Linux-Advocacy Digest #264, Volume #29 Fri, 22 Sep 00 15:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: GPL & freedom (Zenin)
Re: Another "feature" in IE discovered. (mark)
Re: Unix more secure, huh? (mark)
Interested In Learning More About Curses In Python ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Alan Baker)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Alan Baker)
Re: GPL & freedom (Zenin)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (mark)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (mark)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("Joel Barnett")
Re: How low can they go...? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: [OT] Tholen & Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) ("Sam Morris")
Re: Why I hate Windows... (mark)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 18:02:38 -0000
Grega Bremec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: ...and Les Mikesell used the keyboard:
:> <snip>
:>The GPL is the thing that attempts to give 'free' a new and deceptive
:>meaning. Fortunately at least some people have understood and
:>dual-licensed their programs (like perl) so they are not prohibited from
:>being combined with other more reasonably-licensed works.
:
: If I may jump in - you yourself have implied a possible solution to the
: problem you're exposing here.
:
: The GPL is not in any way trying to claim it gives you the total and
: unconditional freedom to do whatever you want with the source code. The
: freedoms it provides are quite clear and explicitly expressed.
Sigh... I'll refrain from once again debunking this
falsehood...we've already gone over it too many times in this tread
as it is.
: There are other, more free, as well as more restricted licenses for you to
: use. You can even modify the GPL to better suit your needs yourself (the
: only limitation is that you provide your license's source code to the
: public).
No, actually, you can't modify the GPL at all:
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
This of course, includes any attempt at removing the deceptive
preamble. -The preamble of course, having no legal merit whatsoever
and is only attached to the GPL for propaganda use.
: The only problem I see here is that you would probably have to enclose a
: copy of GPL along with your modified license, which would effectively
: produce quite strange consequences if that modified license of yours was
: to be modified further by someone else.
You should read more closely. The GPL is highly deceptive on most
aspects, but on this it is abundantly clear and expedient: "changing
it is not allowed".
: Anyway, if you want to restrict or loosen the licensing terms on some
: particular code, you have all the options to indeed do so - do a complete
: rewrite of the work in question, base it only on common functionality, and
: release that product under a different license alltogether.
So much for code reuse or the greater good of software at large. :-P
: OTOH, like D'Arcy suggested, base your GPLed work on non-GPLed code that
: you have full control of.
:
: I don't see how GPL limits your freedoms in that respect, so there.
Every additional line of GPL-only code is one step closer to
restricting code freedom at large. If 10% of the available code is
GPL, it can easily be worked around. If 90% of the available code
is GPL, it would become nearly impossible. This is the goal of the
(not so) Free Software Foundation, or more accurately RMS.
In short, it's nothing close to, "all code shale be free", it's
simply, "all code shale be GPLed".
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Another "feature" in IE discovered.
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 18:54:41 +0100
In article <8qegmo$fji$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Osugi wrote:
>In article <UWsy5.2165$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> "mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > In article <8pvp36$snu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MH wrote:
>> > >I'd gladly trade my movements being tracked for a browser that can:
>> > >
>> >
>> > I wouldn't for anything Microsoft could offer me.
>> >
>> > Has anyone else noted that Netmeeting seems to set up TCP
>connections
>> > with a Microsoft site, even when using a 'local' server (ie., one
>> > within an intranet)? I spotted these when listing my masq firewalls
>> > state with ipfwadm.
>> >
>> > Yes, I have to use Win98 SE for work. I do not like it.
>>
>> and? whats the problem? you do know that you can change that under
>settings?
Actually, no, I didn't know - what's more, I only found out because
I had a linux router between my Win98SE box and the rest of the world.
Had I not had that, I would never have been aware that these links
were being set up.
>>
>> /IL
>>
>
>Why don't you have a problem with software that - without telling you -
>attempts to phone home whenever you use it?
That is exactly my problem - that seems like a major security issue to
me.
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
(Killed (sigserv (This sig is reserved by another user)))
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 18:51:30 +0100
In article <MNNw5.5044$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"A transfinite number of monkeys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:33:58 GMT, Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> : And that suppose to diminish the validity of the actual news how? Maybe you
>> : should look at the following link, CERT released the warning about Linux and
>> : DDoS on Friday:
>> :
>> : http://www.cert.org/incident_notes/IN-2000-10.html
>>
>> Oh wow. It cites two vulnerabilities that have had patches available for
>> quite some time, all within 24-48 hours after being found.
