Linux-Advocacy Digest #217, Volume #34 Sat, 5 May 01 15:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("JVercherIII")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 17:53:25 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > DR-DOS only looks good next to MS-DOS. It's junk
> > > > next to Windows.
> > >
> > > Reqlly? Why?
> >
> > It's feature poor, for one thing. No printing
> > services- that's a big one for desktop apps. Nor
> > GUI services either, of course. The file
> > services are weak too- no structured storage,
> > no file mapping. And don't forget your 8.3
> > file names.
>
> You keep saying IS. Why?
Well, I mean is. Windows has been much hindered
by being lashed to DOS as it has been.
> This has to do with WAS. As in Windows 1.0 - 3.1.
Even in Windows 1 the GUI services and printing
was there.
> Now, are you also saying you cant printing wasnt possible under DR-DOS?
No, I'm saying the each ap had to roll it's own. That is
a big problem.
> Or that any GUI that ran on DOS would run on DR-DOS?
I don't know if that was true. I know that Windows would
work on DR-DOS, more or less. But that's no great
improvement.
> You might also
> rmember that Windows STILL struggles with 8.3.
It's still lashed to DOS, too.
[snip]
> > It really is a clone of MS-DOS. It doesn't have much
> > to offer than MS-DOS does not, and that's a sad
> > state of affairs.
> >
>
> You keep saying IS. get in the right time frame. When DR-DOS was
> actively being developed it -lead- MS-DOS in features.
It was true back then too. DR-DOS was *slightly* better
than MS-DOS, mostly in terms of bundled utilities. It
had that awful memory problem for its entire life.
[snip]
> > > Then explain whay IBM wanted CP/M first. Gates even steered IBM to
> > > Digital first.
> >
> > IBM did not know that QDOS even existed. They knew
> > CP/M did, and they figured it could be adapted (which was
> > true)
>
> You are saying IBM wanted CP/M first because they didnt know about QDOS?
Well, also for name-recognition. CP/M was as close
to a de-facto standard as you had back then.
[snip]
> > Lousy support for desktop apps. It just doesn't offer
> > desktop app developers the services they need to match
> > apps written to other OSes, like Windows.
>
> Like what?
I give examples below, which you quoted;
I'll leave it in for your review.
> And what does developer issues have to d with -using- it on
> the desktop?
Users don't use OSes, they use *apps*. Apps bundled
with the OS, sure, but mostly apps they buy or download
or whatnot. But however you distribute the apps, it's
the apps that count.
If developers can't make apps for Unix that are as good
as the apps for Windows, then Unix will lose- users
will go for the *good* apps and therefore Windows.
The good desktop apps are on Windows because it
provides the tools to make them.
[snip]
Here are those specific Unix criticisms
you wanted, by the way.
This is why Unix is not a real contender
as a desktop OS.
> > Sure, it's not bad as DR-DOS. But it's still not up
> > to snuff.
> >
> > We all know about the state of the widgets, so lets
> > not belabor that.
> >
> > X-Windows is better than nothing, but it's a weak
> > graphics layer. Sure, for server admin tools that
> > remote-display trick is great- but for desktop apps
> > it does matter. X isn't resolution independant,
> > and has weak font support. It's kinda feature
> > poor in general, though there are always
> > add-ons for it.
> >
> > Also, It doesn't provide decent printing services.
> > Nothing like the device independant printing support
> > users now expect.
> >
> > It doesn't have a stable shell to write for. Not unless
> > you count bash. What I mean is something like Explorer
> > or WPS, which an app can integrate itself into.
> >
> > It does not have structured storage.
> >
> > It has a standard help engine, but that engine is 'man'.
> > Need I say more?
[snip]
> > > I mean, BeOS wouldnt have been second rate.
> >
> > I know what you said; I don't know what
> > you meant.
> >
> > Wouldn't under what circumstances?
> >
>
> If it had managed to get even a "niche" marketshare.
Oh.
I don't think I agree. I know BeOS said they made
a "media OS", but it is really hard to see how BeOS
was particularly good at *that*.
I think BeOS's basic plan was to produce the OS
Apple couldn't to replace the MacOS. They way they
were going to get marketshare was by being tapped
by Apple.
But Apple didn't do it; they tapped NeXT instead.
That was the right choice for Apple, and for
exactly the reasons I am discussing. BeOS had
buzzwords, but it didn't have *basic* services,
like a good printing engine, or an application
scripting service. Or any number of other things
that MacOS *already* has.
