Linux-Advocacy Digest #606, Volume #27 Wed, 12 Jul 00 00:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Student run Linux server. (Aravind Sadagopan)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: What happens when all the bit twiddlers are gone? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k (Steve Mading)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 02:45:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On 12 Jul 2000 02:04:28 GMT, Lee Hollaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Until RMS becomes the federal court judge hearing your copyright case,
>>>>it makes little difference what he considers a derivative work.
>>>Spoken like a lawyer. (Sorry, Lee, but it had to be said.)
>>I should be insulted by that.
>
>I know; there's not a good way to express that, unfortunately.
You're also assuming that I'm a lawyer, rather than, say, somebody
who teaches intellectual property law ...
> My point is
>that, to a lawyer, getting sued isn't a big deal, because he's intimately
>involved with the process as his day-to-day work. To the rest of us, it's a
>catastrophe. To a lawyer, doing something that might get you sued is a
>calculated risk; to the rest of us, it's to be avoided at nearly any cost.
Fear of the unknown is always a problem. But you also have to remember
that often the other side has as much, if not more, to lose than you.
And so they may threaten, but not do anything about it.
>>A defendant in a copyright suit can get his attorney fees if he prevales
>>and the court feels that the suit wasn't justified.
>
>How often does that really happen, though? Everything I've read leads me to
>believe that awarding attorney fees to someone who was wrongly sued is a
>rare event; usually, the victim of such a suit is left with a mountain of
>legal bills even if he wins. This, I believe, is one reason we're so
>suit-happy: you can sue someone secure in the knowledge that you're almost
>certainly not going to have to pay the other guy's costs too.
In general, unless there is a special law or a provision in a contract
that says that the loser may have to pay, then each side has to pay
their own costs. But there is such a special provision in both patent
and copyright law. So you can't look at suits in general.
------------------------------
From: Aravind Sadagopan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Student run Linux server.
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 22:37:53 +0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is a nice way to educate students about Linux.. They will get interested
anyway because of a lot of things are challenging in
the Unix world. First to provoke them would setting up an IRC server, where they
can discuss things freely . Next things
would be to find out who are logged on remotely and use 'talk' to chat with your
friends. The next thing can be to give students
bandwidth to host their own web pages with CGI/Perl PHP scripting. Linux has the
name of being something 'cool' when compared to other
unix counterparts and its history originated from a student..stress the history
of the OS. Tell them that its the best development platform,
It supports a 100 programming languages, Imagine they can compile and test their
C programs from the server itself!. Lynx, pine will be a
interesting change from bloated modern software. I think the only thing you might
have to do is install the server and let htem know abt it.
They will automatically adapt and begin loving Linux
aravind
James deBoer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am in the process of getting a Linux server running in my high
> school. This will be a tool for the students (and possibly the staff) to
> learn more about Linux, and computers in general. It will have no
> 'for-credit' course associated with it.
>
> Getting the hardware does not appear to be a problem, but I am sort of
> concerned that nobody (expect for the core group of admins) would ever
> use it. Are there any ideas out there on how we can teach people about
> Linux in a fun, and interesting way, but within the bound of a school
> environment; eg we don't want to teach them about Linux by letting them
> set up their own warez mirror, or even running a quake server...
>
> Anyways, what are your thoughts?
>
> James deBoer
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:58:48 GMT
In article <8kgln7$qsg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > >> >I mean, they aren't even the same *CLASS* of bus! SCSI is a
> > > >> >*PARALLEL* bus, while USB is a *SERIAL* bus (hence the name:
> > > >> >Universal SERIAL Bus).
> > > >>
> > > >> There are USB SCSI adapters. Pretty common on the Mac
> > > >> marketplace.
> > > >
> > > >Where in the original article did he specify he had a converter?
> > >
> > > Should he need to?
> >
> > Around here, where we get wintrolls insisting that the Mac doesn't
> > have plug-and-play because it won't magically work with hardware that
> > doesn't have any Mac drivers, it would probably be a good idea for
> > people to mention such things.
>
> OTOH, we get Mac advocates claiming Windows doesn't have PnP because it
> doesn't work perfectly with non-PnP hardware.....
>
Why would we do that?
It's bad enough that it doesn't work with PnP hardware.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:42:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I find this a truly terrifying prospect.
>
>Why? Because it implies the destruction of the software industry as
>we know it. That would throw millions of people out of work and
>damage the technology economy beyond any hope of recovery. After all,
>if you can't sell software, why pay people to create it?
