Linux-Advocacy Digest #850, Volume #28 Sun, 3 Sep 00 02:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Why doesnt SuSE and RedHat wait until later this autum? (David M. Cook)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 3 Sep 2000 05:18:17 GMT
On Sat, 02 Sep 2000 23:25:02 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Just for fun...
>
>>> Actually there was a quote floating around where they alluded
>>> to situations where a commercially supported Harmony might
>>> come under attack for merely being successful.
>>
>>Where ? Not in this thread, there wasn't.
>
>Obviously, a question of interpretation of the quote we've all been
>discussing. Feigned ignorance is intellectual dishonesty.
I am not ignorant, and I am not pretending to be. I am questioning your
interpretation of the quote, which seems clearly wrong. Success was not
described as sufficient grounds for attack. The said quote also mentioned
"embrace and extend". As usual, Max's "facts" are just plain wrong.
>>> Max is not out of line at all.
>>
>>Yes he is. His allegations have no substance.
>
>Perhaps you might easily refute them, then, rather than presuming that
>you have all the answers yourself and keeping them private.
I all ready have refuted a whole bunch of your false claims. Let's recall
a few:
(*) KDE is essentially a "wrapper" for QT
(*) KDE is a "commercial" project.
(*) Roberto is being paid by Troll Tech
(*) Troll Tech "threatened" the Harmony project
>>However, I'd have to concede that Max's credibility is so low that it
>>tends to minimise the damage done when he posts his fiction.
>
>I take it you mean, "I really can't comprehend most of it, so I
>certainly couldn't possibly refute it, but perhaps if I ignore it, he
>will go away."
You obviously can't read very well. Put your glasses on and read it again.
>There were less threatening answers which would have been both smarter
>and easier. The appropriate one, of course, when asked if they would
>sue, in retrospect, was "Not for infringement,
Saying that you "wouldn't sue for infringement" is probably too broad.
Again, another example as to why you shouldn't make bold promises without
knowing what you are talking about. He did the right thing by acknowledging
his ignorance and laying low. Perhaps you could learn from him.
> though we would sue for
>anti-trust grounds if someone tried to 'embrace and extend' the API a la
>Redmond."
Suing on "anti-trust" grounds is pretty hard to do. Making a public statement
to the effect that the only kind of lawsuit you're prepared to file is an
anti trust suit is outright silly.
And for someone who's completely ignorant on matters of law to make bold
statements about possible litigation is not very smart.
>you. I'm just asking why he didn't think to put it that way to begin
>with;
It isn't clear that yours is substantially better than his. In fact I think
he put it better.
Also, you need to consider the context. We've already had a long discussion
about this issue, and you're still having trouble getting it right.
I'm sure he could have come up with a better thought out response if he
spent a week thinking about it ( even though you apparently couldn't )
>The question, unfortunately, thus remains,
The question, fortunately, is more or less irrelevant. The Harmony project
is dead AFAIK. And it's dead largely due to lack of interest, not "legal
threats".
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 3 Sep 2000 05:22:26 GMT
On Sat, 2 Sep 2000 20:18:18 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Unless Troll Tech is very careful here they may end up controlling an API
>that may becode an "also ran". Remember the MCA bus the IBM used in the
>highend PS/2's? It was superior to the ISA bus, but because of IBM's
>handling of the MCA it has been barely more than an also ran.
Actually, QT has been doing extremely well because they've managed to win
over free software people with their willingness to listen to the free
software community. Originally, RedHat were unwilling to ship KDE/QT.
Personally, I was against using QT, but the move to a free license has
converted me to an enthusiastic QT developer.
So I'd say that QT is doing really well, and it's got a lot to do with the
fact that Troll have made a sincere effort to address the concerns of the
Linux community.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 3 Sep 2000 05:25:26 GMT
On Sat, 02 Sep 2000 23:15:08 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>still so much debate on the subject. I figure as long as there's
>debate, I can't be out of line in debating it.
