Linux-Advocacy Digest #54, Volume #29 Mon, 11 Sep 00 14:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] ("2 + 2")
Re: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Computer and memory (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH problem (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (Damien)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 13:27:42 -0400
T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>Said 2 + 2 in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>T. Max Devlin wrote in message
> [...]
>>>>>>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.
>>
>>What is a per se rule for tech tying? Don't you mean non-tech tying?
>>
>>When tech tying is applied, there is only one product and nothing to be
>>tied. See below.
>>
>>You keep bypassing this hurdle when it is the issue.
>
> [...]
>
>>All these citations do is avoid the issue of tech tying. Why?
>>
>>Because with tech tying, the added "product" is considered a feature. So
you
>>don't get to the non-tech tying, because there is nothing to tie, no
>>separate product or market.
>
>I'm not sure what you're referring to when you talk about 'tech tying'
>versus 'non-tech tying', and I think much of it is inspired by 'popular
>wisdom', not a clear understanding of what was being discussed.
>
>"Technical tying" is what they call it when the court applies the per se
>rule: the famous "is it to restrict competition OR is it to benefit the
>consumer." The per se rule is a false dichotomy in the case of
>software, but in the case of normally manufactured products, a producer
>cannot just combine two products with a wave of the hand. In order to
>combine two products to restrict competition, they would have to
>mis-design the products, if they were previously separate. When I say
>'mis-design', I mean that if the benefit of having the product is
>advanced by the new design, then obviously its 'benefit to the
>consumer'. The per se rule is essentially a protection for the defense;
>if there were some reason, some manufacturing, delivery, or sales
>mechanism which is made more efficient by the combination, then it is a
>competitive move to try it. Note that this is predicated on the
>presumption that neither product has a monopoly by itself. It should be
>apparent that any redesign which does not cost the producer monopoly
>power is anti-competitive in character.
>
>"Non-tech tying" would simply be any tying mechanism which does not use
>the per se rule. Service bundling, for instance. And, now, thanks to
>the 'heads up' from the federal circuit that Jackson would not be able
>to rest on a per se 'tech tying' conviction, software, as well.
>
>>The Fortner case is just a shorthand way of saying that the tying product
>>controls some segment of the market however defined (hence the "monopoly"
>>there), and that tying two products in that segment is unfair competition.
>
>As I've mentioned, there is no requirement for monopoly power in tying
>cases; only market power. How much has never been clearly stated;
>enough to make it restraint of trade.
Now you're off into what market power means.
Are you saying that the Java Platform, which many say is the market leader
in "n" tier server software, has "market power," and if it excludes:
1. other languages,
2. other platforms
3. client-side functionality
and that is a non-tech tying to the Sun server product that has helped Sun
beat competitors in the Unix server markets,
and thus is "anti-competitive."
I would disagree, and say that the Java Platform is a tech-tying.
And in fact all middleware generally is.
And further that any product that is a monopoly, ie able to prevent
competition, should be required to include competing middleware
AND that the middleware so included, be required to act reciprocally and
itself include the targeting product's own middleware.
Why? Because the computer industry is not like most industries, where
separation increases competition in the non-tech tying cases.
In the computer industry, including a product's middleware, allowing the
"tied" to interop with the "tying."
>You might be better off, BTW, if
>you replaced the phrase 'unfair competition' with 'anti-competitive'; it
>is closer to the terminology used in legal examination. "Unfair
>competition" is an oxymoron.
Fine. Call it what you like. "Unfair" competition means, in my definition,
"anti-competitive" competition, plus whatever other kinds of activities that
are said to compete in some way, that the courts have said are illegal.
>
>>I have never really disagreed with the non-tech tying argument.
>>
>>What I have said that jumping to that stage of the analysis is agruing
>>conclusions, since there is a jump over the real issue, which is whether
>>there is a tech tying.
>
>Could you tell me what you mean by 'arguing conclusions'? It isn't a
>'jump past' the per se rule. Its an avoidance of it altogether, because
>it is inappropriate for the case. Per se rules for determining if
>anti-trust violations have occurred are never mandatory; they are all
>just short-cuts to the *real* analysis, which is "the rule of reason".
>If there's less competition because you did something, and you knew that
>would be the result, you're guilty. (You still have an opportunity in
>defense to refute these assertions, but if you can't overcome the burden
>of proof and provide reasonable doubt that it wasn't what you did, or
>that you didn't intend that result, you'll be convicted.)
Max, you just throwing out bull, a hodge podge of legal glop.
