Linux-Advocacy Digest #40, Volume #34 Sun, 29 Apr 01 15:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Donn Miller)
Re: start up commands ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Donn Miller)
Re: IE ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Dave Uhring)
Re: Exploit devastates WinNT/2K security (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (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)
The upgrade (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 14:07:27 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> People are not interested in compilers.
What?! Which people are you talking about? A compiler is a necessity
in today's world. You mean you never dicked around with a little
programming now and then? Take some courses or something. I know you
have a Ph D in EE, correcto? If you live close to the university where
you graduated from, sign up for some C++ classes. (Get it? C++
classes?)
You know, the knowledge does get kind of outdated. Back when you were an
undergrad in EE, you were probably studying about tube circuits! LOL.
Well, the stuff I took were analog IC CMOS design, and one similar
course, except with BJT's on the IC, so I'm sure the knowledge is just
as applicable today. Except, the parameters are much better, scaling is
much smaller, etc. etc.
I looked through some old books on trasistor circuit design, and they
were old, from around 50's-60's. The reverse saturation current (I[s])
was huge, on the order of mA-uA range. But the circuit designs were
just as applicable today.
====== 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: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: start up commands
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 14:09:58 +0000
In article <9chgeh$5frs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "E. Carrillo"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi guys:
>
> I have a small question, Is there a way to tell linux to start a
> program or module sort of the same way that windows starts programs from
> the startup folder? I have to use the OSS sound drivers for my sound
> card since it's not working with my distro, but OSS is doing very well.
> So, I have to type the command "soundon" every time I turn on the PC.
> I'm running SuSe
> 7.1, Does anyone know how to start this module under SuSe 7.1? I tried
> typing the "soundon" line on one of the system files but it didn't work,
> maybe I placed the line out of place. Thanks.
>
>
I'm not sure if SuSe is the same, but with Redhat you could put the
soundon command the /etc/rc.d/rc.local
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 14:12:29 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
mlw wrote:
> I don't know what your problem is, but I I was looking to buy a laptop. I
> didn't want to spend a lot on one because, by and large, they are the "bic
> razor" of computing. The company I am at, offered me a Compaq Presario 1690.
>
> They were getting rid of it because it was too slow. I installed RedHat Linux
> 7.1, went without a hitch (sans modem, of course) even the PCMCIA netcard
> worked as designed.
So, how much did you pay for it, if you don't mind me asking? The
cheapest used laptop I could find was a P100, 16 megs RAM, 1.1 GB HD for
$200. Now, I KNOW that's got to too damned expensive for what it is.
These people annoy me that pull this, because they know some
unsuspecting schmuck is going to shell out that kind of cash eventually,
so they won't sell it at a more reasonable price. All I want is a good
older laptook to dick around with, not fast, but good enough to do the
things I want to do, at a reasonable price.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 14:21:45 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > How about multimedia?
>
> I've noticed on my faster machine (400MHz PII) Linux + XFree86 doesn't play
> MPG files very well. On Windows 98 SE they work just fine. Overall graphics
> on thius system performs poorly compared to Windows 98 SE.
OK, I WILL agree with you on that point. This machine is a P166, 64
megs RAM, and the last time I tried xine w/XFree86 with a 42 meg music
MPEG video, it was dropping frames like crazy. It looked like a slide
show. But Media Player under Win ME suffered very little frame
lossage. Amazing. Of course, remember that MS tuned Windows ME
specifically for this sort of thing. ME is not very good in general,
because most things seem too damned slow on ME. But when it comes to
playing videos (both RealPlayer, Windows Media, and MPEG music video),
Windows ME has been outstanding. I find ME unusable for much else.
Well, you know that MediaPlayer is probably using some sort of direct
access to the video HW for optimum performance, so Windows does outshine
Linux in this respect.
Unfortunately, there's much more to computing than multimedia, so I only
reboot into Windows to play music mpeg vid's. Of course, you know that
music videos are much more demanding on CPU time than MPEG movies,
right, because now you've got a continuous stream of sound as well as
the video portion itself to deal with.
