Linux-Advocacy Digest #767, Volume #28 Thu, 31 Aug 00 09:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? (Sam)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (2:1)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (2:1)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (2:1)
Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill? (Steve Mading)
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) (Steve Mading)
Re: GUI vs Command Line: The useless war (Steve Mading)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (sandman)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Joe R.")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Joe R.")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Joe R.")
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] ("Joe R.")
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] ("Joe R.")
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] ("Joe R.")
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] ("Joe R.")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[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 09:52:53 +0200
Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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...
I don't know, but on the Amiga, you can have shareware, freeware or
commercial packages that's localized in just about any language, and the
linux marketshare *IS* bigger then the amiga's....
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[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 09:53:42 +0200
Eddie Dubourg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
8oj2be$lg3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:p%5r5.349:
> > > 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?
> :
> : Did i ever said i *HAD* winblows on MY computer?
>
> Yes:-
>
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
> Message-ID: <p%5r5.349$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Does this *PROVE* it's *MY* computer? I'm writing in from my work, and at
work we *DO* have the licences
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 09:56:05 +0200
Eddie Dubourg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
8oj9qb$ml8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Brian Langenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : : X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
> : : X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
> : : Message-ID: <p%5r5.349$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> :
> : And what evidence do we have that the computer being posted from
> : is actually his? It might be a work machine.
>
> Sorry - I come from an environment where everyone can specify which O/S
they
> have on their work machine - I naturally assume this to be the case - I
> apologise for my impetuosity.
I *would* have posted from my linux box, but X11 doesn't like my ATI
XPERT2000 AGP card :(
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[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 desktop
platform
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 09:56:57 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
8ojh57$pvm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:s%5r5.351$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> > NASq5.8089$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > <cut>
> >
> > > Do you know what "backwards compatible" means? An app can be
backwards
> > > compatibile, meaning that it works with older OS's. An OS can be
> > backwards
> > > compatible, meaning it works with older Apps. A user interface being
> > > backwards compatible means what? That it works with older users?
>
> A UI interface is backwards compatibile when it provides all the API's and
> widgets/controls of an older UI act and react precisly as they did with
the
> older UI, also he UI has to look and react to the user just as the older
UI
> did.
I didn't write the above, i just said "ROTFL"
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: Sam <[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 19:51:55 +1000
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 14:46:46 +0200, "Christophe Ochal"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
><cut>
>
>> Wow you must be a real computer geek, we all stand in awe.
>
>LOL thx :)
>
>> If you were using a Mac or OS/2 in 1991 for personal use, I would not
>> call them "alternative" I would call them unpopular. Anything made by
>> IBM was not designed to be "Alternative"
>
>Nope, not a mac, nope, no OS/2 neighter, come on, you can take better
>guesses then that :)
>> If you were using anything else I would call them useless.
>
>And why's that? What if my needs are different then yours?
>What do i use my computer for? Internet, word proccessing, gaming (abit),
>programming and emulation, my current machine allows me to do these things,
>sowhat if i can't run word or internet exploiter, why should i?
I chose my words carefully, I was discussing 1991.
There was essentially no internet for home users in 1991, I can't
think of any other useful home OS at that time apart from the three we
are discussing. There are plenty now.
Sam
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[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 11:05:51 +0200
Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<cut>
> I chose my words carefully, I was discussing 1991.
>
> There was essentially no internet for home users in 1991, I can't
> think of any other useful home OS at that time apart from the three we
> are discussing. There are plenty now.
I disagree, in '91 you could do just about the same stuff with an amiga as
you could with a wintel based system, or a Mac, or OS/2, in fact, at that
time the Amiga was probably the only cheap, affordably system you could get
for eg video titling, or even video editing.
It comes down to what the user needs to do, and in my case the Amiga
fullfills those needs perfectly.
BTW, we could emulate macs even back in '91.
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[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 desktop
platform
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 10:17:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >No, they're buttons with pictures on them. They are not icons.
>
> Man, USENET just gets better and better...
The best thing is, mthe argument goes on...
