Linux-Advocacy Digest #857, Volume #28 Sun, 3 Sep 00 12:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] ("2 + 2")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Bob Germer)
Re: How low can they go...? (Reality is a point of view)
Re: Why I hate Windows... (Pan)
Re: Computer and memory ("Chad Myers")
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[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, 3 Sep 2000 11:16:54 -0400
T. Max Devlin wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Said 2 + 2 in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
> [...]
>>>No, that's what was discussed in "Microsoft II", the Consent Decree
>>>case. In the current case, "tech tying" never entered into it. Judge
>>>Jackson, based on the advice of the District Court, did not use the
>>>'tech tying' per se rule, relying instead on the 'rule of reason'.
>>
>>Did the judge cite Max as the source for the "rule of reason" rule?
>>
>>What is "the advice of the District Court?"
>>Jackson is the District Court Judge.
>
>Sorry; I meant the Circuit Court. Are you unfamiliar with the "rule of
>reason"?
As business in the US became concentrated following the industrial
revolution, there were many who objected to bigness as such. Certainly the
original antitrust law concerned "trusts" that were set up simply to corner
markets.
In relation to United States v. U.S. Steel Corporation (1920), Justice
Joseph McKenna asserted the “rule of reason” as a nice name for the
principle that only business entities that are in unreasonable restraint of
trade are illegal.
Where in Jackson's Conclusions of Law do you see him rely on this "rule of
reason" principle to settle the tying issue? In legal jargon, it doesn't
"cut" that way, ie it's not useful in that regard.
This basic principle, ie that only monopoly action that prevents competition
is illegal, is not disputed by the parties. It is expressed in the Grinnell
passage you have cited.
"Rule of reason" has a nice sound. It is from an era when judges liked to
gussy up their decision with great sounding material, especially Cardoza.
Jackson bases his decision on his finding that the browser is a separate
product, not a feature.
See IIA Tying at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
"While the Court agrees with plaintiffs, and thus holds that Microsoft is
liable for illegal tying under § 1, this conclusion is arguably at variance
with a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a
closely related case, and must therefore be explained in some detail.
Whether the decisions are indeed inconsistent is not for this Court to say."
. . .
"The court of appeals' observations on the extent to which software product
design decisions may be subject to judicial scrutiny in the course of § 1
tying cases are in the strictest sense obiter dicta, and are thus not
formally binding."
. . .
"Read literally, the D.C. Circuit's opinion appears to immunize any product
design (or, at least, software product design) from antitrust scrutiny,
irrespective of its effect upon competition, if the software developer can
postulate any "plausible claim" of advantage to its arrangement of code. 147
F.3d at 950."
Then Jackson goes on to say that the Supreme Court Jefferson Parish and
Eastman Kodak cases "trump" the appeals court. These are "services" cases
where those who wanted to use the hospital or get replacement parts had to
take additional services.
Jackson is not saying a service is involved in the Microsoft case, he is
using the principles by analogy.
Finally, Jackson cites the reasons for the tech tying view:
"The Court is fully mindful of the reasons for the admonition of the D.C.
Circuit in Microsoft II of the perils associated with a rigid application of
the traditional "separate products" test to computer software design. Given
the virtually infinite malleability of software code, software upgrades and
new application features, such as Web browsers, could virtually always be
configured so as to be capable of separate and subsequent installation by an
immediate licensee or end user. A court mechanically applying a strict
"separate demand" test could improvidently wind up condemning "integrations"
that represent genuine improvements to software that are benign from the
standpoint of consumer welfare and a competitive market. Clearly, this is
not a desirable outcome. Similar concerns have motivated other courts, as
well as the D.C. Circuit, to resist a strict application of the "separate
products" tests to similar questions of "technological tying." See, e.g.,
Foremost Pro Color, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 703 F.2d 534, 542-43 (9th
Cir. 1983); Response of Carolina, Inc. v. Leasco Response, Inc., 537 F.2d
1307, 1330 (5th Cir. 1976); Telex Corp. v. IBM Corp., 367 F. Supp. 258, 347
(N.D. Okla. 1973)."
Of course, Jackson does not go on the exterpolate the principles in these
cases. :)
And that's why he wanted the case to go to the Supreme Court. Jackson knows
what a mess he has made of this case.
>>>The
>>>only question before any appellate court is whether or not the rule of
>>>reason conviction stands, without reference to the "effect/benefit"
>>>question previously used in product tying cases.
