Linux-Advocacy Digest #299, Volume #27 Sat, 24 Jun 00 04:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! ("Bracy")
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (MK)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (MK)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (MK)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (MK)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (MK)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (MK)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (MK)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (MK)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (MK)
Re: An Example of how not to benchmark (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (MK)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lost Cause Theater!!!
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 07:17:15 GMT
In article <OlJ45.57180$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, all 0.03%! WATCH OUT MICROSOFT! In another 600 years
> they may have almost 20% of your market!
Interesting that you spout off the exact same percentage figure that
Simon777 has continually thrown around.
Bracy
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 03:20:06 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John W. Stevens) wrote in <3950F488.A4FCF052
> @basho.fc.hp.com>:
>
> >Using functionally similiar software, on identical hardware, loaded
> >identically, Linux runs about 3 to 7 percent faster . . . however, by
> >changing the load, file system utilization percentage, buffering and
> >swapping parameters, Linux can be made to run about 13 percent slower
> >than Windows.
> >
> >But . . . Linux will run 21 times faster than Windows on certain types
> >of repeated operations (buffering, you see).
> >
> >Unfortunately, most "advocacy tests" are not valid, as proper lab
> >technique is not used, and no attempt is made to make the compared
> >systems as similiar as possible for the test conditions.
>
> I tried to make them similar - I'm using a dual boot system - how similar
> can you get. The only difference is that Linux is running on a bigger,
> faster disk.
Depending on the configuration, the percentage of tracks covered, etc.
it could be faster, or it could be slower.
--
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: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 03:22:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:59:04 -0400, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> Let us know when you have a mainframe in your living room.
> >>
> >> Better let your wife know first though :)
> >
> >I suppose you just are not aware of the fact that you can get a P390 card that
> >plugs into your PC and supports the full S/390 instruction set. You can run
> >OS/390, VM/ESA and Linux on it.
>
> Wasent aware, but I don't think it'll change what users think.
the opinion of someone who isn't aware is....
a) worthwhile
b) worthless
--
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] (MK)
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: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 07:28:22 GMT
On 22 Jun 2000 23:08:58 +0500, Charles Philip Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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 issue, since it has never been 'hashed' in the first place.
>
>If they haven't done anything wrong then:
>
>(1) why would they have to doctor video tapes (and badly at that) in
> court? That just floored me.
I don't know, maybe it was some sort of Lewinsky giving BG blowjob.
Seriously, however, if they did, that still doesn't really prove anything
or any speculation. They can have _something_ to conceal, but
until more info comes out to the daylight, nobody knows.
>(2) What about the smoking gun memo concerning Palm Pilot when Gates
> said that they should rework their OS's to only work with Windows
> CE based PDA's?
Fine with me -- they create niche for other businesses.
If I were maker of some popular software and had at least some of
alternative platforms availabe, I would WANT MS to practice
vertical foreclosure. Apple did practice it, and in effect its market
share shrank.
>(3) What about putting false error messages in your OS to make it look
> like the competitor's superior product doesn't work with Windows,
> such as DR DOS?
>(4) How are withholding part of the API and delaying giving the API to
> 3rd party developers to gain a competitive edge?
They obviously make position of other developers worse. Which makes
them seek other niches. As I remember some guy wrote very interesting
article how MS has frozen development of its platform bc it did not leave
enough for 3rd party developers in certain app niches. MS also automatically
would push 3rd parties into development on other platofms and development
of other products, which would undermine MS' own business. Last
time I checked, Adobe, Quark and Autodesk were doing fine, and
MS Publisher is effectively dead. Also, I did not hear about any successes
of MS in CAD market.
That's all really competition that is fair enough, just playing hardball.
>(5) How about threatening hardware makers with hugh OEM price hikes if
> they dare to preload any other OS but Windows?
