Linux-Advocacy Digest #810, Volume #29 Sun, 22 Oct 00 13:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE (sfcybear)
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE (sfcybear)
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE (sfcybear)
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE (sfcybear)
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE (sfcybear)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (George Richard Russell)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 15:56:32 GMT
In article <slDI5.339$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"James E. Freedle II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Tim Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:40:40 -0400, James E. Freedle II
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >That is fine if you have all the time in the world to work with
your
> > >computer. I have a little time every night, and I want to get
things
> done,
> > >rather than spend months trying to figure out how to work with
linux.
> > >Besides the fact that it will not work with my hardware, and I am
not
> going
> > >to spend extra money on getting hardware that will work with Linux.
> Windows
> > >2000 is rock solid, of course Linux is rock solid (it just sits
there). I
> do
> > >not know half of what is installed on Linux. At least I can get my
> homework
> > >done in Windows. And Windows 2000 is perfect for home use. I
switched
> from
> > >Windows 98SE because of the limited resource heaps.
> > >Linux may be ready for the desktop in some years, but until it is,
it
> will
> > >be only in VMWare.
> >
> > I don't have $15,000 for extra software to bring Win2K up to par
with
> > linux and all the applications that come with it.
>
> Neither do I, but as far as I know most of the stuff that Linux has is
> duplication and mostly useless stuff for a home user.
Let's see, Duplicate stuff, Hmmmmm you mean a user has a CHOICE?? And
can select the programe that works best for them????? Most MS software
is too expensive for the avreage home user and has way more features
than they will ever need. Koffice will fill most peoples needs. If a
user buy Linux in a store they pay what, $50 for an OS WITH an office
suite and anything else they may need. Pay $100 for an UPGRADE and get
just aout NOTHING. Add on an office suite as powerfull as Koffice and
the price goes way up. If the user wants to EXPERIMENT with something
like web publishing, the tools are ready an waiting on Linux. Windows?
Nope, the user has to go out and pay more money to get the tools....
> >
> >
> > --
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.iww.org
> >
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 16:04:53 GMT
Duplication means choice! Do you have a problem with giving users
choices??? Not only that, linux comes with about all the tools I'll ever
need!
Just because you have not leaned Linux does not mean that linux can not
meet your needs. It only means you do not know if it does.
In article <Q%1I5.10493$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"James E. Freedle II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have not spent that much, and a lot of what comes with linux is
> duplication. Eventually I will learn Linux, but it will take time, but
I
> have to get my lab reports done, and my drawings finished. Now I may
have
> software that will do with what I have on Windows 2000, but I do not
know
> what I have installed under linux. I do not know half of the 1,500+
> applications that came with my linux distribution. BTW what comes with
Linux
> that Windows does not have on the CD?
> "Haoyu Meng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > You have a valid point. For people on a budget, Linux could seem
> attractive.
> > Shelling out $200 for Win2k and another $500 for office might be
> prohibitively
> > expensive for some if not many. I was never conscious of this issue
> because the
> > university I went to had a lisence agreement with Microsoft, so I
got my
> copy of
> > Windows2000, Office2000, and DevStudio7 for only $5 a piece.
> >
> > KDE 2.0 is definitely a significant step in the right direction for
> populating
> > Linux onto business desktop. On balance, I would much prefer
Linux/KDE2
> over
> > Win98/95. But the overall rating combining stability, usability, and
> software
> > support, Win2k edges out over Linux -- that's my personal opinion.
> >
> > sfcybear wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Haoyu Meng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Windows 2000 is rock solid. I have used it for almost half a
year.
> Only
> > > > had to reboot twice, both times due to conflict from newly
installed
> > > > hardware devices.
> > > >
> > > > Windows 2000 is stable, powerful, and easy to use. So does
anyone see
> it
> > > > as seriously challenging the relevance of pushing Linux to the
> desktop?
> > > >
> > > > Personally, I had been a Linux fan since Kernel version 1 with
> Slackware
> > > > floppies downloaded over 28.8k modem. While in college I used
Linux as
> > > > my main workstation OS, with Win95/98 relegated to secondary
role. But
> > > > Win2k changed all of it. Right now, all the workstation
frontends I
> use
> > > > at home at work is win2k boxes with the headless Linux servers
tucked
> > > > away on a network link to do only number crunching and code
comping.
