Linux-Advocacy Digest #862, Volume #28 Sun, 3 Sep 00 18:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Computer and memory ("Chad Myers")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Rick)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Why I hate Windows...
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Rick)
Re: Computer and memory (Grega Bremec)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Rick)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Rick)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why I hate Windows... (Mig)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 17:09:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> When you say "there's nothing wrong with it", you are forgetting that
>> whether something is a violation of anti-trust law, namely the Sherman
>> Act, it is the *character* of the activity, not its putative business
>> justification, which is outlawed. There's nothing wrong with creating a
>> superset of a standard, so long as it is not done to restrain trade,
>> monopolize, or attempt to monopolize. If it is willfully executed for
>> anti-competitive purposes, it is a criminal activity, regardless of the
>> number of potential ways and means which another occurrence of that
>> described action by some other company in some other circumstance,
>> similar or not, might use it as a competitive mechanism.
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with designing and marketing a superior product;
>> as long as it isn't a willful attempt to acquire or maintain monopoly
>> power. It doesn't matter how many extra features or how much said
>> compatibility there was. What matters is whether it encouraged
>> competition or discouraged competition.
>
>Keberos support is only provided on Windows 2000. Which is not considered a
>monopoly by any court. So your criteria for whether or not their extension
>of the standard is *legal* is completely and totally invalid.
Hogwash. Your assumption that 'it takes a court to make a monopoly' is
bogus. W2K is a PC OS from Microsoft; that makes it part of the
monopoly, and the one considered by the current court (and illegal).
You'll have to brush up on your understanding of the concept of "the
relevant market". Hint: it has nothing to do with the name of the
product or who produced it.
>So what we have now is: did they follow the spec?
>
>The answer is: YES, they did.
No, the question is: are they being competitive?
And the answer is: No, they're being anti-competitive.
>Therefore, they were compliant with the spec. You can feel free to bitch and
>moan and say they weren't playing fair, but as with contracts, if it wasn't
>specified correctly, then oh well -- tough crap -- you signed it, you live
>with it.
Well, see, normally, of course, you'd be mostly correct. 'Fact is,
contract won't do you any good if you're monopolizing; nor will
copyright, nor patent.
Would you like some supporting quotes, or have you finally realized that
if you can't manage to read through even one entire Supreme Court
decision, you haven't really much to say concerning either anti-trust or
contract.
>In short, Microsoft strictly did nothing wrong. Sure, it may leave a bad
>taste in your mouth, but hey, that's life.
Its just that kind of pretense that causes the Sherman Act to be such a
frequent subject of federal court precedent. You cannot judge whether
the action was wrong in the abstract. Whether it 'violated' a standard
spec, whether it was supported by a contract, whether it added
features.... These are all meaningless in the eyes of the court. The
only thing they're concerned with in judging anti-trust is: did it
inhibit competition? If it was anti-competitive, it is illegal, if it
was pro-competitive, it is legal. This, again, is where the fallacy of
'legal monopoly' comes in.
The court listens to what the defendant has to say about whether they
did something wrong, strictly or otherwise. Then they examine the
evidence, determine the relevant market, and decide if the defendant was
trying to restrain trade. That is all; its not the actions, its the
class of actions: any action which restrains trade is illegal, and any
contract which restrains trade is null and void.
--
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: "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 21:16:07 GMT
Perhaps you should be writing your government then.
It's not America's fault your country(ies) are behind
in technology.
-Chad
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ou7hr$7rb21$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Chad, there are other people in the world besides americans.
> >
>
>
> Try telling that to microsoft - Not everyone can afford the internet call
> cost to download a 50mb service pack every few months as most countries
> don't have free internet calls and ISDN or above connection speeds (luckily
> for me I have free access in evenings and at weekends but these downloads
> would still take me at least a week).
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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 17:10:52 -0400
"Joe R." wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Joe R." wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Joe R." wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >At the present time, public schools are massively
> > > > > > > >under-funded.
> > > > > > > >Class
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yet those private schools seem to do more with less.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, they dont. Private schools have MORE $/student than public
> > > > > > schools.
> > > > > > Public schools have always done more eith less, especially K-12.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think you'd have to back that up.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well... Im not going to go do all the research for you... but I'll
> > > > tell
> > > > you what to look for.
> > >
> > > You made the assertion. (Actually, jdei started it by saying public
> > > schools are massively underfunded and you supported him) Please feel
> > > free to back it up.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Check the tuition prices for the private schools. Then check your
> > > > local
> > > > schoolboard budget. You will see that the private schools have more
> > > > money.
> > >
> > > Not the school my kids used to go to. $3,300 tuition vs. an average
> > > public school budget of well over $7 K in that county.
> > >
> >
> > You have a school that survives on $7000?