NeXT isn't perfect either, but for the market Apple
sells to it's not so bad. PostScript isn't as flexible a
printer technology as GDI (eg, no line printer support),
but it shines at the high end- and that's where Apple is.
BeOS can't get out of a niche unless it has a good
product first. Hell, BeOS couldn't even get
*into* a niche.
[snip]
> > > Hence the accusations that MS engineers got info before competitors.
> >
> > Yes, they found themselves needing an excuse.
>
> Tell that to the rest of the industry that lined up agains Micro$oft.
Sure.
Okay, listen up, rest of the industry that lined up against Microsoft:
You just want an excuse for your own failures! That's
what put MS on top!
[snip]
> > The knowledge MS really leveraged was their experience
> > writing Mac apps- something Lotus and Wordperfect
> > had not done. They didn't see why it mattered.
>
> ... and they leveraged the inside info on the APIs, as well as
> leveraging their ownership of the OS to allow forced bundling.
The stuff Lotus and Wordperfect needed had been documented
for years. Windows had been around way before Windows 3.
The move to Windows 95 didn't really change that. MS made
*those* APIs available when Windows NT was released,
in *1993*.
They had what they needed. They sat on their laurels anyway.
[snip]
> > MS *competed* with Go, and frankly they *both* lost.
> >
>
> Competed? Competed/ Let's see. Microsoft sent an employee to a Go demo.
> That employee videotaped the demo and went back to Micro$oft.
My. Is there *anything* Apple does that they won't imitate? :D
> M$ then
> wrote code that duplicated the demo na dpreannounced a prodct they didnt
> even have, which froze the market. And the product they finally did ship
> SUCKED.
As I recall PenWindows and Go were quite different looking;
PenWindows looked at lot like Windows, and Go was
unique.
> > At least you realize now that PenWindows wasn't vapor.
>
> It was when M$ pre-announced it.
I'm sure. Did Go keep their project under wraps
until release, then?
Anyway, you need to understand that Microsoft vapor
is successful *precisely because* they are so good about
actually producing the things they say they will.
[snip]
> > No. MS doesn't "continually" stab people in the back- it
> > picks its moment and goes for maximum effect.
> >
>
> "A lot of people make the analogy that competing with Bill Gates is like
> playing hardbal. I'd say it's more like being in a knofe fight."- Gary
> Clow, STAC CEO.
:D
I think there is truth to that.
> > The way the doublecrossed IBM was classic.
> >
>
> It was deceitful, immoral andf unethical.
It was a damn good thing. Microsoft was and
is a great improvement on IBM.
> > But it's really the exception, not the rule
>
> It is their modus operandi.
Is it? Can you think if a second example of
a doublecross, like the IBM one?
------------------------------
From: "JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 17:58:56 GMT
COM was a good idea, granted. MTS is a nice application, I'll grant that
too. But for the most part, Microsoft copy's other people's ideas. COM in
itself isn't overly original anyway, just an extensive of the object
oriented programming concept. It simply pairs a specific interface with an
object so that as long as that interface is known the object can be
accessed. Again, the underlying ideas behind COM that allow it to work were
developed by others. It is a good idea but not necessary originated by
Microsoft. A good implementation of other people's ideas, once again... This
is another example of copy and extend business practice, which is
Microsoft's main strategy. (In other words rather than come up with
specifically new technology expand and improve upon existing technology.)
As I said I'm not necessarily anti-microsoft, I just think that some of
their business practices are kind of scummy sometimes. Don't get so
defensive. (Unless of course you are a microsoft employee.)
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d1bcp$2pi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ADVI6.297$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Civility people! I use both Linux and Windows, and both have their
places
> > (IMHO). I make a living right now writing VB programs so I'm kind of
> living
> > off the Microsoft gravy train. That being said, they do some things
which
> > are very unpleasing. My main complaint with Microsoft is that they
stifle
> > innovation. They never have come up with an original idea.
>
> Bullshit, and a big one.
>
> To name a few of the top of my head:
> COM
> COM+
> MTS
> IE (No other browser can come even close, Mozilla can't render yahoo.com
> properly, and crash when you try to send a bug report)
>
>
> Just to note:
> COM was copied by many applications. Mozilla's XPCOM, Bonobo & RNA are
few
> examples.
> MTS was copied by Sun, IBM, BEA and 25 other vendors, in EJB.
> No one has been successful in copying IE so far, sadly.
> COM+ is also uncopied to my knowledge.
