Linux-Advocacy Digest #631, Volume #34 Sat, 19 May 01 22:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Les Mikesell")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Les Mikesell")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Dell Meets Estimates (cjt & trefoil)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 01:13:47 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e6sbv$568$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:HdAN6.935$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > There is that MS commercial on TV about servers that haven't been
> > touched in 'days' as though that should be a surprisingly long time.
> > Real OS's run for years without any attention. And they don't
> > pop up dialog boxes and stop and wait like IIS 5.0 does when
> > an error occurs.
>
> What is this pop-up dialog? What does it says? Who originate it?
It is usually one of those 'Cannot read memory at 0x....' with a meaningless
address that are typical of dll errors or thread conflicts. I think
the usual window title is 'inetinfo.exe' but sometimes it has been
something else. In all cases, IIS is not answering even though the
service is set to restart on errors, 'iisreset /restart'
will claim to work but actually fail whether done remotely or
locally. You have to actually mouse-click the 'OK' button (and
it generally reappears 6 or 7 times) or IIS just won't talk
again. Fortunately, you can use VNC to mouse-click remotely
(the servers are at a colo site). Unfortunately, if you try to reboot
with the process hung like that, the shutdown process will disconnect
VNC before it pops up the dialog about 'program is not responding'
and waiting for another mouse-click. Great design there...
Trying to run the msxml3.dll in a separate process makes things
even worse. The xml process hangs more or less the same way
but then IIS keeps accepting requests so the load balancer doesn't
notice it is broken, but any pages that need xml are never delivered.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 21:21:41 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> Their "core busines" is first, window$, second, window$ apps.
> > >
> > >That covers virtually their entire product line;
> > >not exactly "core".
> >
> > It is when it's where the monopoly is, where 90% of your revenues are,
> > and the only one with a consumer market.
>
> I think you are having difficulty with the term
> "core"; it doesn't mean "what T Max Devlin doesn't like".
>
micro$osoft's -main- business is first, its OS, then it window$ apps.
Core doesnt mean what ever Daniel wants.
> [snip]
> > >If I understand what you mean, you are saying that
> > >as long as Windows does not file, Windows won't
> > >fail.
> > >
> > >I'm tyrying to tell you *why* it's so firmly
> > >entrenched.
>
> (I'm also trying to improve my spelling, but it
> doesn't seem to be working. :D )
>
> > No, you're making up fanciful reasons to deny that it is so firmly
> > entrenched for quite precisely the same reasons it was made a felony
> > more than a century ago.
>
> You seem very certain that no explaination but
> black magic can account for Microsoft's
> dominance.
>
You dont seem to coprehend the terms anti-trust or predatory. Get a
clue. Borrow one, steal one or buy one, but get one.
> Why is that?
>
> [snip]
> > >> If developers could figure out a way to develop an OS that was
> > >> "compatible" with window$, thy would. That is what's scaring m$.
> > >
> > >Oh, come now. That'll a sure-fire losing strategy, as
> > >IBM discovered with OS/2 2.0.
> >
> > OS/2 is a product IBM continues to make millions of dollars a year on.
>
> IBM's OS strategy derailed because
> OS/2 failed to attract developers. The product
> is profitable, sure, but it can't act as
> a bridge to the now-canceled "Workplace OS".
>
Oh, the "failure" of OS/2 didnt have anyhting to do with micro$oft's
FUD? Bull.
> > >Being "Windows, only not from Microsoft" just
> > >means you are perpetually behind MS, since they
> > >are hardly going to give you a stationary
> > >target.
> > >
> > >It buys you nothing.
> >
> > So why then, would it scare Microsoft so much they will do anything they
> > can to prevent it?
>
> They haven't bothered to do much of anything
> about WINE and Open32.
>
I dont know about OS/32. WINE is pretty much useless. And, unless you
regularly try to use it, dont try any of your m$ aplopgist crap. WINE is
pretty much useless.
> It's Java that scares them, and Java isn't anything
> like a Windows-compatibility layer.
>
Any that works scares them.
> [snip]
> > >> And if they cant buy them they kill them. Or at least try.
> > >
> > >Ah, no scare quotes now. Much better.
