Linux-Advocacy Digest #878, Volume #28 Mon, 4 Sep 00 01:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Courageous)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("James A. Robertson")
Re: How low can they go...? ("James A. Robertson")
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Computer and memory (abraxas)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (abraxas)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: How low can they go...? (abraxas)
Re: How low can they go...? ("James A. Robertson")
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:42:14 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 19:36:55 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
[...]
>>No, its a trade secret.
>
>So the only difference between the API and the recipe is secrecy.
The only difference between tears and rain is quantity. They are two
entirely different things.
[...]
>In this instance, he seems to understand just fine. You're the one who seems
>confused in that you fail to understand what the product is.
And, again, you fail to realize that the question of 'what is the
relevant market' is not 'what is the product'.
>>>I don't see how you could argue that QT is a "monopoly" and GTK is not.
>>>There is certainly only one implementation of the GTK API.
>>
>>And so the reason, it seems, that you don't see what I'm saying is
>>because you think that being a monopoly means yours is the only
>>implementation of something. That's not quite correct, though I'll
>>admit it is close.
>
>So can you explain why GTK is not a "monopoly" ?
If you can explain why it might be, perhaps.
>>Obviously, GTK is a different API, so it would hardly be an available
>>alternative for libraries supporting the QT API.
>
>Again, you seem confused about what the product is and hence who the
>market is. The argument that the run time library is the product is
>severely flawed ( since you could link statically or simply ship
>the library with the product. )
The legal definition of the relevant market in an anti-trust examination
is *not* "what is the product". The reason I seem to be entirely
unconcerned with these issues you bring up is that it doesn't matter
what you call a library and what you call a tool and which is which
unless it concerns what is the relevant market, which is solely defined
by available alternatives to the consumer. NOW DON'T oversimplify that,
and say "Aha! So I'm right; GTK and QT are both available
alternatives." Its not quite that simple.
>The developer is the product. The developer is the customer. A library
>that depends on QT is not a "customer". The developer who wrote that
>library is. And that developer could choose to use a library other than
>QT for the functionality they need. GTK is certainly a strong competitor.
I'm not sure what you're babbling about. Is there any circumstance
where a developer wouldn't have the choice between GTK and QT, but would
need to use one or the other for some specific reason? If so, then each
would have to be considered a separate market, tentatively.
>> You are correct that
>>the developer's methods and behavior can make the difference in what the
>>relevant market is. If the relevant market is "libraries to support GUI
>>functions" (if that's an accurate assessment of either QT or GTK), or
>>whether the relevant market is "libraries that support the QT API",
>
>My point is that "libraries that support the QT API" is not a valid
>market section. The reason why I make this claim is that a "customer"
>of QT, namely a developer that requires the functionality provided by
>that library, could choose a different library instead.
Always?
>The point is that you don't need to be a clone of QT to be a competitor.
Thus making it even more non-sensible that TT didn't simply help harmony
clone QT to begin with, or at least point out that they didn't need to
do a 'clean room' implementation of the API.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 04:48:02 GMT
> Could certainly? Which is it? 'Certainly' goes with "would", not
> "could".
Only if you misunderstand language. "Could certainly," could
be taken to mean "you could act, and if you acted, then certainly..."
You seem to have a hard time with language. Why is that?
> I don't have to be Mother Theresa to be ethical. In fact, I
> know very well that Mother Theresa both was and was not more unethical
> than I am. Just because I don't run a soup-kitchen doesn't make me
> selfish.
You seem to think selfish is an epithet. You are no doubt selfish.
We all are.
> >You'll have to better define "reasonable" before we can talk about
> >it, Mr. Devlin.
>
> If you believe that is so then I doubt we can talk about it.
One thing is certain is that if you don't provide a context for
what is "reasonable" or what is not, you've left it utterly
subjective.
> You don't have to call me 'Mr. Devlin', BTW; 'Max' is fine. Just so
> you'll know I noticed, 'Courageous'. Call me Max. Not that I mind
> either way; you're choice.
Pretty arrogant, telling me what to call you, when you refuse
to abide by my preferences, bud.
> I believe you just said it.
No.
> >Precisely right. However, suppose you're passing an accident
> >scene, and no one else is helping. Stopping and helping is,
> >in my opinion, charity.
