Linux-Advocacy Digest #813, Volume #34 Sun, 27 May 01 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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!
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 21:59:19 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> > > Yes, I am sure. [snip] This one went away quite a while ago.
> >
> > I'm sure; that's like stamping a big neon sign saying
> > "pirate me" on the disks.
>
> How so? If it says you can take it home and use it as long as you
> don't use both copies at once, how can you pirate it by doing that?
How are you supposed to ensure that nobody uses
the work copy when you use the home copy?
You aren't going to uninstall one before using
the other, are you?
And that's assume all your employees are
nice enough to uninstall the home copy
when they leave you.
> What it was, was MS trying to build market share and then tightening
> the screw once that had been accomplished.
>
> Yes, I know that others play this game. They had a price hike too.
Are they all monopolists too?
> > I am very leary of this reasoning; it seems to me
> > that if we accept this, then practically anything MS
> > does can be reinterpreted as a price hike with
> > but a little creativity.
>
> Seems clear to me. If something costs more than it used to, then there
> has been a price hike, whether they announced one or not. You may get
> more features for that money, but there has still been a price hike.
Okay, but this kind of license terms change isn't as simple
is "it costs more".
> We aren't talking about the average cost per feature, however you'd
> figure that, but the overall price for successive versions of a given
> product.
I thought we were talking about the same product
with different licenses. Is that not so?
[snip]
> > But it's a pretty thin rede to hang the usual
> > conspiracy theories on, if you ask me.
>
> You were trying to say that there had been no price increase. All I'm
> trying to hang on this reed is that there have been price increases and
> your statement was mistaken.
<shrug>
I suppose so; at most it shows that I should
be more careful with terms like "price increases"
around here. :D
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 22:00:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >Your dogma is "monopoly crapware". That statement is of itself, crap.
>
> I have explained the term, routinely. There is not a single
> metaphysical assumption, and I use the word quite falsifiably. There is
> nothing dogmatic about it. For me, anyway. I will admit that if anyone
> should pick up the terminology from me, it takes on the possibility of
> being dogma, should they use it, knowing it is correct, but without
> knowing *why* it is an accurate, consistent, and practical term for the
> kind of software you get when competition is unable to correct stupid
> design decisions by the monopoly producers through market mechanics.
You've never explained the term, routinely or otherwise. You merely state
it without any explanation. You also try to work it into every
conversation you have, however inappropriate.
> >I'll leave you to work which part I think is crap (See later if you can't
> >figure it out. BTW your dogma will get in the way if you let it).
>
> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
> >And if it goes all the way to the highest court in the land, and still
> >gets overturned, what then? Who will the government appeal to then?
>
> Probably Congress. If the Sherman Act is unenforceable, it needs to be
> revised. But that's not going to happen; the only scenario I could see
> having the Supreme Court review this decision is to over-turn a pro-MS
> appellate decision. Should the appellate court not modify Jackson's
> decision substantially, though, the SC will refuse MS's appeal.
My god, a reasonable conversation. This is very rare for you.
> >> Denying it doesn't make it false, either.
> >
> >Do the dance.
> > Twist and turn.
> >Do the dance.
> > Watch it twist and turn,
> >But do the dance.
>
> Denying it does not make it false. Doh!
Repeating it doesn't make it any truer. Doh!
> >Again you're twisting what I said.
>
> I am interpreting what I said. If there is a more reasonable
> interpretation, you should know what it is. So why are you not
> providing it? Why are you again claiming I am "twisting" your words,
> simply because you have run aground in defending illegal and unethical
> behavior?
Because you're trying to make me say something I didn't. I've never
defended illegal or unethical behaviour - you just want to believe that I
do.
> >I don't find "monopoly" and
> >"Microsoft" abhorrent. I do find "crapware" amusing. I find your attempts
> >to twist what I say slightly annoying, but hardly abhorrent.
