From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Nov 14 13:11:17 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 758) id 52CC714C99; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 13:11:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40C4D1CD443; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 13:11:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kris@hub.freebsd.org) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 13:11:15 -0800 (PST) From: Kris Kennaway To: David Schwartz Cc: Jonathon McKitrick , freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: RE: threads.... In-Reply-To: <000401bf2e65$ffd3d2f0$021d85d1@youwant.to> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 13 Nov 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > > On Sat, 13 Nov 1999, Jonathon McKitrick wrote: > > > > > Here's a perfect example of when threads matter.. i want the newest > > > version of Licq. The newest, with all recent fixes, is 0.71. But i > > > have to DL 0.61 because after that they became THREADED! I hope we have > > > threads (kernel) soon. > > > > We already have threads. How exactly does licq (an ICQ client) rely on > > kernel-supported threads (only needed for some level of SMP scalability?) > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > You're joking right? Or do you think that real-world server applications > don't mind if you freeze everything while the kernel services a page fault > or reads a file from a slow disk? I am referring to the case in question: an ICQ client. ICQ is not a high-performance server application, and does not require parallelism for performance reasons. I'm fairly familiar with the issues associated with kernel-supported threads (or lack thereof) in general. Kris ---- Cthulhu for President! For when you're tired of choosing the _lesser_ of two evils.. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Nov 14 13:13:52 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD5D214C99 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 13:13:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 13:13:44 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Kris Kennaway" Cc: "Jonathon McKitrick" , Subject: RE: threads.... Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 13:13:44 -0800 Message-ID: <000301bf2ee5$2209cf80$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > > We already have threads. How exactly does licq (an ICQ client) rely on > > > kernel-supported threads (only needed for some level of SMP > scalability?) > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > You're joking right? Or do you think that real-world server > applications > > don't mind if you freeze everything while the kernel services a > page fault > > or reads a file from a slow disk? > > I am referring to the case in question: an ICQ client. ICQ is not a > high-performance server application, and does not require parallelism for > performance reasons. Agreed. > I'm fairly familiar with the issues associated with kernel-supported > threads (or lack thereof) in general. Then why would you say, "only needed for some level of SMP scalability"? DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Nov 14 14:12:29 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mta1.rcsntx.swbell.net (mta1.rcsntx.swbell.net [151.164.30.25]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58F41152E5 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 14:12:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from noslenj@swbell.net) Received: from swbell.net ([207.193.26.210]) by mta1.rcsntx.swbell.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with ESMTP id <0FL700MKOKCG8K@mta1.rcsntx.swbell.net> for freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 16:12:18 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by swbell.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA01531; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 16:11:46 -0600 (CST envelope-from noslenj@swbell.net) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 16:11:46 -0600 (CST) From: Jay Nelson Subject: Re: FreeBSD Counter Page In-reply-to: <199909010800.BAA18044@moose.mooseriver.com> To: Josef Grosch Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Can you tell us general statistics and demographics from the 44,000+ who have registered so far? -- Jay To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Nov 14 15:12:52 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from athserv.otenet.gr (athserv.otenet.gr [195.170.0.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08DF814C42 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 15:12:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from charon@otenet.gr) Received: from hades.hell.gr (patr530-a001.otenet.gr [195.167.115.1]) by athserv.otenet.gr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA20077; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 01:12:40 +0200 (EET) Received: (from charon@localhost) by hades.hell.gr (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA02097; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 15:33:11 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from charon) To: "David Schwartz" Cc: "Giorgos Keramidas" , Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" References: <000001bf2e27$06a48230$021d85d1@youwant.to> From: Giorgos Keramidas Date: 14 Nov 1999 15:33:11 +0200 In-Reply-To: "David Schwartz"'s message of "Sat, 13 Nov 1999 14:32:53 -0800" Message-ID: <861z9tp59k.fsf@localhost.hell.gr> Lines: 227 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.45/XEmacs 21.1 - "20 Minutes to Nikko" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "David Schwartz" writes: > > Gawd's sake what do you mean by using the word `superior' here, because > > I was assuming technical superiority is the goal. ... > You were assuming technical superiority is the goal of what? Of a company trying to produce competent software that will let it share some part of the market with others. > Right. Perceived value is as important as actual value. This is > especially true in the computer market, believe it or not. As much as it grieves me, I do believe it ever since I started working as a programmer in the computer market :| > Yes, the limit should be what the consumer does not want. Not even > Microsoft can make a consumer buy something they don't want. And not > even the government should stop Microsoft from making and selling what > consumers want. This is certainly true. The limit is always what the consumer wants. However, raising the limit with marketing should not be that hard. The whole purpose of marketing is to actually /tell/ the consumer what he wants, which creates a logical loop in that previous argument. Oh and one more thing, unless I am totally wrong here, any company can make some consumers buys something that they don't _need_ by making them think that they _want_ to buy it. This is the idea behind commercials and other ways of advertising. > > As for the `user experience' thing, ask all those who have seen IE > > stopping to download simultaneously from more than 4 sockets at a time, > > and those who use Netscape and see all their active downloads proceeding > > as usual. And `user experience' is an objective criterion to define > > superiority or `goodness'. Both these terms usually depend on what one > > calls `good' and what is regarded by each and every one of us as `bad'. > > Of course. I have my complaints about IE as well. Personally, I wish > Microsoft had put 1/5 as much energy into designing ActiveX as Sun put into > Java. I believe Java is technically superior to ActiveX and wish that Sun > had made it more open and hadn't overpromised. > > But the fact still remains, the vast majority of people who compare IE to > Netscape prefer IE. I have both on my desktop and use IE about 95% of the > time. Yes, it crashes from time to time. So does Netscape. > > So why aren't the Netscape folks working on the next thing? Whatever it is > that will make the browser obsolete. That's where the market for technical > superiority is. > > > > You may consider some of Microsoft's innovations cheating, but that's > > > not your decision to make. > > > > Using in half of the operating system the same libraries as IE uses is > > certainly a nice design decision on behalf of Microsoft. Having a > > separate layer of abstraction, so that IE is not so closely bound to > > Windows, would probably make porting IE to other platforms easier but > > then again, it's already ported to a few platforms. Not as many as I > > would certainly wish to see it ported to, and not close to all the Unix > > boxes supported by Netscape though. > > And the nice thing for developers targetting Windows 98 and later > operating systems is that they can rely on those services being there > and use them. This is a benefit for the same reason that integrating > memory management into the operating system is a benefit. Memory management works transparently, without the programmer ever being in the need to tweak it, in order to do simple tasks. However, all other interfaces present in the system have to be documented properly, so that one does not find that IE uses the OpenWindowFancy() call of a system .dll, which seems pretty much undocumented in your system manuals. This will not let those `other' developers write their own programs. As for memory management... > > > Go ahead, take memory management out of the OS. Take disk compression > > > out. How far do you want to set us back? > > > > Eh? Did I ever even mention that any of these operating system > > characteristics are *evil* and should be dropped by anyone? > > What about your argument against browser integration doesn't apply to > disk compression integration? Or memory management integration? Or GUI > integration? (Actually, GUI integration is something that I can't > stand. But I'm not going to tell Microsoft how to design their > products.) Memory management is a characteristic of an operating system at the "system" level. Filesystems too. Providing transparent encryption of filesystem operations can be considered as a `feature' of a filesystem, which is already in the "system" level. However, one something is in the application level, i.e. programs like the browser, the word processor, the mail reader, hell even the mail transfer agent, it is no longer part of the OS. Finally, if you think that I ever even hinted towards removing support for system-level features, in order to do I don't what... well, try reading once more my postings. As for integration, Emacs has integrated support for the GNU debugger. However, it's not mandatory to install Emacs when you install GDB. The fact the a program B can support a program A, means that if you want to use B you'd probably find A useful. However, this does not necessarily become instantly true towards the other direction. For instance, you can use X11 on Linux and/or FreeBSD. But that does not make it mandatory to install X11 on all Linux installations. It just adds to your `abilities'. I would certainly like to see that level of fine-grained choise in Windows too. Although it's not the only design issue that makes me shy away from Windows, having a descent way of working at them without the `integrated' GUI would really make me a lot happier about them. > If you don't like closed-source programs, don't buy them. But to tell > everyone else that you no better than them and that closed-source > should be eliminated is absurdly elitist. I'm not buying them. As for the elitistic part, telling others that something is superior by something else, so you got to use it, because I and the rest of the planet use it 95% of the time... now that's e1it3 :) > > > > Compare the price of running Netscape on *BSD, with that of running IE > > > > on Windows. > > [snip] > > > Neither Netscape nor FreeBSD are commercial products. I'm talking > > > about comparing Windows to other commercial operating systems. > > > > Pretty nice and rational now that you clarified it, but I thought that > > we were not talking about commercial, and only commercial, software > > products until now. > > When you're considering whether the cost of Windows is reasonable or > not, you have to compare it to other commercial operating > systems. Microsoft had no means of enlisting thousands of people to > work on Windows for them at no charge. When as an engineer I am called to offer a solution, why is it important to limit myself to commercial only solutions? I don't seem to follow your reasoning here. About the enlistment now, opening the source is one way. So Microsoft actually *has* the means to enlist all those developing on Windows now, they are just too blind to see it. > > However, many a time Microsoft decided to change the SMB protocol, for > > no apparent reason. The changes were in the key used to authenticate > > oneself, but they did not seem to provide for better security (not > > larger keys, just different and it has always been with proprietary > > protocols, not documented anywhere). They were there obviously in order > > to make Samba unusable. This is not what I usually call `better' when > > I'm talking about a system in general. > > How did Microsoft's changes hurt samba? It was still doing exactly > what it was designed to do. It simply no longer interoperated with > Microsoft's operating systems. This hurts Microsoft's operating > systems as much or more than it hurts samba. Yes and no. Samba still worked. Microsoft's neighborhood still worked, they just did not interoperate well with each other. By making just the number of changes to be incompatible, you can bet on many people buying the crap that goes like "our systems always interoperate well with each other, theirs are just a heap of bull -- so use only our systems, be happy and content that we provide you with all this interoperability." Microsoft has never used my exact words, but the basic meaning most of the time is right there. > Microsoft did not ask for samba. Microsoft does not have to suffer > samba if they don't want to. If they want their operating systems not > to interoperate with other operating systems, that is their right. By using the word "suffer" you don't mean of course that Samba is getting _so_ good that Microsoft is in agony and all that... Anyway, Digital, Sun, SCO, or anybody else did not ask for Linux or FreeBSD either. That does not mean that they should not follow any of those dreaded POSIX standards which linux and freebsd strive to follow... > I develop products all that time that do not interoperate with > products developed by other companies. This is a deliberate design > decision. Or do you not believe that companies have the right to > develop and use proprietary protocols and technologies? Is this going > to degenerate into 'information wants to be free'? Developing products that do not interoperate, as you said above, is a hurt to both the users and you, the developer. I can only add to this that you have every right to make a decision of your own, and I will support your right to choose to do so, even if I disagree with your choise. About information, if it *does* want to be free, it will be. Even if I myself, you, or anybody else for that matter, tries to convince us all of the opposite. > > Lower prices are not a characteristic of Microsoft, unless you've never > > actually payed for your copy of Windows and Office; but that's probably > > something that does not conform with what Microsoft wants you to do. > > That's just not true. Are you saying this for any particular reason? > Do you really believe it? Would any facts help, or is your mind > already closed. My mind is never closed. I am always open to suggestions. But I have yet to see a Windows release priced less than FreeBSD or any other Free*nix clone. But, I know, I know... Free*nix is not commercial. > Here's a quotation from Stan Liebowitz: Nice stuff, can I find more of that online somewhere? > Sure. But I've had those same problems with Linux. (Never with > FreeBSD, but I think that's just been luck so far) The problems, i.e. tech support on expensive and not so effective phone lines, just don't exist with FreeBSD & Linux. I can not recall the year, I think it was the last one, when Linux received some award for it's support (mind you, no real company does the support, just mailing lists, irc channels, web pages, etc.) Ciao. -- Giorgos Keramidas, "What we have to learn to do, we learn by doing." [Aristotle] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Nov 14 16: 3:11 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 878AE14CCA for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 16:03:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 16:03:05 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Giorgos Keramidas" Cc: Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 16:03:04 -0800 Message-ID: <000a01bf2efc$ca2434f0$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <861z9tp59k.fsf@localhost.hell.gr> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > "David Schwartz" writes: > > > > Gawd's sake what do you mean by using the word `superior' > here, because > > > I was assuming technical superiority is the goal. > ... > > You were assuming technical superiority is the goal of what? > > Of a company trying to produce competent software that will let it share > some part of the market with others. Actually, technical superiority is generally a means to an end. That end is usually meeting some market niche. All the technical superiority in the world won't sell a product if it doesn't provide some group of people something that they at least think they need. > > Yes, the limit should be what the consumer does not want. Not even > > Microsoft can make a consumer buy something they don't want. And not > > even the government should stop Microsoft from making and selling what > > consumers want. > > This is certainly true. The limit is always what the consumer wants. > However, raising the limit with marketing should not be that hard. The > whole purpose of marketing is to actually /tell/ the consumer what he > wants, which creates a logical loop in that previous argument. This is correct, but not the whole picture. Marketing has a large number of goals. Certainly changing demand is one of them, but it's only rarely the primary goal. Most marketing has as its primary goals increasing awareness of the company and shifting brand preferences. > Oh and one more thing, unless I am totally wrong here, any company can > make some consumers buys something that they don't _need_ by making them > think that they _want_ to buy it. This is the idea behind commercials > and other ways of advertising. This is the hard way to sell something. It's much easier to simply convince your customers that you meet a need they know they have. But, yes, you can sell something simply by convincing people they want it. Basically, what it comes down to is, how stupid do you think people are? But the risk is that you will assume stupidity too quickly. People do not buy Windows because they are stupid. T. J. Rodgers, the CEO of Cypress Semiconductor said, "Despite my Stanford Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering, it seems I was duped into buying 3,000 copies of Microsoft Windows by crafty Bill Gates." I think it's clear how ridiculous that sounds. > > And the nice thing for developers targetting Windows 98 and later > > operating systems is that they can rely on those services being there > > and use them. This is a benefit for the same reason that integrating > > memory management into the operating system is a benefit. > > Memory management works transparently, without the programmer ever being > in the need to tweak it, in order to do simple tasks. I guess you've never designed high-capacity servers. You have to work intimately with memory management to avoid such problems as fragmentation and leakage. > However, all > other interfaces present in the system have to be documented properly, > so that one does not find that IE uses the OpenWindowFancy() call of a > system .dll, which seems pretty much undocumented in your system > manuals. This will not let those `other' developers write their own > programs. Well, tough. If Microsoft didn't want any third-party Windows programs to exist, that would be their right. It would make a lousy product though. However, one argument that I do find interesting is that Microsoft is committing fraud by claiming (at least implicitly) that the Windows platform is open to development from all on some sort of equal basis when it actually is not. Absent evidence of such a claim, however, Microsoft's copyright rights would allow it to completely close off the Windows platform if they wanted to. They hold copyright to the API. > > What about your argument against browser integration doesn't apply to > > disk compression integration? Or memory management integration? Or GUI > > integration? (Actually, GUI integration is something that I can't > > stand. But I'm not going to tell Microsoft how to design their > > products.) > > Memory management is a characteristic of an operating system at the > "system" level. Filesystems too. Providing transparent encryption of > filesystem operations can be considered as a `feature' of a filesystem, > which is already in the "system" level. Yes, and now Windows 98 provides broswing at the system level. This is what integration means. All of these things can be done at the system level but don't have to be. > However, one something is in the application level, i.e. programs like > the browser, the word processor, the mail reader, hell even the mail > transfer agent, it is no longer part of the OS. The line is very blurry. Where is command.com on MSDOS? Where is the defragmenter in Windows 98? Where is FreeBSD's 'sysctl'? Do you really want the government making the decision about what's part of an operating system and what isn't? I don't even think real technical experts can do it. > For instance, you can use X11 on Linux and/or FreeBSD. But that does > not make it mandatory to install X11 on all Linux installations. It > just adds to your `abilities'. I would certainly like to see that level > of fine-grained choise in Windows too. Although it's not the only > design issue that makes me shy away from Windows, having a descent way > of working at them without the `integrated' GUI would really make me a > lot happier about them. Personally, I find that the absence of that choice has value. One reason that it's hard to design for the Linux platform is you have no clue what is going to be there. You can't link to the X11 libraries because they may not exist. Ditto for FreeBSD. I also accept that choice has value. It would be absurd to say it doesn't. So the question becomes, how much choice is the right amount of choice? And who should make that decision? > > When you're considering whether the cost of Windows is reasonable or > > not, you have to compare it to other commercial operating > > systems. Microsoft had no means of enlisting thousands of people to > > work on Windows for them at no charge. > > When as an engineer I am called to offer a solution, why is it important > to limit myself to commercial only solutions? I don't seem to follow > your reasoning here. Read it over until you get it. The question is, is the cost of Windows unsually high because Microsoft enjoys a monopoly position? When you are dealing with an anti-trust case, you are looking to find, and fix, monopoly harm. The theory is that a monopoly is capable of doing things that a more competitive market would not allow. The three chief types of monopoly harm are reduced quality, reduced output, and increased prices. The part that I was talking about was increased prices. So the question is, is the price of Windows high because Microsoft enjoys a monopoly position and could charge whatever it wants. And my answer was, no, because the price of Windows is reasonable considering the effort expended to develop it, market it, maintain it, support it, and research future developments. > About the enlistment now, opening the source is one way. So Microsoft > actually *has* the means to enlist all those developing on Windows now, > they are just too blind to see it. You might be right. Microsoft might actually enjoy greater success in the market by being freer with its source. But under US Copyright law, and international law, that is its exclusive decision to make. Microsoft can do whatever it wants to with its intellectual property. > > > However, many a time Microsoft decided to change the SMB protocol, for > > > no apparent reason. The changes were in the key used to authenticate > > > oneself, but they did not seem to provide for better security (not > > > larger keys, just different and it has always been with proprietary > > > protocols, not documented anywhere). They were there > obviously in order > > > to make Samba unusable. This is not what I usually call `better' when > > > I'm talking about a system in general. > > > > How did Microsoft's changes hurt samba? It was still doing exactly > > what it was designed to do. It simply no longer interoperated with > > Microsoft's operating systems. This hurts Microsoft's operating > > systems as much or more than it hurts samba. > > Yes and no. Samba still worked. Microsoft's neighborhood still worked, > they just did not interoperate well with each other. By making just the > number of changes to be incompatible, you can bet on many people buying > the crap that goes like "our systems always interoperate well with each > other, theirs are just a heap of bull -- so use only our systems, be > happy and content that we provide you with all this interoperability." > Microsoft has never used my exact words, but the basic meaning most of > the time is right there. And that is their right. No one should be forced to have their product interoperate in a way they do not want. This is a pretty fundamental copyrith right. If you wrote "The Phantom of the Opera" and didn't want it bundled with "Debby Does the Doghouse, Part 3", that would be your right. If those rights didn't exist, the GPL wouldn't exist. If Microsoft wants to hurt themselves by being incompatible, that's their right. You would only have a sensible claim against them if you could show some sort of implied promise to interoperate. Microsoft has done the converse (until recently) stating explicitly that they have no intention to interoperate with others -- as you stated. > > Microsoft did not ask for samba. Microsoft does not have to suffer > > samba if they don't want to. If they want their operating systems not > > to interoperate with other operating systems, that is their right. > > By using the word "suffer" you don't mean of course that Samba is > getting _so_ good that Microsoft is in agony and all that... I mean that Microsoft doesn't have to interoperate with Samba if they don't want to. Unless they made some sort of agreement that requires them to. If Microsoft wants to quarrantine Windows, they can do that. If you want Microsoft to do otherwise, you can contract for them to do so or don't buy their products. > Anyway, Digital, Sun, SCO, or anybody else did not ask for Linux or > FreeBSD either. That does not mean that they should not follow any of > those dreaded POSIX standards which linux and freebsd strive to > follow... Right. They choose to follow those standards because they value interoperability. And that's great. I much prefer to deal with such companies. But surely it's their right to be incompatible if they choose to, right? So long as they don't lie about it or mislead their customers. > > I develop products all that time that do not interoperate with > > products developed by other companies. This is a deliberate design > > decision. Or do you not believe that companies have the right to > > develop and use proprietary protocols and technologies? Is this going > > to degenerate into 'information wants to be free'? > > Developing products that do not interoperate, as you said above, is a > hurt to both the users and you, the developer. I can only add to this > that you have every right to make a decision of your own, and I will > support your right to choose to do so, even if I disagree with your > choise. Well, the point is, why should you give technology away for free? Being able to interoperate with Windows file sharing has value, and Microsoft shouldn't have to give that to the Samba team for nothing. They (eventually) realized that they benefit from such interoperability. > > > Lower prices are not a characteristic of Microsoft, unless > you've never > > > actually payed for your copy of Windows and Office; but > that's probably > > > something that does not conform with what Microsoft wants you to do. > > > > That's just not true. Are you saying this for any particular reason? > > Do you really believe it? Would any facts help, or is your mind > > already closed. > > My mind is never closed. I am always open to suggestions. But I have > yet to see a Windows release priced less than FreeBSD or any other > Free*nix clone. But, I know, I know... Free*nix is not commercial. You will never see a commercial product cheaper than a free product. > > Here's a quotation from Stan Liebowitz: > > Nice stuff, can I find more of that online somewhere? There's some at http://youknow.youwant.to/ms > > Sure. But I've had those same problems with Linux. (Never with > > FreeBSD, but I think that's just been luck so far) > > The problems, i.e. tech support on expensive and not so effective phone > lines, just don't exist with FreeBSD & Linux. I was more referring to your hardware compatability problems. FreeBSD and Linux generally have far better support than Microsoft could ever hope for. > I can not recall the > year, I think it was the last one, when Linux received some award for > it's support (mind you, no real company does the support, just mailing > lists, irc channels, web pages, etc.) That shows some real open mindedness on the part of whoever gave that award. I have never had a complex, technical Linux or FreeBSD question that I couldn't get ten answers to within 3 hours. I still agonize over NT questions I could probably resolve in 20 seconds if I could look at the source. Eventually the market will learn. Windows will be irrelevant some day no matter what MS does. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Nov 14 17: 9:19 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [199.172.62.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5BFD14C99 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 17:09:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from lowell@world.std.com) Received: from world.std.com (lowell@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by europe.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA17198 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 20:09:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from lowell@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA08520; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 20:09:16 -0500 (EST) To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" References: <000a01bf2efc$ca2434f0$021d85d1@youwant.to> From: Lowell Gilbert Date: 14 Nov 1999 20:09:15 -0500 In-Reply-To: "David Schwartz"'s message of Sun, 14 Nov 1999 16:03:04 -0800 Message-ID: Lines: 23 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.2 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "David Schwartz" writes: > Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > However, one something is in the application level, i.e. programs like > > the browser, the word processor, the mail reader, hell even the mail > > transfer agent, it is no longer part of the OS. > > The line is very blurry. Where is command.com on MSDOS? Where is the > defragmenter in Windows 98? Where is FreeBSD's 'sysctl'? Do you really want > the government making the decision about what's part of an operating system > and what isn't? I don't even think real technical experts can do it. Before the fuss over Microsoft's bundling IE with Windows, I always considered ftp to be part of the operating system. On Windows *and* Unix. And try as I might, I can't see a difference between that and a browser, other than historical accident. Admittedly, you can have a usable system without either one, but that's true of *most* of what ships with FreeBSD, and I always thought a big advantage of FreeBSD was that it came as a "complete" system... Be well. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Nov 14 18:12:20 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from probity.mcc.ac.uk (probity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.94]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 824D914BCA for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 18:12:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by probity.mcc.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #3) id 11nBcs-000Lny-00; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 02:12:14 +0000 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 02:12:14 +0000 (GMT) From: Jonathon McKitrick To: Lowell Gilbert Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 14 Nov 1999, Lowell Gilbert wrote: >"David Schwartz" writes: > >> Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > >> > However, one something is in the application level, i.e. programs like >> > the browser, the word processor, the mail reader, hell even the mail >> > transfer agent, it is no longer part of the OS. >> >> The line is very blurry. Where is command.com on MSDOS? Where is the >> defragmenter in Windows 98? Where is FreeBSD's 'sysctl'? Do you really want >> the government making the decision about what's part of an operating system >> and what isn't? I don't even think real technical experts can do it. > >Before the fuss over Microsoft's bundling IE with Windows, I always >considered ftp to be part of the operating system. On Windows *and* >Unix. And try as I might, I can't see a difference between that and a >browser, other than historical accident. > >Admittedly, you can have a usable system without either one, but >that's true of *most* of what ships with FreeBSD, and I always thought >a big advantage of FreeBSD was that it came as a "complete" system... > That may be true... but FreeBSD doesn't make it inconvenient for you to choose a different ftp program, or even write your own. It also doesn't decrease system performance even when you are *not* using it. -jonathon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Nov 14 20: 5:26 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.enteract.com (mail.enteract.com [207.229.143.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A836C14CCA for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 20:05:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Received: from shell-2.enteract.com (dscheidt@shell-2.enteract.com [207.229.143.41]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA61910; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 22:05:22 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 22:05:22 -0600 (CST) From: David Scheidt To: Lowell Gilbert Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 14 Nov 1999, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > "David Schwartz" writes: > Before the fuss over Microsoft's bundling IE with Windows, I always > considered ftp to be part of the operating system. On Windows *and* > Unix. And try as I might, I can't see a difference between that and a > browser, other than historical accident. Little prevents you from sticking in your own replacement for ftp(1), though. I think I would use editors as the example. Every OS I have used has shipped with some text editor. Every unix I have used has supplied ed(1), but don't keep me from installing vi, or emacs, or anything else. For the mot part, they don't claim that things won't work as well if I do install a third party editor either. David Scheidt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Nov 14 20:14:31 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from cain.gsoft.com.au (genesi.lnk.telstra.net [139.130.136.161]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7313F14A0D for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 20:14:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from doconnor@gsoft.com.au) Received: from cain.gsoft.com.au (doconnor@cain [203.38.152.97]) by cain.gsoft.com.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA26924; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:44:15 +1030 (CST) (envelope-from doconnor@gsoft.com.au) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.3.1 [p0] on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:44:15 +1030 (CST) From: "Daniel O'Connor" To: David Scheidt Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org, Lowell Gilbert Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 15-Nov-99 David Scheidt wrote: > has shipped with some text editor. Every unix I have used has supplied > ed(1), but don't keep me from installing vi, or emacs, or anything else. > For the mot part, they don't claim that things won't work as well if I do > install a third party editor either. Of course most FTP clients are 12meg downloads. The barrier to using another browser is an important consideration. Especially when MS twisted the arm of the OEM to not install Navigator on the machines they make. --- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Nov 15 0: 5: 3 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from moose.mooseriver.com (mooseriver.com [209.133.53.192]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4603B14C97 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 00:05:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jgrosch@moose.mooseriver.com) Received: (from jgrosch@localhost) by moose.mooseriver.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA40989 for chat@freebsd.org; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 00:05:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jgrosch) From: Josef Grosch Message-Id: <199911150805.AAA40989@moose.mooseriver.com> Subject: BAFUG Announcements To: chat@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 00:05:00 -0800 (PST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org This is the monthly BAFUG posting. It contains 3 sections; Jobs, Counter, and Retail notice. This is posted on the first of the month. If there are any questions please send them to jgrosch@MooseRiver.com Thanks *** JOBS NOTICE *** San Francisco Bay Area FreeBSD Jobs BAFUG (Bay Area FreeBSD Users Group) has put up a web page of employers in the San Francisco Bay Area who are looking for employees, permanent or contact, who have FreeBSD skills. The URL is : http://www.bafug.org/BayAreaJobs.html Employers: The emphasis here is FreeBSD. The job you are advertising should have FreeBSD as a major component of the job. If you wish to advertise a job please send the URL to your web page with the job listings to jgrosch@MooseRiver.com. Employees: When contacting these employers please tell them that you saw this job listing on the Bay Area FreeBSD Jobs page. *** COUNTER NOTICE *** FreeBSD Counter Project The FreeBSD Counter project and BAFUG (Bay Area FreeBSD Users Group) have put up the first public beta of its counter page. The Counter project is an attempt to gauge the installed base of FreeBSD. We current do not have a very good idea as to what is our installed base, how FreeBSD is being used and by whom. Because of this, FreeBSD is at a disadvantage when talking to ISVs and hardware and software vendors. You are invited to register with the counter project. The counter page can be found at : http://www.bafug.org/FbsdCounter.html Couple of caveats: * Your information is held to be confidential. Only those on the project, FreeBSD core group, and Walnut Creek CDROM will ever see this information. It will _NOT_ be handed over to spammers, direct marketers, and any of the other assorted bozos. * Suggestions and comments are welcome! * The database behind this page was built from the email registrations sent to Walnut Creek. If you registered at the time of an install chances are you are in this database. *** RETAIL NOTICE *** Retail outlets for FreeBSD A common question for new users of FreeBSD is, "Where can I get a copy of FreeBSD"? Aside from Walnut Creek CDROM (http://www.cdrom.com) there are a number of retail outlets world wide. A partial list can be found at http://www.bafug.org/Retail.html Notice this is a partial list. We are collecting addresses (snail, email, and web) of retail outlets for FreeBSD. So, send us the address of you friendly (or not-so-friendly) store that carries FreeBSD. -- $Id: BafugAnnounce.txt,v 1.3 1999/11/01 07:03:18 jgrosch Exp $ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Nov 15 0:32:23 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us (taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us [165.29.134.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A60DD14C2C for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 00:32:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from erickw@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us) Received: from localhost (erickw@localhost) by taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us (8.9.0/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA20614; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 03:37:53 -0600 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 03:37:52 -0600 (CST) From: Erick White To: David Schwartz Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" In-Reply-To: <000a01bf2efc$ca2434f0$021d85d1@youwant.to> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > "David Schwartz" writes: > > > > > > Gawd's sake what do you mean by using the word `superior' > > here, because > > > > I was assuming technical superiority is the goal. > > ... > > > You were assuming technical superiority is the goal of what? > > > > Of a company trying to produce competent software that will let it share > > some part of the market with others. > > Actually, technical superiority is generally a means to an end. That end is > usually meeting some market niche. All the technical superiority in the > world won't sell a product if it doesn't provide some group of people > something that they at least think they need. > > > > Yes, the limit should be what the consumer does not want. Not even > > > Microsoft can make a consumer buy something they don't want. And not > > > even the government should stop Microsoft from making and selling what > > > consumers want. > > > > This is certainly true. The limit is always what the consumer wants. > > However, raising the limit with marketing should not be that hard. The > > whole purpose of marketing is to actually /tell/ the consumer what he > > wants, which creates a logical loop in that previous argument. > > This is correct, but not the whole picture. Marketing has a large number of > goals. Certainly changing demand is one of them, but it's only rarely the > primary goal. Most marketing has as its primary goals increasing awareness > of the company and shifting brand preferences. They Key thing here is, that if they know of brand X and that it does such and such, and they don't know that brand y has the same options and actually out performs brand X then guess what? What you have is what is already being said, if they only know brand X exists and that it fits their needs, or should I say their percieved needs, Percieved being the key words here, then they go with brand X. You see they show you only enough to let you think that it is the only thing out there to use even though it might be second rate as far as features or options that are actually needed. Largely your letting them know only about your options if your welling something, and relying ONLY on your name that they know to try to outsell something, and well, the more money you have gotten in the past, the more you can make it stick out that your there, and hide the facts, as has happened in so many markets today. It is true this is not ethical, but it is unfortunately what many people including M$ has done. People usualy though turn a blind eye. > > > Oh and one more thing, unless I am totally wrong here, any company can > > make some consumers buys something that they don't _need_ by making them > > think that they _want_ to buy it. This is the idea behind commercials > > and other ways of advertising. > > This is the hard way to sell something. It's much easier to simply convince > your customers that you meet a need they know they have. But, yes, you can > sell something simply by convincing people they want it. Basically, what it > comes down to is, how stupid do you think people are? > > But the risk is that you will assume stupidity too quickly. People do not > buy Windows because they are stupid. > > T. J. Rodgers, the CEO of Cypress Semiconductor said, "Despite my Stanford > Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering, > it seems I was duped into buying 3,000 copies of Microsoft Windows by crafty > Bill Gates." I think it's clear how ridiculous that sounds. Well not as rediculous as you make it out to be. This is why. As I Mentioned above, when you only know about one product that at the time you percieve to be your only solution all though it doesn't meet all your criteria, then you buy it. Even Ph.D.'s like this can be dooped becouse of an enforced illusion. Just having a PhD does not limit one to being infallible or undupeable as you put it. My college Professors will be the first to tell you that all PHD stands for is well a BS degree... we all know what BS is, a MS Degree is more of the same, and a PHD is just piled Higher and deeper. Not saying people are stupid, I am saying they don't in general have all the information to make an informed conclusion based on all the facts. I am sure David, that you, like almost al of us, have fallen into a snare similar to this. > > > > And the nice thing for developers targetting Windows 98 and later > > > operating systems is that they can rely on those services being there > > > and use them. This is a benefit for the same reason that integrating > > > memory management into the operating system is a benefit. > > > > Memory management works transparently, without the programmer ever being > > in the need to tweak it, in order to do simple tasks. > > I guess you've never designed high-capacity servers. You have to work > intimately with memory management to avoid such problems as fragmentation > and leakage. > > > However, all > > other interfaces present in the system have to be documented properly, > > so that one does not find that IE uses the OpenWindowFancy() call of a > > system .dll, which seems pretty much undocumented in your system > > manuals. This will not let those `other' developers write their own > > programs. > > Well, tough. If Microsoft didn't want any third-party Windows programs to > exist, that would be their right. It would make a lousy product though. > > However, one argument that I do find interesting is that Microsoft is > committing fraud by claiming (at least implicitly) that the Windows platform > is open to development from all on some sort of equal basis when it actually > is not. Absent evidence of such a claim, however, Microsoft's copyright > rights would allow it to completely close off the Windows platform if they > wanted to. They hold copyright to the API. Yes all though Microsoft could do that, there are certain things that even it is required to go by. Just like the OSI model and operability of networks. What your selling is not just your copyright, but the ideal that your software is going to help already instituted network, and company layout. Yes your right in the legality of such a claim. They could close it off, but diliberately changing something just to squash the compitition is what is on trial in this case. Microsoft has strong armed others to do what it has wanted to, with threats and the like, and by crushing ones compitition and leaving only your version... isn't that what is reffered to as a MONOPOLY? I was born at night boys, and I am sure you were too, but I garuntee you neigther of us was born last night, and not in any night too recently, so if you look at it this way, if the only file share on such and such an architechture is yours, then you hold a MONOPOLY! So you see while they are within their rights in one aspect, that aspect does something that crosses another right that they do not have, and are breaking. > > > What about your argument against browser integration doesn't apply to > > > disk compression integration? Or memory management integration? Or GUI > > > integration? (Actually, GUI integration is something that I can't > > > stand. But I'm not going to tell Microsoft how to design their > > > products.) > > > > Memory management is a characteristic of an operating system at the > > "system" level. Filesystems too. Providing transparent encryption of > > filesystem operations can be considered as a `feature' of a filesystem, > > which is already in the "system" level. > > Yes, and now Windows 98 provides broswing at the system level. This is what > integration means. All of these things can be done at the system level but > don't have to be. > > > However, one something is in the application level, i.e. programs like > > the browser, the word processor, the mail reader, hell even the mail > > transfer agent, it is no longer part of the OS. > > The line is very blurry. Where is command.com on MSDOS? Where is the > defragmenter in Windows 98? Where is FreeBSD's 'sysctl'? Do you really want > the government making the decision about what's part of an operating system > and what isn't? I don't even think real technical experts can do it. Well here let me ask everyone this. Your picking out small portions of internal working code thake make up the root of the OS, this is not what their talking about. Although I fear what they might do with the company as in taking out certain features of the OS that un the industry we rely on weather we want to or not. I think they will cut it up as not the operating system, but the extra apps that others offer also, like browsers and let one choose, we are creatures of choice, not robots! Most likely they will devide Microsoft up, should the so descide by means of Internet access, like maybe MSN and the OS and something else, I however do not want to see them take out networking support and put it in another package... Networking can already show us some real fun, much less having to by two different products just to have it run in your network. The judge seems to be well infromed in some areas and not as much in others, but ultimately, at this point it is in his hands. And for further enlightenment the line is only blurry in certain aspects... > > For instance, you can use X11 on Linux and/or FreeBSD. But that does > > not make it mandatory to install X11 on all Linux installations. It > > just adds to your `abilities'. I would certainly like to see that level > > of fine-grained choise in Windows too. Although it's not the only > > design issue that makes me shy away from Windows, having a descent way > > of working at them without the `integrated' GUI would really make me a > > lot happier about them. > > Personally, I find that the absence of that choice has value. One reason > that it's hard to design for the Linux platform is you have no clue what is > going to be there. You can't link to the X11 libraries because they may not > exist. Ditto for FreeBSD. Again I state that humans are creatures of free will and choice, absence of choice never has value, I will agree with you there should be defaults, but the great thing about choice is this gives even you the choice to have it be all bland, look like one thing or another, or include one thing or another. Good coders are not going to back away from a challenge if a program is well written.. *mumbles about some other OS's that arn't....* then your going to make contigency plans if what your looking for in design is not there. All falls back to basics friends and neighbors. > > I also accept that choice has value. It would be absurd to say it doesn't. > > So the question becomes, how much choice is the right amount of choice? And > who should make that decision? The right amount of choice is based on the individual. How much is right and how much is not. Default choices for those that are use to one way perhaps, and configureable or more to those of us who want to delve deeper, and if you think about it, at some point most people want to delve a little deeper. > > > > When you're considering whether the cost of Windows is reasonable or > > > not, you have to compare it to other commercial operating > > > systems. Microsoft had no means of enlisting thousands of people to > > > work on Windows for them at no charge. > > > > When as an engineer I am called to offer a solution, why is it important > > to limit myself to commercial only solutions? I don't seem to follow > > your reasoning here. > > Read it over until you get it. The question is, is the cost of Windows > unsually high because Microsoft enjoys a monopoly position? > > When you are dealing with an anti-trust case, you are looking to find, and > fix, monopoly harm. The theory is that a monopoly is capable of doing things > that a more competitive market would not allow. The three chief types of > monopoly harm are reduced quality, reduced output, and increased prices. > > The part that I was talking about was increased prices. So the question is, > is the price of Windows high because Microsoft enjoys a monopoly position > and could charge whatever it wants. And my answer was, no, because the price > of Windows is reasonable considering the effort expended to develop it, > market it, maintain it, support it, and research future developments. Well you brought it up, reduced output, and reduced quality, a little extra time and more effort in programming can make all the difference between well written and operating programs and barely acceptable junk. What you don't realize is also this. Microsft has not come up with something truely inovative in a long time. Everything is stolen from elsewhere. You might not like the word stolen, then think permenantly borrowed. When you have a larger money base, then you can include for free in your operating system what makes another companies bread and butter. You see the price they are paying for is actually going to including programs others came up with, to put them out of buissness, thus another example of making yours the only version and driving another out of buissness... and thus, you got it a MONOPOLY! > > About the enlistment now, opening the source is one way. So Microsoft > > actually *has* the means to enlist all those developing on Windows now, > > they are just too blind to see it. > > You might be right. Microsoft might actually enjoy greater > success in the market by being freer with its source. But under US > Copyright law, and international law, that is its exclusive decision to > make. Microsoft can do whatever it wants to with its intellectual > property. Again another half truth. It can do whatever it wants with its intelectual property under the already existing laws that it has used so much to its advantage till now. It is not like they didn't ethicaly already know it was wrong to do what they did, and it is not like the goverment suddently descided, "Lets pull this law out of our butt and force it, and not tell anyone." No, the very laws it has used so extensively were there just as well as the ones it broke. If ya don't wanna get burned... keep your nose outta tha fire! IN other words, they knew full well this entire time, it is nothing that snuck up on them. > > > However, many a time Microsoft decided to change the > SMB protocol, for > > > no apparent reason. The changes were in the key > used to authenticate > > > oneself, but they did not seem to provide for > better security (not > > > larger keys, just different and it has always > been with proprietary > > > protocols, not documented anywhere). They > were there > obviously in order > > > to make Samba unusable. This is > not what I usually call `better' when > > > I'm talking about a system > in general. > > > > How did Microsoft's changes hurt samba? It was > still doing exactly > > what it was designed to do. It simply no longer > interoperated with > > Microsoft's operating systems. This hurts > Microsoft's operating > > systems as much or more than it hurts samba. > > > Yes and no. Samba still worked. Microsoft's neighborhood still > worked, > they just did not interoperate well with each other. By > making just the > number of changes to be incompatible, you can bet on > many people buying > the crap that goes like "our systems always > interoperate well with each > other, theirs are just a heap of bull -- > so use only our systems, be > happy and content that we provide you with > all this interoperability." > Microsoft has never used my exact words, > but the basic meaning most of > the time is right there. > > And that is their right. No one should be forced to have their product > interoperate in a way they do not want. This is a pretty fundamental > copyrith right. If you wrote "The Phantom of the Opera" and didn't want it > bundled with "Debby Does the Doghouse, Part 3", that would be your right. If > those rights didn't exist, the GPL wouldn't exist. > > If Microsoft wants to hurt themselves by being incompatible, that's their > right. You would only have a sensible claim against them if you could show > some sort of implied promise to interoperate. Microsoft has done the > converse (until recently) stating explicitly that they have no intention to > interoperate with others -- as you stated. They paint the illusion and actually say that they are compatible and interoperable. What they mean is with their own operating system! > > > Microsoft did not ask for samba. Microsoft does not have to suffer > > > samba if they don't want to. If they want their operating systems not > > > to interoperate with other operating systems, that is their right. > > > > By using the word "suffer" you don't mean of course that Samba is > > getting _so_ good that Microsoft is in agony and all that... > > I mean that Microsoft doesn't have to interoperate with Samba if they don't > want to. Unless they made some sort of agreement that requires them to. If > Microsoft wants to quarrantine Windows, they can do that. If you want > Microsoft to do otherwise, you can contract for them to do so or don't buy > their products. > > > Anyway, Digital, Sun, SCO, or anybody else did not ask for Linux or > > FreeBSD either. That does not mean that they should not follow any of > > those dreaded POSIX standards which linux and freebsd strive to > > follow... > > Right. They choose to follow those standards because they value > interoperability. And that's great. I much prefer to deal with such > companies. But surely it's their right to be incompatible if they choose to, > right? So long as they don't lie about it or mislead their customers. Standards are set for reasons. Not necissarly for interoperability, but becouse of laws, and regulations. The IEEE governs many standards on the electronic level many of their regulations others HAVE to comply with, so not all is unteroperability. And Microsoft would have the greatest to gain from following these, but they don't instead they seak to crush. If your only choice of ICE CREAM is Vanilla and they don't claim to have other flavors... is it really a choice? > > > I develop products all that time that do not interoperate with > > > products developed by other companies. This is a deliberate design > > > decision. Or do you not believe that companies have the right to > > > develop and use proprietary protocols and technologies? Is this going > > > to degenerate into 'information wants to be free'? > > > > Developing products that do not interoperate, as you said above, is a > > hurt to both the users and you, the developer. I can only add to this > > that you have every right to make a decision of your own, and I will > > support your right to choose to do so, even if I disagree with your > > choise. > > Well, the point is, why should you give technology away for free? Being > able to interoperate with Windows file sharing has value, and Microsoft > shouldn't have to give that to the Samba team for nothing. They (eventually) > realized that they benefit from such interoperability. Nor should they hide it or cause a direct harm to something that posses it no real harm. That only expands its abilities. > > > > Lower prices are not a characteristic of Microsoft, unless > > you've never > > > > actually payed for your copy of Windows and Office; but > > that's probably > > > > something that does not conform with what Microsoft wants you to do. > > > > > > That's just not true. Are you saying this for any particular reason? > > > Do you really believe it? Would any facts help, or is your mind > > > already closed. > > > > My mind is never closed. I am always open to suggestions. But I have > > yet to see a Windows release priced less than FreeBSD or any other > > Free*nix clone. But, I know, I know... Free*nix is not commercial. > > You will never see a commercial product cheaper than a free product. What you need to realize though is when a "free" product is better than a comercial one, that should throw some flags. Were not asking it nessicarly to be free, but to be priced reasonably. If the "Free" product has the same good qualities, then don't you think that it is a little less reasonable to charge so much for something that you have assimilated from others and crushed them. The more you look at it, if you look closely at it. M$ is really just like the borg. > > > Here's a quotation from Stan Liebowitz: > > > > Nice stuff, can I find more of that online somewhere? > > There's some at http://youknow.youwant.to/ms > > > > Sure. But I've had those same problems with Linux. (Never with > > > FreeBSD, but I think that's just been luck so far) > > > > The problems, i.e. tech support on expensive and not so effective phone > > lines, just don't exist with FreeBSD & Linux. > > I was more referring to your hardware compatability problems. FreeBSD and > Linux generally have far better support than Microsoft could ever hope for. > > > I can not recall the > > year, I think it was the last one, when Linux received some award for > > it's support (mind you, no real company does the support, just mailing > > lists, irc channels, web pages, etc.) > > That shows some real open mindedness on the part of whoever gave that > award. I have never had a complex, technical Linux or FreeBSD question that > I couldn't get ten answers to within 3 hours. I still agonize over NT > questions I could probably resolve in 20 seconds if I could look at the > source. Maybe and maybe not, if you looked at the source then you might end up more confused or angry when you realize how it should of worked. :) > Eventually the market will learn. Windows will be irrelevant some day no > matter what MS does. > > DS AMEN TO THAT Your Friendly Neighborhood UNIX Advocate: Erick > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Nov 15 1:40: 1 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from enterprise.sanyusan.se (enterprise.sanyusan.se [212.209.55.83]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 516CA14C97 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 01:39:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from anders@enterprise.sanyusan.se) Received: (from anders@localhost) by enterprise.sanyusan.se (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA20212; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 10:37:26 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from anders) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 10:37:26 +0100 From: Anders Andersson To: Brett Glass Cc: Mike Fisher , David Schwartz , Giorgos Keramidas , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Message-ID: <19991115103726.A20167@enterprise.sanyusan.se> References: <4.2.0.58.19991112222541.0431f140@localhost> <4.2.0.58.19991113091537.040a8340@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=3C4=2E2=2E0=2E58=2E19991113091537=2E040a8340=40localhost?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?=3E=3B_from_brett=40lariat=2Eorg_on_L=F6r=2C_Nov_13=2C_19?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?99_at_09:19:35am_-0700?= Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Lör, Nov 13, 1999 at 09:19:35am -0700, Brett Glass wrote: > > ...nor a mail reader which can handle a message that's wrapped at > 80 columns. Well, the point is that your MUA doesnt wrap correctly then. Anders -- Anders Andersson anders@sanyusan.se Sanyusan International AB http://www.sanyusan.se/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Nov 15 8: 7: 8 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from yana.lemis.com (yana.lemis.com [192.109.197.140]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F22CC150BA for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 08:07:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from grog@mojave.sitaranetworks.com) Received: from mojave.sitaranetworks.com (mojave.sitaranetworks.com [199.103.141.157]) by yana.lemis.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA21070; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 02:36:53 +1030 (CST) (envelope-from grog@mojave.sitaranetworks.com) Message-ID: <19991113162519.25855@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 16:25:19 -0500 From: Greg Lehey To: Rob Snow Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: VINUM or Striping on NFS mounts? Reply-To: Greg Lehey References: <9F147E391A3FD111B9A800805F356C52E25727@lgcadev001.zycor.lgc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <9F147E391A3FD111B9A800805F356C52E25727@lgcadev001.zycor.lgc.com>; from Rob Snow on Wed, Oct 13, 1999 at 07:57:51PM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wednesday, 13 October 1999 at 19:57:51 -0500, Rob Snow wrote: > On Wednesday, October 13, 1999 7:53 PM, Greg Lehey wrote: >> On Wednesday, 13 October 1999 at 19:47:30 -0500, Rob Snow wrote: >>> Anyone ever tried this or anything similar? >> >> I don't know what you mean. Especially "Vinum *or* striping". Didn't >> you mean to send this to -questions? > > Whoops, Let me clear this up. > > Is it possible, with FreeBSD, or other OS to setup a stripe set that > utilizes NFS mounted disk as the underlying storage medium? ( network > striping? ) Sorry for the slow reply. No, not yet. I'm thinking of something like that, but it won't involve NFS. Greg -- Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Nov 15 11:24:24 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from smtp03.primenet.com (smtp03.primenet.com [206.165.6.133]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ECF614FA9 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 11:24:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr06.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp03.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA25921; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 12:23:51 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr06.primenet.com(206.165.6.206) via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAKJaqwY; Mon Nov 15 12:23:40 1999 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA19111; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 12:23:55 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199911151923.MAA19111@usr06.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" To: cjc26@cornell.edu Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:23:55 +0000 (GMT) Cc: cpiazza@home.net, keramida@ceid.upatras.gr, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <19991112200535.C4645@cornell.edu> from "Cliff Crawford" at Nov 12, 99 08:05:35 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > > IE runs on both Windows and Mac OS. > > > > IE runs on Windows 9x, MacOS, Windows NT, Solaris, and HPUX. > > Solaris and HPUX too? Cool. :) The Solaris version is for SPARC Solaris, only. They have (apparently, intentionally) avoided cannibalizing their x86 OS market. The reason I heard for the SPARC port from one of the engineers on the team was that it was a shakedown run for the purpose of making things 64 bit clean in anticipation of Merced. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Nov 15 11:36:49 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from smtp01.primenet.com (smtp01.primenet.com [206.165.6.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A979114A09 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 11:36:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr06.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp01.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA03700; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 12:36:28 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr06.primenet.com(206.165.6.206) via SMTP by smtp01.primenet.com, id smtpdAAA23aa7g; Mon Nov 15 12:36:19 1999 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA19634; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 12:36:00 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199911151936.MAA19634@usr06.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" To: dscheidt@enteract.com (David Scheidt) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:35:59 +0000 (GMT) Cc: lowell@world.std.com, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: from "David Scheidt" at Nov 14, 99 10:05:22 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > Before the fuss over Microsoft's bundling IE with Windows, I always > > considered ftp to be part of the operating system. On Windows *and* > > Unix. And try as I might, I can't see a difference between that and a > > browser, other than historical accident. > > Little prevents you from sticking in your own replacement for ftp(1), > though. Actually, the Microsoft FTP program is the net/2 FTP. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Nov 15 11:47:48 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.enteract.com (mail.enteract.com [207.229.143.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C572D14BD5 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 11:47:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Received: from shell-1.enteract.com (dscheidt@shell-1.enteract.com [207.229.143.40]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA66893; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 13:47:30 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 13:47:29 -0600 (CST) From: David Scheidt To: Terry Lambert Cc: lowell@world.std.com, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" In-Reply-To: <199911151936.MAA19634@usr06.primenet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > Before the fuss over Microsoft's bundling IE with Windows, I always > > > considered ftp to be part of the operating system. On Windows *and* > > > Unix. And try as I might, I can't see a difference between that and a > > > browser, other than historical accident. > > > > Little prevents you from sticking in your own replacement for ftp(1), > > though. > > Actually, the Microsoft FTP program is the net/2 FTP. Yeah, but they borked it. As I recall, it doesn't support tenex mode. David To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Nov 15 12:40:27 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from smtp02.primenet.com (smtp02.primenet.com [206.165.6.132]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC847151A6 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 12:40:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr06.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp02.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA08468; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 13:42:29 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr06.primenet.com(206.165.6.206) via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpd008449; Mon Nov 15 13:42:25 1999 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA22265; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 13:40:11 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199911152040.NAA22265@usr06.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" To: davids@webmaster.com (David Schwartz) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:40:11 +0000 (GMT) Cc: keramida@ceid.upatras.gr, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <000101bf2d70$84b9a810$021d85d1@youwant.to> from "David Schwartz" at Nov 12, 99 04:46:27 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > > Yes, and they crushed it by putting out a superior product. > > > What is wrong with that? > > > > Nothing, but IE is not a superior product. Superiority is never defined > > as taking advantage of `internal' knowledge of the OS, in order to make > > a program load faster. > > Ahh, I see. Superior has nothing to do with user experience. Superior is to > be judged by experts according to arcane principles. That's much better than > letting the market decide. Actually, from a user experience perspective, and from an "outernet portal" perspective, integrating the browser into the desktop is a win. However, Microsoft engaged in predatory tactics by doing this, _and_ controlling the default destination (the "outernet portal"), _and_ bundling the developement costs into the OS pricing. They did a similar thing to Artisoft and Banyon, both of which had arguably better peer-to-peer networking, including user level security that exceeds what is available in Windows 2000's peer-to-peer code; both companies were strangled by Microsoft integrating peer-to-peer networking in the base OS; never mind that the networking was intentionally not very good to ensure future sales of NT servers, it was "good enough" to leverage to strangle the competition. IE is not the best browser... though I will give them the GIF decoding JNI in their Java/JavaScript, since this is much faster than Netscape's "pure Java" implementation. On the other hand, their clients consistantly do truly stupid things, such as attempting to assign meaning to the contents of RFC822 encoded data streams during download. This means that the application that fails because of poor interpretation code, such as the OutLook mail client or IE browser, ends up not completitng the transaction that its use of the protocol has contracted it to complete. E.g., I get the same 100 messages downloaded multiple times from my POP3 server, merely because the 101st message maked OutLook barf. Worse, it's possible to create RFC822 non-conformant messages, e.g. messages with unbalanced quotation marks. At least now, with the most recent versions, you have to go into a list of destination users in your address book to trigger this bug. As far as superior technology, Microsoft does what it has to to meet the bar, without raising it in excess of the minimum required amount. USL has historically done this as well, and it appears to be symptomatic of large marketing-driven (_not_ "market driven") companies. USL went so far as to forbid their employees from engaging in outside research and developement unrelated to their job function, in order to ensure that the free UNIX variants did not raise the bar too quickly. > > For instance, half if not more of the IE > > libraries (aka DLLs in the Windows world) are loaded because they are > > part of the base OS of MS. That makes IE `seem' to load faster than > > other Web browsers, because a large part of it is already loaded. This > > is not superiority, it's plain good ol' cheating. > > Cheating is a great way to make a product better. All the user cares about > is the user experience. The issue here is that the DLL's that are shared with Windows have proprietary, undocumented interfaces. As far as user experience, Netscape could load much faster by lazy-binding their plug-in loading, among other things. The appearance of speed has much more effect than actual speed, as any of us who have written DOS programs that use a screen memory page flip in order to achieve an "instantaneous load" can attest. One real problem that I haven't seen pointed out is that their virtual memory manager favors Microsoft components. For example, VFAT32.VXD and other Microsoft components grab large chunks of real memory, and then only give pages back one at a time, when signalled by the OS that a low memory condition exists, based on allocations by third party components, yet behave differently when signalled by Microsoft components. If the issue is truly "the user experience", then it would be of most benefit to the user experience to _not_ engage in practices that result in the user experiencing poor performance from products that they did not buy from Microsoft _solely_ because they did not buy them from Microsoft. > If integrating IE into Windows improves the user > experience, then that's a legitimate reason to do it. > > You may consider some of Microsoft's innovations cheating, but that's not > your decision to make. > > Go ahead, take memory management out of the OS. Take disk compression out. > How far do you want to set us back? With respect, Microsoft did not include memory protection until OS/2 forced it to do so. They also intentionally swapped a byte order to make the OS/2 LAN Manager client and server incompatible with Microsoft clients and servers (see the SAMBA source code for details on this OS/2 variation for use of SAMBA with OS/2). Microsoft has done more than merely engaging in predatory practices, wielding monopolistic power in the marketplace, in my opinion they have also violated the RICO anti-racketeering statutes. > > And more examples > > like this one can be found at closer inspection, like those rumours that > > non-MS products are offered the great honour of a few extra wait-states > > by the scheduler of the OS in question, which is another way of making > > all the _others_ look like they're tooo slooow when compared to ma' MS's > > finely intergrated products, etc. etc. > > Look, it's Microsoft's operating system. If they didn't want to sell it at > all, no one could force them to. If you like it, use it. If not, don't. But > do you really want the government telling Microsoft how to design its > products? No, of course not. I just want the government to "bitch-slap" them when they are found in violation of the Sherman Anti-trust Acts and the RICO statutes, just as I was happy for the government to "bitch-slap" AT&T for owning everything from the copper wire ducting machines to the production of the chairs used by telephone operators. > A company should use every resource at its command to provide the best > products possible to its customers and the most competition. Technological > leverage is the bedrock of pretty much every high tech company. They all ask > "how can we take the technology, expertise, and knowledge we have and use it > to make new and better products". If that is a crime, then innovation is > over. I would change this to read "...evey _legal_ resource...". > > > Harmful to consumers? Please -- show me any evidence of monopoly harm > > > to consumers. (Do you know what monopoly harm is? Or am I wasting my > > > breath?) Show me reduced output. Show me higher prices. Show me > > > reduced quality. The Monopoly Harm includes: o OS purchases subsidized IE developement, such that users had to pay for IE, even if they installed Netscape. o The "Anti-DR-DOS" code test and warning dialog in Windows 3.x. o Anticompetitive non-uniform pricing across PC vendors allowed Microsoft to effectively control the PC pricing model for vendors. o Products that are only as good as they have to be to stifle the commpetition, while at the same time leaving room for retroactive bar-raising. o Etc. (I could go on for many pages, without even resorting the the "findings of fact"). > > Compare the price of running Netscape on *BSD, with that of running IE > > on Windows. Both browsers are free, but with IE you find yourself in a > > lack of choises. You absolutely _must_ use Windows to have IE running, > > even if you would prefer to run *BSD as your primary desktop OS. > > Neither Netscape nor FreeBSD are commercial products. I'm talking about > comparing Windows to other commercial operating systems. BSDI is a commercial OS. DEC UNIX is a commercial OS. OpenVMS is a commercial OS. OS/360 is a commercial OS. Where is IE for these systems? > Do you think you could start a company, build an proprietary operating > system from the ground up, and sell it for prices that compete with > Microsoft? Of course not. Microsoft can only do so because its enormous > volume gives it tremendous economies of scale. That makes it nearly > impossibe to compete with Microsoft. DR-DOS was sold by Novell for $6 a copy. Microsoft was selling DOS for ~$50 a copy, the so-called "Microsoft tax" on PC hardware, whether or not it ran a Microsoft OS. This was also found to be actionable under the Sherman Antitrust Acts, and Microsoft signed a consent decree that held them accountable. One of the causes of action of the current case is their failure to comply with the previous consent decree. Microsoft controls the availability of their applications for other platforms. A lawsuit by Apple, settled by an investment of cash and porting of Office to the Macintosh platform, proved this. > This is how competition is _supposed_ to work. No, it's not. > > Monopoly harm begins when you start to get your choises limited, and the > > choise of one's operating system is IMHO a very fundamental one. > > But you have the choice of numerous operating systems. Most people choose > Windows simply because they find it superior for the tasks they need to > solve. Build a better operating system, and nothing Bill Gates can do will > stop you from ultimately triumphing in the market. But Microsoft is powerful > and is a fiendish competitor. This is a successful market. Actually, the Microsoft stranglehold on the application space, including tools designed to cause people to use non-portable coding practices and closed technologies (e.g. DCOM) when open standards exist (e.g. CORBA), is enough to cause such a company to fail. BeOS comes close to being useful, though its total lack of the idea of credentials other than the logged in user/password tupple unfortunately makes it unsuitable as a server OS. Where is "Office 2000 for BeOS"? > > > And in any event, killing the competition is what companies are > > > supposed to do. Our antritrust laws exist to _ensure_ the most > > > vigorous competition possible. > > > > Forgive me if I am wrong, but companies are not supposed to "kill" > > competition. > > Yes, they are. They are supposed to compete so effectively that their > competitors have to provide better products at lower prices or go out of > business. That's a strong, competitive economy. Actually, "killing the competition" is the tactic of a coward who chooses to fight on ground that has nothing to do with eventual customer benefit. Microsoft competes in the domain of "copy plus one", minimally raising the technological bar, while at the same time preventing others from being able to gain sufficient market share that they can raise the bar. Every Microsoft product that has followed this strategy (e.g. WordPerfect -> Word, Lotus 1-2-3 -> Excel, etc.) has succeeded, and any that have not (MS Money -> Quicken) have failed. When they can not control market share through normal channels, they "give the product away with the OS", code for "add to the OS cost and amortize develeopement costs for otherwise poorer products". Witness IE, Outlook Express, etc.. > There is nothing a company can do to stop consumers from buying a better > product at a lower price. I disagree. And so does the Judge. > The hard part is producing a better product for a lower price. Microsoft did not become the largest company in the world, money-wise, by having thin margins. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Nov 15 14:11:22 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from guppy.pond.net (guppy.pond.net [205.240.25.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D6C914DB6; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:11:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dmp@aracnet.com) Received: from aracnet.com (snapuser2-89.pacificcrest.net [216.36.34.89]) by guppy.pond.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA07749; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 13:55:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <383084FF.606E228E@aracnet.com> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:11:11 -0800 From: "D.M.P." Organization: dmp@aracnet.