Linux-Advocacy Digest #853, Volume #28 Sun, 3 Sep 00 05:13:04 EDT
Contents:
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: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Eric Bennett)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Courageous)
Re: HOTMAIL Hacked? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Courageous)
Re: HOTMAIL Hacked? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 03:53:01 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> > So your contention is that all contributors to the KDE project are all
>> > as biased as you are, and incapable of providing an unbiased viewpoint
>> > (and therefore generally incompetent to have an opinion)?
>>
>> No. To anyone who actually reads what I write, I say that I am biased.
>> No more, no less. You have a taste for undue induction, don't you?
>
>Everyone is biased. Few are willing (or able) to admit it, even
>(especially) to themselves.
Whether they can admit it is not the issue; whether they do it is the
issue. Everyone is not biased the same amount; some are fair and just
and honest to greater degrees than others. Being able to admit to your
bias is not the same as celebrating it. I would generally expect that
those who celebrate it are more biased, and may tend to psychopathic
self-rationalization.
>So far, Roberto, I haven't read anything unreasoned, unjustified or
>illogical in any of your posts - however, I must say your propensity of
>attacking brick walls could have harmful effects later in life :).
You've said that before. It seems you consider trying to argue with me
to be like attacking a brick wall. That would not surprise me; I should
hope that from your position, of weak arguments from ignorance, it
should.
--
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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 03:57:52 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
[...]
>If your trouble is, as it seems, that it makes it hard for you
>to clone Qt, that's your problem, not TT's, not mine, not
>KDE's. Yours.
How does having the code open make it harder to clone? Why would a
clean-room process even be necessary?
--
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: Eric Bennett <[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 03:58:52 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> 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".
Yes, but the courts' interpretation of "monopoliation" doesn't include
the kinds of things listed as exceptions by the Supreme Court in
Grinnell.
> 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.
Sure, but if it *does* turn out to be a superior product, are you in
violation of the law if your market share happens to increase from 60%
to 80% as a result?
> >> 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.
So if the DOJ uncovers an internal document that says, "I bundled
Internet Explorer with Windows because I wanted to grow sales", it's
legal, but if they uncover an internal document that says, "I bundled
Internet Explorer with Windows because I wanted to increase market
share", it's illegal?
The decision is the same, but the basis for each decision is different
in the manner you described.
> >> 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.
No, the problem I'm trying to get at is that "growth" and "acquisition
of monopoly power" are not mutually exclusive. What happens when both
have occurred? Apparently where we stand is that I say there is no
violation, and you say there is.
> The same action
> might be illegal, or might be legal, depending on why you are doing it.
Yes, but not to the level of my example above.
> The free market is, indeed, a competition which you're not allowed to
> "win".
You're allowed to have 100% market share... that sounds like winning to
me.
Here is some material from the book "Antitrust Basics". Emphasis mine:
======
In order to be guilty of monopolization, a company must do something
more than obtain OR MAINTAIN a dominant share of the market. Both the
Sherman Act and the FTC Act are "conduct" statutes. . . . In other
words, the antitrust laws do not prohibit a market structure without
regard for how that market structure was created or is being maintained.
Thus, a company can enjoy 100 percent of a particular market without
being in violation of the antitrust laws. NEITHER THE SHERMAN ACT NOR
THE FTC ACT PROHIBIT MONOPOLIES PER SE. These statutes only prohibit
unlawful conduct that results in obtaining or maintaining monopoly power
or that constitutes an attempt or a combination or a conspiracy to
monopolize.
...
In United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (Cellophane), the
Supreme Court, in discussing the legislative history of the Sherman Act,
noted that the offense of monopolization involves something more than
extraordinary commercial success and requires the the use of some means
that make it impossible to for others to engage in fair competition.
THE COURT NOTED FURTHER THAT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE SHERMAN ACT
CLEARLY INDICATES THAT A MONOPOLY ACQUIRED AND MAINTAINED AS A RESULT OF
SUPERIOR SKILL AND INTELLIGENCE IS *****NOT ILLEGAL******.
The rationale for not condeming mere possession of a monopoly, without
more, under the antitrust laws is well stated in United States v.
Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa). The Alcoa opinion notes that the
courts have generally recognized that THE ORIGIN OF A MONOPOLY MAY BE
CRITICAL IN DETERMINING ITS LEGALITY, that the growth of an illegal
monopoly must be something other than "normal" or "natural", with some
evidence of wrongful intent or coercive or anticompetitive conduct.
...
Expanding the Alcoa rationale for not condeming "innocent" monopolies,
the Second Circuit later characterized the Alcoa court as finding that:
"...it would be inherently unfair to condemn success when the Sherman
Act itself mandates competition. Such a wooden rule, it is feared,
might also deprive the leading firm in an industry of the incentive to
exert its best efforts. Further success would yield not rewards, but
castigation. THE ANTITRUST LAWS WOULD THUS COMPEL THE VERY SLOTH THEY
WERE INTENDED TO PREVENT. We must always be mindful lest the Sherman
Act be invoked perversely in favor of those who seek protection against
the rigors of competition."
...
In order to violate the antitrust laws by monopolizing a market, a
company must not only possess monopoly power but must also have
willfully obtained or maintained monopoly power. The element of
willfullness has generally been interpreted as requiring some form of
predatory or anticompetitive conduct, as well as a showing of general
intent to monopolize.
...
If the monopoly power was acquired and is maintained as a result of
superior products or services or superior business skills or historic
accident, THIS WILL NEGATE A FINDING OF INTENT TO MONOPOLIZE.
======
Improving a product is not classified as anticompetitive behavior.
Thus, if you do create a superior product and you gain monopoly power as
a result, you have not violated the law under the standard give in the
quoted material above.
Here is a reference for the above:
http://catalog.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SC=Title&CNT=50+
records+per+page&SA=antitrust+basics&PID=17030&SEQ=20000903035238&HIST=1
I trust antitrust books I get out of the library more than I trust
usenet posts from T. Max Devlin. The books clearly say you are wrong.
If you still refuse to see the light, fine. I'm no longer going to try
to convince you otherwise. If you keep repeating these incorrect
arguments I may from time to time continue to correct you, solely for
the benefit of other readers, but I'm not going to actively debate this
with you any more.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
If I return people's greetings, I do so only to give them their greeting back.
-Karl Kraus
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[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 08:06:33 GMT
> >Maxlin's argument is that a company that acquires what we citizens
> >refer to as a monopoly through superior product, business acumen,
> >or serendipity is not, in fact, a monopoly. He rather doesn't mind
> >that he insists on using a definition of the word different than
> >the one that has been an use for almost five centuries.
> Ha. Five centuries.
Yes. The word monopoly has its first usage traced to the 16th
Century. Source: _Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary_.
C//
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: HOTMAIL Hacked?
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 04:10:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said abraxas in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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?)
>>
>
>Yes I do...Do you?
>
>If it had only been one (or possibly a very small handful) of DNS servers
>that had been tainted by this attack, you would have a point. However, it was
>many, many more than that, suggesting that the change was made on a slightly
>'larger scale' than was originally suggested in this thread.
Hmmm. Someone's missing something.
When you hack a DNS server, you change the 'home' server for the domain.
You go to the ISP that hosts the site, so to speak. Now, when anyone
anywhere goes to resolve that domain, their DNS server (presuming
eventually it doesn't have it cached) is going to query the root server,
and from that the 'home' server. Thus the hacked domain "propagates"
through the Internet. If you hack any other server, depending on the
chain of forward lookups, the hack can also propagate, but the
authoritative server for that domain is the only one that's going to
look like 'many many' points.
The scope of the 'attack' is determined by server you hack, in the
pseudo-heirarchical-ish topology of the DNS system. Since all sites are
'directly off the root', the caching and forwarding behavior of the
major ISPs servers for .com names are going to make the 'attack pattern'
rather random, depending on how long the hack lasts and how popular the
hacked server is.
So its this 'self-propogating' nature of DNS hacks that make it look
'large scale'. Its also what protects DNS from any major meltdown; no
one server can be changed to cause a sudden and complete change in any
domain resolution.
