Linux-Advocacy Digest #576, Volume #28 Tue, 22 Aug 00 20:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [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 22:57:19 GMT
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:51:26 GMT, Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Said Chad Irby;
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[deletia]
>>
>> They don't have a monopoly position. They just have a substantial
>> market share. But without the ability to use it predatorially, they
>> aren't a monopoly.
>
>A company doesn't have to have an overall monopoly to have a monopoly in
>certain areas or markets. Coca-Cola certainly has monopoly ower in many
>areas, and enough market power overall to use it predatorially, as you
>put it. And they still get in trouble for it from time to time.
I'm not sure I buy that. While they certainly have a large
marketshare, they also have a perfectly replaceable product.
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:12:34 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > No amount of fixing the autodetectors is going to help anything as long
they
> > are being deployed the way they are. Besides the autodetectors will
never
> > be accurate.
>
> The autodetectors in sane platforms are adequate. Saying "never" commits
> you
> for way too long time.
Unless and until the hardware platform that they are written for is
abandoned by all hardware developers, it will never happen. Untill they can
correctly identify all current and past hardware for the hardware platform
they cannot be relied on for all circumstances.
Using the PC hardware platform as an example. For any autoscanner to be
100% accurate it would have to reliably detect any and all hardware
available on the platform today and any no matter how rare or obscure every
peice of hardware ever available for the PC hardware platform right down to
the model and submodel. Knowing the history of he PC as I do, I know that
can never happen. Too many different pieces of hardware appear to the
system to be indentical but have divergent behavior that can not be detected
by any software means.
Then there is new hardware being released for which the autoscanners are un
aware of until they are rewritten to accomodate the new hardware. Until
then the owners of the new hardware are out of luck, even if the kernel can
handle it.
My second paragraph alone contains covers enough problem cases to validate
my use of the word "never". The next paragraph just supplies a little more
frosting. That I why such program may form good assistants but will never
be accurate.
------------------------------
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 23:23:15 GMT
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:20:44 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>I'd just wish you understood the literary aspects of software enough to
>know that requiring QT is counter-productive, possibly in the extreme.
I believe Roberto understands the issues here, having spent the last two
years or so getting more than an earful about them.
Please be aware of the difference between "do not understand" and "do not
agree".
>with you, but with the investors, that is my point. If they are trying
>to build a product they can give away and make money on some secondary
>'market', as is the case with most GPL projects, that is fine. If they
>are attempting to monopolize the 'market' for Linux GUIs, it is not
>fine. If the former is true, however, I don't see why they would be
>satisfied basing their production on a library that limits the
>distribution of their software.
The GPL also "limits" "distribution". I'm not clear on who "they" are.
KDE are not trying to make a profit. Troll Tech ( the authors of QT )
are trying to make a profit. The restrictions that the QT license imposes
are for the most part less onerous than those imposed by the GPL.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
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 23:32:02 GMT
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:17:01 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Hmmm... KDE doesn't seek to extract profit. So no.
>
>That's what I don't understand. Does QT seek to extract profit?
QT seeks to profit by requiring those who develop proprietary software
with their library to pay for the "professional edition". So yes, they
do seek to extract profit, but that doesn't mean that QT is not free.
>By using QT you invest effort into limiting the liberty of the users of
>your product.
No more than you do by using GPL'd software.
Look, could you at least make some effort to have some idea what you are
talking about before you post this kind of drivel ? Seriously, you have
no place making these kind of comments when you do not know anything about
the license that you are criticising.
> If the only reason you have to use QT is that it works,
>and you like it, and you're familiar with it, and the only reason you
>have to avoid using QT is that you get hate mail for using it, I would
>think you'd have enough professional pride to question more strongly the
>choice to use QT.
You're forgetting that Roberto, and the KDE people use QT because it is
FREE SOFTWARE.
>"pigheadedness", rather than, as you said "a strong ego" which prevents
>you from considering this issue more seriously.
