Linux-Advocacy Digest #805, Volume #34 Sun, 27 May 01 14:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Time to bitc__ again ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Time to bitc__ again (Perry Pip)
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: IBM to let Linux fans use mainframe--for free (Stephen Rank)
Re: ease and convenience (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: ease and convenience (Dave Martel)
Re: ease and convenience ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
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: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Time to bitc__ again
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 18:57:21 +0200
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.mandrake,linux.redhat
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Richard Thrippleton"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mart van de
> Wege wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>Richard,
>>
>>1. Don't use dselect! It is being deprecated for a good reason. 2. When
>>you said you installed X4.03 manually, do you mean you compiled from
>>source? This will fsck up any package manager, but I guess you knew that
>>anyway.
> Nope, I wasn't expecting it. In this case I didn't ask it to
> actually do anything with XFree itself. I would have hoped that a 'power
> user' distro like Debian wouldn't have this attitude "you'll do it the
> baby way all the time or else". But it's a moot point now, as anything
> Debian specific, including apt and dselect, is now gone from my system.
> When people ask what I'm running, it's just "GNU Linux" :)
> Compiling from source became trivial after a while. A bit slower,
> yes, but at least I was in control.
>
> Richard
Ah well,
I like having a good package manager, and apt fits the bill nicely. But
you are right, it is hell when you want to do something that is not
covered by the package manager, thus I do have a sizeable /usr/local
partition containing mostly the newest kernel and 2 mozilla source trees,
plus some stuff not in Debian yet.
To each his own, and I think we can leave it at that and be glad our
system supports our individual preferences so well.
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.mandrake,linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Time to bitc__ again
Date: 27 May 2001 16:55:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 27 May 2001 15:35:55 +0000,
Richard Thrippleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mart van de Wege wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Richard Thrippleton"
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, daniel wrote:
>>>>
>>> distro advocacy, but just this once I'll say you should use Debian. A
>>> non-profit organisation, their distro might be slightly behind the
>>> times, but they do that to make sure everything's stable. Though IMHO
>>> their package manager is terrible; learned this after manually
>>> installing XFree86 4.03 and dselect went and hosed it down, next X
>>> program I installed. Or you could just stick with Mandrake 7.1 by your
>>> own advocacy.
>>>
>>> Richard
>>
>>Richard,
>>
>>1. Don't use dselect! It is being deprecated for a good reason.
>>2. When you said you installed X4.03 manually, do you mean you compiled
>>from source? This will fsck up any package manager, but I guess you knew
>>that anyway.
> Nope, I wasn't expecting it.
Well then what the hell did you expect?? Did you employ your brain at
all and think about this before you started down this road, or did you
just guess what to do and hope it worked??
> In this case I didn't ask it to
> actually do anything with XFree itself.
But you installed a package that depends on XFree, so it installed
XFree. That's what a PM is supposed to do.
> I would have hoped that a 'power
> user' distro like Debian wouldn't have this attitude "you'll do it the baby
> way all the time or else".
You don't have to do it the baby way all the time. You simply install
all your own stuff under alternate directories, and then configure
your $PATH, ld.so.conf, etc. etc. to use those alternate
directories. If you can't figure that out, you shouldn't be installing
your own packages.
>But it's a moot point now, as anything Debian
> specific, including apt and dselect, is now gone from my system. When people
> ask what I'm running, it's just "GNU Linux" :)
Sounds like you should be using slackware.
> Compiling from source became trivial after a while. A bit slower,
> yes, but at least I was in control.
>
If you have the time to waste that's good for you. But the debian
package manager, when used properly, doesn't take away any control.
Perry
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 19:04:12 +0100
> It was a pity that they were priced just too high for their intended
> market, £400 was a lot of money in those days for schools and parents
> to fork out. The Spectrum filled the gap that really belonged to the
> Beeb.
>
> I bought a Beeb in 1984, when I should have bought a PC instead.With
> 20/20 hindsight, I should have known that 8-bit machines had had their
> day.
It is a bit before my time, but in 1984, wasn't a beeb pretty good?
Anyhow, for some things they were/are second to none, that particular
thing being interfacing with other hardware. I have not found a single
computer as easy to use as the trusty beeb for this.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 19:07:41 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chris Ahlstrom"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Terry Porter wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 27 May 2001 02:34:55 +0100,
>> drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 26 May 2001 21:53:02 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> > (Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>> >
>> >>> flatfish+++
>> >>> "Why do they call it a flatfish?"
>> >
>> >>Because it flounders.
>> >>
>> >>(I said that just for the halibut.)
>> >
>> > Stop it, you're giving me a haddock.
>>
>> Spot the red herring ?
