Linux-Advocacy Digest #559, Volume #28 Tue, 22 Aug 00 12:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: (Ed Cogburn)
Re: Global / Usefull feature from XTREE
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill? (Stuart Fox)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Bob Germer)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Bob Germer)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Bob Germer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:24:36 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >Nathaniel Jay Lee escribió:
> [...]
> >Code forking does happen. Who cares?
>
> Everyone who uses the code, doesn't want to take on the full
> responsibility of supporting their fork themselves, and sees benefit in
> maintaining a single cohesive PC OS market. And has enough brains to
> see how they might be adversely affected by code forking.
A single cohesive PC OS market? Have you noticed there is another
OS out there? I think they call it windows.
> >> I'm thinking this is a dead-end conversation. I don't want to see Linux
> >> forked,
> >
> >Why?
>
> Because it will decrease the value of Linux to him, possibly quite
> drastically, possibly mostly theoretically, but definitely decreased.
> Its called "the network effect"; what software other people are using is
> important to you, and whether you are using the same software.
In what ways?
> >> I don't want to see it become a Windows clone. You say it won't
> >> be, or if it is I can just fork it. What if neither of those options
> >> sounds good to me (either use the clone, or fork the code)?
> >
> >Let's put it this way: if linux somehow did become a windows clone
> >(as unlikely as that is), and you didn't find it "good" to fork,
> >why should you be provided a free OS by those who spend money and/or
> >effort creating one?
>
> Because he's willing to pay for it?
Then pay and get it.
> But he doesn't want the price to
> get too high because the more lucrative market is in making newbies
> believe that you make a system more efficient the more unreliable you
> make it, decreasing the availability of sources for more sane
> engineering design?
This is just too strange. I can't even parse it.
> >Quid pro quo, sir. You HAVE been provided a OS for free. Now you
> >use it or you don't. You improve it or you don't. You influence its
> >development or you don't. And that's all there is.
>
> Yes, and he's trying to influence its development. He isn't supposed to
> have to fight the engineers in advocating good design; why are you
> taking up the market-droid's fight for them, Roberto?
"I don't want a windows clone" is not a design choice. And why do you
see fit to insult people labeling them "marketroids"?
> >Complaining that others use it or influence it or improve it in ways
> >you don't approve is lame.
> >
> >You have all you need to keep linux from becoming a windows clone,
> >should such a thing ever happen. If you choose not to, it's your fault.
> >
> >> That's my problem. And it's not paranoia, it's a legitimate question.
> >> ANd you sticking your head in the sand and saying, "I've never heard that."
> >> doesn't change the fact that it is being said.
> >
> >Ok, let's assume it is. Why should anyone care?
>
> Because its a stupid idea. We thought you were technically competent
> enough to know that.
Who's "we"?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re:
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 10:21:38 -0400
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> If I ever start an obnoxious 'anti-troll' sig like you, Aaron, I will
> >> definitely include this. You've made the archive at least.
> >>
> >> Now will you please abandon the "confirmation bias" which prevents you
> >> from realizing that your sig is not only obnoxious but useless and
> >> meaninglessly annoying?
> >
> >It is far from useless. It has SIGNIFICANTLY reduced the number of
> >hit-and-run attacks by the individuals named within...which is
> >EXACTLY what I designed it to do.
> >
>
> I have a question for you. How SIGNIFICANTLY has it
> increased the number of 'I hate Aaron's sig' postings? I
Only among idiots who don't bother to consider the PURPOSE and EFFECT
of my .sig... in which case, no great loss.
> would think eventually you would realize that you are
> annoying the piss out of everyone for what a few 'might' do.
>
> Seriously, why piss off people that might otherwise take
> you seriously? Unless of course, you are just one of
> those that considers that sort of thing fun.
>
> --
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Nathaniel Jay Lee
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 22 Aug 2000 14:31:07 GMT
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 10:16:34 -0300, Roberto Alsina wrote:
[ in response to Max's drivel ]
>I have no clue of what you are talking about.
I don't think he does either ...
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 10:43:19 -0400
From: Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re:
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Wrong. The individuals named (other than Petrich) all engage in
> hit-and-run campaigns consisting of meaningless red-herrings and
> out and out lies against me. I decided that rather than answer the
> charges from these assholes individually, a blanket pre-dismissal of
> their lies would be a better strategy.