>
> Actually, less than that. The tuition was $3300 and they said the
> endowment contributed just a little less than the tuition.
>
... thats $7000 per student per year?
> For probably the best private school in the county.
>
> >
> > > Even with endowment money, the private school was less.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You can also check what one FTE 9full time eqivalency) is in your
> > > > home
> > > > state. That is the amount the state gives the school, or district per
> > > > student. Its not very much. The commercials now playing showing the
> > > > school teacher buying her own supplies is very real.
> > >
> > > That might be meaningful -- if the state were the only source of funds
> > > for schools. Local districts supply the largest amount, as well as some
> > > from the Federal government and some from the county (and a minscule
> > > amount from fund raisers, private donations, etc).
> > >
> >
> > The State usually provides the funds to the district, so the district
> > isnt really providing the funds... at least, that is the way it works in
> > Florida. The Feds do provide a chuck, but I have never heard of County
> > government subsidizing the School Board.
>
> No? Ever hear of school property taxes? That's the major source of
> funding for the schools in most states. They're almost always collected
> by the county or district.
>
Yes, there is a school district tax. Most school taxes are collected by
the State and distributed by the State... at least in Florida.
> >
> > > The fact is that jedi made the claim that public schools are
> > > underfunded
> > > and you supported it. I'm saying that that isn't obvious enough to
> > > escape without proof. Feel free to provide it.
>
> Which you still haven't done.
>
... and Im probably not going to. I work in the public school system
here. This is my 10th year. I am tired of fighting for money, tired of
the uninformed public placing all blame on us and just tired in general.
--
Rick
* To email me remove theobvious from my address *
------------------------------
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: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 13:59:27 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ou8p9$bk23k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >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?
> >
>
>
> Well, you wouldn't like it if you ordered a big-mac (computer) and had to
> pay for fries (or operating system) if you wanted them or not just because
> the potato supplier (microsoft) did a deal to get mcdonalds to pay a
> per-burger licence to supply fries to the customer.
> Mcdonalds would then have to charge a lot extra if the customer wanted
> crinkle cut fries (OS2 / Linux / FreeBSD) because the customer would still
> be paying for the standard fries he didn't want or get due to the stupid
> licencing agreement.
> Most customers would go for the cheap option and have the standard fries
as
> they would have to pay for them anyway and the potato supplier would then
> claim to make the most popular fries available when most of the sales of
> their product were forced onto the customer who didn't want them. Sound
> familiar?
Nice job of making lemonade out or that lemon of a right turn the thread
took into the Twilight Zone.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 13:54:20 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Uncle Meat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 3.Linux does not kill itself when you try to run an old console app,
> > unlike w*ndoze with DOS
>
> DOS apps are inherently buggy under windows, but dos apps have always
sucked pretty
> much compared to Linux console apps.
If a DOS program can run correctly under DOS but appears to be buggy when
running under Windows, then it is Windows that has buggy support for DOS
programs. It is Window's fault and not the DOS program's fault.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 14:01:59 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92ys5.48520$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8osv70$j7g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > That is why it is important to write programs to be as portable as
> possible.
> > This again is nothing new, that is how it was before Windows took over.
> > Software companies have thrived in that environment. Remember when
there
> > were Apple's ][, PET, CBM, Atari 400 & 800, Cromemco, and latter Vic
20's
> > and IBM PC, S100/IEEE696 software all being sold side by side. AND
those
> > were not even for the same hardware platforms.
>
> The average app back then was 20,000 lines of code, tops.
>
> The average app today is approximately 350,000 lines of code.
All the better argument for programming with portability in mind to help
leverage your product into more markets.
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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 17:16:39 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Rick wrote:
> >
> > "Joe R." wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >At the present time, public schools are massively under-funded. Class
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet those private schools seem to do more with less.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, they dont. Private schools have MORE $/student than public schools.
> > > > Public schools have always done more eith less, especially K-12.
> > >
> > > I think you'd have to back that up.
> > >
> >
> > Well... Im not going to go do all the research for you... but I'll tell
> > you what to look for.
> >
> > Check the tuition prices for the private schools. Then check your local
> > schoolboard budget. You will see that the private schools have more
> > money.
>
> Has anybody informed you that your are full of shit...
>
You are a perfect example of what is wrong in society in general. You
show a distinct lack of manners and erspect. Fix those things in general
sociey, instill a sense of responsibility and consequeces in the general
public and students, and you will see a dramatic rise in student
performance.
--
Rick
* To email me remove theobvious from my address *
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grega Bremec)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 21:20:28 GMT
...and Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> used the keyboard:
>Perhaps you should be writing your government then.
>
>It's not America's fault your country(ies) are behind
>in technology.
>
>-Chad
American attitude at its best!
