Linux-Advocacy Digest #477, Volume #32 Sun, 25 Feb 01 21:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (T. Max Devlin)
Re: RTFM at M$ ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("B.B.")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("B.B.")
Re: Mircosoft Tax (mlw)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Masha Ku'Inanna")
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:15:29 -0600
"gary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:BBhm6.722$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The article is based on a faulty premise. Since Windows 95 came out,
not
> > all components have come down in price in any significant way. Cases
and
> > Power supplies have not come down in price since 95.
>
> atx case: ~$14.99
> http://www.verasoft.com/miniatcase.html
Ack.. a 200W power supply for a mini tower? You can't add anything to it.
This is like claiming cars have come down in price because the Yugo was so
cheap.
> power supply: ~$9.00
> http://www.verasoft.com/atxpowsup25.html
I should have prefixed my statement with "good quality". You can get cheap
if you are willing to put up with high failure rates and erratic voltage
levels.
> these things are insignifigant....
Which is irrelevant to the claim.
> > Floppy disks have not come down in price
>
> If you mean floppy drives, floppy drive: $8
Yes.
> http://www.computersurplusoutlet.com/viewproduct.asp?ProductID=STO-144DEL
> (refurb but who cares.. it's a floppy drive)
Refurbished is not new. It's used. Used prices are different from new
prices.
> A year ago, a floppy drive costed $13. That's a 40% reduction in a year.
> Not bad for something that is completely insignifigant anyway.
Most online houses can give very low prices on cheap items, since they put
quantity limitaitons and jack up the shipping costs to cover it.
> > A good quality keyboard or mouse has not come down in
> > price.
>
> I'm not going to go get a url for this because I have a story that goes
well
> with it. I went out and bought a $30 IBM keyboard. You'd assume this
> keyboard would be at least "pretty good" because 1) it's made by IBM and
2)
> it's expensive as hell for a normal (non-ergonomic) keyboard. I get the
> thing home... it LITERALLY cannot keep up with my typing. My normal
typing
> speed is about 110-120wpm, so I could kind of understand this, but even
when
> i slowed down to about 60wpm it still garbled the letters up. NO, it is
not
> my fault, I type on a large numbers of keyboards every day, I'm a computer
> tech. The moral of this story is: my $4.99 keyboard is the best one I've
> ever had. My last $4.99 keyboard lasted me from 1995 until late 2000, at
> which point i decided it was far too filthy to keep around.
So you agree that the price of the keyboard hasn't changed, since you claim
you bought a $4.99 keyboard in 1995.
> Back to the fun....
> > Many components have gone UP in price. The GeForce 3 video card
> > will cost $599,
>
> Yes, it will cost $500-600 when it is initially released. Considering
this
> thing has like 4 times the number of transistors as a pentium 4, I'd say
> it's understandable. Wait about 4 months and the gf3 will cost $299 or
> less. Nvidia is on a 6-month release schedule: new card design EVERY six
> months. A geforce sdr, which is now 5 generations old (sdr, ddr, gts, gts
> ultra, gf3) is still an *AWESOME* card for playing Quake3, and it will set
> you back about $70. Keep in mind this is for a card which will push over
60
> frames per second in 1024x768.
Interesting that you claim the GF3 will drop to $299, yet even the price of
the GF2 after almost a year has not gone down to that level.
> > the GeForce 2 Ultra costs $499.
> >
>
> A Leadtek GeForce2 Ultra is $372.
Which, a year after it's release, is still not as cheap as you claim the GF3
will be, despite the GF3 being introduced at a $100 higher price than the
GF2 Ultra was introduced at.
> http://www.newegg.com/app/specification.asp?item=14-122-110
> Leadtek's Geforce/Geforce2/Geforce2 Ultra boards are widely considered to
be
> the best. You can find a review of their Geforce 2 GTS model (the one I
> own) at www.tomshardware.com. This is in the same boat as the GF3. The
> price is high now, yes. The price in a couple months will be much lower.
> When the GF2 (non-ultra) first came out, it was $499 if I remember
> correctly. I bought mine back in August or September for $224, and that
was
> still back when they were "wow" material.
My point was that the initial cost of the board is $100 higher than the
previous versions price when it was introduced.
believe the same was true of the Voodoo 5 5500 as well. The trend in video
cards seems to be towards raising prices for new models.
> In conclusion.....
