Linux-Advocacy Digest #277, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 13:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Neil Cerutti)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski)
Re: Number of Linux Users (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future.
(Roberto Alsina)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski)
Re: It's all about the microsurfs (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Bob Hauck)
Re: It's all about the microsurfs (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: It's all about the microsurfs (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Bob Hauck)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti)
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: 23 Jun 2000 16:11:28 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henry Blaskowski posted:
>In talk.politics.libertarian Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This created SEVERE economic hardship upon ANYONE trying to
>> sell competing products...becuase even if you bought DR-DOS
>> rather than MS-DOS, you still paid $100 to Microsoft, and even
>> if you bought Corel Office, you were STILL charged for
>> Microsoft office.
>
>Do you even understand how business works? Microsoft said, if
>you want our product at a discount, you have to agree to sell a
>copy with every machine you sell. You are free to buy it at
>full price, or you can get it at a discount with conditions.
You have failed to see the implications of what you have just
written. If the computer system you are selling, which contains
exactly the same hardware and software as a competitor's product
which costs hundreds of dollars less, what do suppose will happen
to your business? Further, as a result of your choice, Micros~1
will with-hold the documentation you that you need to use to
create a properly configured system in time to beat your
competitors to the market with the latest Micros~1 offering.
So, your product costs more, is not configured properly, and gets
to market later than your competitors product.
Some choice.
>My grocery store does a similar thing to me all the time, but
>you don't hear anyone running around crying "monopoly".
Your grocer forces you to pay $200 for a 200lb bag of hog-balls
with your regular groceries, even though you don't want them?
--
Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In Windows, there's some good thing, some bad thing and some very bad thing.
In Linux, there's some bad thing, some good thing and some very good thing.
-- Robert L.
------------------------------
From: Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 23 Jun 2000 16:38:02 GMT
In talk.politics.libertarian George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>I disagree. I think that in a lot of cases, what you have is not
>>"voluntary, informed consent". I think Microsoft have thrown their
>>wieghht around and used coercion, and I believe the evidence presented
>>in the trial makes this pretty clear.
> Andy Grove of Intel was apparently furious when MS muscled Intel into
> killing off their program to make JAVA run much faster on Intel CPUs.
Notice the use of loaded language here... "muscled". Please explain
how the CEO of MS has more power over Intel than the CEO of Intel.
If this is really true, Andy Grove should be immediately fired for
incompetence.
> And since that makes me waste a ton of time, makes millions waste a
> ton of time, causes the govt to lose billions in taxes from production
> burned up by this purposeful destruction of productivity, don't we
> have an interest in that "voluntary" decision?
No, you don't, because you didn't produce either product. You
are free to purchase other computers if you are unhappy with the
ones from those companies. Reality is, it's a non-issue. You
are using it as a smokescreen to try to have your personal opinions
enforced in federal court.
>>Whether or not something is a monopoly is not determined by the number
>>of competitors, so in this instance you and the person you are replying to
>>are both wrong.
> The judge describes the legal standard:
An immoral and arbitrary legal standard....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: 23 Jun 2000 11:35:07 -0500
In article <8ive4a$oo2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Davorin Mestric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>and of course, ten downloads, ( or even ten sales) can result in zero
>installations. this is much less likely with NT.
>
>most of the linux cd-s are burned because it is free and people want to
>check it out. after that, it is left on a separate partition and never
>booted into again.
Not around here... It is on the production web servers because
we couldn't keep NT running. Win2k looks a bit more promising
in terms of not flat-out crashing the machine, but we have already
had an instance of having to stop and restart IIS 5 because
it wasn't actually doing what the dialog boxes said it should
be doing - and it did start doing it after the restart so it
was not a configuration error.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future.
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:29:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2000 00:51:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:57:01 -0400, PowerUser
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >>>LINUX IS HERE TO STAY, AND AT THE RATE THAT IT IS
GROWING/DEVELOPING,
> >>>IT WILL BE THE MAJOR OS OF THE FUTURE.
