Linux-Advocacy Digest #875, Volume #28 Mon, 4 Sep 00 00:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: what's up with Sun? (David Steuber)
Re: How low can they go...? (Zenin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 23:49:22 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> 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?
>
>Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? You've just said that
>it's guilty until proven innocent. Only lynch mobs and the IRS operate under
>those conditions.
Finally noticed that, have you? You're apparently more astute than your
posts make it appear. Nobody else has managed to get to that, yet.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution, to prove the defendant could
control prices or exclude competition. Once they've demonstrated that,
by argument and evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, then the defense
can't use 'innocent until proven guilty' to insist that they were 'just
growing and developing' under competitive threat. It doesn't wash, you
see, because in order to get the monopoly power which the prosecution
has already proven you have, you have to have acted anti-competitively;
a competitive market does not allow monopoly power. There's always
justice in the system, though, so if you can demonstrate that you never
took *any* anti-competitive actions, providing clear and convincing
*competitive* reasons for your business activities, then you can't be
convicted. Perhaps it was happenstance, perhaps it was the judge not
defining the 'relevant market' correctly, but you can't have monopoly
power without willfully acquiring and maintaining it.
Its kind of like 'innocent until proven guilty' when you've got frosting
all over your face and fingers. Aunt May doesn't fall for that, either.
--
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: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 03:52:46 GMT
Hey "Aaron" what the fuck is your problem??
Are you a faggot or something?
(stupid Q, of course you are)
Dont even know why im wasting space for a iliterate idiot like you.
/IL
>
> You are not only delusional, but you're also a lying bitch.
>
>
------------------------------
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 23:50:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> BTW, you've never indicated precisely what figures in the Findings of
>> Fact were questionable. Could you give me a paragraph number?
>
>No... because I've just realized that you can't debate with someone who has
>their hands over their ears and are going "jabba jabba jabba can't hear you
>can't hear you"
Here, I'd think its because you don't have a paragraph number. I
noticed that these figures you wanted to dispute weren't actually in the
Findings of Fact that you claimed was disputable. So why don't you just
wander away to another threadlet, OK?
--
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: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: what's up with Sun?
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 04:00:02 GMT
"Andrew N. McGuire " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
' That and realistically, Linux does not yet match Solaris when it
' comes to enterprise solutions. Sun has no reason to be jealous, Linux
' is not in the same ballpark, yet (it will be). I am bound to piss some
' people here off by saying this, and don't get me wrong, I LOVE Linux.
' However, for large scale computing, and high availabitly storage
' servers, Linux does not come close (yet). The marriage between Sun's
' hardware and software is very tight, and it works very well. Linux
' is getting there, and companies realize this. There seems to be a
' rush to support Linux these days, and for good reason. The funny thing
' is that many vendors may be their own undoing!
Who knows what the future will bring? With Linux and the *BSD
systems, improvement is based upon what hardware the developers who
know what they are doing have available to them. Linux is in fact
heavily dependant on GCC. So the development of GCC is rather
fundamental to the continued improvement of Linux.
There are other issues. How does the Linux kernel evolve? Are new
features constantly added to it? Or is old code culled out and the
whole reorganized for greater maintainability.
As for scalability, that is an area Linux is likely to have problems
with for a time to come. Imagine an SMP system with 16 CPUs. Sun has
those, and they kick. But they also cost. How many people would be
working on building a scheduler that scales from one to n CPUs without
suffering from extreme diminishing returns? The people at Solaris can
tweak their code so that the kernel doesn't become a bottle neck by
only running on one CPU at a time.
Not that I am an expert in such things. Or even that knowledgeable.
What Linux gives me is control and the ability to put cheap hardware
to good use. Ok, my ~$1,000 566Mz Celleron FC-PGA box with 384MB RAM
and 40GB of disk (semi-slow IDE) will never be able to blow out 100
http requests per second. Hell, I will be lucky to manage 25 requests
per second at a sustained rate. Realistically, I'm looking at 5 or
so, depending on which pages are hit and what backend processing is
required and how well I can tune the system.
But I am not dependant on Microsoft for solutions. I have Apache,
mod_perl, and Perl 5.6. Linux is incidental. I could go with one of
the *BSD flavours, but I already have a feeling for where things go on
a Linux box. Old dogs and new tricks, so the saying goes. I've
escaped Microsoft at least. I'm still stuck with Intel. I suppose an
AMD box with an Athalon or Duron could have done the trick for me. I
wasn't really aware of those options when I built my box.
Built my box. Sure does put a new spin on building a web site now,
doesn't it?
--
David Steuber | "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member
NRA Member | of the NRA?" --- HUAC, 2004
Happiness is a SAAB Gripen <http://www.gripen.saab.se/> in the
garage, an FN-FAL in the safe, and an HK P7M8 on the hip.
------------------------------
From: Zenin <[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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 03:58:02 GMT
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>snip<
:> 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.
Hogwash.
1) For all practical purpose, it's simply "Windows". Explicit
subversions are indifferent. It's like saying MS doesn't have
the largest browser share in "the MSIE 5.5 arena".
2) Even if you are nieve enough to consider W2k unattached to "the
desktop market", MS owns exactly 100% of "the Windows
2000/Server/Workstation arena"...unless of course, some other
vender I'm not aware of is now offering a competing version of
W2k.
MS doesn't have anything close to a monopoly of the server market,
however they very do hold a monopoly on the desktop/workstation
market...one which they are demonstrating a clear and explicit
attempt to illegally leverage in an effort to gain market share in
the server market.
:> 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.
Far 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.
Yes, it most explicitly does. See above.
:> 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.
It is illegally to leverage one illegal monopoly in an effort to for
another illegal monopoly in a different market.
Just what do you think anti-trust laws are on the books *for*?!
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:00:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> The judge reached his conclusions after hearing from both sides and
>> assessing the credibility of the evidence they offered. Monday morning
>> quarterbacking doesn't alter that. Wishing one had been the judge
>> assigned to the case doesn't alter it either.
>
>I don't wish I was the judge. Nor am I claiming that the judge made a "bad
>call". I'm claiming that there are glaring errors in the FoF such as the
>one mentioned here. The judge clearly erred by stating that Netscapes
>marketshare decreased substantially between 1995 and 1998 when it's easily
>proven that Netscapes marketshare did not decrease substantially for more
>than half of that time period.
The judge stated that the market share decreased between 1995 and 1998,
and it did. The fact that most of that decrease didn't occur until
after 1997 is irrelevant.
The judge did not err in determining that the drop was due to
Microsoft's anti-competitive strategies. While these attempts started
in 1995, it was substantially enhanced in the second half of that time
period. Any reasonable person would agree that, given a steady if not
dramatic increase before that time, the various and plentiful things
that Microsoft did to specifically inhibit Netscape's usage were
successful in doing so. There is no necessity whatsoever to show that
all of Netscapes decrease in market share were due to Microsoft's
anticompetitive activity in order to agree with the fact that they were
successful, and that Netscape's relative decrease in usage from their
1995 levels to their 1998 levels were the result.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