>>
>> How about all of the Windoze users out there that have (and continue) to
>> fall prey to Netbus|BO|SubSeven|remote access trojan du jour? My firewall
>> and IDS logs here at home can attest to the widespread use of those. My
>> machines get scanned ALL THE TIME.
>
>You're comparing users and supposedly supperiorly intelligent Unix sysadmins?
Now who said that?
>
>The patches exist, but has anyone used them? Apparently not as it's becoming
>an issue now.
I suspect that lots of people have used them.
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
(Killed (sigserv (This sig is reserved by another user)))
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Interested In Learning More About Curses In Python
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 18:01:38 GMT
Charming Python: Curses programming
=====================================
Learn how to take control of character screens with curses
programming in this newest "Python" column.
http://www-4.ibm.com/software/developer/library/l-python6.html?open&l=co
la,t=gr,p=Python
IBM's Free Linux Download for the DB2 Personal Developer's Edition :
http://www-4.ibm.com/software/data/db2/udb/downloads.html?open&l=cola,t=
gr,p=DB2
IBM's Free Java Dev Kit for Linux, 1.3
http://www.ibm.com/java/jdk/linux130/?open&l=cola,t=gr,p=JDK1.3
IBM's Free XML Parser for Java
=============================================
The XML Parser for Java Version 3.0.1 Release (XML4J3_0_1) is now
available. This release
is Linux compatable and contains public and stable support of the DOM
Level 1, and SAX
Level 1 specifications. It alsocontains implementations of the DOM Level
2 and the SAX
Level 2 implementations, but these are considered experimental, as the
specifications
themselves are still subject to change.
http://alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/xml4j?open&l=cola,t=gr,p=XMLParser
The New developerWorks digital bookstore has been launched!
============================================================
Find out what it's like to work with Java, XML, Linux, Open Source
books, and
on-line. To get you started, developerWorks will even buy your first
iBook!
Check this out ... It might be exactly what you need.
http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/aw.nsf/html/ibooks?l=cola,t=gr,p=ibooks
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:12:01 -0700
In article <39c9fcb6$3$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 09/20/2000 at 11:41 PM,
> Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
>> Macs cost more because they're not a commodity. I have no problems
>> admitting that when I buy a Mac I'm paying way more than the sum of the
>> costs of the components and the labor required to put it together. It's
>> still worth it to me.
>
>Then you are a simpering idiot fooled by lies and distortions.
>
>> > They've got you all so convinced that you've got the "best thing
>> > going" that they don't even have to produce it. If it says Apple on
>> > it some people
>> > are going to blow a gasket telling you how revolutionary and how much
>> > "better" it is
>> > than everything else when most of the percieved benefits are the
>> > intangibles they've
>> > been sold.
>
>> Are you saying that I buy Macs because I've been fooled by the Apple
>> marketing department?
>
>Absolutely. Other than for game development or game playing or high end
>graphics development in an advertising agency or department, there is no
>intellectual reason to choose an Apple product.
>
>A few years ago, every computer in schools was an Apple II variant. Today,
>Apples represent less than 5% of computers found in schools. Retailers who
>were exclusively Apple 5 years ago are either gone or predominately Intel
>today.
>
>I just looked at our local Yellow Pages which covers much of the New
>Jersey suburbs of Philadelphia. In the October 1993 edition, there were 17
>dealers listed under Apple's Logo. Only 2 were listed offering other
>brands. In the October 1999 edition there are only 2 and both are
>primarily Intel platform firms.
>
>Sears locally sells both Intel and Apple computers. Intel outsell Apple
>more than 18 to 1 according to department management. I asked why Apple
>was so prominently displayed if sales were so low. He replied that Apple
>had bought the shelf space and they were obligated by contract to provide
>it.
>
>In the 1980's and early 1990's there was a chain called Johnathon's Apple
>in this region. Today it is called Johnathon's Computers. They still offer
>Apples but only by special order. None is carried in stock other than
>display models.
>
>In 10 pages of advertisements and listings under the various Computer
>categories in our local phone book, the name Apple and/or the Apple logo
>appears exactly 3 times. Two of those ads are for Johnathon's computers
>mentioned above and the logo appears along side that of IBM, Compaq, HP,
>etc. Only 2 of the myriad of computer repair firms mention Apple,
>Johnathon's and something called Factory Service.
