When I stated I'm a stupid male.. I ment that in terms that I still have
much to learn... as I think we all do... ohh and I'm stupid in terms of
not being able to express myself clearly to this list :)
>So, curious, maybe it will be easier to understand "the woman's
>perspective" if you define wh
Hi, everyone,
Is anybody as happy about the finding of facts as I am? I really hope that
this will limit Microsoft's ability to try and crush Linux as a competitor.
Also, as a former OS/2 loyalist, considering what Microsoft did to my former
favorite OS, and *how* they did it, this doesn't both
> Hi, everyone,
>
> Is anybody as happy about the finding of facts as I am? I really hope that
> this will limit Microsoft's ability to try and crush Linux as a competitor.
I'm actualy worried about what restrictions may be placed on microsoft..
computer technology is still a very new field.. p
My take is that judge Jackson completely ignored the open source movement by
his wording. He said that there is no commercial alternative to a microsoft
operating system.
Hi, everyone,
Is anybody as happy about the finding of facts as I am? I really hope that
this will limit Microsoft's abi
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> When I stated I'm a stupid male.. I ment that in terms that I still have
> much to learn... as I think we all do... ohh and I'm stupid in terms of
> not being able to express myself clearly to this list :)
in other words you're stupid, and you're male, and th
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Caitlyn Martin wrote:
> Is anybody as happy about the finding of facts as I am?
Yep! This has really positively affected Red Hat's stock too (up 16 as of
now).
> Also, as a former OS/2 loyalist, considering what Microsoft did to my
> former favorite OS, and *how* they did it
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> I don't think microsoft should be punnished for being a sucessful
> company... even if it blow up a few compeditors...
you know what I think sucks -- that the government creates this protected
class called a 'corporation', and then folks complain when it puts
> > hmmm what is wrong with having a male "ruled" world? and why should women
> > have equal rights?
>
> own property) that is not often questioned. It's another thing to walk
> onto a group of folks who live in a world that questions their right to
> humanity and ask them why they should have it
> > I don't think microsoft should be punnished for being a sucessful
> > company... even if it blow up a few compeditors...
>
> you know what I think sucks -- that the government creates this protected
> class called a 'corporation', and then folks complain when it puts a few
> rules on it, even
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> Ohh.. on the contrary... before I try to figure out in my head how equal
> humanity is to be achived.. it's helpful to find out if it's nessary to
> begin with... the best people to ask such a question to are usualy the
> people fighting for it.
a
Hi,
>
> I'm actualy worried about what restrictions may be placed on microsoft..
> computer technology is still a very new field..
It's been around since the 1930s actually. PCs are now 18 years old, too.
> placing restrictions on it
> now is a bad thing..
Actually, what innovate new technolog
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> how exactly is a corporation "protected" as a class?
I misstated (I'm trying to do too much this morning..sorry) --
Corporations aren't protected, they protect people -- specifically the
people who make and implement the 'corporate' decisions -- i.e. if I,
Vi
> rule number 3 is don't use them on me!
> I'm going to license my debating techniques, I swear. And the license will
> read 'These techniques are GPL'd, unless your name is Chris Koontz, in
> which case, you can't use them, so nyah'
I hardly consider the tenique to be unique.. mind you.. I've be
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> > you know what I think sucks -- that the government creates this protected
> > class called a 'corporation', and then folks complain when it puts a few
> > rules on it, even though the humans have many many rules on them...
>
> how exactly is a corporation "
> > I'm actualy worried about what restrictions may be placed on microsoft..
> > computer technology is still a very new field..
>
> It's been around since the 1930s actually. PCs are now 18 years old, too.
It feels new to me though even though I've been using computers since the
atari800 :)
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> I hardly consider the tenique to be unique.. mind you.. I've been reading
> atlas shrugged lately.. she is definatly one who works everything from the
> ground up... which is how I like things :) even If I use my own "stop gap
> trees sometimes :) )
Not argui
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> > Actually, what innovate new technologies is Microsoft coming up with,
> > honestly?
>
> They came up with an operating system that would run on intel based
> hardware... that people would want to run the applications they also
> wanted to run.
THEY BOUGHT
Here is my take on it...
If you really want insight into the case, you really need to READ the
case : http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html
It is NOT a case about people being jealous of Bill Gates and Microsoft
for being successful and making a lot of money. It is a case about
Microsoft's flag
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> They came up with an operating system that would run on intel based
> hardware... that people would want to run the applications they also
> wanted to run.
you mean they bought an OS that the guy who wrote it now regrets
writing...and the rest of your senten
> I misstated (I'm trying to do too much this morning..sorry) --
> Corporations aren't protected, they protect people -- specifically the
> people who make and implement the 'corporate' decisions -- i.e. if I,
> Vinnie, choose to break a law, I, Vinnie, get punished. If a corporation
> breaks a la
> want to lable it.. and they wanted more people to use thier product as
> apposed to IBM's product... so they ask thier competitor to leave a
> product behind... ok...
