Linux-Advocacy Digest #762, Volume #28 Thu, 31 Aug 00 00:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Whats a good starting point? (Tim Hanson)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (Andy Newman)
Re: How low can they go...? (Steve Martin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 23:12:13 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Larry Brasfield in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>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.
Business strategies which seek to overcome market preference or deter
market forces are not hard to spot at all. The Constitutional basis is
well-founded, and rather unshakeable. It has been addressed since the
very moment that the statute was created. Every court since then which
addresses an anti-trust complaint considers it, in fact, to some extent.
If you read the early Supreme Court railroad decisions, such as US v.
Trans-Missouri and US v. Joint Traffic, you'll see what I mean.
>From the Joint Traffic decision:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=171&invol=505
"It is also objected that the statute, if construed as it has been
construed in the Trans-Missouri Case, is unconstitutional, in that it
unduly interferes with the liberty of the individual, and takes away
from him the right to make contracts regarding his own affairs, which is
guarantied to him by the fifth amendment to the constitution, which
provides that 'no person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken
for public use without just compensation.' This objection was not
advanced in the arguments in the other case. "
"Has not congress, with regard to interstate commerce, and in the course
of regulating it, in the case of railroad corporations, the power to say
that no contract or combination shall be legal which shall restrain
trade and commerce by shutting out the operation of the general law of
competition? We think it has. "
You'll note that this last is not a conclusion which stands by itself;
the reasoning of it was rather valid, if considered apart from the
nature of railroads.
As to the import of the nature of things in anti-trust, we could turn to
the infamous cellophane case, US v. Du Pont, in 1956, a half century
later:
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/351/377.html
"The Sherman Act and the Courts. - The Sherman Act has received long and
careful application by this Court to achieve for the Nation the freedom
of enterprise [351 U.S. 377, 386] from monopoly or restraint envisaged
by the Congress that passed the Act in 1890. Because the Act is couched
in broad terms, it is adaptable to the changing types of commercial
production and distribution that have evolved since its passage. Chief
Justice Hughes wrote for the Court that 'As a charter of freedom, the
Act has a generality and adaptability comparable to that found to be
desirable in constitutional provisions.' Appalachian Coals, Inc.
v. United States, 288 U.S. 344, 359 -360."
"Judicial construction of antitrust legislation has generally been left
unchanged by Congress. This is true of the Rule of Reason. While it is
fair to say that the Rule [351 U.S. 377, 387] is imprecise, its
application in Sherman Act litigation, as directed against enhancement
of price or throttling of competition, has given a workable content to
antitrust legislation. See note 18, infra. It was judicially declared a
proper interpretation of the Sherman Act in 1911, with a strong,
clear-cut dissent challenging its soundness on the ground that the
specific words of the Act covered every contract that tended to restrain
or monopolize. "
The "Rule of Reason" referred to is, loosely translated, "if there is no
pro-competitive advantage in the course of action of a business, then
its intent is to deter competition." The "strong, clear-cut dissent"
cited is from the Standard Oil case, which was actually 1910. The
arguments supporting this interpretation of the quite Constitutional
Sherman Act in that decision are so voluminous as to be inaccessible to
quoting. They are comprehensive, inquisitive, and unprejudiced. Yet
for all of that, which included an excursion into English Common Law to
show the validity of anti-trust as consistent with a sound
interpretation of the entirety of the Constitution, Justice White
thought to include this tidbit:
"To referto the constitutional or legislative provisions on the subject,
or the many judicial decisions which illustrate it, would unnecessarily
prolong this opinion."
Microsoft seeks to bring up all the same issues. The fact is, though,
that they are doing no more than that; their arguments are essentially
identical to the railroad barons, and dozens if not hundreds of
monopolists who have since raised the issue. And all of the arguments
which the Supreme Court provided at the 1800s are still entirely valid
and comprehensible at the beginning of the 2000s.
But I'd be happy to discuss it further with you, Larry, if you'd like.
--
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: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats a good starting point?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 03:13:05 GMT
Ingemar Lundin wrote:
>
> SuSE Linux 7.0 Professional... it ROCKS!!
>
> /IL
>
> > So where does a guy start?
> >
> > Kevin Wandtke
> >
> >
> >
In terms of simple bang for the buck, a person can't do much better than
SuSE. I've been a satisfied customer since 5.1.
--
It's a good thing we don't get all the government we pay for.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 23:17:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe R. in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Perhaps if you'd learn to read, you would understand the issue.
Bye, Joe. I'm going to try a little experiment. Aaron, I killfiled.
You, I'll just ignore. Lets see which of you I see more of through
quoted material, nKay?
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 03:25:40 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>No, they're buttons with pictures on them. They are not icons.
Man, USENET just gets better and better...
