Linux-Advocacy Digest #527, Volume #28 Mon, 21 Aug 00 01:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Courageous)
KDE snapshot (Michael Mamone)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joseph)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Courageous <[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, 21 Aug 2000 04:39:46 GMT
> If one is to be "impartial" it would mean not arguing either side. So any
> opinion stated here is partial to one side or another. It's pretty
> hypocritical to lable one side to be "partial" when your arguing the
> opposite point of view.
It would be if you weren't arguing against a straw man.
I never claimed to be impartial; all I've opined on is
what the law is. As it so happens, I believe the law is
right. But that's another matter.
If you want to argue against the law, lobby your congress
critter for the repeal of the Sherman Antitrust Act, et al.
C//
------------------------------
From: Michael Mamone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: KDE snapshot
Date: 21 Aug 2000 14:39:22 +1000
Hey. I've been trying to compile the August 15 snapshot of KDE. However, the
Makefiles for kdebase/kwin/default/ are missing. Does anyone have the makefiles
for a slightly older snapshot?
KDE still works, but without KWin, most of the time it's a hit and miss affair.
Ta.
------------------------------
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, 21 Aug 2000 00:48:53 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> It means your argument cannot be disproven.
>
>This is traditionally considered to be the sign of a sound argument.
You are in error. A good argument is one that has not been disproven.
If it "can not" be disproven, it is a worthless position,
unsubstantiated by argument.
>> This makes your argument
>> worthless, by the way, valueless. If a theory cannot be proven wrong,
>> then it cannot be considered correct.
>
>Interesting contradiction. How can a theory that has been proven wrong,
>possibly be correct ? Are you trying to say there are no "correct" theories
>?
I didn't say it had been proven wrong; I said it *could* be proven
wrong. In other words, there are no "incorrect" theories; even theories
that are later proven wrong are correct *theories*, because they are
falsifiable. A theory (or argument, position, etc.) which cannot be
proven proved wrong (for instance, if all facts supporting your case are
presumed true, and all facts negating your case are assumed false) is
just an imaginary supposition, not a theory. This describes your
position, in fact. All of the evidence that Microsoft has done wrong
you simply discard, all suppositions supporting claims that they didn't
do wrong are accepted as fact. This makes your position unfalsifiable,
and your arguments meaningless.
[...]
>I'm glad you agree there are no facts that counter my openness to a
>rational, reasoned argument.
No, I said you have no facts supporting your argument.
>> In fact, many of the 'facts' you are trying to present as such are
>> explicitly contradicted by the court transcripts and evidence, AFAWK.
>
>You need to work on your context. Your creative snipping attempt is
>obviously confusing you.
Its called editing. Insisting that I got rid of something that is
important for your argument would require you to have an argument, and
so far all you have is denial and delusion.
>In any case, the facts you appear to be referring to now, that I listed
>above, came straight out of web pages
Yes, I know. That makes them of dubious origin to begin with. The fact
that they were originally derived from Microsoft press releases denying
that the litigants had a case and filled with lies makes them tenuous.
That you would present them as if they were convincing matters of
inquiry, as if these issues hadn't been examined, and the arguments
refuted, is an argument from ignorance. We know all of those things are
either not important or not true; not because we refuse to accept or
examine that they are, but because we've already considered and
investigated whether they are, and they have been found to be empty
protestations of innocence, not supportable defenses for criminal
behavior. Just because they're still posted on a web page doesn't mean
they haven't been dealt with and discarded.
>> The DR-DOS message was much less than "non-fatal"; it was entirely
>> spurious.
>
>Something we knew after the event. Something we could only _assume_
>beforehand.
So? The question is whether it *was* spurious, not whether it was
thought to be at the time. Well, let me take that back; Microsoft
specifically intended that the consumer was not supposed to realize it
was a spurious error; they were supposed to "get scared" if they have
any problems with *Microsoft's* software, and dumb DR-DOS and get
MS-DOS. So you're right; we couldn't know until after the event, and
could only *assume* beforehand, at best, that the message was spurious.
Which is why it was both effective in its purpose and illegal.
>> The code which caused it was left in after the beta, it was
>> merely disabled.
>
>So ?
So, you seemed to insist that the fact it was in a beta was important
(without any support for your argument). Why wouldn't it be appropriate
to point out that it *wasn't* only in the beta that this "scare tactic"
code existed?
