Linux-Advocacy Digest #254, Volume #34 Sun, 6 May 01 13:13:14 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? (Eugenio Mastroviti)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Karel Jansens)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (Karel Jansens)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Salvador
Peralta)
Re: A Windows enthusiasts take on Mundie's speech ("Edward Rosten")
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! ("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! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eugenio Mastroviti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 16:55:32 +0100
Edward Rosten wrote:
>> And for goodness sake can any Linux advocate say with a straight face
>> they can easily connect their Linux box to an ISP?
>
> I haven't tried (the home computer has a winmodem) but I have heard
> plenty of success stories.
I have to say I was very disappointed with SuSE 7.1
I used 6.4 with a company notebook and a PCMCIA modem, and in about 2
minutes I could dial my ISP.
With my desktop PC and ADSL, and SuSE 7.1, it took me all of 5 minutes and
I had (horror!) to edit a config file by hand because I was annoyed by a
DHCP warning at boot time
A horrible experience. I had to call in a couple of neighbours and my cat
to help me type "vi /etc/dhcpcd.conf"... lucky thing my cat is skilled at
typing...
>> They should be
>> working on this issue night and day because nobody is going to use Linux
>> is they cannot connect to the Internet.
>
> I'm not on the internet at home on my computer, yet I still use Linux. My
> life consists of more than just surfing.
Well, it's true that most people nowadays use their computers to surf the
Net. It's also true that with any one of the recent distros, the only ways
you can have problems with it are:
1) having a Winmodem
2) Having a DSL connection and a fa311 card (I HATE the wretched thing)
3) being brain dead
>> But instead they prefer to call
>> users names rather than address the issue.
>
> Bullshit.
I concur. Simply put, there is *no* issue there
>> Is there a plan to address this
>> issue?
>
> I hope not. the advantages of plain text config files have clearly shown
> their advantages compared to binary databases for configuration. Note
> that most of the files are not read very often.
Simple example:
a *very* moronic programmer in my company, who acquired the root password
from one of our junior sysadmins (she's still being flogged on a daily
basis), screws up a number of files in the /etc directory. We restore them
from backups. 20 minutes.
Something (the most interesting explanation came from Micro$oft support:
"age of the registry file", whatever that means) fucks up the registry file
on the only NT server in the company.
You guessed it, 4 hours downtime, disks reformatted, clean install, restore
from backups.
Eugenio
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[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 17:05:45 +0000
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > Oh yes. Most of the stuff DOS does, you'd
> > > use DOS for.
> >
> > So does Windows. Remove "Command.com" from a Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.1, 3.11,
> > 95, or 98 system, and tell us what happens.
>
> Command.com is a shell. It's like /bin/sh in Unix. This
> doesn't mean Unix "runs on" /bin/sh.
>
OK. How about this: I remove /bin/sh from my linux system and reboot,
and you remove ~\command.com from your Windows 9x system and reboot.
Then we check which one of us actually can get any work done.
And _then_ I suggest you study up on what "shell" actually means and
come back when you know.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 17:21:24 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
>
> > > It is? I've just demonstrated in another post that it takes far less
> > > steps in Word to write and print a letter.
> >
> > So ease-of-use equates to how many times you have to click?
>
> No in the number of extra steps you need to do to make it work.
>
That is - excusez le mot - bull. The important thing to look at is if
the user has a "clear path" through the steps, i.e.: are they logical
(*), do they require unnatural bending of the limbs, does the same kind
of action always have the same kind of result, and more of that
ergonomic stuff. The number of steps to do something features pretty low
on the list.
(*) a rather famous example of how _not_ to do things is to make a user
click a button marked "start" to actually stop the machine.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 09:14:09 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ed Allen quoth:
> good advice...
You 'da man, Ed.
--
Salvador Peralta
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Windows enthusiasts take on Mundie's speech
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:09:37 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bob Hauck"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 06 May 2001 23:18:54 -0700, Matthew Gardiner
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Oh, just as a follow up, how can a GPL program fork? when all
>> modifications must be made public and handed back to the author. The
>> only time a program can fork is under the BSD license.
>
> How do you explain GNU Emacs vs XEmacs then? Or GCC vs EGCS?
EGCS is a prefect example of a fork rejoining again. There is no fork any
longer.
As for GNU Emacs, this is down to the religiois fanaticism of RMS: he
wanted every contribution to come with a signed document from the author
to prove it was their work and it would remain GPL, or something.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
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: Sun, 06 May 2001 16:11:34 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
> 20:53:03 GMT;
> >I don't see that DR-DOS was superior as a platform
> >for Windows.
