Linux-Advocacy Digest #7, Volume #28 Thu, 27 Jul 00 01:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: If Linux, which? If not Linux, what? NOT flame-bait! (John S. Dyson)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Will Linux Dominate the Desktop Future? (Bob Lyday)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 23:44:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said John W. Stevens in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said John W. Stevens in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >> [...]
>> >> >The reason he is being "an asshole" is because you simply refuse, despite
>> >> >numerous suggestions, to even learn the absolute and most basic differences
>> >> >between PMT and CMT.
>> >>
>> >> I never "refused" to learn anything in my life.
>> >
>> >Did you read my simplified explanation on how PMT works, yet?
>>
>> 'Yet'? I read it when you posted it, AFAIK.
>
>You never replied to that message.
>
>If you had, I would have taken you to the next level (which would have
>explained how some of the concrete issues you've raised have already
>been solved).
Yes, I believe I remember the post. It was quite informative in the way
you describe, thanks.
>> Consider, for instance, if you were to base everything you know on one
>> book, based on the premise, which we will presume is correct, that
>> everything in that book is true. Does that mean you know everything?
>> In order to comprehend something, you must synthesize information from
>> multiple sources, *regardless* of how correct, comprehensive, or even
>> complete, that source of information is.
>
>I disagree. Before attempting any synthesis, you must first assign
>weights to the various bits of information you posses.
Well, now we get to the theory of the matter, I guess. I'm not a
cognitive scientist, but I have made a study of learning and knowledge,
specifically around computers and technology. It is my opinion that the
synthesis comes first. That the weighting of information is a result of
their capability for connecting with other bits in the act of synthesis
itself.
Our brains are "virtually" empirical; we imagine an un-imaginable number
of ways of synthesizing understanding from information as we use the
information as knowledge. The ways that work are "thoughts" which
bubble up to our conscious awareness. The value, the truth, in fact, of
information is whether it synthesizes with all the other information to
produce reproducible results, and thereby apparent understanding. The
skill, or use of understanding, including retention of knowledge, is not
the same as the understanding itself, the 'perspective' or "image" we
have of "how things work". Quite often, the most contentious arguments
in technology and engineering come when similar and related sets of
facts are synthesized into two different "structures" of understanding.
Neither is *wrong*, and if one can detect the difference in the original
sets of facts, you can often correct the perceptions by introducing the
right ones or correcting the wrong ones in either or both of the sets.
So I'd have to say I disagree with your comment, but must gratefully
applaud you for posting it. Before assigning weights to the bits of
information being presented to you, you must first attempt to synthesize
them. If you are aggressive in attempting to synthesize understanding
as much as possible from all the information presented to you (a fate
which seems oppressive to those who look at the floods of information
presented to them, but an unavoidable reality to those with ADD I think)
then you can easily see that some information provided by certain
sources might appear to be weighted before you synthesize anything with
them, but this is actually, again, the *result* of synthesis.
Most Usenet posters are familiar with the "fallacy" of arguing from
authority. Because somebody else says it, it is absolutely true. But
your suggestion is that one must weight the potential validity or
importance of a fact before you can synthesize understanding. Is that
to say that all authorities can't be believed, or must be believed?
Either way, the problem is clear: you have to put weight on some facts
more than others, without already understanding the facts to begin with.
A bootstrap issue, essentially. Who do you believe?
For this reason, synthesis must come first. When you have been able to
synthesize understanding from facts from a particular source (an
authority), then you weight facts from that authority more heavily than
random bits presented from elsewhere. This is neither always a good nor
always a bad thing. But it must be an active, conscious process. If
you let your subconscious do all your weighting for you, then it is, in
fact, impossible to synthesize any understanding, and results in an
inability to learn.
Why do you think there really *are* people who keep posting the same
obviously false statements on Usenet? Because the information presented
to them is not, in fact, ever given any weight by them. Its easy to do;
simply don't attempt to use them in your synthesis of understanding.
>> Did I memorize your presentation of PMT, and assume that each and every
>> point was absolutely true and correct? No. Did I learn from it? Of
>> course. I've never refused to learn anything in my life.
>
>So . . . what did you learn?
Keep reading, and maybe you can figure it out. Encapsulating or
categorizing it to answer your question would be anathema to the fact
that its something learned. I didn't simply memorize it, so I can't
recite it. I synthesized it.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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: 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: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 23:48:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said void in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 03:28:22 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said void in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 18:16:23 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>If people keep popping up with it, it isn't a bogus argument.
>>>
>>>Tell it to Galileo.
>>
>>I missed the reference. Galileo?
>
>Apparently he found it hard to convince people that the earth revolves
>around the sun. I think it was Galileo, it's been a while.
