Linux-Advocacy Digest #784, Volume #34 Sat, 26 May 01 03:13:04 EDT
Contents:
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: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 26 May 2001 06:54:26 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 25 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001
>> >I looked it up, and I was right. The IBM PC 5150
>> >was discontinued in 1987; the Commodore 64C,
>> >in 1993.
>>
>> You define cluelessness.
>
>I don't think I can please both you
>and Rick here; he gets mad at me if
>I *don't* look things up for myself.
I know for a fact you could please both of use by being reasonable.
That you cannot do that without condemning Microsoft as an illegal
monopoly, however, is beyond the ability of reason.
>You apparently feel that doing so
>is the definition of cluelessness.
Defending Microsoft is defense of cluelessness, yes. It is not a
technical or a political claim; it is not derived from bigotry, fascism,
or dishonesty. Just the facts. Defending Microsoft requires
cluelessness.
>[snip]
>> >Yes, I noticed. You greatly prefer "dishonest" to
>> >"clueless", for some reason that I have yet to fathom.
>>
>> It is a word with a real meaning, much as you'd like to deny it.
>>
>> I prefer honesty; that should be obvious. Dishonesty is voluntary;
>> cluelessness is simply ignorance, and can be corrected (unless you're
>> dishonest).
>
>Aha! I get it! "Dishonesty" to you means
>what "willful ignorance" means to ordinary
>people!
>
>*Now* I get it!
I'm impressed. Honestly. I might almost believe you were rational, if
you actually understood what you just said.
>Some of the things you've said seem quite
>a bit more coherent, now that I know what
>your personal definition of "dishonest" is.
Check back to 1997; it is what I've been saying all along. "Willful
ignorance == dishonesty." Why did it take you so long to figure out?
More importantly, why didn't you already know it was true?
>Not that I agree with them, of course, but
>I'm sure you wouldn't expect me to.
Where did you get the phrase "willful ignorance", Chad, if not from me?
I've been using those exact words for years. Are you going to dispute
this correlation?
--
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, 26 May 2001 06:54:27 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 25 May 2001
22:08:19 GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 24 May 2001
>> >"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>[snip]
>> "Software" has been getting cheaper, of course it has. Microsoft
>> monopoly crapware gets more expensive, both to obtain and to use. Not
>> necessarily in any easily identifiable price hike; they usually show
>> more dishonest intent than that, as criminals generally would.
>
>Oh, I see. Invisible price hikes.
>
>Of course. :/
Is that what I said?
Are you claiming that MS's half-dozen modifications to corporate
licensing policies which resulted in a doubling of revenues did not
constitute 'invisible price hikes'?
Which is it, Daniel? Are you going to refute that it happened, or are
you going to refute its purpose, or are you going to refute what it
"means"?
It doesn't matter, you see, because you cannot refute that it happened.
More than half a dozen times in the last five years (alone), MS modified
their licensing policies to effectively double the cost of PC OSes for
major enterprise customers.
Tell me that ain't a monopoly. Don't waste my time claiming it didn't
happen, because it did. Just explain to me why it isn't evidence of
illegal monopoly power.
--
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, 26 May 2001 06:54:28 GMT
Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 26 May 2001 00:44:00
>On Fri, 25 May 2001 22:08:19 GMT, Daniel Johnson
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Oh, I see. Invisible price hikes.
>
>I think they call those "changes to the licensing terms".
>
>MS have been making changes to licensing so as to require some users to
>buy more licenses than they had to previously. [...]
Technically, this is called "regrating", and it is one of the things
that makes monopolization illegal.
If you figure out a way to make lots of money using a product that you
purchase fairly, is the producer of that product allowed to raise the
price because you are making more money than he is? This is, I think
'regrating'.
--
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, 26 May 2001 06:54:29 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 25 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Rick in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001 17:54:49 -0400;
>> >Daniel Johnson wrote:
>[snip]
>> >> There's a reason for this; Microsoft knows that if they
>> >> jack up prices enough, they will create an opportunity
>> >> for a competitor to supplant them, even if that
>> >> competing product is not as good.
>>
>> "Supplant"? "Even... not as good"?
>>
>> You seem to be speaking gibberish. Yes, if MS raises their prices,
>> competition could form. How could a product which people by be "not as
>> good"? Are you trying to pretend that how expensive or cheap something
>> is has nothing to do with this quality of 'good'?