"hit-and-run campaigns consisting of meaningless red-herrings"
Hey, check your reader, this c.o.l.a! Hit-n-run campaigns and twisted
tortured arguments over red-herrings are common grist for this place,
but you don't see anyone else with a 29 line sig trying to stop
arguments before they begin, do you? Where are these people who are
hounding you in every NG, including this one? Answer: they aren't
here. I've never seen them. At least in c.o.l.a. your sig isn't even
needed right now, but in the meantime you are creating brand new
enemies. Your "pre-dismissal" isn't one since I've never heard the
other side of the story anyway. For everyone in c.o.l.a, your sig *is*
*utterly* *pointless*.
>
> My .sig has SIGNIFICANTLY reduced the volume of such activity against me,
> which is exactly what I designed it to do.
No, what its done is create a brand new problem that has lead to a
number of flame threads in c.o.l.a about your sig. Considering the
number of *plonk*s I've seen, from people not in your sig, you are
increasingly not particularly well liked here, and have accumulated far
more enemies than your sig could possibly handle. Are you going to add
a section to your sig for everyone who is nagging you about it? Does
that help your cause, by having so many readers stop reading your
posts? If I had an agenda I wanted to espouse, the first thing I
wouldn't do is start pissing off complete strangers with an aggravating
sig, before ever having the chance at advocating my beliefs to them.
What you're doing is just plain *stupid*.
>[snip abomination]
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Global / Usefull feature from XTREE
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 00:58:22 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mathias Winkler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8nt76p$m8m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Now there is a new, powerfule XTree clone for Linux and other Unixes, its
> called "UnixTree", its Freeware, and its available for a number of
> platforms for download at its homepage "UnixTree home" at:
>
> http://www.arkanda.net/unixtree/
>
Thanks for the information,
>
> BTW: It has an 'G'lobal command !
> And: It is *very_useful* !!
> Because: UnixTree lets you log to portions of your filesystem (it calls it
> "Nodes"), so you can log to "/home/user" and to "/usr/local" for example,
> much like in DOS XTree you have been logging to, let's say, drive C: and
D:
> or so. And, here the 'G'lobal command comes into play and makes sense!
Although you do have to admit that the Global command is a misnomer unless
the user has logged / ;-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 22 Aug 2000 14:43:11 GMT
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 00:19:22 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Colin R. Day in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>indicate that there is more than a chance likelihood it does. It is a
>successful programming language by some counts; one can presume that was
>due to achieving its stated purpose,
One certainly can not. To be succesful, it obviously needs to acheive
*some* purpose, but not necessarily that for wihch it is designed. I'd
say a major factor was that it was interpreted and ran on a Microcomputer.
How many other languages met this criteria ?
>>Don't tell us BASIC was designed to do, tell us what is does.
>
>But... it does what it was designed to do... so... I'm...
That's an assumption / conjecture. You keep repeating it without justifying
it.
>Now, calm down, and try to understand that you are providing nothing but
>an argument from ignorance.
I've already put forth objective criteria for appraising syntax of beginners
languages, so you can no longer claim that my argument is "from ignorance".
However, I can make this claim about you, since you keep repeating your
assertions without substantiating them.
>(of the ready choices). It was designed to be that,
As we've pointed out, this is not a reason.
> and it has been
>successful in the past at non-programmer access to conditional
>processing,
As has shell script.
>exposed to. The syntax used in shell scripts, generally C and
>derivatives, is
Don't lump the two of these together. Shell script ( bourne and ksh ) does
not even remotely resemble C.
> used routinely by people trained in programming, not
>non-programmers.
Again, this is simply untrue. Experienced UNIX users, many of whom couldn't
code their way out of a cardboard box can and do use shell scripts.
>Now, if you can give me a real argument that something else is better,
>or there is some general reason why BASIC can not be optimal, or some
>particular "optimization" which you feel BASIC would need, or would need
>to lack, in order to be optimal, or any real argument of this general
>effect, I'd be happy to hear it. Otherwise, save the wear and tear on
>your keyboard; its not worth it.
Basic encourages poor programming practice. This in itself is a good
reason not to use it.
>You're trolling, Colin. I'm afraid you've been reduced to an argument
>from ignorance.
No he hasn't. He's just asking you to substantiate your assertions.
You make these bold claims and act as though the onus is on us to
prove them false. It isn't.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:14:31 GMT
In article <8nsh3r$ou4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Leon Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Read it and laugh (or cry, your option):
>
> http://slashdot.org/articles/00/08/21/0759251.shtml
>
> If you administer an MS-SQL server admin, read it and panic.
>
> Who needs to knock Microsoft when you could stand back and watch them
do
> such a thorough job themselves? (-: If it didn't have painful
> consequences, watching some of the BugTraq lists would be better than
> the Comedy Channel.
