Linux-Advocacy Digest #14, Volume #29 Fri, 8 Sep 00 23:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Computer and memory ("Chad Myers")
Re: Computer and memory ("Chad Myers")
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Christopher Smith")
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: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: American schools ARE being sabotaged from within. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Dave Martel)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 22:16:17 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Its particularly distressing, in
>> light of your comments, to see (and I have) someone say, simply "it
>> isn't illegal to _monopolize_" (emphasis added).
>
>I don't think they're using "monopolize" in the legal sense.
I think they're using it in the 'we don't understand why monopolization
is illegal, so we'll make up whatever ad hoc rules appear to explain the
government's behavior in preventing it' sense. I'd prefer the legal
sense, since the simplicity of the Sherman Act is an important part of
understanding what is and is not allowed. It is illegal to monopolize.
There is no other sense.
>In common
>use of the word, monopolize simply means to gain a monopoly, which can
>in fact be done legally. The legal definition of monopolization is
>defined to exclude these legal avenues, but most people aren't aware of
>the distinctions between the common and legal usage.
I have just spent several weeks, months if you include the fact that I'd
already had very similar arguments last year with David Petticord on
alt.destroy.microsoft, going over all this same ground concerning first,
the term 'anti-competitive', then the word 'monopoly'. Now you expect
me to go through it all again because you're going to switch the word
you insist I'm redefining to 'monopolize'. This is obviously a
last-ditch effort, as the very statute itself says "anyone who
monopolizes or attempts to monopolize has committed a felony", and no
more. (Well, the first section, on 'restraint of trade', is critical,
of course, but section 2 is the one that prevents monopolies directly.)
What's next? Are people going to argue, "Its not illegal to rip off
your customers, as long as they don't have the power to stop you?"
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 02:15:41 GMT
"Chris Street - remove antispam in email"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 18:02:41 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
> Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
> >
> >Death by fire is probably more painful, though (smoke inhalation).
> >A person who is converted into a shadow probably felt a bit of
> >heat at most (we'll never know). The ones that really suffered
> >are probably the ones who died of rad poisoning, farther out. 2 weeks
> >at most, one's hair falls out, other nasty things happen,
> >probably lots of poisons and tumors, I don't know. (I'm not sure
> >I want to.)
>
> They probably didn't feel anything. The gamma flash from the bomb
> would have fired every neuron in the brain before they figured out
> anything was wrong and essentially short circurted their sensory
> systems.
Not to be semantical, but the blast would've killed them first.
The radiation isn't enough to kill you instantly (ref: the people
who stood within a few miles of the first tests at Alamagordo)
The blast that hit wasn't even 20kt, there were many buildings and
even some people within a 3mi radius that actually survived.
Of course, the radiation and cancer got them later. It's certainly
not a pleasant thing, no one claims that. But no one seems to feel
sorry for the thousands of people the Japanese slaughtered in Manchuria
and the polyenisian islands. Had the bomb not been dropped bloddy war
would've continued for months and the Japanese would've still occupied
many islands torturing and brutalizing their captives.
Not to mention what they did to the Allied P.O.W.s We gave their
P.O.W.s shelter, decent food (usually 2-3 meals a day) adequate
water, living conditions, waste disposal and medical attention.
I believe somewhere between 30-40% of Allied (mainly American)
P.O.W.s died in captivity, many came home with diseases that
killed them later. 30 men would be kept in a room no bigger
than the average American bedroom with no water, food, or
means of disposing waste...
> Not that I am saying that it was a Good Thing. I would agree that
> given the facts of the day, the sitting Administration made what they
> thought was the correct choice.
Correct is releative. "Did what they had to do" would be the more
operative phrase, and that's what they did.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 02:16:38 GMT
"Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:OFau5.19962$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hiroshima was between 42,000 and 93,000, alot less the what the Nazis
> killed,
Excuse me? Have you forgotten about the millions of Jews slaughtered
at the hands of Nazi ethnic cleansing?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 12:31:31 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p9s9u$8jt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:43It5.7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8p7g5u$g3m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > It is more like Microsoft told the world that the world told Microsoft
> > that
> > > MDI was passe and "bad"; so they could have an excuse to dump it.
That
> is
> > > AFTER MDI had already served its real purpose for Microsoft. Do you
> know
> > > what the real purpose of MDI was?
> >
> > To give you something to theorize a conspiracy about?
[snip long and detailed technical explanation - thanks]
> This became a common complaint against Windows, that you could only run
one
> copy of a compact or large program and therefore only have one document
> handled by that program at a time.
