Linux-Advocacy Digest #262, Volume #33 Sun, 1 Apr 01 23:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Formatting a floppy ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Communism (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Communism ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Communism (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux dying (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Formatting a floppy
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 03:43:10 +0200
"Barry Manilow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Never said there would be no performance penalties. Sure it slows
> down. Sure it swaps like the devil. But it stays up and all the apps
> keep on running. Can WinXX do this? No. You want a reference to
> "hundreds of apps". Try IBM. IBM docs say that OS/2 can run 255
> programs at once, assuming you have the memory. A friend took them up
> on it and ran a lot more than that. I think it was over 300. Can
> WinXX do that? No.
Yes.
An NT can do it.
My XP can certainly do it.
Currently I've running:
Babylon
FTP Client
Outlook Express
Internet Explorer
Let's start loading the system, okay?
Visual C++ 6
Visual Basic 6
MSDN
Terminal Services Client
mIRC
Word
10 so far.
Power Point
Front Page
Excel
Access (says that I need more memory & CPU cycles to install speech
recognition, which is not install. I've the memory & CPU it asks for).
Windows Media Player
Microsoft Reader
Winzip 8
GetRight
Acrobat Reader
Hyper Terminal
Paint
Calculator
Notepad
23 so far.
Go to the FTP client and connect to FTP server & start downloading.
Write this message.
Connect via the TS Client (server running on the same machine), and login.
Login to EFNet & join a channel.
Go to WMP & start playing an MP3.
Go to IE, start new windows & surf to google & then to microsoft.com
Go to Word & start typing random words into it.
Go to Front Page & tell it to open http://www.microsoft.com/default.asp, it
tells me that I don't have permissions to change it, and should it open it
as read only, I tell it yes.
Go to Power Point, start making a presentation.
Go to Excel, fill some cells with numbers, click the Fx button, see the
paper clip & a dialog appearing, use them to create a box that include the
sum of all the cells that I filled.
Check on the FTP client.
Go to calc, move to scinetific mode, and calculate !54
(1.3868311854568983573793901972039e+80)
Go to Paint, open a file and invert it a couple of times.
Go to winzip, pick a directory with about 220MB, tell it to zip it with Add
& replace, maximum compression, include subdirectories. It start
compressing.
The MP3 is still sounding great, btw.
Open Four Horsemen of the Apolcalypse in MS Reader.
Go to HyperTerminal, choose an incon & name, choose TCP/IP (winsock) host:
www.google.com port: 80 Tell it to call, it says connecting, then connected
+ the time it's connected. Don't know what to do from here, so leave it
alone.
Open Task Manager, and go to performance, let it stay on top while I type
this.
Check on Winzip, it's still compressing, of course.
Go to Acrobat, open it's ReadMe.pdf file.
Open explorer, copy 384MB to another HD.
System is noticablely slower, there is about a second delay between typing
and the words appearing on screen, otherwise, it bussiness as usual, except
that the taskbar now has a scroll bar.
MP3 stuttered once, when acrobat opened its file, but it's playing just fine
now.
Check on the copying, it has another 8 minutes.
Go to msdn, go to search, type winapi and click enter.
Winzip finished zipping.
Go back to MSDN and click on one of the articles that it lists.
The article is:
Under the Hood
Matt Pietrek
Open MS Script debugger & open a HTML file with it.
Open Help.(windows one)
Run Regedit, run a search for the string Ayende Rahien
Go back to Widnows help, run a search for Random Access Memory, go to the
first thing that shows (glossary).
Go to Access, make a table with design view, make another table with wizard.
Go to VC++, create a new project, (console application) add ten files to
this one, and compiles.
There are errors, choose files more carefully this time, from an old
project. Compiles. It works.
Go to VB, new form, add some controls, run it.
Open Event viewer
Open Search (winkey+f)
Open Control Panel
I don't have the scanner attached to the computer at the moment, and the
drivers for it are win95 ones anyway (although they did worked on w2k,
strangely), so I can't scan.
But you said something about burning, right?
Go to TS client, open explorer, go to a directory, choose 448MB of files,
right click, send to -> writable CD.
Go to explorer, move from ms.com to flash.com
Open Data Sources
Go to Event Viewer & check Application log.
Double click on one of the items there.
Go to Data Sources and browse all the tabs.
The MP3 has three stuttering all in all.
And currently playing fine.
Go to Word and open a document in a new windows. Edit & save it.
Open another instance of explorer & point it to program files.
Browse the directories in search for things I can run.
