Linux-Advocacy Digest #632, Volume #33 Sun, 15 Apr 01 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (J Sloan)
Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro (J Sloan)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Jim
Richardson)
Re: there's always a bigger fool ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: there's always a bigger fool ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: there's always a bigger fool ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Something cool in gcc ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Something cool in gcc ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Something cool in gcc ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Something cool in gcc ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure ("Chad Myers")
Re: Microsoft gets hard ("Chad Myers")
Re: Something cool in gcc ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: NT kiddies, don't try this at home ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Microsoft & GM ("Daniel Gregoire")
Re: More Mafia$oft incompetance on display.. ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Charles Lyttle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 21:34:27 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> "webgiant " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > Wasn't that USA-China gaffe over a NAVY spyplane?
> >
> > Forboding of worse things to come?
> >
> > "Falcon to Base! Our screens just went blue and we were being buzzed
> > by a Chinese plane right before they went offline! <CRASH!> Oops..."
>
> Well, it could've been worse:
>
> "Bravo 6 to eagle, we are being buzzed by a Chinese MiG. We will be
> taking evasive maneuvers as soon as our kernel is done recompiling to
> add in the "steering" support we downloaded from site in... china!"
That's all nonsense of course - the steering support
would have been in the original distro - no need for
kernel compiles, but maybe Chad hasn't caught on....
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 21:39:41 GMT
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> [snips]
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >> > Now tell me what non x86 or x86 clone amchines Windows runs on. Or
> >> > Solaris.
> >>
> >> Solaris runs on Sparc and on x86. Maybe more.
> >>
> >> Besides, Solaris is merely ONE member of the Unix family. If you want,
> >> you can go to Sun's website and download Solaris for x86.
> >>
> >> http://www.sun.com/solaris/downloads.html
> >>
> >>
> > You forgot to tell me what non-x86 or non-x86 clones WIndows works on.
>
> Alpha, for one. And MIPS.
Both dead. MIPS dropped ms support awhile back,
Alpha somewhat more recently.
At one time, it was felt that windows "nt" was going
to be big, but as reality set in and disillusionment
with the marketplace took it's toll, all non-x86 h/w
platforms dropped support for pc operating systems.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 14:20:51 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 16:36:54 +1000,
Mathew, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>
>On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 03:51:42 GMT,
>> silverback, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>
>> >On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 01:24:34 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Goldhammer wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 13:33:15 -0400,
>> >>> Rob Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> > Right. Fascism is characterized by the *state-directed* control of
>> >>> >the economy,
>> >>>
>> >>> Hmm. Sounds like communism.
>> >>
>> >>Precisely.
>> >>
>> >>Communism and Fascism are merely different sides of the same coin.
>> >
>> >bullshit you lying sack of shit. Fascism is the polar opposite of
>> >communism. They have nothing in common.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Fascicsm=control by a ruling oligarchy that murders it's population.
>> Communism=control by a ruling oligarchy that murders it's population.
>
> What about Capitalist Fascist dictatorships like the
>Philippines,particulary under Marcos.
>
>
>>
>> wow! no similarity there!
>>
The keyword you are looking for is dictatorship...
Surely you don't expect an anarchist to approve of any state run regime?
or were you trying to claim that there is no similarity between fascism and
communism? which was the point of my post. If you wish to say that there are
(or were) some right leaning dictatorships as bad as the some left leaning
ones, I'd agree, but that doesn't make the left leaning ones any less horrible.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 21:47:53 GMT
[snips]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Charles Lyttle"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you cite any widely used programs that prompt for a reboot that do
> not actually need a reboot?
Almost any application being installed under Win2K. If it prompts for a
reboot, it's almost certain not to actually need it. (One notable
exception is when it does, actually, provide an OS services update, such
as a new MSI runtime, a new version of MDAC, or the like.)
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 21:53:22 GMT
[snips]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Everett"
> Well, we've got one Microsoft proponent telling us right here in COLA
> that the reason this guy had his entire Windows installation was because
> he didn't heed the installation app dialog box warning. You're telling
> us, hey, most of the time it's not really necessary. Which is it?
I believe his statement was that if you don't pay attention to the
warning dialog about closing applications _before_ installing, bad things
can happen. I was discussing the need to reboot _after_ installing. How
the one relates to the other, I don't see.
> In
> reality, of course, these arguments are all symptons of a really bad
> design where users can potentially replace OS DLLs and, you're right,
> the installation app writers have not way of knowing whether a reboot is
> needed or not.
Actually, they do have a way; it's called "versioning". DLLs, EXEs and
the like are versioned files. Thing is, all too often, people _ignore_
that, and simply go ahead and roll the update anyway. Which leads to Bad
Things happening. (2K and ME, at least, have some degree of protection
against this. 2K, for example, lets your installer _think_ it's replaced
the system file... but if you go and actually check, nope, sorry, same
old file as was there beforehand - unless you use the approved method of
updating them, which is to use an MS-provided merge module.)