Therefore, I will agree Windows is faster at some tasks, but overall,
Linux is faster on limited HW.
====== 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: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 21:01:11 +0200
"Michael Pye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:UdYG6.5313$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9chcjc$780$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Ouch.
> > NS6 is even worse, because it is not backward compatible with NS4.
> > But there are plenty of non-MS browsers around, and 90% of them are
better
> > than NS4.
>
> It is more compatable with the rest of the world though. I'd rather
> completely forget about NS4 as a bad mistake ;)
Yes, but because NS4 hindered the standard acceptance for so long, the
leaast NS6 could do was to support the pages that were meant to NS4.
------------------------------
From: Dave Uhring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 13:25:27 -0500
matt jacobsen wrote:
> Oh my god. Usenet has suddenly turned into a night in the pub.
>
> --
> matt jacobsen
> uin: 52353790
> PGP public key: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jacobsen/pubkey.txt
>
> Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum
> immane mittam.
>
> Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9cglp9$370$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > still, it has to be said that this idle eunux and windoze chit
> | > chat is both gay and nerdish. or: who gives a fuck? got Zzz?
> | >
> | > people want sex, drugs, rock & roll, comedy, tragedy and soap op'.
> |
> | Only if they've got nthing better to do :-)
> |
> |
> | -Ed
> |
> |
> |
> |
> | --
> | You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
> |
> | u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
>
>
>
If you use pan as your newsreader, you can always activate the Bozo
switch.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Exploit devastates WinNT/2K security
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:27:37 GMT
Said Bob Hauck in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 28 Apr 2001 23:43:46
>On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 18:00:45 GMT, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> You would need root access on the NFS server first, to set the
>> permissions which would allow your demonstration to work.
>
>No, I don't. Basic NFS trusts the UID that clients send. If I am root
>on a client I can "su" to any user and access his files.
You mean the ones he exported to an insecure client? Yea, so? Basic
NFS doesn't "trust" anything or fail to trust anything; it simply has no
security. That level of functionality is meant to be a value add, but
nobody seems to have any value to add.
>> This is a case of misconfiguration leading to a problem, and has
>> nothing to do with any weakness in NFS.
>
>You are mistaken. The weakness is real and has nothing to do with
>"misconfiguration". To fix it, you need to bring in additional gadgets,
>such as kerberos, that are not part of the NFS specification.
No! Really? Now why on earth would anyone design a protocol that
doesn't do everything?
>NFS can be made reasonably secure, but security is certainly not
>inherent in the protocol.
In comparison to, say, SMB?
>> NFS certainly wasn't a "perfectly adequate protocol for peer to peer
>> file sharing like Microsoft wanted", but only because it was 'too
>> expensive' in terms of resources.
>
>Well, all by itself that's a pretty good reason to come up with a new
>protocol, don't you think?
That isn't the issue.
>If your customers can't run the "proper"
>one, you have no other choice. Resource constraints is also why Novell
>did so well early on.
Both Novell and NFS are still doing pretty well, considering.
>> But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
>
>You are. Hey, I'm no fan of MS and SMB has lots of problems but that
>doesn't mean I'm blind to the weaknesses of NFS.
It isn't a weakness of NFS, just a strength that Microsoft would rather
avoid, as it would lead to interoperability. I'm not concerned with
your lack of understanding of NFS, I was merely pointing out that you
are incorrect in your teleology. MS didn't avoid NFS because of any
'weakness' it had, but merely because it wasn't an option on the
processors of the time. Netware did much better, but obviously MS
couldn't use anything compatible with that, so they ended up taking
IBM's clunker and making it a thousand times worse.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:27:41 GMT
Said William Shakespeare in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 28 Apr 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 27 Apr 2001
>> 00:07:08 -0500;
>> >
>> >> Powerpoint
>> >
>> >I'm not so sure about that.
>>
>> Yup; they bought it. Needed something to "compete" with Harvard
>> Graphics and Lotus Freelance(?).
>
>Freelance *Graphics*, Max, and it is excellent!!!!!!!