-Ed
--
BBC Computer 32K
Acorn DFS
Basic
>*MAIL ku.ca.xo.gne@rje98u (backwards, if you want to talk to me)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[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 desktop
platform
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 10:16:14 GMT
> > 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?
>
> No, they're buttons with pictures on them. They are not icons. Icons
> launch applications, buttons do all sorts of different things. Are
you
> suggesting that any button with a picture on it should launch an
> application?
Icons do not necessarily launch apps. In win311 and many X wimdow
managers, icons represent iconozed (:-) _running_ programs. Activating
the icon (usually a double click) restores (NB, _not_ launches) the
program. The buttons on the task bar behave much like icons.
Besides, they are the _only_merpresentation of running programs that
have no window up., so it makes sense to be able to drag stuff straight
on to them.
I'm not suggesting that every button shopuld launch an app, it's just
that the buttons aer the only ones I've seen that respond to this kind
of event. It would be better if DnD worked properly, so you could drag
stuff on to the button, rather than having that really wierd behaviour.
It is wierd behaviour, since it is the _only_thing in windows (or
anywhere else I've seen) that works like that.
> > > You can right click on buttons. You can even double right click
> > buttons.
> > > Buttons have no facility to recieve drop messages and never have.
> >
> > No buttons have the ability to have anything dragged on to them,
except
> > the ones in the start bar. How else could the app be raised if
nothing
> > had any idea that there was an object being dragged floating above a
> > task bar button?
>
> That's not a drop request, that's a mouseover request.
I've never seen , much less used an app that uses mouseover requests on
buttons except the task bar. Besoides, the task bar can respond to drop
requests (by bringing up an error), but it won't do it properly.
-Ed
--
BBC Computer 32K
Acorn DFS
Basic
>*MAIL ku.ca.xo.gne@rje98u (backwards, if you want to talk to me)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[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 desktop
platform
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 10:21:53 GMT
The thread id about the half dropping nature of it. You can't drop stuff
on to buttons on the taskbar, you drag, wait drag a bit more then drop
Ie drag over the button, wait for the app to be raised, drag it on to
the app, then drop.
If you drop on to the button itself, you get an error telling you stuff
can't be dropped on to the task bar.
I'm sayng this is wierd, inconsistend behaviour of DnD, since it is a
little on the ocnvoluted side, and Erik is saying, "no its not", they're
buttons, so you shouldn't be able to drop stuff on them anyway. Now the
thread is going in circles.
Don't you love USENET?
-Ed
--
BBC Computer 32K
Acorn DFS
Basic
>*MAIL ku.ca.xo.gne@rje98u (backwards, if you want to talk to me)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill?
Date: 31 Aug 2000 10:44:51 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
:>
:> It seems to me that in this type of situation, the installer
:> should generate a random, but usable, password from some very
:> simple scheme, ("Roll a d46, 1-26 equals A-Z, 27-36 equals 0-9,
:> and 37-46 is the punctiation marks above the numbers", repeat for
:> 8 characters). Then it could tell you what this password is during
:> the installation program. Is there any product out there that
:> uses this technique?
: Why dod that?
: JUST PROMPT THE ADMIN FOR A PASSWORD.
I assume from this you are also implying, "...and refuse
to install if the password is obviously a bogus choice that
was typed in to get through the install" (nil string, "aaaaa",
"1234", etc) If that is what you had in mind, then yes, that
makes more sense.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Date: 31 Aug 2000 11:04:09 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "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.
You don't understand how Linux uses the memory. The cache and
buffers are never cleared until they need to be (because a
program requested some more memory). The cache and buffers
are allowed to grow dynamically until they eat up all available
space. They never shrink until some program actually asks for
more memory, then they are shrunk to make room. If the system
has been running for a while, all the 'unused' memory will have
been temporarily used by the buffers and cache, where it stays
until there's an actual need to free it for some program.
The total memory actually dedicated and unavailable is given
by the formula: used - buffers - cache, which is the figure
given on the second line. The buffers and cache can be thrown
away at a moment's notice, and are when programs start needing
all that memory.
