Linux-Advocacy Digest #773, Volume #25 Thu, 23 Mar 00 14:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1] (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Paul D. Smith)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Paul Flinders)
Re: To all Windows 2000/98/95 Fans (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (David Damerell)
Re: UNIX recruiters and MS Word resumes (Donn Miller)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (David Damerell)
Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses
("2 + 2")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (George Richard Russell)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Andrew J. Brehm)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (josco)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1]
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 18:04:28 GMT
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 08:28:49 -0800, Eric Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Nope. You got it backwards.
>Windows sets up fine (usually) but then crashes a lot when you try to run
>it.
>Linux is (still) tough to set up properly, but once it is, it NEVER
>crashes.
For what he was describing, Linux can be just as easy to set up.
If we were to bring a logitech usb camera into this discussion
things would even out real quick...
>Which would you prefer? Personally, if everything I wanted to run had a
>Linux version, I doubt that I would EVER boot Windows again.
>
>Eric Peterson
>
>Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:3ApC4.63209$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Funny, windows runs fine but linux takes 4 hours of setup to get a printer
>> and a usb mouse working.
>> Become superior before claiming you are.
>>
>> ----
>> IBM: Iconoclastic Bilateral Monopoly
>>
>> "crashed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Just to clarify
>> > Windows 2000 has potentially 63000 bugs. This number was generated by a
>> program
>> > auto-scanning the source code which also included 10000 lines of code
>that
>> was not
>> > used in the final release-
>> > I am by no means a Microsoft supporter but the distribution of FUD is
>> > counter-productive.
>> > Linux will eventually surpass Microsoft in the server market based on
>it's
>> own
>> > merits, not propoganda. The way it should be
>>
>>
>
>
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul D. Smith)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 23 Mar 2000 13:05:24 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
%% "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Many of these depend on passwd, which depends on PAM (for example).
ptb> Well, then there's your answer. Recompile passwd so it doesn't
ptb> need PAM, and all your worries are over. It's simple: ./config
ptb> -with-pam=no.
Maybe we're talking about different things.
I'm not arguing that any given application could not be implemented
without PAM. That doesn't seem like an interesting statement to comment
on since it's obviously false; the same could be said of every library
on a UNIX system: you _could_ write it all yourself and not need any
system libraries at all. So what?
I'm saying that on a default installation of most "modern" Linux
distributions, PAM is integral to much more than just the three apps you
mentioned.
Yes, obviously I could recompile a whole bunch of stuff and remove PAM,
rather than just installing the Debian packages, if I wanted to--but I
don't want to. That is a waste of my time, and nothing you've said
convinces me that the effort is warranted or useful. Also, it breaks
package management.
Also, you seem quite happy with RSA ssh, but please remember that not
everyone is able to use that, due to either patent restrictions (hey, is
anyone planning an RSA "coming out party" for Sep.? :) or governmental
restrictions. Ditto various other authentication features. PAM makes
Linux more flexible and world-accessible by allowing for a variety of
security options, all with a unified interface so "normal programmers"
don't have to worry about that mess.
--
===============================================================================
Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Network Management Development
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
===============================================================================
These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
------------------------------
From: Paul Flinders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 23 Mar 2000 18:09:26 +0000
"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In comp.os.linux.development.apps Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : On 23 Mar 2000 08:41:54 GMT, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
>
> :>This is great until your server suffers a power cut while reading libpam.so and
> :>comes back up without it, and won't let you log in even if you are sitting next
> :>to it!
>
> : (a) Boot into single user mode, fix it, reboot.
>
> Can't. Single user requires root password. Try it. rm /etc/passwd and try
> and recover your machine!
pass init=/bin/sh on the kernel command line (if you're using
LILO or any other boot mamager which allows kernel command line
args to be given).
OR
Boot up of your handy rescue floppy
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To all Windows 2000/98/95 Fans
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 17:55:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:22:03 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >3. Unix has been around for over 20 years thus making it a superior
> >operating system. If Microsoft believes they can cram 20 years of
> >devlopment into 9 years then I must be a millionaire!