> > > >
> > > > Any similar stories?
> > > >
> > > > Haoyu Meng
> > > >
> > > > Telpic Internet Solutions
> > >
> > > Let's see, pay $$$$ for the OS, PAy $$$$ for an MS office.......
> > >
> > > Or download a free OS that has every thing most people would need
and is
> rock
> > > solid. I'm using the new KDE that is due out on the 28th. It comes
with
> an
> > > Office suite that does MORE than I need. I can take a trip to
Tahoe for
> the
> > > money I saved! So I get a free trip to Tahoe every time a new
version of
> NT
> > > comes out!
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > Before you buy.
> >
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 16:01:20 GMT
I find the 2.4-test9 kernel, with XFree 4.0.1, the Final beta of KDE2 at
least as stable as ANY OS microsoft sells. I also find Linux much easier
for the advanced user to use. The new distributions are easier to
install than 2000 and the user does not have to drive all over town to
buy all the software the need to get anything done on the MS OS they
payed for.
Sorry, I do not agree with you assesment.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Haoyu Meng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You have a valid point. For people on a budget, Linux could seem
attractive.
> Shelling out $200 for Win2k and another $500 for office might be
prohibitively
> expensive for some if not many. I was never conscious of this issue
because the
> university I went to had a lisence agreement with Microsoft, so I got
my copy of
> Windows2000, Office2000, and DevStudio7 for only $5 a piece.
>
> KDE 2.0 is definitely a significant step in the right direction for
populating
> Linux onto business desktop. On balance, I would much prefer
Linux/KDE2 over
> Win98/95. But the overall rating combining stability, usability, and
software
> support, Win2k edges out over Linux -- that's my personal opinion.
>
> sfcybear wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Haoyu Meng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Windows 2000 is rock solid. I have used it for almost half a year.
Only
> > > had to reboot twice, both times due to conflict from newly
installed
> > > hardware devices.
> > >
> > > Windows 2000 is stable, powerful, and easy to use. So does anyone
see it
> > > as seriously challenging the relevance of pushing Linux to the
desktop?
> > >
> > > Personally, I had been a Linux fan since Kernel version 1 with
Slackware
> > > floppies downloaded over 28.8k modem. While in college I used
Linux as
> > > my main workstation OS, with Win95/98 relegated to secondary role.
But
> > > Win2k changed all of it. Right now, all the workstation frontends
I use
> > > at home at work is win2k boxes with the headless Linux servers
tucked
> > > away on a network link to do only number crunching and code
comping.
> > >
> > > Any similar stories?
> > >
> > > Haoyu Meng
> > >
> > > Telpic Internet Solutions
> >
> > Let's see, pay $$$$ for the OS, PAy $$$$ for an MS office.......
> >
> > Or download a free OS that has every thing most people would need
and is rock
> > solid. I'm using the new KDE that is due out on the 28th. It comes
with an
> > Office suite that does MORE than I need. I can take a trip to Tahoe
for the
> > money I saved! So I get a free trip to Tahoe every time a new
version of NT
> > comes out!
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 16:08:52 GMT
In article <WiDI5.336$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"James E. Freedle II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "James E. Freedle II" wrote:
> >
> > > I have not spent that much, and a lot of what comes with linux is
> > > duplication. Eventually I will learn Linux, but it will take time,
but I
> > > have to get my lab reports done, and my drawings finished. Now I
may
> have
> > > software that will do with what I have on Windows 2000, but I do
not
> know
> > > what I have installed under linux. I do not know half of the
1,500+
> > > applications that came with my linux distribution. BTW what comes
with
> Linux
> > > that Windows does not have on the CD?
> >
> > TeX, emacs, gcc, xbill, perl, python,
> And they are used for what?
You do not know what these are used for and you make sweaping claims
about the usefullness if Linux? Sorry, but your credibility just went
into the toilet.
> >
> > Colin Day
> >
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 16:06:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Haoyu Meng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> You can get TeX emacs, gcc, perl, and python on Windows too.
Does it come with the distribution or do you have to waste time
downloading them and installing them to make that expensive OS work as
well as the cheaper OS?