First of all, the accused does not have the burden of proof, except perhaps
in Chinese systems, where the govt is always right and individual's have no
freedom, especially legal-based freedoms that began a long ascent with the
Magna Carta, which established trial by a jury of peers, but is important
for its historical basis in limiting power.
To a media educated person who believes in trial by spin, this may seem
strange, except of course, they get accused.
The accused in a civil matter does not have the burden of proof. Allegations
are simply that.
Evidence is only admissible if it complies with a myriad of rules designed
in complex ways to try to ascertain the truth.
Each of these rules of evidence has a long history, where in actual cases,
the rule is tested by observations of all the participants, and long lines
of precedents analyzing this tendency toward truth and what creates
problems, etc.
Again "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a rule for testing the evidence, ie
whether the evidence proves any given element of proof that is required, in
a CRIMINAL case.
In a civil case, what constitutes proof is the weight of the evidence.
Regarding intention, you are just throwing out terms, but in the law,
intention is carefully distinguished. It is subjective, not objective. So
called intentional torts, such as slander, require intention as an element
of proof.
Other civil wrongs may not require "intent," since intent may be a greater
hurdle in many instances.
Intent may be involved in proving certain lesser points, such as facts,
where the rule for weighing the evidence may require looking at all the
evidence, and intent would be involved as part of that evidencery subpart.
>
>Per se rules, like 'tech tying', are created when it becomes evident to
>the Supreme Court that in all circumstances which follow the rule, a
>criminal act has occurred. In 'tech tying', it's obvious that if the
>combination is *not* of benefit to the consumer, then there was no
>competitive reason for doing so. It makes it easy to prove restraint of
>trade, but it isn't the only way of doing so.
When "tech tying" is found, the result is that two products are NOT
considered to be involved. You keep avoiding this because you are arguing by
conclusions.
You have reached you conclusion. And your arguments do not go to the matters
that are are in dispute.
When a CD player is added to a cassette deck, you have a tech-tying and the
CD player makers are out of luck.
>
>>So there is a tremendous avoidance of looking into the details of what the
>>integration of the browser means.
>
>Yes, quite purposefully, because it doesn't matter what it means, as
>every bit of that 'integration' could have been achieved without calling
>the added capabilities of Windows 'IE', or by adding those capabilities
>via 'install-time integration', as the Appellate Court indicated when
>they theorized that simply having the two install packages on one CD
>could be considered 'benefit to the consumer', though it is no greater
>benefit, necessarily, than doing it the other way. It is for the
>consumer, not an observer nor the producer, to determine what is to
>their benefit; no amount of rationalization can replace free market
>forces.
Incorrect. In the cassette player that adds CD player capabilities, the
court is not going to look to the consumer or producer to decide. The court
will itself decide.
>>Let's suppose that the Java platform, via SOAP, and other improvements, is
>>able to provide all the functionality of a PC via the browser, as was
>>promised long ago, and now must be done because the .NET Platform is going
>>to do it, and it will be the kiss of death in the market not to do it.
>
>I consider the .NET 'platform' to be the kiss of death, but I won't
>quibble about it now.
If a computer does not offer integrated OS apps with web page functionality
when a competitor does, then that competitor will lose in the market, except
as a fringe player.
The .NET Platform offers interoperability to a multitude of languages, while
the Java Platform only a very few. Is this language-based
anticompetitiveness?
My view is that a vendor may have a legitimate tech reason for tying his
Java Platform to his server product, ie that a language-based technology
should be given a chance because there may be some reason for excluding
competing languages.
If over time, there was a concensus among experts that a language-only
approach had no tech basis, then, if that platform met the intial hurdle of
being a monopoly, I would say then it would be required to support competing
language middleware.
>>What class libraries in the Java Platform provide this functionality? Is
>>there overlapping between class libraries that supply traditional PC
>>functionality and browser functionality in terms of file retrieval,
>>HTML/XML/SOAP involved functionality, etc.
>
>Well, if we had a handful, or a few dozen, different developers making
>different decisions and all competing in the market for the consumer's
>individual purchase, then over time the 'right' way to split these
>things up to provide the most efficient way for the customer to get what
>he wants at the lowest price is developed 'automatically'.
The reality is that not every vendor makes the underlying plumbing.
So competition must be viewed in the light of reality.
>
> [...]
>>Now I would suggest that the browser and OS had been integrated in the
above
>>scenario. There is probably no way such functionality could be delivered
>>without integration.
>
>You confuse integration of software with integration of functionality.
>I can click on an url in my newsreader and have Netscape pop up with the
>page. That's 'integration', and doesn't require any of this 'you have
>to have in built in with no choice or alternative' stuff. Microsoft
>themselves makes an all-too-routine habit of updating system-level DLLs
>when you install new application packages, notably Office. There's no
>need for IE, or any of its underlying technologies, to be 'welded in
>place' for these benefits to be available.
