The proposed Microsoft settlement prohibits MS from stopping OEMs Dual Booting
Adam Warner
will make this settlement almost cetainly meaningless for free software].
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-201-7758181-0.html
Microsoft shall not retaliate against an OEM...because it is known to
Microsoft that the OEM is or is contemplating:
...
2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows
Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or (b)
will boot with more than one Operating System; or
Plus they have thought about the issue of booting:
C. Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement any OEM licensee from
exercising any of the following options or alternatives:
...
4. Offering users the option of launching other Operating Systems from
the Basic Input/Output System or a non-Microsoft boot-loader or similar
program that launches prior to the start of the Windows Operating
System Product.
I'm pleased to see that at least these basic competitive necessities are
included.
No more secret APIs for Microsoft? This appears very weak:
D. Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows
XP or 12 months after the submission of this Final Judgment to the
Court, Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs,
for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System
Product, via the Microsoft Developer Network ("MSDN") or similar
mechanisms, the APIs and related Documentation that are used by
Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a Windows Operating System
Product. In the case of a new major version of Microsoft Middleware,
the disclosures required by this Section III.D shall occur no later
than the last major beta test release of that Microsoft Middleware. In
the case of a new version of a Windows Operating System Product, the
obligations imposed by this Section III.D shall occur in a Timely
Manner.
And this is designed to make sure free software can't get hold of
Microsoft's communications protocols to interoperate with them:
E. Starting nine months after the submission of this proposed Final
Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall make available for use by third
parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows
Operating System Product, on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms
(consistent with Section III.I), any Communications Protocol that is,
on or after the date this Final Judgment is submitted to the Court, (i)
implemented in a Windows Operating System Product installed on a client
computer, and (ii) used to interoperate natively (i.e., without the
addition of software code to the client or server operating system
products) with Windows 2000 Server or products marketed as its
successors installed on a server computer.
Note the RAND ("reasonable and non-discriminatory") licensing terms that
Microsoft can use. It's not punishment.
I. Microsoft shall offer to license to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs
any intellectual property rights owned or licensable by Microsoft that
are required to exercise any of the options or alternatives expressly
provided to them under this Final Judgment, provided that
1. all terms, including royalties or other payment of monetary
consideration, are reasonable and non-discriminatory;
So again, free software will have no interoperating access to Windows at
all if Microsoft chooses licensing terms that are incompatible with free
software (and of course they will).
And note, to really make sure free software will have no interoperating
access this term has also been included:
3. an ISV?s, IHV?s, IAP?s, ICP?s, or OEM?s rights may be conditioned on
its not assigning, transferring or sublicensing its rights under any
license granted under this provision;
But to make the case even worse for free software two more op-out clauses
are included:
J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties:
(a) portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of
Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise the
security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights
management, encryption or authentication systems, including without
limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b)
any API, interface or other information related to any Microsoft
product if lawfully directed not to do so by a governmental agency of
competent jurisdiction.
2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API,
Documentation or Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy
systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement mechanisms,
authentication/authorization security, or third party intellectual
property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any person
or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a) has no history of
software counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of intellectual
property rights, (b) has a reasonable business need for the API,
Documentation or Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping
product, (c) meets reasonable, objective standards established by
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its
business, (d) agrees to submit, at its own expense, any computer
program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication Protocols to
third-party verification, approved by Microsoft, to test for and ensure
verification and compliance with Microsoft specifications for use of
the API or interface, which specifications shall be related to proper
operation and integrity of the systems and mechanisms identified in
this paragraph.
Note even authentication systems are mentioned in J.1. above.
Overall this appears to be an incredibly weak settlement. I cannot see
where Microsoft is paying any price for their past conduct (e.g. no fine
is in sight?) Stopping Microsoft from prohibiting dual booting in the
future is just stopping what appears to be an anticompetitive practice
that cannot sustain further antitrust scrunity. The overt moves to make
sure free and open source software will not get any assistance to create
interoperable software with Windows is really disappointing.
I'll be looking forward to seeing other commentators thoughts on this in
the coming days.
Regards,
Adam
Bryan Morgan
there appear to be few benefits for free software. However, I do not
believe this was the driving force for the settlement. Isn't it the case
that they wanted to clamp down on monoploy practises? Doesn't this
settlement open things up for other businesses (e.g. Real, IBM, Sun etc.) to
get access to the information they need? OK it doesn't make Microsoft's
software 'free', but surely that cannot have been expected by anyone?
Bryan
"Adam Warner" <use...@consulting.net.nz> wrote in message
news:9rv4rp$104ejd$1...@ID-105510.news.dfncis.de...
[assorted snippets from the proposed settlement mentioned here
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-201-7758181-0.html]
phil hunt
>[...]
>
>Overall this appears to be an incredibly weak settlement. I cannot see
>where Microsoft is paying any price for their past conduct (e.g. no fine
>is in sight?) Stopping Microsoft from prohibiting dual booting in the
>future is just stopping what appears to be an anticompetitive practice
>that cannot sustain further antitrust scrunity. The overt moves to make
>sure free and open source software will not get any assistance to create
>interoperable software with Windows is really disappointing.
>
>I'll be looking forward to seeing other commentators thoughts on this in
>the coming days.
I agree with your analysis. This settlement means MS hasn't been punished
at all.
--
*** Philip Hunt *** ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk ***
Adam Warner
> I agree from the bits you posted (I didn't read the full article), that
> there appear to be few benefits for free software. However, I do not
> believe this was the driving force for the settlement. Isn't it the
> case that they wanted to clamp down on monoploy practises? Doesn't this
> settlement open things up for other businesses (e.g. Real, IBM, Sun
> etc.) to get access to the information they need? OK it doesn't make
> Microsoft's software 'free', but surely that cannot have been expected
> by anyone?
Bryan, I don't think I gave the impression that I wanted to see the DoJ
"make Microsoft's software 'free'". What can be expected is that people
working with free and open source software (and many of these people work
within your definition of "other businesses") should have "access to the
information they need" to create interoperable products. And it looks like
the terms for that access will be too onerous for such businesses to
license the information.
It is good to see a focus upon interoperability. I was just pointing out
that in my interpretation of the document you would only be able to access
communications protocol documentation on terms that would threaten free
software development. This is an entirely separate issue to making
Microsoft Windows free.
Regards,
Adam
David Preece
<use...@consulting.net.nz> wrote:
> J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
>
> 1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties:
> (a) portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of
> Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise the
> security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights
> management, encryption or authentication systems,
A proposed settlement written by someone who, for reasons I have yet
to understand, believes that 'security through obscurity' actually
works.
Bill's going to be cracking open the champagne over this one.
Dave :(
Anonymous
>
> [Cross-posted to gnu.misc.discuss because of the RAND licensing terms that
> will make this settlement almost cetainly meaningless for free software].
>
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-201-7758181-0.html
>
> Microsoft shall not retaliate against an OEM...because it is known to
> Microsoft that the OEM is or is contemplating:
>
> ...
>
> 2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows
> Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or (b)
> will boot with more than one Operating System; or
How on earth is anyone supposed to tell if Microsoft is retaliating
or not? Microsoft can retaliate in very subtle ways by just
changing the source code so that all of a sudden an OEM's machine
doesn't work so well with Microsoft's operating system.
Unless Microsoft's operating system is made into an open source
system like Linux, there is absolutely no way a 3 person enforcement
team can look over the few million lines of code in Windows to enforce
the above requirements.
Once again, the Justice Department has absolutely no clue about how
software is designed. The result is an unenforceable agreement
that still allows Microsoft to do whatever they want.
And even if Microsoft was to make its source code available to
the whole world to see if there was something actually wrong
with the code, no one else would have the right to change
and distribute it. So the whole world would still have beg
Microsoft to make changes to support their hardware. They
can still perform the same "wait until the next release"
routine, and basically let the companies they don't like
go out of business in the meantime.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Adam Warner
> Note even authentication systems are mentioned in J.1. above.
The Register has now reported on this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22647.html
It's the most significant part of the entire agreement document, as it
describes oversight of Microsoft's future conduct in the most critical
areas of web services (authentication) and multimedia content (DRM).
It also represents an end-run around the AntiTrust Laws: Microsoft only
needs to claim that its security is being compromised to get the
authority of a Government policeman. In its own way, this section
institutionalizes corporate malfeasance.
Here's the DoJ link to the agreement:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9462.htm
Regards,
Adam
Graham Murray
> 1. all terms, including royalties or other payment of monetary
> consideration, are reasonable and non-discriminatory;
>
> So again, free software will have no interoperating access to Windows at
> all if Microsoft chooses licensing terms that are incompatible with free
> software (and of course they will).
Though it does say that the terms must be "non-discriminatory". Does
this not mean that the licensing terms must be compatible with free
software, otherwise they would be discriminatory? Also consider that,
currently, free software is a major "player" in the interoperability
area, which should give legitimacy to its requirements.
John Hasler
> Doesn't this settlement open things up for other businesses (e.g. Real,
> IBM, Sun etc.) to get access to the information they need?
Probably not. Note that interfaces related to authentication, etc are
exempted. Soon stuff related to authentication, security, drm, etc will
pop up everywhere.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
John Hasler
> This settlement means MS hasn't been punished at all.
Punishment is not the purpose of an antitrust suit (not that this
settlement has accomplished anything else either...)
Adam Warner
Scott Rosenberg pulls no punches:
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2001/11/02/microsoft_settlement/index.html
"The Justice Department's settlement mocks antitrust law and leaves
Microsoft free to ravage new markets at will."
And Damien Cave, Katharine Mieszkowski and Andrew Leonard compiled this
piece:
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/11/02/microsoft_settlement_reacts/index.html
Eben Moglen, Columbia University law professor and counsel to the Free
Software Foundation writes:
The settlement doesn't affect that reality at all. It hasn't done
anything that would stop Microsoft from engaging in most of the kinds
of conduct that the Justice Department found to be illegal.
...
There are [also] several provisions designed by Microsoft and accepted
by an indifferent or careless government.
Sections III-D and E say that Microsoft must document its APIs within
reasonable time, for ISVs [independent software vendors], "for the sole
purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product."
Not, in other words, to allow a competing Non-Microsoft Operating
System Product to interoperate with Windows applications. This is
designed to make it possible for Microsoft to deny information to
developers of [free software like] GNU and Linux [who create products
that are not designed solely to work with Windows.]
III-I(5) says that [developers and hardware manufacturers] "may be
required to grant to Microsoft on reasonable and nondiscriminatory
terms a license to any intellectual property rights it may have
relating to the exercise of their options or alternatives provided by
this Final Judgment; the scope of such license shall be no broader than
is necessary to insure that Microsoft can provide such options or
alternatives." Microsoft will use this to argue that code under the GNU
General Public License (GPL) [which protects such software as GNU and
Linux] must be licensed to it on non-GPL terms, so they can use the
code in their own programs without having to GPL their programs.
***** I missed this second point [III-I(5)] Please read it and understand
the implications. *****
Norman Hawker, associate professor at Western Michigan University Law
School and a research fellow at American Antitrust Institute labels this
as "...a travesty and I think it's appalling. The government had its
greatest antitrust victory in nearly a century this summer with the
unanimous decision from the Court of Appeals. And now Microsoft is getting
off without even the faintest slap on the wrist."
The most egregious example of this would be the fact that there's no
provision for penalizing Microsoft if they fail to comply with the
order. All it says is that the order will be extended if they don't
comply, but if you're not obeying it now, what difference does it make
if the order stays in place for a few more years?
...
The government was negotiating from a strong position. Microsoft, when
they saw this settlement must, have thought it was raining pennies from
heaven. It's rainwater turned into beer with the government agreeing to
these terms. It's just amazing to me that they would agree to the
weakest terms when coming from the strongest position.
Regards,
Adam
phil hunt
>In gnu.misc.discuss, "Adam Warner" <use...@consulting.net.nz> writes:
>
>> 1. all terms, including royalties or other payment of monetary
>> consideration, are reasonable and non-discriminatory;
>>
>> So again, free software will have no interoperating access to Windows at
>> all if Microsoft chooses licensing terms that are incompatible with free
>> software (and of course they will).
>
>Though it does say that the terms must be "non-discriminatory". Does
>this not mean that the licensing terms must be compatible with free
>software, otherwise they would be discriminatory?
Not at all, an offer to license to anyone for a fee of $1000000 would
be non-discriminatory, because everyone would be able to use it on
the same terms.
> Also consider that,
>currently, free software is a major "player" in the interoperability
>area, which should give legitimacy to its requirements.
MS have fixed the agreement so they can stifle free software. They
did this deliberately because they (rightly) see it as a bigger threat than
rival proprietary software companies.
The DOJ has been conned. Gates and Ballmer must be laughing.
