Linux-Advocacy Digest #238, Volume #31 Thu, 4 Jan 01 10:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Hatred? (Nick Condon)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 14:12:34 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > If you don't believe it. Name a script in Unix that can't be done on
> > > Windows.
> >
> > Let's start with a nice easy one, this script tests whether it is a
> background
> > or foreground process and mails it's opinion to 'nick' on the current
> machine:
> >
> > #!/bin/sh
> > if [ -t STDIN ]
> > then
> > TYPE=foreground
> > else
> > TYPE=background
> > fi
> > echo "I'm a $TYPE process" | mail -s "Script Results" nick
>
> You are aware that this is a function of the shell, not the OS. Right?
>
> Bash exists for NT, and you can do virtually the same code with that.
I can see 3 seperate reasons why this script will not work on NT-Bash. How many
can you spot?
> Or you can use Perl through WSH. I'm sure you're not going to suggest that
> you can't do this through perl.
ditto Perl. And those 3 reasons are characteristics of the OS, not the shell.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 14:04:37 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 04 Jan 2001 01:10:00
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 03 Jan 2001 14:11:20
> >> [...]
> >> >However, liberals in America like to make up rules as they go,
> >> >to suit their needs, so the liberal FL SC decided to just
> >> >wing it and make up laws and changed the already prescribed
> >> >election certification process ad hoc. This was in gross
> >> >violations of the Seperation of Powers, and of the laws
> >> >set forth in Amendment 14. See, back in the post-slavery
> >> >days, local governments would be constantly changing laws
> >> >to prevent Black people from voting. Amendment 14 prevented
> >> >laws from being written to exclude people, and it also
> >> >prevented laws from being changed AFTER the election to change
> >> >the result of the previously held election. This 2nd part
> >> >is EXACTLY what happened in Florida (by the FL Supreme Court)
> >> >and is why the US SC stepped in and vacated their decisions.
> >>
> >> Honestly, you can't see how this kind of flagrant partisan poppycock
> >> undermines your position?
> >
> >T. Max Devlin Dictionary for the Mentally Inept:
> >
> >"Partisan Poppycock" n. syn. see "truth" 1.) To provide accurate,
> >fact based, and substantive arguments.
>
> Guffaw.
>
> I'll take that as a 'no'.
It's fact. I present facts, proof, and reasonable conclusions. You label
this as "partisan poppycock". Meanwhile, you spew forth insults, lies,
and conjectures with NO facts, proof, or reasonable conclusions drawn
from the facts, and you seem to take the higher ground. You have some
serious issues you should get checked out.
It's mainly immaturity. You can't accept the fact that you have no
basis for your argument AT ALL and you can't accept that fact that
you lost so badly.
Just give it up, Max.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 14:35:37 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 04 Jan 2001 01:08:09
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 03 Jan 2001 13:57:30
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >> >The FL Supreme
>> >> >Court was an example of liberal gerry-mandering in the process of
>elections.
>> >>
>> >> And what diety-on-high proclaimed this to you? Rush Limbaugh?
>> >
>> >It was obvious to anyone that didn't have their head in the sand, like you.
>>
>> Oh really? Liberal gerry-mandering? I hadn't heard that, and I got
>> daily updates on the issue because I happen to be traveling at the time,
>> and I like to watch the Today show and read the paper when I'm
>> traveling.
>
>What do you call the otherwise inexplicable constitutional law-breaking
>that the FL SC committed?
A judicial decision which was overturned. Happens all the time.
Obviously, the fine arguments and inferential consideration of law does
not equate in my mind to "inexplicable constitutional law-breaking".
>You can call it whatever you want, but an
>accurate description would be liberal gerry-mandering.
Indeed, you cannot call it anything you want and remain a reasonable
person, and I would surmise that calling it "liberal gerry-mandering" is
the equivalent of declaring yourself an unreasonable person.
>> >> >Their decisions were purely partisan in nature and had no basis on the
>> >> >facts.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, it always supports your case to insist that Supreme Court judges
>> >> are "purely partisan" and have "no basis on the facts". Heaven forbid,
>> >> you should wish to discuss an issue reasonably.