>> DR-DOS was more than compatible; it was competitive
>> and, according to some, superior.
>
>DRDOS was in almost all ways superior to MSDOS. As an ex-DRDOS user I'd say
>I'm in a fairly good position to state that.
>
>However, it was in no way "more than compatible", there were many
>incompatibilities between DR and MSDOS, primarily in memory management. Any
>gamer from the era will support that. That's why us DRDOS users always kept
>an MSDOS boot disk handy.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. MS-DOS 4 was
different than MS-DOS 5, and MS-DOS 3. The issue is that MS was
restraining trade by scaring people away from a competing OS using an
entirely spurious error in their *Windows* beta, which was a separate
product at the time.
>This was mostly due to game developers only doing serious testing and
>development under MSDOS, with a token run on other DOSes, but that's
>irrelevant to the issue at hand.
You confuse knowing what you are talking about with knowing what is
relevant to the discussion.
[...]
>> Microsoft can provide no evidence
>> whatsoever of any specific incompatibilities, and it was a lack of them
>> which prompted the inclusion of the warning message, in fact.
>
>They don't need to prove the existence of any specific incompatibilities.
They do if they want to pretend that the error wasn't spurious.
>They were producing an extension to *their* DOS, MSDOS.
No, they weren't. They were producing Windows, not an extension to
"their" DOS. At least that's what they wanted everyone to believe,
which is why they didn't simply say "Windows is an extension of MS-DOS,
and no other OS will work with it". That would have been honest, at
least. But since it would have been a stupid move, they decided that
being dishonest and lying and restraining trade was better. The last,
at least, is illegal, even if many businesses manage to get away with
the first two.
>Not an extension to
>DR, PC or any other DOS, *MS*DOS. A message basically saying "this is only
>supported on MSDOS and is not guaranteed to work on any other" is not
>uncommon.
You are entirely incorrect in your knowledge of... practically
everything, it seems. Business, technology, software, markets, the law,
the message, the products... everything.
>If i develop a software program, of which someone else has a "clone" and
>claims to be compatible with, then if I develop an extension to my product I
>am under no obligation legally, ethically or morally to support their
>product.
As long as you don't say otherwise, maybe. Microsoft said otherwise,
because nobody would have been interested at that time in a GUI for
*only* MS-DOS. There were still too many niche markets where the
per-processor licensing hadn't stamped out all alternatives, and a
growing after-market OS market, which DR-DOS had the lions share of.
When MS killed DR-DOS using a spurious and dishonest message in their
Windows beta to prevent competition in the DOS market, they were being
immoral, unethical, and illegal.
>> Your comments on Blue Mountain are simply all imaginary; you appear to
>> be transcribing Microsoft press releases.
>
>Whereas in reality, I am posting facts upon which both parties agreed with,
>given on a number of sites about the case.
>
>If you are in possession of, or can give direction to, documents which
>refute the above then fire away.
You numb-nuts. The documents refuting these lies are sealed; that was
the link I posted. Blue Mountain supporting the filing by three
newspapers to open the court records, because Microsoft is lying about
what happened but managed to get all of the documents which show this to
be true under seal by claiming confidentiality, spuriously.
>> The Blue Mountain url which I
>> provided, in fact, was a filing they made to demand that the court make
>> public the transcripts and evidence in the trial, because Microsoft was
>> spreading bullshit like this.
>
>And contains, unsurprisingly, nothing that refutes the issues I noted above.
That's because your issues were misdirection and empty contentions, not
evidence. Reason is enough to refute them. Now, if you were to address
the facts of the case itself, rather than making up new facts which have
nothing to do with the matter, perhaps you'd get somewhere. The fact
that these attacks on the free market begin with beta versions is
irrelevant, the fact that Microsoft's greeting cards were also affected
is important only in its absence of reality, and the on/off switch which
gave the end user no capability for controlling or even knowing what is
being filtered is meaningless to the issue.
>Why should your pontifications on an article on Blue Mountain's web site be
>any more or less accurate than my pontificating on articles on
>www.microsoft.com, or any other web site ?
Well, Blue Mountain doesn't stand convicted on two or three other major
claims, for one thing.
>> It takes a mighty dishonest person to
>> remain as purposefully ignorant as you are, Christopher.