> >>
> >>As long as .3 percent of total market share is what you are looking
> >>for, I would say you are right on track.
> >
> >In the business world, Linux market share is probably 30% --
> >one hundred times the .3% figure repeatedly posted by our
> >resident liar, Steve/Mike/Simon (for which he never gives
> >a reference).
>
> 30 PERCENT!!!! ???
>
> What kind of drugs are you on? You'd be hard pressed to find a single
> secratary in NYC that is running Linux on her desktop.
Well, it's a matter of knowing where to look.
Say, if Red Hat has a NY office, it would be a good place.
I know everyone in all office of Conectiva use Linux (but we don't have
a NY office).
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 23 Jun 2000 16:40:21 GMT
In talk.politics.libertarian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>But "using your weight" isn't really a crime, or shouldn't be.
> Abuse of power should certainly be a crime.
Which is why I think the judge in this case should be jailed for
crimes against freedom of contract. Because if he can interfere
in a voluntary consensual contract of two business, morally this
is no different than his right for me and you to agree to split
dinner, even if one of us ordered a more expensive entree. It
is the same issue, the same morality.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:37:59 -0500
[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?
>
You know you seem to keep jumping on this same point over and over
again. It always comes back to Windows with you. Some people have a
need for big iron. That's not a problem, that's a fact. Windows can't
handle mainframe/mini-computer duties. It wasn't designed that way.
You can't steer a conversation about mainframe and mini computers into a
Windows conversation. To do so insults the intelligence of those
involved in the conversation. I for one do know what these people are
talking about. I am extremely interested in hearing about it, because I
have worked with S/390's in other businesses and would love to see Linux
on one. You amaze me. A few posts up you were almost making sense.
Now, right back to jumping on anything even remotely cool about Linux.
And on top of it, trying to turn a mainframe/mini-computer conversation
into a Windows one.
Sad, sad little Wintroll.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
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: 23 Jun 2000 16:44:35 GMT
In article <8ivsh2$qs4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In talk.politics.libertarian Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> When everyone is offered a discount, it's no longer a discount, it's
>> something that becomes a must-have if you want to compete. Microsoft's
>> threat to remove these "discounts" is, because of their power, essentially
>> a threat to put the company in question out of business ( especially in
>> more extreme cases where they threatened to refuse to distribute Windows
>> to the OEM, period )
>
>> Clearly, threatening to put an OEM out of business is a restraint of trade.
>
>They produce a product. Other people want it. Does the other people
>wanting it imply that the other people own it? Or do you think the
>producer owns it and should be able to set the terms for it's release?
>will you apply the same principles to your life?
This illustrates the *actual* policy of Libertarianism:
not free markets and prevention of people from harming
one another, but rather, supporting whatever deceptive,
coercive, and harmful actions are done by big business,
whose wealthy owners *finance* the Libertarian publica-
tions and "think-tanks" (propaganda mills).
------------------------------
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: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:53:02 GMT
On 23 Jun 2000 03:01:55 GMT, Henry Blaskowski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In talk.politics.libertarian Bob Hauck <[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.
>> 1. The author starts with the premise that "social choice" is the
>> correct economic theory to use to evaluate anti-trust laws.
>> It is not at all surprising then when he concludes
>> that anti-trust actions are driven by the special interests that
>> benefit from them.
>
>I lean in this same direction, for a very simple reason. When in
>doubt, leave people alone.
Ok, but that wasn't the point I was making. To reiterate, my point is
that the author starts by very nearly presupposing the conclusion that
he his trying to prove. His favorite economic theory assumes that the
government in general is driven by special interests, and lo and behold
he manages to prove that the special case of anti-trust enforcement is
driven by special interests.
>> 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.