>
>>A typical desktop checkbook balancing financial app need to access and
>>display the bank data. Probably it would come up in a frame of the app.
>
>If Agent could launch an url 'in place', and have the web page pop up
>within an Agent window, guess what? I WOULDN'T WANT IT TO. I think its
>a stupid idea. Why doesn't the checkbook app have a 'real window', with
>custom-made controls and a visual paradigm that works for a checkbook
>app? Why bother using a browser, in frame or out, just because (and why
>do this anyway) the data was retrieved from remote storage using a
>protocol like HTTP instead of simply putting the data in a form other
>than a web page?
>
>Web pages suck, OK? They're a 'bare bones minimum' kind of structure,
>which provides essentially ZERO efficiencies except for hypertext. Yes,
>any kind of data can be any other; any kind of application could be any
>other. The idea isn't to try to make them all into one window with one
>set of controls and one data representation. Just the opposite, in
>fact.
>
>>If so, then it is clear that the browser and OS have been integrated. In
>>fact, this was discussed way back when the browser first came out. There
is
>>the quote from Briners-Lee that he didn't expect two interfaces
ultimately.
>
>That's because he doesn't understand the issue. Just because he is an
>expert at something does not provide a reliable means of
>prognosticating.
He isn't just an expert at something. He is the creating expert of the web
and heads the W3C consortium.
Of course, in a Max court, we would not want to see him used as an expert
against the Max court's generic expert--THE KANGAROO!!!!
>
>>The browser as a separate app is merely an initial stage of the technology
>>whereby its development has replicated a dumb terminal. Dumb terminals
were
>>basically subsumed by the PC with greater functionality.
>
>I understand your thinking. I'm not ridiculing the recognition of the
>'dumb terminal/browser window' paradigm. But its a trickier issue than
>that. Still, let's proceed. I'm hoping all this interruption will make
>your point more easily understood, when we get there.
>
>>Now at the antitrust trial, the DoJ's only testimony on this issue was by
>>Felton, a professor. Felton said the browser did not include a HTML
>>rendering engine.
>>
>>This is slim pickings to be the basis for a court decision that may
control
>>the future of technology. It may delay the continuation of the PC
>>revolution.
>
>Microsoft has already done that for more than a decade, to be perfectly
>honest. That is the basis of the court decision; restraint of trade is
>not second-guessing 'the future of technology'. Its double-checking the
>actions of vendors. There is no integration of functionality which is
>prevented or deterred by this decision. Only the combination of
>products which prevents or deters development in order to restrain trade
>or monopolize.
>
>>Now what is clear to me may not be clear to others, of course. Others may
>>disagree.
>>
>>For whatever disagreement there is on whether integrating the browser
>>represents an instance of tech tying, it is clear that this is the issue
of
>>tech tying exists.
>
>I'm afraid it doesn't exist; its a fabrication for defending the
>monopoly.
In the Max court, that is certainly true. You then would urge the DoJ
lawyers simply to argue the rule of reason, and forget about arguing the
issue of tech tying?
If they do so, they would be regarded as foolish, but hey, they don't have
the Max generic expert (the Kangaroo!!!) like the Max court has.
Have you thought of auditioning for Judge Judy's role?
>Whatever they call an improvement is an improvement,
>according to your logic, because some fanciful prognostication of what
>putative benefits will occur.
It's here now. The .NET Platform does it. It is based on the input of
language experts from all parts of the industry. Language creators are the
most knowledgeable people in the industry. Languages span OSes as frameworks
with execution engines, to compilers to the cutting edge of meta-data types
and "contracts" between software parts.
One view of it is as web middleware. The OS GUI and the browser interface
are among the most trivial parts of the whole system.
It's just a kind of file built on the HTTP protocol on top of IP/TPC. Now it
has a data format with XML and a transport mechanism with SOAP subsuming
HTTP's RPC.
Web middleware can provide this layer with app web services via a framework
like the Java Platform or the .NET Platform. Competition will ensure that
the dumb terminal phase is history.
The user can still get a dumb terminal only solution in a traditional
browser.
In terms of the consumer and markets, the appearance of separate products
can be maintained, with access controlled to make competition fair, without
interfering with the underlying plumbing.
There's no particular need to limit the technology in order to allow
competing middleware to "expose APIs." It's a simple matter of adding
technology rather than subtracting it.
>The trouble is, as I've said many times
>already, that all of these benefits can come from real improvement
>without restraining trade by restricting the choices to the consumer.