Open Netmeeting.
Continue browsing the program files.
Openning Web Publishing wizard.
Open Winace.
Open CreditCard Data Encription
Openning WinAce Uninstallare.
Open WinAce Help
Open PinBall.
Start playing pinball.
Stopped playing pinball, playing is normal, btw, everything as usual. Sound
is nice, too.
Go to TS Client, tell it to Write to CD (start burning)
The Mp3 is still playing fine, btw.
Go to FTP client and see how the download is going.
Go to OE and tells it to syncronize my news account, it tells me that there
are new newsgroups, I tell it I don't want to view them.
I'll be reading newsgroups for the next few minutes, while the disk is being
burned.
Finished reading newsgruops, checked on burning, should take only about
another minutre or so.
Tell outlook to check my email.
No new mail, tell outlook to check it again.
Change from flash.com to softhome.net (my main email).
In the meantime (slow connection bogged by the FTP download) moving my quick
launch panel around (13 icons).
Check for computer's uptime. (4 Weeks, 1 Days, 11 Hours, 8 Minutes, 26
Seconds.)
Checked the email via the web page, they, too, show that there is no mail,
curse them too and decide to subscribe to more lists.
Go to google and search for "email list that might interest Ayende Rahien"
doesn't give any result that interest me. Just an old email from the time
when I checked MySQL.
Check TS Client, It's done burning.
I forgot to close Babylon on the TS Client, this is a known troublemaker,
btw.
Start to close programs.
Now, sorry that it wasn't hundreds of applications, but you don't seem to
like just picking them out of Search.
It was, however, a better example than you gave. Throughout the test, the
MP3 stuttered three to four times only, there was slowdown in the system's
performance, but that is understandable, when you are running so many
programs, competing for the computer's resources.
Can somebody run such a test on Linux, Amiga (does Be has that many
applications), or any of the other "better multi tasking" and report the
results?
The computer I used is PIII 500 + 384MB RAM, running Whistler 2296.
For a beta full of debug code, I think this is a damn good OS.
As a note, this experiment is nothing that I think unusual with the
performance, any win2k box would do just as well, probably faster, too,
because of the debug code.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 01:54:59 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 31 Mar 2001 19:41:10 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Fri, 30 Mar 2001 23:56:07 -0500
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001
>> >> [...]
>> >> >If someone attempts to enter your country, unanounced, without making
>> >> >proper contact with the appropriate authorities (customs officials,
>> >> >border patrol, air traffic control), then they are a legitimate target
>> >> >for those personnel charged with the DUTY of defending the border.
>> >> >
>> >> >What's the difference between "illegal immigrants" and "invading
>> >> >army" other than numbers?
>> >>
>> >> Nothing, if you're a paranoid schizophrenic.
>> >
>> >
>> >OK...now...for the NON-paranoid schizophrenic...
>> >What's the difference between a mob of "illegal immigrants" and
>> >"invading army" other than the numbers?
>>
>> Uh...organization and equipment? :-)
>>
>> Admittedly, I for one don't see much else; if a mob breaks into a
>> gun store that sells, say, AK-47s, they're going to be inherently
>> dangerous (to themselves, if nothing else!) and may have to be
>> dealt with as though they were an invading army -- note that invasions
>> by armies (organized mobs or no) can now be suppressed through a bevy
>> of tools the Founding Fathers may never have imagined, never mind
>> having. (For examples, FLIR, helicopters, communications equipment,
>> hovercraft [*], rapid-deployment forces such as urban SWAT teams and
>> their military equivalents, AWACS monitoring planes, and satellites.)
>>
>> Even without semiautomatics, a mob is still something to be reckoned
>> with, albeit somewhat carefully lest the rest of the country get
>> wind of what happened and charge the military with excessive brutality
>> in carrying out their mission(s) (a variant of "communications equipment"
>> includes news broadcasts). It's not clear to me whether the
>> general lay public of the late 1700's knew the viciousness of some of
>> the aspects of the Revolutionary war, or of wars subsequent until
>> the early 1900's, when radio first appeared. (I don't know offhand
>> when radios were first mass-produced, but it was probably around
>> World War I.)
>>
>> Of course, there are a few other problems the Fathers may not have
>> thought of, such as aircraft flying illegally over the border, as well.
>> (Guess what they're carrying? Probably not candy for babies. :-) )
>> They might have had to worry about hot-air balloons, but that's about it.
