Linux-Advocacy Digest #624, Volume #32 Sat, 3 Mar 01 20:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship ("Pascal Schuppli")
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Michael Vester)
Re: A very funny Linux story! "Red Flag Linux" (Ray Chason)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Jim Richardson)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Edward Rosten")
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why Linux Is Giving Microsoft a Migraine ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Marten Kemp)
Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free (Giuliano Colla)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:10 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 2 Mar 2001 16:02:52
>On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 02:43:43 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
>>On 1 Mar 2001 04:29:23 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>No, they aren't. But they have competition, which limits their freedom
>>to set prices however they want. Microsoft has a lot more flexibility
>>in that regard.
>
>Perhaps. But then, I don't see much evidence that they're using that
>freedom.
>
>The argument does seem circular -- MS can price as they choose because
>they have a monopoly and they have a monopoly because they can price
>as freely as they choose.
I will agree; it *seems* circular. This would be because if one does
not correctly grasp the abstraction "monopoly", one would be left
assuming that to have 95% of the market is a sufficient definition. It
isn't, but it *seems* to be.
>>That wasn't my argument. My argument was that competitors oblige them
>>to either reduce their prices or add more value. But there haven't been
>>any competitors on the desktop.
>
>To show that MS would reduce their prices, you would need to show that
>someone else would offer much better prices. No-one's offering better
>prices at this stage.
Linux can be had for free. This isn't better prices?
[...]
>> If it is the case that what Erik claims is true and the price of
>>OEM Windows hasn't changed, then Windows represents more of the total
>>cost on average.
>
>That's because the average user is choosing low end hardware. The
>apparent inconsistency is due to the fact that they aren't moving
>towards the low end on the software front.
How is a PIII "low end hardware" compared to an 80386?
>>And for the record I don't accept Priceline as the authoritative source
>>on how much OEM's pay for Windows. If we are to do that, we ought to
>>accept Cheapbytes as the authoritative source for Linux pricing.
>
>I accept it as an upper bound, in both cases. If there are known sources
>from which we know copies can be obtained for $X from a reseller, then
>anyone wishing to buy them should be able to purchase for no more than
>that.
What a moronic and clueless statement. No wonder you don't understand
how the monopoly works; you don't understand how commerce works.
>>> $50- is already fairly cheap.
>>
>>That is an arbitrary judgement.
>
>And so is the judgement that it is "too expensive".
This isn't true; it may be an opinion, but it is not an arbitrary
judgement. It isn't even opinion, but fact, if you know anything about
economics.
>>> I think you'd have a hard time making a case that the sales increase
>>> resulting from further reduction in price would justify the loss of
>>> per-sale revenue.
>>
>>You certainly would, since they have 93% of the desktop market according
>>to IDC. There's not a whole lot of room for growth beyond growth of the
>>market itself, which is apparently slowing. But note that they could
>>charge $100 and you could make the same argument.
>
>You've already made a good argument for them not doing so, I suspect that
>it's an insurance policy to some degree.
You can "suspect" whatever your clueless little monopoly-apologist head
might want. Forgive us if we bother to be more rational.
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:11 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 3 Mar 2001 13:34:12
>On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 12:47:48 +0000, Peter Hayes wrote:
>>On 2 Mar 2001 16:02:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 02:43:43 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
>>> >On 1 Mar 2001 04:29:23 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >No, they aren't. But they have competition, which limits their freedom
>>> >to set prices however they want. Microsoft has a lot more flexibility
>>> >in that regard.
>>>
>>> Perhaps. But then, I don't see much evidence that they're using that
>>> freedom.
>>>
>>> The argument does seem circular -- MS can price as they choose because
>>> they have a monopoly and they have a monopoly because they can price
>>> as freely as they choose.
>>
>>It only appears circular to someone who is not aware of how Microsoft
>>achieved their dominant market position.
>>
>>Since you will know this history we can only conclude that your comment is
>>merely a diversionary tactic, much like Microsoft claiming that they
>>"innovate".
>
>Don't stoop to this kind of dishonesty. I am not a Microsoft fan and never
>have been. Unlike a lot of the Linux zealots, I use Linux as my OS
>at home, and at work. I haven't used Windows for anything besides games
>for more than 4 years.
