Linux-Advocacy Digest #94, Volume #35 Sun, 10 Jun 01 00:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: UI Importance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: UI Importance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: UI Importance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:20:57 GMT
Said JS \ PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 9 Jun 2001 15:30:18
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> Why are you spending money to make up for bad design? You just have
>> money to burn, or do you get a kick-back somewhere? If you wanted to
>> spend the money, that's fine. Why does Microsoft have the power to
>> cause millions of dollars in *OTHER* people's money to be spent in order
>> to make up for bloated monopoly crapware that nobody wants to begin
>> with, but has to get in order to continue to keep up with monopoly churn
>> on a product which is the most notoriously unreliable in the entire
>> field of IT?
>
>I'm NOT having to upgrade hardware, that;'s the whole point. And neither
>will anyone else who's running a 233 or better on 64mb of ram, and has a
>1gig HD. If you can't afford a computer or can't afford the two year upgrade
>cycle get out of the game and stop complaining.
Monopolization in a nutshell: pay up or do without.
>It's pretty simple. Systems
>are growing more complex and bigger as you read this. Get used to it, or sit
>fat and happy in your Model T shaking your fist at all the "whipper
>snappers". Either way makes no difference to the world.
I was used to it when you were in diapers, lad. You think Moore's Law
is something that Bill Gates invented? No, no, we are not complaining
about wanting bigger hardware; we are complaining about needing bigger
hardware. It should be up to the consumer, or the OEM, not Microsoft's
bloated monopoly crapware, to determine when we need to upgrade.
>> Just how stupid are you, sir? It is one thing to tolerate Microsoft; it
>> is something else to celebrate them.
>
>I celebrate Microsoft! Thank you Microsoft for providing me with a crash
>proof OS (Win2k) and thank you for improving it for consumers with the
>upcomming release of WinXP. T Max Devlin thanks you too!
Speak for yourself, dimwit. You can thank them all you want, but from
here it looks like you're just bending over and saying "Give it to me
again, Bill!" <*chuckle*>
--
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 dead on the desktop.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:20:58 GMT
Said Stuart Fox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 10 Jun 2001 00:52:21
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 02:38:57 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>
>> When it happened to our NT server at the office just a couple of months
>> ago, I explained the concept to our NT admin. She finally ended up
>> just shutting down the ftp server altogether, saying that she couldn't
>> find a way to make it work securely.
>>
>> I'm thinking that there has got to be a way to do this with NT, what
>> with ACL's and all. Any pointers from the Winvocates?
>>
>Shouldn't be too hard.
Well, we already knew that; as Bob said, Unix has had a solution for
decades.
>I've never tried just making the ftp directory write
>only, I don't suppose it would be a problem.
I think the more technically competent and objective person might
suppose that was naive of you.
>You could always just put an
>ACL on the directory that denied list to that directory. You'd still get
>access to files, but only if you already knew what they were called. Or you
>could deny list and read, and that should hopefully get the effects you
>desire.
But are you sure this won't flake out the FTP server? IIS? Windows?
IE? Whatever?
>If I get a chance at work on Monday I'll try it and see, it's an
>interesting little test. ;)
Looking forward to it. It would be nice to be a bit mistaken in my
presumption that Murphy Rulez when it comes to Windows. It has to work
correctly sometimes, doesn't it?
But I suspect you might have been better off waiting until after your
test before presuming the reliability of monopoly crapware. But that's
just my opinion. I could be wrong.
--
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 dead on the desktop.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:20:59 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 9 Jun 2001 18:11:30
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 02:38:57 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>
>> > My latest disaster with NT was a box set up as an ftp
>> > server by someone who follows the updates and patches
>> > pretty closely but it still ended up with a directory named
>> > 'PRN' last weekend that couldn't be removed and a bunch
>> > of hidden files under it that half the world was downloading,
>> > consuming most of our internet bandwidth. Security?
>>
>> You know, I had that happen to me years ago on a Unix box. I quickly
>> figured out how to make "write only" upload directories so people could
>> still send me stuff but the kiddies wouldn't be able to use the machine
>> as a drop box (anonymous could upload but couldn't see or read the
>> files he uploaded).
>>
>> When it happened to our NT server at the office just a couple of months
>> ago, I explained the concept to our NT admin. She finally ended up
>> just shutting down the ftp server altogether, saying that she couldn't
>> find a way to make it work securely.