> >
> > Better if you're purposely ignorant, maybe. The scare quotes are
> > explained as valid by the statement you agreed with. You're not even
> > pretending to try to be logical, as long as you get to apologize for the
> > monopoly.
>
> I don't see how it explains why "buy" should have scare quotes;
TRhats becasue you are not too bright. Buy imples the seller has a
choice. When m$ tries to "buy" something, the seller rarely has a
choice.
> MS *does* sometimes buy other companies. It's quite
> real. Just because you don't like MS doesn't mean that
> you should throw scare quotes around indiscriminantly.
>
See the get a clue statement above.
> > Sock puppets will quibble punctuation, or anything else they can come up
> > with, as long as it keeps the conversation away from Microsoft's
> > continuing criminal behavior.
>
> Well, sometimes it's all you can profitably discuss.
> Rick is not, um, real receptive to argument.
>
Liar. I am receptive to facts. You ignore them or you try to change them
to fit your reality.
> [snip]
> > >> They have never won on competition alone.
> > >
> > >Hmmmmmm. I know you see virtualy anything
> > >they do as nefarious, but I'd be surprsied if
> > >there was *no* counter-example to your claim.
> > >
> > >How about Visual Basic? What is the dirty trick
> > >with that one?
> >
> > What was the competitive merit? Doh!
>
> VB made if very easy to build simple but
> reasonable user interfaces. Just point and
> click.
>
> Other development tools existed but they
> were much harder to use.
>
> The only exception I Can think of is
> Hypercard and its clones. They were
> easy, but the user interfaces they provided
> were weird and nonstandard.
>
Weird and non-standard from YOUR point of view only.
> Even after products like Delphi, VB
> had the advantage of using a rather
> simple (if not simplistic) language for
> logic work; BASIC if nothing else is
> good at avoiding indirection, and for
> some people that's kind of important.
>
> [snip]
More context losing snips.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 01:23:37 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dkulo$11g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "pookoopookoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:KLmL6.12534$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Cutting to the chase:
> > > IIS5: 8001
> > > Tux2: 7500
> >
> > Hehehe,
> >
> > 2000 Server: 500$
> > Linux: 2$ (for the CD you copy it on)
>
> Hehehe, you can't count.
> 2000 Server: 3,999$
That's for Advanced Server, and the only advantage over
the normal (err.., what's the opposite of advanced?) version
for a web server is the ability to use WLBS load balancing
for a set, but that really doesn't work very well because
WLBS works at the IP level, not the port/service level. If
IIS is down but the IP stack still works, WLBS will accept
web requests even though they are bound to fail.
> Linux: 0$ (why burn when you can install from FTP?)
Priceless.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 01:29:12 GMT
"Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3b06df26$0$12260$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:HvzN6.929$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "JS PL" <the_win98box_in_the_corner> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
> > > > Nice teleology; MS forces people to pay for the same crap all over
> again
> > > > over and over (well, admittedly, it isn't quite the same, which of
> > > > course is half the reason for the complaints) and this is "in order
> for
> > > > it to improve"?
> > > >
> > > > Linux improves for free. Guffaw.
> > >
> > > If your time is worth nothing...tee hee...
> >
> > I don't think you would talk about time if you installed all those MS
> > Win2k security patches one by one that force you to reboot after each
> > one installs. One guy here did that with at least 21 of them.
Another
> > one didn't, and had a web server broken into (apparently like most of
> > the rest of the world a few weeks ago...) and had to reinstall
everything.
> > Is that your idea of saving time?
>
>
> Hmm... lesse, new server yesterday... installed from a W2K SP2
slipstreamed
> CD I just burned. After it was done applied one (1) patch and rebooted
once.
> I'm not totally current... doesn't seem to bad...
You just got lucky. If you had needed it last week you would have wasted
a day or more per box making it usable or likely become a statistic at:
http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/os-graphs.html
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 01:37:31 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dhtmb$ddf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > You don't have to upgrade. And under windows upgrading is a waste of
> > money. Very little improvements in upgrading windows compared to
> > upgrading under RedHat or Others. Win2K would be a different matter...