>
>I am just trying to make sense of an illogical argument.
If you wouldn't presume that it is illogical because you do not follow
it, you wouldn't be accused of being a Microsoft fan. I suppose you
consider the application barrier which prevents you from enjoying your
games on Linux to begin with to be some "natural" effect of the market?
>>Furthermore, the definition of Microsoft's monopoly doesn't solely rest on
>>their ability to set their prices independent of any consideration of
>>market forces, which is my interpretation of your statement "they can
>>price as freely as they choose." Microsoft's monopoly is defined by their
>>ability to restrict or curtail competitive activity within their field of
>>operations. Their ability to "price as freely as they choose" then follows.
>>
>>It's not chicken and egg at all.
>
>So you're saying that we know that they have a monopoly, and you're stating
>that this implies that their prices must be excessive because of that
>monopoly (and not the converse) ?
Well, he put it more logically than you did, but, yes, monopoly prices
are high because they are the prices of a monopoly, regardless of
whether they are higher or lower than they were before the monopoly, if
such a state ever existed. They would be lower if it weren't a
monopoly.
His actual point was the fact that "setting prices" is not actually
something a producer does. The "market", an abstraction indicating the
sum total of consumer choices, sets the prices for all competitors
products. Provided, of course, there is competition. If there isn't,
the monopolist sets their price, and it is, by definition, going to be
higher than competitive prices would set it (otherwise, the monopolist
themselves would find having a monopoly to be less 'profitable' than
honest business).
>Well we know what the prices are, and those speak for themselves.
>
>>> To show that MS would reduce their prices, you would need to show that
>>> someone else would offer much better prices. No-one's offering better
>>> prices at this stage.
>>
>>Linux is free (in the "free beer" sense on this occasion). How much "better
>>prices" do you want?
>
>The packaged box sets are not "free". Copies of other OS's aren't "free"
>either. For example, Sun gives away Solaris for "free", but the media kit
>is $80.
So the question becomes why Windows *licenses* are not free, as most
other OSes are now. As well as why ME costs so much more than a Solaris
media kit (ME is $180).
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:12 GMT
Said Edward Rosten in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:14:53
[...]
>From what I've heard, there are far more artists and level designers than
>coders.
Believe it or not, there *are* other kinds of games besides hack & slash
first-person shooters. Some don't even have "levels", while others
don't have much of a requirement for artists.
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:13 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 28 Feb 2001 19:42:16
>On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:14:53 +0000, Edward Rosten wrote:
>
>>From what I've heard, there are far more artists and level designers than
>>coders.
>
>I believe there aren't that many coders *or* desginers. They're fairly
>small operations (in terms of number of staff)
>
>>> So the argument would be that since their engine is widely used, they
>>> should be able to sell their games for a lower cost.
>>
>>But their operating costs are high compared to most other types of
>>software because there is much less reuse of code, and a very high
>>proportion of designers as well.
>
>But the same is true for other game software companies. Why can't Id
>sell their games cheaper than *other game companies* who have higher
>costs (namely they have to license an engine) ?
Why should they? What's your point (other than the fact that Id clearly
doesn't monopolize, despite their ownership of the engine code)?
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:14 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 27 Feb 2001 17:37:52
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:55:29 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 26 Feb 2001 07:22:00
>
>>How could anybody possibly pay for the "intent" of the producer when
>>they buy a box?
>
>Well they're hardly gong to pay the maintenance costs afterwards are they ?
And you'll notice that you're hardly going to get any maintenance value
afterwards, either.
>To do so would be a move to a rental model.
Only if the base price goes away; to not do so would be to move further
to a profiteering model.
>>>Nonsense. Search pricewatch.com for Windows OEM licenses. At the very
>>>least, we can conclude that large OEMs pay less than $50- for Win 98.
>>
>>Yet it has a list price of $180.
>
>That's not the OEM license.
I don't really give a rat's ass.
>>>Likewise, information on the cost of buying PC parts in bulk is
>>>publically available, and it looks like the OEMs run very slim margins
>>>on hardware (which means that a lot of the money you're spending really
>>>is on hardware)
>>
>>And how exactly do you account for the changes in the PC parts you're
>>supposedly comparing? You just ignore it, right?