Well apart from your irrelevance, I see no one else flogging this
dead horse ( I say dead horse, because harmony is dead due to lack
of interest, not due to "legal threats" )
>How moronic. How are your children doing, Roberto? If you had
>children, would you feel threatened by my asking? What, do you suppose,
>does *context* have to do with whether something is perceived, or
>intended, as an actual threat?
I think Roberto's point is that the context hardly makes it a "threat".
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 3 Sep 2000 05:31:28 GMT
On Sat, 02 Sep 2000 22:10:53 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>>> Not if they are asked. What should they do? Ignore the question?
>>
>>There is the ever popular "no comment".
>
>Yea, but, c'mon. You know that would have been even worse, in this
>situation. The only appropriate response was "No."
Why should they make a commitment not to sue anyone ?
> They didn't say
>"Yes." Had they said, "no comment" to a question over whether they
>would sue, they would have been saying "yes", effectively, don't you
>think?
They said more than "no comment". They tried to communicate where they
stood, without getting into legal specifics.
>Yes, but we also must admit that their lawyers may not be capable of
>even comprehending, let alone avoiding, FUD. The lawyers certainly
>wouldn't have wanted to say "We heartily encourage any competitive
>attempt to develop alternatives to our software and have no intention of
>suing Harmony for infringement."
They are not obliged to
(a) make a commitment not to sue
(b) provide an exhaustive list of circumstances under which they would(n't)
sue. No one else has been asked to do such a thing, and I don't see
why this is expected of TT.
>anti-competitive intent, I think, but I'm a fanatic.
Yeah, and a somewhat ignorant one at that.
>network effect makes any attempt to maintain an API as 'proprietary',
>even failing to accommodate would-be cloners, is monopolization.
Blah blah blah. See my other post. Basically, you might as well argue
that Nike have a "monopoly" on shoes carrying their logo.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 01:33:33 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Courageous in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>> >Other companies have used (in the past, but even to
>> >some extent now) AMD's small marketshare as a per-se justification
>> >for not buying their products.
>>
>> Are you attempting to indict Intel, or AMD? Are you saying that Intel
>> has monopoly power?
>
>I'm not particularly indicting Intel, but rather pointing out
>that if it's indeed the case that their lack of market share
>is used by consumers to not adopt their technology, you can't
>characterize them as a dishonest company for desiring specifically
>to enlarge their market share.
Dishonest? I'm not sure. They're supposed to want to enlarge their
*market*, of course. The number of units they sell. Their market
*share*, however, literally should not be an issue. Consumers shouldn't
want to adopt their technology based on market share; that's simply a
measure of how ignorant the consumer might be about any of the things on
which they actually want to base such a decision: will it work well for
a long time for little money, and all that.
I don't believe the lack of a market share would be used by any consumer
interested enough to purchase a chip unless Intel *is* monopolizing. So
long as it is a "PC compatible", the customer wants to know about the
competitive advantages or disadvantages, such as speed or reliability,
and cost. What difference does it make what chip someone else is using,
as long as mine works?
Lacking any real information about the technical products we buy and
their *real* competitive merit (all such info generally being provided
by the vendors themselves, the least possible trustworthy source), we go
with "what does everybody else use?" We might think, "Well, we want to
go with a big name", based on the theory the company will be there later
on when we need a replacement, right? Well, there's a fine line between
buying into a failed technology and buying from a monopolist. There
should be no reason to believe that you'd have to go to that producer in
order to get a suitable replacement for their product. These days, with
mergers and acquisitions going hog-wild, the brand name is meaningless
for conveying any sense of reliability or integrity, and there's no
continuity in product lines anyway. Chances are even if they're still
in business, they won't have any better replacement than an alternative.
Its kind of un-nerving, in fact, how much acceptance of monopolistic
business practices there is these days. It seems that the only reason
someone would look at AMDs market share, rather than their chips, would
be if they *expect* Intel to monopolize, to try to use its market share
to exclude competition, and so they want to buy from a producer with
enough market power to resist anti-competitive strategies. It sucks.
