Does Linux envy Microsoft?
hackerbabe
Microsoft has been persecuted in the anti-trust trial:
"There is only one fundamental reason why great businessmen [like Bill
Gates] or great companies [like Microsoft] are hated, and it has
nothing to do with so-called monopolies. [Microsoft is] hated . . .
because [it is] good, that is, smarter, more visionary, more creative,
more tenacious, more action-focused, more ambitious, and more
successful than everyone else.
Haters of the good [competing OSes and browsers] do not want the less
able to be raised up to the level of the great producers (which is
impossible); they want the great producers to be brought down. They
want to use government coercion to cripple the greatest minds so that
lesser minds will not feel inferior."
--------
Is there any truth to this accusation of envy, or are there other
reasons people dislike Microsoft?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
hackerbabe
sfcybear
pac...@my-deja.com
hackerbabe <hacke...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> A quote from http://microsoft.aynrand.org/hate.html, referring to why
> Microsoft has been persecuted in the anti-trust trial:
>
> "There is only one fundamental reason why great businessmen [like Bill
> Gates]
...or Al Capone, or Manuel Noriega, or John Gotti...
> or great companies [like Microsoft]
... or the Mafia, or the Medellin cartel, or the Hell's Angels...
> are hated, and it has
> nothing to do with so-called monopolies. [Microsoft is] hated . . .
> because [it is] good, that is, smarter, more visionary, more creative,
> more tenacious, more action-focused, more ambitious, and more
> successful than everyone else.
Bullshit. It's because they fucking broke the law.
Jacques Guy
>
> A quote from http://microsoft.aynrand.org/hate.html, referring to why
> Microsoft has been persecuted in the anti-trust trial:
That is an extraordinary site, well worth visiting, while
keeping in mind Ayn Rand's quip "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal",
seeing that Micorosft has been plundering its shareholders'
capital to pay its employees in monopoly money.
In fact, Micorosft is the very antithesis of capitalism,
unless you mean highway robbery by it. It is difficult,
given the amount on this site of this garbage (which
reminds me very of the rhetorics of the USSR press under
Stalin), it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that
prof. Locke of the University of Maryland is in receipt
of juicy "research" grants from Micorosft. Call that
"research" and you may as well call the kettle white
and the pot a crock of gold.
Aaron R. Kulkis
Repeatedly
With deliberate intent
And in violation of previous court orders to obey the law.
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
Craig Kelley
If there were any truth to it, then they wouldn't have to leverage
their desktop presence to coerce NT sales, which was the root of the
Netscape trial. If they are so much "smarter, more visionary, more
creative, more tenacious, more action-focused, more ambitious and more
successful" then why did (and do) they resort to sneaky back-end deals
involving pre-loading and such?
Basically, why can't I get a Sony Vaio without Windows on it? Why do
I have to pay for Word, when I'm not going to use it? Where is WMP
for any other platform than Windows? Why are they "helping" vendors
release WMP-only media? These actions do not point to a better
product, but rather, a sneaky company who wants to "win" at all costs
-- even to the point of buying shares in doomed competitors so they
can have puppet "competition". This is not how a free market works,
and it is not how capitalism works.
The answer is that Microsoft does *not* have the alleged attributes --
they use non-techncial, shady deals to get their products sold. They
bribed ISPs with free server software *if* they preloaded IE on their
client disks (IEAK, yes I've used it), they bribe OEMs with reduced
costs based on sales figures. They use BSA BS to scare OEMs into
selling their products for them. They use 3rd parties to write their
drivers for them, encouraging "windows-only" solutions.
They make damn fine keyboards and mice, though.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- kell...@isu.edu
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger i...@inconnu.isu.edu for PGP block
Erik Funkenbusch
news:m11yulr...@inconnu.isu.edu...
> If there were any truth to it, then they wouldn't have to leverage
> their desktop presence to coerce NT sales, which was the root of the
> Netscape trial. If they are so much "smarter, more visionary, more
> creative, more tenacious, more action-focused, more ambitious and more
> successful" then why did (and do) they resort to sneaky back-end deals
> involving pre-loading and such?
Covering all their bases?
> Basically, why can't I get a Sony Vaio without Windows on it? Why do
> I have to pay for Word, when I'm not going to use it? Where is WMP
> for any other platform than Windows? Why are they "helping" vendors
> release WMP-only media? These actions do not point to a better
> product, but rather, a sneaky company who wants to "win" at all costs
> -- even to the point of buying shares in doomed competitors so they
> can have puppet "competition". This is not how a free market works,
> and it is not how capitalism works.
That's an entirely different issue. Sony sells only mass market systems and
only in specific configurations. This reduces their technical support
costs. Sony gets a better price on Word if they sell more copies. If they
would sell 60+% of the PC's with word anyways, it makes sense to make it
standard on all your systems to reduce your costs overall.
This issue is all about the OEM saving a few bucks, not MS forcing anyone
into anything.
> The answer is that Microsoft does *not* have the alleged attributes --
> they use non-techncial, shady deals to get their products sold. They
> bribed ISPs with free server software *if* they preloaded IE on their
> client disks (IEAK, yes I've used it), they bribe OEMs with reduced
> costs based on sales figures. They use BSA BS to scare OEMs into
> selling their products for them. They use 3rd parties to write their
> drivers for them, encouraging "windows-only" solutions.
It's a commodity market. You play by commodity rules. Volume is where it's
at.
You seem to think that a MS should not be allowed to give volume discounts,
something that is common in every market known to man.
Ralph Miguel Hansen
snip
>
> Haters of the good [competing OSes and browsers] do not want the less
> able to be raised up to the level of the great producers (which is
> impossible); they want the great producers to be brought down. They
> want to use government coercion to cripple the greatest minds so that
> lesser minds will not feel inferior."
> --------
> Is there any truth to this accusation of envy, or are there other
> reasons people dislike Microsoft?
>
snip
I like to cripple great minds (I am feeling very inferior), but Bill Gates
is not in danger (he is not among them).
Ralph Miguel Hansen
Auf der Donau 29
45139 Essen
J Sloan
Thanks for the laugh -
jjs
J Sloan
anyone who has suffered under microsoft's thuggish arm twisting
will certainly get a good laugh out of this...
jjs
Aaron R. Kulkis
Not even that. Microsoft hardware is out-sourced.
Logitech makes the mice. Don't know who makes the keyboards.
>
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- kell...@isu.edu
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger i...@inconnu.isu.edu for PGP block
Todd
<pac...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:92tuuv$vkf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Nope... appeals *will* overturn the verdict. MS did not break the law.
-Todd
Bruce Scott TOK
>Microsoft has been persecuted in the anti-trust trial:
>
>"There is only one fundamental reason why great businessmen [like Bill
>Gates] or great companies [like Microsoft] are hated, and it has
>nothing to do with so-called monopolies. [Microsoft is] hated . . .
>because [it is] good, that is, smarter, more visionary, more creative,
>more tenacious, more action-focused, more ambitious, and more
>successful than everyone else.
>
>Haters of the good [competing OSes and browsers] do not want the less
>able to be raised up to the level of the great producers (which is
>impossible); they want the great producers to be brought down. They
>want to use government coercion to cripple the greatest minds so that
>lesser minds will not feel inferior."
This is exactly the way Scientology talks about critics... they are
jealous, bigots, etc.
This parallel gets more accurate every year, as MS increasingly puts
more and more desperate material on their website. You don't see them
talking like that in the trade press now do you. That is mostly stuff
for their own devotees.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
Mike
news:92tmli$ojd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> A quote from http://microsoft.aynrand.org/hate.html, referring to why
> Microsoft has been persecuted in the anti-trust trial:
> Is there any truth to this accusation of envy, or are there other
> reasons people dislike Microsoft?
Of course there's truth to it. The question is, how much? As with any answer
that tries to distill a complex issue down to "one fundamental reason," the
amount of truth is likely not much. Most of the vitriol you read here,
taking the opposite position, is similarly limited.
-- Mike --
hackerbabe
I personally think it's good to know about the FUD that Microsoft says
about its competitors' products, in order to create a well-researched,
intelligent response.
Yes, I use Windows, but I really don't like it. I am currently in the
process of learning Linux with Mandrake 7.2. It's not as dumbed down
as Windows, but that's what makes it fun.
Craig Kelley
> "Craig Kelley" <i...@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote in message
> news:m11yulr...@inconnu.isu.edu...
> > If there were any truth to it, then they wouldn't have to leverage
> > their desktop presence to coerce NT sales, which was the root of the
> > Netscape trial. If they are so much "smarter, more visionary, more
> > creative, more tenacious, more action-focused, more ambitious and more
> > successful" then why did (and do) they resort to sneaky back-end deals
> > involving pre-loading and such?
>
> Covering all their bases?
>
> > Basically, why can't I get a Sony Vaio without Windows on it? Why do
> > I have to pay for Word, when I'm not going to use it? Where is WMP
> > for any other platform than Windows? Why are they "helping" vendors
> > release WMP-only media? These actions do not point to a better
> > product, but rather, a sneaky company who wants to "win" at all costs
> > -- even to the point of buying shares in doomed competitors so they
> > can have puppet "competition". This is not how a free market works,
> > and it is not how capitalism works.
>
> That's an entirely different issue. Sony sells only mass market systems and
> only in specific configurations. This reduces their technical support
> costs. *Sony gets a better price on Word if they sell more copies.*
[emphasis added]
That's what I'm complaining about.
> If they would sell 60+% of the PC's with word anyways, it makes
> sense to make it standard on all your systems to reduce your costs
> overall.
It only "makes sense" because it's a false market. Some competitor
cannot bridge the gap, and my dollars are going to perpetuate a
system, even though I don't use the software. I also have several
friends who love Vaios, but run Linux or FreeBSD on them
exclusivly.
> This issue is all about the OEM saving a few bucks, not MS forcing anyone
> into anything.
They are *not* saving a few bucks! Microsoft has structured their
pricing in order to *force* them to use their software in order to
remain competitive. If they can shave a few dollars off the price of
their preloaded wares, then it's a win-win situation for *Microsoft*,
not for *me*.
