Linux-Advocacy Digest #695, Volume #27 Sat, 15 Jul 00 10:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 13:54:10 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8kh1el$71t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <Jb1a5.2500$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> >> Interoperating with anyone you can't force to install the
> >> plug-in that happens to match your API-of-the-day. Like
> >> the rest of the world.
> >
> >I'm sorry, but I'm having difficulty parsing your comments
> >here.
> >
> >I am guessing you did too much violence to that sentance
> >in your effort to work the word "force" in. Perhaps you could
> >try to say it without it?
>
> Take your favorite flavor of API and plug-in that does not
> involve a standard wire protocol. Try to make it work
> with an IBM 390 on the other end. Or even a Sparc.
Sure. What you do is you get a plug in that speaks the IBM 390's
langauge (or the Sparcs). Somebody has to write one of course;
in this case I believe Microsoft *has* written one, but if they
haven't then IBM can do so. Or heck, you can hire someone
to do so. Or even do it yourself, if you've the skill.
Plug in that plug in. Now you are speaking the IBM 390's
protocol, and it can talk to you without itself being modified
at all.
Now, how do standard protocols help you with this, if
the IBM 390 is going to be uncooperative. I had options:
I can change the plugs in on my computer. What can
you do but abandon your protocol?
[snip]
> >Sure you are: as soon as you try to install a product that
> >does *not* follow the standards your happen to prefer.
>
> So don't.
No-one can make you interoperate with anyone you don't
want to, of course.
> Why should you ever be locked into something
> only available from a single vendor?
Such products are often the *best*, actually; in this industry,
one often tries to differentiate oneself from ones competitors
on quality and features.
The whole point is that you can't get as good a product from
the next guy.
> >> So, why make the inconvenient choice?
> >
> >Well, if you are willing and able to insist on a protocol
> >that all your clients used, you can avoid it: but this is true
> >of *any* protocol, standard or not. WIth plug-ins you get
> >your choice of protocols.
>
> But unless you use standard protocols you won't be able to
> match them on the other end.
With plug-ins, you can plug in the module for the protocol the
other end is using. Without them, you just need to make sure
every 'end' is using the same protocol.
But it does not matter whether it is an open standard or not;
proprietary standards work just as well as a 'common
protocol'.
[snip]
> >I see. So the IETF and ISO are the only standards making
> >bodies that you accept, and apparently ANSI is out as is
> >the open group.
>
> ANSI is rather limited in scope. Networking was already
> worldwide back in the 20th century.
Well, that was much more true at the end of it that in the
middle of it, was it not?
And why is the open group out? Is it not international
enough?
> >Why those two, then?
>
> Because they define the standards for public interaction.
So, what they define are standards because they defined
the standeards for publuch interaction.
Seems a bit circular.
Why the IETF and IEEE and not some *other*
organization?
[snip]
> >Don't get fixated on the web. Comptuers are used for
> >much, much more.
>
> Yes, and there are many types of computers doing it. Together.
> There is no reason to limit yourself to what will only
> work on one type with one OS.
Well, there actually is: It's simpler to stick to just one
protocol and restrict yourself to just one type. But
admittedly that's hardly interoperability.
And so I think I can say that neither of us advocates
such limits.
[snip]
> >> It is standardization of exchange
> >> formats and protocols that allows progress and prevents a
> >> single vendor from destroying it.
> >
> >You keep saying that, and I keep not believing it.
>
> Yet you haven't admitted to having any evidence to the
> contrary.
Well, it is your claim: perhaps you should prove it,
rather than asking me to disprove it.
> MS has made a lot of non-standard stuff that
> won't interoperate with anything else.
Yes, they have. They've also made a lot of non-standard
stuff that *will* interoperate with other things.
MS does what's good for MS, you know. Interoperability
sometimes is, in their view.
> Which one would
> you say constitutes 'progress' in a way that can't be
> done following standards?
Well, obviously, both of them. :D
Their both "non-standard".
However, I would submit that when you posted your
message, you only gave me one alternative, not
two: "MS has made a lot of non-standard stuff
that won't interoperate with other things"; so
I don't see that there was much to choose from.
[snip]
> >I did not *make* that claim; therefore I would suggeswt that
> >the claim *is indeed* unnecessary.
>
> Too bad you aren't a legal advisor for Microsoft...
Really! :D
But perhaps the claim is necessary for Microsoft's
arguments, and not for mine?
[snip]
> >You really, honestly, think that people who use IE's extensions
> >don't mean to?
