Linux-Advocacy Digest #763, Volume #28 Thu, 31 Aug 00 01:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (Mike Byrns)
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: what's up with Sun? ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a (Mike Byrns)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (Mike Byrns)
Re: How low can they go...? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 00:11:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> >> [...]
>> >> >The company could make money from other products. The product could
>> >> >generate money for other companies. There is no one-one link
>> >> >between them.
>> >>
>> >> Well, you give two possibilities, and then presume they lead to a
>> >> conclusion.
>> >
>> >No, I see they don't lead to your conclusion. In fact, I refused
>> >to reach such a conclusion that would make Qt and TT exchangeable.
>> >That is why I refused to exchange them, fool.
>>
>> Note the choice of words, Roberto. You "presume they lead to a
>> conclusion". It is certainly not my conclusion, necessarily, since
>> you're the one who made it. I wouldn't make such an obvious logical
>> mistake as to presume that two "coulds" make an "is".
>
>You are the one exchanging different terms. I am pointing out
>your error. Live with it and improve yourself.
How about you just re-read the statement, above, which you made, saying
that "the company could make money...", etc. You take two "coulds", and
you want to make an "is" out of it. It just doesn't fly, logically.
Think harder.
[...]
>I give answers that contain enough information for anyone with
>enough interest to do a minimum of legwork to figure out the
>full picture.
Ahh, well, you see, I'm not interested in doing your legwork for you *at
all*, and won't apologize for it. You just wanted me not to ask the
questions (which, btw, weren't answered by the "minimum of legwork" I'd
already done on my own), so you tried to answer them as uselessly as
possible. Bizarre, really, considering you were on firm factual ground,
mostly. There was a big question, historically, about QT licensing, but
competition between the fully-open-source GNOME effort and KDE have made
it something of a non-issue by providing interoperability for the most
part. I'll still avoid KDE software, if I can, but that's neither here
nor there, and is entirely a personal decision. I'm willing to let
others do as they wish, and wouldn't even recommend against a KDE
solution to someone who thought it worthwhile. But I feel like we've
been burned too hard by commercial software 'leverage', and don't see
whether TT actually charges me or not to be all that persuasive in
today's market.
>If you are not interested enough to do the legwork,
>I don't care about you knowing. If you don't understand after doing
>the legwork, I don't care about it.
See, I don't care if you care. But I do care if you are an asshole, and
you are, or you wouldn't be wasting my time with this pretentious
bullshit. You just can't admit that you didn't provide me with any
useful information, and would like to avoid observing that other people
did, and the matter was cleared up quickly. Just like all the previous
threads where you ankle-biters wanted to thrash and moan that I was
ignorant, instead of answering my questions or addressing my arguments
honestly.
>> The implicit
>> question throughout the entire discussion has been "what are the ethical
>> considerations involved in the KDE/GNOME issue?" Your response seems to
>> generally be 'there are none', which is somewhat less than useful, and
>> not necessarily honest, given the level of debate which you are
>> obviously not ignorant of.
>
>So, you are saying that an answer I didn't give, to a question
>you didn't ask sums my position? What a load of crap.
Well, you manage to parse it that far, but you'll still have to work on
the interpretation skills. Try "the lack of information in the answers
you gave to the questions I asked illustrate the fact that you are
trying to inhibit rather encourage discussion".
>> [...]
>> >> I believe its more likely that you simply
>> >> don't understand the question, or perhaps that you do but don't have
>> >> an answer and don't wish to reveal this lack. I'd have to be a
>> >> conspiracy theorist to think you were intentionally not confronting
>> >> the real questions.
>> >
>> >There is another possibility: your question is so stupid I prefer
>> >to mock you.
>>
>> I'd say that's the second choice, obviously: you don't have an answer,
>> and don't wish to reveal this lack. There are no stupid questions, only
>> sarcastic answers.
>
>I know the answer to everything you asked in this subthread.
Funny, you couldn't tell from this side of Usenet. Seeing as your
answers were useless and all.
[...]
>> >Sure it's easy!. You see, when you mean "the company", say TT.
>> >When you mean "the software", say Qt. Easy!
>>
>> But I already knew that.
>
>Then you are intentionally using wrong terminology.
No, I'm intentionally communicating to people with the desire to
understand my communications. If there were any way for it to cause
confusion, then obviously I wouldn't do it. You don't know what "wrong
terminology" is, code-boy.
>> I'm also able to grasp the idea that sometimes when I say "TT",
>> I mean the software, and sometimes when I say "QT", I mean the company.
>
>Then you are not saying what you mean, and you are being
>intentionally misleading.
You're being a troll, and I'm getting bored. You could have managed to
read all the sentences in the paragraph before trolling each one,
Roberto; I already refuted your first contention before you ever wrote
it; you, and everyone else in the computer industry, casually and
frequently substitutes the name of a product for the name of the
company. To suggest otherwise is moronic, quite frankly.
