Linux-Advocacy Digest #625, Volume #32 Sat, 3 Mar 01 21:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Linux Joke (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (CR Lyttle)
Re: NEEDED: A Loadlin Distro. (WAS: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks
government help to stop) (Bloody Viking)
Re: NEEDED: A Loadlin Distro. (WAS: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks
government help to stop) (Bloody Viking)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: A very funny Linux story! "Red Flag Linux" (CR Lyttle)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 01:02:49 +0000
> So I come to the conclusion you're happy with an OS that REPEATS
> drivers, when every other OS around has learnt NOT to do that?
WHY THE HELL ARE YOU SO DAMN THICK THAT YOU CAN'T COMPREHEND THE SIMPLEST
THING I SAY?
APPLICATION DRIVERS ARE NOT PART OF THE BLOODY OS!!!!!
HOW CAN I DRILL THIS IN TO YOUR HEAD?
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
This argument is a beta version. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 01:05:49 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete
Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <97r9bc$hmc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> > I'm surprised any OS or application needs extra or multiple drivers
>> > in
>>
>> It doesn't.
>
> The Gimp does!
has != needs.
>> Is this clear enough for you:
>>
>> The OS has plenty of drivers. The GIMP provides its own regardless.
>> THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OS
>
> But WHY does The Gimp feel it is necessary to provide its own drivers?
> Doesn't The Gimp think the OS one's are good enough?
Ask the people at GIMP. It has nothing to do with the OS.
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OS. geddit?
My guess would be that going from a bitmapped form to a programming
lanugage and back to a bitmap form is inefficient. It is faster and
trivial to render straight in to PCL. Personally, I can't tell the
difference.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
This argument is a beta version. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 01:08:46 +0000
> For some real old Unix arcania, restore your screen with:
>
> cat /bin/ls
>
> That will restore the normal character set on every version of
> Unix/Linux I have ever tried it on.
Blimey! It really works!
-ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
This argument is a beta version. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: 4 Mar 2001 01:12:56 GMT
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:43:48 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
>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.
If I was being pedantic back, I'd suggest that something over $10,000
that's as heavy as a tadpole is not a "consumer laptop". (Actually,
I believe the army used them)
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 4 Mar 2001 01:15:49 GMT
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:14 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 27 Feb 2001 17:37:52
>>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.
Nonsense. Microsoft do make fixes available.
>>>Yet it has a list price of $180.
>>
>>That's not the OEM license.
>
>I don't really give a rat's ass.
When you consider that almost all sales are at the OEM price, it's
dishonest (or plain stupid) to suggest that the "typical" price of
a Windows license is $180. It isn't.
>>>>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.
But quite useful for acquiring ballpark figures on current prices.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 4 Mar 2001 01:18:55 GMT
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:15 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>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.
No, it would not. They are not morally or legally obliged to offer
low prices just because they can.
As my id example suggests, it's not optimal to substantially outprice
your competitors, and it has already been established that the Windows
OEM license is cheaper than the OS/2 OEM license.
>>>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.
All of this is irrelevant -- they aren't obliged to lower prices just
because they can. On the contrary, if they can sell their product at
a competitive price, and make a huge profit, then they are obliged to
do that, because they are responsible for upholding the interests of
their shareholders.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 4 Mar 2001 01:20:57 GMT
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:13 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>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:
>>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)?
Like Microsoft, their product is "too expensive" (because they have high
sales, but their expenses are in the same ballpark as those of any other
game shop). Therefore, they should reduce their prices, right ?
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 4 Mar 2001 01:21:23 GMT
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:12 GMT, T. Max Devlin 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
>first-person shooters.
Irrelevant. We were talking about Id
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Linux Joke
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 01:25:31 GMT
Q. Why does the Linux user constantly obtain
upgrades of the kernel and other OS facilities?
A. Because he can.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 4 Mar 2001 01:31:49 GMT
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:11 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 3 Mar 2001 13:34:12
>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
My actions and contributions to the community speak for themselves.
The facts are: I contribute free code and documentation. My documentation
is quite good, and comes with your favourite Linux distribution.
I use Linux exclusively (and you don't). I facilitate and encourage my
friends and students migration from Windows to Linux.
You know, it's not even true that I agree with everything MS has done.
However, unlike the anti-MS heard, I don't blindly take a for or against
position without subjecting the argument to scrutiny, indeed an
important part of intellectual honesty says that arguments that are
in line with ones own personal bias deserve *more* scrutiny, not less.
I don't need to talk trash about Microsoft to "prove myself" to the herd.
Before you start branding me as a "Microsoft fan", I suggest you stop
using Microsoft products.
If you really care about Microsoft's "monopoly", do something about it,
starting with your own computer.
>consider the application barrier which prevents you from enjoying your
>games on Linux to begin with to be some "natural" effect of the market?
More or less, yes. Games have already been made available on Linux, and
the only thing that can slow their adoption is poor sales.
>>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.
I dispute this conjecture on the grounds that their prices are already
quite low, and therefore they would have no need to further reduce them.