>
> Yes I do think that most do not realize that their work will
> not display correctly in browsers competing with IE.
Just asking. :D
> >That its all a trick, and that somehow nobody
> >every *notices* but you?
>
> No, I think many people notice - they just don't know what
> to do about it. After all, if they were expert HTML
> producers they wouldn't be using FrontPage.
Is that beause there is no other product that non-experts
can use to make HTML?
[snip]
> >Well, the command line must be made *terse* for interactive
> >use and it must be able to do as much as possible implicitly.
> >These are not usually good things for a reusable program.
>
> There was a study done in the late 80's (or so) comparing
> the GUI's of the day to typing terse commands for moderately
> complex but repetitive work and the CLI came out ahead.
There are also studies showing the opposite. It depends
what you are doing. If its repetitive in the right
ways, you can be much better off scripting it- and the CLI
and do that. Advantage CLI, for that test.
But IMHO you are usually better off yet with a dedicated
scripting system.
> Does anyone remember the details - it might have been done
> by AT&T. GUI's have improved since then, of course, but
> for jobs where short text commands describe the actions
> the command approach may still be better, as well as more
> conducive to automating groups of commands.
I've never seen a GUI that can *automate* a task. You can't
have even a simple loop.
And all of the examples I've seen where the CLI did
come out ahead, that is what it was doing: the CLI was able
to automate a repetive task, even if just a bit, and the GUI
wasn't.
This is legitimately a CLI advantage over GUIs. But I
still prefer dedicated scripting systems for such things.
[snip]
> >> Giving the computer commmands is often the
> >> best way to accomplish a task.
> >
> >Why?
> >
> >This certainly isn't the convential wisdom.
>
> Convention wisdom seems to involve people who don't do
> one particular job often enough to remember the commands.
It involves people with lousy memories, actually. :D
The conventional wisdom is also that lousy memories are
just awful common.
> Picking from a menu or group of icons is easier the
> first few times you do something.
That's true, but *good* GUIs do things like direct manipulation;
it's not simply a contest of CLIs versus menus.
(And the icons-bars MS is so fond of pretty much uniformly awful UI;
it's no easier to remember the bloody little hieroglyph than a
Unix CLI command.)
[snip]
> >Wanna bet? :D
>
> Yes, this was an AT&T 3b2 with a WE32k CPU, 40-some serial
> ports, and probably a dozen different modem brands. It
> is an absolutely safe bet that you could not have come
> up with a driver for that machine for each of those modems.
Considering that Unix didn't support modem drivers, this
is not terribly surprising. I was thinking of computers
that *do*.
> >> It would certainly
> >> have been impossible in this case.
> >
> >No, had UUCP used a modem API a la Windows,
> >it would have been quite ordinary to download
> >a modem driver for that particular modem.
>
> Download? With the modem that didn't work
> without the driver? This is a joke, right?
I coulda thought a little harder about that one. :(
Yet, believe it or not, modem manufacturers offer
drivers for download. Mind boggling. :D
I guess it would be a bit more practical to get
the driver via CD-ROM or floppy. It's not a problem
if the driver comes *with* the modem, which is
pretty typical for computers that do things that way.
> >True, Unix does not support such things. But
> >that's Unix's problem.
>
> What problem? Needing specific support for
> each program/CPU/device combination would be
> the problem.
I think you mean to say "it *is* the problem".
An OS with modem-driver support would have reduced
it to getting support for each CPU/device combination,
a far more tractable problem.
Of course, it can *still* be a problem, if you have to rewrite
the driver for every CPU rather than recompiling it.
> >> If the software vendor won't allow using generic
> >> hardware without specific support, change the software.
> >
> >This is out of the question on the desktop, and very expensive
> >elsewhere.
>
> Out of the question? Why is that, and why should we put up
> with it?
Users mostly don't know how to program, and won't learn.
Also, vendors wan't to *sell* their software, and so don't like
sharing the source code. If the modem support has to be
built direct in (and not separated out as a driver) then
no-one but the vendor can change it in this case.
[snip]
> >> SMTP announces its capabilities as it answers a connection.
> >> The sender sends what the receiver can handle.
> >
> >Sounds like you aren't going to be able to support new
> >capabilities, but you will be able to keep using the old
> >ones. Is that a fair statement?
>
> Yes, you can update the software or not as you like.
Now, if you used some kind of API for this, you could
update all your software on a single computer at once,
but for SMTP I suspect this is not so important.