>
> 1)DOS has been around for 20 years, and Linux only for 9 years.
> 2)Therefore, DOS is superior to Linux
> 3)Bollocks.
Only the original Linux kernel is new. Much of the code has been
production hardened for over 20 years (when UNIX systems were
used in university time-share systems at $20/hour). Even back
in 1980, UNIX administrators had to deal with as many as 50-100
concurrent users coming in through RS-232 terminals, dial-up modems,
and even via terminal concentrators.
Up until about 1994, Microsoft hadn't even attempted to build
a multiuser system. The MS-DOS market and Windows 3.X market
took Mean-time-between-failures of as little as 2 hours in stride
as "Business as Usual". Most applications had auto-save features
that protected users from losing all information entered since the
previous crash.
Microsoft was acutely aware of the fact that many Windows users
were exploring Linux simply because it was more reliable. This was
one of the primary reasons that they put so much effort into making
sure that Windows 2000 was at least capable of MTBFs of at least
300 hours (about 2 weeks), and recovery time of less than 5 minutes.
Microsoft still has a lot to learn about process management, library
management, interprocess communications, process scheduling, and
memory management, but Windows 2000 is certainly Microsoft's best
operating system to date.
No doubt, Microsoft's engineers will continue to monitor this
group in the hopes that we will continue to offer free design
changes, performance enhancement reccomendations, and other
suggestions. Perhaps with Bill out of the way, Ballmer will
be able to entice some UNIX and Linux programmers into joining
Microsoft. Maybe he will even listen to them.
> Age indicates nothing about the worth of an Operating System.
> BeOS is new and cool - CP/M is old and crap.
> Unix is old and good - Windows 2000 is new and ????
Age does tend to give a track history of the user culture, the vendor
culture, the marketing culture, and the support culture.
With MS-DOS, the operating system did as little as possible and
the applications did practically everything. Most applications
implemented multitasking through the use of TSRs. Furthermore,
a complex network of comprehensive nondisclosure agreements,
copyrights, and restrictive licenses were used to protect nearly
all aspects of both the operating systems and the applications.
No one really knew what was going on in the computer.
Most applications
provided their on segmentation, swapping, overlay, and memory
management schemes. End users routinely downloaded shareware,
pirated software, and executed code from unknown sources which
often contained executable code that became known as "viruses"
that performed nasty things like gobbling up the memory (stoned),
removing files, or even reformatting the hard drive. Ironically,
many of these viruses were consequences of copy protection schemes,
some of which were based on the assumption that processor speed,
hard drive controllers, and memory locations were predictable
and under the application's control.
Windows 2000 still pulls stunts that most qualified corporate systems
administrators in the MVS and UNIX environment would consider totally
intolerable. Things like Active-X controls which allow users to
pull executable code through the firewall and have it executed without
being told, without knowing the true nature of the application, and
without any true accountability, are considered "Strategic Products"
in IE 5.0/Windows 2000. Now, Microsoft wants to embed the binaries
in the XML documents themselves, which prevents users from disabling
the importation of binaries.
Microsoft is only accountable to itself with regard to Application
Programmer Interfaces, Communication Protocols, and File Formats.
They consider lack of backward compatibility to be a good thing,
and strongly discourage the use of any standards (including their own)
that would inhibit the sale of new Microsoft products.
Contrast this to UNIX and Linux.
In the UNIX environment, the kernel provides all drivers, I/O,
interprocess communication, memory management, and system scheduling.
Furthermore, the kernel is optimised to manage hundreds or thousands
of processes concurrently. This allows for efficient interprocess
communications which means that applications can be implemented
as modular components connected together by datastreams.
On UNIX, file formats, protocols, and even programs are extensively
documented in a very public fashion. In most cases the files are
human readable, in other cases the datastreams can be converted
to human readable format. Because the datastreams could be handled
the same regardless of whether it was coming from a file or another
process, it became very easy to create applications that could
convert, combine, or summarise datastreams written in various formats
and convert them to other formats.
A trivial application such as parsing a ticker feed, and plotting
the current prices of desired stocks provides a good example.