[...]
--
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: Mike Byrns <[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 04:14:23 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Proof? No of course not. You ignore the fact that the MS SDK was
> availble for
> > media cost. You ignore the fact that several C vendors including Borland
> not
> > only could compile very nice Win16 programs but also included the SDK and
> > assembler. I think you know all these things are true. I'm not suprised
> that
> > someone who thinks stealing is legal as long as it hurts Microsoft would
> also
> > think baldfaced lying to do the same is moral and ethical.
> >
>
> Wait a minute, Mike, when and where did I every say that stealing is ever
> legal no matter who the victum is? I never supported any theft, software
> piaracy or any other form of theft is wrong and I have never said anything
> to defend the position.
Please accept my appologies. I got my wires crossed between one your posts and
one from jedi@pyromania@mishnet. He was that one that was trying to assert that
stealing from Microsoft was somehow justified. I'm sorry.
> Starting with Borland C/C++ 3.0 they did support the development Windows
> programs without the need for owning Microsoft's Windows SDK. That is a
> fact, and I have never claimed otherwise it nor have I ever ignored it since
> that is a compiler package that I have used for years. Latter other vendors
> of C compiler did the same.
>
> Prior to the release of Borland C/C++ 3.0, mainstream software programming
> for Windows required the use of Microsoft C compiler and the sepperate
> purchase of the Microsoft Windows SDK.
We used Lattice before that and got the SDK for media and shipping.
> The fact that other compiler vendors
> had provided their own version of the SDK along with their standard compiler
> packages in of no credit to Microsoft. The Microsoft Windows SDK was
> offered at cost to major developers only to keep them from "defecting" to
> the competitions compilers.
We weren't exactly "major" developers. Yes, we invented group calendaring and
scheduling when I worked at Powercore, Inc. with our Network Scheduler product.
Yes, we ended up with contracts with Digital, Lotus, Sharp, Novell and in the
end, Microsoft but that was years after they provided our first SDK at cost.
The funny thing was that our contract with Microsoft was only party related to
Windows. We had the leading group calendar / scheduler and were considered the
industry leader in that segment. Microsoft came to us and asked us to write the
DOS version of Schedule+ after they released Windows for Workgroups 3.11 and
found that they couldn't get anyone to use it. You see group calendaring and
scheduling only works in the enterprise when *everyone* uses it. Most of their
customers were in a long slow transition from Novell/DOS networks to Windows
3.11. They needed a DOS client but the mandate from Bill was "No more new DOS
projects.". We'd long since reverse engineered the Schedule+ free/busy file and
as such interoperated with it cleanly. We wrote Schedule/DOS for them. But the
funny thing was that it was written to the Windows API using a WinDOS framework
we developed.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 00:11:57 -0400
"Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Gkcr5.27359$Sc.748255@stones...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [...]
> > >Yes. That would be why you do not have to do this with Windows upgrade
> > >products, I'd imagine. You can install on a "bare" machine with an
> upgrade
> > >product.
> >
> > Nope.
>
> Sorry, I think you'll find that you can.
Actually, it doesn't even need to be the original Full Version CD, it can be
a backup of the original, planted on another burned cd behind several
directories, it doesn't matter. Just browse to where the full verion is
located. When I bought win98 upgrade I put both 95 Full and 98 on one cd
to eliminate the need to insert another cd. Just browse to the correct
directory when prompted.
Now, don't ask why I had to make it convenient to re-install 98 often.
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: what's up with Sun?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 04:21:41 GMT
Well as Windows has as "kill em all and let god sort them out" company
behind it, so does *nix systems need one.
In line with open-source community philosofy? hm well..Sun doesnt seem to
care too much about it, almost acting as if they are a little yeoulos on all
the attentation Linux has gained for the past couple of years, make no doubt
about it, their aim is as commercial as MS, ie make the world evolve around
ther own perfectly good Unix system (Solaris 8)
/IL
"Y ĝ r i k" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:u5Up5.25575$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20000824/tc/is_sun_really_public_enemy_no_1_
_1.html
------------------------------
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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 00:24:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> [...]
>> >> Such problem is that you are frequent victim of elitist authoritarian
>> >> bullshit thinking. In your disdain for "non-contributing" members of
>> >> the community (being part of the community is a contribution in its own
>> >> right, whether you are a coder or not),
>> >
>> >Depends on your definition of contributing.
>>
>> Only if your goal is to restrict the contributions. Being part of a
>> community is a contribution, all by itself, as I've stated. The truth
>> of that statement depends on the definition of 'community', not
>> 'contributing'.
>
>Whatever. If you really believe what you write, I see no way to
>convince you.
