Linux-Advocacy Digest #720, Volume #29 Wed, 18 Oct 00 02:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ("David Fulton")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 05:18:16 GMT
Weevil wrote:
> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > Think about it. It's much more likely that MS competitors pay people to
> post
> > > anti-ms FUD on usenet. Do you get paid per post?
> >
> > I don't. But it's posts like Weevil's and Devlins's that make me post.
> If
> > they'd shut up I would too. I wouldn't mind being paid for what I do here
> > because it's honest work. Linux folks lie about Windows and Mac folks lie
> about
> > Windows every day. We tell the truth. Keep it up man! I will try to.
> >
>
> One would think you'd "shut up" out of sheer embarassment.
You get so cranky when you are cornered.
> You know, you and others are constantly asking myself or others to "Post
> proof!" I have posted proof of whatever I was saying countless times now,
> and I've never once asked somebody else to post proof.
Why not? It's your right.
> What you do here is honest work, huh? And Linux folks lie about Windows?
> Mac folks do, too? But you and Drestin and your buddies tell the truth?
Sure. We hardly ever cast disparaging remarks about Linux or Mac that are not
true. Linux is not as easy to use as Windows. Mac is not a stable OS with good
multitasking. Device and application support for both pale in comparison to
Windows.
These are all well known facts and the links have been posted. Over and over.
> Well, I guess you've caught us. In the face of that brilliant argument
> we'll have to come clean. Yes, it's true. Amigas never really existed.
That's funny I owned one ;-)
> We
> faked up the history just because we hate MS.
No you modified the history to support your claims. Note that many of my
history links come from Apple sites.
> Companies *begged* MS to charge them 350% more for DOS. They lined up for
> it.
That *will* require a link to prove :-) 350% more than what?
> MS *never* put any kind of code in Windows to detect for DR DOS and display
> bogus error messages.
The code was there. The error messages were not bogus. The message simply
warned the DR-DOS was not supported and that bad things *might* happen if you
used it. It was just there so Microsoft would not have to support other
people's software.
> We faked the whole court case, and you caught us at
> it! Brilliant!
The court case is essentially faked.
"The company has also done a bit of preventive maintenance by ramping up its
presence in D.C.. To combat what observers agree has been an effective influence
campaign by the likes of Jim Clark, Scott McNealy and Larry Ellison, Microsoft
poured a rumored $10 million into Washington PR and lobbying in just a few
weeks. Observers see that as a sign that Microsoft finally gets it, but some say
the company can never do enough. "Relative to their size they should own half a
block on the K Street corridor," says Sean Garrett, senior manager of the pubic
affairs group at San Francisco's Alexander Communications, referring to the
lobbying equivalent of Madison Avenue. "But they are getting better and they're
getting smarter. It's unfair to blame Microsoft too much because all of Silicon
Valley is new to this. We're talking about a brave new world of political
reporters, columnists, editorial boards, talk shows, TV news. You have to know
how to deal with Ted Koppel on 'Nightline.'"
http://www.marketingcomputers.com/issue/april98/justice.asp
> I could go on, but I just don't have the strength. All those links
> everybody has been posting are really on a single, secret, anti-Microsoft
> web site that we've worked for years on (using Microsoft tools, of course).
You see. That's your problem. That's all of the Linux folks' problem. That's
Linux problem in the industry. You folks don't have that. Ellison, et. al. were
able to influence the DoJ, Linux never will. No payoffs to the DC and state
Capitol boys with their hands out. Linux folks are probably the LEAST corrupt
bunch of folks that I've ever dealt with. That's a compliment! The problem is
that business is corrupt and government is corrupt. If you can prove to me that
you folks can change that I'll put up with using my Mandrake 7.2 on my box over
Windows 2000. It would be worth it. How will you folks cope if Linux ever does
get to be a real player? The key phrase is "accountability". Business and
government want someone to sue when things go wrong, some one to pay them off to
use their stuff and someone to hold their hand when they need it. Linux does
not do any of that. It's all populist and you'd better believe that if Linux
gets there the DoJ will be there to meet them with vaguely McCarthy-ist
questions.
