Linux-Advocacy Digest #994, Volume #28 Fri, 8 Sep 00 06:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform (IE for Linux) ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Computer and memory ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Computer and memory (2:1)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] ("2 + 2")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 04:54:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>You are again ignoring the fact that the name "Windows 95" refers to 4
>distinct versions of the program, produced between 1995 and 1998. Two
>significant versions, OSR2 (950b) added things like Fat32, IE3 (integrated
>into the OS, though not the shell) and preliminary USB support, and OSR 2.5
>which added IE4 and significantly better USB support.
Blah blah blah. Why are you wiggling around. We all know that we're
talking about the Win95 with integrated IE, which was prevented from
being sold for a period of time by court order. You seem more familiar
with the details of those products than I, and had the dates for the
Win98 testimony (astroturfing for spending cash, Erik?), so I can only
think of one reason you would not be aware of the issue which we've all
been speaking of. Should I say what that is?
>You also forget that MS offered to ship the original retail Windows 95 to
>satisfy the court, but the DOJ objected and claimed this version was
>hoplessly out of date.
Microsoft threatened to screw the OEMs by not releasing Win98 at all,
and the Judge decided that was bullshit.
>But all that is irrelevant, since we were talking about the allegedly
>fabricated videotape, which disputed professor Edward Feltons IE removal
>program. This occured in Febuary of 1999.
Not anymore, we're not.
--
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.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 04:57:06 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[...]So! You NOW admit that
>Microsoft has failed to permit the purchasers of their original version of
>Windows 95 to the latter upgrade versions of the OS permitting upgrade ONLY
>through purchase of news prebuilt computers systems that came with the newer
>versions of Windows 95 bundled in.
Dude, get that prozac prescription refilled, would you please? That
sentence ought to be taken out and shot.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform (IE for Linux)
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 09:02:10 GMT
I do hope MS port IE 5-5.5 to Linux (as they have to Solaris) i want a
*real*
browser in Linux not that piece of crap Nutscrape.
/IL
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:8p3fn8$2491$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Michael Bernstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > i've had netscape cause pci bus errors and crash everything.
> >
>
> FYI, the 'bus error' that netscape often quits with is not a 'pci bus
> error', although it is often mistaken for one.
>
> And yay, yet more anecdotal evidence.
>
>
>
>
> -----yttrx
>
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[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: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 10:02:56 +0100
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> >> Yes, it was a perfect pretext to help in their neferious acitvities of
> >tying
> >> non-OS services into the OS and thereby further locking in customer.
> >
> >Who are you to decide what belongs in an *APPLICATIONS PLATFORM* and what
> >doesn't?
>
> The customer.
>
According to you, you're not a customer of Microsoft at all...
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 10:05:34 +0100
"Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:diZt5.17875$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> 'Nam was started by the French.
And made far, far worse by the US.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 09:28:04 GMT
Chad, you are as ignorant as you are stupid.
The USA came in to the war after they were attacked. It was to help
themselves, when they realised they were under threat. Not to help the
europeans.
And as for this communist `threat'. They were your bloody allies in
WWII. If they didn't sacrifice 20 million people against the Nazis and
stop them in their tracks, then the allies might never had won the war.
Some threat. Had that heppened, the US would have been attacked sooner
or later. Would you have won or lost? who knows...
Let me reiterate, if the COMMUNISTS didn't stand up to the nazis, they
all in your precious Americs (as well as europe) might be goos-stepping
too. Secondly, the behaviour of many people in the 50's communist witch
hunts in the US was quite frnakly appauling. Free country, eh? As long
as you have the /right/ political beliefs.
The reason the world (the US and UK included) turned againt Saddam was
for OIL. Who helped many of the other contries that have been invaded,
such as Tibet? Noone. So don't go banging on aboput the Americans
helping out the little guy. They're just as bad as the rest of the world
at only helping who they wish for personal gain.
<shipped patriotic, xenophobic bullshit>
Oh, have you ever heard of the UN?
You're precious America is no better than the rest of us. How on earth
you think you are superior and that Americans are better people is
beyond me. If you truly think that then I hope you never visit this
country.
I think that you need a sever beating with a clue stick.
-Ed
--
BBC Computer 32K | Edward Rosten
Acorn DFS | Engineer and Jupiter ACE advocate
Basic | fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult
>*MAIL ku.ca.xo.gne@rje98u (backwards, if you want to talk to me)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 05:41:31 -0400
Eric Bennett wrote in message ...