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Schwartz Cc: Kris Kennaway , Jonathon McKitrick , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: threads.... References: <000301bf2ee5$2209cf80$021d85d1@youwant.to> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org David Schwartz wrote: > > I am referring to the case in question: an ICQ client. ICQ is not a > > high-performance server application, and does not require parallelism for > > performance reasons. > > Agreed. I'm by no stretch of the imagination familiar with how threading and process scheduling (is that the right phrase?) works beyond a basic definition, so please do excuse any blatant displays of ignorance. :) Do all threads within a program have the same PID (ps-wise), or would they each have their own PID, or does it depend on how the program is written? What about in the case where you have multiple live chat and file transfers going at once, where you have multiple seperate tasks, each with their own TCP connection? Does threading them help prevent one task from preempting another, or would that only be the case where each thread is it's own process with a unique PID? -- [dmp@aracnet.com] Matthew 7:7-8 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Nov 15 20: 4:28 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from modgud.nordicrecords.com (h21-168-107.nordicdms.com [207.21.168.107]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5E3E514BD7 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:04:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from walton@nordicrecords.com) Received: (qmail 17559 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 1999 04:04:08 -0000 Message-ID: <19991116040408.17558.qmail@modgud.nordicrecords.com> Received: (qmail 17546 invoked from network); 16 Nov 1999 04:04:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton) (207.21.168.137) by mail.nordicdms.com with SMTP; 16 Nov 1999 04:04:08 -0000 From: "Dave Walton" To: "David Schwartz" Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:01:27 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Reply-To: walton@nordicrecords.com Cc: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a) Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "David Schwartz" writes: > When you are dealing with an anti-trust case, you are > looking to find, and fix, monopoly harm. The theory is that a > monopoly is capable of doing things that a more competitive > market would not allow. The three chief types of monopoly harm > are reduced quality, reduced output, and increased prices. > > The part that I was talking about was increased prices. So > the question is, is the price of Windows high because Microsoft > enjoys a monopoly position and could charge whatever it wants. > And my answer was, no, because the price of Windows is > reasonable considering the effort expended to develop it, market > it, maintain it, support it, and research future developments. Microsoft considered those factors, calculated a reasonable price, and then decided to nearly double that price simply because the lack of a competitive market allowed them to. Paragraph 62: Microsoft's actual pricing behavior is consistent with the proposition that the firm enjoys monopoly power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems. The company's decision not to consider the prices of other vendors' Intel- compatible PC operating systems when setting the price of Windows 98, for example, is probative of monopoly power. One would expect a firm in a competitive market to pay much closer attention to the prices charged by other firms in the market. [...] Paragraph 63: Finally, it is indicative of monopoly power that Microsoft felt that it had substantial discretion in setting the price of its Windows 98 upgrade product (the operating system product it sells to existing users of Windows 95). A Microsoft study from November 1997 reveals that the company could have charged $49 for an upgrade to Windows 98 =97 there is no reason to believe that the $49 price would have been unprofitable =97 but the study identifies $89 as the revenue-maximizing price. Microsoft thus opted for the higher price. Dave ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Walton Webmaster, Postmaster Nordic Entertainment Worldwide walton@nordicdms.com http://www.nordicdms.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Nov 15 20:21:43 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D71214F2F for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:21:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:21:28 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: Cc: Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:21:28 -0800 Message-ID: <000001bf2fea$0d9207b0$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <19991116040408.17557.qmail@modgud.nordicrecords.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > "David Schwartz" writes: > > > When you are dealing with an anti-trust case, you are > > looking to find, and fix, monopoly harm. The theory is that a > > monopoly is capable of doing things that a more competitive > > market would not allow. The three chief types of monopoly harm > > are reduced quality, reduced output, and increased prices. > > > > The part that I was talking about was increased prices. So > > the question is, is the price of Windows high because Microsoft > > enjoys a monopoly position and could charge whatever it wants. > > And my answer was, no, because the price of Windows is > > reasonable considering the effort expended to develop it, market > > it, maintain it, support it, and research future developments. > > Microsoft considered those factors, calculated a reasonable price, > and then decided to nearly double that price simply because the > lack of a competitive market allowed them to. Right, because if they don't maximize revenue, they won't be able to do the research needed to keep Windows competitive. The software market is sufficiently dynamic that Windows has to become almost an entirely new product every two years to maintain its status as market leader. > Paragraph 62: > Microsoft's actual pricing behavior is consistent with the > proposition that the firm enjoys monopoly power in the market > for Intel-compatible PC operating systems. The company's > decision not to consider the prices of other vendors' Intel- > compatible PC operating systems when setting the price of > Windows 98, for example, is probative of monopoly power. One > would expect a firm in a competitive market to pay much closer > attention to the prices charged by other firms in the market. [...] Actually, they Microsoft's pricing is consistent with a firm that needs to spend massive amounts on research and development to keep its products competitive. Yes, they maximize revenue (as every firm does) primarily to allow them to maintain Window's competitiveness. This is far different from the type of price raising that is monopoly harm. > Paragraph 63: > Finally, it is indicative of monopoly power that Microsoft felt that > it had substantial discretion in setting the price of its Windows > 98 upgrade product (the operating system product it sells to > existing users of Windows 95). A Microsoft study from > November 1997 reveals that the company could have charged > $49 for an upgrade to Windows 98 — there is no reason to Would does this "could have charged" mean? They could have given it away for free. > believe that the $49 price would have been unprofitable — but > the study identifies $89 as the revenue-maximizing price. > Microsoft thus opted for the higher price. I'm not sure I believe that. Personally, I think Microsoft set the price far above the revenue-maximizing price. Heck, the more people who use Windows the more people they can sell Microsoft office too, right? Of course, every company sets its prices at the revenue-maximizing price. If Microsoft didn't do that, their management should be fired. The biggest balancing factor for Microsoft is that the more expensive Windows is, the more incentive there is to market and develop alternatives to it. To the extent that Windows is a monopoly, it is a temporary one. Much as vinyl records were a monopoly for awhile, soon replaced by cassette tapes, now replaced by CDs, and probably soon to be replaced by some other format. Microsoft will do everything possible to maximize the amount of time its operating systems matter, but ultimately, there will be nothing it can do -- it will have to invent a new product or lose its market share. This is not the type of monopoly that the anti-trust laws were meant to prevent. They were supposed to stop a static monopoly, where a company can charge whatever it wants and sell whatever it wants. Microsoft can't do that. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Nov 15 21:35:30 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us (taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us [165.29.134.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DBDC14E5B for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:35:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from erickw@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us) Received: from localhost (erickw@localhost) by taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us (8.9.0/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA26830 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 00:41:35 -0600 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 00:41:35 -0600 (CST) From: Erick White To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org =09Latest comments by your friendly UNIX Advocate: Erick On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > > "David Schwartz" writes: > > > > > When you are dealing with an anti-trust case, you are > > > looking to find, and fix, monopoly harm. The theory is that a > > > monopoly is capable of doing things that a more competitive > > > market would not allow. The three chief types of monopoly harm > > > are reduced quality, reduced output, and increased prices. > > > > > > The part that I was talking about was increased prices. So > > > the question is, is the price of Windows high because Microsoft > > > enjoys a monopoly position and could charge whatever it wants. > > > And my answer was, no, because the price of Windows is > > > reasonable considering the effort expended to develop it, market > > > it, maintain it, support it, and research future developments. > > > > Microsoft considered those factors, calculated a reasonable price, > > and then decided to nearly double that price simply because the > > lack of a competitive market allowed them to. >=20 > =09Right, because if they don't maximize revenue, they won't be able to d= o the > research needed to keep Windows competitive. The software market is > sufficiently dynamic that Windows has to become almost an entirely new > product every two years to maintain its status as market leader. =09Excuse me. No really EXCUSE ME, as in listen what everyone is telling you and what is outlined in the findings of fact. Microsoft is not using there money on research for these products included in the OS, they are stealing the ideas, making a poor substitute for what they replace on MOST of their applications, programs, etc... The bar they are only meeting not raising and keeping others from raising it as well, in the equivelent of what someone so elequintly put it as racketeering on top of the anti trust. Research? The feild test their products not even fully finish the job to begin with in the programming department. Their not spending their money by and large on research, their using it to cannibilize other threats to their products, and then crush them into powder as the company throws its money behind it. Their letting other companies do the research for them, then they try to crush them once they see what they need for a bare minimum to drive out the compitition with a cat o nine tails. What they have been doing, and doing for YEARS is letting the compition test the waters, once it realizes that it is a threat it comes up with a "solution" for what it did not think up did not create, and then continues on its merry way.. Nuh Uh.. not good.... Reread your facts. > > Paragraph 62: > > Microsoft's actual pricing behavior is consistent with the > > proposition that the firm enjoys monopoly power in the market > > for Intel-compatible PC operating systems. The company's > > decision not to consider the prices of other vendors' Intel- > > compatible PC operating systems when setting the price of > > Windows 98, for example, is probative of monopoly power. One > > would expect a firm in a competitive market to pay much closer > > attention to the prices charged by other firms in the market. [...= ] >=20 > =09Actually, they Microsoft's pricing is consistent with a firm that need= s to > spend massive amounts on research and development to keep its products > competitive. Yes, they maximize revenue (as every firm does) primarily to > allow them to maintain Window's competitiveness. This is far different fr= om > the type of price raising that is monopoly harm. =09 =09Refer to what I, and everyone else is telling you above this point. No research, just conquering. It is monopoly harm, becouse what their taking credit for was actually researched, updated, run, and designed by someone else's brain.=20 =09I will grant you that they do do some research, and a few of their products are actually well done and made... but that is few and far between, and not something included in the OS at the start. The research money it does should be from the things it is actually creating. Just... open your eyes man.=20 >=20 > > Paragraph 63: > > Finally, it is indicative of monopoly power that Microsoft felt th= at > > it had substantial discretion in setting the price of its Windows > > 98 upgrade product (the operating system product it sells to > > existing users of Windows 95). A Microsoft study from > > November 1997 reveals that the company could have charged > > $49 for an upgrade to Windows 98 =97 there is no reason to >=20 > =09Would does this "could have charged" mean? They could have given it aw= ay > for free. =09Yes they could of done it for free, but your grasping at straws here. They would still have made a killing. Still have made quite a bit of money, but they are doing harm to the market by basicaly charging you double for the same 90 percent of the source code. I mean I have on another computer Windows95 C second release... and you know what? It is almost exactly like 98, their is VERY few differences, and if you downloud upgrades to the pack... then you pretty much have Win98, without paying a dime more... > > believe that the $49 price would have been unprofitable =97 but > > the study identifies $89 as the revenue-maximizing price. > > Microsoft thus opted for the higher price. >=20 > =09I'm not sure I believe that. Personally, I think Microsoft set the pri= ce > far above the revenue-maximizing price. Heck, the more people who use > Windows the more people they can sell Microsoft office too, right? >=20 > =09Of course, every company sets its prices at the revenue-maximizing pri= ce. > If Microsoft didn't do that, their management should be fired. The bigges= t > balancing factor for Microsoft is that the more expensive Windows is, the > more incentive there is to market and develop alternatives to it. >=20 > =09To the extent that Windows is a monopoly, it is a temporary one. Much = as > vinyl records were a monopoly for awhile, soon replaced by cassette tapes= , > now replaced by CDs, and probably soon to be replaced by some other forma= t. > Microsoft will do everything possible to maximize the amount of time its > operating systems matter, but ultimately, there will be nothing it can do= -- > it will have to invent a new product or lose its market share. >=20 =09Here is the primary flaw with your thinking. Your assuming that those who made the vinyl records didn't have money to squash those making tapes and keep those from taking hold, and advancing technology, and they viynl records weren't exactgly exclusively owned by one company either. M$ has proven that they have the money and power base to squash other technologies in the computer feild as far as the larger field is concerned. The reason why free UNIX's can run on it is becouse, being a not for profit operating system.... well the definition is close enough, it CAN NOT BE INFLUENCED by "Pa Bill" becouse it can't be denied money for its developers. > =09This is not the type of monopoly that the anti-trust laws were meant t= o > prevent. They were supposed to stop a static monopoly, where a company ca= n > charge whatever it wants and sell whatever it wants. Microsoft can't do > that. >=20 > =09DS >=20 =09Microsoft has and does do this, it can charge whatever it wants just like the price outlay for the new joke win2000. It pretty much dominates the PC industry, and strong arms anyone else that tries to improve, thus being able to control, charge, and sell, whatever it wants. Wake up buddy boy, its doing it right now... and your too brainwashed at the present moment to notice! >=20 >=20 > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message >=20 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Nov 15 22: 4:22 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49CEA14D68 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:04:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:04:05 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Erick White" Cc: Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:04:04 -0800 Message-ID: <000001bf2ff8$63026740$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > > > > "David Schwartz" writes: > > > > > > > When you are dealing with an anti-trust case, you are > > > > looking to find, and fix, monopoly harm. The theory is that a > > > > monopoly is capable of doing things that a more competitive > > > > market would not allow. The three chief types of monopoly harm > > > > are reduced quality, reduced output, and increased prices. > > > > > > > > The part that I was talking about was increased prices. So > > > > the question is, is the price of Windows high because Microsoft > > > > enjoys a monopoly position and could charge whatever it wants. > > > > And my answer was, no, because the price of Windows is > > > > reasonable considering the effort expended to develop it, market > > > > it, maintain it, support it, and research future developments. > > > > > > Microsoft considered those factors, calculated a reasonable price, > > > and then decided to nearly double that price simply because the > > > lack of a competitive market allowed them to. > > > > Right, because if they don't maximize revenue, they won't > be able to do the > > research needed to keep Windows competitive. The software market is > > sufficiently dynamic that Windows has to become almost an entirely new > > product every two years to maintain its status as market leader. > > Excuse me. No really EXCUSE ME, as in listen what everyone is > telling you and what is outlined in the findings of fact. Microsoft is not > using there money on research for these products included in the OS, they > are stealing the ideas, making a poor substitute for what they replace on > MOST of their applications, programs, etc... The bar they are only meeting > not raising and keeping others from raising it as well, in the equivelent > of what someone so elequintly put it as racketeering on top of the anti > trust. In other words, even though Microsoft's products suck, people still buy them for some inexplicable reason. People are so stupid that they buy these inferior products. Of course, you are smarter than everyone else and can see through Microsoft's sham. So you will do everyone a favor by saving them from their own stupidity. We should all be so grateful to you. Thank god we have you and the government to save us from the crafty Bill Gates. You guys are so much smarter than we are. > Research? The feild test their products not even fully finish the > job to begin with in the programming department. Their not spending their > money by and large on research, their using it to cannibilize other > threats to their products, and then crush them into powder as the company > throws its money behind it. Their letting other companies do the research > for them, then they try to crush them once they see what they need for a > bare minimum to drive out the compitition with a cat o nine tails. What > they have been doing, and doing for YEARS is letting the compition test > the waters, once it realizes that it is a threat it comes up with a > "solution" for what it did not think up did not create, and then continues > on its merry way.. Nuh Uh.. not good.... Reread your facts. Yes, that's extremely efficient. That way they (and their customers) get the benefit of the innovations without having to pay for them. That's great. That's extreme market efficiency. A company can have all the ideas in the world, but if they can't turn it into a product that consumers actually want to buy, it won't amount to a hill of beans. Microsoft excels at turning ideas into marketable products. And that's what the market wants -- products, not ideas. Ideas were once a dime a dozen, now they're $1 a bale in 10,000 idea bales. The market doesn't buy ideas. > > > Paragraph 62: > > > Microsoft's actual pricing behavior is consistent with the > > > proposition that the firm enjoys monopoly power in the market > > > for Intel-compatible PC operating systems. The company's > > > decision not to consider the prices of other vendors' Intel- > > > compatible PC operating systems when setting the price of > > > Windows 98, for example, is probative of monopoly power. One > > > would expect a firm in a competitive market to pay much closer > > > attention to the prices charged by other firms in the > market. [...] > > > > Actually, they Microsoft's pricing is consistent with a > firm that needs to > > spend massive amounts on research and development to keep its products > > competitive. Yes, they maximize revenue (as every firm does) > primarily to > > allow them to maintain Window's competitiveness. This is far > different from > > the type of price raising that is monopoly harm. > > Refer to what I, and everyone else is telling you above this > point. No research, just conquering. Excuse me. Do you happen to know how much money Microsoft spend developing Windows 2000? > It is monopoly harm, becouse what > their taking credit for was actually researched, updated, run, and > designed by someone else's brain. *sigh* What the hell does credit have to do with anything? Who designed Windows? > I will grant you that they do do some research, and a few of their > products are actually well done and made... but that is few and far > between, and not something included in the OS at the start. The research > money it does should be from the things it is actually creating. Just... > open your eyes man. In every market where they have been successful, from operating systems to browsers, they have done it by providing superior products. Really. In every market where they have provided inferior products, they have failed. Really. Consider IE. Since versions 4.0 of IE and Netscape came out, pretty much every reviewer has concluded that IE is superior. However, Microsoft Money has been judged inferior. Look at the relative market share meters and draw your own conclusions. People aren't stupid. Bill Gates is not that smart. He can't make people buy things that won't do what people want. People are just too smart. They read reviews, they consider other products, they look at what other people are buying, they look at what might become available in the future, and they make the best decision they know how to. Why do you think you know better than they do? > > > > > Paragraph 63: > > > Finally, it is indicative of monopoly power that > Microsoft felt that > > > it had substantial discretion in setting the price of its Windows > > > 98 upgrade product (the operating system product it sells to > > > existing users of Windows 95). A Microsoft study from > > > November 1997 reveals that the company could have charged > > > $49 for an upgrade to Windows 98 — there is no reason to > > > > Would does this "could have charged" mean? They could have > given it away > > for free. > > Yes they could of done it for free, but your grasping at straws > here. They would still have made a killing. Yes, I agree. It's entirely possible that $0 would be the revenue maximizing price. Not even Microsoft has a perfectly clear crystal ball. They guess. > Still have made quite a bit of > money, but they are doing harm to the market by basicaly charging you > double for the same 90 percent of the source code. Then don't buy it. It's really that simple. If it ain't worth it, don't buy it. If it's worth it, stop bitching. Just please, stop telling other people that you know what's good for them better than they do. > I mean I have on > another computer Windows95 C second release... and you know what? It is > almost exactly like 98, their is VERY few differences, and if you downloud > upgrades to the pack... then you pretty much have Win98, without paying a > dime more... Then don't upgrade. Nobody puts a gun to your head. Fact is, people do upgrade. Why? Because Bill Gates is able to outsmart the rest of the world and brainwash us all into thinking Windows is good when it's not? Please. The fact is, today, Windows does what most people want. That's why they buy it. > > > believe that the $49 price would have been unprofitable — but > > > the study identifies $89 as the revenue-maximizing price. > > > Microsoft thus opted for the higher price. > > > > I'm not sure I believe that. Personally, I think Microsoft > set the price > > far above the revenue-maximizing price. Heck, the more people who use > > Windows the more people they can sell Microsoft office too, right? > > > > Of course, every company sets its prices at the > revenue-maximizing price. > > If Microsoft didn't do that, their management should be fired. > The biggest > > balancing factor for Microsoft is that the more expensive > Windows is, the > > more incentive there is to market and develop alternatives to it. > > > > To the extent that Windows is a monopoly, it is a temporary > one. Much as > > vinyl records were a monopoly for awhile, soon replaced by > cassette tapes, > > now replaced by CDs, and probably soon to be replaced by some > other format. > > Microsoft will do everything possible to maximize the amount of time its > > operating systems matter, but ultimately, there will be nothing > it can do -- > > it will have to invent a new product or lose its market share. > > > Here is the primary flaw with your thinking. Your assuming that > those who made the vinyl records didn't have money to squash those making > tapes and keep those from taking hold, and advancing technology, and they > viynl records weren't exactgly exclusively owned by one company either. Oh, believe me, they tried. And those making newer technologies try to supplant the older technology. So the question is, who will win? The old technology or the new? > M$ > has proven that they have the money and power base to squash other > technologies in the computer feild as far as the larger field is > concerned. If the competing technologies are truly better, than they should be able to find better financing. If you can't convince an investor that they're better, they probably really aren't. I tell Engineers that investors are the litmus test of how good their ideas are, since investors specialize in knowing what ideas really are good enough to work. If you had an idea that was really better than Microsoft's, that should give you enough of an advantage to take a sizeable market share. If the better idea isn't winning, look long and hard at whether it's really better. > The reason why free UNIX's can run on it is becouse, being a > not for profit operating system.... well the definition is close enough, > it CAN NOT BE INFLUENCED by "Pa Bill" becouse it can't be denied money for > its developers. Ask people why they use Windows instead of FreeBSD. I guarantee you one thing they won't say is because Microsoft is so powerful and impressive that they have to buy Windows even though it doesn't do what they want. Think about it - that's really what you're trying to convince me of. > > This is not the type of monopoly that the anti-trust laws > were meant to > > prevent. They were supposed to stop a static monopoly, where a > company can > > charge whatever it wants and sell whatever it wants. Microsoft can't do > > that. > > > > DS > > > > Microsoft has and does do this, it can charge whatever it wants > just like the price outlay for the new joke win2000. Sure, and I don't have to buy it. Any manufacturer can charge any price they want for a product. What they can't do is make people buy it if it isn't worth the price. > It pretty much > dominates the PC industry, and strong arms anyone else that tries to > improve, thus being able to control, charge, and sell, whatever it wants. Yes, but a company with superior technology wouldn't need to brainwash anyone. If it really had a better product, it would eventually take over the marketplace. Really. There is nothing anyone can do to hold down a truly superior technology other than to outlaw it. Those with the superior technology have an advantage that those without it don't have. It's simply cheaper to embrace the better technology than to fight it. > Wake up buddy boy, its doing it right now... and your too brainwashed at > the present moment to notice! Your superior attitude towards everyone is insulting. I will leave you with a quote that I posted previously from T.J. Rodgers who is the CEO of Cypress Semiconductor: "Despite my Stanford Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering, it seems I was duped into buying 3,000 copies of Microsoft Windows by crafty Bill Gates." I suppose you really believe that. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Nov 15 22:19:52 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.HiWAAY.net (fly.HiWAAY.net [208.147.154.56]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26044151AE for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:19:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kris@hiwaay.net) Received: from ninbox (tnt6-216-180-4-171.dialup.HiWAAY.net [216.180.4.171]) by mail.HiWAAY.net (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id AAA15346; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 00:19:02 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 00:19:01 -0600 (CST) From: Kris Kirby To: Erick White Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > as the larger field is concerned. The reason why free UNIX's can run > on it is becouse, being a not for profit operating system.... well the > definition is close enough, it CAN NOT BE INFLUENCED by "Pa Bill" > becouse it can't be denied money for its developers. Heh, Pa Bill and Ma Bell -- both (to be) broken as monopolies. --- Kris Kirby | ------------------------------------------- TGIFreeBSD... 'Nuff said. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Nov 15 22:23: 0 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us (taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us [165.29.134.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0369215113 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:22:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from erickw@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us) Received: from localhost (erickw@localhost) by taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us (8.9.0/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA26959; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 01:29:13 -0600 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 01:29:13 -0600 (CST) From: Erick White To: Kris Kirby Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org That is why I used the term Pa Bill Your Friend: Erick On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Kris Kirby wrote: > > as the larger field is concerned. The reason why free UNIX's can run > > on it is becouse, being a not for profit operating system.... well the > > definition is close enough, it CAN NOT BE INFLUENCED by "Pa Bill" > > becouse it can't be denied money for its developers. > > Heh, Pa Bill and Ma Bell -- both (to be) broken as monopolies. > --- > Kris Kirby > | > ------------------------------------------- > TGIFreeBSD... 'Nuff said. > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Nov 15 23:14:20 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from pebkac.owp.csus.edu (pebkac.owp.csus.edu [130.86.232.245]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA23A14D0E for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:14:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from joseph.scott@owp.csus.edu) Received: from owp.csus.edu (mothra.ecs.csus.edu [130.86.76.220]) by pebkac.owp.csus.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA42779; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:13:49 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <383102B9.8CD2AE12@owp.csus.edu> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:07:37 -0800 From: Joseph Scott X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Schwartz Cc: walton@nordicrecords.com, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" References: <000001bf2fea$0d9207b0$021d85d1@youwant.to> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I'm not really big on beating this into the ground, but I thought I might point out a few things here. David Schwartz wrote: > > Right, because if they don't maximize revenue, they won't be able to do the > research needed to keep Windows competitive. The software market is > sufficiently dynamic that Windows has to become almost an entirely new > product every two years to maintain its status as market leader. To put it simply, I don't agree that MS has made Windows an entirely new product every two years. From everything that I've gathered Win95->Win98 was mostly large number of patches+IE. So from 1995 to now ( 1999, almost 2000 ) MS has been able to maintain, at the very least, it's leadership with the same product ( with some patches ). The time span MS takes to introduce Windows as a new product would be something more on the order of 6.5 years, give or take. > Actually, they Microsoft's pricing is consistent with a firm that needs to > spend massive amounts on research and development to keep its products > competitive. Yes, they maximize revenue (as every firm does) primarily to > allow them to maintain Window's competitiveness. This is far different from > the type of price raising that is monopoly harm. > Would does this "could have charged" mean? They could have given it away > for free. > To take a page from my business management class, setting the price of the product has little and/or nothing to do with it's cost. I won't go into the details of how or why this is true, it took the instructor months to convince us :-) But in the end I believe this is true. This nice thing in a monopoly area, the best price is the most you can charge until the marginal return for increased price becomes useless. There are some pricing constraints, even for monopolies, but they are very different than "normal" competitive markets. > I'm not sure I believe that. Personally, I think Microsoft set the price > far above the revenue-maximizing price. Heck, the more people who use > Windows the more people they can sell Microsoft office too, right? I would tend to think that this statement supports my claim, in a monopoly area you set you price that will get the most people to buy it. More or less, it's never quite that easy. > Of course, every company sets its prices at the revenue-maximizing price. > If Microsoft didn't do that, their management should be fired. The biggest > balancing factor for Microsoft is that the more expensive Windows is, the > more incentive there is to market and develop alternatives to it. The difference is that in a monopoly what determines the revenue-maximizing price is different than in competitive markets. > To the extent that Windows is a monopoly, it is a temporary one. Much as > vinyl records were a monopoly for awhile, soon replaced by cassette tapes, > now replaced by CDs, and probably soon to be replaced by some other format. > Microsoft will do everything possible to maximize the amount of time its > operating systems matter, but ultimately, there will be nothing it can do -- > it will have to invent a new product or lose its market share. I think this is an apples vs. oranges argument. Both the software and music industries are very complex, and this makes it sound just a wee too simple. I'm not going to list problems with this argument because I think that they are fairly obvious. > This is not the type of monopoly that the anti-trust laws were meant to > prevent. They were supposed to stop a static monopoly, where a company can > charge whatever it wants and sell whatever it wants. Microsoft can't do > that. I don't think that history would support this statement. Joseph Scott joseph.scott@owp.csus.edu Water Programs - CSU Sacramento To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Nov 15 23:31:33 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82BF114C9C for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:31:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:31:27 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Joseph Scott" Cc: , Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:31:27 -0800 Message-ID: <000001bf3004$979c2b60$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <383102B9.8CD2AE12@owp.csus.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > I'm not really big on beating this into the ground, but I thought I > might point out a few things here. > > David Schwartz wrote: > > > > Right, because if they don't maximize revenue, they > won't be able to do the > > research needed to keep Windows competitive. The software market is > > sufficiently dynamic that Windows has to become almost an entirely new > > product every two years to maintain its status as market leader. > > To put it simply, I don't agree that MS has made Windows an entirely > new product every two years. From everything that I've gathered > Win95->Win98 was mostly large number of patches+IE. I could not disagree more. Comparing NT4.0 with no service packs to NT4.0 with SP6 is like comparing two completely different products. Microsoft gives these enhancements away for free because it very much fears that market changes will make Windows obsolete. > So from 1995 to now > ( 1999, almost 2000 ) MS has been able to maintain, at the very least, > it's leadership with the same product ( with some patches ). Nonsense. You're just glossing over all the changes that you don't see. Windows 95 on 1999 hardware bares almost no resemblance to Windows 98 on 1999 hardware. There are almost no similarities. What you don't see are all the major OS changes that are hidden in the patches -- like DirectX 7 and AGP drivers. > The time > span MS takes to introduce Windows as a new product would be something > more on the order of 6.5 years, give or take. I would say it's closer to 3, actually. I think you're missing how fundamentally some of the patches for 95, 98, and NT change the product. > > Actually, they Microsoft's pricing is consistent with a > firm that needs to > > spend massive amounts on research and development to keep its products > > competitive. Yes, they maximize revenue (as every firm does) > primarily to > > allow them to maintain Window's competitiveness. This is far > different from > > the type of price raising that is monopoly harm. > > > Would does this "could have charged" mean? They could > have given it away > > for free. > > > > To take a page from my business management class, setting > the price of > the product has little and/or nothing to do with it's cost. I won't go > into the details of how or why this is true, it took the instructor > months to convince us :-) But in the end I believe this is true. Right. However the decision to make the product or not in the first place has a lot to do with its cost. Smart companies set revenue maximizing prices. > This nice thing in a monopoly area, the best price is the > most you can > charge until the marginal return for increased price becomes useless. > There are some pricing constraints, even for monopolies, but they are > very different than "normal" competitive markets. That's not true at all. The pricing constraints on Microsoft are different from "normal" competitive markets (if by that you mean the classic pricing models you see in Economics books), but that's for a huge variety of reasons that have little to nothing to do with whether it's a monopoly or not. If we assume that Microsoft's products stink and that the only reason people buy them is to be compatible with everything else, then we have to acknowledge that this compatability has value to consumers. In other words, if this argument is right, then a monopoly in operating systems would be a beneficial outcome. So far from correcting some 'market problem', the government would actually be undoing market efficiency. Of course, I don't believe that's true. I believe there is some value in using the same operating system as someone else, but there's also some value in using a superior operating system. This benefit allows Microsoft to charge more for Windows now than it could have to the first person who bought it. But there are hundreds of ways for smart companies to solve this problem. After all, we do all have telephones and FAX machines, even though the first person who bought them could do nothing with them. Microsoft's competitors know this, and many of them give their products away for free (or nearly free) precisely because they know that this is a good way to build the market share needed to reach critical mass. > > I'm not sure I believe that. Personally, I think > Microsoft set the price > > far above the revenue-maximizing price. Heck, the more people who use > > Windows the more people they can sell Microsoft office too, right? > > I would tend to think that this statement supports my claim, in a > monopoly area you set you price that will get the most people to buy > it. More or less, it's never quite that easy. Well, $1 would get more people to buy Windows 98 than the price Microsoft chose. When Microsoft considers maximizing their revenue, they have to take a lot of factors into account that traditional companies may not have to. They have to consider how long they can retain their position in the market. High prices will reduce that time. Lower prices may increase it. I assure you, Microsoft is extremely concerned with how _long_ Windows will holds its position. Traditional monopolies are not supposed to be making business decisions based upon how long they can retain their monopoly status. That's more what successful competitors do. > > Of course, every company sets its prices at the > revenue-maximizing price. > > If Microsoft didn't do that, their management should be fired. > The biggest > > balancing factor for Microsoft is that the more expensive > Windows is, the > > more incentive there is to market and develop alternatives to it. > > The difference is that in a monopoly what determines the > revenue-maximizing price is different than in competitive markets. Not at all. It's how high you can set the price without chasing customers away and how low you can afford to sell it to help build critical mass. It's the same as telephones, FAX machines, and even cars. > > To the extent that Windows is a monopoly, it is a > temporary one. Much as > > vinyl records were a monopoly for awhile, soon replaced by > cassette tapes, > > now replaced by CDs, and probably soon to be replaced by some > other format. > > Microsoft will do everything possible to maximize the amount of time its > > operating systems matter, but ultimately, there will be nothing > it can do -- > > it will have to invent a new product or lose its market share. > > I think this is an apples vs. oranges argument. Both the > software and > music industries are very complex, and this makes it sound just a wee > too simple. I'm not going to list problems with this argument because > I think that they are fairly obvious. I'm not going to make it rigorous here. I'll defer to economists such as Liebowitz and Margolis who have made this argument sufficently rigorous that I find it convincing. > > This is not the type of monopoly that the anti-trust > laws were meant to > > prevent. They were supposed to stop a static monopoly, where a > company can > > charge whatever it wants and sell whatever it wants. Microsoft can't do > > that. > > I don't think that history would support this statement. So you're saying that Microsoft is a run-of-the-mill monopoly case? DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 0:41:35 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07B6E151DC for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 00:41:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from des@flood.ping.uio.no) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA43734; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 09:41:19 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from des) To: Terry Lambert Cc: davids@webmaster.com (David Schwartz), keramida@ceid.upatras.gr, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" References: <199911152040.NAA22265@usr06.primenet.com> From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 16 Nov 1999 09:41:19 +0100 In-Reply-To: Terry Lambert's message of "Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:40:11 +0000 (GMT)" Message-ID: Lines: 11 User-Agent: Gnus/5.070097 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.97) Emacs/20.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > IE is not the best browser... though I will give them the GIF > decoding JNI in their Java/JavaScript, since this is much faster > than Netscape's "pure Java" implementation. You have to hand it to them - their rendering engine is much faster and produces much nicer-looking results than Netscape's. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 0:48: 1 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us (taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us [165.29.134.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5F9114EC6 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 00:47:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from erickw@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us) Received: from localhost (erickw@localhost) by taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us (8.9.0/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA27208; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 03:53:49 -0600 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 03:53:49 -0600 (CST) From: Erick White To: David Schwartz Cc: Joseph Scott , walton@nordicrecords.com, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" In-Reply-To: <000001bf3004$979c2b60$021d85d1@youwant.to> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Let me explain this to you yet again. I am not saying people are stupid. Once again I say people are Miss-Informed. The do not know all the facts. People in general that is. I dont know how much plainer I can be on these issues, or how any one else can be. Me, no I am not going to save the world from their stupidity, I dont think anyone can do that. The world of mankind is after all in the process of killing itself despite information of what it is doing. I am not saying that FreeBSD is the answer, or Linux , I am saying that Microsoft is wrong. You attempt to draw away from my reasoning by attacking my character. I am not saying that I and I emphasize NOT SAYING I am going to save people from their stupidity. For the last several days we have been beating our heads against the proverbial brick wall in trying to reason with someone who refuses to see reason. It is not just I that has seen through Microsofts sham! We are not saying we are smarter than the rest of you. What others here, and I myself, are trying to do is get you to open your eyes to what they have truly been doing. Those here are not saying were smarter, we are as a whole saying that we see the truth what is going on which anyone can see, not that their stupid, just that they dont have all the facts. You however, sir, seem to be ignoring the facts presented before you and still fight against the truths. I admit that I dont always choose the right words in order to bring my point across. I might not always be the most tactful person, but I do know what is there, and when someone is being misled. > >Research? The field test their products not even fully finish the > >job to begin with in the programming department. Their not spending their > money by and large on research, their using it to cannibalize other > >threats to their products, and then crush them into powder as the company > >throws its money behind it. Their letting other companies do the research > >for them, then they try to crush them once they see what they need for a > >bare minimum to drive out the competition with a cat o nine tails. What > >they have been doing, and doing for YEARS is letting the competition test > >the waters, once it realizes that it is a threat it comes up with a >> "solution" for what it did not think up did not create, and then continues >> on its merry way.. Nuh Uh.. not good.... Reread your facts. > Yes, that's extremely efficient. That way they (and their customers) get >the benefit of the innovations without having to pay for them. That's great. >That's extreme market efficiency. No, getting someone elses innovations and Ideas from them without paying for them, that is what is defined in the dictionary as stealing, as plagiarism at the least. You see by doing this they are in effect making themselves crooks. > A company can have all the ideas in the world, but if they can't turn it >into a product that consumers actually want to buy, it won't amount to a >hill of beans. Microsoft excels at turning ideas into marketable products. >And that's what the market wants -- products, not ideas. The reason why Microsoft cannibalized them to begin with is because the company had turned it into a product customers actually wanted to buy. That is why the price raised and they were inculcated into the distribution or another product. When you make something included and jack up the price so to speak, then you are in fact making people pay for a product you made even if they would rather have someone elses, and when they are ran out of business by Microsoft because the those using their version begin to believe it is their only option because the other business can no longer survive under Microsofts heavy hand and racketeering then you are stuck with an inferior product. In todays world money is what runs everything. The golden rule of arts and sciences I reiterate, He Who Has the Gold Makes the Rules. That means that if you can crush another companies income, it doesnt mater if it is a better product, if they have been crushed, or overflowed by someone with a stronger power base does that make them any more right? If someone had a animal that was dear to them, and another man with more power took it away from them, and had power to forcefully take it from him, even though he already had plenty, and the one man with only the one animal that was dear to that man. Does it make it right just because the man with plenty had enough men, or power, or strength to take it from the poorer man? Does that make it right, just because one has the ability to take from another and ruin their ability at future development? I am sorry sir, but I think not. >> It is monopoly harm, because what >> their taking credit for was actually researched, updated, run, and >> designed by someone else's brain. > > *sigh* What the hell does credit have to do with anything? Who designed >Windows? What does credit have to with anything? I am sure that if you created something you would want credit for it. If you created something and someone took it away from you and made money on it and did nothing to give you credit or money, You must admit you would be incensed. You want to know who originally designed Windows? Try Xerox. If you Mean MS Windows, then it is nothing that has been taken from one company, they have taken it from many peoples, and companies that no longer exist because they were crushed with a mailed hand on soft skulls so to speak sir! Also here is something else for you to consider. Until recently you were forced to buy Windows if you bought a new PC unless you custom built it and put it together yourself. You had no choice. IE has had more effort put into it recently to crush Netscape. I will admit I like the integration of IE so that I can type in a command line on a windows box window and shortcut all the point and clicking. He, however makes people buy something they dont want every time they buy windows with something packaged in that has contributed to a higher price that they dont want, need, or desire. > They read reviews, they consider other products, they look at what other people >are buying, they look at what might become available in the future, and they >make the best decision they know how to. Why do you think you know better >than they do? The sad truth is most people dont read reviews. They usually dont consider what you and I might do and consider in such a situation, as you stated above. They key point you make there however is the best decision THEY KNOW HOW TO. Without having all the information, can they make an informed decision? I dont say I know better than a well informed person, I am saying I am looking at it from an informed point of view on both sides. I am also not bitching. I am not paying for an upgrade. Windows right now has the support of the gaming industry and that is something that has driven the computer industry for many years as far as development. They buy Windows because it does what most people want yes, but so do other OSs, other programs, and other companies that although they make a superior product get crushed by the heavy hand of Microsoft. The finding of fact points this out. > If the competing technologies are truly better, than they should be able to >find better financing. If you can't convince an investor that they're >better, they probably really aren't. I tell Engineers that investors are the >litmus test of how good their ideas are, since investors specialize in >knowing what ideas really are good enough to work. > > If you had an idea that was really better than Microsoft's, that should >give you enough of an advantage to take a sizeable market share. If the >better idea isn't winning, look long and hard at whether it's really better. No, not a sizeable market share for your ideas when it is being blocked by a larger power base. By someone who already has the money to make you go away, or make your company enough problems that it cant bust through the "Superior Money" of Microsoft. It could very well be a better product. > Ask people why they use Windows instead of FreeBSD. I guarantee you one >thing they won't say is because Microsoft is so powerful and impressive that >they have to buy Windows even though it doesn't do what they want. Think >about it - that's really what you're trying to convince me of. No, they will say Free what? Believe me I have asked those kind of questions. Only those well in the know, and in the computer technical fields know about such systems in general. I use to get angry at Microsoft all the time for many things, that is before I found UNIX, this is although I was good in computers, I did not know anything but Windows existed. Taking the different path so to speak "Has made all the difference" I still use windows for things that programmers havent released a version for UNIX for. Their is measure to my madness, and it is this: People are not foolish in general, they are not stupid, and given enough information and support without a heavy domineering hand, are capable of making the right choice, when they know all their options. > Yes, but a company with superior technology wouldn't need to brainwash >anyone. If it really had a better product, it would eventually take over the >marketplace. Really. In an Ideal world yes. However without resources thousands of well thought out, working ideas or inventions are lost because they cant get through the initial, our name is what you know buy us phase of the market. Most things are bought on name value these days. Once again, I reiterate. He who has the gold, makes the rules. My attitude isnt superior to everyone, and it isnt insulting. I am not insulting anyone, only trying to make you see reason. What do you think everyone else has been trying to do? I am only pointing to certain facts although I may have come off in a little more upset matter. I have been feeling under the weather lately and when you got a class in College in the morning, and its already 3:00 am, and your not feeling very well, sometimes you lack a little of the tact that you could use instead. Your Friendly, if sometimes cranky UNIX Advocate: Erick To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 1:32:48 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDB7D14CB7 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 01:32:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 01:32:38 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Erick White" Cc: Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 01:32:37 -0800 Message-ID: <000001bf3015$85686100$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Let me explain this to you yet again. I am not saying people are > stupid. Once again I say people are Miss-Informed. The do not know all the > facts. People in general that is. I dont know how much plainer I can be on > these issues, or how any one else can be. Me, no I am not going to save > the world from their stupidity, I dont think anyone can do that. The world > of mankind is after all in the process of killing itself despite > information of what it is doing. If people are misinformed who is misinforming them? Are you saying that everyone just believes whatever Bill Gates has to say? I hate to break this to you, but people use IE because it's better than Netscape. Really. That's why I use it. It looks better. It works faster. Really. People use Windows because it does the job better. I am very familiar with both Linux and FreeBSD, yet I choose to use NT on my desktop. I'm sorry, it works better. Misinformation has nothing to do