Linux-Advocacy Digest #628, Volume #32 Sun, 4 Mar 01 00:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: NT vs *nix performance (J Sloan)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free ("mmnnoo")
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation ("Tom Wilson")
Re: KDE or GNOME? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (false analogies, and purposeful
misuse.) ("mmnnoo")
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Chad Myers")
Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Pat McCann)
Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Donn Miller)
Re: KDE or DOJ ? ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 04:11:20 GMT
Shane Phelps wrote:
> Actually, it was an application server comparison.
> http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,409380,00.html
Ah, now that's interesting - the posting I saw had identified
the leading Unix system only as "a progress system", which
was pretty useless as far as identifying it.
Thanks for posting the original link, now it all makes
a bit more sense. It looks as though some of the facts
got garbled in the translation.
> What it looked like to me was:
<insightful analysis snipped>
yep.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 22:18:04 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 1 Mar 2001
> >"Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In 1992 MS-DOS plus Win3.0 costs £135. Allowing for inflation, WinME
costs
> >> about the same as Dos+Win3.0, and adds some additional functuality.
> >
> >"some" additional functionality? Windows 3.0 came on less than 6
floppies
> >(compressed). WIndows ME is about 150MB's (also compressed).
>
> If you intent is to discuss functionality, why do you describe volume?
Well, clearly there is a correlation. The more the software does, the
larger it gets. Though, of course, just because it's larger doesn't mean
it's necessarily doing more, though in this case it is.
> The problem with your argument is as it always has been, Erik; it is an
> argument from ignorance. Because it is literally impossible to
> determine what competitive levels are, since there isn't any
> competition, you insist that MS's prices cannot be considered to be
> above them. But, logically, they *must* be greater than competitive
> levels, since it is entirely obvious that, if you could purchase Windows
> from either MS or someone else, MS couldn't charge as much and maintain
> 95% of the market.
Your argument is conclusionary and circumstantial. Stating that since they
have no competition, they must be above competitve levels simply assumes
guilt without validating it to be fact. In a court of law, if you have no
proof and are only stating what is likely, it's not a case.
> In fact, if MS hadn't intentionally monopolized the
> pre-load market, stymied all innovation, and raised the applications
> barrier to entry as much as possible, if you could purchase *any OS for
> a PC* and use it effectively without incurring additional cost due to
> your not "going along" with the monopoly (which Erik and other sock
> puppets would characterize, disingenuously, as "the network effect"),
> Microsoft couldn't charge as much as they do for Windows.
And I've already demonstrated that if MS had plenty of competition, they
would have to either charge MORE for their product, or spend less on R&D,
much like their competition would have to price their product more than MS's
current product.
What we have here is a variation on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
The very act of proving your hypothesis invalidates it.
> >Then how does that explain OS/2 hasn't dropped in price? How does it
> >explain that Netware hasn't dropped in price?
>
> You have again reached the rather abrupt limits of your understanding.
> How do you explain prices of alternatives to a monopoly? Your
> kindergarten level understanding of "supply and demand" simply cannot
> deal with it.
>
> Will Netware dropping its price result in Novell selling more units?
> Will Microsoft dropping its price result in Windows selling more units?
>
> The answer is "no", in both cases. Now invert the question:
Perhaps, but for different reasons. Windows can't sell more units because
it's market is already saturated. Novell won't sell more units because
demand for the product is simply not there.
> Will Novell raising its price (to greater than comparable to Windows,
> the monopoly) result in less Netware being sold?
> Will Microsoft raising its price result in Windows selling less?
>
> The answer to the first is "yes", since it would remove one more reason
> not to avoid the monopoly (that isn't the same as 'competing', Erik,
> though I have literally no hope you will ever understand the
> distinction),
I don't know. The people that use Novell and continue to do so have a
reason to do it, if Novell raised their prices their clients would likely
still buy from them (at least within reason).
> while the answer to the second is still "no". Microsoft
> can set its price at whatever it wants.
That's simply false. I guarantee you that if you raised the price of
windows to $1 million dollars a copy, they wouldn't sell very many. Sure,
that's extreme, but even if you doubled it's price, I'd bet you'd see more
than a halving of copies sold, simply because people that currently buy will
not be able to afford the higher price.
That's not to say that people will stop using windows, but rather they would
probably pirate it much more often if it's price were that much higher. MS
can only charge what the market will bear without fear of their customer
base simply disregarding their license.
> The question your soft-headed
> reasoning requires in such a case is "why don't they", while anyone with
> a brain knows that it would simply make it too obvious they are a
> monopoly.