>>
>> I'm thinking that there has got to be a way to do this with NT, what
>> with ACL's and all. Any pointers from the Winvocates?
>
>She didn't know how to do it?
>Strange, it's very easy.
>Okay, here is how do to it:
>
>cacls *.* /t /p Everyone:W
>
>This should turn all the files (and all sub directirues) to write only.
Now, is that going to automatically apply to all new files added through
either local or ftp access?
--
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: Argh - Ballmer
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:21:00 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 09 Jun 2001 01:40:43
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
[...]
>> If you have a situation where you have some secret government
>> cyber coding project, you can still GPL this code and not release
>> it or the binaries to the public.
>>
>> I don't think a regular copyright would do any more for
>> security of secret processes.
>
>That is how the gov. keeps secrets... they don't copyright anything that
>is of value.
That is how everyone keeps secrets. If something is copyright, it
should be open to public view. Thus, *any* copyrighted work funded by
the government should be GPL, as Charlie has said. Any other license
enables the copyright itself to be subverted by incorporating "the code"
into a proprietary (secret) product. ONLY GPL makes it acceptable to
allow commercial developers to benefit in any way from government-funded
development.
--
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: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:21:01 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 9 Jun 2001 21:46:11
>"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9ftphv$7gm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > If they wanted 9x on IA64, *then* they would've to rewrite a different
>> > OS. Imagine, 32 bit OS on a 64 bits Chip using 16 bits code that it
>> > inherit from an 8 bit OS designed to run on a 4 bit chip. Yuck!
>>
>> produced by a 2 bit company that can't stand one bit of competition?
>>
>
>Yeah, I couldn't remember the 2 bit part.
>
>Why the 2 bit, though?
"Two bits" is a term for the 25 cent coin, the quarter. It is derived
from the old coins known as a "pieces of eight", which could be broken
into sections; two bits was 'a quarter' of a dollar coin. A "2 bit
company" is a derogatory term indicating lack of both competence and
legitimacy.
--
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
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:21:02 GMT
Said Edward Rosten in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 09 Jun 2001
>> for i in *.zip; do mv $i $(echo $i|sed 's/\(.*\)\.zip/\1.blah/');done
>
>> There will now follow a big flame thread about how I'm an idiot and the
>> above command is completely wrong and will destroy the world.
>
>Indedd, this is a religous issue.
>
>The one TRUE way is as follows:
>
>ls *.zip | sed -e's/\(.*\).zip/mv & \1.blah' | sh
>
>or than again, you could xargs instead of sh, or find instead of ls, or
>grep instead of *.zip, etc, etc, etc.
>
>Either way, there's about a billion trivial ways of doing it which are
>perfectly effective and more flexibe than the
>
>rename *.a *.b
>
>method (ie you can put a grep in there for more advanced pattern
>matching, or use another program instead of mv if you want to perform
>another operation), which is probably why us UNIX users don't miss the
>rename command at all.
>
>Once again, UNIX rules!
Well, maybe in comparison to monopoly crapware, at least. ;-)
Personally, I find myself doing 'rename *.a *.b' relatively frequently,
and am disappointed that the syntax isn't supported in Unix shells
(though I certainly understand why it isn't, and don't consider it a
failing, merely a deficiency.)
But Unix does rule, so I'm glad to hear this can be done. I would like
to make an 'alias' or a 'script' or something so that on my Linux box, I
can use the 'rename' command with syntax equivalent to how it works on
Windows. It needs to be really robust, so that I can forget all about
how it works, just type it in and it will always 'do the right thing'.
This should include supporting '*.' for files without "extensions", and
it would be even nicer if it also did better than Microsoft's
implementation by correctly handling multiple periods or alternate
delimiters. Any suggestions from the ubergeeks?
--
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
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:21:04 GMT
Said John Jensen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 9 Jun 2001 18:16:03 GMT;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>: Said John Jensen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 14:25:07
>: >In comp.sys.mac.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: >> Said John Jensen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 03 Jun 2001 21:25:22
>: >
>: >>>This is a complex question. There have been some pretty good choices
>: >>>for PC operating systems, but most people decided to stick with
>: >>>Microsoft.
>: >
>: >> "Decided to not decide", you mean? As in, didn't have a choice?
>: >
>: >This argument is usually made by people with an agenda.
