Linux-Advocacy Digest #730, Volume #26 Sun, 28 May 00 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0 (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Roberto Alsina)
Re: The Linux Fortress (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The Linux Fortress (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The Linux Fortress (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The Linux Fortress (Pete Goodwin)
Re: winodws hlp file about linux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Will Linux run MSDOS programs (Mathias Grimmberger)
Re: Will Linux run MSDOS programs (Mathias Grimmberger)
Re: The Linux Fortress (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Roberto Alsina)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (h3$[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: In Bellevue can buy Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (piddy)
Re: The Linux Fortress (Robert Heininger)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: The Linux Fortress (Robert Heininger)
Hey Pete Goodwin ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Lennart Gahm")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0
Date: 28 May 2000 15:02:23 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>sndconfig
>
>Didn't work. This is broken in lnx4win.
No, it is broken in your particular machine under lnx4win.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 19:59:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> ...although KDE is dragging it's feet on Xdnd.
Jedi, dear, I really hope you donīt want to start that specific
flamewar again. It was tiresome the last time already.
KDE has not had any development done using any DnD protocol other
than Xdnd since before september of last year.
Even though I do have a personal agenda on the matter (look at my sig)
if anyone in the audience bothers looking, he can verify I am
writing the truth.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 20:10:17 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert L.) wrote in
<rL9Y4.5212$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>From win95 and over, windows use encrypt password. To remove them, on
>the windows cd, there's a readme.txt that explain that and say how to
>make it use plaintext instead of encrypt. On the doc. of samba too. the
>samba-howto show it too. You have to read more. ( or you have to read
>the good part, not the useless )
I changed Samba to match Windows, not vice versa.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 20:13:44 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Welcome to Linux, where simple tasks become difficult.
Um, where simple tasks become awkward.
>Win98SE will do this right out of the box as well as internet
>connection sharing (wait till you try that one under Linux). It's so
>simple a 5 year old could do it by just hitting enter and accepting
>the defaults.
If I accepted the defaults on Windows, it wouldn't work for me. DHCP is not
used on most LANS I have access to.
>Alas, why people wish to waste their lives away reading reams of
>conflicting, outdated documentation to do what should be easy is
>beyond me.
Reams is exaggerating.
>Every time I hear the word Samba I think of that movie "They Shoot
>Horses Don't They?" where the couples enter a dance marathon and dance
>non-stop for weeks.
Funny, I converted my old PC running Windows 98 SE to Linux. It's a file
server, where I'll dump stuff that I find. Windows was working just fine,
except for the following:
i) To shut it down I had to go onto the console and go through Windows;
as Linux I can do that remotely via telnet on either Linux or Windows.
ii) Both systems exhibit the documented Windows 98 SE shutdown bug where
it hangs. Linux has yet to hang on shutdown.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 20:15:36 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote in
<8grsfi$11e2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Note that before Service pack 3 for NT and the equivalent Win95 OSR2
>and subsequent releases, the windows clients would work without
>encrypted passwords and could thus authenticate against your
>unix password file. As usual, Windows scores by changing the
>standards to make others look bad. The insecure Lanman hash is
>still accepted so there is no real increase in security from this
>change - it just makes it harder to set up samba.
Typical Microsoft ploy - change the way it works to break the competitions
code.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 20:19:29 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On the subject of Samba configuration, here's another thought along the
lines of 'ease of use' and the way KDE lags behind Windows.
How do you configure a share with Samba. You edit the smb.conf file.
How do you configure a share with Windows. Here's one way - right click on
the directory, select Sharing... and pick the settings you want. This way
is much more intuitive. Is KDE's kfm going to offer functionality like
this, or is the KDE desktop going to remain in the depths of the past and
still rely on config files?
Pete
PS. I've not tried Gnome. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt it offers
anything like this, does it?
------------------------------
Subject: Re: winodws hlp file about linux
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 20:20:10 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Salvador Peralta) wrote in <393124CA.3078A45
@salvador.venice.ca.us>:
>Way to go, Brian! But you should build an html doc and post it to a
>site rather than making people email you for it.
Hear! Hear!
Pete
------------------------------
From: Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Will Linux run MSDOS programs
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 20:08:27 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[M-x snip]
> >AFAIK you can't run *any* Linux program (console or X) under Windows.
> >
> >Your point?
>
> Actually you can run many/most if you recompile with the cygwin
> tools. You can't build a free X server yet as far as I know but
> you can build X programs and run the display elsewhere or on
> a commercial windows X server.