Stefaan A Eeckels
> Some more antitrust news from Salon.com:
>
> III-I(5) says that [developers and hardware manufacturers] "may be
> required to grant to Microsoft on reasonable and nondiscriminatory
> terms a license to any intellectual property rights it may have
> relating to the exercise of their options or alternatives provided by
> this Final Judgment; the scope of such license shall be no broader than
> is necessary to insure that Microsoft can provide such options or
> alternatives." Microsoft will use this to argue that code under the GNU
> General Public License (GPL) [which protects such software as GNU and
> Linux] must be licensed to it on non-GPL terms, so they can use the
> code in their own programs without having to GPL their programs.
>
> ***** I missed this second point [III-I(5)] Please read it and understand
> the implications. *****
How can a judgememt against Microsoft, and a subsequent settlement
between the US government and Microsoft impose obligations on
Microsoft's competitors?
--
Stefaan (GPG Fingerprint 25D8 551B 4C0F BF73 3283 21F1 5978 D158 7539 76E4)
--
"Technically, Windows is an 'operating system,' which means that it
supplies your computer with the basic commands that it needs to
suddenly, with no warning whatsoever, stop operating." -Dave Barry
Jeffrey Siegal
>
> Phil writes:
> > This settlement means MS hasn't been punished at all.
>
> Punishment is not the purpose of an antitrust suit
It should be. The law can not function if there is no penalty for
violating it. Requiring that violators be individually identified and
specifically restrained from engaging in illegal conduct in the future
is just crazy.
I've always said that the right remedy in the MS case, and in any
similar case, once illegal activity has been demonstrated, is a fine.
In particular, one significantly larger than economic value any gains
that accrued from illegal activity. Nothing else can deter illegal
conduct from MS in the future, but more importantly, nothing else can
deter similar illegal conduct by someone else.
Adam Warner
wrote:
> How can a judgement against Microsoft, and a subsequent settlement
> between the US government and Microsoft impose obligations on
> Microsoft's competitors?
Stefann I don't understand exactly how Section III. I(5) would work. But I
also know Professor Eben Moglen is no fool.
It appears to be a poisoned provision where if you try to license
interoperability information from Microsoft it opens you up to granting
them a license to _your_ intellectual property on reasonable and
nondiscriminatory terms. Those terms may be different from the terms of
the GPL and form part of the license agreement. And perhaps that agreement
would apply to a cross-license of any present or future intellectual
property created by the ISV, IHV, IAP, ICP, or OEM. If this license
agreement was upheld Microsoft might get special access to intellectual
property that other people have to implement on GPLed terms.
Plus remember that this kind of action would have been agreed to by the
Department of Justice so I imagine Microsoft would be free from DoJ
prosecution in acting in ways consistent with the settlement. This is just
speculation (and should be labelled as such): Is it not conceivable that
Microsoft may be able to do things in the next five to seven years that
might be an antitrust violation if a competitor attempted to do it
(because those competitors don't have a settlement agreement with the
DoJ)?
If you just asked a rhetorical question as to how a Microsoft prosecution
could turn into a weapon to be used against competitors then yes I'm
surprised as you are (based upon the assumption that Professor Eben
Moglen's interpretation is accurate).
Regards,
Adam
Isaac
>I've always said that the right remedy in the MS case, and in any
>similar case, once illegal activity has been demonstrated, is a fine.
>In particular, one significantly larger than economic value any gains
>that accrued from illegal activity. Nothing else can deter illegal
>conduct from MS in the future, but more importantly, nothing else can
>deter similar illegal conduct by someone else.
I think there are a number of purposes of a punishment including
deterence, disgorging of illicit gains, and making whole the
victims.
Besides the issue of punishment, there is also the issue that an
entity who breaks the law doesn't necessarily deserve the same
assumption that they will respect the law in the future as a law
abiding entity. A remedy or punishment is some situations must
take that into account.
A fine serves some of those purposes, but not all.
Isaac
Jeffrey Siegal
> On Sat, 03 Nov 2001 13:44:29 -0800, Jeffrey Siegal <j...@quiotix.com> wrote:
> >I've always said that the right remedy in the MS case, and in any
> >similar case, once illegal activity has been demonstrated, is a fine.
> >In particular, one significantly larger than economic value any gains
> >that accrued from illegal activity. Nothing else can deter illegal
> >conduct from MS in the future, but more importantly, nothing else can
> >deter similar illegal conduct by someone else.
>
> I think there are a number of purposes of a punishment including
> deterence, disgorging of illicit gains, and making whole the
> victims.
I think you're confusing punishment, which serves the interests of
justice and deterrence, and compensation, which makes whole the
victims. Nevertheless, justice, deterrence, and compensation all
require *at least*, one way or another, disgorging the illicit gains.
None of the proposed settlements or remedies in the MS case serve any of
these purposes, but most important of all for society as a whole, it
doesn't provide any meaningful deterrant. The message to would be
offenders, including MS, is: Go ahead and try to do it. The price
you'll pay if you get caught is minimal compared to the gains to be had.
> Besides the issue of punishment, there is also the issue that an
> entity who breaks the law doesn't necessarily deserve the same
> assumption that they will respect the law in the future as a law
> abiding entity. A remedy or punishment is some situations must
> take that into account.
>
> A fine serves some of those purposes, but not all.
It's a whole hell of a lot better than the alternatives that have been
considered.
And escalating fines for repeat offenders do serve the purpose of
providing a greater check on those who might be expected to be more
likely to try to get away with breaking the law in the future.
Isaac
>Isaac wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Nov 2001 13:44:29 -0800, Jeffrey Siegal <j...@quiotix.com> wrote:
>> >I've always said that the right remedy in the MS case, and in any
>> >similar case, once illegal activity has been demonstrated, is a fine.
>> >In particular, one significantly larger than economic value any gains
>> >that accrued from illegal activity. Nothing else can deter illegal
>> >conduct from MS in the future, but more importantly, nothing else can
>> >deter similar illegal conduct by someone else.
>>
>> I think there are a number of purposes of a punishment including
>> deterence, disgorging of illicit gains, and making whole the
>> victims.
>
>I think you're confusing punishment, which serves the interests of
>justice and deterrence, and compensation, which makes whole the
>victims. Nevertheless, justice, deterrence, and compensation all
>require *at least*, one way or another, disgorging the illicit gains.
True, but I think using the term remedy to describe punishment already
blurs that issue.
>
>None of the proposed settlements or remedies in the MS case serve any of
>these purposes, but most important of all for society as a whole, it
The settlement doesn't do that, but I'm not real sure what you're
including when you suggest that none of the proposed remedies
would serve any of those purposes. Breaking MS into small enough pieces
such that they can't leverage their monopoly would provide both
deterent and punishment. I don't recommend that solution. I just
bring it up to illustrate that there have been proposals that address
some of the other purposes.
>And escalating fines for repeat offenders do serve the purpose of
>providing a greater check on those who might be expected to be more
>likely to try to get away with breaking the law in the future.
Agreed. Of the above purposes, perhaps compenstation to victims is
the least necessary as long as the settlement doesn't include any
idemnity to future civil actions.
Isaac
Jeffrey Siegal
> The settlement doesn't do that, but I'm not real sure what you're
> including when you suggest that none of the proposed remedies
> would serve any of those purposes. Breaking MS into small enough pieces
> such that they can't leverage their monopoly would provide both
> deterent and punishment.
Nobody seriously proposed breaking it into pieces nearly that small[*].
And the proposed breakup remedies included minimal if any ongoing and
conduct restrictions (indeed, this was cited as one of the advantages of
a "structural" remedy). So the Windows mini-MS would still be able to
leverage its Windows monopoly, as would the "applications" (i.e. Office,
which has nearly as high a market share as Windows, and similar barriers
to entry) mini-MS.
[*] Perhaps the "break MS into several identical companies" would
qualify, but proposal never seemed to get much serious consideration. I
always tended to doubt it would work for very long anyway, as I
suspected one or two of the mini-MS's to become dominant and resume the
place of the parent relatively quickly.
Jeffrey Siegal
> The settlement doesn't do that, but I'm not real sure what you're
> including when you suggest that none of the proposed remedies
> would serve any of those purposes. Breaking MS into small enough pieces
> such that they can't leverage their monopoly would provide both
> deterent and punishment. I don't recommend that solution. I just
> bring it up to illustrate that there have been proposals that address
> some of the other purposes.
I just realized that my previous reply, while generally relevant, didn't
directly address the point you raised.
I don't believe that any of the proposed remedies (including the breakup
proposals) would have served as meaningful punishment because those
penalty was not nearly severe enough to achieve either justice or
deterrance. Both require that cost of the penalty be at least as large
as the illicit gains, in order to ensure that "crime doesn't pay." (In
general, an effective deterrant must be significantly *larger* than the
illicit gains, in order to effectively weigh against the probability of
getting away with it.)
phil hunt
>
>None of the proposed settlements or remedies in the MS case serve any of
>these purposes, but most important of all for society as a whole, it
>doesn't provide any meaningful deterrant. The message to would be
>offenders, including MS, is: Go ahead and try to do it. The price
>you'll pay if you get caught is minimal compared to the gains to be had.
Indeed. The court should estimate how much MS is better off because of
its illegal behaviour, and fine it that amount of money, or more.
>And escalating fines for repeat offenders do serve the purpose of
>providing a greater check on those who might be expected to be more
>likely to try to get away with breaking the law in the future.
Indeed.
Isaac
>
>I don't believe that any of the proposed remedies (including the breakup
>proposals) would have served as meaningful punishment because those
>penalty was not nearly severe enough to achieve either justice or
>deterrance. Both require that cost of the penalty be at least as large
>as the illicit gains, in order to ensure that "crime doesn't pay." (In
>general, an effective deterrant must be significantly *larger* than the
>illicit gains, in order to effectively weigh against the probability of
>getting away with it.)
The penalty doesn't have to be larger than the gains, because some of the
victims (MS competitors) could take advantage of the findings that MS
had violated the law to sue for civil damages. I remember previous
discussion where someone had suggested the possibility that those suits
could end up being the most significant part. I was thinking that
someone was you, but I really don't recall.
Isaac
John Hasler
> The penalty doesn't have to be larger than the gains, because some of the
> victims (MS competitors) could take advantage of the findings that MS had
> violated the law to sue for civil damages.
And under some circumstances those damages could be trebled.
Jeffrey Siegal
> The penalty doesn't have to be larger than the gains, because some of the
> victims (MS competitors) could take advantage of the findings that MS
> had violated the law to sue for civil damages.
There are two problems with this:
1. Some of the gains may have occurred too long ago to be recoverable by
vicitims given the applicable statutes of limitations.
2. Many of the victims will not sue. Some may not even realize they
were victims.
> I remember previous
> discussion where someone had suggested the possibility that those suits
> could end up being the most significant part. I was thinking that
> someone was you, but I really don't recall.
I think it may have been, but upon further reflection I think that's not
true in this particular instance. There may be some suits and they may
end up being significant, but we ought not rely on that from a public
policy point of view. Some or all of a fine imposed on MS could be
placed into a victims fund, out of which future judgements could be
paid. Ensuring that the wrongdoer does not benefit is important even if
victims are not made whole (and from society's point of view, is far
*more* improtant than making victims whole).
Jeffrey Siegal
> > The penalty doesn't have to be larger than the gains, because some of the
> > victims (MS competitors) could take advantage of the findings that MS had
> > violated the law to sue for civil damages.
>
> And under some circumstances those damages could be trebled.
Even if the standard for treble damages could be met by a private
claimant, which is questionable, you still have to believe that victims
accounting for 1/3 of the gains will successfully sue, in order for this
to serve as an effective deterrant. I don't believe that, or at least I
don't think we should count on it as a law enforcement philosophy.
Actually, even if all of the vitims sued and collected treble damages,
it still might not be an effective deterrant, because any prospective
wrongdoer, including MS in the future, will consider the perhaps
substantial possibilty that they'll get away with it any not pay any
damages.
Barry Margolin
Jeffrey Siegal <j...@quiotix.com> wrote:
>2. Many of the victims will not sue. Some may not even realize they
>were victims.
Isn't that one of the reasons for class action lawsuits?
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@genuity.net
Genuity, Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
Barry Margolin
Stefaan A Eeckels <Stefaan...@ecc.lu> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Nov 2001 23:20:12 +1300 "Adam Warner"
><use...@consulting.net.nz> wrote:
>
>> Some more antitrust news from Salon.com:
>
>>
>> III-I(5) says that [developers and hardware manufacturers] "may be
>> required to grant to Microsoft on reasonable and nondiscriminatory
>> terms a license to any intellectual property rights it may have
>> relating to the exercise of their options or alternatives provided by
>> this Final Judgment; the scope of such license shall be no broader than
>> is necessary to insure that Microsoft can provide such options or
>> alternatives." Microsoft will use this to argue that code under the GNU
>> General Public License (GPL) [which protects such software as GNU and
>> Linux] must be licensed to it on non-GPL terms, so they can use the
>> code in their own programs without having to GPL their programs.