> All of the things you have mentioned are completely insignifigant, and
this
> INCLUDES the video cards. A S3 Virge 4MB card will cost you $16
That's liquidation prices. Since S3 is no longer in the video card
business, there's no support.
> (http://liquidationetc.safeshopper.com/38/cat38.htm?264). An 8-meg TNT2,
> the precursor to GeForce, will cost you $28.
A very low end one at that. My TNT2 has 32 meg and costed quite a bit more
(and i'm sure is also quite a bit more today).
> The price of the things that make up the bulk of the price of a computer
> (harddrive, motherboard, cpu, memory, video card) have all come down
> DRASTICALLY in recent times. Perfect example: a 256 meg stick of Micron
> PC-133 ram is now $70-80 if you spend five minutes looking.
Memory prices are the result of a huge surplus of memory on the market right
now. Memory manufacturers grossly misjudged the PC market for christmas and
way overproduced.
> All of these things (floppy drive, disks, case, power supply, and a good
> video card) COMBINED cost less than the price of a single copy of Windows
> ME. Looks like you lose...
Funny, I can't find all those things combined for $35
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:07:00 GMT
Said Ed Allen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:01:10
GMT;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 24 Feb 2001 19:13:49
>>
>>>Why is SSH1 considered "fundamentally flawed" by its own makers?
>>
>>Because there are theoretical vulnerabilities which do not exist in the
>>maker's new (commercial) version. Duh!
>>
> Because by using such inflammatory and alarming language they hope to
> divert frightened people away from the free alternative.
>
> I am amazed that Chad has not managed to misspell "fundamentally
> flawed" yet. Anything dealing with "mental" is not his firmest
> ground. (Territory might be beyond his comprehension level)
LOL!
> Chad's reward will be to gain wider recognition so his Sock Puppet
> handlers will continue to find his antics amusing.
>
> Life as a Sock Puppet has so few bright moments.
Chad is too clueless and too easily turned aside to pathetic babbling,
as with the current discussion of ssh, to be a real sock puppet. He's
just a net kook, who finds Windows/Linux a fertil ground for trolling.
If there were no PCs, he'd be trolling the religion or politics groups.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:08:26 GMT
Said Ed Allen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:01:02
>In article <T25m6.1251$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >Netscape was *NOT* the better product.
>>>
>>> Of course it was.
>>>
>>> >IE3 and IE4 were roughly equivelant,
>>> >but IE4 started leaving Netscape behind in the dust, especially in W3C
>>> >standard support.
>>>
>>> What a pathetically softheaded perspective you have. If IE4 was so
>>> technically superior, why is it exactly that MS spent the millions for
>>> the exclusive bundling deals and strong-armed OEMs into "knifing the
>>> baby" by including IE updates that some customers specifically didn't
>>> want and excluding Netscape?
>>
>>I think it's pretty obvious from the context that I meant IE3 and NS4 were
>>roughly equivelant. I made a mistake.
>>
> So that is reason enough to ignore Max's point ?
>
> I too want to know why M$ needed to force OEMs to include this
> "superior" product ?
>
> The reason Netscape began to fall behind could have something to do
> with their management realizing that whatever improvement they
> created M$ would copy it in their next version and that the longer
> it went on the deeper into the hole they would get.
>
> When you are in a whole and it is time to get out, stop digging.
Very well said, Ed. (Other than the typo, this is an outstanding
aphorism.) ;-)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: RTFM at M$
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:18:27 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 25 Feb 2001
> 17:13:31 -0600;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >Imagine if 10,000 people all started sending one ping/sec to the same
> >> >site. Now imagine one guy planting a remote-control trojan like Back
> >> >Orifice or trinoo on a few hundred systems and sending 100 pings/sec.
> >>
> >> That's the point, Bob. Notice that this is an imaginary example.
> >> NOBODY has ever heard of a DoS attack with normal pings. Nor any
> >> particular value to the use of simple ping sweeps by hackers, which is
> >> the most often cited "reason" for being clueless about this matter.
> >
> >http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2448190,00.html
>
> In the case of a Smurf
> DoS attack, the ping's
> packet return IP address
> is forged with the IP of
> the targeted machine.
> The ping is issued to the
> entire IP broadcast
> address. This causes
> every machine to
> respond to the bogus
> ping packets and reply
> to the targeted machine,
> which floods it.