The best available, in my professional opinion. I hung onto it for
years because it was SO much better than PowerPoint. Even their old
versions are better than MS's current product, hands down. Harvard
Graphics was even more powerful, but a bit unwieldy unless you were
really expert.
>BTW, so is
>Corel Presentations and the Star Office presentation package. Yes,
>there is a world beyond the bloated, memory-hogging, "run nothing else
>at the same time" Powerpoint.
I've been unimpressed with programs written in the post-Office-bundling
world. They tend to do things the way MS does, not merely because it is
familiar but almost as if they thought it was the "right" way, just
because it is how MS did it.
>> So they bought the cheapest, simplest
>> alternative they could and then force-bundled it with Word and Excel in
>> Office pre-loads. Bye-bye Harvard Graphics and Lotus Freelance(?), and
>> any other advanced or capable presentation graphics package.
>
>Well, Powerpoint has only 75% so it is not totally over but that is
>monopoly share.
All MS products are monopoly crapware, regardless of their individual
"market share".
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:27:42 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001
>On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 27 Apr 2001
>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:55:56 GMT, T. Max Devlin
>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> So any random arrangement of code will support any API you imagine?
>>>>> Somehow, this doesn't seem like its going to work. Somehow, I think the
>>>>> implementation details are related to the API, if it is written first,
>>>>> and the API reflects some of the implementation details, if it is
>>>>> documented last. In other words, an API is a sketch of the facade, not
>>>>> an architectural diagram, however complex that facade may be, and
>>>>> however it may limited where the beams can or must go.
>>> T. Max, implementation has rarely anything to do with the API.
>> Obviously, this statement would require some rather tortuously
>> restricted sense of "having to do with".
>
>Not at all. You're just too ignorant to know reality.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
>>> Consider this code:
>> [...]
>>> How do I implement this system is irrelevent.
>> Then how is it that you have written code to implement it?
>
>He hasn't. He's written the API for it. It's definitely not
>implemented.
Well, it looked like code to me, and he said "consider this code:".
What does that say to you?
>>> This mean that I can implement this as a C array, linked list, binary tree,
>>> hell, I could implement it as a database object, and anyone using this
>>> wouldn't have a clue how I do it.
>> Until, for some reason, they need to understand why their application is
>> not working as expected. Right?
>
>Wrong. An API defines access to a service -- and if that service isn't
>working right, then you go to the provider of that service to get it
>fixed. The details of implementation aren't important to the user of
>the API. (In general; there are cases when the implementation may be
>discussed between supplier and customer, but this has more to do with
>performance requirements than anything else.)
In the real world, an application program ROUTINELY needs to know more
about a function than the API documentation itself can provide. This is
not a fact which magically goes away because you wish really hard.
>>> I hope this example will help you understand how meaningless the API is when
>>> you try to understand the implementation.
>> I am well aware that in theory you pretend the two are unrelated.
>
>They are unrelated in theory and in practice. If they were not, then
>you could not have multiple independent implementations of the same
>basic API. Ooops...
Think, man, think! Why one earth would you need multiple independent
implementations if this were true? Ooops...
Just because you CAN write the library code in a number of ways to
support the API doesn't mean it "doesn't matter" how you write the
library. An API which has been implemented in many ways is easier for
an app producer to write to, because the API has been 'proven' to be
sufficiently well supported by multiple implementations.
Still, in the real world, nobody writes a program which requires a
library which doesn't yet exist. The idea is ludicrous.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:27:44 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001
>On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 27 Apr 2001 12:50:03
>>>>>For example: the architectural plans specify where the beams must go,
>>>>>their shape size and material.
>>>>>Yet, on a software project, the implementation details are not
>>>>>dependent on the API almost at all.
>>>>So any random arrangement of code will support any API you imagine?
>>> Not *any* random arrangement of code, but *many* arrangements of code.
>> Well, if its "many", then my point is made and you have lost the
>> argument (again). You don't have any way (other than whether the app
>> works with the library) of knowing which of the "many" ways is the
>> "correct" one for an API. Therefore, designing the API and writing the
>> code to support it are not two independent things.
