Linux-Advocacy Digest #645, Volume #28 Sat, 26 Aug 00 07:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft Linux: what if? (Andres Soolo)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451783 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows (Ian Pulsford)
Re: [OT] what's off topic? (was: Bush v. Gore on taxes) (Dennis SCP)
Re: GUI vs Command Line: The useless war ("Raul Iglesias")
Re: Switch to NT? ("Raul Iglesias")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 03:47:16 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> And with that understanding, I entirely agree. Normally a large market
> share *can* be considered monopolization, as there is no other way to
> get large market share in a competitive market. But that sounds too
> much like an extremist case, and is, in fact, what allows "having a
> monopoly is not illegal" to be used to defend monopolization, which is
> criminal behavior. It is, indeed "monopolization", not "having a
> monopoly" which is the crime. Having a large market share, however, is
> indication a crime has been committed, though it is not (and should not
> be, if the market is truly to remain free) considered de facto evidence
> of the crime in the absence of any other demonstrably anti-competitive
> behavior.
And that is a good thing IMO, because figuring out what the correct
"market" is will be much trickier for a judge to do as compared to, say,
reading statements from executives that say, "we're going to cut off
their air supply."
And the definition of the market is *always* disputed. Doubtless
Microsoft will argue that all operating systems are in the relevant
market. Some people even try to argue that the relevant market is the
entire software industry. Obviously there is no telltale monopoly
market share if you define the entire software industry as the market.
In this case I don't think this strategy will work for the defendant.
You can make good arguments that Jackson used too narrow of a definition
(by excluding Apple, for example), but expanding his definition in the
most logical ways doesn't change the conclusion.
If you're so inclined, you might check out U.S. v. DuPont (1956) for a
Supreme Court case that turned entirely on the definition of the
relevant market. DuPont was sued for monopolization of the market for
cellophane. DuPont argued this was not the relevant market, and they
won:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=351&invol=377
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 04:03:40 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >> FUD, certainly, should be considered a Section 1 (restraint of trade)
> >> violation. Don't you agree?
> >
> >I think it depends on the FUD.
>
> Well, see, here's where I can't follow you. Because the law cannot
> "depend" as much as you indicate by this statement. It doesn't depend
> on the statements of the vendor, it depends on the effect of the
> statements. Which is, of course, what defines the difference between
> FUD and 'information'. So it doesn't depend on the FUD. It defines if
> it is FUD.
So if I say, "My product is good, don't buy my competitors' product",
and everyone follows that advice, I'm legally liable for having made
that statement, because of its effects???
> >I don't look too kindly on monopolists
> >preannouncing vaporware to prevent sales of upcoming challengers of the
> >monopolist. But I'm not sure it should reach the point of illegality...
> >by this time, people who trust Microsoft preannouncements have got to be
> >very naive folks.
>
> Microsoft still willfully maintains monopoly power, does it not?
Through FUD? Funny, I though it was through tying and coercive pricing
practices with PC makers, not by issuing vague pronouncements about
future products.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 04:04:31 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [...]
> >You're making so many absurd assumptions that it's hard to know where to
> >start:
>
> Am I?
>
> >1. You assume that a temporary monopoly can't be harmful. It can.
>
> Adam Smith say's you're wrong.
Adam Smith also says antitrust laws are not viable. Do you believe him?
> >4. You assume that a temporary monopoly can be overcome by a free
> >market. It may not.
>
> Adam Smith say's you're wrong.
Adam Smith also says antitrust laws are not viable. Do you believe him?
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 01:07:45 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Who's me? The casual web browser, the company vice president, the
> programmer?
> Answer: nothing unless you know what the hell it is.
> If two companies wanted to share the data then they would agree on a
> method of encryption. If someone wanted to share it with the whole world
> then they would make it nice simple english (swahili whatever).
If a software developer wanted the files generated by their programs to be
useless to anything but their own brand of software, using the XML file
format to save the data won't help make the data useful to any competing
software. Some may say at least the file is stored in a standard format,
but experience proves that if you can not interpret the data, the format is
useless anyway. Some say at least you can still parse it, but experience
still proves that the data is useless if you can not interpret it. Since
this format does have an overhead that consumes real resources, you not only
not gain anything by an non-portable XML file, you in fact lose resources.
In the business world this would add up to real money lost.
One of the most foolish claims in this thread was the one that XML make Mac
OS X bundles so great. XML provides nothing in that situation it is simply
the data format the Apple seletect to use. Just about any other format
could have done the job as well, it is the algorithms and the packing of the
bundles and the data stored about the bundles that make the difference.
Does anyone seriously believe that if Apple had chosen another data format
instead of XML, that it would have made any difference is the functionality
of the bundles?
Would using XML formatted data make RPM or DEB packages any better or worse?