Check it out Leon, Oracle ships with default admin passwords, MySQL
ships with default passwords. If you are so unfamiliar with the
product that you don't know that the first thing you do is change the
default password (which is in the documentation), then you have no
business installing or using it. Period.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:43:07 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No they are a private company holding a monopoly over their market.
> They are a monopoly in the legal sense because if I decided to sell
> power in their government granted market territory, I would be
> legaly prosecuted, and sued out of business.
Nope.
That all changed a few years ago. Now, you can sell electrical power
anywhere you want, and in many places, you can even force the power
companies to let you use their lines for that purpose.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-to: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:53:04 GMT
On 08/21/2000 at 11:36 AM,
Larry Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says... > Larry
> Brasfield wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <8nrgod$rsc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > > [snip]
> > > > The point I believe I'm trying to make, is that if Microsoft's behaviour
> > > > only becomes illegal when they are a monopoly, why should actions they
> > > > undertook before they were ruled one, be accountable, when the line between
> > > > monopoly and not monopoly is not simply a line in the sand that everyone
> > > > knows when it is stepped over ?
> > >
> > > I believe that any attempt at criminal conviction
> > > under the Sherman anti-trust act, applied to the
> > > so-called "Microsoft monopoly", would have to fail
> > > on constitutional grounds. Getting "monopoly" to
> > > refer to winner-takes-most situations is quite an
> > > achievement in stretching a vague concept, but it
> > > is still too vague to constitute fair notice of
> > > the sort that deflects constitutional challenges
> > > to vague laws used to deprive people of property
> > > or liberty.
It is quite obvious you have never read the consent decree signed by IBM
with the DOJ in the early 1950's. That precedent clearly establishes that
holding 90% of a market gives the holder monopoly power. If Gates can't
read precedent, he is a fool. If he did read it and ignored it, he is a
criminal. He's no fool. He's clearly a criminal although not charged
criminally. Or at least he hasn't yet been charged criminally. The statute
of limitations has a long way to run.
> > What part of "OBSTRUCTION OF TRADE" do you not understand?
> Anybody smarter than a half-wit can see that my
> post concerns the definition of "monopoly". I do
> not recall claiming anything about "OBSTRUCTION
> OF TRADE". Perhaps you could show otherwise.
Just as laws do not exist without including precedent, monopoly power
abuse cannot exist without obstruction of trade. By definition monopoly
means the economic power to restrain or obstruct trade.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19zk Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-to: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:53:06 GMT
In a typical idiotic posting, Larry Brasfield wrote:
> Plenty of people have suggested that Gates and company
> should be locked up or worse and that they are now
> known criminals. My point was that the law is vague
> and Microsoft had not had proper notice that parts of
> its business are legally a monopoly. (This was the
> point of the poster to which I responded, so you're
> "entire post is meangingless" (sic) is exaggeration.)
Everything you have posted is meaningless since you expose a total lack of
understanding of US law. Only a true idot savant would claim that 100+
years of legislation and court interpretation leave on in the dark about
what constitutes abuse of monopoly power. MS knew the law, knew they were
in violation, and was found guilty of same in the courts.
>> IF that were all that the Sherman Antitrust laws said, you might have a
>> point. As it is, you might want to read them.
> I have read that law. The provisions under which
> Microsoft has been prosecuted require that it be
> found to hold monopoly power. (There has been no
> finding or suggestion of price fixing.) At any
> rate, the law as written is too vague to guide a
> company. Its meaning has been developed mainly
> by case law and, in this case, by a (stretched)
> extension of case law.
As you state, the anti-trust laws are composed both of the statutes and
the court decisions arising therefrom. To claim they are vague when there
are thousands of decisions, consent decrees, etc. to guide businessmen is
no more reasonable than to claim that sewerage flows uphill without the
aid of a pump. Culpabale ignorance of the law has never been a valid
defense for breaking said law nor should it be.
If you think Judge Jackson stretched the law, it is quite obvious you have
never read either of the two consent decrees entered into by IBM with the
DOJ. In fact, MS seems to have used IBM's admitted wrongdoing as a
cookbook. Virtually everything MS did was done previously by IBM and found
to be violations of the anti-trust laws.
You need to comprehend the history of the computer business. Briefly, in
the first IBM case, the DOJ claimed that IBM held a virtual monopoly in
the accounting industry. IBM claimed in response that the accounting
industry did not just include machines but also included pencils and
ledger books. This the DOJ rejected claiming the market was accounting
machines. As an aside, IBM had only about 80% of that market which
constituted only about 500,000 businesses and government agencies. The DOJ
claimed that by refusing to license its patents to existing or potential
competitors, IBM was harming Burroughs and Remington Rand and ultimately
the consumers (in this case large corporations for the most part) because
it could set its own price without fear of competition. Recognizing that
the DOJ had a valid argument regarding definition of the market and its
penetration of said market, IBM entered a consent decree to settle the
matter and reformed its corporate character to some extent.