But recompiling is cheating. :-)
Portability is a whole different story from emulation. Of course being
able to run a native XEmacs or the cygwin tools on NT beats any
emulation...
MGri
--
Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Eat flaming death, evil Micro$oft mongrels!
------------------------------
From: Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Will Linux run MSDOS programs
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 20:00:33 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mathias Grimmberger) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Hehehe, it just occured to me that MS must be a Unix wannabee then. At
> >least they have a Posix subsystem in NT. Ohhh, they emulate OS/2 too (is
> >that still in NT 5?). And DOS/Win16.
>
> I thought Posix support had been dropped.
It is still there in NT 5, nah, W2K. Along with the OS/2 thingy.
MS needs (needed?) it because it was required by some US government
agencies.
> >Sorry, I don't think your argument holds water.
>
> Well, think of it this way. Windows does not support Linux executables as
> it is not felt that anyone would want to do this; whereas Linux offers
> several alternatives to allow Windows apps to run on Linux.
Hmm, to be able to make this argument you must equate MS (a single
company, presumably with clear goals as to what gets implemented) to
the Linux community (the exact opposite). A bogus comparison.
It would be more fair to compare all software available for both and
then there is enough emulation, interoperability and source
compatibility stuff for Windows to show that the argument is wrong.
> That tells me that Windows is what people want.
Not everyone wants Windows that badly.
> In any case, what I remember of Windows emulators is that they don't
> support everything, they run slower etc. Not that I've tried anything on
> Linux - just previous OS's attempts at this.
Well, if it's an emulator how can it possibly run as fast as The Real
Thing? And MS is pretty good at making shure that nobody can ever fully
emulate their stuff. They just don't document it and keep changing it
all the time.
MGri
--
Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Eat flaming death, evil Micro$oft mongrels!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
Date: 28 May 2000 15:23:47 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Huh? Wa'chew talk'n about Willis? "/etc/smb.conf" It's very well
>>documented and self explanitory, what's the problem? . . . oh. . .no
>>`Point-n-Guess' interface. . I see. . .
>
>It's so well documented it refers to files I was unable to find.
>
># You may wish to use password encryption. Please read
># ENCRYPTION.txt, Win95.txt and WinNT.txt in the samba documentation.
># Do not enable this option unless you have read those documents
>
>I could not find any of ENCRYPTION.txt, Win95.txt and WinNT.txt. If Linux
>had a halfway decent HELP system, maybe I would.
Hmmm, on my mostly-stock Mandrake system, I see:
/usr/doc/samba-2.0.6/docs/textdocs/ENCRYPTION.txt
/usr/doc/samba-2.0.6/docs/textdocs/Win95.txt
/usr/doc/samba-2.0.6/docs/textdocs/WinNT.txt
found instantly by 'locate' as they would
be by browsing to the standard place with the
kde file manager or Netscape.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 20:31:17 GMT
Allow me to sort the pieces of the exchange, so the answers appear
after the questions :-P
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 26 May 2000 20:33:07 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>ypical Linux bullshit...Config, config, config and waste more time
> >>with each config.
> >
> >So, let's see you build a windows configuration that will
> >fit on a floppy and do something useful. Perhap act
> >as a router...
> >
> > Les Mikesell
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> And let's see you fit the entire Liza game in 256 bytes on paper tape.
>
> Floppies are dead, in case you haven't noticed. Although Linux seems
> to embrace antique technology quite well.
Well, the difference between using a ancient 486 with a floppy as
a LAN router and using a "real" one is about $2000, not to mention
the save in tech support (Cisco support is expensive, and the computer
can be repaired easily).
To me, the floppy is a good idea. Perhaps you have too much money to
spend.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: h3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 28 May 2000 12:50:09 -0700
In article <8gr1h3$ml0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Peter says...
>: Well, you were an idiot actually. Nothing wrong with calling an
>: idiot an idiot. Any one who claims a mailing list can act as a bug
>: tracking software must be a very stupied person.
>
>Or a very clever one. As in the entire collective power of the
>university professors, elite software coders, and other interested
>hackers worldwide who make up the kernel developers.
There is a huge step to take from being a good programmer but with
no organisational and software engineering skills, to being
a good programmer with those additional skills.
Think engineering, not just coding. coding takes only about
15% of the resources and effort (even if that) on a large
software project. The rest is specification, design, requirments,
source control, bug tracking, test suites, regression testing, QA,
maintainance, and many other tasks not related to coding.
h3
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: In Bellevue can buy Linux?
