Linux-Advocacy Digest #273, Volume #28 Mon, 7 Aug 00 01:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating (OSguy)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company ("JS/PL")
Re: Corporate Linux Information (Steven DeFino)
Re: can Linux use be so low? I do not believe it. web traffic. ("Anthony D.
Tribelli")
Re: Does Steve Ballmer post here? (lilo)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 22:20:26 -0500
Christopher Browne wrote:
> You might also take a look at either of the URLs below.
> <http://www.ntlug.org/>
> I'm one of the officers of a Linux User Group with around 2000 members.
And you keep saying you can't get enough volunteers......
Obviously not all 2000 members show up for meetings. Are you sure you didn't
miss a decimal point there? Or are you now the treasurer for all of them in
this country?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 23:13:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >There is no such thing as a dishonest mistake. You cannot tell a lie if
>you
>> >do not know the truth.
>>
>> I don't accept those two statements has being related by logic. The
>> second is correct, but has no bearing on the first, which is incorrect.
>
>The bearing it has on the first is in defining the word "dishonest".
>
>Again, you cannot make a dishonest mistake. Being dishonest requires the
>truth be known.
Known by whom; the one making the mistake, or the one detecting the
mistake? It is true that one is not a liar if one is merely ignorant of
the truth.. This does not, however, entirely discombobulate the meaning
of the phrase "dishonest mistake". A dishonest mistake is an
intentional mistake, one motivated by dishonesty, and there is such a
thing. And its worth observing that you seem to practice it routinely
in your insistence that observation and contemplation is not sufficient
to recognize Microsoft's behavior as both criminal and unethical. You
make the mistake of not considering much of the evidence, and your use
of obfuscation and misdirection and general flum-flummery in conjunction
with this pretense of naivete indicates it is a dishonest, which is to
say false, mistake. You know the truth is that these are reasonable
considerations, whether the truth is that MS is wrong or not. You
simply want to avoid confronting your mistake in reasoning by resting on
tell-tale "we cannot know" and "that's not MS's problem" arguments, and
so many of your statements concerning Windows and Microsoft constitute
dishonest mistakes.
>> In a consumer market where convenience is a major selling point,
>> accessible means "doesn't have to be looked for." As if you've never
>> read Jedi's sig.
>
>I probably have, but I certainly don't remember it. Since jedi resides in
>my killfile, I also rarely read his posts.
To paraphrase 'Finding an alternative in a free market shouldn't be the
equivalent of a quest for the holy grail.'
>And PCs sans-Windows could be located easily. It required the enormously
>mentally taxing task of opening a computer magazine.
As opposed to the actual process of locating a PC which the overwhelming
majority of the milliions-strong PC market implements, which is to call
a well-known and ostensibly reliable and enduring major PC manufacturer,
or visiting their large, clearly marked stores or complete-feature rich
web sights.
Finding an alternative to Windows shouldn't require an alternative
process in finding a PC.
>Anyone dropping a few grand onto a purchase without doing basic research
>deserves everything they get.
Thus, the "that's somebody else's fault" dishonest mistake is clearly
evidenced.
>> >Only a small percentage might access the alternatives because only a
>small
>> >percentage might be *interested* in the alternatives. Macintoshes are
>just
>> >as accessible as PCs, yet only a tiny percentage of people choose to
>access
>> >them.
>>
>> And the key to your position resolves to "might", and an argument of
>> ignorance.
>
>No, an argument of probability.
And the empirical or research-based data which supports this probability
is sadly missing, I must point out. Your willingness to second-guess
the market is not matched, apparently, by your ability to double-check
your assumptions.
[...]
>Evidence indicates that even today, Linux is unpopular in the consumer
>market. This is despite the generational leap in interface and usability it
>has made in just th last 12 to 18 months.
>
>Evidence strongly suggests Linux was not available to the consumer market
>because it was not in demand.
How can anybody say such a stupid thing with a straight face, I ask you?
I have to assume you've been exposed to better information about how
markets work than the rather inexplicable suggestion that demand and
supply are not inextricably related. You have no *evidence*, only an
*assumption*, that Linux is not in demand. And a rather silly
assumption at that, given the evidence which does contradict it quite
pointedly. What you have evidence of, if you wish to call it that, is
that Linux is not *sold*. Whether that is because of a lack of supply
or lack of demand is not just irrelevant, but is purposeful obfuscation,
suitable only for arguments for ignorance and again presenting what I've
described as a "dishonest mistake".