This comment is a bit much, coming from someone who doesn't even understand
what "this issue" actually is. Perhaps you should consider "this issue"
more seriously ( by that, I mean, at least understand the implications of
the QT license ) before hurling insults at Linux developers.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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 19:33:41 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> The fact is, the claim that it is possible to have a legal monopoly is
> >> false.
> >
> >Not true. See what the Supreme Court has to say in United States v.
> >Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (1966) :
> >
> >===============
> >The offense of monopoly under 2 of the Sherman Act has two elements: (1)
> >the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the
> >willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from
> >growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business
> >acumen, or historic accident.
> >===============
> >
> >If the first element--possession of monopoly power--is present but the
> >second element is missing, then there is no violation.
>
> Did you bother trying to understand what that second element is?
> Possession of monopoly power by anything other than happenstance, that's
> what that is.
"Business acumen" is happenstance?
> If, one some remote chance, you acquire and maintain
> your monopoly power by *competitive* means, then obviously, it isn't
> monopoly power to begin with; it is just large market share and the
> unfortunate circumstance which enables you to use it predatorially.
That predatory power *is* monopoly power to begin with. The Supreme
Court regonizes, in the above passage, that you can have "possession of
monopoly power" (element 1) without also having the items listed as
element 2. According to the Supreme Court, you can have "possession of
monopoly power" without being in violation of section 2 of the Sherman
Act. The passage is quite clear about that.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
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?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 23:43:51 GMT
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:43:07 GMT, Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Maybe in your area, but not in all by any means. Most states are still
thinking it over.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
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: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:49:05 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "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.
>
>Nope, just talked to an engineer at my local rural electric service a month
>ago whos line (and service area) ends at the edge of my property. They still
>cannot run a line to my house by law. I must pay 12 cents per kw/hr instead
>of 4 cents because of it.
Or 12 cents instead of $1.48. Whichever.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 23:40:52 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >A company doesn't have to have an overall monopoly to have a monopoly in
> >certain areas or markets. Coca-Cola certainly has monopoly ower in many
> >areas, and enough market power overall to use it predatorially, as you
> >put it. And they still get in trouble for it from time to time.
>
> I'm not sure I buy that. While they certainly have a large
> marketshare, they also have a perfectly replaceable product.
Well, you don't *have* to buy it.
For example, look at Wal-Mart. They don't have a monopoly over the
total large department store market, but when they drop one of their
megastores into small towns, they exercise monopoly power in those
markets, and have been hit with antitrust investigations for predatory
pricing.
You have to remember that "market" isn't "everything a company does."
It's just a shorthand term for a competitive sales environment, and can
stand for anything from selling tree trimming services in one small city
to selling microxhips for most of the computers on the market.
Even in a non-majority situation, a company can get nailed for being an
anticompetitive monopoly. This happened to one of the large
toilet-tissue makers a while back, when they got tapped for only having
35% or so of a market, but were the single largest competitor (and were
lowballing prices in specific areas to knock some of the smaller makers
out of business).
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
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: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 23:54:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > ZnU wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > ZnU wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The "losers" under a Bush administration will be just
> > > > > > > > > > about everyone. Bush's proposed tax cut eliminates all
> > > > > > > > > > chance of paying off the national debt, yet it only
> > > > > > > > > > gives $43/year back to the average american family.
> > > > > > > > > > Where does the rest go? You guessed it: the top 2% or
> > > > > > > > > > so of the economic scale.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The president doesn't create the budget, he only has the
> > > > > > > > > power to approve it in it's entirety or return it to
> > > > > > > > > congress, now who has really been creating the budget
> > > > > > > > > deficit for the past 20 years? And who in the past four
> > > > > > > > > has managed to turn it (the deficit) around?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If the Republicans did all the work to balance the budget,
> > > > > > > > why are they trying to damn hard to unbalance it?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you, ZnU, smoking large amounts of crack before writing
> > > > > > > to USENET?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you really denying this? In just the last few months the
> > > > > > Republicans have tried to pass two tax cuts that would
> > > > > > eliminate or significantly reduce the surplus, and Bush wants
> > > > > > to take things even farther.
> > > > >
> > > > > A surplus is merely another name for OVER-TAXATION.