>
>Some cultural icon.
So your "intellectual" argument against using Macs appears to consist
mostly of following the crowd
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
From: Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:12:00 -0700
In article <39ca0052$4$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 09/21/2000 at 01:46 AM,
> Osugi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> No need to consider him / her a liar. S/he may just be wrong. It is
>> widely believed that companies make arrangements with hollywood studios
>> to get their products placed in movies. Last I heard, there were rumours
>> that this was the case with the cars, watches, and alcohol in recent
>> Bond movies. I don't know if those companies actually paid for screen
>> time for their products or not, but it is possible.
>
>You people better learn to read the screen credits on movies and TV shows.
>Very frequently companies are listed as having provided some sort of
>remuneration for use/display/mention of their products.
>
>Part of the tobacco suits settlement was that manufacturers would CEASE
>paying to have smoking depicted in films or their brand names shown or
>mentioned. Now you won't see American, Liggett, etc. listed in the
>credits, you can be sure the governments pressing the suits had ample
>evidence that they were indeed paying JUST TO HAVE people SEEN smoking.
>
>Why do you suppose that James Bond switched car brands? Look at the
>credits. It's there for anyone to read.
>
>> So, I find it quite possible that Apple arranges for their computers to
>> by used in movies. It is also possible that they are used (as you said)
>> because they look "cooler" than most non-Apple boxes. Just because
>> samurai hasn't provided any evidence to back up his claim, and thus
>> might be wrong, doesn't make him a liar.
>
>Absolutely. Moreover, I never look for computer companies when looking at
>credits. In fact I rarely look at the credits and frequently on network
>shows they are so small no one can read them because the local affiliate
>puts its promotions along side the credits which are pushed into the right
>or left 20% of the screen and are unreadable.
>
>But rent a movie and take time to read all the credits. Down there after
>the best boy, key grip, third unit administrative assistant, etc. will be
>those products whose makers paid for the use of those products.
>
>> (Here is an idea for movie studios: Make a movie featuring lots of
>> computer equipment and jargon. Then tell MS that every machine will be a
>> mac and the os mentioned will be linux. MS should be willing to pay at
>> least US$1,000 per word to change "linux" to "windows" and maybe even
>> some money to change the macs to Dells or Compaqs. With a good script,
>> MS might even finance the whole movie.)
>
>Isn't Apple tied in with Speilberg and Gates in some graphics company?
>Gates wouldn't care because he supplies 90% of the software run on Apples.
>Dreamworks SKG is it? The S is Speilberg, the G is Gates. Isn't the K
>someone tied in with Apple?
Nope. 'S'pielberg, 'K'atzenberg and 'G'effen
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
From: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 18:14:21 -0000
Raffael Cavallaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
:> The point is *other* people have NO RIGHT whatsoever to be telling ME
:> what I must do with MY WORK.
:
: This is simply false unless "your work" was done entirely from scratch.
non sequitur
: If "your work" includes the work of others then, by law, you must abide by
: the license under which that work of others is published.
Agreed, but that's not the point.
: Example I: You write some software which includes code which was licensed
: to you under a single, simple condidtion - for every copy of your software
: that you you sell which includes this code, you must pay the code vendor
: $.05.
:
: You then scream on usenet "*other* people have NO RIGHT whatseover to be
: telling ME what I must do with MY WORK."
Incorrect conclusion to your analogy. In GPL terms, your example I
would mean that your license doesn't just stipulate your $.05
share...but also explicitly stipulates how much I can charge (or not
charge) for any additions I write.
You have a right to ask for $.05 for your work, agreed. Similarly,
I have the right to set my own prices for any additional work I add.
You're telling me that because I used your code that I must let you
set the value of any additional work I do. That it isn't "fair", it
violates my rights, and above all else it is in no way, shape, or
form "freedom".
>snip identical example<
: Moral: If you use the work of others, you must abide by the license under
: which their work is published. If you don't like the license under which
: their work is published, don't use their work.
Agreed, and this is all fine and good. Just don't try to lie and
say it has anything whatsoever to do with "free" or "freedom",
because it simply ain't so no matter how many times you and your
kind repeat it in an effort to brain wash the masses.
The FSF is simply a cult and as a cult they use age old techniques
(deceptions) to brain wash anyone gullible enough to follow them.
Doesn't it make you feel good about yourself to know you're lining
up like a good little lemming? For me, I refuse to drink the
Koolaid.