No, they *forced* their competitor to leave a product behind. In fair
practice, IBM would have been forced to leave their produ
> Individuals in a corporation are not individually accountable legally for
> their actions (except for certain crimes committed by officers). Thus,
> corporations are exempt from 90% of what can happen to any other legal
> person.
Ahh so they are protected in terms of the punishment recived.. I
> On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
>
> > They came up with an operating system that would run on intel based
> > hardware... that people would want to run the applications they also
> > wanted to run.
>
> you mean they bought an OS that the guy who wrote it now regrets
> writing...and the res
> No, they *forced* their competitor to leave a product behind. In fair
> practice, IBM would have been forced to leave their product behind because
> of market pressure by consumers, not by pressure from Microsoft.
If OS/2 was marketable enough of a product... it wouln't have had to be
dumpted
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> > READ the judgement. The judge DID have a clue.
>
> The judge indeed seems to have some level of understanding.. however he
> seems to be the exception as apposed to the rule.. and I doubt he will be
> seening every case broght up against microsoft.. or any
More :)
> It feels new to me though even though I've been using computers since the
> atari800 :)
Right, Computing as we know it today is new. "desktop computing" to be
specific, has gone from the "early adopter" stage to more mainstream.
> They came up with an operating system that would run
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> If a corporation breaks a law.. what would you like to see happen... going
> for an extreme here... if microsoft hires an assasan to kill Linus.. what
> should happen?
I'm not going to answer the second. However, if I personally hurt someone,
you could sue ME
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> If a corporation breaks a law.. what would you like to see happen... going
> for an extreme here... if microsoft hires an assasan to kill Linus.. what
> should happen?
How about the actual people behind the decisions are punished? Jail time,
personal fines (a
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> I hardly consider the tenique to be unique.. mind you.. I've been reading
> atlas shrugged lately.. she is definatly one who works everything from the
> ground up... which is how I like things :) even If I use my own "stop gap
> trees sometimes :) )
Some time
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> Ahhh I'm guessing VAlinux systems must have either signed the agreement or
> are going to blowup now.. and howabout that recent deal with a motherboard
> company and corel... now if a MS person wants to buy their motherboard..
> they have to deal with (I'm ass
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> I was asking for a personal viewpoint.. not what the DOJ or a judge said..
Illegal is not an opinion -- illegal is a fact
morals and ethics can be debated..laws exist
> Ahhh I'm guessing VAlinux systems must have either signed the agreement or
> are going to
Argh!
OK, one more go...
>
> If a corporation breaks a law.. what would you like to see happen... going
> for an extreme here... if microsoft hires an assasan to kill Linus.. what
> should happen?
Actually, corporations are not protected if someone within them commits
murder. However, I think t
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> If OS/2 was marketable enough of a product... it wouln't have had to be
> dumpted... however Microsoft's marketing unfortunatly won... I'm surprised
> your being so defensive of IBM... if any company could be acused of being
> strong armed against compeditors.
Here we go again...
Chris, please, at least spell check your messages before you send them.
>
> They came up with an operating system that would run on intel based
> hardware... that people would want to run the applications they also
> wanted to run.
No, they bought an operating system, then de
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> > No, they *forced* their competitor to leave a product behind. In fair
> > practice, IBM would have been forced to leave their product behind because
> > of market pressure by consumers, not by pressure from Microsoft.
>
> If OS/2 was marketable enough of
Hi, Cat,
> > want to lable it.. and they wanted more people to use thier product as
> > apposed to IBM's product... so they ask thier competitor to leave a
> > product behind... ok...
>
> No, they *forced* their competitor to leave a product behind. In fair
> practice, IBM would have been force
At 10:35 AM 11/08/1999 -0800, you wrote:
>
>Ohh.. on the contrary... before I try to figure out in my head how equal
>humanity is to be achived.. it's helpful to find out if it's nessary to
>begin with... the best people to ask such a question to are usualy the
>people fighting for it.
>
Hannah A
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Caitlyn Martin wrote:
> No, they bought an operating system, then designed a GUI for it based on
> what was already being done by other GUIs (as in MacOS,
Actually, they paid Apple for source code and the right to create a
derivative work. In fact, Windows is a derivative wor
> > It feels new to me though even though I've been using computers since the
> > atari800 :)
>
> Right, Computing as we know it today is new. "desktop computing" to be
> specific, has gone from the "early adopter" stage to more mainstream.
however we are in the proccess of changing from "desk
> two questions:
>
> 1. Do you know what the most likely things that will happen are?
well trade press seem to think either A> microsoft will be limited to
developing it's own tech.. or B>broken into pieces ala MaBells
> 2. Are you coming up with these arguments yourself or are you pulling the
> > I was asking for a personal viewpoint.. not what the DOJ or a judge said..
