Linux-Advocacy Digest #884, Volume #28 Mon, 4 Sep 00 10:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why I hate Windows... (Slip Gun)
Re: Why I hate Windows... (Slip Gun)
Re: Why I hate Windows... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why I hate Windows... (D. Spider)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Joe R.")
Re: Computer and memory ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: How low can they go...? (lyttlec)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Slip Gun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 12:48:50 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Anthony Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:vExs5.3192$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > look's like I stirred up a few wintroll minds oh well. Here's my answer to
> > their claims.
> >
> > Erik:- if you advocate windows & getting work done, why are you browsing a
> > linux group. Is this a bizarre new form of Sado-Masochism?
>
> I don't advocate Windows per se. I use both Linux and Windows. I don't
> call correcting misinformation "advocating".
>
> > Also, how can I properly configure a machine when the OS decides FOR ME
> how
> > everything should be set up - and then leaves me to correct it's errors
> with
> > basic and non-descript tools (namely Control Panel)
>
> And you don't consider vi to be a basic and non-descript tool?
At least vi leaves me free to do *exactly* what I want. And I can always
use something more fancy if I want to - there are plenty of
configuration tools out there. Windoze ran my computer as Bill wanted
it, not as I wanted it.
Linux took some getting used to, but I have now had it for nearly two
years, and I don't miss Windows a bit.
Cheers,
Ed
--
Those who trade away their privacy in favour of security will soon find
that they have neither.
------------------------------
From: Slip Gun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 12:55:22 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8oug5k$ne7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Oh comeon Ingemar. Not even NT that i use stays up two days without a
> > reboot.... it just gets slower and slower and slower and finally i have to
> > reboot to make it faster.
>
> I posted some screenshots of my task manager a few days ago. It showed that
> the distributed.net client on my machine has been running for 707 hours (or
> about 30 days). It's now 798 hours. And this is an NT4 machine, the
> supposedly unstable version (I do have SP6 applied). I use this machine
> daily for software development, internet useage (I have IE 5.5 installed),
> and several other tasks. This machine get's heavy useage. It's running a
> Diamond Stealth 3D video card (2MB, rather old) at 1152x864 in 16 bit color,
> a PII-350 on an ABit BX6 motherboard (over 2 years old) with 196MB of RAM
> (of which only about 70MB is used in typical scenarios.
>
> This machine is rock solid solid stable and has never BSOD'd and never
> suffers from these mysterious slowdowns people talk about.
>
> > With Win98 forget. If what you say is correct then you have a fresh
> install
> > and only use 2 or 3 programs. This is actually the secret to run Win98
> > stable dont install and deinstall too many programs or otherwise the
> > registry acts funny.
>
> My 98SE install is about a year old. My girlfriend uses it daily for
> Office/net surfing/game playing. I also have distributed.net running on it
> 24 hours so it's never shut down. dnet has been going for over 3 weeks
> straight now.
>
> > Win 98 is not as unstable has claimed but it is very close and certainly
> no
> > OS for "real work" - whatever that is :-)
>
> It's certainly not rock solid, but only the most broken apps can bring it
> down (that includes faulty drivers).
WOW! You must have one hell of a PC! (Maybe a bit like the Love Bug). I
haven't been able to run 'doze for more than about 8 hours without
massive slowdown and crashing. Please tell me how you manage to achive
this.
Thanks,
Ed
--
Those who trade away their privacy in favour of security will soon find
that they have neither.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 07:13:52 -0500
"Slip Gun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > And you
don't consider vi to be a basic and non-descript tool?
>
> At least vi leaves me free to do *exactly* what I want. And I can always
> use something more fancy if I want to - there are plenty of
> configuration tools out there. Windoze ran my computer as Bill wanted
> it, not as I wanted it.
Just because you don't know how to configure you Windows system doesn't mean
that nobody else does either. I'd venture that 99% of the people that use
Windows couldn't figure out how to configure a Linux system either.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 12:03:13 GMT
It appears that on Mon, 04 Sep 2000 12:48:50 +0000, in
comp.os.linux.advocacy Slip Gun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> "Anthony Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:vExs5.3192$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > look's like I stirred up a few wintroll minds oh well. Here's my answer to
>> > their claims.
>> >
>> > Erik:- if you advocate windows & getting work done, why are you browsing a
>> > linux group. Is this a bizarre new form of Sado-Masochism?