> > The answer is that Microsoft does *not* have the alleged attributes --
> > they use non-techncial, shady deals to get their products sold. They
> > bribed ISPs with free server software *if* they preloaded IE on their
> > client disks (IEAK, yes I've used it), they bribe OEMs with reduced
> > costs based on sales figures. They use BSA BS to scare OEMs into
> > selling their products for them. They use 3rd parties to write their
> > drivers for them, encouraging "windows-only" solutions.
>
> It's a commodity market. You play by commodity rules. Volume is where it's
> at.
>
> You seem to think that a MS should not be allowed to give volume discounts,
> something that is common in every market known to man.
They should be able to give volume discounts, but it should be the
same discount for the same volume for everyone. Instead they target
each manufacturer and give different deals based on sales of machines;
our local OEM gets a much higher discount for selling hundreds of
machines than Gateway would get for selling the same amount. It's the
"preload or die" manifesto that they "stopped" doing in the early part
of the 90s, only disguised to fool people. You basically get a great
discount if you include Microsoft products (the more the better!) on
all your machines.
"All" can vary from manufacturer to manufacturer.
Craig Kelley
Perhaps that is true; but they will always be labled a "monopoly" from
here on out (it is extremely unlikely that the finding of fact will be
changed) -- they better keep their noses *very* clean from here on
out, which is all we want anyway.
hackerbabe
Do you know of any intelligent, well-researched responses on the
internet to this sort of drivel?
Other than Eric Raymonds' writings on http://www.tuxedo.org/, I can't
find any.
Cannon Fodder
>
>
>What a bunch of horse pucky. From MS and from you.
>
Wow. I thought at first that was an idle comment off the top of
your head and with humorous overtones to bargain. But after
precursing the www.aynrand.org site, I discovered an ENTIRE
UNIVERSITY devoted to pure horse pucky. *shudders at the thought*
The outcasts and carry-forths from the swingin' sixties need go
no farther than this gig, man. *inhales deeply, holds for
effect*
chrisv
>
>Nope... appeals *will* overturn the verdict. MS did not break the law.
>
>-Todd
You're an idiot, Todd.
chrisv
>"There is only one fundamental reason why great businessmen [like Bill
>Gates] or great companies [like Microsoft] are hated, and it has
>nothing to do with so-called monopolies. [Microsoft is] hated . . .
>because [it is] good, that is, smarter, more visionary, more creative,
>more tenacious, more action-focused, more ambitious, and more
>successful than everyone else.
Yeah, and Stalin rose to power just because he was smarter, more
visionary, more creative, more tenacious, more action-focused, more
ambitious, and more successful than everyone else.
Or was it he was more brutal and evil than everyone else, willing to
do whatever it took to win, no matter how many people were hurt?
Aaron R. Kulkis
You fucking dumbass. MS did NOT appeal the verdict.
They appealed the SENTANCE.
They're guilty as sin, and they know it.
They're just pissed that the judge handed down punishment which
will actually put a stop the the criminal activity.
> MS did not break the law.
That strange...by failing to appeal the finding of guilt,
MS's lawyers admit that, in fact, MS DID BREAK THE LAW.
( 60 counts, no less!)
>
> -Todd
>
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com
> > http://www.deja.com/
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Todd" <som...@is.watching.you.com> writes:
>
> > <pac...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:92tuuv$vkf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <92tmli$ojd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > hackerbabe <hacke...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > A quote from http://microsoft.aynrand.org/hate.html, referring to why
> > > > Microsoft has been persecuted in the anti-trust trial:
> > > >
> > > > "There is only one fundamental reason why great businessmen [like Bill
> > > > Gates]
> > >
> > > ...or Al Capone, or Manuel Noriega, or John Gotti...
> > >
> > > > or great companies [like Microsoft]
> > >
> > > ... or the Mafia, or the Medellin cartel, or the Hell's Angels...
> > >
> > > > are hated, and it has
> > > > nothing to do with so-called monopolies. [Microsoft is] hated . . .
> > > > because [it is] good, that is, smarter, more visionary, more creative,
> > > > more tenacious, more action-focused, more ambitious, and more
> > > > successful than everyone else.
> > >
> > > Bullshit. It's because they fucking broke the law.
> >
> > Nope... appeals *will* overturn the verdict. MS did not break the law.
>
> Perhaps that is true;
No, it is NOT true.
MS did NOT appeal the verdict.
They are merely appealing the sentance.
This is an admission that, in fact, they are guilty as sin.
> but they will always be labled a "monopoly" from
> here on out (it is extremely unlikely that the finding of fact will be
> changed) -- they better keep their noses *very* clean from here on
> out, which is all we want anyway.
>
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- kell...@isu.edu
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger i...@inconnu.isu.edu for PGP block
Darren Winsper
<som...@is.watching.you.com> wrote:
> Nope... appeals *will* overturn the verdict. MS did not break the law.
1 year earlier:
'Nope... the judge *will* find them innocent. MS did not break the law.'
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano)
ICQ #8899775 - AIM: Ikibawa - MSNIM: punja...@hotmail.com
Certified 34% bastard, 19% of which is tard.
http://www.thespark.com/bastardtest
pac...@my-deja.com
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
> You fucking dumbass. MS did NOT appeal the verdict.
> They appealed the SENTANCE.
>
> They're guilty as sin, and they know it.
> They're just pissed that the judge handed down punishment which
> will actually put a stop the the criminal activity.
>
> > MS did not break the law.
>
> That strange...by failing to appeal the finding of guilt,
> MS's lawyers admit that, in fact, MS DID BREAK THE LAW.
> ( 60 counts, no less!)
Thanks for pointing that out. Again. The fact that MSFT apologists seem
to be completely unaware of this just totally bumfuzzles my brain.
Aaron R. Kulkis
Specifically, Todd Needham, Microshaft employee
Charlie Ebert
I end up having to explain this to WINTROL'S EITHER ON OR OFF COLA!
Microsoft HAS BEEN CONVICTED. Their TRIAL IS OVER.
What Microsoft is trying to do is just what ARK is saying here,
they are appealing their sentence. They are not asking for a
re-trial but rather they are appealing their sentence.
And because people are confused as to whether or not this is
a re-trial, many people believe the charges will be reversed.
If it WERE a re-trial this might actually happen with luck.
But since it is NOT a re-trial then Microsoft is actually going
to get split up. And this is why you've seen all those newstories
from various editors and other authors about the impact of the
MICROSOFT BREAKUP as it's impending.
There is nothing which will change this.
Charlie
Aaron R. Kulkis
heh heh heh.
Maybe Extorionist Gates will commit suicide rather than watch
his ill-gotten empire collapse.
>
> Charlie
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
Perry Pip
>A quote from http://microsoft.aynrand.org/hate.html, referring to why
>Microsoft has been persecuted in the anti-trust trial:
>
[snipped]
Heh...talk about corporate shills. Look at their cultural diversity page:
http://multiculturalism.aynrand.org/
And their environment page:
http://environmentalism.aynrand.org/
And to think they pride themselves in being objective. I can only
wonder if Ayn Rand was really such a bigot or whether this is a bunch
of people misusing her name.
Perry
Jacques Guy
> Heh...talk about corporate shills. Look at their cultural diversity page:
> http://multiculturalism.aynrand.org/
This is great! Especially:
http://multiculturalism.aynrand.org/columbus.html
I particularly liked:
> The inhabitants were primarily hunter-gatherers,
> wandering across the land, living from hand-to-mouth
> and from day-to-day.
Wow! just like the peasants in medieval Europe, except
that they were not allowed to wander about.
> There was virtually no change, no growth for
> thousands of years. With rare exception, life
> was nasty, brutish, and short: there was
> no wheel, no written language
Except for the Aztecs, the Olmecs, the Mayans, and
the Incas.
> no division of labor
Except for the Aztecs, the Olmecs, the Mayas, the
Incas, and likely many other societies destroyed
by the Spaniards and their followers.
> little agriculture and scant permanent settlement;
> but there were endless, bloody wars.
Wow! The 100-year war between France and England,
the religious wars, the Crusades, and, closer to
us, ever heard of WWI and WWII, and the American
Civil War and the Napoleonic wars etc., etc.,
etc. and the Balkans, the genocides in Yugoslavia
just a few years ago.
What a filthy, miserable, hate-mongering crapule
this Michael S. Berliner, Ph.D., is.
> And their environment page:
> http://environmentalism.aynrand.org/
is a bit sparse, but not bad either:
> As a doctrine - an "ism" - it is fundamentally
> an attack on the ideals of Western civilization.
Like "capitalism" and "individualism" eh?
I thought I'd scraped the bottom of the barrel
with the scientologists and the rabid creationist
mobs, but this lot gets the Golden Oscar!
Tom Wilson
"Charlie Ebert" <cha...@charlie.ebertlan> wrote in message
news:slrn957tos...@charlie.ebertlan...
> In article <3A53AA43...@yahoo.com>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >Todd wrote:
> >>
> >> <pac...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:92tuuv$vkf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> > In article <92tmli$ojd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >> > hackerbabe <hacke...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> > > A quote from http://microsoft.aynrand.org/hate.html, referring to
why
> >> > > Microsoft has been persecuted in the anti-trust trial:
<snippage>
> I end up having to explain this to WINTROL'S EITHER ON OR OFF COLA!
>
> Microsoft HAS BEEN CONVICTED. Their TRIAL IS OVER.
>
> What Microsoft is trying to do is just what ARK is saying here,
> they are appealing their sentence. They are not asking for a
> re-trial but rather they are appealing their sentence.
>
> And because people are confused as to whether or not this is
> a re-trial, many people believe the charges will be reversed.
> If it WERE a re-trial this might actually happen with luck.
>
> But since it is NOT a re-trial then Microsoft is actually going
> to get split up. And this is why you've seen all those newstories
> from various editors and other authors about the impact of the
> MICROSOFT BREAKUP as it's impending.