>
> Well, see, now we get down to the definitions. If you consider charity
> to be a luxury, and you consider what you described charity, then you
> are extraordinarily selfish. I wouldn't call that charity, that's
> social responsibility.
Where lies the edges of these social responsibilites? So far,
it seems to me that "out of sight, out of mind," is indeed your
standard.
C//
------------------------------
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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 04:49:05 GMT
"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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".
The judge specified that Microsoft has a monopoly in the intel-compatible PC
system arena, based on the presence of its consumer OS - paragraph 18
through whatever.
If that isn't explicitly breaking things up, I don't know what is. Apple is
excluded
> 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.
Uh... duh. W2k is workstation/server. W9X is consumer. That's where the
breakdown lies. Otherwise, why is Linux not considered a competitor?
> 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.
Whatever.
Simon
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:50:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Courageous in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>> >Yes. The word monopoly has its first usage traced to the 16th
>> >Century. Source: _Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary_.
>>
>> Did you read the rest?
>
>I did. The problem that you're having is that when you're
>arguing that a definition of the word is no longer appropriate,
>you are fighting the simple fact that it is people, in their
>usage of the language, who get to define what words mean.
I'm people. I'm using the language. I get to define what I mean, and I
get to use that to try to convince you to use my definition. OK?
>While it is perfectly legitimate for you to proffer a different
>definition, you are misfortunately subject to the whim of the
>people in general should they desire to use that definition.
Which is why, five years ago or so, I developed a framework and set of
models for guiding me in this misfortunate endeavor. Stop fighting me,
and try to realize that I don't do it out of ego; I do it because I've
figured out how to change the terminology to get it to make the most
sense to the most people, including those who are not yet familiar with
the context under discussion.
>For the time being and the likely long-term future, the
>primary sense of the word "monopoly" is a company with massive
>and near absolute marketshare. That's how people use that
>word.
They need to stop doing that, because it encourages companies with
massive and near absolute marketshare, and encourages them, and all
other companies, to monopolize.
>Use of a variant sense is your prerogative, as variant senses
>are an aspect of language. If, however, you are using a definition
>of a word different than what the average person takes that word
>to mean, you can hardly act surprised when miscommunication
>arises, now can you?
The fact is it isn't anywhere near as variant as you make it seem. It
gets to the point where it just seems like everyone wants to reserve the
right to monopolize, because it is just so unacceptable to them that
they shouldn't be allowed to monopolize.
>More the shame on you for ridiculing the intellect of your
>peers when such miscommunications occur.
I haven't ridiculed anybody for not instantly adopting my terminology,
and I never do or will. I do ridicule them for ridiculing my attempt to
point out the problems they're causing themselves by using the *wrong*
words for no apparent reason accept familiarity and that's what they
learned the first time.
People seem very afraid to have what they've already learned be anything
but omnipotently authoritative. Even when the only place they've heard
it is a cliche.
Everybody knows anyone who points out that a cliche doesn't make sense
is an asshole. Unfortunately, its gotten to the point where if I have
to choose between being an asshole, and watching the populace "sell
their soul to the devil" by tolerating restraint of trade, well, I guess
you know which choice I'm going to make.
Having a monopoly is illegal.
--
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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 04:53:14 GMT
"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : Without serious effort on my part, I don't have access to that data.
>
> First it's "easy", then the next paragraph it's a "serious effort".
> Which is it?
>
> I think the time has come to put up or shut up, Mr. Cooke.
I have MSDN from Jan 1999. Not Jan 2000. Not April 2000. So, I can't.
Someone else may be able to.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [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 04:53:46 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>
> I've already been over the "you can get around it" justification. I
> thought I'd made that clear. Given A) Win95 upgrade and B) blank hard
> disk, Microsoft makes it difficult and sometimes impossible to install.
> Likewise, given A) Win95 OEM and B) non-blank hard disk, Microsoft makes
> it difficult and sometimes impossible to install. Its an unreasonable
> expense on the consumer, its anti-competitive, and its wrong. Case
> closed.
Which part of the word 'upgrade' didn't you understand?
>
> --
> 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! =-----
--
James A. Robertson
Senior Sales Engineer, Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [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 04:55:35 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"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.
> >
> >That was a really nice soliloquy, but you didn't come up with an actual
> >example
>
> Of course I didn't come up with an actual example; you can't see an
> actual example of something that doesn't happen. Every company that has
> ever made more profit than it is making now is an example.
