Linux-Advocacy Digest #863, Volume #28 Sun, 3 Sep 00 19:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Re: Computer and memory (abraxas)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...? (Andrew)
Re: Computer and memory
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 17:45:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>I point out that the Kerberos extension is currently documented in MSDN,
>because someone is complaining that it's undocumented. That's a statement of
>fact.
That's a re-write of history. Someone was complaining that MS didn't
document it, not that they still don't.
>Someone comes in and says "Ah... but they did this, this, this, this and
>this!"
>
>I state that according to posters on Slashdot, it had been sitting in a
>knowledgebase (technet) article the whole time.
Was this before or after you had to agree to protect Microsoft's 'trade
secret' in order to view it?
>You come in and say "Ah! They're monopolizing! ha!"
>
>Which has nothing to do with my statements of fact.
Actually, it does, yes.
>And it's not something I
>care to debate in this particular offshoot of the thread -- whether it's
>monopolizing or not is completely and totally IRRELEVANT. The field is
>documented, and apparenttly has been for some time.
A pretense, not a defense, IMHO. There is reason to believe Microsoft
tried to exclude competition by decomoditizing Kerberos and using it in
NT authentication. There is no reason to believe Microsoft was not
trying to exclude competition. Give me a reason to believe they weren't
attempting to monopolize, and I'll listen. I don't care if Microsoft
has now sufficiently covered their ass. I think I've made my opinion of
people who think that covering your ass is the same as being right
rather clear.
Simple question, it should have a simple and obvious and convincing
answer: What pro-competitive purpose was there in extending Kerberos in
a way which prevents non-MS implementations from authenticating a client
on NT?
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 14:40:46 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:13zs5.130$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> eh?
>
> well you see...Windows *has* support for practically *any* ide cd-rw...so
> whats your point?
>
> /IL
>
>
> > Why is it that when someone takes advantage of a feature provided by
Linux
> > is called cheating just because another OS fails to deliver the same
> > feature?
Using Linux's SCSI emulation for an IDE device has now been called cheating.
Linux in with an X configuration that fits comfortably in 16M of RAM hav
been called cheating.
Linux on PC hardware too "underpowered" for Windows anymore has been called
cheating.
Linux on a non-PC hardware that Windows can not work on has been called
cheating.
Using unix software that was not designed for Linux has been called
cheating.
Using cron, at, or batch jobs has been called cheating.
Running a headless host has been called cheating.
Not loading X on a dedicated server has been called cheating.
Using the Linux's IP packet filtering firewall instead of an external
firewall has been called cheating.
Taking advantage of I/O redirection to perform complex tasks with simple
programs without oversight of the user has been called cheating.
Taking advantage of virtual consoles or multiple desktops has been called
cheating.
Why IS any of this cheating?
Does anyone honestly believe if Windows could do all of these thing and
Linux could not, then the winvocates would not consider it cheating?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: 3 Sep 2000 21:50:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps you should be writing your government then.
>
> It's not America's fault your country(ies) are behind
> in technology.
>
There goes chad again, talking out of his ass. This actually has nothing
to do with being 'behind in technology', it has to do with there being no
one common communications tariff methodology.
To all: Chad actually knows next to nothing about computers, and exactly
nothing about the way countries other than the united states work. Hes
probably best ignored.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
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 14:48:30 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Well, I wasn't considering Microsoft RPC when I mentioned RPC. Its that
> original RPC that I was referring to. NFS and NIS aren't 'based on it'
> so much as use it; they are linked to it in the same way, I suppose, as
> RMI is linked to Java.
In this case "based on" and "uses" are pretty much interchangable terms.
Even more so when one considered that had NFS and NIS be developed without
the use of RPC their underlying behavior, performance and protocols would
have been different.
This would be just like saying that KDE is based on Qt.
------------------------------
From: Andrew <[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 10:26:06 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Installing a PRECONFIGURED copy of the OS would be even more simple that a
> game installation. Insert the CD or other media turn on the computer, walk
> away and then come back after the installation is complete. Who is capable
> of using a computer that can not do that?
[...]
> Where did you get the ludicrious idea of the computer being shipped with 6
> CD? It would not even come with one. If and *only if* the customer wants a
> preconfigured OS for the computer, would there be a need to purchase the
> installation media. Reread the thread, you missed the purpose of this
> discussion.
[...]
> You seem to fail to realize what the word "preconfigured" means; otherwise,
> you would not be making such inappropriate statement.
Perhaps you don't understand what you are proposing. I sure don't. AFAICT, there
are really two alternatives when buying a machine. 1) You purchase a retail
boxed OS. 2) You get a custom CD/hard drive image with the OS and all the
various hardware drivers. You've basically shot down #2 (which would be a large
cost incurred by the computer vendor if they had to produce 6 images, I might
add), so I have to assume they would buy a retail boxed OS (hence the driver
hunting). Neither way sounds very "preconfigured". What am I missing?