with it -- I've used all three operating systems. I'm more productive on NT. That's a fact. Would I run a corporate web server on Windows? Not unless a gun was put to my head. All the misinformation in the world won't make me choose a vastly inferior product. I wish Microsoft luck in the Enterprise/server market. They have a long way to go. But the fact is, nothing can touch 98, AGP, DirectX 7, and a good graphics card for a personal computer. And nothing can touch NT for a productivity desktop workstation (though Linux and FreeBSD are almost there, IMO). I won't talk about servers. All the 'information' in the world won't change the plain, obvious fact that people buy Windows because they prefer Windows. And they prefer Windows because it lets them do the things they want to do. If you are able to deny that, well, I'm darned impressed. Microsoft enjoys the success they do in the personal computer operating system market precisely because they make an operating system that is very, very good for that purpose. It is far from perfect, of course. > I am not saying that FreeBSD is the answer, or Linux , I am saying > that Microsoft is wrong. Regardless of how wrong they may or may not be, the fact will not change that Microsoft enjoys market success for Windows 98 because it is the best product available for its market niche. > You attempt to draw away from my reasoning by > attacking my character. I am not saying that I and I emphasize NOT SAYING > I am going to save people from their stupidity. For the last several days > we have been beating our heads against the proverbial brick wall in trying > to reason with someone who refuses to see reason. It is not just I that > has seen through Microsofts sham! What's the sham? The product does the job. It is the best product currently available to do that job. That's why people buy it. > We are not saying we are smarter than > the rest of you. What others here, and I myself, are trying to do is get > you to open your eyes to what they have truly been doing. Those here are > not saying were smarter, we are as a whole saying that we see the truth > what is going on which anyone can see, not that their stupid, just that > they dont have all the facts. I don't need another explanation for why Windows is successful. It's completely obvious -- it's successful because it's the best product out there. > You however, sir, seem to be ignoring the facts presented before > you and still fight against the truths. I admit that I dont always choose > the right words in order to bring my point across. I might not always be > the most tactful person, but I do know what is there, and when someone is > being misled. What truth? What are you talking about? How am I being mislead? How has Bill Gates convinced me that my NT desktop is more useful than a Linux desktop when I have used both extensively? I have an Irix desktop not 6 feet from me that I could be using, but I don't. What other facts do I need? The fact is, most people who use Windows use it because it's the best product available to do the job they need to do. I need no other explanation for its success because this reason is sufficient. If you showed me some better product that wasn't as successful, then we could go look for the explanation. > > >Research? The field test their products not even fully finish the > > >job to begin with in the programming department. Their not spending > their > > money by and large on research, their using it to cannibalize other > > >threats to their products, and then crush them into powder as the > company > > >throws its money behind it. Their letting other companies do the > research > > >for them, then they try to crush them once they see what they need for > a > > >bare minimum to drive out the competition with a cat o nine tails. What > > >they have been doing, and doing for YEARS is letting the competition > test > > >the waters, once it realizes that it is a threat it comes up with a > >> "solution" for what it did not think up did not create, and then > continues > >> on its merry way.. Nuh Uh.. not good.... Reread your facts. > > > Yes, that's extremely efficient. That way they (and their > customers) get > >the benefit of the innovations without having to pay for them. That's > great. > >That's extreme market efficiency. > > No, getting someone elses innovations and Ideas from them without > paying for them, that is what is defined in the dictionary as stealing, as > plagiarism at the least. You see by doing this they are in effect making > themselves crooks. No, not at all. Look -- everyone benefits from everybody else's ideas. I can't believe that on a FreeBSD list, someone would make this argument. The irony is amazing. > > A company can have all the ideas in the world, but if they can't > turn it > >into a product that consumers actually want to buy, it won't amount to a > >hill of beans. Microsoft excels at turning ideas into marketable > products. > >And that's what the market wants -- products, not ideas. > > The reason why Microsoft cannibalized them to begin with is > because the company had turned it into a product customers actually wanted > to buy. At least you admit that people actually want to buy Windows. ;) > That is why the price raised and they were inculcated into the > distribution or another product. As soon as the price goes $1 more than the value of the product, people will stop buying it. Unless you're going to go back to claiming that Bill Gates has mind control. > When you make something included and > jack up the price so to speak, then you are in fact making people pay for > a product you made even if they would rather have someone elses, How can you make people pay? Do you put a gun to their head? Do you send your armed men to their houses and take the money out of their wallets? Do you understand the difference between a gun and an argument at all? If people would rather have someone else's product, go buy it. Microsoft can't stop you. If you don't think Windows (or a product that bundles it) is worth the price, don't buy it. Bill Gates won't force you. > and when > they are ran out of business by Microsoft because the those using their > version begin to believe it is their only option because the other > business can no longer survive under Microsofts heavy hand and > racketeering then you are stuck with an inferior product. In todays world > money is what runs everything. The golden rule of arts and sciences I > reiterate, What is the inferior product? You are back to arguing that people buy Windows even though it doesn't work. Show me an inferior Microsoft product that enjoys market success -- you cannot do it. Look at Microsoft Money -- it sucks, and people don't buy it. Look at IE -- it's the best around, and people use it. If you'd like, I can point you to some more rigorous market analysis of where Microsoft has succeeded and where they have failed along with independent reviews of their products to show this correlation. But it really should be common sense -- only the government can actually force people to buy an inferior product against their own interests. Bill Gates can't possibly fool people into buying products that don't do what people want -- not for long anyway. > He Who Has the Gold Makes the Rules. > That means that if you can crush another companies income, it doesnt mater > if it is a better product, if they have been crushed, or overflowed by > someone with a stronger power base does that make them any more right? Not at all. There are always people with money. If they see a better mousetrap, they'll sink in the money to penetrate the marketplace. If the product is truly superior, that advantage will eventually allow a competitor to win out. What will happen is that investors will draw up an accounting of costs and market penetration. The more superior the technology you have to what's out there, the more that cost/benefit analysis will sway in your favor. For example, if you had a product that was 10% better than Windows, you'd need an awful lot of money to promote it. This isn't because Bill Gates is so all powerful, it's because switching standards is expensive and you can't sell a product without subsidizing that cost. If you had a product that was twice as good as Windows, however, the value gained from your better operating system would more than cover the costs incurred in changing standards. (This is why 99% of x86 software today requires at leats a 386 or better.) But this is really all moot -- there isn't a better product out there to point to. The closest there was is OS/2, and nobody ever sunk in the money to make that happen. > If > someone had a animal that was dear to them, and another man with more > power took it away from them, and had power to forcefully take it from > him, even though he already had plenty, and the one man with only the one > animal that was dear to that man. Does it make it right just because the > man with plenty had enough men, or power, or strength to take it from the > poorer man? Does that make it right, just because one has the ability to > take from another and ruin their ability at future development? > I am sorry sir, but I think not. This would be relevant if Bill Gates pointed guns at people's heads and made them buy his software even though they don't want it. But this isn't what happens. > >> It is monopoly harm, because what > >> their taking credit for was actually researched, updated, run, and > >> designed by someone else's brain. > > > > *sigh* What the hell does credit have to do with anything? Who > designed > >Windows? > > What does credit have to with anything? I am sure that if you > created something you would want credit for it. If you created something > and someone took it away from you and made money on it and did nothing to > give you credit or money, You must admit you would be incensed. You want > to know who originally designed Windows? Try Xerox. If you Mean MS > Windows, then it is nothing that has been taken from one company, they > have taken it from many peoples, and companies that no longer exist > because they were crushed with a mailed hand on soft skulls so to speak > sir! This has nothing to do with anything. Every company takes ideas from everything that they see. To make something from scratch, you'd have to create the universe. Microsoft would be in serious trouble if they _didn't_ take every good idea they could possibly find and try to integrate it into their products. But your argument is amusing because of it's 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' angle. If Microsoft doesn't put every fancy new feature into its operating systems, you'll argue that it's forcing mediocre technology on people. If they do, you'll accuse them of stealing. > Also here is something else for you to consider. Until recently > you were forced to buy Windows if you bought a new PC unless you custom > built it and put it together yourself. You had no choice. This is just melodrama. Of course you had a choice. Who put the gun to your head and took the money out of your wallet? If you want to buy a car, you're forced to buy a hood. If you want to buy a camera, you're forced to buy a lens cover. This is not actual force, this is metaphorical force. It comes from the fact that customization has a cost associated with it. Microsoft secured these bundling arrangements by convincing distributors that it was in there best interest to do so. That is, he made it worth their while. Because the computer retail market is so competitive and margins so razor thin, this discount percolates down to comnsumers, so the vast majority of consumers benefit from this arrangement. For you to complain about it because you didn't happen to benefit because you weren't in that majority is as absurd as complaining that Intel has somehow coerced you to buy a P2 because most new software won't run on your 386 anymore. Technology moves ahead, and it's painful not to follow it. It's just economies of scale, that's all. > IE has had more > effort put into it recently to crush Netscape. Right. Competition makes products better. When IE has strong competition, it will get better. When it doesn't, it may not. This is how the market works. > I will admit I like the > integration of IE so that I can type in a command line on a windows box > window and shortcut all the point and clicking. He, however makes people > buy something they dont want every time they buy windows with something > packaged in that has contributed to a higher price that they dont want, > need, or desire. *yawn* So we're back to you can't buy a car without a hood again. Look, most people want cars with hoods. So it makes sense to bundle the cost of a hood into the cost of a car. Yes, this makes it harder for other companies to market hoods, but it makes life easier for those who like an integrated hood that comes with, and fits perfectly into, their car. How many people want an operating system without a browser? Not many. So it makes sense to bundle the browser with the operating system and integrate them cleanly. This also benefits developers who can rely on that functionality being there and so can, for example, include their help in HTML. Microsoft is under no obligation to create and nurture a broswer market. Those people who want such a market can create them and nurture them themselves. Personally, I'd rather commoditize the browser so the smart guys can move on to the technology that's going to make browsers obsolete. That's what's going to bring down Microsoft. > > They read reviews, they consider other products, they look at what > other people > >are buying, they look at what might become available in the future, and > they > >make the best decision they know how to. Why do you think you know better > >than they do? > > The sad truth is most people dont read reviews. They usually dont > consider what you and I might do and consider in such a situation, as you > stated above. That's just plain not true. Most people either read reviews or ask others for advice. Really, they do. And that trend is only increasing with easy access to the Internet. I think you severly underestimate what people will do when they make buying decisions. You seem to have a strong belief that "the masses are asses" and nothing seems to shake you from it. It's just plain not true. It's very hard to make people buy something that doesn't do what they actually want. > They key point you make there however is the best decision > THEY KNOW HOW TO. Without having all the information, can they make an > informed decision? I dont say I know better than a well informed person, I > am saying I am looking at it from an informed point of view on both sides. You again assume that people are really stupid and don't know what's good for themselves. They do. Really. They take enormous amounts of information into account when they make buying decisions, especially big ones. > I am also not bitching. I am not paying for an upgrade. Windows > right now has the support of the gaming industry and that is something > that has driven the computer industry for many years as far as > development. Yes, it has. Why do you think it has the support of the gaming industry? > They buy Windows because it does what most people want yes, but so > do other OSs, other programs, and other companies that although they make > a superior product get crushed by the heavy hand of Microsoft. The finding > of fact points this out. What is the superior product? Where is it? Show me a superior product and I'll change my desktops from NT and 98 instantly. Where is it? What is it? > > If the competing technologies are truly better, than they should > be able to > >find better financing. If you can't convince an investor that they're > >better, they probably really aren't. I tell Engineers that investors are > the > >litmus test of how good their ideas are, since investors specialize in > >knowing what ideas really are good enough to work. > > > > If you had an idea that was really better than Microsoft's, that > should > >give you enough of an advantage to take a sizeable market share. If the > >better idea isn't winning, look long and hard at whether it's really > better. > > No, not a sizeable market share for your ideas when it is being > blocked by a larger power base. By someone who already has the money to > make you go away, or make your company enough problems that it cant bust > through the "Superior Money" of Microsoft. It could very well be a better > product. Oh, bullshit. If you need a large market share to make the idea work, just give it away until you build up that market share. If you can't afford to do that, it will only because your idea really isn't better. Shit, Linux and FreeBSD _ARE_ given away, and people still won't use them in mass for their desktops. Oh, right, that's because they're too stupid. > > Ask people why they use Windows instead of FreeBSD. I guarantee > you one > >thing they won't say is because Microsoft is so powerful and impressive > that > >they have to buy Windows even though it doesn't do what they want. Think > >about it - that's really what you're trying to convince me of. > > No, they will say Free what? Believe me I have asked those kind of > questions. Only those well in the know, and in the computer technical > fields know about such systems in general. I use to get angry at Microsoft > all the time for many things, that is before I found UNIX, this is > although I was good in computers, I did not know anything but Windows > existed. Taking the different path so to speak See, the point you're missing is that the knowledgeable people are making the same decisions the masses are. I use NT for my desktop. I can list a whole bunch of people who are very comfortable with many operating systems who make the same decisions. We all choose Windows simply because it works better. Really. > "Has made all the difference" > I still use windows for things that programmers havent released a version > for UNIX for. > Their is measure to my madness, and it is this: People are not > foolish in general, they are not stupid, and given enough information and > support without a heavy domineering hand, are capable of making the right > choice, when they know all their options. What do you mean by "without a heavy domineering hand"? Are you suggesting that Microsoft somehow manages to keep FreeBSD secret? Or is this Bill Gates' mind control again? No matter how many times I say it, you still don't get it. People choose Windows because it does what they need to do. People choose IE because it works better. People don't choose Microsoft Money because it doesn't work better. > > Yes, but a company with superior technology wouldn't need to > brainwash > >anyone. If it really had a better product, it would eventually take over > the > >marketplace. Really. > > In an Ideal world yes. However without resources thousands of well thought > out, working ideas or inventions are lost because they cant get through > the initial, our name is what you know buy us phase of the market. Most > things are bought on name value these days. Again, we're back to people are too stupid. All they do is see a name, and buy it. Tell me -- why isn't Microsoft Money the market leader? It has the brand name, right? People are smart. Really. They research their buying decisions. They watch the news. They ask their friends. They sometimes even read computer magazines. Now they browse web sites. Yes, some people do get taken some of the time, but nobody could make people buy a truly inferior product for very long. Not without help from the hand of the government. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 3:49:43 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (Haldjas.folklore.ee [193.40.6.121]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E91C1525D for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 03:49:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee) Received: from localhost (narvi@localhost) by haldjas.folklore.ee (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA74201 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:49:28 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:49:28 +0200 (EET) From: Narvi To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Making of the new monopoly Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Redhat has bought Cygnus. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 4:57:53 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.enteract.com (mail.enteract.com [207.229.143.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 441AE14D49 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 04:57:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Received: from shell-2.enteract.com (dscheidt@shell-2.enteract.com [207.229.143.41]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA70309 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 06:57:51 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 06:57:51 -0600 (CST) From: David Scheidt To: chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Support for USB floppies like Y-E Data FlashBuster-u ? In-Reply-To: <52073.942744346@axl.noc.iafrica.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > > On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:56:21 +0100, Nick Hibma wrote: > > > If you ask the 3 IDE disks and ethernet hub that have gone pop this > > weekend, they would say no, but myself I was pretty firm that I was > > going to do something about it this weekend. Bastard things, they should > > be shot and they will be. > > Be careful about shooting hard drives. Specifically, get your angle > right such that you _do_ actually fracture the casing. The alternatives > are all unfortunate and mostly painful. You sound as though you speak from experience. Personally, I have always settled for a BFH. As fortune(6) says, you will never hit your thumb if you hold the hammer with both hands. David Scheidt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 7:18: 7 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from yana.lemis.com (yana.lemis.com [192.109.197.140]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA00114CC4 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:18:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from grog@mojave.sitaranetworks.com) Received: from mojave.sitaranetworks.com (mojave.sitaranetworks.com [199.103.141.157]) by yana.lemis.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA22334; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 01:47:34 +1030 (CST) (envelope-from grog@mojave.sitaranetworks.com) Message-ID: <19991115193945.36730@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:39:45 -0500 From: Greg Lehey To: Erick White , Brett Glass Cc: David Schwartz , Giorgos Keramidas , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: You will be assimilated (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") Reply-To: Greg Lehey References: <4.2.0.58.19991113091425.043ba180@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from Erick White on Sun, Nov 14, 1999 at 02:26:45AM -0600 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sunday, 14 November 1999 at 2:26:45 -0600, Erick White wrote: > On Sat, 13 Nov 1999, Brett Glass wrote: > >> At 05:12 AM 11/13/1999 -0600, Erick White wrote: >> >>> For your information it is our descision to make. >> >> And We Are Borg. You Will Be Assimilated. > > Ok man. You want to know what? I was talking about we as consumers > and general public. OK. you want to try and call me a borg... Try more > along the lines of Klingon. Ok Agressive action needs to be taken, and I > tell you what.. Its Not being taken! > I assume that by insultiing me, you think that you are actually > raising your mind. Well lets assume this weak minded one. Those that have > to put others down in such a fashion to an obvious statement, are showing > themselves truly of limited mentality. Thos who blindly follow Microsoft, > it is You who have been assimilated! > Look in the Mirror before you start talking about the brainwashed > collective mind. Far be it from me to be of one mind with Brett (as a search of the mail archives will show), but don't you think this was intended as humour? I certainly do. Greg -- Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 7:58:45 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from ind.alcatel.com (postal.xylan.com [208.8.0.248]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2284515217 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:58:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from mailhub.xylan.com (mailhub [198.206.181.70]) by ind.alcatel.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1 (ind.alcatel.com 3.0 [OUT])) with SMTP id HAA09633; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:58:33 -0800 (PST) X-Origination-Site: Received: from omni.xylan.com by mailhub.xylan.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4 (mailhub 2.1 [HUB])) id HAA21466; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:58:33 -0800 Received: from softweyr.com ([204.68.178.39]) by omni.xylan.com (4.1/SMI-4.1 (xylan engr [SPOOL])) id AA05109; Tue, 16 Nov 99 07:58:28 PST Message-Id: <38317F22.D6C9DBF9@softweyr.com> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 08:58:26 -0700 From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr LLC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en Mime-Version: 1.0 To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: Nick Hibma Subject: Re: Support for USB floppies like Y-E Data FlashBuster-u ? References: <52073.942744346@axl.noc.iafrica.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:56:21 +0100, Nick Hibma wrote: > > > If you ask the 3 IDE disks and ethernet hub that have gone pop this > > weekend, they would say no, but myself I was pretty firm that I was > > going to do something about it this weekend. Bastard things, they should > > be shot and they will be. > > Be careful about shooting hard drives. Specifically, get your angle > right such that you _do_ actually fracture the casing. The alternatives > are all unfortunate and mostly painful. > > We wouldn't want you hurting yourself, no matter how funny the story > might be. :-) Most hard drives are made of aluminum, aren't they? Aluminum doesn't deflect bullets, at least not the kind I shoot. ;^) -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 8:29:40 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from pebkac.owp.csus.edu (pebkac.owp.csus.edu [130.86.232.245]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 401DE14A01 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 08:29:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from joseph.scott@owp.csus.edu) Received: from owp.csus.edu (mail.owp.csus.edu [130.86.232.247]) by pebkac.owp.csus.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA44300; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 08:29:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3831865A.9ED7E6E3@owp.csus.edu> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:29:14 +0000 From: Joseph Scott X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Schwartz Cc: walton@nordicrecords.com, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" References: <000001bf3004$979c2b60$021d85d1@youwant.to> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org David Schwartz wrote: > > If we assume that Microsoft's products stink and that the only reason > people buy them is to be compatible with everything else, then we have to > acknowledge that this compatability has value to consumers. In other words, > if this argument is right, then a monopoly in operating systems would be a > beneficial outcome. So far from correcting some 'market problem', the > government would actually be undoing market efficiency. > For me personally what you touched on above is exactly what makes me nuts. In my ideal realistic situation for things all the "data" would be compatable with all other "applications". My prime example in this is something like an MS Word document. I would like to be able to edit that document in any ( with in obvious limitations ) word processor, like Applix, Word, StarOffice, WordPerfect on any OS ( that the given word processor runs on of course ). In order to do this everyone would need to publish their format specs. I don't think MS would be too hot on this idea, but it's not totally out of range of being possible either. Of course this should not be limited to word processor documents. This would buy me the independance that I want. I already have an awesome server OS in FreeBSD, and I've been using as a desktop OS for a reasonable time now. I'd love one day to replace on the NT workstations on peoples desks with FreeBSD. Making the "data" compatitable across "applications" would be a huge step in seeing that happen. > So you're saying that Microsoft is a run-of-the-mill monopoly case? No, I would say not. I think part of what makes this so hard is that we are talking about a situation that people try and prevent, so once it's arrived each one tends to be unique. Besides that, this isn't an industry with a very long history ( the desktop/home PC market ). What surprises me about how MS went about the case is this : it's my understanding ( and I may be wrong, who knows ) that it's only illegal to have a monopoly if you have abused your power once there, or done bad things to get there. With statements from MS about how unimportant things like Open Source/Free Unix is that it's fairly obvious that they consider their position fairly dominant ( setting aside the argument for now as to how hard they do or don't work to keep it ). Why then didn't they just admit, yes we have a monopoly, but we've been nothing but the nicest of folks about it. ( Personally I'd find that pretty hard to swallow, but who knows ) I think any time they spent trying to convince the court that they didn't have a huge amount of the market ( ie : monopoly ) is time wasted, from a legal standpoint. Anyways, please don't get me wrong, I don't want MS or even Windows to go away. Competition is good, and if they went away then I think it would hurt everyone. -- Joseph Scott joseph.scott@owp.csus.edu Office Of Water Programs - CSU Sacramento To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 8:45:34 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from probity.mcc.ac.uk (probity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.94]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50F8814DFE for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 08:45:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by probity.mcc.