>
> There is nothing which will change this.
>
We're living in a time where blow jobs are not sexual relations and the
definition of *is* is open for debate...
If Microsoft says they aren't guilty...They aren't guilty!
Reality is passe.
Get with the program, Charlie!!! <g>
--
Tom Wilson
In a hot tub with the Sweedish bikini team.
Nick Condon
> And to think they pride themselves in being objective. I can only
> wonder if Ayn Rand was really such a bigot or whether this is a bunch
> of people misusing her name.
No, she was a bigot. I knew an Objectivist who insisted I would see the light
if I read Ayn Rand's stuff, so I tried reading "Atlas Unshrugged". When I
said she was a selfish bigot he told me I didn't "get" it.
Chuck Ayn Rand in the bin, read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
instead.
Nick Condon
> > Bullshit. It's because they fucking broke the law.
>
> Nope... appeals *will* overturn the verdict. MS did not break the law.
The Findings of Fact and the Findings of Law will stand, whatever the outcome
of the appeal, whatever happens in sentencing, whatever else happens the legal
record says, for now and forever: "Microsoft broke the fucking law" (or words
to that effect)
Erik Funkenbusch
news:3A53AA43...@yahoo.com...
> You fucking dumbass. MS did NOT appeal the verdict.
> They appealed the SENTANCE.
No, they appealed the *JUDGEMENT*.
See:
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/ECF/Microsoft/History/history.asp
They are appealing the entire judgement, including the verdict.
Erik Funkenbusch
news:3A544EF6...@yahoo.co.uk...
The Findings of Law is what is most vulnerable on appeal. Findings of fact
can be vulnerable as well, if there is sufficient reason to believe that the
FoF were grossly incorrect. It's rare, but not completely unheard of, to
overturn FoF on appeal as well.
In other words, your absolute statements above are not absolutes. You may
not believe it to be likely, but it could happen.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Perry Pip wrote:
>
> > Heh...talk about corporate shills. Look at their cultural diversity page:
>
> > http://multiculturalism.aynrand.org/
>
> This is great! Especially:
>
> http://multiculturalism.aynrand.org/columbus.html
>
> I particularly liked:
>
> > The inhabitants were primarily hunter-gatherers,
> > wandering across the land, living from hand-to-mouth
> > and from day-to-day.
>
> Wow! just like the peasants in medieval Europe, except
> that they were not allowed to wander about.
>
> > There was virtually no change, no growth for
> > thousands of years. With rare exception, life
> > was nasty, brutish, and short: there was
> > no wheel, no written language
>
> Except for the Aztecs, the Olmecs, the Mayans, and
> the Incas.
Only the VERY privileged, VERY FEW were taught to read and write.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Perry Pip wrote:
>
> > an attack on the ideals of Western civilization.
>
> Like "capitalism" and "individualism" eh?
No...he's saying that this "ism" is an attack on Western Civilization.
Not too good in the reading comprehension department, are you?
>
> I thought I'd scraped the bottom of the barrel
> with the scientologists and the rabid creationist
> mobs, but this lot gets the Golden Oscar!
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Perry Pip wrote:
>
> > And to think they pride themselves in being objective. I can only
> > wonder if Ayn Rand was really such a bigot or whether this is a bunch
> > of people misusing her name.
>
> No, she was a bigot. I knew an Objectivist who insisted I would see the light
> if I read Ayn Rand's stuff, so I tried reading "Atlas Unshrugged". When I
> said she was a selfish bigot he told me I didn't "get" it.
Since when does equality of opportunity and equality before the law
equal bigotry?
>
> Chuck Ayn Rand in the bin, read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
> instead.
Aaron R. Kulkis
Not only that, but Microsoft is *NOT* appealing the verdict, merely the sentance.
This is an all out admission that the charges were true.
gou...@email.com
>
> A quote from http://microsoft.aynrand.org/hate.html, referring to why
> Microsoft has been persecuted in the anti-trust trial:
>
> nothing to do with so-called monopolies. [Microsoft is] hated . . .
> because [it is] good, that is, smarter, more visionary, more creative,
> more tenacious, more action-focused, more ambitious, and more
> successful than everyone else.
>
> able to be raised up to the level of the great producers (which is
> impossible); they want the great producers to be brought down. They
> want to use government coercion to cripple the greatest minds so that
> lesser minds will not feel inferior."
> --------
> reasons people dislike Microsoft?
>
> http://www.deja.com/
I don't really have time now to go into why MS are not liked.
Suffice to say the products they produce are not great (mostly because
their testers/users don't have access to the source code so can't fix
it) and charge too much for them. If NT, for example had a user base
who *told* MS the FULL circumstances of each crash, and these people
used 'proper' hardware (ie NOT winmodems et al.), and MS ACTED on this,
maybe NT would justofy the price. In my view, 9x NEVER will (we ought
to be paid to use that!).
On top of this there is the issue of MS abbusing their possition to make
it hard for people to switch. Logically, if they had the best product
for people, they would let the fact stand for itself.
Or were you just trolling?
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
gou...@email.com
> They make damn fine keyboards and mice, though.
>
The mice, I beleive, are made by Logitech. Don't know about the
keyboards though.
Regards
T.Gough
(using a MS Mouse with Xfree86)
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
gou...@email.com
>
> hackerbabe wrote:
>
> snip
> >
> > Haters of the good [competing OSes and browsers] do not want the less
> > able to be raised up to the level of the great producers (which is
> > impossible); they want the great producers to be brought down. They
> > want to use government coercion to cripple the greatest minds so that
> > lesser minds will not feel inferior."
> > --------
> > Is there any truth to this accusation of envy, or are there other
> > reasons people dislike Microsoft?
> >
>
> I like to cripple great minds (I am feeling very inferior), but Bill Gates
> is not in danger (he is not among them).
>
Gates has a a great mind. He is a marketing genius. But a shit
computer scientist
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
T. Max Devlin
05:29:45 -0600;
His statements were not absolutes, nor are they in error, though they
are, as every statement is, merely opinion. Nevertheless, you haven't
provided the tiniest glimmer of a shred of a hint of a reason why it
might be likely to happen, that anything at all will be overturned,
other than an egregiously bold declaration. So for you to say "it could
happen" stands out as yet another example of your most characteristic
fallacy; the argument from ignorance.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
Todd
"chrisv" <chr...@chrisv.com> wrote in message
news:0j775tgj6ntqjm436...@4ax.com...
We will see when the verdict is overturned. Who will be the idiot then?
-Todd
Todd
> chrisv wrote:
> >
> > "Todd" <som...@is.watching.you.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Nope... appeals *will* overturn the verdict. MS did not break the law.
> > >
> > >-Todd
> >
> > You're an idiot, Todd.
>
> Specifically, Todd Needham, Microshaft employee
You Linux users are wrong many times. Here is another example.
I am not the same Todd as Todd Needham. I work for HP. With a little
research, you will be able to find my family name. Hint - search
comp.os.os2.advocacy.
-Todd
Todd
> Todd wrote:
> >
> > <pac...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:92tuuv$vkf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <92tmli$ojd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > hackerbabe <hacke...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > A quote from http://microsoft.aynrand.org/hate.html, referring to
why
> > > > Microsoft has been persecuted in the anti-trust trial:
> > > >
> > > > "There is only one fundamental reason why great businessmen [like
Bill
> > > > Gates]
> > >
> > > ...or Al Capone, or Manuel Noriega, or John Gotti...
> > >
> > > > or great companies [like Microsoft]
> > >
> > > ... or the Mafia, or the Medellin cartel, or the Hell's Angels...
> > >
> > > > are hated, and it has
> > > > nothing to do with so-called monopolies. [Microsoft is] hated . . .
> > > > because [it is] good, that is, smarter, more visionary, more
creative,
> > > > more tenacious, more action-focused, more ambitious, and more
> > > > successful than everyone else.
> > >
> > > Bullshit. It's because they fucking broke the law.
> >
> > Nope... appeals *will* overturn the verdict.
>
>
> You fucking dumbass.
Are all Linux users like this?
> MS did NOT appeal the verdict.
> They appealed the SENTANCE.
>
> They're guilty as sin, and they know it.
Not unless they are *proven* guilty - and the appeals court will have their
say.
> They're just pissed that the judge handed down punishment which
> will actually put a stop the the criminal activity.
Not yet - appeals will overturn the 'sentence'.
Yes MS is a monopoly on the desktop...
However, you need to be able to prove that MS used its monopoly to stuff out
competition *and* prove that it harmed consumes.
It will be very hard to prove since IE is a far better product than Netscape
(just try to run Netscape under *Linux*, and you will see what I mean).
Also, there are better browsers out their than Netscape. Take a look at
Opera. How did they survive when Netscape didn't? Opera is a better
product.
> > MS did not break the law.
>
> That strange...by failing to appeal the finding of guilt,
> MS's lawyers admit that, in fact, MS DID BREAK THE LAW.
> ( 60 counts, no less!)
Heh. Let's wait to see what the appeals court has to say.
We shall see who is right and who is wrong.
-Todd
Donovan Rebbechi
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3A53AA43...@yahoo.com...
>
>Are all Linux users like this?
No -- Mr Kulkis is one of a kind. I think we're unanimous on this one.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
Donovan Rebbechi
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3A53E2A...@yahoo.com...
>> chrisv wrote:
>> >
>> > "Todd" <som...@is.watching.you.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >Nope... appeals *will* overturn the verdict. MS did not break the law.
>> > >
>> > >-Todd
>> >
>> > You're an idiot, Todd.
>>
>> Specifically, Todd Needham, Microshaft employee
>
>You Linux users are wrong many times. Here is another example.
"You Linux users" may take offence if you confuse them with
Mr Kulkis.
Donovan Rebbechi
Nahhh .. the verdict isn't going to be overturned, so why not just call
him an idiot now and spare yourself the wait ?
Jacques Guy
> Also, there are better browsers out their than Netscape. Take a look at
> Opera. How did they survive when Netscape didn't? Opera is a better
> product.
