Linux-Advocacy Digest #657, Volume #28 Sat, 26 Aug 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Courageous)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Gary Hallock)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:20:15 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> I don't *like* laws that are exceptions on exceptions on
>>exceptions. And I quite frankly don't believe it is the proper way to
>>approach the law.
>
>It's too bad that you don't *like* certain laws, or that they aren't
>the proper way to approach the law, but the reality is that in the
>United States, Congress gets to write the copyright law. And they
>don't need to do it so you like it. (They don't even have to do it
>so I like it.)
I don't like the way *you* interpret certain laws, is all, Lee. I
haven't anything against the laws, and actually support them quite a
bit.
>Maybe you should contact your Senators or Representative and show them
>how it should be done. In the mean time, it would be helpful if you
>indicated when you are saying how something SHOULD BE in your consistent
>system as opposed to how it IS in the messy world of the Copyright Act
>of 1976 as amended.
Maybe you should stop posturing as an authority and stop pretending that
copyright and intellectually property law, in both statute and
precedent, aren't quite widely contested and debated in a huge variety
of ways, including within legislative, judicial, and executive branches
of government, as well as academic and general discussion.
I don't have a "consistent system", BTW. "Accurate" and "practical"
have just as much weight as consistency within my conceptual framework,
and I'm not going to go along with any claim that consistency must
necessary contradict either one.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:21:06 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>>> (For some reason, I keep losing track of where to look up
>>>>the statute, so I can't check at the moment.)
>>>
>>>A good source is the version supplied by the Library of Congress'
>>>Copyright Office --
>>>
>>> http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/
>>
>>For some reason, this site is *outrageously* slow to get resolved on my
>>system. I'd tried it before, and gave up after a couple minutes (well,
>>probably more like 80 seconds). This time I stuck it out, and I've now
>>bookmarked it. Thanks.
>
>I'm sure there are other sites that have the copyright statute. I like
>that one because it's run by the agency that handles copyright matters.
>
>But for the full US Code, you can go to --
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/statutes.html
>
>And there are other sites, I'd guess.
Well, shit, I'd "guess", too. Haven't you even the tiniest clue what
makes a good web reference?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:22:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Craig Kelley in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Usually, the people who call perl programs 'scripts' are the ones that
>write unmaintainable garbage and the people who call perl programs
>'programs' write easy to read code.
I'll keep that in mind, though I prefer people who write perl recognize
that they're not writing compiled applications; overly 'simplified' code
can be as incomprehensible and far less concise than simple practical
functionality should dictate.
Is there an "anti-obfuscation" award like the "obfuscated C" thing? It
seems they'd both have similar ideas, but different results.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:23:33 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>>
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>> [...]
>> >Neither are they required to pay TT (not Qt) a licensing fee now in
>> >order to benefit from Linux. Max, you have no idea of what you are
>> >talking about (again).
>>
>> And you, Roberto, are still trying to avoid correcting the matter. Are
>> you so incapable of grasping abstractions that you cannot substitute
>> "QT" for "the commercial entity responsible for QT"?
>
>Are you so incapable of dealing wuith reality that you can't see a
>company and a product are not the same thing, and keep on using
>the wrong one?
Well, when I'm talking about payments, which cannot accrue to a piece of
software, either one is an obvious reference to the company, so what
difference does it make, unless you're trying to be pedantically
obfuscating?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:25:14 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
[...]
>> Just to show you how capricious my sentiment can be when given a steady
>> stream of information, I'll tell you that twenty minutes ago, I might
>> have.
>
>Lost your honesty window? Dammit!
No, just my gullibility window.
[...]
>Oh, right. Just because what you said is not true, it's no reason
>to retract. How nice.
Just because you claim it is not true is not reason for me to retract
it. I notice you're not actually able to provide any reason for me to
actually believe it is not true.
[...]
>Requiring Qt for my software is a decision I make. It is a
>technical decision. You are free to believe I am wrong, but
>your opinion is worthless and ineffectual.