> > XP I don't know about because I can't install it on my current hardware
> > anyway.. with Linux I can. Most of the improvements under linux is the
> > move to 2.4.x. Others are related to a faster X-server. And the rest is
> > whatever someone has contributed. The contribs are interesting to
> > explore... But the real big thing is that the cost is lower for the
> > average user than windows. Last time I was at Staples I saw Win2K going
> > for around $287 without upgrade. And for OEM install of WinME it was
> > around $150. Then you have to add more money for the windows compilers
> > if you want one.
>
> lcc is a free windows compiler.
> There are a couple of others.
>
> I don't think that there is much free Unix/Linux software that doesn't
have
> a free equilent on Windows.
Yes, but with Windows you have to make the choice between running
threaded programs for usable speed or separate processes with
memory protection for stability. With unix/linux you can have
speed and stability at the same time without 15 years of debugging
the program to fix all the thread conflicts. Maybe someday we'll
see an Apache/mod_perl that works as well on Windows as it has for
years on unix. Or a free version of X or ssh servers that work as well
as the unix counterparts. Even rsync seems horribly slow when
checking directories on windows compared to unix.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 21:43:15 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Seriously, they may well buy an app
> > > because their co-workers use it and
> > > they want to share data or otherwise
> > > collaborate.
> >
> > ... they use what everyone else uses.
>
> Well, what their co-workers use anyway.
>
> > > But they buy the OS so they can run that
> > > app.
> >
> > ... they use what everyone else uses.
>
> ... and for a reason. It's the reason that matters,
> but you seem averse to discussing it.
>
> Why is that?
>
Why do people get window$, dolt? Becasue everybody else uses it.
> [snip]
> > > Anyway, it's kind of hard for me to search for
> > > them if you can't even give me the machine's
> > > model number, or an author, or something.
> >
> > You profess to be such an expert on things and you dont even know the
> > TRS 80 model numbers? I, II, III, 4, 4P
>
> Those guys weren't CP/M machines. They
> had a thing called TRS-DOS, I believe.
>
Tehy did run TRS-DOS, AND CP/M
> They were kinda weak even for 8-bit computers;
> they certainly were not better than IBM PCs.
>
Weak??? AHahahhahhha ahahahahhahah. Were you even alive then?
> > > And the chance that such an old article would
> > > appear on the web is pretty small. I'd have
> > > to, like, use a library or something. :D
> >
> > Too lazy to look, huh?
>
> I really can't, not without more than what
> you've given me.
>
It's easy. Google, trs, model I, II, III, I4, 4, 4p... you can do it,
you're just too lazy, or scared.
> [snip]
> > Damned typos. I have told you this beofer, but now you seize on the
> > typo.. here's the correction:
> > m$-DO$ was very close to CP/M. Thats why IBM paid Killdal $800,000
> > dollar so he wouldn't sue over the CP/M code in it.
>
> Oh.
>
> Sure, they probably thought that if he hadn't
> patented something in CP/M, we surely could.
>
> MS-DOS and CP/M were just awful close.
> Same problem with Windows NT and VMS.
>
Not awlful close. MS-DOS had CP/M code in it. Code written, if not by
Killdal himself, at least by Digital Research.
> [snip]
> > > On the 68000. The instruction set of this
> > > computer was admirably forward looking, and
> > > made it very much easier to move to 32 bits
> > > in, oh, 1987- years before the PC did it.
> >
> > IIRC the The Mac OS was 24 bit from the beginning.
>
> 24 bit address spaces, yes, but that was typical
> for 16-bit computers. The 8086 was unusual in
> having only 20 bits. The 80286 fixed it, and
> other chips like the 65816 had 24 bit addressing
> too.
>
> What was unusual about that 68000 was that
> the instruction set made it look like you had
> 32-bits of addresses. You didn't, and the MacOS
> took advantage of that, but it was good thing in
> terms of forwards compatibility.
>
> > > But from a performance and memory standpoint,
> > > the 68000 was a 16-bit computer. True, it
> > > was a far less awful one than the 8086; it could
> > > access 16MB of memory not just 1MB; but
> > > at the time few could afford even 1MB, and
> > > early Macs were well below that line.
> >
> > Well, if the 68000 could only access 1 meg of memory, why was the Plus
> > able to use 4 megs - not constrained by the 68000, but by the Mac
> > hardware?
>
> The 68000 could access 16 megs, not 1. That was
> par for the course for 16 bit CPUs of that era.