Oh, so what you are saying then is that MS isn't charging more than
competitive levels, and that you lied earlier. Instead, they're charging
well below what they could because they don't want to draw attention to
themselves.
Yeah, Sure. (that's sarcasm).
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 04:19:46 GMT
I don't think the distinction between linux and napster is being lost
on anyone. Nobody has challenged the legality of linux, so the
public haven't heard of it in that context.
I don't agree that Slashdot is associating napster with open source
just by taking an interest in both. Slashdot reflects opinions about
a number of issues, and open source software is only one of them.
Others include 'popular science' stories, career issues, tech-
oriented legal issues, and some political issues. I bet at least
98% of slashdot's readership knows that there are differences
between "free software" and "free downloads of copyrighted music"
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Donovan Rebbechi"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:58:24 GMT, Giuliano Colla wrote:
>>Dave wrote:
>
>>IMHO Allchin's comment was determined more by the open-source
>>availability of Star Office. An open source multi-platform Office suite
>
> I think it had something to do with the recent Napster row, and the
> coverage on slashdot. IMO, Slashdot are doing the community an enormous
> disservice by associating Linux and OpenSource with Napster, because it
> creates the completely false impression that Linux users are a bunch of
> jackbooted thugs who are out to disposses programmers.
>
> Of course this is a load of horseshit, and Linux has absolutely nothing
> to do with Napster, Linux is based on a gift culture, where people
> *give*, and people in the community *respect* the wishes of the authors
> of a given piece of software.
>
> Napster is quite the opposite. Napster protect their
> "intellectual property", while at the same time pushing the line
> "information wants to be free", and showing absolutely *no* respect
> for the wishes of not only copyright holders, but also the artists.
> Napster and the majority of their users are no better than the record
> companies that they are so fond of trashing.
>
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 04:27:23 GMT
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >
> > Pete Goodwin wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > >
> > > > Can't reject something that isn't even offered by the OEM.
> > >
> > > There's absolutely NOTHING stopping people from buying Linux or BeOS
> > > seperately.
> >
> > Yes, there is. If someone gets an OS automatically loaded on the
> > system, the impulse is to look no further for another OS.
>
> It is even worse than that. I had an incident with a Gateway machine, on
which
> I had installed linux. The hard drive went bad. Gateway told me to
reinstall
> Windows so I could run their diagnostic program.
>
> The argument was silly, it went something like this:
>
> (Tech support) "Run the diagnostic utility, it is under the start
menu......"
> (Me) "I don't have Windows on the machine, and the hard drive is bad."
> (TS) "You will have to reinstall Windows so we can verify the hard disk."
> (Me) "I won't be able to install Windows, the hard disk is bad."
> (TS) "If you can't run the diagnostic utility we can't verify the hard
disk is
> bad."
> (Me) "I can't install Windows on a bad hard disk."
> (TS) "We can't help you until you can run the diagnostic program."
> (Me) "Can I talk to your manager."
>
> It took me three people to get a new hard disk sent out. (This was a
couple
> years ago, it may be better now.) Suffice to say I will never buy a
Gateway
> again.
LOL
I had my own experience with Gateway helping a friend get a replacement
power supply. Your experience mirrors mine almost exactly.
(Tech Support) "You'll have to run the diagnostics program."
(Me) "That's not possible."
(Tech Support) "I can't help you unless you run the diagnostics program"
(Me) "What part of 0 volts power good do you not understand?"
It took over an hour and several different reps until I got someone who
knew his head from a hole in the ground. They Fed-Exed a new one next day
air and apologized profusely. Thank heavens there are still SOME competent
folks out there.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: 4 Mar 2001 04:36:41 GMT
On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 22:26:39 -0500, Donn Miller wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>> ORBit is nice, but useless to KDE since it is C based. BTW, writing
>> CORBA applications in C is like brain surgery, it not a big problem
>>
>> I still wish that KDE had gone with CORBA though.
>
>So, how does CORBA stack up against DCOP?
Well for one, CORBA is standard and DCOP is not. This makes GNOME more
interoperable. There's a java book that gives an example of a GNOME
application talking to a java app, for example.
The main thing I have against DCOP though is the dependency on X. This is
annoying, because X does not have anything to do with component frameworks.
I think KDE dropped it because they got burnt by Mico (In particular, it
produced bloated stub code, from what I recall. Anyway, they had performance
issues with it.)
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (false analogies, and
purposeful misuse.)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 04:44:06 GMT
No, there's plenty of room for honest disagreement about what best
promotes freedom. Quite a few freedoms are quite simply mutually
exclusive. Some people disagree with you about which freedoms to
preserve at the cost of others. You're wrong to attribute this to
malicious intent.