>
> "Colin R. Day" wrote:
>
> > "James E. Freedle II" wrote:
> >
> > > I have not spent that much, and a lot of what comes with linux is
> > > duplication. Eventually I will learn Linux, but it will take time,
but I
> > > have to get my lab reports done, and my drawings finished. Now I
may have
> > > software that will do with what I have on Windows 2000, but I do
not know
> > > what I have installed under linux. I do not know half of the
1,500+
> > > applications that came with my linux distribution. BTW what comes
with Linux
> > > that Windows does not have on the CD?
> >
> > TeX, emacs, gcc, xbill, perl, python,
> >
> > Colin Day
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 16:26:11 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw wrote:
>Chad Myers wrote:
>UNIX on the other hand, was designed and developed with the notion of
>what computers, like the ones that we are using, could do.
Please. Unix was not designed with either high resoloution graphics,
security, networking, or clustering in mind.
Everything has been tacked on, in the forms of X11, BSD Sockets,
replacement of rsh/rcp/telnet with ssh, and various proprietary
offerings.
The two central Unix concepts, everything is a file, and
pipes and filters have been violated many times, in order
to make Unix a better OS / Environment.
Its good to see Unix has largely improved from its humble
beginnings.
George Russell
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 02:27:14 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >I said you were wrong, and provided detailed descriptions from a credible
> >expert to contradict you. Admit it max. You don't have a clue and are
just
> >parroting what other people tell you.
>
> No, its the other way around. I am very well aware of the fact that
> Win95 runs "on top of DOS". The fact that DOS is such a minimal OS, and
> that Win95 has such extended functionality (since MS needs to include a
> massive amount of functionality in it in order to ensure that apps
> written for Windows cannot be easily ported), and the "DOS box", and the
> "boot loader", and all this other technical mumbo-jumbo is quite a bit
> more intricate and detailed and academic than I have any desire to
> bother with. That I don't know how to clearly refute your misuse of
> Schulman's characterization is truly beside the point. I can tell that
> Win95 is running on top of DOS simply by recognizing how quickly and
> easily one "drops down to" DOS when you tell the computer to "reboot in
> DOS mode" (and notice that there's no reboot at all), and typing WIN
> gets one back into Windows, just like it did with 3.1. I don't have
> enough technical grit to fend off wrong-headed MS apologists who spew
> mumbo-jumbo to try to convince me that my understanding is false. That
> does not, however, make that understanding false. The fact that only
> the most extreme MS apologists bother to dispute the fact, and the
> extent to which they do try to dispute it, is, I must admit, an
> indication of the fact that my understanding is quite valid, though I
> will admit that it something of a prejudicial presumption.
Truly a superb example of Max's style.
"I don't know any of the details, but I just *know* I'm right".
------------------------------
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: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:35:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Weevil in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:cBqI5.2774$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:qcdI5.896$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > By the way, the little "evil grin" emoticon is Allchin's, not mine.
>> If
>> > > > you're wondering exactly how they planned to accomplish their little
>> > > scheme,
>> > > > here is Silverberg, four hours after receiving Allchin's "evil grin"
>> > > > directive:
>> > >
>> > > That's not an "evil grin" that's a smile and a wink,
>> >
>> > True. It just looks evil in this context.
>>
>> Why did you remove my statement about the emoticon being used to infer
>humor
>> or jest? You seem to ignore the point of my statement, which is that the
>> emoticon clearly indicates it was a joke, not an order.
>
>I didn't ignore it. I just couldn't quite believe that anyone, even you,
>would honestly interpret this as a joke. Silverberg, the recipient of the
>email, certainly didn't think it was a joke -- he acted on it four hours
>later.
Again, to be entirely straight-forward, Microsoft did *not* make sure
DR-DOS "had problems" running Windows, at least in the technical sense.
They did engineer a way to make sure that users running Windows on
DR-DOS would *think* that it had problems. Obviously, you are right in
considering whether the smiley meant the statement was a joke or not is
entirely irrelevant, as either a serious "order" or a joking mention are
equally felonious in this context.
I doubt Mr. Allchin would serve three years in the federal penitentiary
for this comment alone. But just as "joking" about a bomb or a gun in
an airport will get you arrested, this email is a clear indication of
the point you've been making, Weevil, which is that a "remedy" for the
corporation itself is not really sufficient to support justice, and an
appreciable number of top executives at Microsoft, in particular Misters
Gates, Balmer, Allchin, and Silverberg deserve jail time for their
criminal acts.