In the case of Windows, I would have to have a custom application
that would read the content from the ticker (using dedicated code
that was specifically designed for the feed), I would then store
it in a spreadsheet OLE object, and then I would have to hand it
off to the VBGraph ActiveX control to have it plotted. The entire
thing would have to be linked together.
In the case of UNIX, I would create a process that would open a
socket to the ticker feed, convert the feed to a stream, and push
the stream to the standard output. I could then use PERL to parse
the feed, and have PERL generate orderd pairs for GPLOT. I'd write
a 20 line C program (using boilerplate code), and the remainder
of the application becomes a 2 line shell script and a 20 line
PERL program. I would then end up with a real-time graph.
What about those compenents? The BSD socket library has been
used in production systems since the mid 1980s. The PERL programming
language has been used on Internet sights for over 10 years. The
GPLOT tool has been used for network monitoring for over 12 years,
and the UNIX shell has been around for 20 years. And the X11 display
has been used to monitor time-critical information for over 12 years.
Sure, for a little "glitz" you could use a KDE or GNOME "plotter",
and have the GPLOT sent to a CORBA client that would send the
plotter coordinates - just for fun and glitz. You could also
use a HTML Form/CGI script to allow the user to select the tickers
and have the CGI script generate the PERL script to be used. You
could even use a CGI script to decide which "feed" you wanted to
load (delayed by 15 minutes, near-real-time, or right off NASDAQ).
Because each piece is modular, you could enhance any piece without
breaking the other components.
> George Russell
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 18:12:45 GMT
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 14:24:14 -0300, Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Richard Morrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> You should examine our business model :)
>
>"Linuxcare provides a comprehensive solution for Linux technical support, consulting,
>education,
>and product certification for Global 1000 companies."
>
>Now, I find "support, consulting, education, and product certification " extremely
>boring.
>I want to create and sell original software that is fundamentally different from
>everything that
>exists already. Quite the opposite of open source, actually.
It's rather different from commercial software as well.
What you're describing is more like academia or research,
like Bell Labs...
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: David Damerell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: 23 Mar 2000 18:26:43 +0000 (GMT)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>David Damerell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:hJt*[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Economics is about offer and demand. Limited offer of software
>>>can only be guaranteed by laws or morals (because it's so easy to copy).
>>>Now, tell me, are you against laws and morals, mr_organic?
>>Double bogosity. First of all, people can pay you to write software rather
>>than to copy it (and again there's a limited supply of people to write
>>software); secondly, you've got a massive logical fallacy in there. I
>>might as well say "You giving me all your possessions can only be
>>guaranteed by laws or morals (because you wouldn't without legal force or
>>some really odd ethical system), so if you want to keep your things, you
>>must be against laws and morals."
>1. Why pay if you can copy (to arrive at an identical product)? Why would
>anybody want to do that, except for laws and morals?
One approach is that you pay to have the product written. Of course, this
already does happen with very large custom systems and pieces of free
software that are particularly important to people - you might consider
how many of the Linux network card drivers exist because it was worth NASA
paying someone to write them.
>2. The premise is that we need economics (and thus limited offer) so that
None of the (somewhat incomprehensible) blather you write here changes the
fact that the paragraph of yours above ending "Now, tell me, are you
against laws and morals, mr_organic?" is the most stunning logical
fallacy I have seen for some weeks.
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CUWoCS President. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/ Hail Eris!
|___| I was wrong. I was wrong to ever doubt. I can get along without. |___|
| | | I can love my fellow man. But I'm damned if I'll love yours.[AE] | | |
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 13:27:54 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: UNIX recruiters and MS Word resumes
A transfinite number of monkeys wrote:
> And why isn't that an option? Never forget that the recruiter works for
> YOU, and not vice-versa. He gets paid by finding you a job. The more
> the job pays you, the more the company has to pay him. Don't forget that
> you're the one holding the cards in that relationship.
Actually, this was a female. Now, she just returned my email saying
that she can't open a Word Perfect file. Gee, you mean Word can't
open a WP file? This is a pain. If she's got Word, just open it in
text format, change a couple of things, and then save it in Word
format.
