[discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:43941B12.6080800 @zmsl.com: > I understand that Microsoft /has/ used those methods. Though I've never > heard of the website one (I can't see how that one would work). But for > example, threatening to not advertise on magazines that had reviews of > Netscape (cutting off a significant source of revenue) or threatening > not to sell Windows to suppliers that sold competting OS's for the PC > platform. These are anti-trust violations, and they were found guilty. > The website one is, I agree, difficult even to imagine, let alone to prove. As for the other crimes, they are, as you say, anti-trust violations. They were crimes, that should have been punished. But they are not the methods of organised crime, which involve violence, usually or often against family members as well as the perpetrator. -- Andrew Brown The email in the header does not work. Contact details and possibly useful macros from http://www.darwinwars.com/lunatic/bugs/oo_macros.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
Andrew Brown wrote: The website one is, I agree, difficult even to imagine, let alone to prove. As for the other crimes, they are, as you say, anti-trust violations. They were crimes, that should have been punished. But they are not the methods of organised crime, which involve violence, usually or often against family members as well as the perpetrator. Not all organized crime is violent. Anti-trust violations /are/ a crime and they are also "organized". Same for money-laundry and selling drugs. So comparing Microsoft to oraganized crime seems apt. Yes, they are not violent, but they are criminals, and they are organized. Cheers, Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall. / - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
On 12/6/05, Andrew Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The website one is, I agree, difficult even to imagine, let alone to > prove. > As for the other crimes, they are, as you say, anti-trust violations. They > were crimes, that should have been punished. But they are not the methods > of organised crime, which involve violence, usually or often against > family > members as well as the perpetrator. I believe the one method the original exaggerator was referring to was extortion. The phrase "Nice website, shame if something would happen to it" refers to the criminal activity known as "Protection Money". Where a bully would come in, make vague threats in a backhanded way, and offer to protect the victim for a fee. This is not, however, anything close to what MS did. What MS did with IE that was unethical, (not, however illegal), was to make IE not work properly with standardized HTML. So websites would have to be written differently to work with IE. This, in turn, would make the website appear messed up, (as they actually were) on other standards-based browsers, like Netscape. This is where the 'This page best viewed in Internet Explorer" comes into play. Also, with MS's proprietary IE-only ActiveX software, web designers could do things they couldn't before, unless they used Java. Java, was and still is for the most part, proprietary as well. It just isn't limited to IE or Windows. And it's a better system altogether. But since MS was bundling IE with Windows, and ActiveX with IE - there was no need for the user to download or install anything for the ActiveX websites to work. So you need up with websites that only work, or at least only work well, in Windows' Internet Explorer with ActiveX - that's three layers of control for Microsoft. Microsoft never threatened to do any harm to any one's website. They just built a broken browser, that many web designers wanted to work with, because it was so widespread. Comparing the creation of IE to a Mafia member threatening a local businessman is a large exaggeration. -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ Because everyone loves free software!
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
Chad wrote: > This is not, however, anything close to what MS did. What Microsoft did do, was go to second, third, and fourth tier vendors and say: "Pay us $100 for every system you sell that does _NOT_) contain an operating system. Pay us $200 for every system you sell that contains the operating system of a competitor." If a vendor failed to adhere to that, then the vendor was shut down, and all assets went to Microsoft. Want to explain the difference between that, and paying protection money to the local mafioso? xan jonathon -- This is our sandbox and if we want to throw sand we can
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
On 12/8/05, Jonathon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If a vendor failed to adhere to that, then the vendor was shut down, > and all assets went to Microsoft. Care to give any evidence at all that this happened? Especially the Microsoft getting all their stuff after they closed up shop. -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ Because everyone loves free software!
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
Chadf wrote: > Care to give any evidence at all that this happened? Personal experience. xan jonathon
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
On 12/8/05, Jonathon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Chadf wrote: > > > Care to give any evidence at all that this happened? > > Personal experience. > So Microsoft closed you down by charging you $100 for every computer with no OS, $200 for every computer with a competitors OS, and then, when you refused to pay it, Steve Ballimer and Bill Gates pulled up to your shop in a truck and loaded up all your money, the remaining stock of computers, and striped the store of its shelves, wiring, etc.? I don't doubt that Microsoft makes it difficult for computer stores to sell computers without Windows. But I don't for a second believe they take your stuff when you close down. That's not only illegal, it's impossible. Now, if you owed MS money, then, yeah, they can make you pay them back for that, and maybe even repossess stuff you bought from them on credit and didn't pay for, but that's not the same as your claim that "the vendor was shut down,and all assets went to Microsoft." Give me one shread of evidence that this ever happened. Something I can see, not just your claim of personal experience. If it really did happen to you, show me something to prove it. Send me a link to a story on it. Surely a Microsoft van dragging away your framed first dollar from your newly shutdown store would make headlines. Or the MS enforcers running down the street with your last server hoisted over their shoulders - that would make the news, don't you think? I mean, no offense, but I could claim that Bill Gates personally sent me a check for $500,000.00 just because I use Windows and play Xbox, but that doesn't mean you're gonna believe me. Your claim that Microsoft not only closed your shop, but ceised your assets is equally as bold. -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ Because everyone loves free software!