In article <jsUn6.6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
<snip>
> Numerous individuals have been 'taken in' by the lie about it being
> free, and joy has even been expressed by individuals on this newsgroup
> when individuals or projects have been taken in by the misusage. Not
> all individuals believe that it was 'nice' that a few had been caught.
> There have been cases where the term 'free' had mislead individuals into
> using GPLed works in non-complying situations, and careful review of the
> license is necessary to realize that the term 'free' is inconsistant
> with the terms of the license.
<snip>
>Trying to distinguish oneself by hijacking
> the term 'free' actually shows malicious intent.
>
> John
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 04:31:46 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
1.) I believe that IBM sold laptops with OS/2 back then, but I'm not
100% sure
2.) I purchased a laptop in 1998 with no OS on it. The company I
purchased from had been around for about 3 years, so I don't
see why they wouldn't have sold laptops without any OS for
all the years of their business.
-c
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free
Date: 4 Mar 2001 04:54:09 GMT
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 04:19:46 GMT, mmnnoo wrote:
>I don't agree that Slashdot is associating napster with open source
>just by taking an interest in both. Slashdot reflects opinions about
No, in some articles, the editors associated Napster with Open Source
by associating it with Open Source.
By the way, I also think it reflects badly on Linux that what is often
cited as a major Linux site takes a strong pro-piracy position.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 03 Mar 2001 21:00:19 -0800
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mart writes:
> > About those constraints: I have a right to free speech, it's in my
> > country's constitution. However this right is constrained by libel and
> > slander laws.
>
> No, they don't constrain your right to free speech. They just establish
> _consequences_ for some sorts of speech.
I wonder what John is trying to say there. The claim is ridiculous
enough to call for an interesting explanation, but the one provided,
while interesting, seems to contradict more than it explains.
If you're wondering too, please ask John, or consider the following.
Maybe he is saying that libel and slander are not forms of "free
speech" and so have nothing to do with any rights to it. That seems
to depend on circular logic or circular definitions.
Maybe he thinks that you can have a right even when a government has
imposed pushiment (or other bad consequences) for assuming such a right.
I know many people, especially religious people, hold to such an ideal
definition of "right". I prefer the more practical definition held
by many others which recognizes reality, but I guess I'll have to assume
that this explains John's statement since he said I'm in his kill-file.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:01:50 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
I start freaking out. There's something I can't stand about Windows,
but I can't figure it out. I have to have a command line, and when I
can't have a command line, I can feel my brain cells start to stagnate.
I suffer from sensory deprivation. Windows just seems devoid of all
intellectual activities.
When I run Windows, I get this closed-in, claustrophobic feeling. With
Linux, I feel as if I have more space to roam intellectually. I feel as
though I am free, frolicking out in a spacious field someplace, using
the window manager I want to use, the toolkit I want to use. I can run
top and ps and find out exactly what is running, and where it is
running. I get an exact number for CPU usage and memory consumption of
any process or application, and what state each process it is in. But
most of all, I don't have to hit control+alt+delete, and try to guess
which instance of a program is hanging. And furthermore, when I kill
something, it dies right then and there. With Windows, you never know
if something is going to die or not, and if you've even got the correct
instance of the app you want to kill.
Unix is an example of an operating system that was designed properly the
first time. Windows 9x and NT seem amateurish by design. They are
designs that assume every computer user is an idiot, and that all
computer users like using something just because a company tells you
it's good, or because it's popular.
In Windows, I am locked into a stale, closed, but yet comfortable room
with no windows and no fresh air. With unix, I am frolicking in the
wide-open field, doing the activities I want to do, not what some idiot
company feels I should be using.
Windows has gotten better, but its design is indeed amateurish compared
to unix.
====== 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: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or DOJ ?
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 05:02:37 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:emdo6.33$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:7h2o6.3611$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:c_mn6.918$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Is this one of those things, like your criticism of OS/2, whereby
> one
> > > > > system having features or options that another doesn't is a
strike
> > > > > against the first on the grounds of it being "too complicated"?
> > > >
> > > > No, this is Erik just blowing smoke. KDE 2.1 has been out for
only 2
> > > > days. There is no way he has even tried it, let alone extensively.
> > >
> > > I used KDE 2.0 quite a bit. I can't imagine that 2.1 has changed it
> that
> > > radically in only the last 2 or 3 months since 2.0 was released.
> >
> > Don't let the version number increment deceive you, it has changed
quite a
> > lot and for the better I might add.
>
> I've already appologized and stated I would refrain from comments about
2.1
> until I have a chance to use it.
I noticed that later on in the thread, sorry. :)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