>In article <8p82qe$4es$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "2 + 2"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >I don't find it a coincidence that Jackson took the opinion of the
>> >Supreme Court justice most likely to be sympathetic to Microsoft's
>> >cause, and used that opinion to condemn Microsoft.
>>
>> I can only assume your analysis depends on separate products being shown,
>> i.e non tech-tying, regarded the browser issue. Is this correct?
>
>Yes, that is how I understand it.
>
>> The DoJ expanded the case beyond the browser issue to a general
>> "middleware"
>> entities or "products." These included RealAudio, Apple's Quicktime and
>> the
>> Java platform (tied into the browser mostly) as well as Intel's NSP.
>>
>> The resulting complexity of the case, where there could be a non-tech
>> tying
>> on some "products" and tech-tying on the browser.
>
>Not really, because the only actualy tying violation Microsoft was
>accused of was tying the browser to the OS.
What about Windows Media Player?
>The rest of the material was simply supposed to establish that Microsoft
>had a certain pattern of behavior. Assuming a real distinction between
>"tech tying" and "non-tech tying", Microsoft could hope to win a
>determination that this material was irrelevnat.
Agreed. Multimedia middleware seems to not have the capability to challenge
the OS. However, if some form became popular, then capabilities could be
added, as device computing's capabilites grow.
>> Now we're supposed to believe, because Boies threw a lot of innuendo,
>> that
>> somehow web enabled software was prevented from using the Windows
>> platform
>> and that this competition would challenge the OS monopoly.
>
>Microsoft appeared to believe it in their internal memos. The internal
>memos seem to take the "browser as a platform" threat very seriously.
Of course. Because they projected what they could actually achieve with what
they thought Netscape could do.
>And how did Microsoft react? Well, here's a quotation from Jim Allchin:
>
>=====
>Memphis [Microsoftıs code-name for Windows 98] must be a simple upgrade,
>but most importantly it must be killer on OEM shipments so that Netscape
>never gets a chance on these systems.
>=====
Did you miss the extended dialogue on this point between Jackson and S____
(MIT economic expert)?
Saying you are going to "kill" the competition is not the same thing as
actual acts. The law has a whole history of dealing with this kind of thing.
If Eric says metaphorically that he wants to "kill" someone, should that be
grounds for attempted murder?
So it's right back to the issue of whether integrating the browser is
technologically sound in terms of the functionality it offers to
applications.
However, when Netscape had the dominent share in the market, the marketing
deals by Microsoft were clearly unfair competition, in the context of a
LATER point in time, when parity had been achieved.
In other words, in the early period of Netscape's domience, marketing deals
added competition and were not unfair. Later, when parity was achieved,
these deals now become anti-competitive.
>> The DoJ theory is that web middleware allows outside challenges running
>> on
>> another platform via the network to come in and challenge the desktop OS.
>>
>> And not affect the OS product and market.
>
>I'm not sure I understand your point. Obviously it would affect the OS
>product and market. The issue is, when there is an OS monopolist, there
>are certain responses to the outside challenge that are prohibited by
>law.
Only if the OS monopolist meets the test of being a monopolist, ie. the
accused monopolist cannot prevent competition.
Do you disagree with those that say the desktop is "finished," because
devices running browsers will displace the desktop because they will have
all its functionality.
That's what the .NET Platform is expected to do. When you code in .NET
VisualBasic, for instance, you can add web services. You will have all the
traditional functionality of the PC.
With SOAP, etc. the Java Platform will be greatly enhanced on the client,
unless Sun decides that its desire to sell servers means the technology has
to be limited.
>Under the DOJ's original lawsuit, all Microsoft had to do to comply was
>offer a browserless Windows to people who wanted a browserless Windows.
>They would still have been permitted to offer the bundled version for
>people who wanted that instead. That certainly seems to allow Microsoft
>to react to the potential threat posed by browsers.
What does "browserless" mean? The access or the underlying code?
Do you know if web services can be provided desktop applications if the
underlying code of the "browser" is pulled out?
Doesn't Micosoft need to compete by increasing app functionality in a web
era? Isn't this part of the "unfair" competition considerations?
Doesn't this help the consumer? Isn't this in fact the whole point of the
tech-tying of the browser?
If you mean access to the Explorer instance of a browser, then this is
clearly the marketing level of examination that antitrust is competent to
deal with.