>
>I looked over about 2 dozen web sites before I responded on that particular
>issue. Whilst (unsurprisingly) many had different opinions, those are the
>things they all agreed on.
That's because they all read the same Microsoft press releases.
>> Your comment on Stac was a fib as well; Microsoft *claims* the code was
>> in a product they bought off another company.
>
>As such, how is an assertion that Microsoft bought the code from someone
>else a "fib" ?
>
>Presumably you are in possession of actual documents that prove they didn't?
And once again, you fail to see the reality of the matter. The actual
documents would be the fact that they were found guilty. I could find
them somewhere, possibly, if Microsoft hasn't buried the bodies as they
like to do, but you would just deny their validity.
>I'm an ex-user of Stacker as well. I even bought the addon ISA compression
>coprocessor card they sold. I continued to purchase and user Stacker all
>the way through to their Windows 95 product, because Stacker was better. I
>still have that card at my parent's house somewhere in an old 386.
What do you want, a medal?
>> Guess what? The court
>> found them guilty, and they paid the penalty, and they *didn't* sue the
>> source of that product to recoup their $130 dollars. Why is that?
>
>I don't know, and neither do you. Additionally, without evidence to back up
>your opinion then at face value it is worth no more than mine.
I'm afraid I must disagree, quite strongly. You might be so clueless as
to insist that we cannot understand the truth of the matter, but I
refuse to pretend ignorance when it is not legally required. I might
not know, but you simply refuse to know.
>OTOH, *my* assertion, that the code was bought, is supported by available
>evidence.
>
>*Your* opinion, that it was not, is supported by.....nothing.
Well, there's Microsoft's conviction; if they knew the infringing code
was in there, it doesn't *matter* if they bought it from someone else or
reverse engineered it themselves; they stole it.
[...]
>> Nobody has ever contended that you don't have the right to disagree.
>> The fact is that you don't have the *ability* to disagree; you are not
>> qualified, you show a predisposition for believing lies and denying
>> truths, and are generally incapable, it seems, of performing sufficient
>> acts of reasoning to be able to competently disagree in any rational
>> way.
>
>Strangely enough, I feel the same way about you.
That is meaningless to me.
[...]
>> >How much more reasoned do want than a conclusion drawn from numerous
>> >observations of the law screwing up ?
>>
>> A single case that holds up under examination.
>
>How does that, in any way, disprove "I don't accept jurisprudence as a fair
>arbiter because it so rarely is" ?
You haven't shown that it rarely is to begin with, that's how.
[...]
>A superior system would be one that in no way involved people. People are
>inherently prejudiced, corruptable and illogical and as such, are the reason
>behind my distrust of the legal system.
>
>"Everyone has a price", is another one of my favourites.
Dishonest people often assume that everyone else is as dishonest as they
are.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 00:58:18 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> Whether or not the competition would have or could have trounced them
>> is a different discussion. Anticompetitive behavior is illegal,
>> particularly for a company in Microsoft's position.
>
>*sigh*. You're missing the point.
I know it will do no good to point out to Christopher Smith that, no, it
is he that is missing that point. The point is *not* whether there have
been any compelling alternatives to Windows. In fact, the point is that
there have *not* been any compelling alternatives, or even available
alternatives, to Windows. I know he will refuse to accept that
Microsoft's intentional strengthening of the application barrier to
prevent alternatives from being viable is illegal. I know he will
pretend that there is nothing wrong with anti-competitive practices. I
know he will pretend, in his outrageous intellectually dishonest way,
that since any one fact of evidence against Microsoft *can* be
questioned, all facts of evidence against Microsoft should be ignored.
I have learned from experience, and have grown sick of feeding this
particular troll. I'm sorry that people such as yourself, who demand
that their ignorance is superior to other's knowledge, exist, but
there's nothing I can do about it, so I'll have to be satisfied with
ignoring you, for now.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: 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: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 04:58:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Too late for that. Microsoft had lots of chances to
> > > > > > challenge the actual facts of the case in their first try.
> > > > > > Now, the best they can hope for is that they can get some
> > > > > > court to overrule the whole case on a more broad aspect of
> > > > > > the law. This does not look probable, according to just
> > > > > > about every non-MS legal source.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ohh... your talking about the illegal trial...I seeeee...
> > > > >
> > > > > No ... I'm referring to the UPCOMING legal proceedings, not
> > > > > the first case where a judge and doj acted in collusion to
> > > > > further their own careers.
