Linux-Advocacy Digest #776, Volume #26 Tue, 30 May 00 23:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Corel lusing with Linux also. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Let's whine about wine ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: democracy? ("Andrew N. McGuire ")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (Gary Hallock)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (Steve White)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (abraxas)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Eric Pearson, Perfect Sync Software")
Re: What the hell is Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Bill Gates Famous saying! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joseph)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joseph)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Leslie Mikesell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Corel lusing with Linux also.
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 01:55:25 GMT
On Wed, 31 May 2000 01:37:10 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Also, shares of Gateway rose 12 percent following their announcement of
>a Transmeta/Linux-based internet appliance. Its time to buy again....
You should have bought it on Friday :)
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 21:59:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Eric J Pearson from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 30 May 2000
[...]
>To put things in perspective, the 8087 coprocessor for the XT chip was
>released in December of 1981, and the first 286 was released the next
>year. According to Intel, the 286 could access up to 16 meg of RAM and
>up to 1 gig of virtual memory. That limitation was 100.00% independent
>of the operating system being used.
So was the 1 meg limit for the 8088, and why none of this has anything
to do with the 640K limit, which is a product of the memory model that
DOS used, *not* the hardwiring of any expansion cards and *not* the
architecture of the CPU.
>Anyway, guys, I think you're taking me wrong. I am not a Microsoft
>apologist. I have made no statements whatsoever about Bill Gates'
>incompetence/boneheadedness/etc. or his lack thereof. But if you argue
>using incorrect "facts" you don't really win points, and "the other side"
>gains an advantage. That's all I was saying, nothing more and nothing
>less.
I'm just trying to get the facts straight. Can you explain why every
time we start talking about DOS's 640K limit, everyone wants to talk
about the 8088's 1Meg?
>I thought I was posting on alt.lang.basic but I see now that by replying
>to an earlier message I've inadvertently cross-posted somewhere else,
>where certain opinions are... unusually strong. No offense intended,
>honest. I'll bow out now.
Sorry if I jumped at you. I'm usually very nice, though I'm sorry about
the cross-posting. I really would like some objective information.
Just not about chips; about OSes. Is there something I'm missing about
the "flat versus segmented memory" issue, and why the 640K barrier
wasn't easily overcome?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Let's whine about wine
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 01:52:40 GMT
In article <8gtj2j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
fjuy@op wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >
> >So, I should move from Linux to Windows huh. Wine isn't really good
enough
> >for me, I'm afraid.
>
> No forces you to move to linux. if windows does what you want,
> stick with it.
>
> for the one windows app I still need on linux, I use VMWare 2.0.
>
I've got two games that I can't get rid of (well, I can get rid of mine,
but the wife would divorce me if I dumped hers). Anyway, I just loaded
a new version of Caldera, and thought I'd give it a try "one last time"
to install her game, just like I've done every time for the last three
Caldera releases. Unbelievable as it seemed, InstallShield under Wine
finally loaded it successfully this time. And it runs. There's a
slight performance problem mainly with sound, but this PeeCee is an
older low-end system. I'm gonna order some more memory and a slightly
newer CPU and see if that helps.
Wine's come a long way in a year. First time I tried this,
InstallShield couldn't even load itself. Congratulations are due; bitch
and whine somewhere else.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 22:09:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Eric J Pearson from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 31 May 2000
00:15:46 GMT
>> This is also disingenuous.
>
>Mr. Devlin, with all due respect, please do not insult me. At least not
>so directly. The word "disingenous" implies that I am being purposely
>deceptive, and that is not the case. You do not know me, or my motives,
>so please do not publically accuse me of being a liar based on a few
>paragraphs of text, just because I disagreed with something you said.
You're right. My apologies for the term "disingenuous". I must point
out, though, that I was replying to your comment of "IMO using the
numbers in that way over-dramatizes the facts", which I take to be an
accusation of the same nature. And I wasn't the one who said what you
were disagreeing with. It appears the long weekend has renewed my
reputation for being "of strong opinion", though my opinions are very
flexible, as well, and I am here both to prattle on and to read others
doing so, as well. Feel free to "enlighten" me, if I've misjudged you.
