Linux-Advocacy Digest #14, Volume #34 Sat, 28 Apr 01 12:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Communism (theRadical)
Re: Communism ("Marksman")
Re: Women's rights and responsibilities. (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Communism (theRadical)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (theRadical)
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 14:48:26 GMT
On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 10:53:27 -0400, "Marksman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"theRadical" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 22:06:13 -0700, Gunner © <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 08:44:29 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Mathew wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> > "Gunner ©" wrote:
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:31:15 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >>> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > >> >
>> >>> > > >> >ANYBODY who seeks to enslave others sacrifices any claim to
>his own life.
>> >>> > > >> >
>> >>> > > >> >Hope that helps.
>> >>> > > >>
>> >>> > > >> which means soooo [sic] much coming from a fucking idiot twat
>such as
>> >>> > > >> yourself.
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > >Gonna come say that to my face?
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > WEEEEE! I get dibs on the video rights! And we can split the fee
>when
>> >>> > > we send numbnuts body to a medical school.
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > Aaron... try to draw it out as long as possible, so we can see
>lots of
>> >>> > > his blood and hear the sounds of breaking bones.. Ive already got
>a
>> >>> > > buyer for the master tape.
>> >>>
>> >>> This is illegal,I hope you know.
>> >
>> >What is the fact its illegal have to do with it? Attempting to destroy
>> >the Constitution is illegal as well..but I see cases of it ever day on
>> >the net.
>>
>> yes, yet you are the one who accuses others of low character while
>> saying "if someone else does something, i can do it too." thanks
>> again for pointing out the hypocrisy that rules your life gun nut.
>>
>> >Besides.. I can make you sign a waiver that says you are
>> >undergoing every bit of it voluntarily.
>>
>> i don't think so.
>>
>> ><EG> Wanna bet you wont sign?
>>
>> more idle threats from a right wing gun nut.
>>
>
>I see fascist radical boy is still incapable of refuting anything.
how the hell would you know you slimy stupid little piece of shit?
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Marksman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Marksman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:05:55 -0400
"theRadical" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 10:53:27 -0400, "Marksman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"theRadical" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 22:06:13 -0700, Gunner © <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 08:44:29 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Mathew wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > "Gunner ©" wrote:
> >> >>> > >
> >> >>> > > On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:31:15 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> >> >>> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>> > >
> >> >>> > > >> >
> >> >>> > > >> >ANYBODY who seeks to enslave others sacrifices any claim to
> >his own life.
> >> >>> > > >> >
> >> >>> > > >> >Hope that helps.
> >> >>> > > >>
> >> >>> > > >> which means soooo [sic] much coming from a fucking idiot
twat
> >such as
> >> >>> > > >> yourself.
> >> >>> > > >
> >> >>> > > >Gonna come say that to my face?
> >> >>> > >
> >> >>> > > WEEEEE! I get dibs on the video rights! And we can split the
fee
> >when
> >> >>> > > we send numbnuts body to a medical school.
> >> >>> > >
> >> >>> > > Aaron... try to draw it out as long as possible, so we can see
> >lots of
> >> >>> > > his blood and hear the sounds of breaking bones.. Ive already
got
> >a
> >> >>> > > buyer for the master tape.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> This is illegal,I hope you know.
> >> >
> >> >What is the fact its illegal have to do with it? Attempting to destroy
> >> >the Constitution is illegal as well..but I see cases of it ever day on
> >> >the net.
> >>
> >> yes, yet you are the one who accuses others of low character while
> >> saying "if someone else does something, i can do it too." thanks
> >> again for pointing out the hypocrisy that rules your life gun nut.
> >>
> >> >Besides.. I can make you sign a waiver that says you are
> >> >undergoing every bit of it voluntarily.
> >>
> >> i don't think so.
> >>
> >> ><EG> Wanna bet you wont sign?
> >>
> >> more idle threats from a right wing gun nut.
> >>
> >
> >I see fascist radical boy is still incapable of refuting anything.
>
> how the hell would you know you slimy stupid little piece of shit?
>
Thanks for proving my point fascist boy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Women's rights and responsibilities.
Date: 28 Apr 2001 15:08:23 GMT
On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:55:13 GMT, Rich Soyack wrote:
> "Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> However, I don't think they learn it in the same depth as Einstein. For
>> starters, they don't cover the math properly. The math for GR is at a
>> high enough level that if you understand it, you're probably publishing
>> papers (or working on publishables)
>
> Interesting. I thought undergrads only study Special Relativitiy.