Trust me, in the original integration issue battle, the DoJ explicitly
rejected the access view and insisted the underlying code go. They boasted
that developers could add the shared functionality of the browser
components, specifically stated.
Microsoft did so and the OS would not work because of the shared
functionality. After all, the browser largely retrieves files and the OS
does likewise.
Take out the components that share functionality and the OS does not work.
The DoJ played a little sleight of hand with the press on this. Of course,
they basically later agreed on removing the access to these shared
browser/OS components later.
Both the DoJ and Jackson knew that the appeals court that actually looked at
this would give them a big legal spanking, no matter the media coverage.
It's like if Eric were told not to go into a 7/11 store by court order. And
Eric went into an adjoining store, and a prosector got a contempt citation
saying they really meant the neighborhood. What would Eric think? What if
the newspapers focused on what a big egg Eric was? Would that help? :)
>
>> Does anyone really believe that an desktop OS that does not have
>> web-based
>> networking functionality is marketable?
>
>Again, I don't believe the DOJ has ever said that Microsoft should be
>prohibited from offering a browser with Windows. All they've said is
>that Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to force their browser on customers
>who prefer a browser from another vendor.
See above. Actually when the DoJ lost MSII, they started doing a additive
remedy rather than a subtractive.
The current order requires that the browser be completely removed, as well
as all other middleware, like MTS, Microsoft's transaction monitor. Of
course, the DoJ economic advisors make their dough as consultant's in the
traditional server markets affected by Microsoft's entrance with a cheap
Transaction Processing monitor.
What about consumers?
>Compaq might choose to ship its PCs without MSIE, but that doesn't mean
>they'll be shipping PCs without browsers. They'll simply be using a
>non-Microsoft browser as their default browser. Microsoft prevented
>Compaq from doing exactly this.
The DoJ put out the spin that Microsoft had made them remove other browsers/
icons, rather than simply KEEPING Microsoft's.
At trial, a low level Compaq person testified, who had no direct knowledge
of these events. Normally this would mean the testimony be excluded, due to
a lack of a proper foundation.
Evidence generally requires that a foundation be established. These
foundations vary by the type of evidence.
Normally, eye witness testimony requires that a person actually had a chance
to see what had happened. If they were somewhere else, or their view was
obscured, then their testimony is rejected.
The low level Compaq testimomy was trumped by an Compaq executive who
actually was involved in the browser/icon process, who said not so, that no
such requirement was made.
>It is key to recognize the difference between offering a bundle and
>forcing a bundle. Prohibiting both of these things would create the
>sort of serious issues you have identified.
>
>But under most circumstances I do not see a problem with prohibiting
>forcing alone. As I understand the Supreme Court's ruling in Fortner,
>they hold the same view... there is rarely a pro-competitive
>justification for force-bundling. If the customer wants the bundle, let
>the customer *choose* to purchase the bundled version instead of the
>unbundled version. IMO, forcing by a monopolist can be justified only
>when there is insiginificant demand for the unbundled version. That is
>clearly not the case here.
I don't know what status the Fortner case has.
I agree that the DoJ's best shot is a finding that Microsoft is a monopoly
the desktop OS market tightly viewed.
Then a focus could be on the marketing of the "browser," ie the access to a
Browser Instance via an icon .exe or otherwise. The underlying "browser"
code as a library subset giving OS-like functionality, then would not be an
issue.
A very limited conduct remedy would prevent this kind of non-tech tying
(bundling).
More generally, this would apply to the Media Player, etc.
Stepping up is the required non-tech tying (bundling) of other browsers and
specialized web middleware clients for multimedia, etc.
Stepping up further is the required tech-tying of competing middleware
platforms, such as the Java Platform.
Stepping up on the remedy side is requiring that the desktop OS code base
should be divested. This creates competition for the benefit of the
consumer.
Competiton could be had from Microsoft other OSes. In particular, fair
competition would seem to require continued competition in the server arena.
>> Antitrust begets competition. However, competition begets monopoly. Why?
>>
>> Because competion results in winners in the modern economy, which is so
>> specialized and tech based. The rise of industries post WWII in
>> particular
>> has been noted for the change in management and technology utilization
>> based
>> on war-driven research for one thing.
>
>So, why don't we have monopolies popping up all over the place?
The modern economy has monopolies everywhere. They are called market
leaders. Generally, economists expect that there will be a leader with a
dominent share, then a second company with a small, but substantial share,
then a few others sharing what's left.