>> Given my previous calculations, it's not clear whether a musket rifle
>> could have holed a baloon or not -- and even if a balloon were to
>> successfully touch down, it would require a ground team to recover it,
>> implying, again, organization. (Not sure how they'd carry it without
>> a truck, admittedly; perhaps a large flatbed or sledge dragged behind
>> a horse team? :-) Would there be, ahem, enough horsepower?)
>>
>
>Now...take into account the fact that before Vicente Fox was elected
>President of Mexico, the official policy of the Mexican government was
>that any and all Mexican citizens would retain ALL rights of Mexican
>citizenship, including voting rights, if they move into California,
>Nevada, and New Mexico....EVEN IF THEY GAIN U.S. CITIZENSHIP -- which
>requires that your RENOUNCE your citizenship in your old country.
Now that I did not know.
>
>Also, remember that the Nazi's invaded Norway through a similar
>tactic.
Yes, I believe someone has already mentioned that.
>
>The Wermacht sent soldiers to Norway as "tourists". Then, on the
>assigned night, they met in warehouses, changed into their uniforms,
>broke out crates of weapons and ammo, and thus Norway was occupied
>overnight with barely a shot fired, and none of that messy business
>of having to fighting to capture a beach nor an or airfield with
>a subsequent "breakout" campaign to expand beyond th beachhead
>or airhead.
>
>Now...with these facts in mind...would you care to reconsider your position.
I am not sure I really have a position here; I was merely attempting
to answer a rhetorical question. :-) However, it's clear that we need
to gain control over our borders above and beyond what we already have;
note that this is not the same as sealing them off, a la Pat Robertson;
one might, for example, merely require that all crossers contain a
national ID card, or some tracking device -- I'm not sure I like that
idea either, but it's consistent with the current problem, which is to
ensure that the US isn't invaded by Mexico -- or Mexicans. This national
ID card/tracker unit would be valid until the individual becomes a citizen,
in which case we may have a civil rights problem.
There are probably a lot better solutions -- the simplest one would
be to catch 'em all and throw 'em back if they don't have US visas
(note that most illegal immigrants merely overstay their visas, as
opposed to crossing the Guadalupe in the dead of night). But that
wouldn't defend against the Wermacht Strategy; that would require
very tight inventory control of some sort -- or perhaps access control
to the warehouses, and even then, suppose that the zaibatsu -- to be
fanciful about it, since they have the money! -- of Japan decided to
buy a series of warehouses, transship weaponry, trucks, etc., then
set up a dummy corporation of a few tens of thousands of highly trained
Japanese "employees", and at H-hour move out and commandeer Washington, DC?
Especially if they carefully garner all the necessary permits?
We can have even more fun. Suppose the "employees" drag along their
wives, girlfriends, and children, who are really Mexican nationals in
disguise! Or perhaps they hide out additional "employees" on the
Mexican or Canadian borders (the Coast Guard might get suspicious
on the other two borders). At H-hour, they all spring into action
(satellite cell-phone call tree), overwhelming our own military at
key spots, taking over our planes and air traffic control, establishing
air dominance, and generally taking over the country, much like we
liberated Kuwait or Grenada, only far far bigger and much more complicated
(since they'd have to disable *our* air superiority first).
Computers would also be useless if the invaders jammed the Internet
with a gigantic DDoS attack; at H-hour, no one would be able to
communicate thereby. Such an attack is ridiculously easy, with
proper preparation, again, using dummy corporations -- one need merely
purchase wide datapipe connections.
But to answer your implied question. It's clear that there is no
difference, apart from organization -- and even then, an active mob
usually has a leader of some sort (a passive mob is obviously not much
of a threat, although an actively passive mob -- one that is interfering
with operations of a building or company simply by being there -- might be).
I'm not sure what we can or should do regarding this issue, especially in
light of some of the "employees" may in fact be natural-born or naturalized
American citizens, as well, committing some form of treason.
We can no longer depend on our borders protecting us from invasion.
This scenario could happen at any time; our only hope is identifying,
detecting, and disabling the threat. (Mind you, I for one would be
more worried about the "lone terrorist" who shoots up the town with
random explosive rockets or plants bombs in our belfries; he's more
dangerous to the random citizen. The scenario outlined above would
only be a problem for those in the line of fire, which would be air
traffic controllers, pilots, military personnell, and government
seats -- assuming the invaders could shoot the side of a barn,
of course. :-) )
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random worst-case scenario here
EAC code #191 55d:23h:48m actually running Linux.
>>> Make Signatures Fast! <<<
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 2 Apr 2001 01:56:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: After all, property is the only human right which matters, eh? Funny
: how they left it out of the Constitution, substituting "pursuit of
: happiness" for the right to property.