But however you do it, you have to touch both endpoints
before you can use the upgraded protocol between them
it seems like standard protocols offer no advantage.
Or at least not the advantage you were claiming.
> When
> two updated versions connect you get the new capabilities.
> However, things like the ability to carry attachments
> do not require protocol changes and will work even across
> the old transports.
Hmmm? I hate to say this, but carrying attachments does
mean *some* kind of protocol to say "this bits an attachment";
if the sender does not know it, it can't attach files. If the
receive does not know it, it can't decode them.
I think you are mistaken. While transport changes wouldn't
be requiried, some kind of addition or change the the
protocols is needed to add attachments to a protocol that
hasn't got them.
[snip]
> >Of course they didn't, of course not. It's not like you have to
> >do that with *anyone's* systems.
>
> Really? Can you make any of the pre-exchange MS-Mail versions
> work with anything else, letting some of the machines continue
> to run that version while you update others?
Near as I can make out, you had to use nasty gateways to
do this.
They seem to have tried to use the "standardize on a protocol"
approach, but nobody else used the same one, so it got
all nasty.
I do not say MS is perfect. That standardizing on a protocol
didn't make MS-Mail interoperable is no suprise to me!
> Note that
> SMTP is much older than any version of MS-Mail. In fact it
> wouldn't surprise me if there are still machines on the
> internet running versions that old.
Nor would it surprise me.
[snip]
> >Which, if you have anything to say about it, will not involve
> >consent!
>
> Of course it does. Sort of like consenting to use the
> existing language if you want to communicate with others.
> You can make up something no one else understands if you
> want.
Oh, good. Then you've no objection to Micorosft making up
their own protocols, or whatnot.
I apologize for insinuating that you felt otherwise.
> >> The Open Group fits in the first
> >> category. However, something can be open without being a
> >> standard by simply making a reference version available without
> >> unacceptable restrictions on copying or use.
> >
> >Okay. So the Open Group is open but not standard then?
>
> More standard than open, just not a public standard.
So why is *this* consortion non-public when others are
public?
> >You seem to be saying that somehow, something
> >imbues real standards with *moral* force: It's *wrong*
> >to disobey standards. What imbues them with this,
> >that the open group hasn't got?
>
> It is a matter of definition. Standards define
> interoperation.
This is, of course, where we part company:
I don't define "interoperation" like this.
But suppose we did. Why should anyone
*want* to be interoperable, if it is merely
synonymous with "follows standards"?
> And the standards group for the
> particular media defines the standard. The wire
> level protocol seen at the software level is no
> less critical than at the hardware level. Do you
> also question the need for standards at the hardware
> level?
Yup. I don't see why we can't have ISA and PCI and
Microchannel if we want them all.
I've used many computers which failed to standardize
this- they had PCI and ISA both, and it was no problem.
The flexibility is useful to have.
Saying "everyone must use technology X" is not
useful- you can't make it happen- and even if it was
possible, it'd hardly be a good thing.
> Do you think we would be better off if you
> also had to buy every network component from one vendor
> to make it work?
Nope. But I don't see that I have to use *your* solution
to this problem, when I don't think it works as well
as Microsoft's does.
[snip]
> >> It is irrelevant if your browser has extensions, but publically
> >> available web pages should not break standards-conforming
> >> browsers.
> >
> >Do they have to be in English too, so you can read them?
>
> Being readable doesn't have anything to do with displaying
> correctly.
I do find *that* a surprising assertion, but lets let it go.
So, non-English is okay. How about non-Roman character
sets? Many computers do not have Kanji characters
installed. Web pages using such characters display
incorrectly; should they be disallowed because on many
standards-conforming browsers, they will not
display correctly?
[snip]
> >What is your "consenting adults" test then? Why should
> >I, or anyone, care about it?
>
> The parties involved should know exactly what they are
> doing.
Pretty harsh. Only experts are allowed on your Internet then?
> In the case of producing non-conforming web pages
> this is rarely the case. How many people do you know
> who intentionaly build a web site to break Netscape?
> I've seen it done unintentionally.
So you say. There is a middle ground: There are lots
of people who Just Don't Care (tm).
[snip]
> >Byte-codes buy you CPU, not OS, portability. Perhaps they
> >thought Windows 2000 would run on this 'Itanium' thing
> >or something.
>
> What? What OS has a JVM that won't accept the same
> java byte-codes as all the others?