>
> What was unusal was that it did it with
> no segments.
>
> The reason early Macs had so much less
> memory was that it was expensive back
> then.
>
Define early Macs.
> [snip]
> > > > What does that matter? It worked well for me.
> > >
> > > That's what I'm trying to explain: what
> > > matters is what works well for developers.
> >
> > Users dont care what worls well for developers. And developers will do
> > what it takes to make money. When will you get that through your head?
>
> Developers know that users will follow the apps.
> They can and they do program for non-dominant
> platforms- when they gain an advantage thereby.
>
> > > You may love AppleWorks, but if Apple
> > > hadn't writen it nobody else would have;
> > > too much effort compared to doing the
> > > same things on the PC.
> >
> > Hmmm. IIRC, Appleworks was commissioned. The Apple II also had
> > AppleWriter, which was a programable word processor.
>
> The very first on a PC, as I recall. Very primitive stuff,
> but groundbreaking in concept.
Primitive? Sheesh. Primitive by "todays standards.. maybe.
> How was it "programmable"? I didn't think it had
> a macro system.
You didnt think? We know that. Now, be a good litte chap and run off a
learn about AppleWriter's glossary.
>
> > BTW, you filed to
> > answer the question that you snipped. What was missing from Appleworks
> > that others DID have... in THAT time frame?
>
> In 1987? I think I covered that. If you have
> some other timeframe you'd like to talk about,
> I need to know what it is.
>
> > Rupert Lissner wrote it. Apple marketed it,
>
> Put some new life in the Apple II, it did, but
> that kind of thing is the exception, not the rule.
>
It was the best sell software fir years.
> Even then it was limited by the Apple II's
> capabilities.
>
What were the limitations, given its timeframe?
> [snip]
> > > > It wasnt horrid AT THE TIME.
> > >
> > > Yes it was. "Real" computers had been
> > > doing *vastly* better since the '60s.
> >
> > The sould you here is passive-aggressive dDaniel moving the damned goal
> > posts again. "real computers"?? "Real ones"?? Like WHAT. C64? Tandy
> > Model II? Color Computer? SOL? Altair? We are talking "personal
> > computers" here. So answer the question about Appleworjs in that light.
>
> No, compared to *real* computers. Even compared to
> little ones like PDP-11s. Compared to a System 360s,
> PCs were jokes.
>
Well then EVERY "personal computer" was a joke, even your precious
little IBM PC. It was the biggest joke of all. AAnd we are talking about
"personal computers" here, ot mainframes and mini's. You just cant stay
in one place can you. You present too much of a target.
> The PCs got better. The introduction of the IBM PC
> was a big step in the right direction.
>
The Apple IIs got better.
> I'm not moving the goalposts. I'm telling you that
> the problems faced by programmers were
> recognizable even at the time.
>
You keep dropping in developers. I dont give a rats ass about
developers. leave them out of the conversation.
> > > It was awful. But it was cheap.
> >
> > It was NOT awlful. It addressed over 1 meg of ram. It had integrated WP,
> > SS and DB.
>
> It certainly did not *address* 1 meg of anything; the 6502
> had an address space of 64k, period. It used bank switching
> to get beyond that.
>
I had a 1024k desktop. I dont care how it got there. I had it. At the
time I had it, the PC didnt.
> AppleWorks is a neat product, but it's not really a
> first class anything. That's the problem integrated
> suites always have.
>
Then why was it the best sellin pice of software, for years... without
advertising?
> But then, AppleWorks wasn't terribly integrated.
> The modules didn't work together very much.
>
No, you could only put spreadsheets and database reports in WP
documents.
> [snip]
> > > > What substantial features did Appleworks need in 1987, that Appleworks
> > > > didnt have?
> > >
> > > It didn't have anything like WYSIWYG;
> > > the Macintosh was already well established
> >
> > No the Mac wasnt already "established" when Appleworks shipped.
> > Appleworks shipped in 1984.
>
> You said 1987. In 1987 the Mac was well
> established.
>
> In 1984 the Mac existed and could do things
> AppleWorks could not, already.
>
The Mac did not have software that worked together like Appleworks. No
computer did. Prove ptherwise. Give an example.
