Linux-Advocacy Digest #622, Volume #32 Sat, 3 Mar 01 20:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: RTFM at M$ (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:12:49 GMT
Said InBiz in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 2 Mar 2001 07:17:43 -0500;
>"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JS PL <js@plcom> wrote:
>> >
>> >Then why all the whining about a supposed microsoft tax. No one who has
>> >ever bought a computer in the history of man has been forced to pay extra
>> >for an OS they didn't want. I can't think of a time when hardware hasn't
>> >been available seperate from software. If you own a copy of Windows it's
>> That ignores the years when DOS and Windows were licensed
>> per-processor of course.
>>
>> The OEM paid for a license on every computer they shipped whether it
>> was actually loaded or not.
>
>That was one package available. But even at it's hieght, 60% chose that
>route.
If that 60% were the largest, then that accounts, most probably, for
about 95% of the market. Oddly enough, the current monopoly is about
the same percentage.
>And the OEM's were the ones asking for per processor agreements.
What an incredibly lame excuse for monopolization.
>Get
>with it. MS ultimately has the right to set terms of sale.
No, they have the right to compete. If they are very competitive, they
might be able to *earn* the ability to set terms of sales.
Short-circuiting free market economics by monopolizing does not provide
any "rights"; in fact, its illegal.
>When the higher
>court laughs this whole "monopoly" joke out of court you'll see that MS has
>never enjoyed even the remotest hint of being a monopoly, fool.
I was pretty unimpressed with their grasp (and the ability of the gov't
lawyers to explain to them) the nature of the issue. But to say that MS
"has never enjoyed even the remotest hint of being a monopoly" is
certainly to be a fool. Or perhaps merely a dishonest moron.
--
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]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:12:51 GMT
Said Chris Ahlstrom in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 03 Mar 2001
>JS PL wrote:
>>
>> But your IQ theory only applies to those in the 50 to 120 range. Since I'm
>> 160 I can see the obvious. There's no possible monopoly when theres always
>> been a huge number of OS choices.
Monopoly is the ability to control prices (maintaining them above
competitive levels) and exclude competition. The number of "choices" is
irrelevant; just the fact that 95% of consumers are forced to buy
Windows.
--
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]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:12:50 GMT
Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 3 Mar 2001 09:31:45 -0500;
>"Amphetamine Bob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
>Microsoft began offering per processor licenses at some point in the late
forcing early
>1980s at the request of OEMs who wanted to simplify the administration of
by pretending it was a "volume discount"
>their per system licenses. (Kempin FTC Testimony (Exh. 9) at 96-97; Hosogi
>Dep. (Exh. 8) at 27-28; Lum Dep. (Exh. 6) at 82; Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at
>103-07.) Because OEMs generally change microprocessors much less frequently
>than they change other components of their systems, a per processor license
Does anyone have any idea what this has to do with anything?
[...]
Well, apparently you've found the records. Now if only you understood
that *we* know what happened, and are not flabbergasted or confounded by
your repeating the details of the scam.
--
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]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:12:52 GMT
Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 2 Mar 2001 23:13:08 -0500;
>"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> The average consumer has no more interest in building his own
>> computer from scratch as he does in building a kit car.
>>
>> now fuck off and die, idiot.
>
>That's not the point. It doesn't matter if NO ONE want's to build their own
>computer. The fact is, all the components are available and have always been
>available to buy a computer with any or no operating system you choose.
That's not the point. The point is whether they do. And they don't.
So the point becomes why don't they. And then, obviously, the point
becomes the several decades of illegal anti-competitive behavior that
Microsoft has engaged in to make it as difficult and expensive as
possible for them to avoid the Microsoft tax, which may well be linked,
if MS has their druthers, with the motherboard or the hard drive.
>Therefore, no possibility of a monopoly.
And so you account for Microsoft's monopoly (95%) by innocently and
naively presuming that everyone else is as happy with crapware as you
are? What a maroon.
>Anyone who utters the sentence
>"Microsoft has a monopoly" is clearly advertising their own ignorance. Wait
>and see what the appeals court says.
That Microsoft has a monopoly is not even in doubt among the judiciary,
regardless of how clueless they may be of the nature of software and its
difficult intersection with anti-trust.
--
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]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:12:53 GMT
Said Dave in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 02 Mar 2001 17:07:27 -0700;
>On 2 Mar 2001 20:26:41 GMT, Steve Mading
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy JS PL <js@plcom> wrote:
>>
>>: "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>:>
>>:> These 'morons' were merely reading the license agreement, which states
>>:> quite clearly if you don't agree to the license agreement you are
>>:> entitled to return the product for a full refund.