>
I asked for a real live example of a monopoly that was not
governmentally created (such as the old Bell system). They don't
exist. Effective monopolies can crop up for short periods, but the
market fixes them rapidly.
> --
> 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! =-----
--
James A. Robertson
Senior Sales Engineer, Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:55:07 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=DC&navby=case&no=9753
>43A
http://laws.findlaw.com/dc/975343a.html
That's a better url. FindLaw prints these on the web page, so when
you've done a search, you don't have to post the search url. Just copy
and past it from the top of the case file.
Cool, huh? Superior product, business acumen... I like it.
--
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:
alt.linux.sucks,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 04:57:25 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Why should deleting a root-level *FILE* fuck up the ENTIRE FILESYSTEM.
>
> This is indicative of some INCREDIBLY, SERIOUSLY bad fucking
> programming.
Ironically, this was a bug from back before MS bought FrontPage from VTI.
But of course, those pesky facts wouldn't bother people like you, it's
all, in the end, Microsoft's fault right? Plauge, war, famine... it's all
Gates' fault, eh?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: 4 Sep 2000 04:57:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ignorance and indifference are two seperate things. We're not about
> to grind to a halt and wait for you to catch up to late-20th century
> level technology just so you don't think we have "attitudes" anymore.
>
Again, chad speaks out of his as, see previous post.
>> You know, there's an ancient Japanese proverb that
>> says,
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Spare me the "grasshopper" stuff. You're no more my Sensai than
> Bill Clinton is.
>
He cant even spell 'sensei' correctly. Chad is an idiot of grand proportions.
>> Think about it for a moment, Chad. Do you happen to sense a shade of
>> wisdom in it? Could you apply a tiny fragment of it to your statement?
>
> So you want us to give you fishing poles? You want us to give you hand
> outs?
>
I would suggest not arguing with chad. His brain is very, very small and
barely has enough resources to keep him breathing.
> You Brits seem so high and mighty on your civility, culture and
> fortitude, how come you haven't mangaged to work yourself out of this
> situation.
I think I remember this line from "A Fish Called Wanda". Kevin Kline was
witty and enjoyable. Chad is a moron.
> Well, when it comes to facism, we'll gladly help you out,
> but when it comes to money, it's a different ball-game.
>
Note that chad utterly believes that he speaks for the entire united states.
> Your telco situation is your own problem, not ours.
>
Chad does not understand your telco situation; yet he speaks as though
he does.
> Would you guys please stick to one topic-line.
This from a foolish lout who annoyed comp.os.linux.advocacy for 10 months
with off-topic FUD.
> You have about 3
> issues going on in this one post and you keep chastizing me for talking
> about the others when you youself are doing it.
>
Chad doesnt know what hes talking about. Chad is an idiot.
> Nigel made two points:
> - That America was somehow descriminating against the rest of the world
> by having a strong economy and good RAM prices and by having 50MB
> downloads that somehow exclude our telco-challenged friends across the
> pond
>
Nigel, of course, made no such claim--either outright or insinuated. Chad
is making things up again.
> - The America is descriminating by not allowing strong encryption exporting.
>
Nigel, of course, made no such claim--either outright or insinuated. Chad
is making things up again.
> I've already addressed the first hogwash point, now onto the second.
>
> They've lifted some of the restrictions but again, the fact that Britian
> has lifted their restrictions doesn't really mean diddly because they
> don't have much to protect. The Software industry in the U.K. is slow
> at best, stifled at worse (see BT plight as a related effect).
>
Actually, Britian is in a much better situation re: encryption technology.
Chad would understand this if chad had half a brain. Since chad has nearly
no brain at all, chad does not understand this.
> Lifting the restriction in the US means a whole lot more because we
> have many softwares that serve much more critical purposes and could be
> used in very bad ways.
I suspect that not even chad understood what he meant by that sentence.
> Of course you know this already, I'm explaining
> the obvious, right? Appearently not as you have brought up this dicussion.
>
Apparantly he has problems spelling things other than 'sensei'.
> Besides, what are you all waiting on America for software for.
I think chads point may well lie behind that preposition.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: 4 Sep 2000 04:57:58 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
>
Hi germer. Looks like you're still as fucking insane as ever. Please remove
comp.os.linux.advocacy from your followups, retard.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux.sucks,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 04:58:51 GMT
"Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:qtFs5.48931$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Why should deleting a root-level *FILE* fuck up the ENTIRE FILESYSTEM.