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 18:01:59 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > Perhaps open source still has a way to go as a development
> > methodology. I don't think that's Unix's fault exactly. :)
>
> Perhaps it does. People with problems can post messages directly to app
> maintainers. if they are programmers, they can submit patches which may,
> or may not, be added to the source. Bugs are found and fixed MUCH faster
> in the Open/Free software world.
I'm sure- at least, if people really do jump in and just
patch stuff.
But I have some reservations about the process.
[snip]
> > X windows makes this kind of thing problematic to deal with. You have
> > to work in physical pixels. Font support is not so hot.
>
> Or maybe, indiviual users need to set up their own accounts.
If Unix makes you do that just to get text to show at more-or-less
the right size, it will be demolished by Windows on the desktop.
It's just, well, second rate.
[snip]
> > But the thing is that users don't *care* why things like
> > this happen on Unix but not Windows. App vendors
> > need to provide products that users want, and if
> > that means moving to Windows...
> >
> > ... then Windows just plain wins.
>
> And if that means moving to Linux, which is happening, Linux, and the
> world wins.
But it doesn't. Windows does not have the problem
he described.
[snip]
> > Sure. Unix was never meant to do what Windows does. It's
> > unreasonable to expect it to be good at it.
>
> What was Unix meant to do?
Unix was a programming tool; it let you write apps for
your PDP-11 (wasn't it?). It was good at text processing
and things like that. Pipes were quite the innovation at
the time.
Unix over time grew into a server OS that would run
databases and manage large.
It's also has another role, as a "universal OS"- an
OS that is easy to port to new hardware, so you
can start making some useful software there much
faster than if you had to roll your own OS.
> What was Windows meant to do?
"Make PC like the Mac!", isn't that the quote?
Windows lets you write a much higher quality
desktop application than you could do without it;
apps that are competitive with Macintosh apps.
MS has been trying to grow it into a server
OS, via NT, but with only limited success.
As a sever, NT has not got all that much
on Unix. As a desktop it kicks sand in Unix's
face.
> What does Windows do for me that LInux or Unix doesnt?
You are surely not a developer. Windows and Linux do
nothing for you but convey a bunch of bundled apps.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 18:11:01 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >
> -snip-
> >
> > They *are* comparable products in the eyes of *developers*,
> > though, and it's the developers who matter in this.
> >
> > They are platforms you build desktop applications on. And
> > DR-DOS is a lousy one.
> >
> Was. Was.
Yes it was. It hasn't been getting worse with time.
> And why was DR-DOS so lousy to build applications on, compared
> to the other OS's in it's market?
Horrible memory model. Very weak services for
applications. It's just like MS-DOS basically.
Windows is much better. So is OS/2. So is
Unix. DR-DOS wins only on being cheap in terms
of memory and CPU needed.
[snip]
> > A wee bug, fixed by release. Not much of a hassle.
>
> As you have been told before, with names of the executives making the
> quotes, the purpose of the AARD code was to discourage people from using
> DR-DOS. The code that brought up the error messages was turned off in
> the release version, but the message generation code was still there.
Do you really want to have this argument again? You
positition *still* makes no sense, and you are still being
dishonest about those quotes.
[snip]
> > You mean a server OS. They were running a reasonably good
> > desktop OS in 1991, with Windows 3. Macintosh were
> > doing so long before, too.
>
> DOS/Windows 3.1 sucked... and suked worse than Windows does now.
As a desktop app platform, it was certainly flawed, but still
way better than Unix.
> > I'm serious. DOS/Windows 3 isn't a great tool, but for
> > desktop apps it was better than Unix is now.
>
> Defend your statement. How was 3.1 then, better than Unix now?
It offered the services desktop apps needed- I've
enumerated some of them for you before.
It didn't offer the services Unix does, but then
desktop apps don't usually need those.
[snip]
> > > Windows, depending on your concept of 'better'. DOS was simpler and
> > > less confusing, which I believe is what "better" is supposed to mean
to
> > > the common user.
> >
> > I think you'll find that very few common users shared that
> > view at the time.
>
> What "time" are you talking about now?
Early nineties, really.
Mind you, it is still true now. But most users
don't know enough about DOS to have an
opinion.
[snip]
> > It's a *server* OS; it does lots of fine things, but they aren't
> > the right things for desktop apps.
>
> Really? I have an integrated suite (Applixware) I can play music, watch
> movies, surf the Net. Whats missing?
