Linux-Advocacy Digest #930, Volume #25 Tue, 4 Apr 00 00:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Rumors ... (Jianmang Li)
Guilty, 'til proven guilty (phil hunt)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Jim Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jianmang Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 04:31:29 +0200
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >The fault in your logic is that MSFT doesn't control PC hardware.
> >
> > They don't? What is PC99 and its predecessors then? Maybe "control" is
> > too strong a word, but they sure do have "influence".
>
> influence. So what? So did all the OEMs, so could other OS manufacturers.
>
> In fact, if you knew anything about it, the PC* recommendations are a Good Thing
> and help keep PC manufacturers on the same page. They don't HAVE to adhere to it
> if they don't want to, there's no law.
>
> Besides, it's an open spec, and anyone can read it.
>
> > >MSFT has a monopoly on it's own APIs and OS, true, but that doesn't not make
> > >it a monopoly in the OS market.
> >
> > A court of law disagrees with you. It seems likely that this will be
> > affirmed on appeal.
>
> Many state governments have executed "criminals" that were later found innocent.
>
> Simply because the court of law finds in that direction, does not make it fact,
> or even truth.
>
> Judge Jackson has proven he doesn't have a full grasp on the situation,
> that it was will be affirmed on appeal.
>
> In fact, Judge Jackson has been overruled several times, even just in this case
> alone, let alone other cases.
>
> Considering he fell asleep twice during the hearing, I'm not sure he has a full
> understanding of the situation, and therefore his rulings are to be taken with
> a grain of salt. The Appeals process will be the determining factor here.
Judge cound be wrong. He cound also be wrong on the wrong direction - MS
is even
more dirtier then he believes. Yes in history some innocents had been
executed. What was
the percentage of such case? 0.1%? So it means 99.9% that MS is guilty.
Right?
>
> > >For example, Exxon has a monopoly on it's own gas pumps, but that doesn't
> > >make it a monopoly.
> >
> > Was it a monopoly when it was part of Standard Oil? Why?
>
> Because it controlled all oil production and sale of oil. If you bought oil, you
> bought it from Std. Oil.
>
> If you buy a PC, you don't buy it from MSFT. If you buy an OS, you can buy it
> from one of many sources. Go to your local BestBuy and count how many OSes you
> can
> buy for the PC, there are around 6 or so.
>
> If you buy software, it isn't necessarily for Windows. You can buy ApplixWare
> for
> Linux, for example.
>
> If you buy a browser (which most are free anyhow) you don't have to buy it from
> MS. You can buy Opera for Windows, you can download Netscape for free, as well
> as many others.
>
> MS used some shady practices with strongarming the OEMs. The only power MS had
> over them was that MS = lots of money to the OEMs. OEMs could've taken other
> routes and not been as immediately profitable, but yet still profitable.
>
> Apple is a good example. VALinux, Peguin Computing, and many others.
>
> There was nothing stopping them from flipping MSFT the bird except for their
> greed.
>
> > >- There is nothing preventing application vendors from writing software for
> > > other platforms.
> >
> > Except the network effects, secret information, and exclusive OEM preload
> > deals that locked competitors out of the preload market. Sure, you can
> > write it, but will they come?
>
> ApplixWare seems to be doing fairly well. StarOffice wasn't too bad before
> Sun took it over.
>
> Many vendors are writing software for Linux now. What about them? There are
> choices, and therefore, MS != Monopoly.
>
> > You will note that there has been no successful challenges to MS's market
> > control until now (and the jury is still very much out on what the effect
> > of free Unix will be). In any case, the challenger OS had to be given
> > away free while MS was being restrained in court in order to make any
> > inroads. It seems to me that would indicate some degree of market control
> > by MS. I don't buy your argument that all potential competitors have just
> > been stupid.
>
> The market leader in any market drives where the market heads, that's nothing
> special, and it's also not illegal.
You right again on this point. It is no illigal to be any leader. In
fact one
should be proud to be leader. But it is illigal to abusing the power of
a leader.
>
> As far as incompetent competitors, Netscape, Novell, and IBM have all made
> several compounding mistakes that lead to their ultimate demise (or near-demise)
> in their respective markets.