>>
>>Actually, there are a large number of issues, including a number of
>>procedural and evidenciary issues as well as legal issues related to
>>antitrust law.
>
>Yes, and I've again been re-thinking the Supreme Court review question.
>This is a landmark decision, and they did previously review every
>anti-trust case; it probably makes sense that they'd have some reason to
>do so.
>
>>>Recognizing that the
>>>MS II contradiction of his ruling was not acceptable in the unique case
>>>of software, Jackson relied on the precedent of service tying, rather
>>>than product tying, as upheld by the Supreme Court in earlier cases
>>>against Jefferson Parish and Kodak.
>>
>>There's no service tying here. That when a company with a monopoly on a
>>product, makes the buyer take "services" as well. Are you referring to
some
>>principles from these cases.
>
>Jackson did. I think the ambiguity of software makes it very compatible
>with the precedent. The Parish case was a hospital that bundled
>anesthesiology with surgery, and Kodak tried to bundle service contracts
>with copiers (there was product involved, obviously). The crucial issue
>in Parish was that the market wanted to purchase it separately,
>regardless of the efficiencies. The hospital cited convenience,
>minimizing confusion, and lowered cost as justifications, and the court
>held that the benefits were not sufficient, considering there was no
>evidence at any other hospitals that there was a desire to so 'simplify'
>the billing process. In the Kodak case, they wanted to refuse to sell
>spare parts to you unless you had a service contract with them. This
>forestalled third party support on their copiers, and was disallowed;
>Kodak had to sell spare parts to anyone who wanted them.
This is the problem with using principles from cases that are not directly
on point.
Do these principles extrapolate to tech tying cases? That will be the
question if tech tying is found.
The browser is actually the web middleware client. An interesting tech point
is the effect Microsoft's .NET platform might have on the question.
Will the .NET Platform be integrated in the browser or OS?
Will there be .NET computers sold? If so, hopefully they will work better
than JavaStations. :)
If .NET computers are sold, will they run on Linux and Apple as well as
Windows?
>
>>The appeals ruling, strictly speaking, was simply "dicta" (legal reasoning
>>that is extraneous to the actual decision) since the actual ruling turned
on
>>Jackson's failure to provide any notice before he "sue sponte" (on his own
>>motion) issued a preliminary injunction.
>
>That was silly, it seems. Perhaps he was actually trying to prompt the
>Circuit Court into giving him an expectation of their reasoning on the
>simple 'integration' issue. Their response seems to have been "yes,
>integration is bundling, but it isn't subject to the per se technical
>tying rule".
I assume you mean the Federal Circuit. Circuit Court is the term for local
courts.
>
>>Actually Judge Jackson was so concerned about the "tech tying" issue that
he
>>brought in Lawence Lessig, the "master" rejected by the appeal court for
>>bias, to prepare a brief on the specific issue (a nice little middle
finger
>>to the appeals court :) ).
>
>More like a tip of the hat to the appellate court, maybe.
>
>>Lessig basically tried to suggest a "competition" justification for
>>rejecting the "tech tying" doctrine, although Lessig added that the case
law
>>generally favored Microsoft.
>
>Where are you abstracting this from?
I read Lessig's brief.
>Lessig's suggestion would
>certainly have needed to go to the Supreme Court; Jackson may as well
>have left it open for them and not even convicted.
>
>>Now Lessig's "competition" justification for disallowing "tech tying" has
>>about as much chance of survival as a snowball in Hades.
>
>I don't think so. Like copyright law and 'promote development',
>judicial decisions on anti-trust is often directly guided by
>'anti-competitive' consideration. This is, in the end, I think, the
>"rule of reason". If the action results in decreased competition (and
>they knew it would and wanted it to), it was anti-competitive, and
>restraint of trade.
>
>>Consider the modern economy. We can play "Max" games like the village
idiot
>>for our favorite cause, but the economy is filled with market leaders that
>>improve products by adding features based on new technologies, etc.
>
>Hey, you won't get an argument from me. Its also full of people who
>think that the goal of such competition is to "win", rather than to
>engage in competition.
>
>>For example, copiers, and thousands of other products, keep improving with
>>new features while the price goes down. This greatly benefits consumers.
It
>>is an important process to our standard of living.
>>
>>If every market leading company was kept from adding features because it
was
>>an illegal maintenance of its monopoly, then our most successful companies
>>would be greatly impaired to the detriment of the consumer.
