Linux-Advocacy Digest #838, Volume #29 Tue, 24 Oct 00 00:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Relax")
Re: Claire Lynn ("ostracus")
KDE2.0 released! (sfcybear)
Re: Claire Lynn (Charlie Ebert)
RE: Clearing things (Osugi)
RE: Clearing things (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Relax")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Relax")
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Timothy Miller)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Want to learn Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Astroturfing ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: What I don't like about RedHat Linux. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Jim)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 23 Oct 2000 20:29:16 -0500
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 23 Oct 2000 18:34:17 -0500, Relax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >You still need the X Client subsystem - some sort of (remote) graphical
> >device interface - for your app to run. So, actually, there IS a graphic
> >subsystem on the server in your example.
>
> Yes, of course, on the X server, that which has the display and
> keyboard attached, you need a graphic subsystem. But the client does
> not need such at all.
>
> You've got the terminology backward. X "serves" the display, keyboard,
> and mouse to the client program, which may be running on another
> machine.
No no, I didn't reverse anything. The X Client runs on the server computer
and routes graphic commands to the X Server running on the client computer.
My point is, the X Client running on the server computer does more or less
what GDI is on a server computer: it's a graphical subsystem (again, running
on the _server_ computer) that exposes graphic primitives for apps to call.
This has nothing to do with hardware display drivers of printer drivers. One
notable difference is that on NT/2000, that graphical subsystem is partially
in kernel space for performance reasons.
> Anyway, the client machine, where the program runs, does not need any
> display hardware or drivers at all, only the X libraries
Same here. But the graphical subsystem is still required, X lib or Gdi32
>, which are
> just normal shared libraries running in user mode. So, you can run X
> apps from your web server and display them on other machines without
> said web server needing to have any graphics hardware or drivers at
> all.
Exactly the same with Terminal Server, just many times faster. (This last
point will be hard to prove here. I hope you get a chance to check it out
yourself)
>
> >The only problem is that it is pixel based and completely device
> >dependant, GDI is not.
>
> I guess that explains why so many GDI calls take coordinates in device
> units. Thanks for clearing that up.
Actually, only a handful of GDI functions takes device coordinates, in
particular those related to the viewport (obviously a device-specific
concept) and a couple of conversion functions. All the painting, drawing,
bitmap and text output functions take logical coordinates.
The entire documentation is online for you to check at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?URL=/library/psdk/gdi/wingdist
art_9ezp.htm
------------------------------
From: "ostracus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Claire Lynn
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 20:32:35 +0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Charlie Ebert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Look. You have to be in the trenches to be a proper judge of an OS. I
> think to many CEO's pick OS based on recommendation rather than
> practical experience. Similar to their golfing habbits!
>
> Will that be a 9 iron or should I pull the 8 on this one Greg!
>
> Charlie
>
>
My, my aren't we carrying some baggage. You might want to ditch some of
those preconceptions you have, you don't need the handicap.
There are CEO's who've had practical experience in quite a few things.
Some might have been former engineers. Others might have been scientists.
As for deciding based partially on recommendations. Nothing terribly
wrong with that. No one knows everything and that's why people with the
expertise and knowledge are hired. Your "beef" would more properly lie
with those who don't listen to the ones they've hired to advise them.
BTW I don't golf.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: KDE2.0 released!
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 01:40:31 GMT
And looking good! Another advantage for the opensource incramental
upgreads! Despite the fact that the Linux2.4 kernel is not ready, I have
upgraded the windows manager. With MS, I just can not do that!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Claire Lynn
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 01:53:21 GMT
ostracus wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Charlie Ebert"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Look. You have to be in the trenches to be a proper judge of an OS. I
> > think to many CEO's pick OS based on recommendation rather than
> > practical experience. Similar to their golfing habbits!
> >
> > Will that be a 9 iron or should I pull the 8 on this one Greg!
> >
> > Charlie
> >
> >
>
> My, my aren't we carrying some baggage. You might want to ditch some of
> those preconceptions you have, you don't need the handicap.
>
Give me a reason.
>
> There are CEO's who've had practical experience in quite a few things.
> Some might have been former engineers. Others might have been scientists.
>
I worked for one.
>
> As for deciding based partially on recommendations. Nothing terribly
> wrong with that. No one knows everything and that's why people with the
> expertise and knowledge are hired. Your "beef" would more properly lie
> with those who don't listen to the ones they've hired to advise them.
>
> BTW I don't golf.
This guy was in the business for 30 years and owned his own business for
18. He could recite everything there was about 20 year old technology.
And consequently the people he surrounded himself with were from that
generation also.
I'm not claiming to know everything. I'm not god either.
But I'm also not surrounded by a bunch of goobers who's best
recommendation is to build your next platform on OS/2 or worse
in today's terms - W2k.
I also find that these kind of folks don't enjoy or relish hanging
around anybody who DOES KNOW.
Makes them look very dated.
When they want to shoot their mouths off in front of a large group
and embarass you, they do.
When they have a problem, they come to me.
But rarely do they solve anything on their own.
They don't know how.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Osugi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Clearing things
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 01:46:57 GMT
In article <00102311544500.15259@pc03>,
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(I wrote the > > stuff)
> >Now you are saying that you "don't like" their old stance on KDE -
which,
> >btw, was that kde was proprietary and therefore they wouldn't use
it.
>
> Actually, no, that was not their position at all.
Really? My apologies if I am mistaken on this. What was their position?
Surely it cannot be as the original poster claimed, or he / she would
have blasted me out of the water.
> > This
> >shows debian going out of their way to *avoid* locking people into
> >proprietary standards. But you are trying to claim it as the
opposite.
>
> Not even close, really. Or rather, not that, and not the opposite
either.
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
>
Not even close? Now I am confused. Was I at least closer to the truth
than the troll (so as to avoid feeling like a troll myself)?
--
Osugi Sakae
I will not be filed, numbered, briefed or debriefed.
I am not a number, I am a free man. -The Prisoner
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Clearing things
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 23:12:43 -0300
El lun, 23 oct 2000, Osugi escribió:
>In article <00102311544500.15259@pc03>,
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>(I wrote the > > stuff)
>
>> >Now you are saying that you "don't like" their old stance on KDE -
>which,
>> >btw, was that kde was proprietary and therefore they wouldn't use
>it.
>>
>> Actually, no, that was not their position at all.
>
>Really? My apologies if I am mistaken on this. What was their position?
That KDE was illegal.
>Surely it cannot be as the original poster claimed, or he / she would
>have blasted me out of the water.
I don't quite recall the original poster's position, sorry.
>> > This
>> >shows debian going out of their way to *avoid* locking people into
>> >proprietary standards. But you are trying to claim it as the
>opposite.
>>
>> Not even close, really. Or rather, not that, and not the opposite
>either.
>
>Not even close? Now I am confused. Was I at least closer to the truth
>than the troll (so as to avoid feeling like a troll myself)?
I don't quite recall the troll's position, so I can't tell :-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 23 Oct 2000 21:07:18 -0500
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:00102322195901.17388@pc03...
> >> > >> >> Graphics drivers reduce the stability of the system. Graphics
are not
> >> > >> >> needed for servers.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >As mlw rightfully points out, graphics are needed for printing.
> >Probably
> >> > >> >also for Terminal Services since apps runs on the server.
>
> Here, obviously SOMEONE is claiming graphic drivers are needed for
printing and
> terminal servers.
OK. I didn't make the distinction between graphic subsystem and graphic
hardware driver clear enough at that point of the discussion.
> AFAIK, on windows the GDI->printer (PCL or whatever) conversion is done on
the
> client!
No, not if both the client and the server are running NT/2000. The client
actually creates a metafile, some sort of device independent script composed
of GDI commands, which is sent to the server, which then uses the
appropriate device driver to perform the rendering, PCL or whatever. The
metafile is usually an order of magnitude smaller than a device dependent
600 dpi (or whathever) full page bitmap.
Here is a quote from the MS knowlege base:
"Windows NT 4.0 implements EMF spooling by recording the graphic device
interface (GDI) function calls that produce the application's graphic object
on the specified printer. This record is an EMF-format file, called a print
spool file. Windows NT builds the spool file quickly, and then returns
control to the application. In the background, the spool file is spooled to
the server, and the server converts the EMF data into a format suitable for
the output device."
------------------------------
From: "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 23 Oct 2000 21:11:11 -0500
"Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39f4e558$0$32651$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Anyway, the client machine, where the program runs, does not need any
> > display hardware or drivers at all, only the X libraries
>
> Same here. But the graphical subsystem is still required, X lib or Gdi32
..well before someone points out, you need a graphic card to boot the system
:) However, this is of anecdotical importance in the Terminal Server
scenario, as the display adapter and its associated display driver will not
be used at all by the apps running on that server on behalf of remote
clients.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Timothy Miller)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 02:12:20 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the Linux world that will 100 percent
>emulate MSOffice. Nothing at all.
>
>THe Linux toys are a joke. Try them for yourself and see how well your
>presentations translate.
>
>When the rest of the world is running Office, why should you run some
>half assed wannabe?
>
>Is your job worth it?
>
>
>claire
>
When the DOJ finishes with Big Software, the Word Corporation, having
no operating system monopoly to protect, will eagerly port Word to
Linux.
>
>On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 17:23:44 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(jazz) wrote:
>
>>I really need a powerful word processor with templates, styles, etc.
>>
>>What is available for Linux? How about for Powerpoint and Excel?
>>
>>Thanks ---
>>Jazz
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 02:21:37 GMT
On 23 Oct 2000 21:57:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>> Stop trying to take the focus off the fact that you spewed your guts
>> and got caught....
>
>
>And where was that exactly?
In the RAS thread.
Idiot.
>Translation: "I dont have a point, but I hate you anyway"
You didn't have a point. At least not one that was correct.
>Thats lovely.
Actually it was hysterical.
>
>Tell me, whats the easiest way to fire up 64K concurrent linux machines
>under VM?
That wasn't what we were discussing. Stop changing the subject. VM has
absolutely NOTHING to do with RAS.
>> Idiot..
>
>Uhhmmm........yeah.
At least you realize it.
>>>> Next time don't try to get involved in a thread you know absolutely
>>>> NOTHING about.
>>>
>>>Uh huh. Nice soundcard.
>
>
>> Are you incabable of reading?
>
whatever...
The novelty is wearing off. You've been EXPOSED AS A BULLSHIT ARTIST
so I will leave you to Drestin now, so he can finish you off.
claire
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 02:16:32 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > speaks volumes doesn't it...
> >
> > Sounds like just the kind of post Ebert would use to support his lies.
> >
> > "neJ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 18:46:42 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-10-21-017-06-NW-CY-MS
> > >
> > > The above story has been *unposted*??? What's the deal??
>
> What!
>
> http://counter.li.org/
How scientific is this? We know that Penguinistas are known for their
grossly skewing of web statistics with scripting repeated entries
of whatever they want to foil.
> http://www.koehntopp.de/kris/msad.jpg
JOOC, what magazine did this come from?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 02:34:51 GMT
Read his statement.
He said applications run faster, and offered 0 proof.
claire
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 00:50:47 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>No he's not.
>
>FreeBSD certainly has a FAST system.
>And yes, it's faster than 2.2 Linux and
>it still have a slight edge over 2.4 Linux
>in performance.
>
>The problem with FreeBSD is the license.
>
>BSDI could make this whole thing private
>at the drop of a hat.
>
>And that's the problem I have with it.
>
>That's the ONLY problem I have with it.
>
>Charlie
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Are we BULLSHITTING AGAIN?
>>
>> Can you PROVE those statements?
>>
>> claire
>>
>> On 23 Oct 2000 17:38:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>>
>> >FM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>The best linux distribution is by FAR FreeBSD 4.1.1 :)
>> >
>> >> While I've always been tempted to try FreeBSD, I have a
>> >> reason to keep my system Linux-compatible and am too busy
>> >> to fiddle around with a system instead of using it.
>> >
>> >Read up on it. FreeBSD supports full linux-binary compatability
>> >(as well as BSDi and SCO) and actually runs most linux applications
>> >FASTER THAN LINUX DOES.
>> >
>> >:)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >-----.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Want to learn Linux?
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 02:36:12 GMT
http://lfs.sourceforge.net/download/book.php
Read this.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 03:07:33 GMT
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39f4c32c$0$1089$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > What's amazing is that with hundreds of millions of users of their
> products,
> > Microsoft actually pays people to advocate it. The mind boggles at what
> > this implies.
> >
>
> What's even MORE amazing is that you know there are hundreds of millions
of
> users of MS products who are obviously not paid to use those products,
> continue to use those products, continue to upgrade and use those products
> and you actually are stupid enough to imagine that MS would need to pay
> anyone in some lightly trafficed advocacy newsgroup? The mind boggles at
> what this implies of the rest of your capacity for stupidity might be...
You mean you don't think all the dirty tricks that came out in the trial
were needed to sell the product in the first place?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 03:20:31 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > > speaks volumes doesn't it...
> > >
> > > Sounds like just the kind of post Ebert would use to support his lies.
> > >
> > > "neJ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 18:46:42 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-10-21-017-06-NW-CY-MS
> > > >
> > > > The above story has been *unposted*??? What's the deal??
> >
> > What!
> >
> > http://counter.li.org/
>
> How scientific is this? We know that Penguinistas are known for their
> grossly skewing of web statistics with scripting repeated entries
> of whatever they want to foil.
>
> > http://www.koehntopp.de/kris/msad.jpg
>
> JOOC, what magazine did this come from?
>
> -Chad
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/10/21/1644248&mode=thread
Here it is again!
Don't know why linuxtoday pulled the web page.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What I don't like about RedHat Linux.
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 23:57:30 +0400
In article <8t2kjr$naq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Steve Mading"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Idoia Sainz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Although some of you would consider me a Wintroll, I am
> : not typing here as one (just as GNU/Linux user), just to say
> : that another thing I don't really like about Redhat is putting
> : all of the packages at /usr (instead of using /opt for things
> : like GNOME, KDE or Netscape).
Who cares?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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 23:23:34 -0500
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:FkMI5.25540
> the Kodak case Funkenbutch quoted though. I seem to recall it having
Hahahaha... Congratulations Weevil, you are the only person in the last 20
years to have come up with a mutation of my name that I haven't heard
before. Even though I suspect this was a simple typo, it's still pretty
good.
------------------------------
From: Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:14:44 -0700
Well said, way too many people are looking the other way when it comes to
Microsofts anti-customer anti-competition antic. I actually had a
conversation with someone today who said "well we don't even know if Novell
will be around" WE DON"T KNOW IF MICROSOFT WILL BE AROUND in its current
state. Novell didn't lose a huge case to the US Gov.
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Bruce Hoult wrote:
> >
> > > In article <8snt82$qf2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard
> )
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Revenues down 20% from hundreds of billions vs revenues up 270%
> > > > > from nothing doesn't really mean a whole heck of a lot.
> > > >
> > > > Absolutely correct. Microsoft is still the 500 pound Gorilla.
> To
> > > > become equal, the combined revenue of Red Hat, SuSE, Caldera,
> Turbo
> > > > Linux, and others (Red Hat has about 25% of the total Linux
> market),
> > > > you'd have to take the current $72 million in license revenue and
> > > > triple it almost 4 years in a row to achieve Microsoft's revenue.
> > >
> > > Geez. That's not all that far from the realms of possibility.
> They
> > > *are* tripling each year at the moment. And four years is a very
> short
> > > time. And if it's six years instead of four Microsoft should
> *still* be
> > > very worried.
> >
> > Heh. You've obviosly not been around long enough to understand what
> greater
> > competition Microsoft has faced. Four years and Linux will be a
> memory,
> > relegated to the niche of MacOS. Six years and Microsoft will
> probably lend
> > you the mortagage for you next house :-)
> >
> Actually, Mike isn't that far off.
>
> Microsoft has been threatened by competition before. Each time,
> they have engaged in numerous questionable business practices which
> generally kill off the competition. For example:
>
> Fraud/Vaporware - When DR-DOS threatened to bring multitasking
> multiuser systems to the PC, Microsoft countered by announcing
> that MS-DOS 4.0 would offer multitasking. Eventually, with the
> release of Windows 3.0, Microsoft offered multitasking, but
> not under MS-DOS. In fact, only one MS-DOS window could be
> active at a time.
> The FTC eventually cited Microsoft for fraud and deceptive
> advertising, but Microsoft settled out of court. A subsequent
> lawsuit by Caldera was also settled out of court.
>
> Callusion - When WordPerfect and Lotus focused their support efforts
> on OS/2, Microsoft gave all OEMs the ultimatum of either selling
> Microsoft Office exclusively or a full retail price for Windows.
> The FTC cited Microsoft for illegal tie-ins, but Microsoft settled
> out of court (in fact, two judges rejected 3 attempts at
> settlement, saying that the FTC was beeing to lenient).
>
> Extortion - When Compaq announced that they would be putting Netscape
> Navigator on the desktop in the place previously occupied by IE,
> Microsoft sent them notice that, unless IE were put back it it's
> original position, and Netscape relegated to a back menu or taken
> off completely, that their license would be revoked. Both Microsoft
> and Compaq knew that revocation of the Windows 95 license would
> bankrupt Compaq. The DOJ cited Microsoft for breach of the original
> agreement, hoping to avoid an additional lawsuit/settlement.
>
> Blackmail - When IBM refused to stop selling OS/2, Microsoft not only
> threatened to deprive them of Windows 95, but also threatened to
> announce that IBM had pirated $40 million worth of Windows licenses
> (IBM had permission to sell OS/2 without Windows 3.1 but Microsoft
> then expected them to pay for Windows 3.1 for all copies of OS/2
> that had been sold without Windows 3.1). Microsoft only granted
> IBM the Windows 95 license because the IBM logo was placed in a
> prominent position on the backdrop used in the unveiling ceremony.
>
> Even with a criminal conviction pending, with a stay of sentence, and
> with a Supreme Court hearing almost assured, Microsoft has continued
> to engage in even more fraud, extortion, callusion, and blackmail,
> while demanding that any proposed settlement include a statement that
> Microsoft "did nothing wrong" (or something to that effect) and that
> all evidence in this hearing be sealed to prevent it's use in future
> state-by-state lawsuits.
>
> Meanwhile, back at the ranch, nearly every company that has ever
> been driven out of the MS-DOS/Windows market by Microsoft's illegal
> practices has decided that they would rather support Linux than
> Windows 2000 or Windows ME.
>
> Microsoft itself has transformed itself from a software company to
> an investment back, with over half it's revenue and earnings coming
> from investments obtained through piracy settlements (equity for
> royalties). Even this was largely a function of citations by the SEC
> involving securities fraud, again settled by Microsoft, out of court,
> with the spirit and intent of the order being ignored.
>
> Microsoft is now fighting a war of attrition. It's legal department
> is now confronted with a rapidly growing body of admissable evidence
> which is unlikely to be exempt from use in future prosecution.
> Furthermore, the DOJ and AGs are refusing to concede any settlement
> which absolves Microsoft and prevents further prosecution.
>
> But the game isn't over. Microsoft may still find ways to intimidate
> customers, corporate leaders, and consultants into excluding Linux
> (and other competitors), especially on the desktop. Microsoft has
> several billion available for advertizing, along with controlling
> interest in cable television, sattellite distribution, and publishing
> concerns that could give them the resources to create a media war.
>
> If Microsoft was willing to devote 18 hours/day to the Lewinsky
> scandal to divert public attention from the perjuries committed
> by their top officers, along with confessions to numerous felonies,
> including hundreds for which criminal charges were not filed, how
> much more would they be willing to do?
>
> George Bush is Governer of one of the states pressing the lawsuits.
> His state also has 4 OEMs and strong presense of a number of companies
> who would like to see the monopoly weakened. Yet recently, it's been
> George Bush who has been using Microsoft's language of "Freedom to
> Innovate". Perhaps he was referring to making the freedom to innovate
> available to Microsoft's OEM customers, competitors, and suppliers.
>
> I don't want to see Microsoft destroyed. They make some good products
> that server millions of people quite adaquately. Unfortunately, they
> also prevent the availability of alternatives that would server
> millions of others more effectively.
>
> It's possible that through a legal barrage and media blitz, that
> Microsoft could kill Linux off even as it achieves 30% of the market
> (as they did with the Mac). If this happens, it would be very tragic.
>
> --
> Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
> Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
> http://www.open4success.com
> Linux - 50 million satisfied users worldwide
> and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
