Linux-Advocacy Digest #589, Volume #30 Fri, 1 Dec 00 10:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:49:21 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:38:36 -0500;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
>| >[snip]
>| >| Boy, you are an odd poster, aren't you? You seem to be arguing that OSS
>| >| is bad, in principle,
>| >
>| >Not all software can be developed profitably as OSS.
>|
>| Not all software, believe it or not, can be developed profitably *at
>| all*.
>
>Yes, but a lot of software cannot be developed profitably as OSS but
>would do well and flourish commercially.
If your right, it will.
>That's my point and I think you
>realise this but wish to just be difficult by making that silly
>statement.
No, I just think saying that *is* a silly statement. The point is there
is no argument *against* OSS, not whether there is any argument *for*
commercial code. The fact is, that the market should decide. I'm just
sick of hearing about how hard it is going to be on the producers (boo
hoo) when things get so cheap that nobody can profit from making them.
Its just such a stupid idea.
[...]
>| Bullshit. What you fail to grasp is that, if OSS isn't a commercially
>| feasible licensing model, then it isn't. There's no religious zealotry
>| going on here. The difficulty I have hearing Winidiots harping about
>| how the OSS model "won't work for some software" is that they are
>| convinced that they have the ability to point to what will and what
>| won't work.
>
>Can you prove that us Winidiots are wrong?
Yes, and I have, several times. Why do you think I call them Winidiots?
>| The same fundamental failure in reasoning which leads them
>| to be Winidiots to begin with: an assumption that their conscious
>| second-guessing of other people's actions is a valid substitute for free
>| market competition in making such decisions.
>
>You are a second guessor yourself. Remember that I labelled you Mr.
>Presumptuous?
No, I am a double-checker. I try not to presume lightly, but this is
Usenet. So far as I recall, you brought up the matter of my presumption
without quite being able to point to an error in my presumption.
>| It doesn't take a very
>| smart person, or even a real understanding of OSS, to guess that games
>| might well not *all* be OSS. You seem to fail to grasp the point,
>| however, that most games in the "booming market" gave away limited
>| versions as shareware until quite recently
>
>Look. Giving away copies as shareware is eons away from making it OSS. I
>believe you know this.
I don't see how it is. I mean, doesn't it seem pretty silly to say that
OSS won't work because programmers won't get paid, when a good deal of
software is being given away, all the time, AND THE STUFF COSTS ALMOST
NOTHING TO REPLICATE???
>| (now, they focus on demos and
>| cut-scene movies, a cycle which repeats continuously, shifting back and
>| forth between form and substance). People are more than willing to pay
>| a lucrative price just for professionally developed scenarios; you could
>| give the game itself away for free, in many cases.
>
>You're just moving the goal posts further away from my point which you
>haven't refuted one bit. Of what use is the bare game to me if I don't
>have the scenarios to play with. I still have to pay for those.
Your point is a namby-pamby "GPL won't work for every conceivable
thought experiment I can come up with, so I don't need any free market
to determine that for itself, because I'm all-wise and all-knowing on
these matters..."
So pay for the scenarios? Did I even _once_ anywhere in this thread say
that you wouldn't have to pay for software? Perhaps we're getting all
worked up for nothing: you may have mistaken the term "free software"
which I used as in "free beer", rather than the "free speech" which I
intended it.
>| The assumption which causes your position to be fatally flawed is that
>| you assume that wrapping copyright in a trade secret license is the only
>| way to profit on software.
>
>I never said it was. You have this habit of creating a criticism I have
>into one which is all encompassing. I say you're unfair about your
>criticism about MS's language support. I'm now a MS and monopoly lover.
>I use Win2k and defend why I do so. I must be a MS lover, agree with
>monopolies and condone monopolistic behaviour.
Did I say that?
>I now say that OSS development and production will not succeed in being
>as profitable as commercial software development and production for as
>wide an assortment and variety of software types. I'm now being labelled
>as saying that it can never be profitable. What's your problem Max?
I just like to argue. If it bothers you, feel free to cease responding.
Your back-pedaling (now, let's be honest, I'm not trying to attack you,
but that's what it is) to "OSS development and production will not
succeed in being as profitable as commercial software development and
production for as wide an assortment and variety of software types" is
all well and good, but really doesn't make any sense, in the end. They
are different economic models, according to the common understanding.
OSS certainly won't be as profitable for those who make non-OSS
software, no. But examined in that light, I think you can see that
you're not really saying anything.
>I've decided to completely ignore Mark because he doesn't read what I
>write and twists my words. But you're doing pretty much the same thing
>here by taking my specific critism of OSS and blowing it out of
>proportion.