Microsoft is a megacorp. The government knows how to deal with them. Keep
them in check. Keep them in line. Keep them paying. It's a one stop shop for
all your graft needs. Only Microsoft said "fuck you" to them. That was the
whole problem. In fact it's Microsoft's arrogance and their opinion of what the
USGov ought to be doing and the effect that they ought to be having on
Microsoft's core business is the issue. They like most other Silicon Valley
outfits except Sun, Oracle and Apple (AOL is in VA :-) don't give a rat's ass
about the government because they outrun them. Sun and Oracle run their
business like GM and Phillip-Morris. Microsoft was running theirs like an
innovator. They HAD to be reigned in -- after all by 2003 the majority of Navy
OPs onboard will be MS systems. You can't have defense contracts without
playing the game :-)
> There was never really a Caldera court case. There isn't even a Caldera.
May as not be. Ransom Love is a quite a character:
http://www2.linuxjournal.com/articles/tradeshow/0020.html
Corel has fallen. Caldera's not been doing too well either. From the article
-- "wait and see".
> Whew! I'm so glad it's all over. It feels so good to come clean!
It's far from over, my worthy opponent. Look to 2001 to bring Windows .NET and
Linux 2.4 and OSX. I'd be worried if I were Sun and Oracle. But that's why
they paid for the DoJ witch hunt isn't it? ;-)
> You should try it.
I do so in every post. Not just the occasional one.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 01:22:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said FM in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>>> that you have read C++ code. Not only is reading different
>>> from writing, but it's also different from seeing.
>
>>And typing is different from writing, as your trained-monkey
>>responses attest.
>
>Ah, more creative insults coming from Richard! Sad, indeed.
[...unsnipped...]
>>> >I also didn't read the vast majority of your posts.
>>> >You're an emotionally disturbed fool and it's not my
>>> >job to look after you.
>>>
>>> Look how you are completely unable to argue rationally and
>>> look at a mirror and then see how your sentence fits. It's
>>> quite hilarious to see someone so emotionally disturbed about
>>> his logic and knowledge being questioned that he becomes
>>> completely unable to address logically any of the points made
>>> against him, simply resorts to ignoring all the points and
>>> arguing against his imagination, and then shares his own
>>> state of mind by accusing others of his own problems.
[]
>>ROTFLMAO.
>
>This is all just way too hilarious. Poor little Richard trying
>to impress a bunch of programmers, many of which I'm sure are
>quite competent, but haven't engaged themselves in a discussion
>of computational paradigms.
Richard does seem more focused on ideas than reality.
>So Richard throws at them a bunch
>of terms that they aren't familiar with, without actually
>understanding those terms, as though his ability to cite those
>terms tells anything about his intellect.
Actually, he does seem to have some ability to deal with technical
programming, if limited in his practice.
>Of course when asked
>to define one of the terms that he's misusing, all he can come
>up with is a couple of sentences he put together from literature
>on Message-Passing Paradigm aspect of OO.
It wouldn't surprise me if he learned them by rote.
>Heck, it is disputed
>whether Message-Passing Paradigm is the right way to approach OO
>and it surely hasn't been settled whether it is the only way.
Cool. What are the alternatives? I'd be glad to read more from you on
these topics than more from Richard on you.
>And no sane person would argue that the degree of a language's
>OO-ness is related to the purity with which it follows a
>simplistic, incomplete definition.
Or simply a metaphor, which in some instances is a suitable abstraction,
eh? ;-)
>Unfortunately for Richard's
>agenda, posting such nonsense is bound to attract at least a few
>knowledgeable people to the discussion.
Well, if Richard didn't have the desire to yell at other people for
being idiots, cretins, and fucking morons, he wouldn't be posting to
Usenet, certainly.
>And as Richard sees his
>arguments fall apart, he tries to discourage all posters that
>he recognizes as either intellectually superior or simply more
>knowledgeable from contributing to the thread.
It occurs to me that Richard is simply the victim of hyper-evolution,
cognitive-style. His sophomoric insults and vehement profanity is not
necessarily intended to 'weed out' reasonable responses, but it does end
up providing that result. This would fit in well with his real purpose,
which is to yell at people for being idiots, in comparison to his own
ego-inspired awesome intellect.
>And whenever the
>discussion becomes technical, and his knowledge falls short, he
>uses deliberate vagueness or insults to stay away from admitting
>his lack of knowledge, which would be inevitable if the
>discussion was to continue logically.
