Linux-Advocacy Digest #821, Volume #27 Thu, 20 Jul 00 17:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451746 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Advocacy and Programmers... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (WesTralia)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh ("Marcus Turner")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (mark)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (mark)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Re: Oh, this is a good one (2:1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:19:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>>Yes. In the background. I don't have a problem with your disagreeing
>>with my position, but I'd appreciate some indication you're trying to
>>comprehend them, instead of making up things for you to refute without
>>even trying to understand my point.
>
>(Sigh) I'd hoped just one quick example would quickly disprove your
>sillyness.
If your intent is to prove me silly, rather than to address the issue,
then repetitive attempts are sure to be necessary.
You are missing my point. Purposefully, and with reason, I'll grant.
But that doesn't change the fact that you are missing my point, which is
that optimizing the system for whatever task the user is currently
engaged in may very well be more efficient than not optimizing the
system for whatever task the user is currently interfacing with, but
only for the average of all potential tasks. Not the *process*, the
*task*. The PMT issue is clearly a matter of balancing load with
responsiveness. But where that balance is best drawn does, to some
extent at least, depend on what the user is doing, as different tasks
provide for different optimum efficiencies. The design of technology is
often this way: what is optimum for all potential cases is not
necessarily optimum for any one case. I've expressed this before as the
difference in perspective from the engineer who designs and implements
the technology, and the user who wishes to benefit from it for purely
individual reasons. Certainly a secondary concern in comparison to the
design details, but it disconcerts me to think that it is not even
considered as remotely important, and even silly.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451746
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:16:37 GMT
Here's today's Malloy digest. Once again he ignores all the unresolved
issues, such as his alleged reciprocation, his illogic regarding his
frequenting of "these precincts", how he tried to speak for everyone
else, his parroting, the nonexistent chat with the "TPTB", and so on.
Instead, he chose to demonstrate his reading comprehension problem once
again, by using the word "necessarily" inappropriately, given that my
question of Eric didn't involve any necessity.
119> Tholen tholes some more boring claptrap:
119>
119> In an ideal world, Tholen, the subject line would match the text of the
119> message, but I gotta break it to ya, Tholen: we don't live in an ideal
119> world, never have and never will. So, with that understood, why does
119> "today" in the text necessarily refer to some made up number, eh, Tholen?
119> Answer: it doesn't have to. But you knew that, you're just arguing for
119> argument's sake, as usual. Such is your claptrap.
120> Here's today's Tholen digest, well, at least as much of it as I can stand
120> reading:
120>
120> [Nothing of value added at all]
How ironic.
120> Bye!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Advocacy and Programmers...
Date: 20 Jul 2000 20:21:24 GMT
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:58:08 -0700, Salvador peralta wrote:
>> >doesn't mean that i don't know how to fork a process or that I don't
>> >know what the fork a process is.
>>
>> I am just setting the record straight -- and pointing out that fork
>> is not at all a perl thing, it's a UNIX thing,
>
>Show me where I said that it isn't a unix thing or that it can't be done
>in other languages?
> I said its something that one can do easily in
>Perl.
Well that's like saying one can easily do a for loop in perl. So what ?
> What you call "setting the record straght" amounted to you
>telling me that I don't know what a fork is or a process is, and that's
>an arrogant thing to do. Actually, it's more than that, it's stupid,
>really, when you know nothing about my skill-set.
Here you go getting defensive again. Your post made it look like you
were saying that fork is a perl thing. You said, and I quote:
"It (and unix) have powerful methods for forking processes from
within the script."
I accept the possibility that you know what you're talking about,
but the above line does sound rather confused, because you make it
sound as though forking a process is a perl thing, but it is not.
>because I've never used other languages ( also untrue ) or that I don't
>understand data encapsulation and data hiding and oo methods generally
>simply because I asked you to clarify what you meant when you used the
>term when discussing scripts versus binaries.
You asked me what I meant by "privacy" and perl having broken
privacy with respect to OO. I would have expected that someone
familiar with both OO and perl would know straight away what that
meant. Again, the point of my post was not to critique your skills.
