Linux-Advocacy Digest #769, Volume #28 Thu, 31 Aug 00 12:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) (Craig Kelley)
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: How low can they go...? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: HOTMAIL Hacked? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: It's official, Microsoft porting applications to Linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 11:19:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe R. in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>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.
Acquiring or maintaining monopoly power by legal means is not possible,
by definition. Normal growth or development as a consequence of "legal
means" (superior product, business acumen, or accident of history) is
not monopoly power. It is *distinguished from* the willful acquisition
or maintenance of monopoly power.
See United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570-71 (1966) ("The
offense of monopoly power 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.")
According to the theory of free markets, growth or development as a
consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident
*cannot* provide monopoly power, though it can certainly, one would
hope, lead to large market share. But I've never said that having large
market share is monopolization. This is the confusion that confounds
people so much that after "several dozen times" of explaining it, the
same mistaken understanding is still be presented as if the Grinnell
decision had never been made or presented.
Through superior product, it is *impossible* to gain *monopoly power*.
Monopoly power isn't just large market share, but large market share and
anti-competitive practices is monopoly power. For that matter, a small
market share and anti-competitive practices may be monopolization, or at
least attempted monopolization (which is also a felony), as well. The
question is not whether the market share is large, but whether it is
sufficiently "substantial" to provide an opportunity to raise prices
(even minimally, as shown in the Joint Traffic and Standard Oil cases)
or inhibit competition.
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 488
(1992) (Scalia, J., dissenting) ("Our § 2 monopolization doctrines are .
. . directed to discrete situations in which a defendant's possession of
substantial market power, combined with his exclusionary or
anticompetitive behavior, threatens to defeat or forestall the
corrective forces of competition and thereby sustain or extend the
defendant's agglomeration of power.").
>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.
You are ignoring the meaning (and importance) of the phrase 'as
distinguished from', that's all. Because it isn't possible to have a
monopoly (willfully possess monopoly power) without breaking the law.
>But I guess several dozen times isn't enough for it to sink into your
>head.
Yes, I also assumed that the 'popular wisdom' was correct for many
years. Then I started reading the decisions themselves. Perhaps you
should try it, instead of simply and resolutely assuming I'm wrong.
Just the suggestion that I've "ignored or cut out" anything is
ludicrous, I'm afraid. I'm the one presenting the text; all anyone else
has done is misread them. I don't repeat the "as distinguished from"
clause of the Grinnell decision, because by its very construction, it is
explanatory, but not definitive. Willful acquisition and maintenance of
monopoly power is a crime; the fact that it can be difficult to
distinguish between that and business acumen does not make business
acumen a "legal way to monopolize"; it makes it "not monopolizing".
--
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] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 15:21:08 GMT
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:18:20 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
You can also get a yugo to last a long time if you don't drive it. :-)
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 31 Aug 2000 09:23:50 -0600
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "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.
Of course it does. Any intelligent operating system will use as much
cache as it can. *You're* the one that said "There is simply no way a
system running this plus Apache and several other programs can only be
using 32MB" which simply isn't true at all.
--
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 15:38:00 GMT
In my first posting i said 35 MB for Linux, witch the other postings in this
subject has proven me right on, and perhaps i should point out that im
running IIS 5 (full install) on Windows 2000 Professional for intranet and
testing.
Judging by your screenshots Windows 2000 Server hogs on more than twice that
much...virtual memory...?
Yeah sure! if you wanna lagg another 10 miles behind with that comparison
so...
The problem with most Windows Sysadmin:s is that they have grow up with
Windows on-going meory -and hardware hogging for each new version, to the
extend that they actually think its perfectly normal (and it isnt)
I dont think you should have to upgrade your hardware to a level that only 5
years ago was a near Super computer just to making a new Windows version run
smoothly.
/IL
> 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] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
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 15:51:12 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
><cut>
>
>> >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.
>> >
>>
>> Funny how you mixed together about three different people
>> and accused them all of something only one of them stated
>> (and accused them of something that they didn't even say
>> they did). Someone said they would pay for Windows when
>> they could enjoy using Windows. Do you automatically
>> assume that means they are using Windows? I don't know
>> about you, but if I don't like a computer OS enough to
>> 'enjoy' using it, I'm probably not going to use it on my
>> machines (which explains why I don't use Windows).
>
>That's me you're talking about, and your right, i do not own a copy of
>winblows on my own computer, it wouldn't work anyway, seeing that i'm on a
>PPC ;)
>
>> I wasn't originally involved in this discussion, but the
>> person that originally state that they weren't going to
>> pay for Windows never said that they use it. Don't go
>> create false statements to attack. There are plenty of
>> people to attack on usenet based on the idiotic ramblings
>> that they actually said :-).
>
>Did he attack me? When? I missed it...
>
>Amon_Re
Here, turn around and I'll pull that dart/knife out of
your back :-).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: HOTMAIL Hacked?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 15:46:01 GMT
In article <lwor5.8293$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These types of things are not usually a hacking of the site itself so
much
> as a hacking of the DNS entries. We would have read about any such
major
> hack, so it was likely a DNS hack.