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 21:17:30 GMT
Check the reject bin (opened returned items) at CompUSA. They had a
pile of Redhat boxes there on fire sale for $9.95. Current editions
too.
On 28 May 2000 13:04:28 -0700, Robert Nicholson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>OK yesterday I looked. I rang CompUSA and they told me RedHat was a
>discontinuted item and then I tried Barnes and Noble and they don't
>sell it.
>
>Why in this area is it impossible to find RedHat?
>
>Why doesn't B&N sell RedHat linux. I know Borders does but that's
>a trek from downtown Bellevue.
>
>I would expect Linux to be avaiable in this area quite easily and
>don't accept that it's unavailbility is anything more than
>just a coincidence.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (piddy)
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 21:18:19 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 28 May 2000 18:47:52 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
wrote:
>It was the Sun, 28 May 2000 14:47:40 +0200...
>...and Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Nonsens.. Gnome is nothing else than a KDE klone....
>
>Bovine dung. This isn't even worth arguing with.
That's true. Gnome has a better foundation even though at this time it
is less developed. They should look at the source before they proclaim
their expertise.
piddy -- alt.beer's most famous dipshit
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Heininger)
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 21:23:47 GMT
On Sun, 28 May 2000 20:08:16 GMT,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Pete Goodwin' wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Heininger) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>Huh? Wa'chew talk'n about Willis? "/etc/smb.conf" It's very well
>>documented and self explanitory, what's the problem? . . . oh. . .no
>>`Point-n-Guess' interface. . I see. . .
>
>It's so well documented it refers to files I was unable to find.
>
># You may wish to use password encryption. Please read
># ENCRYPTION.txt, Win95.txt and WinNT.txt in the samba documentation.
># Do not enable this option unless you have read those documents
>
>I could not find any of ENCRYPTION.txt, Win95.txt and WinNT.txt. If Linux
>had a halfway decent HELP system, maybe I would.
>
>Pete
ummm. . . .
$ ls /usr/doc/samba*/doc/textdocs
Application_Serving.txt
BROWSING-Config.txt
BROWSING.txt
BUGS.txt
CRLF-LF-Conversions.txt
CVS_ACCESS.txt
DHCP-Server-Configuration.txt
DIAGNOSIS.txt
DNIX.txt
DOMAIN.txt
DOMAIN_CONTROL.txt
DOMAIN_MEMBER.txt
ENCRYPTION.txt
Faxing.txt
File-Cacheing.txt
GOTCHAS.txt
HINTS.txt
INSTALL.sambatar
MIRRORS.txt
Macintosh_Clients.txt
NTDOMAIN.txt
NT_Security.txt
NetBIOS.txt
OS2-Client-HOWTO.txt
PRINTER_DRIVER.txt
PROFILES.txt
PROJECTS
Passwords.txt
Printing.txt
README.DCEDFS
README.jis
README.sambatar
README.smbmount
Recent-FAQs.txt
RoutedNetworks.txt
SCO.txt
SMBTAR.notes
SSLeay.txt
Speed.txt
Speed2.txt
Support.txt
Tracing.txt
UNIX-SMB.txt
UNIX_INSTALL.txt
UNIX_SECURITY.txt
Win95.txt
WinNT.txt
cifsntdomain.txt
security_level.txt
If you would like, I'll stuff them into a zip file and email them to 'ya.
--
Robert Heininger [ Powered by: Linux 2.2.5-15 ]
Where Do You Want To Go Today?
Every time I get asked that question, someone wants to take me for a ride.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 21:24:57 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8grkus$2d5b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <KaaY4.2705$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Surprise! No monopolies there, lots of good competition.
> >
> >It's not immediately obvious that there's a relationship to be found
> >there. I've noticed an widespread assumption that competition
> >between a lot of small vendors is better than that between a few
> >big ones, or between one big one and many small ones.
>
> Any competition is better than none, but it has to be on a level
> where you can actually replace one component with another vendor's
> product without destroying your entire setup.
Why?
Certainly the history of this industry suggests that this is *not* the
case; typically the succesful competitors are *not* those that
make a snap-in replacement, but those with something new
and *different*. It is *only* then that there is a positive reason to
people to switch to the new kid on the block. Without that,
building a better mousetrap doesn't seem to work awfully
well.
> Look at how long
> Microsoft sat on DOS 3.x even though it's limits were clearly
> a problem for the users to see what happens when there is no
> competition. If DRDOS 5 hadn't come out when it did, they might
> never have added any features.
