Linux-Advocacy Digest #550, Volume #28 Mon, 21 Aug 00 23:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (joseph)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (joseph)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (joseph)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (joseph)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Courageous)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (joseph)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Courageous)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 22:26:45 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Nathaniel Jay Lee in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Long ago, Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered the following:
>>I state for the record and without any qualification that I do not have ANY
>>financial motives for supporting Microsoft.
>[snip]
>>My company and I uses and resells some MS products and we profit from doing
>>this. THAT is how I profit from "MS doing well."
>
>Find the contradiction?
Sorry, Nathaniel, I'm going to have to call you on this one. Being
entirely unconcerned with 'Drestin Blacks' actual motivations or sources
of income, I have to point out that there is no contradiction in what he
says. Unless you are prima facia accusing him of being an unethical
business person (which may, again, be true, but cannot be presumed as
that is the intent of the inquiry), the fact that he makes money selling
Microsoft products does *not* contradict his previous statement in
intent. You might just be quibbling about the scope of "financial
motives", but I know you aren't one to quibble.
He may well make just as much money selling something other than
Microsoft products, given the opportunity, and as an independent (not
overly entangled with Microsoft, at least, aside from routine
contractual matters such as certifications) vendor, should not be
presumed to have an inherent motivation to be predisposed towards
Microsoft. (I'll admit this is pretty idealistic, to think that any
reseller isn't going to have an inherent interest in protecting any
specific vendor they're making money with, but we're talking logic, not
anti-trust behavior.)
It certainly isn't true that Drestin is not biased towards Windows; his
other statements have made that quite clear. But on the matter of
whether this is derived directly from financial benefits, the fact that
he sells MS stuff isn't enough to convince anyone that he is
irrationally pro-MS. Plenty of people that are anti-MS make money on
selling Microsoft software. Better to let the fact that he thinks VB is
a competitive programming environment for real development speak to that
issue.
Only MS could have 'empowered' such a person of limited intellect to
begin with; can we really blame him for believing they're "the good
guys" and his tools are the bee's knees? We have to remind ourselves
that like most people, he starts out entirely ignorant of the fact that
anybody could have done it better than Microsoft, as they would have
designed a technically competitive system, rather than using
anti-competitive strategies as their design criteria. It really does
take quite a bit of knowledge about the issues to realize how much MS
sucks. We consider 'Drestin Black' a sham because he's refused to learn
even when challenged to do so, not simply because he makes money selling
MS software.
You have my apologies if I seem to be picking on you, again. But I
thought you'd want to know about the logical fallacy you stumbled into.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 02:22:54 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Larry Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8nrgod$rsc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> [snip]
> > The point I believe I'm trying to make, is that if Microsoft's
behaviour
> > only becomes illegal when they are a monopoly, why should actions
they
> > undertook before they were ruled one, be accountable, when the line
between
> > monopoly and not monopoly is not simply a line in the sand that
everyone
> > knows when it is stepped over ?
>
> I believe that any attempt at criminal conviction
> under the Sherman anti-trust act, applied to the
> so-called "Microsoft monopoly", would have to fail
> on constitutional grounds. Getting "monopoly" to
> refer to winner-takes-most situations is quite an
> achievement in stretching a vague concept, but it
> is still too vague to constitute fair notice of
> the sort that deflects constitutional challenges
> to vague laws used to deprive people of property
> or liberty.
It is ironic to use the Constitution to argue against
Vague Anti-trust laws.
There are laws and there are cases that define the laws
and how they have been applied and interpreted over the last
100 years. So the Sherman Act is not interpreted stand alone
but with case history and so MS had ample warning about
what is monopoly power. They took risks and played a game
of chicken - and lost. The Judge even allowed them the
possible to settle after the FOF was released.
MS has lawyers and the reason MS has lawyers is for legal
advice. MS's lawyers either gave bad advice or they gave
good advice that was not followed.
You'll NEVER see an Intel Executive use the damning langauge MS
Executives used in e-mails.
Intel trains their execs on Anti-trust laws and enforces
a strict policy.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 22:31:06 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Nathaniel Jay Lee in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Hey, I'm not trying to discredit MS in this venture, I'm
>trying (and apparently succeeding) in discreditting you.
>You say you have, without any qualifications, 'no
>incentives' for promoting MS, then you say you have
>financial gains to be made because your business succeeds
>based on MS products. That is what we humans call a
>'contradiction'.
