Linux-Advocacy Digest #289, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 18:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh ("George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.")
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451719 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Software
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451719 (EdWIN)
Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs? ("ckeough")
Re: Processing data is bad! ("A V Flinsch")
Re: Linux, easy to use? (David Steinberg)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451719 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451719 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451719 (tinman)
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (Sam E. Trenholme)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[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: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:16:31 -0500
Henry Blaskowski wrote:
>
> In talk.politics.libertarian Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Again, even if we choose to purchase a PC with something other than MS,
> > we still have to pay for the MS product. How is this "right"? Why does
> > MS have the right to charge me for something I don't want to use?
>
> It's not "right", it's false. I have a friend who bought a Mac,
> and he didn't have to pay for Windows. When I bought my PC, I
> didn't pay for any MS products, and it is even easier today to
> do the same.
>
> I suspect what you want is the right to buy a mass-market machine
> that is cheap because of the economies of scale that MS helped
> bring to the market, and all the associated benefits of those
> mass-market machines, without having to use the system that made
> it so cheap. Well, guess what. Life is full of choices. If
> someone creates a distribution channel that makes something
> cheap and easily available, and you use that channel to get
> something cheap and easily available, you don't get to complain
> about it. Because you still have the same choices you did as
> if MS didn't exist: you can buy a Mac, you can search out a
> dealer that will sell you a machine with an unformatted drive,
> you can buy a Sun workstation, or you can go without a computer.
> But you don't get to complain about the people who brought it
> to you fast, cheap, and easy if that's what you choose.
Since I don't have time to point out every detail of how stupid that
argument sounds let me just say this:
If I want to buy a GM car with goodyear tires, I do not have to pay
Firestone for the tires they didn't provide. If I want to buy a
computer from Gateway/Dell/Micron/etc up until this past year I would
have had to pay Microsoft wether I used that system or not. The fact
that I could buy a Mac is irrelevant if what I wanted was a Dell. That
is my argument. If you go out of your way to change the circumstances I
am talking about, you are arguing around the problem, and not facing the
real situation I am trying to show you. Even if I purchased a machine a
year or more ago with a formatted/unformatted/non-loaded drive I would
have had to pay MS for the priveledge of buying a computer. This to me
is not right. If you think MS has the right to make me pay for
something I am not using say so, otherwise bow out. Don't try to tell
me that my argument isn't the only solution. It was the only solution a
year or more ago if I wanted an X86 machine from one of the aforemention
system vendors.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
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 16:15:56 -0500
In article <8j0gon$1coo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In talk.politics.libertarian Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Again, even if we choose to purchase a PC with something other than MS,
>> we still have to pay for the MS product. How is this "right"? Why does
>> MS have the right to charge me for something I don't want to use?
>
>It's not "right", it's false. I have a friend who bought a Mac,
>and he didn't have to pay for Windows. When I bought my PC, I
>didn't pay for any MS products, and it is even easier today to
>do the same.
>
>I suspect what you want is the right to buy a mass-market machine
>that is cheap because of the economies of scale that MS helped
>bring to the market, and all the associated benefits of those
>mass-market machines, without having to use the system that made
>it so cheap.
Economies of scale may have made the machines cheap to manufacture,
but the reason the purchase price is low to the consumer is that
every component can be replaced by something from a different
vendor and is sold competitively. MS took advantage of this
situation - they didn't create it. The problem is that there
was no such plug compatibility on the software side and thus
no competition.
>Because you still have the same choices you did as
>if MS didn't exist: you can buy a Mac, you can search out a
>dealer that will sell you a machine with an unformatted drive,
>you can buy a Sun workstation, or you can go without a computer.
Why should you have to 'search out' a low volume dealer to
avoid paying for a software bundle?
>But you don't get to complain about the people who brought it
>to you fast, cheap, and easy if that's what you choose.
Of course we can complain. And if you read the vendor depositions
you'll find they do too.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:21:47 -0700
On 23 Jun 2000 16:38:02 GMT, Henry Blaskowski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Since this is false, I can not "explain" it.
>If this is really true, Andy Grove should be immediately fired for
>incompetence.
False.
>
>> 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.
I have an interest. That you think not is false. See: antitrust laws
of USA.
There are many examples of govt limiting agreements for the common
good. A speeder can not pay a cop to not ticket him. So that "my"
interest in safe roads can be upheld.
Same sort of thing here. MS can not use its power to hurt my economy
any more than the rich driver can use his money to hurt my roads.
So your answer was not true.
You
>are free to purchase other computers if you are unhappy with the
>ones from those companies.