I regard IBM <==> MS is a fair game. IBM is stupid. But kill of a
company that
is hundred time smaller (NS) is not that fair. You as a adult can kick a
5 year
old kid shit off then call the kid incompetent to fight. Doesn't seem
logic to me.
>
> However, Intuit, on the otherhand, was able to innovate rapidly, was
> intelligent,
> marketed well, produced and KEPT producing a good product and was able to beat
> MSFT.
>
> Netscape failed to innovate and keep producing good products. Novell was the
> same way. Up until very recently, Novell's NOS, NetWare, didn't even have
> protected memory, virtual memory, or any modern NOS features. They were
> beligerant
> and ignored their consumer's needs. Then MSFT came along with NT and blew them
> away. THEN Novell started "innovating" (more like catching up) to keep from
> going under.
>
> Had Netscape or Novell kept innovating and driving the market and producing
> new software, MSFT would've never been able to catch up with them. MSFT fought
> long and hard to beat Novell. When people thought NOS, they though NetWare
> (well,
> most did at least). MSFT had to change their perception, and Novell did nothing
> to fight this. No marketing, no better products, they just sat on their pile of
> gold and plugged their ears and sang songs and hoped MSFT would just go away.
>
> Netscape did the same thing. If anything, MSFT drives competition by forcing
> these beligerant market leaders off their duffs and back to making decent
> software.
>
> NetWare 5 is a much better product than 4.11. Netscape 6 promises to be much
> better as well.
>
> Quicken continues to be a well-designed and intuitive product even when faced
> with
> OEM pre-installed Money9x or Money2000. People want their Quicken reguardless of
> what MS throws at them for free.
>
> >
> > >but at no time were the OEMs FORCED to go with MSFT, they could've used a
> >
> > Yup. As far as I know, nobody put any horse heads in Michael Dell's bed.
> > But if you don't recognize any sort of economic force, then there's no
> > point in discussing this with you.
>
> Sure, profit was a big driving force for Dell, and MSFT played on that, and
> for that, they should be punished and forced to disclose licensing agreements
> and level the pricing playing field.
>
> I hope that the Judge sees the light and makes that the remedy. Breaking MSFT
> up is just plain silly and irrelevant to the current situation.
>
> > >The problem with the AT&T analogy, was that AT&T had the only phone cable
> > >network.
> > >They also had the monopoly on long distance (i.e. no one else could provide
> > >long distance).
> >
> > Why not? Nobody was FORCED to use AT&T. Customers could always lay their
> > own cable! What was stopping them?
>
> They could either use long distance, or not.
>
> With MSFT, you can either use them, or use one of dozens of other OSes. You have
> a choice, with AT&T, you didn't.
>
> If you can't see that, then there's no point in discussing this with you.
>
> > Standard Oil once bought up strips of land in the path of a competitive
> > pipeline in order to drive up the cost and force them out of business. In
> > another case, they leased all the oil tanker cars near a competitor's
> > refinery so he couldn't ship any oil, then offered him a lowball buyout
> > deal. If a store carried competitive products, Standard Oil agents would
> > show up to tell the owner of their plans to finance a big new store down
> > the road unless he cooperated by signing an exclusive deal. I hope you
> > can see the analogy here.
>
> Std. Oil was bad. Very true, however, it's not even close to MSFT.
> Software is a very robust thing. It's not like MSFT could buy up all the
> rail cars, or buy up the land.
>
> There is limitless ways to produce software, and limitless room for innovation.
>
> The problem is, people like Netscape built a corner and placed themselves in it.
>
> Rather than branching out and producing more software, they bet their whole
> company
> on one cheesy browser and didn't have the insight to see that there was more
> money
> in giving them the browser and selling the Internet access or the banner adds,
> or
> whatever. Give them the razor, sell them the blades.
>
> > But hey, this sort of thing is all fine since nobody FORCED anyone to do
> > anything at gunpoint. Lives and careers were ruined,
>
> Because they were stupid and bet their lives on something that was very
> shortsighted.
>
> > customers paid more
>
> Customers paid more at Netscape, not MSFT. MSFT was benefiting consumers by not
> making it cost a fortune to simply browse the WWW. Netscape was profiting off of
> something silly and shortsighted. Their market collapsed because of it, and they
> were left with their pants down.
