Linux-Advocacy Digest #612, Volume #28 Thu, 24 Aug 00 09:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft Linux: what if? (Stuart Fox)
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! (Truckasaurus)
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! (Truckasaurus)
Re: It's official, NT beats Linux (?) (Truckasaurus)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Bob Germer)
Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet! (2:1)
Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet! (2:1)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows (mlw)
Re: I can't believe how big this troll thread has gotten... (Incbe)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Andre Ervin)
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451781.763d^-.0000000000001 ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Linux: what if?
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 09:58:17 GMT
In article <8o1r7k$scv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Microsoft Linux 2002, Microsoft Linux Applications Kit, Microsoft
Linux
> > Explorer, MS Linux Express, etc. etc., indeed they could just take
the
> > guts [for free], paste some glitz on it, box it, sell and be the new
> > "trendsetter"... Anyway, have some more names:
>
> No they can't (in all cases). Take a look at the license of the
progrma
> they take for free. If it is GPL they can't add features to it and
sell
> it (for a reasonable fee (media expenses)) without releasing the
> additional code. This may also apply to other licenses.
>
But of course the GPL has yet to be legally tested...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 09:59:26 GMT
In article <8njlh8$7mp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II) wrote:
> All hardware sucks. All software sucks. Anyone who
> states otherwise for anything has blinders on.
No.
--
"Hello, everybody!"
- Doctor Nick
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:04:10 GMT
In article <_Qdn5.6565$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Truckasaurus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8njb1b$lpu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > You have kinda backwards logic in there...
>
> Why?
See below.
> > If another open source project is chosen over mine, I can say that
> > my work secured a lower bound for the quality of these two or more
> > projects. An Open source is all about good software/software that
> > doesn't suck.
>
> But that's just it. You must think the competitors software sucks
more than
> yours does, or you would have abandoned the work on your project
already.
> So, you end up with corporations controlling the path of the common
linux
> desktop environment, rather than end users.
Why?
> > And at the end of the day, I can still choose either desktop, and
still
> > work on my project if I think it's so damn great, or join the other
> > project, since I picked up a lot of knowledge during my development.
>
> Not if the applications all begin to support Gnome and only Gnome.
Which they would do because...?
--
"Hello, everybody!"
- Doctor Nick
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's official, NT beats Linux (?)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:12:43 GMT
In article <8mrm4f$kkt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> Impartial benchmarks seem to point to NT as far superior...
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,1015266,00.html
Gee, great news, dated June 25, 1999, and your posting is dated august 9
2000 - is your brain always that fast? How about a benchmark on that?
--
"Hello, everybody!"
- Doctor Nick
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:21:35 GMT
On 08/23/2000 at 04:04 PM,
Larry Brasfield, the Village Idiot with Gates' Shit all over his face
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Perhaps you should take that theory to courts
> throughout the U.S.A. where the same rules of
> evidence are used for both kinds of actions.
> I'm sure you'll surprise everyone.
Oh? I think you will find that you are totally wrong if you ask any
qualified attorney. Do you remember the differences between what was and
was not allowed in the two trials of OJ?
One huge difference. In a criminal trial, the defendant's past criminal
history is generally not admissible prior to conviction. In a civil trial
it is generally admissible.
> I expect most people can understand that many
> equitable principles apply equally in both
> civil and criminal realms. The notion that
> laws should be clear if they are to provide
> a basis for sanctions is one of them.
That is true. Unfortunately for your hero Gates, the anti-trust law is
quite well documented and provides ample notice to anyone with an IQ above
60 that abuse of monopoly power is illegal and that the actions he took
were clearly abusive.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet!
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:48:52 GMT
> By "server" == "driver", he was probably talking about his X server.
Oh. But that's not a driver, like windows isn't a driver. Or more
specifically, it isn't a driver, like GDI.EXE isn't a driver. It uses
drivers, though, just like windows uses graphics card drivers.
-Ed
--
BBC Computer 32K
Acorn DFS
Basic
>*MAIL ku.ca.xo.gne@rje98u (backwards, if you want to talk to me)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet!