>
> If you do not find monopoly abhorrent, you either don't understand the
> term, or you are defending illegal and unethical behavior. No twisting
> necessary or performed. Face the facts.
You connect monopoly with illegal or unethical behaviour. You do realise
that in some instances, a monopoly is the best thing!
> >ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
>
> <*Spank*>
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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!
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 22:00:59 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> > It's probably doing that background spellcheck thing
> > that it does. Or the background repagination thing. Or
> > something like that.
>
> I have turn both those things off. They are intrusive
> and unnecessary. The delays still persist.
I don't know what it's doing, then. But presumably
it's doing something.
> > Remember, taking up 100% occasionally doesn't mean
> > much- it means that Word wants to compute something
> > and nobody else wants to compute anything at that
> > particular same time. Any OS with any sense will
> > give Word all of the CPU in those circumstances.
>
> On rare occasion, this event will slow down the
> rest of Windows.
Slow it down a lot?
> Much more importantly, however,
> I have to wait 30 seconds, holding my next great
> thought and the brilliant wording I just conceived,
> while the hour glass sits over my Word document.
> Not a big deal, but very exasperating to me.
That does sound annoying.
> It's these little things that make me appreciate Linux.
> Coming back to work and using Windows is like biking
> over asphalt and then hitting a stretch of beach.
Surely you mean "Word" not "Windows", and
"StarOffice" not "Linux", right?
It's not like this has anything to do with the
OS at all.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 22:06:35 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >Now let me see. What makes a supercomputer? Is it blindingly fast? In
> >this case, no. Can it do massively parallel operations - yes. Is it
> >physically pretty big - yes.
>
> Would you like to play a little game of Thrasymachus and Socrates, then?
>
> It is not physically pretty big, because it is not a single thing with a
> physical extent. It is a combination of many individual *computers*.
> To claim such interactions can make "one big computer" is metaphor, not
> analysis.
One big supercomputer, really.
> >It looks like a supercomputer, it smells like a supercomputer. Oh, sorry,
> >it's not in one building and it consists of a million or so PC's.
>
> It looks like a supercomputer? I take it this means you have never ever
> seen a supercomputer, then.
No, only pictures. Have you seen one?
> >You want your supercomputer pure, is that it?
>
> I want the term to be used accurately, consistently, and practically.
> You can continue to do this with your use of 'supercomputer', so long as
> you remember and recognize that it is a *metaphor*. As such, it is not
> a definition that anyone else has to *ever* take seriously. In other
> words, even if other's understand what you are referring to with the
> word (in knowing that it applies to metaphorical, as well as *real*,
> supercomputers), they, like you, understand that what is being referred
> to is not really a supercomputer. The term is used by analogy.
Why do you want it to be so complex. It seems such a simple thing to me.
It's a supercomputer. It's not a metaphor for one, it _is_ one.
> >ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
>
> You're going to keep getting these little reminders, Pete, if you keep
> posting here. I don't think you even really have a meaning for this
> 'ZZZZZ' thing beyond trying to mock your intellectual superiors. You
> might as well give it up; it does not accurately, consistently, or
> practically provide any communicative value.
What intellectual superiors? You? The one whom I run rings around
regularly? Or did you forget the DirectX debacle!
> >If it's not a supercomputer (and Intel and SETI
> >think it is),
>
> No, Intel and SETI *call* it a supercomputer. That is not quite
> *precisely* the same thing as claiming it *is* a supercomputer. Believe
> me, they understand the metaphor.
Blimey, now you _are_ playing with words!
> >then just what is it? A million or so individual PC's? Is
> >that it? Some might say that a million or so processors makes up a pretty
> >impressive supercomputer. But I guess the purist in you wants to say no!
>
> No, the realist in me needs to say no. If you want to remain vague and
> confused on technical matters, that is your prerogative, I guess. But
> you should stay out of technical newsgroups, then, if you are going to
> pop a circuit breaker every time a term is used by analogy.
