Linux-Advocacy Digest #318, Volume #27 Sat, 24 Jun 00 22:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: What UNIX is good for. ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 24 Jun 2000 19:35:37 -0500
In article <EN655.21964$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yes, it is extremely hard to support such a claim when you
>> think the RFC's stopped in the 700's.
>
>Oh, now that's cheap! Just cuz I was able to find the telnet
>'standard', and it didn't mandate the feature you wanted to
>be mandated...
No, it is because you continue to claim that standards slow
down development in spite of the fact that it is easy to
see that standards continue to evolve to meet user's needs.
>> Of course - it is establishing standard wire protocols that
>> allows multiple innovative implementations to coexist and
>> progress independently.
>
>As you point out, it restricts innovation to *implementation*; no
>new features, just faster/stabler implementations of the old one.
It doesn't restrict anything, unless you want to claim that Windows
is restricted to using NETBEUI. It does ensure that other
implementations can co-exist and be changed independently.
>> Relying on single-vendor proprietary
>> protocols is what keeps you from ever changing and eliminates
>> competition.
>
>Not at all, there are way to cope with multiple protocols; using
>them gives you flexibility.
Exactly - and none of them should involve having to make
changes on the other end of the wire.
>> And note that no one except
>> MS is forcing anyone to use anything.
>
>Sure, but you *would* force MS to use Unix protocols
>if you *could*. No?
Force is a strong word, and standard protocols have
nothing to do with unix, so you are being as misleading
as possible here. But, as I've said before, computer
files and networking have become at least as significant
as communications equipment when the wire standards
were established for interconnecting equipment. So
I'd consider it perfectly reasonable to have similar
standards for computer formats and protocols for the same
reasons.
>I mean, if you'd force MS to sell Internet Explorer separately
>and for a higher price, why *not*? Why's this different?
My real complaint about IE is that it puts non-standard HTML
extensions on a majority of desktops, encouraging designers
to use them in ways that break standards-conforming software.
I'll leave the legal points to the lawyers. This repeating
pattern of exploiting their market share to influence things
that cause trouble for users of competing products is
a problem for me regardless of the law.
>> They do, by making
>> it an integral part of the OS, claiming it can't be removed.
>
>Tha doesn't force you to use it. Hell, you don't even have to
>buy their product, if you so dislike it.
How do I go about removing the web pages that (accidentally or
otherwise) only work correctly with IE from the rest of the
world? I have put a great deal of effort to keep them
off the web servers I manage and understand how difficult
it is if you use any of Microsoft's tools.
>[snip]
>> That argument would be the same as arguing that
>> current windows software is incorrect because it
>> does not adhere to the windows 1 spec. Neither
>> is correct, nor is the claim that the specs haven't
>> changed.
>
>Well, that's true. But much Unix software does not
>strictly adhere to the POSIX standard at all- it uses
>X to produce a GUI, and this goes beyond POSIX.
If you have posix and sockets, you can have X without
any extra requirements.
>[snip]
>> >It's not likely to do that very often, though, given that you have
>> >to get the sysadmin to write you a litle script for
>> >everything.
>>
>> Like?
>
>I dunno; having the sysadm write scripts was your idea,
>wasn't it?
I forget now... I think it was in the context of setting
up the machine for a user's particular needs, much like
a network admin has to do for a typical Windows user.
Most people learn to use the tools they need to do their job,
so if writing scripts would help you it is nice to have have
the option, and if it is a one-time thing letting a sysadmin
do it is probably the best approach.
>[snip]
>> >I'm not at all sure what you mean by this.
>>
>> Timed operations,
>
>What's this?
I guess 'scheduled' would have been a better term.
Cron is a normal part of the unix/linux environment. Anything
that can run unattended can be run automatically at user
specified intervals. There is also the 'at' command for
one-shot runs at a specific time.
>> file transfers, generating charts from data,
>> and assorted other things that take no or minimal human
>> interaction. Anything that can be completely scripted gains
>> nothing from GUI operation.
>
>I don't think most of the file transfers, charts and "assorted
>other things" really can be so easily scripted; they vary
>over time too much.
Perhaps the things individuals do are more whimsical, but
businesses often provide certain data in certain ways at
specific times. I do anyway...
>[snip]
>
>The alternative I favor- using drivers and like plug ins- also
>solves the problem.
