Linux-Advocacy Digest #781, Volume #28 Thu, 31 Aug 00 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (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: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Steve Mading)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 19:14:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>>
>> Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >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 ).
>>
>> That would be the only thing that could stop someone, legally. If Troll
>> Tech is interested in growing a market and making large profits,
>> shouldn't *they* be trying to get others interested in using their API?
>
>They are.
So just how does that jibe with "we can't guarantee we won't sue"
(assuming this was an accurate quote)? I don't expect anyone would ask
for any such guarantee to begin with. Just because someone wants to
support their API doesn't mean they are going to let you steal their
intellectual property (which isn't the API, but simply *there* version
of the code that supports it). Just how is Troll Tech trying to get
other companies to replace QT libraries in supporting their API?
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 19:14:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"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.
No, you're here to cover your own, I'm sure. Perhaps we all are.
[...]
>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.
You are begging the question. I care about that, because you're using
it to malign me.
[...]
>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.
I have no problem grouping clauses. Perhaps you mean that you mis-spoke
(mis-wrote?) yourself. "Any reader knows you are a liar, unless he has
a bias" is what I read. I'm assuming you think I'm a liar, as you've
stated so quite readily and quite often, so...
[...]
>> Retract? Retract? You never asked me to retract anything.
>
>You should have done it on your own. Or you only retract when
>asked?
No, I don't retract at all. I can't. Once I hit the 'send' button, its
out there. If I had made some sort of official pronouncement, I'd be
happy to make another one retracting my statements in the first. But
all I did was post to Usenet with an opinion. I don't retract those,
even if I later change my opinion. I will not apologize for honest
inquiry.
>> 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.
In others, I assume you mean.
>> 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.
Well, considering I'm a secular humanist and an atheist, and have never
made any efforts to hide that, announcing it quite proudly on more than
one occasion in this very group, in fact, you were supposed to get the
joke a little earlier. No, saying 'that's the god's truth' is not
presenting anything as authoritative.
[...]
>A position you accepted was wrong. How stupid.
Well, shit, pardon me. A position I *openly declared as tentative as I
presented it* turned out to require modification. With this talk I hear
of threats to sue from Troll Tech, that position is still open for
modification.
>> 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.
Check the context, dude. This ain't a textbook.
>> >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!
Guffaw.
>> 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.
Defamation of *WHO*? You!? You've taken some efforts to assure me that
you are not "KDE". Make up your friggen mind, asshole.
[...]
>> >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 wasn't stupid enough, mostly.
>> >> 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.
Thanks, squeeky.
>> 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.
Obviously, that isn't what I promised. You still need to work on that
"reading comprehension" bit. And stop being so blasted dishonest in
misrepresenting other people's statements.
>> Just don't hit the "Reply" key (or is it too late for that?)
>
>I don't take orders from you.
Too late, eh?
--
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
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 19:14:51 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>The public perception != your perception.
I is the public. The public am me.
[...remainder of your quibbling ankle-biting snipped as so
disastrously unproductive as to be embarrassing...]
--
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
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 19:15:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
[...]
>You go back to the point: we are discussing your refusal to use
>the correct names to refer to things. All this is a tangent.
The point is you have no means of insisting what is the correct names to
refer to things unless you can convince me that the ones I use are in
any way inaccurate, inconsistent, *and* impractical. Don't bother
picking apart "QT/Troll Tech" as inaccurate, inconsistent, or
impractical alone; you'd just be begging the question. We say
'Microsoft' when we mean "Windows", we say "Lotus" when we mean "1-2-3".
Get a friggen grip.
>It ain't my legwork, because I know where the legwork goes.[...]
PTTTHTHTHTHT! Quit squirming, troll. You've been nailed, and I'm
getting bored. Now run along.
--
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 19:15:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 03:20:26 GMT, Steve Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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.
>
> ...or you got attacked by a virus so bad that you want to
> start over and reinstall...