"Noooo, we won't tell you how to encrypt your data using 8192-bit
strong encryption. But it's not our fault if you can't figure it out
on your own..."
DOH!
--
Grega Bremec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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 17:23:39 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Rick wrote:
> >
> > Bob Germer wrote:
> > >
> > > On 09/01/2000 at 05:25 PM,
> > > Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > >
> > > > At the present time, public schools are massively under-funded. Class
> > > > sizes are extremely large. If you want better education in public
> > > > schools.. re-institute a students right to fail a course. Re-institute
> > > > having the student take responsibility for their own actions.
> > >
> > > Debunking this makes everything you post fit only for the bit bucket.
> > >
> > > My wife was a teacher in an inner city public school in a rust belt city
> > > for 31 years. I kept many of her class records for her on my computers
> > > beginning in 1984. I have every class list from that time until she
> > > retired two years ago. AT NO TIME DID SHE EVER HAVE MORE THAN 22 STUDENTS.
> > > In five of those years her class size was less than 15. Any time ANY
> > > teacher in that district had more than 17 students, he or she had a FULL
> > > TIME, qualified, classroom aide.
> > >
> >
> > I wouldbeinterested to know what the teacher/student ratio is NOW.
>
> What...as if this would contradict 25 years of the data which proves
> that you are a liar.
>
Well... we all know you are very rude...
But, there has been distinct dchanges int the school system in the lst
50 years. For at least 60 years of this century, American school shave
been the envy of the planet. Then, the right of students to fail has
slowly eroded. The involvement of parents in their child's education
life has lessened. Class sizes have changed. Funding formulas have
changed. "Standardized tests" have changed. interpretation of those
score has changed. So, yes, I am interested in present data.
And please, try to be a little more polite.
--
Rick
* To email me remove theobvious from my address *
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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 17:25:03 -0400
Bob Germer wrote:
>
> On 09/02/2000 at 05:59 PM,
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > What...as if this would contradict 25 years of the data which proves
> > that you are a liar.
>
> You are wrong. I speak from personal experience about ONE district. You
> cannot apply national averages to ANY specific district. Unlike some
> states, we have a surplus of qualified teachers seeking positions in New
> Jersey as a whole. Some inner cities such as Camden, Trenton, Newark, and
> a couple of others cannot attract teachers, but on the whole, suburban and
> smaller city boards have dozens of applicants for every opening.
>
> --
... and in my district, we have large shortages in some areas, and
surpluses in others.
--
Rick
* To email me remove theobvious from my address *
------------------------------
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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 17:31:55 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> 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.
>
>As does yours. Produce any kind of evidence that it was forged. At all.
I never said it was. But there is reason to believe it was forged. So
asking that you provide some support if you think it isn't forged is not
an argument from ignorance; its a supposition based on prior evidence.
An argument from ignorance is "since we can't know if its true, it must
be false". My position is "since we don't know if its true, we should
consider the most likely possibility, and work from there." Not at all
the same thing, I think you'll realize.
>I'm sure someone will be able to produce a copy of MSDN from after the
>release of the article, but before it was released in the click-wrap
>executable, which verifies that it was indeed in the database before then.
Well, you might be sure, but I'll wait to see the evidence.
>After all they do ship it to customers, so if someone has the MSDN library
>for that time frame, it should be easy to verify one way or another.
>
>Without serious effort on my part, I don't have access to that data.
Then I'm afraid you can't refute the argument.
>> >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.
>
>Ad hominem attack against whom? I'm pointing out the fact that allusions on
>slashdot are not proof or evidence -- they're more often than not just
>half-cocked rumors and hearsay.
And the fact that 'Cmdr Taco' is a transvestite is relevant because...
>> >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:
>
>Hey; I worked for Microsoft. I know damn well that in a lot of parts of the
>organisation, the left hand does NOT know what the right hand is doing.
>Especially if legal and marketing are involved as well as
>engineering/doc/QA.
Hey, I work with lots of large organizations. I know damn well that the
left hand NEVER knows what any other appendage is doing. That's
entirely irrelevant, since in this case, the right hand was lying, and
that isn't suddenly a non-issue because the left hand wasn't.
>> 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.
>
>I was talking about the reason the documentation was released in two
>different forms, in response to your paragraph on the same topic. The reason
>for the Kerberos change didn't come into it. I'm explaining the cause of the
>documentation SNAFU, nothing more.
There wasn't a documentation "SNAFU", except from your perspective.
There was an intent to deceive, an attempt to monopolize, and a cover-up
with attendant chicanery, near as I can tell. The reason for the
Kerberos change is well known; we're just watching you wiggle around
trying to pretend to justify it and actually trying to redirect the
discussion.
>As for the Kerberos change itself; how else would you propose to
>incoroporate NT authentication data into Kerberos tickets?