>>
>> ***** I missed this second point [III-I(5)] Please read it and understand
>> the implications. *****
>
>How can a judgememt against Microsoft, and a subsequent settlement
>between the US government and Microsoft impose obligations on
>Microsoft's competitors?
What I think it means is that Microsoft would only be required to follow
this provision of the settlement when licensing to a competitor who
licenses their IP back to Microsoft in a similar way. Since the GPL is not
compatible with that licensing, that becomes a loophole that Microsoft can
use to avoid having to license their IP to GPLed software developers.
Jeffrey Siegal
> In article <3BE5A5FC...@quiotix.com>,
> Jeffrey Siegal <j...@quiotix.com> wrote:
> >2. Many of the victims will not sue. Some may not even realize they
> >were victims.
>
> Isn't that one of the reasons for class action lawsuits?
Sure, but class action lawsuits require that the class be well-defined
and well-understood. For example, you might imagine a class action
lawsuit on behalf of Windows users, alleging that each was charged, say,
$30 too much per Windows license.
But there are other classes of victims of Microsoft's monopolistic
behavior who are much harder to identify. For example, for years
venture capitalists have reported being reluctant to fund startups that
might compete against (and therefore be targeted by) Microsoft. If
you're a would-be entrepreneur who circulated a business plan to VCs but
did not get funded, you almost certainly don't know that's the reason.
But there is unlikely to ever be a class action lawsuit on your behalf.
Or, if you run a business that tried to sell your competing products to
Microsoft customers or through Microsoft distributors, you probably
don't realize, and more importantly will find it very hard to prove, the
extent to which explicit or explicit threats of Microsoft retaliation
discouraged people from doing business with you. When there is a
violation of antitrust law, the purpose of which is to protect robust
and dynamic competition in the economy as a whole, there are all sorts
of hidden victims.
In short, it is a lot more effective to define the illicit gains from
Microsoft's anticompetive behavior from the top down and ensure an
effective deterrent by imposing a suitable fine (perhaps to go to a
victim compensation fund) rather than merely hoping for the court system
to try to reconstruct them from the bottom up.
And then there is the question of whether some of what Microsoft did
might have been victimless but still illegal. Such a law can be
justified as promoting social good in the future. If the law is
violated, no one is harmed in the past or present, but people will be
harmed in the future. (What Microsoft did might have been value
creating in the short term but value destroying in the long term.) It
is unlikely that private actions could ever extract that kind of illicit
gain.
Isaac
>But there are other classes of victims of Microsoft's monopolistic
>behavior who are much harder to identify. For example, for years
>venture capitalists have reported being reluctant to fund startups that
>might compete against (and therefore be targeted by) Microsoft. If
>you're a would-be entrepreneur who circulated a business plan to VCs but
>did not get funded, you almost certainly don't know that's the reason.
Making an appropriate fine would require identifying such situations
or at least estimating their frequency of occurence. I don't see
that happening.
>In short, it is a lot more effective to define the illicit gains from
>Microsoft's anticompetive behavior from the top down and ensure an
>effective deterrent by imposing a suitable fine (perhaps to go to a
>victim compensation fund) rather than merely hoping for the court system
>to try to reconstruct them from the bottom up.
Damages can occur either because MS was unjustly enriched or because
another company/group was hurt and nobody benefitted. You can't find
evidence of the latter by looking at MS books.
I don't see either a fine or civil action likely to address the
problem of the unknowing victims.
>harmed in the future. (What Microsoft did might have been value
>creating in the short term but value destroying in the long term.) It
>is unlikely that private actions could ever extract that kind of illicit
>gain.
I agree that a fine might be the only way of getting at those damages.
Isaac
Jeffrey Siegal
>>But there are other classes of victims of Microsoft's monopolistic
>>behavior who are much harder to identify. For example, for years
>>venture capitalists have reported being reluctant to fund startups that
>>might compete against (and therefore be targeted by) Microsoft. If
>>you're a would-be entrepreneur who circulated a business plan to VCs but
>>did not get funded, you almost certainly don't know that's the reason.
>>
>
> Making an appropriate fine would require identifying such situations
> or at least estimating their frequency of occurence. I don't see
> that happening.
No, it doesn't require that. Again, you are focusing on compensating
victims rather than extracting illicit gains from the wrongdoer.
Calculating an appropriate fine only requires making a judgement as to
how much MS benefitted from its improper conduct, and how likely MS was
have gotten away with it. How much others may have suffered is
irrelevant, and especially who in particular suffered, is irrelevant to
this.
> Damages can occur either because MS was unjustly enriched or because
> another company/group was hurt and nobody benefitted. You can't find
> evidence of the latter by looking at MS books.
In general, you can't find *anything* by looking at MS books, except how
much money MS made in *accounting* profits. To make a judgement as to
what fraction of MS's total profits (accounting and otherwise) represent
illicit gains requires additional evidence. First, there must be
evidence as to what MS's total economic profits actually were. Second,
there must be evidence as to what share of those profits were derived
from illegal conduct. (For example, during the trial there was espert
testimony from an economist, in support of the existance of market
power, that the selling price of Windows was above a competitive
equilibrium, which does not by itself demonstrate illegal profits, but
it is a start.) Both sides have their expert witnesses and the court
decides on an appropriate fine.
> I don't see either a fine or civil action likely to address the
> problem of the unknowing victims.
The point of the discussion of unknowning and future victims was not to
address the problem of compensation or fine calculation; it was to
demonstrate how relying on victims' civil suits to extract illicit gains
from the wrongdoer is likely to be ineffective, or at least not directed
at the right public policy goal. Victims' civil suits are concerned
primarily with compensation, and only secondarily with punishment. Law
enforcement is concerned primarily with punishment. Different
mechanisms for different goals.
Barry Margolin
Jeffrey Siegal <j...@quiotix.com> wrote:
> Victims' civil suits are concerned
>primarily with compensation, and only secondarily with punishment. Law
>enforcement is concerned primarily with punishment. Different
>mechanisms for different goals.
Although civil courts *do* often award punitive damages, which I believe
are intended to serve as a deterrent. Otherwise, if the defendant's gains
are significantly higher than the victim's losses (which they may be, due
to indirect effects) there would be no disincentive to the misbehavior.
Isaac
>No, it doesn't require that. Again, you are focusing on compensating
>victims rather than extracting illicit gains from the wrongdoer.
>Calculating an appropriate fine only requires making a judgement as to
>how much MS benefitted from its improper conduct, and how likely MS was
>have gotten away with it. How much others may have suffered is
>irrelevant, and especially who in particular suffered, is irrelevant to
>this.
I think we'll have to disagree here. I think the amount of suffering of
others is an important component. In the extreme case, even if Microsoft
somehow failed to benefit from their actions, they would still need to be
punished.
With respect to the size of a fine, I'd agree that it is irrelevant who
in particular suffered, but I don't think I suggested otherwise.
>> Damages can occur either because MS was unjustly enriched or because
>> another company/group was hurt and nobody benefitted. You can't find
>> evidence of the latter by looking at MS books.
>
>
>In general, you can't find *anything* by looking at MS books, except how
>much money MS made in *accounting* profits. To make a judgement as to
>what fraction of MS's total profits (accounting and otherwise) represent
>illicit gains requires additional evidence. First, there must be
>evidence as to what MS's total economic profits actually were. Second,
>there must be evidence as to what share of those profits were derived
>from illegal conduct. (For example, during the trial there was espert
Of course, Jeff. But the books will contain absolutely no evidence
of the effects on others that don't result in profits for Microsoft.
Obviously I wasn't suggesting that reading MS kept tallies of which
profits were illicit.
>The point of the discussion of unknowning and future victims was not to
>address the problem of compensation or fine calculation; it was to
>demonstrate how relying on victims' civil suits to extract illicit gains
>from the wrongdoer is likely to be ineffective, or at least not directed
>at the right public policy goal. Victims' civil suits are concerned
>primarily with compensation, and only secondarily with punishment. Law
>enforcement is concerned primarily with punishment. Different
>mechanisms for different goals.
I can agree that punishment should deal with compensation only
secondarily. But you seem to be suggesting ignoring that component
rather than making it a secondary consideration. Secondary concerns
are not irrelevant.
I'd also suggest that with respect to intentional torts, deterrence
and punishment are a significant component of the purpose of civil
actions. Most often the purpose is secondary, but not ignorable.
I'm not convinced that a fine isn't the best possible way to proceed
here, but in order for the fine to work, it can't simply be sized to
disgorge profits from wrongdoing. IMO that wouldn't be a deterrent.
Isaac
Barry Margolin
Isaac <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
>I'm not convinced that a fine isn't the best possible way to proceed
>here, but in order for the fine to work, it can't simply be sized to
>disgorge profits from wrongdoing. IMO that wouldn't be a deterrent.
Right. If a wrongdoer only gets caught 1 out of times that they perpetrate
the crime, the punishment has to be more than 5 times their profits from
the crime. Otherwise, it's still a good gamble for them.
Jeffrey Siegal
> In article <3BE7E68F...@quiotix.com>,
> Jeffrey Siegal <j...@quiotix.com> wrote:
>
>> Victims' civil suits are concerned
>>primarily with compensation, and only secondarily with punishment. Law
>>enforcement is concerned primarily with punishment. Different
>>mechanisms for different goals.
>>
>
> Although civil courts *do* often award punitive damages, which I believe
> are intended to serve as a deterrent. Otherwise, if the defendant's gains
> are significantly higher than the victim's losses (which they may be, due
> to indirect effects) there would be no disincentive to the misbehavior.
Sure, and law enforcement sometimes provides for restitution to the
victims (this is very common in SEC actions, for example). The
difference is as much a question of purpose and focus as anything else.
Jeffrey Siegal
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2001 05:33:03 -0800, Jeffrey Siegal <j...@quiotix.com> wrote:
>
>>No, it doesn't require that. Again, you are focusing on compensating
>>victims rather than extracting illicit gains from the wrongdoer.
>>Calculating an appropriate fine only requires making a judgement as to
>>how much MS benefitted from its improper conduct, and how likely MS was
>>have gotten away with it. How much others may have suffered is
>>irrelevant, and especially who in particular suffered, is irrelevant to
>>this.
>>
>
> I think we'll have to disagree here. I think the amount of suffering of
> others is an important component. In the extreme case, even if Microsoft
> somehow failed to benefit from their actions, they would still need to be
> punished.
I agree with that. I think I said that one must consider the size of
the illicit gains and the probability of avoiding punishment in
determining the *minimum* penalty to provide an effective deterrant (if
not, I meant that). But certainly the penalty can be more severe if
justice requires.
> With respect to the size of a fine, I'd agree that it is irrelevant who
> in particular suffered, but I don't think I suggested otherwise.
You said, "Making an appropriate fine would require identifying such
situations or at least estimating their frequency of occurence."
> I can agree that punishment should deal with compensation only
> secondarily. But you seem to be suggesting ignoring that component
> rather than making it a secondary consideration. Secondary concerns
> are not irrelevant.
It is largely irrelevant from the point of view of constructing an
effective deterrant, which I would argue is the most important element
of punishment, because society would prefer to prevent violations rather
than attempt to remedy them after the fact.
Remember, also, that private actions are available to pursue
compensation for victims. Since there is another mechanism to deliver
compensation (and also some measure of justice -- remember OJ?), it is
less important that law enforcement address it.
> I'm not convinced that a fine isn't the best possible way to proceed
> here, but in order for the fine to work, it can't simply be sized to
> disgorge profits from wrongdoing. IMO that wouldn't be a deterrent.
Didn't I say that? One must at least multiply by the inverse of the
probability of a prospective wrongdoer not getting caught. And this is
only a floor because a fine set on this basis will just be an expected
break-even to the prospective offender; to be an effective deterrant,
the penalty must be larger.
Isaac
>Isaac wrote:
>
>> I think we'll have to disagree here. I think the amount of suffering of
>> others is an important component. In the extreme case, even if Microsoft
>> somehow failed to benefit from their actions, they would still need to be
>> punished.
>
>I agree with that. I think I said that one must consider the size of
>the illicit gains and the probability of avoiding punishment in
>determining the *minimum* penalty to provide an effective deterrant (if
>not, I meant that). But certainly the penalty can be more severe if
>justice requires.
My problem with this is that the gains are an incomplete indication
of the scope of the crime.
As an example, I'm not sure Microsoft made any money at the expense
of Netscape, but I'm certain that Netscape was harmed. How do we
assess the fine for any criminal activity associated with that?
Multiply zero times (1/probability of getting caught)...
>
>> With respect to the size of a fine, I'd agree that it is irrelevant who
>> in particular suffered, but I don't think I suggested otherwise.