> > > >
> > > > What sort of "proof" (snicker) do you have that this was an
> > > > "illegal" trial, other than that it had a result that you don't
> > > > like due to your insane love of Microsoft?
> > > >
> > > > Everyone who actually *followed* the trial knows just how bad
> > > > MS screwed up, and the only hope they seem to have is arguing
> > > > that their own legal staff was incompetent.
> > >
> > >
> > > This guy followed the case, and rightfully considers the whole
> > > case as absurd as most of the American public. Contrary to the
> > > common anti-MS belief here in this miniscule grain of sand, most
> > > polls at large support Microsoft.
> > >
> > > http://www.lawnewsnetwork.com/opencourt/stories/A541-1999Apr7.html
> > >
> > > I especially like the last paragraph:
> > >
> > > " To justify those expenditures and staff increases, the Justice
> > > Department must provide the American public with impressive
> > > evidence of its effectiveness. Hence, the government has produced
> > > a high-profile courtroom drama focused on public ridicule of a
> > > company and its chief executive-with sensational remedies as the
> > > exit strategy. We deserve better."
> >
> > Your article is a year out of date. What's more, the author is a
> > senior fellow at the Cato Institute (www.cato.org), which appears
> > to be some sort of Libertarian propaganda organization. He's
> > obviously extremely anti-government to begin with; his opinion on
> > the MS antitrust trial isn't worth much.
> >
> > Find me someone who actually supports antitrust law who believes
> > that 1) Microsoft is innocent and 2) the ruling will be overturned.
>
> OK.....
>
> "Judge Jackson's ruling will divert innovative companies from
> creating better products. Worse, it will send the message to
> innovators around the world that in America we punish success. It is
> this ruling, not Microsoft, that is damaging to consumers, as it
> would deny consumers new products, better accessibility and lower
> prices. I'm confident the appeals court will reject Judge Jackson's
> notion that any one man can foresee how this world of possibility
> should unfold." US Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX)
[snip]
Most of these are concerns about the proposed penalty. That isn't what I
asked you for. When you trim you list down to people who actually think
MS is innocent and will be vindicated, I'll respond to what's left (if
anything).
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 22:02:13 -0700
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, david raoul derbes wrote:
>In article <8npc8d$4l2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>"Courageous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>
>>> > >The "citizens", as you put it, are buying Windows because there is no
>>other
>>> > >viable alternative. It is not Microsoft's fault...
>>>
>>>
>>> It is not illegal to be a monopoly. What *is* illegal is to
>>> "monopolize". It *is* Microsoft's fault that they have engaged
>>> in anticompetive practices, specifically forbidden in law.
>>> For that, they have earned a spanking.
>>
>>Which is totally irrelevant to the fact it ain't Microsoft's fault no-one
>>has come up with a compelling alternative.
>
>"Alternative" to what?
>
>Microsoft is *not* being subjected to the will of the Judge *because
>of its operating systems monopoly*. It is perfectly legal to have
>a monopoly (as the prior poster said.)
>
>What is *not* legal is to use that monopoly to establish *others*.
>There certainly *were* (note the past tense!) alternatives to Word,
>Excel and Access. Not any more.
Yes.
MS was ALSO found guily of ILLEGAL Maintenance of their WIndows monopoly.
It's legal to be a monopoly but you also cannot use your monopoly power to
prevent competition. MS's action against Java and Netscape were also illegal
becasue these technologies and prodcuts were a threat to the windows platform.
------------------------------
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, 21 Aug 2000 01:05:57 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said david raoul derbes in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Microsoft is *not* being subjected to the will of the Judge *because
>of its operating systems monopoly*. It is perfectly legal to have
>a monopoly (as the prior poster said.)
Well, the prior poster might have indicated that, but he was wrong. It
involves quite a bit of legal detail, but the fact is, the 'popular
wisdom' that says "its OK to have a monopoly, but not to use it to gain
another monopoly" is, quite simply, wrong. Section 2 of the Sherman Act
states "it is a felony to monopolize", and it is, indeed, a felony to
"have a monopoly", unless there is essentially nothing you can do to
avoid it (as is the case when you use patented technology, or find
yourself temporarily in a unique position; any efforts to maintain that
position in the face of competition is, of course, illegal.)
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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
******************************