Hey, we're getting somewhere. Maybe after a while, you'll progress to
the point where you can understand how you can convince me, or at least
enjoy trying.
[...]
>> You reply tersely and with the maximum amount of ambiguous
>> interpretation of the question as you can manage. The reticence is
>> obvious to me, whether you see it or not.
>
>Noone said life was easy. Specially, noone said life should be easy
>for you.
No-one said that you were trying to communicate, either, but I got that
impression from the fact you posted on Usenet.
[...]
>> It isn't a question of rights, Roberto. I'm afraid its a question of
>> courtesy and reason.
>
>It's my right to not be courteous about what I do in my own time,
>and it's my right to be unreasonable about what I do in my free
>time.
Its your right to be an asshole on Usenet. Other than that, I don't
care what you do with your time, one way or the other.
>When we started KDE in 1996, it was considered a very
>unreasonable thing to try. Producers of commercial desktops
>said it was unreasonable because it was too much work, and
>free software guys said it was unreasonable because, after
>all, GNUStep would be there RSN. So, I say, let's be unreasonable.
Now if you'd posted that, and maybe a couple more paragraphs, you
wouldn't have had such a problem when I started getting frustrated by
your reticence to discuss KDE.
>As for curteous, you are in no position to talk about courtesy.
Of course I am. I insult people, sure, but I don't ridicule them, like
you do. And I only insult people who try to use ridicule.
[...]
>Believe it or not, I kinda agree. I don't consider myself a member
>of the "linux community" in one of the ways it's often presented,
>like a world-wide group of selfless coders serving a horde of
>enlightened free-software-loving users.
You haven't been reading what I've written. The community includes the
horde, in a lot of ways. And none of the coders are selfless, AFAIK,
just community-conscious.
>I consider such a wide definition of the linux community to
>define a community full of people I don't like, so I consider
>myself a member of a much smaller community.
Yes, we know. You're an elitist at heart, through and through.
--
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: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 04:25:31 GMT
2:1 wrote:
> > > > > You cannot just drag an icon to a running app on the taskbar.
> You
> > > drag
> > > >
> > > > Apps don't "run" on the taskbar. The taskbar is just a button bar
> > > with
> > > > process names. It makes no sense to drop icons on buttons.
> > >
> > > Running apps have buttons on the task bar. It makes sense to drop
> > > something on to the icon of a running app. These are avaliable on
> the
> > > task bar only, so it makes sense to drop things on to icons (or
> buttons
> > > if you wish) on the task bar.
> >
> > It makes no sense to drop things on buttons, and task bar buttons are
> just
> > that, buttons.
>
> The buttons are the icons of running programs, therefore it makes sense
> to drop things on them. it certainly makes sense to drop something on to
> an icon of a running program, and the buttons are the _only_
> representation avaliable.
> Besised how does half-dropping something on to a button make any sense
> at all?
Half-dropping? I've read back though some of this thread and was aghast to
find that nobody bothered to mention that you can drag and drop to the
taskbar buttons. Maybe someone said it way back when but I didn't see it.
My apologies if I am repeating.
You may drag a document icon to a running application on the taskbar by
dragging it to the button and pausing for a few hundred milliseconds. The
application will restore and you then either drag it to the client area of
an SDI application to replace the current doc or to the workspace of an MDI
app to open a new window with this doc. Depending on the datatype you may
also drop it into and open app to insert the data into the doc where you
want. Just hover on the scrollbar to get the insertion point right. This is
a similar behavior to the spring-loaded folders in the MacOS 9 but was
around since '95.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 00:27:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>>
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> >>
>> >> Said Stephen S. Edwards II in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >> [...]
>> >> >Of course he's going to be biased... he's a part
>> >> >of the KDE project. It's unfair to expect him
>> >> >to be anything otherwise.
>> >>
>> >> I'm sorry, this is such a horrible mangled bunch of post-modern
>> >> bullshit, I couldn't resist responding. No, it is not unfair to expect
>> >> anyone to be unbiased, regardless of their affiliations.
>> >
>> >No, it is stupid and unrealistic, but I don't believe it's unfair.
>>
>[...]
>> If you truly believe it is 'stupid and unrealistic' to *expect* someone
>> to be unbaised, then you believe it is unfair to demand that they be
>> unbiased.
>
>No, I believe it's stupid and unrealistic to expect ME to be unbiased
>on one specific issue. I know it is, because I am not.
Well, that would be a special case, then, huh? ;-)
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 00:30:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>NO, but it is obvious that you have nothing useful to say. You just like to
>spread lies. Around here that's called FUD.
[...]