>
>You said, "Making an appropriate fine would require identifying such
>situations or at least estimating their frequency of occurence."
>
Estimating their frequency would mean that you wouldn't have to
identify all particular victims. Of course some identification would
be necessary in order to estimate the size of the problem.
>> I can agree that punishment should deal with compensation only
>> secondarily. But you seem to be suggesting ignoring that component
>> rather than making it a secondary consideration. Secondary concerns
>> are not irrelevant.
>
>It is largely irrelevant from the point of view of constructing an
>effective deterrant, which I would argue is the most important element
>of punishment, because society would prefer to prevent violations rather
>than attempt to remedy them after the fact.
>
We'd prefer that the violations didn't occur, but when they do, I'd
suggest that in most cases punishment of the offender is at least
equally important to society as deterrence.
Again, I'll agree that you can form a deterrent without compensating
the victims, I don't think that deterrence should be the only goal.
>Remember, also, that private actions are available to pursue
>compensation for victims. Since there is another mechanism to deliver
>compensation (and also some measure of justice -- remember OJ?), it is
>less important that law enforcement address it.
Okay. You've already suggested a number of problems with that
approach, but a good set of findings of facts might be enough to
get victims informed and to give their civil actions an easy start.
Isaac
Jeffrey Siegal
> As an example, I'm not sure Microsoft made any money at the expense
> of Netscape, but I'm certain that Netscape was harmed. How do we
> assess the fine for any criminal activity associated with that?
Microsoft benefited economically. In particular, winning the browser
war eliminated a threat to the applications barrier to entry that
protects its Windows monopoly. This was discussed at length in the
Findings of Fact. Expert testimony from econonmists could put a value
on that.
Jeffrey Siegal
>>It is largely irrelevant from the point of view of constructing an
>>effective deterrant, which I would argue is the most important element
>>of punishment, because society would prefer to prevent violations rather
>>than attempt to remedy them after the fact.
>
> We'd prefer that the violations didn't occur, but when they do, I'd
> suggest that in most cases punishment of the offender is at least
> equally important to society as deterrence.
I would suggest you be a bit more careful with your terminology.
Punishment serves as a deterrant so, in that sense, the way you
expressed your opinion was not entirely well-formed. What I think you
mean is that punishment as justice is at least as important to society
as punishment as a deterrent. Expressed this way, this is a really
tough question that I think may be more a fundamental value than a
supportable conclusion.
> Again, I'll agree that you can form a deterrent without compensating
> the victims, I don't think that deterrence should be the only goal.
I agree that other factors, such as harm to victims, can and should be
considered when constructing an appropriate penalty. What I'm saying is
that those factors don't need to be considered to determine what degree
of penalty is necessary to serve as an effective deterrent. Only the
magnitude of illicit gains and the probability of being caught need to
be considered for that.
In the MS case, we can look at the magnitude of MS's illicit gains from
its illegal actions to protect and extend its Windows monopoly, assume
(unrealistically) that there was zero probability of not being caught,
and still conclude that none of the proposed remedies serve as an
effective remedy, because they don't come close to extracting the
illicit gains. Moreover, if someone did manage to construct some kind
of structural or conduct remedy which was sufficiently substantial, such
a remedy would be enormously value-destroying (if nothing else, due to
the cost of executing and/or enforcing it, but also because imposing
such a remedy from the top down would likely result in an economicaly
inefficient industry structure).
By constrast, a fine is not particularly expensive or inefficient in
economic terms. While painful to MS (that's the idea, after all), since
it is just a transfer of assets, the cost to society of imposing such a
fine is minimal.
Isaac
>I would suggest you be a bit more careful with your terminology.
>Punishment serves as a deterrant so, in that sense, the way you
>expressed your opinion was not entirely well-formed. What I think you
>mean is that punishment as justice is at least as important to society
>as punishment as a deterrent. Expressed this way, this is a really
>tough question that I think may be more a fundamental value than a
>supportable conclusion.
Okay. Good point.
I'm really arguing that justice and deterrence are both possible and
I really don't see any reason why if a fine is the only punishment to
be levied, why a fine shouldn't encompass both.
I would suggest that the most important gain Microsoft has earned
is the weakening of the competition. A fine that simply extracts
the money they've already earned (or even some multiple of that)
but which does not address the harms MS has done is IMO inadequate
even if it does deter MS from doing the same thing again.
>I agree that other factors, such as harm to victims, can and should be
>considered when constructing an appropriate penalty. What I'm saying is
>that those factors don't need to be considered to determine what degree
>of penalty is necessary to serve as an effective deterrent. Only the
>magnitude of illicit gains and the probability of being caught need to
>be considered for that.
You also seem to be suggesting that deterrence is the only important
policy.
>By constrast, a fine is not particularly expensive or inefficient in
>economic terms. While painful to MS (that's the idea, after all), since
>it is just a transfer of assets, the cost to society of imposing such a
>fine is minimal.
I understand the benefits of a fine alone, and I don't really have a
better remedy given the need to minimize the cost to society. Perhaps
I'm really arguing that the fine you propose is inadequate because it
doesn't even address enough, and because I still believe that at least
some of the fine will be paid by users.
Isaac
Jeffrey Siegal
> I would suggest that the most important gain Microsoft has earned
> is the weakening of the competition. A fine that simply extracts
> the money they've already earned (or even some multiple of that)
> but which does not address the harms MS has done is IMO inadequate
> even if it does deter MS from doing the same thing again.
That's certainly true, which is why such fines should be based on a
determination of the economic gains (which would include weakened
competition, increase barriers, etc.) attributable to the misconduct
rather than (past) accounting profits.
> You also seem to be suggesting that deterrence is the only important
> policy.
I don't think so, but perhaps I carelessly did suggest that. I do
believe that deterrence is the most important element of punishment,
particularly in the case of economic offenses, but I recognize there is
room for legitimate philosophical disagreement on this.
> I still believe that at least
> some of the fine will be paid by users.
I could be mistaken but I thought we resolved this to your satisfaction
several months ago. A fine can't be passed on to users and would be
borne solely by MS because it is a sunk cost. Indeed, this is a further
argument for a fine as an appropriate punishment -- because other
measures which relate in some way to future business activity, even if
they are punitive, may be passed on the consumers. A fine can not be.
(The tobacco settlement is a good example of a sunk cost -- either a
judgement/fine or a negotiated cash payment settlement -- being turned
into a variable cost -- a negotiated settment consisting largely of an
assessment on future cigarette sales. The motivation for doing so, and
the effect of doing so, was to largely pass the cost the cost to
consumers rather than being incurred by the tobacco companies.)
Isaac
< discussion about MS passing on a fine to consumers snipped >
>I could be mistaken but I thought we resolved this to your satisfaction
>several months ago. A fine can't be passed on to users and would be
>borne solely by MS because it is a sunk cost. Indeed, this is a further
Well, you made every attempt to explain it to me, and I basically
punted trying to go any further with it. It's probably not productive
to go through it again.
Isaac
Jeffrey Siegal
>>I could be mistaken but I thought we resolved this to your satisfaction
>>several months ago. A fine can't be passed on to users and would be
>>borne solely by MS because it is a sunk cost. Indeed, this is a further
>
> Well, you made every attempt to explain it to me, and I basically
> punted trying to go any further with it. It's probably not productive
> to go through it again.
I seem to remember you getting it at one point. Let's see...
[google, google, google]
Yup, found it. It looks like the message that finally convinced you
was, I'm sad to say, not written by me (though I think I made
essentially the same argument at a different time):
---
Message-ID: <slrn9k72u...@latveria.castledoom.org>
On Wed, 04 Jul 2001 20:56:09 GMT, Jeff Bishop
<jwbi...@mediaone.spam.not> wrote:
>No business can pass on a penalty of a fixed amount, however larger or
>small. Even a $1.00 fine would reduce MSFT's profits by that amount;
>it just wouldn't be enough for anyone to care. If MSFT had the
>ability toincrease their own profit margin enough to "pass on" any
>losses to their consumers, they would have done so anyway, fine or no
>fine.
I got it that time!
Isaac
---
Don't feel bad; having a hard time internalizing the concept of sunk
costs seems to be deeply ingrained in human thought -- perhaps it even
has some genetic basis. There are studies demonstrating that even
economists well-educated on the theory will often reason incorrectly
about sunk costs when relying on intuition.
Isaac
Genetic basis... Hey! Are you talking bout my momma?
I guess what bugs me about this, is that MS has recently seen fit to make
some huge increases in price accompanied with even more restrictive
licensing intended to force companies to upgrade their OSes on quicker
cycles. Where does the curve shifting for these kinds of price increases
come from? I guess the point is that they can make these same increases,
fine or no fine, so the fine still costs them money.
I think I had more problem understanding why a tax on sales voluem can't
also be amortized into a fine having the same affect. I was probably
assuming an infinitely steep demand curve where volume wouldn't
change appreciably with price.
Isaac
Jeffrey Siegal
>>Don't feel bad; having a hard time internalizing the concept of sunk
>>costs seems to be deeply ingrained in human thought -- perhaps it even
>>has some genetic basis. There are studies demonstrating that even
>>
>
> Genetic basis... Hey! Are you talking bout my momma?
Not really. More about our collective momma.
> I guess what bugs me about this, is that MS has recently seen fit to make
> some huge increases in price accompanied with even more restrictive
> licensing intended to force companies to upgrade their OSes on quicker
> cycles. Where does the curve shifting for these kinds of price increases
> come from?
If I had to guess I'd say market saturation. Promoting growth is one
reason why even a monopolist would keep prices low, but once the
opportunities for growth are limited, it is time to milk the cash cow.
Another possilibity is that MS is (whether they realize it or not)
conceeding the low end to Linux and moving upscale, as discussed in _The
Innovator's Dilemma_.
Other possible explanations for the price increase such as reduced
competition don't seem to be supported by the evidence.
> I guess the point is that they can make these same increases,
> fine or no fine, so the fine still costs them money.
That's exactly the point.
phil hunt
>
>Another possilibity is that MS is (whether they realize it or not)
>conceeding the low end to Linux and moving upscale, as discussed in _The
>Innovator's Dilemma_.
What is the low end, IYO?
People wanting really cheap computers, liek those projects in Brazil
and India?
Jeffrey Siegal
> >Another possilibity is that MS is (whether they realize it or not)
> >conceeding the low end to Linux and moving upscale, as discussed in _The
> >Innovator's Dilemma_.
>
> What is the low end, IYO?
>
> People wanting really cheap computers, liek those projects in Brazil
> and India?
No, not really. When I wrote that I considered explaining what I meant
by "low end," but I decided to see if anyone was paying attention
instead. I guess you were.
In this context, I would say "low end" applies to those people who don't
have much of a need for most of the Windows feature set. For example,
on the server side, people who are just using it as a web server or file
server, but haven't bought into the whole Back Office, Exchange, COM+,
DNA, etc. architecure. On the desktop, people who just use the computer
for web browsing and email, but not running a lot of different Windows
applications or, again, using a lot of Windows-specific features.
By raising the cost of using Windows so much, MS is tending to price
itself out of the market of users who don't really need Windows, and
pushing these people more and more to Linux. At the same time, MS is
getting more revenue from those people who do use all of the "high end"
Windows features, which is why this strategy is attractive to them.
Much of the discussion in _TID_ uses examples from the disk drive
industry, since they author did a lot of research in that area. In that
context, whenever a new "low end" (smaller capacity, slower performance,
etc.) disk drive architecuture was introduced, there would be certain
customers who really did need the features of the existing, "high end"
product, and those for whom the lower cost of the new product made it
more attractive. Inevitably, established manufacturers of the existing
products would position themselves upscale, focusing on those customers
who rely on their products and charging those customers more, while at
the same time abandoning the low end to the new products. It isn't
clear that this abandonment is generally a conscious decision; it seems
that often it just falls out as an unintended consequence of other
decisions that are made to increase revenue and profitability.
Stefaan A Eeckels
Jeffrey Siegal <j...@quiotix.com> wrote:
> phil hunt wrote:
> > >Another possilibity is that MS is (whether they realize it or not)
> > >conceeding the low end to Linux and moving upscale, as discussed in _The
> > >Innovator's Dilemma_.
> >
> > What is the low end, IYO?
> >
> > People wanting really cheap computers, liek those projects in Brazil
> > and India?
>
> No, not really. When I wrote that I considered explaining what I meant
> by "low end," but I decided to see if anyone was paying attention
> instead. I guess you were.
>
> In this context, I would say "low end" applies to those people who don't
> have much of a need for most of the Windows feature set. For example,
> on the server side, people who are just using it as a web server or file
> server, but haven't bought into the whole Back Office, Exchange, COM+,
> DNA, etc. architecure. On the desktop, people who just use the computer
> for web browsing and email, but not running a lot of different Windows
> applications or, again, using a lot of Windows-specific features.