Sun now dominates the Unix server market. Java dominates the server
middleware software platform market
Oracle dominates the non-mainframe enterprise database market.
Cisco dominates the router market.
Intuit dominates the client financial software market.
IBM dominates the mainframe market. SAP dominates the ERP market.
Photoshop, Office, etc.
>> This is like a couple of fools talking about the man in the moon. They
>> have
>> no idea what componentized software actually is and what the integration
>> of
>> the browser and the OS mean in terms of programming.
>>
>> I have seen no statements made by the two of them at any time that delve
>> into the programming code base that indicates that they have any notion
>> of
>> this. None.
>
>You don't need to understand that. All you need to do is ask
>Microsoft's customers whether Microsoft's monopoly power is thwarting
>customer demand. You can find a significant fraction of Microsoft
>customers who do not want to be force-fed the browser.
Again, you do not say what you mean by browser.
>As far as I'm concerned, the people who are fools talking about men on
>the moon are the ones who are trying to confuse the issue by talking
>about code and by trying to spit out textbook definitions of terms like
>"operating system".
>
>For antitrust purposes, code is irrelevant; it is customer demand that
>matters. For antitrust purposes, what some computer science professor
>defines as the OS is irrelevant; it is what OS buyers define as the OS
>that matters.
Then you disagree with the DoJ's requirement that web middleware be removed
from the OS, including the browser code and TP code?
I hope you are not saying that a remedy that goes to code can be imposed
without evidence that goes to code.
>
>> If Eric was up for sentencing, had his mother there to testify on the
>> proper
>> sentence, as well as a number of points to be made, and the judge then
>> said
>> that he had made up my mind, you have lost the case, so I am going to
>> give
>> the sentence recommended by the prosecutor. This is so distorted in our
>> system of law that the judge would have to be removed.
>
>Microsoft got to argue in front of the judge, and got to file additional
>briefs regarding the proper sentence, just as the DOJ did.
The minimalist approach to due proces, led by one's cause no doubt. I doubt
it you would really want to apply this generally. It would make you seem so
strange in other more "cause-oriented" cases.
An auto accident victim is struck down. The necessary witnesses tracing the
alleged perpetrator's route are not allowed. The case fails and the victim
suffers from an horrendous injury the rest of their life without resources.
Cynical commentators call it the Eric rule. Well, they say, it was kind of a
Max thing, nodding knowingly.
>
>Sure, Eric may not have been allowed to put his mother on the stand
>during sentencing, but the prosecution wasn't allowed to put the victim
>on the stand either.
Not so. An Eric instance of a defendant would always be allowed to testify
in a Justice OS.
The testimony of victims has been increasingly allowed. They had been
excluded becasue of prejudicial effect, generally.
>
>I do not think Jackson showed bias.
Do you think issuing the preliminary injuction without giving a party notice
and a right to argue is not bias?
I think Jackson will be cut to pieces on appeal, since his findings of fact
so lacked the balanced sifting of facts characteristic of judges.
>I do agree that he rushed to
>judgement. Much time and effort was spent on the first part of the
>case, which proved that we have a serious competitive problem. The
>complexity of the problem, I believe, dictates spending some time
>thinking about the best way to fix it. I don't think Jackson did that.
>I also would not have imposed a breakup of Microsoft based solely on the
>record in this case.
>
>> Probably there are few federal cases with such substantial violation on
>> the
>> accused's right to call witnesses in its behalf. This a fundamental part
>> of
>> due process.
>
>How many witnesses is enough? Twenty? Fifty? Five thousand? Everyone
>in the country who ever bought Windows?
This is called the "parade of the imaginary horribles" agrument.
>
>Furthermore, Microsoft did such a bad job with the witnesses that they
>*did* call that it looks extremely weak for them to make an argument
>like this.
This connection is a modern media one. Outside that, it makes no sense.
>If the people they *were* able to put on the stand were so
>bad, how can you imagine that the people in line *after* them were going
>to be any better? Perhaps this is part of the reason Jackson decided
>there was no point in calling more witnesses for the penalty phase.
Media bad is not likely to be appeals court bad.
The same innuendo that makes good media spin has little effect on appeals
judges in particular.
>--
>Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
>Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
>
>Lighthouse, n. A tall building on the seashore in which the government
>maintains a lamp and the friend of a politician.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