That's revoking granting of privilege. Suppose I do franchising with BurgerKing
and then I start to use also KFC's name, products, etc. MS did the same -- it
granted esp. low price to OEMs in exchange for privilege of being the only
deliverer.
>(6) How about putting a clause in their OEM contacts that prohibit the
> hardware makers to sell bare bone systems with no Windows? That
> amounts to a Micosoft tax to us non-Windows users.
Not really -- MS did not impose that on ALL hardware vendors, only on
those with whom they signed the deal. That's not tax, bc tax
by definition is financial burden that is impossible to avoid under
ANY circumstances. You can buy bare system, can't you -- it's not
a real problem really, it's only a problem in world of pretending that
it's impossible or even difficult to do so.
It would only be tax if MS was in power to forbid selling ANY bare
systems. If every single vendor was forbidden to sell hardware
without Windows, it could fairly fairly be said to be MS-tax.
If MS imposes this kind of condition on its vendors, it automatically
creates _very attractive_ niche for businesses catering to those who
want systems with no preinstalled OS. If MS put the code making
WordPerfect impossible to run on all versions of Windows, it
automatically creates the niche for systems with preinstalled
Linux and WordPerfect.
MK
---
Equality requires slavery.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
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: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 07:28:23 GMT
On 23 Jun 2000 04:06:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>In article <8iuk6v$2t4u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In talk.politics.libertarian Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> I will concede that many other large corporations in the U.S. as well
>>> as the government itself practice fraud with impunity; however, the
>>> wrongful actions of one entity do not justify those of another.
>
>>So do you think that business in the US should just be shut down,
>>destroying the economy? Because that is the result of a fair
>>implementation of the policy that is being used to harass MS.
> There is no need for such extreme approaches, and you know it,
>Mr. Blaskowski.
Well, I guess that you still are going to end up breaking the businesses
removing trash in Denver.
MK
---
Equality requires slavery.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
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: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 07:28:24 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 01:03:12 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I will concede that many other large corporations in the U.S. as well
>> > as the government itself practice fraud with impunity; however, the
>> > wrongful actions of one entity do not justify those of another.
>>
>> So do you think that business in the US should just be shut down,
>> destroying the economy? Because that is the result of a fair
>> implementation of the policy that is being used to harass MS.
>
>By your logic, the Bootlegging gangs should have been allowed to
>continuing their campaign of racketeering unchecked.
Last time I checked, gangs were using guns, not signing exclusive
"per bottle" contracts. ;-)
MK
---
Equality requires slavery.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
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: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 07:28:25 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:08:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>When you go apply for a job, do you have a certain salary in mind,
>>such that an offer below that will mean you turn down the job? Would
>>you call that extortion? It's a similar issue: party 1 offers party 2
>
> Actually, you just bumped into a nice juicy justification
> for labor laws. Need we get into the state of working
> conditions in capitalist nations before states and collections
> of workers were allowed to counter the power of Robber Barons?
Last time the govt regulators acted "on behalf of public interest" against
railway robber barons, the railway effectively decided to become dead.
In-depth info on the problem in "Free to Choose" by the Friedmans.
Good going!
MK
---
Equality requires slavery.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
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: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 07:28:26 GMT
On 23 Jun 2000 15:07:34 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>>> (1) why would they have to doctor video tapes (and badly at that) in
>>> court? That just floored me.
>>Perhaps because they knew the game was rigged? I didn't see this
>>video, so I can't judge it.
>
> You seem amazingly protective of Microsoft, Mr. Blaskowski. I'm
>surprised that you are not disappointed in M$'s poor defense of its
>actions.
You seem amazingly quick on organizing witch-hunts. MS is not any realistic
problem, self-appointed society dogooders like you are the world's biggest
problem. Historically, almost all of the misery in the world is result of
actions of some self-appointed society dogooders.