While you might wish to flip-flop around in order to deny first that MS
prevents supply, and then that MS prevents demand, even as the
mechanisms of restraint of trade and monopolization are not merely
identical but simultaneous, the fact remains that your thinking is so
full of holes as to be almost laughable. You are indeed being dishonest
in presenting it as a cogent argument, I feel sure, if only because your
facility with language and computers seems to indicate that your
intellect is more than sufficient for being able to comprehend the
charges and the evidence presented.
--
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.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 23:15:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chris Wenham in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Of course I am. What a stupid idea. A dictionary is supposed to
>> provide *definitions* for words. "Meaning" is far more quixotic, and
>> not easily reduced to a few pristine examples. Anybody who thinks they
>> can rest an argument or line of reasoning on whether a particular
>> definitions does or does not support their or someone's particular
>> meaning within a discussion is, simply, not thinking hard enough.
>
> I wasn't trying to rest the argument that the word "cater" had been
> inappropriately used in.
I thought it was "pander" that you were quibbling about.
--
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: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 23:21:49 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 23:55:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> [...]
> >>>You mean an adult that doesn't know what Windows is? C'mon, jedi -
> >>>you're reaching, even for you. That's absurd.
> >>
> >> Not at all.
> >>
> >> Most end users are not saavy enough to tell the difference between
> >> a wiley window manager or efx or bare windows. Plus, they simply
> >> don't understand what an OS is to begin with.
> >
> >I honestly believe you believe that.
> >
> >I think that's flatly and absurdly wrong, but hey, more power to you.
>
> I'm afraid you're too far removed from real life, 'dc'. Not only don't
> most adults know what "Windows" is, they don't really care at all,
> either.
Don't worry, big brother is going to MAKE us all care what an operating
system is when the price doubles and the features are stripped. All for the
benefit of the stupid consumer who can't make the right choice (according to
the DOJ).
------------------------------
From: Steven DeFino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corporate Linux Information
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 03:31:51 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hey,
> I run a small set up in India. I wanted some
> information on Linux deployment. Please suggest a
> source. I am not a techie
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Here are a few good ones, but basically enter
"www.linux?????.com/org/net where ?????? is any logical word that could
follow and there is probably a decent site there.
http://www.linuxdoc.org
http://www.linuxworld.com
http://www.linux.org
http://www.linuxpertise.com
http://www.linuxplanet.com
http://sunsite.auc.dk/linux-newbie
http://linux.cnet.com/linux
Steven DeFino
http://www.applebucket.com
------------------------------
From: "Anthony D. Tribelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: can Linux use be so low? I do not believe it. web traffic.
Date: 7 Aug 2000 03:33:54 GMT
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sid@net wrote:
>> I was shocked to see this web page, it does web traffic analysis,
>> and it claims Linux use is about 0% of total.
>>
>> check it out, please tell me this can't be true
>>
>> http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2000/August/os.html
>>
>> win98 61,980,402 65%
>> win95 16,710,282 17%
>> winNT 7,088,434 7%
>> win2K 2,569,636 2%
>> -
>> mac 1,848,624 1%
>> webTV 749,229 0%
>> Linux 276,626 0%
>> -
>> -
>> -
>> amiga 5,863 0%
>>
>> so, if we add all window machines, we get
>>
>> windows 85%
>> Linux 0%
>>
>> Which is not good. Linux is behind WebTV???
>>
>> well, at least we are ahead of amiga. I realy think this is
>> all bougus, but if is true, then we need to do better.
>
> The problem with statistics is that it is very hard to know what you are
> measuring.
>
> The counter seems to take its information from a subscription counter
> box one puts on their website. This means that only small time web sites
> on crappy ISPs would use it. Upscale websites implement their own
> counter. Decent ISPs provide counter mechanisms for clients.
>
> So we are talking about traffic to a narrowly defined group of web
> sites. The group being defined as very limited web pages on low end ISPs
> or web providers.
>
> Does the traffic in this segment of the web represent the traffic on the
> whole? I don't know, but I would opine not.
I suspect it is much closer to reality than you suggest. At least in
measuring a "consumer" type audience. After all it also shows Mac users at
about 2.3% of Win9x users. It is very plausible that Linux is still mainly
of interest to students, hackers, peoples with servers, scientists,
engineers, and other who are inherently drawn to Unix; that it is not of
much interest to the general computer user.
Tony
==================
Tony Tribelli
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: lilo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Steve Ballmer post here?