>> It wasn't the fact that it was 16 bit which
>> limited the 8088 to 1 Meg of RAM (nor is that
>> the same as the design flaw of the 640K limit),
>> nor the fact that it was a 32 bit processor
>> which allowed the 386 access 4 Gig of RAM.
>
>The Intel spec for the 8086 states that it could "access 1 MB of memory".
>No mention is made of an operating system. The Intel spec for the 80286
>states that it could "access 16 MB of memory, or 1 GB of virtual memory".
>No mention is made of an operating system. The Intel spec for the 80386
>states that is could "access 4 gigabytes of physical memory, or up to 64
>terabytes of virtual memory". No mention is made of an operating system.
>
>It was a hardware limitation, not an operating system limitation.
The one 1 Meg limit, yes. Not so the 640K limit. I believe that this
is a product of DOS's use of a "segmented", rather than a "flat" memory
structure, though truth to tell I'm only aware of what that means in the
abstract sense. It was all explained to me in quite some detail in
about 1988, so I don't recall the details, simply the results of the
examination: had MS not done things "the easy way" for their short-term
needs, (and had MS not locked the industry into DOS with a pre-load
monopoly, I must point out) millions of dollars and manhours wouldn't
have needed to be devoted to overcoming the otherwise senseless "640K
barrier" which made it impossible for "conventional" memory to be
increased above that number.
>> 640K is not one half of 4G;
>
>You're right. In the terms I was using, 64k (not 640k) is half of 4G,
>because 16 bits is half of 32 bits.
Now, when you stray into 64k, I know you're going to far. I don't need
a lesson in twos complements.
[...]
>I thought I was posting on alt.lang.basic but I see now that by replying
>to an earlier message I've inadvertently cross-posted somewhere else,
>where certain opinions are... unusually strong. No offense intended,
>honest. I'll bow out now.
I think you're repeating yourself. Alt.destroy.microsoft can have that
effect on you.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
From: "Andrew N. McGuire " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: democracy?
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 21:19:33 -0500
On Tue, 30 May 2000, Robert J Carter wrote:
+ In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
+ "Andrew N. McGuire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
+
+ > As I siad before, indivuduals on average are quit intellingent,
+
+ Actually, no. By definition, individuals are on average NOT quite
+ intelligent, but of average intelligence.
By what and whos definition? I know indiviuals who are on both sides of
the bell curve.
Regards,
anm
--
/*-------------------------------------------------------.
| Andrew N. McGuire |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
`-------------------------------------------------------*/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 22:24:28 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Drestin Black wrote:
> ahhh gary - you are the one twisting finally. Up until Darren showed up and
> proved us both wrong you were telling us all about how there isn't a 2.4 but
> a 2.3.xxx that was really 2.4 in beta but when facts proved you wrong you
> just twisted and turned ... meanwhile, I spoke the truth. *I* had
> (personally) never seen a 2.4 kernel. Darren showed me one. Since then I
> have made no denial.
>
> Let me remind you that you claimed datacenter did not exist. Remember that
> failure on your part?
>
> Do you care to try to appear even more desperate?
Wrong. Re-read my posts. You are the one who wanted to play word games.
I never said there wasn't a 2.4 version - you are the one claiming that. I
said there will not be a beta version labeled 2.4 and there is not. The
latest version labeled beta is 2.3.99-pre9. The 2.4 version is labeled test,
not beta. 2.3.xx is the label used to identify what is conceptually the 2.4
beta. It is just a simple naming convention. The odd numbered kernels are
by definition alpha and beta versions of the next higher even numbered version.
Gary
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 22:25:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Keith T Williams from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 30 May 2000
21:02:53 -0400
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I think you mean isn't.
>
>I thought he was making a point.
>>
>> On Wed, 31 May 2000 00:01:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >Good one :)
>> >
>> >
>> >On 30 May 2000 21:47:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>> >
>> >>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> Linux training is now offered free of charge at a local community
>collage.