>
> Nice squirming, troll-boy.
No, no, when I'm wearing the glasses,
I'm mild-mannered reporter Clark Troll. :D
But really, DR-DOS doesn't have anything to
offer Windows that MS-DOS doesn't.
> >The real trick was to supercede as much of DOS
> >as possible, not to use another DOS.
>
> No wonder you find it so easy to be clueless; you think there's a
> difference between something that is like DOS, and something that is
> "another DOS".
There is: MS can't have DR-DOS changed to suit
Windows.
> Its a wonder you can even find the power switch.
Power switch? I just yank the plug out of the wall...
: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: Sun, 06 May 2001 16:11:35 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
> >> It is still a DOS program, if unorthodox (known as a "DOS extender")
> >> when in protected or enhanced mode.
> >
> >I suppose you could say that, but it's really a semantic
> >question.
>
> All questions are semantic; nice squirming. Yes, you not only COULD say
> it like that, if you don't you're mistaken. Guffaw.
No, some questions are substantial. We could be disagreeing
about Windows; I could be saying (for instance) that it
is the same as any ordinary DOS program, even today.
We do seem to actualy disagree about whether any
DOS services are entirely replaced by Windows,
for instance. That's not a semantic difference.
> >It's not a DOS program like other DOS programs
> >except when in real mode. And it doesn't have real mode
> >anymore. :D
>
> Define "like other DOS programs".
Programs that use DOS services to do their
thing. You know, programs written to *DOS's*
API.
[snip]
> >Well, it's not *just* a "DOS extender" it replaces major DOS
> >services.
>
> No, it just extends them.
Not so. The new filesystem code does nto extend
DOS's; it replaces it entirely.
> >You can say that it is DOS that provides the memory
> >management, disk access, multitasking, program loading,
> >and other "OS traits", but it still won't be true of current
> >version of Windows.
>
> You can say that DOS is the OS, or you could lie. That pretty much sums
> it up.
Oh, I don't know. It's not that clear cut. DOS doesn't do
very much in a modern Windows system, but what it
does do *is* OS-like.
So is what Windows does.
I'm inclined to say that "Windows 95" is an OS,
and trying to split hairs between the DOS part
and the Windows 4.0 part is not worthwhile.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 06 May 2001 16:11:36 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
> [...]
> >But I have some reservations about the process.[...]
>
> You don't appear competent to have an opinion on the matter, actually.
That's never stopped me before! :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: Sun, 06 May 2001 16:11:36 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > Brad Silverberg:"What the guy is upposed to do is feel uncomfortable
and
> > > when he has bugs, suspect the problem is DR-DOS and then go out and
buy
> > > MS-DOS or decide not to take the risk for the other machines he has to
> > > buy for in the office."
> >
> > They didn't actually do it, though. Windows 3.x ran on DR-DOS.
> >
> They did do it. The AARD code was active in the betas.
C'mon. Even you don't take this line of "argument"
seriously, do you?
> > Silverberg does not say otherwise, but if he did I would
> > point out that his saying it doesn't make it so.
>
> So, he's lying. A Microsft exec is lying about how to kill off the
> competiton. Whats ti going to take with you.
He's *lying*? He's your exhibit A!
> You are a waste of time.
Got me there, though. :D
[snip]
> > They didn't do this either. Even the bug didn't prevent
> > you from running on DR-DOS.
>
> it wasnt a bug you idiot. It was puposely placed code. The evidence is
> in the Micorsoft memso. Oh, I forgot. you say the Microsoft execs were
> lying.
If it were deliberately placed, it would have *worked*; DR-DOS
would not have run.
[snip]
> > > What other OS vendor participated in forced bundling ?
> >
> > IBM. IBM forced you to take their interner browser
> > with OS/2. The rapscallions.
> >
> > But that's not what I meant. Microsoft would
> > bundle weak programs with strong ones;
> > that's the idea behind an "office suite". Office
> > didn't depend on Windows for sales, but
> > PowerPoint sure depended on Word.
> >
> > The other companies did this too, of course.
>
> What compaies and apps were those?
You know, like Lotus SmartSuite. I think there
was also a "WordPerfect Office", too.
They still do it.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 06 May 2001 16:11:37 GMT
"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <FsXI6.5997$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> No, they have monopoly power and they abuse it.
> >
> > Calling them "monopoly powers" does not make
> > them any less magical.
>
> First you say 'Microsoft does not have the strange supernatural powers
> you attribute to them' and then 'Calling them "monopoly powers" does
> not make them any less magical'? You are very confused indeed.
I still don't think they have these magic powers, no matter
what they are called.
