Linux-Advocacy Digest #942, Volume #29 Mon, 30 Oct 00 16:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Joe Doupnik)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Spicerun)
Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: MS Hacked? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: To all you WinTrolls (Jake Taense)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Simon Palko")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Simon Palko")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft (Aaron Ginn)
I fixed it (was:Can Linux cut and paste?) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why should I keep advocating Linux? (Jake Taense)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Piercarlo Grandi)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Jake Taense)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (John Fereira)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Doupnik)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: 30 Oct 00 11:55:35 MDT
In article <8tkc8j$dic$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George William Herbert)
writes:
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Terje Mathisen in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>>> That would depend on what you consider "ethernet speeds". The correct
>>>> throughput rate to measure on an Ethernet is comparable to arcnet.
>>>> Ethernet's CSMA/CD relies on statistical access to the media, and is
>>>> only really efficient at nominally 10% of the "bandwidth speed".
>>>
>>>OK, please do some actual throughput tests and come back:
>>>
>>>I'm willing to bet that you'll discover that CSMA/CD is perfectly
>>>willing to work with 30-60% utilization, and for a simple streaming
>>>application using maximum size packets (1500+ bytes), you'll get up to
>>>90-99%.
>>
>>You are under the impression that throughput tests would involve
>>measuring the utilization of the Ethernet. That is specifically what I
>>meant to point out would be of dubious value. I have no interest what
>>an ethernet can do in isolation or in thought experiments. If you're
>>going to design a [complex] network which includes Ethernet, you should,
>>as Robert Metcalfe intended when he designed the thing, consider your
>>"bandwidth" to be a nominal 10% of the bit rate. Unless you're not
>>using shared ethernet, and hardly anyone uses shared media these days.
>>And then they wonder why their shared switches don't make all of their
>>"network" problems magically disappear, like the sales droid promised.
>
> I've seen this often enough argued, but both the detailed theory
> (your 10% quote there is an inaccurate quote without sufficient
> context) and practice I've seen with medium sized shared media nets
> (up to 15-20 systems) showed that you could consistently get at least
> 50% from any arbitrary pair of systems involved with moderate normal
> traffic between the others, and I could often hit 90% or better
> if the rest of the network was lightly loaded. Obviously, with
> shared media if you have everyone try and talk simultaneously
> the total combined utilization is under 100%, but I've run 8
> system test networks where each of the 8 was doing bidirectional
> bandwidth testing with the other 7 and I was getting 85% of
> combined 10BT theoretical out of the combined network when
> packet sizes were large on the average, and 75% for worst case.
>
> I'm sorry if you never were able to do so, but my experience
> says I can do better than you think I should. So do a lot of
> other people's experience. I would never design anything other
> than fully switched now, but that's because I want 90% to all
> systems individually with current apps rather than 90% shared
> between them all.
>
>
> -george william herbert
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=========
Putting the various mis-statements into perspective.
First, when a packet is on the wire utilization is 100%, by definition.
Second, we typically average over some time interval to obtain utilization.
Third, Ethernet can and often does run at over 90% utilization (averaged)
all day and performance is ok (not as crisp as an empty wire, but ok).
Fourth, cautious network managers realize traffic is bursty and thus they
view utilization over an hour or longer and provide about triple that avg
as headroom for bursts. This is clearly a heuristic, and one which is
reasonable in practice.
When the wire is saturated then throughput of an individual station
competes with other stations and the result for an individual station goes
down. The station goes slower but is not stuck. It is a simple sharing effect,
no high level theory required.
Simply saying X% utilization is too much is to embarass the speaker
because insufficient context was provided.
Lastly, I find offensive the rewriting of history to fit personal
views. Hindsight is wonderful, and offering critisims of those working then
is such a luxury. Please resist the urge and do keep temporal context in
mind. In the end nearly everything becomes obsolete, yet if we wait long
enough folks will reinvent the wheel under a different name. [Platitude #7]
Joe D.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[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: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:21:39 -0300
El lun, 30 oct 2000, Relax escribió:
>"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8tjumu$f9b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <39fb5876$0$32655$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:00102717474900.20411@pc03...
>> >
>> > > Nonsense. Until the introduction of truetype fonts, at least, what
>> was
>> > that,
>> > > 1990?
>> >
>> > TrueType has little to do with drawing and blitting.