The funny part about all this is that in many cases, the file version
being installed is the _same_ as the version already there, but the
person who did the install chose to install it "if same or newer" instead
of just "if newer". Bah.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 21:56:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>
>> [snips]
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>>
>> >> Case #2: The only reason any app install needs to reboot the machine
>> >> is because it needs to load something before a specific system
>> >> service starts - why can't it just stop the service, load it's code
>> >> then restart the service or are MS programmers too stupid to think
>> >> of this?
>> >>
>> >>
>> > M$ requires a reboot any time anything is changed because they STILL
>> > have the CP/M mentality of "well, we can always shut down the machine
>> > at any time"
>>
>> How long is it going to take you to clue in that it is _not_ MS
>> requiring the reboot, but the application vendor? 99 times out of 100,
>> that reboot
>
> And when M$ **IS** the application vendor...then what's your excuse?
Nice change of context. The specific case doesn't make the general
case true.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something cool in gcc
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:08:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Unknown"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> well, based on a little experiment, this seems to be standard C/C++, but
> when using the ucb cc compiler, I get the error.
>
> using Sun C compiler:
>
> so, it looks like ansi C allows what gcc is allowing (unless Sun latest
> C compiler is also wrong).
Bingo. A compiler doesn't define the standard, and compilers have always
been notoriously bad about providing strict conformance. That a given
compiler will still compile broken code in strict conformance mode
doesn't mean diddly.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something cool in gcc
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:11:43 GMT
In article <Kr2C6.3211$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> > Why don't you instead, write standard C++ like this:
>> >
>> > const int len = strlen(string)+1;
>> > char var[len];
>> >
>> > Much easier and fully standard conforming.
>>
>> Are you kidding?
>>
>> If "string" is a variable, "len" can't be a constant.
>
> Not true. "len" has a const c-v qualifier, therefore it is constant to
> the compiler. It may not be constant in the traditional sense of the
> word, but the compiler sees it as so, and that's how the language is
> defined.
For C++, perhaps - not for C (pre-C99):
/* test.c */
int main()
{
const int x = 3;
char buff[x];
return 0;
}
$ gcc -Wall -ansi -pedantic test.c
test.c: In function `main':
test.c:4: warning: ISO C89 forbids variable-size array `buff'
test.c:4: warning: unused variable `buff'
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something cool in gcc
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:15:27 GMT
[snips]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well, it does still bring up the interesting point that the following
>> code snippet is legal C but not C++:
>>
>> function(char *str)
>> {
>> printf("%s\n", str);
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> But that is, of course, just nitpicking.
>
> Close.
>
> int function(char *str)
> {
> printf("%s\n", str);
> return 0;
> }
The only addition you've made is adding the return type of int, as far as
I can see. In C89/90, omitting the return type means it returns int,
using the "implicit int" rule. So, under C89/90, the above are
equivalent. Under C99, which, as yet, seems to have no viable
implementations, implicit int is not supported.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something cool in gcc
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:18:49 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "mlw"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>
>> [snips]
>>
>> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > (The compiler would have gotten it)
>> >
>> > void function(char *str)
>> > {
>> > printf("%s\n", str);
>> > }
>> >
>> > How's that? It is a valid function in both C and C++.
>> >
>> > One need not go overboard with iostreams and crap like that in C++ if
>> > they desire not.
>> >
>> > My point is C++ is a superset of C.
>>
>> Then your point is wrong, plain and simple.
> How so?
int main( int class, char *new[] )
{
int public = 0;
short private = 0;
return 0;
}
That should compile clean under C. It shouldn't compile _at all_ in C++.
If C++ is a superset of C, it follows that C programs should compile in
C++.
How about this, if you don't like that one:
#include <stdlib.h>
int main()
{
double *ptr = malloc(100 * sizeof *ptr );
if ( ptr ) free ptr;
return 0;
}
In C, you do _not_ cast the return of malloc; doing so can mask potentially
fatal errors. In C++, you _have to_ cast the return value.
In C, sizeof('a') == sizeof(int); in C++, sizeof('a') == sizeof(char).
The list goes on.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:05:45 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > "webgiant " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > > Wasn't that USA-China gaffe over a NAVY spyplane?
> > >
> > > Forboding of worse things to come?
> > >
> > > "Falcon to Base! Our screens just went blue and we were being buzzed
> > > by a Chinese plane right before they went offline! <CRASH!> Oops..."
> >
> > Well, it could've been worse:
> >
> > "Bravo 6 to eagle, we are being buzzed by a Chinese MiG. We will be
> > taking evasive maneuvers as soon as our kernel is done recompiling to
> > add in the "steering" support we downloaded from site in... china!"
