Linux-Advocacy Digest #497, Volume #30 Tue, 28 Nov 00 12:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: The Sixth Sense (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:35:16 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 27 Nov 2000 02:23:40
>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:hxdU5.25015$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:8vqs63$5e16i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>>
>> > Win98 will fly on 32MB (I used to work on 16 win 98)
>> > And I'm running a server on a 64MB which is also used as a desktop
>> machine.
>>
>> You have a strange idea of flying. My 32MB machine crawls if you
>> open more than a couple of windows.
>
>What are you doing on it?
>What windows? What services run on the background?
Guffaw.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:35:34 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 26 Nov 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>> WHY? I'm not going to be able to think until I figure out why! HOW?
>> for that matter. HOW?
>
>You see? Even the fiercest fighter against MS monopoly finds sometimes
>difficult just to consider that they could have done such a crappy thing
>as they've done!
>
>As of how and why, two choices are available: incompetence (one point
>for me) or sabotage for monopolistic purposes (one point for you).
Well, I can't see this as being anything but incompetence, so I'll just
hand you the point. But its the 'how' that gets me. I didn't even mean
"why" in terms of human motivations, but why this is even possible. How
the hell do you get a counter to wrap before it wraps?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:27:14 GMT
An example of a consistant interface would be the mac, where by all
applications share the same menu-ing format and interface qualities,
compare that to Windows, each application has it's own little way of
doing something, thus, developing and interacting with an application is
made more complicated than it has to.
kiwiunixman
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> In article <8vsa9p$5e8t6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>> From the overall easiness of working with the system, I've to say
>>> that MS took a long hard look at the iMac success, which was largely
>>> based on its look and "just plug it in" slogan. And decided that they
>>> can do it better.
>>>
>>> I would refrain from commenting whatever they actually succeeded in
>>> that, because it's still a beta, and because I don't have that much
>>> experiance on Macs. And practically none at all on an iMac or an
>>> iBook.
>>>
>>> However, in its current state, I have to say that Whistler is pretty
>>> awesome UI-wise.
>>
>> Do you mean it actually has a well thought out and constant UI, or just
>> that the skins are pretty? I suspect the latter will turn out to be the
>> case.
>
>
> I'm having hard time defining the term bad GUI.
> I'm incapable of defining it more clearly than that I don't like the way a
> certain application behaves.
> I read (and loved) interface hall of shame, but while I can recognize the
> points that they make, I just get over them or dump the application.
> I'm afraid that I'm indifferent to many of the points that the interface
> hall of shame makes.
> Therefor, I'm afraid I'm not the one you should ask about well though out
> and constant (I assume you mean consistent) UI.
>
> However, to the best of my ability to reach a conclustion, the UI has
> improved, especially newbie-wise.
> It's certainly more then bell & whistles. (no pun intended)
>
> I am going to try it on a complete computer illeterate person, from
> installing to working on it.
> (The beta license is quite liberate on tihs, allowing you up to use Whistler
> on up to 5 computers. I wouldn't be surprised if Ms would change the final
> release license so that you've to pay for each connection to IIS, or for
> each explorer window that open, or for each mailbox in IE.)
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:35:54 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 26 Nov 2000
19:25:25 -0600;
>> Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 25 Nov 2000
>> >Now look what NT does. It exposes a 32 bit value, which is incremented
>> >in units of one hundredth of a second, as per specs, but when it reaches
>> >a value 10 times smaller than the all 1's value (i.e. after 49.7 days,
>> >instead 497) it goes back to zero. To be exact, when it reaches the
>> >binary value 11001100110011001100110011001 it goes back to zero. It's
>> >not a binary counter rolling over to zero!
>
>That's not the case. NT's tick counter is not in 10ms units, it's in 1ms
>units, though it increments it 55ms at a time (the system tick minimum
>resolution)
>
>It does roll over to 0 after filling up with all 1's.
>
>Here's a little exercise. Calculate the largest number of days a 32 bit
>value can hold if it holds 1ms units. The answer, 49.7 or so days.
WHY is it in 1ms units, then? Particularly given the fact that it is
standard to provide hundredths of a second, not thousandths?