Oh, Microsoft was building windows long before then. It did take
them a long time to make it work, but in part that was just the hardware
catching up; MS *never* made a Windows that could be run seriously
on a 8086, so as long as those were the primary machine, they
were quite stalled.
While MS could have put their efforts into incremental improvements
to DOS, such improvements could not have solved the *real* problems
DOS had. Windows did solve them, eventually. DR-DOS, forgive me for
saying so, never would have- it wasn't ambitious enough. It was just a
marginally better DOS.
> Now where is the equivalent
> for Active Directory and Win2k domain controllers?
Well, I suspect that if I were a Novell shill, I'd tell you that you
should use NetWare in that role. But as I'm a Microsoft shill,
I can't very well do that. :D
Of course, NetWare isn't idential to Win2K Server, but
no doubt Novell would tell you that it's *better*.
.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 21:24:58 GMT
"poldy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <39306821$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
> If they lose the appeal, there will be class action shareholder suits.
> Did Gates ever explain to the shareholders why he's continuing with the
> case when he's had numerous chances to settle it? He better have gotten
> shareholders to explictly approve the course of action he's undertaken.
It's not that important, but Gates has a very easy explaination for why
he's being stubborn now:
He *tried* making a deal with the DoJ. Remember the consent decree?
He got them to agree to "no bundling, but integration is okay". But it
didn't do any good, they came after him anyway.
He can hardly expect the DoJ to keep its promises *now*. This is
true even if you feel that "browser integration" is positively
sinful; they gave him the okay to do it, and then sued him
anyway.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Heininger)
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 21:45:50 GMT
On Sun, 28 May 2000 20:19:29 GMT,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Pete Goodwin' wrote:
>On the subject of Samba configuration, here's another thought along the
>lines of 'ease of use' and the way KDE lags behind Windows.
See below.
>How do you configure a share with Samba. You edit the smb.conf file.
Yuppers, and it's simple to do, too. Requires one text editor and one brain.
>How do you configure a share with Windows. Here's one way - right click on
>the directory, select Sharing... and pick the settings you want. This way
>is much more intuitive.
This is so sadly limited. Tell me, how do you access a hidden share (a shared
resource that is *not* in the "Network Neighborhood") using this method?
>Is KDE's kfm going to offer functionality like
>this, or is the KDE desktop going to remain in the depths of the past and
>still rely on config files?
Oh. . I get it now. What you want is a free Windows Clone. Well, just in case
you have not heard, Linux _IS_NOT_ Windows!
--
Robert Heininger [ Powered by: Linux 2.2.5-15 ]
Where Do You Want To Go Today?
Every time I get asked that question, someone wants to take me for a ride.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Hey Pete Goodwin
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 18:02:50 -0400
Dude, stop for a minute and take a look at the trap you are falling into.
For some reason, it doesn't matter, you are trying to run Linux, the supposedly
superior system.
You are having troubles, just like virtually everybody who makes the same
mistake.That's why Windows is still number one and they can't even give Linux
away.
You are trying in your mind to justify running Linux for some reason or another.
Maybe you hate Microsoft, experienced dll hell with an older version of Windows,
maybe you just want free software, it really doesn't matter as the result will
be the same. You will waste your life away tinkering and reading documentation
when you could easily perform the same tasks under WIndows will little effort.
Take a good look at how much extra work is required just to do mundane tasks
under Linux. You could do this stuff under Windows with your eyes closed because
WIndows has a good, unified help system unlike Linux which is a scattered
collection of half written documentation.
It only gets worse as you finally get the beast installed. You will be hooked
into a loop of constant upgrading, patches and incompatibilities. Gnome libs,
kde libs, qt libs libc etc. You will soon discover that Linux is the hard way
of doing things. There is always some disjointed utility to do what you want but
everything is scattered all over the place. Tried Email and news yet? How about
a firewall? Multimedia? Want to turn that high end video card into a loser? Try
Linux. Games? look again.
KDE and Gnome run as slow as molasses. Try selecting a directory with a lot of
files (/dev will do) and see how long kfm takes to stop churning. Now try the
same thing under Windows. Instantaneous. How about moving WIndows, re sizing and
so forth. Sluggish under Linux, fast as can be under WIndows.
Linux is for tinkerers. It is the Gilbert Erector Set of operating systems.You
get to build it as you go along. Kind of like a "Do it Yourself Parachute" only
there are no instructions on how to assemble it. Remember the Gilbert Erector
Set? You spent all day building some stupid dump truck only to have the kid next
door bring over his nice shiny Tonka dump truck which made yours look like a
joke.
