Linux-Advocacy Digest #597, Volume #28 Wed, 23 Aug 00 15:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 14:23:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> [...]
>> >...but they'll have a variety of soda products from many different small
>> >bottlers, and due to Coca-Cola's huge cash reserves, they can come in
>> >and lowball prices, doing severe damage to any small bottler who gets in
>> >the way.
>>
>> Get in the way of what? Competition? What small bottler can get in the
>> way of competition?
>>
>> Oh, "market share", you mean. Like if some bunch of people like
>> StoreBrand (tm), Coke can undersell it to get people to buy their
>> product.
>
>If by that weird phrase you mean Coca-Cola dumping product on a local
>market to undercut the price of a local cola or soft drink, yes.
Well, the term "dumping" normally provides context that isn't evident.
More 'popular wisdom' in place of an understanding of the law, I'm
afraid. Is it illegal for a company to lower their prices in order to
establish themselves in a new geographical market? No. Is it illegal
for a company to lower prices in order to monopolize? Yes. In this
particular case, IIRC, you would need to prove:
A) Was there no competitive business motivation?
B) Did Coke intend to monopolize or restrain trade (inhibit
competition)?
C) Did Coke have the power to monopolize?
D) Did Coke's action have a reasonable chance of succeeding in
inhibiting competition.
The fact is, if you are a bottler, and Coke lowers their prices to the
point that you cannot continue to profit in the market, you can sue them
for monopolization. If the evidence supports (or, more specifically, if
Coke cannot refute with evidence) the claim that Coke intended just that
result, then, yes, they are guilty and will be convicted. The reason
"dumping" has the common reference that it does is because court
precedent has shown that if a company sells a product, even briefly, at
prices below their own costs, then they will almost certainly fail all
legal tests, as this indicates an organized campaign of anti-competitive
actions.
[...]
>> This isn't:
>> >They also have a tendency to come in and buy distributorships that
>> >handle competing brands, which then leads to the competing brands having
>> >all of those problems with getting their products out to the stores
>> >(Coca-Cola is currently under an order to keep them from acquiring
>> >smaller bottlers unless they have FTC approval first.)
>>
>> I would hope the FTC never approves any such attempts to monopolize. I
>> think businesses growing by acquisition is inherently intolerable,
>> frankly.
>
>Then you'd *hate* Coca-Cola. And Pepsi, too, for that matter.
Well, I like Pepsi. But that's referring to the soda; its available all
over, and has a better taste and better fizz, IMHO, than Coke. As for
the company, you are right; I pretty much hate all large corporations.
They're little more than "free-floating greeds", and a danger to the
ethics and quality of life for every citizen, customer or not.
--
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,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:23:37 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Se�n � Donnchadha in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>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?
I wasn't changing the subject, Sean. You brought up "superior product",
because of your misreading of the precedent I quoted. More 'popular
wisdom', yet again. It isn't uncommon that these three things (superior
product, business acumen, accident of history) are treated as if they
are excuses for monopolizing. But the language of the court makes clear
that they are anything but excuses for monopolizing. They are the
alternative to monopolizing.
Now, if there are two alternatives, 'A' = anti-competitive behavior and
'C' = competitive behavior, and they are considered mutually exclusive,
then the 'popular wisdom' can be understood, but seen as false, by
considering the logical possibilities of the comparison.
'Popular wisdom' says that if you make "a superior product", you can't
be monopolizing.
The courts say that if you are monopolizing, then there is no way to
determine if your product is superior, as that is a judgement that only
a free market, not a court, can make. And, the theory of free markets
states that your product's 'superior' characteristics can be freely
copied by competitors, so claiming "its just the best" is not going to
save you from a conviction if you are, in fact, monopolizing.
>>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.
No, according to the law, you cannot gain a monopoly through superior
products. Note the phrase "as distinguished from". A company is not a
monopoly, even if they should be found to have "monopoly power"
(substantial market share and the ability to control prices or
competition), if they gained that monopoly power not by "willful
acquisition or maintenance", but instead through superior product,
business acumen, or accident of history.
Note that willfully acquiring monopoly power with a superior product is
not possible, according to the language. Obviously, acquiring
"substantial market share" might be possible because your product is
superior. But it is not an excuse for possessing monopoly power itself.
"The offense of monopoly power 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."
In short, if you think your product is superior, you have no reason to
monopolize (attempt to control prices or competition). Which means if
you are monopolizing, the 'superior product' defense is not going to
save you.