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
Chad wrote: >But I don't for a second believe they take your stuff when you close down. That's not only illegal, it's impossible. You obviously don't understand how their enforcers work. And equally obvious way out of your depth here. > Give me one shread of evidence that this ever happened. Something I can That was _one_ of the reasons they were charged with anti-trust violations. xan jonathon -- This is our sandbox and if we want to throw sand we can
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
On 12/8/05, Jonathon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Chad wrote: > > >But I don't for a second believe they take your stuff when you close > down. That's not only illegal, it's impossible. > > You obviously don't understand how their enforcers work. Then enlighten me. And equally obvious way out of your depth here. > > > Give me one shread of evidence that this ever happened. Something I can > > That was _one_ of the reasons they were charged with anti-trust > violations. > Then send me a story citing that. Send me anything, Jonathon, anything to backup your claim. If it's true, someone somewhere would have put something on the Internet about it. Microsoft dragging desks and chairs out of bankrupt computer stores would have upset somebody enough to write an article about it. Again, I'm not denying that computer shops have closed as a direct result of Microsoft's bullying. But I am denying ever seeing anything that would make me believe they get the stuff from the closed store. And that is your claim. If that is not your claim, then please explain the statement you made, "the vendor was shut down,and all assets went to Microsoft." A claim I've quoted back to you twice now, and you never denied making, or attempted to clarify. You're making a huge claim, here, Jonathon, and you're not forthcoming with anything to back it up. The ball is in your court. And making further insults about my ignorance may win you friends on the OOo lists, but it won't make you correct or justified in your claims against MS. -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ Because everyone loves free software!
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 10:41 +, Jonathon Blake wrote: > That was _one_ of the reasons they were charged with anti-trust violations. > xan http://www.tbtf.com/resource/netscape-letter.html Letter listing alleged violations http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3226 Microsoft's settlement. If they were not guilty why did they pay a 750m settlement? Whatever the details, MS is a convicted monopolist and has settled other suits out of court. Its really simple enough for a child to understand. -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMS Ltd - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
On 12/8/05, Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 10:41 +, Jonathon Blake wrote: > > > That was _one_ of the reasons they were charged with anti-trust > violations. > > xan > http://www.tbtf.com/resource/netscape-letter.html > > Letter listing alleged violations I saw nothing, not one word in either link, claiming that Microsoft gained anything from OEMs shutting down. Microsoft's settlement. If they were not guilty why did they pay a 750m > settlement? Maybe because it was cheaper than going through the trial, all the lawyer fees, the lost time, the bad press... 750M is a lot to me, but I don't make Billions every month. Whatever the details, MS is a convicted monopolist and has settled other > suits out of court. Its really simple enough for a child to understand. Yes, Ian, it is. Because MS has been convicted of breaking antitrust laws, apparently that means that anyone can accuse them of any action, compare them to any criminal or villian in history, and it's okay, because they've been convicted of a given crime. It makes me wonder, have you, Ian, or you, Jonathon, ever been convicted of any crime? have you ever gotten a speeding ticket? Have you ever been caught with a joint of pot? Have you ever been convicted of Jay walking? If so, maybe I will accuse you of killing my father. Because, *obviously* if you were convicted of one crime, you must be guilty of all crimes. It's really simple enough for a child to understand. A criminal is a criminal, right? Regardless of the details. -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ Because everyone loves free software!