So what?
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.
My personal opinion is the conclusion reached by an impartial judge
weighing all the facts against the law.
My opinion is that we can arrange business law to promote good
business. Just as we can arrange the rules of the road to promote good
road safety.
>
>>>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....
You concede then that MS broke the law. Progress.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451719
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 21:23:41 GMT
Here's today's Thorne digest:
1> Tholen tholed:
On what basis do you make that claim, Thorne?
1> Open your eyes, Dave.
You're erroneously presupposing that they are not open, Thorne.
1> Typical pontification.
Incorrect, Thorne, given the presence of an explanation.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Software
Date: 23 Jun 2000 17:37:04 -0400
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:06:17 GMT, David Cancio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ Ridiculous formatting corrected ]
>The fact than till non free companies (such as Caldera, SuSE,
>etc ...) got to GNU/Linux market, it was not seen as a desktop
>user does mean one thing : desktop market needs a lot of attention
>and let's say time, that none other than a commercial company can
>achieve (even now, GNU/Linux still lacks some things as desktop
>option).
The presence of these non-free companies on the Linux market did
not cause the attempt to put Linux on the desktop. In fact, it
was Linus Torvalds, not some Linux company CEO, that was telling
Linux developers some time ago that they should be more concerned
with making Linux a viable desktop platform than with making it
competitive with commercial Unix. I'm not sure, though, whether
this happened before or after KDE started getting written, but that
didn't have anything to do with commercial companies trying to sell
Linux either.
The only effect that non-free companies had was to cause the desktop
effort to spinter. If the commercial widget library Qt didn't exist,
KDE would have had to have been based on GTK, and if this happened,
people objecting to KDE's reliance on non-free software wouldn't
have started writing GNOME.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451719
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:37:53 -0700
The Tholenator tholed at full tholeniscity:
>Here's today's Thorne digest:
Posting for entertainment purposes again, Dave? How typical.
>1> Tholen tholed:
>
>On what basis do you make that claim, Thorne?
Don't you know?
>1> Open your eyes, Dave.
>
>You're erroneously presupposing that they are not open, Thorne.
Prove it, if you think you can.
>1> Typical pontification.
>
>Incorrect, Thorne, given the presence of an explanation.
You're erroneously presupposing the presense of an explanation.
Meanwhile, where is your logical argument? Why, nowhere to be
seen!
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: "ckeough" <[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: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:29:52 -0600
OH No !!!!, the kernel has alot to do with he speed, comming with dozens of
drivers and stuff you dont need. I ve gotten alot of speed increase from
recompiling you moron.
------------------------------
From: "A V Flinsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 21:42:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> MSOffice doesn't take over your desktop, all it does it put a toolbar up
> which you can choose to eliminate.
The original post was about "extreme bloat", on which you were shown that
the "bloat" was not exactly extreme. Now you pick on something else.
Anyway you are WRONG.
While it is true that StarOffice has the ability to take over your entire
desktop, there is also a menu pick to set the inrtegrated desktop off, and
another to set the application to fullscreen.
I guess that you never used the product. Or if you did, you never bothered
to explore any of the features.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 23 Jun 2000 21:47:42 GMT
Pete Goodwin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: It gets worse. If you ask a secretary for a rubber what reaction do you
: think you'll get? Here in the UK, you'll get an eraser. In America, I
: dunno, would you get a condom?
I think you'd probably get a sexual harassment complaint, and maybe a
slap, too... :)
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451719
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 21:49:42 GMT
Here's today's Malloy digest. Note how he still avoids the issue about
his alleged reciprocation. He clearly claimed that I lied when I noted
that he didn't reciprocate when I ignored him for over a year. He clearly
claimed that he reciprocated. Yes, he's too embarrassed to admit that he,
in fact, did not reciprocate.
Note how he also avoids the illogic of his claim that he'd have
little reason to "frequent these precincts" if I wasn't here, yet
he doesn't frequent the other "precincts" where I appear. Seems like
he's comfortable only where he can count on others to join him.
81> [EMAIL PROTECTED] tholened:
Taking invective lessons from Stuyck now, eh Malloy?
81> Pray tell, "little man" Tholen, what does Jim write?
Read it for yourself, Malloy.
81> Gee, those attributions with which you have so many problems nevertheless
81> caught your eye, "little man" Tholen.
On the contrary, it's the text that I wrote that caught my eye, Malloy.
81> "Little man" Tholen, who *does* like seeing you?
You, for one, Malloy; you obviously enjoy your entertainment.