>
> That's all nonsense of course - the steering support
> would have been in the original distro - no need for
> kernel compiles, but maybe Chad hasn't caught on....
However, it would've been a reference implementation or a buggy one
with several exploits which the Chinese could've taken advantage of.
And since the built-in steering requires special steering shaft
1.10r-1b-2rc-0 and steering wheel 2.014c239-c, it's all but useless
and is incompatible with regular steering wheels of today.
Thus you need to download the latest update, compile it (if it
compiles) and recompile the kernel and hope it doesn't hose your
system. That is, if you're lucky enough not to have it crash
and hose the filesystem because of the horribly inept ext2fs.
-c
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.arch,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Microsoft gets hard
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:06:23 GMT
"JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "unicat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > Of course there's a name for companies that trusted Microsoft as a
> busniess
> > partner...extinct!
>
> Which one is extinct? There's about 32,000 Certified Business Partners
> Organizations. And about 6 million developers using Microsoft Development
> tools.
> http://www.microsoft.com/business/partners/
> Which one became extinct? Ass.
>
> You really shouldn't Drink & Write.
OTOH, what happened to all the Linux partners? You can count the remaining
ones on one hand.
-c
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something cool in gcc
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:31:48 GMT
[snips]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> It is? I thought _stuff would break a rule about reservered
>> identifiers.
>>
> Note that I've ever read or seen.
You could be right on that one; there are reserved identifiers which
commence with underscores; I'm not certain whether this is one of them.
I simply avoid them as a matter of policy.
>> Let's see; <stdio.h> isn't C++. Nor is <stdlib.h>.
>
> Why not?
Because C++ doesn't define those headers, that's why not. For the
former, use <cstdio>, and for the latter, use <cstdlib>
>> The use of new and
>> class are perfectly valid in C. Try it in C++. Using malloc without a
>> cast of the return type is correct C (casting is a bad idea; it masks
>> certain conditions which should result in diagnostics) but you cannot
>> use malloc without the cast in C++.
>
> Yes, but it is a good practice to cast from a "void *" to the type you
> want it to be. Who says casting is a bad idea?
Anyone who uses malloc in C and knows what they're doing. Example:
/* file.c */
double *func( int size )
{
double *ptr;
ptr = (double *) malloc( size * sizeof *ptr );
return ptr;
}
Under the implicit-int rule, without a prototype in scope, the C compiler
assumes malloc returns an int. You then attempt to assign an int to a
pointer, which _would_ normally cause a diagnostic, but since you've cast
the result, the compiler knows that this must be correct, so skips the
diagnostic. (It _may_ still emit one, or emit anohter about calling
malloc without a prototype, but it sure isn't required to.)
Now, if pointers and ints _happen_ to have compatible sizes and
conversions, this might work, but consider an implication which uses
R0..RN registers for integers, and A0...AN registers for addresses -
pointers. The result of the above would be that malloc correctly places
the resulting address in, say, A0, knowing that your code will retrieve
the value from this register. Except your code is looking for an int
(because that's what you've told the compiler - get an int, then
_convert_ it to a pointer), so it reads it from N0. Did you get the
correct value? No. *Zot* goes your code.
>
>> The
>> differences in the results of sizeof('a') might be considered a little
>> more obscure, I suppose, given that it's an unusual construct in the
>> first place, but the others? Don't think so.
>
> The sizeof operator uses parens, "sizeof type" does not work, it must be
> "sizeof(type)." The sizeof() operator is both C and C++.
Not sure what your point here is; sizeof('a') is valid, but produces
different results in C and C++; in C, sizeof('a') == sizeof(int), while
in C++, sizeof('a') == sizeof(char).
>> Features such as <stdio.h> ?
>
> Why is not stdio.h part of C++? It can be included, it can be used, no
> additional linking specifications need be made.
Why isn't it part of C++? Don't know, ask the standards comittee. If it
_is_ included, it's a custom header, not part of the standard headers, so
it still wouldn't be part of C++.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT kiddies, don't try this at home
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:46:26 GMT
In article <kHlB6.5841$sn.3400@NewsReader>, "Mark Hillary"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Martel wrote:
>
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/5/18265.html> Missing Novell
>> server discovered after four years
>>
>>
>> Can you imagine an NT server running totally unattended for four years?
>>
>>
> Could you imagine an NT server running totally unattended for four days
> let alone years?
No, of course not. No imagining necessary for "4 days"; I have one now
that's been up and running, since last reboot - due to a hardware upgrade
-, for longer than that.
As for 4 years, that would depend on the server. If it were a web
server, for example, exposed to the world at large, no, I wouldn't expect
it - or a Linux server or any other server - to remain up _unattended_
for 4 years, if only because one would be applying any necessary security fixes
as time went on. Depending on the OS, etc, that may not involve a
reboot, but it certainly _would_ invalidate the "unattended".
