Linux-Advocacy Digest #764, Volume #28 Thu, 31 Aug 00 01:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come (Mike Byrns)
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How low can they go...? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft Linux: what if? (Donovan Rebbechi)
DVD smash-off anyone? (Steven Feil)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: 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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 04:40:39 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 02:55:50 GMT, Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [deletia]
> >Can you say "vertical markets"? The Windows world is absolutely THRIVING in
> >targeted applications. Case in point, SalesLogix Corporation of Scottsdale,
> >AZ http://www.saleslogix.com/. Started only a few years ago by Pat Sullivan,
> >the creator of the Act! contact manager that is not the property of
> >Symmantec, it has become tremendously successful in the salesforce automation
> >vertical market. Even the creator's of venerable shareware like WinZip and
> >ACDSee are making enough to support their families on their own terms. I
> >don't see how open source benefits the creator -- it's not like you can
> >really give up your day job.
>
> Beyond the utiltity that you derive from your own work, it's not
> really supposed to. It's supposed to benefit EVERYONE rather than
> just a select few as current copyright law does.
>
> Bear in mind: the only reason that the sort of people who live off
> of the likes of ACDSee and WinZip might not be able to do so in the
> future is the abusive practices of larger artificial property holder.
> Without the lack of balance that has existed in copyrights as of late,
> people like Stallman would have no audience.
>
> IOW: the industry brought it on itself.
You wouldn't happen to have long hair and a penchant for VW minivans would you? :-)
Just wondering :-)
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 00:00:44 -0500
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:pQkr5.8280$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8ojf9r$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.
And as way of example, I've posted some images of my task manager:
http://www.visi.com/~erikf/process.jpg
http://www.visi.com/~erikf/perf.jpg
These show that of my 196 MB of physical memory (388MB with Virtual Memory)
I have 130MB free and between 48 and 53MB in use (the second image was taken
with MS Paint loaded while the first wasn't, which is why there is a memory
difference). Also notice that of that 53MB, 32MB is used by the file cache,
and thus only 21MB of physical memory is in use by the OS and applications.
That's with (as can be seen by the first image) Explorer, TaskManager,
distributed.net rc5 cracking, MS Paint (not shown in process.jpg), and
several services like RAS and spooler.
As a side note, you'll notice that dnetc has a CPU time of 707 hours, which
is almost 30 days. While the system, SMSS, CSRSS (most of Win32), LSASS and
RPCSS (the vast majority of what is known as "the OS") has less than 44
minutes of CPU time in 30 days (and I use this machine heavily for software
development and net use) Doesn't seem to inefficient to me.
So please, tell me how Linux, configured with X, KDE or Gnome, and a few
other small applications uses significantly less memory.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 31 Aug 2000 04:45:50 GMT
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 23:24:16 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>No, competition *on* their API, from other products from other companies
>that support the *same* API.
Nothing is stopping someone cloning QT ( unless you count lack of interest ).
--
Donovan
------------------------------
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 04:45:57 GMT
Tim Hanson wrote:
> > It's sad that so many folks have bought into the Ellison, Case, Jobs media machine
>so
> > 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 strongly support the activities of the Business Software Alliance in
> their visits to businesses, as long as Sun is able to go in ahead of
> them and replace all those Windows desktops with Linux running Star
> Office, as they're doing in Indochina and South America.
I don't mind it since it forces the spread of the english language. The third world
learns
not only how to listen but how to understand it will mean the end of the real tyranny
left in
the world. American don't know how good we have it. After all the worst beast we can
create
is a software company :-)
I wonder how much of that open source software is localized Thai or Portugeuse...
------------------------------
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 00:47:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Larry Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>They weren't convicted in a criminal trial. They lost in a civil case.
>
>There is no requirement for "fair notice" in antitrust cases, since the
>pure fact of being a monopoly is not, in and of itself, a crime. It's
>being a monopoly and using that monopoly power in illegal ways that got
>Microsoft in trouble.
Here we go again. "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to
monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to
monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States,
or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, "
Being a monopoly is monopolizing, not just having a large market share.
And monopolizing is illegal, whether you restrain trade or not.
>They are also in trouble for violating a previous Consent Decree, so
>they certainly knew they were in trouble well before the current case.
Well, but according to them, they didn't violate the Consent Decree, and
the court never managed to prove they did. But it isn't the "lack of
notice" crud that is really the root of the Constitutional question
concerning anti-trust, precisely. Its an assumption that the law
preventing "restraint of trade" and "monopolization" could be applied to
*any* business enterprise. This has been repeatedly raised and refuted
in almost every major anti-trust trial since anti-trust trials started.
Because the fact is that, by considering the question as it is
repeatedly brought by the defense, the court proves the case to be
false; the Rule of Reason which guides anti-trust enforcement is
entirely sound and on firm Constitutional grounds.
--
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] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Microsoft Linux: what if?
Date: 31 Aug 2000 04:49:06 GMT
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 02:36:02 GMT, Steve Martin wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Could they challenge Microsoft's use of "DOS" based on previous use
>in trade?
I doubt it. Microsoft's trick is to prefix "Microsoft" to otherwise generic
terms. Since they have trademark on "Microsoft", it's legit. Since "Microsoft"
is "assumed", people get lazy and remove "Microsoft" from product names.
