Linux-Advocacy Digest #946, Volume #28 Wed, 6 Sep 00 06:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Jon Skeet)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (Pa Nihill)
install kernel man pages ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 04:32:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>That is an interesting justification. The existing legal distinctions
>between "monopoly" and "monopolize" certainly are cause for confusion.
>But I think you are taking the wrong approach. You should not say that
>monopolies are illegal, because under the currently accepted legal
>definitions, that is wrong. What you should say is that the definition
>should be changed so that "monopoly" only applies to the actions that
>Sherman et. al prohibit. If you succeed in getting people to accept
>that change, then you can say that all monopolies are illegal... but not
>before then.
Well, you seem to have a clear understanding of the issues, but not the
problems. First, the reason I say monopolies are illegal is because,
routinely, people say they are, particularly in such constructs as "it
isn't illegal to have a monopoly, its only illegal to use one to get
another" or "only abusive monopolies are illegal" or "its not illegal to
monopolize, unless you try to use your monopoly".
All of these are clearly in error. Its particularly distressing, in
light of your comments, to see (and I have) someone say, simply "it
isn't illegal to _monopolize_" (emphasis added). Several people, also,
have scoffed at the idea that it is illegal to attempt to monopolize.
This last brings the issue to a point: people think that monopolizing is
what all business try to do. They think it makes sense, they can't see
why anyone *wouldn't* try to monopolize. This leads to those countless
number of people that insist that enforcing anti-trust law is 'punishing
success'. Some have even constructed, in their own mind and guided only
by 'popular wisdom' and their observations, the idea that your
*supposed* to monopolize ('win' the competition), but then, once you
become successful, you're 'rewarded' by being broken up. Which isn't
strange to hear from people who think anti-trust law is ludicrous, but
that person was *supporting* the idea.
Second, the reason I say monopolies are illegal is because it is true.
It is not true that monopolies have been outlawed. No law has ever been
written stating "having a monopoly is illegal", precisely. Judge
White's opinion, in the Standard Oil case, as well as a great deal of
discussion of anti-trust law in other cases and text books (as well as a
sideswipe reference in phrasing from the earliest Supreme Court
anti-trust decision of 1895) point out, in fact, that no law has ever
been passed outlawing "a monopoly by an individual". However, just
because a law has not been explicitly written about something is no
reason to avoid saying it is 'illegal', if there is no legal way to do
it. The lack of explicit restriction on "having a monopoly"
notwithstanding, it is illegal to acquire a monopoly, maintain a
monopoly, monopolize, attempt to monopolize, or use monopoly power.
Additionally, the law in precedent is clear in indicating that using
monopoly power is only necessary as a demonstration that monopolizing
has occurred; the monopolizing itself is what is outlawed, not the use
of monopoly power.
And even further, 'monopolizing' itself is considered but a special case
of 'restraint of trade', or rather, the potential to restrain trade.
The section of the Sherman Act concerning restraint of trade does not
outlaw restraint of trade. It makes any contract in restraint of trade
illegal, and makes the making of such contracts a felony. This ability
to consider the making of a contract a crime because the results of the
contract restrained trade clearly shows that same 'damned if you do,
damned if you do' apparent conflict as the law against monopolization.
But you don't hear people saying "its not illegal to restrain trade, its
only illegal to make a contract to restrain trade."
Finally, it is not the 'currently accepted legal definitions' that
having a monopoly is legal. You've provided quotes illustrating the use
of similar language, that's true. But a careful reading would probably
show that the judge was stating that there is no law against having a
monopoly (just as Justice White observed in 1911), not that having a
monopoly is legal. Such would obviously be either a creeping in to
language the 'common knowledge' concept of 'monopoly', used for
reference, or a direct contradiction of the law, as 'having a monopoly'
is not possible without either acquiring or maintaining one. The
possible of having a large market share to begin with is
inconsequential; one acquires a monopoly when one acquires monopoly
power, not when one gains the market share which may provide one with
monopoly power, should one act anti-competitively.
Your suggestion that I should 'suggest' that the definition of monopoly
be changed to match 'acts outlawed by the Sherman Act', rather than
suggest that people not say "having a monopoly is illegal" is, quite
simply, backwards. Which is to say that what I am doing is precisely
that; I suggest that people mean 'acts outlawed by the Sherman Act' when
they say monopoly, because that is what the phrase "having a monopoly is
illegal" means.