The dodo bird survived longer than the Tyrannosaurus Rex.
Therefore, the dodo bird was a better product. Termites and
ants are still around today, and so are you, who originated
from the same primeval soup. Bit of a humbling thought,
isn't it?
How did Micorosft* survive when it is an inferior product?
Dodo, dodo, dodo.
* Micorosft (sic) is what they call themselves where they
peddle their "freedom to innovate" T-shirts.
Aaron R. Kulkis
You misspelled "Racketeering and Extorsion expert with a good PR department."
> computer scientist
> --
> http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3A53E2A...@yahoo.com...
> > chrisv wrote:
> > >
> > > "Todd" <som...@is.watching.you.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Nope... appeals *will* overturn the verdict. MS did not break the law.
> > > >
> > > >-Todd
> > >
> > > You're an idiot, Todd.
> >
> > Specifically, Todd Needham, Microshaft employee
>
> You Linux users are wrong many times. Here is another example.
>
> I am not the same Todd as Todd Needham. I work for HP. With a little
Then why do you write things that are so idiotic that only
a Microshaft employee could say them.
Aaron R. Kulkis
How will the verdict be overturned when Microsoft isn't even appealing it?
Clue for the shithead Microshaft employee Todd Needham
Microsoft is appealing the SENTANCE, ****NOT**** the conviction,
you shameless shill.
>
> -Todd
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
Aaron R. Kulkis
Only when dealing with fucking dumbasses like yourself.
>
> > MS did NOT appeal the verdict.
> > They appealed the SENTANCE.
> >
> > They're guilty as sin, and they know it.
>
> Not unless they are *proven* guilty - and the appeals court will have their
> say.
There *WERE* proven guilty, you goddamned fucking retard.
Microsoft is NOT appealing the conviction, you goddamned fucking retard.
Microsoft is ONLY appealing the *sentance*, you goddamned fucking retard.
Is any of this getting through to you, you goddamned fucking retard?
>
> > They're just pissed that the judge handed down punishment which
> > will actually put a stop the the criminal activity.
>
> Not yet - appeals will overturn the 'sentence'.
We'll see
>
> Yes MS is a monopoly on the desktop...
And they have a 15-year history of criminally abusing the power of that monopoly.
> However, you need to be able to prove that MS used its monopoly to stuff out
> competition *and* prove that it harmed consumes.
Bill Gates' own testimony and memos demonstrate that quite handily.
Steve Ballmer's only reinforce that proof.
What part of denying consumers the choice of competing products HARMS CONSUMERS
do you not understand?
>
> It will be very hard to prove since IE is a far better product than Netscape
> (just try to run Netscape under *Linux*, and you will see what I mean).
I run Netscape on everything.
I *NEVER* run Internet Exploder. Bugs the fuck out of you, doesn't it.
>
> Also, there are better browsers out their than Netscape. Take a look at
> Opera. How did they survive when Netscape didn't? Opera is a better
> product.
Netscape just released a new browser.
This must be some new definition of "not surviving" that the rest
of which the English-speaking world is unaware.
>
> > > MS did not break the law.
> >
> > That strange...by failing to appeal the finding of guilt,
> > MS's lawyers admit that, in fact, MS DID BREAK THE LAW.
> > ( 60 counts, no less!)
>
> Heh. Let's wait to see what the appeals court has to say.
The appeals court does NOT have jurisdiction to overturn the CONVICTION
because even Microsoft's lawyers now admit that they were caught
dead to rights.
By the way, remember, Judge Jackson asked the DOJ to present a
sentance which would result in Microsoft being broken up into
MORE than 2 pieces.
>
> We shall see who is right and who is wrong.
News must be pretty slow getting to your parts.
You aren't living in one of those swamps in Florida in which the inhabitants
didn't even hear of the START of the Civil War (1861) until *after* the
war was over (1865).
Microsoft was Convicted...for the umpteemth time.
This time, they were convicted of over 60 counts of criminal behavior.
Microsoft was SENTANCED....for the umpteemth time.
Previously, Microsoft was allowed to enter into consent decrees.
On every single previous occasion, Microsoft violated the spirit
of those consent decrees through arguments based on semantics.
Those who understand Microsoft's behavior, and the DAMAGE to the
economy that they are doing....BILLIONS of hours of lost productivity
and needless hardware upgrades, to name just a few...are getting sick
and tired of this sort of bullshit.
The stupidest part is....nearly EVERY thing Microsoft was convicted
of....had precedence when IBM was convicted OF THE EXACT SAME
FREE-MARKET-HOSTILE, ANTI-CUSTOMER practices (Fraud, Vaporware,
Extortion, leveraging Monopolies, etc) as Microsoft.
Only a goddamned pure-to-the-core crook goes around committing
fraud and extortion and then claims to be doing no wrong.
If I were Bill Gates, I would hire a small army to sweep all the
rooftops whereever he goes...because as more and more of the
TRUTH gets out to the public...the more likely it is that some
nut is going to decide that his special psychotic act will be
to take out Bill the Megalomaniac.
gou...@email.com
> >
> > Gates has a a great mind. He is a marketing genius. But a shit
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You misspelled "Racketeering and Extorsion expert with a good PR department."
>
He may do that now, but at some point he didn't have a virtual monopoly
in the desktop market, and he still sold a load of crap.
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
Nigel Feltham
>
>Reality is passe.
>
>Get with the program, Charlie!!! <g>
>
They didn't appeal to the guilty verdict which is as good
as admitting they were guilty - Microsoft have never denied
they were guilty, they are only appealing to get the sentance
reduced - I wish things were the same as when individual
people are on trial where the verdict stands and is acted
upon immediately then reversed if an appeal is successful
as then MS would have been broken up and be appealing
to rejoin now.
T. Max Devlin
>> In article <92tmli$ojd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> hackerbabe <hacke...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > A quote from http://microsoft.aynrand.org/hate.html, referring to why
>> > Microsoft has been persecuted in the anti-trust trial:
>> >
>> > "There is only one fundamental reason why great businessmen [like Bill
>> > Gates]
>>
>> ...or Al Capone, or Manuel Noriega, or John Gotti...
>>
>> > or great companies [like Microsoft]
>>
>> ... or the Mafia, or the Medellin cartel, or the Hell's Angels...
>>
>> > are hated, and it has
>> > nothing to do with so-called monopolies. [Microsoft is] hated . . .
>> > because [it is] good, that is, smarter, more visionary, more creative,
>> > more tenacious, more action-focused, more ambitious, and more
>> > successful than everyone else.
>>
>> Bullshit. It's because they fucking broke the law.
>
Which part of "it is a felony to restrain trade, monopolize, or attempt
to monopolize" escapes you, Todd?
T. Max Devlin
01:11:13 GMT;
>In article <3A53AA43...@yahoo.com>,
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>> You fucking dumbass. MS did NOT appeal the verdict.
>> They appealed the SENTANCE.
>>
>> They're guilty as sin, and they know it.
>> will actually put a stop the the criminal activity.
>>
>>
>> MS's lawyers admit that, in fact, MS DID BREAK THE LAW.
>> ( 60 counts, no less!)
>
>to be completely unaware of this just totally bumfuzzles my brain.
I'm afraid I must put the brakes to this particular bit of
over-enthusiasm. I'm not sure what Aaron is talking about; MS did
appeal the verdict, and there were only four counts in the conviction
under appeal, not 60. Microsoft was even acquitted on one of them.
T. Max Devlin
>Microsoft has been persecuted in the anti-trust trial:
>
>"There is only one fundamental reason why great businessmen [like Bill
>nothing to do with so-called monopolies. [Microsoft is] hated . . .
>because [it is] good, that is, smarter, more visionary, more creative,
>more tenacious, more action-focused, more ambitious, and more
>successful than everyone else.
>
>able to be raised up to the level of the great producers (which is
>impossible); they want the great producers to be brought down. They
>want to use government coercion to cripple the greatest minds so that
>lesser minds will not feel inferior."
>--------
>Is there any truth to this accusation of envy, or are there other
>reasons people dislike Microsoft?
No, there is no truth to this accusation of "envy". It is the
"so-called monopoly", entirely, despite the followers of Ayn Rand's
claims the contrary.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
T. Max Devlin
[...]
>I end up having to explain this to WINTROL'S EITHER ON OR OFF COLA!
Well, you wouldn't "end up having to explain" it, if you didn't make it
up to begin with.
>Microsoft HAS BEEN CONVICTED. Their TRIAL IS OVER.
>
>What Microsoft is trying to do is just what ARK is saying here,
>they are appealing their sentence. They are not asking for a
>re-trial but rather they are appealing their sentence.
I think you're confusing understanding legal procedures for having
watched LA Law. They are appealing both the verdict and the remedy.
>And because people are confused as to whether or not this is
>a re-trial, many people believe the charges will be reversed.
>If it WERE a re-trial this might actually happen with luck.
You are correct; this is not a re-trial. But that's because its an
appeal, not a trial at all.
>But since it is NOT a re-trial then Microsoft is actually going
>to get split up. And this is why you've seen all those newstories
>from various editors and other authors about the impact of the
>MICROSOFT BREAKUP as it's impending.
>
>There is nothing which will change this.
While this may be the case, it isn't your presumptions which make it so.
The reason the verdicts will not be overturned nor the remedy over-ruled
is because it is legally sound, not because it is not within the
capabilities of the justices hearing the appeal to do so.
T. Max Devlin
>news:3A53AA43...@yahoo.com...
>> Todd wrote:
>> >
>> > Nope... appeals *will* overturn the verdict.
>>
>> You fucking dumbass.
>
>Are all Linux users like this?
NO! Aaron is a special case, though it is true that there are some
people who are like this in any arbitrary group.
>> MS did NOT appeal the verdict.
>> They appealed the SENTANCE.
>>
>> They're guilty as sin, and they know it.
>
>Not unless they are *proven* guilty - and the appeals court will have their
>say.