I wouldn't. I'd recognize that NT authentication is problematic, get
rid of it, and honestly support the standard without 'decommoditizing'
it.
>MS was not the
>first to use the extension field as documentation by the standards document
>in which Kerberos is defined; HP I believe gets that honor (might have been
>DEC; my memory's hazy on that one).
Far as I know, Microsoft was the first to extend it and then try
(unsuccessfully) to keep the extensions secret.
[...]
>> Regardless of the level of corporate communications within Microsoft,
>> your point provides no reasonable justification that this would cause
>> Microsoft to de-commodotize Kerberos.
>
>Nor was it intended to -- that wasn't the topic I was responding to.
Conveniently...
[...]
>> >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.
>
>Allow me to explain:
>
>You're arguing from a point of supposition and happenstance. You have no
>evidence either way.
I'm sorry; I am not forced to be clueless by an assumption of innocence
for Microsoft. That's for the courts, and they're not stupid either.
We have evidence Microsoft is a dishonest and criminal organization. We
start from that point.
>However, you are convinced that no matter what
>Microsoft does, it's done for 'evil' purposes.
If I am convinced of that, its because fifteen years of watching
whatever Microsoft do turn out to be for unethical purposes have
convinced me. I don't randomly convince myself that large successful
corporations are law-breakers, despite what you may think.
>That may or may not be the
>case; however, until you find proof or evidence of such motivation, it is
>just your opinion and nothing more.
Proof or evidence of motivation? Yes, we've plenty of that. You want
evidence of the crime; the fact is, its there, but you don't see it.
Because you don't understand anti-trust law.
The question is not "was there any benefit to Microsoft in extending
Kerberos". The question is "was there any benefit to competition?"
Microsoft had nothing but anti-competitive reasons to keep their
extensions secret. A slam-dunk, when it comes down to it. Doing
something for anti-competitive reasons is illegal.
>Microsoft's motives and intentions are
>NOT abundantly clear on this matter: how else would you propose that
>Kerberos tickets provide Microsoft NT authentication information?
Who said they had to? They make their own technical development
decisions. They're going to have to take responsibility for them.
>Preferably
>following the Kerberos spec; after all, that's what Microsoft did.
No, they extended it and didn't openly publish their extensions, that's
what they did.
>Face it -- your issue is solely with the fact that they didn't document the
>algorithm used to come up with the value stored in the user-defined
>extension section of the ticket.
That may be the only issue. That's certainly enough of an issue, since
the only purpose for doing so was not pro-competitive. At least in my
mind. You are right that a judge hasn't looked at it. I'd like to see
that happen, of course, but I don't think its very likely, on this issue
at least. Anti-trust enforcement is still horribly weak in this
country.
>> >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.
>
>Care to explain:
>
>(a) what their intentions are,
Control prices and exclude competition.
>(b) what evidence you have to back this up -- preferably with quotes of some
>kind from a Microsoft representative or an employee on the team that
>implemented the Kerberos functionality?
No quotes are necessary; Microsoft would have the opportunity in court
to provide pro-competitive justification for their actions. Why don't
you provide a pro-competitive justification (a real one; a weak pretense
is not sufficient to satisfy the law) for Microsoft's attempt to first
prevent all knowledge of their extensions, next keep them behind trade
secret licensing, and finally get to the point they are now, which,
AFAIK, is still not sufficient to be in compliance with the law.
The burden of proof, once the ability to act anti-competitively is
demonstrated, is on the defendant to support a contention that there
were pro-competitive motivations and effects. At least, that's the way
it works in court. So what pro-competitive purposes were involved in
Microsoft first not publishing anything, and then not publishing the
algorithm necessary to interoperate with their network systems, which
were supposedly running a standard protocol?
--
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: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 23:33:24 +0200
Ingemar Lundin wrote:
> I (aarrgh!) agree with Eric...
>
> Have a Win98(original)/Win2k/SuSE Linux PC, last week i had Windows 98
> non-stop going for 3 1/2 days without rebooting and it worked like a charm.
>
> BSOD? *never*, had one last year with my old Intel 740 graphics accel, but
> after shifting to a TNT 2 -based card i've never had one singel BSOD.
>
> Windows *can* function properly *if* you know what you're doing.
Oh comeon Ingemar. Not even NT that i use stays up two days without a
reboot.... it just gets slower and slower and slower and finally i have to
reboot to make it faster.
With Win98 forget. If what you say is correct then you have a fresh install
and only use 2 or 3 programs. This is actually the secret to run Win98
stable dont install and deinstall too many programs or otherwise the
registry acts funny.
Win 98 is not as unstable has claimed but it is very close and certainly no
OS for "real work" - whatever that is :-)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