>> >>
>> >>Apparantly spelling isnt.
I think he was, too. Am I?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 22:26:01 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] () from
alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 30 May 2000 20:30:19 GMT
>On Tue, 30 May 2000 16:20:50 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>As for creating software, I was under the impression that BG bought most
>>of the code for DOS, and that the 640K barrier was one of the few things
>>he changed; the original code used a flat memory model. Or maybe it was
>>just that other CP/Ms used a flat memory model, and BG was just looking
>>for the "fastest and cheapest" one. An understandable goal, but still a
>>boneheaded decision.
>
>The 640K limit didn't result from MSDOS' design (or lack of). It is
>because of memory mapped devices such as video sitting between 640K and
>1M.
But which came first, and why do I remember other OSes running on the
same hardware with the "conventional memory" restrictions?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 22:26:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting abraxas from alt.destroy.microsoft; 30 May 2000 21:47:52 GMT
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Linux training is now offered free of charge at a local community collage.
>
>Apparantly spelling isnt.
For a spelling flame, that wasn't too bad. :-)
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Steve White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 21:32:09 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Translation: How much libel do you think you can get away with?
Kong is in Singapore, you twit. Unless he stows away on a container ship
filled with laptop monitor parts, I don't think Fovell has anything to
worry about.
steve
reply to: steve[no space]white at mediaone dot net
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 02:32:16 GMT
brian moore wrote:
>
> On 30 May 2000 16:27:33 -0700,
> bb@bb <bb@bb> wrote:
> > In article <8h0lk5$b9b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > >b) Bridges cost *money*, not just time.
> >
> > I guess then it is true what they say about linux. it is free for those
> > whose time is worthless.
>
> Linux isn't a bridge last I checked.
>
> Never mind that 'free' in Linux isn't about "zero price", it's about
> "freedom".
>
> > Time is money. Are you so worthless that your time is worth nothing?
>
> My time is worth plenty, which is why I'm glad I don't waste it
> rebooting or reinstalling or fighting DLL's....
>
> --
> Brian Moore | Of course vi is God's editor.
> Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting
> Usenet Vandal | for it to load on the seventh day.
> Netscum, Bane of Elves.
I'd have to agree with Brian's comments.
An OS which Blue Screen's indescriminantly is more troublesome
and more time consuming than Linux ever dreamed of being.
See, with Linux there is a FIX for the problem when one occurs
whilst with Microsoft there is a LONG wait for a service pack
before the NEXT Blue Screen and the NEXT LONG WAIT!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 31 May 2000 02:37:03 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think you mean isn't.
1. I do not use apostrophes in contractions. Deja for explanation.
2. [sic]
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Eric Pearson, Perfect Sync Software" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 02:42:16 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >You're right. In the terms I was using, 64k (not 640k) is half of 4G,
> >because 16 bits is half of 32 bits.
>
> Now, when you stray into 64k, I know you're going to far.
I'm not, I promise you! Look at it this way. Let's say you want to access
memory location number 100,000, well inside the 640k or 1MB range. To do that
with a 16-bit processor, which can only directly manipulate numeric values up
to 65,536 (2 to the 16th power) you have to use a "segment number" and an
"offset number". In this case the segment number would be 2 because 100,000
falls within the 2nd segment (block) of 64k, and the offset number would be a
value less than 64k that pointed to the exact location within the second
block. Using segments or "pages" -- effectively "faking" a 32-bit value with
two 16-bit values -- you can access more than 64k of memory, but the overhead
of doing so slows everything down. But at least you can do it, and Intel did
it.
With a 32-bit processor you can process numeric values up to (roughly) 4.3
billion (2 to the 32nd power) so you can "point" directly to any memory
location in a 4GB range, so segments are not necessary. The use of 32-bit
processing makes the *direct* access of 4GB of memory possible. (And by the
way the numbers for 64-bit processors will absolutely blow you away!)
Sorry if I'm repeating something you already know, but some people that are
participating in this discussion pretty clearly don't understand it.
