Linux-Advocacy Digest #879, Volume #28 Mon, 4 Sep 00 02:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Gutenberg (Adam Shapira)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] ("2 + 2")
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Courageous)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (abraxas)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Dave Livesay)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Dave Livesay)
Re: How low can they go...? (Christopher Smith)
Re: How low can they go...? (Zenin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Zenin)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: American schools ARE being sabotaged from within. (Loren Petrich)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 01:05:42 -0400
From: Adam Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gutenberg
Richard wrote:
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
> > Which was all the more remarkable considering that he was a butcher
> > by trade. The key is that an ordinary person came up with some
> > extraordinary innovations.
>
> Except for the wee problem that Gutenberg's innovations weren't worth
> jack. The inventor of the *book* is the one who revolutionized writing.
> Prior to him, Gutenberg's innnovation was used to print the Same Old
> Shit; illuminated bibles and indulgences. Once you change the context
> that way, it's hard to see Gutenberg as an "extraordinary innovator".
>
> And this example is especially instructive if you realize that modern
> computers are now also largely used to do the Same Old Shit that could
> be done with paper, especially so when you're talking about computers
> in schools supposedly meant to teach children about New Things.
It's all relative. True, Guttenberg's bibles and
indulgences may have been far more expensive than
today's printed media ... but we must not compare
them to what we have today, but instead we should
compare them to the alternatives that existed at
the time.
Before Guttenberg, the only way to get a copy of
a book was to have someone (usually a monk) copy
it by hand. With that information alone, you can
tell that one could publish fifty or more copies
of a book (or flyer, etc.) with the same effort
and time that could only produce five coppies ...
and even *that* is with the obviously *false*
premise that you'd be using a *modern* pen. In
truth, we knew that these monks more likely used
a quill-pen and a bowl of ink (as PILOT(tm) pens
weren't invented for centuries after). Therefore,
with a Guttenberg-type press, you could make
fifty or more coppies of a book in the time that
you could only make *one* copy with the pre-existing
alternatives.
As for the fact that Guttenberg pretty much
limited his output to Bibles and Indulgences,
that doesn't say anything about the technology
he churned out. Rather, it says something about
the economic and political environment at the
time. He couldn't print computer programming
manuals, whereas programmable computers wouldn't
appear for centuries after. He couldn't publish
Kama-Sutra or the Koran, or the original Hebrew
version of the Bible, because he probably had
no desire to be burned at stake. But there was
nothing *technologically* that kept him from
doing that.
The only reason computer programming manuals
never were printed Guttenberg style is because
(a) by the time we had our first programable
computers, tyepwriters were commonplace, and
(b) by the time we had enough programmable
computers to validate mass-distribution of
a programming manual, we had printers.
You really shouldn't knock Guttenberg's
invention just because today (hundreds of
years later) it's obsolete.
There are many publishing means we have today
that *ten years* from now could very well be
dinosaurs. Take (for instance) the big
publishing houses. These enable you (today)
to have a neatly printed book with a nice
covers ... as opposed to a rough computer
print-out. However, ten years from now, you
could just download all the books specs from
the Internet, and have the book printed
(cover and all) and bound just as neadly
a mere ten feet away from your desk (assuming
copyright lawyears don't screw it up for all
of us). And even if Copyright lawyers *do*
get in the way of the specific idea I just
mentioned, there will most likely be *other*
more efficient alternatives to the publishing
houses of today.
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 00:11:30 -0400
Eric Bennett wrote in message ...
>In article <8otpuf$rht$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "2 + 2"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Where in Jackson's Conclusions of Law do you see him rely on this "rule
>> of
>> reason" principle to settle the tying issue? In legal jargon, it doesn't
>> "cut" that way, ie it's not useful in that regard.
>
>That depends on who you ask. Scalia suggested (in dissent) that the
>rule of reason analysis should have been applied to the tying claims in
>the Kodak case.
You're correct. It COULD be relevant. Of course, it is dicta by the judge
giving the MINORITY opinion.
Of course, it cuts "against" and Max has still got it reversed in suggesting
Jackson is applying it.
By shorthand, I generally accept that a finding that the browser is a
distinct product/market, eg no tech tying, is the kiss of death for
Microsoft (except as to remedies).