>
>I'm not following you. Are you saying that enforcement of anti-trust
>laws somehow decreases the features of the market leading products? No
>market leader has ever been kept from adding features because it is an
>illegal maintenance of a monopoly. But the only difference between that
>an a monopoly willfully acquiring or maintaining monopoly power is
>whether there is more competition or less, when the smoke clears.
>Honestly.
If the "bundled" features make a separate product with a different relevant
market, then such features would be disallowed.
>Now you know why they call it "market power", and why it can be better
>not to get too much of it, if you're not very careful. And why
>companies that do have a lot of it, by nature, because they compete in a
>market which can support few producers, are very very careful about
>every action they take, in view of anti-trust law.
>>What makes these companies maintain market share by using revenues to do
>>research and add features? Well guess what, it's the COMPETITION. So
Lessig
>>is not going to impress the appeals court.
>
>Or maybe its their desire to decrease the amount of competition they
>have?
Of course, they are trying to do this. That's the whole point. It's good for
the consumer even if their motivation is bad. It's basic Adam Smith and the
invisible hand, ie greed promoting a higher standard of living.
>That's going to impress any federal judge; its half-way to a
>conviction when that happens. You better be pretty damn sure that a
>whole lot of people really LOVE the new features, and practically nobody
>complains about it.
You're confusing modern media and their views as opposing to what makes the
economy successful.
>In fact, it'd be best if you kept selling a version
>without the new features, just in case. Wouldn't want to give a
>competitor an easy market opportunity; if you don't sell it without the
>feature, someone else can sell one without the feature.
>
>What's that you say? Nobody else can sell one of those without the
>feature? Uh-oh. Think fast; federal judges don't like "but this makes
>it 'superior'!" when the prosecution has half a dozen witnesses that
>told you they didn't want the feature added to the product to begin
>with, and would just as soon like to be able to get one somewhere else,
>anyway. If you don't have an active 'pro-competitive' anti-trust
>compliance program, or a chinese wall, or something... you are fried,
>dude.
Your thinking is the very "cause" oriented material that requires that we
have good legal distinctions so the economy can flourish despite such
thinking.
The cases distinguish between situations that are beneficial and harmful.
>>You know, unlike Judge Jackson, who is in his middle 60's and not one of
the
>>brightest guys, the Federal Circuit appeals court handles not only routine
>>federal matters (appeals from District Courts like Judge Jackson's), like
>>all the other circuits around the country, but has a special jurisdiction
>>that handles everything from federal claims to patent appeals.
>>
>>This court is used to complex issues. The judges are very conversant with
>>the many complexities of the modern economy.
>
>Which I assume would justify that little 'tying test' fandango. Anyway,
>the point is that the Circuit court said "it isn't per se technical
>tying, and we have no grounds for any other examination".
The Federal Circuit indeed said it WAS a case of technical tying, even
though they added that the case had not been heard in full (and thereby
rendering their opinion as dicta). Even Jackson recognized this, see the
opinion I inserted above.
>Jackson had
>the grounds, made the examination, and convicted the tying on precedent
>and rule of reason, not the per se test.
Per se is not a test. Per se simply means "by itself." The "rule of reason"
was not specifically involved; the "services" cases cited were.
You keep using the "rule of reason" when it's point opposes your view that
mere possession of a monopoly is illegal.
>>Unlike the Max, who stumbles over simple interpretations and then
>>pontificates to cover his errors with nice sounding concepts, these judges
>>have spent their careers as top lawyers, then usually judges at the trial
>>level, before being selected to the appeals court.
>
>Yea, so I'm not a federal justice. What's your point? Are you saying
>you know what the judges will say better than I?
Without a doubt.
>Have you spent your
>career as a top lawyer? Or are you one of those really bright people
>who just sort of assume that the previous decision and this are
>'obviously' the same and so will 'obviously' work like your 'popular
>wisdom' says they will.
>
>I've done the research, clown. Quit with the childish attempts at
>ridicule.
>
>>They are used to slicing and dicing intricate, complex multi-tiered
issues,
>>that would have the Max drolling like the village idiot and dispensing
>>homilies and cliches to cover his intellectual incompetence.
>
>I'd like to see them create a set of NerveCenter behavior models to
>monitor the VCCs and LANE ports for NCR's ATM backbone...
>
>>In other words, these judges spend their lives cutting through all the
>>craptrap that Max loves so dearly.
>
>You moron. Its the 'popular wisdom' that's a clap-trap. You've
>presumed the law is so easy, you can put it in a cliche and it will
>still makes sense.