>>
>> I don't advocate Windows per se. I use both Linux and Windows. I don't
>> call correcting misinformation "advocating".
>>
>> > Also, how can I properly configure a machine when the OS decides FOR ME
>> how
>> > everything should be set up - and then leaves me to correct it's errors
>> with
>> > basic and non-descript tools (namely Control Panel)
>>
>> And you don't consider vi to be a basic and non-descript tool?
>
>At least vi leaves me free to do *exactly* what I want. And I can always
>use something more fancy if I want to - there are plenty of
>configuration tools out there. Windoze ran my computer as Bill wanted
>it, not as I wanted it.
>Linux took some getting used to, but I have now had it for nearly two
>years, and I don't miss Windows a bit.
>Cheers,
>Ed
Heh. Venom Incarnate. *grin*
That reminds me of this (don't take these TOO seriously, they are
humour ;^):
Editors 101 - The VI Menace
http://www.dina.dk/~abraham/religion/editors-101.html
The vi tutorial part 1 - How to move the cursor one character forward
in VI
http://www.dina.dk/~abraham/religion/vi-tutorial.html
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
is barred from archiving my messages.
#####################################################
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 10:10:47 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> [...]
> >> Also, it's well within Troll's capacity to merely not make statements
> >> that might serve to chill the atmosphere around a free QT clone. The
> >> fact that they always retain the right to sue is trivial. They retain
> >> that regardless of the statement of their intent. So merely restating
> >> the obvious is gratuitious.
> >
> >Not if they are asked. What should they do? Ignore the question?
>
> They should say "No. We have no intention of suing any competitor
> attempting to clone QT." That is, as near as we can figure, their legal
> responsibility, and it in no way invites or encourages anti-competitive
> threats to their market.
Nonsense. What if the cloner-to-be proceeds to copy a big chunk of Qt's
headers into their own? Or to ship the Qt-clone with the original
Qt manuals? They would have to sue, and they would be made liars.
> [...]
> >Read Qt position on the subject. It's in linuxtoday's archives.
> >TT's legal counsel has suggested that the GPL would not prevent
> >development of proprietary closed source software based on Qt.
>
> You know, posting urls encourages other people to believe that you might
> actually be correctly interpreting and representing somebody's
> statement, because you make it so easy for them to double-check. Kind
> of like the issue we're discussing; if you don't hide anything, then you
> have nothing to hide.
linuxtoday.com, search for Qt.
> [...]
> >The TT lawyers said different, apparently.
>
> Why do you say that?
Because apparently they said so, in my opinion, judging from what
I have read expressed by people at TT.
> [...]
> >Not, according to their lawyers.
>
> How so?
Idem.
> >> This is one of the most absurd aspects of this situation.
> >
> >Yes, if you don't know what you are talking about.
>
> You are an absurd aspect, Roberto. Nobody ever knows what you're
> talking about because you never tell anyone what you're talking about;
> you just want us all to presume you're an authority and have it all
> figured out. Yet you never seem to have anything much useful to say.
> So aren't you just an authority on everything you don't say,
> essentially? In other words, just a pain in the ass with not much to
> say to begin with?
I can't fathom how you can say I have said nothing in this
thread. If anyone has brought information, it has been me.
> [Note the rather blindingly fast switch I've made from civil if not
> social responses to insults, at the first hint of Roberto's attempt to
> ridicule 'jedi' for his opinion.]
Jedi's opinions in anything related to KDE are to be taken with a
grain of salt. So is mone, of course, but at least I say it.
> [...]
> >> Matthias pretty much says so in the current Linux Gazzette.
> >
> >Details? Not of the reasons to use Qt, but of what Matthias says
> >about the reasons for not cloning Qt.
>
> Yes, details, please.
>
> >> They weren't interested in building the underlying infastructure
> >> and were quite willing to put it on top of commercial product.
> >
> >Who said we weren't?
>
> Um, apparently 'jedi', based on his reading of Matthias's comments. Why
> do you ask?
Why do you care?
> >> Had the situation, in terms of immediate cost, favored motif 2, I
> >> am sure they would have used that instead.
> >
> >Had motif 2 been under a licensing/cost situation where we would have
> >found it usable, and had it been a toolkit we enjoyed using, why
> >wouldn't we use it? That's trivial.
>
> Trivial, how?