>
>Sorry, I don't get your point.
My point was that pricewatch.com is useless for determining the
historical trends in pricing.
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:15 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 27 Feb 2001 05:27:50
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:43:43 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
>>On 26 Feb 2001 00:41:54 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>Why should the operating system go down in price ? Has it
>>>become cheaper to design and write operating systems ?
>>
>>The unit volume is higher than it was. Software development is almost
>>all fixed costs. So the unit price should be lower unless development
>>costs have increased at least as fast as the market has grown.
>>
>>This also explains why CAD software costs thousands while Office is
>>hundreds. There's about the same level of effort in development, but
>>CAD is a much smaller market.
>
>This explains why OEM Windows is about $50- despite being an enormous
>project (-;
No, it would explain why $50 is outrageously overpriced.
>>Because unit volume is much higher now than it was in 1995 and software
>>development costs are independent of volume.
>
>How much higher ?
What difference does it make? Do you pay for Windows only once, or is
the license tied to the PC? Even with sales volumes *decreasing*, the
cost has dropped enormously on a per-unit basis.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Pascal Schuppli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 01:19:24 -0500
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.questions
In article <MPG.150667b84aefd07c9896c6@news>, "Robert MacGregor"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * MS Outlook
Ximian (Formerly helix code, now at www.ximian.com) is producing "Evolution",
currently in release 0.8, that looks so much like Outlook that it's
frightening. You can download it from their website. There's a KDE
counter-strike, but I forgot the name. Something with an A, check on
www.kde.org.. You might also want to have a look at "Tradeclient".
> * Internet Explorer
There's several webbrowers being developped. KDE's Konqueror isn't too
bad, though I had problems with Javascript and Java when I tried it out.
Galeon is coming along nicely (www.gnome.org), as are the Mozilla
Milestones and some derivates.
Also try www.sourceforge.net if you're looking for more software, they've
got tons of good stuff.
--
Error: Sector not found -- search behind couch? (Y/N)
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 10:15:25 -0700
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> Michael Vester wrote:
> >
> > Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> > >
> > > JS PL wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > Then why all the whining about a supposed microsoft tax. No one who has
> > > > > > ever bought a computer in the history of man has been forced to pay
> > > > extra
> > > > > > for an OS they didn't want.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, they have.
> > > >
> > > > How so? At what time in history has it been impossible to buy the hardware
> > > > to build your own computer? Seems to me that individual hardware channels
> > > > were there long before people were building and selling packages that
> > > > included MS Windows. Your about as dumb as they come.
> > >
> > > The average consumer has no more interest in building his own
> > > computer from scratch as he does in building a kit car.
> > >
> > > now fuck off and die, idiot.
> > >
> > >
> > Somehow the general public have this notion that a computer is
> > difficult to assemble. I am sure that more people build their
> > own cars than build their own computers. A car takes a fair
> > amount of knowledge, many expensive tools, space and plenty of
> > money. That is just to build from parts not from scratch. The
> > mining, smelting, forging, machining,.. is beyond the average
> > car hobbiest.
> >
> > Computers just need a phillips screwdriver. You don't have to
> > design and fab a chip. About 20-30 screws and a few connectors
> > (keyed so you can't put them in backwards). Yet, computers
> > intimidate most non computer people. I am not a car guy but I
> > do know enough to operate my old car reliably, safely and
> > cheaply. I know what all the parts are and what they do.
> > Something that I am not very interested in but I have enough
> > knowledge to maximize the benefits. Is it so much to expect
> > people to take a bit of notice to technology around them.
> > Most people are completely clueless about computers and they
> > want to stay that way. Microsoft understands and exploits
> > that. Innovation?
> >
>
> I realize this...but look at how many people take their machine
> into a service shop JUST TO INSTALL A CARD.
It is sad. I have seen many so called IT professionals buy
pre-assembled computers. Even heard two MSCE's debating what
was better, an IBM or a Compaq (both are crap when compared to
a custom built pc). It shows that the so called professionals
are as clueless as the general population about pc's.
I do farm out all the servicing of my 76 Pontiac. They can do
it faster and better than I can. Also, I don't like to get my
hands dirty. But I do know enough about automotives so I do
not pay for anything more than what is nesseccary. Assembling
a pc requires almost no knowledge and a $2 tool.