At the expense of making the device an extension of that
particular CPU and OS. I don't object to the ability to
do this as long as this restriction is exposed to the
customer before purchase (and I don't think it always is).
The ancient uucp example was the opposite, though. In that
case the hardware was generic and the software was tied
to specific models from the same vendor, but it produced
the same effect until I got it changed.
>[snip- various specific modem issues with UUCP]
>> If you ever try to do anything with
>> windows over a low bandwidth connection, you would find
>> that telnet looks very good by comparison.
>
>How low bandwidth is low? I use RAS over 28.8 modems
>regularly, and greatly prefer it to telnet.
RAS is a transport layer and doesn't have much to do
with telnet's application layer that would happily run
over your RAS connection if it supplies TCP and you
have a suitable server. But for a reasonable comparison
of capabilities, try doing a non-indexed search of a
huge database with a local PC program accessing the remote
file over RAS. Then telnet to a character-based database
program on the remote server and do the same query. Let
me know which approach is faster...
>[snip]
>> No, it is done by doing things differently, not better.
>
>It doesn't work that way. MS somes does it 'different
>but worse' and then they make themselves look bad;
>but usually its 'different and better', and their competitors
>look bad.
Mostly it is just different, and the market share makes
people not pay attention to the differences so they
unintentionally break the competitors product by using
the non-standard changes.
>> >But bugs in telnet make MS, not Unix, look bad.
>>
>> People only know that after they have a working
>> version. Most people don't have a working version,
>> they have the one MS bundled.
>
>People who use telnet do know better, or they have
>their system set up by someone who does: you can't
>just have naive users telnetting into a Unix system and
>expect them to be able to *do* anything without instruction.
What are you talking about? Character based unix systems
are often set up with menu systems that do not require
any more knowlege about the system than a windows
setup would.
>*Someone* has to be the Unix guru at some point, and
>he'll know the difference. He'll know enough to provide
>a better telnet, if one is needed.
Likewise someone designed the windows screen layout and
menus that appear when you install your software. How
convenient would you consider it if you had to find
them to fix it?
>[snip]
>> It is not perfectly ordinary to bundle something that
>> breaks your competitors products.
>
>Indeed it is not. But MS doesn't do that. "Having features
>your competitor has not" isn't the same thing as "breaking
>your compeittors products".
OK, technically correct. I'll back down to 'having features
that encourage people to break the competitors products',
but in the case of HTML editors that produce stuff that
is not HTML and java compilers that produce something other
than java I don't see much difference.
>And having bugs your competitor has not is breaking
>your *own* product, not his.
Not if it appears to work between your server and your
client, but is broken when you use the other guy's.
>[snip]
>> >Interoperability may be, but often isn't, relevant. Standards
>> >never are; they are at most a means to an end.
>>
>> It may not be important to you today. However in any non-trivial
>> setup, choosing anything that uses a non-standard protocol will
>> make it almost impossible to ever change since you will have
>> to replace all components at once to replace it.
>
>That's not so. It may be that putting *Unix* into such a
>system would be infeasible- but that's just because Unix's
>interoperability is so weak.
Hmmm, what OS isn't weak at interoperating with undocumented
and rapidly changing protocols?
>Operating systems that are
>really trying to be interoperable- like Windows- can adapt
>to the protocol that is acutally being used- even if it isn't
>the one protocol Unix likes.
Changing components on every machine has nothing to
do with interoperating. Why do you keep confusing the
two?
>Interoperability is an *advantage* for Microsoft- it means you can
>upgrade from Unix to Windows piecemeal.
As I keep pointing out, they do understand the issues and exploit
them perfectly. I'm just not interested in being exploited today.
When an unmodified windows client can interoperate with a
a non-Microsoft version of Active Directory services, or an
equivalent to the Kerberos-domain-controller, we can talk
about interoperability.
>> If you are
>> close to retiring, I suppose you can leave that as someone else's
>> problem.
>
>I see no reason to make special provision for Unix unless we
>*expect* to switch to it.
Do you expect to be locked into Intel-backwards-compatible CPU's
forever? The point is that you shouldn't need to know what
better/cheaper OS/CPU might come along or make any special
provisions to switch. If you only use standard wire protocals
you don't need to predict the future, you can replace parts
as you like. Otherwise you just have to plan to replace
everything at once unless you are so foolish as to expect
one vendor to have the best product forever.