Excuse me, but whether they are "proven" guilty does not actually
determine whether they *are* guilty, merely whether they are known by
others to be guilty. Microsoft does, in fact, recognize their guilt, as
evidenced by their internal communications and their behavior.
>> They're just pissed that the judge handed down punishment which
>> will actually put a stop the the criminal activity.
>
>Not yet - appeals will overturn the 'sentence'.
Why do you think they will do this?
>Yes MS is a monopoly on the desktop...
>
>However, you need to be able to prove that MS used its monopoly to stuff out
>competition *and* prove that it harmed consumes.
No, you only need to prove they are monopolizing. The Sherman Act
states it is a felony to monopolize, or the attempt to monopolize.
There's nothing about "unless you don't "use your monopoly". The
existence of a monopoly harms consumers, irrevocably and unavoidably,
because it maintains prices above competitive levels and excludes
alternatives from the market. (This is a bit of a tautology, since the
definition of monopolization is "having the power to control prices or
exclude competition".)
>It will be very hard to prove since IE is a far better product than Netscape
>(just try to run Netscape under *Linux*, and you will see what I mean).
Now that would be something that's "hard to prove". Hyuck.
>Also, there are better browsers out their than Netscape. Take a look at
>Opera. How did they survive when Netscape didn't? Opera is a better
>product.
Courts do not engage in contemplating whether one product or another is
"better". They do consider whether one product or another is a
potential alternative, a partial or full replacement, or within the
scope of the "relevant market", but they do not second-guess the choice
of products by the consumer or determine whether something is "better"
enough to allow monopolization. Monopolization is illegal, no matter
how good your product is. (Again, a bit of word-play, I must admit; if
the reason you have large market share can be conclusively shown to be
the result of a "superior product", then such large market share is not
evidence of monopolization.)
>> > MS did not break the law.
>>
>> That strange...by failing to appeal the finding of guilt,
>> MS's lawyers admit that, in fact, MS DID BREAK THE LAW.
>> ( 60 counts, no less!)
>
>Heh. Let's wait to see what the appeals court has to say.
>
>We shall see who is right and who is wrong.
Indeed, but some of us have been through this class before, and know the
answers to the test. Unless you can provide some bit of evidence or
reason, not merely naked assertion, that the verdict or remedy will be
overturned, then we must point out there is no need of "wait and see"
back-pedaling. At the risk of being wrong, as always, we have more than
sufficient reason and evidence to show that we are right, and the
Microsoft verdict and remedy will be ratified entirely by the Appellate
Court.
T. Max Devlin
>>
>> A quote from http://microsoft.aynrand.org/hate.html, referring to why
>> Microsoft has been persecuted in the anti-trust trial:
>
>keeping in mind Ayn Rand's quip "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal",
>seeing that Micorosft has been plundering its shareholders'
>capital to pay its employees in monopoly money.
>In fact, Micorosft is the very antithesis of capitalism,
>unless you mean highway robbery by it. It is difficult,
>given the amount on this site of this garbage (which
>reminds me very of the rhetorics of the USSR press under
>Stalin), it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that
>prof. Locke of the University of Maryland is in receipt
>of juicy "research" grants from Micorosft. Call that
>"research" and you may as well call the kettle white
>and the pot a crock of gold.
That certainly is a load of horse-manure he's got on that site. I think
he's probably just deluded, though. He probably doesn't even make as
much from Microsoft as, say, Erik Funkenbusch does.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> > >
> > > Gates has a a great mind. He is a marketing genius. But a shit
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > You misspelled "Racketeering and Extorsion expert with a good PR department."
> >
>
> He may do that now, but at some point he didn't have a virtual monopoly
But he had an almost immediate monopoly on the business desktop.
At the time, TRS-80's were considered "toys" by senior management
because they didn't have three letters, written in blue* anywhere on them
[*] IBM
> in the desktop market, and he still sold a load of crap.
> --
> http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> In article <3A53AA43...@yahoo.com>,
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > You fucking dumbass. MS did NOT appeal the verdict.
> > They appealed the SENTANCE.
> >
> > They're guilty as sin, and they know it.
> > will actually put a stop the the criminal activity.
> >
> >
> > That strange...by failing to appeal the finding of guilt,
> > MS's lawyers admit that, in fact, MS DID BREAK THE LAW.
> > ( 60 counts, no less!)
>
> to be completely unaware of this just totally bumfuzzles my brain.
>
Call it deliberate ignorance.
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
Todd
"Donovan Rebbechi" <elf...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:slrn95aus5....@panix6.panix.com...
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 15:09:08 +0800, Todd wrote:
> >
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:3A53E2A...@yahoo.com...
> >> chrisv wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Todd" <som...@is.watching.you.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >Nope... appeals *will* overturn the verdict. MS did not break the
law.
> >> > >
> >> > >-Todd
> >> >
> >> > You're an idiot, Todd.
> >>
> >> Specifically, Todd Needham, Microshaft employee
> >
> >You Linux users are wrong many times. Here is another example.
>
> "You Linux users" may take offence if you confuse them with
> Mr Kulkis.
Sorry, I've come to learn that many Linux users are indeed nicer and smarter
than this Kulkis fellow. My apologies.
-Todd
Todd
> Todd wrote:
> >
> > "chrisv" <chr...@chrisv.com> wrote in message
> > news:0j775tgj6ntqjm436...@4ax.com...
> > > "Todd" <som...@is.watching.you.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Nope... appeals *will* overturn the verdict. MS did not break the
law.
> > > >
> > > >-Todd
> > >
> > > You're an idiot, Todd.
> >
> > We will see when the verdict is overturned. Who will be the idiot then?
>
> How will the verdict be overturned when Microsoft isn't even appealing it?
The bottom line is this: you want MS split as the courts decided.
This will not happen. MS will get their way. YOU will not have your way.
Linux is going to have to compete with one MS, not through the courts.
> Clue for the shithead Microshaft employee Todd Needham
Clue for you: I'm not the same Todd as Todd Needham.
Why are you wrong so many times?
-Todd
T. Max Devlin
>> > We will see when the verdict is overturned. Who will be the idiot then?
>>
>> How will the verdict be overturned when Microsoft isn't even appealing it?
>
>The bottom line is this: you want MS split as the courts decided.
>
>This will not happen. MS will get their way. YOU will not have your way.
You are going to find that you're mistaken. Just because the media hype
wore down, doesn't mean the remedy is really questionable.
>Linux is going to have to compete with one MS, not through the courts.
Get your head straight. "Linux" competes with Windows, not MS, if
you're even going to bother playing that game. The fact is, MS doesn't
compete, and never has; they monopolize. Competitive merit will get you
nowhere, fast, when facing an anti-competitive monopolist. Which is
why, after all, Linux, which is GPL, the most anti-competitive thing you
can think of (and definitely the most anti-competitive, but still legal)
is becoming so popular. But knowledgable consumers, aware of how
they're being ripped off by the monopoly, don't see any attempt to
"compete through the courts", other than Microsoft's, and would prefer
that the courts do their job, which includes providing a remedy for
monopolization.
Ed Allen
Todd <som...@is.watching.you.com> wrote:
>
>The bottom line is this: you want MS split as the courts decided.
>
>This will not happen. MS will get their way. YOU will not have your way.
>Linux is going to have to compete with one MS, not through the courts.
>
"Microsoft is reportedly joining a group of Web-based travel agents
who will ask the Justice Department to investigate possible antitrust
violations by the nation's airlines."
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/travel/DailyNews/onlineagents990310.html
Microsoft should just "compete harder" instead of "whining to the
courts."
--
"Bank of America Chief Executive David Coulter recently suggested that
if he had one silver bullet, he would use it for Microsoft."
- LESLIE HELM, LA Times
Nick Condon
> Nick Condon wrote:
> >
> > Perry Pip wrote:
> >
> > > And to think they pride themselves in being objective. I can only
> > > wonder if Ayn Rand was really such a bigot or whether this is a bunch
> > > of people misusing her name.
> >
> > No, she was a bigot. I knew an Objectivist who insisted I would see the light
> > if I read Ayn Rand's stuff, so I tried reading "Atlas Unshrugged". When I
> > said she was a selfish bigot he told me I didn't "get" it.
>
> Since when does equality of opportunity and equality before the law
> equal bigotry?
It doesn't. But since those two things have been claimed by every *ism since the
Enlightenment, it's hardly a distinguishing characteristic of Objectivism.
Rand was an extreme individualist who claimed altruism was immoral (i.e. she was
selfish). She also had very little tolerence for those whose opinions differed to
hers (i.e. she was a bigot).
"Selfish" and "Bigot", look 'em up in the dictionary.
Ian Davey
>> They're guilty as sin, and they know it.
>
>Not unless they are *proven* guilty - and the appeals court will have their
>say.
They were proven guilty, or did you completely miss the trial that occurred a
while back? The fact they're appealing doesn't suddenly make them "not
guilty".
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> > Nick Condon wrote:
> > >
> > > Perry Pip wrote:
> > >
> > > > And to think they pride themselves in being objective. I can only
> > > > wonder if Ayn Rand was really such a bigot or whether this is a bunch
> > > > of people misusing her name.
> > >
> > > No, she was a bigot. I knew an Objectivist who insisted I would see the light
> > > if I read Ayn Rand's stuff, so I tried reading "Atlas Unshrugged". When I
> > > said she was a selfish bigot he told me I didn't "get" it.
> >
> > Since when does equality of opportunity and equality before the law
> > equal bigotry?
>
> It doesn't. But since those two things have been claimed by every *ism since the
> Enlightenment, it's hardly a distinguishing characteristic of Objectivism.
>
> Rand was an extreme individualist who claimed altruism was immoral (i.e. she was
> selfish).
Wrong....Person A claiming to be acting altruistically with Person B's
resources is immoral.
Person A is free to be as altruistic as he pleases WITH HIS OWN RESOURCES.
But pretending to be altruistic with SOMEONE ELSE'S resources is nothing
more than robbing Peter to pay Paul.
> She also had very little tolerence for those whose opinions differed to
> hers (i.e. she was a bigot).