>
> ...or you want to restart from scratch for any reason.
>
> Plus, since 'no one can get away with not buying Windows' anyways,
> there's really no compelling reason to put barriers in place of
> those of us that actually know what they're doing.
A de facto conviction. Let's see, that's WinModems, WinME pricing, and
'upgrade' packaging....
--
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 19:16:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>The OEM licence isn't transferable anyway. So even if you could take your
>compaq restore cd and install the OS on a different computer you'd be doing
>it in violation of the license agreement. That's why Full OEM versions cost
>40 bucks.
Define "different computer".
--
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 19:19:06 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
> NO, OEM versions cost $40 because they are giving a deep discount
> to a volume buyer. The 'non-transferability' of the licence is
> actually quite disputable. (first sale doctrine)
OK, that's 4. But I'm not sure if this one ("part of the computer"
pre-load licensing) might be too similar to the current conviction, on
generally "monopolizing pre-loads". Or, more specifically, "the Court
concludes that Microsoft maintained its monopoly power by
anticompetitive means." I guess not, since this is a restriction on the
*end user*, not the OEM, and the Findings of Fact don't mention the
issue, IIRC.
--
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 20:00:27 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Linux is a difficult target for for-profit companies, because it doesn't
>have as much market-share as Apple, and it's perceived that if it's not
>free, people won't use it.
You're on drugs. If it isn't a company, how can it have market-share?
If when its perceived that its not free, people won't use it, how do you
account for all the people who bought a shrink-wrap CD (millions)?
>> >What are the barriers to entry? Please describe them.
>>
>> Virtually all new Intel compatible computers sold ship with Microsoft
>> operating systems. Investors are (understandably) nervous about
>> taking on a company with 95%+ marketshare. Microsoft also has a long
>> track record of rapaciously attacking new competitors using
>> underhanded tactics.
>>
>> Is that enough for now?
>
>No. How is this a barrier to entry? Because VC companies aren't interested?
>That's not a barrier.
"40. What for Microsoft is a positive feedback loop is for would-be
competitors a vicious cycle. For just as Microsoft's large market share
creates incentives for ISVs to develop applications first and foremost
for Windows, the small or non-existent market share of an aspiring
competitor makes it prohibitively expensive for the aspirant to develop
its PC operating system into an acceptable substitute for Windows. To
provide a viable substitute for Windows, another PC operating system
would need a large and varied enough base of compatible applications to
reassure consumers that their interests in variety, choice, and currency
would be met to more-or-less the same extent as if they chose Windows.
Even if the contender attracted several thousand compatible
applications, it would still look like a gamble from the consumer's
perspective next to Windows, which supports over 70,000 applications.
The amount it would cost an operating system vendor to create that many
applications is prohibitively large. Therefore, in order to ensure the
availability of a set of applications comparable to that available for
Windows, a potential rival would need to induce a very large number of
ISVs to write to its operating system. "
Read http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm, and come back
when and if you'd like to discuss this competently.
[...]
>Support ATA. Support SVGA. Support SCSI. Support keyboard/mouse drivers.
>Support SoundBlaster. Support USB. Support NE2000 compatible ethernet cards.
>Hey presto -- you have 99% of the hardware out there.
What a maroon.
--
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: Steve Mading <[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: 31 Aug 2000 23:58:43 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
: If you try to gain market share, you are breaking the law.
: Incredible, isn't it?
Yeah - That's why I'm glad it's not true.
: Its like you're equating monopoly power with large market share,
[snip]
Yes, that's exactly what I am doing. Becasue that's what it *IS*.
Monopoly power is a large enough market share that you can dominate
the market through tactics that have nothing to do with your
quality or service. It doesn't become illegal until you try to
*USE* that power, though.
[Snip irrelevancies. The disagreement is purely over the definition
of a word, and therefore axiomatic. Further argument cannot have
any effect in this case. We agree over what is legal and illegal.
We just disagree over what to call it.]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