>
> Fortunately, they got a clue and started selling the server software, which was
> the
> ticket. Now, they're getting the hang of it.
>
> > >Also, there is no barrier to entry, as anyone even a foreign college
> > >student (Linus) could cook one up in his dorm room.
> >
> > So, what you're saying is that anyone can gain market share, they just
> > can't make any money at it, but that's not a barrier to entry.
>
> If they want to make money at it, go for it. Just make a better product.
> Make it easy for developers to write applications.
>
> Make it easy for them to port their Win32 applications. Heck, even find a
> way to make Win32 apps run on the system.
>
> It's not that hard, it's just that everyone's too busy hating MSFT, then
> out there innovating.
>
> -Chad
Unlike others in the group I find it is enjoyable to follow you. Have
nice
time. I got to go sleep. Bye
Jianmang Li
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 02:44:06 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Microsoft is guilty, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!!
The only think that remains to be decided is what sentence the judge
will pass. Personally, I favour The Chair, but I will admit there
is much to be said for a lethal injection.
--
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 02:38:54 GMT
Okay, I'll bite!
In article <8caarp$2sc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Is working in a group of equals in spirit of cooperation rather than
> competition and distribitiog products of you labour for free to
> anyone who desires them capitalistic?
You're right! That's why Redmond is distributing IE for nothing; they're
anti-capitalists! After all, Chairman Gates announced that he plans to
die broke, didn't he? He's a commie!
Of course Chairman Gates is a capitalist. He distributes IE free in
order to crush Netscape and achieve a virtual browser-monopoly. So you
can see that there is at least one good capitalistic reason to give
something away free.
Another is illustrated by Cygnus; you give away software in order to
sell support for it. Very sound capitalism, that.
> > There will be private property as long as only one person can
> > possess a given object. There will be money as long at any
> > resource remains scarce.
>
> Why have money when you distribute the products of your labour for
> free and in turn you can have products of other peoples labour for
> free too?
You're being nearsighted. He said ``as long as ANY resource remains
scarce''. Software is not ``scarce'' in that it can be copied for a
nominal cost. Other resources are scarce: there is only so much food,
for example; there is only so much intelligence; and there are only so
many BMWs. Those resources are property, and they must be purchased
with money.
Most people who ``distribute the products of their labour for free''
are highly paid for the use of their intellects--indeed, most of them
are overpaid. Otherwise they would not have free time for their hobby
of releasing software into the public domain.
> > Monsters like the Soviet Union instead?
>
> You must be really stupid if you think Soviet Union was a communist
> country.
He didn't say ``communist''; he said ``monster''. One may debate that
the Soviet Union was not communist; the term ``communism'' only
properly applies after socialism has conquered the world, for example.
In the US, ``communism'' is used interchangebly with ``socialism''.
Since both are murderous and idiotic ideas, the distinction is not
terribly important to us.
However, one may not debate that the Soviet Union was monstrous, unless
one is stupid. Ask any surviving Ukrainian you like!
Len.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 02:49:57 GMT
On 3 Apr 2000 22:16:09 GMT,
abraxas, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "John W. Stevens" wrote:
>>> [Mathias Warkus wrote:]
>
>>> > Writing HTML is not programming.
>>>
>>> Yes it is.
>
>> I agree. I would consider HTML and {TeX,LaTeX} programming
>> languages. In html, you are programming a web browser to display
>> something. The browser acts as an interpreter for HTML. And, of
>> course, HTML is "Hyper Text Markup Language". Writing a TeX app is
>> also programming, in my view. You are basically programming a
>> typesetter when writing a [La]TeX document.
>
>You would be wrong. Theyre scripting languages, as are TCL, Perl,
>Python, etc. Programming languages would include:
>
>C
>C++
>Fortran
>Pascal
>
>If you do not understand the difference between scripting and
>programming, you are a scripter, not a programmer. :)
>
>
>
>
>-----yttrx
>
>
Actually, they are interpreted vs compiled languages. Or do you believe that
since there are at least 2 C interpreters, (EIC and another one the name
of which escapes me) and compilers for python (the byte code compiler built
into the interpreter for one.) and for tcl.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
