Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively

On May 20, 12:00 am, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote: > Indeed. And the algorithms that are employed to perform the operations > so described are recursive. Actually, they almost never are. Iterative algorithms are almost always used to avoid a stack explosion. However, the terminology is still

Re: Setting timeout for read api

"Paul Rubin" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "Swaroop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> PLS HELP..I am working on socket programming as part of my final year >> project. I want to know how to set a timeout on read api that reads >> from a socket. Is it possibl

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> You have not disproved that. The closest you've come to a disproof is >> one case where the word "theft&q

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> I'm trying to find out why you regularly ignore that difference for >>> everyone but MS. >> To su

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Another straw man. I'm not trying to oblitarate that difference No matter how many times I quote to you where you specifically do exactly this, you insist you aren't. Yes, you are. You equate metaphorical force wit

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Of course, you've dropped the real point, which is your own inabillity > to distinguish between, as you put it, "guns and arguments." You > always act as if every mention of a crime committed by someone other > than micro

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Microsoft's behavior consisted of arguments, that is, did not >> involve force, the threat of force, fraud, or the threat of >> fraud. This is perhaps the most vital distinction that there is. > Wrong. Either your defin

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> "Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> The quote

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Ok, let me just make my opinion very clear on this and then I'll just > leave this thread altogether. > > I think you are comparing apples and oranges so whatever conclusion you > manage to draw from that i

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > The quote about the mafia doesn't compare MS's actions to "actual use > of force". I'm sorry, that's just absurd. I won't speculate on what motivates you to engage in such crazy distortion. Of course the quote about

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Mike Schilling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> There's a huge difference to the non-techy consumer. One of the >>> buggest reasons Linux has had a reputation of being harder to use >>> than Windows was the fact that Linux had to be installed, while >>> Windows

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> "Ironically, while no one else has so much as compared MS to criminals >> with >> guns". I defy you to find *one* place where I complain that MS behavior >> is >> equated to the actual use of force where that is not in

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

ty being "equated to that of > criminals with guns", and refuses to discuss the issue. Ironically, > while no one else has so much as compared MS to criminals with guns - > after all, they're white collar criminals - David Schwartz called the > DOJ official who were inve

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Paul Rubin" <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Sorry to be pedantic, but I think it's an important point that no >> court >> ever found that Micro

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"John Gordon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> What is an "illegal monopoly"? > A monopoly that acts in certain ways, ab

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Espen Myrland wrote: > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> What is an "illegal monopoly"? > The opposite of a "legal monopoly". For example, in Norway we have > "Vinmonopolet", a monopoly which are the only one allowe

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Paul Rubin wrote: > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Of course it's legal for non-monopoly companies. You seem to think >>> Microsoft's illegal monopoly is an irrelevant detail. It is not. >> What is an "illegal m

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Paul Rubin wrote: > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I defy you to find any court that has ruled this practice >> illegal for a company that does not have a monopoly. Because if they >> did, I'm going after Doctor's Associat

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote: > David Schwartz wrote: >> Burger King won't let you sell Whoppers or buy their burger >> patties wholesale no matter what you want to call your store unless >> you take the whole franchise deal. It's an all-or-nothing p

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote: > I would think that if I set up a shop and wanted to have the word > "Microsoft" as part of the shop name, there would be some rules > dictating what products I could and could not sell, yes. Wether those > rules are set forth in a law somewhere or Microsoft set the

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

David Schwartz wrote: > Paul Rubin wrote: >> If the trial court >> determines a fact and it's upheld on appeal, it's an established >> legal fact regardless of whether you or Microsoft likes it. I just found this article: http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=88

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Roedy Green wrote: > 1. it was a threat to destroy a business -- e.g vandalise tens of > thousands of dollars of property. For all practical purpose they > threatened to steal my business. It would be roughly the same dollar > value as threatening to burn down a large house. No, it was a th

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Iain King wrote: > David Schwartz wrote: >> Roedy Green wrote: >> >>> The particular way MS threatened to put me out of business was by >>> threatening to arm twist all wholesalers to refuse to sell MS >>> product to me, which any retailer needed to sur