That's assuming that a monopoly is found, which strikes me as the most
likely finding, even while there is a widespead belief that the desktop
monopoly is "finished."
We have two complex analytical entities.
First, antitrust law, where courts struggle to reconcile modern market
leaders with the benefits of competition.
I have yet to see an lawyer's Elements of Proof (equivalent to jury
instructions) provided by anyone on this.
Second, computer technology, specifically web middleware.
My view is that the browser, the web middleware client will subsume the OS,
as part of a larger process where the Client subsumes the Server, especially
via clusters.
2 + 2
>
>--
>Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
>Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
>
>If I return people's greetings, I do so only to give them their greeting
back.
>-Karl Kraus
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[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 05:23:31 GMT
> >The problem that you're having is that when you're
> >arguing that a definition of the word is ...
> 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?
Absolutely.
> >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.
I fail to see how using the age-old definition of monopoly
encourages companies to monopolize. Perhaps you could point
out how?
> >Use of a variant sense is your prerogative, ...
> The fact is it isn't anywhere near as variant as you make it seem.
It's variant enough that it has cost a fair number of people a
great deal of grief, you included.
> it just seems like everyone wants to reserve the
> right to monopolize,
I don't think anyone here thinks that, although you might find
a few strict libertarians lurking around (strict libertarians
don't believe in antitrust law).
> I haven't ridiculed anybody for not instantly adopting my terminology,
Upon reflection, perhaps you haven't ridiculed anyone. What you
*have done* is patronized people. I'd like to suggest that this
in particular is an opportunity for personal growth for you.
> they're causing themselves by using the *wrong*
> words for no apparent reason accept familiarity and that's what they
> learned the first time.
Using words as other people understand them is ordinarily considered
effective communication. That's a pretty good reason, Max, and is
quite readily apparent.
> 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, ...
Most of us aren't the least bit in favor of restraint of trade.
Many of the posters on these various boards would gleefully
enjoy watching M$ be sundered into several seperate parts, for
example. Given their proclivity for flouting antitrust law, and
given the corporate culture which encourages willful aloofness
of antitrust law, the only remedy which makes sense is a structural
one.
> Having a monopoly is illegal.
But having a monopoly in the *older sense of the word* is *NOT*
illegal. Which is to say, if you happen to command near absolute
marketshare, this does not perforce mean that the law has been
broken, just as the Sherman Act indicates.
C//
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
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: 4 Sep 2000 05:24:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:qtFs5.48931$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > Why should deleting a root-level *FILE* fuck up the ENTIRE FILESYSTEM.
>> >
>> > This is indicative of some INCREDIBLY, SERIOUSLY bad fucking
>> > programming.
>>
>> Ah... I missed something out -- it wasn't a temporary webpage that did the
>> damage. It was putting a "Web" there -- which meant that the directory and
>> everything below that is treated as web content. Therefore, deleting the Web
>> deletes everything in that directory and below -- which being the root of
>> the file system deletes all of Windows on 95 & 98.
>>
>> When you create the web at the root of the file system, it warns you that
>> you might not be doing something particularly smart.
>
> Exactly the point. Anyone who creats a FrontPage web at the root of their
> filesystem isn't too bright to begin with. Blaming it entirely on MS
> isn't exactly fair, anymore than blaming the people who wrote rm for
> making rm -rf /* possible.
>
'rm -Rf /*'.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Dave Livesay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux.sucks,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 01:28:17 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Not haunted....merely possessed by M$ demons.
We exorcised 'em.
> G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
Um. I think her name was Jessica. Tammy was his wife's name at the time.
------------------------------
From: Dave Livesay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [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 01:31:46 -0400
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> Exactly the point. Anyone who creats a FrontPage web at the root of
> their filesystem isn't too bright to begin with.
Really. It's as stupid as using a Web browser to browse your local
directories. How stupid can you get?!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Smith)
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 05:35:31 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Darren Winsper in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 18:48:03 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe all 'current' upgrade products. But anyone who got an upgrade to
>>> Win95 knows that you can't install it on a bare machine; a Microsoft OS
>>> has to be pre-installed in order to install the upgrade. There are ways
>>> around it, of course, because it is an empty pretense used solely for
>>> anti-competitive purposes, but the standard installation package will
>>> not install the OS on an empty hard drive.