As I said, I think the point is ego, not intellect. Richard seems to
have a need to protect his ego/identity/self. From what he's said, I
believe this is because he's trying to grapple with a cognitive issue,
spawned by his conscious recognition that there is something wrong with
his perception.
>It seems that Richard's
>goal is to preach to those who only know Unix about Unix's
>shortcomings and to preach to thoes who only know C++ about C++'s
>shortcomings, and show off his "knowledge" of the alternatives.
His goal is to preach to those who like what he doesn't like, and he's
fastened on technical issues because he's become somewhat adept with
them. His underlying purpose is emotional, obviously. I think its a
question of his predisposition, due to history, of thinking in terms of
abstracting things. In responding to problems as a child, his brain
developed the mechanism of recognizing that everything is an
abstraction; even perception. It happens when a child's perceptions are
exceedingly unpleasant, I think.
>But the more he preaches, the more painfully obvious it becomes
>that he has no idea what he's talking about.
Thus, the inherent mechanism of compassion, built into the human need
for social interaction, comes into play. The only outlet he's found,
obviously (though I think therapy would be a better one, but just a
bunch of close friends is pretty good) is Usenet. He's crying out for
help, I'm telling you. Seriously. Just like Vickie, the schizophrenic
on alt.fan.bill-gates.
>If I may ask, Sir,
>what do you do for a living?
I'd think its obvious he's a student.
>Someone who claims to know so much
>more than other knowledgeable programmers here must have some
>great credentials, no? And where do you find the time to reply to
>every single message in this thread?
Well, maybe he's an unemployed graduate. You shouldn't hold that
against him. I don't think 'credentials' are very crucial. But I speak
as someone with scarce credentials, and lots of wisdom, myself.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 01:29:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Object Orientation means:
>> > 1) everything's an object (where "object" is the normal sense
>> > of the term and not some bizarre abstract sense like you
>> > have been promoting)
>>
>> The "dictionary definition" meaning? <looks at webster's website>
>
>No. The USUAL sense.
>
>> You are referring to meaning 2 of the noun form? I'll quote it here
>> to save everyone effort...
>>
>> 2 : something mental or physical toward which thought, feeling, or
>> action is directed <an object for study> <the object of my
>> affection> <delicately carved art objects>
>>
>> (The other meanings that they give are probably not useful.)
>
>The one you gave wasn't useful either. I find it incredible that anyone
>could think a dictionary is any kind of authority on the meaning of a
>word. If you don't *know* then you look it up, but using a dictionary
>in a debate is the height of idiocy.
>
>If you want to know what 'object' means formally then ask a philosopher.
>They've only been thinking about the question for two millenia.
You appear to be unaware of the difference between the definition of a
word and the meaning of a concept. The meaning of a word is, in
particular, what dictionaries are authoritative of. They do this by
providing definitions. I would be the first to support the idea that
any argument which relies solely on a dictionary definition is an empty
argument, but then again, I don't understand why you can't understand
that the concept of 'object' in programming is metaphorical.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: "David Fulton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 23:17:16 -0600
Do you want an RFC, it is a very complicated technology and I am not about
to start explaining it in a NG where it has at best a vague relevance in an
already off topic discussion.
"Dustin Puryear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:36:46 -0600, David Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >I stand corrected then "many people" as opposed to some.
> >
> >Btw, the other ATM stands for Asynchronous Transfer Mode and is a
networking
> >technology that allows for differing types of transmissions. There are
some
> >educational institutions that use it for phone, video, and Internet, all
on
> >one line.
>
> Not the best definition of ATM that I've ever heard..
>
> --
> Dustin Puryear <$email = "dpuryear"."@usa.net";>
> Integrate Linux Solutions into Your Windows Network
> - http://www.prima-tech.com/integrate-linux
>
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 05:36:09 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >Weevil wrote:
> [...]
> >> Interesting stuff, huh? According to the poll you cite, people believe that
> >> breaking up Microsoft would help the economy, consumers, and the computer
> >> industry. But they're against it. Why is that, Mike? What does this tell
> >> us about this poll? Does it tell us anything about Microsoft's PR machine?
> >
> >It tells us what people think.
>
> Or, more accurately, it tells us that people don't think.