What the hell's the point of having "unused memory" when the
OS can make use of whatever RAM the processes aren't using
right now, instead of having it sit there idle?
(Side note: this is why if you have a bad bit somewhere in your
RAM chips, and it is in the high addresses, Linux is affected
by it more than Windows is - Linux is always making use of all
memory you have behind the scenes.)
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GUI vs Command Line: The useless war
Date: 31 Aug 2000 11:18:40 GMT
Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Sylvain Demers wrote:
:> I hope Linux GUI developpers will somehow undestand that they won't
:> compete M$ by copying it, but by doing better, and better means smatter,
:> not prettier.
: I like your point about gui tools showing exactly what they are doing.
: Perhaps if they had a little "info" window that displayed the file they were
: manipulating and/or the commandline equivalent. But there is no reason unix
: config tools cannot be as pretty or prettier than windows tools without going
: overboard.
The one that really irks me is when a program won't even do the courtesy
of showing you the OS standard text for the error in question when
an unexpeced error occurs. This is mind-numbingly simple. For example,
in C, it's just printf( "%s\n", strerror(errno) ); In perl, it's
just printf "$!\n"; - This is really simple stuff and all too often
GUI programs don't do it. Error messages like "Can't open file", that
don't say anything more than that, are totaly useless. Heck, even
the cryptic "errno = xxx" type messages are better than not saying
anything at all about the cause of the error.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:18:20 GMT
MrTroll wrote:
>
> : > For instance, I fixed 2 computers at my previous school from a very deep
> : > dungeons to nice functionality with Windows'95 and all my friend's
> : > attempts to ruin the system again have failed so far.
Uh, I guess they didn't run Explorer and select the Windows directory and
hit the DEL key.
> FreeBSD - Last Crash...Never
> Time Up as of now...92 days 22 hours
>
> Win2K - Last Crash...4 days ago
> Time Up as of now...4 days
>
> Results like these speak for themselves. You just don't get more stable and
> reliable that Unix.
You can get Windows to last a long time if you use only the
Workstation version, don't do any development work, and just
leave it sitting there.
Chris
--
[X] Check here to always trust content from Chris
[ ] Check here to always trust e-mail sent using Microsoft software
------------------------------
From: sandman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 14:30:15 +0200
In article <8olbjm$ge$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The thread id about the half dropping nature of it. You can't drop stuff
> on to buttons on the taskbar, you drag, wait drag a bit more then drop
> Ie drag over the button, wait for the app to be raised, drag it on to
> the app, then drop.
>
> If you drop on to the button itself, you get an error telling you stuff
> can't be dropped on to the task bar.
>
>
> I'm sayng this is wierd, inconsistend behaviour of DnD, since it is a
> little on the ocnvoluted side, and Erik is saying, "no its not", they're
> buttons, so you shouldn't be able to drop stuff on them anyway. Now the
> thread is going in circles.
I've noticed something about those "Toolbars" you can invoke via the Taskbar
(right click). I was playing around with a desktop with no icons (Don't show
icons when using active desktop) and I found that the Desktop is one of those
Toolbars. First I got rid of the ugly arrangment and appaerance of the Desktop
icons, I also got them all arranged in a toolbar wich I could use as a
"floating window".
This was just nice, a non cluttered Windows desktop (I just love that you can
present MacOS desktop as small icons) and I also have rearranged them to a
smaller confied area, nice.
But I found out that when I was going to trash a file, the icon in the now
floating toolbar didn't appaer to be "dropable" upon, since when hovering over
it didn't make it react in a "welcoming" way. Mind you, it did work when I
released the file and they were moved to the trash, but the icon/button didn¨'t
act like it would.
Just an anecdote to point out the inconsistency in Windows. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:30:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Byrns
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> > Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > >Joe Ragosta wrote:
> > [...]
> > >Obesity correlates very highly with declining IQ.
> >
> > You wanna back that one up, dude?
>
> I normally wouldn't support Devlin since he says as many things that I
> disagree with vs. agree with BUT...