>
>I'm suggesting that it's possible to have a market for
>low-end operating systems, if the good stuff is
>expensive.
Why would an operating system be expensive, ever?
>If Windows were expensive enough, it would not
>be necessary to match its quality to beat it in
>the market.
Indeed; there is an alternative that is free, yet MS still commands 95%+
of the PC OEM market. Why is that?
>> "Supplant", by the way, indicates to take something's place (usurp).
>> MS's products enjoy monopoly, so what you've described is Microsoft
>> purposefully maintaining a monopoly. This is illegal behavior on
>> Microsoft's part.
>
>I find your legal analysis dubious in the extreme.
I don't care. State your case or shut your trap.
>The *usual* way things work in software is for
>some product to dominate its field until something
>better comes along and then to be supplanted;
>a "serial monopoly" if you like.
No, I do not like, and Judge Edwards (IIRC) was completely mistaken in
claiming that a 'serial monopoly' makes any sense in a competitive
technical market. It was an aberration born of his familiarity with
monopolization, and no other PC market.
>Microsoft has impressive staying power,
They have an illegal monopoly, yes.
> but
>I doubt that the rules have changed fundamentally;
>if they got knocked off their perch there'd be
>another dominant player to take their place.
"Would" being the requisite amount of bullshit to apologize for illegal
behavior, yes. "IS", unfortunately, is what is required to deny
monopolization.
>That is what I mean by "supplant"
You meant to remain purposefully clueless. 'Nuf said.
>> Further, 'supplant' connotates an underhanded
>> usurpation, so what you've just described seems to indicate that you
>> believe competition is dishonest or underhanded by nature.
>
>That is not how I intended it. I didn't know "supplant"
>had such a meaning to you. I must say, talking to you
>is quite a challenge sometimes.
I pulled my meaning entirely from the dictionary. Look it up in
Webster's. You are claiming you did not know the meaning of a word that
you yourself used? Is it merely posturing on my part to indicate that
proves you are clueless?
>[snip]
>> Only a fascist would consider competition to be underhanded
>> (or consider underhanded competition to be acceptable).
>
>You might want to rethink those two sentences,
>there. You've got a little bit of a contradiction.
>
>I suspect you *meant* to say "only a fascist would
>oppose T Max Devlin-approved competition, or
>consider T Max Devlin-unapproved competition
>to be acceptable."
No, I don't see any contradiction, or any need to include a biased
perspective. Allow me to consolidate the issues, so you might be able
to determine where you got confused.
"You believe capitalist competition is inherently dishonest. Only a
fascist would consider capitalism competition to be inherently
dishonest, so you are a fascist, not a capitalist."
Is that clear enough for you? It sounds rather concrete, if you ask me.
Though I wouldn't expect you to do so....
>But that is not quite what you said.
What I said can be quoted; no need to speculate on what I said. What I
"meant" is that you are an idiot. That is enough, in terms of
interpretation, considering what I said.
>> 'Supplant'
>> means to substitute for, as well as to displace. Your comments are
>> nothing so much as a definition of monopoly, and why Windows is clearly
>> and absolutely a criminal monopoly: MS controls the price of their
>> products not to increase their profitability, but to prevent there from
>> being any substitute for their product in the marketplace.
>
>That's... odd.
>
>You see to see monopoly as a thing that
>keeps prices *down*. Is this, in your
>view, bad?
Monopoly is bad; any effect, impact, exhibition, or result of it is
therefore 'bad'. This doesn apply to dumping as well as profiteering,
yes.
>[snip]
>> >> However, MS is not dumb enough to let this
>> >> happen to them just because of some silly
>> >> anti-trust theory.
>> >
>> >This shows how ignorant and arrogant you really are.
>>
>> It shows how dishonest he is, believing Microsoft and himself (either
>> because of his dogma or his activities) are above the law.
>
>Well, above T Max Devlin's opinions, anyway. :D
>
>I think you tend to conflate that with the law.
I think you haven't a leg to stand on, personally. We'll have to leave
it for other's to judge, though, eh?
--
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, 26 May 2001 06:54:30 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 25 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001
>> >> I don't see why it should need to be very large at all. The trick is
>> >> simply that it is maintained long enough to ensure that all competitors
>> >> have been taken out with other anti-competitive attacks.
