Linux-Advocacy Digest #665, Volume #34 Mon, 21 May 01 12:13:04 EDT
Contents:
It would be nice if (Jim)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Gary Hallock")
I have a soft spot now and then :) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: It would be nice if
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 08:03:39 -0700
It would be nice if Red Hat 7 + KDE had an easier way to change
monitor resolution than using Xconfigurate or manually editing an X
configuration file ... or have I just confused my way into missing the
easy way?
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:03:38 +0000
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Edward Rosten wrote:
>>
>> > Radio waves are not light! Radio waves have been measured by the NBS
>> > at
>> > 88%.
>>
>> Really, they are. 88% is (IIRC) the speed of em propogation in a wire
>> (or co-ax possibly).
>>
>> > The speed of light has never been measured in a vacuum!
>>
>> It has. You can also calculate the speed of light without measuring it
>> directly.
>
> Ah, but there is the rub... All light speed measurements have so far
> been done in AIR!
>
Well, the National Institute of Standards and Technology seems to have
been able to measure the speed of light in a vacuum.
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=universal_in!
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: I have a soft spot now and then :)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:21:45 GMT
Before your dirty little minds conjure up thoughts of fornication, a
soft spot for Linux is what I mean.
I was in Borders this morning picking up some stuff and I wandered
over to the computer software section to see the current state of
Linux items for sale and if anyone seemed to actually be buying
anything. There was some real nerdy looking, overweight guy with 3
Linux distributions (SuSE, Mandrake and Redhat) in his hands and he
was reading the boxes and comparing. All of sudden I hear the guy
mutter "This Sucks!", we made eye contact and I said "oh, you must be
looking at Linux?" to which he answered "yes and this Leeeenucks stuff
is so confusing I can see why nobody seems to be buying it". As an
expert in Linux and the "suck factor" I offered my services and
proceeded to explain to him about Linux. His first problem was they he
had picked the "super deluxe $99.00 versions" and in fact had an
outdated version of SuSE. Borders tends to leave old stuff on the
shelves right next to the newer versions which is bad.
After some chatting over a cup of coffee he left with Mandrake 8.0.
This guy was a real geek and knew his Windows stuff down cold. He had
a home built system and most likely a home built automobile as well :)
I was surprised he was new to Linux, but then again I think he might
have been playing dumb just to pick me up. I dunno ;)
I figured he'd love Linux.
So I sold a copy of Mandrake.
Where do I pick up my commission check?
flatfish++++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:44:35 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 20 May 2001 10:24:02
>"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>
>> > DirectX, registry, COM (I know that Solaris has it, how can it compare
>to
>> > Windows' COM?), DCOM, COM+ (This is equilent to J2EE system + Solaris.
>How
>> > many KLOC does WebSphere has?).
>> > Just a couple of things of the top of my head.
>>
>> Solaris does not have a registry. COM is in there albeit in a different
>> way. DirectX isn't in there. I suspect that directX is another word
>> for direct ACCESS to the video hardware.
>
>No, it isn't.
Of course it isn't. If it were, it wouldn't provide the necessary
application barrier. It is 'value add' all the way, for how else to
provide a sufficient smoke-screen to allow foreclosing of any
alternative PC gaming standard.
>DirectX is an abstraction layer from the hardware. It allows you to write
>games without needing to write to a spesific hardware.
>It can emulate missing hardware if needed, too.
It can do all sorts of stuff, other than the one thing it needs to do
most to be worth even spitting on: it can't be anything but monopoly
crapware. The lousy performance, the arcane and difficult interface,
the outrageous lack of reliability in each successive implementation;
these are all essentially side effects of the fact that the one thing
DirectX *cannot* do is compete on its merits.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:44:39 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 20 May 2001
>"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".
It means what is most accurately, consistently, and practically
communicated by its usage. This would not be "what Daniel thinks he'd
like to get away with in making up bullshit to defend and encourage
unethical and illegal behavior."
So, now that we've got you bent over with your pants down, why don't you
tell us what "core" means, accurately, consistently, and practically, so
that the spanking can continue?
[...]
>You seem very certain that no explaination but
>black magic can account for Microsoft's
>dominance.
>
>Why is that?
Because you are incredibly stupid, I would think. I have a completely
non-metaphysical explanation which accounts for "Microsoft's dominance",
and you have nothing but imaginary assumptions that "its popularity is
second to none." You're so full of shit is is literally leaking out
your mouth on splattering on your keyboard, Daniel. What explanation
besides quite concrete and non-imaginary (indeed; proven in a court of
law and based on a century of anti-trust legislation) accounts of
Microsoft's monopolization are you pretending I've made?
>[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. [...]
Think harder.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:44:40 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 20 May 2001
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > 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.
>
>I suppose you are trying to exclude
>Microsoft's Unix and Macintosh apps,
>and I would too.