"At trial, Microsoft attempted to rebut the presumption of monopoly
power with evidence of both putative constraints on its ability to
exercise such power and behavior of its own that is supposedly
inconsistent with the possession of monopoly power. None of the
purported constraints, however, actually deprive Microsoft of "the
ability (1) to price substantially above the competitive level and (2)
to persist in doing so for a significant period without erosion by new
entry or expansion." IIA Phillip E. Areeda, Herbert Hovenkamp & John L.
Solow, Antitrust Law � 501, at 86 (1995) (emphasis in original); see
Findings �� 57-60. Furthermore, neither Microsoft's efforts at technical
innovation nor its pricing behavior is inconsistent with the possession
of monopoly power. Id. �� 61-66.
"Even if Microsoft's rebuttal had attenuated the presumption created by
the prima facie showing of monopoly power, corroborative evidence of
monopoly power abounds in this record: Neither Microsoft nor its OEM
customers believe that the latter have - or will have anytime soon -
even a single, commercially viable alternative to licensing Windows for
pre-installation on their PCs. Id. �� 53-55; cf. Rothery, 792 F.2d at
219 n.4 ("we assume that economic actors usually have accurate
perceptions of economic realities"). Moreover, over the past several
years, Microsoft has comported itself in a way that could only be
consistent with rational behavior for a profit-maximizing firm if the
firm knew that it possessed monopoly power, and if it was motivated by a
desire to preserve the barrier to entry protecting that power. Findings
�� 67, 99, 136, 141, 215-16, 241, 261-62, 286, 291, 330, 355, 393, 407."
--
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,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:23:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On the odd chance you're willing to learn, I'll give you a clue. Having
>> a superior product doesn't build a monopoly. Just a huge market share
>> (or should I say "profits", since market share is meaningless.)
>
>Which, by itself, constitutes a monopoly.
Only in the common vernacular, and that is why it is problematic. No, a
huge market share does not constitute a monopoly. What constitutes a
monopoly, in this regard, is: "the ability (1) to price substantially
above the competitive level and (2) to persist in doing so for a
significant period without erosion by new entry or expansion."
But 'popular wisdom' likes things to be cut and dried, so the assumption
is made that if you have substantial market share, you enjoy monopoly
power. More realistically, and far more practically and productively,
what constitutes a monopoly is the desire to monopolize. Monopolization
is a felony.
>> And then, only temporarily.
>
>...until they either screw up their products to the point where peopel
>stop buying it, or they do something stupid that makes the government
>step in.
That isn't an "either or", to me. I don't *like* the government
entangling themselves with the free market. I'd prefer if 'market
forces' ("until they screw up their products..." is a hasty
generalization, but it will suffice) could prevent monopolies
altogether. More than a hundred years ago, it was already evident that
this was not the case except in Adam Smith's idealistic imagination.
>The position you seem to be pushing here is that "all monopolies will go
>away if we wait long enough." Which is true. But you're forgetting the
>flip side of that coin, which is that "abusive monopolies damage other
>people and society at large," which is why we have antitrust laws.
No, I'm trying to teach you that if it is not a monopoly, but just a
really successful company, then, yes, it will "go away", or not, based
on market forces, and that is fine. If it is a *monopoly*, it will
*NOT* "go away if you wait long enough". The term "abusive monopoly" is
an oxymoron; the mere existence of a monopoly (a real monopoly, not
simply a 'popular wisdom' large-market-share pseudo-monopoly), even one
which performs sufficient subterfuge as to not be apparent, is abusive,
as it prevents free enterprise.
--
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,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:23:55 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
[...]
>> 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.
>
>That's possibly true.
>
>But, OTOH, perhaps you can explain why income disparity between the
>"rich" and the "poor" is vastly worse today than it was under the Reagan
>and Bush administrations?
Continued profiteering by media conglomerates and other mega-corps,
mostly. The political office-holders have nothing to do with it (other
than that Republicans and Democrats have been fatally lax in anti-trust
enforcement, for the most part).
--
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: 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 18:23:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I think the power company themselves are pretty well informed on the
> > > law, and accurately informed me that due to the fact I live just
> > > inside of territory granted by the state to my current electric
> > > provider they cannott run a line to my house.
> >
> > It's probably more of a case of "we're a rural electric co-op, and
> > since
> > you already have electricity, we can't get the low-interest Federal
> > loans that allow us to give you that access for a small amount of
> > money."
> >
> > > Maybe I should call back and say "Chad told me you are wrong, hook me
> > > up tomorrow please." Or better yet could you call them and fill them
> > > in on the law.
> >
> > Or better yet, you could call your engineer friend back and ask him
> > exactly *why* he can't run power to your house, and if it's because of
> > the "granted monopoly" situation or whether it's because of the rules
> > the co-op agree to abide by in order t o get those low-interest loans.