> They are a monopoly. The findings of fact show this. They are not
> fighting the FoF (they can't because they screwed their case so
> badly) but the remedy.
The Finding of Fact is a joke. If it stands, it will show
how screwed up the American legal system is.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 06 May 2001 16:11:38 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
> >> No, they have monopoly power and they abuse it.
> >
> >Calling them "monopoly powers" does not make
> >them any less magical.
>
> A century of law says you're wrong.
The Sherman Act has been around this long
because it is a wonderful tool to use on those
companies that do not make their compaign
contributions on time. Like Microsoft.
The law is not the ultimate arbiter or
truth, and you wouldn't try to use it as
such if you don't know how weak your
argument is.
[snip]
> >> Yup... not capable.
> >
> >Yeah. You'd think I'd learn, but I never do.
>
> Yes, you do. You're still pretending otherwise, obstinate as any other
> teenager, but sooner or later you'll grow up.
I'm actually 28. Still think I'll gruw up? :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: Sun, 06 May 2001 16:11:38 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
> You are saying that Stac and DR and Go are out of line in complaining
> about Microsoft's purposeful actions to exclude them from the market?
> That's apologizing for criminal behavior, Daniel. Getting your jollies
> trolling isn't worth destroying your character so completely.
Stac may have a case; I've heard conflicting reports.
DR and Go certainly do not. They are just abusing the
legal system. (Well Caldera was. Did Go ever do anything like
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: Sun, 06 May 2001 16:11:39 GMT
"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <NuXI6.6002$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "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.
>
> I know I'm pissed but please stop. How can you write that without a
> smiley?
I'm sorry that the existance of some who appreciates
Windows pisses you off.
But really, it's a very good product.
It *is* better than GEM or DOS or Unix or OS/2
or the MacOS... for the desktop app market, if
nothing else.
I don't mean to suggest that it's the end all
and be all of compterdom, but it's an important
area and it's needs *do* deserve to be addressed.
I see a lot of people just ignoring them, rather
than trying to compete by offering a better
solution to the problems there.
This business of assuming that desktop
applications should make do with the services
servers need is very unfortunate for everyone,
I think.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 06 May 2001 16:11:40 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > The FTC, the DOJ and the vendors said that. Who esle do you want?
> >
> > No, they don't.
>
> Are you totally ignorant or what. If vendors under a per-processor
> license shipped a competing license, the venodr had to pay for the 2
> licenses. Those costs were passed to the consumer, which raised the cost
> of the computer compared to the vendors competitors. What part of this
> do you NOT understand?
>
> Thats what the whole consent decree was about.
This doesn't exclude a second OS, for three reasons:
The costs are small enough that they can be
eaten if needed.
You can ship *two* OSes on a computer. This
is actually a popular configuration with the
techno-elite.
The vendor can go for a different license if
their particular business is ill-served by the
per-processor license.
[snip]
> > Ferinstance, dual booting Windows and some obscure
> > hobby OS is quite a common configuration for
> > the techno-elite. A compy with a per-processor
> > license could have addressed that market very
> > nicely, thank you.
>
> What does that have to do with buying preconfigured computers.
Who says you can't have computer preconfigured
with both Windows *and* Linux, say?
If Linux was as in-demand as you seem to suppose,
that would be a popular set-up!
[snip]
> > > To avoid going to trial and being convicted. Its like plea bargaining.
> >
> > Yes, but it iddn't work, the DoJ sued anyway, and
> > they *went* to trial, and got convicted, and now they
> > look likely to win it on appeal.
>
> The DOJ took Microsoft to court for violation of the consent decree and
> OTHER predatory actions. What do you base your appeal statement on?
Mainly the egregious misbehavior of the judge. It would
be a travesty if *that* were allowed to stand, and the
appeals court clearly knows it.
> Almost every legal analysis I read said the judges asked very hard
> questions of the DOJ, but that you really cant predict the outcome based
> on the questions.
I can't. But if the DoJ does remand this to a retrail,
I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the new-and-improved
Bush DoJ didn't want to pursue it further.
> > They cut a deal to avoid going through all that,
> > but it did not work.
>
> ... because Microsodt didnt curb their behavior. They bragged about it.
They didn't curb it *enough*, clearly. They don't seem
to have appreciated that the DoJ wanted them to
stop competing and let other vendors catch up.
MS would never do that.
[snip]
> > > No, putting in "features" to illegally drive competitors from the
> > > marketplace.
> >
> > Horrors! Competition! Can't have that!
>
> Read the damn sentence.
> ... putting in "features" to illegally drive competitors from the
> marketplace.