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:58:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there an equivalent in the Windows world to an X server? Just so
> that users coming from a background of Windows (like myself) can grasp
> the idea little better.
GDI is about the closest thing. It takes reasonably high level calls
(like draw a line, bitmap, etc) and puts the correct pixels on the
screen. However, the analogy is not very good. X provides a networked
interface to this service (hence X server). The terminal server or
Citrix Meta Frame bring in the network functionality.
X also deals with input devices as well, and I don't know which part of
windows does this.
Further, apps in windows are responsible for moving themselves when you
click and drag from the title bar, resize etc, which is why frozen apps
can't be moved. In X, this is delegated to a Window Manager. Explorer
proviodes a method of deiconizing progs. This is also a function of the
window manager. The desktop style environment provided by explorer might
be provided by GNOME, or KDE, under X.
I hope this isn't too much gibberish
-Ed
--
BBC Computer 32K
Acorn DFS
Basic
>*MAIL ku.ca.xo.gne@rje98u (backwards, if you want to talk to me)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 07:13:58 -0400
paul snow wrote:
[snip]
>
> XML can be used to define a program in abstract. A single, separate
> Software Rendering Facility can be used to take a program's abstract form in
> XML and render it to the target computer system.
>
> XML can be used to capture the options required for this rendering.
>
> XML can be used to refer to a group of programs in abstract (XML), and their
> options (XML), in order to define a single definition that can be expressed
> in different ways on different computer systems to construct an operational,
> distributed application. (Unlike today, where we have to install every web
> server, every firewall, every Java JDK, every etc. all from scratch, with
> one mistake preventing any of it from working!)
>
> This discussion about how XML might be used along with Linux to create a new
> concept in Operating Systems is beginning. We have the technology and the
> know how. We just have to take our computer system, set it on its side and
> view it a bit differently. This technology is going to completely change
> the rules of software configuration, management, and security, and you can
> make it happen.
This who XML hysteria worries me. We have people thinking that it is
something other than a very inefficient text based file format. Example:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<!DOCTYPE RESULTSET SYSTEM "http://fubar.com/fubar.dtd">
<RESULTSET>
<RESULT ID="0" >
<MATCHES>0</MATCHES>
<TIME>0.1605</TIME>
<RATINGS>0</RATINGS>
<MAXSCORE>2510</MAXSCORE>
<SCORE>6947</SCORE>
<SIZE>6536</SIZE>
<LANGUAGE>_LANG1_</LANGUAGE>
<DATE>957148708</DATE>
<FORMAT>0</FORMAT>
<MODDATE>0</MODDATE>
</RESULT>
</RESULTSET>
That's all that XML is, nothing more. It can not replace programs, it is
not a new concept in operating systems.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Incbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I can't believe how big this troll thread has gotten...
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 12:06:24 GMT
"Shocktrooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"David T. Wang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8o1id2$2vk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> : "David T. Wang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> :> Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> :>
>> :> : You're also comparing the *old* G4 to the current ones (which use
>> :> : smaller process sizes and lower voltages), so the G4+ cache is pretty
>> :> : low-wattage even with the cache.
>> :>
>> :> There is no G4+. AFAIK, there's only 1 G4 since release, all using
>> :> the same Vdd @ 1.8V, there's a push spec which uses the higher 2.15V
>> :> supply, and the first rev 450 MHz apprently used both. I'm still
>> :> uncertain if the current 500 MHz parts use 1.8V or 2.15V, but the 400 MHz
>> :> version has used the 1.8V since day one.
>>
>> : Motorola came out with at least one updated version of the G4, which
>> : uses less power. They don't have a PDF on the site, but there was
>> : mention of it in some of the Mac sites a while back (as a "by the way"
>> : sort of thing).
>>
>> Unfortunately I can give no credence to something mentioned only in
>> brief passing on some web site, when the datasheets themselves make no
>> mention of it.
>
>Especially if its Chad who is claiming it..
>
Making shit up is always worth a shot. You never know when some moron
will buy it hook, line, and sinker. 'Tis written in the scrolls of
usenet.
--
Incbe
------------------------------
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: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 12:07:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> > > You mean Bush wants to give people their money back instead of
> > > spending it for them!? How absurd!