>
>: That statement is a good way to pretend that you, uniquely, do not have
>: an agenda. In point of fact, the agenda the person making that argument
>: (me) has is upholding federal law. Go figure; a nefarious plot, to be
>: sure.
>
>I'm not the one pretending.
Then why are you hinting that my agenda is a bad thing, simply because
it is an agenda, but you fail to be clear on what your own agenda is?
>: >I certainly remember
>: >choices through the whole thing. I used CP/M 86 before the IBM PC showed
>: >up, and I remember that OS being made available for the PC very early.
>: >Dozens of OSes have shown up for the PC architecture since then.
>
>: So why did you not choose CP/M again when the PC became available? If
>: there is an alternative that nobody ever selects, is it really a
>: "choice"? Are you going to even bother examining the alternatives, or
>: the reasons that nobody chose them, or just keep making assumptions?
>
>I was using CP/M 68K and CP/M Z8000 at the time (early 80's). We _chose_
>to use DOS initailly, but ... let's see what all I've used (I'll limit it
>to the workplace) on PC hardware:
Yes, you "chose" it because you agreed that it was the only
cost-effective alternative. In other words, you did not "choose" it,
because the reason it was cost-effective was not competitive merit, but
purposeful attempts at monopolization by Microsoft. Sorry you were
unaware of this, but your bruised ego is not compelling refutation of
the facts.
> DOS, Windows, Concurrent DOS, QNX, SCO UNIX, Unixware, Solaris x86,
> OS/2, and Linux.
>
>: >There was always someone who could decide to use them.
>
>: As there is always someone who 'could' decide not to use a computer at
>: all, or to substitute a calculator or a pad and pen.
>
>True, and I don't think that changes anything.
Well then, why do you think the fact that 95% of PC purchasers "chose"
Windows is not clear and obvious evidence that none of them "chose"
Windows at all, but had to accept it to purchase a PC cost-effectively?
>: >Microsoft's OSes were certainly the most promenent choice, and the
>: >nearest to a default choice that we've ever seen, but it was a choice.
>
>: One would think, so, if one never overcame one's naive assumptions, and
>: one never bothered to actually check. It turns out that, regardless of
>: how possible some alternative choice to MS-DOS was theoretically
>: available (if not 'prominent'), nobody much *chose* it.
>
>A spelling flame, you must be loosing.
Spelling flame? Where?
>: The PPL was not about having a choice. MS-DOS wasn't a "prominent
>: choice", it was a "monopoly". Monopolies are illegal in this country,
>: and, no, it doesn't matter how you got them. (Or, rather, there is no
>: competitive way to get them, so only illegal anti-competitive strategies
>: could cause one to form.)
>
>: If you think DOS became the prominent choice because of competitive
>: merit, then you simply don't know much about the matter. A more careful
>: and reasoned examination makes the situation more clear.
>
>They were a monopoly also.
They who? IBM? How?
>I think monopolies can commonly arise from
>market choice (dirty deeds certainly help). The only other way is for
>monopoly to be granted by law. That didn't happen in Microsoft's case.
There are no monopolies granted by law, except metaphorically. Patent,
for instance, is often described as 'a monopoly'. Legally, that is
incorrect. Monopolization, ostensibly any attempt to benefit from
'monopoly', is very explicitly and completely outlawed by the Sherman
Act. In a society based on rule-of-law, there are no "legal"
monopolies, because there is no sovereign king to grant exclusive rights
to some section of 'the commerce' (the root of the term 'monopoly'
itself). In the modern world, the 'granted by law' thing is called a
public utility, and it is not allowed to engage in commercial
competition. (Nor, of course, is any commercial business allowed to
compete with it.)
Your thoughts are in contradiction to unrefuted economic and legal
facts: monopolies cannot arise from market choice, only dirty deeds
(anti-competitive actions) can produce monopoly power. No amount of
market power (market share) makes anti-competitive actions legal or
acceptable, so no naturally arising monopolies are possible in a
capitalist free market system.
Your position is based on naivete. Please don't get offended by that
observation. Feel free to ask questions.
--
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
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:21:05 GMT
Said John Jensen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 9 Jun 2001 18:27:45 GMT;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>: Said John Jensen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 14:18:35
>
>: >I'll give you this much:
>: >
>: > I think it is possible to discuss "better" and "worse" UIs, but only
>: > in the context of a target audience.
>
>: Sort of begging the question, isn't it?
>
>No, just a statement in opposition of any stated or implied "one size fits
>all" UI strategy.
