Linux-Advocacy Digest #595, Volume #28 Wed, 23 Aug 00 14:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Jack Troughton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:20:35 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> [MUCH TEXT]
>
> Are you saying that Nathaniel, myself, and others are concerned and/or
> worried about silly things happening to Linux. Or are you saying that we
> are silly to be worried about these thing?
I say I believe you are worried about silly things.
> If you are saying the first option above and I were in your place, I would
> have said, "I agree silly thing like that should never be done to Linux, I
> will not cause the introduction of the thing into Linux and I don't believe
> that those I am in contact with would either."
I could say that, yes.
> Instead you still seem to be discounting our valid.
Sorry, I don't know what you mean.
> If you think that we
> are the only two who have these concerns consider the following:
>
> http://www.gnulinux.com/interviews/stallman_part1.shtml where it says
>
> Stallman: Well, I have concerns in that certain things could happen, which
> we must avoid. Having companies interested is, not in itself, a bad thing.
> There's a potential for them to contribute. There's also a potential for
> them to exploit the community and lead it in the wrong direction. Which
> one will happen will be determined ultimately by the values of the users.
You have very bad chances of convincing me of anything based on
RMS quotes :-)
> P.S. This Stallman quotation and URL comes from Dan Jacobson in the thread
> "Microsoft Linux what if?"
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:13:52 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the power company themselves are pretty well informed on the
> law, and accurately informed me that due to the fact I live just
> inside of territory granted by the state to my current electric
> provider they cannott run a line to my house.
It's probably more of a case of "we're a rural electric co-op, and since
you already have electricity, we can't get the low-interest Federal
loans that allow us to give you that access for a small amount of money."
> Maybe I should call back and say "Chad told me you are wrong, hook me
> up tomorrow please." Or better yet could you call them and fill them
> in on the law.
Or better yet, you could call your engineer friend back and ask him
exactly *why* he can't run power to your house, and if it's because of
the "granted monopoly" situation or whether it's because of the rules
the co-op agree to abide by in order t o get those low-interest loans.
Considering your past track record in these things, it's almost
certainly the latter.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:24:31 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> >> [...]
> >> >> Screw KDE. Its a commercial development project. They're trying to
> >> >> leverage free software for their own private gain; GNOME rules. Any
> >> >> ideas KDE can come up with, GNOME can replicate. That's not FUD, that's
> >> >> the god's honest truth.
> >> >
> >> >I don't get it. Do you know the address of KDE corp. by chance? ;-)
> >>
> >> <G> No, I couldn't find it. ;-)
> >
> >Ok, so, I assukme now you know that what you said was not "the god's
> >honest truth." but just more uninformed ranting? Apologize, please.
>
> Just to show you how capricious my sentiment can be when given a steady
> stream of information, I'll tell you that twenty minutes ago, I might
> have.
Lost your honesty window? Dammit!
> Perhaps jedi is just another Usenet screwball, but what he said
> still resonates. Just because QT is the product, not KDE, and the
> company's name isn't KDE, but Troll Tech, is no reason for me to retract
> my statement apologetically.
Oh, right. Just because what you said is not true, it's no reason
to retract. How nice.
[snip]
> >> I was mislead by the rhetoric, as I've said. I'm still not a fan of
> >> KDE, but don't see anything wrong with an alternative to GNOME, either.
> >> I'd just wish you understood the literary aspects of software enough to
> >> know that requiring QT is counter-productive, possibly in the extreme.
> >
> >You lack the software designing and development expertise to judge
> >the merits of technical decisions regarding software design and
> >development, IMO.
>
> I am not making any such judgements, so your point is moot. I feel no
> remorse in resigning myself to judging from the perspective of the
> consumer, and do not feel this disqualifies me in any way from any
> judgement I might care to make.
Requiring Qt for my software is a decision I make. It is a
technical decision. You are free to believe I am wrong, but
your opinion is worthless and ineffectual.
> [...]
> >So, am I not a whore as you said I was? Wouldn't it be nice
> >of you to apologize for calling me that instead of deleting it?
>
> Sorry, the jury's still out on that one. Who pays your salary?
As I told you, a linux company. Check the site where the URL
I gave you before is located. If you want it again, the
site is www.conectiva.com.ar (but www.conectiva.com is
probably better for you).