Ah, yes. Copernicus had already established the issue. Galileo
"simply" observed that Jupiter has moons encircling it, just as the
Earth does (and therefore presumably just as both Earth and Jupiter
orbit the Sun), and pointed out this supported Copernicus' conclusions.
I think that's how it went, anyway. I know I was always confused by why
they said Copernicus discovered the heliocentric system, but Galileo was
the one thrown in jail for it.
--
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: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 03:50:44 GMT
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Removing IE also leaves a very usable system, as long as your
> definition of "usable" doesn't include "anything that uses IE".
With that sort of reasoning, it's easy enough to call a usable system
"anything that *doesn't* use IE."
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.portable,comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: If Linux, which? If not Linux, what? NOT flame-bait!
Date: 27 Jul 2000 03:07:27 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Smitty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> p.s. Skip the BSD Linux emulation. It is not reliable and is more of a
> gimmick.
>
The BSD Linux emulation works for EVERY application that I have tried,
including Netscape and acroread. It might not work for certain
wierd apps.
The Linux emulation isn't horrible, and can be useful. It is certainly
easier to use than dealing with dual boot machines. I have a moderate
sized complex of machines, and could allocate a machine to Linux, if
it would make my certain apps on my complex run more nicely. No need
to yet. I am ready to allocate a machine to Linux, if needed, at any time.
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: 26 Jul 2000 22:51:57 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Possibly, but every single resource I have been looking at mentions
>closing those ports completely, as well as others because of the
>internet security risks. I am not familiar with the how and whys, but
>simply am taking the advice of several respected security sites.
But closing the port means you lose the corresponding service.
Why would you want to do that if you need to access the machine
remotely? Why not use /etc/hosts.allow to permit only the
machines on the local net if you want to block inbound internet
connections?
>I merely pointed out what a default install of 2 popular distributions
>looks like to a hacker on the net trying to look in.
Odd that you didn't pick RedHat 6.2 which I would expect to be
the most popular. Install it with the 'workstation' option if
you don't want to activate any services, and it won't even start
inetd. That's a pretty useless configuration in my opinion,
but if you need more secure access you can always run sshd.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 27 Jul 2000 12:55:18 +0900
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >Yes - I said it was slow. The Turing principle in practice. Logo on the
> >BBC was *much* more useable.
>
> I'm familiar with the Turing *test*, but not the Turing *principle*,
> though I can grasp something of it from the example. Can you fill me
> in?
I guess he was actually referring to what's known as Church's
hypothesis.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 26 Jul 2000 23:13:58 -0500
In article <8lo610$icb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> How far out of your way have you gone to avoid finding out the truth?
>
>I've been reading the same news reports, web pages etc as everyone else.
>
>> I suggest you read some of the PC vendor's trial depositions and
>> why they had no choice but to agree to pay for an MS license for
>> every processor they sold whether the customer wanted it or not.
>
>Specific examples would be nice.
Start with IBM's.
>An argument by the PC vendor of "we had to stock only Windows because that's
>all our customers wanted" isn't go to be particularly convincing.
That's not what you'll find.
>> >Alternatives have always been accessible. Sticking your fingers in your
>> >ears and repeating statements to the contrary will not make them true.
>>
>> Of course, after you paid for windows by buying a PC from
>> a major vendor you could delete it.
>
>PCs without Windows have always been available. This "major vendor"
>condition always gets thrown in eventually because it's the only way people
>like you can make your point remotely true.
Most people buy from major vendors. That's what makes them major.
If Microsoft controls what they are allowed to offer, they
control what most people will get.
>However, it's not relevant, as
>"major vendors" will sell to the majority market (or rather, that which
>maximises their profits) and have no obligation, legal, ethical or
>otherwise, to stock a product for every potential customer.
The PC vendors aren't the issue here. There is no evidence
that they would not have been perfectly happy to sell other
operating systems all along. Read the vendor depositions
against MS to see why they didn't.
>Your arguments of "you couldn't get it from a major manufacturer" are akin
>to saying "I couldn't buy a Rolls Royce off Ford".
Hardly - the PC vendors should not be controlled by MS's anti-competitive
practices.
>> The people who tried
>> to get refunds were refused - another thing you could hardly
>> have missed if you were at all interested in the subject.
>
>On what grounds, were they refused ?
MS didn't feel like paying up and I think the PC vendors who
sold it were contractually prevented from giving them.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: 26 Jul 2000 23:17:18 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 24.121.14.222... system is windows 2k server, running proxy server,
>> http port 80. no rpc, netbios or other shit running...i would love to
>> see you get in....haha
>
>Is this an invitation for anyone on the internet to attack
>your computer any time they wish with any attack they wish,
>without complaint from you?