I'm not quibbling about the word 'monopoly', and never have been.
'Popular wisdom' quibbles about the word monopoly when it justifies
monopolization. Monopolization, and attempted monopolization, and
acquisition or maintenance of a monopoly, and use of monopoly power, are
all illegal, the first outlawed by outright statute, and the rest, like
"having a monopoly", are made illegal by the fact that there is no legal
way to accomplish them.
Having a monopoly is illegal. I appreciate your assistance in exploring
this point.
>However, if you are trying to make laws easy to understand, I think you
>would find more supporters if you took on the tax code instead of the
>Sherman Act. ;-)
I don't see what's so hard about understanding a simple phrase "having a
monopoly is illegal". If you want to get antsey, you can say
"monopolizing is illegal", and leave it at that. The only point of
contention is the fact that having a monopoly is only illegal because
you cannot acquire one by engaging in competitive commerce. By
definition, it requires anti-competitive acts to acquire or use or
maintain monopoly power. The fact is, all anti-competitive actions are
illegal. I think *that* should be part of 'popular wisdom'. People
would get ripped off a lot more often, and all markets would be a lot
more competitive.
So we begin to see why people don't like to, or aren't encouraged to say
"having a monopoly is illegal". Because everyone wants to reserve the
right to take anti-competitive actions, if the opportunity should
present itself.
[...]
>I don't think changing the definition of a word is going to prevent
>people from wanting to have the power to do what the antitrust laws
>prohibit doing. Whatever you call it, the same desires will be present.
Which is why changing the definition of the word is all that is needed
to prevent people from allowing monopolization, or accomplishing
monopoly. The desires aren't illegal. Acting on them is. If people
recognized that trying to 'get an edge', rather than *compete*, is not
allowed, then all markets would be more competitive.
>> Having a monopoly is illegal.
>
>You might also do better to simply invent a new word, rather than to try
>to change an old one. For example:
>
>"Having a maxopoly is illegal."
Why should I? A perfectly fine word already exists. If you want to
engage in useless horse-play, you can say "having a large market share
is not illegal, as long as you don't attempt to monopolize". That's
what people really mean. They ought to know this isn't some fucking
joke. Having a monopoly is _illegal_, in *real life*. Day to day
business. "If we can get them to buy..." is criminal intent, when your
goal is to acquire market share so that you can monopolize. Engrossing,
regrating, and forestalling are illegal, if you just want funny words.
>But this presents certain problems, because you do not "have" behavior,
>and behavior is what the statutes prevent. I do not "have" restraint of
>trade, I commit restraint of trade.
No, you create contracts which are in restraint of trade. The statute
prevents any and all behavior which would allow you to "have" a
monopoly. Ergo, having a monopoly is illegal. QED
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 04:36:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>...
>
>> 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.
>
>"Killing people is always legal."
>
>I have this new definition of "killing" that makes lots of sense. [...]
No, you've got this lame idea that you can throw 'always' into a
sentence without changing its meaning. I guess you realized that saying
"killing people is legal" or "killing people is not illegal" are both
equally sound examples of my point, as they aren't really very
acceptable statements in light of reason, are they?
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: Jon Skeet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 09:53:06 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > You think that just because a kernel can't be recompiled, you shouldn't
> > be able to reconfigure it? What rot! Not all machines are used in the
> > same way - being able to reconfigure things like socket timeouts, network
> > connection limitations etc is vital for heavily-loaded servers.
>
> I wouldn't call that reconfiguration... in the post I was replying to, I was
> assuming it was something a lot heftier -- not just changing a few variables
> on the fly.
When you configure an application, is that not just "changing a few
variables on the fly"? Why should it be different for kernels? Sure,
kernel recompilation can change *more*, but certainly ProcFS does exactly
this changing of variables (including whether some features are turned on
or not). My guess is that BSD's sysctl is very similar.
What *would* you call those variables, if they're not configuration?
--
Jon Skeet - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/
------------------------------
From: Pa Nihill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 08:55:42 GMT
<snip>
In article <2YZs5.64075$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Shocktrooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The section of the taskbar, where it lists open documents and folders
do give information as per what application they are currently
> open in, but the actual bar represents the document. You can't have
it represent both the document, and the application. that
> doesn't make any sense..