You are taking this waaaaaay too personally.
>weeks to learn in c / gtk+. And I stand by that statement. You decided
>that this statement made for a good opportunity to champion python. I
Not really.
>have no problem with that. You decided it'd be a good opportunity to
>show off about your skill-set.
Not at all. I haven't mentioned my skill set anywhere in these posts.
You are the one loudly trumpeting your skill set over an irrational
fear that it's under attack. Clue: it isn't.
>process, you made assumptions about my skill-set that simply are not
>true,
If you thought I was posting with the sole intent of criticising your
competency as a programmer, you are just plain wrong, and I am sorry
that you have totally misinterpreted the entire contents of my post.
If I am really so incoherent that you have misunderstood me to this
degree, perhaps my ramblings really are no more comprehensible than
yours.
>that. And if you don't see that then you need to spend a little less
>time programming and more time in civility 101.
If you can't hold a conversation about programming languages without getting
offended because someone inadvertently fails to appreciate your level
of expertise as a programmer, I suggest you either get a thicker skin or
go somewhere besides advocacy. If you think I am the rudest guy in this
forum, you simply haven't been reading here long enough.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:18:26 -0500
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > "Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > <snip> >
> > > > > oh give me a break... sigh... you know that no matter what I would
> write
> > > > > you'd just pick it apart and either call it shit or say it was
> copied.
> > > It's
> > > > > a no win scenario. I haven't used Fortran since college (or RPG and
> > > Cobol).
> > > > > C++ , it takes half a page to write hello world, fuck that. So...
> piss
> > > > > off...
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > #include<iostream>
> > > >
> > > > main()
> > > > {
> > > > cout << "Hello World!" << endl;
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > >
> > > > Um, half a page?!?!
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, I exagerated a little :)
> > >
> > > of couse, in BASIC this would be
> > >
> > > --------------------
> > > PRINT "Hello World!"
> > > --------------------
> >
> > Well, joke to joke...
> >
> > To each his own and all that....
>
> Sorry? "joke to joke"? I don't follow.
You don't need to take it personal. You exagerated the half a page, I
came back jokingly that it wasn't half a page, you came back jokingly
that it's less in BASIC. Joke to joke. You made a "mad" joke, I
replied with an attempted humorous joke, you replied again with what
appeared to be humor and I said joke to joke. I guess I don't see what
I did wrong. And the 'to each his own' was in reference to this
incessant war of words we got going on in here about languages. Use
what works for you. I've got no problem with that. Although I myself
wouldn't be using BASIC again anytime soon (I used to, ages ago, on an
Apple II) in any form (and I know VB is a long ways from the old BASICs,
but it's still BASIC to me), I don't have any problem with the people
that do use it. Although I will say I have worked with some VB
programmers that couldn't tell their "hole from a butt in the ground"
(as one of my more tired buddies once said during a late night fragfest
party), I don't think all of them are clueless morons as some are
saying. I do however believe that clueless morons find it easier to use
than other languages (which may lead some to the conclusion that all
that use it are morons). This probably creates some of the problems
with a lot of people claim they have with VB programmers. So, like I
said, to each his own.
BTW, I wouldn't use VB because I haven't really used Windows in about a
year, and I don't plan on doing it any time soon either. I got away
from Windows when I left the last job I had, and my current job is
administering a Linux/BSD/*nix network. VB seems to me to be a Windows
only thing, and not my particular cup of tea even when I did use
Windows.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:25:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said John W. Stevens in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> I certainly don't want to get back in to this, but I think its worth
>> noting, in general, that most desktops are used for a SINGLE application
>> at a time.
>
>Excuse, Max, but you are wrong.
>
>> When I'm using a word processor, my computer is a word
>> processor.
>
>Just because a car is just a car, does not mean that it only has one
>part.
But I can't be driving two cars at the same time. I can't be "using"
two applications at the same time, either. Obviously the value of
multi-tasking, of having more than one application *available* for
task-switching, and actively processing while in the background, cannot
be over-estimated. But it is not the issue I was addressing.
