Linux-Advocacy Digest #261, Volume #27 Thu, 22 Jun 00 20:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Bob Hauck)
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager (Gary Hallock)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (Bob Hauck)
Re: Processing data is bad! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: It's all about the microsurfs (Gary Hallock)
Re: It's all about the microsurfs (Gary Hallock)
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Processing data is bad! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: It's all about the microsurfs ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Windows, Easy to Use? ("TimL")
Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs? (Aaron
Kulkis)
Re: Linux is awesome! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is awesome! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:25:43 GMT
On 22 Jun 2000 21:53:42 GMT, Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In talk.politics.libertarian Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Liberty requires freedom from the initiation of force and fraud.
>
>> It seems very clear that Microsoft has committed fraud against
>> competitors, customers, and end users alike. (Examples abound in the
>
>I know you think this an obvious fact, but I have yet to see anything
>that MS did that differs significantly from what every other
>successful business in the US does. Feel free to 'rehash' this
Who else has been able to effect end user choice on such
a wide scale? Who else has such an "essential facility"
such that they could get away with such a thing. The
practical realities of compatible communciations
mechanisms make Microsoft's position quite different than
the vast majority of businesses with the exception of a
few that are either heavily regulated as accepted monopolies
or a few that are undergoing the same prosecution as MS is.
>issue, since it has never been 'hashed' in the first place.
>
>> compatible with the notion of free markets, which require the freedom
>> on the part of both buyer and seller to give *informed* consent and to
>> enter into transactions that each side reasonably believes to be to
>> its benefit.
>
>This is a new claim. Are you saying that Dell didn't know what
>Microsoft was offering? That their lawyers couldn't figure out
>the terms of the deal? Do you have evidence of this?
It would be more accurate to call what Microsoft did extortion.
They exploited the inherent qualities of software to pressure
those that did not act as they wanted. This makes Microsoft's
position rather unusual.
>
>> In light of this, it is hard to see why so many alleged libertarians
>> are willing to exonerate Microsoft. If you're willing to let a
>> Microsoft, or any other entity, initiate fraud against other persons
>> or entities with impunity, you can't pretend to be a supporter of free
>> markets or of freedom in general. It's a self-contradictory position.
>
>Because it's not fraud. MS customer's knew exactly what they were
>getting. That's not fraud.
They did after enough people actually bought the product and were
able to communicate amongst themselves what it was that Microsoft
had actually produced. The fact remains that Microsoft quite often
promises and doesn't quite deliver.
Although, any of that is really PR after the fact to deflect attention
from the fact that for most users the purchase of Microsoft was never
a choice. It was either the only option available or one necessary to
ensure the ability to effectively compute due to network effects.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:27:58 GMT
On 22 Jun 2000 22:00:25 GMT, Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>>
>>>Microsoft's practice, as a monopoly, of denying computer
>>>vendors the ability to sell Windows, if they sold any other
>>>operating system too, is an outrageous and illegal restraint
>>>of free trade.
>>
>> Hmm ... you know, I don't recall any Ford dealer
>> that sells new Chevys too. Could it be that MS
>> was simply following a common business practice ?
...not to mention: the world's largest Ford dealership
also sells Chryslers, Jeeps, Nissans, Izuzus, Mitsubishis
as well as a few other brands of cars.
>
>These are computer *hardware* vendors being coerced, not
>Microsoft Software stores.
>
>That's illegal, and with good reason.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:15:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Open /dev via kfm and time how long it takes for the gear to stop
> spinning.......
Why bother with ancient software? Open it with konqueror and you can't
time it. or open it with kruiser and you can't time it.
Besides, just curious: why open /dev in the first place?
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:23:02 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:07:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher
> Browne) wrote:
>
> >KDE is _NOT_ a window manager.
>
> Call it whatever you want... it's still a pathetic clone of the
> Windows 9x style UI that's ugly and slow.
According to http://dictionary.cambridge.org/:
clone:
a plant or animal which has the same genes as the original from which it
was produced Although two clones are identical genetically, they may
develop in different ways.
(especially disapproving) A clone is also someone or something that
looks very much like someone or something else.
She's just another blond-haired, red-lipped Marilyn Monroe clone.
(specialized) A clone is also a computer that operates in a very similar
way to the one that it was copied from.
There is a market for well-made clone PCs with respected consumer brand
names.
Since KDE has no genes and is not a computer, I suppose you mean the
second meaning.
In either case, congratulations, you just called windows ugly. Hope you
buy a Mac next time.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:40:20 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:11:28 GMT, MK
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I quoted the text of the article. I don't have link, but you can find
>it on site of Reason magazine, http://www.reason.com.
Went and read it. There's a lot to disagree with there.