Trivial: "the simplest case". Mathematical meaning.
> As an example of the fact that QT was a trivial choice of
> no great import, as 'jedi' intended, or trivial as an indictment of
> anti-competitive behavior, as you seem to have read it, somehow.
Yikes, I have read nothing like it.
> Are you getting defensive, yet? First denial, then anger, eh?
Where do you see anger in that paragraph?
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 10:16:23 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >On Sat, 02 Sep 2000 21:49:25 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >>> Matthias pretty much says so in the current Linux Gazzette.
> >>
> >>And who is Matthias?
> >
> >Ignoramus. Why don't you leave the debating to those who know something
> >about the topic at hand ?
>
> How about you just answer the question, instead?
How about you bother going to www.kde.org and look at the credits page?
That should narrow it down a bit.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 09:04:38 -0400
Rick wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > >
> > > >Rick wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Rick wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > > Finally, vouchers. As many of you may have seen, there are now studies
> > > >> > > > > from three states indicating that minority students, particularly
> > > >> > > > > Hispanic and African-American, do better in private schools. I think
> > > >> > > > > vouchers are a great idea, *provided* that *extra* taxes are
>implemented
> > > >> > > > > to pay for them. The bad thing about vouchers is that the money for
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Why do you need *extra* taxes for vouchers, when you have just
> > > >> > > > stated above that the per-pupil costs of private schools are LOWER
> > > >> > > > than that of public schools (Primarily to lower salaries, reduced
> > > >> > > > red-tape and significantly smaller bureacracy).
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > First, private schools charge "more" per student.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Yeah, there are a couple of HIGHLY SELECT blue-blood boarding
> > > >> > schools like Andover that cost more than the tuition at most
> > > >> > colleges...
> > > >> >
> > > >> > But, by and large, the OVERWHELMING majority of private schools
> > > >> > have lower per-pupil costs.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Reduced management overhead is the primary reason.
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> Really? Do you know the typical management structure of a typical public
> > > >> school? Its very light. Very.
> > >
> > > >In most school districts, 30-50% of the per-pupil cost is MANAGMENT OVERHEAD.
> > >
> > > This would mean that at best, for every three teachers there is one
> > > non-teaching administrator. The idea is complete nonsense. I've never seen a
> >
> > There you go again. Are you alleging that all administrators get
> > paid the same as teachers?
> >
> > Are you forgetting that MOST administrators tend to get paid MORE than
> > the teachers AND that they tend to run up a lot of highly dubious
> > expenses like limos, air fare and "workshop" costs.
> >
>
> Public schools administrators in limos??? And you want us to take you
> seriously?
Unbury your head from of the sand....
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 09:05:05 -0400
Rick wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > Rick wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Rick wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob Germer wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 09/01/2000 at 05:25 PM,
> > > > > > Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > At the present time, public schools are massively under-funded. Class
> > > > > > > sizes are extremely large. If you want better education in public
> > > > > > > schools.. re-institute a students right to fail a course. Re-institute
> > > > > > > having the student take responsibility for their own actions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Debunking this makes everything you post fit only for the bit bucket.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My wife was a teacher in an inner city public school in a rust belt city
> > > > > > for 31 years. I kept many of her class records for her on my computers
> > > > > > beginning in 1984. I have every class list from that time until she
> > > > > > retired two years ago. AT NO TIME DID SHE EVER HAVE MORE THAN 22 STUDENTS.
> > > > > > In five of those years her class size was less than 15. Any time ANY
> > > > > > teacher in that district had more than 17 students, he or she had a FULL
> > > > > > TIME, qualified, classroom aide.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I wouldbeinterested to know what the teacher/student ratio is NOW.
> > > >
> > > > What...as if this would contradict 25 years of the data which proves
> > > > that you are a liar.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well... we all know you are very rude...
> > >
> >
> > Facts are not always kind.
> >
> > Deal with it, liar.
> >
>
> ... and you expect us to take such a rude and impolite person seriously?
> I Dont think so.
Why should anyone be polite to a pathalogical liar like yourself?
>
> --
>
> Rick
>
> * To email me remove theobvious from my address *
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 10:20:13 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> [...]
> >If your trouble is, as it seems, that it makes it hard for you
> >to clone Qt, that's your problem, not TT's, not mine, not
> >KDE's. Yours.