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Gregoire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.conspiracy.microsoft,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Microsoft & GM
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:55:00 GMT
Apparently, part of this is from Reader's Digest. And the jokes are funny.
"Rex Ballard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What makes this even more ironic is that it actually happened about the
> same
> time that Windows 3.0 came out. There have been a few new
> embellishments
> (the start button remark was added when Windows 95 came out).
>
> Terence Kam wrote:
> >
> > At a recent computer expo. in Las Vegas (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly
> > compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated "If GM
had
> > kept up with the technology like the computer industry has, we would all
be
> > driving $2500 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon." In response to
> > Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating: If GM
had
> > developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with
the
> > following characteristics:
> >
> > 1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day.
> >
> > 2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to
buy a
> > new car.
> >
> > 3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You
would
> > have to pull over to the side of the road, close all of the car windows,
> > restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. For some
> > reason you would simply accept this.
> >
> > 4. Occasionally, executing a manoeuvre such as a left turn would cause
your
> > car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to
> > reinstall the engine.
> >
> > 5. Only one person at a time could use the car unless you bought
"CarNT,"
> > but then you would have to buy more seats.
> >
> > 6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable,
> > five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would only run on
five
> > percent of the roads.
> >
> > 7. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all
be
> > replaced by a single "General Protection Fault" warning light.
> >
> > 8. New seats would force everyone to have the same sized butt.
> >
> > 9. The airbag system would ask "are you SURE?" before deploying.
> >
> > 10. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out
and
> > refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle,
turned
> > the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.
> >
> > 11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of
Rand
> > McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though they neither need
nor
> > want them. Attempting to delete this option would immediately cause
the
> > car's performance to diminish by 50% or more. Moreover, GM would become
a
> > target for investigation by the Justice Dept.
> >
> > 12. Every time GM introduced a new car, car buyers would have to learn
to
> > drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the
same
> > manner as the old car.
> >
> > 13. You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off.
>
> --
> Rex Ballard
> It Architect
> http://www.open4success.com
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More Mafia$oft incompetance on display..
Crossposted-To: soc.singles
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:55:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MjM wrote:
>>
>> tony roth wrote:
>> >
>> > hate to be a killjoy but another one bites the dust!
>> > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/migration/hotmail/default.asp
>>
>> So Hotmail finally runs (totally?) on Windows products.
>
> Nope...only home page and the graphical front-end.
>
> Whoop......de.......fucking......doooooooo.
>
>
>
>
>> Microsoft took the damn thing over in 1997! It took them FOUR years, 2
>> Operating Systems and God knows how many supporting apps to convert it!
>
>
> And after 3 attempts, all they've managed to convert is the home page.
"The home page"? Just how many servers have they converted? If I'm
reading what they're saying correctly, we're talking 5,000 servers to be
converted over. 4 years? That's about 3 servers per day, ignoring any
actual time spent planning, testing, etc.
Okay, smart boy, how long would it take _you_ to roll out a conversion of
5,000 servers from, say, IIS+Win2K to Apache + Linux, while maintaining
service for 100 million users? Let's see your deployment strategy.
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:55:37 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Charles Lyttle wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > Russell Easterly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > You said "Judge Jackson ruled the market to be Intel-Compatible PC
> > > > operating
> > > > > systems."
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have always wondered how Microsoft can have a monopoly
> > > > on the Intel-Compatible market but Intel doesn't have a monopoly.
> > > > I guess monopoly is in the eye of the Justice Dept.
> > >
> > > They don't.
> > >
> > > AMD
> > > Cyrix.
> > >
> > > Hope that helps.
> > >
> >
> > They do. They have enough of the market in PC chips to qualify as a
> > monopoly. Intel just hasn't been caught using illegal methods to
> > maintain that monopoly. Having a monopoly isn't illegal. Using some
> > monopoly powers to maintain the monopoly is illegal.
>
> Intel licenses their patents at a reasonable price.
> That's sufficient to avoid being charged with illegal monopolization.
>
Valid point. Intel, if not more ethical, at least has been more careful
of legalities.
> >
> > From Webster's Third International Dictionary " Ownership or control
> > that permits domination of the means of production or the market in a
> > business or occupation..." Note that 100% ownership isn't required. Just
> > enough to dominate the market.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Russell
> > > > - the only form of government is bureaucracy
> > >
> > > --
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > > Unix Systems Engineer
> > > DNRC Minister of all I survey
> > > ICQ # 3056642
> > >>SNIP<<
> > --
> > Russ Lyttle
> > "World Domination through Penguin Power"
> > The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
> > <http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
> can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> K: Truth in advertising:
> Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
> Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
> Special Interest Sierra Club,
> Anarchist Members of the ACLU
> Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
> The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
> Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