>
> That was my porpoise for saying that in the foist place. I know, I'm
> just being shellfish.
good to see that OT threads aren't out of plaice on cola.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: Stephen Rank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: IBM to let Linux fans use mainframe--for free
Date: 26 May 2001 13:09:51 +0100
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When posting long URL's please adjust your line length so that they don't
> get fucked up
Am I the only one who enjoys the irony of a complaint about netiquette
coming with a sig over *50* lines long?
Chortle,
Stephen ;)
--
990878815
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: ease and convenience
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 17:14:54 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 26 May 2001 05:56:46 GMT
<yAHP6.22323$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>Thought I'd try a new newsreader tonight. Would this be easier on
>Windows or Linux?
>
>(Debian) Linux:
>1) launch a shell
>2) apt-get install knode
>3) knode&
Pedant point: apt-get install [newsreader of choice];
[newsreader of choice].
In my case, for example, I use slrn. Simple, if a bit primitive.
Others can use tin, trn, a newsreader under Emacs (interesting
idea, that!), FreeAgent (if one is using wine), or even roll
their own (I intend to do that at some point). One wouldn't
use & with slrn, BTW: it's terminal-based and would get
slightly confused (easily rectified with a 'fg', however).
Pedant point #2: Debian has apt-get; other distributions
have their own rules (Slackware, for example, requires
one to download and unpack a tar file -- primitive, but does
allow one to understand precisely the mechanics involved;
RedHat can do "rpm -i ftp://...";, although I'm not sure it's
quite as elegant as Debian since Debian's dselect can automatically
resolve dependencies).
Pedant point #3: Not all newsreaders are distributed with the
Linux distributions (although most of the major ones are).
>
>Windows:
>1) fire up a web browser
Or use FTP, in some cases.
>2) navigate to the newsreader company's website
>3) sort through 3 or 5 layers of hyperlinks to find the obscurely
> located 'free trial version'
>4) download to hard drive
>5) double-click installation executable
>6) exit installation program and close all other running programs
>7) double-click installation executable
>8) scroll down and click "I accept" to a legally binding contract you
>didn't read
>9) accept all defaults
>10) click 'start' and navigate to the program icon, usually under
> a submenu named after the company (fortunately "branding" no
> longer involves a hot iron)
>11) grant permission to clobber the installation of competing products,
> making this the 'default application'
>12) scan past the 'buy now' button and click the 'buy later' button
> (it's a lie, but the only way to start the program)
>13) read about all the great features in the full version you're missing
> and click 'ok'
All of this is more or less applicable to any download, if it's
shareware or tryware.
>
>I could have gone a lot further overboard with this and maybe thrown
>in a reboot; this comparison isn't an exaggeration. Commercial
>software will always be a hassle because its purpose is not to serve
>your needs, but those of some business.
Commercial software is intended to make a profit. Its being useful
to somebody is a useful, but not always top-priority, side effect.
(However, competition will in fact ensure that its usefulness will
be improved, as one can always go to the competition if the
software is *not* useful. And, if the competition is free, well,
even better! Puts their buns in the fire....)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- nothing worse than burnt buns...
EAC code #191 27d:06h:23m actually running Linux.
Use the source, Luke.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ease and convenience
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 11:12:03 -0600
On Sun, 27 May 2001 17:14:54 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>Others can use tin, trn, a newsreader under Emacs (interesting
>idea, that!) <snip>
Some days I wonder why we don't just do away with linux and use Emacs
as the OS. ;o)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ease and convenience
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 17:25:54 GMT
"?" said: (non Ascii charicter I am not using mime, tis evil)
<snip to conserve bandwith (when did that bit of netiqute go away?)>
> I smell a LinBigot troll ....
Um, this is COLA...you know the group that has a description (assuming your
newsreader can read them) "Benefits of Linux compared to other operating
systems". Of-Freaking-course we are LinBigots, that's _why_ we are here.
"Ai Cthulhu!! Eat the WinDolts first will ya, Big Guy, please?."
--
The social dynamics of the net are a direct consequence of the fact
that nobody has yet developed a Remote Strangulation Protocol.
--Larry Wall
------------------------------
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, 27 May 2001 17:26:05 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 26 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>[snip]
>> >I don't agree. Windows *can't* succeed without
>> >application software, and that software *can't* be
>> >written without a development toolchain.
>>
>> It did. When Win3 became "popular", the only software available was
>> Word for Windows 1.0 and DOS applications. The forcing of developers to
>> support Windows, well documented in several legal inquiries, was
>> after-the-fact.
>
>No. Microsoft's toolchain was available from
>Windows 1 forward.
"Available" is irrelevant. You act as if providing an API is itself
anti-competitive. That's ludicrous.
>> >Microsoft *must* provide enough of the
>> >elements to have a viable platform; Windows
>> >by itself is not enough.