My philosphy is that resumes are supposed to be simple anyways, and
lots of people want them in plain ascii, especially by email. If the
thing can't look good in plain text, it ain't gonna look good in
Word. Plus, these people should just be able to open it in text
format, make the changes, and save it in Word format.
- Donn
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 18:30:32 GMT
George Marengo writes:
> Joseph Coughlan wrote:
>> MS has acquired and abused monopoly power in the PC OS market.
>> "Financial suicide" (as you call it) isn't a result of weak consumer
>> demand or ISV support, it is a result of MS's illegal use of monopoly
>> power to maintain their monopoly.
> That's certainly a factor, just as was IBM's unwillingness to use
> their hardware to push OS/2.
Then why is it a common perception that computer users needed to buy
a PS/2 to run OS/2?
------------------------------
From: David Damerell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: 23 Mar 2000 18:29:04 +0000 (GMT)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I want to create and sell original software that is fundamentally
>different from everything that exists already. Quite the opposite of
>open source, actually.
You are, of course, free to price your software as you please; but you may
find that the free software community have undercut you - as has happened
to the vendors of proprietary Web servers. Then you will probably start
complaining that people shouldn't be allowed to give their own work
away...
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CUWoCS President. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/ Hail Eris!
|___| I was wrong. I was wrong to ever doubt. I can get along without. |___|
| | | I can love my fellow man. But I'm damned if I'll love yours.[AE] | | |
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for
DumbAsses
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 13:32:42 -0500
Drestin Black wrote in message ...
>
>"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I _have_ given it a chance but, as I wrote before, there was nothing it
>> > could do that I couldn't do in W2K already. I mean, if I could find
even
>one
>> > single thing I need to do with Linux that I cannot do easily with W2K I
>> > would install it (in vmware 2) in a heartbeat. right now VMware is
>running
>> > FreeBSD for me to continue using...
>>
>> What does FreeBSD do for you that Linux couldn't?
>>
>> Not that FreeBSD is bad, far from it, but your anti-Linux bias is
>> showing again.
>>
>
>Several of my clients use FreeBSD so it's useful for me to have it handy.
>The only linux in our shop at this time is in the tech room so I leave it
>there. My anti-Linux bias, I've discovered recently, is more accurately
>discribed as anti-linux-elitism-take-over-the-world-zealots.
Sorry Drestin,
Playing the victim has been outlawed in Silicon Valley and all other high
tech locations.
2 + 2
>
>I use the best tool for the job - always. Used to be things like 1-2-3,
>WordPerfect, PageMaker, Netware, Ulead Paint (forgot the real name, but
>adobe bought it to avoid competition with PhotoShop), even LANtastic. Now
>names like Quark, PhotoShop, Office 2k, W2K have replaced them - simply
>cause ... see first sentence.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 18:36:03 GMT
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 17:54:38 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:32:16 GMT, George Richard Russell
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tell me what you do with a spreadsheet and I could take a stab
> at telling you whether or not gnumeric is there for you, or
> staroffice. Not bother, and noone will be able to tell you if
> even msoffice will do. As 'spiffy' as some people think it is,
> even it has it's limitations.
Embedding it in Wordprocessed documents and Presentations, live data links
DDE between data and charts (various types), restricted access / entry,
teaching system (quizzes etc ) with images / macros, input validation, export
to HTML, CSV, misc fancy formatting, and various other, lesser used but still
needed stuff like print preview, spell checking, locked and hidden cells etc.
Good docs for the unobvious stuff are also always welcome. As is translation
to British English and support for the Euro. Wizards and Templates for things
like registers, travel expenses and like are also important.
Extra flight sims are a bonus ;-)
Gnumeric's obvious problem for the above is the embedding - it uses Gnomes
immature object model, is the most mature of the various Gnome Office
components and frankly, has nothing to embed itself into.
Only the recently (3 days?) released WordPerfect Office 2000 with Quattro && WP
is likely to offer enough flexibility in Embedding, and even then, only within
itself.
>>>>There is a reason why Miguel is shamelessly copying the UI and features of
>>>>Excel in Gnumeric.