Of course, the 'consumers' in your potentially mythical example are not
end-users. Would a company be correct in looking at AMD's market share
in determining whether to buy a bunch of PCs that use AMD chips, which
would probably be the actual issue that came up? Again, only as a
measure of their ignorance concerning what might or might not make AMD
chips a good thing to have in your computer. Of course, at the time
such a thing would have come up, AMD was a new company with a product
that hadn't been widely used by a great number of other companies.
There's nothing wrong with recognizing that a product might be
'unproven', and avoiding it until it "establishes a market" by providing
several production and marketing iterations to allow both consumer and
producer to ascertain under what circumstances an AMD chip might be
considered a preferable solution. In the end, being as the whole point
of the AMD chip is to be a transparent replacement for Intel (except
maybe to motherboard manufacturers), its a sign of Intel's potential
liability for FUD tactics or outright monopolization which might have
caused the putative customer to examine the ol' pie chart in order to
make a purchasing decision.
Pie chart representations of the market were created for one reason and
are ethically used for one reason alone: to figure out what you're doing
wrong by examining why people are choosing other products, indicating by
that action they are superior to your own. You can drop your prices or
improve your product. Then throw away the pie chart; its useless. The
object is to make more profit, not get a bigger market share. Pie
charts don't even begin to represent all the customers that *would* have
bought your product, but decided not to buy anything at all, instead.
And there's almost always more of them then there are people who bought
somebody else's product.
"Marketing" a product is supposed to mean 'putting it on the market';
setting a price and making it available in an attractive package in a
convenient location. It isn't supposed to be a ruse for monopolistic
manipulation. Yes, you can try to figure out what customers want;
that's 'market research'. You aren't allowed to try to influence it,
though, that's forestalling, engrossing, or regating, which are
considered 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 3 Sep 2000 05:37:03 GMT
On Sat, 02 Sep 2000 22:04:49 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> [...]
>>> Also, it's well within Troll's capacity to merely not make statements
>>> that might serve to chill the atmosphere around a free QT clone. The
>>> fact that they always retain the right to sue is trivial. They retain
>>> that regardless of the statement of their intent. So merely restating
>>> the obvious is gratuitious.
>>
>>Not if they are asked. What should they do? Ignore the question?
>
>They should say "No. We have no intention of suing any competitor
>attempting to clone QT." That is, as near as we can figure, their legal
>responsibility, and it in no way invites or encourages anti-competitive
>threats to their market.
That is quite a commitment to make, and the kind that you shouldn't make
without consulting a lawyer ( who would advise you not to make such a
promise ).
>figured out. Yet you never seem to have anything much useful to say.
Roberto is not the one slandering others in a public forum.
>So aren't you just an authority on everything you don't say,
>essentially? In other words, just a pain in the ass with not much to
>say to begin with?
It's better than being a pain in the arse who slanders others in a public
forum, and then tries to use ignorance as a defence.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 3 Sep 2000 05:39:45 GMT
On Sat, 02 Sep 2000 21:49:25 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Matthias pretty much says so in the current Linux Gazzette.
>
>And who is Matthias?
Ignoramus. Why don't you leave the debating to those who know something
about the topic at hand ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 3 Sep 2000 05:42:11 GMT
On Sat, 02 Sep 2000 18:12:18 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>Read it yourself.
Why do you impose such onerous chores upon him ? Are you not willing
to read it to him, to spare him the effort of doing his own homeword ?
>Is that so hard?
For Max ? Certainly.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
Subject: Re: Why doesnt SuSE and RedHat wait until later this autum?
Date: 3 Sep 2000 06:04:32 GMT
On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 02:23:51 GMT, Grega Bremec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Seems like a userbase quite demanding for a bunch of pre-release
>software, don't you think so?
I don't understand the sentence.
>Besides, that's the customer base that's
>strongest in bucks, not in numbers, and every customer counts there.
>How do they expect to keep such a userbase with crappy x.0 releases?
7.0 hasn't been released yet. Do you know something I don't?