The problem for Microsoft is that most people who use Windows only
use it to read email, browse the Web, and run Office to write a note
or do a simple spreadsheet. All these things can be done equally well
with Linux and StarOffice, at essentially no software cost.
>
> By raising the cost of using Windows so much, MS is tending to price
> itself out of the market of users who don't really need Windows, and
> pushing these people more and more to Linux. At the same time, MS is
> getting more revenue from those people who do use all of the "high end"
> Windows features, which is why this strategy is attractive to them.
This is the path that has been taken by the mainframe/mini/Unix vendors.
They've all started out as either the only, or the lowest cost entry
into computers. As a result, they are (sometimes hugely profitable)
niche market vendors, and intrisically vulnerable to the possible success
of the lower-priced product at making them irrelevant. It's pretty
obvious that the success of the x86 and Windows NT has made the pricey
"workstation" a difficult sale to clinch. Ten years ago, no-one would
even dream of replacing a Sun workstation by a PC. Nowadays, Sun's
top-of-the-line workstation only has its 64-bit architecture as a
redeeming quality.
>
> Much of the discussion in _TID_ uses examples from the disk drive
> industry, since they author did a lot of research in that area. In that
> context, whenever a new "low end" (smaller capacity, slower performance,
> etc.) disk drive architecuture was introduced, there would be certain
> customers who really did need the features of the existing, "high end"
> product, and those for whom the lower cost of the new product made it
> more attractive. Inevitably, established manufacturers of the existing
> products would position themselves upscale, focusing on those customers
> who rely on their products and charging those customers more, while at
> the same time abandoning the low end to the new products. It isn't
> clear that this abandonment is generally a conscious decision; it seems
> that often it just falls out as an unintended consequence of other
> decisions that are made to increase revenue and profitability.
The Control Data's of this world (remember when they were the leading
disk drive manufacturers) probably regret having ignored the low cost
market. Currently, the same disk hardware is sold with different
interfaces (EIDE, SCSI, FCAL), and the high-end gets the higher spindle
speeds a tad earlier. They are produced by the same companies, and
the niche market players (like Kalok, who made high-reliability drives
in those days that the cheap products weren't all that dependable) have
either disappeared or bought out.
Moving up-market is decidedly dangerous.
--
Stefaan (GPG Fingerprint 25D8 551B 4C0F BF73 3283 21F1 5978 D158 7539 76E4)
--
"Technically, Windows is an 'operating system,' which means that it
supplies your computer with the basic commands that it needs to
suddenly, with no warning whatsoever, stop operating." -Dave Barry
phil hunt
>phil hunt wrote:
>> >Another possilibity is that MS is (whether they realize it or not)
>> >conceeding the low end to Linux and moving upscale, as discussed in _The
>> >Innovator's Dilemma_.
>>
>> What is the low end, IYO?
>>
>> People wanting really cheap computers, liek those projects in Brazil
>> and India?
>
>No, not really. When I wrote that I considered explaining what I meant
>by "low end," but I decided to see if anyone was paying attention
>instead. I guess you were.
>
>In this context, I would say "low end" applies to those people who don't
>have much of a need for most of the Windows feature set.
Hmmm. I use Linux partly because it comesa with more features *that
I want* out of the box than Windows. E.g. GCC, Python, parogrammer's
editors, decent news and mail software, multiple-screen windowing systems,
apache, PHP, etc.
> For example,
>on the server side, people who are just using it as a web server or file
>server, but haven't bought into the whole Back Office, Exchange, COM+,
>DNA, etc. architecure. On the desktop, people who just use the computer
>for web browsing and email,
I susprect this isn'yt many people. Most computers are used in offices
or at home. So they will either be doing word preocessing or playing
games, probably.
> but not running a lot of different Windows
>applications or, again, using a lot of Windows-specific features.
>
>By raising the cost of using Windows so much, MS is tending to price
>itself out of the market of users who don't really need Windows, and
>pushing these people more and more to Linux. At the same time, MS is
>getting more revenue from those people who do use all of the "high end"
>Windows features, which is why this strategy is attractive to them.
Yes, they need to increase revenue to keep their share price up. With
declining PC sales, this means higher prices.
>Much of the discussion in _TID_ uses examples from the disk drive
>industry, since they author did a lot of research in that area. In that
>context, whenever a new "low end" (smaller capacity, slower performance,
>etc.) disk drive architecuture was introduced, there would be certain
>customers who really did need the features of the existing, "high end"
>product, and those for whom the lower cost of the new product made it
>more attractive. Inevitably, established manufacturers of the existing
>products would position themselves upscale, focusing on those customers
>who rely on their products and charging those customers more, while at
>the same time abandoning the low end to the new products. It isn't
>clear that this abandonment is generally a conscious decision; it seems
>that often it just falls out as an unintended consequence of other
>decisions that are made to increase revenue and profitability.
This is a good summary of an excellent book.
Jay Maynard
<Stefaan...@ecc.lu> wrote:
>The problem for Microsoft is that most people who use Windows only
>use it to read email, browse the Web, and run Office to write a note
>or do a simple spreadsheet. All these things can be done equally well
>with Linux and StarOffice, at essentially no software cost.
Your statement is true for the home user. In large corporations, though,
there's another thing in there: Group scheduling and such via Outlook. While
StarOffice is interoperable (FSVO interoperable, but probably good enough
for most folks) with M$ Office, there is *no* groupware client that's
interoperable with Exchange/Outlook. There's more to that solution than
email, and nobody is doing anything in open source to match it.
Jeffrey Siegal
> Moving up-market is decidedly dangerous.
Yes, it is, but the interesting thing is that most people already knew
this years ago, yet were almost always still unable to buck the tread
for a variety institutional and structural reasons. If you're
interested, read the book.
Also, it is interesting that while moving up-market is dangerous, it
isn't always fatal, and sometimes can be spectacularly successful. For
example, he identifies the example of Harley Davidson, which became more
successful then as an upscale niche player than it ever was as an
ordinary motorcycle manufacturer. In general, those moving upmarket
experience improved profits as a result and only sometimes is that
profitable upscale niche later subsumed by the downscale mainstream.
Another example: Decades after mainframes were declared irrelevant by
the cognoscente, IBM is still making a lot of money selling them, to an
upmarket niche that *still* shows little evidence of being subsumed.
Stefaan A Eeckels
There's a project at Ximian that specifically aims at producing an
Outlook compatible mail client.
You are right that in corporate settings the groupware features are
often an important factor (how else could anyone sane ever consider
Lotus Notes ;-). But if Microsoft retreats to the higher-margin
corporate market, they might lose the "everyone knows Windows, Office
and Excel" advantage they have now (I've yet to see a school use
StarOffice for their "computer" classes), and that could seriously
impact their stranglehold on the corporate market.
Fergus Henderson
>Isaac wrote:
>
>> I still believe that at least
>> some of the fine will be paid by users.
>
>I could be mistaken but I thought we resolved this to your satisfaction
>several months ago. A fine can't be passed on to users and would be
>borne solely by MS because it is a sunk cost.
While I understand the principle of sunk costs,
I think that in this case Isaac is probably right:
MS would probably threaten to raise prices if they
were faced with a fine (to discourage such punishment),
and if such a fine was issued, they would probably carry
through with their threat, to maintain credibility,
even if this meant that prices were at a higher than
optimal point on the price/demand curve.
In such a situation, consumers would suffer.
The sunk cost analysis also assumes that the price/demand curve
remains constant. However, I think that users would probably
be angrier at MS if MS raised prices unilaterally, than
if they did so with some kind of excuse (e.g. blaming the
government and/or judiciary for imposing such a fine),
even if it is a lame excuse. This difference in consumer
sentiment might well translate into changes in the price/demand curve.
If MS were to double prices "as a result of the fine", they might find
that more people were still willing to buy their product than if they
raised prices just to increase profits.
Nevertheless, I agree that a fine is the best remedy in this case.
--
Fergus Henderson <f...@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne | of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
Jeffrey Siegal
> While I understand the principle of sunk costs,
> I think that in this case Isaac is probably right:
> MS would probably threaten to raise prices if they
> were faced with a fine (to discourage such punishment),
> and if such a fine was issued, they would probably carry
> through with their threat, to maintain credibility,
> even if this meant that prices were at a higher than
> optimal point on the price/demand curve.
> In such a situation, consumers would suffer.
That's a different issue. Issac said that "at least some of the fine
would be paid by users." Even in the scenario you construct, that's not
the case. (Some) users would pay more, other users would stop using
Windows (or would steal it), but in the aggregate, no part of the fine
would not be paid by users. (Indeed, MS would pay *more* than fine as a
result of pursuing this strategy, once you consider the lost profits.
Since logically such a fine must be very large to begin with, the
additional cost to MS of trying to "pass it on" to users might make it
simply not feasible.)
But, more importantly, this kind of retaliation would almost certainly
result in further enforcement action against MS. If the penalties
imposed as a result of such action actually had any teeth to them, I
doubt MS's shareholders would be willing to allow the management to run
the company into the ground by inviting more (probably harsher)
penalties. Since the penalties actually being imposed and even
considered are almost meaningless, MS's continued unrepentant behavior
is entirely justified from the shareholder's point of view, but that's
certainly not the case given *real* penalties.
Finally, would MS really be willing to jeopordize its market-dominant
position by pricing more users out of the Windows market and encouraging
them to consider moving to Mac, Linux, etc. just to "maintain
credibility?" I think not. It is the threat itself that is not
credible, and to maintain its credibility, MS would refrain from making
it in the first place.
> The sunk cost analysis also assumes that the price/demand curve
> remains constant. However, I think that users would probably
> be angrier at MS if MS raised prices unilaterally, than
> if they did so with some kind of excuse (e.g. blaming the
> government and/or judiciary for imposing such a fine),
> even if it is a lame excuse. This difference in consumer
> sentiment might well translate into changes in the price/demand curve.
> If MS were to double prices "as a result of the fine", they might find
> that more people were still willing to buy their product than if they
> raised prices just to increase profits.
Perhaps, or perhaps the reverse. "You want *us* to pay *your* fine?"
In reality, I don't find the theory that having a "good excuse" to raise
prices would shift the demand curve for Windows particularly credible.
First, MS just instituted a significant price increase (and has done so
several times over the years) with no real reason at all. There is no
evidence that users' "anger" is making any difference in their
willingness to purchase Windows. Second, the demand curve for Windows
is largely defined primarily by pragmatic considerations, not how users
"feel" about how much MS is charging for it. Corporate users decide how
many computers to buy or upgrade and what kind based on their analysis
of the benefits they're going to receive from those computers; consumers
buy (mostly upgrade at this point) computers or OS upgrades when the
price appears attractive to them relative to the features, performance,
and so forth. In both cases, it is a cost/benefit decision, either
explicit or implicit, and a higher price is just going to convince more
users to do without, or do instead with Linux, Mac, etc.
Jeffrey Siegal
> >In this context, I would say "low end" applies to those people who don't
> >have much of a need for most of the Windows feature set.
>
> Hmmm. I use Linux partly because it comesa with more features *that
> I want* out of the box than Windows. E.g. GCC, Python, parogrammer's
> editors, decent news and mail software, multiple-screen windowing systems,
> apache, PHP, etc.
Almost all of those (if not all) are also available on Windows using
Cygwin or native ports.
That said, you're exactly the kind of user who, if you used Windows at
all, wouldn't use much of the feature set, won't pay much for it, and
are therefore part of the "low end" that MS is conceding.
> > For example,
> >on the server side, people who are just using it as a web server or file
> >server, but haven't bought into the whole Back Office, Exchange, COM+,
> >DNA, etc. architecure. On the desktop, people who just use the computer
> >for web browsing and email,
>
> I susprect this isn'yt many people. Most computers are used in offices
> or at home. So they will either be doing word preocessing or playing
> games, probably.
Games are, for the moment at least, an example of an application where
Windows offers a lot of value given the bredth of the application base.
People who aren't terribly into games are more likely to not "need"
Windows; if MS squeezes them too hard, they're more likely switch to Mac
or Linux (or stick with an earlier version of Windows that doesn't
support the latest games). But if you're a hardcore PC gamer, you're
definitely need to be a Windows user, probably the latest version, and
MS is going to try to make real money from you as best they can.
phil hunt
Evolution?
phil hunt
>phil hunt wrote:
>> >In this context, I would say "low end" applies to those people who don't
>> >have much of a need for most of the Windows feature set.
>>
>> Hmmm. I use Linux partly because it comesa with more features *that
>> I want* out of the box than Windows. E.g. GCC, Python, parogrammer's
>> editors, decent news and mail software, multiple-screen windowing systems,
>> apache, PHP, etc.
>
>Almost all of those (if not all) are also available on Windows using
>Cygwin or native ports.
