Linux-Advocacy Digest #577, Volume #28 Tue, 22 Aug 00 22:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Andre Ervin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Se�n � Donnchadha)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[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: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:13:53 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
> >
> > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
> > > >
> > > > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > > Bullshit. I didn't say that. Go read the damn thread.
> > > > > Whenever Nathaniel Lee said I was saying that, I said "no
> > > > > I am not saying that, I am saying this other thing".
> > > >
> > > > cancel control messages can sure be handy.
> > >
> > > Are you saying I cancelled my own messages? I did not. Prove it
> > > or apologize. In fact, I only have cancelled ONE message in the
> > > years I have been in usenet, and it was not in this year.
> >
> > It certainly looks that way, your most damning statements have vanished
for
> > the news server long before the time they should have expired. However,
if
> > you have not caused that situation, I apologize.
>
> I have not caused it, and I have no problem finding them. I don't take
> half assed apologies. If you believe I canceled messages, it's easy to
> check.
OK. If you are innocent, I apologize.
>
> > > > > Here's what I want to say: You don't like the direction linux is
> > going?
> > > > > Work and fix it. It doesn't make any difference if you have
> > contributed
> > > > > in the past or not, really, you still need to work and fix it.
> > > >
> > > > No body has to work to fix any of this, if it was not broken by
others
> > > > first. In that case we were talking about somthing that is correct
the
> > way
> > > > it is. You seemed to take the position that hey we can break
anything
> > we
> > > > like and if you want it fixed, the way it was, then fix it back into
> > working
> > > > order again and don't bother me with your concerns.
> > >
> > > Nonsense. The previous version would still be there, so fixing would
be
> > > just a matter of downgrading.
> >
> > So you are saying that if we long time users have issues with the course
of
> > Linux development, our solution should be to relegate our computers to
> > running outdated versions of the OS and/or its supporting software and
> > become outcasts of the very community the we helped build.
>
> I don't know about you, but I am a member of whenever comunity I am in.
> If I don't like the way one is going, I try to change its course, but
> if the course doesn't change, I am a member of another community where
> the course is the one I prefer. No need to be an outcast. Noone is going
> to take away your linux community membership if you refuse to run, say
> Corel Linux.
>
> > My how Animal Farmish of you!
>
> Are you calling me a communist now?
I never evoked communism and I am not interested in your politics in the
least. As you may recall from Animal Farm, for a while the animals worked
the farm together, then the a group of pigs took over and became the lords.
They disreguarded those who had differing opinions and then finaly drove
them off. I will not likely leave the Linux community unless it become so
alien and hostile to us that. If that happens or we form a major fork to
regain what was lost, we will have been casted out from the mainstream, that
is how we would become outcasts from the community that we have supported
and built.
>
> > > I said, indeed that if you don't like Corel's HW detection, you can
> > > either not use Corel, or fix it, and I stand behind that.
> >
> > That was just one sample of a much larger set of issues.
>
> AFAIR, it was the only concrete example given.
> The rest was generalities like "I don't want Linux to become
> a windows clone".
That was not my phrase or statement.
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: <[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: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:49:59 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
> >
> > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
> > > >
> > > > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > > > > I'm game, but be specific, or go fuck yourself.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you, you have proven my point for me in this issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > Whatever. It's a situation where anything I said would be
> > > > > used against me, right? Fuck yourself is adequate, then.
> > > >
> > > > You proved the point reguarding your attitude by using what now
appears
> > to
> > > > be your favorite vulgarity.
> > >
> > > My repertoire of english language vulgarities is small.
> >
> > A novel idea, don't use vulgarities at all.
>
> Occasionally, vulgarity is the appropiate answer. Why should
> I restrain my means of expression.
Note: dangerious ground, using that argument to defend vulgarity could be
setting the foundation to use it to defend the using any insulting
expressions here, including racial slurs, religious slurs, and ethnic slurs.
------------------------------
From: Andre Ervin <[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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:32:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Tax breaks stimulate commerce, idiot!
> >
> > Ahh. Another proponent of trickle-down economics. Of course, some
> > people
> > see that for what it really is: a way for rich people to justify their
> > exploitation of the system.
>
> For your information...WORKERS always get paid.
>
> OWNERS only get paid if there's anything left over after paying workers.
This is probably the funniest thing I've read on USENET in a long time.
> Therefore, the trickle-down is with the WORKERS at the top, and
> the excess trickles-down to the owners.
No. If profits suddenly go up, you can _bet_ the workers are not the
first to benefit from the added income.
> Micro-economics: learn it!
Yes, please do.
--
dre
------------------------------
From: [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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:52:18 GMT
On 22 Aug 2000 23:23:15 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:20:44 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>I'd just wish you understood the literary aspects of software enough to
>>know that requiring QT is counter-productive, possibly in the extreme.
>
>I believe Roberto understands the issues here, having spent the last two
>years or so getting more than an earful about them.
>
>Please be aware of the difference between "do not understand" and "do not
>agree".
>
>>with you, but with the investors, that is my point. If they are trying
>>to build a product they can give away and make money on some secondary
>>'market', as is the case with most GPL projects, that is fine. If they
>>are attempting to monopolize the 'market' for Linux GUIs, it is not
>>fine. If the former is true, however, I don't see why they would be
>>satisfied basing their production on a library that limits the
>>distribution of their software.