Dave Cook
------------------------------
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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 02:10:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>
>> "In short, the proof of Microsoft's dominant, persistent market share
>> protected by a substantial barrier to entry, together with Microsoft's
>> failure to rebut that prima facie showing effectively and the additional
>> indicia of monopoly power, have compelled the Court to find as fact that
>> Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market."
>>
>> Boom. As in, "that's it, they're guilty".
>
>No, it means only what the court said: Microsoft enjoys monopoly power
>in the relevant market.
You don't understand what I meant. That paragraph is the conclusion of
the section describing their conviction for monopolizing PC OSes. By
saying "Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market", Jackson
declared 'Microsoft is guilty of the crime of monopolizing'. Yes, the
decision went on to examine the other three charges, but Microsoft was
found guilty of the first charge by this statement. They were a
monopoly, so they've broken the law.
>You'll note that the DOJ did not suggest that merely *having* this
>monopoly power was illegal. The DOJ instead charged Microsoft with
>illegal *use* of that power. Read the DOJ's original complaint.
" Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that Microsoft violated §2 of the
Sherman Act by engaging in a series of exclusionary, anticompetitive,
and predatory acts to maintain its monopoly power. "
They went on to make three more charges, two of which (3 total) they
were convicted on.
>> >It's irrelevant how subjective it is, because even if you could prove
>> >that this is what happened, it won't get you a conviction.
>>
>> You recall, there is a 'presumption' that if one has substantial market
>> share. This goes so far as to become all but a per se rule in cases
>> involving very high market share (greater than 50%, essentially).
>
>The presumption in that case is that you have monopoly power, not that
>you abused it or obtained it illegally.
The reason there is a presumption that you're guilty if the prosecution
demonstrates that you have monopoly power is that there is no other way
to get it but illegally, and no way to use it except to abuse it. It is
illegal to *have* monopoly power. Which is to say it is illegal to
engage in business practices which *could give you* monopoly power, as
opposed to market power. This class of actions are called
"anti-competitive". If the defendant, after being shown to have
monopoly power, can reasonably prove that they have only acted
pro-competitively, then they can't be convicted. But, in the end, this
does mean that they never had monopoly power to begin with, really.
Just market power that *could* have given them monopoly power, if they'd
ever acted anti-competitively.
The crime of monopolization and attempted monopolization is, in this
way, the execution of anti-competitive strategies. Because only a
company with "monopoly power" can use anti-competitive strategies and
still maintain their market power.
If you make your product worse, and people still buy it, then the court
is going to look at your market share. If its big, you're guilty.
>To get a conviction, you have to prove that it was abused or illegally
>obtained. And a demonstration that a company improved its products does
>not meet that burden.
Improving your product cannot give you the ability to control prices or
exclude competition, according to fundamental free market theory. Its
like saying "I have telepathic powers, I just never use them." You
don't really have them unless you use them. Proving a company has
monopoly power, when they can't give a satisfactory reason for their
apparently anti-competitive actions, is proof that they have abused
monopoly power (or you wouldn't know they had it) or illegally obtained
it (since its illegal to attempt to gain monopoly power). It just isn't
illegal to gain *market power*, as long as you don't *use it*.
These abstractions are just *killing* me.
>> "a persuasive showing . . . that defendants have monopoly power . . .
>> through various barriers to entry, . . . in combination with the
>> evidence of market shares, suffice[s] at least to meet the government's
>> initial burden, and the burden is then appropriately placed upon
>> defendants to rebut the existence and significance of barriers to entry"
>
>Yes. But that's merely in reference to the issue of whether monopoly
>power exists, not whether it was abused (as the DOJ charged) or
>illegally obtained (as the DOJ might have alleged, but declined to
>allege).
"Monopoly power" is the power to control prices or exclude competition.
How can *anybody* know it exists if it has never been demonstrated in
any way? Therefore, the *only* court decisions 'popular wisdom' has
ever reported involve companies "using" it, which is always "abusive".