MS would, and has; none of us have, except your imaginary attempt just
there to apologize for the monopoly.
>But I still think it's unreasonable to
>dub the vast bulk of MS's product line
>the core of the lineup.
More honestly, you pretend to, for reasons not entirely clear to any of
us; I would expect that I'm not alone in suspecting, however, that your
desire to claim that development tools are the 'core product line' is
simply another attempt to apologies for the monopoly, in some way. It
seems all you're interested in doing. I really would like to be able to
discuss things without having it devolve to ridicule, Daniel, but your
on-going attempts to fein stupidity are simply *never* going to rise to
the level of any better discussion.
It is unreasonable to pretend MS's product line is not primarily that
which they have a monopoly in, the PC OS market. Sure, they produce
many developer products and end-user applications in order to maintain
this illegal monopoly, but any delusion these are "core products" is
certainly not *reasonable*, no. Just incredibly stupid and contrary to
the facts; MS may know they need to maintain developer lock-in to
maintain the PC OS monopoly, but they make their money on Windows, plain
and simple.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:44:42 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 20 May 2001
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Yes, remotely possible.
>>
>> You always have to get your little bit in, dont you? You cant be the
>> slightest bit wrong in your mind, can you?
>
>I don't think I'm the only one doing
>that here. :D
You are the only one allowing it to make all discussion pointedly less
than productive, Daniel; seemingly purposefully. So, yes, you are the
only one doing it *there*.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:44:43 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 20 May 2001
>"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.
You pretend to see no grammar mistake. You must presume that your
statement is contradictory of Rick's, and it isn't. Not a grammar
mistake, like I said, but a pretend grammar mistake; you pretended to
mistake his grammar to allow you to pretend that "micro$oft made sure
what everybody else had is micro$oft" is not already know to be the same
as "denying consumers any alternative choices."
>Rick seems to
>feel that Microsoft has founded a monopoly,
>so that they can, er, have a monopoly.
No, Rick knows that this is quite precisely what they have done. You
seem to feel that your random whining has refuted the claim somehow.
>Not founded for power, or to increase
>prices, or any of the other nefarious things
>I have heard people accuse MS of.
You don't seem to be aware of the definition of the words you are using.
Yes, these are things that "having a monopoly" allows. MS sought and
gained the illegal ability to control prices and exclude competition so
that they could control prices and exclude competition. Which part are
you missing?
>I think he has overstated his position.
C'mon, Daniel; quit lying. We know damn well you don't ever "think", at
all.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:44:44 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 20 May 2001
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > 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.
>
>But they didn't say it. Those guys seem to feel that
>Microsoft founded a monopoly in order to raise
>prices.
You really make yourself sound even more dishonest than simply moronic
when you have to keep squirming around talking about what abstract
entities "seem to feel". If you're going to pretend to be a troll, you
have to be a little original, Daniel. If you keep making it so obvious
how dishonest you are, everyone will know you're really just a sock
puppet, desperately trying a deranged pitiful gambit to maintain your
illusions in the hopes that your fiscal reliance on Microsoft won't
leave you out in the cold.
[...]
>> > 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?
>
>It's not the only thing there.
For 95%, at least, of *every* transaction, yes, it is the only choice on
the menu.
>[snip]
>> > 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.
>
>I certainly would miss it, were it somehow
>encoded into internal emails and memos from
>somewhere. What a breathtakingly weird way
>to explain what "unreasonable restraint of trade"
>is.
http://www.ripon.edu/Faculty/bowenj/antitrust/INTRO.htm
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:44:45 GMT
Said JS in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 20 May 2001 10:12:14 -0400;
>Rick wrote:
>
>> Duh. When DR-DOS was around, m$ dropped DOS prices and added the
>> features that Digiatl included.. After DR-DOS was effectively killed M4
>> raised the prices again. becasue of economies of scale, window$ should
>> be much cheaper. It isnt.
>
>Why do you care what the price is? [...]
'Nuf said.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:44:46 GMT
Said JS in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 20 May 2001 02:25:19 -0400;
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 19 May 2001
>>>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>>>> > > 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?
>>>>
>>>> Yup. People buy "what everybody else has". micro$oft made sure what
>>>> everybody else had is micro$oft.
>
>That's what businesses do (surprise!!)
Only ones that violate the Sherman Act. Surprise! This was made
illegal for the very reason that this might well be what dishonest
"businessmen" would like to do, but, no, it is not what competitive
businesses do. Ever, if only by definition.
>They make sure everyone in their
>market uses their product. The one that succeed in this most basic of
>business goals is, believe it or not, called a SUCCESS!
No, that'd be a monopoly. What they do is they ensure that everyone in
their market *could* use their product. They do this by lowering (or
sometimes raising!) their prices; they do this by improving (and
sometimes 'stripping down'!) their product, or they do this by making
their product more convenient then it was in the past.