No, I'm merely using it as a springboard for discussion by illustrating
the basic flaw in the argument you were presenting. I can sympathize
about Mark; he is something of a bull-dog, isn't he? Forgive him; he's
frustrated by mediocrity.
[...]
>| >No. That's not it at all. I *am* against monopolies. I have always been.
>| >MS is guilty of monopolistic practises to further their monopoly. I have
>| >no argument with that.
>|
>| You just don't really understand it, that's all. Its nice you are
>| willing to agree with something you don't fully understand, but I must
>| point out that this is the cause of the conflict in your reasoning which
>| I've been addressing.
>
>There is no conflict. STOP the black and white assessment of my opinions
>and you'll see. Do NOT attempt to place me in a partisan or extreme
>position.
Stop getting defensive. I'm not trying to place anyone in any extreme
position. But the fact remains that if you hold the above opinion about
monopolies, but consider Microsoft software to be acceptable as a
consumer, there is a conflict whether you see it or not.
>You'll be frustrated as you are now. You're an extremist
>yourself.
Quite the contrary. I am the ultimate moderate. Show me a position
more moderate than mine, and I'll happily adopt it.
>Of course, since you tend to be so condescending and arrogant
>while discussing you must have a big ego. You therefore must assume that
>any rational individual would have an extremist view on things, ie., I'm
>either BLACK or WHITE. I either think there's nothing positive about MS
>and if I say *anything* contrary to that position then it *must* be that
>I feel that everything they do is good and I love monopolies.
No, you either recognize monopoly crapware, or you don't. Your
wide-of-the-mark comments making presumptions about my opinion aside,
you say you recognize that Microsoft is a monopoly, and say you know
what that means, but don't think their software is not of competitive
quality or value, (thought it does have most ISV development locked in
to Win32, of course). This leads me to believe you're missing
something. I'm just trying to help you find it. You'll thank me in the
end.
>I constantly find myself being categorised as if this is what makes you
>feel more comfortable or makes me a better target.
Sounds more like you constantly find yourself getting defensive because
of something somebody typed half a planet away. Calm down.
>| >[...]Either through
>| >cutsy fluff that will dazzle the passing ignorant user, or offering
>| >genuinely useful features that takes some effort and thought to
>| >implement. I disagree with you that the latter phenomenon never takes
>| >place in Windows development. In fact *both* take place.
>|
>| You haven't explained why, if the less costly path is sufficient,
>
>Well we have managed to drill our disagreement down to what we consider
>sufficient to maintain the monopoly.
>
>Again, this is user dependent. I said this further down.
How can it be user dependent, if there's a monopoly? What, only some of
the consumers are monopolized? It wouldn't be, like, 97%, would it?
>� Win2k is a great improvement to me over NT. You may not find these
>� improvements useful to *you*, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful
>� to anyone else.
^-----------Do you see that? What the hell is that?!?
>If you find the enhancements to Win2k to be crap, then you'll clearly
>feel the way that you feel and that no meaningful effort or thought was
>put into making Win2k better, or that the customer was never considered
>when adding these features.
Yea, that's right. Not anymore than was necessary to maintain monopoly.
I think the crux of the matter is that, as a matter of faith, you and
all the others who think that monopoly crapware is competitive on merits
assume, even insist, that this amount is just as great as if customers
could acquire alternatives in the market. It isn't only an act of bald
credulity, IT IS KNOWN TO BE WRONG!
I mean, how stupid do you have to be? Monopoly means the product costs
more (often and usually much more) and is of less quality (automatically
seeking the lowest quality, and doing so even as costs rise) than if
there were competitors. This doesn't even require any criminal
activity, should the market tolerate it on its own (which it doesn't).
But since criminal activity can make this lucrative by allowing
profiteering after raising artificial barriers to trade, it happens.
But the harm is unmitigatable, and undeniable. If there is not *active*
competition, regardless of the cause, you end up paying as much as you
can possibly afford for the worst products you can bare. When there is
competition, a free market, efficiencies are *demanded* by competitive
pressures, and you get the best quality for the lowest cost,
automatically.
[...]
>They do add genuinely useful features. They just aren't useful to you
>and your egotistical mind tells you that if they aren't useful to *you*,
>then they aren't useful, period.
Nor are the worth paying for the entire package over again! Check your
back, see if Bill taped a sign saying 'easy mark' on it.
>| >Win2k is a great improvement to me over NT. You may not find these
>| >improvements useful to *you*, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful
>| >to anyone else.
>|
>| My issue is not that it is useless.
>
>OK.
>
>| Its that its crap.
>
>Well don't be idiotic and use the word 'crap'. Go look in the dictionary
>and see what the word crap means.