>>
>> What, do you consider putting text on the screen and in the printer as
>> not drawing?
>
>Yes, it is, but I don't see your point. GDI was device independent before
>TrueType.
Except for fonts, where you had to use printer fonts which were different from
screen fonts.
> Adobe Type Manager provided scaleable fonts for Windows long time
>before TT came out
I thought you were against considering add-ons.
> and GDI's font rasterized was able to scale bitmap-based
>fonts since day one.
And they looked, obviously, completely different.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:36:25 -0600
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> Get the NT Option pack , nice little utility there called Kill.exe
> But 90% of the time you can make do with "net stop" or simply End Task from
> windows task manager
What good will kill.exe do when the machine is totally locked up, unresponsive,
and you can't type in the kill command? Remember that the original poster was
complaining that all he could do was pull the power plug? Amazing just how
many Windows Gurus are always saying to run a program or just hit the task
manager no matter how many times a person is telling them that the machine is
completely unresponsive and that hitting alt-ctl-del will do absolutely nothing
when the machine is unresponsive. Makes me think that Windows Guru just can't
grasp what happens with system lockups. I wonder how long many of the Windows
Gurus wait for that Task Manager dialog on a locked up machine before they
themselves figure out that the machine is locked up?....(Even then, The Gurus
seem to freak whenever they can't get the Task Manager Dialog Box to Display).
> Hold power button for 6 seconds, it will turn itself off.
> It was build this was so you wouldn't accidently turn the computer off.
Not every machine is an ATX machine and some ATX machines have the power button
suspend delay completely disabled in the bios, therefore pushing the power
button will immediately power done the machine. Non-ATX machines power is
never software controlled, so the power supply on the machine will power off as
soon as the switch is pressed....and no software will ever change this. Very
arrogant of you to assume that the power button is under any software control
on all computers.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:53:57 GMT
Well sooner or later it was bound to happen. I agree with you
concerning RedHat. My first taste of RH was 4.1 I believe
and Glint was broken, the kernal had an extra extension on it in the
directory tree and something else major didn't work, but I can't
remember what. I was using a boot diskette at the time to dual boot
and when I tried to recompile the kernel, nothing worked because the
source tree was screwed up. Trivial for an experienced Linus person,
but very frustrating for me.
It's been like that with Redhat ever since, at least for me. Their
default path statements are screwed up. I have yet to re-compile a
kernel and have it correctly update my boot disk (make zDisk I
believe? it's been a while). I have used/tried everyone all the way up
to 6.2 and I have found problems with everyone.
SuSE on the other hand has been an absolute joy to use. YaST is
wonderful and checking a box during the gui kernel recompile menues
updates the boot diskette for me perfectly with the new image, all at
once. No copying and renaming files etc.
SuSE's support site is also fantastic with easy to find information
that is also up to date.
My only complaint with SuSE is that the install takes a long time
(loading programs, not configuring).
Mandrake 7.x is like night and day compared to Redhat. It is also a
great distribution and the support site is as good as SuSE's.
It installs in about 20 minutes on my machine with one reboot. And
that includes networking and Dial-up configuration.
Claire
On 30 Oct 2000 17:07:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I suppose if I were going to write something this stupid I wouldn't want my
>> name to appear either...
>
>Stupid? How, exactly?
>
>Redhat is shipping a broken GCC, AGAIN.
>
>Mandrake is not linux; they completely redid the kernel headers and
>broke massive amounts of legacy software as a result. Thats why
>there are "rpm-mdk"s, brainiac.
>
>Do you have problems with SuSe, Debian or Slackware?
>
>And if you had three or four braincells, you could find out exactly
>who I am very easily. I'm far from anonymous.
>
>
>
>
>-----.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS Hacked?
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 13:58:34 -0600
"chrisv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Well, structured programming is kind of a dinosaur these days. But
still,
> >students are told not to use goto's, but never why.
>
> What? NEVER why? I say they are ALWAYS told why!
>
> Now, neither one of these statements is actually true. But I'd say
> that mine is closer to the truth than yours is. "Never why" indeed.
Correct. I should have said "but seldom why".
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 14:05:08 -0600
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:MQbL5.10328$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > This is true, because ints in 64 bit computers are 64 bit, thus allowing
> the
> > file system to be a signed 63 bit integer.