>
> So, the MDI (Multiple Document Interface) was introduced to address this
> complaint. Now you could still only run one copy of a compact or large
> program but it could handle multiple documents which would be finctionaly
> like running multiple copies of the program. When the current Windows now
> longer needed MDI for this purpose, Microsoft down played it telling us
the
> we did not want it anymore.
>
> There, that was the real purpose of MDI.
I see no reason there whatsoever for MDI to exist. One app with multiple
documents does not require those documents to be captured within a parent
window.
> Know your history, know what was, and know what came before, is all that
is
> needed to answer my question of: "Do you know what the real purpose of MDI
> was?"
>
> For it is the doom of men that they forget! -- Merlin in "Excaliber"
>
>
> So where is "the something to theorize a conspiracy about"?
>
> How does this lead to "...BE THERE WITH US, BROTHER, OR BE HUNTED DOWN
LIKE
> THE DOG YOU ARE !" stated by Christopher Smith?
>
> Anybody felling out there feeling silly yet?
Not at all. Your reasoning above does not lead to a conclusion of why MDI
exists.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 22:24:47 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>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.
If you find any evidence of such a distinction, please let me know.
I've generally presumed that one is a per se rule, and the other a
general induction based on the 'rule of reason'. The per se rule
*might* be considered to be 'mandatory for all cases in which the market
considers the market to be a product' and thus the rule of reason
argument which Jackson used, having been based on service-related
markets, *might* be questionable. But I've seen no evidence and heard
no reference to any such precedent.
This decision may some day be used to guide a revised 'popular wisdom'
that defines software as a service, rather than packaged 'products', but
that would be a good thing, to begin with.
--
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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 22:30:13 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said 2 + 2 in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>>Said 2 + 2 in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>I'm going to do what I have suggested others do, ie set out an Elements of
>>>Proof, in this case.
>>>Elements Necessary (Key in Microsoft Case Only)
>>>I Sherman Act Violation- requires both I and II Cites
>>>A Possession of Monopoly.
>>>1. Control Prices
>>>2. Can Exclude Competition
>>>3. Benefit to Consumer. Some would disagree on whether this one is
>>>necessary.
>> [...]
>>
>>I wouldn't disagree on whether it is necessary; I would say it is
>>entirely out of place. It is obviously lifted from the 'per se' rule
>>for technical tying, which is considered a restraint of trade, not
>>monopolization. Including it here can be nothing more than a method of
>>attempting to defend a monopoly on the grounds it 'didn't do any harm',
>>a position which is not supported in any way by legal understanding of
>>the law against monopolizing, AFAIK.
>
>It's been discussed a lot. I haven't seen much legal material on it.
I meant serious discussion, not water cooler prognosticating.
>Basically, it comes from the school of thought about how market leaders
>benefit consumers when they use high tech, go for market share and keep
>prices low.
I thought Eric already shut this line of argument down with his quote
from Fortner Enterprises v. U.S. Steel:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=394&invol=495
=====
These decisions rejecting the need for proof of truly dominant power
over the tying product have all been based on a recognition that because
tying arrangements generally serve no legitimate business purpose that
cannot be achieved in some less restrictive way, the presence of any
appreciable restraint on competition provides a sufficient reason for
invalidating the tie.
=====
You don't keep prices low by going for market share; that's naked
monopolization in your thinking.
[...]
>Let the market choose.
As soon as we prevent the monopoly from choosing for it, we will.
>This benefits the consumer, and is EVERYWHERE in the modern economy.
You're deluded. Its this kind of assumption that makes me worried that
there is so much monopolization going on that people don't even know
what it is anymore, and can't tell it apart from trying to sell more
products in a free market. This is why the 'popular wisdom' has such a
strong need to exempt monopoly where-ever it can, rather than correctly
define monopoly *without* including regulated public utilities or
patents. I'm frankly just plain sick of it.
I mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!
--
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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 22:34:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said 2 + 2 in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>Legal reasoning, and lawyers are trained on points like this, is not to
>>>let a conclusion (like "all actions which prevent competition," are illegal)
>>>dominate the analysis.
>>
>>Quite true. If consumers are going to be trained on points like this,
>>I'd rather it be "all anti-competitive acts are illegal", which is the
>>entirety of the Sherman Act in law, and will stand them a sight better
>>in consumer analysis. I'm not arguing with what the courts find
>>illegal, and never have, that is the point. I'm arguing against the
>>'popular wisdom' which seeks to defend monopolizing, which is,
>>specifically and pointedly, a criminal activity.