>
>>And pity a lawyer or judge who tries the
>>"apples and oranges" game. You know, just when the "apple" construct is
tied
>>down such that the Max loses, he switches to "oranges" and goes on about
his
>>merry way in triumph.
>
>Bullshit; you're fantasizing now.
>
>>Since the judge has the power, such lawyers that play these "village
idiot"
>>games don't go far. The clients fire them.
>
>Well, 'village idiot' (I hate reaching for the plus sign key on this
>keyboard, so that's your new name, OK?) its gonna be fun if your still
>here when what happens, happens. I'm not going to be surprised, I'll
>tell you that. I wonder if you will.
>
>--
>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! =-----
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 15:21:02 GMT
On 09/03/2000 at 02:51 AM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Phil B) said:
> The voucher proposal (and other, similar privatization plans for
> resolving the deficits of the public education system...), assumes that
> such alternatives exist pretty much everywhere and would be universally
> accessible to families wishing to use them. -- Yet, has this ever been
> documented for relatively more remote areas (vs. places like New Jersey
> and Detroit....), like in Iowa or Nebraska or Montana or Idaho, where it
> is pretty much guaranteed in advance that two well-run Quaker private
> schools per district (as in Bob's NJ example...), will forever remain a
> statistical anomaly?... :-|
Well, New Jersey's experience is far from an anomoly. I only cited 4
private schools. I omitted at least a dozen others! Students from the
Burlington area attend, inter alia, Lawrenceville, Hun, Bishop Eustace (a
Roman Catholic Prep School not supported by the Diocese in any financial
way), Villa Victoria (RC - Run by Nuns without any Church provided
funding), Way of Life (a non-sectarian completely independent Christian
K-12 school), Kingsway Academy, Princeton Day and a handful of other
Christian schools.
And, we are in a suburban area where farming is still our largest cash
producing activity!
Our experience is typical of virtually all of New Jersey. On the opposite
side of the Delaware River in Pennsylvania within 20 miles of any point in
the Delaware Valley it is safe to say that parents have a much wider
choice of private schools, both non-sectarian and church related. I
attended Malvern Preparatory School, a school originally started by the
Augustinians but now owned and run by a lay board of trustees. It is one
of 9 secondary schools in an athletic league called the InterAc League.
And in the immediate vicinity (20 miles) there are other private schools
such as Devon Prep, the Baldwin School, Agnes Irwin, Holy Child Rosemont,
Holy Child Sharon Hill, Merion Mercy, Notre Dame Villanova, St. Josephs
Prep, LaSalle Prep, Phelps, St. Aloysius, etc.
Moreover, throughout New Jersey and Pennsylvania, many Catholic parishes
have elementary schools and both the Dioceses of Trenton and Camden have
parochial high schools. In the Archdiocese of Phildelphia there are well
over 100 parish elementary schools and a couple dozen or more
Archdiocesean high schools.
And in addition to these, both Pennsylvania and New Jersey have instituted
Charter Schools. These are independent schools, mostly in low income
areas, set up and run by parents who do get funding from the school
district in which they are located.
One of my daughters lives in central Missouri. The area is very poor with
a 3 bedroom, 2 bath, air conditioned home with a garage on a third of an
acre with public water and sewerage can be purchased for under $69,000.
Three of my grandchildren attend a private school while the fourth does
attend the local high school. She had a choice of four different private
schools to which she could send the kids.
One of my grandson's lives with his maternal grandmother on an Indian
Reservation about 40 miles from Santa Fe. He could attend school on the
Reservation, he could attend a public school about 30 miles away, or he
could attend five different private schools in Santa Fe. Remember, he
would only be 10 miles farther from home to go to Santa Fe than to attend
the nearest public, non-reservation, school. In fact, many of his
classmates live more than 50 miles from the public school given the
twisting, winding nature of mountain roads in north-central New Mexico.
And I had forgotten to mention that in the Delaware Valley which
encompasses 10 counties in three states, there are also dozens of Hebrew
academies in addition to the independent, Christian, and Catholic schools
mentioned above. And when you go north from the Delaware Valley in
Pennsylvania, you enter the Lehigh Valley which also abounds with private
schools, parochial schools, etc. In New Jersey north of our area one
enters into a realm of even more private, charter, and parochial (all
types) of schools.