>>>
>>> He could be copying the current version of 123 or Quattro
>>> and you likely wouldn't be asare of it.
>>
>>You seem unaware of of his recent interview - "I'm copying Excel becuase I know
>>nothing about spreadsheets" is the gist of the quote.
>
> I would have to ask Miguel personally as I don't trust anything
> that joker says. Even so, copying Excel might be equivalent to
> copying 123 in the same fashion that copying Win9x is really
> copying the MacOS.
Nah, in that Excel has been a GUI spreadsheet longer than Lotus 123, ever
since the early Mac, whereas Lotus was late to start the transition, and
GUI Lotus lacked the dominance of its DOS forebear.
Excel is actually often accused of being too easy to use - powerful things
are tucked away to make it more novice friendly.
George Russell
--
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
Lord of the Rings, J.R.R.Tolkien
Hey you, what do you see? Something beautiful, something free?
The Beautiful People, Marilyn Manson
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew J. Brehm)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:39:18 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> George Marengo writes:
>
> > Joseph Coughlan wrote:
>
> >> MS has acquired and abused monopoly power in the PC OS market.
> >> "Financial suicide" (as you call it) isn't a result of weak consumer
> >> demand or ISV support, it is a result of MS's illegal use of monopoly
> >> power to maintain their monopoly.
>
> > That's certainly a factor, just as was IBM's unwillingness to use
> > their hardware to push OS/2.
>
> Then why is it a common perception that computer users needed to buy
> a PS/2 to run OS/2?
I have never heard that before.
--
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User (MacOS, Linux, BeOS)
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
------------------------------
From: josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:40:29 -0800
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, George Marengo wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 03:44:02 GMT, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> > The same fact that has hobbled anyone for the last 20 years,
> >> > the fact that there's more to gaining utility out of an OS
> >> > than just having the system software sitting on a disk.
> >> >
> >> > Everything else has to come along with it including driver
> >> > support and 3rd party application support.
> >
> >> And thus my claim that it would have been financial suicide -- very
> >> few people would have wanted "just having the system software
> >> sitting on a disk"
> >
> >No George.
> >
> >MS has acquired and abused monopoly power in the PC OS market.
> >"Financial suicide" (as you call it) isn't a result of weak consumer
> >demand or ISV support, it is a result of MS's illegal use of monopoly
> >power to maintain their monopoly.
>
> That's certainly a factor, just as was IBM's unwillingness to use
> their hardware to push OS/2. If OS/2 truly was a better DOS than
> DOS, and a better Windows than Windows, the consumers wouldn't
> have cared if OS/2 was installed.
>
> IBM had the means to increase the installed base of OS/2, they
> had the money to do so -- what they lacked was the will.
No crime victim is perfect. Blaming the victim for any possible
imperfections is not a defense but a desperate act.
What is your argument - that whatever IBM did they could have done more -
well Duh - and they could have done less. There are an infinite number of
things IBM could have done but you can't say these alternatives would have
been fruitful nor is it reasonable to say there were necessary as part of
due diligence on IBM's part.
IBM's efforts with OS/2 were ample enough to establish facts about MS's
barriers to competition in the OS market. The anti-trust complaint is over
browsers AOL/Netscape is using I.E, not Netscape! Despite owning Netscape
AOL is using MS's I.E. so they too must be culpable. If your reasoning
about liability and responsibility had any merit then it would have been
be given merit by the Judge.
IBM's sworn testimony and the estimated direct and opportunity costs in
revenue were presented in the anti-trust trial - it showed IBM's
willingness. OS/2 for Windows was a noble and innovative effort to
increase OS/2's user base. Sadly when a monopoly power is applied
illegally, noble efforts and innovation are ineffective. Time to apply
the law.
IBM OS/2 was a victim. What MS did to IBM OS/2 helped established a
pattern of abuse that the Judge used to estbalish facts in the anti-trust
case. There isn't any credible alternative explination on which any legal
decision will be based. You can hold any set of opinions and nonsense
interpretations. We've all moved on to the phase of the case where the
law is applied. Your assertion of fact is not correct.
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