[...]
>No, I'm not misinterpreting anything. Silverberg asked Barrett, "can you
>tell me specifically what we are doing to bind ourselves closer to ms dos?"
>He didn't ask anything about what they were doing to improve windows, or
>dos, or to make anything run faster. He asked how they were going to "bind
>ourselves closer to ms dos.":
>
>Barrett's reply made it clear what they were talking about:
>
>"However, it wont prevent us from running on foreign OSs (unless we
>explicitly decide to refuse to run) -- they just wont run as fast. Is this
>the approach you want to take? Or would you prefer a simple check and refuse
>to run? Thats a lot easier but clearly quite defeatable. I'll come and talk
>to you about it."
>
>Barrett is asking Silverberg if they should use the vxd to accomplish their
>goal, or if they should perform a simple check and refuse to run.
Quite. Notice that they again were not showing any concern for whether
this was a federal crime; merely whether it was defeatable by would-be
clones.
It comes as a rude shock to people such as Mr. Funkenbusch that trying
to destroy the market of a competitor by manipulating a non-competing
product is illegal. I'm quite sure he can't for the life of him
understand how this could possibly be, and he is probably convinced that
this is the way every producer designs products.
>This can't be any clearer. They were talking about methods of making
>windows incompatible with anything other than ms dos. Barrett seems to
>favor using the vxd approach: "The big advantage here is that it provides a
>legitimate performance improvement." But performance is not their primary
>concern here, as his next sentence proves: "Or would you prefer a simple
>check and refuse to run?"
And, again, it is their right to make Windows incompatible with anything
other than MS-DOS. However, we are aware of something not revealed in
these emails, which is that Microsoft planned (then or at some later
time) to bundle Windows and DOS, as well. This might seem a minuscule
point, but the fact is that had they performed these anti-competitive
tricks without then using the DOS monopoly to force acceptance of
Windows on the market, this kind of thing would merely have destroyed
the market for Windows, rather than for DR-DOS.
[...]
>The precedent for this is a case involving Kodak. Something to do with them
>having monopoly power in the camera market, and then producing a camera
>which required a certain type of film that was incompatible with anyone
>else's film. Can't remember the details. Look it up.
Actually, it had nothing to do with film and cameras. Kodak has, in
fact, on regular occasion tried to develop film that would only work in
their cameras. Such attempts are, ultimately, pro-competitive, as they
force Kodak to innovate to provide some benefit to the user in order to
gain market acceptance of the camera/film. Remember the "wheel"
cameras? The new "Avantix" method is along the same lines, though they
recognized (after several failures) that they would have to gain
*industry support* by making the film specs a "public standard" which
other vendors could equally use. IOW, to mitigate the problem of
cloning, you make it unnecessary for competitors to clone.
The Kodak case on which the tying laws resolve involves photocopiers.
Kodak attempted to say that they would only provide spare parts to
people who had service contracts with Kodak, thus combining the market
for spare parts and the market for Kodak service contracts. This was
done to lock out competitors for service contracts on Kodak
photocopiers, and was found to be illegal restraint of trade.
[...]
>> It's only obvious to you because you interpret things you don't understand
>> to be illegal.
>
>Not true. I don't understand how Microsoft apologists can sleep at night,
>but I don't think their sleeping is illegal.
>
>> > And this was just one of many anti-competitive acts Microsoft committed.
>> > Another was the blacklisting of DRI from Windows beta testers.
>>
>> Blacklisting of DRI? MS is under no requirement to allow anyone into their
>> beta programs. How is that anti-competitive or illegal?
>
>Hey, I thought you were up on all this stuff. The key here is that DR DOS
>did not compete with Windows. If Microsoft had not had any beta testing
>program at all, there would be no issue here. But they did, and they
>excluded DRI from it, even though DRI did not compete with the product they
>would have been beta testing. They're not supposed to do that, either.
>Again, this is based on the Sherman Act. Look it up for yourself.
And again, it shows why the MS apologist is ill-equipped to understand
the intricacies of the matter. (It also explains how they can sleep at
night; they haven't the intellectual resources to realize how damaging
their defense of illegal actions is to the free market.)