Hint: check out the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
You may be thinking of the Declaration of Independence. It however is
not the law; the Constitution is.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 02:00:55 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 01 Apr 2001 17:18:29 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 01 Apr 2001
>>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>>
>>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 31 Mar 2001
>>> [...]
>>> >Fascists kill the poor first.
>>> >Communists kill the rich first.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, Aaron concentrates on anyone who disagrees with him, rich or
>>> poor.
>>
>>No. Only those who lie.
>>
>>Disagreement is ok, as long as you don't tell lies in the process.
>
>I've been here for years; I've yet to see a single person you disagree
>with that you do not eventually insist is lying.
>
>>> >In fascism, industry "owns" the government.
>>> >In Communism, the government "owns" industry.
>>>
>>> Amazingly clueless.
>> ^^^^^^^^
>>
>>You misspelled "accurate"
> ^^^^^^^^
>You misspelled "clueless"
You both have misspelled "cogent, logical argument". :-)
(Side note: as I understand it, communism in its pure form is
an economic system, always (at least, when done at the country level)
implemented by some sort of authoritarian rule as it is not compatible
with the "natural human state" of being greedy -- or, as a friend of
mine once put it, "having enlightened self-interest",
which sounds better and is more accurate.)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 56d:01h:30m actually running Linux.
No electrons were harmed during this message.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 02:18:19 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 1 Apr 2001 10:37:35 +0200
<9a6ns5$2fu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >He said so. What more do you want ? You wouldn't expect him to degrade
>> >himself by actually substantiating his claims, now would you ?
>>
>> I said so and nobody has provided any evidence otherwise. So far, we're
>> dealing with reputation, and any poster on adm with any integrity will
>
>What's adm ?
alt.destroy.microsoft, presumably.
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 56d:02h:51m actually running Linux.
Microsoft. When it absolutely, positively has to act weird.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 02:22:04 GMT
Said Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 1 Apr 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >He said so. What more do you want ? You wouldn't expect him to degrade
>> >himself by actually substantiating his claims, now would you ?
>>
>> I said so and nobody has provided any evidence otherwise. So far, we're
>> dealing with reputation, and any poster on adm with any integrity will
>
>What's adm?
alt.destroy.microsoft
>What's your definition of integrity?
Agreement between ones morals and ones ethics in ones actions and
thoughts. This requires mental health, honesty, and wisdom.
>Those who agree with you
>because you sh*t on and waste time hating a corporation because it's trendy?
Its got nothing to do with trendy. So apparently, you are the one
wasting time here.
>> tell you that my reputation is far and away superior to either of yours.
>
>It's oh so true. You're known for throwing blanket statements without
>substantitaion.
I'm known for expecting people to respond to my statements reasonably,
and provide rational argument wherever possible. Why do *you* post?
Just wasting time?
>How do you think that various people, including me are aware
>of:
>
><MAX> Because I Said So </MAX> ? :)
>
>You're not probably as infamous as Dave Tholen, but with a little more
>work...
Bwah-ha-ha-ha. Find me one person who would call me a net.kook, who
isn't a net.kook!
>> Not my fault.
>
>Aw c'mon, at least in a small part.
>
>Then again you still haven't enlightened me on how putting forth
>unsubstanciated claims laced with deprecation and creative naming of the
>object of contention is stating one's case moderately and accurately.
Nor will I. Your mistake.
>Be nice, now Max, share what you know, I'm willing to learn what I don't.
Oh, yeah, that's accurate and reasonable. Guffaw!
(Sorry, that was just a little joke.)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dying
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 02:24:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Everett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 1 Apr 2001 08:19:52 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On 1 Apr 2001 04:51:57 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>: On Sun, 1 Apr 2001 01:39:22 +0200, Roy Culley wrote:
>>: >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
>>: >> On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 17:45:16 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>: >>
>>: >> No, SunOS was based on BSD, new versions of Solaris are SysV based.
>>: >
>>: >SunOS 4.x and earlier were based on BSD. SunOS 5.x is based on SysV.
>>: >Solaris is a complete environment OS plus GUI and applications. Solaris
>>: >1.x had SunOS 4.x underneath. Solaris 2.x and later have SunOS 5.x
>>: >underneath.
>>
>>: By SunOS, I don't mean "SunOS 5", and by Solaris, I don't mean
>>: "Sun OS 4". Sun did this funny thing with the names to confuse
>>: people, but it is not uncommon to use "SunOS" to specifically
>>: mean the older version (and Solaris to mean the new SysV version).