It means precisely what I say it means, when I'm using it. I think you
are familiar with the general concept.
>| Crap can be
>| very useful for some things (no analogies, please.)
>
>No, it can't, unless you wish to fertilise your soil.
Well, yea, there's one. In some places, they use it for fuel, as well.
So first we bury Microsoft, and then we burn Windows, OK? ;-D
>| The question isn't
>| whether it works at all; W2K probably works a bit better, in some ways,
>| than NT. But does it work so much better that it was worth spending
>| money on it?
>
>To you NO. To me, yes it does. Does the fact that *you* don't think so
>mean it's not worth any money to be spending on it?
Yes. What can I say, you are obviously a babe in the woods on these
matters. You want to keep paying over and over for the same crappy
stuff.
>| Particularly given that you'd already spent the money on
>| NT?
>
>Actually I didn't spend any money on NT. :=) But that's besides the
>point. Even if I had spent money on NT, I disagree.
Don't bet on it. You'd be surprised how much actually paying the couple
hundred dollars would change your view of just how worthwhile an
investment it was. Not that I was stupid enough to do it, personally.
>| Is it so much better that it merits abandoning the entirety of your
>| previous investment, and buying something that is only marginally better
>| than its predecessor?
>
>I didn't abandon my previous investment. I paid less for the upgrade
>that the full license and I can still run ALL the apps I ran before.
Perhaps that sign says "sucker". Nobody pays the retail prices, and
using the "full license" price is just fooling yourself anyway. The
upgrade cost you paid was you being overcharged for buying a crappy
product you already paid for once (at least). Well, somebody paid for
it, anyway. So if it wasn't you, you figure you're getting a deal,
right? Nice scam.
>| Finally, is whether I find these improvements useful to *me* really what
>| should determine if W2K is a successful product?
>
>No. But Max, if the damn thing works for me and works better for me than
>the others, I'll use it.
And happily ignore the fact that the real-world reason it doesn't work a
whole lot better, for you and everyone else, and for less money, is
because of illegal activity by the producer. Which is why the market
doesn't correct monopolies, when they're intentionally defended by
anti-competitive activities, and why they're illegal. So the choice
isn't really in your hands, Curtis. In a year or two, you're going to
see why I was raising such a fuss.
>| Or should a free
>| market be tasked with that decision, without the restrictions placed on
>| it by the monopoly, *forcing* to accept W2K simply because it is less
>| crappy than NT, in some ways, without any consideration of whether it is
>| useful enough to warrant the price?
>
>Yes, a free market should be tasked with that decision.
Well, you failed miserable in that task, Curtis. I want you to know you
are personally responsible for the mess we're in now.
>| Do you *really* think that consumers want to buy a new OS every couple
>| of years?
>
>No. As usual, you are blowing things out of proportion. Are you
>exploring to see how I feel in this regard or are you already somehow
>presuming that I like paying for upgrades every two years.
You seemed pretty cheery about the idea.
>| >Linux is certainly not the holy grail for my purposes
>| >because if it was you'd see how fast I'd have migrated.
>|
>| And people accuse me of self-referential arguments. You can't make a
>| choice without it being "the holy grail"?
>
>You lost me there.
If it has to be so good as to be referred to as "the holy grail" before
you'd switch, then something tells me you aren't truly using a practiced
eye to assess your options.
>| And again we get back to the point of monopoly. YOU CAN'T KNOW whether
>| Linux suits your purposes, so long as you're not willing to admit that
>| what "your purposes" is defined by "be the monopoly product".
>
>Interesting point, but I disagree with it. I use Windows to run
>applications. I don't use Windows to run Windows itself.
No, you use Windows to run Win32, so you can run Windows applications.
That's how it works.
>| If there
>| were free market in OSes and apps, you'd have migrated years ago, I'm
>| sure.
>
>Very likely. :=) The monopoly however exists which narrows my choices.
>However, there's still a choice to make. I see you use the word 'choice'
>as loosely as the word 'crap'.
I didn't use the word choice, Curtis. You're being passive-aggressive.
Forgive me for presuming, but the agreement, the smiley, the "oh well"
sentiment, and then the pointed attempt to pick on some silly pretense
of an argument. It all says to me that you're getting defensive again.
That's right, Curtis. You didn't really have a choice, in the end. You
use Windows because it is the monopoly, not because it is best for your
needs. That it happens to not be too unsatisfactory as to not meet any
of your needs is a good thing. But hardly what you should be satisfied
with.
>| >A lot of our
>| >discussion has been about my not really choosing my OS and your feeling
>| >that I was suckered.
