Linux-Advocacy Digest #843, Volume #28 Sat, 2 Sep 00 20:13:04 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: How low can they go...? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: How low can they go...? ("James A. Robertson")
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 19:10:58 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> : Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> :>"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> :>> Microsoft didn't document their extensions because they want to lock
>> :>> people into using Windows 2000. Any apologists who denies this is
>> :>> living in denial himself.
>> :>
>> :>Just for the record, I believe that their implementation is now
>documented
>> :>and available from msdn.microsoft.com with no click-thru license.
>> :
>> : 1) After previously being hidden.
>> : 2) After previously being licenced under moot terms.
>> :
>> : Meanwhile, MS gets a nice head start.
>>
>> 3) Only after an extreme backlash of bad press did MS even consider
>> documenting any of it.
>
>Actually, IIRC, according to an article on slashdot it had apparently been
>sitting there in a TechNet the whole time anyway... definitely a case of the
>left not knowing what the right was doing.
That would be an incredible statement; an article in slashdot (probably
one, like yours, suggesting it without seeming to care whether its
credible) would hardly be enough to make it unlikely that Microsoft was
attempting to monopolize.
--
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: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 19:22:46 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> : "Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >snip<
>> :> 3) Only after an extreme backlash of bad press did MS even consider
>> :> documenting any of it.
>> :
>> : Actually, IIRC, according to an article on slashdot it had apparently
>been
>> : sitting there in a TechNet the whole time anyway... definitely a case of
>> : the left not knowing what the right was doing.
>>
>> Do you mean this one:
>>
>> http://slashdot.org/articles/00/06/28/0042228.shtml
>>
>> Which strongly alludes to MS forging the "last updated" timestamp to
>> make it appear as if it had "been sitting there in a TechNet the
>> whole time"?
>
>Well, if you think that's true, how about the name, phone number, et al of
>the person who forged it? Presumably that level of evidence either way is
>easy to obtain.
That sounds like an argument from ignorance.
>BTW: My posting is currently alluding to the fact that Cmdr Taco is a
>transvestite.
Oh, so it was an ad hominem attack, as well. Thanks for clearing that
up.
>> Are you denying the existence of MS's initial "click-through"
>> license and declaration of "trade secret" they originally forced
>> viewers to go through to get at the docs, as described here:
>
>NO.
>
>> http://slashdot.org/features/00/05/16/1321225.shtml
>>
>> If it was so easily available on TechNet the whole time, why did
>> Microsoft freak out so much when parts of it were posted on
>> SlashDot, upto and including, "pulling out the DMCA to get those
>> posts removed". If the document was so open and available, why oh
>> why would it have possibly been able to spawn as large of a mess as
>> is detailed here:
>>
>> http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=Kerberos+Microsoft
>
>Because The Left Hand Does Not Know What The Right Hand Is Doing @
>Microsoft. I kid you not.
That's definitely some form of causal fallacy, but I'm not sure which
one. It might be:
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/wrong.htm (wrong direction)
No, your putative condition of 'the left and right hands' is the result
of the attempt to de-commodotize Kerberos, apparently, not the cause.
Or it might be:
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/complex.htm (complex cause)
Regardless of the level of corporate communications within Microsoft,
your point provides no reasonable justification that this would cause
Microsoft to de-commodotize Kerberos.
>> No, sorry, but Microsoft's intentions and motives are abundantly
>> crystal clear on this matter. There is no gray, there is no opinion
>> any more then one can hold an opinion on the color of the sky.
>
>Given that you were the person who injected opinion into this thread in the
>first place, that's a mighty fine statement.
Given... , X is... constructs should generally be more well thought-out
than that. You seem to be grappling with abstractions you haven't
really grasped.
>As for their intentions being abundantly clear... yeah, right.
Is that a response of some kind? Indeed, their intentions are
abundantly clear, and potentially criminal.
--
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: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 19:27:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
> Nothing in DVD warrants intellectual property protection.
Boy, that sounds like a pretty strong statement, 'jedi'. I'm wondering
if you can back it up. Let me try:
The software code used for DVD encoding is certainly protectable as
copyrighted work. As such, the owner can restrict who copies the work,
and thus who owns a legal copy. So how can DVD not warrant copyright
protection?