>> >
>> >I am. Why do you not debate on merits of the facts, but rather pick
>> >apart my words.
>>
>> Because, as little merit as your words might have, your "facts" have
>> even less.
>
>Max, I have thus far backed up every single claim I've made,
How? By repeating them? As I have stated, and I will stand on this
point until you provide some evidence to the contrary, that you have not
provided a single fact throughout all of your partisan ranting.
>and you
>continue to bash me, but provide not a SINGLE ounce of fact, evidence,
>or reasonable logic to refute me.
I need none; for an unreasonable argument refutes itself, and yours does
this handily. I'm just here to enjoy it; you need no help from me to
prove your lack of facts. You'll have to pick a finer legal argument
than "the Florida Supreme Court's action was liberal gerry-mandering",
as that is a rather pathetically asinine case to begin with.
>I have won this debate several times over, yet you continue to post
>with NOTHING to substaniate ANY of your claims.
I have not made any claims, other than the fact that if one is not
reasonable, one cannot engage in reasonable argument.
[...]
>> >This is the official filing of the US SC in regards to the first
>> >hearing on the first FL SC decision.
>> >http://a388.g.akamai.net/f/388/21/1d/www.cnn.com//LAW/library/
>> >documents/election.florida/00-836_dec04.pdf
>> >
>> >NOTE: URL wrapped for readability, please reassemble on address line
>>
>> Just an aside; urls aren't for reading, they're for clicking. Next
>> time, either admit that its wrapped because your newsreader is broken,
>> or don't bother changing it.
>
>My newsreader is set to wrap at 80 columns because of brain-dead Unix
>users who refused to get into the 1980s and get a decent OS that doesn't
>have a 80-column width restriction.
My newsreader is set to wrap at 80 columns, as well, but it doesn't have
the problem yours does. Proper handling of wrapping in messages is not
an OS function, usually. No surprise that the one exception to that
rule screws it up to begin with.
--
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
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 14:35:38 GMT
Said Chad C. Mulligan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 04 Jan 2001
[...]
>> >They state just what he said.
>> >To put it another way - It's like trying to figure out the apple tree ratio
>> >in an orchard by simply standing in the barn counting and sorting the
>> >varieties that were picked.
>>
>> With a large enough orchard, and a workable value for relative apple
>> production for each variety, this is really very trivial to determine.
>> Notice that you have no need to know:
>>
>> a) the total number of trees
>> b) the precise number of apples per tree (an average is actually
>> preferable)
>> c) the size or reliability of the barn
>>
>
>And your results will be inconclusive barely suitable as an estimate.
Your statement is entirely incorrect. It does require a bit of reason
to understand, perhaps, but that doesn't usually slow the rest of us
down much.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 14:35:41 GMT
Said Chad C. Mulligan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 04 Jan 2001
[...]
>Could be they spend too much time gossiping instead of fixing the problems.
Could be another in a never-ending series of proclamations that someone
else is incompetent proffered by the Microsoft apologists.
--
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
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 14:35:42 GMT
Said Chad C. Mulligan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 04 Jan 2001
[...]
>Care to send me your customer list so I can follow up and really solve their
>problems then.
PTHTHTHTH! You wouldn't have a clue. I don't do "PC-level stuff",
much; I deal with network management. I have worked with more than two
dozen major carriers, service providers, and enterprises within the last
couple years alone. I'm sure you can go find some real problems, if you
want; they've got plenty of problems to go around. One "Windows guru"
is pretty much as useful as the next; the primary job requirement is not
getting frustrated when it turns out you *can't* adequately troubleshoot
proprietary crapware. Chances are your "follow up" is going to come out
a little different then you planned, but you know there's always money
to be made in calling the previous solution a "problem" and pretending
to fix it with a new solution.
>BTW, typical penguinista tactics here, rather than continuing a discussion,
>just attack the opponent.