I am a potential user of your software. If my opinion is worthless and
ineffectual, so be it.
>> [...]
>> >So, am I not a whore as you said I was? Wouldn't it be nice
>> >of you to apologize for calling me that instead of deleting it?
>>
>> Sorry, the jury's still out on that one. Who pays your salary?
>
>As I told you, a linux company. Check the site where the URL
>I gave you before is located. If you want it again, the
>site is www.conectiva.com.ar (but www.conectiva.com is
>probably better for you).
"A linux company"? What the hell does that mean? Troll Tech is "a
linux company". Why are you so reticent to explain your fiscal
entanglements?
--
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: Eric Bennett <[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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:27:12 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
> Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > So, tell the name of the third-world nations that have an ICBM
> > > capable of hitting the US -- then explain how it is that you or
> > > anyone knows this is a threat even though all of our espionage
> > > devices have failed to identify any such ICBM capability by a
> > > third-world nation.
> >
> > Russia?
>
> Russia has got thousands of the suckers. Any missile defense system we
> could build would be helpless against more than a few dozen, even if it
> actually worked. It might stop an attack by China, given its current
> arsenal. Which is why China says it will build a couple hundred more
> ICBMs if we deploy....
More to the point, what's to stop the North Koreans from building lots
of decoy missiles with no nukes in them?
Yeah, so DOD says they're going to be able to tell fakes from the real
thing. You know what they're using as decoys in the tests? Balloons.
I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried. They think the North Koreans
are going to fire *balloons* at us instead of guinine missiles lacking
nuclear warheads. These people should be locked up.
> That's the problem. This system useless against terrorists, because
> they'll just use some cheap alternative to ICBMs, and it's useless
> against real nations, because they have more offensive capability than
> the system could stop. Of course they'd never shoot at us to begin with;
> they know they'd be vaporized 20 minutes later.
>
> At best, this system will waste $60 billion of US tax payer money.
Well then, think of it as a welfare program. It creates a lot of jobs.
And even if there's only a 10% chance that they'll get something
workable out of it, that's still a better ROI than some guy doing no
work and drawing a welfare check, right?
(And there's a great defense for every pork project ever conceived. ;-)
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:27:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>> For all I've been able to find out up to this point (and routine
>> accusations aside, I do research the subjects I discuss to at least some
>> extent), KDE is nothing more than a wrapper for QT, and QT was written
>> purposefully to drive KDE, making all pretense that KDE isn't a
>> commercial endeavor absolutely meaningless, except to highlight the
>> dishonesty involved in the ruse.
>
>QT is a GUI library developed totally independently of KDE by a commercial
>company called TrollTech (www.trolltech.com). It has nothing to do with
>Linux other than Linux is one of the many platforms it supports. It has
>nothing to do with KDE other than the fact that KDE uses QT. TrollTech does
>not have anything to do with KDE. QT supports a number of platforms:
[...]
>KDE is not a wrapper around QT. QT is simply a widget set used by KDE,
>similar in concept to Motif.
Well, I wasn't a big fan of Motif, but...
>As for the QT license, here is a short summary, by example:
>
>A) You write a program that uses QT and make your program available as open
>source. You pay no license fee for the privilege of using QT to develop
>your code. I download your program. I also download QT (in reality, I
>already have a copy, but let's just pretend I don't). I pay no license fee
>to you or TrollTech.
>
>B) You write a proprietary closed source program which uses QT. You sell
>your program for a profit. You pay a license fee to Trollech for the
>privilege of keeping your code closed source and being able to make a profit
>on the code. I buy your program and download a copy of QT so I can run you
>program. I pay no license fee to to TrollTech.
Well, that sounds fine to me. So long as Troll Tech doesn't encourage
profiteering on the part of the closed source code developers (directly
and willfully), I have no problem with it.
