Linux-Advocacy Digest #779, Volume #28 Thu, 31 Aug 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
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: HOTMAIL Hacked? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: HOTMAIL Hacked? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: So ya' wanna' run Linux?...I have a bridge for sale in Bklyn..... (Thomas
Corriher)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 18:51:02 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Microsoft had an unfair advantage by way of copyright.
>
>Uhuh... right...
>
>> They controlled an essential facility. That isn't success
>> by being 'better' but success by natural monopoly.
>
>Look! Over there! It's Linux! Oh and there! Solaris! and Beos! Obviously,
>Microsoft is not a natural monopoly, as there are other operating systems
>produced by other vendors, and given enough time/patience you can write one
>*YOURSELF*.
Given time and money, you can build your own national power grid, too.
While I can't really support the concept of "natural monopoly", I can
understand it. You, apparently, do not.
What is really ironic (but foreseen; if you check back to a message I
recall writing in about 1998, you'll see) is that as the conviction
progresses, the attendant media coverage makes it plain that a software
'natural monopoly' has nothing to do with OS software and everything to
do with an application barrier, and the technical value of the potential
competitor(s) are proven, the Winvocates will no doubt find more and
more justification in their claims that Windows isn't a monopoly.
>From the Conclusions of Law:
"Even if Microsoft's rebuttal had attenuated the presumption created by
the prima facie showing of monopoly power, corroborative evidence of
monopoly power abounds in this record: Neither Microsoft nor its OEM
customers believe that the latter have - or will have anytime soon -
even a single, commercially viable alternative to licensing Windows for
pre-installation on their PCs. Id. ¶¶ 53-55; cf. Rothery, 792 F.2d at
219 n.4 ("we assume that economic actors usually have accurate
perceptions of economic realities")."
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 18:52:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>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.
You are incorrect (and possibly dishonest) in your misrepresentation of
what was said to begin with. This has the consequence of confabulating
the case; one should never confabulate a case merely to indict someone's
"moral fiber". It is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.
I don't think the courts will have much of a problem discerning the
difference between "accessing an essential facility against the wishes
of a monopolist" and "stealing". It is obvious, of course, that these
descriptions can apply to putatively identical actions. But that would
be why a court would be necessary to make that distinction. It
certainly doesn't seem to me to mean that there isn't a distinction.
Thus the ethical question resolves to a legal question which resolves to
a moral choice on the part of someone wishing to use a Microsoft
product, or any other monopolist's facility. I won't second-guess
someone else's morality; if they say that access to the facility was
essential and they truthfully believed the company to be a monopolist,
I'm willing to let a judge double-check things, with the ability to
investigate the situation through subpoena. A rational person wouldn't
simply impugn their integrity and presume to supplant the law with
'popular wisdom'.
--
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 18:53:46 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Your morals are your own and probably shared more by those penally institutionalized
>than
>the general public. Your shouting only proves your sociopathy and losing position.
You used a *fabricated* *mis-interpretation* of his words to impugn his
morality and integrity, and then you have the balls to suggest that when
he points it out to you, with emphasis, that this "proves" something?
You are a cad, Mike, to say the least, who mistakes playing games with
honest discussion. To say more would, I'm afraid, lead me to shouting.
Jedi said there is nothing morally wrong with it. *You* started yapping
about the legality of it, which was merely begging the question. If you
expect Sierra to get their full value from whatever contracts they
'negotiated' with Microsoft to have you astroturf for them in exchange
for concessions, you should work on your presentation.
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.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 18:55:28 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Todd in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Actually, Windows ME is going to sell for $209 retail price for the full OS
>license (not an upgrade). This is not the street price which will be lower.
>
>Also, upgrades from 98 will only be $59. That ain't much.
If they are one penny more than they would be if Microsoft had not acted
to inhibit competition, they are monopoly prices. And they are, indeed,
monopoly prices.
--
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 18:57:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Is that all Windows ME is? Ye gods...shades of '95 + IE4.
Precisely. Both 98 (95.1+IE) and ME (98.1+Media Player) weren't even
supposed to exist, as 95 was officially announced as the "last version"
of DOS-based Windows. Microsoft, however, in true monopolist fashion,
presumed that this would make everyone willing to pay the higher cost of
NT. Since they could never have simply raised the price of 95 and
gotten anyone to buy it, and couldn't lower the price of NT without
risking loss of market power, they've had to keep trying these "shell
games" (pun intended) with these 'not next versions of DOS/Windows' they
keep pushing.
The fact that nobody's buying it, so to speak, is not, despite the prima
facia impression, that Microsoft does not enjoy monopoly power, but
merely that monopoly power, when supported by criminal anti-competitive
actions, is not tolerated by the marketplace. Microsoft managed to get
a monopoly (willfully acquired) on the PC pre-load OS market. All other
markets they 'compete' in are extensions of this monopoly. Retail sales
of post-market PC OSes is not a secure monopoly itself for Microsoft.
The authors of anti-trust law realized that this was not important; when
trying to prevent restraint of trade, an *attempt* to monopolize must be
punished just the same as 'successful' monopolization.
--
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: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: HOTMAIL Hacked?
Date: 31 Aug 2000 22:59:10 GMT
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: 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.
:>
: Which are still the direct responsibility of the site itself. If you cannot
: protect yourself against such 'hacks', you need to be doing something else.
How could Hotmail possibly be blamed for the content of DNS server
entries all over the world when it has no knowledge or control of any
of them???? (You *do* know how DNS works, right?)