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
On 12/9/05, Chad Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 12/8/05, Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 10:41 +, Jonathon Blake wrote: > > > > > That was _one_ of the reasons they were charged with anti-trust > > violations. > > > xan > > http://www.tbtf.com/resource/netscape-letter.html > > It makes me wonder, have you [snip] ever been convicted of any > crime? have you ever gotten a speeding ticket? Well, Chad, old chap. Now we know you're guilty! One of the surest signs of deep and defenseless guilt is saying "But someone else is also guilty!" So - how much does Microsoft pay you to pump their spin into this list? Are you being paid by the same people who pay that druggie Rush? Say - everyone - here's another call to ban this Microsoft PR spinner from this list. He (or is it she?) doesn't belong here. Every intelligent person on the list wants him off - why is he still here? TM
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
Roger Markus wrote: Well, Chad, old chap. Now we know you're guilty! One of the surest signs of deep and defenseless guilt is saying "But someone else is also guilty!" So - how much does Microsoft pay you to pump their spin into this list? Are you being paid by the same people who pay that druggie Rush? Say - everyone - here's another call to ban this Microsoft PR spinner from this list. He (or is it she?) doesn't belong here. Every intelligent person on the list wants him off - why is he still here? Chad is a waste of our time, at the least. But that's enough to ignore his postings. Cor -- -- | you need it - je hebt het nodig | | | | OpenOffice.org | | | | Cor Nouws, http://www.nouenoff.nl | -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
I don't think you need to be working for MS just to dislike false accusations. I think Chad was very precise in his question. And genuinely interested in finding the truth too. This discussion has been escalating until the question was lost. This was the statement: > If a vendor failed to adhere to that, then the vendor was shut down, > and all assets went to Microsoft. And this was the question related to it: >Care to give any evidence at all that this happened? Especially the >Microsoft getting all their stuff after they closed up shop. I'm sorry if this was answered by the links. I haven't seen an answer in this thread though. /$ 2005/12/9, Roger Markus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 12/9/05, Chad Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 12/8/05, Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 10:41 +, Jonathon Blake wrote: > > > > > > > That was _one_ of the reasons they were charged with anti-trust > > > violations. > > > > xan > > > http://www.tbtf.com/resource/netscape-letter.html > > > > It makes me wonder, have you [snip] ever been convicted of any > > crime? have you ever gotten a speeding ticket? > > > Well, Chad, old chap. Now we know you're guilty! One of the surest signs > of deep and defenseless guilt is saying "But someone else is also guilty!" > So - how much does Microsoft pay you to pump their spin into this list? Are > you being paid by the same people who pay that druggie Rush? > > Say - everyone - here's another call to ban this Microsoft PR spinner from > this list. He (or is it she?) doesn't belong here. Every intelligent > person on the list wants him off - why is he still here? > > TM > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 09:38 +0100, Henrik Sundberg wrote: > This was the statement: > > If a vendor failed to adhere to that, then the vendor was shut down, > > and all assets went to Microsoft. > > And this was the question related to it: > >Care to give any evidence at all that this happened? Especially the > >Microsoft getting all their stuff after they closed up shop. > > I'm sorry if this was answered by the links. I haven't seen an answer > in this thread though. Jonathan cited personal experience. Now that might be all that he has but in the context of all the other evidence it seems plausible and personally I wouldn't want to call him a liar. If you read the background, for example, of the Ernie Ball guitar strings case and the reasons why they migrated to Linux, the evidence is that if that had been a smaller less financially secure company, the action could well have led to the company being shut down. A large multinational filing a law suite against a small company could well result in it going out of business whether or not the small company had done anything at all wrong. If MS proved their grievance, and in the Ernie Ball case it was obviously a genuine mistake, they could then claim the company's assets in compensation. If compensation > assets that gives the exact scenario Jonathan described. So I would say that if something like that happened to Jonathan or a friend or colleague of his, its entirely plausible. Why anyone would want to devote so much time to defending a criminal that is a repeated offender, shows no remorse or willingness to reform is beyond me, especially when that criminal is also the major competitor to our own project. I can only think this is deliberate mischief. -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMS Ltd - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
I've tried to do my homework, by reading the supplied links. I also found Ernie Ball guitar strings at http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html I would have accepted the "Personal experience." answer if it was spelled out just a little more so I could realize it meant all of the statements, including the "and all assets went to Microsoft" part. And I obviously don't understand how their enforcers work. I don't have a clue. As Chad said: "I don't doubt that Microsoft makes it difficult for computer stores to sell computers without Windows." I reread my previous post. The part of false accusations was not aimed at anyone. I'm really sorry that it could be read that way. Groklaw "http://www.groklaw.net/ is my favourite site. Differences of opinions are OK, but not rudeness. The truth is what matters. /$ 2005/12/9, Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 09:38 +0100, Henrik Sundberg wrote: > > > This was the statement: > > > If a vendor failed to adhere to that, then the vendor was shut down, > > > and all assets went to Microsoft. > > > > And this was the question related to it: > > >Care to give any evidence at all that this happened? Especially the > > >Microsoft getting all their stuff after they closed up shop. > > > > I'm sorry if this was answered by the links. I haven't seen an answer > > in this thread