>I think this is a symptom of the resiliance of the market. Yes,
>we get over these bad decisions and go on, but again, it seems that
>the burden of proof should weigh heavily on those who wish to interfere
>with voluntary peaceful consensual agreements, because otherwise, there
>really is nothing off limits.
But the author has not really proven that the decisions were bad. The
studies he cites by his own admission start with the same ideological
premise that he does. The nature of this ideology, which boils down to
"government action is bad", makes it very unlikely that any study by a
believer could ever prove that government intervention was warranted.
Therefore, the studies are not scientific, as the outcome is all but
pre-ordained. More mainstream economists cite other studies, which may
or may not prove anything, but certainly cast doubt that there is One
True Answer.
Further, "voluntary" is not a binary state. There are degrees of
voluntary and one can argue about how "voluntary" an agreement was.
That's one of the issues in most anit-trust cases, that someone had no
real choice but to agree to something. I am not one who believes that
coercion is only enabled by threats of violence.
As for the "resilience of the market", as I said to someone else, in
the long run the market will correct, but we are also all dead.
>> 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.
>All true monopolies are government sponsored/enforced.
Well, by putting the word "true" in there, you are saying that this is
the case "by definition", so there isn't much I can argue against.
I'll just say that I don't agree that only "true" monopolies exist.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>
>20% is 1 in five. That is a lot of competitors. It is not a monopoly.
You mean not a "true" monopoly, as you previously defined it. And that
is correct, it was not government sponsored. But your definition makes
it impossible to claim that anything else is a monopoly, by definition.
I find it hard to believe that a situation of one Goliath and eight
dwarves is healthy and won't lead to consumer harm at some point. But
that wasn't my point. My point was that the author quoting what was
happening at the end of the trial as representative of what was
happening at the start is a seriously misrepresenting the true
situation. The trial itself had an effect on the market, as we have
seen in the Microsoft case as well.
Basically, I don't think this author proved his case and I don't think
the methods he used are "Reason". It is simply an ideological essay.
Pure wholesome entertainment, but not science.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:54:51 GMT
On 23 Jun 2000 09:33:26 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
>> You completely missed my point. Of course non-blocking I/O is defined
>> not to wait. Duh. My point is that on more advanced systems, you don't
>> _do_ non-blocking I/O.
>Linux has had POSIX ascynch/IO for quite a while now (at least a
>year).
Yeah, but he doesn't count that because he doesn't like the
implementation.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:47:46 -0500
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:27:24 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I take it you think you are assuming that Microsoft just gives away
> >thier software? The software cost is about $100, or at least that's the
> >amount of money the OEM will usually nock off of your purchase if you
> >tell them you don't need Windows.
>
> Proof please? Prepare a list of OEM's who stock low-end computers and
> offer both Windows and non-Windows, but otherwise equivalent, systems, and
> charges $100 more for the equivalently equipped computer with Windows. A
> URL will suffice as evidence.
>
> However, the price tag of Windows is almost completely transferable to
> Linux. As you know, the OEM, and not Microsoft, supports Windows. This is
> extremely costly. As a price point, Red Hat charges $80 for their
> offerring with three month's support, so the cost of putting Linux with
> three month's support is $80, which is barely less than the alleged $100
> figure for Windows. The $20 difference may be a big deal if computers
> reach sub-$100 prices, but at the current prices of sub-$400 and up, it is
> irrelevant.
>
> I don't have evidence of how much Microsoft charges for WIndows licenses,
> and neither do you, but the figure I hear thrown around is $5-$10. Nobody
> knows excepts the OEM's and Microsofts as this is highly confidential
> information, but someone who is resourceful enough can probably come up
> with a reasonable ASP estimate, based on the number of PC's sold last
> year, coupled with the publically available information on Microsoft's
> business.
>
> As a back of the envelope calculation, there were half a billion PC's
> shipped in the past five years, which @ $100, would be $50 billion for
> Microsoft. Their total revenue during that period was a little bit more
> than that, but Windows is far from their only business.