>
>As usual, Maxie is wrong -- and having been corrected on this in the
>past, we must assume that he is maliciously lying at this point because
>he doesn't have a real argument.
Bite me, troll.
>An API doesn't specify implementation of the library/program/plug-in
>(much the same thing these days); it specifies the interfaces of the
>library/program/plug-in for other pieces of code to use. If I say "the
>instance method 'between' for class 'String' will accept two integer
>values specifying the start and the end of a substring that will be
>returned to the caller," I have just (partially) specified an API. The
>API will also contain a functional specification similar to this:
And you're willing to call other people malicious liars, simply because
you find it easy to hand-wave the entire issue with a parenthetical
"partial"? Yes, Austin, that is the point. ANY description of an API
is going to be partial, and that is why programmers might sketch
whatever they want in rough, but to write a program, you need the
library to actually exist. Having an API alone might THEORETICALLY be
enough, but in practice, it simply won't do, and the idea is silly. You
CAN NOT write a program which requires a library which doesn't exist!
How are you going to tell if the thing even works?
[...]
>Have you facts? We can't accept your beliefs here -- they've been shown
>time and again to have less substance than cloud castles.
You haven't a clue enough to understand my language. Stop making an ass
of yourself by pretending its my fault.
--
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: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:27:46 GMT
Said Joseph T. Adams in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 29 Apr 2001 00:04:25
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Said Joseph T. Adams in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 17 Apr 2001 23:24:37
>:>[...]Since we libertarians by definition don't believe in
>:>initiation of force and/or fraud, we have a greater challenge before
>:>us than do authoritarians and statists: we have to figure out how to
>:>address these problems, and thereby protect a certain set of rights,
>:>*without* violating anyone else's rights in the process. It is a
>:>harder job because we hold ourselves to a higher standard.
>
>: Oh. My. God. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
>
>: Sounds like you just don't find your idealistic stance very
>: debilitating, casting your aspersions as you are from an ivory tower,
>: safe from pragmatic concerns.
>
>: Your standards, you see, are completely meaningless in the real world,
>: where it is whether OTHERs "believe in" force or fraud (as if anyone
>: does) which is of political concern. Libertarians just ignore the
>: problems, same as the Marxists do.
>
>Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that it
>doesn't exist.
What's your point? Just because you believe in something doesn't mean
it does exist. It isn't my lack of understanding that makes your
idealistic stance immaterial; it's the fact that it is immaterial.
>The truly wise person understands that there are limits to his or her
>knowledge, and does not pretend to expound upon things he or she does
>not understand.
So is this an admission that you are not truly wise?
>He or she also spends at least as much time learning,
>and listening, and questioning, as in expounding *anything*.
>
>Also, the truly wise person, when angry, deals with his or her anger
>in some kind of constructive way, rather than venting it onto a public
>forum where everyone can see it, and make judgments about that person
>that may or may not be fair to the actual person.
It sounds to me like you're building up a serious head of
passive-aggressive steam, here. Quit posturing, man; it makes you look
silly.
--
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: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:27:47 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 28 Apr
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 27 Apr 2001
>> [...]
>> >No, but they would have had to pay more had they
>> >split their lineups. The fewer copies of Windows they
>> >put out they more they had to pay per copy.
>> >
>> >They could still *do* it.
>> >
>> >But given that their customers wanted Windows,
>> >it would have made no sense to pay more.
>>
>> Their customers couldn't care less, or Microsoft would have no reason to
>> engage in cliff's edge per-processor licensing.
>
>Cliff edge pricing? What, pray tell was the price difference?
Enough.
> I don't expect
>an answer because you don't know it.
Of course not; these were all covered by NDAs.
>There no evidence that Microsoft "coerced" any OEM into entering into a per
>processor license agreement.
Cliff's edge pricing. Apparently you don't understand the term. It is
a predatory (nobody said coercive; it need not be coercive, in fact, at
all, and yet it can still be illegal, believe it or not) pricing method.