> >
> > However, this also illustrates another problem. It's physically
> impossible
> > to take such a formatted disk and put it into a 32 bit computer. For
> > instance, suppose I have a 2.5 GB removable disk that I want to share
> > between my Alpha and Intel PC's. Can't do it.
>
> You seem to be confused between accessing a storage medium and accessing a
> file on that storage medium. It is obviously not "physically impossible"
> for a 32 bit system to use a removable disk > 2 GB. If it were, then
> floppies could never be bigger than 64 K on 16 bit systems (such as DOS,
WIN
> 3.x, etc). A filesystem need not address the storage medium down to the
> byte level, though the closer it gets, the more efficiently it uses the
> medium. That's why FAT16 is so hugely inefficient.
I was a little unclear in that statement. I meant, if you have a single
file on that 2.5GB removeable disk that spans the entire disk. You can
access part of that file, but not all of it on 32 bit Linux systems. I
understand that the 2.4 kernel solves some of those problems, however it
doesn't solve the key problem that the C Runtime Library uses a signed 32
bit integer for file access, which means any program using it to access
files (you know, like vi, more, tail, etc..) won't be able to access a file
over 2GB.
Efficiency of your file system at the level we're talking about is largely
irrelevant. The computer will be faster than the disk drive.
FAT16 is only inefficient because it uses 32k clusters for partitions larger
than 1GB and causes lots of wasted disk space in sector slop. It's actually
quite efficient speed-wise.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jake Taense)
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 20:28:37 GMT
>> Almost every linux user i know including myself has used Win9* Win 2000
>> etc... either at work, at school or at home. I used Windows NT/Win 9*
>> four years before i switched over to Linux. I have even tried out
>> Windows 2000, and yes Windows 2000 is pretty good file://by Windoze
>> standards//. So i, and most linux users has had first hand experience
>> with Windoze and know at least the basics. But the morons who write
>> "Linux sucks" have usually not even seen a Linux screenshot. So before
>> you write "Linux sucks" try out Linux for an year or two. Until you have
>> done that shut up!!!
On what basis do you make this claim? I really want to know what leads you to
believe that none of these people have tried linux.
Guess what? I know several people who tried linux - an honest, real attempt -
gave up, and went happily back to Windows. Some of them made the claim that
you mentioned above - "Linux sucks". Is their opinion invalid because it
doesn't match yours?
------------------------------
From: "Simon Palko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 15:11:58 -0500
"David D. Huff Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> At least within the government and military, we can't be towing ships
> around harbors just because NT craps out. Now they've got something
> worse to worry about. There is much more at stake not just here in the
> US but around the world.
*sigh*
This old bit of FUD, again.
It wasn't NT that crapped out, you dolts, it was the database crapping out
on a divide by zero. Apparently the guy running the database for the Navy
thought it should behave like a pocket calculator and return zero. Some
people never learn...
--
-Simon Palko
"More fun than a barrel of monkeys... with dynamite strapped to their
backs!"
------------------------------
From: "Simon Palko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 14:52:06 -0500
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
I rate this conspiracy theory about a 4 on a scale of 1 to 10.
No mention of black CIA helicopters or cattle mutilations kept it from
scoring higher.
--
-Simon Palko
"More fun than a barrel of monkeys... with dynamite strapped to their
backs!"
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:39:06 -0800
"John Fereira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tk5ji$rf6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <rGPK5.116711$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bruce Schuck"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Bruce Schuck wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Matt Kennel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > :Look at Oracle. You pay for the software by the mhz of the chip
you
> >run
> >> > it
> >> > > :on .... as if that was any of their f**king business.
> >> > > :
> >> > > :Upgrade the processor and pay more money!
> >> > > :
> >> > > :Talk about extortion.
> >> > >
> >> > > Why? I see no relation.
> >> >
> >> > I guess you are blind.
> >> >
> >> > > The problem with Microsoft's business practices is that they were
> >> > intentionally
> >> > > designed to thwart agreements between the Microsoft client and some
> >other
> >> > > third software maker by means other than offering a superior
product.
> >> >
> >> > They were designed to strongly encourage companies that sold hardware
to
> >> > sell only Microsoft software in the same way GM, Ford, and Chrysler
> >strongly
> >> > encouraged franchisees to only sell cars made by the company that
sold
> >them
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^
> >> > the franchise.
