Linux-Advocacy Digest #589, Volume #28 Wed, 23 Aug 00 10:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Se�n � Donnchadha)
Re: COMNA's favorite conspiracy theorist rides again... ("Chris")
Re: Open source won't protect you - how licensing is being perverted to strip you
of your own rights (Andres Soolo)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (david raoul derbes)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:13:51 -0400
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Heh. Or how about "superior product"? I find this rather hilarious
>>given Max's assumed tone of authority when discussing this subject.
>
>If Microsoft had a superior product, why did they spend so much time and
>money monopolizing?
>
Nice try to change the subject, Max. Shall I assume that you're now
retracting your totally bogus claim that monopoly power gained by
anything other than happenstance is illegal?
>
>On the odd chance you're willing to learn, I'll give you a clue.
>
On the odd chance that you'll stop being an asshole, I'll listen.
>
>Having a superior product doesn't build a monopoly.
>
Never said it did. But according to the law, a monopoly gained through
superior products isn't illegal. And that flies straight in the face
of the very basis for most of your arguments here.
------------------------------
From: "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: COMNA's favorite conspiracy theorist rides again...
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 23:13:26 +1000
You are both as silly as one another.
Chris
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8njkmq$7mp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote in
> <8nihfl$hjq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >In article <8ni3db$j0s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote in
> >><8ngmu2$sv7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >>>In article <tTMm5.6288$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >>>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>The KDE people do not seem to be taking this lying down. There is
> >>>>probably going to be an all-out war soon. The days of peaceful
> >>>>cooperation between KDE and GNOME are probably over.
> >
> >>>Erik Funkenbusch has a long history as a pro-Microsoft
> >>>anti-Linux propagandist.
> >>>
> >>>A KDE programmer at the LinuxWorld Expo told me that the
> >>>two groups certainly are cooperating, e.g., to insure that
> >>>the apps of each desktop system will run on the other.
> >>>This even includes writing wrappers for each other's
> >>>component facilities (that allow, for example, a live
> >>>spreadsheet to be embedded in a wordprocessor document).
> >>>So a Gnome spreadsheet can be part of a KDE document, or
> >>>vice versa.
> >
> >>Ah, it's COMNA's favorite conspiracy theorist.
> >>Tell me Mark, is Erik getting paid more than me?
> >>Because if he is, then that's the last straw!
> >
> >It isn't "conspiracy theory" to point out that some people
> >have been spreading FUD and outright lies against Linux
> >and in favor of Microsoft in Usenet and elsewhere. These
> >include both Erik Funkenbusch and Stephen Edwards.
>
> Oh, of course. Yet, you have never once
> pointed out when I posted these alleged
> lies. To you, a lie is merely something
> you disagree with.
>
> >Funkenbusch provided a moment of hilarity when he opined
> >that Microsoft left its bogus error message in a Windows
> >beta, warning users not to use DR-DOS because... they just
> >forgot to remove it! Couldn't have been that they were
> >spreading lies about a competitor's product in order to
> >kill it.
>
> You mean you're still making a lot of piss over
> the days of __DOS__?! What the hell is your
> problem? Don't you have a life of any kind?!
>
> Jesus H. Christ Mark. That was then. This is
> now. Get over it already. This is the year
> 2000. Yes, Microsoft has done some underhanded
> things. Just as have every single other large
> corporation. If you weren't such a brainless
> dope-smoking hippie, you'd realize that.
>
> What, do you still hold vendettas against kids
> that pushed you over in the sandbox in 3rd grade
> as well?
>
> >And Edwards has crapped up the c.o.l.a newsgroup with many
> >thousands of nasty, pointless, and in some cases lying
> >articles against Linux (mostly last year), and has given
> >as his reason simply that he had nothing better to do with
> >his time.
>
> *LOL!@#*
>
> The only time I post to COLA is when some kooky little
> worm like you posts his or her wankish viewpoints.
>
> >The reason I replied here to Funkenbusch, and mentioned that
> >he's a long-time anti-Linux/pro-Microsoft propagandist, is
> >that he's spreading lies about the KDE and Gnome development
> >teams, and this would make people hesitate to use Linux, so
> >they'd stay with Microsoft.