OEMs don't typically post the price of a machine without Windows (and
I'm talking about softwareless, not just loaded with something else).
You can call Gateway and they will tell you (as they told me when I
ordered last) that you will have between $90 (for win9x) and $150 (for
winnt) knocked off of the price if you get it without software.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:51:17 -0500
Charles Philip Chan wrote:
>
> >>>>> "tsm@palindrome" == tsm@palindrome org <([EMAIL PROTECTED])> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:27:24 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> I take it you think you are assuming that Microsoft just gives
> >> away thier software? The software cost is about $100, or at
> >> least that's the amount of money the OEM will usually nock off
> >> of your purchase if you tell them you don't need Windows.
>
> Didn't that come out in the trial? Please go and read the trial
> transcripts.
>
> > Proof please? Prepare a list of OEM's who stock low-end
> > computers and offer both Windows and non-Windows, but otherwise
> > equivalent, systems, and charges $100 more for the equivalently
> > equipped computer with Windows. A URL will suffice as evidence.
>
> Up until the trial you can't get a low end OEM machine with no
> Windows. It is part of the agreement with OEM that they can't ship a
> PC without Windows. There were many complaints in the US, Europe and
> Australia.
>
Some of the smaller OEMs may have practiced this, but I know that
Gateway (when I worked there) and Dell would sell you machines without
Windows. I think the money they took off was probably for the other
software that they weren't selling you (Office, Games, Other third party
software). More than likely you were still paying for Windows itself,
you just wouldn't recieve it.
> > However, the price tag of Windows is almost completely
> > transferable to Linux. As you know, the OEM, and not Microsoft,
> > supports Windows. This is extremely costly. As a price point,
> > Red Hat charges $80 for their offerring with three month's
> > support, so the cost of putting Linux with three month's support
> > is $80, which is barely less than the alleged $100 figure for
> > Windows. The $20 difference may be a big deal if computers reach
> > sub-$100 prices, but at the current prices of sub-$400 and up,
> > it is irrelevant.
>
> Yes Redhat is 80 dollars for the deluxe version, which is really
> expensive compared to other distros, but you can install it on as many
> machines as you want. Linux distros have no Server or per seat
> lisenses.
>
> Charles
Many companies that are now selling Linux will sell you a version of it
burned to CD and not transfer the cost of the full version to you. Now,
Dell is still charging more for Linux than for Windows (which I do not
understand in the least), but some other OEMs are starting to charge
less for Linux installs. Hopefully this trend will continue.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:58:24 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 06:01:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In fact, I'd say that a majority of Unix programmers I know are
>completely dumbfounded by the sight of assembly language on their native
>machine.
I'd say that a majority of programmers in general are dumbfounded by
the sight of the assembly language of any machine. This is not a Unix
specific disease (if it is a disease). Your trying to portray it as
such is, well, silly.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 23 Jun 2000 11:52:56 -0500
In article <8j03tl$14co$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In talk.politics.libertarian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>>But "using your weight" isn't really a crime, or shouldn't be.
>
>> Abuse of power should certainly be a crime.
>
>Which is why I think the judge in this case should be jailed for
>crimes against freedom of contract. Because if he can interfere
>in a voluntary consensual contract of two business, morally this
>is no different than his right for me and you to agree to split
>dinner, even if one of us ordered a more expensive entree. It
>is the same issue, the same morality.
And so is your right to sell yourself into slavery, or sell
your body as a prostitute, or sell drugs at some agreed-upon
price. These, and abusing the power of a monopoly just
happen to be illegal.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:00:32 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 06:11:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The case of a scheduler is a particularly interesting case, as the
>running time of the scheduler itself is almost entirely irrelevant, but
>the optimiality of its results is what to measure.
Huh? The scheduler will be run dozens or hundreds of times per second
on a busy machine. I would say running time counts for something. If
it takes three seconds to schedule a job, that's not a good thing.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