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 03:39:08 GMT
Ray Chason wrote:
> (Gates of course is no Hitler -- he's
> an evil minded sonofabitch but he
> hasn't built any Auschwitzes.)
Good one, thanks for the chuckle. But don't think it hasn't crossed his mind
just to get rid of all those skanky linux users:). He has got the resources to
pull it off so lets just hope he doesn't go off the deep end some time.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 7 Aug 2000 08:58:49 +1000
"Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Computers don't forgive typos. Why should *he* forgive you, then?
There are typos, and then there are typos. Typos that lead to syntactically
incorrect programs are just about the easiest bugs you can have in your
code (normally the compiler/interpreter will tell you roughly where you
went wrong). Typos that lead to syntactically correct, but semantically
incorrect programs, however....
>For sake of discussion, C89/90 applies, rather than C99, if only
>because C99 conformant compilers are hard to come by.
>#include <stdio.h>
>void main()
Shame on you! main() returns an int, and you really should specify it
as taking parameters. The return type at least is essential if (as you do)
you want to return a result code later on.
>{
> double *ptr;
> int i;
> ptr = (double *)malloc(100 * sizeof(double) );
You probably should use "calloc", unless performance is critical,
as its way of handling the N items of size S is more readable.
> if ( ptr = NULL )
The bane of my first years. Fortunately, decent compilers will tell
you about this one.
> {
> printf( "Can't allocate memory!" );
You probably want a '\n' at the end of that string.
> return 1;
This should be "exit(1)" --- the effect is the same, but things that
you write in main() today tend to be tomorrow's subroutines, and then
a stray return like this is gonna bite you.
> }
> for ( i = 0; i <= 500; i++ )
Doing the loop 501 times. Might be what you want, but if you wanted
500, then you are off-by-one.
> *ptr++ = 100.0;
Of course, you only have 100 spaces in the area pointed to by ptr,
so this is gonna overshoot that space
> printf( "Press any key to continue." );
> getchar();
On many systems, this will only return once you hit return or enter or
some such --- the joy of "cooked" ttys ;-)
> free( ptr );
Uh-oh! you moved ptr around! Free() is gonna have a fit.
> printf( "Done!" );
You want a '\n' in here, too.
>}
And what happened to the "return 0;" indicating successful completion?
Did I pass?
Bernie "then again, I have an entry in this year's IOCCC" Meyer
--
The empires of the future are the empires of the mind
Winston Churchill
British Prime Minister 1940-45, 51-55
At Harvard, 6 September 1943
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 7 Aug 2000 09:38:00 +1000
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Drestin Black wrote:
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > Strange...the resident Computer Science prof down in Australia says
>> > just the opposite.
>>
>> strange - I not only do not believe you but would tell him he were wrong too
>> if he did say so.
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OK, before I get misrepresented even more, let me clarify:
a) I am not a prof. I am a postgrad student currently struggling with the
writeup of my thesis (after which I will, eventually, be a PhD).
b) I have been teaching first year CS students on and off for a few years,
in a lab or tutorial environment (i.e. groups of 15-20 students at a
time).
c) I never actually did any undergrad courses in CS; I started out as an
EE (and half a world away, too), and everything I know about CS is pretty
much self-taught. In recent years, most of my programming was in C and C++
(with just enough Java thrown in to make me dislike it ;-). BASIC has been
a long long time ago; Pascal experience is barely more recent, and right
now, I'd be better in any of 4 or 5 assembler languages than in either
of those two.
Now that qualifications are out of the way, here is what I said about the
various programs:
Drestin's program had a design problem. It "almost" worked, or rather,
worked "most of the time". This sort of problem can be insidious, hard
to notice (many of them make it "into the wild"), and once noticed,
often hard to find.
Drestin's implementation was also phenominally bad from a performance
point of view, because it used conversion from and to strings, and
dynamically built a string two characters at a time, all of which are
expensive operation, and completely unsuited for the job at hand.
Aaron's program, on the other hand, showed a valid algorithm. It
was severely lacking in the syntax department (yes, it was --- at
least one of the specified target BASIC environments doesn't support
declaration of ordinary variables, and the "for" loop is best viewed
as pseudo code ;-), and also made a fairly strong assumption about
the way division works.
Neither one produced a working program that does what it is supposed to do.
Neither did the original poster; His C program was close, but contained
a few do-we-count-in-bits-or-bytes-questionmark kind of mistakes.