>> >
>> >... or competitive ones, for that matter. Yes?
>>
>> No, not in the slightest bit. Competitive strategies cannot "take out"
>> any competitors; thus, the term 'competitive'. Get it?
>
>I don't see that that makes any sense. Why are
>competitive strategies necessarily unsuccessful?
You confuse "success" with "taking out competitors", that's why!
Competitors are a valuable advantage to a competitor in the market; they
provide guidance concerning what is popular (valuable to a large number
of consumers). Nothing better than competition to ensure you can remain
profitable, effectively forever!
>It seems to me that if, oh, say, Microsoft actually
>did produce an OS that was consistantly better
>than its competitors, [...]
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
>nd kept improving it so
>that it *stayed* that way, [...]
Doh! What does "stay that way" mean? It is already 'better'. So how
can you tell when it gets 'better than better', if there are no
competitors around to compare it to?
>and also kept prices
>low, they could very well squeeze out all their
>competitors.
MS hasn't kept, nor ever had, low prices. They don't "squeeze out"
competitors. They either buy them out, or the force them out.
'Squeezing out' and 'forcing out' may seem the same thing to you, but I
assure you that honest business men understand the distinction.
>Why wouldn't that work? I mean, hypothetically,
>of course. :D
Why would "hypothetically, of course" end with a smiley?
Your being a passive-agressive dipshit, again, Daniel. JSYK
--
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, 26 May 2001 06:54:31 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 25 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> I don't see why you bother claiming to have opinions, and then so
>> >> rapidly backing off of them by stating they are pure speculation.
>> >
>> >My opinions are quite often speculation, but by no
>> >means always. I think my disclaimer is reasonable.
>>
>> What you claim as your opinion is sometimes a lie, as it is posturing,
>> not speculation.
>
>No, I don't think I have yet lied in this thread;
>can you think of an example?
If you actually think it makes a difference whether it was in this
thread or not, you've only proven your dishonesty. Get it?
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 06:54:32 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 25 May 2001
>"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> > "Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, quux111
>> >
>> > > > C# is a Java clone. End of story. It does absolutely nothing Java
>> > doesn't
>>
>> > > It's not Java though and has a few more wrinkles that make it
>> > > different...
>> >
>> > Where it's not a Java clone, it's usually better.
>> > Take case handling as an example.
>>
>> But is it multi-platform like Java? If not, then I don't want anything
>> to do with it.
>
>It is.
>MS-IL is not tied to a particular arcitecture.
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-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]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 06:54:33 GMT
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 25 May 2001 17:19:19
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Just how many experiments in physics have you performed, Gary? Guffaw.
>
>More than you, I'm sure.
I'm afraid that means "none", Gary. No hard feelings.
>Of course, if you had paid attention to what I
>said and what you wrote, you might realize that how many, if any,
>experiments your or I have performed is irrelevant.
Irrelevant to what? You indicated it was relevant to my credibility. I
just pointed out it was just a relevant to your own credibility. What's
the problem?
;-)
>One can care about
>experiments without being the one performing them.
Indeed; and one can understand experiments without being the one to
perform them, as well, and without understanding all of the math
involved in them, as well.
I would submit that my understanding, in general, of every experiment
ever performed is superior to yours. How would you refute this point?
--
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
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 06:54:34 GMT
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 25 May 2001 17:22:05
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I must disagree. You do that far more than I.
>
>You must be joking!
You must have understood me, if you think I was.
>>>I thought you wanted an explanation of what I said. But if all you want
>>>is an answer ro your question, the answer is
>>>"Neither".
>>
>> Alas, it was an 'either/or' question, so you've still failed to answer
>> it. Don't worry about it; I know that you can't answer it, because you
>> don't know the meaning of the words well enough.
>
>So, Max, are you an idiot or just a total moron?
I am a reasonable man, without any preclusions either way.
>> Thanks for your time. Hope next time you have something to say.
>
>You are not welcome
I am getting to you, 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
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 06:54:35 GMT
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 25 May 2001 17:27:29
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I've read the thread, agree with your description of it, and still don't
>> understand why you think I am even mistaken, let alone wrong.
>
>Then you have very poor reading comprehension.
According to *YOU*? Guffaw!
--
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
******************************