> > > with this feature by then. AppleWorks couldn't
> > > compete.
> > >
> > > Its database was a poor joke. Flat file, and only
> > > one file at a time. No programming to speak of.
> > > No external access.
> >
> > So what? there is nothing wrond with flat file DBs if you dont need
> > realtional tables.
>
> It's weak. It's like an address book.
>
So WHAT???? Thats all many people need.
> The Apple II really couldn't do much
> better, of course. But that doesn't
> mean it wasn't weak. Better stuff
> was available by 1987 on the PC;
> DBase, I think, was out.
>
> > > It didn't provide much of anything in terms of
> > > integration. You couldn't put a spreadsheet in
> > > a word processing document, not even statically.
> >
> > Yes, you could. And Mail merges. And reports.
>
> I know you could do mail merge. I doubt
> it could do reports, but if you say so.
>
YOU doubt. YOU??? I thought you knew it all. It could do mail merges. It
wa an integrated program, dolt.
> I think you are mistaken about embedding
> spreadsheets, though.
>
> > > It had no graphics module at all.
> >
> > IIRC, third party ADD-on.
>
> Oh? What was it called? I may
> look it up.
>
Really? That will be a first for you.
> Apple IIs had really seirous issues
> with supporting graphics. The
> display hardware was not much,
> not even compared to other 8 bit
> computers.
>
HAhahahhahahah. The graphics capabilities of the Apple IIs were called
works of art by engineers of the day.
> (Though at release the IBM PC actually
> was *worse*, believe it or not. It's one reason
> why the Mac, which was very good at that, got
> products like Photoshop, and the PC didn't.)
>
> > > It would have to hit the disk switching
> > > between modules as I recall, and those
> > > disks were not real fast. Integrated
> > > packages on better computers did not
> > > have to do that.
> >
> > What "better" computers?
>
> Macs. PCs. Amigas.
>
PCs? Crap. The Mac took a LONG time to establish itself. What was the
integrated software for the Amiga called?
> > > Compare with the later Macintosh ClarisWorks
> > > program. ClarisWorks simply makes AppleWorks
> > > look like a joke. It shows how big a difference
> > > chosing the right platform makes.
> >
> > Apples/oranges... goal posts moving.
>
> No, really ClarisWorks is a integrated
> package that fills a market nice very
> similar to that of AppleWorks; a lightway
> productivity suite that is very easy to
> use.
>
That came out YEARS after Appleworks. How can uyou compare the 2?
> ClarisWorks is *much* better at it.
>
Because it came out YEARS after Appleworks.
> [snip]
> > > > Except I WAS running Appleworks with 1 meg of RAM and almost all of it
> > > > was accessible to Appleworks.
> > >
> > > Not directly. AppleWorks was one of the few
> > > programs that would do bank switching to get
> > > to it.
> >
> > Except I WAS running Appleworks with 1 meg of RAM and almost all of it
> > was accessible to Appleworks. And the IIRC, there was a utility to allow
> > other apps to accesss the bank switched memory. Pinpoint?
>
> There is no way to make apps use back-switched
> memory unless they already know how, not at the
> Apple II with its rigid address space map.
>
Appleworks did it.
> Other apps did use it, but it wasn't common.
>
OK.. just how uncommon was it?
> The same situation as on PCs at that early
> stage, except that they could get up to 640k
> before needing to bank switch. And they
> had a bigger bank of memory to switch.
>
> [snip]
> > > It wasn't used much. USCD Pascal worked, but it worked
> > > by emiting what we now call bytecodes to be interpreted
> > > at runtime; the interpreter could overcome the memory
> > > limits to some extent by paging to disk!
> > >
> >
> > Pascal wasnt used much? For the Apple II? HAhahahahhahahah...
> > You+credibility=0
>
> Well, it was good for playing around, and
> there was a famous game written using it-
> the original Wizardy.
>
> But it was *visibly* slowed by using
It was *visibly* slowed.. compared to what? How could you compare? What
action was there in Wizardry?
... and are those "scare" asterisks?
> Pascal. Other similar games came after
> that were dramatically faster and better
> looking- and they used assembly to do it.
>
"... Other similar games came after that were dramatically faster and
better"
You keep comparing what came AFTER. AFTER. Thats like saying the V1 was
shit because the Saturn 4 was so much better. You cant compare the 2.