>What you're saying is that in order to get these capabilities, you have
>to buy Windows. That isn't allowed, if the market wants those
>capabilities to be separate and there is not a *real* reason they cannot
>continue to remain that way.
An OS platform with integrated "browser" functionality or a middleware
"browser" platform with integrated "OS" functionality, ie framework or sets
of libraries enabling apps, can present to the user a choice of browsers.
In fact, many new browsers are empowered since the underlying plumbing is
there, and the browser maker only has to develop the shell.
For Max users, they can run Netscape 2.0 or even one of those old browsers
that don't do graphics and everything lines up on the left margin.
There would be no problem with pulling up web pages without this added
functionality. In fact, most web pages don't have forms functionality, which
has been added to the basic HTTP.
Forms are a venerable technology that has been a key PC technology. We have
seen CGI/Perl increased to ASP/JSP.
Distributed objects or components is simply an extension of the technologies
in this direction, particularly for companies not selling overpriced servers
who don't mind empower the desktop user.
These technologies are enabled by web standards, eg DOM, XML and SOAP.
>>And this issue is not decided by assuming that there are two separate,
>>non-integrated products that are then to be subjected to non-tech tying
>>analysis.
>
>But there are. Nobody forced Microsoft to call the web browser/html
>renderer/http fetcher/bookmark system/Java support/yada yada yada "IE",
>the name they'd used for their *separate product*.
The middleware plumbing can be used by any browser, and Netscape uses it.
The Java Platform has its own separate technology, that consists of a set of
class libraries, ie frameworks, and an execution engine, in this case a VM
that runs bytecode.
>They decided to do
>that on their own. You might say because they didn't want to 'lose
>their market' in IE. I'll agree, as did Judge Jackson, though its worth
>pointing out, as he did, that they didn't have much of a market with IE,
>and their real intent (as clearly stated BY THEM in internal emails) was
>actually that they didn't want to 'lose their market' in Windows by
>allowing Netscape to provide a 'middle ware threat'. The 'cut of their
>air supply' quote, BTW, is not evidence of this, itself. It does not
>'prove' that they were monopolizing. But it does prove that they
>intended to restrain trade.
Certainly Jackson found that. If the appellate courts find that then the
matter is settled.
However, that is the issue.
You think you have the answer in the Max-based rule of reason. This despite
the rule of reason always cutting against your position when its context is
added. This appears too complex for you to understand.
It's easy to see that the integration of the browser involves basic
innovation in the web middleware client, ie the browser. Maintenance of a
monopoly "as a consequence of a superior product" is not illegal. See
Jackson's cite of Grinnell below, the interpretation of which got me into
this.
The integration of the browser and the OS is the fruitition of the dream of
the industry, ie distributed object technology, before it focused on
competition by Microsoft in the lucrative server markets.
The web itself is the distribution channel. The integrated circuit is the
engine. But distributed objects that are realized through the intergrating
of the distribution system with the app-support services of the OS, whether
on a device, the traditional PC or a high end server, the result is the
basis for a new age of computing.
What is that new age? It's the creation of software machines out of
distributed objects. Coupling a dumb terminal with this distribution system
has considerable benefits.
However, it is distributed object technology that provides the
interchangeable software parts, that will empower this new revolution.
Why? These provide the pieces like the machine-made parts in the industrial
revolution. Getting up to speed to the current level of PC functionity is
one step, but the .NET Platform promises much more, and may jump to the
assembly line.
So as this technology evolves before our eyes, we have the Jackson, a
Max-like figure basking in attention from the media, who sees himself as the
great Rockefeller Trust-Busting Judge.
Actually he is the Luddite Judge, and Max his dim-witted companion, the two
of them couldn't light a lamp between them with Standard Oil (which you
probably know replaced whale oil and lit lamps not powered cars).
"Yank those mass-producing machinery out, it's all a phony anti-competitive
Ptomekin Village", says the MAX, dressed in Alice-in-Wonderland Queenie
duds.
"Off with their heads, it's the rule of reason," says the Max Queen. Then
cutting one, a nice stinky smell of the village idiot rising in the air, as
the Max transmorguifies into the Mad Hatter.
"Microsoft is coming, Microsoft is coming," he screams.
"SHUT UP, the Queen shrieks, and pops the Mad Max with a croquet club,
the Max rolling and tumbling down the ideological lawns, before falling in a
HOLE of black logic.
Well, kids, this is where I came into this scene, the Max trying to
interpret a couple of lines of legal code.
I can't spend any more time, hopefully, on these issues. Unless some
material is added that actually adds some insight (a piece by some lawyer
who knew what they were talking about would be a good start), then I must
try to bow out.