--
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: Courageous <[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 08:11:05 GMT
> I'll admit I do my fair share of tweaking, and I think I've made my
> typical response to ridicule pretty clear. But it is the communication
> part which I'm after, and the examination of cognitive dissonance,
> particularly in critical issues like networking, commerce, politics, and
> ethics. There's a whole lot of cognitive dissonance causing problems in
> our world, including issues facing the Internet, business, intellectual
> property, and morality. I'm anxious to help clear it up, and I've made
> quite a study of figuring out how to tell the difference between
> cognitive dissonance and just being mistaken.
>
> Get in the groove, 'C'. Stop ankle-biting and simply communicate
> effectively about something. I'm up for it.
I'm up for it, too. I should like to point out, that if you take
great care to note when you are using one word to mean something
when everyone else takes it to mean another, you will be communicating
more effectively. That's not ankle biting, and I don't mean any sort
negativity by it.
Furthermore, I think that you will be far more effective at communicating
effectively by giving the other side in the debate the benefit of the
doubt, and instead of leaping to the conclusion that what they are saying
is false, trying to figure out what it is that they are right *FOR*.
C//
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: HOTMAIL Hacked?
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 04:13:56 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chris in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Everything you said was good right up to the point where you started to talk
>about suppressing news about DNS attacks :)
Did you notice the fact that I was talking about softening reports of
DNS attacks, and didn't say anyone was 'suppressing news'?
Just how many reports have you heard about it, so far? It seems to be a
routine occurrence.
>> 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 04:27:20 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Rick in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
[...]
>Read your history. Your statement is untrue. People continue to buy
>"name-brand" consumer goods instead of saving. The country is at almost
>full employment. Statistically, it is at full employment. People DO have
>more money to use for private tuition then they have had in the past.
>
>
>> Thus, the public school systems are now actually being used by
>> the rich plutocrats to make sure that *only* their own kids have
>> a good education, and keep everyone else's kids dumb, apathetic,
>> and dependant....at their OWN expense!
>>
>
>This is untrue.
Ironic you should say that, considering your previous mention of 'name
brand' purchasing. Aaron is excessive, of course, as always, but there
may be some truth to the underlying issue. Read this:
http://www.freep.com/news/metro/dicker30_20000830.htm
"The real problem, he says, is that the privileged minority that
dominates the country's political life has little or no incentive to
provide the kind of educational opportunity that enables poor and
working-class children to rise above their station."
"To many marketing executives, after all, the 8-year-old I overheard is
the ideal citizen-spender -- intelligent enough to apprehend the
difference between the new Nintendo and its predecessor, but not so
assertive as to challenge the manufacturer's assurances that newer is
necessarily better.
Perhaps the real reason Johnny can't read is that -- particularly in
the eyes of those whose children enjoy alternatives to failing public
schools -- Johnny already reads well enough."
[...]
--
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 03:42:52 -0500
"Thomas Corriher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 20:11:12 -0500,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> (My first post was accidently addressed toward Steve.)
>
> >Which is exactly the same way it works under Windows.
>
> This is ridictlously false. Let me repeat *ridictlously*.
You mean ridiculously.
> Please educate us on how MS Windo~1 dynamically restructures
> memory so that the maximum amount of memory is always
> utilized. Educate us, of the ignorant Linux masses.
System cache memory is discardable under windows. Several algorithms are
used, but generally if there is not enough physical memory left to allocate
the memory request, Windows NT will do one of three things 1) Discard
discardable memory segments that have not been used recently (examples of
this would be resource data), 2) Discard the least recently used system
cache pages. and 3) Page out data to the swap file. (generally in that
order or precedence).
Which action it does depends on factors such as how frequently or how
recently a page has been used.
Now, what exactly about this is "ridictlously false"?
> Erik, you obviously do not understand how temporary data storage
> (memory) works in general, and therefore, not not understand how
> it is used in either Windows or Linux. I am not being mean here;
> just honest. To the technical people here, who do understand,
> your arguements make you look very stupid. You are "the emperor
> without clothes".
I love how you state this without providing a single reason why it's true,
much less any evidence to support such a conclusion.
> What makes you look the most foolish is that you are arguing
> about how graphical systems use memory with a developer on the
> KDE project. (HINT: KDE is a graphical/windowing sub-system).