>
> Illegal is not an opinion -- illegal is a fact
> morals and ethics can be debated..laws exist
laws are subject to interpretation
> 1. that wasn't the case two years ago, and in a large part came about
> becaus eo
> > If a corporation breaks a law.. what would you like to see happen... going
> > for an extreme here... if microsoft hires an assasan to kill Linus.. what
> > should happen?
>
> Actually, corporations are not protected if someone within them commits
> murder. However, I think the point is that
> 1. I know you know that OS/2 was the superior OS
The problem here is no one wrote anything for it.. and it wasn't
everything it claimed to be... and (for me atleast) confusing to navigate
around...
> 2. Several wrongs don't make a right
I don't belive I implied that
> 3. I don't think a case
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> The problem here is no one wrote anything for it.. and it wasn't
> everything it claimed to be... and (for me atleast) confusing to navigate
> around...
it could run most windows apps, and anything with a gui is confusing for
me..interface is a personal issue
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> laws are subject to interpretation
yes. but you (and I) are not lawyers (which is not to say that we are
completely incompetent to judge, but *is* to say that our opinions
aren't the really important thing here)..plus a lot of this is not
grey area stuff...I
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> well trade press seem to think either A> microsoft will be limited to
> developing it's own tech.. or B>broken into pieces ala MaBells
hey..what..you mean nothing about code reviews?
> These are MY arguments thank you very much... why would I do otherwise?
I found it very interesting, when CNN last night was talking about the
case, and they mentioned that Joel Klein has ruled out ONE penalty: A
fine. So it's pretty clear that MS is not going to get a simple
monetary slap on the wrist.
I suspect this makes the Caldera case almost a done deal, espe
Curious -- I am curious as to why you are being such a strong advocate for
Microsoft on a Linux list. It sounds as if you think Microsoft is has
pretty great products. So why do you use Linux?
_Cat
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> > > If a corporation breaks a law.. what would you like to
> No, they bought an operating system,
I thought I corrected myself on this one.. sorry if I haven't..
>then designed a GUI for it based on
> what was already being done by other GUIs
>(as in MacOS, or Presentation
> Manager, the precursor to IBM's Workplace Shell in OS/2).
which they all cop
> Curious -- I am curious as to why you are being such a strong advocate for
> Microsoft on a Linux list. It sounds as if you think Microsoft is has
> pretty great products. So why do you use Linux?
a> because linux makes sense to me (btw I was originaly raised a Mac freak
:))
b> it's more sta
> but right now I am so burnt out on econ issues...I think if anyone says
> 'WTO' to me one more time I will bite their nose off)
what does that Anac mean?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Alright after my last long post where I realized I realy need to read more
before replying... I decided I was going to read before replying to this
thread any more.. untill I found this email with little errors that just
IRK me!
so I'm just going to mention the errors make a small remark then mov
lots of snippage in here...
> > It's cobbled together from pieces they bought and modified, or outright
> > copied.
>
> Welcome to the commercial version of opensource :)
Last I checked, open source people don't rip off others' code, stick it
in their own product, and charge out the ass for it
*sigh* some people just don't GET it... (I guess that's why we have
discussions)
> > > what practice do you consider to be illeagle that they commited?
> >
> > Tying in their products. That's the BIG thing. Say you owned 80% of the
> > gas stations, and you were 1 of 50 car manufacturers. S
Caitlyn Martin wrote:
>> No, they bought an operating system, then designed a GUI for it based on
>> what was already being done by other GUIs (as in MacOS,
Deirdre Saoirse wrote:
> Actually, they paid Apple for source code and the right to create a
> derivative work. In fact, Windows is a deriva
Me again
> Ahh something I know about... YIPPIE!! MS Excel came out on the Macintosh
> platform BEFORE any other platform... and it came out aleast sometime
IIRC, MS bought Excel from another company. It's possible that it was
already made for the Mac, but did they keep on updating it for the
> the whole thing wasn't resolved until two years ago when micros~1 invested
> $150 million in apple and committed to developing over the next 5 years as
> many releases of office for mac as for windows, in exchange for which apple
> agreed to make explorer the default browser installed with MacOS
curious wrote:
>
> > > hmmm what is wrong with having a male "ruled" world? and why should women
> > > have equal rights?
> >
> > own property) that is not often questioned. It's another thing to walk
> > onto a group of folks who live in a world that questions their right to
> > humanity and ask
curious wrote:
>
> > Hi, everyone,
> >
> > Is anybody as happy about the finding of facts as I am? I really hope that
> > this will limit Microsoft's ability to try and crush Linux as a competitor.
>
> I'm actualy worried about what restrictions may be placed on microsoft..