>Additionally, Microsoft's per processor
>licenses were not exclusive dealing arrangements under the antitrust laws
>because they did not exclude DRI or anyone else from competing for any OEM's
>business.
That's a lawyer's cant, and meaningless in this context. That it is a
new and innovative way to restrain trade is a given.
>There was merely a slight price advantage to ppl, mainly realized by less
>paperwork at the OEM side. That's why only half of all OEM's ever even opted
>for per-processor license agreements.
You are SO deluded.
--
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: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:27:48 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr
2001 00:11:43 -0400;
>
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> JS PL wrote:
>> >
>> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 27 Apr 2001
>> > > [...]
>> > > >No, but they would have had to pay more had they
>> > > >split their lineups. The fewer copies of Windows they
>> > > >put out they more they had to pay per copy.
>> > > >
>> > > >They could still *do* it.
>> > > >
>> > > >But given that their customers wanted Windows,
>> > > >it would have made no sense to pay more.
>> > >
>> > > Their customers couldn't care less, or Microsoft would have no reason
>to
>> > > engage in cliff's edge per-processor licensing.
>> >
>> > Cliff edge pricing? What, pray tell was the price difference? I don't
>expect
>> > an answer because you don't know it.
>> > There no evidence that Microsoft "coerced" any OEM into entering into a
>per
>> > processor license agreement. Additionally, Microsoft's per processor
>> > licenses were not exclusive dealing arrangements under the antitrust
>laws
>> > because they did not exclude DRI or anyone else from competing for any
>OEM's
>> > business.
>>
>> You are wrong
>>
>> >
>> > There was merely a slight price advantage to ppl, mainly realized by
>less
>> > paperwork at the OEM side. That's why only half of all OEM's ever even
>opted
>> > for per-processor license agreements.
>>
>> Read The Microsoft File.
>
>Disgruntled employees looking to cash in and gain revenge aren't the best
>sources of information. The Microsoft File book is nothing (absolutely
>nothing) more than an assemblage of unsubstantiated gossip backed up by no
>source credit at all. Kind of like the National Enquirer, or worse yet
>"World News" where Clinton is seen shaking hands with aliens from outer
>space, and the fattest baby on earth. I would believe those stories first as
>they actually name sources, albeit...false sources, but at least the effort
>was there.
>
Meanwhile, JS PL treats Microsoft press releases as the revealed Truth.
Guffaw.
--
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: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:27:49 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 28 Apr
2001 21:28:01 -0400;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 27 Apr 2001
>> [...]
>> >I see no evidence that the early differences between
>> >GEM and Windows had anything to do with who owned
>> >DOS. I admit that the transition to Windows 95 did
>> >depend upon this- but had CP/M been king, Windows 95
>> >would effectivaly have meant migrating everyone to
>> >*Microsoft's* CP/M clone in the process.
>> [...]
>> >It's all hypothetical, but that's how I see it.
>>
>> I think you are mistaken in ignoring the impact of Microsoft
>> force-bundling Windows with DOS, the very behavior that MS signed a
>> consent decree to avoid ending up in court. Later, they paid Caldera an
>> undisclosed amount (I speculate it could be up to two billion dollars)
>> to avoid further investigation into Microsoft's actions to kill off
>> DR-DOS.
>
>I speculate it was 2¢ because Caldera didn't have a shot in hell of winning.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. IIRC, it was AT LEAST $200 million, wasn't it?
And anyone who reads the record (trolling sock puppets excepted) knows
that it was MS who didn't have a hope in hell; thus the settlement, and
my suspicion it was for much more than was evident.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The upgrade
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:36:16 GMT
I upgraded my 400MHz Pentium PII to a VIA system with an AMD Duron 850MHz.
Windows 98 SE reinstalled everything and had to reboot a few times to
complete the change over. It also sometimes crashes on shutdown.
Linux SuSE 7.1 just... worked. Hey!
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:36:21 GMT
Edward Rosten wrote:
> Well, from out of this window, the world looks pretty flat (hell it
> fooled manking for thousands upon thousands of years), but does that make
> it flat?
OK, for you, the world is flat.
--
Pete
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