Then we must disagree then. I see it as a supercomputer, you do not. You
want to use the metaphor, fine.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 22:12:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >You mean like you do:
> >
> >"T. Max Devlin
> > *** The best way to convince another is
> > to state your case moderately and
> > accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***"
>
> Yes, Pete. Like I do.
I see, and how precisely is "Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha" stating your case
moderately and accurately.
> >I've yet to see you "state your case moderately and accurately".
>
> Normally I would just say "think harder". But in this case it would be
> more accurate to say "read more carefully."
I've still yet to see you state your case moderately and accurately. I
don't need to "think harder" or "read more carefully" because you _don't_
state you case at all. You make a statement, then simply make no reasoned
argument as to _why_ you make that statement. Or you fall back to your
usual "Bwa-ha-ha-ha".
> >I've
> >seen lots of twisty statements, lots of dogma, but precious little in the
> >way of details.
>
> Read more carefully, and stop trying to turn it into a win/lose game.
> You'll get it, eventually. I am firmly convinced that there is no
> properly explained concept that any reasonable person could not
> comprehend.
I repeat the above.
> >Do you have an example of where I've snipped incorrectly. If so, post it.
> >Otherwise shut up!
>
> You might start with the post immediately previous to the one that
> contained the accusation. Doh!
I went back and took a look - I can't see what on earth you're on about.
> >Now what's that supposed to mean, I wonder? Get ME, as in Windows ME? 8)
> >Nah, can't mean that. Oh, so you think you're the resident anti-troller?
> >Actually, I think you _are_ a troll yourself. You prolong arguments
> >without any substance (as you usually do) - the very definition of a
> >troller.
>
> No, a troller does it to incite emotional responses; I do it to point
> out the intellectual emptiness of the sock puppet's position. If all
> that we saw around here were trolls (that weren't also sock puppets for
> MS, either intentionally or not) then I certainly would not waste very
> much time on you or the others.
Yet here you are wasting time. Why are you doing it? You're certainly not
doing it to "state your case accurately or moderately", so what are your
motives? I think you're trolling.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 22:14:17 GMT
In article <9eqjet$656$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > I'm getting tired of your lies. Either post an example or shut up!
>
> I posted at least 3 examples in the "Another Linux OOPSIE" thread and you
> ignored all three of them. Since you'll simply ignore the next ones I
> post, I see no point in bothering.
You want me to repeat myself? I've already explained those. As I said
before, Linux/Mandrake/The Gimp is seen by some as _one_ package, not as
a series of discrete ones.
In any case, where did I snip inappropriately there? Care to post an
example for me to examine?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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!
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 22:14:16 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> More context removing snips, so that you can legitimately seem to be
> confused. Actually, you can be legitimately confused, since you dont
> know what you are talking about.
Looks like I've got all my bases covered then!
[snip]
> > I can summarize what I know about Apple IIgs
> > DAs, and let you pick the answer out for youself.
>
> If you dont understand teh questions, its a pretty good idea to ask for
> clarification instead of just spouting off.
Well, I'm asking now: Please tell me what
the heck you are talking about. :(
[snip]
> > I find it difficult to answer questions
> > clearly when I don't know their intent;
> > so I am answering this question rather
> > unclearly; you'll have to pick out what
> > you want to know for yourself.
>
> ... so are they accessible or only indirectly accessible? Hmm? Dont you
> know? I do. Let' see what your squirmy answer is.
They are indirectly accissible to IIgs apps;
that is, the apps use APIs that access the
DAs, but never touch the DAs directly.
The DAs can of course open windows and
give the user a user interface, but the
app they are running in doesn't get to do
much about that.
[snip]
> > > Users rarely booted apps directly from floppies as IIe users did.
> >
> > Sure they did, except for those few who
> > had hard disks.
>
> Mo, they didnt, especially after GSOS 5.x and 6.x came out.
Back then a lot of programs still didn't like
being installed on hard disks, as I recall.