No, it is a fake. There are no routes to that address
on the internet. At least not today.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:25:32 -0700
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Will Linux Dominate the Desktop Future?
"Keith T. Williams" wrote:
>
> Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > In alt.destroy.microsoft Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > :> >
> > Secondly, the subjunctive in a conditional proposition does serve
> > to express a contrary-to-fact condition. "If this was to happen"
> > leaves open the possibility that it may happen. "If this were" rules
> > it out.
Not at all. It is more like you are imagining things. It can also be
used as a future reference in another imaginary sense. The great thing
about imagining the future is that sometimes it comes true.
"Somewhere...........over the rainbow.......etc." Otherwise imagining
things might not be as much fun.
>
> Not where I come from. Either form would be correct in normal usage
> to set the condition. After all, was is the singular past indicative (1st &
> 3rd person)
> and were is the second person singular and plural and first and third person
> plural past indicative of be.
> ie, I was reading this, he was reading this, we were reading this. but then
> we got bored and gave up.
No. You are almost right except that were is not 1st past indicative at
all. "I was..." Were is also the subjunctive tense be form in English,
and all that is left of the subjunctive form. As in many other
languages, English once had a rich subjunctive tense but this is all
that is left of it....a remnant...
> --
Bob (Master's degree in Linguistics)
USER ERROR: Replace user and press any key to continue.
Remove "diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 04:27:35 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8lo7t3$jm4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > It was not directed at you, or anyone specific in this forum so you
> > will see no apology from me.
>
> What you called geek code would by definition be created and used by
geeks.
> You already knew that I work with the configuration files, scripts, and
> program code; any or all of which could be what you meant by geek code.
So,
> that was an indirect means to libel me.
>
> If you are at all an honorable man or woman, you would appologize for your
> offensive and libellous comment. And don't hide behind the indirect
method
> that you used to deliver it.
The common defense of name-calling libel or slander litigation is
linguistics. If you libelled or slandered someone in Latin then you might
have a case. English is dialectic and regional, they would have only to
prove that the word "geek" could be considered a compliment in some circles
to have the case dismissed. That's would be fairly easy to quote numerous
print sources to show.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 00:26:04 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8lo610$icb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8llv2c$mef$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8lletm$mu6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> >> It is illegal to not compete with an inferior product, but to
force
> > >> >> consumers to accept the inferior product in order to acquire
another
> > >> >> product (in this case, also inferior, but that's beside the
point).
> > >> >
> > >> >No one was forced to buy Windows, as far as I know.
> > >>
> > >> That qualifier means a lot. Would this be then, a dishonest truth,
or
> > >> an honest lie?
> > >
> > >You can only be dishonest or lie if you know the truth. Ergo, if I
> wasn't
> > >aware of anyone who had been forced to buy Windows, it would be a
> mistake,
> > >nothing more.
> >
> > How far out of your way have you gone to avoid finding out the truth?
>
> I've been reading the same news reports, web pages etc as everyone else.
>
> > I suggest you read some of the PC vendor's trial depositions and
> > why they had no choice but to agree to pay for an MS license for
> > every processor they sold whether the customer wanted it or not.
>
> Specific examples would be nice.
>
> An argument by the PC vendor of "we had to stock only Windows because
that's
> all our customers wanted" isn't go to be particularly convincing.
They (OEM's) are not obligated to justify anything to anyone. They are free
to offer any combinations of products that produce the highest profit, and
at least in the US should have the right to do so. Just as MS (and any
software maker) should have the inalienable right to produce any type of
operating system the want and charge whatever will produce the highest
profit. As a matter of fact, as a publicly traded company it is assumed by
stockholders that this is their obligation.
> > Of course, after you paid for windows by buying a PC from
> > a major vendor you could delete it.
You never HAD to buy a Windows equiped PC in the first place. Just because
the "average Joe" didn't know where to get a non Windows machine is no
defense. Stupidity and ignorance do not create a monopoly.
>
> PCs without Windows have always been available. This "major vendor"
> condition always gets thrown in eventually because it's the only way
people
> like you can make your point remotely true. However, it's not relevant,
as
> "major vendors" will sell to the majority market (or rather, that which
> maximises their profits) and have no obligation, legal, ethical or
> otherwise, to stock a product for every potential customer.
>
> Your arguments of "you couldn't get it from a major manufacturer" are akin
> to saying "I couldn't buy a Rolls Royce off Ford".
>
> > The people who tried
> > to get refunds were refused - another thing you could hardly
> > have missed if you were at all interested in the subject.
>
> On what grounds, were they refused ?
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 04:30:18 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8loabf$moa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:RqNf5.82535$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8lnjae$ngh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:22:30 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Geek is American slang which means: 1. a freak in a carnival troupe
> whose
> > > act consists of eating live animals. 2. any freak or pervert. 3. a
> > > degenerate.