>>
>>: And because they were morons they very quickly found out the way the real
>>: world works.
>>
>>That MS lies to its customers and doesn't do what it says it will
>>in its OWN license agreement? Yeah, we already knew that. The
>>"refund day" was an attempt to publicise this fact. People
>>didn't really expect it to work.
>
>I don't know much about it but from what I've heard, the refund offer
>was originally neccessary because a) prior to the DMCA, copyright laws
>had a loophole that permitted people to distribute copyrighted
>software as long as they didn't make money on it,
That's not a "loophole"; that's the true nature of copyright, despite
the DMCA's predatory nature.
>and b) many states
>had consumer-protection laws that made shrink-wrap EULA's meaningless
>unless the consumer could get a refund. Thus without a refund offer
>customers could pass out all the free copies they wanted to.
All states except Maryland have consumer protection laws in place in
this regard. Guess which state all modern software licenses are drawn
up under?
All this "if the law weren't predatory upon the rights of the consumer,
then how could producers make money, since we know consumers will
fulfill the entire demand with 'free copies'" is a little sickening.
>It's too late now because of the DMCA, but it would have been
>interesting if someone in the right state who'd been refused a refund
>a few years ago had posted their copy of Windows 98SE & registration
>code on a highly visible website.
Even as we speak, the DMCA gets weaker and weaker, until it will be
proven to be the krufty attempt at a hack which in no way supports the
intent or importance of copyright.
--
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]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:12:54 GMT
Said Amphetamine Bob in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 02 Mar 2001
>Dave wrote:
>>>
>> It's too late now because of the DMCA,
>
>Ok, clue me in, someone, what is this obviously fucked-up, Bill
>Gates-type law?
The Digital Millenium Copyright Act is, as many previous acts modifying
copyright law for new technologies, the wish-list of the producers
(read: monopolists) who wish to inhibit your rights for their profits.
It seems reasonable enough on the face of it: the DMCA essentially makes
electronically stored or transmitted information equivalent of
"produced" books and works of authorship. Essentially, if you have a
copy of a file and it has copyrighted content, if you copy the file (for
any reason except explicit "backup" copy, or copies to RAM for execution
of a program or launching of a document) then you've broken the law.
When you put a file on your web page, you are legally also putting it on
every hard drive which has a browser. If you save a copy of a web page
for local reference, you are breaking the law.
Its about as fucked up as you can get and still entirely avoid dealing
with the problem, which is that the privateer's approach to intellectual
property is contrary to the intent of intellectual property, despite
their similar mechanisms. The author seeks protection so that he is not
ripped off; the privateer seeks predation, so that he can sell something
for more than it is truly worth.
>Sounds like a typical shitty law that our *whore* legislators would
>pass.
Yup.
>No doubt supported by all the *disgusting* big SW companies,
>the same ones that lie about a nonexistent "tech worker shortage" so
>they can bring in 100'000's of mediocre programmers from India to
>screw the American tech worker.
Yup.
>And the typical American programmer
>raves about how wonderful big corporations are. Oh, yeh, Big Business
>is on your side, right! People with a brain can at least figure out
>who their enemies are.
Hmmm....
--
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]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:12:55 GMT
Said The Ghost In The Machine in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 03 Mar
[...]
>Mind you, the original Copyright Act needed tweaking anyway -- it didn't
>allow for violations of copyright over electronic media.
Of course it did. It simply didn't provide prior restraint, which is
what those who claim "violations" actually want. They are not, after
all, authors interested in the use of their work, but profiteers who
wish to ensure their product's price doesn't fall, through competitive
pressure, to its true value.
>But a simple
>extension of those violations (e.g., it's illegal to copy a book),
>which is apparently what we have now, is going to have some goofy
>issues, such as how to find the copy on occasion -- especially if
>someone encrypts it on a hard drive and has the private key on
>a removable cartridge, drive, or card, which conveniently disappears
>as soon as the police get too close. (I'll leave the mechanics
>of such disappearance to the interested hacker. :-) )
This is the kind of thing I'm skeptical of. Restricting the rights of
consumers to prevent some hypothetical (and nonetheless illegal
according to classic copyright law free of DMCA mumbo-jumbo) ability to
merely to incur the cost of copying without profit.