> >>
> >>
> >> Note the PAST TENSE, as this is *ILLEGAL*.
> >>
> >> A sizeable portion of auto-dealers, IN AND AROUND DETROIT--RIGHT UNDER
> >> THE AUTO-EXEC's NOSES sell cars and trucks from multiple
manufacturers...
> >
> >A sizeable portion? Are you trying to tell me dealers sell both Ford and
GM
> >and Chrysler cars?
> >
> >Never seen it.
> >
> >Or are you talking Ford/VW and GM/Volvo.
> >
> >That I've seen. And I've seen Auto Malls where multiple separate dealers
> >sell cars.
>
> Are you sure they're separate? Out in the south SF bay area there is a
> company called the "Lucas Dealership Group". It's one company that owns
> mulitple dealerships that include almost all of the major domestic and
> foreign models. I've seen the same thing in several other places. Each
> dealership might be limited to one or two manufacturers but they're all
owned
> by the same company.
Sounds like a way around the Big 3's attempt to keep one dealer from selling
cars from multiple manufacturers.
I found this link
http://www.openhere.com/shop1/automotive/dealers/dealership-groups/.
It seems dealership groups are just groups of companies -- each company
having a dealership for one brand of car.
I think Aaron is running a con when he says Dealerships can offer different
brands from the Big 3.
His complaints about Microsoft doing something illegal are just bullsh*t. It
seems to be standard business practice.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft
Date: 30 Oct 2000 13:03:02 -0700
Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "." wrote:
>
> > Mandrake is not linux; they completely redid the kernel headers and
> > broke massive amounts of legacy software as a result. Thats why
> > there are "rpm-mdk"s, brainiac.
> >
> > Do you have problems with SuSe, Debian or Slackware?
>
> So what do you advise? As you can see, I am running Mandrake,
> just because I am a newcomer to Linux, because it got excellent
> reviews in British mags, etc. A year ago, I had tried
> Caldera, and it went pretty well. Debian, I gather, is
> only for the knowledgeable crowd, to which I definitely
> do not belong. Slackware also? SuSe, I have read good
> reviews of, but I no longer know what to believe. Or
> should I stick with Mandrake until I know my way around
> better? (Better a lame horse than a legless horse)
Mandrake is an excellent distro. It is very newbie friendly yet it
includes lots of software that would benefit experienced users.
Whether or not it is true Linux is semantics, IMO. Mandrake is
optimized for Pentium class machines, so that's where the kernel
modifications come into play.
I've never had a problem with Mandrake. It's very stable for me, and
I don't lack for anything. Mandrake's admin tools are also
excellent. DrakConf makes some of the most arcane tasks trivial.
So what if it isn't true Linux, or if the elitist users look down
their nose at you for running it. Sure, Mandrake is simple to set up,
and I believe it will be the premiere desktop Linux in a few years,
but it's not just for newbies. A power user can do anything he can
with any other distro. Mandrake strikes the best balance of any
distribution in terms of ease of use without limiting functionality.
Aaron
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: I fixed it (was:Can Linux cut and paste?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 20:43:01 GMT
The problem turned out to have 2 causes.
1. Although 3 button mouse was selected in XF86Setup, Emulate 3
buttons was not. Changing and applying it partially fixed the problem.
2. I can now cut and paste between kedit and Netscape but ONLY if I
use the mouse to do everything. For example If I want to select all of
the text I must use the mouse to highlight and copy and then middle
button (actually 2 buttons at the same time) to paste it. This works.
If I use select all from the drop from the kedit drop down menus then
copy or cut from the same menu, I can't paste into Netscape (of kfm
for that matter) either using the middle button or the menu.
This is a pita especially on a Thinkpad with that track point mouse
and funky buttons. For a select all text, the menu is easier than
trying to sweep the mouse.
This has to be some kind of a bug?
claire
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jake Taense)
Subject: Re: Why should I keep advocating Linux?
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 20:43:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>They can't even keep some hackers out of their corporate
>server site containing W2K code, yet he will argue with
>you about Microsoft security until his penis falls off.
One piece of advice - when advocating, avoid making stupid, incorrect claims
like the above, because when you obviously don't know what you are talking
about, the rest of your post is snipped as useless.
Everything I've read indicates the hackers/crackers/whatever were NOT able to
access any OS or Office code. Show me a single, reputable source that claims
the individuals managed to get to the operating system source servers, and
I'll retract my post.