I'm afraid to say it, but you are wrong in this. 'Drestin Black' might
be a boorish ignoramus, but he has a logical point here. Every OEM in
the business makes money selling MS software; that doesn't necessarily
mean that they colluded in establishing the monopoly. He might (and has
said he does) sell non-MS software as well. Must we examine the
proportions to judge whether he is or is not biased? Better to look to
his actions and his statements, not the 'market share', as usual.
>As to your 'why do you worry so much?' question, one could
>ask the same of you. Why do you spend so much time trying
>to tell us what morons we are for using *nix? Why does it
>hurt you so terribly bad that we don't use Windows? What
>are you so afraid of?
He's afraid of finding out that the "empowerment" of Visual Basic and
the One Microsoft Way didn't really turn him into a competent developer,
I think.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 22:32:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Nathaniel Jay Lee in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>>Essentially, there is no contradiction, depending on your interpretation.
>
>In my opinion, if it *can* be interpreted as a
>contradiction, it is. Call me a hard ass :-).
You're a hard ass.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 02:34:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > The president doesn't create the budget, he only has the power to
> > > > > approve it in it's entirety or return it to congress, now who has
> > > > > really been creating the budget deficit for the past 20 years?
> > > > > And
> > > > > who in the past four has managed to turn it (the deficit) around?
> > > >
> > > > If the Republicans did all the work to balance the budget, why are
> > > > they
> > > > trying to damn hard to unbalance it?
> > >
> > > Are you, ZnU, smoking large amounts of crack before writing to
> > > USENET?
> >
> > Are you really denying this? In just the last few months the
> > Republicans
> > have tried to pass two tax cuts that would eliminate or significantly
> > reduce the surplus, and Bush wants to take things even farther.
>
> And I suppose the Democrats are just going to let that surplus sit there
> reducing the debt, rather than spending it on bigger government health
> care and *ahem* Gore's own $500 billion in proposed tax cuts?
Gore has promised to pay off the debt. Bush has not. Of course, it's
rather difficult to attack Bush on the issues, since he almost never
talks about them....
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 22:47:46 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Having pages mapped from the disk cache to the paging file allows both to be
>used more efficiently and can increase your cache effectiveness. Consider a
>COM DLL that has been initialized and freed. It's VM image gets released
>and under normal circumstances you'd have to reload the image from the disk
>or cache. Windows just maps the disk cache pages as VM and accesses the
>image right out of the disk cache -- no copy required. This easily offsets
>any performance hit taken due to differences in locality associated with OO.
I'd hate to contradict someone who obviously knows far more about the
details and issues than I, but perhaps this "Windows just maps the disk
cache pages as VM" thing is one of the reasons Windows has such
incredibly bad performance? It certainly sounds like a Bad Idea, since
the rest of the system treats virtual memory as memory but its actually
disk cache, so why are you mapping disk cache to disk cache... I think
I'm getting a headache.
Could someone who knows what they're talking about (not you, Mike;
you're far too slick with the techie stuff for me, I know I could never
keep up) steer me clear here? I have a vague notion of what "locality"
is from the original comment about OO, but I haven't the foggiest idea
what that has to do with VM. Can anybody stand to let us "kindergarten
programmers" in on the black magic a little?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 02:36:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Larry Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You miss the point. Virtually any company that
> has customers can be defined to be a monopoly
> if the market is construed narrowly enough.
False - you have to show monopoly power in that market.
For Example BeOS could be called a monopoly (incorrectly).
They are not because they have not exercised or show any
monopoly power in any market.
> If
> that determination can only be made arbitrarily,
> we have rule by judge's whim rather than rule by
> law. And please don't tell me that the DOJ's
> reading of the law should be considered adequate
> notice.
The determination is not made arbitrarily, it is made in a court room
just as any other determination is made. Courts are established to make
these determinations day-in and day-out.
One of the many risks MS took when they went to trial was being
determined a legally deinfed monopoly and suffering the consequences.
>
> > They are also in trouble for violating a previous Consent Decree, so
> > they certainly knew they were in trouble well before the current
case.
> I think you may have missed the fact that the
> 3rd circuit Court of Appeals found that there
> was no violation of the Consent Decree under
> the facts adduced in that action. That case
> just goes to show that DOJ's and Jackson's
> views are not reliable substitutes for a
> precise and unambigous law.
There was no trial and no discovery.