>> The 'end' that standards provide is interoperability
>> among components so you are always free to replace any one
>> with the current best without disrupting operation with the existing
>> base.
>
>You can only do this is the standards already support the feature
>you want.
Yes, standards evolve to provide the features you want.
>With a more flexibly approach, like Windows, you are not limiited
>to this.
Heh. Instead you get to replace every component at once.
>> >[snip]
>> >But it's hardly the same as selling "on the promise of something
>> >that wasn't usable".
>>
>> Was posix a requirement? Was the implementation usable?
>
>POSIX wasn't needed to do the job; it was one of those 'requirements'
>that isn't really required.
Where did you find this official statement?
>[snip]
>> >> It is supposed to give you the
>> >> ability to compile and link to the X library.
>> >
>> >Only C, not POSIX, is required for this.
>>
>> Except that you have to be able to connect your I/O stream
>> to the right place.
>
>No, the *X Library* has to do that. You don't. You don't need
>to know how the X library does it.
Yes, it is possible to modify the X library to work in
environments that don't provide posix+sockets. But
why should you have to?
>[snip]
>> Yes it has, at least since SysVr4 merged in BSD networking
>> and it wasn't all that bad even before. If you don't use
>> the sysv-specific STREAMS code you can compile most things
>> across most current flavors of unix and a lot would probably
>> work on OS/2.
>
>Copy the source and recompile works only between very
>closely related OSes, like the different Unixes and the
>different Windows.
Then why did we have the misleading claims about subsystems when
NT came out?
>[snip]
>"the platforms that follow standards" is Unix and a few
>oddities like Linux. That's because "standards" means
>"Unix technology' when you say it.
That isn't true no matter who says it.
>Let me put it this way. Is COM a standard?
Why would it matter, since it has to run on the same machine
under the same OS as the other components? Wh
>No, of course not. We all know it isn't.
>
>Why not? It has a standards body.
Which one, and what competing vendors participate?
>[snip]
>One should not complain that Windows is bad because it does
>not accept conforming Unix programs; one should say
>it is not a Unix.
>
>Is that sufficiently clear?
Of course. But things that claim to generate HTML should
generate standards-conforming HTML. Things that compile
java should generate real java. Things that offer LDAP
address-book service should make it as handy to use as
exchange address-book service.
>> MS doesn't seem to think you should.
>
>Nor anyone else. You *do* realise that g++ is simply
>chock full of incompatible extensions, don't you?
Sure. They have their own political agenda and play the
same tricks to get people locked into it. The difference
is that they don't have enough market share to get people
to use the non-standard parts accidentally and they
don't produce tools that end up on every desktop that
intentionally generate non-standard code.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
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: 25 Jun 2000 00:45:40 GMT
I don't know where Mr. MK gets his absurd Panglossian fantasies
from; I'm sure that if he was kidnapped and enslaved, he'd worship his
master as someone who sees him as very valuable.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 20:51:53 -0400
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:06:41 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >Purdue had hundreds on the clerical staff as early as 1988.
> > >
> > >Imagine what it is now!
> >
> > Running Latex????
> > Or Tex?
>
> TeX. LaTeX had not been invented yet.
>
Bibliogarphical entry in The LATeX Companion:
[49] Leslie Lamport, LATeX--A Document Preparation System--User's
Guide and Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1985.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
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: 25 Jun 2000 01:05:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 02:35 00-06-24 -0400, you wrote:
>The test is simple: do I get my negative rights (life, liberty, property)
>infringed on or not?
M$, with its cliff-pricing tactics, was trying to infringe on the
liberties of others.
>Also, quitting the job would also have to be classified as coercion -- you're
>violating the right of employer to buy your work, don't you? Isn't
>threatening to quit the job coercion using such logic?
Given whose side that "libertarians" normally take (the employers'
side, of course), I'm sure they'd strongly support this argument, on the
ground that one ought not to bite the hand that one gets fed by. Consider
how they idolize John Galt, rather than any of his underlings in Ayn
Rand's novels.
>>Well, I do. Some acquisitions and mergers are not permitted because the
>>result is increased monopolization.
>Which is sheer lunacy and voodoo economics -- without govt guarantee of
>elimination of ALL competitors, competition is immediately attracted and
>customers circumvent supposed monopoly.
A Panglossian fantasy which ignores the question of barriers to
entry.