This has morphed into "its not illegal to have monopoly power, its only
illegal to use it or abuse it" or whatever and its hogwash.
Can't you just ONCE try to read through the whole thing *without* this
preconception blocking you? Just *pretend*, OK, that simply having
monopoly power is a crime. But what precisely is it; how does anyone
know if they have it, how do they get it, does it exist if they don't
use it? Forget all that stuff, and just for a while pretend that having
monopoly power is illegal, but impossible to attain through competitive
means. With that perspective firmly in mind, read the Conclusions
again. I think you should find that it makes a whole lot more sense
then it did before.
Maybe it will help if you also read this:
"The monopoly and restraint denounced by the act are the monopoly and
restraint of interstate and international trade or
commerce, while the conclusion to be assumed on this record is that the
result of the transaction complained of was the creation
of a monopoly in the manufacture of a [product]."
Its from the earliest anti-trust Supreme Court decision I've found, in
1895. Notice "the monopoly denounced" seems to clearly point out that
'monopolization' in the statute can be read "to have or attempt to have
a monopoly".
>> How does improving your product increase your market *share*, exactly?
>> And I do mean 'exactly', as in 'precisely', because it isn't up to you
>> to determine what an 'improvement' is to begin with. All you can do is
>> *change* your product; its up to the market to decide what is an
>> improvement.
>
>You think the R&D groups at large companies use a Monte Carlo approach
>to product design? They don't. They ask customers what improvements
>they would like to see. And they know that if they make the
>improvements, the customers will like them, because the customers told
>them. You seem to be alleging that companies never talk to their
>customers, and that there is no connection between what consumers want
>and what products come to market. That is clearly incorrect.
Nobody said you should't research your market. If you're so incredibly
naive as to think that this allows you to simply consciously design a
superior product, then you overestimate the amount of time and materials
available to a manufacturer. I'm alleging that all the talk in the
world isn't going to guarantee your product isn't a steaming pile of
dung. The only connection between what the consumer wants and what
comes to market can most accurately be described as "a best guess".
>> >The court says that if you "grow"--which means you are
>> >almost certainly increasing your market power--by making a superior
>> >product, you are not in violation.
>>
>> Correct. Growing by making a superior product has nothing whatsoever to
>> do with increasing market *share*. It isn't illegal to grow market
>> *size* (the number of people buying your products.)
>
>They are often the same. I don't find it useful to distinguish between
>them; in fact, I would suggest you are approaching the point of playing
>pointless games with semantics. Clearly the court didn't distinguish
>between them. They didn't specify what "growth" meant. They didn't
>say, "growth, but not market share growth".
The difference is that decisions based on one are competitive; decisions
based on the other are anti-competitive, and thus illegal. What they
said is "willful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power as
distinguished from growth". Which is to say "intentional growth of
market share as opposed to growth of market size", if you understand it
correctly.
>> Are you trying to say that "as long as its 'growth and development', it
>> cannot be 'willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power'"?
>
>Obviously not. The text is quite clear. Growth and development are not
>'willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power' ***IF*** they are
>achieved through development of superior products, business acumen, etc.
You have it the other way around. Growth and development are achieved
by superior product, business acumen, etc. Willful acquisition and
maintenance of monopoly power is NOT. Actions designed to purposefully
increase market share are not actions designed to increase market size.
You are right, that the same actions could be the result of either
design. As described in repeated detail by Supreme Court decisions, it
is the *class of actions which lead to monopoly* which are outlawed, not
those same actions when they lead to market growth. The same action
might be illegal, or might be legal, depending on why you are doing it.
Or, rather, depending on if it has the effect of decreasing or
increasing competition. You aren't allowed to purposefully decrease
competition.
Any anti-competitive action falls into "willful acquisition, etc."; any
pro-competitive action is considered normal growth and development of a
business. You are only allowed to act competitively. Competitive
actions do not make reference to market share; it doesn't matter how
much someone *else* is selling, it only matters how much *you* are
selling.
The free market is, indeed, a competition which you're not allowed to
"win".
--
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
******************************
