Linux-Advocacy Digest #778, Volume #28 Thu, 31 Aug 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (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 18:47:17 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On 31 Aug 2000 04:45:50 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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 ).
> No, Trolltech has made legal threats.
Ah, the plot thickens. Can you spare any details, or further clues at
least?
>Also, the 'apparent openness'
> of their code makes it more difficult to pull off a 'clean room'
> implementation. Even so, reverse engineering itself in general is
> under attack these days.
>From whom, and where? You have my full attention.
> Admittedly, the primary barrier to a useful clone of libqt is RMS
> himself for being so dogmatic about the GPL.
You're saying that because a GPL'd library cloning QT could only be used
for commercial end-user-licensed software, it impedes the desire to
provide alternatives to QT? What about the LGPL, which I would assume
would be the license used for such an effort?
I'd argue that legal reverse engineering of software doesn't require a
'clean room' at all; the first step in reverse engineering software is
to decompile it and reconstruct the source code to begin with, and such
practices have been legally defended quite well by video game cartridge
manufacturers from developing software "on top of" the console. I can't
see any need to go to any extraordinary steps to 'reverse engineer' the
workings of the open source code sufficiently to provide a legal means
of developing software "underneath" KDE or any other product which uses
QT. I'd have to say that the only thing that could make it difficult to
pull off a clone of an open source product would be the limited
imagination or talent of the programmers in not being able to think of
any other, and possibly better, way of doing it then what QT used. And
if they can substantiate in court that there isn't any other way of
doing it, in parts at least (the minimal parts necessary, of course, but
according to the courts, not QT's understanding), then they can simply
make "fair use" of QT's code itself.
Considering there must have been interest for TT to make threats, I'd
say the only thing stopping someone from cloning QT is that they don't
have the balls to do 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 18:47:20 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>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.
I agree, but placing the burden of proof on the defendant and saying
there is a per se rule defined in a consent decree are not quite the
same issue.
--
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.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 18:47:22 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe R. in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>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....
Because the salaries are lower than in private schools. This requires a
teacher to have some dedication to teaching (and, additionally, some
dedication to the purpose or dogma of the private school) in order to
teach there. These teachers, being more dedicated due to motivation by
ideals, rather than money, tend to be superior to teachers in public
schools.
>Sure, you'll argue lots of things and given your history maybe 10% of
>your arguments will make sense.
I can deal with that average. I've seldom seen anyone else here make
sense more than 2-3% of the time (with notable exceptions, such as Rex
Ballard and Jedi). And as for the proportion of the time that arguments
are accurate, consistent, and practical, as opposed to "making sense" to
someone who doesn't already understand them, well, I don't want to
embarrass anybody, so I'll leave that to the conjecture of the reader.
>But private school results make it clear that high teacher salaries is
>NOT essential for a good education.
>
>So much for your arguments.
Well, that really wasn't part of my argument, but if you'd like to
discuss it, I'm game. Should I presume that your theory is that teacher
salaries are not *essential*, or are not *influential*, good education?
Shall we discuss whether there is a deterministic relationship, or a
statistical support for a theory of causality, or merely a correlation?
And should we broaden the concept of "good education" to practical
results, or just use standardized grading? Or, were you just trolling,
again?
--
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: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 18:47:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Courageous in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>> >No, what I am saying is that if someone can't present how
>> >it's possible, then they don't have an argument. All I have
>> >seen is hyperbole. How about you?
>>
>> Yes, I would call what you are saying hyperbole. If you can present an
>> argument that it is not possible, fine. To suggest that it is not
>> possible merely because it is not easy or simple is hyperbole, ...
>
>Well, I'll take your literary criticism at face value. I expected
>this person to present the issue simply; I'll restate the request:
>
>How about explaining the steps that someone goes through, VAGUELY,
>to not pay income taxes and at the same time actually have income?
Well, I believe there are entire books on the subject. I don't recall
the poster identifying himself as an expert on the technique, vaguely or
otherwise, so whether or not he can satisfy your curiosity is rather
beside the point, which is that this is generally known to be possible.
>I would like to suggest that if someone makes a claim like
>"but the rich don't pay taxes!" and then can't explain in at
>least vague language how that could be, then that person has
>a very weak position indeed.
I don't believe he made such a claim. That would be hyperbole on your
part, quite definitely. Which isn't to say you're wrong, but merely
exaggerating what his claim was in order to bolster your position.
Apparently, your position is so weak that it needs such bolstering.
I must again point out, however, that hyperbole used dishonestly is not
hyperbole, but merely dishonesty. Since I must presume you know what
his claim was (that there were rich people who pay no taxes,
effectively), it isn't untoward to suspect that you are mis-quoting him
rather dishonestly in misrepresenting his claim to begin with.