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ol2rq$n5o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Tried to access Hotmail from 0900 to 1000 SA Time - got redirected
to a
> > porn site. Did anybody else pick this up?
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>
So it was - the problem was at my ISP...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: It's official, Microsoft porting applications to Linux
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 16:00:18 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>
>> >2) M$ has the source for windows (allthough they claimed to have lost the
>> > source for W95 during the Caldera lawsuit)
>>
>> Did someone's dog eat it? :-)
>
>I'm thinking the Crud Puppy got it.
I thought the Crud Puppy helped write it?
If not, then what's the excuse? :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 13:16:08 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> [...]
> >You asked me what were my financial links with KDE or TT, and
> >I answered. You asked who paid me, I answered. You asked what the
> >licenses for Qt have been, I gave references and replied.
>
> I attempted to elicit information, you were reticent. Your problem, not
> mine.
I gave you all the necessary information. I am not here to cover
your inadequacies.
> [...]
> >If you believe saying "screw KDE" and "Roberto is an amateur whore"
> >are invitations to calm and complete discussion of ethical and
> >financial entanglements, you are stupid. I just believe you
> >are dishonest about saying that discussion is your interest.
>
> That was after I'd given up on your pretense of discussion, and you know
> it. And if discussion weren't my interest, I wouldn't still be
> discussing it. You'll find I'm not trolling or calling you a liar, just
> maintaining my position against your accusations of dishonesty.
You are dishonest, so arguing you are not is just perpetuating your
dishonesty. You are trolling, you are insulting, and you are
ignorant. If you don't accept it, I don't care.
> >> >So, you are dishonest. You are a liar.
> >>
> >> So if I seem dishonest to you, then I am dishonest, is that your
> >> position?
> >
> >I believe I have posted enough proof of your dishonesty, as have
> >others, and yourself. I am confident any reader now knows you
> >are a liar, unless he has a bias, in which case, I don't care.
>
> How convenient. Anyone who doesn't agree with you has a bias? I can't
> believe you just wrote that.
Good you don't believe it, because I didn't. You have problems grouping
clauses, I guess. It was (I am confident (any reader knows unless he has
a bias)). You can't get "those who disagree are biased" out of that.
> [...]
> >> These opinions were honest and sincerely stated. Whether they are
> >> correct or not is an entirely different question.
> >
> >Saying you are wrong is no reason to retract is almost the very
> >definition of dishonesty. You were defending a position you knew
> >to be wrong. That is dishonest.
>
> Retract? Retract? You never asked me to retract anything.
You should have done it on your own. Or you only retract when
asked?
> You called
> me a liar and asked me to apologize for calling you a whore and KDE a
> commercial enterprise. Why the hell would you need a "retraction" from
> me, unless you were giving my opinion some weight?
I tolerate stupidity in small quantities.
> I don't think you
> want to do that, since you keep squabbling about this instead of moving
> on to another discussion, since I've already retracted those statements,
> and didn't present them as authoritative fact even when I made them.
Oh, yeah, "that's the god's truth" is not "presenting as authoritative"!
You crack me up.
> >> Your insistence that I'm being dishonest in having or
> >> stating these opinions simply because you disagree with them or consider
> >> them an unfair indictment of KDE or later changed my opinion is,
> >
> >Max, if you backpedal any faster, the bike will start moving.
>
> Excuse me, friend, but I'm the one who's standing still, while you dance
> around trying to make me dizzy. This is called 'defending a position',
> not back-pedaling.
A position you accepted was wrong. How stupid.
> You're still trying to pretend that any casual
> comment I make, even if rhetorical, is an authoritative public
> announcement of statement of absolute fact. Get a grip.
"Screw KDE, it's a commercial (project?) [...] that's the god's
truth" sounds like a statement of fact to me.
> >You said yourself that your statement was wrong, yet you saw
> >no reason to retract. Whether I agree with you or not is
> >not even important!
>
> That's correct. It was a rhetorical statement, kind of like the $4k
> that Joe was trolling me about, and the hangers-on from any of the other
> 'discussions' are using to avoid having any opinion but "boy that Max
> sure is dumb, guffaw".
Well, you are!
> It doesn't bother me at all that I can't go back
> and unsay what I said just because it was not factually precise enough
> for somebody. Get a grip.
What you did was not "being not factually precise enough", was an
outright defamation.
> >> I'm almost afraid to say, an example of your failure to rise to the
> >> intellectual challenge of our "game".
> >
> >You must have been a lousy playground partner. You are like the kid
> >that takes the ball home when he is losing.
>
> Well, I was a lousy playground partner, but that ain't why.
You were too stupid to play dodge ball?
> >> I'm afraid nobody's going to be offering you any parting gifts, dude.
> >
> >I am not going anywhere.
>
> That was (ahem) a rhetorical statement. I suppose you want me to
> retract it now?
So was mine, dumbo.
> Just give up and move on, man. I don't respond to my own posts, and I'm
> not going to go chase you down on another thread and start ankle-biting.
So, you are not going to "give me hell", as you promised?
How predictable.
> Just don't hit the "Reply" key (or is it too late for that?)
I don't take orders from you.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