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 13:10:17 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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]>,
> > > > > > Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
ZnU
> > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And I suppose the Democrats are just going to let that surplus
> > > > > > > sit there reducing the debt, rather than spending it on bigger
> > > > > > > government health care and *ahem* Gore's own $500 billion in
> > > > > > > proposed tax cuts?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gore has promised to pay off the debt. Bush has not. Of course,
> > > > > > it's rather difficult to attack Bush on the issues, since he
almost
> > > > > > never talks about them....
> > > > >
> > > > > Paying off the debt is already IN the budget, you moron.
> > > > >
> > > > > ALL treasury bills have a maturity date. To cannot retire the
debt
> > > > > any sooner than the maturity dates on the T-bills. To retire the
> > > > > debt, all that needs to be done is to refrain from rolling over
the
> > > > > bonds as they mature.
A very large percentage of the national debt (last time I checked) is in 60
and 90 day treasury bills. So unless there a plan to pay off most of the
National debt by November we're not in a position to refrain from offering
those T-Bills, to pay one out we're forced to sell a new one. If we can get
away with selling 95 new ones for every 100 paid out we'll be in good
shape.
> > > >
> > > > How will this be possible after the Republicans have starved the
> > > > government giving their tax breaks?
> > >
> > >
> > > Tax breaks stimulate commerce, idiot!
> >
> > Ahh. Another proponent of trickle-down economics. Of course, some people
> > see that for what it really is: a way for rich people to justify their
> > exploitation of the system.
>
> For your information...WORKERS always get paid.
Until the owner(s) don't make money, then some of the overhead costs are
cut, which may or may not mean employee cuts or layoffs.
> OWNERS only get paid if there's anything left over after paying workers.
Sometimes owners lose money, employees do not take that risk in a general
sense, therefore are not entitled to sudden gains.
> Micro-economics: learn it!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:37:36 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 22 Aug 2000 10:00:32 -0700
<8nuc1f$h63$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> not change much -- although Doom 4 apparently made some mods to
>> the driver, resulting in some minor incompatibilities with the
>> linuxxdoom that I have. (Note that the WAD given away didn't have
>> weapons #6 (I forget what they call it, but it throws out whitish-blue
>> projectiles) and #7 (The Big F[...] Gun). I suspect a few textures
>> were also missing, as well -- and I think some monsters, too.)
>>
>> (I don't have Doom 5 -- aka "Final Doom". Not sure if I want to get
>> it or not; Doom 1-3 are relatively easy, but Doom 4 is extremely
>> difficult.)
>
>Take a look at "boom" by team TNT, there is a Dos version of it and it has
>been ported to Linux. Most of the problems you cite from the latter
>episodes of doom are because they may be using extensions that were coded
>for boom. Some of the latter doom retail WADs were developed by team TNT.
Is there a Webpage for this? www.boom.com, www.tnt.com/boom, what?
>
>#6 = plasma rifle ?
Yep, that was it ... although it acts more like a machine gun.
(Oh well, a foolish consistency and all that... :-) )
>#7 = BFG 9000 ?
Yep; later upgraded to BFG10000 in Quake II, if memory serves.
(The new one has quite a kick to it for some reason. :-) )
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- but I wouldn't want to be on the other end! :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:40:59 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Donal K. Fellows
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 23 Aug 2000 15:47:37 GMT
<8o0rmp$f62$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> TCL is a real dumb language; one thing I don't like about it is
>> that I like to structure my if statements:
>>
>> if (...)
>> {
>> ...
>> }
>
>Heretic!
Good game, that.
:-)
>
>> but TCL doesn't like that because the 'if' is actually a command
>> requiring arguments on the same physical line, so one has to write
>>
>> if {...} {
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> and that makes it a bit of a pain to debug. Actually, the same
>> holds true for proc and while. Feh.
>
>(I suspect that this particular point was inducing flamewars between C
>programmers back in the early seventies.)
No doubt. I happen to like the construct above because I have a
fighting chance of ensuring braces line up, but the C compiler doesn't
care.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- still not sure if they're gargoyles, or just red bats
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 13:51:10 -0400
"Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think the power company themselves are pretty well informed on the
> > law, and accurately informed me that due to the fact I live just
> > inside of territory granted by the state to my current electric
> > provider they cannott run a line to my house.
>
> It's probably more of a case of "we're a rural electric co-op, and since
> you already have electricity, we can't get the low-interest Federal
> loans that allow us to give you that access for a small amount of money."