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Iain King wrote: > Don't you see how your metaphor doesn't work? No. > It would only be > fitting if Microsoft OWNED the outlet. Huh? > Places which sell Whoppers > are Burger King franchises, so of course they aren't going to sell > Big Mac's. Right. The Burger King corporate fra

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Peter T. Breuer wrote: > That's UP TO THE FRIGGING STORE (in contrast to the MS situation). No, it's not up to the store. In all the cases I mentioned, it's the manufacturer of the product that imposes the restrictions and the manufacturer of the product is not the store owner. >> I don't

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Roedy Green wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:06:16 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who > said : >>Well shit, how surprising that they wouldn't want to do business >> with you if you broke y

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Roedy Green wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:06:16 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who > said : >>Right, they send gun-wielding thugs to use force against people. >> That's a lot like ref

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Paul Rubin wrote: > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> The appeals courts upheld that the trial court did not abuse its >> discretion. However, both a finding of "yes, Microsoft had a >> monopoly" and a finding of "no, Micros

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote: > David Schwartz wrote: >> Roedy Green wrote: > >> competing products. (Just as Burger King corporate will not you sell >> Big Macs in the same store in which you sell Whoppers.) > Rather odd comparison don't you think ?

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Peter T. Breuer wrote: > In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Microsoft was not going to let a business >> parasitically use Windows to build a business that touted the >> advantages of competing products. >

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Roedy Green wrote: > On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:31:41 GMT, Roedy Green > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or > indirectly quoted someone who said : >> I used to be a retailer of custom computers. MS used a dirty trick >> to compete with IBM's OS/2. They said to me as a retailer. You must >> buy a

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Sibylle Koczian wrote: > David Schwartz schrieb: >> When you are not in the majority, you are going to face >> inconveniences. You'd face the same inconvenience if you wanted to >> buy a new car without seats. Most people wants cars with seats, so >>

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Roedy Green wrote: > The tactic Univac/Burroughs/Prime used, at least for big sales, was > for example invite the potential customer to view some installation to > talk to a satisfied client about how they were using their gear. There > might be a convenient client in say ... Las Vegas. Yep,

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Roedy Green wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:49:27 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who > said : >>I guess I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that >> Microsoft demanded yo

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Paul Rubin wrote: > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> But there is no law against that type of conduct, *unless* you >> are a monopolist. So your conclusion hinges on the determination >> that Microsoft had a monopoly, and that hinge

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Roedy Green wrote: > On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:50:07 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who > said : >>There is no different to Microsoft beween a bare computer and one >> preloaded with Linux or Fre

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Roedy Green wrote: > On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:50:07 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who > said : >>The Microsoft agreement is also up front. It's not "imposed" in >> any sense excep

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Roedy Green wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:28:46 +0200, "Peter T. Breuer" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who > said : >> I'm a bit curious about this. If I were a business person, I would >> simply have created two busineses (two accounts, etc.). One business >>

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Paul Rubin wrote: > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> So, your observations about Burger King are irrelevant to Microsoft. >> Because the error I'm correcting is the belief that Microsoft's >> conduct was extremely unusual

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Mike Schilling wrote: > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>There is no different to Microsoft beween a bare computer and one >> preloaded with Linux or FreeBSD. One can quickly be converted to >> other wi

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Peter T. Breuer wrote: > In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> . Microsoft said you can sell Windows >> and other operating systems, but there will be a charge for every >> machine you sell without Windows -- if

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Roedy Green wrote: > On 26 Oct 2005 18:05:45 +0200, Tor Iver Wilhelmsen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone > who said : >>> IBM seems to have had a history of squeezing out competition in the >>> same way Microsoft has, if I recall correctly. >> ... and were told no

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Roedy Green wrote: > On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:53:07 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who > said : >>Umm, it's not a judgment. Microsoft said you can sell Windows and >> other operating sys

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Paul Rubin wrote: > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> If you want to sell meals with Whoppers in them, you have to get >> permission to do so from Burger King corporate. And they will not >> let you also sell Big Macs in the same store, e