though. > > Jonathan cited personal experience. Now that might be all that he has > but in the context of all the other evidence it seems plausible and > personally I wouldn't want to call him a liar. > > If you read the background, for example, of the Ernie Ball guitar > strings case and the reasons why they migrated to Linux, the evidence is > that if that had been a smaller less financially secure company, the > action could well have led to the company being shut down. A large > multinational filing a law suite against a small company could well > result in it going out of business whether or not the small company had > done anything at all wrong. If MS proved their grievance, and in the > Ernie Ball case it was obviously a genuine mistake, they could then > claim the company's assets in compensation. If compensation > assets > that gives the exact scenario Jonathan described. > > So I would say that if something like that happened to Jonathan or a > friend or colleague of his, its entirely plausible. > > Why anyone would want to devote so much time to defending a criminal > that is a repeated offender, shows no remorse or willingness to reform > is beyond me, especially when that criminal is also the major competitor > to our own project. I can only think this is deliberate mischief. > > -- > Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ZMS Ltd > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
Don't forget that MS also has a whole slew of minions to spread rumors against competitors: http://linuxinsider.com/story/37990.html -Lars Lars Nooden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Software patents endanger the legal certainty of software. Keep them out of the EU by writing your MEP, keep the market open. On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Ian Lynch wrote: [snip] If you read the background, for example, of the Ernie Ball guitar strings case and the reasons why they migrated to Linux, the evidence is that if that had been a smaller less financially secure company, the action could well have led to the company being shut down. A large multinational filing a law suite against a small company could well result in it going out of business whether or not the small company had done anything at all wrong. [snip] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 08:18 -0500, Lars D. Noodén wrote: > Don't forget that MS also has a whole slew of minions to spread rumors > against competitors: > http://linuxinsider.com/story/37990.html That's now a 404, at least here. -- Shawn K. Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
On 9 Dec 2005 at 9:12, Cor Nouws wrote: > Roger Markus wrote: > > Well, Chad, old chap. Now we know you're guilty! One of the surest > > signs of deep and defenseless guilt is saying "But someone else is > > also guilty!" So - how much does Microsoft pay you to pump their > > spin into this list? Are you being paid by the same people who pay > > that druggie Rush? > > > > Say - everyone - here's another call to ban this Microsoft PR > > spinner from this list. He (or is it she?) doesn't belong here. > > Every intelligent person on the list wants him off - why is he still > > here? > > Chad is a waste of our time, at the least. But that's enough to ignore > his postings. > > Cor I ignore Chad a lot of the time but occasionally he does raise some very good points. The biggest waste of time is dealing with all these off topic attacks on Chad interspersed into threads you are following. It is very difficult to filter them out when they are part of a legitimate thread. -- Larry I. Gusaas, Moose Jaw, Sask. http://larry-gusaas.com --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0549-4, 12/09/2005 Tested on: 12/9/2005 11:26:57 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
Hi Larry, Larry Gusaas wrote: On 9 Dec 2005 at 9:12, Cor Nouws wrote: Chad is a waste of our time, at the least. But that's enough to ignore his postings. I ignore Chad a lot of the time but occasionally he does raise some very good points. Agree The biggest waste of time is dealing with all these off topic attacks on Chad interspersed into threads you are following. It is very difficult to filter them out when they are part of a legitimate thread. It is known that I did try to both communicate and a sort of mediate. Turned out to be not succesful ;-) Cor -- -- | you need it - je hebt het nodig | | | | OpenOffice.org | | | | Cor Nouws, http://www.nouenoff.nl | -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
On 12/9/05, Henrik Sundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't think you need to be working for MS just to dislike false > accusations. I think Chad was very precise in his question. And > genuinely interested in finding the truth too. > So, Henrik Sundberg (and Rod??), you're obviously good friends with Chad - are you two (three?) working in the same office (or are you in fact the same person)? That would be a great job actually, sitting in an office and being paid to pump Microsoft-propaganda into computer discussion groups. (Not fun to sell your soul downriver, but the actual task of just sitting there and writing for pay sounds fun.) Most of us have to squeeze in writing time when we're not working, so it's hard to keep up with the professional PR attacks Hmm... where are Chad's replies in the last 20 hours or so? Are you sitting in for him/her, or are you him/her? RM
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 19:45 +, Ian Lynch wrote: > On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 10:41 +, Jonathon Blake wrote: > > > That was _one_ of the reasons they were charged with anti-trust violations. > > xan > http://www.tbtf.com/resource/netscape-letter.html > > Letter listing alleged violations > > http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3226 > > Microsoft's settlement. If they were not guilty why did they pay a 750m > settlement? > > Whatever the details, MS is a convicted monopolist and has settled other > suits out of court. Its really simple enough for a child to understand. > Our legal system is probabily not the most corrupt but its close. In America its sometimes cheaper to legally bribe the court than take a chance on a ruling against you. Its the same method the IRS used to force accountants to rat out their clients without any law forcing the change. So now smart rich people use Tax attorneys while the rest of us cower in fear. Why did Michael jackson pay off his first child aquiser, because he thought it would be cheaper. Unfortunately for him it wrecked his career and he could not afford a second payoff. -- Carl Spitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