(BTW, Erik, you might be correct for the underlying DWORD value, but
Microsoft's SNMP agent, at least, does exhibit behavior identical to
that described by Giuliano.)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:36:23 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 27 Nov 2000
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> > Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 25 Nov 2000
>> > >Now look what NT does. It exposes a 32 bit value, which is incremented
>> > >in units of one hundredth of a second, as per specs, but when it reaches
>> > >a value 10 times smaller than the all 1's value (i.e. after 49.7 days,
>> > >instead 497) it goes back to zero. To be exact, when it reaches the
>> > >binary value 11001100110011001100110011001 it goes back to zero. It's
>> > >not a binary counter rolling over to zero!
>>
>> That's not the case. NT's tick counter is not in 10ms units, it's in 1ms
>> units, though it increments it 55ms at a time (the system tick minimum
>> resolution)
>>
>> It does roll over to 0 after filling up with all 1's.
>>
>> Here's a little exercise. Calculate the largest number of days a 32 bit
>> value can hold if it holds 1ms units. The answer, 49.7 or so days.
>
>Here's a little exercise for you.
>You have an internal tick counter made the stupid way MS has
>done. (Don't tell me that a 1 ms resolution with 55 ms
>uncertainty is smart because I won't buy it, but that's
>another matter)
Again, Giuliano, this ties in to the whole idea of using a counter. It
is a *continuity indicate*, not a clock. As long as it is 55 ms ahead
every 55 ms, it is not an issue.
>Now you have decided to provide a function whose specs
>require to expose, as a continuity indicator, a 32 bit
>counter which increments in units of 10 ms. Remember that
>you may not provide it. IBM's AIX doesn't, just to make an
>example. It's just a function you may have or not. But
>you've decided to have it.
AIX might not have it, but all SNMP agents running on AIX do.
>1) What's the largest value this counter will hold? Is it
>497 or so days or not?
>
>2) How would you implement it, in such a way as not to be
>called an incompetent amateur?
>
>Would you derive it from your 32 bit value which has a 1 ms
>resolution (with 55 ms uncertainty), so that it will break
>continuity, each 49.7 days, or think of something else?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:28:49 GMT
The question I want to know is how well it crashes....sorry....I mean,
works :)
kiwiunixman
mark wrote:
> In article <8vsa9p$5e8t6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>> I've finally gotten whistler (pro, 2296, beta 1), and I'm *liking* it.
>> For those of you who doesn't know what this is, whistler is an the new OS
>> (the one that will inherit both win2k & win ME) from Microsoft, destined to
>> finally eliminated the 9x line.
>>
>> Here is my biased review.
>> I'm going to limit myself to comments about the new GUI and features of the
>> OS, as this a Beta1, it's not yet appropriate to talk about performace and
>> stability yet.
>
>
> Having seen your technical commentaries, I think it wise to
> restrict yourself to the squashy bits.
>
> I'm sure it looks really nice, Ayende.
>
> Mark
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:37:03 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 26 Nov 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 24 Nov 2000
>> >You are misinterpreting both what I say, and what the Fallacy is. I'm
>not
>> >saying that neither position is or isn't correct. I'm saying that the
>> >ARGUMENT isn't valid.
>>
>> I thought for a moment your first sentence might be correct, and was
>> fully prepared to consider how it might be so. And then I read your
>> second and third sentence, and realized you're full of it. Argument
>> from ignorance, that is. To say an *argument* isn't "valid" is, indeed,
>> an argument from ignorance, the classic fallacy, albeit in a slightly
>> different form. An argument is as valid as its reasoning, and nothing
>> more. Stating that there isn't evidence to support it in some way, and
>> therefore the argument has no validity, is an argument from ignorance.
>> The reasoning of the argument is what is to be considered, not whether
>> or not it is already known to be true.
>
>That's just it. The evidence doesn't exist.
Thus the 'ignorance' in the phrase "argument from ignorance". You don't
know if evidence exists or not; you only know if you know if evidence
exists. Get it? That you are ignorant of some evidence does not
indicate that there is no evidence. Trying to use such a "lack of
knowledge" as an argument, in place of consideration of either reason or
evidence, is an "argument from ignorance", a logical fallacy.