>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).
You haven't established that Microsoft "set prices". What's stopping them
from doubling their price if they can ? I mean, $50- is an awfully low
price, why don't they raise it to $100- ? Why don't their shareholders
sue them for not raising it ?
>>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).
What's the OEM price (which accounts for most of the sales) though ?
It's meaningless to cite the shelf price if they don't sell any
like that, because your argument about their "high volume" falls
apart -- they don't have high volume at that price. (For example,
Turbo Linux was outselling Windows 98 box sets in Japan apparently)
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 4 Mar 2001 01:38:23 GMT
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:10 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 2 Mar 2001 16:02:52
>>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.
No, it is circular whether you understand "monopoly" or not, unless you
make it clear what is being assumed, and what is being concluded (*and*
you are not using the conclusion to justify the premise)
If you are arguing that the fact that they "have a monopoly" implies that
the prices are higher, well this seems conjectural, unsubstantiated, and
in contradiction with hard evidence.
>>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?
No, it can't be "had for free". You either need to have a high bandwidth
connection, or you need to pay for it. And no one sells Linux for free.
In particular, when Linux *is* sold by a company, it usually goes
for $40-80
>>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?
A PIII-450 is lower end hardware today than (for example) a Pentium I
was in 1995.
>>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.
Resorting to insults again. COme on Max, can't you do any better than
this ?
>>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 bet you would find that a lot of people who really understand economics
more than any usenet crank would disagree with you.
>>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.
I was agreeing with him. If you'd like to be "more rational", then
why don't you tell us why they won't double their price tomorrow,
and how they can justify not doing so to their shareholders ?
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: CR Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 01:43:55 GMT
"Dr S.J. Cornell" wrote:
>
> > > > Stephen Cornell wrote:
> > > > > What I want to know is: if Microsoft increased their share of the
> > > > > desktop market from 89% to 92%, what were those 3% using before?
> > >
> > > Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > MS-DOS. Versions 3.1 and 5.0 are still running lots of systems around
> > > > the world.
> > >
> > Stephen Cornell wrote:
> > > Er, doesn't the `MS' in MS-DOS stand for Microsoft? So the 3% who
> > > switche *to* MS can't have been using MS-DOS...
> > >
>
> CR Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > MS insists that Windows is not DOS.
>
> But that's not the point. The article stated that *Microsoft*
> extended its share of the desktop market. This cannot be explained by
> people switching from DOS to Windows, since both are Microsoft products.
>
> Stephen Cornell.
The headings is "Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market".
Note that the figures are based on shipmenst of Windows 2K, NT4.0,
Windows Me. It also claims Windows 9x, but I'll bet that 9x is only 98.
Thus, DOS, Windows 3.1, and Windows 95 are counted in the same group
with Linux, FreeBSD, etc. Notice that the article also said it does not
count every server as because counting every "mom and pop" server would
distort the figures. I.E., the Windows share would go down.
--
Russ
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
Home of the Universal Automotive Test Set
Linux Open Source (GPL) Project
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NEEDED: A Loadlin Distro. (WAS: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks
government help to stop)
Date: 4 Mar 2001 01:45:23 GMT
Chad Myers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Isn't there a mothership approaching earth that you should be looking
: to hitch a ride on.
Nope, fuckwit. But Fargo, ND is getting to sound pretty good as a place to
move to... and I already have a Norwegian accent installed waiting to be used.
I downloaded my copy from a bloke from Denmark. Took only half an hour to
download and config it.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NEEDED: A Loadlin Distro. (WAS: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks
government help to stop)
Date: 4 Mar 2001 01:46:58 GMT
Dave ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: LOL. Never use sarcasm when Chad's around, he's too dumb to "get" it.
<Norwegian accent>
Ja, so: I n:oticed.
</Norwegian accent>
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 4 Mar 2001 01:51:57 GMT
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:09 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 2 Mar 2001 16:13:59
> [...]
>>OTOH, I might also point out that the zealots haven't put forth
>>any accurate numbers.
>
>Why should they, if they're zealots?
Of course. It should be obvious. However, stating the obvious is sometimes
necessary.
> The fact is, they're not zealots,
>and you use the term because you haven't a better point, despite their
>inability to tell you what something would cost in some alternate
>reality where monopolization hadn't occurred.
I would think that is a pretty good point. It demonstrates that their
claims are purely conjecture and have no substance.
>>If they want to prove something about the
>>pricing, the onus is on them to make some sort of case.
>
>Indeed, and we have, and it is indisputable. MS is a monopoly,
>therefore their prices are monopoly prices.
Well I think we have a proof by contradiction if we're prepared to
accept the "axiom" you implicitly stated. Because their prices are
in the same ballpark as prices for other operating systems.
> Had they competitive
>pressure to lower them, they could, and since they don't, they have no
>competitive pressure,
Nonsense. The fact that they don't lower their prices does not mean that
there is no competitive pressure on their price. Obviously, an
equilibrium will be reached when they move their price down to a certain
point.