I'll give it a day or so, to make sure I haven't skipped anything, and
then Roberto will have my apology. Thanks, Gary.
--
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: Courageous <[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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 20:30:07 GMT
> China has already stated it will enhance its offensive nuclear
> capability as a direct response to US deployment of missile defense. To
> me that sounds like the first step in a happy little arms race.
China will be enhancing its offensive nuclear capability
in any case. Of that, there can be no doubt. If they are
looking for public excuses, they will find them; that
the United States has the uncontested most advanced nuclear
offensive capability in the world is and of itself reason
enough for them to defend themselves.
This strange view that many U.S. citizens have that the
U.S. is the sole source of moral authority and one reliable
owner of nuclear weaponry in the world is the utmost in
hubris. I cringed in embarrassment when we chastisted
India... one of the most populated countries in the
entire world... for having the simple desire to protect
themselves with a small nuclear arsenal.
This is their right.
As it is the people of China's.
C//
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:29:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Matthias Warkus in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>It was the 23 Aug 2000 11:30:24 GMT...
>...and Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:13:03 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>
>> >Well, yes it does, Roberto. Does QT pay your salary?
>>
>> In case you haven't got it yet, QT is a widget set, not an organisation.
>> QT dialog boxes do not jump out of the screen and hand you money when
>> you use the kit ( though I wouldn't mind if they did ). QT are made
>> by a company called "Troll Tech", who do pay salaries. But they do
>> not pay the KDE developers ( such as Roberto ). KDE is a free, not for
>> profit project.
>
>At least one KDE developer works for Troll Tech. However, that's
>absolutely nothing worth noting. Consider that dozens if not hundreds
>of GNOME and KDE developers work, directly or indirectly, for shops
>such as SuSE, Red Hat, Corel, Eazel, Helix etc. I suppose Mandrake
>have hired some KDE people, too, but I'm not sure.
>
>BTW, whatever happened to theKompany?
My question is, why doesn't Troll Tech have competition on their API?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:31:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:27:53 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>>Is it really so difficult to figure out what I'm trying to find out? Is
>>there some part of NNTP I'm not aware of which prevents anyone from
>>understanding a question in anything but the most literal (and
>>unproductive) manner?
>
>We are not psychics, and unless you express yourself coherently, it is
>difficult to understand what you are asking.
Well, duh. I'm doing the best that I can. Several over-literal
responses seem to be rather conclusive evidence, in my experience, that
somebody's missing the point of the discussion. Since I'm the one
asking the questions, it can't be me...
>>The reason the issue came up is because nobody seems to be able (or want
>>to) explain where TT's customers for their fee-based software are going
>>to derive profit.
>
>Well there are a lot of ways. They could make profit in an activity
>completely unreslated to the sale of software ( it could be used
>in-house ), or they could sell proprietary software.
Yes, and as long as TT isn't materially contributing to the commercial
licensing of software by profiteers, I haven't a problem with that.
This generally seems to be the case, though there are still at least a
core group of Linvocates which have a rather strong distaste for KDE. I
feel I can now understand why, and still disagree with them in practice
or in principle (but probably not in both), so I appreciate your helping
me out.
--
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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 20:33:15 GMT
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
> > Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > > So, tell the name of the third-world nations that have an ICBM
> > > > capable of hitting the US -- then explain how it is that you or
> > > > anyone knows this is a threat even though all of our espionage
> > > > devices have failed to identify any such ICBM capability by a
> > > > third-world nation.
> > >
> > > Russia?
> >
> > Russia has got thousands of the suckers. Any missile defense system we
> > could build would be helpless against more than a few dozen, even if it
> > actually worked. It might stop an attack by China, given its current
> > arsenal. Which is why China says it will build a couple hundred more
> > ICBMs if we deploy....
>
> More to the point, what's to stop the North Koreans from building lots
> of decoy missiles with no nukes in them?
Money. they don't have any. They're damned near bankrupt from just
keeping their current program afloat.