"Penguinista". I love that. It so clearly announces your intention to
avoid having to apply reason.
--
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
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 14:35:44 GMT
Said Chad C. Mulligan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 04 Jan 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said JSPL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 3 Jan 2001 09:38:51 -0500;
>> >"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
><trimmed>
>> >
>> >That pretty much answers my question! And proves that netcraft is wrong
>> >(again).
>>
>> Exqueeze me? In point of fact, it proves that you don't know what
>> you're talking about, and that the OS is, as stated by Netcraft, derived
>
>Pay attention. This proves that netcraft can report the wrong stats for a
>given OS or Web Server this proves that their numbers are bullshit.
>
>Got it this time.
No, and I never will, because what you're saying is, logically, fatally
flawed. The fact that a server on a Linux box reported "IIS" in its
header strings does not by any means even bring into question, by
itself, whether their uptime statistics are valid. You haven't even
been able to provide a single example of an OS being misidentified to
begin with! Let alone uptimes identified with the wrong OS. This
bullshit about which web server "makes sense" is entirely meaningless.
Pure arm-waving.
Maybe you'll get it next time. Jesus; how many ways does it have to be
said?
--
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
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 14:35:45 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 31 Dec 2000 19:15:22
>mlw wrote:
>
>> I can understand why Linux users hate Windows, it is something we are
>> too frequently forced to use even though it, as an operating
>> environment, is terrible at best.
>
>Oh life is so hard using Windows isn't it!
As a matter of fact...
>> What I can't understand, is the bitter hatred and resentment that some
>> of the Windows zealots have. They have freedom of choice, they can use
>> their environment to their hearts content, they can buy almost any
>> software for it. Why spread FUD and criticize a different environment?
>
>Because you guys keep reporting misinformation about Windows that's why!
That would potentially be a reason to spread information. But the
question was, why do you spread FUD and criticize a different
environment?
>> The only reason I can come up with is fear. They must be afraid of
>> Linux. The only reason they would have to be afraid is because Linux is
>> better than Windows. They have to know this, else they would not be
>> afraid.
>
>Currently I'm certainly not afraid of Linux. I _want_ Linux to compete with
>Windows. I just wish it did!
I just wish it could. But, you know, though the wheels of justice may
turn slowly, they do turn. And along about spring-time, I expect we'll
see Windows being crushed by their inevitable movement.
>What amazes me is the depths of insults you
>guys have to stoop to when things don't go your way!
I don't believe I recall reading any insults in the post, Pete. And it
would be hyperbole similar to yours for me to feign surprise or
amazement that you so enthusiastically and disingenuously responded.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 14:35:47 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 31 Dec 2000
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > Because you guys keep reporting misinformation about Windows that's why!
>> > >
>> > > Not I. Maybe others, but I do not post what I do not believe to be true.
>> > > If I'm wrong, I admit it, but I do not post something I know to be
>> > > false.
>> >
>> > You just did. Take a look at the following. You seem to think Windows
>> > zealots are afraid of Linux.
>>
>> I think most Windows zealots are afraid of Linux. This is not a lie. I
>> believe that.
>
>Of course it's not a lie, because it's your opinion. However, your opinion
>is wrong in most cases, I believe.
>
>I don't fear Linux. In fact, I run my web server under Linux. I simply
>don't find Linux useful as a desktop system today, and get annoyed when
>Linux zealots insist that Linux can replace Windows today. It can't. If it
>could, I'd be using it. Just like I used my Amiga over DOS, OS/2 over
>Windows 3.1, and Windows 95 over OS/2, and Windows 2000 over Windows 9x (I
>still used Win98 primarily until Win2k came out. Although since then I have
>at least one NT4 box hanging around) when each proved themselves more useful
>to me.
Well, we've all heard this before. "Linux just can't replace Windows;
if it could, I'd be using it." I'm afraid I'm going to have to say that
it does sound like a rather tired defensiveness, thinly veiling the...
discomfort, shall we say, at the thought of Windows losing its...
ubiquitous nature. Many of the Linux zealots, after all, have indeed
replaced Windows, and go on to consider it a superior replacement.
Granted, they lose out on the use of Win32, but to be honest, that's
hardly debilitating functionally. Regardless, there are people who use
Linux on their desktop PC, and they get along just fine. Now, I'm not
one of those people, we all know, not yet, anyway.
But the difference between you and I, Erik, is that I recognize the
reason your self-referential "if it was better I'd use it, and I'm not
using it, so its not better" claims to technical objectivity is an empty
charade. You don't have a fair market to make your decisions on. All
of those "I picked Amiga over DOS, until DOS was better" conveniently
occur just before Amiga becomes "a niche product". You're a victim of
the monopoly, same as I am, but you don't seem to be aware of it.
The ironic part is that on some certain level, you *must* be aware of
it, or else the thought of Linux being used and accepted by a great and
growing number of people wouldn't prompt you to such contortions of
unreason to try to prop up this delusion about Windows being reliable or
efficient or effective or inexpensive or, well, acceptable, apart from
the fact that through illegal acts, Microsoft has prevented competition
either for Win32 or against Win32. These violations of the law are
ongoing and continuous. You cannot refute the fact, hard as you try,
that Microsoft's operating systems are more expensive than competitive
levels, and are built by Microsoft, not to provide value to the
consumer, but to exclude competition or the requirement to compete, as
much as possible.
>Fact is, as long as Linux must be maintained by through text files, it's not
>going to be able to replace Windows. Yeah, there are tools like linuxconf,
>but I find these tools to be brittle and break easily. Case in point,
>Mandrake's update utility (mandrake-update) will often insist that you have
>an older version of an RPM installed, when you have the latest installed.
>If you do an rpm -q you find both the old version and the new version listed
>in the database, and mandrake-update gets confused.
>
>Until the management tools evolve, and distro's begin to generate standards
>between themselves (i.e. what filesystem hiearchy is used, how are the init
>scripts done, etc..) so that management tools can universally work on any
>distro, it's going to be hard to see Linux take over.
Perhaps sufficient users wouldn't agree with you that they'd appreciate
the choice. Perhaps it really does fill you with... discomfort, to
contemplate people learning how to use computers, and being free of
Microsoft and its software and their dependency on paying someone else
to gain value from their own property. I know it might sound really
outlandish, but I can't for the life of me figure why anyone would be
*so concerned* about something like how configuration is done. You seem
to be trying to *insist* that consumers *could not* select a cheaper,
more reliable, higher performance OS given the trade-off of needing to
get used to text file configuration. (Those familiar with computers
would be happy to point out that they will be more empowered in the long
run, and will consider the mechanism to be as transparent, but far more
effective and controllable, than the clicky-clicky method that Windows
users are forced to hunt through like a rat in a maze, when they are
unlucky enough to be unable to avoid it.)
Why don't you just shut up and let the market decide, eh, Erik? Quit
proclaiming Windows is superior until active competition can prove the
case.
>By the way, I think you'll find that I primarily participate in discussion
>which FUD windows (which you seem to do quite regularly) rather than ones
>that discuss Linux's problems.
No, we gripe about Windows. That's not FUD; that's being stuck with
monopoly crapware.
>I do participate in them, but not so often,
>and then it's usually in reference to actual problems i've encountered
>(which Linux zealots like to pretend don't exist).
Kind of like you pretending Windows problems are all drivers and
hardware and operator error, huh? Not that these "Linux zealots"
actually exist.
--
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
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 14:35:49 GMT
Said Donn Miller in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 1 Jan 2001 02:06:17
>"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:peP36.4629$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> I don't fear Linux. In fact, I run my web server under Linux. I simply
>> don't find Linux useful as a desktop system today, and get annoyed when
>> Linux zealots insist that Linux can replace Windows today. It can't. If
>it
>> could, I'd be using it.
>
>> Fact is, as long as Linux must be maintained by through text files, it's
>not
>> going to be able to replace Windows. Yeah, there are tools like
>linuxconf,
>> but I find these tools to be brittle and break easily.
>
>The fact is that Windows and unix variants such as Linux represent two
>entirely different cultures and philosphies. I feel that GUI sysadmin tools
>under unix systems such as Linux are pointless, because the entire unix
>culture relies on editing config files by hand that are well-documented with
>comments and are very "human readable". Windows, OTOH, has config files
>that are designed to be "machine generated" instead of human-readable, like
>with unix.
>
>One of many problems with Windows is that it is a proprietary standard. For
>example, it's pretty difficult to port a program from Windows directly to
>Solaris. OTOH, all unix systems are similar in that it's pretty easy to
>port a program from Linux to FreeBSD and Solaris with little difficulty, as
>long as there are no low-level obstacles. This is due in part to the fact
>that unix systems are set up very similar. For example, all unices have man
>pages, and a C runtime library (libc) with basically a fairly common subset
>of functions. All have socket(), connect(), read(), and write(), for
>example. Windows, OTOH, has it's own variants of these commands. For
>example, I don't know if Win98 directly supports the open() function. You
>pretty much have to use OpenFile(), which is tied to Windows' GUI. Also,
>Windows doesn't use connect() AFAIK, but a WinSock implementation of this
>syscall. So now on the network side of things, you've got to do some
>translating between standard unix socket calls and the equivalent WinSock
>calls.
>
>I'm much more at ease knowing that I'm programming on a system that is a
>standard. But, how exactly do you acheive an "open standard" with a
>Windows-type OS? "Well, it has a very weak CLI interface, and is 99% GUI
>driven, and the Windowing system has it's own built-in widget set and is
>closely intimated with the kernel". Heck, it's very hard to acheive a
>standard like that! Let's see, Windows, BeOS, and MacOS would fall into
>that category. Yet, they don't seem as compatible with each other as the
>unix variants (FreeBSD, Solaris, Linux) are.
>
>It's only natural that we programmers should choose a standard over a
>proprietary system, which is why I like unix systems better than Windows.
>
>OK, let's try this thought experiment. Microsoft releases the source code
>to all their products, including Windows 98, ME, NT, 2000, etc. They also
>release all the internal documents regarding Windows NT and 98's
>architecture and design. The two questions I have then are as follows:
>
>1.) Would Windows NT and 98 be established as an open standard?
>2.) What would happen to Microsoft in terms of revenue? Well, one obvious
>conclusion would be that Microsoft's earnings would drop like a rock. But,
>if they could somehow copy RedHat, SuSE, and Corel's business model, I think
>they could stay afloat, but their monetary value would sink faster than the
>Titanic. This is because now, see, MS has just released the source code to
>their products, effectively making them open source. They could no longer
>be the only vendor selling and supporting Windows, because now Company X,
>whomever that may be, could make their own Windows disribution, modify it to
>their liking, and sell it with support. If Microsoft were truly innovative,
>they could survive and still pull in a healty profit with that scenario.
This is a very clear and effective definition of what the "Windows
monopoly" is all about, and one of the main reasons it is so complex and
unresolvable. They don't only monopolize PC operating systems, they do
so by monopolizing Win32, which is both an OS API, and a middleware API,
and extends now to application APIs, as well. Gates wants to move the
whole thing to the Internet, so he can extend his illegal control to
many more APIs, even if he loses the OS monopoly.
This is the root of the reason for splitting them, and splitting them
into only two companies. The question becomes "who gets Win32?" The
answer is: they both do. Win32 becomes a common, competitive market,
because any changes one company makes that the other company doesn't
know about, won't work, and all competitors will have the same access to
both the API and the information about the API that either MS company
has. In effect, the market controls the definition of what is
"Windows", in the same way that it putatively controls the definition of
"PC". There's no way to judge, of course, how much that has been
frustrated by the monopoly. But with Intel anti-competing its ass off
as well, it seems reasonable to say that we're getting off light if
winmodems are the worst that can happen.
--
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
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