82> [EMAIL PROTECTED] tholened:
Taking invective lessons from Stuyck now, eh Malloy?
82> Pray tell, "little man" Tholen, what does Jim write?
Read it for yourself, Malloy.
82> Gee, those attributions with which you have so many problems nevertheless
82> caught your eye, "little man" Tholen.
On the contrary, it's the text that I wrote that caught my eye, Malloy.
82> "Little man" Tholen, who *does* like seeing you?
You, for one, Malloy; you obviously enjoy your entertainment.
83> Tholen tholens:
Still using made-up words, eh Malloy?
83> You're erroneously presupposing that your questions are relevant, Tholen,
Incorrect, Malloy.
83> yet you provide no proof.
Also incorrect, Malloy.
83> Typical.
How ironic.
84> Tholen tholes:
Still using made-up words, eh Malloy?
84> If that's so, why are you doing it in an advocacy group whose charter
84> embraces both praising and flaming a specific OS?
Because that specific OS can be the right tool for the some jobs, Malloy.
84> No answer
Incorrect, Malloy. You simply don't remember the answer I've given many
times.
84> but your usual posturing, eh Tholen?
What alleged "posturing", Malloy?
84> Why are you here?
Having more reading comprehension problems, Malloy? Perhaps you should
ask that question of yourself.
85> Tholen tholened:
Still using made-up words, eh Malloy?
85> In your case, it's an *unholy* mission, Tholen.
You're erroneously presupposing a mission of any sort, Malloy.
Missionaries don't usually stay at home to do their work. Missionaries
are usually outsiders, you know, sort of like the way you and Glatt are
in this newsgroup.
86> Tholen tholenated:
Still using made-up words, eh Malloy?
86> Maybe not.
Aren't you sure, Malloy?
87> "little man" Tholen tholens:
Still using made-up words, eh Malloy?
87> There is nothing wrong with the attribution, Tholen,
Incorrect, Malloy.
87> witness the fact that the right person -- you -- responded.
I am the right person when it comes to the text that I wrote. Too bad
Stuyck attributed it to someone else.
87> It's not a matter of Jim being "stuck" anywhere, (little man) Tholen, he's
87> just limited by the person he's writing to -- which would be you, (little
87> man) Tholen.
Illogical, Malloy. Why should I have any affect on Stuyck's writing
ability?
87> The question is whether you will ever rise above the lowest level, (little
87> man) Tholen.
Illogical, given that I wasn't the one who ordered those levels, Malloy.
88> "little man" Tholen tholens:
Still using made-up words, eh Malloy?
88> There is nothing wrong with the attribution, Tholen,
Incorrect, Malloy.
88> witness the fact that the right person -- you -- responded.
I am the right person when it comes to the text that I wrote. Too bad
Stuyck attributed it to someone else.
88> It's not a matter of Jim being "stuck" anywhere, (little man) Tholen, he's
88> just limited by the person he's writing to -- which would be you, (little
88> man) Tholen.
Illogical, Malloy. Why should I have any affect on Stuyck's writing
ability?
88> The question is whether you will ever rise above the lowest level, (little
88> man) Tholen.
Illogical, given that I wasn't the one who ordered those levels, Malloy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451719
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 21:50:12 GMT
Here's today's Tinman digest:
1> Why bury the undead? They just crawl back out.
You're erronoeously presupposing that they are somewhere to crawl out
from, Tinman.
2> Hmmmm. Tasty.
2>
2> EEEEERRRRRRRRUUUUUUUUUUUUPPPP!
2>
2> Oh my! Excuse me!
2>
2> Now where's that bottle of pepto?
Illogical.
3> Illogical.
3>
3> Again illogical.
3>
3> Incorrect, this is a spiral.
3>
3> On the contrary. You actions demonstration presumption.
3>
3> Don't you know?
3>
3> No, you tell me first. ("
3>
3> Don't you know?
3>
3> On the contrary.
3>
3> Why don't you tell me?
3>
3> Why don't you tell me?
3>
3> Don't you know?
3>
3> What alleged "matter"?
3>
3> On what basis do you pose the question?
3>
3> Can you do better?
3>
3> And yet another example of pontification.
3>
3> On the contrary.
3>
3> Balderdash.
3>
3> Illogical, since you brought up what you didn't say.
3>
3> Because it does represent your level of control of the English language.
3>
3> Can you do better?
3>
3> I am.
3>
3> Illogical.
3>
3> On the contrary.
3>
3> On the contrary.
Classic evasion strategy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451719
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:53:22 -0400
In article <oYQ45.8523$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here's today's Tinman digest:
Why do you persist in mispelling my name?