--
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: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 19:28:46 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said D'Arcy Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> >They do allow them to use them on alternative platforms... it is
>> >called a license. What part of that do you not understand?
>
>> The part that allows for a licence on something that by all
>> rights, and even by recent law should be free to be reverse
>> engineered.
>
>So no technical reasons - just moral ones.
No technical reasons. Legal ones.
>> Nothing in DVD warrants intellectual property protection.
>
>I am not commenting on that... I thought I made that part clear.
Yes, you are. That is only partially clear, I'll admit. Would you like
to hear more?
--
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: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 19:37:39 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said D'Arcy Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> >So no technical ones. Technical ones present a "barrier".
>
>> No, prohibitive cost presents a barrier.
>
>You assume that the only people interested in getting a DVD player
>onto a system have no money... not necessarily valid... also not
>(directly) something you can blame MS on.
I presume you mean "blame on MS", and the kicker is that we can. We
aren't, necessarily, but the fact of the matter is that there isn't
really much of a free market in software these days, because of the
damaging impact, both direct and indirect, of Microsoft's criminal
behavior. But that's beside the point; 'jedi' never mentioned
Microsoft, though I did.
It doesn't matter whether or not any putative assumption over whether
competitors have money is valid or not. That's an entirely contrived
point without any substance, as far as I can see.
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 19:32:16 -0400
Simon Cooke wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8oref8$fgr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> `>` The law should be passed that no computer or harddrive can be sold with
> a
> >preinstalled OS or be bundled with and OS or software.
>
> Thus effectively killing the newbie computer user market. Or making CompUSA
> make a killing on installing OSes for people.
No. You merely charge that as a SEPERATE line-item, dipshit.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [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: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 23:55:19 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> >> Microsoft's been convicted. Get used to it.
> >> >
> >> >Conviction is one thing. Guilt will be determined at the end of litigation.
> >>
> >> Still not used to it, huh?
> >
> >It's pretty hard to get used to lawyers running amok, especially when
> >they are government lawyers.
>
> I wouldn't call enforcement of anti-trust law 'lawyers running amok',
> but then, I'm not generally ignorant of the law, as so many people seem
> to be.
Anti-trust laws are a perfect example of running amok all by themselves
>
> --
> 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! =-----
--
James A. Robertson
Senior Sales Engineer, Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 19:54:28 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Simon Cooke wrote:
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8oref8$fgr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > `>` The law should be passed that no computer or harddrive can be sold
with
> > a
> > >preinstalled OS or be bundled with and OS or software.
> >
> > Thus effectively killing the newbie computer user market. Or making
CompUSA
> > make a killing on installing OSes for people.
>
> No. You merely charge that as a SEPERATE line-item, dipshit.
And this benefits consumers.....how?
------------------------------
From: <[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: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 16:05:05 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8orgba$oml$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Then maybe you should read about it, this is a case of false memory,
> > > Microsoft never exclusively sold per processor licenses to oem's. Some
> > oems
> > > went for that particular deal, but none were ever forced to do it, it
> was
> > > one of three options OEM's could choose to negotiate.
> > >
> > > <quote>
> > > Microsoft began offering per processor licenses at some point in the
> late
> > > 1980s at the request of OEMs who wanted to simplify the administration
> of
> > > their per system licenses. (Kempin FTC Testimony (Exh. 9) at 96-97;
> Hosogi
> > > Dep. (Exh. 8) at 27-28; Lum Dep. (Exh. 6) at 82; Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at
> > > 103-07.) Because OEMs generally change microprocessors much less
> > frequently
> > > than they change other components of their systems, a per processor
> > license
> > > decreased the number of contract amendments that had been necessary
> under
> > a
> > > per system license due to system changes. (Kempin FTC Testimony (Exh.
9)
> > at
> > > 96-97; Hosogi Dep. (Exh. 8) at 27-28; Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at 103-06.)
> > > </quote>
> > > http://www.microsoft.com/PressPass/caldera/licensing.asp
> > >
> >
> > That IS a joke. Microsoft creates the requirement for unneeded record
> > keeping, then it is solved starting "a make them all pay and let God
sort
> > them out" style policy.