I know exactly who i'm discussing this with. The message you responded to
was my response to Steve Mading. Steve is not listed on the KDE website as
being a KDE developer, nor does his message indicate in any way that he is.
Robert Alsina is a KDE developer, but this message was not in response to
him. Are YOU sure you know who you're talking about?
> I think he probably has a pretty good understanding of what
> he is talking about. You could even say that he is a master.
I'm sure he is. That doesn't make him an expert on NT though (he may be,
but I don't know this).
> How many windowing operating system components have you coded?
> How many memory management sub-systems have you designed that
> cooperate with a networked, multi-platform, windowing system?
> We already know the answer, so you do not need to answer.
> Would you like to argue with Linus about how kernels work
> while you are at it?
I'm not trying to tell anyone how Linux or KDE works. I'm not arguing about
such. I'm talking about NT and how *IT* handles memory.
> To put it bluntly: You are _WAY_ out of your league.
And how would you know?
> By the way, I can limit how much memory my users are allowed
> to use on my system by simply editing the "limits.conf" file.
> How is this done in Windo~1? I am just curious, of course. :)
> Notice also that the file name ends with 4 characters since
> I am allowed any file name I choose.
You clearly have no idea how NT works, do you? Apart from the fact that
you're confusing the VFAT filesystem of Win9x with NT, you also are not
getting the name right. Windows is 7 characters and would not use the name
mangling scheme you are trying to so cutely portray.
------------------------------
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] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 04:29:39 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Rick in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 17:25:00 -0400, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
[...]
>> >If you delete 25% of the public school budget, you might as well close
>> >public schools.
>>
>> Then close some schools.
>> As a "stab in the dark": howabout ~ 25% of them.
>
>How about fixing the parents and students instead?
Well, we seem to be converging on the confusion. How do you 'fix'
parents and students, indeed citizens, the community?
Public education, of course. Hmmm....
--
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 03:47:37 -0500
"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :>> Ever heard of POSIX, sweetheart?
> :>
> :> Yes, NT supports it, sugarplum.
> :
> : So people keep telling me. I have yet to see one POSIX app running
under
> : NT in any official capacity though, even by govt. organizations which
use
> : NT *because* of the POSIX lib ports.
>
> I've been told, but haven't yet researched myself, that NT's POSIX
> libraries are all but completely incompatible with much of the
> standard Win32 libs. IOW, MS implemented them only upto the point
> of being able to pass the tests, but explicitly hobbled them enough
> so that they are nearly useless for practical work. Such things
> like POSIX fork() being incompatible with NT's networking libraries.
If you're writing a POSIX app, why would you want to use Win32? That's not
POSIX compliant.
The whole point of POSIX is to be portable. How can you be portable if
you're using Win32?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 03:59:47 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Marc Andreesen detailing plans to release Netscape for free from the
start
> >(a position that he reiterates in a recent issue of Wired where he was
> >interviewed about LoudCloud) -- Netscape never intended to sell their
> >browser initially; they were going to make all their money off the
server.
>
> That isn't a fact in evidence. It was presented as evidence, by
> Microsoft, but the Judge managed to notice that it has little to do with
> the facts of the case. He pointed this out in his Conclusions of Law:
>
> "Although the Court's Findings do not specify a dollar amount of
> business that has been foreclosed to any particular present or potential
> competitor of Microsoft in the relevant market,(5) including Netscape,
> the Court did find that Microsoft's bundling practices caused
> Navigator's usage share to drop substantially from 1995 to 1998, and
> that as a direct result Netscape suffered a severe drop in revenues from
> lost advertisers, Web traffic and purchases of server products."
This ignores the fact that "MS's bunding practices" did *NOT* cause
Navigators usage share to drop substantially from 1995-1997. Only in
1997-1998 (and beyond) did IE actually start to gain more than a token
amount of marketshare.
Clearly it was not MS's bundling practices that were causing the share, or
else the market share would have dropped substatially from day 1 of IE's
release in Windows (August 25th, 1995).
> >Netscape market figures actually being much higher than claimed by
Netscape
> >management in court.
>
> How is that relevant, and why would we believe Microsoft's figures and
> not Netscapes or the Department of Justices?
You probably shouldn't believe either of them. Both are biased in different
directions.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