>The reason he argues is he KNOWS HE'S WRONG!
What do you know? The rest of the post was:
<snipped as useless>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Piercarlo Grandi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: 30 Oct 2000 20:44:54 +0000
>>> On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:00:40 +1300, Bruce Hoult <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[ ... ]
Bruce> The waste is in having creative people put a lot of effort into
Bruce> something wonderful and then having corporate idiots hide it for
Bruce> years and eventually junk it. I'm more familiar with the history
Bruce> of Apple than of Sun or AT&T but I can give at least a dozen
Bruce> prime examples from them alone.
But Apple is/was another company where the mantra was ``high margins
now, never mind long term market share'', in other words keep bonuses
and stock options high in the here and now.
It's not "corporate idiots": the corporate execs that choose such a
strategy know very well what they are doing, and how it benefits them
personally, they are very shrewd.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jake Taense)
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 20:48:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, XYZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>My thoughts on Windows 2000....
<snip>
You rebel, you! Coming to a linux advocacy group and griping about Windows!
Takes a lot of courage.
Looking for a little congratulatory backslap?
Obviously you aren't looking for debate or even a solution to the problem, or
you would be taking the discussion to a Windows support group. You're simply
here to gather some "me too" posts.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Fereira)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 20:49:25 GMT
In article <a_kL5.118299$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bruce Schuck"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"John Fereira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8tk5ji$rf6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <rGPK5.116711$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bruce Schuck"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Bruce Schuck wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > "Matt Kennel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > > :Look at Oracle. You pay for the software by the mhz of the chip
>you
>> >run
>> >> > it
>> >> > > :on .... as if that was any of their f**king business.
>> >> > > :
>> >> > > :Upgrade the processor and pay more money!
>> >> > > :
>> >> > > :Talk about extortion.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Why? I see no relation.
>> >> >
>> >> > I guess you are blind.
>> >> >
>> >> > > The problem with Microsoft's business practices is that they were
>> >> > intentionally
>> >> > > designed to thwart agreements between the Microsoft client and some
>> >other
>> >> > > third software maker by means other than offering a superior
>product.
>> >> >
>> >> > They were designed to strongly encourage companies that sold hardware
>to
>> >> > sell only Microsoft software in the same way GM, Ford, and Chrysler
>> >strongly
>> >> > encouraged franchisees to only sell cars made by the company that
>sold
>> >them
>> >> ^^^^^^^^^^
>> >> > the franchise.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Note the PAST TENSE, as this is *ILLEGAL*.
>> >>
>> >> A sizeable portion of auto-dealers, IN AND AROUND DETROIT--RIGHT UNDER
>> >> THE AUTO-EXEC's NOSES sell cars and trucks from multiple
>manufacturers...
>> >
>> >A sizeable portion? Are you trying to tell me dealers sell both Ford and
>GM
>> >and Chrysler cars?
>> >
>> >Never seen it.
>> >
>> >Or are you talking Ford/VW and GM/Volvo.
>> >
>> >That I've seen. And I've seen Auto Malls where multiple separate dealers
>> >sell cars.
>>
>> Are you sure they're separate? Out in the south SF bay area there is a
>> company called the "Lucas Dealership Group". It's one company that owns
>> mulitple dealerships that include almost all of the major domestic and
>> foreign models. I've seen the same thing in several other places. Each
>> dealership might be limited to one or two manufacturers but they're all
>owned
>> by the same company.
>
>Sounds like a way around the Big 3's attempt to keep one dealer from selling
>cars from multiple manufacturers.
>
>I found this link
>http://www.openhere.com/shop1/automotive/dealers/dealership-groups/.
>
>It seems dealership groups are just groups of companies -- each company
>having a dealership for one brand of car.
That's not the way I read it. Check out the "John Elway Dealerships".
Multiple dealerships (John Elway Nissan, John Elway Chevrolet, etc), but one
company (one owner). The "John Elway Dealerships" looks just like the Lucas
Dealership Group I mentioned. There are multiple lots, which might have
different names, but they're all one company and profits are all going into
one pot.
>
>I think Aaron is running a con when he says Dealerships can offer different
>brands from the Big 3.
I think Aaron is right on this one and you'll have to resort to semantics to
prove him wrong.
John Fereira
Ithaca, NY
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