That's a second year course (I took it, and I'm a math major)
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (theRadical)
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:06:04 GMT
On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:05:55 -0400, "Marksman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"theRadical" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 10:53:27 -0400, "Marksman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"theRadical" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 22:06:13 -0700, Gunner © <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 08:44:29 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>Mathew wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> > "Gunner ©" wrote:
>> >> >>> > >
>> >> >>> > > On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:31:15 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> >>> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>> > >
>> >> >>> > > >> >
>> >> >>> > > >> >ANYBODY who seeks to enslave others sacrifices any claim to
>> >his own life.
>> >> >>> > > >> >
>> >> >>> > > >> >Hope that helps.
>> >> >>> > > >>
>> >> >>> > > >> which means soooo [sic] much coming from a fucking idiot
>twat
>> >such as
>> >> >>> > > >> yourself.
>> >> >>> > > >
>> >> >>> > > >Gonna come say that to my face?
>> >> >>> > >
>> >> >>> > > WEEEEE! I get dibs on the video rights! And we can split the
>fee
>> >when
>> >> >>> > > we send numbnuts body to a medical school.
>> >> >>> > >
>> >> >>> > > Aaron... try to draw it out as long as possible, so we can see
>> >lots of
>> >> >>> > > his blood and hear the sounds of breaking bones.. Ive already
>got
>> >a
>> >> >>> > > buyer for the master tape.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> This is illegal,I hope you know.
>> >> >
>> >> >What is the fact its illegal have to do with it? Attempting to destroy
>> >> >the Constitution is illegal as well..but I see cases of it ever day on
>> >> >the net.
>> >>
>> >> yes, yet you are the one who accuses others of low character while
>> >> saying "if someone else does something, i can do it too." thanks
>> >> again for pointing out the hypocrisy that rules your life gun nut.
>> >>
>> >> >Besides.. I can make you sign a waiver that says you are
>> >> >undergoing every bit of it voluntarily.
>> >>
>> >> i don't think so.
>> >>
>> >> ><EG> Wanna bet you wont sign?
>> >>
>> >> more idle threats from a right wing gun nut.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I see fascist radical boy is still incapable of refuting anything.
>>
>> how the hell would you know you slimy stupid little piece of shit?
>>
>
>Thanks for proving my point fascist boy.
you have yet to make one. btw, do you still claim never to have
masturbated you lying piece of crap?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:22:35 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 22 Apr
>"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> JS PL virtually setting the US as the defacto standard of what other
>> government departments are running as an OS. I personally couldn't care
>> less what happens in the US. SO much money is wasted yetit is never seen
>> as a big issue, hence, whether the DOJ uses Windows or not issue another
>> non-issue. If the DOJ use Linux they would been seen as biased towards
>> Linux and alternative OS's, and if they ran Windows, there would be a
>> big "Microosft" conspiracy, hence, the DOJ are damed if they do and
>> damed if they don't.
>
>The DOJ or any government agent would never load Linux on a PC. That would
>ruin their false stance that MS is a monopoly.
That's bullshit. We are all aware of your warped, in fact
self-conflicted, definition of 'monopoly', JS PL, but nobody takes it
seriously.
>Even though they could run
>it, they won't.
Even though they might, they can't. It would prove too expensive and
time consuming to avoid MS software while maintaining connectivity, a
well-supported supply basis, familiarity by general staff, all at the
same time, merely to avoid monopoly crapware.
>What Microsoft should do is offer to buy the new and more
>sane panel of judges both knind of OS's on a dual boot machine and see which
>one (as consumers) they choose to boot into most often. Load both OS's up
>with the exact same applications, Office for windows, Star Office for Linux
>as well as a host of other apps which mirror each other in functionality on
>each OS. I gurantee the Judges will conclude that Windows is in use by 98%
>solely because of quality. And after six months of using their choice I'm
>sure they will have chosen to boot into Windows ohh....Id say....98% of the
>time!
Where is Rex Ballard (whom you've misconstrued in using his theories to
support monopoly crapware) when you need him?
No, anonymous troll, they would not. They'd use Linux, because it is
the superior system, and they would convict Microsoft, because Windows
is the only commercially viable platform, and there is nothing but
anti-competitive activity which could have brought this split situation
about.
>Microsoft posseses an "advantage" not a "monopoly".
You possess a "brain" but not a "mind".
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:22:36 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 23 Apr 2001
>JS PL wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>> > > And your a College Educated Unix Engineer.....who only uses
>> Windows..Pffft..
>> >
>> > Even after I explain the deception, he still doesn't get it.
>>
>> Explaining something which is possible isn't proof that your doing it.
>
>The burden of proof is on you.
>Hope that helps.