Games. :D
But really, it's a question of quality. Windows apps
are *better* in the eyes of practically everyone, and
they are so because Windows provides the tools to
make them so.
[snip]
> > For several years there was quite the battle royale between
> > Microsoft and the old DOS vendors- Lotus 1-2-3 vs Excel,
> > Wordperfect vs Word. Both sides just kept troweling on
> > the features.
>
> And Microsft kept pushng those forced bundling licenses.
Microsoft offered bundled software, yes, but so did everyone
else. Lotus and Wordperfect were not so dumb as to miss out
on *that*.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 18:12:53 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9cv83q$1kp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:6_EI6.4721$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > What is this "passive aggressive" thing, anyway?
>
> I don't know about passive agressive (I always assume that this is letting
> someone else attack you until they get tired, which is when you choop off
> their head),
Chop of Max's head? Never! He's too much fun.
> but your posts are *funny*.
<bows>
Thank you. Thank you. I do love my fans.
Still rather be swarmed with dames, though. :D
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 18:15:07 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001 00:27:32
> >"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> What is this "passive aggressive" thing, anyway?
> >
> >I don't know about passive agressive (I always assume that this is
letting
> >someone else attack you until they get tired, which is when you choop off
> >their head), but your posts are *funny*.
>
> And you know this is the case, because of all the smileys, right?
Think of it as a laugh track. :D
> "Passive aggressive" is just not having the balls to insult someone
> honestly when they deserve it, and believing that you never deserve to
> be insulted no matter how dishonest you are. As with Daniel, people who
> are passive aggressive are generally inordinately proud of their
> dishonesty.
I see.
So it's your view that someone who I am talking to
deserves to be insulted, but I don't have the balls to do
so.
I wonder who it could be?
I'm not sure what I've said that leads you to think
I'm above being flamed though.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 13:04:18 -0500
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS PL wrote:
> >
> > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "JS PL" <the_win98box_in_the_corner> writes:
> > > >
> > > > That line of shit was debunked ages ago, IN COURT! No vendor has
ever
> > been
> > > > prevented from selling other OS's installed. Even the DOJ's
witnesses
> > affirm
> > > > that fact.
> > >
> > > This is just untrue.
> >
> > Microsoft offered three principal types of operating system license
> > agreements: per copy, per system and per processor. A per copy license
> > obligated an OEM to pay Microsoft a royalty on every computer shipped
with a
> > copy of MS-DOS installed on the computer; a per system license obligated
an
> > OEM that wished to install a Microsoft operating system on computers
that
> > bore a particular model designation to pay Microsoft a royalty on every
> > computer shipped that bore that designation; and a per processor license
> > obligated an OEM that wished to install a Microsoft operating system on
> > computers that contained a particular microprocessor, e.g., an Intel
> > 80386SX, to pay Microsoft a royalty on every computer shipped that
contained
> > that microprocessor. (See Kempin Dep. (Exh. 1) at 13-14;
> >
> > OEMs were not required to use a particular license type, but rather
could
> > choose among the various options. (See, e.g., Gates 10/27/97 Dep. (Exh.
2)
> > at 45-46; McLauchlan Dep. (Exh. 3) at 31; Lin DOJ Decl. (Exh. 4) at
C005866;
> > Waitt DOJ Decl. (Exh. 5) at C005868.) No OEM was obligated under any of
> > Microsoft's licenses to install MS-DOS or Windows, nor was any OEM
> > prohibited from installing DR DOS or any other competing product. (Lum
Dep.
> > (Exh. 6) at 89-90; Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at 110; Hosogi Dep. (Exh. 8) at
30.)
> >
> > > > At the hieght of per processor licence aggreements only about half
of
> > the
> > > > OEM's opted for that type of licence, of that half, about 25 OEM's
still
> > > > shipped other os's on the same proccessor with full agreement of
> > Microsoft.
> > > > MS has always strived to provided customers with exactly what they
want.
> > > > It's 99% of the reason everyone chooses their products.
> > >
> > > What an inane paragraph. You are either delusional or in the pay of
> > > Microsoft. I fancy the former.