>
> How does having the code open make it harder to clone? Why would a
> clean-room process even be necessary?
A clean-room is used normally to prove you are not copying the
code, since copying the code is illegal.
Jedi's contention is that since the code is available, it's harder
to prove that you are not copying.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 10:22:15 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
[snip crap]
> Now my question is: What is the KDE Free QT Foundation, and why isn't it
> part of Harmony, or Harmony part of it?
The KDE Free Qt foundation is a legal tool to prevent Qt becoming
less free in the future. In fcat, the foundation has to approve
license changes. You can find more information in www.troll.no.
BTW: if you look at the foundation's statutes, check the signatures.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 13:15:29 GMT
In article <39b3458e$3$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 09/03/2000 at 08:29 PM,
> "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Second, their stated tuition figures seem far too low. I can only guess
> > that it's because Catholic schools make up such a large percentage --
> > just those schools which are receive much of their expenses from
> > sources
> > other than tuition.
>
> You are blowing smoke. My sister is a Roman Catholic very active in her
> parish which does not at the present have a parish elementary school.
> They wish to start one and are currently working on the documentation
> requisite to receive PERMISSION to build and open one. The Archdiocese of
> Philadelphia does NOT provide any funding for building, operating costs,
> etc. The only thing it provides is a guarantee to the parish of the
> mortgages since technically the Archdiocese owns the land. However, in
> order to recieve such permission, the parish must first raise $1,800,000
> in unencumbered cash from among the parishioners who are of course also
> taxpayers.
So?
Are you arguing that the Catholic schools _don't_ receive support from
their local parish?
I never claimed that the Archdiocese pays (although they might in some
areas). All I said is that Catholic schools receive some support from
the church. And your $1.8 M figures sort of confirms my statement,
doesn't it?
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 09:08:58 -0400
Person 7 wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:06:58 +0200, in comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,
> ("Olivier Borgeaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >2. Memory is actually very cheap
>
> Memory is NOT cheap
That's strange...every probject that *I* have worked on the last
5 years was built on the assumption that the performance/price
ratio of memory is significantly higher than nearly any other
aspect of the system.
In 1980, $500 would get you 16 Kilobytes of 1 micro-second read/write
memory
Now, $500 will get you about 512 MEGABYTES of 10-nanosecond read/write
memory.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[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 13:16:08 GMT
"James A. Robertson" wrote:
>
> "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>
Wheat production during the latter Roman Empire. That monopoly lasted
about 300 years. It was corrected when the barbarian invaders killed the
monopolist and almost everyone else. Not a desirable means of market
correction.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 10:25:25 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> [...]
> >> >You're way out of line on this, Max. They didn't loudly say "we can't
> >>
> >> Actually there was a quote floating around where they alluded
> >> to situations where a commercially supported Harmony might
> >> come under attack for merely being successful.
> >
> >You are probably referring to this (why must i provide the context
> >for your attacks, Jedi?), and you are tergiversing it:
>
> The better construct is "you are tergiversating", but obviously the
> phrase "tergiversing it" is comprehensible, if not very correct.
Thanks.
> [see http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-freeqt&m=91244219105556&w=2]
>
> >Notice how Eirik specifically doesn't say they would sue for "merely
> >being successful", but that if someone tried to "embrace and extend"
> >Qt they MIGHT CONSIDER suing.
> >
> >Totally different things. What you just did, Jedi, was mudslinging.
> >
> >> Max is not out of line at all.
> >
> >He is.
>
> You're confabulating, as Eirik did, the idea of TT suing on anti-trust
> grounds,
Where do you get the idea of TT suing on antitrust grounds????
The only sue involved here is a copyright violation one.
> and whether or not they consider cloning QT to be infringement,
> which was the question. The fact that he didn't answer the question
> about intellectual property concerns at all is most probably why there's
> still so much debate on the subject. I figure as long as there's
> debate, I can't be out of line in debating it.
>
> [...]
> >Allow me to threat you: I can not guarantee I will not
> >sue you. Scary, ah? And if you say you are not scared
> >because I am not a company: I can not guarantee AOL
> >will not sue you.
>
> How moronic. How are your children doing, Roberto? If you had
> children, would you feel threatened by my asking? What, do you suppose,
> does *context* have to do with whether something is perceived, or
> intended, as an actual threat?
My children (if they exist), are probably doing just fine.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