>Neither side has any evidence
>to support a reasoned argument. It is a known and admitted fact by both
>sides that neither of us have the evidence to draw a reasoned conclusion.
So I'm afraid you're going to have to go with just the reasoned argument
itself. In fact, this might very well help quite a bit, by allowing us
to consider what evidence we might find, and then go look for it. This
is why the "argument from ignorance" is such a problem, and why you are
not recognizing it. To figure out what evidence you want to find, and
then go look, is an inductive assumption. You may well have had it
hammered into your head that induction is bad, and deduction is the only
true "logic". This is incorrect. What you are saying is that because
no deductive logic can "prove" what is or is not, therefore it cannot be
proven. While accurate, this is not practical, when one is trying to
deal with real life, where problems don't disappear because you don't
know how to solve them. So your desire is to avoid the inductive
argument. This could be for one of three reasons, I figure:
a) you don't like the results
b) you are incapable of sufficiently grasping abstractions to engage in
inductive reasoning
c) you incorrectly presume that inductive reasoning is by nature flawed
logic
I'm more than willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume
that 'c' is true, despite the fact that there is evidence that 'a' and
'b' are also true, and more influential in your thinking. But the first
step you're going to have to take is to grasp the abstraction of an
"argument from ignorance", whether you like the results or not, and stop
pretending that just because *you* cannot apply reason, nobody else is
allowed to, either.
>Since it is known that the evidence doesn't exist, it's not an argument from
>ignorance to state that arguments based on the lack of facts is invalid.
No, it is known that you don't know if the evidence exists, not that it
doesn't exist. You might even know that you will never know what the
evidence is, or whether it exists. All the more reason to quite with
the silly posturing and get on with a rational discussion.
>The definition of the fallacy itself is based on this same logic.
Try again. Ignorance of evidence is not the same as lack of evidence,
in this context.
>> As I've already explained (but will again, because apparently you missed
>> it), this results in an inability to know. If an argument is not valid
>> if it is not known to be true, then an argument cannot be known to be
>> valid until it is known to be valid, and therefore cannot ever be either
>> known or valid, capiche?
>
>Except we do, in fact, know that this argument is true and valid (the
>argument about the argument, not the argument about the topic).
You're engaging in some concept drift, there, Erik. The term "an
argument" was used in the preceding statements to indicate a line of
argumentive reasoning in a debate, not the debate itself. My argument,
that you don't understand what an argument from ignorance is, is valid.
You argument, that the definition of an argument from ignorance is
flawed, is not.
>We know
>there is no evidence known to either of us, thus neither side argument is
>valid. Reason can only be drawn from evidence. Without evidence, such an
>argument cannot be reasoned.
I'm afraid you've built yourself another bootstrap problem there, son.
Welcome to the post-post-modern world. What is or is not considered
"evidence" is, by itself, based on reasoning. Therefore the idea that
reason can only be drawn from evidence is fatally flawed, since evidence
can only be identified by reasoning.
>> >Occam's razor is largely irrelevant in situations like this. There isn't
>> >enough evidence to even support Occam in making a judgement about
>> >likelihood.
>>
>> Apparently, you aren't very familiar with Occam's razor, either. It is
>> in situations where there isn't enough evidence that it is employed.
>
>Isn't enough, versus lacking any.
I would say 'lacking any' definitely qualifies as 'is not enough',
wouldn't you?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:37:53 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 26 Nov 2000
[...]
>> A fellow contractor told of helping with an inventory...
>> there was a Sun box which had been overlooked in the last
>> inventory, and had gone 13 months without any sort of
>> maintenance.....everyone had completely FORGOTTEN about
>> this machine's existance....because it was performing
>> ALL of its functions flawlessly.
>
>And a similar situation happened at one of my clients. They had an NT box
>sitting in a network closet for 2 years acting as a time-clock system. [...]
ROTFLMAO
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:38:44 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 04:56:37
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 27 Nov 2000 01:40:18
>
>> >Here is another one:
>> >Create a shortcut to explorer.exe, check the "run as another user"
>> >Double click it, explorer will open, you are now, within this windows and
>> >within any windows or applications that you launch from this widnows, an
>> >admin.