>A word processor might spawn off as many as 31 different, separate
>threads of execution.
I did not say there is only one thread at a time, nor only one process
at a time. Merely that there is only one task being performed by the
user at any one time. That task may indeed be a combination of
procedures (watching a download's progress while playing a game or
writing a note while a database sorts), but from the user's perspective,
it is a single conglomerate task with a single desktop interface.
>And, just as importantly, there are a number of tasks running on your
>average workstation even when *you*, the *user*, hasn't started any
>application.
Why is it that everyone thinks I'm trying to hand-wave task-switching
and background processing? (As if I didn't know...)
>> >I don't work on automatic transmissions . . . and I'm just barely smart
>> >enough to *KNOW* that I shouldn't work on an automatic transmission!
>> >:-)
>>
>> I don't work on any transmissions, and don't plan to. But I do drive a
>> manual transmission car. I like the control it gives me. ;-)
>
>Ah . . . I see you prefer PMT over CMT in your automobiles . . .
So PMT is both automatic and manual transmission? Perhaps you're
unclear on the concept of analogy.
[...that's enough for now, I think...]
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: WesTralia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:17:30 -0500
David Brown wrote:
>
> Christopher Smith wrote in message <8l6uk0$k81$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >
> >As I understand it the programming staff turnover at Microsoft is quite
> >high.
>
> I'm not surprised - they probably go mad or get burned out from overwork. I
> have heard a lot of the coders spend almost all their waking hours on the
> code. I can't say whether this is the cause or effect of the MS coding
> style.
Bear in mind also that Microsoft employs 3,000 plus H-1B visa workers
which work no less than 70 hours per week (an Indian programmer friend
of mine tells me that they refer to themsleves as slogs). Add to this
fact that the H-1B visa is good for only 6 years and you can easily see
how Microsoft might just take advantage of this dispensable type of worker.
-wt
------------------------------
From: "Marcus Turner" <[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: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 19:22:52 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:17:21 GMT, Marcus Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"Gilbert W. Pilz Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:36:03 GMT, "Marcus Turner"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [deletia]
> >> the feds, if it had gotten into the lobbying and campaign contribution
> >> game a little earlier I suspect things would have never reached this
> >> point.
> >
> >Judge Jackson has stated several times that he was concerned w/
Microsoft's
> >unrepentant attitude towards the trial.
> >
> >Seems to me to be another case of Legislation by Litigation.
>
> Hardly. This action was brought about under a 100 year old
> statute. Microsoft just blew it off and suffered the fate
> of ANYONE that blows off a judge.
Hmmm... the Clayton Act of 1914 is the basis for the Microsoft vs DOJ case,
the Sherman Act of 1890 was focused on restraint of Interstate and Foreign
trade. Subtle difference.
> This is true of litigation in general, civil or criminal:
> blow off the case and you essentially forfiet allowing the
> your adversary to completely define the situation.
Well, that falls in to the realm of opinion. It appears to me that Jackson
placed too much of his own bias into the decision - He seemed to be more
concerned with his legacy than justice.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 20 Jul 2000 20:30:23 GMT
On 20 Jul 2000 14:21:32 -0500, Drestin Black wrote:
>
>Writing directly to memory? What BASIC class did YOU take?
I learned it from books a long time ago ( maybe 15 years back or so )
> Not the way I
>learned it. I NEVER wrote directly to memory from BASIC.
What do "peek" and "poke" do ? On my machine, this was the only way to
do certain things ( eg graphics ). We're talking a long time ago, of
course.
> GOTOs - what's
>wrong with properly used GOTOs
What do you mean by "properly used" ?
> - do you never use a JMP in assembly? Does
>this make assembly bad?
Assembly is OK for low level programming. It is completely unacceptable
for high level programming.
> Original old old basic was not structured or object
>oriented, You should review VB6 and rethink your comments.
VB6 is irrelevant to my comments -- it is not "old basic".
And no, I still don't think VB is much of a "teaching language". Users
need to learn the basics -- flow control, conditional branching, etc.
without getting distracted by the UI. VB is more suited to intermediate
/ advanced programmers ( despite its reputation as being a "for dummies"
tool ).
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:24:12 +0100
In article <8l6t4j$nrh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Brown wrote:
>
>Christopher Smith wrote in message <8l6k5d$klo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>>
>>> MS does provide source code licenses to some extent, but there are great
>>> limitations. They are very unlikely to give out source code for all
>their
>>> software running on the machines - the Navy might get access to the
>>Windows
>>> code but not the Office code, for instance. The license will also be
>>> restricted to allowing only a few people to see it, and will not allow
>>them
>>> to change it even if they find bugs in the code.
>>
>>I daresay the *US Government* might have a slightly less stringent
>licensing
>>agreement.
>>
>>I'd also be wondering why they'd need the source to anything except the OS
>>in the first place.
>>
>
>It depends on what else is on the machines which might influence their
>reliability. For example, if IE is on the machines, they might want to have
>the source for that, including all the add-ons (I have absolutely no idea
>how much is included in the source license that the US government has - if
>indeed it has such a license). MS fights tooth and claw to avoid people
>looking at their source code - I doubt if they give the US government any
>more than they absolutely have to to get the contract.
>
>>> Additionally, the Windows
>>> source is not written with a view to being easily read or changed by
>>> others - it would take a huge amount of effort for outsiders to make much
>>> sense of the code. With an OS like FreeBSD or Linux, where the source is
>>> regularly inspected by many people, it is much easier for groups like the
>>> Navy to make use of the code.
>>
>>I take it that you are one of the "few people" who have seen the Windows NT
>>source code, then ?
>>
>No, but I have heard of people who have... Ok, I happily admit that I have
>not seen any Windows source code, and have no basis for commenting on it
>other than common sense (writing code that is easily readable and
>maintainable by others is a substantial extra burden in development - MS
>seldom releases any of their source code, so why would they pay this extra
>cost?), and from the programmatically visible part of the OS - i.e., the
>Windows API. The API is such a mess that it is difficult to believe that
>there is a neat, modular, organized system hiding underneath.
>
>I have had a (brief) look at some Linux code - it is all there if you want
>to look yourself. There are also books available detailing the code for
>those that are interested. Without access to the Windows source code, I can
>do little more concrete than speculate, but I doubt very much that Windows
>code is more readable or maintainable to outsiders than Linux or FreeBSD.
>
>
>
Personally, I suspect that MS developers speculate too... I can just hear
the cries... "Now why do you suppose these are all globals..."
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
"A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:21:09 +0100
In article <8l774q$alm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christopher Smith wrote:
>
>"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8l760u$tkp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Christopher Smith wrote in message <8l6un9$vdr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >
>> >Where ? Examples, preferably reproducable rather than anecdotal, would
>be
>> >nice.
>> >
>> >> I
>> >> haven't had it happen for a while on my PC, but it is common enough
>with
>> >> supposedly solid, debugged, professional applications that it is quite
>> >> believable in new software on trial.
>> >
>> >I can't say, after using NT since about Feb 1996, that I've ever seen it
>> >happen.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> It has been several weeks (maybe even months) since I blue-screened my NT
>> machine.
>
>Last time I saw NT BSOD was about 2 days after SP2 was released. I can't
>remember when that was, but it was quite a while ago.
>
>> I regularly manage to crash the GUI (i.e., explorer crashes and
>> restarts itself). It is a hassle, and I loose all these nice little
>systray
>> icons, but I can keep working.
>
>It's not like X and/or KDE, GNOME etc is any better, and you lose a lot more
>work when they die.
>
>> The last time I saw a BSOD was while trying to copy a poorly burned CD
>from
>> one networked NT machine to another, via a third machine. It was an
>unusual
>> situation, but there is no reason for it to fail (the "app" in question
>was
>> the copy command). It is fair enough that there were problems copying
>some
>> files - the CD was very problematic. But halfway through copying, the
>> machine with the CD BSOD'ed.
>
>Sounds like your bad CD was junking up the disk driver. I've seen it happen
>on my Linux machine - SCSI driver locked up the entire machine. Probably
>ould have done the same thing under NT, but I never tried.
>
Sounds like 'insert speculative completely made-up microsoft marketing
reason why this might have happened somewhere else, which then makes
it a linux problem'...
I think not.
This appears to be a 'fact-free' post.
>
>
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
"A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:39:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said ZnU in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> Or how bout the CEO of Real Networks getting up as a witness to
>> perjure himself with a tale of how Microsoft purposely broke his Real
>> Player. Only to be found out as a liar who KNEW beforehand that it
>> was a bug in his player which MS had recently informed him about.
>
>That isn't Microsoft evidence. What's this amazing Microsoft evidence
>the judge ignored? Please, do tell.
What's really funny is the naivete of people who look at this issue and
believe that Microsoft's 'bug' which just happened to break Real Player
was some "oops, accident" kind of thing, rather than an intentional and
successful effort to inhibit the growing snow-ball of Real Player's
market impact. A Microsoft bug that just "happens" to deter
competition, a CEO who testifies to this fact under oath, and an
incredulous public which is blind to the actual events in question,
that's all evidence that a reasonable person would take with a grain of
salt. Considering the similarity of this scenario to both the DR-DOS
scam and the Netscape scam, one would have to be naive, I think, to take
it at face value.
[...]
>Microsoft doesn't have any competitors in the x86 desktop OS market.
>Some of its competitors in other areas have been trying to break
>Microsoft's desktop monopoly, but Microsoft has been using market power
>illegally to thwart their efforts.
>
>That's what this entire trial is about. Haven't you been paying
>attention?
No, he hasn't. He's one of the few "mega-droids" still pretending to
support contentions of Microsoft's blamelessness. But I think it is
worth pointing out that it is the "x86 *pre-load* market" which MS has
locked up; there are competitors, including Linux, FreeBSD, BeOS, and
Solaris86, for after-market sales. If only MS competed in any market,
these alternative might well be very widely implemented, if they aren't
considered to be already.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [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: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:42:30 GMT
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 19:22:52 GMT, Marcus Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:17:21 GMT, Marcus Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >"Gilbert W. Pilz Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:36:03 GMT, "Marcus Turner"
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [deletia]
>> >> the feds, if it had gotten into the lobbying and campaign contribution
>> >> game a little earlier I suspect things would have never reached this
>> >> point.
>> >
>> >Judge Jackson has stated several times that he was concerned w/
>Microsoft's
>> >unrepentant attitude towards the trial.
>> >
>> >Seems to me to be another case of Legislation by Litigation.
>>
>> Hardly. This action was brought about under a 100 year old
>> statute. Microsoft just blew it off and suffered the fate
>> of ANYONE that blows off a judge.
>
>Hmmm... the Clayton Act of 1914 is the basis for the Microsoft vs DOJ case,
>the Sherman Act of 1890 was focused on restraint of Interstate and Foreign
>trade. Subtle difference.
Are you trying to seriously claim that the bulk of Microsoft
business doesn't fall into that category?
>
>
>> This is true of litigation in general, civil or criminal:
>> blow off the case and you essentially forfiet allowing the
>> your adversary to completely define the situation.
>
>Well, that falls in to the realm of opinion. It appears to me that Jackson
>placed too much of his own bias into the decision - He seemed to be more
>concerned with his legacy than justice.
No it doesn't. There was quite a bit of testimony and Microsoft's
own documents backing up those claims.
What was missing was the rebuttal.
That is also conspicuously absent from your claims.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oh, this is a good one
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 22:00:57 +0100
abraxas wrote:
> http://www.msnbc.com/msn/432208.asp
>
> This may very well be the funniest one yet...Dresden? Any
> comments?
>
> -----yttrx
Could you post a copy? It 404s now.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous Hackenthorpe rock,
which
is over three trillion years old?
-The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