The sky is falling... I don't buy it. With cheaper software, simply
more of it would be (could be) written. With more of it written, we'd
need at least as many programmers, maybe more of them... The
existence of free software would not mean that suddenly corporate
Amercia would wake up and say, gosh, lets fire all the programmers
because it exists. You'd have fewer people reinventing the wheel, 50
times over, that is for sure. If all you could do is reinvent wheels,
then yes, you'd be on the chopping block.
The only reason why this would not happen is if CPUs for some reason
fell out of favor. For example, if they got more expensive and slower
every year, I'd predict that we'd have fewer programmers every year.
Luckily, CPUs are still exponentially expanding. As long as they do,
and as long as the enter new fields, we'll need software folks. You
want real worries, contemplate the end of moore's law. :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What happens when all the bit twiddlers are gone?
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:54:42 GMT
But what really will happen when us bit-twiddlers are gone? You don't
write device drivers with a mouse. And you don't write compilers in
Visual Basic.
Sadly, there's a horrifying impetus in my home state that favors dumping
the traditional educational operating systems in favor of a closed
Microsoft-only campus. If this happens, who will write the next
generation process scheduling algorithms? Who will create the next leap
in system kernel architecture? Increasingly, it looks like the entire
United States is intentionally pushing this development offshore to
whichever countries choose not to do what my country is doing. And
that's truly sad, because we're not only crippling U.S. students with
this perverted philosophy, we're dooming future generations of U.S.
knowledge workers to be subservient to innovation that will continue
elsewhere on the planet whether we like it or not.
Like the advert for my state lottery says, "you can't win if you don't
play".
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:11:06 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Christopher Smith from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
[...]
>OTOH, we get Mac advocates claiming Windows doesn't have PnP because it
>doesn't work perfectly with non-PnP hardware.....
Yes, but you also get PC advocates who claim that Window's proprietary
version of PnP has trouble with PnP hardware, as well as non-PnP
hardware.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:20:00 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] () from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 11
[...]
> That is just a very lame copout to avoid the fact that what
> the MacOS does wrong is a very well understood problem domain
> and has been successfully solved since before MacOS existed
> and has been solved adequately well on hardware (including the
> overhead inherent in including a GUI) that MacOS itself has been
> deployed on for over ten years now.
Are you willing to consider, Jedi, being what I know to be a very bright
and reasonable person, that the MacOS doesn't do this *wrong*, for its
purposes? Anyone who has ever been interrupted repetitively in the
middle by a dialog box popping and re-popping in front of them because a
background applications somehow thinks its vitally important, knows that
requiring the foreground application (the one the operator of the
computer has designated as most important, because that's the one
they're using) to yield, rather than to provide pre-emptive
multi-tasking might be considered a bit more appropriate for a desktop
computer almost exclusively used as a client platform.
MacOS just "successfully solved" how to run multi-tasking in a different
way. It isn't necessarily inferior if it is more appropriate to their
requirements.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Date: 12 Jul 2000 03:15:11 GMT
Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
:
:> James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> : Check out the MS advert in the June 6 edition of PC Magazine, where MS
:> : endorses the study by National Software Testing Labs which states that
:> : Windows 98 is 13 times less reliable than Win2k. I am no linvocate, but I
:> : find it incredible that a company can make this admission and then still
:> : push this (Win98/WinMe) onto the market.
:> : Shame on you MS!!!
:
:> What the hell is "13 times less reliable" supposed to mean? How do
:> you attach numbers to a concept like "reliability"?
: I'm not saying either MS or NSTL or the ad is using a
: reasonable measure of reliability, but it is possible
: to quantify it. "Reliability" is "performs to specs
: over time" or some similar definition. You simply
: measure the time between failures (MTBF - "mean time
: between failures") or the reciprocal (FITS or 'failures
: in time'). If you're really interested, see if
: MIL-HDBK-217 is online.
Yeah, but that is meaningless unless the inputs over that time run the
gambit from one end of the scale to the other. Otherwise you can be
missing the conditions that cause the crashes. Testing by throwing
infinite monkeys at the problem doesn't work if the number of monkeys
isn't really infinite - you end up missing large parts of the testspace.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:35:01 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting ZnU from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:27:44 GMT
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>[...]The method used
>> by the Mac puts whatever program is running in the foreground in charge
>> of yielding to background programs[...]
>
>It's a nice theory, but it doesn't work in practice. The fact is that
>_any_ app in Mac OS can grab control of the processor; a background app
>can cause the foreground app to lock up, for example.