Dang, now you've gone and dragged me back into this thread... {G} That's it,
I'm outa here...
-- Eric
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What the hell is Linux?
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 02:42:05 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If you are a command line junkie and like to manipulate data and
> programs I would tend to agree with you that Linux provides that sort
> of medium.
> If you are a person interested in shrinkwrap applications that are
> powerful and user friendly as well as being the standard in terms of
> data format and general use, Linux is at least 5 years behind Windows.
> >>
I find all of your comments have merit.
Whilst I will still stay on the side of preserving cash as tax
write-off's
are no bargan, I will say I disagree with this one paragraph or so of
text.
Anyone who's tried Mandrake 7.0 {Air} or Suse 6.4 or even Caldera's
latest,
and can still say Linux is 5 years behind W2k must own Microsoft stock
to be
that biased.
I'll say that the KDE desktop on my edition os Suse 6.4 is superior to
W2K in any respect you care to debate.
So I'll open with this argument.
But, since I've used both, I suggest you experience the same first
before
you debate me.
I look forward to a good, honest debate between a modern Microsoft OS
and
a modern Linux distribution.
I find too many times people are citing Linux distributions in their
arguements
which were quite litterally out of the early 90's! I'm not accusing you
of this,
but certainly you can't be making these kinds of comments based off a
current
distribution.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Bill Gates Famous saying!
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 02:46:23 GMT
"640 K is enough for anyone!"
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 31 May 2000 02:47:04 GMT
On Tue, 30 May 2000 19:14:14 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>Yeah, OK, but as soon as those APIs are part of the Java "standard",
>any potential third-party market for those APIs is history, just like
>in the Windows world. Par for the course, I'd say.
But Sun Microsystems do not have exclusive rights to sell implementations
of the standard. You could argue that they have too much control,
but if I'm a third party vendor and I add some API and the spec for that API
is included in the standard, and if I already have a working implementation
of java, then surely, this puts me at an advantage since I have a working
implementation before everyone else.
>>The problem with the MS situation is that they are shutting third parties
>>out and at the same time extending their monopoly product to "include"
>>everything.
>
>How is Microsoft shutting anyone out? Their developer support program
I think you'll have to go ask them. Microsoft themselves have admitted
that their application developers need to work with their OS developers
to bring about the "innovations" that take place there. Third parties
do not have the luxury of direct access to inside information that their
own application developers have.
We also had the recent "smoking gun" involving the palms. Basically, they
don't want their office software to interoperate with competing products.
This is clearly nto something that will benefit consumers.
One of the nice things about a split would be that MS would have to work
with third parties as opposed to sabotaging their efforts.
>Microsoft gives you inexpensive tools, free online documentation, etc.
>As for extending their product, that's what all software companies do.
And they extend their monopoly with it.
>Like what? Remember, even Judge Jackson has ruled that Netscape had
>*NOT* been "shut out".
What do you mean by he "ruled" that ? It seems pretty clear from the
evidence that Microsoft were doing their best to sabotage Netscape's
efforts to make a great product for their operating system.
>>This is not a problem unless you have a monopoly product.
>
>Hardly; it's just the way it is in this business. If company A's
>product relies heavily on another product made by company B, then A
>had better learn to roll with B's changes, monopoly or not. For
Yes, but it's more difficult for company B to "roll with" company A's
changes if company A are using insider information to their advantage.
>the desire to kill Netscape wasn't the only motivation. This is the
>kind of stuff that goes right over Judge Jackson's head.
It's curious how outsiders consider themselves better informed about
the case than the judge, who has heard all of the evidence. That he
does not agree with you does not imply that he's poorly informed, in fact
I have little doubt that he understands the case better than anyone
posting to this forum.
>I'm not sure I understand. Only Microsoft can define what goes into a
>Windows box. What's wrong with that?
I suppose only Microsoft can define what word processor, spreadsheet,
games, image editor, etc we should be able to use as well ? How
much control should Microsoft have over their OS ? Should they be given
so much control that we can only choose between Microsoft, Microsoft
and Microsoft ?
>>I don't think a breakup would be that harmful.