True, that's why I said "out of the box".
Actually, the single thing i most hate about windows is the way that
the windows with client focus has to be on top. Unix windowing systems
give you the choice about whether to have this "feature".
>That said, you're exactly the kind of user who, if you used Windows at
>all, wouldn't use much of the feature set, won't pay much for it, and
>are therefore part of the "low end" that MS is conceding.
Yep.
>support the latest games). But if you're a hardcore PC gamer, you're
>definitely need to be a Windows user, probably the latest version, and
>MS is going to try to make real money from you as best they can.
True.
phil hunt
>Jeffrey Siegal <j...@quiotix.com> writes:
>
>>Isaac wrote:
>>
>>> I still believe that at least
>>> some of the fine will be paid by users.
>>
>>I could be mistaken but I thought we resolved this to your satisfaction
>>several months ago. A fine can't be passed on to users and would be
>>borne solely by MS because it is a sunk cost.
>
>While I understand the principle of sunk costs,
>I think that in this case Isaac is probably right:
>MS would probably threaten to raise prices if they
>were faced with a fine (to discourage such punishment),
>and if such a fine was issued, they would probably carry
>through with their threat, to maintain credibility,
>even if this meant that prices were at a higher than
>optimal point on the price/demand curve.
>In such a situation, consumers would suffer.
If it led to consumerrs abandoning MS for other operating systems,
then in the long term consumers wouldn't suffer at all.
Jay Maynard
<Stefaan...@ecc.lu> wrote:
>There's a project at Ximian that specifically aims at producing an
>Outlook compatible mail client.
It's not just mail, though. The groupware features often aren't just "an
important factor", but the very lifeblood of the way the company operates.
Case in point: Compaq Computer. *EVERY* meeting and *every* important
communication and *every* employee's directory are done *only* in Outlook.
Yes, you can do email on an Exchange server with Outlook clients with other
mail programs. That's at best a partial solution. By now, if you don't
replace *every* feature of OUtlook, scheduling and collaboration and
directory as well as mail, you haven't solved the problem. If you want to
replace Outlook, don't start at the email end. Do everything else, then add
the mail facilities to pass things around.
>But if Microsoft retreats to the higher-margin
>corporate market, they might lose the "everyone knows Windows, Office
>and Excel" advantage they have now (I've yet to see a school use
>StarOffice for their "computer" classes), and that could seriously
>impact their stranglehold on the corporate market.
I seriously doubt it: even if some other program were to come along, it
would have to be M$ Office-compatible to gain any market share at all, no
matter how cheap. At that point, you're training Office users even if you
don't intend to.
Jeffrey Siegal
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 08:30:42 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels
> <Stefaan...@ecc.lu> wrote:
> >There's a project at Ximian that specifically aims at producing an
> >Outlook compatible mail client.
>
> It's not just mail, though. The groupware features often aren't just "an
> important factor", but the very lifeblood of the way the company operates.
Mr. Eeckels mischaracterized the project (Evolution). It is not a mail
client; it is intended to be a full-fledged groupware system, though not
necessarily Outlook-compatible in every respect.
> Case in point: Compaq Computer. *EVERY* meeting and *every* important
> communication and *every* employee's directory are done *only* in Outlook.
> Yes, you can do email on an Exchange server with Outlook clients with other
> mail programs. That's at best a partial solution. By now, if you don't
> replace *every* feature of OUtlook, scheduling and collaboration and
> directory as well as mail, you haven't solved the problem. If you want to
> replace Outlook, don't start at the email end. Do everything else, then add
> the mail facilities to pass things around.
It is unlikely that Compaq will drop Outlook and switch over to
Evolution, but it is very likely that other organizations will use
Evolution instead of Outlook.
Microsoft, in turn, will take Outlook upmarket, focusing on making it
serve the needs of Compaq better but charging them more for it.
> >But if Microsoft retreats to the higher-margin
> >corporate market, they might lose the "everyone knows Windows, Office
> >and Excel" advantage they have now (I've yet to see a school use
> >StarOffice for their "computer" classes), and that could seriously
> >impact their stranglehold on the corporate market.
>
> I seriously doubt it: even if some other program were to come along, it
> would have to be M$ Office-compatible to gain any market share at all, no
> matter how cheap. At that point, you're training Office users even if you
> don't intend to.
Nonsense. Linux doesn't "train Unix users." Indeed, it has gained more
share from Unix than from any other OS, largely because switching from
Unix to Linux is relatively painless (extreme compatability) and Linux
is cheaper (and better in some ways).
Jay Maynard
>Mr. Eeckels mischaracterized the project (Evolution). It is not a mail
>client; it is intended to be a full-fledged groupware system, though not
>necessarily Outlook-compatible in every respect.
The less it's Outlook-compatible, the fewer inroads it'll make. Beat the
"free software" or open source drums all you like, but if it's not
completely compatible, it's not enough.
>It is unlikely that Compaq will drop Outlook and switch over to
>Evolution, but it is very likely that other organizations will use
>Evolution instead of Outlook.
OTOH, there are more than a few folks at Compaq (I used to be one of them)
who run Windows solely because they need to be plugged in to Outlook. Those
folks would drop M$ entirely and run Linux in a heartbeat if they could.
>Nonsense. Linux doesn't "train Unix users." Indeed, it has gained more
>share from Unix than from any other OS, largely because switching from
>Unix to Linux is relatively painless (extreme compatability) and Linux
>is cheaper (and better in some ways).
Quite possibly, but that doesn't mean a compatible Office replacement
wouldn't train Office users: it's a different market, with different
dynamics.
Jeffrey Siegal
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 15:13:26 -0800, Jeffrey Siegal <j...@quiotix.com> wrote:
> >Mr. Eeckels mischaracterized the project (Evolution). It is not a mail
> >client; it is intended to be a full-fledged groupware system, though not
> >necessarily Outlook-compatible in every respect.
>
> The less it's Outlook-compatible, the fewer inroads it'll make. Beat the
> "free software" or open source drums all you like, but if it's not
> completely compatible, it's not enough.
That assumes that the goal is to "make inroads." I have no idea what
Ximian's goals are, but a perfectly reasonable goal is to provide useful
software that delivers value to people. It might not be people at
Compaq, but so what?
> >It is unlikely that Compaq will drop Outlook and switch over to
> >Evolution, but it is very likely that other organizations will use
> >Evolution instead of Outlook.
>
> OTOH, there are more than a few folks at Compaq (I used to be one of them)
> who run Windows solely because they need to be plugged in to Outlook. Those
> folks would drop M$ entirely and run Linux in a heartbeat if they could.
But they can't, and for the forseeable future, they won't be able to.
Linux and Evolution will find their markets elsewhere, and that's
nothing wrong with that. At some point in the future, several MS price
increases later, Compaq might decide that it makes sense to bite the
bullet and incur the transition cost of moving away from a MS-specific
infrastructure. Or it might not. Who knows.
> >Nonsense. Linux doesn't "train Unix users." Indeed, it has gained more
> >share from Unix than from any other OS, largely because switching from
> >Unix to Linux is relatively painless (extreme compatability) and Linux
> >is cheaper (and better in some ways).
>
> Quite possibly, but that doesn't mean a compatible Office replacement
> wouldn't train Office users: it's a different market, with different
> dynamics.
It is, but you were the one that made the claim that a Office-compatible
free software would merely train Office users and would not weaken MS's
"stranglehold on the corporate market." I provided a counterexample
supporting the idea that an Office-compatible free software offering
could very well weaken that "stranglehold" and result in significant
market share loss as users migrate to the cheaper solution. That
certainly doesn't prove this would happen that way, but the available
evidence strongly suggests that it very well might.
Adam Warner
> I'm somewhat skeptical of Ximian Evolution; it seems _hugely_ bloated.
> It's a barely-released PIM package, and it's about 4 times the size of
> GNU Emacs, which has had 15-odd years of maturity to add in many MB of
> extensions. All the same, if Evolution is sufficiently useful to a
> bunch of people, then it can be a "success" despite not being a
> "plug'n'pray" alternative to Outlook.
Christopher I've been using Evolution for many months and in my estimation
it is becoming a superb mail client. Since the startup times for Evolution
are not excessive on my system and the application always feels responsive
we must have far different perceptions of excessive bloat.
In fact I think your comparison with GNU Emacs is nonsense, especially
considering the statement that "it's about 4 times the size of GNU Emacs"
is patently false. For example if I check the installed size of my Debian
packages:
apt-cache show emacs21:
Installed-Size: 40606
apt-cache show evolution:
Installed-Size: 21412
Regards,
Adam
Stefaan A Eeckels
cbbr...@acm.org wrote:
> jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) writes:
> > On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 15:13:26 -0800, Jeffrey Siegal <j...@quiotix.com> wrote:
> > >Mr. Eeckels mischaracterized the project (Evolution). It is not a mail
> > >client; it is intended to be a full-fledged groupware system, though not
> > >necessarily Outlook-compatible in every respect.
>
> > The less it's Outlook-compatible, the fewer inroads it'll make. Beat
> > the "free software" or open source drums all you like, but if it's
> > not completely compatible, it's not enough.
>
> This is more-or-less the same situation that there has long been with
> any would-be "Microsoft Office" alternatives, irrespective of whether
> they're free software or not.
>
> People have wound up deciding that their "needs" involve having MS Office.
IMHO this stems from the fact that schools offer "word processing"
courses that are nothing else but "MS Word courses". It reminds me
of the car journalists who'd slam any non-analog dashboard without
even a thought as to whether is was genuinely less ergonomic. In
effect, they perverted the term ergonomic to mean "familiar".
>
> Corel WordPerfect Office did not satisfy; Lotus SmartSuite was not an
> acceptable alternative, even though it was virtually being _given_
> away, about 2 years ago. Whether StarOffice or "GNOME Office" or
> "KOffice" are `free' or not isn't the issue when people define their
> needs to be "MS Office or Bust."
I've one marvellous example I experienced myself. After an upgrade
to Office XP, I was challenged by an irate secretary who accused me
of installing StarOffice on her PC (a couple of days before I'd
explained her that I used SO on a Sun, and that she hadn't noticed
the stuff I sent here wasn't done in Word). After I explained that it was
really the latest version of Word, she spent about a day an a half
getting familiar with all the interface changes; I'm sure she would
have refused to do the same for StarOffice or WordPerfect.
Familiarity, perceived or real, breeds content.
> The same exact scenario holds for Outlook; it frankly doesn't matter
> at all how much of an attempt _anybody_ makes to make something
> "maximally compatible" with Outlook, if the metric that people are
> using is that of _Being Outlook_.
And the bugs, once a workaround has been found, now become distinguishing
features...
>
> > >It is unlikely that Compaq will drop Outlook and switch over to
> > >Evolution, but it is very likely that other organizations will use
> > >Evolution instead of Outlook.
>
> > OTOH, there are more than a few folks at Compaq (I used to be one of
> > them) who run Windows solely because they need to be plugged in to
> > Outlook. Those folks would drop M$ entirely and run Linux in a
> > heartbeat if they could.
>
> At some point, they'll have to do a significant upgrade, whether due
> to:
> a) Not being able to afford the number of sysadmins required to
> install all the security patches;
>
> b) There being Something New And Hot to consider as an alternative.
>
> There's not much more milage in trying to better emulate Outlook than
> there has been in the pretty thankless tasks of:
>
> 1. Trying to emulate Win16 via Willows, which was obsolete (due to
> Win32 coming out) by the time it worked;
>
> 2. Trying to emulate Win32 via WINE, which has been ongoing for
> _years_, and probably becomes obsolete once the crucial bits of
> Windows are the vast array of COM+ components, and not the Win32
> API;
>
> 3. Trying to update (StarOffice|Gnumeric|WordPerfect|SmartSuite|...)
> to at least load and save MS Word/Excel/PowerPoint documents.
Unfortunately, as long as those organisations that should be protecting
diversity (such as the European Commission) force their suppliers to
submit all documents in Word format, having a non-MS package that
successfully reads and writes MS document formats is an absolute
necessity. I'm seriously considering lobbying the European Commission
to start a "Common non-proprietary Document Format" initiative.
>
> By the time you get the 1997 version successfully emulated, it's 1999,
> and there's another couple years of adding Microsoft's new bugs to
> your software to get them to load the new formats. And it is, of
> course, 2001, so that Win2K has passed its "Best-Before" date, and
> will shortly be replaced by some update that pulls in a bunch of
> Win-XP code.
>
> It seems more logical to Not Play The Game, and to look for another
> game that doesn't merely involve toadying up to emulate "Where
> Microsoft Wants To Go Today."
As long as you have a large majority of people shooing up to MS
out of ignorance, our desire to align themselves with the richest
company on earth, what is the alternative if one doesn't want to
use an MS platform (other than fooling yourself by plugging a
SunPCi card in your SPARC and using it as an expensive display).