> >
> >He's trying to get readers to take his word for what he's
> >saying, without any evidence whatsoever. I pointed out
> >that his history shows that he obviously has an axe to
> >grind (whether Microsoft is paying him or not), and so
> >his opinion is *not trustworthy*.
> >
> >Here's a list of most of the anti-Linux propagandists:
> >
> >Drestin Black, Chad Myers, Erik Funkenbusch, Stephen Edwards,
> >Chad Mulligan/boobaabaa, Jeff Szarka, Robert Moir, Brent Davies,
> >Steve Sheldon, Boris, ubercat/Odin, Xerophyte/Kelly_Robinson,
> >Pete Goodwin, [EMAIL PROTECTED](newsguy.com),
> >Cuor di Mela, etc.
>
> Ooh! The list! How incredibly clever!
>
> Well, if I ever get a letter bomb in the mail,
> and I survive the blast, I'll know who to blame.
>
> Mark, you are even more pathetic than Derek Currie.
> I can't believe that you actually keep track of all
> of those names. You clearly have way too much time
> on your hands.
>
> Tell you what. Why don't you stop mooching off of
> Mom and Dad, and go out and get yourself a job. If
> you're going to run an underground anti-conspiracy
> network, you really shouldn't make your parents pay
> for it.
>
> >Plus these names, which are all used by one person!
> >
> >Steve/Mike/Simon/teknite/keymaster/keys88/"S"/Sponge/Syphon/
> >"Sewer Rat"/Sarek/steveno/scummer/McSwain/Swango/piddy/
> >pickle_pete/wazzoo/"leg log"/mike_hunt/Heather/Amy/claire_lynn/
> >susie_wong/Ishmeal_hafizi/"Saul Goldblatt"/Proculous/
> >Tiberious/Jerry_Butler/"Tim Palmer"/BklynBoy/bison/Wobbles/
> >screwbilk/deadpenguin/"%^$&&&&&&&&&&&&@!!!!!!!!!!!!!.com"/
> >The Cat (hepcat)[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)/etc.
>
> Assuming that you're correct (which you might be),
> I'm certain that you've done exactly as they were
> hoping... provide them with hours of entertainment
> in watching you scream and bellyache like an idiot.
>
> >The rest of Stephen Edwards' article is his usual sneering
> >crap.
>
> I only sneer at you, Mark. It's just because
> you're such a raging twit, that I simply cannot
> resist dangling my taunts in front of you.
>
> Folks, even Mark's own fellow COLA inhabitants
> have written him off as a looney. However, Mark
> has brought up something that has raised several
> questions in me... he claims that I am getting
> paid by Microsoft to push WindowsNT onto everyone.
>
> But what's pissing me off is that I haven't
> received a single check in the mail! I'm thinking
> that I might file a lawsuit against Microsoft
> for failing to adhere to the standard conspirator
> code of ethics. See you in court, Bill! :-P
> --
> .-----.
> |[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
> | = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> | -| "Even though you can't see the details, you can sense them.
> | | And that is what makes great computer graphics."
> |_..._| -- Robert Abel of Abel Image Research
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open source won't protect you - how licensing is being perverted to
strip you of your own rights
Date: 23 Aug 2000 13:31:26 GMT
Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> that, 2, no commerical organization would be so dumb as to
> attempt to arrange a situation which would cause every
> executive in corporate america to issue broadcast memoranda
> to every employee in their companies to immediately cease
> and desist using the aforementioned products.
Giant corporations have get away with worse things due to just the
same line of reasoning. Every manager tends to wonder why the
other managers don't worry about that, everyone is afraid to
be the first one and everyone assumes since all the others
don't do anything about it, it's OK.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I learned to play guitar just to get the girls, and anyone who says they
didn't is just lyin'!
-- Willie Nelson
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:04:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [...]
> >OK. Let's make it very simple.
>
> If only that were possible. It is an abstraction; you cannot simplify
> an abstraction unless it is a simple abstraction. And "the market" is
> not a simple abstraction.
>
> >Answer the following questions in a few
> >words (none of your usual posting of 1000 lines of response so the
> >readers fall asleep).
>
> I'll try to stay terse. Thank you for giving me the opportunity, and
> the reminder.
>
> >1. Should my company be able to charge whatever it wants for products
> >developed here?
>
> Define 'able to'. My preference is that only the market should control
> what you charge.