>>
>> So?
>
>So those other elements are also critical;
>not just Windows itself.
You are entirely incorrect; no other elements are necessary, nor would
any combination of elements be sufficient, save the one. Just the
monopoly (DOS, Windows, PC OSes; whatever you call it) itself.
>[snip]
>> >You sure about that? Have you compared
>> >the marketshare of VB against (say) Delphi?
>>
>> I have not, because it is irrelevant. The marketshare of Windows versus
>> other platforms that Delphi or VB support
>
>What other platforms does Delphi support? VB certainly
>supports none.
It is irrelevant; are you paying any attention, or just responding
randomly?
>> is sufficient to prove illegal monopolization.
>
>So, success is *in and of itself* illegal and wrong
>in your view? No matter how it is accomplished?
No, monopolization is clearly and specifically illegal. What does this
have to do with success?
This isn't "my view" we are talking about; quite playing childish games
with rhetoric. If you would like me to explain to you how it is
concretely known that no competitive actions can possibly cause
monopolization, just ask. Pretending this is not a complete and correct
part of valid economic theory since Adam Smith isn't the best approach.
>[snip]
>> >But that's not really my point. It's not
>> >just that Windows needed MS to provide
>> >the tools to take off; MS has to provide
>> >a toolchain so taht they can promulgate
>> >their new technologies through it.
>>
>> "Take off." "Tool chain." What the fuck is this gibberish supposed to
>> mean?
>
>"Take off" refers to the events of 1990-1991, when
>Windows went from being a curiosity to being
>something akin to standard equipment. It was most
>dramatic.
Maybe to clueless people like you; I was there. There wasn't anything
at all dramatic about it. Windows finally worked well enough that MS
could start force-bundling to kill off the threat of competition from
the Macintosh. No "events" occurred at all, from the industry
perspective. Naive consumers who weren't aware of the forced bundling
(now clearly and concretely evidenced by MS's internal documents) are
supposed to imagine this as some dramatic explosion of popularity for
Windows, but it was the technical advances implemented in Windows286/386
that was the real 'dramatic' change. Consumers didn't know anything
about this, of course, so the additional polish in Windows3.0, and the
major bug fixes in Win3.1, were considered 'the big deal'. The only
kind of 'deal' that had anything to do with Window3's claim to fame was
the OEM deals and the dishonest manipulation of the developer base.
>A "tool chain" is a set of programs that together
>create software executables. Typically you
>have some sort of code editor, a debugger, a
>compiler, a linker, and in Microsoft's case
>there was also a resource-compiler.
>
>Those are the *minimum* you need;
>MS will sell you much more today.
Nobody cares.
>But without those tools, there could
>be no Windows software at all; Windows
>could not have succeeded.
Thus, the tools are part of Microsoft's bid to monopolize with Windows.
Get it?
>[snip]
>> >They can't stay competitive if they
>> >can't do that.
>>
>> They can't be competitive as long as they monopolize. Get it?
>
>Um, no, I don't. Why not?
Because monopolizing is being anti-competitive. If they competed at
all, they would immediately lose their illegal monopoly. Free markets
don't tolerate monopolization (nor can they exist when monopolization
does); this is why they are illegal. Get it?
Unlikely, so let's try another way. If you had a lock on a market that
had nothing to do with how good or cheap your product was, why would you
waste money making it better or cheaper? Even you wouldn't be that
stupid; monopolists cannot be competitive because they *must* make all
modifications or changes or packaging or change in price of a product do
one thing, protect the monopoly. This kind of intent does not allow for
these changes to improve the product, competitively, because they are
anti-competitively inspired. Microsoft *cannot* improve their product;
all they can do is make more money off of monopoly crapware.
Like any monopolized commodity, it just gets worse and more expensive.
Since MS's monopoly is in software, a lot of people are like yourself:
too ignorant to understand that it does, in fact, in the real world,
absent any logical fallacies or spin, keep getting worse and more
expensive, with every change. MS is designing it for the wrong thing
(to protect monopoly, rather than to compete) and so it is badly
designed.
--
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, 27 May 2001 17:26:06 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 26 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Oh dear. You don't undersand how the toolchain
>> >works, huh?
>>
>> I know for a fact that it doesn't matter. Get it?
>
>Yet you bring up irrelevancies like MFC.
>
>It would help you argue your case if you
>did understand these technical matters.
I do understand these technical matters. Which is why, as I've
explained, I know for a fact that it has nothing to do with the matter.
It is a logical fallacy on your part that you consider that it does.
>> >MFC is quite a limited thing.
>>
>> No shit. Really?
>
>Really.
>
>> >It's a bunch
>> >of C++ classes that are frankly kind of
>> >obsolete. MS can't abandon them completely
>> >because that would piss off developers.
