Linux-Advocacy Digest #724, Volume #28 Tue, 29 Aug 00 03:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Mike
Marion)
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come (David Goldstien)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 29 Aug 2000 02:13:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> It is the word which means something, and words
>> are defined by dictionaries and usage, not by statute.
>
>This a rather hypocritical position for you to take, given your
>continued insistence on using "legal" definitions when discussing
>antitrust, rather than using the common meanings of words found in a
>dictionary.
>
>Why is legal jargon the right way to talk about antitrust, but the wrong
>way to talk about the legal status of an organization?
Because legal jargon is right when you are using legal jargon, and wrong
or at least potentially misleading when you are not. In legal jargon,
words would be defined by precedent and context, not by statute. This
is aptly demonstrated in particular by the statute known as the Sherman
Act, which outlaws "restraint of trade" and "monopolization", but
provides no definitions for these terms. A perusal of the early
railroad cases provides a conclusive argument that "precisely what is
monopolization" is known to be a non-trivial question. The later
decisions from which 'popular wisdom' is more strongly derived provide
competent but limited view of the situation. Still, the fact that
definition of legal jargon is not nearly as trivial an issue as common
speech is well established. Common speech can afford to be much more
subtle, and thus communicative, while legal language strives ultimately
for nothing more than a lack of ambiguity.
--
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: 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, 29 Aug 2000 02:23:38 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> It is the word which means something, and words
> >> are defined by dictionaries and usage, not by statute.
> >
> >This a rather hypocritical position for you to take, given your
> >continued insistence on using "legal" definitions when discussing
> >antitrust, rather than using the common meanings of words found in a
> >dictionary.
> >
> >Why is legal jargon the right way to talk about antitrust, but the wrong
> >way to talk about the legal status of an organization?
>
> Because legal jargon is right when you are using legal jargon, and wrong
> or at least potentially misleading when you are not. In legal jargon,
> words would be defined by precedent and context, not by statute. This
> is aptly demonstrated in particular by the statute known as the Sherman
> Act, which outlaws "restraint of trade" and "monopolization", but
> provides no definitions for these terms. A perusal of the early
> railroad cases provides a conclusive argument that "precisely what is
> monopolization" is known to be a non-trivial question. The later
> decisions from which 'popular wisdom' is more strongly derived provide
> competent but limited view of the situation. Still, the fact that
> definition of legal jargon is not nearly as trivial an issue as common
> speech is well established. Common speech can afford to be much more
> subtle, and thus communicative, while legal language strives ultimately
> for nothing more than a lack of ambiguity.
You've explained differences you see about the two, but not why it's
suddenly wrong to cite the language of a statute (which is exactly what
you were doing when you kept citing the "monopolization" wording of the
Sherman Act).
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Anybody that wants the presidency so much that he'll spend two years organizing
and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the office. -David Broder
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 06:38:28 GMT
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I push my NT4 machine hard, but have had no more than two or
> three BSODs this year.
Right, if BSODs are frequent, somebody has done something wrong.
> Explorer crashes once a week or so, but for the most part the
> machine is remarkably stable.
Sounds familiar. I've also had problems with the net dropping out on
me (fixed by a reboot), but mainly I'm annoyed by the sloppy behavior
of the UI -- e.g. everything freezes if the net falls out, and it
takes forever to bring up the right-click menu to create new folders,
and so on.
> 1) Use Service Pack 3. SP4 introduced more bugs than the original NT4.0.
> By SP6a, most of these are fixed but at the cost of compatibility with older
> programs.
Unfortunately, SP(some number >4) is needed to fix the annoying
behavior of Dev.Studio, where the class view scrolls immeasurably
slowly if you have more than a trivial number of classes. But yes,
SP4 is rumoured to kill VMWare performance, too.
> 2) Do not go higher than IE4.0. If you want to use your machine as a
> professional tool, don't install toys like IE5.
My first experience with IE5 was when it came preinstalled on my new
box. It ranks almost up there with the dancing paperclip when it
comes to annoyingly useless applications. Needless to say, I
installed Opera first thing.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 06:57:26 GMT
Jim Richardson wrote:
> Since the biggest cost to the poor is taxation of one sort or another,
Hey, I'm not poor (not rich either) and taxation is my biggest cost too. It's
not a problem only faced by poor people.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://miguelito.org
The Matrix is going down for reboot now!
Stopping reality: ....OK
The system is halted. -- yet another sig stolen from /.
------------------------------
From: David Goldstien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 06:54:21 GMT
In article <8od3o2$5qf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> phil hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Counterexample: Sleepycat.
>
> >Sleepycat produce code that implements DBM-style databases. They
> >release this code under the GPL. If companies want to put this code
> >in proprietary products, they sell licenses to allow them to do this.
> >So, in this way, the GPL is important to Sleepycat's business model.
>
> So the GPL's infamous viral quality is beneficial quality for
> Sleepycat -- one has to pay Sleepycat for non-viral versions :-)
>
> >One idea that I don't think is used often enough is to release
software
> >on a time-delayed open source licence: it is released as
proprietary, but
> >will revert to open source after a time delay has occurred.
>
> Sort of like what's happened with some of the older 3D game
> engines, such as Wolfenstein, Doom, Quake, Descent 1 and 2, and
Marathon 2.
>
You mean "abandonware"? When a company finds it is not financially
expedient to support a piece of software anymore, they hand it over to
the open source groupies to play with?
--
David F. Goldstien :: Chip Design & System Programming, S.F. CA
Above the clouds, above the crowds, where the
sounds are original ... infinite skills create
miracles.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