> >
> > There was no real need to renegotiate anything when the computers are
> > redesigned. All that Microsoft should have done was license the
hardware
> > firms to permit them to ship MS software whith their equipment. Then to
> > collect a royality for each copy shipped. It is that simple, the rest
was
> > all just mechinations.
>
> And that was one option that's always been available, but about 60% of the
> OEM's chose to negotiate on a per processor agreement. What's the problem?
> And what does OEM's deal with Microsoft have anything to do with you? Do
you
> really care? I don't go into Mc Donalds and ask to see all the contracts
> with suppliers before ordering a #5, do you?
>
>
You mean that you can go to McDonalds and order a #5? I know that #5 is
alive but I didn't know that McDonalds was selling copies of him.
------------------------------
From: <[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: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 16:51:28 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:aKes5.46712$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Thus effectively killing the newbie computer user market. Or making
CompUSA
> make a killing on installing OSes for people.
How so? When someone who is not able to handle installing and confiuring a
standards installation can purchase the preconfigured version of the os
configured for their particular brand and model computer. When they aquire
such a system they have to unpack it from the box and connect the video and
keyboards and mice into the syste unit. Right? Just put one more step into
the process: Insert the CD-Rom or other media the contains the preconfigured
version of the OS of their choice and power-on. Wait a few minutes and take
no additional actions and then, job done.
> Why, precisely? That's a pretty blanket ban. Sure, apply it to Microsoft.
> Heck, apply it to Apple (whom it more directly applies to) or Sun. But
> everyone?
The law has to apply to everyone equally or it is useless. What you are
suggesting would be like after the crash of 1929, preventing the Wells
Fargo, Mellon Bank, and Bank of Italy (An prior name for Bank of America)
from dealing securities and insurance but not preventing the other bank from
doing the same.
We are, or at least I am, not arguing for the punishment of one or two
firms. I am suggesting setting ground rules that would foster atmosphere
that would support real open competition in this field and would hopefully
prevent a repeat of the fiascos that have already happened in this field.
> Oh, so you don't want to ban preload. You just want to force people to
> install it. Well, fair enough. How do you propose that hardware test and
> diagnostic suites are run on the machine? Install, run, format?
Preloading would be banned. Preconfigured OS and other software aquired as
a sepperate purchase by the consumer by his or her own free will is not the
same thing as purchaseing a prebuilt system and being forced to purchase the
preloaded software as well even if the consumer does not want it. With this
method there would be nothing stopping a computer manufacturer from offering
a half dozen different preconfigured operating system and the consumer could
purchase the one if any that he or she wants.
------------------------------
From: <[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: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 16:24:49 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> OK, POSIX and OpenGL. Keep going. We'll lick this monopoly yet. What
> >> do you have for distributed computing applications and clustering?
>
> No, no, I meant "them", 'mjcr'. I'm trying to be responsive, here.
O.K., understood.
>
> >RPC?
>
> Don't make me laugh. A standard that says "insert standard here" isn't
> much of a standard. RPC + CORBA, maybe, as I understand it... Even
> then, RPC is a horribly *unoptimized* method, IMHO.
Point of explaination:
By RPC, is wasrefering to the orignal unix Remote Procedure Call libraries,
tools, and protocols that facilitate distributed processing, not what
Microsfot calls RPC. This RPC is what NFS, NIS, etc are based on. I was
not even considering CORBA when I mentioned RPC.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 19:53:35 -0400
Chris Wenham wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Joe" == Joe R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>
> >> Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> All I want to know is, if its illegal to *monopolize*, and its illegal
> >> >> to *attempt to monopolize*, just how is it legal to have a monopoly?
> >> >
> >> >Because even though they have the same root and derivation, they have
> >> >different meanings in a legal sense.
> >>
> >> Strictly speaking, you have a minor point.
>
> > But then you go ahead and post several hundred lines showing that you
> > don't grasp the concept at all.
>
> Why don't you show why he doesn't grasp the concept, instead of just
> being lazy and saying so?
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Wenham
He has already done this several times
Hope that helps 2.0
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