( DOS, SQL server, office, ... )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Steven Feil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: DVD smash-off anyone?
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 22:58:04 -0600
Now that Judge Kaplan has ruled against the free distribution of
software to view encrypted DVD's which is not licensed by the DVD CCA,
I propose that we stage a series of protest against the MPAA and DVD
CCA.
These protest would take the form of a "DVD smash-off". In order to
avoid spending thousands of dollars on buying DVD's to smash, I think
it's high time to put all of those old AOL CD's to good use. We could
collect all the unused CD's and write the letters DVD on them, those
would be used to smash. I propose that we center the demonstrations
around large national chain stores that sell DVD's.
The main purpose behind the protest (besides to make a spectacle)
would be to raise public awareness and to distribute literature on how
the MPAA wishes to limit the way the public can view moves purchased
with hard earned money. This literature should emphasize that if the
MPAA were allowed to maintain sole control over the decoding software,
the MPAA and move companies would be able to dictate what was and was
not acceptable use of DVD's which you paid for! I feel that we would
get the greatest public sympathy if the literature were written from
the following point of view.
If the move companies decided that certain actions were unacceptable
the DVD CCA could dictate that manufactures of DVD players prevent
consumers from performing those actions. Any manufactures that
refused to incorporate those limitations into the players would have
there license revoked. Any companies that continued to produce players
could be sued out of existence by the MPAA and DVD CCA. The
prohibited actions could be as simple as skipping over sections of the
DVD (such as an advertisement), slow motion playing during certain
sections of the program, or playing a European DVD on a player
purchased in the U.S.A. Even a software program designed to make a
parity of the program on the DVD (that you purchased) could be banned
by the MPAA and DVD CCA.
========================================================================
Steven Feil | Gram-pa, back at the turn of the .~.
Programmer/Developer | century, why did people use an /V\
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | operating system, when they were not // \\
| allowed to see the source code? (X_X)
========================================================================
------------------------------
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 00:56:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Larry Brasfield in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>You miss the point. Virtually any company that
>has customers can be defined to be a monopoly
>if the market is construed narrowly enough. If
>that determination can only be made arbitrarily,
>we have rule by judge's whim rather than rule by
>law. And please don't tell me that the DOJ's
>reading of the law should be considered adequate
>notice.
What leads you to believe that the courts are free to define markets
either narrowly or arbitrarily? Are you familiar with the "cellophane
case"?
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/becker/antitrust/summaries/351us377.html
>> They are also in trouble for violating a previous Consent Decree, so
>> they certainly knew they were in trouble well before the current case.
>
>I think you may have missed the fact that the
>3rd circuit Court of Appeals found that there
>was no violation of the Consent Decree under
>the facts adduced in that action. That case
>just goes to show that DOJ's and Jackson's
>views are not reliable substitutes for a
>precise and unambigous law.
There is no such thing as a precise and unambiguous law. Only precise
and unambiguous interpretation of the law, and that is one of the great
strengths of anti-trust law. Through nothing but court precedent, the
law has defined precisely and unambiguously what Congress thought best
to consider only in the abstract "to monopolize".
You can't have read many anti-trust decisions if you hold views like
you've stated. They're really fascinating, if you can parse through the
intricacies, inferences, and legal terminology.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.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: 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 01:05:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Larry Brasfield in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Larry
>> Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> > > Larry Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > 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.
>> > >
>> > > They weren't convicted in a criminal trial. They lost in a civil case.
>> >
>> > I understand that, thanks.
>>
>> Then why did you make the above argument?
>
>Because I believe that people should not be
>found liable in civil or criminal actions
>based on laws that are too vague to allow a
>potential defendendant to reasonably predict
>what is legal and what is not.
But that isn't the case here. Its quite clear what is not legal:
willfully acquiring or maintaining sufficient market power to control
prices or inhibit competition.
[...]
>That well known difference reserves punishment
>for those who are clearly guilty. Since civil
>actions and criminal actions alike are founded
>on the concept of wrong-doing ("tort"), the
>question as to just what is to be deemed "wrong"
>is equally important to guide people who are
>to be expected to obey the law.
>
>So, do you think people should be liable under
>laws subject to arbitrary interpretation? Try
>to forget about Microsoft for a moment. Pretend
>you want to preserve rule by law.
There is no arbitrary interpretation. It is true that a "rule of
reason" is necessary to prove whether restraint of trade or
monopolization or attempted monopolization has occurred. But that
doesn't mean you have to interpret the rule of reason to avoid getting
into trouble with the law. You just need to avoid monopolizing or
attempting to monopolize or restrain trade, and you are untouchable.
Compete, that's all you need to do.
>Don't you find it curious that the Sherman act
>is written in the language of a criminal statute
>but never enforced as one? Want to guess why?
Because it was designed to be more like a traffic citation, but the
endless parade of would-be monopolists which modern lack of
sensibilities has allowed makes such enforcement impossible. So only in
cases where the harm done to the free market, competitors, or consumers
is so great that the paltry penalties specified in law are not a
deterrent can a successful prosecution be mounted. At least, that's my
interpretation.
It could be that its just that kind of law; I'm sure libel is "illegal"
somehow, too, but the only court cases you ever see are civil ones,
because the intent is to get restitution. Just as in modern anti-trust,
the intent is to get a remedy or a consent decree, not a punishment.
--
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
******************************