And that show's that you don't. Are you the only member of society with a
functioning brain? No. You just think so because it's mis-functioning. Call it
blindness or bigotry -- it's the same thing.
> >Not what you think about it. Joe on the street
> >thinks Linux is for nerds and will never use it.
>
> Joe on the street obviously listens to idiots like you, instead of
> thinking about what provides value and is worth purchasing. Mostly
> because they don't have to; their 'purchasing' decisions are already
> made for them, by the pre-load lock-in which Microsoft has forced on the
> OEMs.
If they really want Linux or Mac they will buy it. Apple does some marketing but
it has recently failed. Linux does none. They depend on free tech coverage. Joe
Sixpack doesn't read that. When Linux can really compete by *somebody* paying for
TV ads then he might be interested. But please, don't take the geek angle. Won't
work.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 05:37:41 GMT
I don't trim groups. Look in deja and flame the person that incluided it.
"D. Brown" wrote:
> Microsoft? Linux? Tcl? Notepad?!?! What the hell does any of this have to
> do with Netware?!?!?
>
> "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Peter da Silva wrote:
> >
> > > In article <vSPE5.133$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Actually, Notepad is an app that should only take any decent developer
> a few
> > > > hours to write.
> > >
> > > I should hope so. You could write a Notepad clone in Tcl, sans printing,
> in a
> > > few minutes. The idea that it'd take a couple of weeks boggles me, as
> does the
> > > fact that Microsoft hasn't replaced it with a 32-bit application.
> >
> > I'm sorry you are so misinformed. Notepad has been 32-bit since 1993 with
> > NT3.5. Just another example of the "FUD" -- he he, that the Linux
> faithful try to
> > push on readers. Just remember, folks, that Linux is not even close to
> what the
> > "faithful" try to make it seem. So sad.
> >
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 01:40:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
[...]
>> If language can have classes as language constructs, and language can not have
>> classes as language constructs, languages possibly can have objects that beong
>
>Great, now you're using two different meanings of "language" in the same
>sentence. Assuming you're making any sense (to yourself, you certainly
>aren't making any sense to anyone else).
Yes, it made sense. You are correct in recognizing, interestingly
enough, that he used the word 'language' for two different concepts
within that sentence. Why is that a problem for you, Richard?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 05:47:04 GMT
Simon Cooke wrote:
> "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:_cVG5.5287$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > As for Atari STs, I don't really know if they existed in 1985. Maybe not.
> > I just sort lumped them in because they, like the other two, ran on
> Motorola
> > 68000 chips and were much superior to Microsoft's offerings. STs might
> not
> > have been introduced for another year or two, but they were definitely
> > around in the mid to late 80s.
> >
> > Mike, this is all verifiable stuff. Perhaps you are only familiar with
> The
> > World According to Bill, but not even he can erase *this* much history.
>
> Uh... Weevil... Microsoft didn't make processors. Intel did.
>
> > Yes, advanced, GUI-based multi-tasking operating systems, were on the
> market
> > in 1985, while Microsoft's latest was DOS 3.3 (or was it 2.0?).
> >
> > I'm sorry you've been misled so badly.
>
> By the way, his original question was regarding your statement that DOS 3.3
> users pooh-poohed the Amiga, Mac, ST etc for having mickey-mouse interfaces.
> He wanted you to prove it.
>
> Simon
Thank you, Simon!
I was busy running a burgeoning business initiative. Thanks for stepping in.
Please see my response to this! :-)
Thank you again for supporting all we Windows professionals.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 01:51:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Said Stuart Fox in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>> >Are *you* deliberately dense?
>> >Integrating Internet explorer != Win32 API.
>>
>> Says who? Why should we believe them? Is this some pedantic point,
>or
>> are you claiming that IE was not combined into Win98? <grin>
>
>The Win32 API is not the operating system. It's just one of the layers
>on top of the operating system. Difficult point to grasp I know, but
>you seem intelligent, I'm sure you'll get it...
"Get it", sure. Believe it, not a chance. You can define 'operating
system' any way you want to, the way applications access operating
system functionality is through the complement of Windows APIs which
include that peculiar (in a way which, I believe, the applications are
entirely unconcerned with) one for the Win32.dll, and which I will
continue to call, in the vernacular and intending to mean their
entirety, 'win32'. The Windows API; the operating system which Windows
software requires. The fact that they are separate is an artifact of
the idea of free markets; since MS is a monopolist, the difference is
irrelevant.