> >
> > Considering your past track record in these things, it's almost
> > certainly the latter.
>
> It's the former.
>
> I thought it was already clear, I'm a victim of a monopoly and have
> been for many years. Which is much more sinister than the supposed
> Microsoft monopoly where as a consumer I've only benefited, and saved
> money.
...and which is why the government is changing the old rules, removing
those situations like the one you describe. It's very similar to the
way they're going after Microsoft. You should be happy, since they're
not just singling out one horrible monopoly - they're finally starting
to go after the ones that do the damage (like Microsoft).
I think the comments you put in are hilarious, though...
Among others, you quote two representatives from Microsoft's home state,
like they're unbiased champions of free markets or something.
> US Rep. Jennifer Dunn (-WA)
>
> US Sen. Slade Gorton (R-WA)
Yeah, those millions of dollars Microsoft dumped into their election
coffers had nothing to do with their public opinions or anything...
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 14:24:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>I think the funny part is the hyocrisy of the Democrats.
>
>While they run around claiming that Bush will make the rich richer and
>the poor poorer, why don't they look at the income disparity that has
>occurred over the past 8 years. The Democrats are guilty of doing it,
>yet they accuse the Republicans of planning it.
>
>One might note that the income disparity during the Reagan and Bush
>administrations was much, much lower than it is today. Perhaps there
>_is_ something to trickle down.
Have you compared the income disparity during the Reagan years to the
administrations before that? The tax structure the Republicans set up
is what the Demos had to work with during the past 8 years. It wasn't
like they could *raise* taxes, to prevent this kind of "piss on the poor
economics" from being successful in broadening the disparity.
Still, it isn't taxes that cause this disparity. Its unthinking people
like you, Joe, that feel that ethics takes a back seat to
profit-mongering, that are mostly responsible. The 'popular wisdom'
which allows rampant monopolization and restraint of trade to be
confused with competition and free markets. The "growth by acquisition"
method being institutionalized. The rampant ignorance, and even more
rampant encouragement of ignorance, within the market.
Its got very little to do with politics, or the capital gains tax, or
the income tax, or any other tax. Its profiteering, plain and simple;
that's what increases the disparity between the profiteers and the
consumers.
--
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: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 04:35:49 +1000
"Jack Troughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Catch-22. Microsoft used its market power to prevent IBM from turning
> > > OS/2 into a viable alternative by making it impossible for IBM to
> > > promote it.
> >
> > Why couldn't IBM just drop Windows 95 altogether and solely promote OS/2
?
> >
> > Answer: it wasn't good enough.
>
> Wrong answer.
>
> Answer: there was no distribution channel to market, as MSFT had
> monopolized the channel.
Huh ? IBM are one of the largest single suppliers of PCs in the world. You
call that "no distribution channel" ?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 14:24:37 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>> >Wealth Redistribution is slavery of the workers.
>>
>> Oh, so you're a *Marxist*.
>
>You seem to have a penchant for making statements that are 100% wrong.
I was teasing him.
>Marxism advocates wealth redistribution. Aaron does not. Ergo, Aaron is
>actually an _anti_ Marxist.
Marxist use a lot of "slavery of the workers" rhetoric. So does Aaron.
Ergo, Aaron may be a marxist.
>But that won't stop you from throwing around terms you don't understand,
>I guess.
I would think, being something of a troll yourself, you would have
recognized trolling when you saw it.
--
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,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:25:15 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>> The only *ethical* income tax structure is when the wealthy pay a larger
>
>Depends on your definition of "ethical".
>
>What you mean is that in your opinion, that's the right thing to do.
I can appreciate your confusion, since you aren't necessarily familiar
with the term "ethics" in the accurate, consistent, and practical manner
in which I use it. But if I had meant "its the right thing to do, in my
opinion", I would have said that it is the only *moral* income tax
structure. But I try not to discuss morals, as they are a private
concern and have passingly little to do with *ethics*.
I meant what I said, and I'll stick by it.
>> percentage of their income (for the privilege of enjoying the
>> civilization which gave them wealth) than the poor people (who may,
>
>I don't think very many people argue that.
>
>Even Forbes (one of the most outspoken advocates of the rights of people
>who make lots of money) advocated a plan where the first $30 K of income
>was tax free--which means that people earning less than that didn't pay
>any tax and those above that paid a lower percentage the lower their
>income.
This is a point in favor of Forbes plan. The point, however, is not
followed up, and a flat tax is, as I described before (based on Clarke's
argument) is "an invitation to rebellion".
>> additionally, require assistance to support the civilization which the
>> rich people benefit from). The only two question are:
>>
>> 1) How much greater a proportion should the wealthy pay?