Yada, yada, yada. Speaking of having nothing useful to say, where's
yours? I looked through that whole post, and all I found was whining
because you don't like what I said last week, which isn't even what I
said in the post you're responding to, anyway. Don't give me this
'spreading lies' baloney; I don't buy it. I'm not going to become so
terrified of being mistaken that I stop posting things you don't like,
no matter how many times you call anytime I'm trivially mistaken "a
lie". And let's not bother shouting and jumping up and down about how
calling KDE a commercial enterprise was not trivial. That was the
'mistake' part (a common one, I'm told), not the trivial part.
--
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,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 00:32:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>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.
Bwahahahaha! [The 'kick' is, I *like* a good spanking, when I can get
it. ;-)]
--
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,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 00:33:46 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>A monopoly which doesn't abuse it's position in the marketplace is
>legal.
>A monopoly which obstructs trade IS illegal.
The definition of monopoly is one who obstructs trade, Aaron. What
you're thinking of is "large market share".
--
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: Mike Byrns <[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 04:32:45 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 17:47:52 GMT, Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> >> There are few things more annoying than the requirement to
> >> >> sequentially install various versions of a software product
> >> >> due to such 'upgrade licences'.
> >> >
> >> >Yes. That would be why you do not have to do this with Windows upgrade
> >> >products, I'd imagine. You can install on a "bare" machine with an upgrade
> >> >product.
> >>
> >> Nope.
> >
> >Prove your point. "Nope.", just doesn't cut the mustard.
>
> What else is there to prove exactly and how would one
> go about doing it. I have personal experience in these
> matters. However, communicating beyond "no it doesn't"
> is hardly feasable.
The feasability of your argument is your concern. You shouldn't assert that which you
have no idea how to back up. Personal experience is fine although anecdotal unless you
pull someone in to corroborate your story. You've made a blanket statement that has
been
challenged by a few people who have had the opposite experience with Windows. In that
they are corroborating and you are asserting in the absence of proof. If you expect to
make your point please get to it. Otherwise quietly drop it. I don't expect you to
openly concede in this kind of forum. Gentlemen are a dying breed here.
> >
> >You can install on a "bare" machine with all current upgrade products. Just insert
> >qualifying media when prompted.
> >
Do you refute this claim?
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[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 04:38:02 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 17:53:39 GMT, Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:21:01 +0100, Robert Moir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:paOq5.282$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> So? Should we feel sorry for them? I'll pay for winblows when they bring
> >> >out
> >> >> a version i actually enjoy using...
> >> >
> >> >Theft is still theft. Would it be ok to steal your car if I didn't like the
> >> >colour?
> >> >
> >>
> >> It would be if you were the robber baron that conspired to ensure
> >> that anyone that wanted to drive would have to buy your particular
> >> brand of car.
> >>
> >> There is no immorality in unlicenced use of an "essential facility".
> >>
> >> That any you cheapen the notion of theft with your usage of the term.
> >
> >It's sad that so many folks have bought into the Ellison, Case, Jobs media machine
>so
>
> Don't kid yourself.
>
> I had this attitude long before any twit like you even heard of
> Ellison or Case. I even articulated it in this very forum.
OK. Maybe you have been around the block but I'll wager that I've known who Ellison
and
Case were at least as long as this forum has existed.
>
> >wholeheartedly that it compromises the very fiber of their morals. What was said
>above
> >is that it is legal to steal as long as the entity you are stealing from is
>Microsoft.
> >That's just not true. No court nor rational person will agree with you.
>
> I didn't say legal. I said moral.
>
> As far as "legal" goes: READ THE FUCKING LAW YOU MOUTH DROOLING MORON!
Your morals are your own and probably shared more by those penally institutionalized
than
the general public. Your shouting only proves your sociopathy and losing position.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 00:40:33 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Bob Germer in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> Larry Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
>It is quite obvious you have never read the consent decree signed by IBM
>with the DOJ in the early 1950's. That precedent clearly establishes that
>holding 90% of a market gives the holder monopoly power.
A consent decree isn't precedent, AFAIK, Bob. And also AFAIK, there
isn't any precedent establishing a per se rule concerning market share.
>If Gates can't
>read precedent, he is a fool. If he did read it and ignored it, he is a
>criminal. He's no fool. He's clearly a criminal although not charged
>criminally. Or at least he hasn't yet been charged criminally. The statute
>of limitations has a long way to run.
In that part of your statement, you're clearly correct.
[...]
>Just as laws do not exist without including precedent, monopoly power
>abuse cannot exist without obstruction of trade. By definition monopoly
>means the economic power to restrain or obstruct trade.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, here. I believe the precedent
says that "acquiring or maintaining" monopoly power is, by itself,
illegal, and that proving monopoly power only requires that a company
*could* restrain trade. If the court can be reasonably convinced that
the company *could* restrain trade, a demonstration that they have done
so is not even necessary (though obviously such prosecutions are
vanishingly rare). Don't forget, "attempting" to monopolize is just as
illegal as restraining trade.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
