, DRI, OpenAL, the Berlin project and many more. I'd say this work is about 75% done. * that having two competing desktop enviroments will be causing inconveniance to users for years. One mans inconvenience is another mans opportunity. An app written for GNOME will run under KDE, and vice versa. But the users experience suffers. Especially as the desktop enviroments get more advanced. You will not be able to
Linux-Advocacy Digest #289
Linux-Advocacy Digest #289, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 18:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh ("George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.")
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451719 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Software
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451719 (EdWIN)
Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs? ("ckeough")
Re: Processing data is bad! ("A V Flinsch")
Re: Linux, easy to use? (David Steinberg)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451719 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451719 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451719 (tinman)
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (Sam E. Trenholme)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (Donovan Rebbechi)
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:16:31 -0500
Henry Blaskowski wrote:
In talk.politics.libertarian Nathaniel Jay Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, even if we choose to purchase a PC with something other than MS,
we still have to pay for the MS product. How is this "right"? Why does
MS have the right to charge me for something I don't want to use?
It's not "right", it's false. I have a friend who bought a Mac,
and he didn't have to pay for Windows. When I bought my PC, I
didn't pay for any MS products, and it is even easier today to
do the same.
I suspect what you want is the right to buy a mass-market machine
that is cheap because of the economies of scale that MS helped
bring to the market, and all the associated benefits of those
mass-market machines, without having to use the system that made
it so cheap. Well, guess what. Life is full of choices. If
someone creates a distribution channel that makes something
cheap and easily available, and you use that channel to get
something cheap and easily available, you don't get to complain
about it. Because you still have the same choices you did as
if MS didn't exist: you can buy a Mac, you can search out a
dealer that will sell you a machine with an unformatted drive,
you can buy a Sun workstation, or you can go without a computer.
But you don't get to complain about the people who brought it
to you fast, cheap, and easy if that's what you choose.
Since I don't have time to point out every detail of how stupid that
argument sounds let me just say this:
If I want to buy a GM car with goodyear tires, I do not have to pay
Firestone for the tires they didn't provide. If I want to buy a
computer from Gateway/Dell/Micron/etc up until this past year I would
have had to pay Microsoft wether I used that system or not. The fact
that I could buy a Mac is irrelevant if what I wanted was a Dell. That
is my argument. If you go out of your way to change the circumstances I
am talking about, you are arguing around the problem, and not facing the
real situation I am trying to show you. Even if I purchased a machine a
year or more ago with a formatted/unformatted/non-loaded drive I would
have had to pay MS for the priveledge of buying a computer. This to me
is not right. If you think MS has the right to make me pay for
something I am not using say so, otherwise bow out. Don't try to tell
me that my argument isn't the only solution. It was the only solution a
year or more ago if I wanted an X86 machine from one of the aforemention
system vendors.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 23 Jun 2000 16:15:56 -0500
In article 8j0gon$1coo$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Henry Blaskowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In talk.politics.libertarian Nathaniel Jay Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, even if we choose to purchase a PC with something other than MS,
we still have to pay for the MS product. How is this "right"? Why does
MS have the right to charge me for something I don't want to use?
It's not "right", it's false. I have a friend who bought a Mac,
and he didn't have to pay for Windows. When I bought my PC, I
didn't pay for any MS products, and it is even easier today to
do the same.
I suspect what you want is the right to buy a mass-market machine
that is cheap because of the economies of scale that MS helped
bring to the market, and all the associated benefits of those
mass-market machines, without having to use the system that made
it so cheap.
Economies of scale may have made the machines
Linux-Advocacy Digest #292
Linux-Advocacy Digest #292, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 22:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Jeff Szarka Has Zero Credibility When He Claims Problems With Linux (Terry
Porter)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Bob Hauck)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy? (John Wiltshire)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(John Wiltshire)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(John Wiltshire)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Charles Philip Chan)
Re: Wintrolls in panic! (Charles Philip Chan)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(John Wiltshire)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (void)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(John Wiltshire)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (Mark S. Bilk)
beowulf commercial market share (Oliver Baker)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Why Jeff Szarka Has Zero Credibility When He Claims Problems With Linux
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 24 Jun 2000 08:23:23 +0800
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:57:57 -0400, Jeff Szarka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 23 Jun 2000 08:17:06 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
Porter) wrote:
"hangup on install, scsi problem?"