--
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.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 18:47:29 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 11:52:22 -0700, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> If you can install MacOS9 on a bare machine then it is indeed
>> >> the equivalent of a full licence of any Microsoft OS.
>> >
>> >Please show me where I can buy a bare machine that will run MacOS9, and
>> >which does not come pre-bundled with a copy of MacOS.
>
>If that were possible then those who like the Mac hardware could use it to
>run Linux without having the pay for the MacOS that may not even be used or
>wanted.
They do. People who buy Macs don't "pay" for the OS. It comes with the
computer. We're not talking any "doesn't show up on the invoice" type
of free, either. It is a trivial cost to provide the license, one might
even consider it a negative cost. This isn't the same as a "third
party" OEM of a PC not charging the customer for a license to run
Windows, which costs the OEM themselves at least $17, minimum, under
typical circumstances.
--
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.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 18:47:26 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said John Hughes in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"fungus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> The MS supporters prefer to keep handing over their $$$
>> to get their hands on "the only(sic) operating system
>> designed just for you and your home PC."
>
>MS supporters?
>
>You mean Windows users? Right?
Well, technically, all Windows users support MS, yes. But I think
'fungus' just means the ones that do it knowingly and emphatically.
>> http://shop.microsoft.com/product/windows/msline.htm
>>
>> $289 for Windows ME...
>
>Its $209. Not that it makes much difference. ;)
>
>Thats over double the price of Mac OS 9 at $99.
Too bad that Mac OS 9 doesn't run on Intel-compatible PCs; then it might
be relevant how much it costs. Two hundred dollars sure sounds like an
awful lot more than Win98, which this 'replaces'. Monopoly pricing,
anyone?
[...]
>> ...that's MORE EXPENSIVE than Windows 2000 Professional.
>
>$219 for an upgrade and $289 full.
This explains the price gouging on WME.
[...]
>> I don't want to get overly cynical here[1] but it seems to
>> me like this is a marketing excercise to find out just how
>> ignorant/gullible the "buying public" really is.
>
>We shall see.
No, I'd say we already have seen. Response to Windows ME is even less
than W2K. I read something funny on W2K yesterday. In *InfoWorld*, a
very highly respected trade journal, Nicholas Petreley, a well-known
industry pundit, said:
"Microsoft is an expert at momentum marketing, so no doubt we'll see
Microsoft manufacture some numbers to convince people that Windows 2000
is catching on like wildfire. But Microsoft will have trouble making
those numbers jibe with how the vendor community is reacting to Windows
2000. The following says it all: IDG World Expo canceled this fall's
Windows 2000 conference for lack of interest. If Windows 2000 is
anything like wildfire, it's because the OS is going down in flames."
But, of course, your discussion is about WinME, not W2K.
>> [1] I'm sure that this *must* be more that Windows 98 with a
>> copy of the latest Windows Media Player added.... right?
>
>Right. But not enough to justify the price tag.
The only thing which could possibly justify that price tag is monopoly
power. I wonder if, after the current case is finally resolved, the
gov't isn't going to start going after Microsoft for all the other ways
they've monopolize, or if the breakup is going to provide them with a
clean slate. WinME pricing is certainly a potential violation, and I
think the issue of WinModems is a sure-thing conviction. What other
obvious attempts at monopolization have Microsoft implemented, do you
think might be used as examples?
--
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.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 18:47:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:n%5r5.346$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
>> 8oh0tu$rb9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Please show me where I can buy a bare machine that will run MacOS9, and
>> > which does not come pre-bundled with a copy of MacOS.
>>
>> Format the HD, can you reinstall MacOS9 * WITHOUT* first installing MacOS
>8
>> or whatever? Yes you can, there, point proven
>
>No, point not proven. You've just formatted the drive. It still came with
>MacOS. You paid for MacOS. Anything you buy after that is an upgrade price.
You didn't pay for MacOS, originally. It was included in the price of
the system, and the marginal cost of the 'license' is actually negative,
to Apple; it would cost them more to run tech support for those who
bought a Mac without an OS already installed. You aren't suggesting the
*replication* costs are what causes OEMs to pay for Windows, are you?
--
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.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 18:47:36 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>Apple liscenses the MacOS based on the ROMS. MacOS will not install to a
>machine without ROMS.
Every purchaser of a Macintosh gets a license to run the MacOS *free of
charge*, literally. MacOS *will* install on a machine without ROMs.
You just can't buy a Macintosh from Apple without ROMs, and part of the
OS is in the ROMs, not the disks.