My biggest worry is about accidental or one-off (crazy general fires one
at Washington to make a point) launches.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:35:08 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> "A linux company"? What the hell does that mean? Troll Tech is "a
> linux company". Why are you so reticent to explain your fiscal
> entanglements?
What "fiscal entanglements"? Roberto has already told you where he works
and what he does. He even provided a web page. Why are you so eager to see
conspiracy? Roberto works at a regular job just like the rest of us. As
he has explained many times, his job has nothing to do with KDE, Qt, or
TrollTech. He just happens to be nice enough to spend his spare time working
on KDE. Why is that so hard to understand?
Gary
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:36:15 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's bad about it? It maintains superiority, which is good. Unless you
> think NOT being the most militarily superior country is desirable. U.S.
> Strength is maintaining peace. If China doesn't like the fact that we
> are
> building the ability to stop first strikes in mid launch, I'd have to say
> -
> to bad.
In case you hadn't noticed, we already have superiority. I'm a little
worried by the notion that we think we can simply outspend everybody
every time we face a threat. Sure, it worked with Russia, but it also
helped run up a huge debt. Do we want to repeat the exercise with China?
I'm sure you know the chain reaction theory here. The U.S. builds this
system and the Chinese react. Then the U.S. is more secure against
North Korea and Iraq, but not against China and Russia. What are the
other consequences? Well, the Indians say they maintain nukes as a
deterrent to the Chinese, to they're going to build too. And that means
Pakistan will follow. I don't think either of those things would affect
U.S. security directly, but I do think it would destabilize Asia, and
would therefore make your claim that U.S. strength maintains the peace
rather dubious. A missile defense system for the U.S. could help us
marginally, but at the expense of increasing the likelihood of nuclear
confrontation elsewhere in the world. I don't think that's wise.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:34:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> Well, yes it does, Roberto. Does QT pay your salary?
>>
>
>You aren't listening. If I got paid 1,000,000,0000,000 times as much as QT
>(i.e. TT) pays Roberto, I would be a very poor man. Just in case you still
>don't get it, 1,000,000,0000,000 x 0 is still 0. Roberto does not get paid
>a penny for his work on KDE.
Microsoft doesn't get paid a penny for IE, either, interestingly enough.
I simply wanted to explore the parallels, if any, as someone who avoids
IE and may or may not avoid KDE apps in a similar fashion.
--
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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 20:37:21 GMT
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
> Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > You could maintain it if the market is too small to support more than
> > > one supplier. You could maintain it if you have a valuable trade
> > > secret
> > > that nobody else has been able to figure out. Fair Isaac would be a
> > > candidate for an example of the latter; they are the people who
> > > calculate your credit worthiness. Their formula for evaluating
> > > credit
> > > worthiness is their trade secret. All three of the national credit
> > > bureaus use Fair Isaac. All somebody has to do to break their hold
> > > on
> > > the market is invent a better formula. Nobody has done so.
> >
> > ...and all Fair Isaac has to do to get in trouble with the Feds is
> > something simple, like telling their customers "if you buy information
> > from any new competitor, we'll increase our rates by 50%," or any of a
> > number of simple anticompetitive things.
>
> But, you see, that won't work, because if they competitor's forumla has
> greater predictive power than Fair Isaac's, the customer will simply
> tell them to go to hell.
But if the competitor's predictive power is just as good as Fair Isaac's
for a little less money, or only slightly better for about the same
amount of money, it would be simple for FI to drop prices to below cost
for a while, or to do any of a number of other things that could remove
the "more competitive" new guys from consideration.
> It's not so much like the situation we have
> with Microsoft, where companies like Dell have to have access to Windows
> to survive. There aren't huge switching costs for a formula like there
> are for retraining people on an alternative OS and losing out on
> software availability. Once you've created a better product in FI's
> market, there aren't many barriers left.
If you think that fair cometition would prevail against someone with a
large bank account and no scruples, you're dreaming.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