NONE of this will EVER result in every consumer having the same
requirements and having all of their requirements most efficiently met
by a single producer. Ever. To claim otherwise would require one to
misunderstand one of the words. Some producers will sell more than
others, in different markets. "Everyone in their market" only relates
to those who don't simply prefer another brand, for whatever random
reason is their right to have. You aren't even allowed to monopolize
"your own" market, in a ethical society governed by rule of law.
>>>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.
>>
>> 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.
>
>Everyone making the same choice doesn't have anything to do with your
>supposed "monopoly" evidence.
Yes, it does. Go argue with the federal court judges if you disagree on
this point; claiming your authority to us is just mewling.
>It is evidence of nothing. In point of fact -
>everyone DOES'NT choose MS. So your lame argument is already voided by the
>fact that there are choices and not everyone chooses Microsoft.
>
>Get it?
No. Nobody said 100% "market share" was necessary for market share to
be evidence of monopolization. According to the aforementioned federal
court judges, who have quite wisely refused to apply any numeric 'break
point' where attempts to monopolize magically become legal, as little as
40% market share can be considered evidence of monopolization.
Certainly not irrefutable evidence. Yet, unless some explanation for
whatever theory (however hare-brained) the prosecution provides showing
specific intent to monopolize (use market share rather than competing on
the merits; anti-competitive business strategies), it is alone
sufficient to outweigh reasonable doubt.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:44:48 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 20 May 2001
>"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.
I reserve the right to ridicule you for being stupid, or even for simply
pretending to be stupid. Rick is simply mistaken, in believing that
"herd instinct" is anything but another name for a smoke-screen for, and
proof of, anti-competitive monopolization. As you are mistaken in
believing you've ever witnessed me "lose arguments". Yet you are the
stupid one, because you tried to use it to beg off supporting your
point, knowing it would only mean another spanking for you.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:44:49 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 20 May 2001
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > 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?
>
>He seem to have given up trying to defend
>the notion that Windows is inferior for now.
I seem to have given up pretending you have any argument against the
fact that Windows is inferior.
Rest assured I will be back to spank you, enthusiastically, if I notice
you lying again.
>I think he lost that one.
We've already proved pretty conclusively that you don't think at all,
Daniel.
>> It looks to me like he calling you on
>> an honesty issue.
>
>Maybe. I don't yet know what "dishonesty" means
>in Max-speak very clearly. I know it doesn't
>have anything much to do with, say, lying,
>but that's all.
It has everything to do with lying. I said that lying, itself, is not
all there is to dishonesty. You know damn well what dishonesty means,
Daniel, to me or anyone else. You are simply being dishonest, and
pretending not to. Whether it is a lie or not is simply a quibble, and
has no impact on the fact that it is dishonest.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:44:50 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 20 May 2001
>"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > > Just what argument did Max lose?
>> >
>> > He seem to have given up trying to defend
>> > the notion that Windows is inferior for now.
>>
>> It is inferior. What delusional perceptions do you have to think that
>> it is the best?
>
>I had been arguing that Windows is the best development
>platform for making desktop applications of the
>conventional sort, not that it was ever the best
>platform for everything.
As have we. We know why it is, and for what purpose, and for what
reason. You just pretend you don't know what "monopoly" means, rather
like JS PL and Erik and the other sock puppets who have so much wrapped
up in defending illegal behavior.
>I was saying, you see, that Windows was
>near-universal on the desktop because
>developers had flocked too it, and users
>had to follow to use all the apps that were
>being produced.
We heard all that back in 1989, Daniel. It was bullshit then, and it is
bullshit now. More honestly, Windows is a monopoly on the desktop
because of Microsoft's purposeful erection of an application barrier,
preventing both consumers and developers from economically supporting
free market competitors. This is illegal activity, Daniel. So while my
explanation and yours cover precisely the same ground, mine is honest,
and yours is dishonest, or stupid; take your pick.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:44:51 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 20 May 2001
[...]
>I am sorry to hear that you are not open to debate on this
>point; I have responded anyway, in case someone else
>is reading this.
Nobody else is dumb enough to believe some preposterous rationalizations
of unethical business practices, Daniel. The world is less naive than
it was when MS could get away with such lies. People are skeptical
enough to know MS is criminal, not crafty.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:44:52 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 20 May 2001 13:09:12
[...]
>Yea yea, buncha chinese guys exploiting a SINGLE vulnerability that there is
>a fix out for already. how can you blame the OS if it's operators don't keep
>it current? You can't.
Of course you can. Blame-throwing posturing aside, if an OS is so
pathetic that it strains all bounds of reason in how insecure and
bug-ridden it is, and keeping current is made all the more unpalatable
by MS's desire to slip-stream unwanted OS updates into every step in
their upgrade merry-go-round, it becomes rather less than reasonable to
avoid blaming the OS, if its operators are constantly getting burnt.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