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Peter T. Breuer wrote: > claim 1a) Microsoft's tactic is X (fill in, please) > judgment 1b) tactic X is somehow not as bad as (sense?) offering >"exclusive wholesale deals" (please define) Umm, it's not a judgment. Microsoft said you can sell Windows and other operatin

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No they aren't. A pc o/s is something you load on an IBM pc, and an IBM > pc is an open format. There is no &

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Tor Iver Wilhelmsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > entropy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> IBM seems to have had a history of squeezing out competition in the >> same way Microsoft has, if I recall correctly. > ... and were told not to by a court. Which is the w

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Eike Preuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Right, except that's utterly absurd. If every vendor takes their tiny >> cut of the 95%, a huge cut of the 5% is starting to look *REALLY* good. > Sure, that would be true if the market would be / would have been r

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Of course he cares. He is a shill. He licks that hand that feeds him. In an indirect sense. The company I work for does get a lot of sales because we are "anyone but Microsoft". So we actually profit from people's

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "Steven D'Aprano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> McDonald's won't sell a Burger King their burger patties. > McDonald's are not in the business of wholesale distribution of burger > patties so your statement is simply sited in the wrong universe of > discourse.

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Martin P. Hellwig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Not Bill Gates wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote... >>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:35:47 +, Not Bill Gates wrote: >>> Heck, I dunno. Like you, I don't even really care all that much. >>> You don't care that

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Steven D'Aprano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > The first two points are factually wrong, and the third is an opinion > based on the concept, as far as I can see, that Microsoft should be > allowed to do anything they like, even if those actions harm others.

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"John-Paul Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > David Schwartz wrote: >> If nobody wants these operating systems, then it doesn't hurt him not to >> be able to sell them. If people want them, then he could have shown

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I'm hesitant to get into this, but I keep wondering why, if there is > no other competing OS, or not one worth worrying about, the MS > business agreements are so draconian? Why would a company come up with > such heavy handed agreeme

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Yes, it certainly is. However, it is also Microsoft's right as a >> seller >> to refuse discounts to those who also sell competing products. You may >> not > No it is not their "right"! That would be a discri

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Eike Preuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Shouldn't it be my right as a seller, to decide that I want to sell an > operating system 'that nobody wants' _as well as_ operating systems that > 'everybody wants'? Yes, it certainly is. However, it is also Micros

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 3) there are plenty of other OSs that are developed or could be > developed but which cannot get a foothold or even manage to be put on > the shelves because the majority product producer insists on charging > hardwa

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 21:06:36 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who > said : >>Do you think it would be immoral

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Essentially, Microsoft asked for exclusive arrangements. That is, >> arrangements wherein you could not sell competing products if you wished >> to >> sell Microsoft products. That's not even remotely unusual.

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Antoon Pardon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> I think you need to look up "extortion" in a dictionary. I can walk >> up >> to you and say "if you want me to mow your lawn, you must pay me $1 every >> time you smoke a cigarette". So long as you can say "no" a

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:59:33 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who > said : >>I think you need to look up "

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I think you need to look up "extortion" in a dictionary. I can >> walk up to you and say "if you want me to mow your lawn, yo

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Not that I care much since eggs bring on a rather strong reaction > within me, but his arguments were totally false. So you maintain that the United States government owns its economy? It might be instructive to google for "

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>His comments are not applicable to America. They are applicable to a >> country where the government owns the economy. >>No reply is needed to his comments except to point out that they only >> apply to a communist or totalit

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > In comp.lang.perl.misc David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>This is about whether we're talking *ABOUT* America, you idiot. It's >> as >> if he said the press has no freedom

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Antoon Pardon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Microsoft had something you need so badly that you could not go into >> business without it. So they demanded from you that you pay them what >> their >> software was actually worth to you. That is not extortion.

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Alan Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > AC You wouldn't be this Alan Connor would you: http://www.killfile.org/dungeon/why/connor.html DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Matt Garrish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>A right is a scope of authority. That is, a sphere within which one's >> decision is sovereign. > Then why were you claiming that a government can infringe on a person's > rights if those rights are not codified

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Instead, you outline a class of actions and tag them >>> all as illegal. That's why we have laws against as

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Matt Garrish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I'd be interested in hearing what you think a right is? A right is a scope of authority. That is, a sphere within which one's decision is sovereign. > In Florida, for example, you have the right to gun someone do

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > David claimed that everyone had a right to do whatever they wanted > with their property. This is simply false throughout most of the > civilized world - zoning laws control what kinds of business you can > run on your pr

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > In comp.lang.perl.misc David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >>> Sorry, but nobody but the government actually owns property.