Frankly, so far I haven't seen anybody who I'd consider hiring, with the
possible exception of "Spud" (who knows how to make subtle mistakes in C,
which is a great first step towards not making them ;-).
Bernie
--
Definition of a compromise: An agreement between two men to do
what both agree is wrong
Lord Edward Cecil
In a letter 3 Sep 1911
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 7 Aug 2000 09:57:40 +1000
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Go get an Apple ][ and get back to me, asshole.
Now you make me walk upstairs and switch on one of my three or four
Apple ][ variations.... (this one being a 2gs, Woz Special Edition).
Nope, no "int" or "integer" in that BASIC. No "modulo", either.
Now, pop quiz: On an Apple ][ with the later (i.e. MS) BASIC, what
does
PRINT 7 MOD 3
print?
Bernie
--
Never make a defense or apology before you are accused
Charles I
King of England, Scotland and Ireland from 1625
In a letter on 3 September 1636
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 7 Aug 2000 10:01:48 +1000
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>2) you FAILED TO PROPERLY DETERMINE THE WORDSIZE OF THE DATA
In all fairness, so did you. You did declare a variable "S", and
then used it as the number of iterations through your loop --- but
you never actually gave it a value ;-)
Bernie
--
Victory has a hundred fathers, but defeat is an orphan
Count Ciano
Son-in-law of Mussolini
Diary entry, 9 September 1942
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 00:18:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Seán Ó Donnchadha in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>But that's exactly what IE did. The magazine reviews were practically
>unanimous; the bundled version of IE (4.x) had overtaken Navigator in
>almost every way. Why did the judge simply ignore this?
>
>I think this is a really interesting point. IE 4.0 was characterized
>by two simultaneous developments (a) it was integrated with the
>Windows shell, and (b) it won all the reviews. How do we know to which
>development we should attribute its sudden rise in popularity?
We don't, which is why the Judge ignored it, and why it was appropriate
for him to do so. There is apparently an abstract distinction between
"double-checking" the market, such as evidenced by Jackson's recital of
the putative distinction between PC and server, and "second-guessing"
the market, as would be required to make an assumption either way based
solely on the two fact you've presented, that IE was integrated, and
that reviews published in major PC magazines.
Which leaves us to attempt to understand the issue in context. Major PC
magazines gain a substantial amount of revenue from both direct and
indirect support of Microsoft's marketing message. Personally, I don't
recall much of an overwhelming consensus forming as you suggest. From
what I recall, many people were still trying to avoid IE even after it
was forced on them. I personally don't see any advantage or value in
using IE per se, though it would be nice if Netscape could integrate
with third party applications as readily as IE does. That Netscape can
only publish an interface, and cannot adapt the Win32 API itself to suit
its purposes, is most probably a factor there.
In short, the fact that this groundswell of kudos for IE 4.x itself is
anecdotal at best. It might quite easily be a misperception of the fact
that all reviews prior to 4.x were almost universally scalding in their
assessment of the lack of value proposition inherent in IE.
The only really important "way" that IE has to 'overtake' Netscape in
competition, examination of market share, clearly shows that it was
subsequent to no longer having a choice to refuse IE that IE became
widely "accepted" and the historical information I've seen indicates
this was clearly not a whole-sale advocation of the integrated-browser
bit, but merely the additional effort MS managed to demand for Windows
users to avoid IE eventually claimed almost everyone as victim to MS's
lock-in strategy.
>>>BTW, because Windows had shipped with a componentized IE for quite a
>>>while before the case went to court, MS is *ENTIRELY* correct when
>>>they say that removing it is impossible without damaging the product.
>>
>>That's bullshit. Its software. Nothing can "damage" it.
>
>Yeah, right. Try taking the standard shell out of any of the Linux
>distributions without changing anything else (config files, etc.). See
>if you have a usable system after that.
Which standard shell? By my count, there's at least half a dozen of
them.
[...]
>That's ridiculous. If their intent was to prevent competition, then
>why did they bother making IE *BETTER* than Navigator, to the tune of
>nearly unanimous praise?
You overstate the case to say the least. You're second-guessing again,
at best. I am something of an authority, though certainly not a
pre-eminant one, on such matters, and it is certainly not my opinion
that IE 4 was 'better' than Navigator at all. Undoubtedly, I have
different criteria than you do.
>Why is the judge determining the intent of a
>corporation based on the email snippets of a few individuals, when the
>actions of the company as a whole say something entirely different?