Same thing with Linux. Linux is the Gilbert and Windows the Tonka.
Sponge says Linux is a complete waste of time. I have Windows 2000 up and
running here at Sponge Central and it rocks. Try a real operating system and
stop wasting your time asking questions of the Lusers in this group. They will
just attack you and call you an idiot for not knowing. I think half of them are
full of crap anyhow.
Sponge
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: "Lennart Gahm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Lennart Gahm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 22:01:08 GMT
On Sat, 27 May 2000 16:17:39 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>Lennart Gahm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >It's looking more and more like the judge is burying himself. Denying MS
>> >the time to review the governments proposed remedies shocked most of the
>> >legal by-standers (including the DOJ, which expected the judge to give MS
>> >the time). Due process may have been compromised, and will certainly
>give
>> >them a lot more firepower in the appeals process.
>>
>> Can you provide any URL that shows that "most of the legal by-standers"
>> (whatever that means) and the DOJ was chocked over the Microsofts 48hours
>and
>> DOJs only 24hours?
>> In what way has the process been compromised by the judge?
>
>Do you even read things about the trial?
Yes. You claimed that the judge decision "shocked most of the legal
by-standers".
I do not see that its true even in the cnet article you refer to.
>
>Just a random URL:
>
>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1948724.html
>
>"The pronouncement stunned both sides and stirred a flurry of last-minute
>activity from Microsoft's lawyers."
And in the same paragraph:
"Attorney Steven Holley rushed to introduce an unexpected document, an offer
of proof, which covered some items Microsoft would have addressed during an
extended remedy proceeding.
"We knew this was a possibility, and we were ready," said a source close to
Microsoft. "We wanted to get this in the record for the appeals court.""
So Microsoft says that they are ready, and knew that their requested 6 month
could be dismissed.
>and
>
>"The question is whether Jackson denied Microsoft due process by preventing
>a longer examination of the government's remedy proposal. University of
>Baltimore Law School professor Bob Lande agreed "Microsoft could have a good
>due process claim." "
And in the same paragraph:
"But practicing attorneys thought that given the length of the trial and the
not totally unanticipated breakup proposal, Microsoft had all the time it
needed. "There is no due process issue here," said Dana Hayter, an antitrust
and intellectual property attorney with Fenwick & West in Palo Alto, Calif.
Gray agreed.
Glenn Manishin, an attorney with Patton & Boggs in McLean, Va., said
Microsoft made a strategic error for which it must now pay."
In your referred document tree attorneys disagree with the one you cited.
>
>> How do You think that the US appeal court will interpret that Microsoft
>faked
>> evidence, "didnt remember", deaning that letters meant what was written
>and
>> so on?
>
>First of all, Gates deposition isn't counted as an actual witness since the
>DOJ didn't put him on the stands. This will also look bad for the
>government in that they cheated the process and used the taped deposition to
>try and squeak in another witness. The so called "faked" evidence wasn't
>faked, but dramatized. MS proved that the evidence put forth in the tape
>was correct, even if the tape itself was scripted.
>
>> I strongly doubt that an appeal court in any country would be impressed by
>> Microsofts defence, and if so, if Microsoft loses because of their bad
>> strategy in a lower court they should probely not count on any sympathy
>from
>> the judges in the appeal court.
>
>MS's defense is not really all that important to the appeals court. What's
>important is that the original trial was fair and by the book.
I am no expert on US law but i think you are wrong here. The document you
referred to has some comments from attorneys regarding Microsofts defence;
(Glenn Manishin, an attorney with Patton & Boggs in McLean, Va)
"Microsoft chose to hang its hat on a procedural technicality, suggesting
that because of no causation, the government wasn't empowered to impose
structural relief," he said. "That was their whole argument. They introduced
no expert testimony, no affidavits. Nothing. It was their choice to come in
with no evidence and a very narrow legal attack on the governments
authority.""
(Smith = Gartner Group analyst David Smith)
"But Smith warned Microsoft is already too fixated on the appellate process
and that "it's not a good idea to put all their eggs in the appeals basket."
"The larger question is the company's long-term strategy if it loses on
appeal. Smith and International Data Corp. analyst Roger Kay both wondered if
Microsoft had a plan B to deal with this turn of events."
"It's all really a matter of whether they are true believers," Kay said. "If
they truly believe they are innocent, that they've done nothing wrong, there
might not be a plan B. Long term--that could be a big problem."
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