> > For hardware manufacturers, it would be a nightmare. They would have to
> write 6
> > drivers for each product and keep every driver updated. At the very least,
> it
> > would triple their programming division. This in turn drives up hardware
> costs,
> > which drive up PC costs.
>
> Here I assume your are referring to the manufacturers of addon devices.
> That could also be a good thing, it would bring an end to the developement
> of software devices like winmodems and winprinter. It would encourage the
> manufacturers to implement more of the devices in silicon which would
> increase performance and reliability of the equipment. If they find support
> the various OS's too much work, they could release the specifications of the
> devices to the public to permit others to develop the drivers for the
> various operating systems.
I wouldn't mind the death of win* hardware, but there's a lot more to it than
that. Games are generally written for one or more APIs these days. Games are
written for OpenGL, Direct3D and A3D, so the video and sound drivers have to be
able to implement these API calls and translate them into hardware calls. There
is a tremendous amount of time, energy and cost, as well as a lot of proprietary
interest the performance of the drivers. nVidia is not about to let their
compeditors into their drivers and see the code. nVidia has not open-sourced its
Linux drivers yet. Then there would also be the issue of different APIs on
different platforms. I have a feeling for most hardware, the proprietary-ness of
the drivers would not be an issue. I still fail to see how having to write to
more platforms and support all of them won't drive up costs.
> That is workable, and that is just the way it used to be done until the last
> few years.
Things have changed a lot in those last few years.
> 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.
As someone already mentioned, software is much more complex and time-intensive
to create these days and much more functional. This means that there are more
opportunites for things to go wrong, not to mention that these programs use the
OS for most of the services they provide. This *will* drive up implementation
and support costs.
> The fewer choices that there are available, the better it is for the
> consumer, so lets destroy every trace of Linux, BSD, Solaris, all unix, VMS,
> BeOS, OS/2 MacOS, all non Windows OS's in the world. Let's every one use
> nothing but Windows! Which Windows? There are so many non-compatible
> versions. Simple, the one version that most people have that Would be
> Windows 98 or Windows 95. That right, lets make it Windows 95 and no more
> Window 3.x, NT, CE, or 2000. That way there is no choice but to use the one
> holy OS and its blessed hardware, and lack of choice is best thing possible
> for the consumer! Right?
Not at all. I'll be the first to say that Linux, Solaris, NetWare, Windows*,
BeOS have their uses, but I don't think you've considered your position very
well. Computers would cost more for the consumer than they do now, and you
haven't given any reasons why not. People think with their pocketbooks. Consider
all the whining about the driver and application incompatabilities between WinNT
and Win9x and extrapolate.
> Henry Ford tried that with the Model T and it failed. Remember? You can
> have it painted any color you want so long as it is black.
>
> If that ever happened, there would be such a cry, but there would be no
> trace of the cry on usenet or the internet. How could it? Neither one
> would function anymore and it would take a long time to rebuild it all on
> Windows 95 computers.
Funny you should say that. Obviously the server hardware was UNIX-based. I'm not
about to dispute that, but most of the traffic that exists on the internet is
generated from people on Win9x computers. In a way, the internet as it exists
now was very much built on Windows 95.
Andrew
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 14:53:06 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Grega Bremec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ...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!
>
Please don't condem us all for the opinions of the few. In this case the
few is a one who not many of us would be consider to be representitive of
us.
------------------------------
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 18:01:33 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said D'Arcy Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said D'Arcy Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >> >So no technical ones. Technical ones present a "barrier".
>
>> >> No, prohibitive cost presents a barrier.
>
>> >You assume that the only people interested in getting a DVD player
>> >onto a system have no money... not necessarily valid... also not
>> >(directly) something you can blame MS on.
>
>> I presume you mean "blame on MS", and the kicker is that we can.
>
>Same thing. And no you cannot.
Same thing, and yes we can. If it weren't for Microsoft's 'successful
monopolization' making profiteering the only way to 'compete' and making
monopolization look like a routine business practice, I doubt the DVD
situation would even exist. Its a travesty, from beginning to end.
And, yes, I blame Microsoft. I blame everyone else who doesn't know
the difference between "capturing market share" and growing a market,
but Microsoft is the king of that community, hands down.
>> We
>> aren't, necessarily, but the fact of the matter is that there isn't
>> really much of a free market in software these days, because of the
>> damaging impact, both direct and indirect, of Microsoft's criminal
>> behavior. But that's beside the point; 'jedi' never mentioned
>> Microsoft, though I did.
>
>Please note that I said "directly".
Please note that I don't care. I'm sick to death of having to try to
wade through a swamp of lies and misdirection to discuss the issues.
Microsoft has been ripping people off for over a decade and has made
billions upon billions of dollars doing it, and in that, they inherently
encourage others to do the same. They are so pathetically and blatantly
dishonest and monopolistic that so long as they or anyone else insists
on defending them, I blame them for all the harm I see in people's
assumption that monopolization is not a crime and that locking in your
customers is at all acceptable and that ignorance is a virtue to be
cherished.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 18:07:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> Boy, that sounds like a pretty strong statement, 'jedi'. I'm wondering
>> if you can back it up. Let me try:
>>
>> The software code used for DVD encoding is certainly protectable as
>> copyrighted work. As such, the owner can restrict who copies the work,
>> and thus who owns a legal copy. So how can DVD not warrant copyright
>> protection?