>
>The GPL also "limits" "distribution". I'm not clear on who "they" are.
True. Howver, most libraries are not licenced such and instead
are licenced LGPL which gets rid of the viral nature of GPL
for most developers while adding the benefit of being gratis
as well.
>KDE are not trying to make a profit. Troll Tech ( the authors of QT )
>are trying to make a profit. The restrictions that the QT license imposes
>are for the most part less onerous than those imposed by the GPL.
...which would be relevant if more than a statistically insignificant
number of libraries were so licenced.
Furthermore, a commercial effort can be quite effectively dual licenced
allowing for a free version under the GPL that wouldn't serve to give
profiteers the ability of exploiting Troll's work to Troll's disadvantage.
Even putting version 1.0 under the GPL would be step in the right direction.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:03:25 GMT
bobh{at}haucks{dot}org wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:43:07 GMT, Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >That all changed a few years ago. Now, you can sell electrical power
> >anywhere you want, and in many places, you can even force the power
> >companies to let you use their lines for that purpose.
>
> Maybe in your area, but not in all by any means. Most states are still
> thinking it over.
They're trying to figure out how to implement it. The question isn't
about preserving local power companies' monopolies. It's about how to
let other companies compete without completely dicking over the folks
who already have established businesses.
There are a lot of regulatory issues, like how to let
government-subsidized rural electric co-ops get into local urban markets
without having to give up their (very large) U.S. government subsidies.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: [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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:54:21 GMT
On 22 Aug 2000 23:32:02 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:17:01 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
[deletia]
>Look, could you at least make some effort to have some idea what you are
>talking about before you post this kind of drivel ? Seriously, you have
>no place making these kind of comments when you do not know anything about
>the license that you are criticising.
>
>> If the only reason you have to use QT is that it works,
>>and you like it, and you're familiar with it, and the only reason you
>>have to avoid using QT is that you get hate mail for using it, I would
>>think you'd have enough professional pride to question more strongly the
>>choice to use QT.
>
>You're forgetting that Roberto, and the KDE people use QT because it is
>FREE SOFTWARE.
No.
You are forgetting what the licence was when they started.
They used QT because it was GRATIS and convenient.
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:58:38 GMT
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 23:40:52 GMT, Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>> Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >A company doesn't have to have an overall monopoly to have a monopoly in
>> >certain areas or markets. Coca-Cola certainly has monopoly ower in many
>> >areas, and enough market power overall to use it predatorially, as you
>> >put it. And they still get in trouble for it from time to time.
>>
>> I'm not sure I buy that. While they certainly have a large
>> marketshare, they also have a perfectly replaceable product.
>
>Well, you don't *have* to buy it.
>
>For example, look at Wal-Mart. They don't have a monopoly over the
>total large department store market, but when they drop one of their
>megastores into small towns, they exercise monopoly power in those
Where is the "small town" for Coca-cola.
Walmart in this example is exploiting conditions that don't
exist for supermarkets in general. Even an IGA in a one
supermarket town will have a variety of soda products.
[deletia]
>Even in a non-majority situation, a company can get nailed for being an
>anticompetitive monopoly. This happened to one of the large
>toilet-tissue makers a while back, when they got tapped for only having
>35% or so of a market, but were the single largest competitor (and were
>lowballing prices in specific areas to knock some of the smaller makers
>out of business).
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Se�n � Donnchadha <[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 21:08:29 -0400
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >===============
>> >The offense of monopoly under 2 of the Sherman Act has two elements: (1)
>> >the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the
>> >willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from
>> >growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business
>> >acumen, or historic accident.
>> >===============
>> >
>> >If the first element--possession of monopoly power--is present but the
>> >second element is missing, then there is no violation.
>>
>> Did you bother trying to understand what that second element is?
>> Possession of monopoly power by anything other than happenstance, that's
>> what that is.
>
>"Business acumen" is happenstance?
>
Heh. Or how about "superior product"? I find this rather hilarious
given Max's assumed tone of authority when discussing this subject.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:16:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > ZnU wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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....
> > > > >
> > > > > Paying off the debt is already IN the budget, you moron.
> > > > >
> > > > > ALL treasury bills have a maturity date. To cannot retire
> > > > > the debt any sooner than the maturity dates on the T-bills.
> > > > > To retire the debt, all that needs to be done is to refrain
> > > > > from rolling over the bonds as they mature.
> > > >
> > > > How will this be possible after the Republicans have starved
> > > > the government giving their tax breaks?
> > >
> > >
> > > Tax breaks stimulate commerce, idiot!
> >
> > Ahh. Another proponent of trickle-down economics. Of course, some
> > people see that for what it really is: a way for rich people to
> > justify their exploitation of the system.
>
> For your information...WORKERS always get paid.
>
> OWNERS only get paid if there's anything left over after paying
> workers.
>
> Therefore, the trickle-down is with the WORKERS at the top, and the
> excess trickles-down to the owners.
That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. I'm not sure what planet
you're living on, but it isn't this one.
> Micro-economics: learn it!
Right-wing propaganda: learn to recognize and disregard it.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