Funny how that works out! :D
But seriously, Java proposes to give you OS protability
with the *library*, not the bytecodes. The library would
do that just as well if it were all native code.
The bytecodes give you CPU portability, more or less.
The library proposes to give you OS portability.
> >> Also, if it is allowed to touch native methods not bounded
> >> by the expected java sandbox security it shouldn't be
> >> allowed in applets anyway.
> >
> >I would expect the browser to enforce that, though.
>
> The same browser that permits active-X? Fat chance?
:D You may have something there.
If the browser will not enforce the sandbox, you are just out of
luck, standard Java or no.
[snip]
> >I don't see any reason to take your word for there being "no reason";
> >I expect that LDAP is somehow inadequate compared to the
> >other mechanisms. MS, presumably, chose not to extend it.
>
> OK, so they have their reason - but it has nothing to do
> with programming.
Probably has something to do with feature sets, or maybe
ease of use or something. But what do I know?
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 13:54:14 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8kh29k$9fs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <Bb1a5.2493$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> They have no choice but to enforce the law.
> >
> >I think you are being a shade optimistic. But lets say you
> >are right.
> >
> >Why do you prefer, then, giving the Congress the choices, they
> >being the people who wrote the law that says you can't have
> >a Internet browsing in a sufficiently popular desktop OS?
>
> The appropriate time to change the rules might have been
> before AT&T was constrained from marketing unix commercially
> or IBM was constrained from its bundling practices.
I certainly agree with this!
> After
> these precedents handed the desktop over to Microsoft it
> hardly seems right to allow them to ignore the same rules.
These precedents did not hand the desktop over to Microsoft;
this is just more of the "it *can't* be the Microsoft had
the better product!" excuses.
But in any case, three wrongs don't make a right.
[snip]
> >> Why not?
> >
> >Hmmm. If you really think MS is charitable like this, why don't
> >you support them?
>
> The price is not so relevant as the quality.
I see. So why does MS upset you so? Is it *so* bad for MS
to offer low-quality, cheap goods?
[snip]
> >No, they don't.
> >
> >There is, in fact, a wide variety of different computers you can buy;
> >they do not all contain the same software, either.
>
> This is a direct and recent result of the legal action against MS.
This has been true as long as there has been a computer
industry. The "recent" part is strictly the appearance of
Linux as a preinstall, and that has more to do with Linux's
recent popularity than any court action.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 13:54:19 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 11 Jul 2000
> [...]
> >You really don't understand the concept of following
> >standards, do you? There is no 'their' dialer. Any
> >standard ppp dialer worked. There was no need to
> >match any vendor's dialer to their dial-up hardware
> >until MS entered the picture.
>
> Also an incredibly important point to re-itterate.
Well, gee, Max, maybe you should re-iterate it, then! :D
[snip]
(Sorry, I know I should have resisted, but I just couldn't..)
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 13:54:24 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quoting Daniel Johnson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sun, 09 Jul 2000
[snip]
> >> If you want to claim that dropping an incompatible dialer
> >> on every desktop didn't break the standards-conforming
> >> existing hardware, you should provide the evidence, except
> >> there obviously isn't any.
> >
> >If you want to play the "shifting the burden of proof" game,
> >you really ought to do it more subtlely.
> >
> >You are being *so* blatant about it that the only people who
> >will be convinced are the sort of people who would
> >had already agreed in advance, for other reasons entirely.
>
> Just for the record, 'cuz this needs to be done more often:
>
> You are the one who played "shift the burden of proof",
I don't recall doing it on this thread, lately, but then again I'm
hardly above it. I do have a mind like a steel, er, sieve and all... :D
Still, I stand by my statement: If Leslie is going to do it, he should
do it better. Doing it clumsily hardly makes him look good.
> but admittedly you did it more subtly,
Why thank you! :D
> and combined it with protestations of ignorance
> AND the standard insinuations and misdirection,
Standard ones! I'm moritfied. I thought I was being original! :D
I guess you've seen it all, though.
> though neither was to a
> particularly notable degree. Which is a shame, because if you'd have
> pressed it on either count, you would have had a "Troll Cycle" right
> there.
Cool.
> Your last paragraph (at least as far as I was concerned) was enough to
> make amends, though. You've set up that trap so perfectly it is almost
> a wonder in itself. I'm sure I'm not giving it away for Les, as he
> seems capable on either side himself, but in an alt. group that would
> have snared just about anyone. Even at this point, I'm not sure how Les
> can meet your challenge, and he may just pass on this one, which would
> be point for you, but disappointing to me, as I want to see what Les
> says when we reach the denouement of this bit, and find out how he could
> possibly play off of "the only people who would be convinced are the
> sort of people who would [have] already agreed in advance, for other
> reasons." Christ, that's beautiful.