In the second IBM case, the DOJ claimed that IBM violated the law by
refusing to sell its hardware requiring the purchaser (legally at that
point the lessee) to buy a bundle including hardware, software, and
service; by refusing to release its operating systems so competitors could
write software for IBM computers; by refusing to sell parts for its
machines so competitors for service contracts could compete; and by
announcing new products years before they would be ready to market thus
harming actual products of competitors. Again, after careful
consideration, IBM realized they were indeed in the wrong and again
altered its corporate behavior.
Now, Gates was working closely with IBM immediately after the entry of the
second consent decree. In fact, he had the opportunity to do so because of
the decree. IBM was unwilling to risk the further wrath of the DOJ when it
decided to build a PC. It was the decree which forced IBM to develop an
open architecture PC. It was the decree in large measure which dictated
buying the operating system outside the company. It was the decree which
kept IBM from announcing the PC until it was actually in production and
about to be shipped to dealers.
Even you should be able to see the parallels here. MS controls more than
90% of the market for PC operating systems. It has clearly been shown to
attempt to harm competitors such as Lotus by making changes to prevent
Lotus' software from running under its OS's. It has clearly been shown to
restrict access of BeOS, OS/2, Linux, etc. to the market by using pricing
to force OEM's to bundle Windows with every new PC they sell, it has
gotten a well deserved reputation for vaporware with every version of
Windows. Email from Gates to developers clearly showed intent to harm
SmartSuite. MS has been clearly shown to sell Office to OEM's who agreed
not to offer competitive packages for less than to those who did not
(something IBM had also done in the mid-1960's). MS has clearly been shown
to offer price advantages to ISV's who agree to only develop software for
Windows.
In fact, there is virtually nothing MS has been accused of which has not
been found to violate anti-trust laws. In fact, virtually every violation
MS has committed and found guilty of committing was previously done by IBM
and admitted to be illegal by IBM in entering into a consent decree with
the DOJ.
Only a true idiot could possibly claim that holding more than 90% of the
market for operating systems is not a monopoly. Nor can any reasonable
person deny that a market of well over 500,000,000 (500 MILLION) PC's is
not a market.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19zk Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-to: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:53:08 GMT
On 08/21/2000 at 11:56 AM,
Larry Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Larry Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I believe that any attempt at criminal conviction under the Sherman
> > > anti-trust act, applied to the so-called "Microsoft monopoly", would
> > > have to fail on constitutional grounds. Getting "monopoly" to refer
> > > to winner-takes-most situations is quite an achievement in stretching
> > > a vague concept, but it is still too vague to constitute fair notice
> > > of the sort that deflects constitutional challenges to vague laws
> > > used to deprive people of property or liberty.
> >
> > They weren't convicted in a criminal trial. They lost in a civil case.
> I understand that, thanks.
> Fairness requires the same notice for civil
> liability as for criminal punishment.
Let me expose your total inanity in a way even you can understand. Suppose
you write a novel and copyright it. Now suppose I write a novel which
clearly is an ill-disguised palagerism of your work. Under the law, you
can sue me for damages and have me enjoined from further sale of my book.
However, unless I have previously been found guilty of the same act in
either criminal or civil court, you couldn't sue me since I hadn't been
given fair notice according to your statement above. Now do you see how
stupid you appear?
> > There is no requirement for "fair notice" in antitrust cases, since the
> > pure fact of being a monopoly is not, in and of itself, a crime. It's
> > being a monopoly and using that monopoly power in illegal ways that got
> > Microsoft in trouble.
> You miss the point. Virtually any company that
> has customers can be defined to be a monopoly
> if the market is construed narrowly enough. If
> that determination can only be made arbitrarily,
> we have rule by judge's whim rather than rule by
> law. And please don't tell me that the DOJ's
> reading of the law should be considered adequate
> notice.
No one is trying to tell you that. What we are trying to tell you is that
it is incumbent on corporations to understand the law as interpreted by
the Courts for over 100 years in establishing corporate policies. The
decisions of judges are an integral part of our body of laws. Laws,
statutes, regulations, etc. do not exist in a vacuum. They exist in the
context of the entire body of law which includes precedent.
> > They are also in trouble for violating a previous Consent Decree, so
> > they certainly knew they were in trouble well before the current case.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19zk Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