> ... Anti-trust lawyers do not act on behalf of
>public interest, they act on their own behalf -- their feeling good,
>their self-righteousness, their careers.
Totally absurd fantasy.
>Explain please to me, how come computers, standards, network devices, etc. got
>to be compatible AT ALL?
Because they have to coexist with others. However, a big enough
company will not be strongly constrained by that. That's what IBM used to
be, and that's what M$ now is.
>But MS did NOT point a gun. ...
So contract law and intellectual-property law are all enforced on
the honor system???
>Also, you changed subject -- what about that Sun monopoly on their
>hardware platform. Why using 100% domination on SPARC platform to
>get whatever the price Sun wants is a-OK and using 90% domination
>on x86 platform to get whatever MS wants is not.
Sun has actually licensed other companies to make SPARC chips
(surprise, surprise!), and has been willing to be relatively open about
Java.
>According to Paul Krugman (mind you, liberal voting for Bill
>Clinton -- yuck -- not some flaming libertarian) ...
I don't care what he calls himself.
>It's time to kiss goodbye to romantic vision that social, business
interactions >are all >nvolving liking each other or that warm, fuzzy
feeling of "fairness". They do >not. They will >e ugly and harsh under any
circumstances. But using our position in money >talks to squeeze >hat you
want from the other party is not coercion YET.
"Might makes right". MK shows his true bully-loving colors once again.
>Fast forward 10 years into future -- suppose Be has 90% market. And they
>still demand default booting and refuse discount if they don't get it.
That tactic is crooked no matter who does it.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 24 Jun 2000 20:04:59 -0500
In article <vN655.21961$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >I would think that MS is very converned with your *their*
>> >server was viewed by the ISPs. Is it so hard to make
>> >FrontPage work on IIS?
>> >
>> >If it is, then MS just screwed up. But I suspect
>> >otherwise.
>>
>> At the time, it was hard to make IIS keep working at all.
>
>If you say so.
Just try to keep an NT box running with no service packs and
whatever the original IIS version was. When it crashes,
call up MS and pay them to tell you what to do. It was
just as foolish to run that back then as it would be
today. Yet they did everything they could to force
ISPs into using it.
>> >I do not believe your blithe assurances that there were *no*
>> >advantages to implementing FrontPage as they did.
>>
>> It gave them the opportunity to provide modules for apache
>> that made the competing unix servers insecure. Is that
>> an advantage?
>
>They hardly need FrontPage for that! :D
Cheap shot. And untrue as well.
>> Yes, it is a fairly expensive package, and also the difference between
>> office professional and premium.
>
>Yes, I have to eat my words on this. I checked, and it turns out the
>freebie is 'FrontPage Express'; this doesn't require special
>protocols- it supports FTP and a few other well known protocols
>for upload.
>
>The commercial "FrontPage" version may need special protocols
>to do that web-overview pane thing it does, but the free version
>does not support this feature at all.
Since I don't use it, I've forgotten the details, but I think
the original version did not have ftp and required the
extentions on the server side to automatically publish
the work to the real server. Or you had to use a separate
ftp program, and since the stock Windows ftp is such a fine
example of MS programming, users had a certain amount of
trouble.
>[snip]
>> >Oh, but it is. Interoperability canot be acheived by ignoring the
>> >'facts on the ground'. You *have* to support those other proprietary
>> >protocols.
>>
>> No, you have to support standard protocols. Linux does in fact
>> support appletalk and IPX, but they are rarely necessary because
>> pretty much everything can do tcp these days.
>
>Just saying "No, you have to support standard protocols" isn't
>enough. I'm glad Linux supports AppleTalk and IPX- it needs
>to- but there's much more. Can Linux authenticate with a NetWare
>directory server?
Of course - the PAM configuration lets you drop in about any
authentication mechanism you want, but this isn't a change
you would want to introduce into a large established network
because you have to modify every client at the same time.
>The internet is not the whole world. You can get TCP/IP accepted
>there, and MS can get LAN Manager accepted on local area
>networks.
>
>But to interoperate, somebody has to support more than
>his own stuff.
>
>It's *Microsoft* that is doing this, bring TCP/IP to the LAN.
That's funny - especially to someone who added Windows for
Workgroups to an existing TCP setup. It sort-of worked
after downloading an assortment of beta drivers and knocking
out all the other protocols because having more than one
made it crash even more. If you had done that, I don't
think you would try to make it sound like MS led the way
to TCP on LANs.