>|
>| No, my *knowing* that you were suckered, along with the rest of the
>| industry. You're not any kind of special exception, Curtis. Neither am
>| I. I just happen to know that I was suckered.
>
>The only time I felt suckered was when I discovered OS/2. I couldn't
>believe what everyone else was using while OS/2 existed. I still can't
>believe that Win9x is so widespread when the other choices exist. It's
>those users who've been suckered in my view; suckered because they don't
>know what else is out there.
All the more reason why I can't believe you like W2K.
>I paid less for this Win2k license as I did for OS/2. I'm familiar with
>paying for a commercial OS. Was I suckered then?
Well, kind of, but not really. OS/2 was of less quality and cost more
than it would if MS wasn't monopolizing. So essentially what seems to
happen is, since you managed to detour with OS/2, you aren't aware that
the reason W2K looks so good to you is that its years later, now, and
while even monopoly crapware looks better and does more on today's
hardware, all possible alternatives have become of so little quality and
so great a cost that they're no longer around (or never were around), so
to speak. (I'm not trying to trace any one product's history, here.)
So what's left? Monopoly crapware, or a product with unlimited quality
and zero cost, but which is therefore appears to be more rudimentary
than even OS/2 and without any major commercial potential, in and of
itself.
Intellectually, I'd like to choose Linux, The World's Operating System
(tm) for my desktop. Honestly, however, I still use NT4, because it is
still not bad enough to make it actively necessary for me to switch,
just because its monopoly crapware.
>| >What do my disagreements on this have to do with
>| >being neutral or otherwise about monopolies.
>|
>| Well, you keep saying you know MS is a monopoly, but you want to use
>| their products, but insist that you haven't been suckered. That makes
>| no sense except as an exercise is defense self-delusion.
>
>You use the word suckered loosely.
>
>I know why I have arrived at making Win2k my choice. I know it's because
>of the Windows monopoly. I know that this is so because the other
>choices haven't been given a fair chance in the market place. My only
>relief is that I do find Win2k pleasant to use and comparably usable as
>the other choices.
You have me dumbfounded, then. What are you arguing with me for, if you
think I'm right?
>In terms of MS and Win2k, I'd say yes, that they're engaged in
>competition. They have less than 30% of the server market and are
>fighting to maintain this. The pro version of Win2k is benefitting from
>this.
Oh, yea, that's why. Because you are a wealth of examples of things for
me to pick on to make my points. Sorry, Curtis.
The mistake you make is saying that MS and W2K are 'engaged in
competition'. They are not. They are monopolizing. You cannot do both
at the same time. They do not have a monopoly in "the server market",
necessarily, (according to the US Supreme Court, you can have a monopoly
with as little as 37%, simply having that much market share is evidence
you've committed a crime, imagine that) but, then, there isn't really
such a thing as the server market.
At least not when it comes to OSes. In point of fact, what is "the
server market" is most readily defined as (outside the last few years
with NT) "microcomputers that don't run Windows". In the aggregate, the
server market is defined only in contrast to the desktop and workstation
market(s). There is a different *range* of hardware, and different
*configurations* of software, between desktop and server, but they
aren't really any kind of different market. Buy any high-end desktop,
and you can use it as a server with practically no modifications. Buy a
low-end server, and you've got a dandy desktop.
So to say that MS doesn't monopolize the server market is really a
meaningless statement.
>| I'm not sure where you got that idea,
>| but its blatantly false.
>
>Why is it BLATANTLY false. You use such categorical words. Why is it
>blatantly false that MS isn't competing in the server market and that
>they aren't working at actually improving their Win2k line of OS's to
>maintain or increase their present server market share?
I'm thinking you made a typo. I've just explained how MS isn't
competing in the server market. They are monopolizing in the server
market; working to maintain or increase *market share* is, in fact,
illegal, as contradictory as that may sound. In particular, changing
their client so that consumers can only get their money's worth from it
if they also buy their server is, indeed, monopolization. They are
currently being investigated in Europe, as a matter of fact, on
precisely this charge.
>| If a monopoly needed to compete (or, from a
>| different perspective, was capable of competing), they wouldn't be a
>| monopoly.
>
>This is why I disagree that they're a monopoly in the server market
>while I agree that without a doubt they're a monopoly in the desktop
>market. Win98 to ME is not the same as WinNT to 2k. One is an upgrade
>offered as a monopoly and the other isn't.
It doesn't work like that. "Monopoly" is not a matter of a single
product, necessarily, nor a single classification of the market. As
I've pointed out, there isn't really any separate server market, just
the server end of the PC market. The OSes are the same, the hardware is
interchangeable. The only thing a "server" is is the software servers,
and MS is certainly seeking to monopolize them, as well. Their recent
Kerberos fiasco, the W2K tying we've already noted, Active Directory,
ASP, Exchange....