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I am not saying Microsoft did not know the law. I am saying that no rational person could have expected the law to be applied to Microsoft that way it was. The law *must* put a person on notice of pr

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Steven D'Aprano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 18:02:44 -0700, David Schwartz wrote: >> I see you are a totalitarianist or perhaps a communist. If you want >> to >> live in America and discuss t

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Steven D'Aprano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> No, not at all. It is the gravest act of self-contradiction to >> maintain >> that one should be allowed to pursue one's own interest while denying >> that >> same right to others. > This is perhaps the most

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:10:24 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted : >>If the deal didn't give you more than it cost you, all you had to do

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Neither I, nor you, nor the government of any nation, should care a >>> monkey's toss specifically for Microsoft's success. Microsoft is one >>> special interest, out of a potentially unbounded number of possible >>> pl

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Steven D'Aprano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:47:27 -0700, David Schwartz wrote: >>> That's basic economics. Something which can be allowed or ignored or >>> even >>> encouraged w

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:47:27 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted : >> There is no way Microsoft could have expected the >>market to be defi

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Steven D'Aprano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > That's basic economics. Something which can be allowed or ignored or even > encouraged when done by small businesses in a competitive market can > easily become harmful and bad for the economy when done by a monopoli

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Mike Schilling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > An employee who refuses to act as directed, claiming that he's thinking of > the shareholders' interests, can be fired for cause. His only recourse > would be to become a shareholder (not hard), and then get the at

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Not if they abuse a monopoly position in doing so, which is where we > started. In other words, what they did was wrong because it was them who did it. It is fine if anyone else does, just not fine if Microsoft

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I guess I wasn't explicit enough. Most people who want cars also want >> an >> engine.

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Antoon Pardon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > A company figures out something is wrong with one of their new models. > They have two options. They can repair the problem or they can leave > it as is and brace the laswsuits that will likely follow. An analysis > sh

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 01:54:14 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted : >>They have obligations to their clients because (and only because) >&g

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:18:31 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted : >>Perhaps you aren't following the thread, but I was talking about the

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Luke Webber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > As much as I hate to jump in on this thread, well I'm gonna... > I think you'll find that companies have all manner of legal obligations. > Certainly to their shareholders, but beyond that they have an obligation > to

Re: Jargons of Info Tech industry

"Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Rethink what you are saying. You'll see that what you propose as > reasons for one, is actually for the other. Nonsense. It is plain error to change what someone said and claim they said it, even if you think that what

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:34:55 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted : >> As for obligations to community, no, there is no such obligation. An >>

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:30:42 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted : >>No, taken stupidly. Hint: would or would not MS executives disobey

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On 18 Oct 2005 13:21:19 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote or quoted : >>Yes, he deserves credit for what he did. He nevertheless created a >>false impression in what he said. If he hadn't created that false >>impression, t

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:53:29 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted : >>>> Wrong. The only obligation Microsoft has is to their sharehold

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:53:29 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted : >>The only obligation Microsoft has is to their shareholders. >>> &g

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Aragorn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Wrong. The only obligation Microsoft has is to their shareholders. If you genuinely believe that, you are a psychopath. > A psychopath is someone who lacks ethics and/or the ability to respect > his fellow human b

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Steven D'Aprano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:53:29 -0700, David Schwartz wrote: >>>> Wrong. The only obligation Microsoft has is to their shareholders. > With training and/or a good dose of enligh

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"John W. Kennedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Mike Meyer wrote: >> "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>>It is not Microsoft's obligation to be "fair". It is Microsoft'

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:21:55 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted : >>I don't think any of it bordered on force or fraud. However, their &g

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:44:55 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted : >>It is not Microsoft's obligation to be "fair". It is Mic

  1   2   >