The reason excluding DRI from the beta test is "illegal" (actually,
unlawful), despite their freedom to choose who participates in their
beta tests, is that there is no pro-competitive reason why Microsoft
would want to avoid selling Windows to anyone who wants to buy it,
including users of DR-DOS. When a profit-seeking business acts in a way
which does not directly provide profit, they fall under anti-trust
scrutiny. This is part of the "rule of reason".
>The way Microsoft tried to get around it was that they began referring to
>Windows as an operating system. This way they could later, if it ever came
>up, have some sort of claim that DR DOS was a competitor with Windows in the
>market for operating systems.
And to this day, Mr. Funkenbusch strongly defends this otherwise-empty
claim.
>"We recently decided to start referring to Windows as an operating system in
>our communications, not a graphical environment or user interface for dos.
>we should be consistent in the new usage. thanks."
>-- Brad Silverberg, to his development team, 15 Aug 1991
To Mr. Funkenbusch, this was the "strategic decision" to actually make
Windows an OS, rather than simply a graphical environment, despite the
fact that no direct engineering efforts were made beyond this "new
usage."
--
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: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 16:25:21 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said mlw in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >Chad Myers wrote:
> [...]
> >The very fact that the majrity of people are running a 10 year old, 32
> >bit shell, on top of a 20 year old 16 bit floppy based OS, in the 21st
> >century on what 20 years ago would have been called a super computer,
> >with less reliability than a video game, tells me that MS has harmed the
> >computer industry.
> [...]
>
> That is one for the quote-books, my friend.
>
> Thank you very much for your time. Hope it helps.
mlw wrote that. Why'd you even put my name in there?
Have you been taking your pills, Max?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World?
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:52:01 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Andrew J. Brehm in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> MS obviously doesn't have a monopoly on Office suites as there are
>> numerous versions out there (Wordperfect, StarOffice, Applix) that
>
>Certainly.
It is not at all certain. The mere existence of other products is not
determinant of whether MS has a monopoly. If they have sufficient
market power to control prices and exclude competition then they have a
monopoly. Ergo, the "forced bundling" of MS Office on Windows systems
has, in fact, provided Microsoft a monopoly in Office suites.
[...]
>I don't think MS Office is a superior product in any regard that is
>important to me, and I don't think that the market is a good mechanism
>to find out what is best. The market can only find out what most people
>think was the best tool for them.
You cannot really combine consideration of "the market" and "people".
The market is an abstraction; people are individuals. The market can,
in fact, provide *every* person with the best tool *for them*. Those
who misunderstand the issue of monopoly and anti-trust often ignore the
fact that there is really no reason, beyond either illegal "leverage" or
legal (though often duplicitous) branding, that what someone else has
chosen as best for them has anything to do with your choice of what is
best for you.
Thus, the important thing to remember about markets is that they can
only find out what each and every person thinks is the best tool for
them when they are *free* markets, with many active competitors
providing commercially feasible and generally interchangeable
alternatives. Which brings us back to why "leverage" of market share is
illegal; because it prevents free markets.
>> > > Remove the Unix clones, and you're left with OS/2, and Netware.
>> >
>> > What's wrong with UNIX clones, and why are you leaving out MacOS?
>>
>> Because he wants to set up a straw man, Andrew. That's the only
>> way penguinistas can ever seem to manage the appearance of
>> victory in a debate.
>
>I am not going to accept his straw man. I know UNIX clones (especially
>GNU) are around, and I know MacOS is. Microsoft would have a hard time
>beating the rest of us.
>
>What's a peguinista?
Obviously, a "penguinista" is a cross between a Linux advocate (penguin,
the chosen mascot of the Linux community) and a Sandinista (a militant
rebel, from a famous group of "freedom fighters" in Central America, who
were actually Marxist). Apparently, the intent is to paint Linux
advocates as Marxists and militant. I kind of like it, actually, though
the derogatory spin is a bit heavy.
>The most valid and serious criticism of the judge's decision regarding
>Microsoft I have found so far has come from the open source community.
>
>Free Software advocates claim that without current copyright laws and
>software patents a quasi-monopoly like Microsoft could never have come
>to happen anyway.
>
>Open Source advocates claim that if people didn't buy into Microsoft's
>marketing and would support Open Source development instead (use Linux,
>donate time or money), it would not have happened either.
>
>Personally, I believe both statements are correct.
I don't understand how this is any kind of criticism of the judge's
decision. Could you explain?
--
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
******************************