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:49:28 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 1 Dec 2000 02:39:25
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:10:51 -0500;
>> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
>> >Take graphics editing software for instance. What is there for Linux?
>> >Which OSS efforts are underway .... The Gimp .... what else?
>>
>> You still wish to forget that there isn't a free market. Why are you
>> trying to use the lack of free market competition to indict OSS or
>> Linux, then?
>
>No free market? In Graphics editing software?
In any application market touched by Win32.
>What "no free market" exist in graphic editing software?
I didn't say there was no market alternatives in graphics software. But
there is a free market or there isn't, in PC software. There isn't,
because there is a monopoly. That doesn't mean that the only affects of
the monopoly are confined to the OS market.
>This is really ridicilous, you know.
No, *I* know its not ridiculous. You, I guess, don't know that, yet.
Whether you ever learn it is up to you. Step one, if you need a hint,
is to never read anyone else's words to be ridiculous, because it simply
means you don't understand them.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:49:44 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 1 Dec 2000 02:51:35
[...]
>There is a *world* of difference between giving away a limited version of
>the game, without any code btw, to show you what the game can do, and giving
>away the source of the game.
Oh? Why is that? Haven't you realized by now, that nobody cares about
last year's game? Who cares if you give away the source?
>You mean that they would *give* the engine of the game? And don't try to
>suggest that you are only talking about binaries.
Of course I'm not talking about binaries. Don't you know how GPL works?
BTW, I'm not the one who suggested that games would be GPL; I never
have, I never will, and I see no reason why they wouldn't be, but its
just too silly an argument to care about, as far as I'm concerned.
>Unreal, Half-life, QoukeIII *all* made a *handsome* profit from licensing
>their engines to other companies, why would they want to give up this
>profit?
Because they can make more some other way, maybe?
>Give me one reason for them to do it.
To piss in your cornflakes?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:50:01 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said . in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 1 Dec 2000 11:33:13 +1300;
>> >Of course, if the customer requested the machine with no operating
>> >system, I don't see any reason IBM should be required to support anything
>> >beyond hardware faults and issues. If the customer chooses not to buy
>> >the complete package, they should have that right is all I meant to say.
>> >If part of that right includes giving up IBM support, the customer should
>> >be made aware of it, and then be given what he asks for.
>>
>> I won't go that far. If somebody buys a product from IBM, it is illegal
>> for IBM to refuse to support *that product* based on what *other
>> products* (possibly from competitors, but this is irrelevant) the
>> customer chooses to use the IBM product with.
>
>I agree with you... if I buy a server machine from IBM, and they tell me
>that they only support AIX on these boxes, and I choose not to
>purchase and install AIX, they should not be required to support my
>software configuration. They should most definitely be supporting the
>hardware I've purchased.
I do not understand what you mean by "support my software
configuration". They must support the box, regardless of what software
you run on it. They have no need or ability, of course, to support the
software you run on it. That's what I said, that's what I meant, and I
don't see why you were confused on the issue.
>Also, if IBM cared about their customers, I believe they would provide
>some sort of unofficial support forum for unsupported OS's (e.g, a Linux
>knowledgebase of known issues). But I believe, as long as they have
>informed the customer of what they will and wont support, that they are
>only legally obliged to support what they have sold you.
Yea, that's what I said....
[...]
>> The prototypical OEM license includes a restriction from disclosing the
>> price they pay for Windows.
>
>Well, then my posting prices would be no good... it reveals what *I* pay
>for windows, not what they do. Some may suggest this would be the same
>thing, but I say it is unknown, and you can only guess.
No, you don't understand. The restrictions are against disclosing
*either* their price, or what they "charge" you. (Because it isn't
really a charge, of course, it is a reduction in price if you exclude
it; this might very well be less than their contract fee, in fact.)
When one can only guess, then there is no reason not to.
>> >I could say that every time we choose Win98 and remove it, the price of
>> >the PC drops by about NZ$80-90...
>>
>> Any guess what that might be in US dollars? And could you give us a
>> real figure, instead of "about" and a range of $10?
>
>I don't know the current exchange rate... I know it's quite bad for us
>though! Not so long ago, it would've been around US$1 = NZ$2.
>
>I cant give a more accurate price, unfortunately, as I've only ever heard
>verbal confirmation of how much would be cut once or twice, and that was
>quite a few months ago. For reference, when I was buying these machines,
>Windows ME wasn't an option.
Well, thanks for what you've done, anyway.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