> >
> > This is indicative of some INCREDIBLY, SERIOUSLY bad fucking
> > programming.
>
> Ah... I missed something out -- it wasn't a temporary webpage that did the
> damage. It was putting a "Web" there -- which meant that the directory and
> everything below that is treated as web content. Therefore, deleting the Web
> deletes everything in that directory and below -- which being the root of
> the file system deletes all of Windows on 95 & 98.
>
> When you create the web at the root of the file system, it warns you that
> you might not be doing something particularly smart.
Exactly the point. Anyone who creats a FrontPage web at the root of their
filesystem isn't too bright to begin with. Blaming it entirely on MS
isn't exactly fair, anymore than blaming the people who wrote rm for
making rm -rf /* possible.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
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: 4 Sep 2000 04:59:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :>> Ever heard of POSIX, sweetheart?
> :>
> :> Yes, NT supports it, sugarplum.
> :
> : So people keep telling me. I have yet to see one POSIX app running under
> : NT in any official capacity though, even by govt. organizations which use
> : NT *because* of the POSIX lib ports.
>
> I've been told, but haven't yet researched myself, that NT's POSIX
> libraries are all but completely incompatible with much of the
> standard Win32 libs. IOW, MS implemented them only upto the point
> of being able to pass the tests, but explicitly hobbled them enough
> so that they are nearly useless for practical work. Such things
> like POSIX fork() being incompatible with NT's networking libraries.
>
Exactly, which is why the US govt. doesnt actually run POSIX software on NT,
but instead utilizes NT very often because of its compliance only, which for
many departments is policy.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [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 05:02:37 GMT
Zenin wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
And Apple controls 100% of the Mac market. Sun controls 100% of the
Solaris market.
So what?
> 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.
Not terribly successfully. Linux is the main webserver player in
numeric terms, with commercial Unix the major player in the larger
sites. For all MS' attempts, they are getting waxed in the server
space, because their products suck in that space. Ditto in the handheld
space.
Since these are the two big growth areas, I wouldn't worry a lot about
MS dominance. Just as IBM's dominance of the green screen app space
meant a lot in 1975, MS' dominance of the desktop meant a lot in 1995.
Over the next few years, it's going to mean a lot less - and without any
stupid government regulation either.
>
> 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*?!
Mostly to enrich lawyers at the expense of the rest of us. Monopolies
don't stay monopolies without government help (the old Bell system,
RBOCs, local cable providers). Left in the wild, market changes happen,
and the big company which had a seeming lock ends up being too slow to
adapt. It happened to IBM; it's in the process of happening to MS. If
we let the market work, it will.
>
> --
> -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".
--
James A. Robertson
Senior Sales Engineer, Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
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: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 00:59:52 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >> My company pays for it; I certainly wouldn't. The *only* reason I use
> >> Windows, or any Microsoft software, at this point (years ago I would
> >> have voluntarily used Word and Excel, but they've gone seriously
> >> down-hill, and weren't really all that good to begin with) is because
of
> >> the monopoly.
> >
> >How come the monopoly forces you to use it but not the other millions of
> >users who get by without it?
>
> Because my company uses it and my customers use it, because its a
> monopoly. Get it?
>
> > Is there a guy from MS standing next to you
> >with a gun to your head? Or are you lying again.
>
> Let me ask you something; did you ever upgrade your IE and have to
> replace your video card?
No.
>
> >No one is FORCING you to use any operating system. Shit or get off the
pot,
> >either stop supporting Microsoft by choosing their product with each tap
of
> >the keyboard or stop complaining about it.
>
> I don't support Microsoft by using their products; I support me by using
> their products. If my customers use something different, and my company
> uses something different, I'll use something different. You see how
> that works? Microsoft has a monopoly because they make it hard for
> everyone to use a different OS. Now stop boring me with this childish
> bullshit.
That's a very poor excuse for choosing to use Windows AT HOME! Now come out
with it, what's the reason you support Microsoft by using their products at
home? Do you use it at home so you can stay in practice for work or what? If
you hate MS so much why do you freely choose to support them by using their
products even when it is not necessary. Stop the lying for once and give an
honest answer.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