No it isn't, Aaron, it is on you. This is why even other anti-MS
advocates find you a pathetic wannabe, Aaron, and why you shouldn't lie.
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:22:37 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 24 Apr 2001 03:07:00
>"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> JS PL wrote:
>> >
>> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >
>> > > > And your a College Educated Unix Engineer.....who only uses
>> > Windows..Pffft..
>> > >
>> > > Even after I explain the deception, he still doesn't get it.
>> >
>> > Explaining something which is possible isn't proof that your doing it. Your
>> > using Windows98 and lying about it. Your worse than Devlin who uses it and
>> > claims he's forced to do it.
>> >
>> > > > After you deal with your own lies, you can begin throwing accusations
>> > > > around.
>> > >
>> > > So, what college campus did you trespass upon?
>> >
>> > SDSU - dropped out after a year, and have never looked back.
>>
>> LOL. me, a 4 year degree vs. JS PL, a college drop out!
>>
>> Matthew Gardiner
>
>No wonder you guys are MS haters. You were brainwashed for 4+
>years about the evils of Corporate america while you were taught
>archaic technology and then dumped into a Corporate america with
>no real skills, but lots of knowledge but computer systems which
>haven't been used in 15 years.
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
>College... gotta love it!
Guffaw. So I guess you're a drop-out, too, huh?
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:22:38 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 24 Apr
>"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> Personally, I love capitalism,
>
>Secretly, you don't.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. No, anonymous troll, he really does. So do I. You
might, if you understood it, but apparently you don't, so your thoughts
on the matter are obviously useless until you learn why supporting your
asinine idea of monopoly is not compatible with capitalism.
>>and Microsoft is living proof of what
>> happens when you break the rules of the market place, you get hauled
>> through the courts.
>
>Every large comany participates in lawsuits and court battles as a matter of
>routine business. You mistakenly pretend that it's a reflection of their
>ethics.
Bullshit. You mistakenly pretend that we are concerned with their
ethics. Only their actions, and whether they are legal or show
liability. MS's shows liability; it has not come to a criminal
proceeding. If Gates and Palmer are lucky, it never will. Its not
really necessary, since this is not a matter of vengeance, but the
restoration of the free market.
>Microsoft customers know differently. That's why it's the chosen OS
>product of 98% of all PC users.
Is that why MS has all those cliff's-edge lock-in pre-load contracts?
>>Look at the UNIX market place, cut throat
>> competition between IBM, SUN, SGI and UNISYS, something sorely lacking
>> from the consumer marketplace.
>
>You have no idea what your talking about do you?
Well, YOU certainly have no idea what he is talking about, but that is
not unusual, given that you're just an anonymous troll with a dumb idea.
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:22:39 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 25 Apr 2001
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> JS PL wrote:
>[snip]
>> The users did not "choose" Microsoft OS's. That choice was made when IBM
>> chose MS-DOS, and Microsoft railroaded per-processor licenses, which
>> were also tied to things like Word.
>
>Actually, IBM offered three OSes originally: MS-DOS, CP/M,
>and one other- I think it was Xenix or something like that.
Xenix was Microsoft's repackaging of SCO, so that would have been years
later. *Originally*, every IBM PC had MS-BASIC burned into ROM, though
you are correct, they supported non-MS OSes. Still do, in theory,
though most of the PCs the sell require IBM to charge for a Windows
preload, or MS would make it impossible for IBM to sell any Windows.
Since MS has 95% of the market locked into their predatory Win32 design,
that would obviously not be a smart thing.
Which is why it doesn't matter at all what PC manufacturers offer, or
why; if MS has a monopoly in PC OSes, MS has broken the law. Which
specific acts fall into the class outlawed by the Sherman Act is
eminently debatable, but ultimately unimportant.
>MS-DOS was the early favorite because it worked, it was cheap
>in both money and memory, and most importantly, it was
>available immediately.
Mostly, it was cheap. In price; MS gave IBM a single fixed price for
unlimited licenses; that's how they managed to get IBM to agree to
include BASIC on every system, even if they didn't include MS-DOS on
every system. The agreement obviously didn't last long, and was
replaced within a few years by the standard cliff's-edge, per-processor
licensing scam which most directly secured the illegal monopoly.
It was never for a moment that it was "good enough", since nobody knew
how "good" a PC was supposed to be to begin with, or how bad an OS could
get before it would become unacceptable. Microsoft is still exploring
this issue, and XP is supposed to crown new heights of the essence of
monopoly crapware.
>It was also so trivial that it bought Microsoft
>very little. It was Windows that put MS where
>they are now- but that is another story.