>
> > Maybe I should call back and say "Chad told me you are wrong, hook me
> > up tomorrow please." Or better yet could you call them and fill them
> > in on the law.
>
> Or better yet, you could call your engineer friend back and ask him
> exactly *why* he can't run power to your house, and if it's because of
> the "granted monopoly" situation or whether it's because of the rules
> the co-op agree to abide by in order t o get those low-interest loans.
>
> Considering your past track record in these things, it's almost
> certainly the latter.
It's the former.
I thought it was already clear, I'm a victim of a monopoly and have been for
many years. Which is much more sinister than the supposed Microsoft monopoly
where as a consumer I've only benefited, and saved money.
With my electric monopoly I've lost around $6000.00 over the years being
overcharged.
I haven't lost any money choosing my own operating system. (Except when a
bought the [free??] Caldera Open Linux for $50.00 and it wouldn't run my
video card) My power companies largest concern right now is (due to
impending deregulation) is how they are going to recoup the money they've
wasted for 40 years now that I'm not there and forced pay it off for them.
My biggest concern is how soon can I be out from under the monopolistic
tyranny of electric service.
An integrated browser is last on my and most of Americas list. But it makes
good headlines for the DOJ. MS will never voluntarily split, and America
will not stand for or benefit from a government forced split either.
Quotable Quotes:
"Janet Reno may save me 20 bucks on Windows, but what about the 20 thousand
she lost me in my 401k?"
Michael Miller of Technology Investment Newsletter, ABC Evening News, June
7"
"The government in this case resembles an overweight man trying to capture
an orangutan. Every time the man lunges, the ape is somewhere else - leaping
to the side, climbing a tree, tapping the man on the shoulder from behind
and darting behind a boulder before the man can turn around. It makes for
good slapstick comedy and bad public policy."
Waterbury Republican-American (CT), "Microsoft Wins?" June 9
"I know that the technology marketplace is full of innovation and
competition - this ruling simply undermines the vibrancy of our economy.
Indeed, I am deeply concerned about the potential chilling effect of this
ruling on the "new economy" and on the entire technology industry."
US Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA)
"Today is the day our foreign competitors have waited for: the day the
United States begins to choke its own economic engine. The Court's
anticipated decision to break up Microsoft, regulate it, and turn its
intellectual property over to competitors, foreign and domestic, is the
beginning of regulating the technology industry and proof positive that we
take our technology leadership here in the U.S. for granted."
US Rep. Jennifer Dunn (-WA)
"Today is truly a sad day in our nation's history. Never before has our
government so viciously pursued a company that has done so much good for not
only Americans, but for people worldwide. Microsoft, the driving force
behind the booming U.S. economy, has revolutionized how we communicate, how
we educate our children, and how we live. It is clear that the government's
lawsuit and Judge Jackson's decision ignored the basis of anti-trust law.
Congress passed anti-trust laws to protect consumers, not competitors.
Ironically, it is the Department of Justice that has harmed consumers."
US Sen. Slade Gorton (R-WA)
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:57:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Träger) wrote:
> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [...]
> > > >If you believed in free markets, you wouldn't be posting drivel
> > > >along
> > > >the lines that companies shouldn't be allowed to "profiteer" (to use
> > > >your meaningless word).
> > >
> > > Its not meaningless, and civil injunction against profiteering is a
> > > necessary part of a free market system. Whether or not you can say a
> >
> > Bullshit.
> >
> > You just said that in a free market system, the market decides when a
> > company is charging too much. Now you're saying civil injunctions are
> > needed.
>
> Point is, when there is a monopoly, the market can not do anything
> against it when a company is charging too much - the market is not free
> anymore.
So there should be a free market until someone says that a company is
charging too much, then you throw out the free market?
>
> > In a free market system, there's no such thing as profiteering. The
> > concept doesn't even exist. If the customer is willing to pay the
> > vendor's price, a transaction occurs and the price was not excessive.
> > If
> > the price is excessive, the customer doesn't pay and no transaction
> > occurs.
>
> So when there IS profiteering, it's an indication that there is no free
> market, but a monopoly.
Wrong. It means that consumers value a product highly.
My company makes a product with an extremely high profit margin, yet
we're one of the smaller companies making this product.
OTOH, you could have a monopoly with an extremely low profit margin.
Profit margin is not an indication of whether a monopoly exists.
>
> > A civil injunction, by definition, is the complete opposite of a free
> > market system.
>
> It is neither, it's an external means of reinstating a free market.