>
> (This is more or less the entirety of the information on this page. The
> ad plastered in the middle of the page is larger.)
>
> Wow! Its got a name. Now all you have to do is find someone clueless
> enough to try to use such a senseless attack to actually inconvenience
> somebody.
I first heard of Smurf attacks almost 3 years ago. My ISP was under a
massive smurf and they explained it at the time in their newsgroups. It's
quite common and there's lots of script code out there to do it.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:02:56 GMT
Said Chris Ahlstrom in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 25 Feb 2001
>Bob Hauck wrote:
>>
>> Removed comp.security.ssh from the xpost since this is no longer about
>> SSH but rather Chad's attempting to confuse innocent bystanders with
>> lies and propaganda.
>
>Take your pick:
>
> Chad ::= ASSHOLE
> Chad ::= LYING PRICK
> Chad ::= ARROGANT JERK
> Chad ::= FAT-HEADED TROLL
> Chad ::= MANIC DEPRESSIVE W/OCD
> Chad ::= NET KOOK
> Chad ::= UNINTELLIGENT FAILURE
>
>We've yet to see him prove otherwise.
CHAD-MYERS-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
IMPORTS
microsoft FROM ONE-MICROSOFT-WAY-MIB.my
OBJECT-TYPE FROM RFC-1212
myers OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { microsoft W2K }
chad OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { myers 1 }
ChadTrollStatus OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX INTEGER {
PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE ASSHOLE(1),
LYING PRICK (2),
IGNORANT JERK (3),
FAT-HEADED TROLL (4),
MANIC DEPRESSIVE W/OCD (5),
NET KOOK (6),
UNINTELLIGENT SOCK-PUPPET(7)
}
ACCESS write-only
STATUS unfortunate
DESCRIPTION
"Troll status of the net.kook Model 5; Chad Myers."
::= { chad 1 }
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:25:46 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 25 Feb 2001
> [...]
> >The article is based on a faulty premise. Since Windows 95 came out, not
> >all components have come down in price in any significant way.
>
> A) What difference does it make when Win95 was released?
Because, in general, when talking about monopoly we're talking post Windows
3.1.
> B) The article is not based on the premise that every single component
> has come down in price, but that the OS should have, as very many others
> have.
The article states quite clearly that the *ONLY* component of a typical
computer that has not come down significantly in price is the OS.
> Again, take your pick. I'm too tired of your sock-puppet trolling to
> care.
Getting too tired to support faulty premises? I can see that.
> >Cases and
> >Power supplies have not come down in price since 95. Floppy disks have
not
> >come down in price. A good quality keyboard or mouse has not come down
in
> >price. Many components have gone UP in price. The GeForce 3 video card
> >will cost $599, the GeForce 2 Ultra costs $499.
>
> The failures in your reasoning, Erik, are numerous, as always.
>
> A) Consumers do not buy cases, power supplies, nor floppies separately.
That wasn't the point of the article, which was to comment that the ONLY
component that hasn't come down in price was the OS. That includes cases,
power supplies and floppy disks.
> B) Far as I know, there were no accelerated 3D graphics cards in 1995.
Actually, the Vodoo 1 came out in 1995.
> C) Competitive pricing is entirely brand insensitive (other than
> monopolies, of course). A generic 3D video card runs about a hundred
> bucks, whereas years ago it would have been $200.
Not so. In 1996, the S3 Virge 3D costed $110.
The point is that the top of the line card featuring the GeForce2 was
introduced at a price $100 cheaper than the price of the GeForce3 is being
introduced at. The price of some of the new top of the line hardware is
going up.
> D) Similarly, by mixing and matching "markets" and "products" and
> "Windows", you can so easily confuse yourself that its not worth the
> bother of even trying to double-check, let alone second guess, the cost
> of components. All we know for sure is that the most popular product,
> according to your delusion, has never come down in price once in its
> entire lifetime.
I was using the exact same market. The person that the GeForce 2 ultra
appealed to when it was introduced is the same person that the GeForce 3
will appeal to.
------------------------------
From: "B.B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:13:20 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@The best way to reduce the number of bystanders who get killed is
@to disarm the police, and encourage law-abiding citizens to arm
@themselves.