------------------------------
From: Steve Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 03:20:26 GMT
Simon Cooke wrote:
> Please show me where I can buy a bare machine that will run MacOS9, and
> which does not come pre-bundled with a copy of MacOS.
For that matter, please show me any computer bought over the counter, by
mail-order, or from the shady guy on the corner that can be bought
without an operating system pre-installed. Go on. Show me. This is not
just a Mac phenomenon. A Microsoft OS package "for new users of
Windows" is basically a useless item these days, unless you're migrating
your computer from Linux, SCO, Solaris, or some other non-Windows OS.
------------------------------
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, 30 Aug 2000 23:16:44 -0400
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ojbtf$r6m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Seán Ó Donnchadha" escribió:
> > >
> > > "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >For the record, the part that you trimmed is where Max claimed that
he
> > > >didn't need any facts or details. After all, facts and details are
> > > >unimportant to him. He seems to think that he can understand
everything
> > > >at some esoteric level without having any facts or details to back it
> > > >up. That's ridiculous and I was merely pointing that out.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yep, that would explain his comments about Windows and IE integration.
> > > What I find remarkable is Max's ability to muddle things up by
> > > spending paragraph after eloquent paragraph saying absolutely nothing.
> > > Debating with him is like trying to do the butterfly stroke in a pool
> > > of quick-dry cement.
> >
> > Amen brother. And his multitasking thread, and his sticky bit thread,
> > and so on.
>
> I see y'all are starting to understand :). Max is, without a doubt, one
of
> the most infuriating people I"ve ever had the displeasure of conversing
> with.
I find it kind of fun watching him get a verbal spanking every other day.
Sure beats kicking the dog. As far as the dog is concerned.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 23:24:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donal K. Fellows in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> My question is, why doesn't Troll Tech have competition on their API?
>
>They do, from other APIs supported by other companies.
No, competition *on* their API, from other products from other companies
that support the *same* API.
--
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: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 03:33:56 GMT
Only proves what Windozes really knows about System management (and
specially "Eric")
Like i said in my earlier replies, "Eric" cant have used Linux at all if he
persist that it swallows same amount of memory as the monstreous Windows
with equal config as to servers and GUI:s
Linux is blazingly fast compared to Windows!!
/IL
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8ojf9r$q75$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > System with KDE 1.93 (approx) and netscape running:
> > > total used free shared buffers
cached
> > > Mem: 57636 56136 1500 34572 1332
20776
> > > -/+ buffers/cache: 34028
> > > 23608
> > > Swap: 72256 1188 71068
> >
> > Exactly as I said. A system with X, KDE and Netscape is using 57MB's.
> > There is simply no way a system running this plus Apache and several
other
> > programs can only be using 32MB.
>
> Total Memory Used 57636
> - Cache Memory -20776
> ========
> Total Memory in use 36860
>
> (of which, 34028 is shared with libraries)
>
> Where do you come up with 57MB? Admittedly, 36MB isn't 32MB, but it
> isn't far off...
>
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 03:36:09 GMT
Hey Eric you ARE a really lousy reader...aint you?
Take a look a the numbers again will you?
Or dont you understand them? ;-)
/IL
> > System with KDE 1.93 (approx) and netscape running:
> > total used free shared buffers cached
> > Mem: 57636 56136 1500 34572 1332 20776
> > -/+ buffers/cache: 34028
> > 23608
> > Swap: 72256 1188 71068
>
> Exactly as I said. A system with X, KDE and Netscape is using 57MB's.
> There is simply no way a system running this plus Apache and several other
> programs can only be using 32MB.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 23:39:47 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Courageous in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>> >If you truly understand this to be true, you can describe,
>> >in simple English, the simple accounting to make this happen.
>>
>> He didn't say it was easy *or* simple. Are you saying it isn't
>> possible?
>
>No, what I am saying is that if someone can't present how
>it's possible, then they don't have an argument. All I have
>seen is hyperbole. How about you?
Yes, I would call what you are saying hyperbole. If you can present an
argument that it is not possible, fine. To suggest that it is not
possible merely because it is not easy or simple is hyperbole, I think,
except my dictionary specifically says that hyperbole uses exaggeration
for emphasis, not deception. So in the end, I guess I'm wrong. His
comment is hyperbole, but yours is not, I figure. Learn something new
every day, I guess.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 23:51:52 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
[...]
>> Calling me a liar because you don't like what I say
>> doesn't help.
>
>I call you a liar because you lied. No other reason.
But I didn't lie, I was mistaken. Now, does that make you a liar?
>> I'm sure you think you dissuaded my concerns, but this
>> has become a regular pattern, obvious to anyone involved in these
>> 'discussions' with you. You blow off the concern of someone else with
>> some moronic condescension, insist that this was your addressing of
>> their comments and their concerns from a position of authority, and then
>> jump in calling them dishonest, a liar, ignorant, clueless, what have
>> you, when they don't roll over and play dead.