> and so they are a monopoly, and their prices are
>monopoly prices. QED. No amount of flopping around in the bottom of
>the boat will change this.
Why doesn't the same argument apply to, say the Redhat Linux box set,
Quake III, or whatever ? Why don't Redhat lower their prices ?
>Or perhaps you should learn more about why you can't grasp the argument
>sufficiently to agree with it.
There are people orders of magnitude
more intelligent than you who understand this argument orders of
magnitude better than you do, but still disagree.
There is a big difference between "don't understand" and "don't agree",
and it's awfully pompous of you to act as though anyone who disagrees
with you does so out of ignorance.
> Now, tell me, what *precisely* is
>the problem with considering, given the difficulty you've noted, whether
>the pricing is *fair*, and then, if it can be seen that it is not fair,
>proclaiming it then, validly and correctly, to be unfair? Despite the
>difficulty, indeed, the impossibility, of knowing whether a price is
>unfair, are you saying it is impossible to know if it is fair?
I think it's difficult to be certain either way. I acknowledge that my
arguments that their prices are "fair" are imperfect. However, the
arguments that the prices are "unfair" seem purely conjectural.
>>That's not really good enough -- to make a case against the pricing
>>you need more than pure conjecture. In particular, you need to show
>>that the price "would be" less in a competitive market. And I've yet
>>to see a decent argument for this.
>
>You are incorrect, unless you're a Republican seeking to undermine
>anti-trust law. No, you don't need to (because you can't, and we all
>know it) show what "would be", ever.
The problem is that you are applying a "guilty until proven innocent"
standard. I would argue that to show that prices are too high, you
need to show that they are higher than what they should be.
I would conclude further that arguments against Microsoft that are based
on "overpricing" are weak, and a poor line to pursue for someone who
wants to make arguments against Microsoft.
>monopolist controls the pricing independently of competitive pressures.
This is difficult to establish, because we already see that other
operating systyems (eg OS/2) are in the same price ballpark.
Others from Microsoft are *more expensive*.
>Then again, you don't *need* to, then, since you already know that if a
>monopolist is controlling the pricing independently of competitive
>pressures, then the price isn't fair. Again, no quantitative breakdown
>is necessary.
You haven't established this at all. It's purely conjecture (mixed with a
little dogma)
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: CR Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: A very funny Linux story! "Red Flag Linux"
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 01:55:28 GMT
Ray Chason wrote:
>
> 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.
>
It would seem the son of the President neglected to supply any
documentation. Possibly, they are somewhat ambivalent about having
people learn to use Linux. While government communications would be
safer on Linux than Windows, so would that of the human rights movement.
> 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.
>
I would like to see a copy too. Can it be downloaded from somewhere? I
know some Chineese speaking people who would be able to use it, if we
can work out the documentation.
> --
> --------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
> PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
> Delenda est Windoze
--
Russ
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
Home of the Universal Automotive Test Set
Linux Open Source (GPL) Project
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 4 Mar 2001 02:03:06 GMT
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:07 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 28 Feb 2001 03:19:11
> [...]
>>In other businesses, the market leader does not make their prices cheaper
>>just because they can afford to.
>
>Of course they do. This is what free market capitalism is all about.
Of course they don't. For example, Quake III costs the same as other
games. There is a point of diminishing returns in the marginal sales
vs marginal price curve (and even a point where price drops hurt sales
in some markets).
>That's how you get to be the 'market leader', BTW. If you got there any
>other way, then you probably broke the law.
Dell don't offer the cheapest prices. Neither do Sony. (And neither of
these vendors are "cheap") I could go on and on, but it should be
obvious that there is a difference between "competing" and
"competing on price". Those who do only the latter (for example, a
lot of online businesses) rarely if ever make a profit. Those who
can convince the market that *their* product is "better" are more
likely to be succesful.
>> They price their products in such a way
>>that the prices are reasonably competitive (eg: $50- for an OEM license)
>
>I would think an OS would cost about $3 for a license, if you could make
>it efficient to collect such small amounts.
Well, no one else has made a commercial OS that sells for that sum of
money.
>>Unsubstantiated whining that something is "too expensive" is not worthy
>>of the word "economics".
>
>Save it for someone easily cowed by false intellectualism.
I'm not the one proclaiming myself to be infallible; I am not the
one who dismisses all who disagree with me as ignorant. I am not the
one who writes long, illogical, incoherent sentences in a futile
attempt to sound intelligent.
>>I find it hard to see how -- their prices are already reasonably
>>competitive. Most of their sales of Windows are of the OEM edition,
>>and that goes for $50-.
>
>One suspects you find it hard to see anything at all, if you think $50
>for Windows as an unavoidable Microsoft tax is "reasonably competitive".
Yes, you're right about "one". I've never encountered anyone else on
usenet who exhibits such unjustified arrogance. I've seen others who
are ruder, more ill-mannered, and less intelligent for sure. However,
the "pompous ass on COLA" title is doubtlessly yours.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