MK
---
Equality requires slavery.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
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: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 07:28:27 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:56:14 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Try reading Judge Jackson's (a free market type himself) Findings
>of Fact. Try reading the contracts submitted as evidence, particularly
>the Per CPU License Fees scheme, where end users were charged for
>Microsoft products REGARDLESS of whether they wanted it or not.
Pile of crap. Windows license is not some sort of tax -- it's not illegal to
buy at niche vendor that does not sell Windows. Also, last time I checked, it
was impossible to buy Mac hardware without buying MacOS, so I'd say that this
is Apple's actions that resemble tax on "those wanting to use Mac hardware"
more. There is Linux for PPC that can run on Mac hardware AFAIK (though
I have not used it personally), while it is impossible not to pay Apple
for MacOS first. At the same time, it is perfectly possible and not really
difficult to buy bare PC and Linux preinstalled PC.
>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.
Why couldn't DR-DOS get its own vendors and do the same thing
to MS? Were they so clueless that they could not possibly think about it?
MK
---
Equality requires slavery.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
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: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 07:28:28 GMT
On 23 Jun 2000 16:11:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti) 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.
There is a choice -- to do best you can and beat MS in other features,
port the application to other platforms and not release the info
on those features to MS.
>>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?
It's called "bundling" and it is regular practice.
BTW, the grocer can't force me to buy the bundle -- he may only offer the
bundle on more attractive conditions. Who would want to buy at grocer that
bundles 200lb bag of hog-balls with everything? Even the grocer having
99% of market would quickly become extinct.
MK
---
Equality requires slavery.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
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: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 07:28:31 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:19:13 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I disagree. The informed consent of anybody is not violated in such
>> deals -- while violation of informed consent is certainly involved
>> in a bribe. Everybody knows to what they agree. And customers
>> only gain on such deals -- if many hardware vendors compete
>> and many hardware vendors get OS with discount, that certainly
>> lowers prices for consumers.
>Wrong.
>You cannot force a patron to purchase a license for YOUR product
>when he chooses someone else's product INSTEAD OF YOURS!
Of course I can -- just look up the practice named franchising.
You're distortin the issue -- it's not about _force_. It's about _exchange of
privileges_. MS gets to become single deliverer, OEM gets lower price.
>There is no getting around this.
>Gates tried, and the courts saw right through it for the
>OBSTRUCTION OF TRADE which it is.
If you actually thought about it instead of venting, you
would understand that there was no obstruction of free
trade.
>Gates is a firm opponent of free markets.
If he really were, I'd be first to claim that he is to be put in jail.
MK
---
Equality requires slavery.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 07:28:37 GMT
On 23 Jun 2000 11:52:56 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) 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.
I don't see how what MS did is like buying slave. The hardware
vendor agreed to grant the privilege that effecively he will not sell OS
other than that of MS. One has to be nuts to think that is buying
slave. What about franchising then? It would have to be compared
to selling all of your organs.
MK
---
Equality requires slavery.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of how not to benchmark
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 03:25:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>VC++ will compile to UNIX?
> >>
> >>Colin Day
> >
> >No, I built the UNIX version of POVray. By that I mean I started with the
> >basic sources, took config.h from UNIX, ripped out pratically everything
> >and built my custom version.
> >
> >Incidentally, if I increase the Bounding Threshold to 25, so that POVray is
> >now running the same on Windows as Linux, I see the following results:
> >
> >Windows 98 SE 28 minutes 30 seconds
> >Linux 32 minutes 42 seconds
> >
> >Windows 98 SE is _still_ running faster than Linux.
>
> Did you ever run that 'ps ax' and count the other stuff you
> have running under Linux?
Amazing isn't it?
Actually, if you take a closer look, almost all process are blocked
on something (usually waiting for a signal), and their CPU consumption
is at or close to zero most of the time.
After a while, they even get paged out to swap space, so they
aren't taking any memory, other than the indexes in the memory
manager's block, and an entry in the process table (about
one stack frame... 1/2k at most.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
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] (MK)
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: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 07:28:41 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:53:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
wrote:
>>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.