Any app grabs control, and can screw it up royal you are correct, *when
the foreground application yields*. All good foreground applications,
of course, yield on a routine basis. But that only highlights the lack
of necessity for pre-emptive multitasking, when it is assumed that all
of the programs running on one computer are under the cognizance and
control of one operator. In multi-user systems, obviously, this
wouldn't work at all. But on a multi-tasking single user operating
system, it does, in fact, make sense to put the user, rather than the
software, in charge of what's important.
> There's the flip
>side as well. A foreground app will often hog the processor even when it
>doesn't need it.
Isn't it nice the way the design for what was intended to be an open
application architecture platform encourages, no, demands, cooperation
amongst all application programmers? I think the PC could benefit from
this lesson; it would have made more sense for MS to follow this model
than the one they did. For a desktop system, which isn't even being
used as a workstation (though it might still be more appropriate, TBH)
level box, it just doesn't make sense to do it the same way as a
multi-user/host/server system.
> Typing something in a news readers uses what? 2% of the
>CPU? Yet if you're decompressing something in the background, it will
>get dramatically slower.
Better something in the background gets slower than my typing into my
newsreader, you betcha, damn right. Whatever *I* am interacting with
should have absolute first shot at every cycle it needs.
> Huge amounts of processing power are simply
>wasted. In the real world, PMT just works better on the desktop, and I
>say this as one of biggest Mac fans you'll ever meet.
In the real world, huge amounts of processing power are simply wasted on
all desktop systems. Or used, if you're of a more functional mind set.
I'd rather that power get 'wasted' in my direction than because it is
theoretically better to do it different.
I'm a big Mac fan, as well. Hell, I'm a big *Windows* fan, in some
regards. I'm also a fan of Linux {The World's Operating System (tm)},
and most of all of the PC, the crappiest computer architecture on the
planet.
>Issues like what you suggest with the dialog are really just the result
>of badly designed UI. From what I've seen of Mac OS X DP4, it seems like
>Apple has done an ingenious job of avoiding such problems while also
>totally eliminating the extremely irritating modality problems with
>current Mac OS dialogs.
I'm mostly thinking of Mac OS 4.2 and 6.00.004, as that's where the bulk
of my Apple experience lies. I haven't used Macs much in the last five
years, but my comments are still entirely valid, and will remain so even
after everyone is using Linux on their desktop. It wouldn't surprise me
if it was a Linux which allowed adjustment to just how pre-emptive the
multi-tasking is. Because it doesn't make any sense, when the primary
purpose of a computer is to provide a user interface, that that user
interface, and whatever interaction the user is executing, should always
have first dibs. Modal dialogs aren't any worse than BSOD or cascading
segmentation faults.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:38:54 -0400
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Masterfully summarized, Jedi. I now officially claim that people who
> think Free Software isn't Free are people who think freedom for some
> people is Freedom, and that makes them as bad as Hitler.
And you were complaining about those of us who are rationally opposed to
the lies behind the GPL as being trolls?
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:42:33 -0400
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
> So, to recap, what we have seen is [...]
...Mike Stump attempt to make a flame, but his flamethrower blew up in
his face as his complete and total ignorance of the English language
and his complete slavishness to the Altar of RMS are revealed.
Next time, we'll see Mr Stump actually manage to chop off his own feet
as he aims -- poorly -- at the redwood which is the fact of the matter
(that the GPL ain't free).
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 11 Jul 2000 22:43:21 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>>Yes, that's what I said. The GPL, in it's attempt to control the
>>>>whole of a derived work, even the parts where the author of
>>>>the GPL'd portion made no contribution, restricts these
>>>>potentially useful works from being distributed. Even in
>>>
>>> No it doesn't. It just ensures that those that are exploiting
>>> the common pool of software aren't doing so with the intent
>>> to restrict the subsequent liberties of others.
>>
>>That is just one of many ways that GPL'd software can't be
>>used.
>
>That appears to be the one of concern, based on the extensive
>discussion. These "many" other ways have not been brought up before.
>Why are you bringing them up now? Particularly, why are you mentioning
>them, but *not* bringing them up now, so that they can be examined to
>determine if they are simply related examples or some reason to think
>that preventing exploitation of the common pool and intent to restrict
>subsequent liberties is to be considered tolerable?
I thought everyone involved in the discussion would already
know the history of the RIPEM case, and would be aware of
all the extra work the Linux and *BSD volunteers have had
to do to avoid the restrictions of each other's licenses.
>>> Freedom in general is preserved rather than allowing for
>>> a single robber baron to be free to take advantage of
>>> everyone. That is a serious problem with software. It's
>>> marginal production cost tends towards zero and and
>>> software tends to end up being an essential facility of
>>> some sort. This is especially true of software that people
>>> are motivated to hide from you (in terms of source).