Copyright, historically, was not problematic because the cost of copying
was high. Now that the cost of replication is practically non-existent,
producers which to maintain their prices at near historical levels. The
intent to maintain prices above competitive levels is attempted
monopolization, and that's illegal.
The U.S. Constitution essentially guarantees the exclusive right to
profit from their work to the author. There's nothing in there about
have a right to any profits to begin with, though.
[...]
>My brain hurts.
And you've barely gotten started! ;-)
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: RTFM at M$
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:12:56 GMT
Said Bob Hauck in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 02 Mar 2001 02:43:48
>On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 17:05:06 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Bob Hauck in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:36:06
>>>On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:36:17 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>wrote:
>
>>>> Actually, there is a great deal of value in supporting ping to
>>>> 'broadcast addresses' (it doesn't really broadcast, by the way)
>>>
>>> What happens is that all the machines on the subnet answer. This is
>>> the basis of the "smurf attack".
>
>> Why did you take my statement to indicate I didn't understand this?
>
>I was mainly responding to your implication that I didn't.
My implication wasn't that you didn't understand the mechanics, but that
you didn't understand the threat.
>Perhaps you could stick to the point and tell me what the value to me is
>in allowing random people to ping my broadcast address.
The simple fact is that one cannot tell by looking what is a "broadcast
address" from what is a host address, since the packet does not contain
the subnet mask. Sure, you can check every single frame to see if its
an IP packet, and check every single IP packet to see if it is an ICMP
datagram, and check every ICMP datagram's packet's destination's address
to see if it matches a local subnet broadcast address.
But you're going to have to do more than talk about a hypothetical
danger before you make all that "valuable", in its own right,
particularly when the worst damage that can possible be done is to slow
down your Internet connection, and while preventing Smurf attacks might
be all well and good, regardless, there are a potentially infinite
number of other ways to deny you service.
As far as direct value in pinging a broadcast address, I do it all the
time as a quick and simple method (the most efficient and least
intrusive, in fact) of determining the physical and logical
configuration of a network for ad hoc troubleshooting.
>If you want to
>map my network it bothers me not in the least if you have to spend a bit
>more time on it, being as I'm not paying you or anything. I've done my
>part in giving a reason to disallow broadcast pings.
No, you haven't. You are still thinking that there is some way to know
whether any particular ping is or is not a "broadcast ping", and that
isn't true. Plus, the Smurf attack works by using your address as the
*source* of the pings, so you are flooded with the responses; there is
no disallowing of pings which will suffice, save complete partitioning
(entirely disallowing a particular protocol's traffic through a
firewall).
Which, ironically enough, has brought up back to the point which you
seem to believe I've strayed away from (when its actually you that has,
I'm afraid.) You have not provided any reason, though you've parroted
some dubious reasons provided by others (who not only don't have to pay
the cost of implementing such things, but make money on the deal!) for
firewalling ping.
>>> CERT and Cisco both recommend that you filter ICMP to broadcast
>>> addresses at your border. The recommend this because of the smurf
>>> problem.
>>
>> Actually, they recommend this because of the paranoia problem.
>
>No, they recommend it because people were using the smurf attack to
>cause trouble. Maybe you could enlighten me on what the correct
>response to smurf is if it is not to block broadcast pings.
With a clear understanding of topology and pings, there is no need to
block them. To generate enough traffic to be a problem, the smurf would
have to be an internal attack (possibly with trojans and kits), and one
controls whether a system supports broadcast pings more easily than
whether the 'network' does.
>You could
>also send a post to Bugtraq, there are Cisco people who read that.
When Cisco pays me to do it, I'll be happy to discuss it with them.
>In an ideal world smurf wouldn't work because everybody would do proper
>filtering so users could not forge packets. We do not live in an ideal
>world.
I must imagine you are riffing at this point. What "proper filtering"
are you thinking of that would make "forged packets" impossible?
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:12:57 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 1 Mar 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 26 Feb 2001
>> [...]
>> >It was only specified a single copy of ME, it was not specified whether
>it
>> >be an OEM or upgrade or retail. Even if you take full MSRP retail price,
>> >you'd be hard pressed to find all the components mentioned for less than
>> >that. The cheapest new retail hard drive I can find is about $75 for a
>> >10GB. You might be able to find some liquidation somewhere cheaper, but
>> >let's stick with current retail products.
>>
>> Yes, lets. Current retail prices are approximately 200%-300% greater
>> for Microsoft's OS than they were in 1985.
>>
>> Monopoly pricing. Case closed.
>
>Are you kidding me? Windows 1.0 when it first came out was outrageous,
>something like $500 IIRC.