Jeffrey Siegal
> Christopher I've been using Evolution for many months and in my estimation
> it is becoming a superb mail client.
I'd like to try it but I have no interest in installing their Red Carpet
thing on my system. Is there a regular tarball I can get somewhere?
Adam Warner
Jeffrey I use Debian. And track unstable. So installing it was as easy as
typing:
apt-get install evolution
I don't use Red Carpet on Debian. I'm grateful for all the native
packages.
You could also add the unstable package lines into sources.list just for
the sole purpose of installing evolution and then remove them again (if
you were running stable or testing).
Evolution has a lot of dependencies so I'd hate to have to install it all
manually.
Even if you're using Redhat I'm sure you'd be able to install individual
RPMs. Just check out their FTP site:
ftp://ftp.ximian.com/pub/ximian-gnome/redhat-72-i386/
I'd rather have the easy life of having all the dependencies resolved for
me automatically. If you were installing it on Redhat I would first
download and try and install the evolution RPM. It would them complain
about missing RPMs. I would then download those RPMs. Some of those RPMs
might complain that they need other RPMs. So I would download and install
those until it all worked. No Red Carpet needed.
Regards,
Adam
Adam Warner
> Evolution has a lot of dependencies so I'd hate to have to install it
> all manually.
But if you're going to try this list of dependencies found by typing
'apt-cache show evolution' should help:
Version: 0.99.0-2
Depends: gtkhtml, libcamel0 (= 0.99.0-2), bonobo (>= 1.0.14),
bonobo-conf (>= 0.14), gdk-imlib1, libart2 (>= 1.2.13-5),
libaudiofile0, libbonobo-conf0 (>= 0.14), libbonobo2 (>= 1.0.14), libc6
(>= 2.2.4-4), libcamel0 (>= 0.99.0), libdb3 (>= 3.2.9-1), libesd0 (>=
0.2.22-4) | libesd-alsa0 (>= 0.2.22-4), libgal18 (>= 0.18),
libgdk-pixbuf-gnome2 (>= 0.13.0-1), libgdk-pixbuf2 (>= 0.13.0-1),
libglade-gnome0, libglade0, libglib1.2 (>= 1.2.0), libgnome-pilot1 (>=
0.1.63), libgnome-vfs0 (>= 1.0.3), libgnome32 (>= 1.2.13-5),
libgnomeprint15 (>= 0.29-1), libgnomesupport0 (>= 1.2.13-5),
libgnomeui32 (>= 1.2.13-5), libgtk1.2 (>= 1.2.10-2.1), libgtkhtml19 (>=
0.16.0), libldap2 (>= 2.0.14-1), liboaf0 (>= 0.6.7), liborbit0 (>=
0.5.12), libpisock4, libxml1 (>= 1:1.8.14-3), oaf (>= 0.6.7), xlibs (>>
4.1.0), zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.3)
Regards,
Adam
Jeffrey Siegal
> Even if you're using Redhat I'm sure you'd be able to install individual
> RPMs. Just check out their FTP site:
>
> ftp://ftp.ximian.com/pub/ximian-gnome/redhat-72-i386/
I do use Red Hat but I won't install third party RPMs. I've had too
many problems with conflicts and bad RPMs causing problems. I have no
desire to introduce the RPM version of "DLL hell" to my Linux system.
If it doesn't come in a tarball, or doesn't get packaged into an RPM as
part of a Red Hat release, it doesn't get installed on my system.
Adam Warner
As an expert user I could see some advantages for you running Debian
"unstable" because you'd have the skill to troubleshoot/reinstall an older
package if a new one broke some functionality.
With some 4,000-odd packages available there's little software I have
installed from a tarball/third party. And I'm still able to run the latest
software.
I'm really looking forward to OpenOffice being packaged for Debian. The
last status update was 28 October when Jan-Hendrik Palic wrote:
Hi all,
the last days, we work hard on OpenOffice:
Peter Novodvorsky (ni...@debian.org) made a first package [1] of
OpenOffice depending on OpenOffice 638c. Be carefull, it is one package
but it is a beginning.
Bastian Blank (wa...@debian.org) was working on the support for gcc-3.0
in OpenOffice641. OpenOffice does not compile propper with gcc-3.0, the
638c branch requieres gcc-2.95.x and won't compile with gcc-3.0 at all.
You will find his patch a bit laeter. :)
Our Problems are the java-components. Java is highly non-free and has
to be thrown away from OpenOffice. Bastian is working on compiling the
javacode with gcj, but we did not have hope, that this will currently
working!
Trying to stay current with a project like Evolution or OpenOffice would
be time consuming if I didn't have the advantage of Debian's packet
management system.
Regards,
Adam
Jeffrey Siegal
> As an expert user I could see some advantages for you running Debian
> "unstable" because you'd have the skill to troubleshoot/reinstall an older
> package if a new one broke some functionality.
I agree with you. That has been on my todo list.
> Trying to stay current with a project like Evolution or OpenOffice would
> be time consuming if I didn't have the advantage of Debian's packet
> management system.
Not really, I just download the new source, recompile and reinstall.
Fergus Henderson
>Fergus Henderson wrote:
>> While I understand the principle of sunk costs,
>> I think that in this case Isaac is probably right:
>> MS would probably threaten to raise prices if they
>> were faced with a fine (to discourage such punishment),
>> and if such a fine was issued, they would probably carry
>> through with their threat, to maintain credibility,
>> even if this meant that prices were at a higher than
>> optimal point on the price/demand curve.
>> In such a situation, consumers would suffer.
>
>That's a different issue. Issac said that "at least some of the fine
>would be paid by users." Even in the scenario you construct, that's not
>the case.
Well, you're right, but from the users' perspective there may be little
difference.
>But, more importantly, this kind of retaliation would almost certainly
>result in further enforcement action against MS.
Could you elaborate?
Would this kind of retaliation be illegal, and if so, how/why?
What kind of enforcement action?
>> The sunk cost analysis also assumes that the price/demand curve
>> remains constant. However, I think that users would probably
>> be angrier at MS if MS raised prices unilaterally, than
>> if they did so with some kind of excuse (e.g. blaming the
>> government and/or judiciary for imposing such a fine),
>> even if it is a lame excuse. This difference in consumer
>> sentiment might well translate into changes in the price/demand curve.
>> If MS were to double prices "as a result of the fine", they might find
>> that more people were still willing to buy their product than if they
>> raised prices just to increase profits.
>
>Perhaps, or perhaps the reverse. "You want *us* to pay *your* fine?"
I guess that depends on who wins the marketing war.
So far MS seem to be doing reasonably well at winning marketing wars,
at least as far as the general public is concerned (the gnu.misc.discuss
crowd is certainly an exception here ;-).
>In reality, I don't find the theory that having a "good excuse" to raise
>prices would shift the demand curve for Windows particularly credible.
>
>First, MS just instituted a significant price increase (and has done so
>several times over the years) with no real reason at all. There is no
>evidence that users' "anger" is making any difference in their
>willingness to purchase Windows.
Well, if you can believe self-selected market research surveys...
<http://www.business2.com/articles/web/0,,17599,FF.html>:
| Most corporate customers are unhappy with looming changes in Microsoft
| software-licensing programs, and many would consider switching to
| competitors' products, according to a survey
...
| The survey ... found that 36 percent said they would consider
| alternative products in light of the changes.
This is not *strong* evidence, but it is *some* evidence.
>Second, the demand curve for Windows
>is largely defined primarily by pragmatic considerations, not how users
>"feel" about how much MS is charging for it. Corporate users decide how
>many computers to buy or upgrade and what kind based on their analysis
>of the benefits they're going to receive from those computers; consumers
>buy (mostly upgrade at this point) computers or OS upgrades when the
>price appears attractive to them relative to the features, performance,
>and so forth. In both cases, it is a cost/benefit decision, either
>explicit or implicit, and a higher price is just going to convince more
>users to do without, or do instead with Linux, Mac, etc.
Part of the cost/benefit analysis is an estimation of future costs.
Consumer and corporate sentiment towards Microsoft will affect the
estimation of those future costs.
The same article I quoted above also encourages people to consider future
costs:
| "People should not be thinking now they're safe with their Select or
| Enterprise agreements," she said. "They're not safe. What happens when
| .Net comes in 18 months, 24 months or 36 months? That's going to
| change the delivery method. That's a premium product, and they're
| going to charge a premium price."
|
| Through the product activation feature introduced with Office XP and
| Windows XP, Microsoft would have the capability of turning off
| software when companies failed to pay under a subscription program.
|
| "Isn't that scary ...
Jeffrey Siegal
> >But, more importantly, this kind of retaliation would almost certainly
> >result in further enforcement action against MS.
>
> Could you elaborate?
> Would this kind of retaliation be illegal, and if so, how/why?
If the intent of such an action was to continue to monopolize (and it is
doubtful that any other intent could be demonstrated, since there is no
non-strategic justification for such a price increase), that would
itself be a further violation of antitrust law. Moreover, an order
imposing a punative fine could very well require that the fine not be
passed on to consumers, in which case blaming a price increase on the
fine would be evidence of noncompliance with the order.
> What kind of enforcement action?
Who can say? Even bigger fines? An order to replace management?
Prosecution of the management for criminal conspiracy? Seizure of (part
or all of) the company? An order that the price increase be rescinded?
A deliberate attempt to obstruct authority of the government with a
retaliatory price increase would not be a small matter. If the
government had the backbone to impose a real penality in the first
place, it would certainly not stand for this. Something would certainly
be done.
> | Most corporate customers are unhappy with looming changes in Microsoft
> | software-licensing programs, and many would consider switching to
> | competitors' products, according to a survey
> ...
> | The survey ... found that 36 percent said they would consider
> | alternative products in light of the changes.
>
> This is not *strong* evidence, but it is *some* evidence.
This does not demonstrate that people's purchase decisions are being
influenced by their "anger" for MS. A perfectly rational response to a
price increase, without needing anger to enter into the decision, would
be for people to "consider" alternative products. A few will even
decide to switch (and MS knows it).
> Part of the cost/benefit analysis is an estimation of future costs.
> Consumer and corporate sentiment towards Microsoft will affect the
> estimation of those future costs.
I suspect most corporate customers, at least, already expect MS to
charge as much as it possibly can in the future. Lock-in costs are
pretty well understood at this point; MBAs are now trained to consider
future costs when making decisions that involve lock-in, often using Hal
Varian's excellent text _Information Rules_.
Nevertheless, no matter how much MS spends on "Where do you want to go
today?" advertising, very few people are ever going to believe they're
going to get a break simply because MS will be "nice" to them, and I
don't see a fine being imposed having any effect on that perception
either way.
Jeffrey Siegal
> > apt-cache show emacs21:
> >
> > Installed-Size: 40606
> >
> > apt-cache show evolution:
> >
> > Installed-Size: 21412
>
> # apt-get install evolution
> [1 new package to install]
> Need to get 31.8MB of archives. After unpacking 106MB will be used.
>
> Then I tried:
> # apt-get remove xemacs21
> ..
> Need to get 0 bytes of archives. After unpacking, 26.9MB will be freed.
Your emacs numbers are relatively close, but your evolution numbers
differ enormously. Not being a Debian users, I can't interpret this.
Why would there be such a difference?
Are there different versions of the evolution package or something?
Jeffrey Siegal
> >But, more importantly, this kind of retaliation would almost certainly
> >result in further enforcement action against MS.
>
> Could you elaborate?
> Would this kind of retaliation be illegal, and if so, how/why?
Also, to minimize the adverse effects of a price increase while still
increasing prices enough to matter, MS would be very strongly motivated
to price discriminate. Which would be a further violation.
By the way, Phil Hunt raised a good point on this topic, which is that
even if MS did foolishly try to "pass on" a fine to consumers, the
result might be viewed as a positive in terms of public policy, not a
negative.[*] Raising prices would encourage users to seek alternatives,
ultimately increasing the competitiveness of the marketplace and quite
possibly saving users money in the long run. (Another way of looking at
this would be to consider MS's pricing practices as anticompetitive
dumping, designed to hurt competetors.) Which, of course, removes the
only motivation MS would have to threaten such an increase.
[*] This was certainly the case in the tobacco settlement, where
structuring the agreement in such a way as to allow tobacco companies to
pass on the cost of the fine with retail price increases was seen as a
good way to discourage people, and especially children, from smoking.
John Hasler
> Your emacs numbers are relatively close, but your evolution numbers
> differ enormously. Not being a Debian users, I can't interpret this.
> Why would there be such a difference?
His evolution numbers include all the Gnome libraries that Evolution
depends on and that he does not already have installed. I get
'Need to get 9233kB of archives. After unpacking 27.1MB will be used.'
but that is because I already have a lot of Gnome stuff installed.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
cbbr...@acm.org
> Jeffrey Siegal writes:
> > Your emacs numbers are relatively close, but your evolution numbers
> > differ enormously. Not being a Debian users, I can't interpret this.