Even with armed cops, a lot of criminals are not afraid to shoot at
them. They should keep some form of weaponry even if it for nothing
more than intimidation.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! [EMAIL PROTECTED] @airmail.net
------------------------------
From: "B.B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:13:36 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@"B.B." wrote:
@>
@> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
@> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@>
@> @Even black taxicab drivers are often reluctant to go into black
@> @neighborhoods.
@> @
@> @What does this tell you?
@>
@> They're chicken-shits.
@
@What are they afraid of?
@
@Be precise
Hell if I know.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! [EMAIL PROTECTED] @airmail.net
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:31:03 -0500
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:13:29 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >Brent Pathakis wrote:
>
> >"PCs are becoming obsolete, you say? Wrong.
> >They're still selling in huge numbers, because
> >they're enormously useful devices whose
> >utility keeps expanding. The only component
> >in the average PC that hasn't come down
> >sharply in price is -- you guessed it --
> >the operating system.
>
> Why should the operating system go down in price ? Has it
> become cheaper to design and write operating systems ?
As a matter of fact yes. Any good "for profit" business should have recouped
expenses for initial development by now.
>
> Have PCs really gone down in price ? I paid about the same
> for the computer I wanted 5 years ago as I'd have to pay for
> the computer I want today. It's true that old hardware is
> cheap, but then, old software is cheap too (how much does
> Win 3.1 cost nowadays ?)
That may be true, but the operating systems available 5 years ago are
fundamentally the same as those available today. Computers on the other hand
are over 100 times more powerful.
>
> Besides doubts about the assumptions of the argument, the logic
> is equally absurd -- why *should* software become cheaper ?
> Are they saying that it should get cheaper because hardware
> is cheaper ? If that's the case, why not complain that milk isn't
> getting cheaper ?
Incremental improvements are far cheaper than initial developments. So "next
versions" should be cheaper than new versions.
--
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time.
The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of
consistency.
-- Albert Einstein
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:14:38 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 25 Feb 2001
>"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >Netscape was *NOT* the better product.
>> >>
>> >> Of course it was.
>> >>
>> >> >IE3 and IE4 were roughly equivelant,
>> >> >but IE4 started leaving Netscape behind in the dust, especially in W3C
>> >> >standard support.
>> >>
>> >> What a pathetically softheaded perspective you have. If IE4 was so
>> >> technically superior, why is it exactly that MS spent the millions for
>> >> the exclusive bundling deals and strong-armed OEMs into "knifing the
>> >> baby" by including IE updates that some customers specifically didn't
>> >> want and excluding Netscape?
>> >
>> >I think it's pretty obvious from the context that I meant IE3 and NS4 were
>> >roughly equivelant. I made a mistake.
>> >
>> So that is reason enough to ignore Max's point ?
>>
>> I too want to know why M$ needed to force OEMs to include this
>> "superior" product ?
>
>I didn't ignore it. I said quite specifically that I don't believe they
>*NEEDED* to do this to succeed. Unfortunately, there's no way to prove
>whether they did or didn't. It's just my opinion.
No; it's lack of an opinion. Or even a firm grasp of the facts of the
matter. Why *did* they? Squirming around pretending the argument is
whether they 'needed' to or whether they 'wanted' to is moronic; answer
the question, if you have an answer, or admit you don't have an answer.
>> The reason Netscape began to fall behind could have something to do
>> with their management realizing that whatever improvement they
>> created M$ would copy it in their next version and that the longer
>> it went on the deeper into the hole they would get.
>
>No, it's because they realized they had a hacked together code base that had
>reached it's limits of maintainability. That's why Mozilla was forced to
>throw away the entire NS4 code base and start from scratch, taking almost 3
>years and still not finished.
Yes, that sounds exactly like what Ed described. So you haven't an
answer to this, either? Better check back with your MS contacts, sock
puppet.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:20:19 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 25 Feb 2001
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Browsers began as free products. NS tried to turn a free product into
>> > a pay product. It's not surprising they ultimately failed.
>>
>> So why was MS so fearful of their market share? Why did they spend
>> millions, by their own admission, to kill off Netscape if they were
>> doomed from the start?
>
>Because the browser threatened their OS market.
Well, its one thing to claim that IE was/is a better browser than
Netscape; its quite another to suggest that Netscape was a better OS
than Windows. Though come to think of it, that might not be as much of
a stretch as we think. For all we know, if not of the illegal
monopolization which you've described, we'd all be *really* using Java
apps, and without any of the problems that real-world Java still has.