>
>Are you absolutely sure? Do you really think we should risk it?
Oh, here's the "chicken little" argument. Are you really sure that
it would not hurt if we didn't break them up ?
OK, maybe you don't
mind having to choose between Microsoft, Microsoft and Microsoft.
Maybe you don't mind if the market becomes so vertical that Microsoft's
products only work with Microsoft's products. Well, good for you.
Maybe you don't care if everyone except Microsoft goes out of business,
so in the balance, the risk of breaking them up is the only one
that should be considered.
I consider breaking them up to be the lesser of two evils. I don't
see how a break up could hurt them, though it would certainly require
them to learn a few things about co-operating with third parties.
>monopoly power" isn't a law; it's a placeholder, a license for the
>government to invent laws on a case-by-case basis. And that IMHO is an
>extremely dangerous thing.
The government can't "invent" anything. The government can sue under the
law, but the battle must be done in the courts. So in short, no, anti-trust
does not give the *government* a lot of discretionary power, it gives the
courts such power. The courts do indeed have a lot of power ( for example,
the power to provide legally binding interpretations of the constitution )
that's just the way it works.
>Nope. Sorry, but business is war. It's a game played to win. Public
>corporations are required by law to do whatever they can to increase
>shareholder value,
> including toeing the legal line as closely as
>possible. Corporate bloodbaths are routine. Welcome to capitalism.
And so Microsoft did just this. Unfortunately, they've found that if
you step over the line and lose a civil case as a result, it kind
of blows up in your face and the end result is that all of a sudden,
your stock isn't doing so well. There are laws on what you can
and can not do with a monopoly. Civil law is somewhat more arbitrary
than criminal law, and if you "live on the edge" for a long time,
as Microsoft has done, it's only a matter of time before you get
dragged into court. By living on the edge, Microsoft took a calculated
risk, and their gamble didn't pay off. They, like many others,
were dragged into court, and their performance was abysmal.
Moreover, the fact that Microsoft's executives conducted a systematic
and devestating attack on their own credibility really helped
sink them. The result is that instead of getting a slap on the wrist,
they're going to get cut up into little pieces. Welcome to capitalism.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 19:56:11 -0400
From: Joseph <[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?
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:YPMY4.11589$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Well MS used C++ in Windows 2000.
> > >
> > > Not for the OS itself. That's C and ASM.
> >
> > I wouldn't assume this. The main downside to using C++
> > for this stuff is that it tends to produce larger (but faster) code
> > due to all the inlining it supports. MS seems unafraid of larger
> > code. :D
>
> C++ can never be faster than C, since C++ is defined in terms of C (it has
> to be translateable to C for C front ends.
Wrong. C++ isn't restricted to be implemented in C. Just as a Java
application can often be faster than an equal C++ program so can C++ be
faster than an equal C program.
And you cannot talk about C++ without mentioning its benfits over C.
Engineering OO benefits in C is less efficient, not using OO benefits is
playing cards without a full deck. Windows 2000 didn't get to be 30+
million plus lines of code in ASM and C Junior.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 19:57:49 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > But that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft _does_ have a monopoly
> > and charges monopoly prices.
>
> And that is irrelevant.
MS's OS pricing was evidence of its monopoly.
Both relevant and damning.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: 30 May 2000 21:55:35 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
J French <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 May 2000 20:30:19 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>() wrote:
>
>>
>>The 640K limit didn't result from MSDOS' design (or lack of). It is
>>because of memory mapped devices such as video sitting between 640K and
>>1M.
>>
>
>640k was also (coincidentally) 10 times the size of the 64k TPA of 8
>bit CP/M - realistically the PC's limit was 1mb - they could have gone
>for a larger base memory and reduced the 360k 'wasted' space (assuming
>they had any input into the design of the PC - ie screen mapping and
>ROM BIOS locations)
The workaround for a too-small address space was well known back in
the 8 bit days. You just needed a way to page a chunk at a time of
additional banks of memory into the CPU's address space. How long
did it take Microsoft to catch on again?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