>>
>> Now that I would have bet hard money wasn't possible. Seems like MS had
>> to work pretty hard to make W2K mimic Unix enough to be acceptable
>> enough to extend the monopoly.
>
>You've a very strange way of thinking.
Indeed I do. Others have called it a "unique perspective". It works
quite adequately.
>If MS makes bad software, it's because they are monopoly and evil.
>If MS makes good software, it's because they are monopoly and evil.
>
>But why make the seperation?
>If MS, bad & evil.
I have never said that MS is either bad or evil, merely that they are a
monopoly. When it is bad software, I explain why: its monopoly
crapware, and doesn't actually have to be competitive (i.e. good enough
to compete) in order to be sold. When it is "good software", I explain
why: Microsoft monopolizes, which means they design their product to
remove any reasons to avoid it. While this does coincidentally happen
to satisfy some certain users, supposedly, it can be distinguished from
competitive behavior by the fact that it is designed not to maximize
Microsoft's profits on Windows, but to maximize the market share of
Windows (or, more properly, to defend the almost 100% market share of
Windows).
Now, you can refute my reasoning, provide evidence to the contrary, or
attempt to ridicule my position by building strawmen about "evil
empires" and such. Your choice.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:39:50 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 05:09:12
[...]
>Garbage In, Garbage Out
[...]
>You claim to know computers.
Indeed, I do. I know a great deal about computers, including 'Garbage
in, Garbage out.' I didn't recognize the acronym, as it is entirely
unrelated to this discussion, AFAIK, and it never occurred to me that it
would come up.
>Yet you seem to be unable to make the connection with bad data to bad
>results.
>If I enter wrong data in the /etc, what would happen?
Well, it wouldn't bring the whole OS to a crashing halt, that's for damn
sure.
>It's not being "pedantic", it's being correct.
That would depend on whether it was accurate, consistent, and practical.
Is it accurate, being precisely what you meant, to say "GIGO" when
discussing the registry? Hardly, if you know what GIGO refers to. Is
it consistent? I don't know what your argument about /etc has to do
with the registry and GIGO, so I'm not at all sure it is a consistent
argument. As I mentioned, I didn't even recognize the acronym, so out
of context is it. Is it practical? Well, since, as I mentioned, no
failure, flaw, or misconfiguration of /etc will generally cause the kind
of nightmarishly unpredictable and obscenely difficult to diagnose
problems that a corrupted, flawed, or misconfigured registry can bring.
So, no, it isn't practical, either. Its not being pedantic, I don't
think, but it certainly isn't being "correct", either.
>If you give the OS bad data, in any way, shape, or form, it would fail.
You give an application data. You configure OSes. No, an OS does not
fail, is not, in fact, allowed to fail (provided it is a competitive
OS), just because you gave it "bad data" in some way, shape, or form.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 05:37:50 +1300
<COMPRESSION>
> Isn't that a 12-step addiction treatment program?
>
>
>> Mark
Maybe he was playing spin the bottle, and someone dared him to post a
Windows commentry on a Linux Advocacy newsgroup, thus proving how big a
man he really is.
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:41:14 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:43:01
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 26 Nov 2000 14:12:08
>
><big snippage>
>
>> >The first is a perfectly legal, morally correct, and a wise bussiness
>> >decision. The second is considered illegal, but still a wise bussiness
>> >decision, moral I leave to others to ponder about, as value systems are
>> >different around the world.
>>
>> No, monopolization is not a wise business decision. It isn't a business
>> decision at all; it is a decision to avoid doing business, and instead
>> to engage in criminal activity.
>
>Monoply is a wise business decision because it increase revenue.
Robbing banks increases revenues, too, as does grand theft auto, fraud,
and blackmail.
>That is what I was talking about.
>On pure logical level, wise business decision is one that increase revenue,
>monoply increase revenue.
It makes logical sense to try to use the fact that you have a large
market share to control costs and to exclude competition (provided
you're not thinking very hard.) However, it is illegal, so it cannot be
considered a "wise business decision", any more than "cooking the books"
would be a wise business decision. The reason it is illegal, btw, is
not any "party pooper" attitude that a Mr. Sherman had a hundred years
ago. It is because it prevents free market competition from
functioning. Read Adam Smith for the details.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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
******************************