>
> > The criminal act is Microsoft selling at different prices to
> > different vendors. Vendors that are loyal to Microsoft are
> > rewarded. Ones that aren't loyal are punished. Profit margins
> > are so tight building pc's, the vendor complies. To buy a
> > pre-assembled locally without losedos would take some
> > research. The bigger stores won't sell a losedosless pc but I
> > might find a "hole in the wall" store that would. Microsft has
> > made it difficult to get a pre-assembled losedosless pc. I
> > assemble my own. Much higher quality than any pre-assembled
> > pc.
>
> I buy make my own because I have little interest in throwing
> away a couple hundred dollars worth of parts because I want
> to upgrade them to something better.
>
> It's better to just buy the parts that YOU want and assemble it.
Of course!!! I figured this one out a very long time ago. My
486 is still functioning as a web and samba server. It has
just turned 10 years of age and works perfectly. It is on its
third hard disk but everything else is original. It has been
running 24/7 for the last 2 years. I estimate that it has
about 60,000 hours of usage. I have never had any problems
with any of my assembled pcs. Still have my assembled XT and
386. Don't use them anymore but they still work. Hard disks
wear out but are easily replaced. Using SCSI insures that you
can replace a drive in the future. I can still get SCSI I
drives.
>
> >
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > > Unix Systems Engineer
> > > DNRC Minister of all I survey
> > > ICQ # 3056642
<snipped>
--
Michael Vester
A credible Linux advocate
"The avalanche has started, it is
too late for the pebbles to vote"
Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: A very funny Linux story! "Red Flag Linux"
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:38:56 -0000
jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I read this article on CNET and found it quite amusing,
>especially when one thinks of what a "red flag"
>means in the United States.
>
>On a more serious note, I really don't understand
>why China is having such a hard time learning
>how to use Linux. It's not like the source
>code is hidden or there's a lack of adequate
>documentation on the Internet.
Well, first, the documentation is almost entirely in English.
Second, Red Flag Linux is made by a company controlled by the son of
the President -- which makes it quite possible that Red Flag Linux
is not a good quality distro. Not having seen this distro, I of
course can't say for sure.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 09:55:45 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 04:52:40 -0500,
Aaron Kulkis, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Maybe American business men would be wise to prepare for meetings
>with Microsoft reps by strapping on a clearly visable holstered
>..45 cal pistol at their waist.
>
>I think that would send a very clear "We're not going to take your
>shit anymore" message.
>
>And as long as the pistol is NOT concealed, it's absolutely legal.
>
that would depend entireley on the jurisdiction. But it's an interesting idea
none the less.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:43:02 +0000
>>You state this as fact. Yet, I've seen no evidence to support this. It
>>hasn't been asserted in any court of law.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> "It's not illegal if you don't get caught."
>
> Sounds like sock-puppet wisdom to me.
Well, it is the 11th commandment:
Thou shalt not get caught.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
This argument is a beta version. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:46:41 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Edward Rosten in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:14:53
> [...]
>>From what I've heard, there are far more artists and level designers
>>than coders.
>
> Believe it or not, there *are* other kinds of games besides hack & slash
Believe it or not, I was talking about ID.
> first-person shooters. Some don't even have "levels", while others
I know that. My favourite game is a RTS game.
> don't have much of a requirement for artists.
Most new games need artists.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
This argument is a beta version. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:43:48 GMT
On 3 Mar 2001 18:56:12 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW, how many choices of OS were there on consumer laptops 3 years
> ago? You couldn't buy one without paying for a Windows license. Not
> from anyone.
If I were being pedantic I would point out that Tadpole used to sell
SPARC laptops with Solaris on them. Yeah, they cost over $10,000 but
they were being sold. Thus, Microsoft did not have a monopoly.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is Giving Microsoft a Migraine
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:56:05 +0000
> Like the single floppy router, the single install floppy of many distros
> is amazing too. I remembering mounting a Red Hat install floppy to hack
> it. I was hoping to find an install script to edit out LILO enforcement
> (always my pet nemesis with Linux) but alas, found an executable. Sadly
> for me, I couldn't find that install proggie source to try to edit it.