I don't recall anyone but you claiming that one size could possibly fit
all. You are building straw men, presuming your conclusions, and
arguing ad absurdum (by only expressing the opposing case in extreme
terms like "one size fits all").
>: >IMO it is mis-application of what we (the industry) have learned about UI
>: >to discuss it without defining the target audience (or to assume that what
>: >you've learned in one audience will totally carry over into another).
>
>: I think that is tap-dancing. There are objectively more efficient and
>: less efficient interface designs. No examination of individual
>: preference is really necessary, though I don't suggest it wouldn't be
>: helpful once you have the basics down.
>
>You accuse me of tap-dancing, but you pretend "target audience" must be
>reduced to "individual preference".
Well, it must. What can I say?
>I think it might be more productive to consider medium sized groups, like
>corporate knowledge workers, or casual home users.
Not all casual home users have the same individual preferences, though.
And, in fact, some may share preferences with 'corporate knowledge
workers'. As a matter of fact, quite often one person is in both
groups!
I think the reason you are consternated by my approach is because you
are really thinking "target market", but you can't jibe that use of the
term 'market' with the prevailing assumption that all businesses
essentially try to monopolize at all times, so 'market' and 'audience'
and 'whole groups' all become interchangeable, and meaningless,
abstractions. The 'target audience' of some product is the *subset* of
people who find your product *acceptable*, but still *prefer* other
products over yours. It isn't ever "the whole market"; it is just who
you are trying to sell too. Since the modern myth about
business-is-monopolization contradicts this idea that you could possibly
not want to sell to the whole market, you get confused.
And I'll admit, I don't help the situation by steadfastly refusing to
use confused terminology like you do, just to avoid confusion. Sorry
about that.
>: Sure, every user would be better off with an entirely unique and
>: personalized interface. That isn't pragmatic. That 'target audience'
>: for a UI is "anyone using this UI", so your theory really doesn't seem
>: very convincing, I'm afraid.
>
>Look around, we've go one of those perennial GUI/CLI threads going.
Not here, no. Other people's posts, maybe, but not here. I avoid the
perennial discussion, as it is rather pointless. Here, I intend to nail
down with some certainty whether this is, in fact, the perennial GUI/CLI
threads, or just thinly masked defense of monopoly crapware.
>Each
>side thinks their UI is "better" for whatever and wants to convice the
>other. Maybe CLI addicts are different than GUI addicts. It might be a
>concrete example of something that can be applied to one audience and not
>another.
That might well be true, but it has little to do with what I have been
talking about. Well, actually, I guess I'm overstating the case, there.
CLI 'addicts', as you call them (people who prefer a CLI interface) are
simply more technically competent, on the whole, then GUI 'addicts'
(those who believe the CLI is not merely arcane yet efficient, but
archaic and inefficient). There is an objective backbone to the GUI/CLI
debate. Not everyone requires that *particular* technical competence of
being able to use a CLI, but certainly every computer user should be
able to attain that *level* of technical competence. It isn't really
that hard. It isn't the GUI that we rail against; there is nothing
wrong with simplifying an interface. It is ignorance we have a problem
with; there is no benefit to *oversimplifying* an interface.
>I'm sure there are some general rules that apply across broad ranges of
>user groups, but I object to those who assume their preferences or
>opinions apply everywhere.
There are times when clicking is more efficient than typing. At those
times, a GUI is objectively better, and at all other times it is not.
As a tool the GUI is incredibly powerful. As a crutch, it is a crutch
and a drug.
--
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: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:21:07 GMT
Said daniel in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 03 Jun 2001 23:49:16 GMT;
>I have witnessed first hand how many large organizations can operate
>for years with completely skewed thinking in place which can seriously
>block its potential to do better things.
>
>It seems clear to me that this is going on at Microsoft to a major
>degree with respect to 1) interoperability with other platforms, and
>2) with respect to the open protocols and standards which enable
>technology to progress and develop around the world.
>
>Apparently some parties at the company believe that it helps their
>company to severly limit their products' capacity to interoperate with
>other platforms, such as with Linux.
Here's the bitch. They are right. It is an enormously successful scam.
>As simple example of this is the
>fact that from a Windows machine you cannot access an ext2 filesystem
>without a 3rd party application like Explore2fs, while with Linux most
>stock kernels are compiled out of the box with FAT and VFAT support
>and go so far as to set up an fstab entry to automatically mount a FAT
>or VFAT filesystem each time the system runs.