I want to emphasize something else. When I attended elementary school, I
had as many as 84 classmates in two grades in a single classroom! After
fourth grade, we were all one grade, but by the time I reached 8th grade,
our classroom had 69 students in it. Only one, a mentally handicapped
student who now lives in a sheltered workshop/home setup, failed to
graduate from high school
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Reality is a point of view)
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, 03 Sep 2000 15:23:18 GMT
+---- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (Sun, 03 Sep 2000 14:56:42 GMT):
| "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
| > Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
| > >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
| > [...]
| > >Left to their own devices, markets correct themselves. Individual
| > >companies don't stay focused long enough to stay on top long term.
| <snip>
| That was a really nice soliloquy, but you didn't come up with an actual
| example
+----
OBJS?
--
Gary Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Privacy on the net is still illegal.
<a href=http://www.squeak.org>Tired of selfish technology monopolies?</a>
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 08:31:40 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What does one need to do to properly configure their machine to prevent
#'s 1-4? How does one reconcile the 10% of "properly configured systems
against the 90% that aren't? On the plus side, since win98se, I don't
get BSOD'd anymore. I guess Bill was sick of that joke and decided to
quit giving information on a winfreeze. Now when windows crashes, it
just locks out all i/o ( keyboard, mouse, modem ) without any
explanation.
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Anthony Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ZUqs5.2417$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > After using Linux for many months now, I have recently had to use W*ndoze
> > for a couple of days. These are just a few things that made me realize why
> I
> > started to use Linux in the first place
> >
> > 1. I have had to reboot many more times in one day of W*ndoze use (4)
> than
> > many months of Linux use (0)
> > 2. Linux does not crash when you attempt to browse your OWN hard drive -
> let
> > alone a network one
> > 3.Linux does not kill itself when you try to run an old console app,
> unlike
> > w*ndoze with DOS
> > 4. Linux dialup connections do not mysteriously stop working whilst in
> use.
> > 5. Linux does not suffer massive disk fragmentation in basic non demanding
> > use
>
> Of these 5 things, only number 5 applies to a properly configured machine.
> My windows 98SE box hasn't been rebooted in almost 3 weeks with regular
> useage. My NT4 box over a month. My 2000 box I just rebooted a few days
> ago for SCSI driver update.
>
> And as for #5, if your task is so undemanding, fragmentation shouldn't
> matter. If you're so anal that you must check your disk fragmentation after
> only using Windows for a few hours, then I suggest you actually try to get
> some work done instead.
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 16:04:49 GMT
"Person 7" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:06:58 +0200, in comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,
> ("Olivier Borgeaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >2. Memory is actually very cheap
>
> Memory is NOT cheap
Comparatively speaking, it's very cheap.
With PC100 prices flirting with $1/MB,
it's very cheap.
-Chad
------------------------------
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: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 12:01:59 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> > But the software industry has about the
> >> > lowest barrier to entry of any product in existence.
> >>
> >> Tell that to DRI.
> >
> >Tell it to the thousands of developers thriving by only having to create
> >products for the Windows Operating System. How many would be out of
business
> >if faced with the task of designing for 100 operating systems each with
1%
> >of the market.
>
> OK. Fine. I'm good with that. Because it will be the best 1% that are
> left. Competition. Go figure.
>
> >Tell it to the developers showcased here: http://download.cnet.com/ who
are
> >thriving BECAUSE there's one main standard.
>
> Tell it to Blue Mountain. Tell it to Real.
>
> Tell it to friggen Netscape.
>
> I mean, how stupid can you be?
>
> [...]
> >No it shouldn't
> >Support rests with the company selling the final package.
>
> Support rests with whoever the customer has paid to do it.
>
> >When I take my
> >Ford in to the dealer to fix a faulty chip I don't expect them to give me
> >the support phone number of the chip manufacturer.
>
> That's because you don't have a goddamn license with the chip
> manufacturer.
>
> >If I bought an OEM computer (which I wouldn't) I'd expect them to back up
> >the whole package and not pass the support for that product on to the 100
or
> >so manufacturers which provided the components of the computer.[...]
>
> Yea, and you'd kind of hope they could live up to that expectation,
> wouldn't you. Too bad they can't. And it Microsoft's fault. They did
> it on purpose, in fact.
Why do you love Microsoft so much that you CHOOSE to use their products, yet
you do so kicking and screaming the whole way Max? Go and download a Linux
distribution and shut the F*#$ up! Need links? It's really not that hard to
rid yourself of any and all Microsoft products Max. I've got several
versions sitting here. Here's Mandrake 7.1 which was a two cd download would
you like me to mail it to you so you can stop complaining about the OS you
continually choose on a daily basis. Get a clue.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