> >
> > Bush wants to make the rich richer instead of helping the poor stay
> > healthy and educated.
>
> That's SOOOO OLD. Nothing is that simple. It's more of a 50 year old
> democratic slogan than anything. Not even worthy of argument except to say
> 95% of the poor are in that situation by choice, it's the five out of 100
> poor that need a hand.
Proof? For that matter, how many truly poor people do you know?
--
dre
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451781.763d^-.0000000000001
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 12:12:44 GMT
Here's today's Tholen digest. Notice how he's ignored the evidence for the
fact that he likes to "hear" himself, as well as the evidence for his
reading comprehension problem. Nor did he explain who or what "Slava" is.
And he's still plagued with "parrot" syndrome, answering questions with the
same few meaningless words as always. Figures.
The digest itself is, of course, a tholenesque wasted void, as he never has
anything interesting to say.
Bye!
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 22:29:16 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Wed, 23 Aug 2000 18:57:34 GMT...
...and Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I see. I would say, "sure, here you have linux, I will
> >now go work on my nice 'geekos' here" :-)
>
> I don't know why but I 'heard' this in my head in Eric
> Cartmen's voice:-).
You don't happen to mean Eric "All By Myself" Carmen?
mawa
--
Gnome with Enlightenment... isn't that Yoda?
-- mawa
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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 12:39:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> A harmful monopoly in a *free market* is impossible.
> >
> >Not true.
> >
> >All that free market theory claims is that a monopoly wouldn't last
> >indefinitely--not that it can't occur.
>
> Thus preventing it from being harmful. It would last only as
> "indefinitely" as it failed to be harmful. Once it became harmful,
> competition would destroy it.
>
> Harmful monopolies (which is to say, real monopolies) don't get
> destroyed by a free market. They can't, because of the predatory power
> which being a monopoly in the real world (but not the imaginary world of
> idealistic free market theory) provides the ability to manipulate the
> market (the most grievous of sins in free enterprise) so that the
> competitive forces cannot overcome the anti-competitive tactics and
> strategies of the monopolist. Which is why the gov't outlawed
> monopolizing more than a century ago.
You're making so many absurd assumptions that it's hard to know where to
start:
1. You assume that a temporary monopoly can't be harmful. It can.
2. You assume that a permanent monopoly is definitely harmful. It may
not be.
3. You assume that high prices are prima facie evidence that a company
has a monopoly. It isn't.
4. You assume that a temporary monopoly can be overcome by a free
market. It may not.
5. You assume that a "harmful" monopoly can not be overcome by a free
market. It can.
Your understanding of these issues hovers right around the 2nd or 3rd
grade level. Perhaps if you'd concentrate on provable theories rather
than insane conspiracy crap you might be more believable
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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 12:39:19 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> 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).
cue soundtrack.........
(your conspiracy theories are only slightly less comical than your
theories on business)
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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 12:39:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8o13e4$21d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > -- snip --
> >
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > When did you get it into your head that having a surplus indicates
> > having a balanced budget? No, either way, surplus or deficit, the
> > budget is not balanced. It's only balanced when expenditures equal
> > revenues.
> >
> > If that's what the Republicans seek, then what's the problem? I sure as
> > hell don't want the gov't sitting on *my* money, interest free. I'd
> > rather spend it on something nice, rather than letting Dems spend it for
> > me.
>
> It isn't really a surplus, it's just money they haven't decided what to
> do with yet. Gore wants better education, targeted tax cuts for the less
> fortunate, better healthcare and debt reduction. Bush wants tax breaks
> for his rich friends and unnecessary defense spending.
Typical Democratic thinking:
"We took more money than we really need to provide the services that
we've agreed to provide. But that's not excess money that should be
returned. It's really the government's money and we'll find a way to
spend it.
Sad
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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 12:39:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> 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
So you're saying that the Democrats can't take credit for the economy's
growth for the past 8 years?
> like they could *raise* taxes, to prevent this kind of "piss on the poor
> economics" from being successful in broadening the disparity.
Sorry. You're throwing around accusations which are completely unfounded.