> > Why would there be such a difference?
>
> His evolution numbers include all the Gnome libraries that Evolution
> depends on and that he does not already have installed. I get
>
> 'Need to get 9233kB of archives. After unpacking 27.1MB will be used.'
>
> but that is because I already have a lot of Gnome stuff installed.
Nope, there's only _ONE_ new package that was to be installed, that
being the Evolution package. It's a single 31.8MB package, proposed
to come straight from ximian.com, which would expand to 106MB once
uncompressed.
The figure includes _no_ extra Gnome libraries; I've got Galeon
installed, which means I've got the whole kit 'n caboodle of libraries
already in place.
The sizing is coming directly from Ximian; if it's unusually bloated
for Evolution, it's the bloat that Ximian has configured it to have.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.mca@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/mail.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #28. "My pet monster will be kept in a
secure cage from which it cannot escape and into which I could not
accidentally stumble." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
Ben Pfaff
> John Hasler <jo...@dhh.gt.org> writes:
> > Jeffrey Siegal writes:
> > > Your emacs numbers are relatively close, but your evolution numbers
> > > differ enormously. Not being a Debian users, I can't interpret this.
> > > Why would there be such a difference?
> >
> > His evolution numbers include all the Gnome libraries that Evolution
> > depends on and that he does not already have installed. I get
> >
> > 'Need to get 9233kB of archives. After unpacking 27.1MB will be used.'
> >
> > but that is because I already have a lot of Gnome stuff installed.
>
> Nope, there's only _ONE_ new package that was to be installed, that
> being the Evolution package. It's a single 31.8MB package, proposed
> to come straight from ximian.com, which would expand to 106MB once
> uncompressed.
It must be something odd with ximian's package, because this is
what I get when I type `apt-get install evolution' without
ximian.com in my sources.list, under Debian sid:
[...]
1 packages upgraded, 24 newly installed, 0 to remove and 96 not upgraded.
1 packages not fully installed or removed.
Need to get 11.2MB of archives. After unpacking 36.0MB will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n]
--
"Let others praise ancient times; I am glad I was born in these."
--Ovid (43 BC-18 AD)
John Hasler
> The sizing is coming directly from Ximian; if it's unusually bloated for
> Evolution, it's the bloat that Ximian has configured it to have.
That may say more about Ximian than about Evolution. 'apt-cache show
evolution' gives me
gtkhtml, libcamel0 (= 0.99.0-1), bonobo (>= 1.0.14), bonobo-conf (>= 0.14),
gdk-imlib1, libart2 (>= 1.2.13-5), libaudiofile0, libbonobo-conf0 (>=
0.14), libbonobo2 (>= 1.0.14), libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4), libcamel0 (>= 0.99.0),
libdb3 (>= 3.2.9-1), libesd0 (>= 0.2.22-4) | libesd-alsa0 (>= 0.2.22-4),
libgal18 (>= 0.18), libgdk-pixbuf-gnome2 (>= 0.13.0-1), libgdk-pixbuf2 (>=
0.13.0-1), libglade-gnome0, libglade0, libglib1.2 (>= 1.2.0),
libgnome-pilot1 (>= 0.1.63), libgnome-vfs0 (>= 1.0.3), libgnome32 (>=
1.2.13-5), libgnomeprint15 (>= 0.29-1), libgnomesupport0 (>= 1.2.13-5),
libgnomeui32 (>= 1.2.13-5), libgtk1.2 (>= 1.2.10-2.1), libgtkhtml19 (>=
0.16.0), libldap2 (>= 2.0.14-1), liboaf0 (>= 0.6.7), liborbit0 (>= 0.5.12),
libpisock4, libxml1 (>= 1:1.8.14-3), oaf (>= 0.6.7), xlibs (>> 4.1.0),
zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.3)
for the dependencies of the Debian Evolution packages. What do you have
for the Ximian one?
cbbr...@acm.org
I get:
Package: evolution
Version: 0.99.0-ximian.1
Priority: optional
Section: x11
Maintainer: Ximian, Inc. <deb...@ximian.com>
Depends: gdk-imlib1 (>= 1.9.8), libart2 (>= 1.2.0), libaudiofile0, libbonobo-conf0 (>= 0.6), libbonobo2, libc6 (>= 2.1.2), libdb2 (>= 1:2.4.14-7), libesd0, libgal18, libgconf11 (>= 0.11), libgdk-pixbuf-gnome2 (>= 0.9.0), libgdk-pixbuf2 (>= 0.9.0), libglade-gnome0, libglade0, libglib1.2 (>= 1.2.0), libgnome-pilot0, libgnome-vfs0 (>= 0.4.2), libgnome32 (>= 1.2.0), libgnomeprint15 (>= 0.28), libgnomesupport0 (>= 1.2.0), libgnomeui32 (>= 1.2.0), libgtk1.2 (>= 1.2.0), libgtkhtml19, liboaf0 (>= 0.6.1), liborbit0 (>= 0.5.6), libpisock4, libpopt0, libwrap0, libxml1, libz1, xlib6g (>= 3.3.6-4), bonobo (>= 1.0.14), libgtkhtml19 (>= 0.16.0), gtkhtml (>= 0.16.0), libgal18 (>= 0.18), bonobo-conf (>= 0.14), libnss3 (>= 0.9.5)
Architecture: i386
Filename: dists/potato/main/binary-i386/evolution_0.99.0-ximian.1_i386.deb
Size: 31772000
MD5sum: 3235558abefcab2f5c3c8c3f288db01c
Description: GNOME's next-generation groupware suite
Evolution is the GNOME mailer, calendar, contact manager and
communications tool. The tools which make up Evolution will
be tightly integrated with one another and act as a seamless
personal information-management tool.
installed-size: 103548
The library list doesn't seem _vastly_ different from yours.
I see, as notable "big things:"
- /usr/lib/evolution - 13.3MB of stuff
- /usr/lib/*{camel,wombat,ebook,selectnames}*.{a,so} - about 13MB
- /usr/lib/gnome-pilot/conduits - 26.5MB
- Binaries in /usr/bin - 20.9MB
That accounts for the bulk of it. The part that I find quite insane
is that PalmOS fits into a few MB of ROM, including GUI, applications,
and such, whilst the Evolution "conduits" consume a whopping lot more
space than exists on a PalmOS system. None of this bulk actually
reflects message data.
They could throw in a full-scale relational database to manage data
storage (and have something offering transactions, query tools, and
probably considerably more reliability than they have now), and it
would be hardly noticeable in the application footprint.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.enworbbc@" "sirhc"))
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/rdbms.html
Marriage means commitment. Of course, so does insanity.
cbbr...@acm.org
I get:
Stefaan A Eeckels
cbbr...@acm.org wrote:
> I haven't seen _anything_ out there other than MH that has been able
> to cope with the 350MB of data in my mail partition; anything else
> that tries to tie to every change in every folder seems to blow up
> pretty nicely.
My experience entirely. I refuse to use a mail client that's not
capable of handling MH. I've recently switched from xfmail + knews
(nothing to do with kde) to Sylpheed, and it's been a positive
experience. It's _very_ fast, and handles folders with > 4000 messages
with consumate ease. As JP was wont to say, "Recommended".
Russ Allbery
> cbbr...@acm.org wrote:
>> Well, I just typed in:
>> # apt-get install evolution
>> [1 new package to install]
>> Need to get 31.8MB of archives. After unpacking 106MB will be used.
>> Then I tried:
>> # apt-get remove xemacs21
>> ..
>> Need to get 0 bytes of archives. After unpacking, 26.9MB will be freed.
> Your emacs numbers are relatively close, but your evolution numbers
> differ enormously. Not being a Debian users, I can't interpret
> this. Why would there be such a difference?
> Are there different versions of the evolution package or something?
The numbers above include all of Evolution's dependencies, not just the
basic Evolution software.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
cbbr...@acm.org
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 13:49:26 GMT
> cbbr...@acm.org wrote:
> > I haven't seen _anything_ out there other than MH that has been able
> > to cope with the 350MB of data in my mail partition; anything else
> > that tries to tie to every change in every folder seems to blow up
> > pretty nicely.
> My experience entirely. I refuse to use a mail client that's not
> capable of handling MH. I've recently switched from xfmail + knews
> (nothing to do with kde) to Sylpheed, and it's been a positive
> experience. It's _very_ fast, and handles folders with > 4000
> messages with consumate ease. As JP was wont to say, "Recommended".
Sylpheed had about a 25 minute start-up time, the first time it gets
invoked and started pulling in data about the existing mail; that's
forgiveable in that it's a cost that gets paid only once.
One problem with Sylpheed: it may be designed with the vague notion of
"supporting MH-style mail directories;" it unfortunately doesn't
support them well enough that it can actually interoperate with MH.
MH doesn't know what mail has been read using Sylpheed, and
vice-versa...
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.enworbbc@" "sirhc"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/oses.html
Sometimes if you have a cappuccino and then try again it will work OK.
- Dr. Brian Reid, 1992
Sometimes one cappucino isn't enough.
- Marcus J. Ranum
Stefaan A Eeckels
cbbr...@acm.org wrote:
> One problem with Sylpheed: it may be designed with the vague notion of
> "supporting MH-style mail directories;" it unfortunately doesn't
> support them well enough that it can actually interoperate with MH.
> MH doesn't know what mail has been read using Sylpheed, and
> vice-versa...
That's true. It uses its own administrative files - it doesn't work
with xfmail either. But I don't want to use it in combination with MH,
so for me it isn't a problem.
Chris Beggy
> (reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.mca@" "enworbbc"))
I tried to eval this in emacs and got:
debug(error (wrong-type-argument consp "gro.mca@enworbbc"))
reverse("gro.mca@enworbbc")
eval((reverse (concatenate (quote string) "gro.mca@" "enworbbc")))
Is there a way to reconstruct this scrambled address in elisp?
Chris
cbbr...@acm.org
Probably; the problem is that the Elisp function REVERSE wants to work
with a list, and "gro.mca@enworbbc" is a string. That's fine in
Common Lisp, where REVERSE works with sequences, but apparently is not
OK in Elisp. A quick look at the ELisp docs doesn't show up a "string
reverse" function, but maybe I didn't look hard enough...
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.enworbbc@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/commonlisp.html
"It's a pretty rare beginner who isn't clueless. If beginners weren't
clueless, the infamous Unix learning cliff wouldn't be a problem."
-- david parsons
Chris Beggy
> Chris Beggy <chr...@lackawana.kippona.com> writes:
>> cbbr...@acm.org writes:
>>
>> > (reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.mca@" "enworbbc"))
>>
> reverse" function, but maybe I didn't look hard enough...
But you inspired me:
(comment-string-reverse (concat "gro.mca@" "enworbbc"))
does the trick.
Chris
Chris Beggy
> cbbr...@acm.org writes:
>> Chris Beggy <chr...@lackawana.kippona.com> writes:
>>> cbbr...@acm.org writes:
>>>
>>> > (reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.mca@" "enworbbc"))
>>>
>> OK in Elisp. A quick look at the ELisp docs doesn't show up a "string
>> reverse" function, but maybe I didn't look hard enough...
>
> (comment-string-reverse (concat "gro.mca@" "enworbbc"))
>
> does the trick.
As long as you don't forget (require 'newcomment):
(require 'newcomment)
(comment-string-reverse (concat "gro.mca@" "enworbbc"))
Chris
Dylan Thurston
>Jeffrey Siegal <j...@quiotix.com> writes:
>> cbbr...@acm.org wrote:
>
>>> Well, I just typed in:
>>> # apt-get install evolution
>>> [1 new package to install]
>>> Need to get 31.8MB of archives. After unpacking 106MB will be used.
>
>>> Then I tried:
>>> # apt-get remove xemacs21
>>> ..
>>> Need to get 0 bytes of archives. After unpacking, 26.9MB will be freed.
>
>> Your emacs numbers are relatively close, but your evolution numbers
>> differ enormously. Not being a Debian users, I can't interpret
>> this. Why would there be such a difference?
>
>basic Evolution software.
But note that many of the dependencies are shared with other GNOME
software. When I installed Evolution just now, I got
lilac:~/papers/Kojima$ sudo apt-get install evolution-ssl
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following extra packages will be installed:
bonobo-conf libbonobo-conf0 libcamel-ssl0 libgnome-pilot1
The following NEW packages will be installed:
bonobo-conf evolution-ssl libbonobo-conf0 libcamel-ssl0 libgnome-pilot1
0 packages upgraded, 5 newly installed, 0 to remove and 68 not upgraded.
Need to get 7913kB of archives. After unpacking 24.0MB will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n]
...
--Dylan Thurston