1. The author starts with the premise that "social choice" is the
correct economic theory to use to evaluate anti-trust laws. According
to the article, this theory assumes that government action is driven by
whichever interest groups have access to the government. Apparently it
is not possible for the government to actually do anything on behalf of
the public good and government power is "bad" while corporate power is
at least "not bad". It is not at all surprising then when he concludes
that anti-trust actions are driven by the special interests that
benefit from them.
2. The author states that few or no anti-trust actions have benefitted
the consumer and that the only beneficiaries were the competitors of
the company the action was taken against. However, this does not prove
that the anti-trust actions in question were ineffective, since we
cannot know what harm may have come to the consumer had the action not
been taken. At the very least, he does not argue that these actions
hurt the consumer and since competitors did benefit one could argue
that there was indeed an indirect benefit to the consumer and to the
market process even in the abscence of direct consumer benefits.
3. The author states that government-regulated monopolies (e.g. phone
companies, utilities) aren't to be counted in the success vs failure of
anti-trust legislation. Yet that is exactly the way that many
monopolies have been regulated. They weren't often government
sponsored at the start after all, they were brought under regulation
later. Therefore not counting them skews the real results.
He also makes some mis-statements of history. For instance, he says
that Standard Oil had eight competitors at the time it was broken up.
This is true, but it also technically had competitors during it's whole
history. They split 20% of the market amongst themselves so I have a
hard time seeing Standard Oil as "not a monopoly" as our author would
like us to.
By the time Standard Oil was broken up, the case had dragged on for
years and competition was strengthened just because of that (somewhat
like what has happened with MS). The desired result of improved
competiton might have happened regardless of the final outcome, but I
would not count that as a reason not to pursue anti-trust cases.
I could go on, but I think that hits the highlights. Mostly, it smacks
of the same sort of simplistic ideological analysis as much of what
comes out of the Cato Institute.
>Equality requires slavery.
An interesting position.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:43:41 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
>
> Actually, you can configure KDE1 to use the left button on root window
> for the menu. It's just not available from the GUI.
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Thanks, I'll give that a try.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:46:39 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:08:03 -0400, z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>
>>Microsoft's practice, as a monopoly, of denying computer
>>vendors the ability to sell Windows, if they sold any other
>>operating system too, is an outrageous and illegal restraint
>>of free trade.
>
> Hmm ... you know, I don't recall any Ford dealer
> that sells new Chevys too.
Maybe because they are selling Toyotas and Hondas instead? You must not
be paying attention if you think most dealers have only one line.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:48:57 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:58:32 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:14:34 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Yea but Windows GUI looks and works well.
> >> >
> >> >You've obviously never used X11
> >>
> >> Sure have and it looks like shit and is slow as shit.
> >>
> >> This applies to both Intel platforms and RS 6000 platforms.
> >
> >
> >RS 6000 is shit.
> >>
> >> it makes my eyes tear.....
> >
> >Obviously you're running on lousy graphics hardware.
>
> Matrox G400 isn't lousy..
>
> X11 is lousy....
>
> Linux gui looks like crap....
Suppose I say that a Porsche looks like crap....
What relevance is such a statement?
Answer: NONE.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:48:57 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Great info?
>
> So now you Linonuts want to emulate a 3505/3525 and a 1403?
>
> It would probably be an improvement based on the state of Linux today.
>
You seem to have totally missed the point, but then why should I be surprised?
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:52:22 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Linux and punched cards are a match made in heaven.
>
> Oh yea, one other thing. What's with all the S/390 crap? Do you think
> anyone in this group even knows what you are talking about? Or is that
> the only feature of Linux you can find that Windows doesn't have?
>
Actually, I have found a lot of people in this group know about S/390. As
far as machine architectures, Windows has x86. Need I list again the many
machine architectures that Linux supports?
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:53:29 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:15:36 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Open /dev via kfm and time how long it takes for the gear to stop
>> spinning.......
>
>Why bother with ancient software? Open it with konqueror and you can't
>time it. or open it with kruiser and you can't time it.
Because kfm comes with the stock distribution. I can get better file
managers for Windows also, but I benchmarked stock Windows against
stock Linux, and it ain't even close.
>Besides, just curious: why open /dev in the first place?
It has a lot of files :)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:56:01 GMT
In relation to Windows or a Mac but you already knew that didn't you.
Typical Linonut semantic games to diffuse the subject.
Linux gui looks like shit when displaying say Corel Office. Real boxy
looking.
Sure the themes look good but the applications look like shit.
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:48:57 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:58:32 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:14:34 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yea but Windows GUI looks and works well.
>> >> >
>> >> >You've obviously never used X11
>> >>
>> >> Sure have and it looks like shit and is slow as shit.
>> >>
>> >> This applies to both Intel platforms and RS 6000 platforms.
>> >
>> >
>> >RS 6000 is shit.
>> >>
>> >> it makes my eyes tear.....
>> >
>> >Obviously you're running on lousy graphics hardware.
>>
>> Matrox G400 isn't lousy..
>>
>> X11 is lousy....
>>
>> Linux gui looks like crap....