>>
>>But why is it a problem? Who is it that has capitalized on
>>some free software and become so rich that you hate them?
>
>It is a problem because it could happen, not because it has. But it
>has, not as clearly and definitively as you might insist must occur for
>your to be convinced, but profiteering on software is not a rare thing
>at all these days, and since all software is based on the work of others
>as well as the author, all software being GPL is a good thing.
No it isn't. Having a choice as a good thing. The only way
someone can 'profiteer' on unrestricted software is to add
enough value that many people choose to their version instead
of the freely available version in spite of the cost and they
have to keep doing it in competition with others adding
to the free base. Why do you think it would be good to
eliminate that choice? Historically, this has been the
source of many things contributed back to the free base.
>Why is it a problem? Who is it that has kept secret source in order to
>mandate extraordinary concessions for the user and profiteer from their
>inability to benefit from competition amongst the producers of the
>software they use.
I can't think of any that harmed the existing free base in
any way.
>
>>I think making a well tested, freely usable base of code available
>>has had the opposite effect in all cases that I can see. It
>>lowers the barrier for competition and ends up making all
>>versions better, including the branches that continue to be free.
>>Please point out the example that convinced you that unrestricted
>>usage of open source code is bad for anyone.
>
>I concur that making software public domain would be better than GPL. I
>don't believe that any other open source licenses are "well tested,
>freely usable bases of code", because they allow someone using that code
>to place restrictions on others re-use of that code, if they can combine
>it with secret source code.
But you don't have to use that version unless you have some reason
to consider it worth the price, and they cannot keep you from
using the original in any case.
>If all branches are not all as free as the
>original, then the software isn't freely usable by the end user,
>regardless of how encumbering your mandate to protect other's freedoms
>as much as your own might be.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. How does, (say)
a bit of BSD tcp code in a Cisco router, perhaps merged with
proprietary SNA from another source, harm your ability to
freely do anything you want with your own copy of TCP from
the BSD base? In my opinion, the existence of the Ciscos
forming the internet backbone greatly enhances your ability
to use your own TCP copy rather than taking anything away.
Or, look at Sun who made proprietary versions but contributed
back NFS. How were you harmed by that? Had the base code
been GPL'd, those companies probably could not have started
up and we'd all be running OSI or SNA now, under the control
of a single large company who could afford to write everything
from scratch.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:44:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 11 Jul 2000
[...]
>> That is the essence of the issue, yes. But the problem isn't the paying
>> or the source, but the "compel" question. Are you compelling someone to
>> buy something when you make it more attractive? (Please don't compel me
>
>Apparently, a lot of people consumers and OEM's disagree with
>the assertion that MS's bundling is "more attractive" than
>the alternatives. The whole suit got started by OEM's
>complaints that Microsoft was (and is) PREVENTING the OEM's from
>doing what the customers think is attractive, because doing so
>would violate Microsoft's strategic methods.
I didn't say it wasn't bundling; you aren't arguing with me, you're
arguing with the law as it currently stands. Nobody was physically
compelled to buy Windows by Microsoft and that begs the question. So
you gotta ask the question, and not consider it a foregone conclusion.
A company *is* aloud to combine products and drop the original line if
the market accepts it without coercion. Yes, the monopoly conviction
identifies the manner of coercion, but that doesn't mean the question
still doesn't have to be asked about tying. According to the law, if it
*could* have been of benefit to consumers, then it can't be assumed to
be illegal. When dealing with anything else but software, physical
modification to designs and manufacture are necessary to combine two
products, and no company could afford to sell the combination for the
same price as one of the original. The legal test is predicated on the
assumption that even if bundling killed the competition, it was because
they couldn't remain competitive because their costs would increase, not
simply because nobody would ever choose their alternatives.
>I think that's sufficient counterexample.
Do you still think it was? The suit got started, AFAWK, by a complaint
from Netscape, not OEMs. Judging from what I see amongst the industry,
I'm almost convinced that the OEMs have a restriction from complaining
in any way about Microsoft as dependant clauses in their license
contracts. Such clauses are legal toilet paper, but cost dozens of
millions of dollars just to test.
But now I'm just being paranoid, maybe. Maybe.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:45:14 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 11 Jul 2000
[...]
>You really don't understand the concept of following
>standards, do you? There is no 'their' dialer. Any
>standard ppp dialer worked. There was no need to
>match any vendor's dialer to their dial-up hardware
>until MS entered the picture.
Also an incredibly important point to re-itterate.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