-- joseph
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 02:36:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Larry Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You miss the point. Virtually any company that
> has customers can be defined to be a monopoly
> if the market is construed narrowly enough.
False - you have to show monopoly power in that market.
For Example BeOS could be called a monopoly (incorrectly).
They are not because they have not exercised or show any
monopoly power in any market.
> If
> that determination can only be made arbitrarily,
> we have rule by judge's whim rather than rule by
> law. And please don't tell me that the DOJ's
> reading of the law should be considered adequate
> notice.
The determination is not made arbitrarily, it is made in a court room
just as any other determination is made. Courts are established to make
these determinations day-in and day-out.
One of the many risks MS took when they went to trial was being
determined a legally deinfed monopoly and suffering the consequences.
>
> > They are also in trouble for violating a previous Consent Decree, so
> > they certainly knew they were in trouble well before the current
case.
> I think you may have missed the fact that the
> 3rd circuit Court of Appeals found that there
> was no violation of the Consent Decree under
> the facts adduced in that action. That case
> just goes to show that DOJ's and Jackson's
> views are not reliable substitutes for a
> precise and unambigous law.
There was no trial and no discovery.
-- joseph
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 02:44:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Larry Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > >
> > > I understand that, thanks.
> >
> > Then why did you make the above argument?
>
> Because I believe that people should not be
> found liable in civil or criminal actions
> based on laws that are too vague to allow a
> potential defendendant to reasonably predict
> what is legal and what is not.
What could more vauge than the US constitution?
Are anti-trust laws vague? NO. Not at all. They are clear and the so
was MS's power and intention to monopolize the browser market.
-- joseph
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 02:50:42 GMT
> You'll NEVER see an Intel Executive use the damning langauge MS
> Executives used in e-mails.
> Intel trains their execs on Anti-trust laws and enforces
> a strict policy.
It's about corporate cultures. The Microsoft corporate culture
is one which involves willful disregard for American antitrust
sentiment and law. Intel, on the other hand, takes an active
hand in inculcating a climate of caution.
It's this corporate culture of Microsoft's which cements in my
mind the need for a structural remedy; I see zero probability
that the corporate culture will change, so if there is to be
a solution, it must be one that doesn't involve willingness to
comply in good faith. A structural remedy is the best proposition
for all involved.
I'm not at all sure that the _proposed_ structural remedy is
the best one, but it's fair-to-midlun and certainly better than
nothing.
C//
------------------------------
From: joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 02:53:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Larry Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> It is the law itself which is required to put
> people on notice as to what it forbids. And
> the Sherman Act does not clearly indicate that
> Microsoft's portion of the O.S. market should
> be considered a monopoly. It is not clear.
The law should NOT.
The law lists what capabilities define monopoly power. Like all good
laws it does not specific the mechanics of a particular market but it
does show what are the capabilities of a monopoly. MS has demonstrated
monopoly power in their market so they a have monopoly power.
> Vague laws and the government's willingness to
> apply them are everybody's problem. That is
> one of the stepping stones to tyranny.
Like the Bill of Rights.
Have you ever seen a more vague set of laws?
--
-- joseph
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 03:07:24 GMT
joseph wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Larry Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
> > > >
> > > > I understand that, thanks.
> > >
> > > Then why did you make the above argument?
> >
> > Because I believe that people should not be
> > found liable in civil or criminal actions
> > based on laws that are too vague to allow a
> > potential defendendant to reasonably predict
> > what is legal and what is not.
>
> What could more vauge than the US constitution?
The Constitution isn't really vague. It's just that after
two hundred years of "penumbrances" and so forth, its been
interpreted into vaguosity. The various pieces of absolute
language used in the Constitution by the framers really
were intended. These were a people who had just fought a
bitter Revolutionary War in order to throw off a yolk they
rather didn't like; the Constitution was their way of saying
"Never Again."
In modernity, our people find compliance with old law so
distressing that they willfully disregard it. Our Constitution
now, misfortunately, is worth only very little, in particular
some Amendments which have been thrown aside as if they never
really existed.
It would have been better that these had been repealed
instead of ignored; it sets a bad precedent. Pretty soon
you have Presidents issuing Executive Orders, and legislators
passing whatever laws they desire, to do whatever they please.
Most unseemly.
Take Prohibition, for example. At least then they _knew_ they
had to have an Amendment to do that. Now, however, it appears
they don't. They really don't need an Amendment for much of
anything these days.
Disturbing.
C//
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