Did you email them, and find out what they did ?
I don't care what they did. Mandrake 7 would not install on my system
unless I used the expert install mode. This data makes it clear... you
must be an expert to install Linux.
Well that must make my 17 year old son a "expert".
Kind Regards
Terry
--
To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 3 days 13 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
--
From: "Joseph T. Adams" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 24 Jun 2000 00:28:51 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Henry Blaskowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: In talk.politics.libertarian Joseph T. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: I will concede that many other large corporations in the U.S. as well
: as the government itself practice fraud with impunity; however, the
: wrongful actions of one entity do not justify those of another.
: So do you think that business in the US should just be shut down,
: destroying the economy? Because that is the result of a fair
: implementation of the policy that is being used to harass MS.
No. They should be required however to obey the laws against fraud
and coercion, and punished in some manner if they do not.
Joe
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:49:36 GMT
On 23 Jun 2000 18:39:14 GMT, Henry Blaskowski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In talk.politics.libertarian Bob Hauck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Business AND government are driven by special interests. The
difference is that the government makes 260,000,000 people pay
for their special interests, whereas businesses only make customers
pay for theirs.
There are different types of government you know, and which kind we are
talking about greatly affects the validity of your argument.
In theory, the governments of the "western democracies" as they are
called are responsible to the voters who elected them. That it isn't
working quite that way in the US at the moment is something to be
fixed, not an invalidation of the idea of representative government.
But the author has not really proven that the decisions were bad.
At this point, there is enough history of gov't intervention into
free markets to conclude that interference=bad,
Really? It must really suck to live in Scandinavia then. Except by
all accounts it doesn't. Most of the Pacific Rim governments have been
very interventionist and until fairly recently they were held up as
models of capitalist success. I can think of other examples if you
want to play that game.
In short, I don't think you have an open-and-shut case here.
The more power government has to interfere in private consensual
contract, the weaker the economy. That consistent history should place
a heavy burden of proof on the government; they didn't come close in
this case.
The problem I have with this argument is that it presupposes that the
only determiner of
Linux-Advocacy Digest #294
Linux-Advocacy Digest #294, Volume #27 Sat, 24 Jun 00 00:13:04 EDT Contents: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )) From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 03:05:39 GMT In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tim Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Time to eat another WinTroll :-) (yum yum). I've taken the liberty of correcting some of the spelling and grammer of the original post. 1. It scales down Noboddy cares if Linux can run on some geek's obsolete 386 in 2MB of RAM. Windows runs on today's computer's, and the fact that it doesn't run on some obsolete piece-of-shit computer from 1991 doessn't mean shit. There have been over 1/2 billion computers sold between 1993 and 1998. None of which can run Windows 2000 or Windows 98 effectively. Microsoft has told the owners of 1/2 billion computers that they were idiots, that their computers are now worthless. Microsoft expects the owners and users of these machines to simply "throw them away". Even this is a bit of a problem since the EPA has identified at least 9 toxic wastes that keep you from simply "tossing it in the dump". You can't even legally use an old PC as a "Boat Anchor" due to the arsenic, lead, and other toxins. What to do with 500 million PCs that won't run the latest version of Windows? You could run the old versions, Windows 3.1 and Windows 95, but it's getting harder and harder to find new software for the older computers, and furthermore, you can't read documents created by Office 2000 on Office 95 or Office 2.0 Alternative number two, what the heck, plop linux on it. At minimum, you get a really cheap web server, e-mail server, and file server. It also makes a nice masquerading firewall for that DSL connection, a nice DNS caching system to speed up those host name lookups, and it can even page you when you have something important come up. 2. It's multi-user Linux gains NOTHING over Windows by being multi-user. All that meens to me is that I have to remember a password just to be able to get into my own computer. True. Do you have you Windows 9x machine connected directly to DSL and your C drive set to "Share"? Do you realize that anyone can easily get your history log, cookies, and password files and help themselves to your checking account, savings account, brokerage account, and order things using the credit cards you've already used to make previous purchases? Why don't you just hand your credit card, driver's license, and social security card to the next pan-handler you meet. They can make a few phone orders until they reach the limit and then give it back to you. I just finished talking to someone who had his checking account drained of $10,000 by a hacker who made several hundred $22 orders. The attack was caught and the damage was prevented, but the bank is still looking for the perpetrator. What made matters worse