I spent 5 years in graduate school earning well under $5,000 per year,
living in Ithaca, NY (which isn't a cheap place to live). Not only did I
have to pay my living expenses, about 20% of that gross income went for
books.
I know what it's like to be broke. I also know what it's like to make
soemthing of yourself.
>
> Still, it isn't taxes that cause this disparity. Its unthinking people
> like you, Joe, that feel that ethics takes a back seat to
> profit-mongering, that are mostly responsible. The 'popular wisdom'
Nope. I just don't confuse business with left wing social re-engineering
as you want to do.
> which allows rampant monopolization and restraint of trade to be
> confused with competition and free markets. The "growth by acquisition"
> method being institutionalized. The rampant ignorance, and even more
> rampant encouragement of ignorance, within the market.
You seem to be an expert on ignorance.
Where have I advocated monopolies?
I'm merely pointing out to you (over and over since you're apparently
too slow to grasp the concept) that the fact that my company makes a lot
of money doesn't prove that it's a monopoly.
>
> Its got very little to do with politics, or the capital gains tax, or
> the income tax, or any other tax. Its profiteering, plain and simple;
> that's what increases the disparity between the profiteers and the
> consumers.
I see. So your position is that making a lot of money is wrong, by
definition. It doesn't matter how I make lots of money (or how my
company makes lots of money). As long as someone else is making less
money, I must be profiteering.
You ought to talk to 118 widows of Russian sailors to see what the
eventual outcome of that philosophy is
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 12:39:28 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >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.
>
> Securities laws have nothing to do with it, and while I'm absolutely
> sure you will not understand why, perhaps that knowledge may help some
> more intelligent reader.
Let's see what the thread was about.
I pointed out that, by law (securities laws), companies are obligated to
maximize profit.
Illya raised a legitimate question that those laws don't specify what
time frame should be considered.
I answered his question.
You chime in and say it has nothing to do with securities laws.
Are you really this dense or are you just pretending?
>
> >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).
>
> Sounds like you're due for a cranial rectumotomy.
Which means you don't have any way to refute what I said.
>
> >The actual interpretation of that is somewhat subjective. The fact that
> >the board has to maximize shareholder value is not.
>
> The interpretation is entirely subjective, and your 'popular wisdom'
> understanding is grossly inadequate. The fact is, the board gets to
> determine what "maximize value" means. They aren't allowed to lose
> money on purpose, and that's about all you can say.
Wrong. Perhaps you need to finish elementary school before continuing.
I'm an officer of a public company. I know what my obligations are.
Why don't you read some of the recent law suits against directors for
not maximizing shareholder value?
>
> [...]
> >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.
>
> But that wasn't the question. The question was about maximizing
> *profits*, not shareholder "value". When "someone's concept of what's
> ethical" includes following the law, it takes precedent over shareholder
> value, to be sure.
And given the choice between maximizing profits and cutting profits to a
subsistence level (which seems to be what you're advocating), which do
you think would maximize shareholder value?
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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 12:39:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >> Recognizing that 'JS/PL' isn't a real person, I "spoke into the
> >> >> mike"
> >> >> for him, and am well within the bounds of reason for ridiculing his
> >> >> overly-dramatic concern.
> >> >
> >> >Oh yes.. I'm a real person. But I do realize murderers have trouble
> >> >recognizing humans to be different from objects.
> >>
> >> You're a pseudonym, 'JS/PL', and nothing more. From the information
> >> we
> >> have available, you are more likely to be a murderer than I.
> >
> >That's possibly true.
> >
> >But that doesn't support your position that he's not real. Unless you
> >believe he's a bot, then he's a real person.
> >
> >You don't know _who_ he is, but that doesn't make him any less real.
>
> I never said "he" is not real. I said "JS/PL" is not real, other than
> as a pseudonym.
You said "'JS/PL' isn't a real person." That's not saying that he's
using a pseudonym.
I'm a real person -- no matter what I call myself. I could sign my
letters "Marie Antoinette" and I wouldn't become any less real.
You need to learn that some people can read so you're not going to get
away with nonsense like that
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