In a word, NO.
It seems that too many people are so worked up about the XML format that
they are crediting it with magical properties.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 04:39:36 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Your ISP seemed to have agreed with me, now didn't they.
No, they sent me an email. I have threatened them with legal action
should it turn out that you did not provide them with your real name and
identity, though obviously not much will come of an email.
I will remind you, again, that I will not be warning you via Usenet if I
have decided to pursue legal action against you.
>Death threats,
>whether or not you actually now the persons name are highly illegal, (and
>lame). Now drop it or I'll forward the second threat you posted and you'll
>be searching for a new ISP by Monday.
Go ahead. Make my day.
--
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.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 04:47:36 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>Let's see what the thread was about.
Better yet, let's use your misrepresentation of it as an educational
exercise.
>I pointed out that, by law (securities laws), companies are obligated to
>maximize profit.
This is untrue. According to securities law, corporate executives are
obligated to fulfill their duties to the best of their abilities, and
that is all.
>Illya raised a legitimate question that those laws don't specify what
>time frame should be considered.
>
>I answered his question.
>
>You chime in and say it has nothing to do with securities laws.
>
>Are you really this dense or are you just pretending?
Are you really that sure of your 'popular wisdom' understanding of SEC
regulations and the law? If so, you were mistaken in that
understanding. If not, you are just pretending.
[...]
>> >However, sacrificing most of your profits for the next 20 years to
>> >obtain a possibly greater product in 30 years would almost certainly be
>> >going too far.
>> >
>> >The point is that the laws require the board of directors to act in the
>> >financial interest of the shareholders. Ethics is not an acceptable
>> >reason (except, of course, where an unethical action will cost
>> >shareholders money).
>>
>> Sounds like you're due for a cranial rectumotomy.
>
>Which means you don't have any way to refute what I said.
Which means I have no need to refute what you said.
[...]
>> >The actual interpretation of that is somewhat subjective. The fact that
>> >the board has to maximize shareholder value is not.
>>
>> The interpretation is entirely subjective, and your 'popular wisdom'
>> understanding is grossly inadequate. The fact is, the board gets to
>> determine what "maximize value" means. They aren't allowed to lose
>> money on purpose, and that's about all you can say.
>
>Wrong. Perhaps you need to finish elementary school before continuing.
Perhaps you need to find some real information and evidence of your
position before casually assuming that companies are required to act
unethically or possibly illegally in order to maximize profits.
>I'm an officer of a public company. I know what my obligations are.
Well, you think you do, anyway.
>Why don't you read some of the recent law suits against directors for
>not maximizing shareholder value?
Why don't you post references and citations indicating that you aren't
blatantly mischaracterizing the issue?
[...]
>And given the choice between maximizing profits and cutting profits to a
>subsistence level (which seems to be what you're advocating), which do
>you think would maximize shareholder value?
You are aware of the concept of a "false dichotomy", aren't you?
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/fd.htm
--
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: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Linux: what if?
Date: 26 Aug 2000 09:07:31 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Microsoft L++?
Microsoft L@ :-)
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content: 80% POLYESTER, 20% DACRONi ... The waitress's UNIFORM sheds
TARTAR SAUCE like an 8" by 10" GLOSSY ...
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451783
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 09:11:27 GMT
Here's today's Malloy digest. Notice how he's ignored the evidence
for the fact that he likes to "hear" himself, as well as the
evidence for his reading comprehension problem. Nor did he explain
why he's ignored Slava's question; indeed, he continues to feign
ignorance about Slava. And he's still plagued with "parrot" syndrome,
as well as his illogical conclusion regarding misattributions. Lastly,
he clearly doesn't understand the concept of a digest, given that he
keeps posting a so-called "Tholen digest", yet still responds one
article at a time. Here are four more such examples:
179> Here's today's Tholen digest. Notice how he's ignored the evidence for the
179> fact that he likes to "hear" himself, as well as the evidence for his
179> reading comprehension problem. Nor did he explain who this "Slava" is;
179> indeed, he continues to assume everyone knows of a "Slava." Typical. And
179> he's still plagued with "parrot" syndrome, as well as his illogical
179> conclusion regarding misattributions. Figures.
179>
179> The digest improper:
179>
179> [0]
179>
179> I still hold out hope, slender reed though that might be, that Tholen will
179> someday say something intelligent. Bye!
180> Tholing, Tholen writes:
180>
180> And you're pontificating again, Tholen. Figures.
181> The Tholen toles:
181>
181> Not very. By the way, what's so "special" (beside illogic) in this posting
181> to force you to send it twice, Tholen? First day with the new newsreader?
182> Tholen writes and thereby tholes:
182>
182> More pontification from Tholen. Figures.