> It's a competitive advantage thing; if
> you use assembly (on the 8-bit computers)
> you produced visibly better product.
>
> [snip]
> > > Rick, you are a piece of work, you are.
> >
> > YEah, Well, at least I am capable of changing my mind when presented
> > with facts.
>
> When did that last happen? :D
Look... its the grinning moron again.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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, 19 May 2001 21:46:37 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 19 May 2001
> > >> Yup. People buy "what everybody else has". micro$oft made sure what
> > >> everybody else had is micro$oft.
> > >
> > >You sure it isn't to deny consumers any alternative
> > >choices?
> >
> > Whatever pretend grammar mistake you had to make to pretend the point
> > wasn't made obviously requires some explanation if you expect anyone
> > else to repeat it, Daniel.
>
> I see no grammar mistake here. Rick seems to
> feel that Microsoft has founded a monopoly,
> so that they can, er, have a monopoly.
>
Tell it to the FTC, the EU, the DOJ, the several States Attorneys
General and the several companies that have filed suit.
> Not founded for power, or to increase
> prices, or any of the other nefarious things
> I have heard people accuse MS of.
>
> I think he has overstated his position.
>
Tell it to the FTC, the EU, the DOJ, the several States Attorneys
General and the several companies that have filed suit.
> > In point of fact, people do not buy "what everybody else has", they buy
> > what is best for them. Sometimes that is the same choice as others,
> > sometimes it is not. Unless there is illegal monopolization going on
> > (and, yes, the fact that this happens alone is sufficient evidence for a
> > conviction), then everybody makes the same choice.
>
> I do not give your legal weight much credit, but I find
> your reasoning here quite provocative.
>
> You seem to understand that end-users are not
> idiots; why do you think they react to this
> "monopolization" by all buying Microsoft?
>
Becasue thats what there?
> > Unreasonable restraint of trade is unethical and illegal, Daniel; no
> > amount of trolling changes that, or could possibly refute the
> > correctness of the law in this regard.
>
> We haven't really tried to argue about that yet; I
> suspect we can't do so until you tell us all what
> you mean by "unreasonable restraint of trade".
>
Its been explained to you countless times using direct quotes and
internal email and memos. You choose to ignore the explanation.
> Coming from you, I expect it to be quite creative;
> please don't disappoint me. :D
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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, 19 May 2001 21:48:08 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> They buy what "everyone else" has. Thats the whole point of
> > >> monopolizaiont, you know. To make sure you are THE vendor.
> > >
> > >I think you need to sit down and think that
> > >through again. Are you *sure* the whole point of
> > >monopolization is to appeal to herd instincts?
> >
> > I think you should stop being dishonest, Daniel. A reasonable person
> > would have realized they were being dishonest long ago, Daniel, but you
> > have not. Is that because you are unreasonable, or because you are just
> > fundamentally dishonest?
>
> I think you should stop flinging gratuitous insults
> when you lose arguments, Max. That question
> wasn't even for you; I know you don't agree
> with Rick on this point, and I wouldn't
> expect you to defend him here.
Just what argument did Max lose? It looks to me like he calling you on
an honesty issue.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: cjt & trefoil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Dell Meets Estimates
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 20:51:36 -0500
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "cjt & trefoil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Jon Johansan wrote:
> > >
> > <snip>
> > > 2.. A 32-way Unisys ES7000 running the SAP Sales and Distribution
> > > benchmark achieved 18,500 SD users. This compares to the best Sun result
> of
> > > 23,000 SD users on a 64-way E10000. The Sun E10000 is at the end of its
> > > product life, while Unisys expects to further enhance the ES7000 with
> 900
> > > MHz processors in the very near future.
> > <snip>
> >
> > Bingo. The successor to the E10000 will be along soon, and I expect it to
> > outperform the machine it replaces. So what was your point?
>
> It isn't here yet? Windows 2002 would be here soon too, you won't hear
> anyone talking about its performance, now do you?
If those are the rules of the game, we shouldn't be talking about 900 MHz
ES7000's, either. For that matter, we probably shouldn't be talking about
the ES7000 at all, with the vendors that were going to distribute it running
the other way.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