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #3) id 11nlj9-0000Ye-00; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:45:07 +0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:45:06 +0000 (GMT) From: Jonathon McKitrick To: David Schwartz Cc: Erick White , freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" In-Reply-To: <000001bf2ff8$63026740$021d85d1@youwant.to> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > First you said this.... > A company can have all the ideas in the world, but if they can't turn it >into a product that consumers actually want to buy, it won't amount to a >hill of beans. Microsoft excels at turning ideas into marketable products. >And that's what the market wants -- products, not ideas. > > Ideas were once a dime a dozen, now they're $1 a bale in 10,000 idea bales. >The market doesn't buy ideas. Then you said this.... > If you had an idea that was really better than Microsoft's, that should >give you enough of an advantage to take a sizeable market share. If the >better idea isn't winning, look long and hard at whether it's really better. > Which is it? Better ideas or better products ? > Sure, and I don't have to buy it. Any manufacturer can charge any price >they want for a product. What they can't do is make people buy it if it >isn't worth the price. > > Yes, but a company with superior technology wouldn't need to brainwash >anyone. If it really had a better product, it would eventually take over the >marketplace. Really. Not true. What kind of VCR do you have, if you have one? Beta? Why not? Beta had a way better picture, and a smaller medium. Because VHS won the marketing battle, not because it was a better product. Has the VCR market _forced_ us to buy VHS VCR's? No. But it has made it pretty darm inconvenient NOT to. Those who went with Beta now have very high picture quality paperweights. Why do customers upgrade Windows? Because they like to spend more money? No. Sure there may be some new hardware drivers or new features they like, but most do not need these. If they are upgrading the OS, they usually had hardware that worked before. But it's also because M$ adds requires developers who want the official M$ seal to use the newest API calls in their programs. Now, when customers genuinely _need_ a program upgrade, they also need an OS upgrade. And sometimes a hardware upgrade as well to handle a more bloated OS. The whole upgrade scam was carefully engineered to put more money in their pockets by staying ahead of the competition just enough to make it unfeasible to switch. It's the donkey and the carrot. Sure, M$ had some innovations. But just enough to stay ahead. They kept the really good stuff for when they needed it, which will always be the next OS release, JUST around the corner. And I won't even comment on how many of those ideas were taken from other companies.... Just a comment on the CD vs vinyl debate: it was a case of the Emperor's new clothes... anyone who remembers the original CD players know they sounded HORRIBLE... but no one would say that except audiophiles, because no one wanted to argue that vinyl sounded better than new-fangled digital technology. Same with windows. No one wants to argue that such a cute, easy to use OS really is unstable and is a carefully engineered money making scheme. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 11:25:49 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from yana.lemis.com (yana.lemis.com [192.109.197.140]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5D01151E2 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 11:25:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from grog@mojave.sitaranetworks.com) Received: from mojave.sitaranetworks.com (mojave.sitaranetworks.com [199.103.141.157]) by yana.lemis.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA22673; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 05:55:32 +1030 (CST) (envelope-from grog@mojave.sitaranetworks.com) Message-ID: <19991116142454.45516@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:24:54 -0500 From: Greg Lehey To: David Schwartz , Erick White Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Reply-To: Greg Lehey References: <000001bf3015$85686100$021d85d1@youwant.to> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <000001bf3015$85686100$021d85d1@youwant.to>; from David Schwartz on Tue, Nov 16, 1999 at 01:32:37AM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tuesday, 16 November 1999 at 1:32:37 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: > >> Let me explain this to you yet again. I am not saying people are >> stupid. Once again I say people are Miss-Informed. The do not know all the >> facts. People in general that is. I dont know how much plainer I can be on >> these issues, or how any one else can be. Me, no I am not going to save >> the world from their stupidity, I dont think anyone can do that. The world >> of mankind is after all in the process of killing itself despite >> information of what it is doing. > > If people are misinformed who is misinforming them? Are you saying that > everyone just believes whatever Bill Gates has to say? No. At one point I'd say it was 90%, but the proportion is diminishing. > I hate to break this to you, but people use IE because it's > better than Netscape. Really. That's why I use it. It looks > better. It works faster. Really. And pigs have wings. People use IE because it's easier: it's already there. It crashes frequently, it's incompatible, and it's pirated software. > People use Windows because it does the job better. Better than what? > I am very familiar with both Linux and FreeBSD, yet I choose to use > NT on my desktop. I'm sorry, it works better. Misinformation has > nothing to do with it -- I've used all three operating systems. I'm > more productive on NT. That's a fact. I suppose there's a small minority who are. You've already demonstrated that you're not exactly the typical computer user. > But the fact is, nothing can touch 98, AGP, DirectX 7, and a > good graphics card for a personal computer. And nothing can touch NT > for a productivity desktop workstation (though Linux and FreeBSD are > almost there, IMO). I suppose that depends on your definition of the word "touch". I'm not really interested in hearing it. > All the 'information' in the world won't change the plain, > obvious fact that people buy Windows because they prefer > Windows. And they prefer Windows because it lets them do the things > they want to do. That's not the majority opinion. It disagrees with the Statements of Fact. >> I am not saying that FreeBSD is the answer, or Linux , I am saying >> that Microsoft is wrong. > > Regardless of how wrong they may or may not be, the fact will > not change that Microsoft enjoys market success for Windows 98 > because it is the best product available for its market niche. There's one way to prove that: add competition and see what happens. What do you think will happen? >> We are not saying we are smarter than the rest of you. What others >> here, and I myself, are trying to do is get you to open your eyes >> to what they have truly been doing. Those here are not saying were >> smarter, we are as a whole saying that we see the truth what is >> going on which anyone can see, not that their stupid, just that >> they dont have all the facts. > > I don't need another explanation for why Windows is successful. It's > completely obvious -- it's successful because it's the best product out > there. So how do you explain the Statements of Fact? >> You however, sir, seem to be ignoring the facts presented before >> you and still fight against the truths. I admit that I dont always choose >> the right words in order to bring my point across. I might not always be >> the most tactful person, but I do know what is there, and when someone is >> being misled. > > What truth? What are you talking about? How am I being mislead? How has > Bill Gates convinced me that my NT desktop is more useful than a Linux > desktop when I have used both extensively? I have an Irix desktop not 6 feet > from me that I could be using, but I don't. What other facts do I need? > > The fact is, most people who use Windows use it because it's the best > product available to do the job they need to do. This isn't a fact, it's an unsubstantiated claim. > I need no other explanation for its success because this reason is > sufficient. Some people are more gullible than others. > If you showed me some better product that wasn't as successful, then > we could go look for the explanation. Given your frame of mind, I think that would be a waste of time. Did your mailer mangle the following section? If so, please fix it and don't do it again. >>>> Research? The field test their products not even fully finish the >>>> job to begin with in the programming department. Their not spending >> their >>> money by and large on research, their using it to cannibalize other >>>> threats to their products, and then crush them into powder as the >> company >>>> throws its money behind it. Their letting other companies do the >> research >>>> for them, then they try to crush them once they see what they need for >> a >>>> bare minimum to drive out the competition with a cat o nine tails. What >>>> they have been doing, and doing for YEARS is letting the competition >> test >>>> the waters, once it realizes that it is a threat it comes up with a >>>> "solution" for what it did not think up did not create, and then >> continues >>>> on its merry way.. Nuh Uh.. not good.... Reread your facts. >> >>> Yes, that's extremely efficient. That way they (and their >> customers) get >>> the benefit of the innovations without having to pay for them. That's >> great. >>> That's extreme market efficiency. It's illegible junk like this--usually associated with Microsoft--that makes me not care any more. There are lots of stupid and uninformed people in the world, but none are worse than those who reject information. Greg -- Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 11:45:42 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9CF915274 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 11:45:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 11:45:30 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Jonathon McKitrick" Cc: "Erick White" , Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 11:45:29 -0800 Message-ID: <001001bf306b$23222f20$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > > > First you said this.... > > > A company can have all the ideas in the world, but if they > can't turn it > >into a product that consumers actually want to buy, it won't amount to a > >hill of beans. Microsoft excels at turning ideas into marketable > products. > >And that's what the market wants -- products, not ideas. > > > > Ideas were once a dime a dozen, now they're $1 a bale in > 10,000 idea bales. > >The market doesn't buy ideas. > > Then you said this.... > > > If you had an idea that was really better than Microsoft's, > that should > >give you enough of an advantage to take a sizeable market share. If the > >better idea isn't winning, look long and hard at whether it's > really better. > > > Which is it? Better ideas or better products ? They are entirely consistent. Note that I said "an idea that was really better". My implication is that most ideas that people think are so wonderful fail in the market because, when all things are considered, they aren't really good ideas. > > > Sure, and I don't have to buy it. Any manufacturer can > charge any price > >they want for a product. What they can't do is make people buy it if it > >isn't worth the price. > > > > Yes, but a company with superior technology wouldn't need > to brainwash > >anyone. If it really had a better product, it would eventually > take over the > >marketplace. Really. > > Not true. What kind of VCR do you have, if you have one? Beta? Why not? Because the Beta recorders don't let you record for as long as the VHS recorders do. Any difference in picture quality is minimal and can't even be discerned on a regular television. > Beta had a way better picture, and a smaller medium. The way better picture was never substantiated. Comparisons of the two formats occasionally claimed Beta had a better picture and occasionally claimed VHS did. The fact is, on a normal TV, the quality difference can't easily be discerned. Both exceed broadcast TV quality, so for recording and playback, it doesn't matter. > Because VHS won the > marketing battle, not because it was a better product. No, it was a better product. It consistently offered longer recording times and comparable quality. In fact, that VHS was able to overthrow Beta, the market leader, simply because it was better is proof that market power can't lock us into inferior technologies. Sony was the powerhouse behind Beta, and I can assure you, their marketing was excellent. VHS won out because people liked it better, even if it meant a break in compatability. > Has the VCR market > _forced_ us to buy VHS VCR's? No. But it has made it pretty darm > inconvenient NOT to. Those who went with Beta now have very high > picture quality > paperweights. Not at all. Beta actually does have a better loading mechanism. One that's more suitable for high-quality editing. And, in fact, the Beta format still lives on in this niche market. This is a perfect example of a functioning market displacing a leader to embrace a new technology. And it's powerful evidence that markets are not 'all or nothing'. That competing technologies can coexist and each can reign in its niche market. > Why do customers upgrade Windows? Because they like to spend more money? > No. Sure there may be some new hardware drivers or new features they > like, but most do not need these. If they are upgrading the OS, they > usually had hardware that worked before. But it's also because > M$ adds requires developers who want the official M$ seal to > use the newest API calls in their programs. Now, when customers genuinely > _need_ a program upgrade, they also need an OS upgrade. And sometimes a > hardware upgrade as well to handle a more bloated OS. Right, this is progress. If you want the features of Kodak Advantix, you need an Advantix camera. And that means you need Advantix film. And of course, your film processor needs a machine that can process that film. To get the advantages of newer technological developments, you need a new everything. This is really evidence that Microsoft does not operate by locking people into inferior developments but actually by continually reinventing its products to keep them leading edge. > The whole upgrade scam was carefully engineered to put more money in their > pockets by staying ahead of the competition just enough to make it > unfeasible to switch. It's the donkey and the carrot. Sure, M$ had some > innovations. But just enough to stay ahead. They kept the really good > stuff for when they needed it, which will always be the next OS release, > JUST around the corner. And I won't even comment on how many of those > ideas were taken from other companies.... This is all interesting but has no relevance to anything. Yes, Microsoft acted as a fierce competitor. > Just a comment on the CD vs vinyl debate: it was a case of the Emperor's > new clothes... anyone who remembers the original CD players know they > sounded HORRIBLE... but no one would say that except audiophiles, because > no one wanted to argue that vinyl sounded better than new-fangled digital > technology. Yes, and very few people bought them. They are much like the early adopters of Linux, who used an operating system that was missing essential features and was buggy as hell. They didn't care, because they _loved_ it. I was one of them, so I understand the psychology. > Same with windows. No one wants to argue that such a cute, easy to use OS > really is unstable and is a carefully engineered money making scheme. Actually, you're wrong. I think most Windows advocates admit that it is less stable than competing operating systems and that it is a carefully engineered money making scheme. I think those points are generally conceded. I certainly concede them. I still use Windows for my desktop machine and for the machines my kids and I play games on. It still works better. It's not a big deal if your desktop crashes. Servers are another story. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 12: 3:59 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from serenity.mcc.ac.uk (serenity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.93]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E71B14D2A for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:03:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by serenity.mcc.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #3) id 11nopW-0004IG-00; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 20:03:54 +0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 20:03:54 +0000 (GMT) From: Jonathon McKitrick To: David Schwartz Cc: Erick White , freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" In-Reply-To: <001001bf306b$23222f20$021d85d1@youwant.to> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > Right, this is progress. If you want the features of Kodak Advantix, you >need an Advantix camera. And that means you need Advantix film. And of >course, your film processor needs a machine that can process that film. To >get the advantages of newer technological developments, you need a new >everything. This is really evidence that Microsoft does not operate by >locking people into inferior developments but actually by continually >reinventing its products to keep them leading edge. I agree. But is it likely Kodak will 'revise' the advantix in 2 years, and tell everyone their old cameras won't work with the new film? A revolutionary new film may come out once a decade. Why should an OS *require* an upgrade every 2-3 years? There are still people running apps on FreeBSD 2.2.5 and they work fine. > I still use Windows for my desktop machine and for the machines my kids and >I play games on. It still works better. It's not a big deal if your desktop >crashes. Servers are another story. Not a big deal? Have *YOU* ever lost important data because of a windows crash? Sure, a really cool sports car that breaks down a lot is not a problem if you can have a tow truck follow you everywhere you go. > > DS > > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > -jonathon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 12:18:42 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4359A14D88 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:18:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:18:38 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Jonathon McKitrick" Cc: "Erick White" , Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:18:38 -0800 Message-ID: <000001bf306f$c463a130$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > > > Right, this is progress. If you want the features of Kodak > Advantix, you > >need an Advantix camera. And that means you need Advantix film. And of > >course, your film processor needs a machine that can process > that film. To > >get the advantages of newer technological developments, you need a new > >everything. This is really evidence that Microsoft does not operate by > >locking people into inferior developments but actually by continually > >reinventing its products to keep them leading edge. > > I agree. But is it likely Kodak will 'revise' the advantix in 2 years, > and tell everyone their old cameras won't work with the new film? Maybe. And people will switch if and only if the benefits of the new standard outweight the costs of switching. This is why you can still run DOS 6 and Windows 3.1 executables on 98. Microsoft understands this, and has always stressed retaining compatability. When you force people to break with the past, it costs them, and they remember. When Microsoft released Windows 95, it allowed a strong bridge with the past. In contrast, Apple has abandoned pretty much every platform they've made, with few if any bridged to the past. This helps to explain Microsoft's success. It costs people money to lose compatability, and they won't do it unless the perceived benefits are significant. Windows 98 SE was a low-feature upgrade, but it didn't have a compatability cost. So it was fairly successful. Of course, this has a downside too. Windows 2000 has a lot of legacy code that slows it down and prevents it from doings things that I personally would like it to do. But heck, even the P3 has legacy features that do the same thing. Balancing the advantages of compatability with the disadvantages of legacy drag is a tough decision for any company. > A > revolutionary new film may come out once a decade. Why should an OS > *require* an upgrade every 2-3 years? There are still people running apps > on FreeBSD 2.2.5 and they work fine. This just happens to be an industry where the state of the art changes very rapidly. But nothing compels you to track the state of the art unless you want to. Your question is really, "why can't I run state of the art software on legacy hardware and software?" And the answer is, there's no market advantage to giving you that ability, so no one is going to do it. The legacy drag wouldn't outweight the compatability benefit. There's less legacy drag in free operating systems because you can generally recompile the application. Distributions in binary form suffer from this more because you have to make such tradeoffs in the configuration and compilation process. > > I still use Windows for my desktop machine and for the > machines my kids and > >I play games on. It still works better. It's not a big deal if > your desktop > >crashes. Servers are another story. > > Not a big deal? Have *YOU* ever lost important data because of a windows > crash? Not that I can remember. I probably have, but not that I can remember recently. I maintain my hardware very well. I have UPSes for all of my systems. I check my processor fans and use high-quality memory. I don't overclock. I set my BIOS settings conservatively. My NT desktop crashes maybe once a month. My 98 desktop never crashes, but it sometimes bogs down requiring a reboot, maybe once a week. Other people I know who don't take such good care of their hardware or have UPSes experience much more frequent crashes. I don't think this is coincidental. But I'm the extreme example of using Windows only as a desktop. All my files are stored on a Linux file server. I edit with 'joe'. So I really can't lose important work. If Windows crashes, everything I dead is in my 'DEADJOE' file. So Windows can't crash and trash my files -- I don't use it as a server. > Sure, a really cool sports car that breaks down a lot is not a problem if > you can have a tow truck follow you everywhere you go. Well, I don't think Windows crashes so often that it's a problem for most people who use it. And I've tracked many cases of Windows instability to hardware problems. But the fact is, stability is not that incredibly important to many people, it's just one factor among many. They've somehow managed to accept that computers crash and that's just life. It's the same thing that makes people overclock. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 12:26:10 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.enteract.com (mail.enteract.com [207.229.143.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E5E14D39 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:26:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Received: from shell-3.enteract.com (dscheidt@shell-3.enteract.com [207.229.143.42]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA56796; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:24:44 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:24:44 -0600 (CST) From: David Scheidt To: David Schwartz Cc: Jonathon McKitrick , Erick White , freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" In-Reply-To: <001001bf306b$23222f20$021d85d1@youwant.to> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > In fact, that VHS was able to overthrow Beta, the market leader, simply > because it was better is proof that market power can't lock us into inferior > technologies. No, it only proves that market power won't necessarily "lock us into inferior technologies" not that it can't. There is a very important difference. > > Right, this is progress. If you want the features of Kodak Advantix, you Well, no it isn't. Why does a new improved version of an office suite require an improved OS. It doesn't, exccept that the OS vendor has a monopoly and can force users to upgrade. I don't consider being forced to upgrade progress. There is no fundimental reason that Office 2000 couldn't run on the first edition of windows 95, except MS wants to sell you a newer version. > I still use Windows for my desktop machine and for the machines my kids and > I play games on. It still works better. It's not a big deal if your desktop > crashes. Servers are another story. It's a big deal if my desktop crashes. I don't have an hour a week to spend dealing with fiddly crap like that, sorry. I am currently stuck using an NT box as main desktop at work, because my FreeBSD box had a hardware failure. It sucks. I install an mp3 player and have to reboot. I change my monitor resolution, and have to reboot. And so on. So I got to waste an hour today with that. There is no reason I should have to do anything like this. David Scheidt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 12:31: 1 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.enteract.com (mail.enteract.com [207.229.143.