I know, I know, it's so tempting to circle endlessly in debate with the Mad
Hatter.
2 + 2
"See United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570-71 (1966) ("The
offense of monopoly power under § 2 of the Sherman Act has two elements: (1)
the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the willful
acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or
development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or
historic accident.");
>
>>>You don't keep prices low by going for market share; that's naked
>>>monopolization in your thinking.
>>
>>Exactly the opposite. To increase market share, a company has to keep
prices
>>low.
>
>To increase sales, a company has to keep prices low. How much someone
>else is selling is scarcely relevant. The presumption that market share
>is a sales figure is what causes the problem. The questions a consumer
>asks when they purchase a product might be "is it built by a reliable
>company which has other similar successful products", and a handy
>shortcut to the answer may be to examine market share. But that's just
>a measure of the ignorance of the consumer, which is why it is happily
>contributed to by the vendors. A lesser amount of ignorance would be to
>answer the question, not just assume that for whoever has the largest
>market share, the answer is 'yes', and for all others the answer is
>'no'.
>
>The only valid purpose to consideration of market share is for a
>producer to ask themselves "how might we improve our product by
>emulating the way other companies do it?" And that is *all*. Just
>about any other time the concern of 'market share', comes up, its
>monopolization. As a consumer, your goal is to buy the product which
>best meets your needs at the lowest price, not to cast your vote in a
>big popularity contest to see who 'wins' the market. Free markets are
>not a competition where you can 'win'; the goal is simply to play the
>game and make some profit while you do it.
>
> [...]
>>>I mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!
>>
>>Shoot everyone in the company cafeteria, maybe that would the demons in
the
>>head.
>>Normally, I don't give psychiatric advice. I'm making an exception
>>especially for you, Max. :)
>
>So I guess that means you're too young to remember the movie. No, the
>response is to have everybody throw their Windows boxes out the window,
>and turn myself into a cult icon who changes the course of civilization
>while he self-destructs.
>
>And I can see why you don't normally give psychiatric advice. Your
>psychiatric advice sucks. ;-)
>
>--
>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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: 11 Sep 2000 17:31:50 GMT
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:38:43 GMT, Ville Niemi wrote:
>
>By your definition drug dealers are good people simply trying to make a
>living in a capitalist system. They too use unethical and illegal methods to
>market products that are known to cause problems for people.
I agree that Windows 98 is a POS, but it doesn't kill or physically harm
its users when used as intended. ( unlike say Tobacco or hard drugs )
The reason that selling drugs is illegal has nothing to do with the methods
used to market the products ( actually, legalisation would help promote
fair competition ) -- the reason is that the products in question cause
physical harm to the user.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: 11 Sep 2000 17:40:52 GMT
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:23:36 +0200, Matthias Warkus wrote:
>It was the Fri, 08 Sep 2000 13:50:14 GMT...
>...and Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Funny how he says the Europeans are 'tainted' by ignorant
>> and oblivious words. Jesus, I wonder if that guy is
>> reading a different USENET than the rest of us? I seem to
>> see more blathering and totally idiotic statements out of
>> US connected people than out of the European connected
>> people.
>
>Correction: The US posters do not only produce more arrogant and
>idiotic postings that all of the European posters. They produce more
>of then that all other posters together, and I estimate that, in
>international groups like this, the amount of US bullshit is at least
>thrice the amount of rest-of-the-world bullshit.
Well the fact that the Americans are allowed to post in their first
language but the Europeans are not lowers the bar somewhat for the
AMericans. The insular Europeans rarely get to post in the first place.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH problem
Date: 11 Sep 2000 17:49:19 GMT
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 11:00:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Hi all,
Some thoughts:
(*) You need to export the LD_LIBRARY_PATH variable.
(*) You'll probably have less hassles if you try
linking statically.
(*) I believe that Netscape sets LD_LIBRARY_PATH when it starts up.
You should check this.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 11 Sep 2000 17:51:58 GMT
On 11 Sep 2000 17:18:41 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On 11 Sep 2000 17:06:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| >In alt.destroy.microsoft Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| >
| >Microsoft does pollute the computer industry. It does cause serious
| >harm to your network if you use their polluted W63K DNS/ADS. They have
| >managed to pollute your mind (and all the other professionals who pray
|
| It's absurd to compare aggressive marketting and vendor
| lock to wholesale destruction of the environment. Your post
| is diversionary nonsense.
Both activities cause extensive and irreperable harm to the general
public. Hence both activities should be kept in check my the general
public. For that purpose, We the People, establish government.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