You didn't answer my question. Should I be able to put any price tag on
my product that I want?
>
> >2. Should there be action taken against companies who "profiteer"?
>
> Yes; they should be prevented from profiteering, minimally.
IOW, you don't believe that I should be able to charge whatever I want.
That's exactly what I said and you're merely confirming the way I quoted
you.
>
> >3. Just what is "profiteering", anyway? Specifically, what level of
> >profitiability do you consider acceptable (and how is it determined) and
> >what dividing line does a company have to cross before it's
> >"profiteering"?
>
> It is not a specific price at which it becomes "profiteering", just as
> it is not a specific market share at which it becomes "monopolization".
> The dividing line is whether the company is investing in producing their
> products, or investing in restricting access to the market to raise the
> price they can demand.
IOW, you don't believe in a free market at all. You believe that someone
should determine what a company is hoping to achieve and restrict their
ability to profit from their own products.
Again, that's exactly what I said when I quoted you.
>
> Forgive a brief expansion. If a company managed to have a ten day
> window on the market, so that during that ten days, they could charge
> anything they want, but after that, competition catching up will force
> them to lower their prices, is it ethical for them to take the great
> amount of outrageous profits they make in the first ten days to erecting
> barriers to prevent the competition from forcing their prices down? If
IOW, you don't have a rational point so you come up with a meaningless,
impossible example to prove the point that you can't make.
> the price does come down after that, but doesn't come down as low as
> some producers could manage with (providing the most efficient
> production, the purpose of competition from the market's perspective),
> is the continued profit the company makes to be considered "honest
> profit" derived from their ability to compete? Or is it 'profiteering',
> and restraint of trade or monopolization?
Perhaps if you come up with a real example you might be able to prove
your point -- if you had one.
>
> >4. Is a company entitled to take advantage of both trade secret and
> >copyright laws?
>
> Not on the exact same capital, no, not in my opinion, not ethically and
> potentially not according to the courts, which have found that
> restrictions contrary to the nature of copyright (which give free use to
> the owner of a copy to use that copy in any way they wish which is not
> restricted by copyright) are not enforceable licensing terms.
Where have the courts found that you can't use both trade secret and
copyright laws?
And why is it that you're saying that a company shouldn't be able to
defend their property with all the means available to them? You're
advocating that they should be limited and should only be able to defend
their property with half the laws available.
>
> >5. Are trade secrets intellectual property?
>
> Yes. The nature of that intellectual property, however, is different,
> as it is for other forms of intellectual property, such as copyright,
> patent, and trademark. Their common element is that they have no
> physical substance; merely a fixed form of expression.
So you admit that you were wrong when you said that trade secrets are
not intellectual property?
And just how are trade secrets conceptually different than the others?
Trade secrets also have no physical substance.
>
> >6. Has the U.S. Congress spoken out against profiteering? Where is your
> >reference?
>
> Essentially, the popular wisdom that the danger of monopolization is
> that they can raise prices to exorbitant levels is the same thing. I'm
> not the one that claimed that the Congress had made specific reference
> to profiteering, though it certainly seems likely its been 'spoken'. It
> is certainly not directly transcribed in law. The laws say "you cannot
> monopolize" and "you cannot restrain trade", not "you cannot charge
> exorbitant profits because you are monopolizing or restraining trade."
I'll take that as a recantation of your earlier position.
>
> The fact that you haven't heard others refer to it as profiteering is
> not a measure of how valid the term is, merely how familiar it is.
IOW, it's meaningless.
>
> >I've quoted you accurately on all of your answers in your previous
> >rambling posts, but just to make sure, go ahead and answer those.
>
> You may have quoted me accurately when you quoted me, but you entirely
> misrepresented my position every other time.
>
And as you've shown above, all my posts represented your position
accurately.
------------------------------
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?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david raoul derbes)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:04:47 GMT
In article <8nvmni$v5f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>How was it Microsoft's fault OS/2 required at _least_ twice the hardware
>resources of Windows to run ?
False.
It is true that OS/2 2.1 required more resources than Windows 3.1; but
at the same time that OS/2 2.1 was coming out, so was Windows NT. The
requirements of NT were easily twice those of OS/2 2.1 (8 MB vs 4 MB
of RAM, for one thing. This was a serious constraint seven years ago.)