>> >[...]They spend
>> >> their time destroying any hint of competition and thinking up new
>> >> justifications for jacking up their prices.
>> >
>> >Now you're confusing the Win32API with the Windows 2000 operating
>system.
>>
>> Like its any different in that respect than any of the earlier
>versions?
>>
>I'll say it again, the Win32 API is not the operating system.
And I'll point out that you're being pedantic, and I don't care. When I
said 'win32', I meant the entirety of Windows' APIs; that which
application programmers use to write for the operating system.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 02:00:09 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> Well, you obviously have extremely limited experience in business, if
>> you think costs are allocated per feature like this.
>
>Raise your hand if you've been involved in project planning & costing for
>consumer software companies for the past 3 years.
>
>*Raises his hand*.
I see your case. Now tell me how you rely on monopoly products to keep
your job again?
>I'd say that YOU have an extremely limited experience in business if you
>think that costs are NOT allocated per feature like this. Microsoft allocate
>features based on resources -- that means engineering cost, QA,
>documentation, tech support. Sierra On-Line allocates features based on
>resources -- that means engineering cost, QA, documentation, cost of goods,
>tech support et al. Would you care to name some software companies that
>don't do this kind of cost/benefit analysis when they're looking at doing
>feature work? I've already named two that *do*.
All of them might think they do. It just goes to show how entirely
disfunctional the software industry has become because there is a
monopoly preventing free market competition. In real business, you're
supposed to figure out what sells the most, not take it for granted how
much you can sell based on whether it will intrude on Microsoft's turf.
;-)
[...]
>> It doesn't have anything to do with grasping the principle of supply and
>> demand; merely your desire to use a simplistic excuse for the principle
>> in order to defend a monopoly. Make a note: supply and demand only work
>> in free markets, which means there aren't any illegal monopolies
>> preventing actual competition.
>
>Well, given that I don't agree with you about Microsoft's supposed
>"monopoly" status, I can't argue with you on that point, as it would be
>futile for both of us.
So you are aware you have no argument, and no support for your position,
I presume? You can deny gravity, too; that doesn't make it reasonable.
Nor is denying the mountain of evidence which proves quite convincingly
that Microsoft has monopolized.
>> >Compatibility costs money. If MS won't certify something as
>compatible,[...]
>>
>> It is not for Microsoft to 'certify' anything, but for their customers
>> to enjoy compatibility, or seek a vendor which provides it, if this is
>> their desire. Your rather pitiful attempt to pretend that nobody
>> desires it, and that's why it isn't provided, is naive to say the very
>> least, and certainly shows an ignorance of reality.
>
>Wrong. Microsoft has to certify its software's ability to do certain things.
No, it doesn't. What makes you think it does?
>One way it does so is by stating a minimum requirements list for software.
>If the hardware doesn't match that, then they can point to it and say "we
>told you we wouldn't support it on that configuration". Other software
>companies do this as well.
Who's talking hardware? We're talking about software compatibility.
>I didn't claim that no-one desired compatibility. I stated that if the
>desire for compatibility doesn't outweigh the cost, then the extra work
>won't be done.
IOW, you tried to use a tautology as a logical argument.
>If it will sell enough copies of the software to recoup the
>costs, then the work will be done. Capice?
So omniscience is a prerequisite for commerce, is that what you're
saying? Or is it just control of the market, prices, and competition?
>If enough people want that
>compatibility, they'll vote their their checkbook, and it'll be put in -- or
>the company in question won't be able to sell that software.
So first they pay for it, and then later on it gets developed; is that
what you're saying? Boy, supply and demand must be really easy to
figure out when you're omniscient, or you've got your customer base
locked-in to a monopoly.
>> >Businesses are around to do one thing and one thing only -- make money.
>>
>> Yada yada yada. They have to produce something to make money;
>> otherwise, they're around to do one thing only: rip off their customers.
>
>They won't have any customers if they rip them off. Cause and effect.
You mistake 'customers' for victims of a monopoly. Lock-in and
predation.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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
******************************