Microsoft products and services, including Hotmail, have plenty of
security problems for which Microsoft is legitimately to blame. This
isn't one of them though. Blaming it for this is like blaming someone
for not receiving mail that in fact was stolen in transit.
Joe
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: HOTMAIL Hacked?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 19:00:00 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>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?
In case you're not aware, 'fkddan', the fact that it is a "DNS" hack may
mean it was limited to people who tried to access Hotmail to your ISP's
network. According to the DNS system, your dialed in from "mweb", in
New Zealand. It might be your ISP, or it might have been all of New
Zealand. But since you posted your message on the 28th (even though it
didn't show up on my server until the 31st, and Erik also responded on
the 31st), he's probably right that if it had been a large-scale hack,
it might probably have made the news.
I say "might probably" because the DNS system is, in many ways, the
"achilles's heel" of the Internet, and it wouldn't surprise me if news
of a hack were somewhat muted, if not suppressed, so as not to seem to
be inciting unrest by causing the public to become concerned about the
danger.
--
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] (Thomas Corriher)
Subject: Re: So ya' wanna' run Linux?...I have a bridge for sale in Bklyn.....
Date: 31 Aug 2000 22:53:11 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], abuse@[127.0.0.1]
Steve Mentzer said:
> It doesn't *matter* if it is cheaper for the average joe;
> he's still being ripped off, because he's being sold market
> goods under false pretenses. In the computer market, you
> don't buy a printer for a particular operating system.
Actually, there are "Win Printers" too. Amazing is it not?
I think they should be called "Lose Printers" instead.
Someone replied to Steve with:
> ...I know of someone who went to purchase a 56 kilobaud
> internal hardware modem....
Modem speeds above 9600 baud are not measured in baud. These
speeds are measured in bits per second (BPS). A 14.4 modem is
not 14400 baud. It is a 14400 (or 14.4k) bits per second
equivalent modem. I say equivalent because they do not really
communicate at that speed. Software (firmware) compression
overcomes analog line limitations to allow for transmissions
which appear to happen faster than 9600 baud. You loose
signal quality above speeds of 9600 baud, so software trickery
is required (to express more ideas using less words).
--
From the desk of Thomas Corriher
The real email address is:
corriher at surfree.
com
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 19:02:51 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not interested in quibbling with you, Roberto, which is apparently
what I've managed to reduce the discussion to; your quibbling. But
knowing that you plan to continue posting, and recognizing your general
elitist position, I'm afraid I've got to respond to your message, at
risk of seeming to quibble myself, in order to set the record straight.
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>>
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> [...]
>> >Where did you get the idea that I didn't look it up on several
>> >references? Don't jump to conclusions.
>>
>> Then why did you bother posting one?
>
>Because all said more or less the same thing.
Then why bother posting one of them. Obviously I knew what the
definitions were, I was the one correcting your inability to understand
why I post "JS/PL is not a real person", and insist that it is a factual
statement. Its based on amphiboly, also referred to as amphibology,
which is the fact that language constructs can be created which are
correct, but ambiguous without additional context.
>> >> >Cool. Now, you said JS/PL is not a real person.
>> >> >
>> >> >I gave you already two interpretations: he is a non-real person,
>> >> >or he is a real non-person (so I obviously accepted the phrase
>> >> >as an amphibology).
>> >> >
>> >> >Now, what is your other interpretation?
>> >>
>> >> Did I suggest I have some other interpretation, or indicate that I agree
>> >> (or disagree) with either of yours?
>> >
>> >No, you just didn't answer the question. Are you practicing reticence?
>> >
>> >Just to refresdh your memory, here's the question again:
>> >
>> >> >> >Are you alleging that the posts signed JS/PL are actually written
>> >> >> >by bogie-men or ghosts or demons or something?
>> >
>> >Please answer.
>>
>> Ha. Please stop asking. You're not going to get an answer that way.
>
>Cool. Keep that in mind when you say I am reticent.
>Now, be coherent: stop whining about the answers you get, or give
>an answer.
I'm pointing out why I'm not answering the question, or rather why you
cannot understand the answer that I am giving is a correct one. I'm not
reticent and trying to hide the answer through dishonestly providing a
minimal amount of information. To the contrary, I'm going to some
lengths to explain the situation, though I will admit I'm purposefully
not providing the direct answer to your question myself, in the hopes
that it will force you to learn why "Do you still beat your wife"-type
questions are not a useful addition to a discussion, except as an
example of amphipoly.
As for whether or not I'm delusional (ha! if only I were so lucky) as to
question whether or not corporeal fingers typed in the posts identifying
the author as 'JS/PL', I'll point out that I can say "Mark Twain is not
a real person" with every bit as much authority and accuracy as I could,
with all sincerity, respond your question once again in a way which you
will not accept as a full and complete answer, but is, despite that
fact.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 19:05:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Nathaniel Jay Lee in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Hey T. Max, the only thing missing from your posts is a 45
>line signature.
Still haven't learned to tell the difference, huh? I'll keep trying.
>Why not make a list of all the 'ankle biters' you run
>into? That should take up at least as many lines as
>Aaron's sig. Then you can be as annoying as him in all
>the same ways.
I've already done so, if you read the posts where I refer to
'ankle-biters'. If I were as annoying as him, I wouldn't bother.
>I was just not responding to you (even when you went out
>of your way to call me into a discussion), but this is
>easier than having to read another line of your bullshit.
>*PLONK*! Ah, that ought to clear up about half the posts
>I read every day.
More's the pity.
--
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
******************************