> > > > ^^^^^^^
> > > >
> > > > You misspelled "deficit." All that interest ends up costing quite a
> > > > bit more in the long run.
> > >
> > > Interest is a result of debt which is a result of deficits cause by
> > > over-spending....
> > >
> > > The federal debt CANNOT Be paid off early like a home-owner's
> > > mortgage. The T-bills can ONLY be paid off when they mature. Anybody
> > > who has any knowledge of how the federal debt works is aware of this.
> > >
> > > Since you are blissfully unaware, it demonstrates that your are
> > > basically unqaulified to comment
> >
> > You're setting up strawmen again. I haven't said a word about the
> > timeframe to pay off the national debt.
>
>
> Upon maturity of the outstanding Treasury bills, you idiot.
Why do you keep repeating that when it has nothing to do with anything
I've said?
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 Aug 2000 18:06:09 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) writes:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Craig Kelley
> The Doom software -- plus the first level -- *was* given away for
> free. Subsequent levels were purchased, but AFAIK the driver did
> not change much -- although Doom 4 apparently made some mods to
> the driver, resulting in some minor incompatibilities with the
> linuxxdoom that I have. (Note that the WAD given away didn't have
> weapons #6 (I forget what they call it, but it throws out whitish-blue
> projectiles) and #7 (The Big F[...] Gun). I suspect a few textures
> were also missing, as well -- and I think some monsters, too.)
Well, Id is currently working on Doom 3 right now; it will use the
Quake3 engine (probably tweaked significantly).
[snip]
> >I have all the Quakes for Linux. You should buy one to support the
> >cause! http://www.lokigames.com
>
> I already have Quake I and Quake II, legitimately purchased.
> I'm debating about purchasing Quake III, although considering
> my current equipment (PPro 200/64 megs) it may not run all that well.
>
> (Yes, I want to upgrade. No, I don't like IDE/ATAPI. Maybe I want
> SMP... :-) )
Quake3 pretty much needs at least 96MB of RAM, a 300Mhz processor and
a voodoo2 or better 3-D card to run. You can technically run it on
less, but I wouldn't.
> (He wanted to use FreeBSD, which would have been even better, but he
> had some technical troubles reading the CD-ROM, which apparently has
> an "intentional bad spot" which FreeBSD has a problem with. Shades
> of old floppies! :-) )
Yeah, the 1541 was a copy-protectors dream; no doubt the CSS authority
would love to integrate it's technology into the current ream of DVD
players. :)
[snip]
> >I had an Amiga 500 myself. I long for the days of walking into a
> >department store and seeing tons of software for many different
> >platforms. It almost makes me ill to only see Win32 software out
> >there (even Mac people have to go to specialty shops or online to get
> >their stuff).
>
> There are advantages and disadvantages to either approach. But
> you're right, it was more interesting back then. Sigh.
And more boring stuff today. I think the advantages to multiple
architectures is pretty given -- especially wrt "natural" selection in
the computer net world.
[snip]
> >REXX
> >was a very cool language (funny how Amiga was so very cool for it's
> >time; too bad Commodore murdered it via lack of initiative).
>
> Actually, one could make a case that Commodore commited financial
> suicide. But it is a sad story; the only bright spot -- if one can
> call it that -- is that the Atari ST series didn't fare much better.
> But both were probably swamped by the Mighty Microsoft Marketing
> Machine. (I'm glad Apple survived.)
>
> Arexx was neat, at that (I never used the original Rexx, which was
> AFAIK an IBM product).
Ooops, I meant AREXX; I currently have UAE+Amiga Forever installed
under Linux and am running a 68020-ish machine with OS 3.5; it works
pretty darn well.
> >
> >> Python is another, of which I know little except that RedHat
> >> codes in it for installation.
> >
> >Python is a very cool language, even if I think that the lack of block
> >delimiters is a huge mistake.
>
> Haven't used it, so couldn't say.
> (Do I really need to learn Yet Another Language? :-) :-) )
Python is a very easy language to pick up. It resembles C++/Java, but
has an incredibly versatile library available on every install (ie, no
need to go out and get a regexp package, etc.)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