She had very little tolerance of those who argue that stealing and killing
people is "compassionate."
Remember...Ayn Rand experienced the Communist Revolution in Russia
FIRST HAND and knew EXACTLY what the hell she was talking about.
>
> "Selfish" and "Bigot", look 'em up in the dictionary.
Neither of which applies to Ayn Rand.
Read Dr. Zhivago...or even watch the movie, and get back to me
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> In article <933rtf$eol$1...@newsie.singa.pore.net>, "Todd" <som...@is.watching.you.com> wrote:
> >> They're guilty as sin, and they know it.
> >
> >Not unless they are *proven* guilty - and the appeals court will have their
> >say.
>
> They were proven guilty, or did you completely miss the trial that occurred a
> while back? The fact they're appealing doesn't suddenly make them "not
> guilty".
And they are not appealing the GUILTY VERDICT...they are merely appealing the SENTANCE.
>
> ian.
>
> \ /
> (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
> /(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
> | |
Ian Pulsford
>
>
> Do you know of any intelligent, well-researched responses on the
> internet to this sort of drivel?
>
> Other than Eric Raymonds' writings on http://www.tuxedo.org/, I can't
> find any.
Have a look on www.gnu.org for some good stuff; mostly Richard
Stallman's take on free software. I have also read a good critique of
Ayn Rand and objectivism from an ex-insiders perspective (one her
original clique) but I seem to have deleted it :-(
IanP
Nick Condon
> Nick Condon wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > > Nick Condon wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Perry Pip wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > And to think they pride themselves in being objective. I can only
> > > > > wonder if Ayn Rand was really such a bigot or whether this is a bunch
> > > > > of people misusing her name.
> > > >
> > > > No, she was a bigot. I knew an Objectivist who insisted I would see the light
> > > > if I read Ayn Rand's stuff, so I tried reading "Atlas Unshrugged". When I
> > > > said she was a selfish bigot he told me I didn't "get" it.
> > >
> > > Since when does equality of opportunity and equality before the law
> > > equal bigotry?
> >
> > It doesn't. But since those two things have been claimed by every *ism since the
> > Enlightenment, it's hardly a distinguishing characteristic of Objectivism.
> >
> > Rand was an extreme individualist who claimed altruism was immoral (i.e. she was
> > selfish).
>
> Wrong....
She said it herself. Repeatedly. She wrote whole papers on the subject, like "The
Virtue of being Selfish".
[snipped irrelevencies]
> >
> > "Selfish" and "Bigot", look 'em up in the dictionary.
>
> Neither of which applies to Ayn Rand.
Riiight.
tony roth
have me thinking your an attorney but your even stupider then an attorney!
Microsoft is appealling the ruling NOT the sentance, you goddamned fucking
retard
Microsoft is appealing the conviction, you goddamned fucking retard
There *WERE* proven guilty, by a goddamned fucking retard.
get your facts straight
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
There *WERE* proven guilty, you goddamned fucking retard.
Nate Good
<nic...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
>> Nick Condon wrote:
>> >
>> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> >
>> > > Nick Condon wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Perry Pip wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > And to think they pride themselves in being objective. I can
>> > > > > only wonder if Ayn Rand was really such a bigot or whether this
>> > > > > is a bunch of people misusing her name.
>> > > >
>> > > > No, she was a bigot. I knew an Objectivist who insisted I would
>> > > > see the light if I read Ayn Rand's stuff, so I tried reading
>> > > > "Atlas Unshrugged". When I said she was a selfish bigot he told
>> > > > me I didn't "get" it.
>> > >
>> > > Since when does equality of opportunity and equality before the law
>> > > equal bigotry?
>> >
>> > It doesn't. But since those two things have been claimed by every
>> > *ism since the Enlightenment, it's hardly a distinguishing
>> > characteristic of Objectivism.
>> >
>> > Rand was an extreme individualist who claimed altruism was immoral
>> > (i.e. she was selfish).
>>
>> Wrong....
>
> She said it herself. Repeatedly. She wrote whole papers on the subject,
> like "The Virtue of being Selfish".
>
> [snipped irrelevencies]
You're right. Rand had to shame in pointing out the personal benefits of
selfishness. But the "irrlevencies" that you conveniently snipped clarified
your erroneous suggestion that Rand thought "altruism was immoral".
You missed the point--altruism is not immoral, altruism in the context of how
the antagonists where displaying it is immoral. And that's what the
"Wrong...." meant (to me, anyway), at least if you read it PAST the elepsis.
I think "Atlas Shrugged" portrays the U.S. now so well that it's creepy
considering when it was written and who it was written by.
I've seen too many people who don't show up for work, do a sloppy job
because they won't lift a finger nor take pride in accomplishing a task
well. These people will press and press until they are finally canned.
Then they get to sit at home watching Jerry Springer while they collect
unemployment or welfare. And where does this money come from? From
people who show up to work every day and do their jobs well enough to
keep them. What an ideal society...
Rand may have been extreme, but I think she makes several good points.
Is it right for a society to force those successful to share?
Oh, but wait. I'll work my ass of so someone can sit on their can all
day eating stale generic potato chips and chugging bear at nine in the
morning. Afterall, I wouldn't want to be labled a "bigot" just because I
believe when I work for something that I deserve the full reward for my
labor...
Aaron R. Kulkis
Bottom line:
When you're doing it with someone else's money, it's not altruism..it's THEFT.
>
> >
> >> >
> >> > "Selfish" and "Bigot", look 'em up in the dictionary.
> >>
> >> Neither of which applies to Ayn Rand.
> >
> > Riiight.
> >
> >
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Bottom line Aaron your the dumbest fuck in all of usenet! Boy you'd almost
> have me thinking your an attorney but your even stupider then an attorney!
>
> Microsoft is appealling the ruling NOT the sentance, you goddamned fucking
> retard
You retard...there are TWO rulings in the case.
The first ruling is the ruling of GUILT. Microsoft is NOT, I repeat NOT
appealing this ruling.
The second ruling is the sentance. THAT is what Microsoft is appealing.
> Microsoft is appealing the conviction, you goddamned fucking retard
> There *WERE* proven guilty, by a goddamned fucking retard.
You really are a shit-head if you believe this.
>
> get your facts straight
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> There *WERE* proven guilty, you goddamned fucking retard.
> Microsoft is NOT appealing the conviction, you goddamned fucking retard.
> Microsoft is ONLY appealing the *sentance*, you goddamned fucking retard.
tony roth
the whole thing was a sham forget the sentance!
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3A5ACA27...@yahoo.com...
Ian Pulsford
hackerbabe
Nick Condon <nic...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Perry Pip wrote:
>
> > And to think they pride themselves in being objective. I can only
> Chuck Ayn Rand in the bin, read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
> instead.
>
OK, I'll do that right after I submit my essay to the Ayn Rand Institute's
scholarship contest. http://www.aynrand.org/contests/ And yes, I am _that_
desperate for money.
hackerbabe
> No, she was a bigot. I knew an Objectivist who insisted I would see > the light if I read Ayn Rand's stuff, so I tried reading "Atlas > Unshrugged". When I said she was a selfish bigot he told me I didn't > "get" it.
Ayn would probably agree with you to some extent if she was alive today. She
wrote a book on "The Virtue of Selfishness":
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/107-9401393-4754920
She also thought America was the best nation in the world, despite the
country's problems. However, she did not consider herself racist.
"Racism is the lowest, most primitive form of collectivism...Which means, in
practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions,
but the character and actions of a collective of ancestors." -_The Virtue of
Selfishness_
In case you are wondering about my support of Ayn Rand, my answer is that I
agree with her philosophy in some respects, but not on others, and therefore
I don't call myself an Objectivist.
Todd
"Ed Allen" <eal...@allenhome.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:939g9t$k3d$1...@allenhome.kc.rr.com...
> In article <938p0f$9de$1...@newsie.singa.pore.net>,
> Todd <som...@is.watching.you.com> wrote:
> >
> >The bottom line is this: you want MS split as the courts decided.
> >
> >This will not happen. MS will get their way. YOU will not have your
way.
> >Linux is going to have to compete with one MS, not through the courts.
> >
> What is this ? Microsoft competing through the courts ?
>
> "Microsoft is reportedly joining a group of Web-based travel agents
> who will ask the Justice Department to investigate possible antitrust
> violations by the nation's airlines."
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/travel/DailyNews/onlineagents990310.html
>
> Microsoft should just "compete harder" instead of "whining to the
> courts."
I agree.
-Todd
Matthias Warkus
...and Nate Good <natha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I've seen too many people who don't show up for work, do a sloppy job
> because they won't lift a finger nor take pride in accomplishing a task
> well. These people will press and press until they are finally canned.
> Then they get to sit at home watching Jerry Springer while they collect
> unemployment or welfare. And where does this money come from? From
> people who show up to work every day and do their jobs well enough to
> keep them. What an ideal society...
>
> Rand may have been extreme, but I think she makes several good points.
> Is it right for a society to force those successful to share?
No. It's time to kill the poor for good this time!
mawa
--
Der Speicherplatz in unseren Gehirnen ist begrenzt.
Mechanisches und tabellarisches Wissen hat in einem Gehirn möglichst
wenig zu suchen. Je mehr des Raumes für Wissen ausgenutzt wird, das
uns zu besseren Menschen machen kann, desto besser.
Ed Allen
Todd <som...@is.watching.you.com> wrote:
>
>"Ed Allen" <eal...@allenhome.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:939g9t$k3d$1...@allenhome.kc.rr.com...
>> In article <938p0f$9de$1...@newsie.singa.pore.net>,
>> Todd <som...@is.watching.you.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >The bottom line is this: you want MS split as the courts decided.
>> >
>> >This will not happen. MS will get their way. YOU will not have your
>way.
>> >Linux is going to have to compete with one MS, not through the courts.
>> >
>> What is this ? Microsoft competing through the courts ?
>>
>> "Microsoft is reportedly joining a group of Web-based travel agents
>> who will ask the Justice Department to investigate possible antitrust
>> violations by the nation's airlines."