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 19:13:15 +0100
In article <39c7db5d$0$261$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Drestin Black wrote:
>Great - a totally unsubstantiated rumor spread by Cringley - and people
>actually replied?
>
>ANYONE who has been to the Redmond campus KNOWS that 99% of this is entirely
So what were you doing there, then? So close that you could determine what
types of server were in use across the whole network?
Or are you just a Microsoft astroturfer?
<cut>
>>
>> Excerpts:
>>
>> Unix in Redmond
>>
>> I was going to avoid writing about Microsoft this week, but how could I
>> resist sharing these tidbits from ex-Microsofties? These former Microsoft
>> employees have written in to set the record straight about what's really
>> going on behind the scenes at a few of the software giant's subsidiaries.
>>
>> When Microsoft acquired Linkexchange (now bCentral), company officials
>> tried to get rid of Oracle databases in favor of the company's own SQL
>> Server.
>>
>> "Some of the best folks from Redmond came down to make the change, but
>> after two or three months they gave up and switched back to Oracle on
>> Solaris, where it remains today," this reader wrote.
>>
>> Another former bCentral employee says Microsoft mentions Linux in its
>> help-wanted ads for bCentral just to lure unsuspecting enthusiasts to
>> come work there. The OSes in place were primarily FreeBSD, BSD/OS, and
>> Solaris. That is, until Microsoft tried to migrate more of the systems
>> to Windows NT and 2000.
>>
>> According to this source, Microsoft had to quadruple the number of
>> servers when it moved to its own operating systems.
>>
>> For the most part, according to our ex-Microsoftie, the company's money-
>> making Web properties are all based around Unix, with Hotmail 99 being
>> 99 percent FreeBSD, MSN using some Apache on Solaris, bCentral ad servers
>> on 100 percent FreeBSD, and WebTV pretty much entirely Solaris.
>>
>> "Internally when Windows 2000 was announced, people were told not to
>> even think about using it for production because it was too unstable,"
>> says this ex-Microsoftie.
>>
>> So much for mature software written by professionals. It seems that,
>> internally, Microsoft prefers the stuff "written by college kids in their
>> basements."
>>
>
>
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
(Killed (sigserv (This sig is reserved by another user)))
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 19:08:16 +0100
In article <8q2jsc$i4b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Wow, Win2K took a good thrashing.
>>
>> Isn't Tux a kernel with webserver stuff included ? I thought it was
>bad
>> practice to include stuff in the kernel, well, at least it was when MS
>did
>> it.
>
>IIRC, Tux is a module, so it can be removed. If you don't want a kernel
>webserver, then you can easily remove it. With the in kernel things in
>NT, you generally have no choice---it stays. It does make sense to put a
>webserver in the kernel, if all the computer does is serve web pages. If
>it's part of a bigger server, the stability risk probably isn't worth
>it. But you have the choice between stability and speed.
>
>
>> Since, we are to live in the present, I believe that it's a good thing
>now
>> that Linux does it, it's a good and modern thing to, even if the admin
>has
>> to pray that his webserver doesn't tank, or some really funny stuff
>will
>> occur. :)
>
>If the computer is only a webserver, if the server software or the OS
>tanks, what does it matter, either way, the machine stops serving web
>pages until some watchdog restarts it/the server. I wouldn't use it for
>anything mission critical, though.
Indeed - but then I wouldn't use anything Microsoft for anything mission
critical anyway. I guess that means tux, when used, makes the linux
kernel no worse than NT's, when not used the kernel remains better.
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
(Killed (sigserv (This sig is reserved by another user)))
------------------------------
From: "Joel Barnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:52:57 -0700
"Timberwoof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > I agree. It's just good marketing. I just wanted to point out the
> > reality of business to the more naive posters. I wouldn't be
> > surprised if MS really starts pumping dollars into a similar campaign
> > - if they aren't already.
>
>
> I can already hear the boos and cackles form the audience.
>
> When a Mac appears in a movie or TV show, people recognize it. (VIP,
> News Radio, that funny judge...) And it can do that just by being seen.
> But when an ordinary PC appears, it's just a PC. How could Micorsoft
> point out it's running Microsoft software without appearing amazingly
> heavyhanded?
>
BSOD's are easily recognized from a distance, no need for heavyhanded
closeups.