> > Remember, the IIgs was pretty much exclusively
> > a home machine. Most of its apps were actually
> > games.
>
> Most of its apps were ... games? Care to give some sort of evidence for
> that?
Hmmm. A little googling will turn up
IIgs download (warez) sites which cover
a lot of IIgs software, and its mostly games.
Not proof, but I evidence at least.
[snip]
> No, your dishonest context removing snips remove context.
> I said the ORIGINAL desktop was 8 bit.
And you meant by this that you got that
file manager of yours from Apple. Okay.
What significance has this, though?
[snip]
> > > Yes, you did. There have been a couple of * bit GUIs available for the
> > > IIs.
> >
> > I suppse you mean by this file managers again.
> >
>
> You really are a one track person arent you. I suppose you think the c;
> prompt is a file manager too.
It's a shell. Same concept, but quite different
in execution. The C:/ prompt *is* just an
(MS-DOS) application, albeit packaged
as a .COM rather than a .EXE.
> That pretty picture thing you use to
> launch apps, print, get to the calculator.. you know that stuff. That
> just a file manager?
You bet.
> Was GEOS a "file mangager"? (oops, did that scare you?). Was Catalyst?
> Mouse desk? All file managers?
GEOS had an API, as I recall: so no, it was
not just a file manager.
I don't know Catalyst; I think Mouse desk
was an integrated application suite,
but I'm not sure. It's been awhile.
[snip]
> > Yes. Mousetext is closer, but it's really just
> > a sort of font, not a GUI toolbox. It's usable
> > from applications, yes, but it does not give
> > you much.
>
> It gives you the building blocks to put together an interface for the
> user.
Er, no. Not anymore than an ordinary bitmap
display does, anyway.
> Its graphical.
Strictly textual, hence the name.
> You make a graphical user interface.
Well, not *graphical* per se.
[snip]
> > > You can reomve the ProDOS 8 with no ill effects. You couldnt do that
> > > with window$.
> >
> > Actually, there ill effects; you can't launch 8-bit
> > ProDOS programs if you do that.
>
> If you hadnt snipped some much of the context, you would know that I
> already stated that, other then not being able to run 8 bit apps. If you
> run 16 bit apps, you didnt need ProDOS 8, under the "real" GS OS.
> Removig ProDOS 8 didnt cripple ProDOS 16.
Yes. This was of course true of all versions of the GS
system software; deleting ProDOS 8 kept you from
running 8-bit programs, but nothing else.
[snip]
> > But perhaps you could connect the dots for me
> > and explain why being able to remove ProDOS 8
> > at all is *important* to you?
> >
>
> 1. Go back and read all the stuff you snipped.
It didn't help the first time. :D
> 2. You have no idea what the real GSOS was about, or when it came into
> being.
> 3. You have no idea about the hybred GSOS 1.x abd why ProDOS 8 became
> less and less important to GSOS.
I dunno. So far you haven't really said
anything to suggest I've misunderstood it.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 22:15:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> This post of yours that I am responding to is yet another example.
I did not respond because I thought I had already explained - it seemed
pointless going through it again.
Besides, where did I snip in an inappropriate way in those posts?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 23:31:06 -0400
>>Stability doesn't count, I'm afraid, I've stopped running 9x long ago, so
>>I don't suffer from any crashes, BSODs, or anything like this.
>
> Guffaw. If you think NT is stable, you don't know what stable means.
>
Most Windows users think 'Stable' is where horses live ;-)
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 00:44:36 +0200
"Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9ers3g$kn5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> > In article <9eo08s$660$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >
> >> > Neither will KDE.
> >>
> >> Wrong.. KDE2 runs nicely in a P120 with 64MB that i have. Standard Mdk
> >> 7.1 install. Nautilus on the other hand is another story.
> >
> > Sorry, I was thinking of my 32Mbyte P133. KDE ran like a dog. Windows 98
> > SE ran very sweetly. Can't say what Windows 2000 would do (if it would
> > even install).