>>
>> Or, rather, more honestly, would screw developers over
>> even more than they are already.
>
>Microsoft is quite supportive of
>its developers, really. It tries hard not
>to piss them off.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! 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, 27 May 2001 17:26:07 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 26 May 2001
>"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:vOPP6.45765$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>Architectually speaking, it's unwise to do it this way.
Since when would that stop Microsoft from doing it that way?
The goal, remember, is to maintain monopoly; architecture is an
also-ran, priority wise, along with any other sane engineering
requirements.
--
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, 27 May 2001 17:26:08 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 26 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>[snip]
>> >Neither could 16 bit programs, if by "desktop" you
>> >mean that software.
>>
>> You are incorrect, Daniel. The desktop being described was capable of
>> much more than simple file management.
>
>What else could it be? What else could
>it do?
Think harder.
>> Whether it included a toolkit, a
>> la modern GUIs, is beside the point.
>
>Modern file managers do not include
>GUI toolkits, actually. They use them,
>but the toolkit is external.
The toolkit is non-existent. It is a fanciful term you use for
something else. You have apps, and you have OSes; toolkits are neither,
and are thus meaningless in discussions of the relationship between apps
and OSes.
Unless you want to swap 'OS' for "toolkit", which seems to be close to
whatever dishonest metaphor you're trying to build here, claiming
desktops are file managers. That's fine, but then you have to stick
with it, and so then the question of OS goes away, and MS is
monopolizing PC toolkits.
Whichever.
>> Rick didn't mean "GUI toolkit" when he said "desktop".
>
>Then he was throwing up a red herring;
No, you were. Rick is more honest than you are.
>but I think Rick *believed* he was being
>relevant in some way; he does not seem
>to know the difference.
He knows it differently than you do. But, in the end, it isn't
knowledge, but intellectual ability, which provides understanding. You
don't seem to know why there is a difference, how to use the difference,
or what to make of the difference. But you're willing to waste our time
quibbling about the difference. Why is that?
--
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, 27 May 2001 17:26:09 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 26 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> >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?
>
>I didn't know you had discussed this in 1997. It took
>so long because in *this* thread there were't
>all that many clues.
Every word is a clue. Think harder. (What, did you think I was
*kidding*? Guffaw.)
>> More importantly, why didn't you already know it was true?
>
>Well, it's njot what anyone else means
>by the terms; but I don't expect that you'll
>ever be able to understand *that*; the
>trick to talking to you is understanding
>what you mean by these words.
Yes, it is exactly what others mean by the terms. If I wished to use
different words, I would do so.
So, read them again, and think about it for a bit: you are being
dishonest in your posts.
[...]
>> I've been using those exact words for years. Are you going to dispute
>> this correlation?
>
>Not at all. I do wonder why you switched to
>"dishonest" instead of "willfully ignorant",
>though, if you had been using the later term.
I did not "switch". They are two different terms, and therefore mean
two different things. If you want to figure out what the difference is,
you only have to do one thing: think harder.
--
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, 27 May 2001 17:26:10 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 26 May 2001
>"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > Oh, I see. Invisible price hikes.
>> >
>> > Of course. :/
>>
>> I'm going by memory to some extent. It's pretty difficult to
>> recover those old prices, ah well. I suppose an easy answer is
>> to allude to the cost of frequent upgrades. But that's a mere
>> cavil. One could mention that, the higher up the user chain
>> (e.g. normal versus developer versions, server versus workstation),
>> the more Microsoft gouges, but that might simply be due to
>> the lower volume of sales or the expectancy of higher quality
>> support.
>
>Calling *that* gouging is a strech; Microsoft's
>stuff is frequently cheaper than its competition; compare
>SQL Server to Oracle for instance.
Gouging has nothing to do with price versus the competition, Dan.
Something is called gouging because it is a higher price than the
commodity is "worth"; comparison to putative competition is beside the
point. You just compare the quality and quantity of the item against
the price, and if it is gouging it is gouging. Whether it is a
"stretch" or a "metaphor" or a "contract in restraint of trade" is
pointless to discuss unless you learn the meaning of the term.
>Server products are expensive because they do have
>a smaller market to recover their costs in, and they
>do have to meet higher demands in that market, and
>they do need to offer strong support to be competitive.
And so we begin to understand why MS's SQL Server is much cheaper than
just about all of its putative competitors.
>> I found Workperfect Office and Microsoft Office XP in Provantage,
>> and their prices at each level of service were comparable (and
>> both very high in my book).
>
>Not very surprising; any Office product worth
>its salt gives you a *lot* of functionality.
Kind of like there's *lots* of empty chambers when you're playing
russian roulette.
--
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
******************************