>>
>>That is a lie. I have installed Windows 95 (The very
>>first version) upgrade version on a blank hard disk
>>before. What it did ask me to do was to stick an
>>appropriate prior version to prove the upgrade was
>>legit. It then proceeded to install without trouble.
>
>And if the prior version was DOS from three years and two owners
>previous, and you don't have that disk?
>
>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.
>
>--
>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: 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 05:49:11 GMT
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>snip<
:> No shit. Competing is much easier said than done. Superior product is
:> much easer said than done. Business acumen is much easier said than
:> done. Deal with it.
:
: How about you write us something along the lines of photoshop... or even
: solitaire. Make it completely portable. And why not at the same time
: explain how easy or not it was to do. Because unless *YOU* do it, it looks
: like you've got a damn big opinion on you, and you're not going to accept
: anyone else's experience to the contrary.
Hmm, Gimp anyone?
--
-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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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 01:08:46 -0500
"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : As does yours. Produce any kind of evidence that it was forged. At all.
>
> http://slashdot.org/articles/00/06/28/0042228.shtml
>
> "Strange note: the page where this appears has a footer that says,
> "Last updated January 21, 2000," but when I did a search on
> Microsoft.com during our little tussle[1] with them last month, I
> didn't find it."
That really means little. MS's search engines are pretty picky and often
return 10's of thousands of hits (usually truncated to 500 or so ) Changing
your search phrases can raise or lower your ranking in the search so that it
appears in the first 500, or in the truncated section.
> [1] http://slashdot.org/features/00/05/11/0153247.shtml
>
> I'd say such "eye witness" testimony pretty much seals the issue.
> Case closed.
Saying that you can't find it with a search engine is not the same thing as
"It wasn't there".
> : 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.
> : 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.
>
> Then if it's so easy, we await your "proof". So far, the only
> tangible evidence is a trivially forged string string "Last updated
> January 21, 2000" vs the testimony of an eye witness. As MS would
> have an extremely clear motive for forging such a date string and so
> far as we know the eye witness has no ulterior motives, the Jury
> must be compelled to pass judgment against MS.
Actually, it's on Technet, not MSDN. Technet is similar to MSDN but geared
towards support rather than development.
> : Allow me to explain:
> :
> : You're arguing from a point of supposition and happenstance. You have no
> : evidence either way.
>
> We have "eye" witnesses, we have official MS documents, we have a
> rap sheet of prior offenses a mile long, and we have a clear motive.
>
> Case closed.
You don't have an eye witness. You have someone that was unable to find a
needle in a haystack. Not exactly the same thing.
------------------------------
From: Zenin <[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 05:56:20 GMT
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>snip<
:> 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.
:
: 'rm -Rf /*'.
Nit picking about -r vs -R is a little silly...especially
considering -r is more commonly used and (at least slightly) more
portable:
`man rm' from 4.4BSD Lite2:
-r Equivalent to -R.
`man rm' from Solaris:
-R Same as -r option.
`man rm' from Unix Seventh Edition:
SYNOPSIS
rm [ -fri ] file ...
`man rm' GNU fileutils (aka Linux rm)
-r, -R, --recursive
remove the contents of directories recursively
--
-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: "D'Arcy Smith" <[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 06:03:51 GMT
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ovbme$1ku7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > making rm -rf /* possible.
> 'rm -Rf /*'.
man rm
-r, -R, --recursive
Remove the contents of directories recursively.
..darcy
------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[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 06:07:21 GMT
"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> `man rm' from 4.4BSD Lite2:
> `man rm' from Solaris:
> `man rm' from Unix Seventh Edition:
> `man rm' GNU fileutils (aka Linux rm)
Irix 6.2... -r only no -R.
..darcy
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: American schools ARE being sabotaged from within.
Date: 4 Sep 2000 06:06:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
[on Alan Kulkis...]
>> It's because he lives in a grove of birch trees.
>> A special kind of birch trees, in fact.
>> John Birch trees :-)
>So says the communist agitator
Seen any Reds under your bed lately?
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