>
>A lot less than today.
Considering they're still getting richer, and the poor are still getting
poorer, I fail to see why this would be so.
>You have to make something like $20 to 30 K before you pay any taxes.
>Meanwhile, I'm paying 50% of my income in taxes (all taxes combined).
>
>That's an absurd difference.
Maybe from your perspective. Try living on $24,000 a year with a family
of 3.
>> 2) How can we avoid making the assistance to the poor assistance to
>> poverty?
>
>Probably by getting rid of it, in general.
Think harder. You're implying that eradicating welfare will eradicate
poverty. Do you actually think that would work?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 18:36:30 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Still, it isn't taxes that cause this disparity. Its unthinking people
> like you, Joe, that feel that ethics takes a back seat to
> profit-mongering, that are mostly responsible. The 'popular wisdom'
> which allows rampant monopolization and restraint of trade to be
> confused with competition and free markets.
You mean like people who think that any form of monopolization is fair,
as long as it's called "competition?" or the sort that complains about
some poor monopoly that's getting in trouble because "they couldn't
avoid being a monopoly?"
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:44:51 -0300
Nathaniel Jay Lee escribi�:
>
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
> >Nathaniel Jay Lee escribi�:
> >> It isn't as 'extremely unlikely to happen' when we have a
> >> lot of coders working for companies.
> >
> >Find me a company that wants to take care of converting
> >every program that stores configuration on /etc to work
> >on a registry, and I'll show you a company that's driven by
> >nutcases and will never release anything.
>
> Yeah, I hope you are right on that count.
Trust inertia, it's a powerful force ;-)
> >> As this is already happening to some extent, and it will
> >> continue to happen,
> >
> >To what extent has /etc changed to a binary registry?
>
> I meant the 'programmers/coders working for companies' is
> already starting to happen.
Oh, sorry, misunderstood you.
> >> there is a chance that 'management' in the said companies
> >> will decide it is a good idea, contrary to what those that
> >> have a clue as to what they are talking about. I think
> >> this is where our original disagreement stemmed from. You
> >> agree that the idea I've stated are silly (which was my
> >> point) and you don't think it could happen because of how
> >> silly it is. The problem I see with that is, we should at
> >> least say they are silly ideas, so that those thinking it
> >> isn't silly have a more informed position in the future
> >> (and stating it here probably isn't going to matter over
> >> all, but....).
> >
> >Ok, I will also state that eating rat poison for breakfast
> >while running around the pool is a bad idea.
>
> Fair enough, and I doubt you will get anyone saying, "Shut
> up moron" when you do because it is a valid position.
Well, we can try :-)
> >> No one in XFree that I'm aware of has said it, but it is
> >> where the original conversation started. There are those
> >> that want 'full graphical integration' in the kernel.
> >
> >Could you be a bit more specific? It would help me
> >take this more seriously.
>
> Well, our original conversation stemmed from a thread
> where someone was involved with a conversation (in real
> life) with a group of people that were all fired up
> because the 'geeks' were ruining Linux for the 'real
> people' that had made investments in it. It stemmed from
> an article that said 'geeks' are fighting to keep the GUI
> from being fully integrated in the kernel and the 'real
> people' are saying that is the only way to 'fight'
> Windows. And the 'real people' want the geeks to leave
> Linux alone and let these 'real people' make their
> investments back on Linux. (see why the whole thing kind
> of fired us up?)
I see. I would say, "sure, here you have linux, I will
now go work on my nice 'geekos' here" :-)
> >> TUX is extremely fast. TUX is also a security risk (that
> >> I don't consider worthwhile.
> >
> >That's your decision. Allow those willing to take the risk
> >to have TUX, as well.
> >
> >> Again, as I said before, as
> >> long as this remains 'optional' and does not become the
> >> 'standard' then I have no problem with it.
> >
> >Optional it will always be, I guess, simply because I
> >see no way anyone can make a kernel option mandatory.
> >
> >As for standard, standard declared by who?
>
> That's just it, we don't know 'who' is in charge of the
> 'standard'. At the moment it is us 'non-real people'
> called geeks.
I'd say we are not. I'd say noone is :-)
> But we see more and more business interest
> in Linux, and we all know that businesses aren't real good
> at making positive technical decisions (especially when
> people are clamouring for bad technical decisions).
Yep. Which is why we can ignore their decisions,
in principle., Since they have no means of enforcing
their choices, they are specially easy to ignore :-)
If Sun/HP/whoever declares GNUStep the standard desktop
tomorrow, I can ignore it just as easily as when they
declared CDE the standard desktop, or Motif the standard
toolkit.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