>>
>> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/travel/DailyNews/onlineagents990310.html
>>
>> Microsoft should just "compete harder" instead of "whining to the
>> courts."
>
>I agree.
>
another way and if they cannot "leverage"(that is the term that their
executives use for threating other companies) their Windows
monopoly.
If they have no "leverage" then they buy the number two or three company
in a new market and throw a huge advertising campaign to capture
customers who were using the number one.
If that number one is big enough to ride out the rough times which
follow the ad campaign till the return of customers who realize that
the "New Microsoft Solution" is just what the number two offered
before with some cosmetic changes then is when they squawk for
federal assistance.
Lest you think that I don't have modus operandi figured out:
"Gates telephoned the chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission last week to urge a close examination of America Online"
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2666228,00.html
Microsoft executives are terrified of actually competing.
Competitive pricing would mean W2K server with no license
restrictions for $200.00 retail and Win98 for $10.
Revenue in that range would deflate their stock and lose lots of
them their millionaire status.
hackerbabe
> Bottom line:
>
> When you're doing it with someone else's money, it's not altruism..it's THEFT.
So when politicians push things like welfare on hard-working Americans, they
are actually pushing the idea that it is right to force people to give what
is unearned, "legal theft."
hackerbabe
> Person A is free to be as altruistic as he pleases WITH HIS OWN
> RESOURCES.
You're using a different definition of altruism than what Ayn Rand did.
Actually, if you are talking about someone willingly giving something away
for his own pleasure, that's Objectivism's definition of selfishness.
Before I proceed, I want to let you know that this is not an attempt to
"convert" you to Objectivism. I don't consider myself an Objectivist. But I
do think that it is important to understand what an Objectivist is truly
arguing for or against.
Anyway, a comparison selfishness vs. altruism (self-sacrifice), according to
Objectivism:
First, an example of selfishness:
"Let us consider an extreme example of an action, which, in fact, is selfish,
but which conventionally might be called self-sacrificial: a man's
willingness to die to save the live of the woman he loves. In what way would
such a man be a beneficiary of his action?... If a man loves a woman so much
that he does not wish to survive her death, if life can have nothing more to
offer him at that price, than dying for her is not a sacrifice."
In contrast, an example of altruism (aka self-sacrifice):
"Suppose, for example, that a son chooses the career he wants by rational
standards, but then renounces it in order to please his mother who prefers
that he pursue a different career, one that will have more prestige in the
eyes of the neighbors. The boy accedes to his mother's wish because he has
accepted as such is his moral duty: he believes that his duty as a son
consists of placing his mother's happiness above his own, even if he knows
that is mother's wish is irrational and even if he knows that he is
sentencing himself to a life of duty and frustration... The boy "wants" to
renounce his career only because he has accepted the ethics of altruism: he
believes it is immoral to act for his self-interest." -Nathaniel Brandon,
"Isn't Everyone Selfish?", _The Virtue of Selfishness_
Jacques Guy
> First, an example of selfishness:
>
> "Let us consider an extreme example of an action, which, in fact, is selfish,
> but which conventionally might be called self-sacrificial: a man's
> willingness to die to save the live of the woman he loves. In what way would
> such a man be a beneficiary of his action?... If a man loves a woman so much
> that he does not wish to survive her death, if life can have nothing more to
> offer him at that price, than dying for her is not a sacrifice."
So when God gave His only begotten Son to save the world,
He was truly just a selfish bastard. Well met, that is
why I am an atheist. Or was He a politician pork-barrelling
at Someone Else's expense? Whichever, I am still an atheist.
And when His only begotten Son complained "Lama sabakhtani"
now just what was He? A whingeing socialist, or an objectivist
pissed at having His life squandered at a bunch of billions of
layabouts (us, poor sinners)?
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> > Bottom line:
> >
> > When you're doing it with someone else's money, it's not altruism..it's THEFT.
>
> So when politicians push things like welfare on hard-working Americans, they
> are actually pushing the idea that it is right to force people to give what
> is unearned, "legal theft."
Precisely.
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
Steve Mading
: A quote from http://microsoft.aynrand.org/hate.html, referring to why
: Microsoft has been persecuted in the anti-trust trial:
: "There is only one fundamental reason why great businessmen [like Bill
: Gates] or great companies [like Microsoft] are hated, and it has
: nothing to do with so-called monopolies. [Microsoft is] hated . . .
: because [it is] good, that is, smarter, more visionary, more creative,
: more tenacious, more action-focused, more ambitious, and more
: successful than everyone else.
: Haters of the good [competing OSes and browsers] do not want the less
: able to be raised up to the level of the great producers (which is
: impossible); they want the great producers to be brought down. They
: want to use government coercion to cripple the greatest minds so that
: lesser minds will not feel inferior."
: --------
: Is there any truth to this accusation of envy, or are there other
: reasons people dislike Microsoft?
This is a common argument from some libertarians (I am assuming
the author is probably a libertarian due to the Ayn Rand in the
hostname - admittedly this could be a premature assumption.)
But what they don't seem to realize is that some of the opponents
of Microsoft are *also* libertarians. They feel the ebb and flow
of laissez-faire capitalism is being prevented by Microsoft's
bully tactics. It is common for some of these people to dislike
Microsoft, but *also* dislike the government's handling of the
situation - preferring instead a campaign of persuasion, getting
the marketplace to willingly switch away from Microsoft. Sure
MS engaged in unethical pracitices, but they wouldn't have worked
if it weren't for the fact that the computer marketplace is an
extremely UNinformed marketplace. In an informed marketplace,
people don't fall for that kind of crap. But the computer
software marketplace is one where all to often the person making
the buying decision doesn't know a damn thing about the product.
Libertarianism is supposed to be about freedom of your money
AND your personal liberty, but all to often I see libertarians
who only give a rat's ass about the money, and think everything
else will just follow suit automatically if you take care of
the money end of things.
Steve Mading
: "chrisv" <chr...@chrisv.com> wrote in message
: news:0j775tgj6ntqjm436...@4ax.com...
:> "Todd" <som...@is.watching.you.com> wrote:
:>
:> >
:> >Nope... appeals *will* overturn the verdict. MS did not break the law.
:> >
:> >-Todd
:>
:> You're an idiot, Todd.
: We will see when the verdict is overturned. Who will be the idiot then?
The judge who overturned it.
Aaron R. Kulkis
Yes...as a registered Libertarian, I've been absolutely aghast at the
editorial position of both Reason magazine ( http://www.reasonmag.com/ )
and Liberty magazine ( http://www.libertysoft.com/liberty/ ) both
fail to recognize that Microsoft's behavior has been one of SUBVERTING
the very same free markets which Libertarianism seeks to support.
hackerbabe
> Or were you just trolling?
> --
> http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
>
No, I'm actually writing a report about how Linux is a superior OS, in
part because of the way it has evolved compared to Microsoft. I also
wanted some information to counter tbe BS that supports MS as the best
OS in the whole wide world.
R.E.Ballard
hackerbabe <hacke...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> A quote from http://microsoft.aynrand.org/hate.html,
> referring to why
> Microsoft has been persecuted in the anti-trust trial:
>
> "There is only one fundamental reason why
> great businessmen [like Bill
> Gates] or great companies [like Microsoft] are hated, and it has
> nothing to do with so-called monopolies. [Microsoft is] hated . . .
> because [it is] good, that is, smarter, more visionary, more
> creative,
> more tenacious, more action-focused, more ambitious, and more
> successful than everyone else.
This is partly true. What makes Microsoft Unique in the world of business is
that it is run by 4 majority stockholders who can't be threatened by a proxy
war. As a result, Bill Gates was able to conceive, announce, and execute a
10 year plan for "World Domination" with relatively little interference.
In a business world where most managers are focused on the
next quarter, Microsoft was able to offer trivial discounts
in exchange for key strategic concessions. This, more than
anything is a tribute to Bill Gate's brilliance.
Very few men in all of history are able to do this. In
reverse order, you have Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Napoleon,
Genghis Kahn, Julius Ceasar, Alexandar the Great, and Rameses
the Egyptian.
In many ways, Gates is equally ruthless, killing off competitors economically
in much the way Hitler exterminated Jewish towns. The Gates' approach is
cleaner, with fewer bodies to bury and burn. Killing businesses is much
"cleaner" than killing the owners of the business.
Microsoft frequently stripped company founders of their dreams, their
financial security, their intellectual property, and their dignity, by
putting the pressure to the VCs, customers, and suppliers. In many cases,
Microsoft was able to get strategic intellectual properties for pennies on
the dollar.
In any other time in history, and any other part of the world, Bill Gates
would have been killed by mobsters hired by competitors. But in this time
and place, the only defense is lawyers, who often turn against you when
offered a quick and easy settlement.
Microsoft has often lost in court, only to pull it out with a quick
settlement, a court ordered sealing of the records and transcripts, and a
trivial amount of cash.
As much as I enjoyed Antitrust, I know of no actual homicides ordered or
tracable directly to any Microsoft executive. There have been a number of
mysterious deaths and accidents involving Microsoft competitors.
Ironically, when Bill Gates announced his plan for world domination in
November of 1984, only a handful of people took him seriously. One of those
was Richard Stallman. It was Stallman and some of the other nameless members
of the Open Source movement who created the General Public License, and in
doing so, created the only effective means of limiting and undermining
Microsoft's plans. Because of Open Source, Microsoft is nearly 5 years
behind schedule. Microsoft was unable to create a Monopoly of digital
communications. They were unable to create a Monopoly of financial
transactions. They were unable to create a Monopoly of intellectual
property, mass media, and financial markets.
Ironically, Ballmer's accusations of "Linux as Communism" is ironic coming
from a company that thinks in binary, one or zero, Microsoft IS the
"Standard", totalitarian approach to business.
> Haters of the good [competing OSes
> and browsers] do not want the less
> able to be raised up to the level
> of the great producers (which is
> impossible); they want the great
> producers to be brought down.
