Linux-Advocacy Digest #465, Volume #32 Sun, 25 Feb 01 06:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: RTFM at M$ (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: M$ doing it again! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft stricks again: Why is Media Player 7 so slooow, so heavy?
("Edward Rosten")
Re: RTFM at M$ ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Now we know why Allchin was tweaked! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: M$ doing it again! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: RTFM at M$
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 10:06:48 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 24 Feb 2001
>"Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:Le0m6.6258$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > I fail to understand the correlation. MS blocks pings at the border, long
>> > before it gets to a machine other than a router. This is to prevent the
>> > most common DoS attacks.
>>
>> I thought the most common DoS attacks were SYN floods.
>
>Not just pings, but all ICMP.
>
>Notice the routers name:
>icpmscomc7503-a0-00-1.cp.msft.net
>
>Most DoS attacks are ICMP based.
This is a blatant fabrication. Possibly common, even popular, but still
a complete fallacy.
A network which firewalls ping is a network which should not be
considered run by people competent to be connected to the Internet.
>> I've never heard
>> of a DoS attack with normal, short, non-broadcast pings (and a quick
>> google search failed to point me to any - I would be grateful if anyone
>> could show me a documented case).
>
>They block all ICMP.
No, they block ping, and can't tell the difference between ping and any
other ICMP. All other ICMP, however, is optional; ping is mandatory.
Truly mandatory; MS isn't alone in breaking this rule, but they are
breaking the rule, nevertheless.
>> Why do yahoo.com, google.com, and
>> other high-profile sites not see the need to block valid pings?
>
>Because they don't tend to be as large a target as MS is. MS is bombarded
>daily by script kiddies, and only very seldom do they succeed.
Because they don't need to; these networks are run competently.
>> Not
>> that I'm going to lose sleep over MS pings, but it just seems to be
>> another small example of MS doing things their "own way".
>
>It's actually getting to be quite common. Try pinging www.netscape.com,
>www.aol.com, www.att.com, www.gm.com, etc..
It has been going in and out of vogue since 1994.
>> If they've
>> been blocking them for 3 or more years, maybe blocking all pings was
>> just a quick-and-dirty fix to their NT "ping-of-death" bug a few years
>> back, that they didn't bother to unfix after the NT patch.
>
>No, since pinging them is not all that productive, why leave a potential
>hole open?
Because ping provides *necessary and essential* connectivity information
and diagnostics. The NT "ping of death", BTW, used malformed datagrams.
>> I have heard of ultra-paranoid security people recommending blocking
>> pings, although more to "hide" the system from OS-type detection via
>> subtle packet "signatures" (nmap program) than to prevent DoS attacks.
>
>Any machine that has a single port open can still be vulnerable to these.
Any connectivity is a security risk. All firewalling of ping is due to
clueless paranoia.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 10:06:50 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 24 Feb 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 22 Feb 2001
>> >Of course not, but they do have a right to defend themselves from attack.
>>
>> The only defense they are allowed against competition is competing.
>> Monopolizing is not an option, I'm afraid.
>
>Monopolizing is, in fact, an option. What is not is doing so illegally.
According to the Sherman Act, there is no legal way to monopolize.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 10:17:11 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 24 Feb 2001
>"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <iTel6.491$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >This ignores the fact that MS's software has gone down in price when
>you
>> >> >factor in inflation, and the amount of software you get per dollar.
>> >>
>> >> No, it doesn't, though your statement does ignore the fact that it has
>> >> not gone down in price at all, nor kept up with the competition in
>terms
>> >> of the amount of functionality included with the distribution.
>> >
>> >If the numbers on the price tag stay the same, and inflation goes up.
>The
>> >dollar value has dropped, and thus the product becomes cheaper.
>> >
>> As I pointed out in my direct response to your post, the Findings of
>> Fact include email evidence from Jim Allchin which contradicts you.
>
>I don't care if the pope contradicts me. These are hard cold facts.
>
>A) It's a fact that the number of dollars charged for Windows has not
>changed in 6 years.
[...]
Combined with the fact that everything else on the PC dropped in price
drastically, often by orders of magnitude, leads to the inescapable
conclusion that Microsoft is maintaining monopoly prices, elevated above
competitive levels. All the rest of your facts are just misdirection,
Erik.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 13:10:57 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sat, 24 Feb 2001 03:02:43 +0200...
...and Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A tranquilazir gun is impracticale for several reasons:
> A> You can't have one-doze-fit-all,
ROTFL!
Sorry, but this is one of the greatest typos I've come across on
Usenet... even better than "antigravy".
mawa
--
Turnbeutelvergesser!
Milchtrinker!
Sitzpinkler!
Bild-der-Frau-Abonnierer!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 13:16:04 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:48:53 GMT...
...and Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is also the tendency of congresscritters to pass laws that create
> new classes of criminals. For instance, one California Assemblybeing
> wantes to make it a crime to leave your kids in the car unattended.
> Let's say you pull your car out of the driveway and realize you left
> your wallet in your desk. You set the parking brake and dash in to get
> it, find it, and dash back out. If it takes longer than sixty seconds
> and a little kid was in your car the whole time, you'd be a criminal,
> subject to immediate arrest. The cops could then have "probably cause"
> to search your car, and Child Protective Services could then take your
> kid away from you.
Is there no difference in the USA between a crime and an infringement
of regulations? If yes, why was it proposed to make this not a mere
infringement, but a crime?
mawa
--
Turnbeutelvergesser!
Milchtrinker!
Sitzpinkler!
Bild-der-Frau-Abonnierer!
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 10:14:57 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 24 Feb 2001
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> >NS did in fact have many exclusive contracts with ISP's. I know, I was
>> >forced to pay for "startup kits" which included NS and was told by my ISP
>> >they were required by contract to provide them to all customers.
>>
>> You were misinformed then. The deals Netscape offered gave an ISP the
>> right to distribute Navigator for either a per-copy price or to
>> distribute unlimited copies to their user base for a period of time by
>> paying a flat fee. I can understand that a company which had paid $5
>> million to Netscape would not be interested in discussing other
>> browsers, but the contracts did not prohibit that.
>
>No, my ISP was required to pay NS for each of their users, whether or not we
>used or wanted Navigator.
You have not described an exclusive deal there, Erik. Just how much
effort did it take to miss the point that broadly?
>> I ran an ISP from mid-1994 until early 2000, and I clearly recall that
>> ISP's were not allowed to distribute Netscape without paying, even
>> though individuals could download it for free (technically for a 30-day
>> trial period). Netscape was certainly not giving their browser away in
>> return for an exclusivity deal prior to MS starting to give IE away.
>
>MS didn't have those exclusive deals with all ISP's either, only a few.
Not enough to constitute restraint of trade, only enough to attempt to
monopolize, according to the court.
>What makes you think NS gave you the same deal they gave everyone?
Perhaps the lack of NDAs. ;-)
>> They were trying to make money on the browser during this time. It was
>> only after MS killed that revenue model that they switched to trying to
>> sell servers and made the browser free.
>
>Browsers began as free products. NS tried to turn a free product into a pay
>product. It's not surprising they ultimately failed.
Imagine that; not being able to earn a profit by adding value to a
commodity. Gee, kind of makes you wonder if there might be something
preventing free market activity.
>> See the Findings of Fact <http://usvms.gpo.gov/ms-findings2.html>
>> starting from paragraph 250 or so for a discussion of who done what. I
>> apparently did mis-remember one thing. The exclusive deals were to get
>> listed on the Connection Wizard Referral Server, not just to distribute
>> IE. The IE/IAK deals only called for IE to be the "preferred" browser.
>> However, the ISP's who got listed on the Referral Server had about 80%
>> of the user base.
>
>80%? I doubt that. There are litereally millions of ISP's throughout the
>world, and back in 96 there were literally tens of thousands of them in the
>US alone.
So? Its quite possible that no more than ten or twenty ISPs supported
80% of the user base, regardless. One might almost think you were
squirming, Erik, the way you always subtly misrepresent or misunderstand
the statistics or the argument, or whatever it takes to provide that
apology for the monopolist.
>> The reason that MS spent millions to convince ISP's to give away IE was
>> because both ISP's and MS executives believed that Netscape was the
>> better product. According to the FoF, MS executives themselves believed
>> that IE could not win on merit alone. IE may or may not be better
>> _now_, but nobody thought it was better _then_.
>
>Netscape was *NOT* the better product.
Of course it was.
>IE3 and IE4 were roughly equivelant,
>but IE4 started leaving Netscape behind in the dust, especially in W3C
>standard support.
What a pathetically softheaded perspective you have. If IE4 was so
technically superior, why is it exactly that MS spent the millions for
the exclusive bundling deals and strong-armed OEMs into "knifing the
baby" by including IE updates that some customers specifically didn't
want and excluding Netscape?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 04:37:33 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >If the numbers on the price tag stay the same, and inflation goes up.
> >The
> >> >dollar value has dropped, and thus the product becomes cheaper.
> >> >
> >> As I pointed out in my direct response to your post, the Findings
of
> >> Fact include email evidence from Jim Allchin which contradicts you.
> >
> >I don't care if the pope contradicts me. These are hard cold facts.
> >
> >A) It's a fact that the number of dollars charged for Windows has not
> >changed in 6 years.
> [...]
>
> Combined with the fact that everything else on the PC dropped in price
> drastically, often by orders of magnitude, leads to the inescapable
> conclusion that Microsoft is maintaining monopoly prices, elevated above
> competitive levels. All the rest of your facts are just misdirection,
> Erik.
Not everything in the PC dropped in price drastically. For instance, the
cost of the mouse has been roughly the same for the last 6 years. The cost
of the keyboard is also roughly equivelant. The cost of the case and
power supply have also not changed very radically, and most certainly the
cost of the floppy disk drive hasn't changed in that time period either.
So, if many componets of the PC also have not changed, does that mean those
components are also clear evidence that those components are part of a
monopoly as well?
Software is not hardware, and it doesn't follow the same market trends of
hardware. For instance, Adobe Pagemaker has stayed the same price for the
last 6 years as well. Does that mean Adobe is also monopolizing?
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 10:29:04 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 24 Feb 2001
>"Brent Pathakis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:Y90m6.108$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> > "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Hi Erik,
>> > >
>> > > > MS has already stated in several places, including the Whistler SDK
>> > > > (available online freely to anyone) that the theming API's would not
>> > > > be
>> > > > released. The reason, is that they want to ensure that all themes
>> > > > follow the basic windows UI guidelines.
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm sure MS will license the theme SDK to developers that agree to
>> > > > abide by UI guidelines and certify the themes, but that won't happen
>> > > > till at least the release of whistler.
>> > >
>> > > I appreciate the confirmation that Microsoft will not be releasing the
>> > > theming APIs.
>> > >
>> > > I was silly enough to think that Microsoft no longer practiced hiding
>> > > API specifications from the public and developers.
>> >
>> > All OS's have unpublished API's, including Linux. You can find all
>kinds
>> > of API's that are inside the kernel but do not appear in man pages
>because
>> > they're intended to be used internally inside the kernel itself without
>a
>> > published interface.
>> >
>> > Where someone like MS would get in trouble is if their apps, like office
>> > used those API's to their advantage, and nobody has yet proved this to
>be
>> > the case. Andrew Schulman published a book years ago called
>Undocumented
>> > Windows which exposed MS's use of hidden API's in 16 bit versions of
>> > Office,
>> > but also proved that using those API's gave them no advantage. Most of it
>> > was left over from the Windows 2.x days.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> --snip
>> All OS's have unpublished API's, including Linux. You can find all kinds of
>> API's that are inside the kernel but do not appear in man pages because
>> they're intended to be used internally inside the kernel itself without a
>> published interface.
>> --
>> You're miising a point here....at least with Linux you have the source
>> code, whether or not it's not the man pages.
>
>Those API's are not intended to be used outside of the kernel. I can
>reverse engineer the windows kernel too, doesn't make it any more
>"published".
Of course it would.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 04:32:54 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Netscape was *NOT* the better product.
>
> Of course it was.
>
> >IE3 and IE4 were roughly equivelant,
> >but IE4 started leaving Netscape behind in the dust, especially in W3C
> >standard support.
>
> What a pathetically softheaded perspective you have. If IE4 was so
> technically superior, why is it exactly that MS spent the millions for
> the exclusive bundling deals and strong-armed OEMs into "knifing the
> baby" by including IE updates that some customers specifically didn't
> want and excluding Netscape?
I think it's pretty obvious from the context that I meant IE3 and NS4 were
roughly equivelant. I made a mistake.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft stricks again: Why is Media Player 7 so slooow, so
heavy?
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 10:24:25 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> > Perhaps you've not yet hit the threshold of your computer's RAM yet.
>> > When you do, every Windows OS I know, including Win 2000 Pro,
>> > exhibits some very crappy behavior.
>> >
>
>
> I've found out the hard way that if a runaway process eats up your RAM
> and swap space that EVERYTHING freezes. I have to end up rebooting.
> That has happened 2 times. Once with Netscape 6 and it happend with
> gphoto(I wanted it to open pics from a dig. camera within the main
> window and it would but each pic took up about 5 megs for some
> reason(they were only 500k though), X froze before all pics were opened)
Did this happen under Win or Linux?
If it happened under Linux, then set ulimit so the process can't gobble
up all the RAM. Having said that, even without limits set, I tried a
couple of things: one was a process that took all the RAM, it made the
computer go slow but eventually was killed. The other was a fork bomb:
this made the computer go so slowly that I needed to reboot it (I could
have waited half an hour to enter killall a.out, but I'm impatient).
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: RTFM at M$
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 04:41:11 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 24 Feb 2001
> >"Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:Le0m6.6258$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > I fail to understand the correlation. MS blocks pings at the border,
long
> >> > before it gets to a machine other than a router. This is to prevent
the
> >> > most common DoS attacks.
> >>
> >> I thought the most common DoS attacks were SYN floods.
> >
> >Not just pings, but all ICMP.
> >
> >Notice the routers name:
> >icpmscomc7503-a0-00-1.cp.msft.net
> >
> >Most DoS attacks are ICMP based.
>
> This is a blatant fabrication. Possibly common, even popular, but still
> a complete fallacy.
>
> A network which firewalls ping is a network which should not be
> considered run by people competent to be connected to the Internet.
Really? Let's remember that later on in this message.
> >> I've never heard
> >> of a DoS attack with normal, short, non-broadcast pings (and a quick
> >> google search failed to point me to any - I would be grateful if anyone
> >> could show me a documented case).
> >
> >They block all ICMP.
>
> No, they block ping, and can't tell the difference between ping and any
> other ICMP. All other ICMP, however, is optional; ping is mandatory.
> Truly mandatory; MS isn't alone in breaking this rule, but they are
> breaking the rule, nevertheless.
What "rule" might that be?
> >> Why do yahoo.com, google.com, and
> >> other high-profile sites not see the need to block valid pings?
> >
> >Because they don't tend to be as large a target as MS is. MS is
bombarded
> >daily by script kiddies, and only very seldom do they succeed.
>
> Because they don't need to; these networks are run competently.
I see.
> >> Not
> >> that I'm going to lose sleep over MS pings, but it just seems to be
> >> another small example of MS doing things their "own way".
> >
> >It's actually getting to be quite common. Try pinging www.netscape.com,
> >www.aol.com, www.att.com, www.gm.com, etc..
>
> It has been going in and out of vogue since 1994.
So you're saying then that AT&T, General Motors, Netscape and AOL all are
being run incompetantly. I'm sure they'll appreciate your critique.
> >> If they've
> >> been blocking them for 3 or more years, maybe blocking all pings was
> >> just a quick-and-dirty fix to their NT "ping-of-death" bug a few years
> >> back, that they didn't bother to unfix after the NT patch.
> >
> >No, since pinging them is not all that productive, why leave a potential
> >hole open?
>
> Because ping provides *necessary and essential* connectivity information
> and diagnostics. The NT "ping of death", BTW, used malformed datagrams.
And why is it essential for someone, external to the network, to diagnose
them?
> >> I have heard of ultra-paranoid security people recommending blocking
> >> pings, although more to "hide" the system from OS-type detection via
> >> subtle packet "signatures" (nmap program) than to prevent DoS attacks.
> >
> >Any machine that has a single port open can still be vulnerable to these.
>
> Any connectivity is a security risk. All firewalling of ping is due to
> clueless paranoia.
Hmm.. so now AT&T is clueless. Interesting.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 10:24:59 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 24 Feb 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 22 Feb 2001
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >This ignores the fact that MS's software has gone down in price when
>you
>> >> >factor in inflation, and the amount of software you get per dollar.
>> >>
>> >> No, it doesn't, though your statement does ignore the fact that it has
>> >> not gone down in price at all, nor kept up with the competition in
>terms
>> >> of the amount of functionality included with the distribution.
>> >
>> >If the numbers on the price tag stay the same, and inflation goes up.
>The
>> >dollar value has dropped, and thus the product becomes cheaper.
>>
>> The dollar value has stayed the same (number on the price tag). If the
>> price goes down, it goes down. Otherwise, it has not gone down. The
>> price of Windows has not gone down.
>
>The dollar value has not stayed the same over the last 6 years. The value
>of the dollar has dropped significantly.
Which would make the price of Windows increase, if your confusion
weren't merely misdirection. The *dollar value* has stayed the same,
because the *number of dollars* has stayed the same. The *value* of
either the package or the dollar can fluctuate, but the conversion is
not a statement of principle. If Windows wasn't crapware being shoved
down people's throats, the inflation you indicate makes the dollar less
valuable should have driven the price of Windows up as it did everything
else.
The fact is, the price floats, but does not fluctuate. It is an
artificial price, elevated substantially above competitive levels by
illegal application of monopoly power.
[...]
>> >The monopoly is BECAUSE people buy it.
>>
>> Wow. Was it just you that overturned hundreds of years of economics
>> dating back to Adam Smith himself? Or did Bill Gates help?
>
>There is a difference between a product with market power, and a monopoly.
Which is why nothing is ever a monopoly BECAUSE people buy it; no amount
of market power is sufficient to monopolize, without anti-competitive
action. Thus, the Rule of Reason established by the Supreme Court
indicates that anti-competitive actions are illegal. Thus, monopolies
only exist because people can't avoid buying it as easily as they should
be able to in a free market, because somebody is acting
anti-competitively, and thus breaking the law.
>> If the monopoly is because people buy it, Erik, then why does MS have to
>> spend so much money making deals to maintain the monopoly? Why would
>> "lock in" contracts (complete with Non-Disclosure Agreements) be so
>> necessary to Microsoft's strategy?
>
>I don't believe they do have to do such things. I think they do, because
>they can. Not because they have to.
They spend money and decrease the value of their product in their
customer's eyes "because they can, not because they have to?"
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Now we know why Allchin was tweaked!
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 10:32:15 +0000
In article <3b_l6.1221$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Tim Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> ...and Microsoft, with its max thirty-two node behemoth (well, to hear
>> the behemoth price anyway: $3,000 per node) doesn't get a look in.
>> It's laughable.
>
> Have you looked at the price of a 17 node Solaris OS?
>
> http://store.sun.com/catalog/doc/BrowsePage.jhtml?cid=56777
>
> $60,000, whether you use 17 nodes or 32. at 17 nodes, that's $3,529 per
> node. at 32 nodes that $1,875. Truly, a case of less is more.
>
>> This is based on GPL software, which must be why Allchin's panties were
>> in a knot last week to C/Net.
>
> Solaris is also based on GPL software. There's more GPL'd code in
> Solaris than there is in Windows.
Are you refering ot the kernel or the OS tools? If there was GPL'd code
in the kernel, the kernel would be GPL which it isn't. Since code to the
kernel is easy to obtain and no one has complained, I think its safe to
assume there is no GPL code in the kernel.
But, Solaris comes with GNU tools (fully compliant with their license)
since most of them are much better than the versions sun produced before.
-ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 04:43:21 -0600
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Hi Erik,
> > >
> > > > MS has already stated in several places, including the Whistler SDK
> > > > (available online freely to anyone) that the theming API's would not
be
> > > > released. The reason, is that they want to ensure that all themes
> > > > follow the basic windows UI guidelines.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure MS will license the theme SDK to developers that agree to
abide
> > > > by UI guidelines and certify the themes, but that won't happen till
at
> > > > least the release of whistler.
> > >
> > > I appreciate the confirmation that Microsoft will not be releasing the
> > > theming APIs.
> > >
> > > I was silly enough to think that Microsoft no longer practiced hiding
API
> > > specifications from the public and developers.
> >
> > All OS's have unpublished API's, including Linux. You can find all
kinds of
> > API's that are inside the kernel but do not appear in man pages because
> > they're intended to be used internally inside the kernel itself without
a
> > published interface.
>
> If that's the case, then why do MS-Office apps use them???
They don't, at least not since Word 2.0 and Excel 4.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