> > >
> > Where did you find your definition?
> >
> > http://www.m-w.com/home.htm Merriam-Webster website
> >
> > Main Entry: geek
> > Pronunciation: 'gEk
> > Function: noun
> > Etymology: probably from English dialect geek, geck fool, from Low
German
> > geck, from Middle Low German
> > Date: 1914
> > 1 : a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act usually
> > includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake
> > 2 : a person often of an intellectual bent who is disapproved of
> > - geeky /'gE-kE/ adjective
>
>
> The definition I posted came from the "The New World Dictionary"
>
> Dictionary of the American Language has this definition:
>
> geek: 1. a carnival performer who devours living creature to shock or
> disgust the audience 2. a disgusting person 3 a sociopath or psychopath
> 4. a degenerate or pervert
So why is www.ugeek.com so popular? :-)
Do they specialize in degenerate, perverted, sociopathic, psychopathic,
disgusting, carnival performers devouring living creatures to shock or
disgust audiences?
Case dismissed.
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 04:37:09 GMT
In article <8lo6cp$1lr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8lletm$mu6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > And it isn't what "might" happen because of a monopoly which is
> > > > a crime; it is simply the act of monopolizing, of restraining
> > > > trade, of doing *anything* to hamper or interfere with
> > > > competition.
> > >
> > > Like, say, having a better product ?
> >
> > Internal documents show that Microsoft didn't think that was quite
> > enough....
> >
> > "Pitting browser against browser is hard since Netscape has 80%
> > marketshare and we have <20%. . . . I am convinced we have to use
> > Windows -- this is the one thing they don't have. . . . We have to
> > be competitive with features, but we need something more -- Windows
> > integration."
>
> This is to *beat* Netscape. You should be acutely aware of the power
> of an entrenched market, being a Mac user and all.
>
> Not only that, but Windows integration does offer added features that
> Netscape didn't and thus did make it a better product. I presume
> there's a lot more to that particular quote ?
Read the document. There isn't much more to that quote, but it fits in
with quite a bit of other stuff. I don't feel like pasting 20 pages into
this post.
> > > The Sherman Act talks a lot about things that might happen, if it
> > > is not enacted. Are there any reasonably modern examples of
> > > these things *actually* happening ?
> >
> > There are antitrust cases quite often. Most aren't very high
> > profile. Go see http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/ if you want some
> > examples.
> >
> > You can even read a copy of the relevant laws for yourself at
> > http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanual/ch2.htm
>
> Can you please provide some specific examples ? I ahve little
> patience for legal bullshit at the best of times.
I don't particularly feel like going through it either. You wanted
examplers, that site has hundreds.
> > > > There isn't anything unclear about it; even setting Real Media
> > > > as Mark Furman isn't enough to consider that MS might not be
> > > > guilty. They admitted it themselves in internal documentation,
> > > > and have been flaunting their market dominance more and more
> > > > unguardedly for years.
> > >
> > > Internal documentation continuously taken out of context.
> >
> > Please give an example of a context in which...
> >
> > "If you agree that Windows is a huge asset, then it follows quickly
> > that we are not investing sufficiently in finding ways to tie IE
> > and Windows together. This must come from you. . . . Memphis
> > [Microsoft's code-name for Windows 98] must be a simple upgrade,
> > but most importantly it must be killer on OEM shipments so that
> > Netscape never gets a chance on these systems."
> >
> > would be an innocent statement.
>
> If it was immediately followed by a reply saying "No". If it was one
> in a number of paragraphs offering alternative methods for beating
> Netscape.
The response was more like "I agree. Let's delay the release date of
Windows 98 until we can bolt IE on."
Read the document.
> If all Microsoft wanted to do was tie IE and Windows to exclude
> Netscape, then they woulnd't have bothered redesigning the entire
> product form the ground up to be modular and compentised
=========
168. Once Maritz had decided that Allchin was right, he needed to
instruct the relevant Microsoft employees to delay the release of
Windows 98 long enough so that it could be shipped with Internet
Explorer 4.0 tightly bound to it. When one executive asked on January 7,
1997 for confirmation that "memphis is going to hold for IE4, even if it
puts memphis out of the xmas oem window," Maritz responded affirmatively
and explained,
"The major reason for this is . . . to combat Nscp, we have to []
position the browser as "going away" and do deeper integration on
Windows. The stronger way to communicate this is to have a 'new release'
of Windows and make a big deal out of it. . . . IE integration will be
[the] most compelling feature of Memphis."
=========
In other words, anything other than killing Netscape was just
incidental, according you Microsoft.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