was that his wife had died the day before the attack. Users want to get their work done, not waste time "logging in" screwing around with usernames and passwords that can't even be disabled, and having to remember the "root password" every time something goes wrong. Users also want their work protected from deliberate or accidental corruption of disclosure by unauthorized users. This is one of the reasons that Windows NT has logins and Windows 9x doesn't. Those "other users" that UNIX is designed to support through VT100 terminals Actually, X11 terminals are much more functional. After all, I like running GUI applications as much as the next guy. can get their own computer, and the "administrative identities" aka daemon, nobody, mail, news, bin, sys, and uucp, can all go to hell. Actually that's literally where they are designed to go. If you attempt to log in as an administrative user, you don't get control of the system, you get thrown into an application which will either demand that you obey a very strict protocol, or disconnect you within seconds of your first mistake. It's not the '70s anymore. No. Back in the 70s there were only about 10,000 UNIX users, the Internet was the ARPA net and was connected using X.25 and RS-232 connections with an average speed of 1200 baud. Usenet was mostly dial-up connections at 300 baud to 1200 baud. Today, you have 500 million people separated only by a 400 megabit pipe. If only 1 in 1 million is a malevolent hacker who makes it to you door, that means that you might only be electronically burglarized 500 times this year. Maybe you'll get lucky and only be hit 5 times this year - how much can you afford to lose? 3. It's "flexible" (in other words you can turn off the GUI) And noboddy cares. Linux is just as useless without its GUI as Windows is. But look at the $100 "Mail Machines". Turning off the GUI means you can
Linux-Advocacy Digest #295
Linux-Advocacy Digest #295, Volume #27 Sat, 24 Jun 00 00:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Windows, Easy to Use? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Why Jeff Szarka Has Zero Credibility When He Claims Problems With Linux (Jeff
Szarka)
Re: Why Jeff Szarka Has Zero Credibility When He Claims Problems With Linux (Jeff
Szarka)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Bob Hauck)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh ("salvador peralta")
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: (Aaron Kulkis)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 24 Jun 2000 03:23:55 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Bob Hauck bobh{at}haucks{dot}org wrote:
On 23 Jun 2000 18:39:14 GMT, Henry Blaskowski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At this point, there is enough history of gov't intervention into
free markets to conclude that interference=bad,
Really? It must really suck to live in Scandinavia then. Except by
all accounts it doesn't. Most of the Pacific Rim governments have been
very interventionist and until fairly recently they were held up as
models of capitalist success. I can think of other examples if you
want to play that game.
Actually, interventionism is good for some things, such as natural
monopolies and stuff that is difficult to price, such as basic research.
For instance, the large majority of general-access roads that were build
in the 20th cy. were built by government agencies. And land for them is
generally acquired with the help of Eminent Domain, which is not usually
considered an intolerable affront on property rights, something on the
level of Stalin's collectivization of farms. I like to describe that
situation by saying that we have socialist roads.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
--
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows, Easy to Use?
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 21:24:13 -0500
Brian Langenberger wrote:
Even if we ignore Windows' lack of robustness, the GUI itself remains
difficult to use on a daily basis for a variety of reasons that are
not easily remedied.
First is the bar.
As in "FuBar" ?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
--
From: Jeff Szarka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why Jeff Szarka Has Zero Credibility When He Claims Problems With Linux
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:23:09 -0400
On 22 Jun 2000 22:03:18 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
I don't care what they did. Mandrake 7 would not install on my system
unless I used the expert install mode. This data makes it clear... you
must be an expert to install Linux.
Since you've known the solution all along, why even mention
the problem? And how do you like Mandrake 7.1?
Since a system with 1 video card and 1 NIC cannot even seem to install
properly much less my main system with tons of stuff.
--
From: Jeff Szarka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why Jeff Szarka Has Zero Credibility When He Claims Problems With Linux
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:23:37 -0400
On 24 Jun 2000 08:23:23 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
Porter) wrote:
Well that must make my 17 year old son a "expert".
17 year olds have lots of time to read How-To files.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 01:06:59 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:07:13 GMT, MK
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:40:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
wrote:
1. The author starts with the premise that "social choice" is the
correct economic theory to use to evaluate anti-trust laws.
Public choice, IIRC.
Yes, I corrected that in a followup.
According to the article, this theory assumes that government action
is driven by whichever interest groups have access to the government.
That seems as misrepresentation to me. First off,