> 1> Why bury the undead? They just crawl back out.
>
> You're erronoeously presupposing that they are somewhere to crawl out
> from, Tinman.
Hey, if you like being buried, far be it from me to argue you out of the
ground. ('
> 2> Hmmmm. Tasty.
> 2>
> 2> EEEEERRRRRRRRUUUUUUUUUUUUPPPP!
> 2>
> 2> Oh my! Excuse me!
> 2>
> 2> Now where's that bottle of pepto?
>
> Illogical.
No, indigestible.
> 3> Illogical.
> 3>
> 3> Again illogical.
> 3>
> 3> Incorrect, this is a spiral.
> 3>
> 3> On the contrary. You actions demonstration presumption.
> 3>
> 3> Don't you know?
> 3>
> 3> No, you tell me first. ("
> 3>
> 3> Don't you know?
> 3>
> 3> On the contrary.
> 3>
> 3> Why don't you tell me?
> 3>
> 3> Why don't you tell me?
> 3>
> 3> Don't you know?
> 3>
> 3> What alleged "matter"?
> 3>
> 3> On what basis do you pose the question?
> 3>
> 3> Can you do better?
> 3>
> 3> And yet another example of pontification.
> 3>
> 3> On the contrary.
> 3>
> 3> Balderdash.
> 3>
> 3> Illogical, since you brought up what you didn't say.
> 3>
> 3> Because it does represent your level of control of the English language.
> 3>
> 3> Can you do better?
> 3>
> 3> I am.
> 3>
> 3> Illogical.
> 3>
> 3> On the contrary.
> 3>
> 3> On the contrary.
>
> Classic evasion strategy.
Learned from the master.
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam E. Trenholme)
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: 23 Jun 2000 14:51:34 -0700
>But if you look again at my last point you will see what I am suggesting. A
>new Operating System that takes what we have learned in watching this OS
>grow and uses that experience in creating a great OS.
http://www.atheos.cx
It's free, its graphical.
And of course,
http://www.be.com
- Sam
--
Please post, and not email, questions you have about my answers
Go to http://samiam.org/cgi-bin/mailme to get my email address
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 23 Jun 2000 22:09:56 GMT
On 23 Jun 2000 20:33:14 GMT, Henry Blaskowski wrote:
>> Yes, but what does "own it" mean ? Does the fact that you "own" something
>> entitle you to do anything you like with it ? All this assuming that I
>> accept without question the above dogma.
>
>Yes, it means you can set terms on the conditions of sale of it,
>you can set the price, it means that whatever you can get people
>to agree to is OK, as long as there is no force or fraud.
Well again, we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I think
the point of disagreement is over whether or not there is "force". I
believe that there was coercion involved, and moreover, that this
coercion counts as "force".
>> They significant ( almost total ) control over a particular market
>> sector. That makes them a monopoly.
>
>A poorly-defined, arbitrarily chosen sector of the market....
I don't see why it's "poorly defined". The notion of a "desktop operating
system" is pretty easy to define. It's an operating system that someone
uses on their desktop computer.
I don't know why you claim that it's "arbitrarily chosen". I mean, it
hardly seems like a contrived or arbitrary definition. It hardly seems
like a small or obscure or insignificant part of the overall software
market, in fact it's strategic significance with respect to the overall
software market is overwhelming. It's this strategic significance that MS
have succesfully abused.
>chosen strictly for the ability to harass MS, and having nothing
On the contrary, MS chose the desktop OS market to harrass competitors. They
knew what they were doing when they ran around tying everything to their
desktop OS monopoly. They thought they were above the law. They danced on
the line, and at the end of the day they had their day in court. THeir
performance was attrocious, largely because of their arrogance, and the
result was that they lost.
>to do with MS's *competitive* market.
Tell me, what is "MS's *competitive market" ?
>> Hahahaa ... good think I'm not drinking coffee right now. WHAT would
>> people switch to ? Where would they buy the computers from ? What,
>
>They would switch to Linux machines, or Mac, or Sun.
Sun ? Hahahaha. Linux ? Sure, if they could find a place to buy a Linux
machine.
>> I suppose after MS have made it practically impossible for OEMs to
>> offer Linux preloads, the mass market would just go searching the
>> web and buy from some unknown internet mail order company ?
>
>It's not impossible or even close. The OEM's made a choice. If
>customers demanded something else, the OEM's would make a different
>choice.
The customers have to know that they have alternatives to demand before
they start demanding it. I disagree with your view that customers would
start demanding something else.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