That's _not_ what PCT is about. Govt may be driven by special interests,
but only if it serves govt's own interests. IOW, Klein is not in it on
behalf of SIGs, he's in it on his own behalf, and he supports SIGs
only if they benefits on it in some way. E.g. in psychic domain he
may get some pleasure from believing he's defender of those abused
by MS.
Common sense, experience and psychology tell us it is improbable
that people in govt have somehow fundamentally different motivations
and interests than people in corporations. Thus, premises of PCT are
way more justified and sober than romantic belief that govt acts
on behalf of public interest.
>>> 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.
Coase failed to find a single govt regulation giving good effects, and
he was a socialist. Also, he does not believe that individuals have
inborn rights, so it can't be that he is closet libertarian really arguing
bc he feels any govt action violates sovereignty of those subject
to the action. Ergo, he does not have ideological axe to grind,
so if he does not find empirical evidence of one good govt action,
most probably there was none. QED
>Therefore, the studies are not scientific, as the outcome is all but
>pre-ordained.
Many methodologies of science claim that the study should begin
with predetermined thesis -- the scientist is just supposed to
give further explanation to findings that were unexpected.
As Mark Blaug puts it, propaganda does not have to be untrue.
It only has to be falsifiable.
>More mainstream economists cite other studies, which may
>or may not prove anything, but certainly cast doubt that there is One
>True Answer.
Read Mark Blaug, "Economic Theory in Retrospect", on "pure
public goods". Blaug, himself not flaming libertarian, admits
there are a lot less pure public goods than it is commonly believed.
Furthermore, game theory is basis for further doubts in anti-trust -- govt
eliminates environment where tit-for-tat strategy works and replaces
it with one standard that has to be followed. Ergo, anti-trust regulations
will be used to get and maintain monopolistic position -- it is naive
to think that it will not be used that way. Example is Sun and
Oracle using govt as tool in competition. It is way of trying to driving MS out
of market. Sure, those who dislike MS and like Sun and Oracle are
willing to turn the blind eye to that problem. However, some
day they may find that the opposite will happen -- this time MS could
use anti-trust as tool in competition with Sun, Oracle or somebody
else.
Really, this kind of situation is inevitable, if you think hard about
this -- this is Prisoner's Dilemma. I.e. it is guaranteed that business A
sooner or later will use anti-trust against business B with intent of driving
B out of market and monopolizing that niche itself.
>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.
But market will work _at all_, thanks to tit-for-tat, while govt
does not, and there is evidence demonstrating that market
actually works faster than people tend to think. They confuse
ability to edict a decree fast by govt with the time necessary
to achieve good results. 120 years of anti-trust law did not result
in adequate definition. Market has broken up OPEC loyalty
in 15 years. That's unintuitive, but market actually brings results
faster than govt.
>>> 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.
Not really -- it means _adequate_ definition, of course, not phony
rhetorical figure. You're abusing truth by distorting formal issues.
<snip>
>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.
Why? There are lots of such examples, like Intel or Caterpillar. Since
predatory pricing is a myth, they could abuse their power only if
they had pure 100% domination of the market. Even 99% would
not be enough.
>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.
Correlation is not causation. I disagree that trial had effect on market.
Jackson does not dictate customer's taste or development of
Linux or long awaited appearance of somebody with more than half
of pig's brain in Apple creating iMac. The sun will rise regardless
whether DOJ protects the rooster or not.
>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.
I disagree. Every article is written from some position, but that doesn't
automatically result in its claims being true or untrue. Belief that
somewhere there are the people with snow-white consciousness
without ideology at all and that only they are authorized to speak
the truth is naive epistemology. Even such people would be subject
to error. As Blaug pointed, e.g. Ricardo's theory gained a lot of strength
in some places bc he had strong resentment of landowners.
MK
---
Equality requires slavery.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