>
>I see I failed to persuade you about arguing conclusions.
I'm sorry, is that what you were attempting to do?
>See my other post as follows:
>
>"If a company raise prices, they lose market share and the stream of revenue
>to invest in tech. A competitor comes in, grabs market share, and, with it,
>the revenue stream that can be invested in tech to improve the product.
Yes, I'm aware of how free markets work. What makes you think that
markets where prices are controlled and competition excluded by a
monopoly follow these rules?
>Look at low end shopping carts. You have the DoJ's ideal situation. Lots of
>competition among piddly products, none worth a crap.
>
>No one is making the money in the low end mass market, to improve the
>product, get market share and invest the money in the tech for a high grade
>product.
That's because the technology is crap and the market is entirely
unproven. Do you think you can just 'make up' what people find valuable
to spend enough money on that someone can profit?
>Low priced, high tech, large market share, mass produced. This is the modern
>economy. It benefits the consumer."
>
>Max, you're in the wrong industry. You should be a FARMER. Lots of old
>fashioned competition there.
Unfortunately not. But that's an entire new set of discussions, and
you've yet to provide me any reason to think that any market is
different from another, when it comes to enforcing anti-trust laws as
necessary to ensure it is a *free* market, open to all interested
producers and providing efficient delivery of high quality, low cost
goods.
--
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: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: American schools ARE being sabotaged from within.
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 22:36:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Loren Petrich wrote:
>> >> 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?
>> >No. But I've met a few. They're almost all closet-dictators like you.
>>
>> Closest dictators?
>
>Yes, Loren, like you.
>
>Remember when you told us that the sign of success is to have
>"thousands of underlings groveling at one's feet" ?????
Sounds like a reasonable definition of what most 'capitalists' are
looking for. I'm not a big fan of Loren's politics, but I'm not a big
fan of yours, either, Aaron. Is there really a reason to drag up
ancient quotes?
(It was a rhetorical question. I certainly don't plan to respond to any
posts following it.)
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 20:40:51 -0500
On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 00:59:55 GMT, Mark Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
>Ingemar Lundin wrote:
>>
>> >Anybody's guess. My guess is that two to five million machines have linux
>> >installed against an estimated 100 million for windows - another guess
>> >really - but a much lesser number is used as the main working machine. It
>> is
>> >said that majority of web-servers are running on Linux though M$ would
>> certainly
>> >dispute that.
>>
>> try 500 milj Windows and 2.5 milj Linux
>
>500 mill for windows? Um, not. Maybe for all computers* in the world.
>Linux has WAY more than 2.5 mill. Estimates from '96 put Linux at 10
>mill. I'd place it at 20 mill. This is for users not servers+users.
>
>*not counting embedded devices.
>
>> and a majority (altough not much more than 50%) is running *Apache*, thats
>> not the same as running Linux!
>
>Dude, the number is like 60% which is 20% greater than 50%. I'd
>consider this fairly significant.
>
>>
>> /IL
FWIW....this is distributed.net's breakdown by OS of the exact numbers
of machines that were networked together over the internet to
participate in the RSA DES Challenge II:
Win32 (95/NT) 111,788,489
MacOS 48,878,795
Linux 29,834,793
Solaris 21,619,282
Now if someone can get a good statistic for any of these, you can
figure out about how many of the others are out there.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Ballard says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 22:49:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>>
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >Yes, and that's the problem. Often there is only one way to do
>> >something.
>> >If you have to prove you didn't look at a piece of code, you can do it
>> >easier if it's impossible for you to have seen that code.
>>
>> I'm sorry, I'm still missing why the first part leads to the second. If
>> there's only one way to do something *you're allowed to do it that way*.
>> The reason you're reading the code is so that you can figure out how the
>> functions work. Any code which is either blindingly obvious *or* not
>> irreplaceable is protected. But the rest is not. The blindingly
>> obvious stuff is not original to the original author, anyway, and the
>> unique stuff is subject to 'fair use', a la the Sega v. Accolade
>> decision.
>
>Read the whole post. Often there is more than one way to do it,
>but most of those ways suck. Besides, there is the small issue of
>never being sure if there is only one way.
These are all justification for all software being considered 'open
source', regardless of licensing. If most of those ways suck, they
would scarce be considered efficient enough to compete with, eh?
>[snip]
>
>> >To use an analogy: it's easier to prove you designed an airplane in
>> >1820 than in 1920.