> What part of illegally dont you understand?
I don't quite understand how competition is illegal
under the Sherman Act. It seems like a terribly
tortured interpretation.
But I *do* recognize that it is a popular
interpretation.
[snip]
> > There are no level playing fields. MS competed,
> > and the consumers benefited from this
>
> The consumers have NOT bebefited. They lost OS choice and pay higher
> prices to Microsoft for the privelidge.
They have more OS choice now than they ever had before;
when the PC was released they had three choices. That
was exceptional; most PCs back then only had one or
two.
Now they have *many* more; DOS, Windows (in
two flavors), OS/2, Unixes various, Netware, heck even
*GEOS* is still out there (under the name "NewDeal
Office"- look it up sometime)
And I'm not even counting emulations. You can run
*MacOS* on your PC these days. That's just sick.
Windows is the best choice for the business desktop
and the home market today. But there are other choices
and some people do take them, especially when they
have some other purpose in mind but those.
OSes have also never been cheaper. Microsoft's distribution
practices, which you so decry, have consumers paying,
what, about $20 bucks per computer. That's incredibly
cheap.
Even if you paid the retail price of $200, Windows is *still*
a bargain; look at all the utilities and other junk you get with it.
Not long ago it would have cost *much* more than $200 to
match this.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 06 May 2001 16:11:41 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
> >"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >> The FTC, the DOJ and the vendors said that. Who esle do you want?
> >
> >No, they don't.
>
> Yes, they did. Metaphorically, perhaps, but this is the jist of the
> matter.
"Metaphorically"?
You just *want* them to have said that.
> >They have said that Microsoft made some deals
> >with some vendors where MS got paid for each
> >processor shipped, with Windows or no.
>
> PPL was only the FTC, and MS succeeded in being dishonest enough to
> soft-pedal it in the consent decree. The primary complaint which
> threatened Microsoft in 1995 was the forced bundling of Windows with
> DOS.
Hmmm. Got a cite? This is not my understanding;
I thought it was the PPL thing.
Microsoft certainly did not agree not to integrate
Windows with DOS, that much *is* clear. It's hard
for me to see how they could have gotten any
concent decree on such terms if what you say is
true.
> >But none that excluded other OSes.
>
> I'm going to have to insist that you stick with a single definition of
> OS, if you're planning to argue this point. That means either DOS *OR*
> Windows is "an operating system". Which is it?
I don't quite follow this. I would say that from a strict
point of view, to get an OS you need to have them
*both*; neither by itself can do all the functions
we think of an OS as doing.
> >Ferinstance, dual booting Windows and some obscure
> >hobby OS is quite a common configuration for
> >the techno-elite. A compy with a per-processor
> >license could have addressed that market very
> >nicely, thank you.
>
> BZZZZ. Troll-meter overload, Daniel. You don't get responses (other
> than ridicule) when you wander off into "some obscure hobby OS"
> bullshitville.
You know, Linux. :D
Perhaps, obscure is unfair. Linux is famous, I admit it.
But dual booting is by no means an weird thing;
selling Windows/Linux dual boot systems would
have found a small market, and the per-processor
licenses permitted it.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 06 May 2001 16:11:42 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
> >> They foisted M$ OSs on people. You ststement does not hold water.
> >
> >They gave their customers what they wanted; that is what
> >it takes to be a top-20 OEM.
>
> No, this is just begging the question. Go pretend to learn logic
> somewhere else, troll. Or admit you're just a moron with Microsoft
> stock, and get in line with the other sock puppets.
It's not begging the question; it's not even an argument; It's
a bald assertion.
Not unlike yours, that way.
[snip]
> >No. It's about selling Microsoft product.
>
> Yes, it is excluding OS and app competitors, which dishonest people like
> you and criminal companies like Microsoft would like to call "selling
> products".
Just can't *stand* the thought of competition in
the market, can you?
------------------------------
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: Sun, 06 May 2001 16:11:43 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
> >> That's because it is built into the phrase "restraint of trade".
> >
> >Oh. If so, Microsoft is clearly innocent by even hostile
> >accounts.
>
> If only "restraint of trade" weren't illegal, you might have a point!
> Doh!
No, I mean that if "restraint of trade" necessarily implies
excluding competitors through legal agreements, then
even MS's accusers think MS is innocent *of restraint
of trade*.
This makes no sense. I don't think your definition of
restraint of trade will fly.
[snip]
> BZZZZ Troll Meter Overload. Excessive rhetoric to avoid addressing an
> important point makes you BORING.
That was nothing. :D
I think you need a new Troll Meter, there.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