> computer technolog
> Me again
>
> > Ahh something I know about... YIPPIE!! MS Excel came out on the Macintosh
> > platform BEFORE any other platform... and it came out aleast sometime
>
> IIRC, MS bought Excel from another company. It's possible that it was
> already made for the Mac, but did they keep on updat
Vinnie Surmonde wrote:
>
> It came perilously close to
> trolling (and the only reason I don't think it was is because I know you,
> from anyone else I'd just assume trollishness)
>
> Can anyone else make this clearer? I get the feeling I'm missing
> the point.
I read it to my husband. He ju
Hi, everyone,
> I read it to my husband. He just shrugged and said 'troll'.
>
> It was trollish, even if curious didn't intend to troll.
>
> curious:
> Please put extra effort into not-trolling.
>
> * Don't start arguing Microsoft's side on a Linux list.
> * Don't ask 'why
> Ahh I was wrong about the date of MSexcel for macintosh...
> The first version of excel written was for the macintosh 512K back in
> 84-85 according to:http://dss.cba.uni.edu/dss/sshistory.html
Wow... something relatively innovated by Microsoft... Thanks for the
link.
> > Yeah but they also
"Caitlyn M. Martin" wrote:
>
> I tried reasoning with him all day. I gave up. It seems pointless.
>
> Didn't someone, about a week ago, say that each week we get a CMOTW that
> dominates?
Yup. That's why I only responded to two of his posts. And one of those was
as much as response to Vinnie
> Vinnie Surmonde wrote:
> >
> > It came perilously close to
> > trolling (and the only reason I don't think it was is because I know you,
> > from anyone else I'd just assume trollishness)
> >
> > Can anyone else make this clearer? I get the feeling I'm missing
> > the point.
>
> I read it
> I tried reasoning with him all day. I gave up. It seems pointless.
I thought we had a healthy discussion... granted I was as up to speed as I
should have been... I don't think any discussion is pointless...
I tried very hard to reply to every response...
>
> Didn't someone, about a week ag
curious wrote:
>
> > Vinnie Surmonde wrote:
> > >
> > > It came perilously close to
> > > trolling (and the only reason I don't think it was is because I know you,
> > > from anyone else I'd just assume trollishness)
> > >
> > > Can anyone else make this clearer? I get the feeling I'm missing
> I am not nessarly taking thier "side" Iam just defending thier rights and
> the rights of other successful companies.. I feel it would be wrong if
> someone just assumes that everything is peachy kean on this issue...
> I responded to a post.. I didn't bring this issue up...
> perhaps when troll
I was not attempting to start a flame war... in hindsight my "should women
be equal" was probably not the best question to ask.. I merly asked that
question in relation to building the issue from the ground up...
on the microsoft issue.. I replyied to an email that I strongly disagreed
with.. I w
> suppose you ran MS and you had a choice of being ethical and get 85% of
> the OS market or else,NOT being ethical and getting 95% of the market
> and the lawsuit,which one would you choose ??
define ethical? if your saying that I can insure that I can get my
operating system to be include
> define ethical? if your saying that I can insure that I can get my
> operating system to be included with every PC by making a deal with
> vendors.. I think I would... is that unethical?
ethical == not doing a hack to win 3.11 so it doesn't run on DR-DOS as
well as not coercing pc manufacturer
curious wrote:
>
> if
> jen says to go ahead and put them here I will :)
Not for me to say. I only defined trolling.
I strongly suggest that you go hunt up information on netiquette - see
any search engine - and research more thought-through definitions of
trolling. Mine was a five-minute qui
As curious stated:
> (I'm researching standard oil, the
> findings of fact from the judge, and some essays I found on each side of
> the microsoft issue)
While you're researching, study up on IBM's antitrust case:
http://www.essential.org/antitrust/ibm/
http://www.essential.org/antitrust/ms/198
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> so I'm just going to mention the errors make a small remark then move on
> :)
>
> > > fufilling what they percived customers wanted... note: Macintosh computers
> > > probably wouln't have grown as fast as they did in the begining if it
> > > wasn't for Micro
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Caitlyn M. Martin wrote:
> Didn't someone, about a week ago, say that each week we get a CMOTW
> that dominates?
Yep, that was me.
I'd like to believe it's NOT curious (as he's my friend), but he has been
trolling a lot lately. ::sigh::
--
_Deirdre * http://www.linuxca
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> I was not attempting to start a flame war... in hindsight my "should women
> be equal" was probably not the best question to ask.. I merly asked that
> question in relation to building the issue from the ground up...
The problem, chris, is that this really is
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> define ethical? if your saying that I can insure that I can get my
> operating system to be included with every PC by making a deal with
> vendors.. I think I would... is that unethical?
let's see if I can't put this another way
pretend I'm a really big guy
77 matches
Mail list logo