>
>Please explain how DVD encoding restricts who copies the work. Really,
>I'd like to know.
You must have misunderstood what I said. I haven't even gotten to the
content, yet. I'm still looking for comments on the original copyright
of the DVD encoding software. We'll get to whether DVD encoding
restricts who copies 'the work', and whether that is important, later,
maybe.
So how can the DVD encoding software not warrant copyright protection?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 18:11:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> 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:
[...]
>> How is that relevant, and why would we believe Microsoft's figures and
>> not Netscapes or the Department of Justices?
>
>Well, look at your first part of your answer, and look at the last part
>again. It's also not Microsoft's figures; it's Netscape's figures as
>presented to AOL's board of directors for their buy-out. As a result,
>Netscape's figures did *not* drop extensively; at least, they were shipping
>the product to channels effectively. Usage did drop -- but not because
>Netscape was made unavailable; due to bundling deals, they shipped it to
>customers in droves -- however, customers decided not to use it. Presumably
>because it's a buggy piece of crap.
You're second-guessing, again. You're not actually saying that your
self-evident statement that they 'decided not to use it', along with
your blue-sky assessment of why, can be listed as a 'fact', are you?
How incredibly naive of you.
BTW, you've never indicated precisely what figures in the Findings of
Fact were questionable. Could you give me a paragraph number?
--
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: "Simon Cooke" <[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 22:14:27 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ouf76$j86$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:92ys5.48520$[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.
Much easier said than done. I'd say that easily 70% of any application is UI
code. Which changes from system to system nearly completely.
So how do you propose dealing with that? The only solution I can see that
comes even close is Java.
Also, consider this: currently, < 1% of our target demographic uses Linux..
< 4% uses Mac. The other 95 or so % use Windows.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[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 22:15:52 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"`T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message ne
> >> Who is your employer? Does your employer receive any consideration or
> >> compensation whatsoever from Microsoft pursuant to your employment?
> >> Have you ever been contacted by or been in contact with any employee of
> >> Microsoft corporations, directly? Have you or your employer ever made
a
> >> financial agreement with Microsoft corporation outside of end-user
> >> licensing of software? What was the complete scope and character
> >> (including all particular clauses) of any non-end-user licensing or
> >> other agreements with Microsoft corporation? Are you now, or have you
> >> ever been, an astroturfer?
> >
> >Who do you work for, Max? Sun? RedHat? VA Linux? You're sure spreading a
lot
> >of your own astroturf.
>
> I work for ELTRAX, soon to be Verso Technologies. We are big in ASP and
> network services. I work in the Manages Services group, which
> implements Network Operations Centers using software like Netcool, HP
> OpenView, NerveCenter, Concord Network Health, Remedy ARS, etc. I do
> consulting and educational presentations and instruction. AFAIK, we
> have no particular arrangements with Microsoft or any Linux vendor.
OK... so I'll take you at your word. Now do the same courtesy to Mike and
take him at his. He's already said who he works for.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[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 22:16:50 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >Service packs are the "quarterly updates" you're asking for, and
they're
> >> >free.
> >>
> >> No they aren't. They're incomplete.
> >
> >They're complete updates. They update everything that needs updating.
>
> Are you at all familiar with the word "complete"? That would be
> 'everything'. No qualifiers. Service packs are patches.
So basically, you'd like to increase the size of a patch/update to about
670Mb, so that everything's in there, making it impossible to download for
most people. Nice.
Simon
------------------------------
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 18:19:02 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> "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.
You're mis-reading the meaning of the word "from". He wasn't providing
a range of years in which a drop was evident; he was identifying the two
figures which were being compared.
>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).
I doubt you could substantiate that fact; instantaneous changes are not
a hallmark of market behavior. Regardless, their usage was
substantially less in 1998 then it was in 1995, when Microsoft's IE
bundling practices began.
[...]
--
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: "Simon Cooke" <[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 22:21:53 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[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).
No; based on the court's breakdown of the market, Microsoft does not have a
monopoly in the Windows 2000/Server/Workstation arena. In other words, if
you support the Judge in the DOJ vs Microsoft case, you must also support
the conclusion that Windows 2000 is NOT regarded as a monopoly product, and
is immune from any decision made in the case -- by the Judge's own findings.
> 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.
You'll have to brush up on your understanding of the DOJ vs. Microsoft case.
Windows 2000 is separate from 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.
Doesn't matter with Windows 2000.
> 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.
I'd like you to provide one quote from the DOJ vs. MS case that says that
Microsoft's server OS's are affected by any decision.
They do not have a monopoly on the server. Windows 2000 is a server-class
OS, not a consumer OS. The case regards the consumer OS. The rules change
depending on the marketplace you're considering.
Simon
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