Actually, all they really want is access to the market
on similar terms. Linux isn't demanding exclusive
disttribution on every PC, Microsoft is. Netscape
wasn't demanding that IE be excluded form PCs, Microsoft
demanded that Netscape be excluded. Linux actually supported
the ability to concurrently run Linux and Windows, but Microsoft
demanded that NO modifications be made to the boot sequence
(especially boot manager that could boot Linux).
The Open Source community has generated a very competitive market
in which hundreds of players thrive and grow. Open Source is the
absolute CORE of nearly ALL of the economic growth that has happened
in the last 20 years. Microsoft has stolen Open Source property and
exploited it with the intent of expanding their monopoly, which allowed
it to benefit from Open Source generated economic growth.
> They want to use government coercion
> to cripple the greatest minds so that
> lesser minds will not feel inferior."
If Michael Jordan walked out and started shooting
the entire New York knicks Basketball team before
shooting a series baskets that allowed the Bulls
to win by 200 to 0, would you respect the victory.
When businesses refuse to obey the law, and government
refuses to enforce those laws, the industry becomes lawless.
The criminalization of liquor, combined with the selective
enforcement of prohibition created the environment for
organized crime. When extortionists moved into the clubs,
the legal disputes and competition issues were settled with
Thompson submachine guns.
The same thing happened with the recreational drug
industry. Dealers began shooting other dealers,
customers killed dealers, dealers killed customers,
and dealers formed alliances with other dealers.
The problem wasn't that drugs were illegal, but rather
that because drugs were illegal, that none of the normal
laws applied. There was no FDA monitoring quality control,
no FTC preventing fraud, no tax revenue to fund regulation,
and no financial management since the drug money had to be
laundered.
Today, drug cartels own thousands of small businesses used for
money laundering (theaters, restaurants, video arcades, and so-on).
But the illegal part of the business still functions unchecked
because the best the DEA can do is get to 2nd or 3rd level dealers.
If the DOJ appears to place Microsoft "above the law", there may be
reprecussions. We have already seen at least 5 viruses that threatened
millions of machines. We've seen major exploits of Microosft's
vulnerabilities in Melissa, I love you, and resume.
If Microsoft is perceived to be above the law, there may be those
who take the law into their own hands.
Jessie James was considered to be a hero by most of the homesteaders and
farmers in Kansas and Missouri because the railroads and banks exploited the
homesteaders and appeared to be above the law. James would take a modest
amount of money, but he would also burn the mortgages.
The Dillinger gang and the Barrow gang were often protected by farmers and
local who had already been forced to give up their farms and become
sharecroppers because of the Great Depression.
We now live in a world where cash is little more than "government green
stamps", and the "Real Money" is the bits in the bank's corporate computers.
We live in a world where SWIFT moves more cash in a few minutes than the
government prints in an entire year.
> --------
> Is there any truth to this accusation of envy, or are there other
> reasons people dislike Microsoft?
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
--
Rex Ballard - Sr I/T Systems Architect
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 80 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 01/14/00)
The Ghost In The Machine
<hacke...@my-deja.com>
wrote
on Mon, 15 Jan 2001 05:23:24 GMT
<93u1g7$lue$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>
>
>> Or were you just trolling?
>> --
>> http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
>>
>
>No, I'm actually writing a report about how Linux is a superior OS, in
>part because of the way it has evolved compared to Microsoft. I also
>wanted some information to counter tbe BS that supports MS as the best
>OS in the whole wide world.
Linux is not a superior OS, it is merely a different one. NT is
on its very basics rock solid, as I understand it (verifying this
may be an issue of course because it's closed-source); however, the
walls in NT, metaphorically speaking, are made of what might be
considered a form of confusing mush (the Win32 protocol in particular),
IMO. Win2k slathers on more mush and puts in some interesting
steel cross-bracings, in an attempt to resolve DLL hell,
and gave the interior a new paint job. :-)
It would be interesting to try to put an X server directly on
top of NT's kernel (most commercial-grade Windows X servers put it on
Win32) and see how well it works. There are some issues, such
as whether NT's sockets and things such as OpenFile() require Win32
to function (and where the X server needs to put WSAInit() calls),
various issues with file pathnames (such as / or \, / versus
C:\ or maybe $WINROOT?, and case sensitivity -- but all of these
are probably solved already), and taking over the display. I'm also
not sure whether semaphores (semget() et al) would be needed -- probably
not, although I don't know if modern X servers are multithreaded or not.
(It's not clear whether an advantage is gained thereby, since
every drawing instruction goes through the X server anyway.)
There might be an issue regarding interrupt latency; NT is reputed
to be terrible in this respect. However, I have no real data.
File locking is also slightly different; Unix allows reads and writes
on a deleted but open object (in other words, things such as
int f = open("blah",O_RDONLY);
unlink("blah");
read(f, buf, sizeof(buf))
work fine) I don't know what NT might do here. Since Win32
implementations exist, these obviously aren't fatal, and may
not even be relevant.
Linux distributions are IMO superior because they have better-defined
boundaries between application, library, and OS, and a more intelligent
DLL-handling system which encodes the version number into the DLL name;
NT is beginning to follow that model but had limitations because of
NTFS which had, as I understand it, limitations similar to DOS, in that
it could only accept 8.3 characters (Unix in the 1980's had a 14
character limitation, later expanded to 255; Amiga had 32 characters;
Mac probably had 32 as well). These limitations have now been removed
(4.0?) but the programs which operate still have legacy naming issues.
It may be an issue as to which part of a modern Linux distribution
(Debian, RedHat, Slackware, SuSE, Mandrake, etc.) is superior
(more robust? more widely available? cheaper? faster? smaller?)
to its NT analogue, and vice versa.
One other illustration may be philosophical. NT likes to use things
such as CreateProcess() with a large number of arguments, a complicated
atomic operation. Unix (and Linux) break this up into a smaller number
of primitives (fork(), setpgrp(), setsid(), exec(), dup()) which
allows for more flexibility, and possibly robustness as well since
the primitives don't need to contend with as many variables.
X also ties resources to its Display * (returned by XOpenDisplay()),
at least as far as I can tell; client programs don't have to
explicitly restore GC characteristics when done, unlike Win32;
they merely close the display, or let the connection expire as
the process dies; Unix is good at cleaning up open file handles
and the X server will notice that a connection has been abruptly
closed.
(This may not be an issue, actually -- but Win16 had many problems
with GDI resources if one didn't do this, and Win32 probably didn't try
too hard to correct these issues, in the name of backwards compatibility.
But I can't say I know.)
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com
>http://www.deja.com/
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- insert random unknown here
EAC code #191 4d:12h:04m actually running Linux.
This is the best part of the message.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Jessie James was considered to be a hero by most of the homesteaders and
> farmers in Kansas and Missouri because the railroads and banks exploited the
> homesteaders and appeared to be above the law. James would take a modest
> amount of money, but he would also burn the mortgages.
>
> The Dillinger gang and the Barrow gang were often protected by farmers and
> local who had already been forced to give up their farms and become
> sharecroppers because of the Great Depression.
>
> We now live in a world where cash is little more than "government green
> stamps", and the "Real Money" is the bits in the bank's corporate computers.
> We live in a world where SWIFT moves more cash in a few minutes than the
> government prints in an entire year.
Scary, isn't it.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, hackerbabe
> <hacke...@my-deja.com>
> wrote
> on Mon, 15 Jan 2001 05:23:24 GMT
> <93u1g7$lue$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
> >
> >
> >> Or were you just trolling?
> >> --
> >> http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
> >>
> >
> >No, I'm actually writing a report about how Linux is a superior OS, in
> >part because of the way it has evolved compared to Microsoft. I also
> >wanted some information to counter tbe BS that supports MS as the best
> >OS in the whole wide world.
>
> Linux is not a superior OS, it is merely a different one. NT is
> on its very basics rock solid, as I understand it (verifying this
> may be an issue of course because it's closed-source); however, the
> walls in NT, metaphorically speaking, are made of what might be
> considered a form of confusing mush (the Win32 protocol in particular),
> IMO. Win2k slathers on more mush and puts in some interesting
> steel cross-bracings, in an attempt to resolve DLL hell,
> and gave the interior a new paint job. :-)
A house of cards built upon bedrock is still a house of cards.
R.E.Ballard
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
>
> >
> > Jessie James was considered to be a
> > hero by most of the homesteaders and
> > farmers in Kansas and Missouri because
> > the railroads and banks exploited the
> > homesteaders and appeared to be above
> > the law. James would take a modest
> > amount of money, but he would also burn
> > the mortgages.
> >
> > The Dillinger gang and the Barrow gang
> > were often protected by farmers and
> > local who had already been forced to
> > give up their farms and become
> > sharecroppers because of the Great Depression.
> >
> > We now live in a world where cash is
> > little more than "government green
> > stamps", and the "Real Money" is the
> > bits in the bank's corporate computers.
> > We live in a world where SWIFT moves more
> > cash in a few minutes than the
> > government prints in an entire year.
>
> Scary, isn't it.
Not nearly as scary as the fact that Microsoft has
managed to convince a number of strategic banks to
use Windows 2000 as the server to process these
transactions. These are scheduled to be deployed
sometime later this year.
No governmnet oversight, no FDIC actuaries, no
compliance checking of the Microsoft code. The
bank code would be regulated, but the Microsoft
code could be running ActiveX controls.
Sleep well. :-)
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
Aaron R. Kulkis
I smell class-action lawsuits....
>
> No governmnet oversight, no FDIC actuaries, no
> compliance checking of the Microsoft code. The
> bank code would be regulated, but the Microsoft
> code could be running ActiveX controls.
>
> Sleep well. :-)
uh.....think I'll start investing in pharmaceutical companies...
specifically those who have patents on tranquilizers.
>
> > --
> > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > Unix Systems Engineer
> > DNRC Minister of all I survey
> --
> Rex Ballard - Sr I/T Systems Architect
> Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
> http://www.open4success.com
> Linux - 80 million satisfied users worldwide
> and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 01/14/00)
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey