Linux-Advocacy Digest #961, Volume #27 Tue, 25 Jul 00 18:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (abraxas)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (Tim Kelley)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (Tim Kelley)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (abraxas)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (abraxas)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (abraxas)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (abraxas)
Re: Mandrake not Linux? (abraxas)
Re: Anyone try SuSE on Power PC yet? (abraxas)
Re: Mandrake not Linux? (Mikey)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft, Linux and innovation
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Re: Mandrake not Linux?
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (John Jensen)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 25 Jul 2000 21:11:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I NEVER claimed to be a "Soooooper" or super programmer. I claim and am a
> programmer. I think a good one but not a "great" one.
You're kidding yourself. You're a horrible web designer to boot, and ANYBODY
can do THAT shit.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:09:35 -0500
Steve wrote:
>
> Just installed Mandrake 7.1 with medium security
> setting and install option of everything.
>
> Port 21 ftp WIDE OPEN.
>
> Port 23 telnet WIDE OPEN
>
> Port 110 pop3 WIDE OPEN
>
> Port 113 ident Wide open....
>
> Not to mention all of the other security holes due
> to inetd running every service known to mankind.
>
> Windows 98 se with ICS installed closes all of
> those ports and several are in stealth mode.
Win98? and what would win98 be offering on those ports, Steven?
Since it can't offer any services what is your point?
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:14:05 -0500
Steve wrote:
> Windows has those ports closed by default.
> Linux does not.....
dipshit, windows doesn't come with ftp, web server, mail servers
and everything that linux comes with. It's assumed if you
install a pop3 or web server you will want it running.
When you install an ftp server under win98 ... doesn't it leave
the port "wide open"?
Try to learn WTF you are talking about before you make an idiot
out of yourself again.
> >They like it because its design is extremely flexible. The
> >TCP/IP stack isn't flawed, either.
>
> Sure it isn't. The ports are just wide open.
"wide open"? Meaning there is a server listening? How is this a
security risk?
------------------------------
From: [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: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 21:12:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:29:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >In article <8l58vb$hbf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> news:8l4e9j$n96$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> > In article <8l4a58$96j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > >> > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >-- snip --
> > >
> > >> > Given that MS-Cheerleaders have a decidedly skewed view of
Reality,
> > >> > rational discussion seems fruitless.
> > >>
> > >> Given that anti-MS zealots have a decidedly skewed view of
Reality,
> > >> rational discussion seems fruitless.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> I am not an "MS-Cheerleader", I'm simply pointing out the simple
fact
> > >> that machines without Windows, without an OS, or with your OS of
> > >> choice have *always* been available.
> > >
> > >To hard-core geeks, yes. I have already said as much, but we are
talking
> > >about Joe and Jane General Consumer and the typical retail channel,
> > >which dc has already admitted that MS has "sewed up pretty tight."
> >
> > You clearly don't understand the difference between 1) not
*allowing*
> > Linux boxes to be sold, which you haven't proven and 2) there being
no
> > demand for Linux boxes. And if there was demand, I have every
reason
> > to believe CUSA would stock Linux boxes.
>
> Let's use BeOS instead of Linux, since its much closer to being
usable
> by Joe Average.
>
> There's no demand for BeOS because there are no apps and because you
> can't get a BeOS machine at CompUSA. You can't get a BeOS machine at
> CompUSA and there are no apps because there's no demand for BeOS .
>
> Catch-22. One of the many very large barriers to entry that protects
> Microsoft's market share. The only two OSes that have a chance are
> Linux, because developers of open source software typically don't
care
> about demand (they're not in it for the money), and Mac OS, because
it
> already has a sufficiently large app base to be a viable alternative
for
> the vast majority of users.
>
> But Linux, for all the efforts to improve ease-of-use, is still an OS
> written by geeks for geeks, and Mac OS won't really take off unless
> Apple ports to Intel, which isn't likely to happen any time soon.
But that WOULD kill Apple. Apple is a hardware company, not a software
company. The only way it could take off is if people got past this fear
and loathing of Apple (which I don't understand, but then I don't
understand people that hate Ford, GM, or Chrysler). Porting the MacOS
would make Apple a software company - that almost happened with the
clones. Personally, I prefer it as is - mainly because it pisses off
the Winfolk!
L
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 25 Jul 2000 21:21:23 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> keep trying - keep trying. unlike you I actually put facts and information
> in my posts - unlike you I actually use things I talk about. DB2 is OK,
"OK"? And what exactly is its superior and why?
> Oracle is crap and quite dated -
Can you give me hard, real world reasons that it is crap and quite dated?
> but it has it's hangers on - 99% of them in
> the *nix world - no suprise.
Can you give me a reference for this statistic?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 25 Jul 2000 21:23:29 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> SQL server does it 3 times as fast for half the price as Oracle.
DB2 is even faster than that, and infinitely more scalable, literally.
Though you do have to have a bit of money to spend. Which usually
insinuates something resembling profitibility; which, unless it is
a porn site, you obviously have nothing to do with.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 25 Jul 2000 21:26:35 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8lic8h$1n0v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> >> Haven't worked with either. I saw HP Openview a few years ago (1995)
>> >> when it was in 30-day demo mode on some new machines. It's ok, but
>> >> all the info is available from pre-existing commands like netstat.
>> >
>> > HAHAHHAHA - you didn't spend hardly any time with it at all then did
> you!
>> > "netstat" -
>>
>> You actually dont know what netstat is, do you.
>
> Give me a fucking break child.
>
Ah, so you dont. I'll just add that to the "chmod, chgrp, su" list.
>>
> monstrous machine to run? hahahahahahaHAHAHAHahhahahaahAHHaHh oh my god, I
> can't believe I keep replying to your fucking crap. I don't think you've
> even seen it beyond maybe an ad. pathetic
Sorry, im used to 65,000 node + networks containing hundreds of subnets.
A couple of days to discover the entire thing, couple more days to get
enough stats to build a tweak-strategy (not my term), then 2 or 3 weeks
to implement that. And then an absolutely dedicated machine for management,
and an entirely separate one for compilation.
And thats on a humungoid sparc w/ 4 hme's.
You're obviously used to something smaller.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 25 Jul 2000 21:28:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Drestin Black wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >
>> > Drestin Black wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > news:8ldh6g$2hk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Did you lie or were you lying?
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > You're transferring, dresden. You are not a programmer, you are not
>> > > > intelligent, you are utterly worthless in every sense.
>> > >
>> > > sigh...
>> >
>> > How many languages do you know BEYOND Visual Basic?
>> >
>> > I'm not even a programmer, and I know .. oh gee, I think 15 different
>> > Programming Languages.
>> >
>>
>> 15? So? dabler in many, master of none... typical.
>
> This is what is known as being "Well educated."
>
I bet you know how to spell "dabble" too.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mandrake not Linux?
Date: 25 Jul 2000 21:32:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thus Sprake [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
>> >> High security under mandrake (which isnt even actually linux) is a very
>> >> bad idea if you ever plan on using it for anthing more than an extremely
>> >> secure router/service machine.
>> >
>> >IMHO Default *anything* is bad when it comes to security. btw, Mandrake
>> >not Linux?
>> >How so?
>>
>> It isn't your only option and those that choose to install it
>> on their machines (OEMs) aren't bound by contracts not to
>> change it.
>
> Do you mean by adding unofficial changes to the kernel for more specific
> machines?
>
Sort of, more specifically, cleaning up the classically munged kernel headers
for all platforms they offer. The kernel is no longer linux, this change was
not AFAIK approved by torvalds nor implemented by cox.
And it breaks a hell of alot of stuff too.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Anyone try SuSE on Power PC yet?
Date: 25 Jul 2000 21:33:45 GMT
David-James Fernandes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Got a demo of SuSE linux 6.4 for Power PC in Mac Tech magazine - haven't
> tried it yet. Any comments from people who have?
Suse is my favorite linux because its very much like freebsd.
:)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mandrake not Linux?
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 06:52:22 -0400
Thus Sprake abraxas:
> > Do you mean by adding unofficial changes to the kernel for more specific
> > machines?
> >
>
> Sort of, more specifically, cleaning up the classically munged kernel headers
> for all platforms they offer. The kernel is no longer linux, this change was
> not AFAIK approved by torvalds nor implemented by cox.
>
> And it breaks a hell of alot of stuff too.
Hmmm... I have Mandrake 7.1 on my CTX laptop. What sort of stuff does
it break? Where do I find out more about this?
--
Since-beer-leekz,
Mikey
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam
possit materiari?
------------------------------
From: [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: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 21:35:35 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:51:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- snip --
> Did you miss the part where I said CompUSA can add whatever machines
> they want and put any OS they want on them?
Nope, didn't miss it at all. I simply ignored it due to its being
*completely irrelevant* to the discussion.
> >Chicken and Egg; there is "no demand" (actually there is demand,
> >otherwise, why would Dell, IBM, etc, be offering Linux?) in the "easy
> >stores" because Joe and Jane General Consumer don't know they have a
> >choice, because, as you have ***ALREADY ADMITTED*** MS has the retail
> >channel "sewed up pretty tight."
>
> Chicken and egg isn't MS's problem; it's Linux's problem. CompUSA can
> sell any PCs they want in their store; the fact that MS software is
> sold at these stores isn't MS's fault or problem. Now, if you can
> build a case that CUSA *cannot* sell a Linux box in their own stores,
> please do so.
You're pretty good out point out the obvious. Where have I claimed that
*anything* was MS' problem?
No, you offered up a reason why there aren't any Linux boxes at CompUSA
(i.e., "no demand for Linux") and I simply countered with the *real*
reason why there is "no demand."
Making a case "that CUSA *cannot* sell a Linux box in their own stores"
is, as I have already noted, completely irrelevant.
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [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: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 21:40:50 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- snip --
> You clearly don't understand the difference between 1) not *allowing*
> Linux boxes to be sold, which you haven't proven and 2) there being no
> demand for Linux boxes. And if there was demand, I have every reason
> to believe CUSA would stock Linux boxes.
You clearly don't understand that 1) "*allowing* Linux boxes to be sold"
is *NOT* the issue and 2) the real reason why "there [is] no demand for
Linux boxes."
Hint: you have already admitted to that real reason.
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft, Linux and innovation
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 21:54:26 GMT
On 25 Jul 2000 15:54:24 -0500, Jen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 18:02:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>>(1) Interrupt arbitration (to get around the IRQ mess)
>>>(2) Device identification
>>>(3) Automatic driver location & installation
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> PNP is just the first two.
>
>From http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/respec/pnpspecs.htm
>
>There are a variety of Plug and Play technologies, including BIOS,
>ISA, SCSI, IDE, CD-ROM, LPT, COM, PCMCIA, and drivers. Each Plug and
>Play device must have all of the following capabilities:
>
>It must be uniquely identified.
>It must state the services it provides and the resources it requires.
>It must identify the driver which supports it.
>Finally, it must allow software to configure it.
Actually, this primarily seems to be a way for bad software
to scuttle perfectly good software. There's really no good
reason that the hardware shouldn't be able to sort itself
out.
I'd rather trust an Electrical Engineer than most programmers.
>
>
>> Even with PCI, some cards still can manage to make themselves
>> a nuisance. There are also limitations of the XT architecture
>> itself that can be encountered such that the pnp qualities of
>> PCI are rendered moot.
>
>Excuses, excuses huh?
That's more of a condemnation than an excuse.
"vendorlock" works for hardware just as well as it works for
Operating Systems, and Linux isn't the only XT operating
system that can explode horribly while attempting PnP.
>
>The *XT* architecture!? LOL
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 21:58:45 GMT
On 25 Jul 2000 13:19:51 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
>
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:50:47 GMT, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:35:47 -0700, dakota
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>Just installed Mandrake 7.1 with medium security
>> [deletia]
>> >>effects. Besides that, you can pipe everyone one of those
>> >>services and more through an encrypted ssh session. Are you
>> >>aware of those things called "firewalls" <snicker>?
>> >
>> >Tell that to the poor fool who installs Linux out
>>
>> Telnet is the only one that really has to be worried about.
>>
>> pop and ftp are actually quite useful and identd is somewhat
>> required in certain situations (irc).
>
>Bullshit.
>
>Install RedHat 6.2, Suse 6.4, Slackware 7, Mandrake 7.1, or any number
>of others, running the default FTP server and your box will be rooted
>as soon as a kiddie sees it. (ie, read up on wu-ftpd "Providing Root
...been running Mandrake, Redhat & Slackware with the default FTP
configurations for over 5 years, including under a static IP address
and domain name.
If I've been rooted due to my ftpd configuration, then the script
kiddies in question have been rather discrete.
[deletia]
Telnet, OTOH is a cracker magnet.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mandrake not Linux?
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:00:57 GMT
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 05:41:09 -0400, Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Thus Sprake [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
>> >> High security under mandrake (which isnt even actually linux) is a very
>> >> bad idea if you ever plan on using it for anthing more than an extremely
>> >> secure router/service machine.
>> >
>> >IMHO Default *anything* is bad when it comes to security. btw, Mandrake
>> >not Linux?
>> >How so?
>>
>> It isn't your only option and those that choose to install it
>> on their machines (OEMs) aren't bound by contracts not to
>> change it.
>
>Do you mean by adding unofficial changes to the kernel for more specific
>machines?
You mean like on my Tivo? Or perhaps Mandrake 7.1 or Suse 6.4?
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:02:47 GMT
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:14:05 -0500, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Steve wrote:
>
>> Windows has those ports closed by default.
>> Linux does not.....
>
>dipshit, windows doesn't come with ftp, web server, mail servers
>and everything that linux comes with. It's assumed if you
>install a pop3 or web server you will want it running.
Then again... if you don't install it... nothing is going
to be there to service a Port FOO request and provide
turn your machine into a cracker's paradise.
>When you install an ftp server under win98 ... doesn't it leave
>the port "wide open"?
>
>Try to learn WTF you are talking about before you make an idiot
>out of yourself again.
[deletia]
I recommend to the local Linux newbies to just plain seek
out telnetd and just plain delete it...
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: 25 Jul 2000 22:06:04 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: John Jensen wrote:
: > There are some deeper issues here than depending on network communications
: > to run a word processor. The primary goal of component technology is the
: > independant deployment and assembly of software units. Anyone who has
: > tried to upgrade their Gnome libraries should appreciate that goal.
: > Anyone who has followed their 'rpm' dependancies down four levels should
: > appreciate that goal. It would be sad if the problem became off-limits
: > simply because Microsoft happened also to be working on it.
: I would prefer the status quo over ANY Microsoft pollution.
: The reason: Microsoft is not to be trusted in any respect.
: Especially giving them the power to turn off access
: to applications.
You think you are fighting Microsoft, but in doing that you give them
credit for component-oriented software engineering! Do you think they
invented or somehow own the subject?
It sounds as if you would rather surrender the whole field of research,
rather than consider that Microsoft might be on to a good area of inquiry.
John
------------------------------
From: [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: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:07:17 GMT
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 14:33:21 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:37:07 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:28:12 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >$45 for an OS that retails for $200 isn't a bad offer. Hardly what one
>> >> >might call....how you say...strong-arm monopolistic pricing.
>> >>
>> >> I would say that would depend on the context. What might be "just
>> >> business in one context" could well be seen as "strong arm tactics" in
>> >> another. If I sell you fire insurance, that's a business deal. If I
>> >> send thugs carrying a can of gasoline to sell you fire insurance,
>> >> that's strong-arming.
>> >>
>> >> It also depends on the terms of the deal. If the $45 price was offered
>> >> in exchange for something else worth more than $200, then it isn't such
>> >> a great deal after all.
>> >>
>> >> Would a deal of "$45 if you sell our products exclusively on all of
>> >> your computers, $200 if you want to offer anything else on even one of
>> >> them" be strong-arming? How about if the computer retails for only
>> >> $1000 to begin with? How about if the MS sales guy lets you know that
>> >> your competitor signed up for the $45 deal? How about if they offer
>> >> you the $45 price for the exclusive deal, or $200 and removal from
>> >> their logo and co-op advertising programs for the non-exclusive one?
>> >> See, things are not just about the price.
>> >>
>> >> Nobody but MS could get away with this. I mean, if Be tried it they
>> >> would be laughed off. The trial testimony is that MS did do such
>> >> things. Which must mean their positon is maybe somewhat different than
>> >> that of Be.
>> >
>> >Microsoft never did what you claim. Who's trial testimony are you referring
>>
>> This is pure, unadulterated bullshit.
>>
>> Those sorts of practices are originally what got Microsoft in
>> trouble with the Department of Justice to begin with. An Exec
>> from IBM also testified that they were indulging in those
>> tactics recently as well.
>
>And IBM should know...considering that they were in court for over 20
>years for the same violations in the 60's and 70's.
...like father, like son...
[deletia]
Bill Gates: Dark Lord of the Sith... '-)
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