Whatever. Nobody bought it, so its price is irrelevant.
>The Windows SDK was over $2000 for the SDK alone
>(today, it's a free download).
Apparently, you didn't understand my statement. Windows costs more than
it would if I could buy it or a complete substitute for it from any one
of a number of vendors; that's monopoly pricing. Case closed. It is
not how high they are, but whether they are the result of market
competition, or monopoly control. There are no other possibilities, in
this case.
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:12:58 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 1 Mar 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 27 Feb 2001
>> [...]
>> >Look, Max. The argument says "Since Windows is the *ONLY* component that
>> >has not come drastically down in price in recent years, Windows must be a
>> >monopoly in order to not follow the market demands". This statement is
>> >proveably false, and I pointed out that roughly half of the average
>computer
>> >has stayed roughly the same price for at least 6 years.
>>
>> Look, Erik, forgive me for not going along with this premise that you're
>> entirely clueless. No, the argument was not "since EVERY SINGLE
>> COMPONENT HAS LITERALLY DECREASE IN PRICE WITH NO EXCEPTIONS, then
>> Windows MUST BE a monopoly."
>
>Yes, that is the argument. Here is the original post which includes the
>comment:
>http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_oq=&as_ep
>q=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=+&as_umsgid=3A995A7B.6260866D@
>home.com&lr=
>
>"PCs are becoming obsolete, you say? Wrong.
>They're still selling in huge numbers, because
>they're enormously useful devices whose
>utility keeps expanding. The *ONLY* component
>in the average PC that hasn't come down
>sharply in price is -- you guessed it --
>the operating system. Microsoft continues
>to spin off monopoly profits, with no end
>in sight."
>
>(Emphasis Mine, of course)
>
>Now, are you *STILL* going to deny that this was the argument, and that it's
>not based on a faulty premise?
Of course I am. Just because its in caps doesn't mean that it is the
central premise of an argument. Its pretty lame that this is the best
you can do.
>> Now stop being a pedantic ass. You're moving rapidly from 'boring' to
>> 'repulsive'.
>
>Is this going to be another one of those "pretend it doesn't exist"
>arguments?
You tell me; you seem to have a corner on the market in that regards.
[...]
>> By pointing out, for only the umpteenth time, that the argument is not
>> *BASED ON* the data you claim it is; you merely *wish* it were, so that
>> you could pretend it is a flawed argument. The fact is, it is an
>> extremely strong argument showing that Microsoft maintains the price of
>> their products above competitive levels. A consumer in 1985 buying an
>> MS OS off the shelf would pay about $49, I think; in 2001, its up to
>> $185.
>
>Bullshit. You couldn't buy a MS OS "off the shelf" in 1985. MS didn't start
>to retail MS-DOS until Dos 4.0, which came out around 1989, and Windows did
>not become an OS until Windows 3.0 (possibly Windows 2/386, but that was
>like 1988/89 as well).
Being as you're a sock puppet, its hard to tell whether this is pure
spin or historical fact, as you might well have more than enough of both
when sowing confusion in an argument. Perhaps my purchasing of DOS 3.3
and earlier, and seeing boxes for MS-DOS 2.x on the computer store's
shelves, was illusionary. I certainly don't have documentation, and I
guess you probably have MS's official timeline. Windows 1.0 and 2.0 and
286/386 were likewise commercial packages purchased off the shelf,
AFAIK.
>Furthermore, DOS 5.0 retailed for $99, not $49 (and
>Dos 4.0 was about the same price)
>http://www.smartcomputing.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles%2F1992%
>2Fjan92%2F0106%2F92n0106%2Easp
>
>The price of Windows 1.0 was $100 (I was wrong in an earlier post when I
>thought it was $500) but required DOS, which meant Dos + Windows costed
>$199, about $8 cheaper than the MSRP today, and Windows today is 1000x what
>Windows 1.0 was.
Except now you don't get DOS, right; you just get Windows. Isn't that
an increase of 100%?
>http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/comphist/comp1985.htm
>
>> Pray save us the inevitable whining about "how much more you get"; it
>> really has nothing to do with the matter.
>
>You were saying?
That you're a fraud who's apologizing for a monopolist, and rather than
having a solid argument, you misrepresent things in order to avoid
admitting that Microsoft entirely and unilaterally (and predatorally and
illegally) controls the price of their software, and maintains them
above competitive levels *REGARDLESS OF WHAT THAT AMOUNT IS*: monopoly
pricing.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