>>
>>This reminds me of the time I was explaining to a person
>>at work that Silicon Graphics Inc. is now officially
>>called "SGI".
>>
>>Me: Well, officially, they're called "SGI" now.
>>He: But SGI stands for Silicon Graphics Inc., right?
>>Me: Well, yes, but they're not officially called "Silicon Graphics"
>> anymore.
>>He: *blink-blink* *blank stare*
>>Me: Think of it in relationship to "IBM". Nobody calls them
>> "International Business Machines" anymore, unless they're
>> talking about ancient history.
>>He: I see. That is stupid.
>>Me: Hence the term, "marketdroids".
>>
>>I'm beginning to wonder if anything commercial is
>>capable of making sense these days. :-P
>
>Can you say "the artist formally known as 'Prince'"?
Yes, although until recently that was "formerly". However, the
trademark (?) on the name expired (it was owned by a big music company;
I forget which one), so he can call himself Prince again.
No more odd-looking symbols.
:-)
(I am given to understand the name "Pentium" came about because
it was trademarkable, unlike '586' or 'x86'. But that was awhile ago.)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- oh darn
EAC code #191 56d:02h:55m actually running Linux.
I'm here, you're there, and that's pretty much it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 2 Apr 2001 02:28:10 GMT
On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:39:51 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 31 Mar 2001 08:24:46
>>On 27 Mar 2001 18:22:19 GMT, Perry Pip wrote:
>>>On 27 Mar 2001 07:32:17 GMT,
>>>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Until it's reversed on appeal, it's legally factual. And even so, you
>>>certainly can't call it in your words 'unsubstantiated nonsense'
>>>considering it's the evidence based on MS's own internal documents.
>>
>>The "unsubstantiated nonsense" remark was in response to a fairly sloppy
>>argument. (namely hardware is getting cheaper therefore WIndows should also)
>
>The argument was "as production of a commodity increases, the price
>decreases". It has nothing to do with hardware, and nothing to do with
>Windows.
No, that was your version of the argument. My comments were in context
of some poorly reasoned news articles on the web:
"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. Microsoft continues
to spin off monopoly profits, with no end
in sight."
THere was this and another article on OS Opinion (whose reasoning was
equally poor) :
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/7698.html
My comments were in response to this.
>>Stereotyping ? Not at all. I didn't call you a ranting zealot. I did
>>allude to the idea that you may be willing to accept or endorse fairly
>>weak claims against MS. For example, you claimed that MS Office and
>>V Studio were also "overpriced", and I pointed out that the competing
>>commercial products (Corel, Borland) are more or less equally overpriced.
>
>And due to your epistemological failure, you are incapable of
>understanding that they can, in fact, all be equally overpriced.
I understand that this is possible, but until you provide some evidence
(something you consistently show yourself to be either unable or unwilling
to do), it remains pure conjecture. Conjecture all you like, Max, but don't
pretend that conjecture alone constitutes proof.
>Thus, as Microsoft anti-competetively impacts the app or tool market
>(which they cannot avoid doing, so long as they have a monopoly market
>share on the OS on which these programs run and do not take steps to
>ensure fair competition),
Even if we're to assume that they can't avoid doing so, what is the extent
of the impact ? And if they were leveraging their monopoly as you
conjecture, wouldn't Borland have something to say in the trial ? (iirc
the main DOJ witnesses were Netscape and also Intel)
You have an interesting theory here, but without evidence, it is just a
theory.
>What a hopeless load of self-contradicting crap. It seems to me you're
>squirming, casting aspersions, and proclaiming that while your tight
>clutch on your opinion is good, because the arguments against were not
>convincing, any contrary opinions are not good, because the arguments
>against were not convincing.
What a hopeless load of unparseable gibberish. You really should try
your luck with shorter sentences (for someone of your intelligence, I
suggest three words or less.)
I'm not casting aspersions and I'm not claiming that my "tight clutch on my own
opinion" is good.
>And in addition you seem to claim that all laws are perfect, or that no
>reasonable person can disagree with the outcome of a legal process.
No, I don't claim it, and if you think I "seem to", that's your problem.
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Perhaps you should take Mr. Franklin's good advice. Shouting at people while
adopting an obnoxious condescending manner coated with a pseudo-intellectual
veneer (which usually makes you look more inarticulate than intelligent) is
neither "moderate" nor "convincing".
Hope this helps,
--
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
******************************