>
There are several apps in windows which don't show their open documents
in the taskbar. Of the programs I have open at the moment, for example,
Photoshop, Opera, SQL Server Enterprise Manager and Homesite all show
up as one button on the taskbar, regardless of how many documents are
open within them. Even if there are none, they still have an icon on
the taskbar. So I think it's fair to say the taskbar DOES represent
both applications and documents. And you're right, it doesn't make any
sense...
--
Pa Nihill
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: install kernel man pages
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 09:15:45 GMT
Hi guys/gals,
I dont know if this is possible, ineed man pages for the
kernel functions, can idownload it from somewhere, if yes where can i
get it, and how to install them.
thanks in advance
pachu
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 05:28:25 -0400
"Paul E. Larson" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Paul E. Larson" wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> OK, so I finally did it... Tested two machines, one Linux and one Win98
> >> >> SE.
> >> >>
> >> ~~~~~~~trimmed~~~~~~~~
> >> >>
> >> >> After one hour the downloads were:
> >> >>
> >> >> Linux - 18MB
> >> >> Windows - 6.5MB
> >> >>
> >> >> After two hours, the accumalated total was (and we stopped here):
> >> >>
> >> >> Linux - 32MB
> >> >> Windows - 14MB
> >> >>
> >> ~~~~trimmed~~~~~~~~
> >> >> Other interesting facts:
> >> >>
> >> >> Install times:
> >> >> --------------
> >> >>
> >> >> Linux - 43 Minutes
> >> >> Windows - 45 Minutes
> >> >>
> >> >> Time from start to first working dial-up connection:
> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------
> >> >>
> >> >> Linux - 52 Minutes
> >> >> Windows - 48 Minutes
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, it took only 3 minutes to configure windows to dial-up. Why? Well,
> >> >> I first had to create a user in Linux and enable that user to make ppp
> >> >> connections. This wasted some time. Aslo I had to enter the ISP's DNS
> >> >> IP in the Linux machine, while this was not an issue with the Windows
> >> >> box. The ISP's version of IE5 was used that did most of the set-up
> >> >> automatically.
> >> >>
> >> >> Time to authenticate:
> >> >> --------------------
> >> >>
> >> >> Average times:
> >> >>
> >> >> Linux: 4 Seconds
> >> >> Windows: 9 Seconds
> >> >>
> >> >> Total Connections per machine:
> >> >> -----------------------------
> >> >>
> >> >> Linux: 5 (3 line drops occured)
> >> >>
> >> >> Windows: 4 (2 line drops occured)
> >> >>
> >> >> Both machines were set-up to reconnect automatically. In all instances
> >> >> we restarted the FTP clients manually.
> >> >>
> >> >> That was that.
> >> >>
> >> >> I am now convinced. Linux IS faster on dial-up then Windows, especially
> >> >> on FTP. Any other person that want to add anything are welcome.
> >> >>
> >> >> PS. This test is still not 100% scientific. I KNOW THAT. Take it for
> >> >> what it is. I believe that this is typical times you should get from
> >> >> other machines in similar configurations.
> >> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >I have similar results from "cable modem" connections from identical
> >> >machines.
> >> >
> >> Either you are connecting to sites with slow connections or your cable
> >> connection is truly fscked up. I just did 19mb in 55 seconds.
> >
> >That's inconsequential.
> >
> >The important point is, hitting the same sites, SIMULTANEOUSLY, from
> >a Linux box and a Windows box, with identical hardware configurations,
> >(other than the Windows box having MORE memory), the Linux box ALWAYS
> >downloads the data faster.
> >
> >Why is that?
> >
>
> Your the one that claimed to be getting similar results with a cable modem
> connection as the above tests with 56k modems. That is something for you to
> figure out along with your cable provider.
Pffffft! In a pig's eye.
There's nothing to figure out.
SAME CONNECTION
NEARLY IDENTICAL MACHINES (WINDOWS MACHINE HAS MORE MEMORY)
SAME WEBSITE.
Obviously, the Windows machine gets backed up, and packets are getting
dropped, and resent because TCP/IP works on "virtual circuit"
methodology.
Meanwhile, the Linux machine isn't dropping any packets, and thus,
the data transfer rate is much higher.
>
> Paul
>
> --
>
> "Mr. Rusk you not wearing your tie." -- Frenzy 1972
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