To mount the redhat disk:
mount the disk. gunzip initrd to /tmp
mount that file on the loopback device.
Also, RH uses syslinux to boot the disk, as opposed to Lilo.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
This argument is a beta version. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Marten Kemp <[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, 04 Mar 2001 01:02:00 GMT
Lars Träger wrote:
>
> Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "B.B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Police need to spend some time and money investigating (mostly)
> > > non-lethal weapons. It would cut down on this kind of shit.
> >
> > There is no non-lethal weapon that you can mass produce which would've the
> > same advantages as guns.
> > Cheap, able to neutralize an enemy quickly, robust, mobile, etc.
> > Non of the other method (sonic bullets, electric shock, drugs) can fill
> > those demands.
> > Some of the sonic bullets can be stopped by a heavy rain coat, for crying
> > out load.
> > A tranquilazir gun is impracticale for several reasons:
> > A> You can't have one-doze-fit-all, the average doze would do nothing to
> > some people, and kill others.
> > B> There isn't a *single* sleeping drug that you can count on immobilizing
> > the enemy without killing in (take a moment to think why there is a person
> > whose sole job in oporations is to decide how much drugs the sick guy need.
> > C> How are you going to deliver this magic drug?
> > Electrical shock guns are very bad, energy consumtion, missed shots, and
> > energy levels (same problem as tranquilaizer gun)
> >
> > Other methods are just as troublesome, rubber bullets are too often lethal
> > too be really useful, but they are the best at the moment.
> >
> > Beside, a criminal that have a gun, with guns that have non-lethal weapons,
> > have *much* greater incentive to shot his way out of a tough corner, the
> > cops can't kill him, after all.
>
> But the fire-arms of the Cops had almost no effect on the bank-robbers
> with full body-armour (and AK-47s) in LA a couple of years ago, they had
> to wait for the SWAT team to kill them. Nor did they do anything to stop
> that guy with the tank.
>
> Lars T.
The tank was an M-60, IIRC. Top speed about 25mph. Today's M-1's top
speed is a lot higher but probably not more than 40-45mph. Why try to
stop a tank when the speed is so low and the max range is so short? Keep
out of the way an wait until they run out of fuel or run into something
they can't get over. The time to get worried is when there's someone to
use the guns.
-- Maren Kemp
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:58:24 GMT
Dave wrote:
>
> On 3 Mar 2001 20:29:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 19:38:38 GMT, Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>says...
> >
> >>And if they are let off, won't they start cracking down on Linux?
>
> It's already begun. Trial or not, Microsoft just can't afford to let
> linux get any more of a foothold. I suspect that the recent
> open-source comment by Allchin was an initial probe to see what they
> could get away with on the PR front.
IMHO Allchin's comment was determined more by the open-source
availability of Star Office. An open source multi-platform Office suite
is in the long run the most frightening danger MS is going to face. One
of their corporate "innovations" has been to realize that end users
don't buy an OS. End users by a computer to run applications. The OS is
something end users just take for granted. MS isn't threatened by Linux.
Ms is threatened by applications running on Linux, making it a viable
alternative. If Linux is free, they may reverse their policy: give away
Windows and charge applications. But if also applications are free, then
they're really cornered. It appears that SUN is the first industry which
has the guts to challenge Microsoft, instead of just mumbling and
swallowing. Of course, to challenge a monopolist you must use non
conventional means, but after all being an entrepreneur means to be able
to work out some ideas, isn't it?
>
> >Probably. But it will be harder for them to do so. Locking someone out
> >is easier if they aren't already "in". And they are not going to try
> >competing with Linux on price any time soon.
>
> I can think of ways they could do linux in, that would be in keeping
> with past Microsoft strategies. How about launching a patent-violation
> lawsuit and demanding that linux be removed from all computers unless
> some absurd royalty is paid? The lawsuit wouldn't have to have any
> real chance of winning so long as it could create the usual FUD among
> corporations trying to decide whether to switch. Or, any hardware
> manufacturer cooperating with the linux community on drivers might
> find themselves left out of future releases of Windows.
>
> Personally I hope MS tries something like this. The backlash would be
> spectacular!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