>>
>> You're not designing airplanes; you're writing literary works, I'm told.
>> Make up your mind; is it function or is it intellectual property?
>
>It's an analogy.
Yes, it is. My point, obviously, was that it was a bad analogy. Or,
should I say, it was a good analogy for making my point (that functional
engineering is not literary authorship), and bad for your point (that
software can't be copied en toto if that is the most efficient way of
accessing its functionality.)
[...]
>> A value judgement of how high the threshold of efficiency would have to
>> be in order to ablate protection would, indeed, invite the necessity of
>> judicial review. I'd be happy with function, personally; I think just
>> because you can show some style and do things more than one way is no
>> reason to consider writing software to be a form of literary expression.
>
>Well, go reform the law and put that in there.
I don't have to, the courts already put it in there for me. Check Sega
v. Accolade, Vault v. Quaid, and Lasercomb America v. Reynolds.
[...]
>Anything you don't copy is original. That's why cleanrooming works.
Cleanrooming works because people won't sue you if you do it, that's the
extent of it. In most cases, though, even if they sued you, they
wouldn't win. So cleanrooming is an artificial barrier to trade, and
should not be demanded of software developers. Originality is all that
should be demanded of software programmers. Programmers these days are
so confused by the 'function or text' concept of software that they
think abject ignorance is the best way to 'be original'. That might
work well for avoiding lawyers, but it makes for very few, and very
crappy, works of software. I can't understand anyone thinking it says
good things about software developers, that the only way they can avoid
using someone else's literal code to implement the same ideas is to not
know how they did it to begin with.
But obviously, I'm arguing from a position that already recognizes the
importance of free software. If you don't agree with that concept, then
you're probably going to think I don't understand software development.
The fact is, I do. I know it isn't 'literary' by any stretch of the
examination, but is merely a design of functional engineering, not a
work of authorship. The confounding fact that it is written,
originally, in a textual language confuses the issue. Maybe in fifty
more years, software will have developed to the point where it becomes
'literal', and truly deserving of copyright protection. But right now
you've barely gotten past the idea of a 'language' that isn't tied to a
single computer system architecture. This is "See spot run", which may
be worthy of copyright, but is hardly worth millions of dollars.
>> The idea is to allow
>> you to profit from your original works of authorship, but the purpose is
>> to promote the sciences and useful arts, not just so you can get paid to
>> crank out code so someone can profiteer on it if they successfully
>> insinuate it where it becomes essential to someone else.
>
>Purpose schmurpose, I am just saying it as I see it is.
Oh, you're getting feisty, now, huh? :-)
--
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
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Ballard says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 22:50:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 11:57:31 -0300, Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>>Uh, you are full of strange ideas, aren't you? Perhaps you should
>>realize that Matthias'work at TT was no secret. Everyone involved
>>in the "scene" knew it. Did you know that Miguel de Icaza, founder
>>of GNOME owns Helix Code, a company that sells GNOME?
>
>Oooohhh ... I guess that means that GNOME is "commercial". Perhaps Miguel
>is actually using GNOME as a front for his sinister profiteering operation,
>and he'd secretly planned to found Helix Code prior to founding GNOME.
>
>Rather than substantiate my absurd conspiracy, I believe that Max is obliged
>to both provide me with a case, and prove that my assertion is false (-;
I thought GTK was *always* GPL (or LGPL, whatever, I don't care.)
You're only making my point for me, you know.
--
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
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Ballard says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 22:52:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 11:24:11 -0300, Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
>>I think I recall a thread where you supported the exact opposite
>>position. Can you?
>
>The thread basically goes like this --
>
>(1) I claimed that Max was guilty of slander (*).
I'm not interested in your retreads. Obviously, the thread hardly
started with your claim that I was guilty of slander. The only relevant
point, at this time, is that you took the opportunity to say "Max is a
sex offender". You certainly made it clear when you did so that it was
intended to be a 'random unknown fact', but that should make it rather
obvious that it was a pretense for saying "Max is a sex offender".
Thanks for your time. You can give up, now.
--
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
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Ballard says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 22:53:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 14:23:35 -0300, Roberto Alsina wrote:
[...]
>Let's review Max's illogic in this thread.
>
>Troll Tech, by threatening to sue Harmony ( or any other project that
>clones their AI ) are involved in a sinister conspiracy to suppress
>"competition on their API". This is an anti-trust violation.
Tell me, if you're trying to 'review my illogic on this thread', why do
you keep starting in the middle of the thread?
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