So to say that OS/2 required at least twice the hardware of Windows
is true *if* you are referring to "old Windows" (actually, I don't
think it was "twice"; more, probably, but maybe 50% more). But even
Microsoft was positioning NT as the successor to Win3.1, and OS/2
was far more economical than NT.
Windows 95, as its name implies, was about 2 years after OS/2 2.1
was established, and nearly simultaneous (if memory serves) with
OS/2 3.0 ("Warp").
As a matter of fact, *today* OS/2 is more economical than Win 98 and
a little bit more economical than Win 95.
The hardware requirements did not doom OS/2. The main thing was the
lack of applications. And *that* is something I believe MS had a
great deal to do with. For example, as is well known among OS/2
advocates, WordPerfect was *19 days* from code complete on WordPerfect/2,
and killed the project! Why? At that point, they had sunk at least
ninety-five percent of the money they'd need to launch, and yet they
aborted the launch, never to recoup a penny.
Conspiracy theorists have speculated that MS threatened to withhold
early copies of Windows updates and API docs unless WP "knifed the
baby." (The phrase is actually Microsoft's, but used in connection
with Apple's QuickTime.) I have to admit that I'm one of them.
I have no proof for this claim. I'd love to hear from a WordPerfect
executive why they made this peculiar decision.
IBM attempted to pull an end-run around the apps deficit by making
OS/2 capable of running Win3.1 apps ("a better Windows than Windows".)
But MS dealt with that by repeatedly changing the architecture of
Windows 32s, and leaning on ISV's to adapt to these changes. IBM
couldn't keep up with the moving goalposts, and finally gave up.
Microsoft did everything in its power to deny OS/2 applications, by
(I believe) pressuring software developers who also developed for
Windows, by changing Windows for the sole purpose of preventing OS/2
from running Windows programs, and by steadfastly refusing to develop
anything for OS/2 itself. Just about the only OS/2 apps were from
new software companies that had no prior relationship with Microsoft,
and did not therefore provide any handle for MS to grasp them by.
Surely this was no accident.
Applications are the "air supply" of operating systems; cut that off
(another Microsoft phrase, used in connection with Netscape) and
the OS dies.
It worked like a charm.
Of course, IBM could have done a great deal more to support OS/2.
They are also to blame for the death of a superior product, or if
not the death, the slow decay of a desktop much better than anything
else out there for the Intel platform.
It was only after IBM gave up on OS/2 for the masses that I jumped
to mostly Macs. I still use my Intel box, and I'm looking forward to
an easier Linux, but I interact with Windows as little as possible.
David Derbes [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>> >I am an ex-OS/2 user btw, and a somewhat bitter one (against IBM) at
>that.
>> >I migrated to NT4 during Feb 96 (beta 2) because it was clearly the
>better
>> >solution - faster, stabler, better hardware support and more software.
>> >
>> Actually, of the four arguments you mention, only the last one is valid,
>and
>> then only if we explicitly _not_ mention the adjective "quality".
>
>They're all valid. Whether or not you want to agree is irrelevant.
>
>
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:08:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Ragosta wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>No, they should be regulated *by* ethics, and minimized by competition.
> >>Anything else truly is a foolish idea.
> >Wrong. If you believed in a free market (as you pretend to), you'd
> >realize that companies are driven by obtaining the maximum profit
> >possible without breaking the law.
>
> Maximum over which timeframe? One fiscal year? Two years? Ten? Thirty?
> Fifty?
There's no definite answer and securities laws do have some flexibility.
However, sacrificing most of your profits for the next 20 years to
obtain a possibly greater product in 30 years would almost certainly be
going too far.
The point is that the laws require the board of directors to act in the
financial interest of the shareholders. Ethics is not an acceptable
reason (except, of course, where an unethical action will cost
shareholders money).
The actual interpretation of that is somewhat subjective. The fact that
the board has to maximize shareholder value is not.
> Usually "people" don't like greedy "people", so if you ask too much, next
> time
> they'll go to someone less greedy and in the long-term the profit is
> lower.
> *IF* they have a choice that is, which they don't have much of in the
> context
> of this discussion (MS)...
That's all true. It merely says that "maximizing shareholder value"
isn't a trivial thing.
But there should be no question at all that the board's objective is to
maximize shareholder value--not to meet someone's concept of what's
ethical.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