>
> Well... Windows 98 run reasonable on the same machine.
> You can be certain that W2K does not run good on 32 MByte... in fact a
> friend of mine has a machine with W2K, 64MB and a PIII 550 and even though
> its usable its very very slow indeed
Win2K can be usable on 64MB Ram, and I've used it on 32MB as well.
You can shut down a lot of services that you don't need, and this free up
some resources.
However, I recommend it to > 64MB computers only.
The difference between 80MB & 128MB for normal work load is not very
noticable.
Far less than the change from 64 to 80.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[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!
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 00:47:32 +0200
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 27 May 2001 12:49:46 GMT, Daniel Johnson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > > > Certain perks, such as taking your work copy of Office home, have
> > > > > been eliminated as well.
> > > >
> > > > Are you sure they ever allowed this?
> > >
> > > Yes, I am sure. [snip] This one went away quite a while ago.
> >
> > I'm sure; that's like stamping a big neon sign saying
> > "pirate me" on the disks.
>
> How so? If it says you can take it home and use it as long as you
> don't use both copies at once, how can you pirate it by doing that?
> What it was, was MS trying to build market share and then tightening
> the screw once that had been accomplished.
>
> Yes, I know that others play this game. They had a price hike too.
>
AFAIK, an Office license stills allows you to install it on two computers,
just as long as you don't use both copies at once.
Has this changed?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 00:50:41 +0200
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 27 May 2001 21:39:41 +0200, Ayende Rahien <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > He said that S/390 can run software for many sites (running many
instances
> > of the server, one per site).
>
> Yes. At least one ISP is doing that.
For personal sites? I doubt it.
And that is what we are talking.
> Obviously, you would not use this approach for providing a $9.95/month
> personal hosting service. OTOH, it makes a lot of sense for business
> class hosting, instead of buying and maintaining a bazillon Cobalt
> boxes.
Indeed, but it's the low cost we're talking here, not higher end.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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!
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 22:25:39 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> 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.
That wasn't what I intended; I mean that
Microsoft provided development tools from
the *beginning*.
Just as informaton, when Win3 became
popular there were quite a few other
applications. There could have been
none without the tools.
[snip]
> >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.
Without the development tools, there can be
no apps as strictly technical matter- and that
scuppers the whole deal.
[snip]
> >> 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?
I was curious, that's all.
> >> 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?
You seem to think market dominance is illegal
per se, no matter how accomplished. That's
sure how Microsoft spell success, you know. :D
[snip]
> 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.
I'm asking. :D
> Pretending this is not a complete and correct
> part of valid economic theory since Adam Smith isn't the best approach.
I wouldn't put too much faith in economic
theory, you know. If it were all true and complete,
the economists would be out of a job. :D
[snip]
> >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.
*Developers* care.
> >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?
I'm glad you've come around on the point. :D
[snip]
> >> 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?
No. *Why* are these things true? Why can't MS indulge
both in competitive and anti-competitive behavior?
*Both* favor the ultimate aim of money in Bill's
pocket, don't they?
> 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?
To strengthen my lock, naturally. Wouldn't want
that market to get away.
> 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.
Why? Why not *try* to acquire an additional advantage?
Where's the harm, to Microsoft, in doing so?
The benefits are obvious: it's hedging the bet. Just
in case some nasty court makes MS stop all that
evil mean anti-competitiveness.
> 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.
Why? Why can't MS improve their product *in order to*
eliminate competitors?
> Like any monopolized commodity, it just gets worse and more expensive.
It's getting *better*, quite visibly, actually. Even if you
think it's terrible, it's obviously not as terrible as it
*was*.
You wouldn't suggest that Linux adopt segments,
for instance, would you? Abandon memory mapping
technology? Adopt purely co-operative multitasking?
> 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.
I think the view that MS Windows has been getting
worse with each revision is fairly rare, actually.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