I'm glad you like it. Forgive me, but I couldn't bear to snip such a
wonderful peon to my trollishness, though I really shouldn't
waste the bandwidth. :D
> I'd have to admit that I would go
> for the "pass" on this, and deal with one of your less impressive
> exhibits of intellectual dishonesty.
:D
That one wasn't intellectual dishonesty: I actually think that
such a naked "shift the burden of proof" gambit will only
work on the already converted. Subtlety is needed to do
more.
I could be wrong about this, of course.
But it *is* what I think.
I generally try to avoid intellectual dishonesty; I try to change
the subject instead, if I have to. (And then I complain
when you guys do the same. :D)
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 13:54:28 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quoting Daniel Johnson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sun, 09 Jul 2000
[snip]
> >It's not sufficient for *you* to predict it; your theory must do so;
> >your theory was that MS's mixing of authentication and
> >authorization leads to such problems. Did you have this
> >theory before Windows every came out?
> >
> >Did you publish it anywhere?
>
> Forgive me for bursting in, but I just can't take it anymore.
>
> For a theory to be correct, it has to predict a result before the result
> is known, not before the result occurs. Your suggestion that when his
> prediction was published is almost comical in this regard.
I'm happy to have amused you.
When Leslie posted his 'theory', the result *was*, in his opinion,
known.
Even if you agree with his theory, you can hardly consider it proved
by the mere fact that he proposed it.
(And you can hardly consider it revelant to interoperability,
either. I keep resisting his efforts to change the subject
because I do know that MS's interoperability record
is much more defensible than their reliability or security
record)
[snip- asserted straw men.]
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 13:54:33 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quoting Daniel Johnson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sun, 09 Jul 2000
[snip]
> >What "shenanigans" have you in mind, then, Bob?
> [...]
> >To alleviate your problem, what you must do is somehow prevent
> >anyone else from using MS products.
> >
> >This seems a little harsh.
>
> You're a troll, Daniel. Did anybody ever tell you that?
Yes. With some justification, too. :D
But then, what purpose has .advocacy *but* trolling?
This whole damn pile of newsgroups is *firmly*
under the bridge, you know. :D
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 13:54:37 GMT
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> > > They have no choice but to enforce the law.
> >
> > I think you are being a shade optimistic. But lets say you
> > are right.
> >
> > Why do you prefer, then, giving the Congress the choices, they
> > being the people who wrote the law that says you can't have
> > a Internet browsing in a sufficiently popular desktop OS?
>
> The issue of product and services bundling was resolved
> OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO. It's an open and shut case.
> Microsoft's legal department must have their heads up their asses.
Are you saying Congress should be the one to decide
whether browsers belong in OSes?
If all you are saying is that they are the ones
who *will* do so, then I must sadly concede
that you may well be right.
> DOJ's case is based on MOUNDS of precedence.
Let us suppose this is so. This would suggest that
it is the *Judges* who make the decision about
whether browsers belong is OSes, since it it judges
who set precedents.
Right?
So who is it? Is it congress, or judges, who rightfully
should design OSes?
Or is it a co-operative effort between them, perhaps?
Does the President get a say in what shade of green
the desktop is, by any chance? :D
Or, perhaps more seriously, are you just plain
uninterested in whether its a good idea for government
agencies various to design our OSes for as, and
are therefore commenting only on what you feel is
actually happening?
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 13:54:42 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sun, 09 Jul 2000
[snip]
> Obviously not a defense of the Microsoft troll who posted that this case
> concerns whether you can or "can't have a Internet browsing in a
> sufficiently popular desktop OS?" But hopefully it was educational and
> interesting to those with more than one tenth of a brain.
Or at least for lawyers. You appear to feel that what matters is not
whether it is a good or a bad idea for the DoJ, or Congress, or
Judge Jackson to go around designing OSes, but whether
*that is what the law mandates*.
This suggests to me that you may be a lawyer.
Is that so?
If so, I can understand why you can't accept my squealing about
being reamed in the name of anti-trust. If law says I should
be, then what could I possibly be complaining about? Is the
law, after all!
If you aren't a lawyer, then I guess I don't understand why this
is mysterious to you.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