>> >If you can't get in the door, you can't even start. That's why MS is
>> >so into interoperability.
>>
>> In a wierd one-way fashion.
>
>It's the only fashion they *can* support; they can't *make*
>anyone else support their protocols. (They can try, but I don't
>see it working very well anywhere)
It wasn't necessary to break java to implement it. It wasn't
necessary to make their HTML editor produce non-standard
HTML. And on and on.
>[snip]
>> >Well, It seems to matter to you- you keep harping on Exchange,
>> >probably hoping I won't get off my duff and look up the
>> >actual facts.
>>
>> Yes, it wouldn't do to supply any actual facts. You might
>> realize you were wrong.
>
>I have done the research in the past only to discover that you
>won't accept it because you prefer not to believe it.
>
>I don't see why I should bother a second time.
In other words you can't find anything but MS propaganda that
supports your view.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 25 Jun 2000 01:09:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:42:04 -0800, "salvador peralta"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Socialism in any form ALWAYS results in political and bureaucratic barriers.
>It's only a matter of where in particular they are put. Laissez faire
>does not have this problem -- supply follows the demand.
Does that mean that every demand ought to be allowed to be
supplied? Such as demands that go against supposed rights of life,
liberty, and property?
Slavery has existed for centuries in many parts of the world;
does that mean that we ought to legalize it?
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
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: 25 Jun 2000 01:14:48 GMT
Mr. MK seems to think that tax money goes into some black hole
somewhere. But soldiers and cops have to be paid somehow. Not to mention
government-bond holders, pensioners, road builders, and the like.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 01:14:37 GMT
On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 18:07:27 GMT, Daniel Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Believe me, before editing this post contained long passages
>chock full of obscenities. How I really feel is much, much
>harsher than what I am putting in this post.
Since I feel the same way about you I think we should drop this
discussion.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
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: 25 Jun 2000 01:16:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:47:41 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>MK wrote:
>>>[A bunch of stuff about how great Microsoft is.]
>>So I'm curious. Does MK stand for Microsoft Klingon?
>Ad hominem instead of response based on merit is the last
>resort of loser.
"Microsoft Klingon" is funny!!!!!
But if I was in his place, I'd ask how much money I was making
off of M$ as a result of my effusive praise of it.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 24 Jun 2000 20:27:57 -0500
In article <zN655.21962$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I find this hard to accept.
>
>It's not like the harm the proposed remedy would do is anything
>less than blindingly obvious, after all. You don't think it
>needs an *affirmative* defense? I've got to explain why
>it's bad to harm consumers?
Yes, please tell us why you think it will harm consumers if
the operating system company actually has to cooperate with
an outside applications company? Or why it would be a bad
thing if it cooperated equally well with many applications
companies? I think these would be very good for consumers,
legal requirements or not. Likewise, why do you think
it would be bad for MS apps to branch out to more other
operating systems?
>I know it. But that doesn't make it right. It infurates me that you
>people think you've got a right to take Internet Explorer away! It
>infuriates me that you hafe the *gall* to pretend you are doing
>it for the consumers (like me) you will *directly* harm.
Whoa there! If having explorer separate is harmful, let's
remember that MS already did that harmful thing to us with
the extra-cost Plus pack for Win95. A free upgrade would
have been nice, but I don't see how bundling it into the
cost of the not-free upgrade to 98 is good for anyone. It
just takes away the choice of getting it or not.
>Which is why I'm not always as polite as I should be. :/
Or as logical?
>But you can't expect to screw the vast majority of computer
>users and not get *somebody* mad at you.
How is anyone being screwed by unbundling? If the cost of
IE is unbundled, the people who don't want it come out
ahead and the people who do aren't hurt.
>That is a controversial statement, actually. But even supposing
>its true, it is *very* clear that the proposed rememdies for
>Microsoft are *bad* for society overall, and good only for
>a small minority.
It is not clear at all that it would be bad for anyone.
>The usual jusification for them is *not* that they are good
>for society, but they will "create competition" some day in the
>unforseeable future. This is, we are told, meant to counterbalance
>the obvious immediate harm of degrading Windows.
Why are you so sure that the operating system company will be
unable to cooperate with applications developers when they
are not under direct control? I think they are still
capable of learning a new approach.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