==========
Malloy likes to hear himself. The evidence:
"I take it Tholen has attempted to digest me, but since no message
to that effect appears on my newserver today, I present an oldie:"
--Joe Malloy
Maybe it's because he has trouble seeing. The evidence:
"Where does he say anything about clergy, Tholen?"
--Joe Malloy
"It follows from your pontificating actions and the discussion
of the clergy..."
--Eric Bennett
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 19:27:47 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Who's me? The casual web browser, the company vice president, the
> > programmer?
> > Answer: nothing unless you know what the hell it is.
> > If two companies wanted to share the data then they would agree on a
> > method of encryption. If someone wanted to share it with the whole world
> > then they would make it nice simple english (swahili whatever).
>
> If a software developer wanted the files generated by their programs to be
> useless to anything but their own brand of software, using the XML file
> format to save the data won't help make the data useful to any competing
> software.
That tends to be the aim of competing commercial proprietary systems anyway.
> Some may say at least the file is stored in a standard format,
> but experience proves that if you can not interpret the data, the format is
> useless anyway. Some say at least you can still parse it, but experience
> still proves that the data is useless if you can not interpret it. Since
> this format does have an overhead that consumes real resources, you not only
> not gain anything by an non-portable XML file, you in fact lose resources.
> In the business world this would add up to real money lost.
I suspect it's all part of webifying data, the road to XHTML.
> One of the most foolish claims in this thread was the one that XML make Mac
> OS X bundles so great. XML provides nothing in that situation it is simply
> the data format the Apple seletect to use. Just about any other format
> could have done the job as well, it is the algorithms and the packing of the
> bundles and the data stored about the bundles that make the difference.
> Does anyone seriously believe that if Apple had chosen another data format
> instead of XML, that it would have made any difference is the functionality
> of the bundles?
> Would using XML formatted data make RPM or DEB packages any better or worse?
> In a word, NO.
I agree with you XML should stick to database type info and leave binary type
info to another format.
> It seems that too many people are so worked up about the XML format that
> they are crediting it with magical properties.
Yeh, there seems to be a lot of hype. I guess it's the new toy syndrome.
IanP
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dennis SCP)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] what's off topic? (was: Bush v. Gore on taxes)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 11:56:27 +0200
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Apologies for an off-topic post.
>
> What is off-topic about it?
What isn't off-topic about it? It's not like your discussing anything
related to comp.*. Yet your discussing some countries taxing quirks on
an international forum about computers. Now, tell me how will the Linux,
mac or OS 2 platform change depending on the outcome of your national
elections?
--
This material is provided for information purposes only; Apple does not
recommend allowing an elephant to operate a Mac in any environment.
Apple_Pro_Mouse_WP.pdf © 2000 Apple Computer, Inc.
------------------------------
From: "Raul Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GUI vs Command Line: The useless war
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 10:30:22 GMT
While I am fully agree to your points, I think that most users
do not want anything but a "Please wait ..." window, perhaps it
could be a configurable option ? (I mean, to show things or not).
------------------------------
From: "Raul Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Switch to NT?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 10:30:22 GMT
Less than 4 months you will be able to use ABIWord, GNUmeric
and KOffice perfectly on Linux workstations.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 26 Aug 2000 10:41:40 GMT
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 05:45:58 GMT, Courageous wrote:
>
>> >Wrong. I oppose feudalism.
>>
>> What aspects of feudalism do you oppose ?
>
>A more telling question would be to ask the poster who originally
>accused Mr. Kulkis of being a "feudalist" what they believe
>feudalism actually means...
I was the one who asked the question. This has already been discussed in
previous threads, use deja if you care that much. I believe that Mr Kulkis
and I are more or less in agreement as to what it means, the disagreement
is over whether or not he supports it.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 26 Aug 2000 10:46:43 GMT
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 02:25:53 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>subsidize-the-reproduction-of-out-of-wedlock-breeding-sluts programs.
May I remind you that men are also partly responsible for pregnancy ?
I don't know what you learned in high school, but I recommend that
you retake junior high sex-ed if you don't know better.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 26 Aug 2000 10:55:19 GMT
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 02:17:22 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> Unfortunately society does have an interest in making sure that these
>> kids grow up to be productive citizens instead of criminals. Yes, it
>
>A fat chance that will happen.
A perfect example of Mr Kulkis's opposition to meritocracy, and his firm
belief that the children of the wealthy are "entitled" to rule. The basic
accumption is that if your parents aren't filthy rich, you're "stupid" and
don't "deserve" an education.
>I'd rather see them starve to death before they start doing damage.
Unfortunately for you, Mr Kulkis, they will not starve. There's so much
food lying around in the US that you could sustain yourself just from
eating from trash cans ( as some people do ). Under your proposed system,
you would have a large beggar/criminal underclass doing considerably
more damage.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