>
>You are a liar, you are dishonest, you know nothing about the subject
>and indeed I speak from a position of authority in the subject.
The subject of what? KDE, or market perception of KDE?
>> In the end, Roberto, being part of the KDE project kind of makes you
>> *least* authoritative in discussing it, given the circumstances and
>> issues involved.
>
>Oh, sure. Someone who knows nothing, not even what kind of
>organization the KDE project is, is more authoritative. You
>are arguing from ignorance.
Yes, but I'm not using an argument from ignorance, as I'm not saying
"since I do not know if KDE is a commercial enterprise, it is." The
question doesn't have anything to do with the organization of the KDE
project itself, as the public perception of KDE is not based on that at
all, but on its use of a commercial library.
[...]
>> I have not lied, and did not apologize for lying. I apologized for
>> being mistaken. And its worth pointing out that you're still being a
>> dishonest asshole about it. I know you can do better than that,
>> Roberto. I've seen you (once or twice). These groups don't need
>> assholes like you and Aaron "troll bait" Kulkis any more than we need
>> idiots like JS/PL or Christopher Smith.
>
>It doesn't need you either.
That seems pretty debatable, considering that the amount of traffic that
you assholes generate is seldom matched by anyone besides myself and Rex
Ballard.
[...]
>You say it as if a rhetorical or metaphorical statement can not
>be a lie.
Well, yes, that would be correct. A rhetorical or metaphorical
statement can be *used* in a lie, but one would have to be using the
statement dishonestly, and I was not. I was merely repeating the
knowledge I was given. That it was mistaken was not my fault, and I
didn't insist anyone was "lying" when they said otherwise, but merely
pointed out that they might have been mistaken and hadn't provided me
with enough information to judge for myself. Once other people on the
group who didn't have their head up their ass provided this background,
I changed my opinion. Of KDE, that is. Not of you; you're still an
asshole.
>> I certainly won't apologize for calling
>> you a whore amidst your effort to brow-beat me and malign my character,
>> no.
>
>So, you just threw an ad-hominem me. Cool with me, liar. Nothing you
>can ever say can stick to me.
No, that was an insult, not an ad-hominem. The difference is too subtle
for you to easily understand, I'm sure.
>Allow me to refresh your memory a bit.
>
>----
>He isn't working for a big commercial software developer, maybe, but
>that just means he's an amateur whore.
>----
>
>Here the metaphor would apparently be that you believe I am
>working for a commercial software project for free, right?
No.
>Well, you know I am not. So your metaphor was inappropiate.
>So, apologize. Metaphors can be insulting. Metaphors can
>be lies. Apologize, liar.
You're not even a coder, what are you whining about? Is there some
great cultural thing you have against being called a whore,
specifically? Would it be better if I'd suggested you were a lap-dog,
or a panderer, or maybe a....
Sorry. My apologies, Roberto. I didn't mean any personal offense, and
I think I made that clear at the time. Seems to me you're just
posturing. I've never lied to you, and I won't apologize any more than
I already have.
--
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: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 23:59:42 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> There are few things more annoying than the requirement to
> sequentially install various versions of a software product
> due to such 'upgrade licences'.
That's the hard way. And not neccessary if you've got the full version disk
on hand. Just put it in at the prompt. Upgrading from full version win95 to
98 all you really need is one certain file that the upgrade disk wants to
see.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 23:21:33 -0500
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8ojf9r$q75$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > System with KDE 1.93 (approx) and netscape running:
> > > total used free shared buffers
cached
> > > Mem: 57636 56136 1500 34572 1332
20776
> > > -/+ buffers/cache: 34028
> > > 23608
> > > Swap: 72256 1188 71068
> >
> > Exactly as I said. A system with X, KDE and Netscape is using 57MB's.
> > There is simply no way a system running this plus Apache and several
other
> > programs can only be using 32MB.
>
> Total Memory Used 57636
> - Cache Memory -20776
> ========
> Total Memory in use 36860
>
> (of which, 34028 is shared with libraries)
>
> Where do you come up with 57MB? Admittedly, 36MB isn't 32MB, but it
> isn't far off...
And just why are you excluding cache memory? Windows has caches as well you
know.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 23:22:48 -0500
"Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Emkr5.2396$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Only proves what Windozes really knows about System management (and
> specially "Eric")
>
> Like i said in my earlier replies, "Eric" cant have used Linux at all if
he
> persist that it swallows same amount of memory as the monstreous Windows
> with equal config as to servers and GUI:s
>
> Linux is blazingly fast compared to Windows!!
What does "blazingly fast" have to do with how much memory you're using?
You can be blazingly fast and allocate 200MB's on a 32MB machine, if it's
done in the right way.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