>> In any case, your implication that their business model was doomed does
>> not follow. They were, in fact, able to sell browsers and make
>> significant revenue until a deep-pocketed competitor who could draw on
>> other revenue sources decided to try to put them out of business.
>
>Tell me, how is it good for consumers to turn a product, which was offerered
>for free by all it's competitors into a pay product?
Its called "value add". Its the basis of absolutely *all* capitalism.
MS's criminal behavior screwed all that up; now you can't even tell how
much something is costing you, let alone what its value add might be.
>> You are very much mistaken on the number of ISP's. There aren't "tens
>> of thousands" of ISP's in the US, much less "millions" in the world
>> (IIRC the US market currently represents about half of the world,
>> although that share is falling rapidly). The current Boardwatch ISP
>> listing [1] claims 8500 ISP's. Some part of those are probably out of
>> business or merged or otherwise not really operating (e.g. my company is
>> on the list even though it was sold and merged a year ago), so the
>> actual total is surely less. Anyway, even today there aren't "tens of
>> thousands", and in 1996 there were quite a few less. IIRC, Boardwatch's
>> survey for 1996 had fewer than 2500, but I'm too lazy to look it up for
>> you.
>
>In my city alone, there are close to 100 ISP's, not counting the national
>ones like AOL/AT&T, etc.. I'm also including BBS's that give users internet
>access, etc...
Oh, for christ's sakes! Just admit you were WRONG, OK?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:36:56 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 25 Feb 2001
> >"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Software is not hardware, and it doesn't follow the same market
trends
> >of
> >> > hardware. For instance, Adobe Pagemaker has stayed the same price
for
> >the
> >> > last 6 years as well. Does that mean Adobe is also monopolizing?
> >>
> >> The price of Microsoft software has not stayed level. It has increased
> >> by an incredible amount. For example, about 3-4 years ago, I bought
> >> an OEM version of Office for about $150. The same version is now about
> >> $500. How's that for monopoly practice!
> >
> >Not even.
> >
> >http://www.pricewatch.com/1/146/1904-2.htm
> >
> >Office 2000 Standard OEM costs roughly $175, and that's through a
middleman.
> >If you buy directly from the distributor, I believe it's about the same
> >price as you claim.
>
> So he's right. Was that your point?
>
> (For future reference; all 'street price' quibbling will be
> appropriately ignored entirely. List price is the only price that
> matters for this discussion.)
You can only buy OEM copies wholesale, or through your OEM.
How is he right? I just proved that he was wrong.
------------------------------
From: "Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:29:31 -0500
Reply-To: "Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Many components have gone UP in price. The GeForce 3 video card
> > will cost $599,
>
> Yes, it will cost $500-600 when it is initially released. Considering
this
> thing has like 4 times the number of transistors as a pentium 4, I'd say
> it's understandable. Wait about 4 months and the gf3 will cost $299 or
> less. Nvidia is on a 6-month release schedule: new card design EVERY six
> months. A geforce sdr, which is now 5 generations old (sdr, ddr, gts, gts
> ultra, gf3) is still an *AWESOME* card for playing Quake3, and it will set
> you back about $70. Keep in mind this is for a card which will push over
60
> frames per second in 1024x768.
>
> > the GeForce 2 Ultra costs $499.
Isn't that disgusting, though, when you consider that people will be pulled
into the inevitable, "You're outdated in 6 months" mind-frame, so since
you're stuff is no good, you've gotta buy the BRAND new version, for the
same price you paid for the first one?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:22:03 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 25 Feb 2001
>"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >
>> > Software is not hardware, and it doesn't follow the same market trends
>of
>> > hardware. For instance, Adobe Pagemaker has stayed the same price for
>the
>> > last 6 years as well. Does that mean Adobe is also monopolizing?
>>
>> The price of Microsoft software has not stayed level. It has increased
>> by an incredible amount. For example, about 3-4 years ago, I bought
>> an OEM version of Office for about $150. The same version is now about
>> $500. How's that for monopoly practice!
>
>Not even.
>
>http://www.pricewatch.com/1/146/1904-2.htm
>
>Office 2000 Standard OEM costs roughly $175, and that's through a middleman.
>If you buy directly from the distributor, I believe it's about the same
>price as you claim.
So he's right. Was that your point?
(For future reference; all 'street price' quibbling will be
appropriately ignored entirely. List price is the only price that
matters for this discussion.)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