They don't, that's the point. It is a baseless and empty contention to
try to insist that Microsoft actually evidences any competitive or
innovative motivation outside of whatever deceptive claims, posturing,
and FUD tactics they employ to convince you and others even less able to
consider the issues objectively that they aren't doing as their internal
communications evidence. It is not an occasional suggestion that they
deter their own obsolescence which these emails provide; it is clear and
conspicuous evidence that anti-competitive strategies are overwhelmingly
dominant, potentially even when directly in conflict with technical
improvements which would enhance the value of their software, but
prevent the maintenance of a monopoly.
[...]
>Also, unless I'm missing something, isn't intent insufficient in this
>case? I realize that "attempted monopolization" is illegal, but
>"attempted restraint of trade"?! Doesn't some actual damage have to be
>demonstrated? And doesn't the judge's ultimate ruling that Netscape
>was *NOT* forced out of the market severely undermine that charge?
And the fact that Netscape was reduced to first giving away their source
code, and finally going out of business, doesn't seem to demonstrate
that MS was successful in "cutting off their air supply"? In point of
fact, while "attempted restraint of trade" is not explicitly disallowed
in statute, it is because of grammatical, not legal, limitations. The
statute outlaws contracts and conspiracies "in restraint of trade". No
resultant damage apart from the putative (and only indirectly evidenced,
by nature of its negative impact on trade) restraint itself is
necessary. A contract which is in restraint of trade need not be
purposefully implement in order to restrain trade, in fact. Intent is
only an issue for monopolization, outside of the potential consideration
of the "technical tying" per se rule. But that hinges on whether the
intent of *tying* was to restrain trade, not whether the trade was
restrained.
This dovetails, I think, with the fact that the technical tying per se
rule does not seem to be applicable to software products. According to
Judge Jackson, IE integration was restraint of trade, though it was not
technically "tying" as normally implied in law.
[..]
>>It is if you have a consent decree that says you are allowed to
>>integrate, but not bundle.
>
>So what they did was expressly permitted by the consent decree?
Actually, that is an academic and ultimately unconsidered issue, in the
end. What they did was not expressly forbidden by the consent decree.
That isn't the same thing. The DoJ was convinced by the Appellate
Court's over-ruling of Judge Jackson's restraining order preventing
Win98 from being released that a full anti-trust trial was more
appropriate, as it certainly is.
[...]
>I'm not ignoring the emails at all. I'm simply questioning the
>soundness of using a few emails out of tens of thousands during a
>period measured in years to determine the intent of an entire
>corporation.
I fail to grasp what you mean by "the intent of an entire corporation".
A corporation's actions are not self-motivated; they are the actions of
the individuals who wrote and read the emails. Of the massive amount of
no doubt administrivia which email archives might normally contain, a
consistent and persistent thread of anti-competitive strategies to avoid
having to compete fairly is clearly evidenced. You believe that the
emails are taken 'out of context' of the on-going business MS was
conducting. I believe, as do others who find this evidence to be
compelling proof of criminal intentions, that you are instead trying to
take the emails out of context by refusing to recognize the obvious
correspondence between the organizational intent and the organization
actions of Microsoft Corporation. Within the unquestionable context of
the ongoing business which Microsoft was conducting, and supported by
deposition and testimony of Microsoft's employees, competitors, and
customers, it matters little what proportion of email messages provided
productive clues as to Microsoft's behavior.
>I'm saying that although the emails seem damning, a
>totally different picture of intent emerges when you consider the
>*OTHER* facts in this case - something that you and the judge refuse
>to do for some reason.
Your only "facts" seem to be that the major trade press (primarily
ZDNet, which has a long and well-deserved reputation of fawning over
almost *anything* Microsoft produces, and C|Net, which actually had less
glowing praise) ponied up with "IE 4 is really great", all entirely
separate from any consideration of whether it needed to be subsequently
bolted in to Win98. MS's repeated strategy of leveraging "good deals"
for 'partners' in exchange for spinning things Microsoft's way has not
been conclusively proven, but the burden of proof would certainly rest
on those who wish to deny the matter of MindCraft and Gartner concerning
the Linux offense, and the ready and willing support of vaporware
announcements which MS has always been able to evince from the "press".
Note the entirely uncritical reception of the .NET strategy. Market
power doesn't stop with pricing strategies, and it doesn't make
distinguishing "benefit to the consumer" any easier in contrast to "on
the same CD".
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