>
> Take a close look at some of the pioneers and visionaries in computer
> science.
>
> I know one. Since this is cross-posted in Mac advocacy and I am a
> Windows nut this might come as a suprise for some folks. One of the
> most primitively visionary folks I've ever met (and I say "primitive" as
> Encarta's adjective definitions at
> http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=primitive) is a big
> person. So what. Don Brown is the best in my book. Anyone ever heard
> of desktop automation? Not before this guy. Anyone ever prove they can
> cause a hardware fire purely in software? :-) Not before this guy.
> Anyone with a VP position ever take the time to listen and actually
> think about the ideas of the new hire at a multinational publicly held
> software company. Maybe, but Don was the first one I met. If your are
> reading this Don -- how'r the cats?
>
Just what does that have to do with the topic?
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:36:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >Gary Hallock wrote:
> >> Mike Marion wrote:
> >> > Gary Hallock wrote:
> [...]
> >Our K-12 classes are being taught be "teachers" who they themselves
> >can't pass simple tests of basic knowledge, and you're thinking that
> >their (former) pupils need a script to look stupid???
>
> Well, that's what happens when you're not willing to pay teachers what
> they're worth. You want to pay teachers crapola, you're going to get
> crappy teachers.
Then please explain why results from private schools are so good when
the average private school salary is lower than public school
salaries....
Sure, you'll argue lots of things and given your history maybe 10% of
your arguments will make sense.
But private school results make it clear that high teacher salaries is
NOT essential for a good education.
So much for your arguments.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:41:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> 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?
IOW, you are tired of having all your lousy arguments creamed, so you
hope you can avoid that.
BTW, how does it matter whether you respond to my argument directly or
through quoted material? I'm really curious what you're using as a
thinking process on this.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[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 12:55:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Bob Germer in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >That is true. Unfortunately for your hero Gates, the anti-trust law is
> >quite well documented and provides ample notice to anyone with an IQ
> >above
> >60 that abuse of monopoly power is illegal and that the actions he took
> >were clearly abusive.
>
> Abuse of *market power* is illegal. *Possession* of "monopoly power" is
> illegal.
This has been explained to you at least several dozen times.
Possession of monopoly power is illegal -- as long as you obtain and
maintain it by legal means.
You've been given the court case at least half a dozen times. Each time,
you either ignore it or cut out the part that explicity says that it's
possible to have a monopoly without breaking the law.
But I guess several dozen times isn't enough for it to sink into your
head.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[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 12:55:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Said Bob Germer in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > [...]
> > >That is true. Unfortunately for your hero Gates, the anti-trust law is
> > >quite well documented and provides ample notice to anyone with an IQ
> > >above
> > >60 that abuse of monopoly power is illegal and that the actions he took
> > >were clearly abusive.
> >
> > Abuse of *market power* is illegal. *Possession* of "monopoly power" is
> > illegal.
>
>
> You know, I hate to sound like a broken record, but it seems to me that
> you are forgetting that second element again:
>
> ====
> The offense of monopoly under 2 of the Sherman Act has two elements: (1)
> the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the
> willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from
> growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business
> acumen, or historic accident.
> =====
>
> Once again, please note that possession (element 1) does not by itself
> establish a violation, since the second necessary element could be
> absent. This is pretty plain language; I can't see why you seem to keep
> forgetting it and/or misinterpreting it.
Because he forgets and/or misinterprets everything that disagrees with
his inane positions.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[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 12:57:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> The statements in Grinnell make it pretty clear that if you have 90%
> market share, the court will take the default position that you have a
> monopoly, and it's up to you to prove otherwise. It may not be a per se
> rule, but it's also pretty unambiguous what they court thinks of 90%
> market share.
That may be true.
However, if I had a 90% market share, I'd be concentrating on the second
half-proving that even though I had an effective monopoly, I didn't
abuse that power.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[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 12:57:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> 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".
Yet another of Max's convenient definitions which suit his inane
arguments but which don't coincide with any other definition used
anywhere else in the world.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