According to the current legal precedent as I read it, Apple would not
have a claim should someone reverse engineer their ROMs in order to
produce Mac clone computers. This disassembly (though possibly not
direct decompiling) would probably be covered by the copyright issues
discussed in Vault v. Quaid and Sega v. Accolade, allowing for anyone
who has a reasonable justification for reverse engineering and even
copying software (whether in ROM or disk file) in order to compete on
production of a non-protected work (the Mac 'platform').
I dimly recall that there were several issues concerning cloning the
Mac, but I don't know if any got to trial. Even if they did, I'll
hasten to point out, the fact that Apple was successful in the suit does
not deter my reasoning, since it is quite possible that the case did not
actually resolve to this issue. It seems obvious that there aren't now
'legal' Mac clones. But it may be the persuasiveness of lawyers, not
the law, which has prevented it to this point. Does anyone have any
more details which might shed light on these issues?
--
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.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 18:47:46 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Steve Martin in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Simon Cooke wrote:
>
>> Please show me where I can buy a bare machine that will run MacOS9, and
>> which does not come pre-bundled with a copy of MacOS.
>
>For that matter, please show me any computer bought over the counter, by
>mail-order, or from the shady guy on the corner that can be bought
>without an operating system pre-installed. Go on. Show me. This is not
>just a Mac phenomenon. A Microsoft OS package "for new users of
>Windows" is basically a useless item these days, unless you're migrating
>your computer from Linux, SCO, Solaris, or some other non-Windows OS.
Ummm, yea. We know they have a monopoly on Intel-compatible (open
architecture) PC pre-load OSes. That is, in fact, the point. Any
questions? Of course, there's plenty here who have bought a computer,
or large parts of it, without an OS pre-installed. Just about any
*small* OEM is going to be more than happy to sell you a PC without an
OS, if you ask them specifically. Unless they sell Windows, of course,
and have a contract preventing them from doing so, but most small OEMs
don't.
--
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.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 18:48:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>[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.
>
>You can install on a "bare" machine with all current upgrade products. Just insert
>qualifying media when prompted.
Maybe all 'current' upgrade products. But anyone who got an upgrade to
Win95 knows that you can't install it on a bare machine; a Microsoft OS
has to be pre-installed in order to install the upgrade. There are ways
around it, of course, because it is an empty pretense used solely for
anti-competitive purposes, but the standard installation package will
not install the OS on an empty hard drive.
--
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.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 18:48:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:paOq5.282$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> So? Should we feel sorry for them? I'll pay for winblows when they bring
>out
>> a version i actually enjoy using...
>>
>> Amon_Re
>
>Don't use it if you don't want to pay for it. End of story. Heck - run Wine
>or something. But if you won't pay for it, don't use it.
They have paid for it. Everybody has paid for it, multiple times over.
You expect them to pay for it again, and yet again, based on a
pseudo-legal pretense cloaked in an entreaty for ethical behavior?
--
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.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 18:49:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>The fact that other vendors couldn't compete with MS isn't their fault.
You are entirely mistaken.
"Moreover, over the past several years, Microsoft has comported itself
in a way that could only be consistent with rational behavior for a
profit-maximizing firm if the firm knew that it possessed monopoly
power, and if it was motivated by a desire to preserve the barrier to
entry protecting that power. Findings ¶¶ 67, 99, 136, 141, 215-16, 241,
261-62, 286, 291, 330, 355, 393, 407. "
Conclusions of Law 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.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 18:49:58 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> James A. Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > The fact that other vendors couldn't compete with MS isn't their fault.
>> > The lack of OS/2 software stems from an early failure by IBM - they
>> > charged $500 for the OS/2 SDK, while MS gave away copies of the Windows
>> > SDK. Guess which one was in demand from small developers? Even given
>> > the existing penetration (into true blue accounts) of OS/2.
>>
>> What? The Windows SDK of that era used to cost about $400.00 and would only
>> work with Microsoft C which cost about $600.00 and if you needed assembly
>> language access that was another purchase around $400.00 for MASM.
>
>Proof? No of course not. You ignore the fact that the MS SDK was availble for
>media cost.
Available to who? Companies that agreed to only develop Windows
products? Four hundred dollars doesn't sound like "media cost", to me.
Do you have proof of your assertion?
>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.
And "very nicely" constitutes how many incompatibilities or adjustments
which must be made? And how many potential ones which would change in
the next version of the SDK and/or Windows C compiler?
>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.
Your attempt to malign the character of those who oppose you reveals
your true intention, which is to spread lies in support of a criminal
corporation. 'Jedi' did not make the remarks you attribute to him. He
did say that there was no immorality in accessing an 'essential
facility', whether that is branded 'theft' or not. He also pointed out,
as I will re-iterate, that you cheapen the term 'stealing' quite gravely
when you seek to support a monopolist, be they Microsoft or any other
would-be criminal organization which willfully inhibits competition.
--
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
******************************