>
>Suppose I say that a Porsche looks like crap....
>
> What relevance is such a statement?
>
>
>Answer: NONE.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:58:32 GMT
I see 3505/1403/3525 in a sentence in any group other than computer
antiques and let's tell war stories, and I ignore it.
It's hysterical though to see Linonuts orgasming over this stuff. I'm
surprised you haven't had requests for a couple of them for some High
School on a budget interested in running Linux.
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:48:57 -0400, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Great info?
>>
>> So now you Linonuts want to emulate a 3505/3525 and a 1403?
>>
>> It would probably be an improvement based on the state of Linux today.
>>
>
>You seem to have totally missed the point, but then why should I be surprised?
>
>Gary
------------------------------
From: "TimL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Windows, Easy to Use?
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:02:52 GMT
Ah, another loveley afternoon dealing with a Windows Protection Fault.
Does Windows give any indication as to why? No.
Does Windows let you see what the OS is loading as it loads? No.
If you do a logged boot does the log file ever get written? No. (Not w/ a
protection error)
I've posted about this before and someone said its usually bad hardware. BS.
In every case I've seen its been corrupted *something*. Corrupted what?
Who knows, windows never gives any indication. Damn, if it did we'd
probably know more than MS wants us to know about how its OS works.
Fortunately I did finally figure out it was a corrupt NIC driver. But windows was
absolutely no help.
FSCK MS! :)
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs?
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:04:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:00:25 -0400, Flacco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >
> >Can Linux do this?
> >
> >We would like to put some "obsolete" hardware to use as web browser kiosks.
> >We have Win95 and IE installed on them now, but I though I'd give Linux a
> >try.
>
> Your better off sticking with Win.
You mis-spelled "lose"
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:07:12 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:06:17 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Look them up and that will give you a slight clue as to how long I
>>>have been in this (the computer) business.
>>>
>>>You most likely weren't even born yet...
>>
>>And yet, your daughter only just entered high school? Not a very quick
>>learner, is she? ;-))
>What are you talking about?
Your claim that you have been in the computer business longer than the
people you are talking to have been alive.
>I'm 42yo?
Good question. What's the answer?
And another question --- at what age did you enter the computer
business? The combination of those two answers should shed light on
how old you consider other people to be...
>Back then hardware wasn't being replaced by the minute like today and
>while I wasn't working when it was built and designed, I saw quite a
>bit of it still around even into the early 1990's.
>A famous newspaper in NYC still uses a 3525 cardreader/punch to run
>it's payroll.
>You need to get into the real world Bernie :)
Says the person who somehow insinuated that his knowledge of this sort
of hardware somehow showed how long he had been in the business....
Is it just me, or are you undermining your very own point here? I mean,
if the hardware is still contemporary, then how does your knowledge of
it say anything about your level of experience?
Bernie
--
Get the advice of everybody whose advice is worth having --- they
are very few --- and then do what you think best yourself
C.S. Parnell
Irish Nationalist leader, 1846-91
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Date: 23 Jun 2000 03:32:48 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:06:19 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>I don't know about Mark, but the reason *I* am using linux is simply
>>that it works, and does the things I want from an OS, mostly the way
>>I want them done (and where the differences between my wants and what
>>linux does are really irking me, I *can* [and do] roll my own).
>That's fair enough. Most Windows users however are not interested in
>rolling their own. Henceforth the vast number of shrinkwrap
>applications on the market.
I was thinking more in terms of lower level stuff --- If I don't like
the keyboard bindings an installation comes with, I simply change
them. If I don't like the way the keyboard is handled, I change
it. If the latest version of the scanner driver software, when
installed on a particular machine, claims I have no scanner, I track
it down to a typo in the legacy code designed to handle outdated
kernels, and fix it. When I write a program that manages to monopolize
the CPU when run by an ordinary user, I look at why this happens,
change it, and send a bug report to the kernel maintainers.
I understand that most Windows users feel little urge to do any of that
sort of stuff, either --- which, unfortunately, means that it doesn't
get done at all, and people who actually *would* prefer things to work
in a slightly different way are stuck with what they have.
However, *I* most certainly *do* feel those urges, and thus *I* go with
a platform that *does* allow me to change things I don't like. And, of
course, of the range of such platforms, I choose one that already does
things a lot like I want them to be done, anyway.
I have programmed computers for almost 2/3 of my life, and I am currently
finishing a PhD in CS. I have designed and soldered together multiprocessor
systems a decade ago, and programmed them from the ground up. I also have
just one subject left to complete an EE degree, and delight in reviving
what most people consider "obsolete" or "incompatible" hardware. Given
this background, there are few things more infuriating to me than being
presented with a piece of "user friendly" software that just doesn't
work --- and not being able to do anything about it.
Bernie
--
When choosing between two evils I always like to take the one
I've never tried before
Mae West
American Actress, 1892-1980
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