> >
> > During Microsoft's 1994 fiscal year - the final year in which it offered
per
> > processor licenses - approximately 59% of MS-DOS units licensed by OEM
> > customers were covered by per processor licenses. In fiscal year 1993,
> > approximately 62% of MS-DOS units licensed by OEM customers were covered
by
> > per processor licenses. The prior year, Microsoft's 1992 fiscal year,
> > approximately 51% of MS-DOS units licensed by OEMs were covered by per
> > processor licenses. Per processor licenses made up 27% in fiscal year
1991,
> > 22% in fiscal year 1990 and smaller percentages in earlier years. 2a
> >
> > Although per processor licenses generally obligated the OEM to pay a
royalty
> > on every machine shipped containing a particular processor, Microsoft
> > negotiated exceptions with at least twenty-seven OEMs to allow those
OEMs to
> > ship up to ten percent of their machines containing particular processor
> > types without paying royalties on those machines. (See Kempin FTC
Testimony
> > (Exh. 9) at 104-05; Lum Dep. (Exh. 6) at 92; Apple Dep. (Exh. 10) at
23-24;
> > Microsoft's Second Response to Department of Justice Civil Investigative
> > Demand No. 10300 (excerpts attached as Exh. 21) at C001309-11.) Other
OEMs
> > with no such exception in their per processor licenses nonetheless
offered
> > non-Microsoft operating systems with their computers during the term of
> > their per processor licenses. (See, e.g., Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at 111-13;
> > Roberts DOJ Decl. (Exh. 11) at C005864; Lieven Dep. (Exh. 12) at 187.)
>
> Now, search through that testimony and tell us what the cost difference
> was between per copy licenses and per processor licenses. Check the
> testimony of Microsoft's competitors and tell us what they said about
> why they "chose" per processor licenses.
>
> Also tell us how a per processor license would allow any other OS to be
> shipped without paying for the second OS, if that second OS is allowed
> to be shipped at all.
>
> ---------
>
> "Kempin offered to undercut DRI's price ($13) with a per processor
> license. His price for Vobis selling half of its shipments with MS-DOS
> would be $18. Twice as much.
> When Lieven protested that he wanted to kepp selling DR-DOS in addition
> to Windpws, Kempin told him that he would have to pay a higher price for
> just DOS than for a DOS/Windows combination. He threatened that that if
> lieven did not take s per processor license, with DOS at $9 a copy and
> windows at $15 a copy, then his price for Windows alone would be $35.
> (Under oath, Lieven would later say that that threat was the reason he
> agreed to the deal).
> The Microsoft File. Page 73.
>
>
> "Under the terms of the current per procesor contract, Vobis paid $28
> per DOS&Windows license. 'Microsoft offred us for DOS & Windows under
> the terms of a per-copoy license $23.50 for DOS and $39.95 for Windows.
> This increases our cost by $35,45. Obviously we cannot agree to these
> prices, as we consider these price increases to be a penalty for not
> accepting per system licenses".
> The Microsoft File. Page 204.
>
>
> "In our opinion the per-system license means in effect the same as the
> per-processor license" Lieven said. "We believe that the majority of
> manufacturers will avoid the above described risks and license all
> their systems exclusively for Microsoft. As a result no other operating
> system will get a chance in the marketplace."
> The Microsoft File. Page 205.
>
> Tell us again how vendors were... "free to choose".
If the price difference was so huge, why did only 50-60% of the OEM's do
this? Clearly 40-50% were doing just fine without per-processor licenses.
>
> --
> Rick
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 18:17:09 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > Microsoft does not have the strange supernatural
> > powers you attribute to them.
>
> No, they have monopoly power and they abuse it.
Calling them "monopoly powers" does not make
them any less magical.
[snip]
> > No, no, persistance!
>
> Yeah, persistant criminal behavior.
I see there's some persistance to admire about you, too! :D
[snip]
> > > I don't think you're interested in an intelligent conversation. Or
> > > perhaps you are just incapable of one.
> >
> > Of course not! I'm talking to you, aren't I? :D
>
> Yup... not capable.
Yeah. You'd think I'd learn, but I never do.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 18:19:25 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > You seem quite fixated on your opinion that Microsoft
> > has transgressed the letter of the law in producing a better
> >
>
> What "better product" would that be?
That'd be Windows.
> BTW, why do you thnk they signed
> that first consent decree?
They thought they could avoid being sued.
Wrongly, as it turned out.
> > It's odd. Does it not occur to you that perhaps the law
> > might not so good?
>
> Tell that to Stac, Digital Research, Vobis, Go Computing, Intuit, the
> FTC, the DOJ, and the several States Attorneys General.
I think the DoJ and the attorneys general, at least, *need* to be
told that they are out of line, yes.
> maybe you are right. Maybe it isnt ough enough. Micro$oft keeps slipping
> through.
Fortunately.
This country isn't quite as corrupt as it looks, sometimes.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