> --
> Timberwoof <timberwoof at infernosoft dot com> Chief Perpetrator
> Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation. http://www.infernosoft.com
> "The opposite of hardware is not easyware."
jbarntt
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 18:50:51 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 17 Sep 2000 01:52:44 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Said The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
>>But you are correct; there are a number of obstacles in the establishment
>>of a viable operating system -- the one who gets there first usually
>>gets most of the business. Consider that DOS is a variant of CP/M,
>>which might be considered the first OS available on a modern PC
>>(specifically, the Osborne), as opposed to a console unit such
>>as, say, an IBM 4341 or VAX 11/780, which weren't all that portable. :-)
>
>So the one that gets there first....?
... gets a good chunk of the business. This is not necessarily
the best for society, of course -- consider, for example, the
68000 microprocessor, a better design, at least from a programmer's
standpoint, than the 8086 and 8088. Yet the 8088 was the one adopted
by IBM. Why? Because it was first.
And now we're more or less stuck with it. :-/
>
> [...]
>>But Microsoft is not a natural monopoly; it's an artificial one.
>>It's clear that the findings of fact suggest that Microsoft did
>>some rather nasty things when leveraging DOS to Windows, and Windows 3.1
>>to Windows 95. (Installing a browser and deleting the IE icon is
>>"damaging an OS"? Bizarre. And how about IE 4 overwriting a large number
>>of DLL's in the system area? At least the beta message regarding DRDOS
>>makes a bit of sense -- but only a bit.)
>>
>>To be fair, Unix had no viable offerings in that price range, and
>>OS/2, while a good OS, could not capitalize on its successes,
>>marketing wise. Apple, Amiga, and Atari were good, but not
>>business-oriented (although Apple was the closest). So who else
>>but IBM and Microsoft? (And IBM fell behind.)
>>
>>Does this mean we need to take action against Microsoft, or that
>>such action would be effective? At this point, unknown -- at least
>>to me.
>
>Well, seeing as 'artificial monopolies' are illegal, I'd say it is
>pretty clear, in fact.
I'm not sure how to distinguish between an artificial monopoly and
a natural one; nor is it clear that a monopoly is per se illegal.
Abuse of monopoly powers is another matter; it's pretty clear that
Microsoft did in fact do that, if one believes Judge Jackson.
(The decision is rather readable, for a legal document.)
>And the failure of OS/2 to 'capitalize on its
>successes, marketing wise', is, in fact, the entirety of the issue, in
>retrospect. Neither 'superior product', nor 'business acumen' (despite
>the obvious confusion), nor 'accident of history', can excuse a
>monopoly; they are most explicitly distinguished from the crime of
>monopolization. Microsoft took steps to ensure that OS/2 would not gain
>sufficient application support to compete against Windows, a patently
>inferior product, promoted through restraint of trade (predatory
>licensing for Windows development product from Microsoft not being the
>least of it), and prevented from gaining acceptance through FUD.
This may be a bit strongly stated, but in essence correct.
>
>--
>T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
>
>-----= 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! =-----
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Tholen & Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 19:55:07 +0100
My god, Dave, pick an address to deflect spam and keep it! Stop changing it
every five minutes! Killfiling you is really hard!
--
Cheers,
Sam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 19:38:29 +0100
In article <KcCs5.8727$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Nico Coetzee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<cut some>
>> just get's slower all the time. They added RAM, totaling about 256MB
>> over a period of two years - the hardware stores solution to slow PC's.
>> I then showed them Scandisk and Defrag which was never done. The defrag
>> status was on 43% on a PC just over 2 years old. Even more interesting
>> was the fact that this system is an office PC and all work done is
>> mainly MS Office stuff.
>
>Once you defrag, files don't magically become fragmented again unless you
>are writing to them. Applications stay defragged, which is what most users
>are concerned with. Who cares if their word document takes 3 seconds longer
>to load unless they are constantly opening and closing them.
Spoken like a true astroturfer, not a user. Because win98se is so unstable,
it is necessary to save files every minute or two (particularly for those
of us who can touch-type), since the machine is likely to bomb at any
moment. This means that a 3 second penalty is yet more Microsoft tax
on my companies paid-for time, resulting in a direct hit on profitability
for any organisation using Microsoft operating systems.
The other approach is to not save very often, but then risk losing a whole
day's work, say. Obviously, taking the Microsoft stability tax in small
hits is cheaper.
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
(Killed (sigserv (This sig is reserved by another user)))
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