They could only ensure Windows destroyed all the potential competition
(DR-DOS, middleware, DesqView, et. al,) because they had the MS-DOS
pre-load monopoly already locked in. OEM's were provided an offer they
couldn't refuse: bundle every system with Windows, or go out of
business.
It's all the same story, I'm afraid. Microsoft has never been
competitive, though some of their products might have accidentally had
to compete at some point. Windows certainly wasn't one of them.
Considering MS's recent behavior, if the courts don't split them, we can
expect the license for XP will provide Microsoft unlimited intellectual
property rights to every document you create on your computer.
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:22:40 GMT
Said Plaz in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:08:05 -0700;
>In article
><0voF6.35066$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Actually, IBM offered three OSes originally: MS-DOS, CP/M,
>> and one other- I think it was Xenix or something like that.
>
>AIX.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:22:43 GMT
Said Rick in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 24 Apr 2001 22:18:16 -0400;
>Daniel Johnson wrote:
>>
>> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > JS PL wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > The users did not "choose" Microsoft OS's. That choice was made when IBM
>> > chose MS-DOS, and Microsoft railroaded per-processor licenses, which
>> > were also tied to things like Word.
>>
>> Actually, IBM offered three OSes originally: MS-DOS, CP/M,
>> and one other- I think it was Xenix or something like that.
>>
>
>MS_DOS was low cost and the others were artificially high.
Others were market price; MS-DOS was predatory 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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:22:46 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 25 Apr 2001
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> >
>> > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > JS PL wrote:
>[snip]
>> > Actually, IBM offered three OSes originally: MS-DOS, CP/M,
>> > and one other- I think it was Xenix or something like that.
>> >
>>
>> MS_DOS was low cost and the others were artificially high.
>
>Presumably their makers throught they were worth it.
>
>Can't think why.
Because software doesn't develop itself, and so competitive pricing
reflects the difficulty of doing it well.
>[snip]
>> > It was also so trivial that it bought Microsoft
>> > very little. It was Windows that put MS where
>> > they are now- but that is another story.
>>
>> It was having DOS chosen by IBM and the later per processor licenses
>> that did it.
>
>As I said, IBM offered three choices and MS-DOS was
>the one consumers favored early on.
Because the PC was a brand new product, and practically NOBODY had
experience; MS-DOS was the cheapest of the three unknowns. Who'd have
thought that this choice would end up being a once and done thing; once
you were locked in, there was no competitive market available to you.
Just more and more monopoly crapware, until it comes to this point,
where Microsoft is practically the poster child for how to break
anti-trust law, having made Gates the richest [so far] unprosecuted
criminal in all of history.
>But that didn't
>matter much- had (say) CP/M won out, Microsoft
>could still have persued their Windows strategy
>by running Windows on CP/M.
That depends on what you want to consider "their Windows strategy".
Their strategy was to maintain the OS monopoly, so, no, it doesn't seem
like things would have been the same had MS not already had an OS
monopoly.
>Microsoft's volume discounts were no doubt helpful
>in a general way later on, but hardly a primary factor.
Microsoft has never provided any volume discounts that I have ever heard
of. What they do provide is "per processor" and "cliff's edge"
licensing scams. MS charged IBM a few hundred thousand dollars for a
bunch of software, unlimited licensing (!), and IBM agreed to include MS
BASIC (what Gates first though he'd use to become emperor, never
suspecting his cluelessness even after DOS gained a monopoly, just as he
got on the bandwagon late on the GUI and the Internet) on every single
PC they make. This was predatory pricing, as the market value with
standard licensing would have been far more valuable. It would have
been "loss leader" pricing, another acceptable business strategy, but
for the fact that MS did the same thing with every other license they
sold, pricing as low as is necessary to exclude competition, lower than
was possible to maintain profitability. They did this knowing that, if
they were successful in gaining a monopoly, their control over the
market would enable them to get back their money.
This might seem like simply a strategy in a game where the goal is to
make the most money, but unfortunately the strategy I have just
described is pointedly illegal. If a company must achieve monopoly
power in order to make back the money they spent, then they are
monopolizing and restraining trade, not competing in free market
capitalism. You need to be able to stay profitable WITHOUT excluding
competition in order to earn a profit, lawfully.
>OEMs, after all, had to be shipped volume before volume
>discounts made any sense for them.
No, you don't have to 'ship' volumes of licenses. They're just contract
things; the software can be copied over and over again, wherever it is
most economical and efficient. And again I'll remind you that Microsoft
has never provided any volume discounts at all. When you calculate the
price based on percentage of the OEM's sales, rather than number of
units, it is not a volume discount, it is a per-processor licensing
agreement.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