>
>Microsoft is being extremely foolish by pretending that what it
>considers as competing platforms don't exist. They gain nothing from
>not providing interoperability support and only bolster their
>reputation as being a stodgy, profit-first mentality company that
>wants to force people down a certain path.
What more do you need to gain when you have 95% of the market locked in
to your products?
>Now what if they actually did provide support for the ext2 filesystem?
>Not only would their product be more usable, the company as a whole
>would, if not gain more acceptance, at least receive less criticism
>from the community of users who may use a Microsoft platform in
>addition to other platforms.
>
>If I were the president of the company I would have the people
>responsible for this sort of mentality out immediately. To operate as
>a company with such a high degree of market domination from a paranoid
>point of view like this is outrageous.
Hand in your resignation, then. It was the president of the company
(and the CEO, chairman of the board, and every other high-level
executive) that was responsible for that sort of mentality. Some regard
Gates as a marketing genius. Other's believe he is a megalomaniacal
criminal.
>Let us look at another thing: the DOS shell. The DOS shell is
>basically a nearly useless joke. Why not implement a real shell
>environment such as BASH?
Why do so? Will it increase sales? How do you increase sales when you
already have the whole market locked in?
>But I wonder if the people who set policy
>at Microsoft even have the capability to see how the BASH shell is
>such an important part of Linux and why it is so popular.
Well, I doubt they're concerned with bash specifically. How much do you
know about DR-DOS? It, like bash, had a CLI that was much superior to
MS-DOS. Have you read the Halloween Documents?
> Having a
>full, feature-rich shell environment which underlies the gui and which
>provides full-functionality in every respect such that the gui becomes
>almost secondary (in many instances it is truly secondary) means that
>the core of the OS is solid and robust.
>
>If I were the president of Microsoft I would be highly interested in
>the Cygwin project and would want to see most of what it does
>implemented natively in Windows and integrated into the shell (or
>replace the DOS shell).
Why not just open the source to Windows, and base XPv2 on Linux?
>With respect to open standards and RFCs again the way Microsoft
>operates is a mess.
Actually, it is a carefully orchestrated way to exploit the Internet
without threatening their application barrier.
>With as much weight as they have why don't they
>realize that operating with a profit-first mentality in a state of
>paranoia they stunt their potential to work in a flourishing
>environment with the developer community of the world and, should they
>choose to contribute (not dictate) to the development of standards
>would gain greater acceptance and realize greater benefit to users
>around the world?
Because Balmer is a thug, and Gates is a megalomaniac, that's why. You
didn't think there was some *technical* reason to build crapware on
purpose, did you?
>When I read the findings of fact from the antitrust trial I was so
>glad that this information was published and acknowleged. Every
>finding was correct and also a serious problem.
You want a real thrill, check into the Caldera/DR-DOS case. The dirt
they dug up on Microsoft makes even the stuff in the anti-trust trial
seem relatively tame. Thanks to the facts brought to light by Caldera,
we know for a fact, for example, that MS really did force-bundle
Windows3, all those years ago, and they didn't even lower the price,
charging full price for both DOS and Windows. It also conclusively
proves that MS was fraudulent in their representations during the
investigation in the early 90s, and that they purposefully engineered
the consent decree to be worthless, given the loopholes they managed to
include.
>I think what Microsoft is protecting has nothing to do with business
>actually. I think that really a large bureaucracy of lazy and inept
>mangement want to cover its ass and protect its way of life.
No, that would be actual business. ;-)
>Silicon
>Valley has witnessed over the years how new and innovative ways of
>thinking and operating can lead to exciting developments and great
>gains in the technological world. But young companies that are
>versatile, innovative, and put an emphasis on creativity and reward
>innovators more than policy makers often change. Maybe the real war
>that has to be fought at Microsoft is an internal one.
Maybe you are simply deluded into thinking there is any competitive in
MS to begin with that the monopolist faction might "fight against".
They've been pulling the same scams since years before MS-DOS even
existed. But when you dominate the software industry so thoroughly,
even the most technically astute developers are going to fail to
understand this, and become deluded, as you were previously, into
thinking that MS's products aren't simply the worst alternative at the
worst price, "chosen" only because there is no other choice, thanks to
Microsoft's own intentional illegal activities.
--
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
******************************