That would be true ---- IF (and only if) the civil injunction could only
be applied when there was evidence that someone broke the laws.
That's not what T. Max is advocating (and, it appears, you seem to be
supporting him). He is advocating a civil injunction any time someone
makes more profit than he deems acceptable.
THAT is not a free market system. By any rational stretch of the
imagination.
>
> > > company which only protects property with copyright in order to
> > > extract
> > > exorbitant profits on treating it like a trade secret is
> > > 'profiteering',
> > > I will admit that is debatable. Are you unable, or simply unwilling,
> > > to
> > > debate it?
> >
> > I've already debated it -- over and over.
> >
> > You have this bizarre idea that you're defending a free market economy
> > when you dream up all these things that should be used to _interfere_
> > with buyers and vendors reaching an agreement on price.
>
> So you don't oppose monopolies (Microsoft's included)?
I'm not opposed to monopolies. I'm opposed to lawbreaking monopolies.
AND, the issue isn't about monopolies, anyway. T. Max (and, again, you
by association) is saying that a company shouldn't be allowed to earn
too much money. That has nothing to do with monopolies (other than his
rather bizarre assumption that if a company makes lots of money it must
be a monopoly).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:59:54 GMT
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:55:57 -0400, Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Its the *bandwidth* stupid, your sig eats bandwidth for absolutely no
>good reason. Your sig costs money to download and its downloaded no
>matter what I say, so I *can't* just ignore it. And this still doesn't
>change the fact that your sig is irrelevant to everyone in c.o.l.a.
>anyway. Now is that so fucking hard to understand?
Wasted bandwidth, like like the 45 lines you quoted?
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:58:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ed Cogburn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Ragosta wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
> > > Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ahh. Another proponent of trickle-down economics. Of course, some
> > > > > people see that for what it really is: a way for rich people to
> > > > > justify their exploitation of the system.
> > > >
> > > > That's possibly true.
> > > >
> > > > But, OTOH, perhaps you can explain why income disparity between the
> > > > "rich" and the "poor" is vastly worse today than it was under the
> > > > Reagan and Bush administrations?
> > >
> > > Because the economy is much better, and the rich always benefit most
> > > from a stronger economy.
> >
> > That's certainly one possible explanation.
> >
> > But what made the economy better? The tax cuts of the 80's perhaps?
>
>
> Tax cuts from the right are always designed to help the rich, that's
> already been stated in this thread. So the tax cuts did help... they've
> managed to expand the gap between rich and poor to its worse state since
> the 1920s. For the rich the economy is great, but everyone else is just
> treading water, including the shrinking middle class.
The middle clas is only shrinking because of games like calling those
who make over $60 K wealthy.
As for the concept that only the rich benefit, can you explain why the
welfare rolls are 75% smaller than they were a decade ago--and lower
than they've ever been? How does that support your contention that the
poor don't benefit?
------------------------------
From: Jack Troughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 13:12:32 -0400
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8nplbe$q3l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Killing off middleware platforms _is_ targeting alternatives to
> Windows;
> > > > it reinforces the applications barrier to entry.
> > >
> > > This is going back before the middleware buzzword was invented.
> >
> > Doesn't matter what label you give it. Java was middleware from the
> > beginning, and Netscape had the intention of turing its browser into
> > middleware. Microsoft knew this, and didn't like it.
>
> Hardly surprising, don't you think ?
>
> In any case, it's still going back further. "Write once, run anywhere" is a
> nice pipe dream, but it's still not realistically possible with non-trivial
> stuff.
>
> > > So IBM don't have the balls to do "the right thing" and that's
> Microsoft's
> > > fault ?
> > >
> > > If OS/2 really was a compelling alternative, then the correct response
> the
> > > Microsoft threatening not to give them Windows 95 would have been to
> laugh
> > > in their face.
> >
> > Catch-22. Microsoft used its market power to prevent IBM from turning
> > OS/2 into a viable alternative by making it impossible for IBM to
> > promote it.
>
> Why couldn't IBM just drop Windows 95 altogether and solely promote OS/2 ?
>
> Answer: it wasn't good enough.
Wrong answer.
Answer: there was no distribution channel to market, as MSFT had
monopolized the channel.
> > Is it really possible that you don't see how how Microsoft's actions are
> > immoral and illegal?
>
> Illegal, yes. Immoral, no.
Jack
Montreal PQ
CANADA
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