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8704515384 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:30:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Received: from shell-3.enteract.com (dscheidt@shell-3.enteract.com [207.229.143.42]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA57866; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:29:37 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:29:36 -0600 (CST) From: David Scheidt To: David Schwartz Cc: Jonathon McKitrick , Erick White , freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" In-Reply-To: <000001bf306f$c463a130$021d85d1@youwant.to> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > When you force people to break with the past, it costs them, and they > remember. When Microsoft released Windows 95, it allowed a strong bridge > with the past. In contrast, Apple has abandoned pretty much every platform > they've made, with few if any bridged to the past. > This is why I have stuff that I wrote for Finder 1.1 that works under System 7.5? Stuff written in 68K asm, that runs on a totally different hardware platform? Hmm. David To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 12:55:27 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3261214EFA for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:55:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:55:20 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "David Scheidt" Cc: "Jonathon McKitrick" , "Erick White" , Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:55:20 -0800 Message-ID: <000401bf3074$e4c4de30$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > > > In fact, that VHS was able to overthrow Beta, the market > leader, simply > > because it was better is proof that market power can't lock us > into inferior > > technologies. > > No, it only proves that market power won't necessarily "lock us into > inferior technologies" not that it can't. There is a very important > difference. Actually, it proves much more than that. It proves that people are so desperate to find examples of lock in that they will just make them up without ever even bothering to look at the facts. Can you present a single clear-cut case of such lock in? I am convinced that the only way that the market can lock us into an inferior technology is if the inferior technology is only very slightly inferior, so much so that the cost of changing to the superior technology outweighs its slight superiority. I defy you to present a single historical example to the contrary. And note that even in this case, the 'superiority' of the technology evaporates if you consider the cost of abandoning to it as part of the value of the 'inferior' technology. This is why the US still does not use metric units. They are superior, but not sufficiently superior for ordinary people that it's worth the effort involved in switching. > > Right, this is progress. If you want the features of Kodak > Advantix, you > > Well, no it isn't. Why does a new improved version of an office suite > require an improved OS. It doesn't, exccept that the OS vendor has a > monopoly and can force users to upgrade. I don't consider being > forced to > upgrade progress. There is no fundimental reason that Office > 2000 couldn't > run on the first edition of windows 95, except MS wants to sell > you a newer > version. Why does a new camera require a new film? Surely Kodak could have designed a new camera that didn't need new film, right? Perhaps it couldn't have had some of the Advantix features, but it would still have been a damn good new camera, right? Do you realize what Microsoft had to do to make a Windows 3.1 version of IE? Do you relalize the effort expended to produce WIN32s? All of these things were done precisely so that people would _not_ have to upgrade. Microsoft would love it if everyone bought every new Microsoft product all the time. But they also know that upgrades have costs. So they try to maximize return and minimize cost. Why have services packs 1 through 6 for NT4.0 been free? They have kept that operating system up to date for years with no direct revenue. If Microsoft dropped support for a significant legacy niche market, they would leave an oppurtunity that any competitor could jump on. But the fact is, the legacy markets they have abandoned are generally small. Yes, this hurts the late adopters, but late adoption has advantages and disadvantages just like early adoption does. At some point, the cost of supporting legacy hardware and software outweighs the benefit of compatability. It is at that point that compatability is dropped. Why is the P3-500 in this desktop really just a fast '386? Why is there little software released today that runs on a 286? This is a complex task of market judgment. Alpha was apparently too early. Or too radical. Or too poorly marketed. People didn't like it, so they didn't buy it. (Puzzling though, you'd think that FX!32 would have bridged that legacy gap.) We'll see about Mer^H^H^HItanium (awful name). > > I still use Windows for my desktop machine and for the > machines my kids and > > I play games on. It still works better. It's not a big deal if > your desktop > > crashes. Servers are another story. > > It's a big deal if my desktop crashes. I don't have an hour a > week to spend > dealing with fiddly crap like that, sorry. I am currently stuck > using an NT > box as main desktop at work, because my FreeBSD box had a > hardware failure. > It sucks. I install an mp3 player and have to reboot. I change > my monitor > resolution, and have to reboot. And so on. So I got to waste an hour > today with that. There is no reason I should have to do anything > like this. I'm sorry you don't like it. If you don't feel the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, stop using it. That's a decision that you, and everyone else, can make at any time. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 13:22:42 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us (taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us [165.29.134.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6334F14D01 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:22:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from erickw@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us) Received: from localhost (erickw@localhost) by taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us (8.9.0/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA30706; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:28:37 -0600 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:28:37 -0600 (CST) From: Erick White To: Greg Lehey Cc: Brett Glass , David Schwartz , Giorgos Keramidas , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: You will be assimilated (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") In-Reply-To: <19991115193945.36730@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Yes your right... But the way I did it I was associating two discussions into one. I have already made my apolagies to the apearance of what I did. It was a mistake and I apologized. Your Friend: Erick On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Greg Lehey wrote: > On Sunday, 14 November 1999 at 2:26:45 -0600, Erick White wrote: > > On Sat, 13 Nov 1999, Brett Glass wrote: > > > >> At 05:12 AM 11/13/1999 -0600, Erick White wrote: > >> > >>> For your information it is our descision to make. > >> > >> And We Are Borg. You Will Be Assimilated. > > > > Ok man. You want to know what? I was talking about we as consumers > > and general public. OK. you want to try and call me a borg... Try more > > along the lines of Klingon. Ok Agressive action needs to be taken, and I > > tell you what.. Its Not being taken! > > I assume that by insultiing me, you think that you are actually > > raising your mind. Well lets assume this weak minded one. Those that have > > to put others down in such a fashion to an obvious statement, are showing > > themselves truly of limited mentality. Thos who blindly follow Microsoft, > > it is You who have been assimilated! > > Look in the Mirror before you start talking about the brainwashed > > collective mind. > > Far be it from me to be of one mind with Brett (as a search of the > mail archives will show), but don't you think this was intended as > humour? I certainly do. > > Greg > -- > Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key > See complete headers for address and phone numbers > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 15:16:35 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.enteract.com (mail.enteract.com [207.229.143.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D93F214D06 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 15:16:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Received: from shell-2.enteract.com (dscheidt@shell-2.enteract.com [207.229.143.41]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA90768; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:15:08 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:15:08 -0600 (CST) From: David Scheidt To: David Schwartz Cc: Jonathon McKitrick , Erick White , freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" In-Reply-To: <000401bf3074$e4c4de30$021d85d1@youwant.to> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > > No, it only proves that market power won't necessarily "lock us into > > inferior technologies" not that it can't. There is a very important > > difference. > > Actually, it proves much more than that. It proves that people are so It doesn't. Turning a single example into a universal truth is not good logic. > desperate to find examples of lock in that they will just make them up > without ever even bothering to look at the facts. Can you present a single > clear-cut case of such lock in? Sure. POTS. No monopoly telephone company has an incentive to install anything better. It is only when telephone companies face competition that they make alternatives available. Bell Atlantic would charge me several hundred dolalrs a month for ISDN, and has no plans to offer any sort of high speed data services in this area. Other places -- with much the same population density -- which have competititon from other telecos, or from cable companies, have lower ISDN prices, and BA are rolling out xDSL in these areas. > > Do you realize what Microsoft had to do to make a Windows 3.1 version of > IE? Do you relalize the effort expended to produce WIN32s? All of these > things were done precisely so that people would _not_ have to upgrade. I don't care about IE on win3.1. I care that I have a machine which has an original version of Windows95 on it, and on which I cannot install office 2000. Why? because office installs different versions of .dlls, and *breaks* *third-party* applications, which are coded in conformance with Microsoft's *published* APIs! Oddly, MS stuff continues to work. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 15:45:48 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.ftf.dk (mail.ftf.net [129.142.64.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19DC714F3E for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 15:45:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from regnauld@ftf.net) Received: from ns.int.ftf.net (fw2.ftf.dk [192.168.1.2] (may be forged)) by mail.ftf.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3/gw-ftf-1.2) with ESMTP id AAA29142; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 00:45:38 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.ftf.dk: Host fw2.ftf.dk [192.168.1.2] (may be forged) claimed to be ns.int.ftf.net Received: (from regnauld@localhost) by ns.int.ftf.net (8.9.2/8.9.3) id AAA15663; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 00:58:55 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <19991117005855.57953@ns.int.ftf.net> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 00:58:55 +0100 From: Phil Regnauld To: Wes Peters Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG, Nick Hibma Subject: Re: Support for USB floppies like Y-E Data FlashBuster-u ? References: <52073.942744346@axl.noc.iafrica.com> <38317F22.D6C9DBF9@softweyr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88e In-Reply-To: <38317F22.D6C9DBF9@softweyr.com>; from Wes Peters on Tue, Nov 16, 1999 at 08:58:26AM -0700 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE i386 Organization: FTFnet Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Wes Peters writes: > > Most hard drives are made of aluminum, aren't they? Aluminum doesn't > deflect bullets, at least not the kind I shoot. ;^) Not if you hit the spindle. -- It is hoped the US DoJ will not coerce Microsoft Corporation into releasing its source code to the competition: - the national security of several large states would be at risk - paramedics aren't ready to deal with hysterical giggling on a planetary scale To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 16: 0:12 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDC4314EC2 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:00:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:00:05 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "David Scheidt" Cc: "Jonathon McKitrick" , "Erick White" , Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:00:04 -0800 Message-ID: <000001bf308e$b39f8b10$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > desperate to find examples of lock in that they will just make them up > > without ever even bothering to look at the facts. Can you > present a single > > clear-cut case of such lock in? > > Sure. POTS. No monopoly telephone company has an incentive to install > anything better. It is only when telephone companies face > competition that > they make alternatives available. Bell Atlantic would charge me several > hundred dolalrs a month for ISDN, and has no plans to offer any > sort of high > speed data services in this area. Other places -- with much the same > population density -- which have competititon from other telecos, or from > cable companies, have lower ISDN prices, and BA are rolling out xDSL in > these areas. Yes, I agree. The government can lock us into an inferior standard for much longer than the market would normally allow. Another example would be broadcast television. But I was talking about market lock in. Sure, the government could mandate that everyone use DOS 4.0 on 386's if they wanted to, that would certainly lock us in. At least for awhile. In any event, even POTS is largely retained because it does its job so well. It is perfectly good for voice telephone calls, and that's still mostly what it's used for. Better replacments for POTS in niche markets where it sucks (such as data access) are coming of age now. We are getting ADSL and cable modems. I think POTS is more an example of economies of scale than lock in. I don't have a car designed to my exact specifications, but this isn't because I'm locked to an inferior technology and no one has an incentive to custom build a car for me. It's because I'm not a large enough market, and it's cheaper and more efficient to target products at larger market segments. But this is an efficient and automatic working of the market. It produces cars and telephones for market segments, not individuals. Economies of scale can masquerade as lock in. You have to look very carefully. Ask yourself why Bell Atlantic has no competition in those areas. You will see that it is the result of direct government intervention. It used to be believed that economies of scale were limitless in many markets. Thus, a single electric company for the whole country would be more efficient than a lot of little electric companies. So a decision was made to grant monpolies to electric companies and regulate them to try to keep the economies of scale without having the disadvantage of monpoly pricing. This has been largely a failed experiment for many reasons. And it's gradually being undone through deregulation. Some of the failures are as follows: 1) Government intervention in markets has been shown to stifle innovation. Competition (at least potential competition) is necessary for innovation. 2) Economies of scale are not infinite. Subtle effects eventually create diseconomies of scale. Amazingly, this is true even in markets like computer software where incremental cost was sometimes assumed to be zero. 3) The government has turned out to be worse than the market in picking the right technologies to lock us into. And the government can put enough power behind its decisions to lock us in for longer than a free market ever could. The government seeks to repeat these mistakes with Microsoft. This is not surprising, every government failure has been accompanied by a new attempt for government to find something to do. (This is why you see the US military so involved in 'peacekeeping'.) If you look at the history of, for example, AT&T, you can see that AT&T formed its monopoly by government fiat. "We can't all be on incompatible phone systems", they cried. Full knowing that the technology to allow diverse phone systems to interoperate was only scant months away. The government bought the argument, and we all know where that went. Now it's happening in reverse. "We all can't be on incompatible operating systems", the government is crying. This claim is as false now as it was then. Back then, we could all have used whatever telephones, networks, and standards we wanted to. We would have found a way to interoperate -- as we have now that competition has been restored mostly. And now, we can all use whatever operating systems and office packages we want to, and we'll find a way to interoperate. We don't need the government to sort it all out for us. In any event, if you really do believe that the benefits of compatability are so great and the costs of changing operating systems to greate, that we all want/have to use whatever opearating system everyone else is using, then it would be a mistake to do anything to Microsoft. By this reasoning, Microsoft is providing us exactly what we want and what we should have. If we all really do want the same operating system, why shouldn't we be allowed to have it? > > Do you realize what Microsoft had to do to make a Windows > 3.1 version of > > IE? Do you relalize the effort expended to produce WIN32s? All of these > > things were done precisely so that people would _not_ have to upgrade. > > I don't care about IE on win3.1. I care that I have a machine > which has an > original version of Windows95 on it, and on which I cannot install office > 2000. Why? because office installs different versions of .dlls, and > *breaks* *third-party* applications, which are coded in conformance with > Microsoft's *published* APIs! Oddly, MS stuff continues to work. As I said, it's expensive to stay on the trailing edge of technology. If you choose to get the advantages of it, you have to bear the burdens of it. Nobody else is going to subsidize your choice by keeping compatability that has a greater cost than benefit for the majority of consumers. It's hard to get new software for a '286 too. Whose fault is that? DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 16:14:12 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from serenity.mcc.ac.uk (serenity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.93]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ECB314F49 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:14:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by serenity.mcc.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #3) id 11nsjh-000BNW-00; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 00:14:09 +0000 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 00:14:09 +0000 (GMT) From: Jonathon McKitrick To: David Schwartz Cc: David Scheidt , Erick White , freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" In-Reply-To: <000001bf308e$b39f8b10$021d85d1@youwant.to> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org How about this, then. We all stand idly by while Bill Gates makes billions by making it necessary to upgrade regularly to enjoy the latest benefits of technology. Then, we will also allow him and his company to shut down competition so we really won't have any viable alternatives. Then, when the next big revolution occurs, a bunch of grunts will provide us with Microsoft Linux as the new standard. Unfortunately, Gates will say, older M$ applications will not run on the new platform, so windows owners will need to upgrade.... all he needs now is to offer Linus Torvalds a job, and he'll be all set. And the hardware/software rat-race will continue. Sounds wonderful. Let's just make sure that FreeBSD stays strong, so those of us on the lunatic fringe can stand our ground. -jonathon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 16:49:37 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D3D514EA8 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:49:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:49:33 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Jonathon McKitrick" Cc: "David Scheidt" , "Erick White" , Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:49:33 -0800 Message-ID: <000001bf3095$9d3e7640$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > How about this, then. We all stand idly by while Bill Gates makes > billions by making it necessary to upgrade regularly to enjoy the latest > benefits of technology. It will always be necessary to upgrade regularly to enjoy the latest beenfits of technology. This is not a Bill Gates invention. To remain even remotely current, I've had to replace processors, memory, hard drives, and graphics cards about every two years. Why should software be any different? As I've said before, SP1 through SP6 for NT4.0 represent tremendous enhancements and maintenance over many years for which Microsoft charges _nothing_. > Then, we will also allow him and his company to > shut down competition so we really won't have any viable alternatives. Show me a competitor that he has 'shut down' without having a better product to compete with it. Show me one. Please. In every case, Microsoft has 'shut down' competition by providing a superior product. All the while, prices have fallen across every market that Microsoft competes in. > Then, when the next big revolution occurs, a bunch of grunts will provide > us with Microsoft Linux as the new standard. Perhaps. If Bill Gates is smart enough and Microsoft dynamic enough, he can stay on top of the next revolution too. Of course, he can only do that by embracing the new technology. He has no power to keep it from us. > Unfortunately, Gates will > say, older M$ applications will not run on the new platform, so windows > owners will need to upgrade.... Exactly. If Microsoft can stay on top throughout more revolutions, it will do so by offering revolutionary products. If those products are better than the competition, and better than the previous products, people will gladly pay to upgrade. > all he needs now is to offer Linus > Torvalds a job, and he'll be all set. And the hardware/software rat-race > will continue. Sounds wonderful. That race does continue. And consumers reap enormous benefits from it. Look at the Linux scalability project. An awful lot of that work arose out of embarassment over comparison tests between Linux and NT. Linux benefits from that embarassment, and its users benefit from the enhancements that came out of it. > Let's just make sure that FreeBSD stays strong, so those of us on the > lunatic fringe can stand our ground. Exactly. Hold the niche markets and make it as hard as possible for Microsoft to grab them. Embrace the right new technologies faster than Microsoft can and use its weight against it. This is how truly superior new technologies can throw out the past. But they have to offer significant advantages to outweigh the cost of breaking with the past. When you can do that, Bill Gates won't be able to stop you unless he can put out a superior product. And if he puts out a superior product at a better price, you lose but consumers win. That's a healthy competitive market. Look at Netscape. IE is probably a much better product developed much more quickly than it would have been otherwise thanks to Netscape. Netscape lost, but consumers win. We get a better browser at a lower price. That's the beauty of strong competition -- no matter which companies win, consumers always win. We get to skim the cream off the top. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 18:14:17 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from smtp01.primenet.com (smtp01.primenet.com [206.165.6.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A61A414F5C for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 18:14:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr08.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp01.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA27996; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 19:14:08 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr08.primenet.com(206.165.6.208) via SMTP by smtp01.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAgYaWM2; Tue Nov 16 19:14:03 1999 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA04574; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 19:13:59 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199911170213.TAA04574@usr08.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" To: des@flood.ping.uio.no (Dag-Erling Smorgrav) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 02:13:59 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, davids@webmaster.com, keramida@ceid.upatras.gr, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: from "Dag-Erling Smorgrav" at Nov 16, 99 09:41:19 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > IE is not the best browser... though I will give them the GIF > > decoding JNI in their Java/JavaScript, since this is much faster > > than Netscape's "pure Java" implementation. > > You have to hand it to them - their rendering engine is much faster > and produces much nicer-looking results than Netscape's. There are two factors here: 1) Netscape changed its pallette for some reason which they still have not been able to explain, resulting in inconsistant coloring everywhere. This can be fixed in Mozilla, if anyone who cares about color rendering cares to fix the code; it may already have been fixed. 8-|. 2) The rendering engine in Netscape is in Java, which is by definition slower than binary code, as all interpreted languages are slower than compiled languages on all but bytecode interpreting hardware. This can also be fixed, but it's very hard to find other places where Netscape sucks compared to IE... other than OS integration, I guess. 8-). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 18:50:23 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from smtp05.primenet.com (smtp05.primenet.com [206.165.6.135]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84CD814E89 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 18:50:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr08.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp05.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA11510; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 19:49:50 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr08.primenet.com(206.165.6.208) via SMTP by smtp05.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAjOa4Cw; Tue Nov 16 19:49:45 1999 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA05887; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 19:50:01 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199911170250.TAA05887@usr08.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" To: davids@webmaster.com (David Schwartz) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 02:50:01 +0000 (GMT) Cc: jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org, dscheidt@enteract.com, erickw@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <000001bf3095$9d3e7640$021d85d1@youwant.to> from "David Schwartz" at Nov 16, 99 04:49:33 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > How about this, then. We all stand idly by while Bill > > Gates makes billions by making it necessary to upgrade > > regularly to enjoy the latest benefits of technology. > > It will always be necessary to upgrade regularly to enjoy the latest > beenfits of technology. This is not a Bill Gates invention. To remain even > remotely current, I've had to replace processors, memory, hard drives, and > graphics cards about every two years. Why should software be any different? You mentioned components of your machine. Did you replace components of your OS, or did you replace your entire OS? It has been commonplace since the 1800's to build mechanical systems with interchangable parts. We owe this innovation to Eli Whitney, who is unfortunately more well known for his vastly less valuable gift, the cotton gin. The point is that we have known for years how to build with components, to standardized interfaces, in the software industry, just as Mr. Whitney built modular gun components for the U.S. Army in the American Civil War, well after his invention become well known. Yet Microsoft does not do this frequently, and in the rare instances in which it does, it does so for reasons of taking the trade dress away from other vendors, in order to render their applications or components "just one more OS component". More frequently, it builds components, and then does not document their use or behaviour fully. There are things that Word can do that other word processor software from other vendors can not do (without including "Word" functionality via DLL or COM componentry) because the interfaces which Word uses have not been documented. People, including Frank van Gilluwe, have made much money from books documenting what Microsoft would not, but which was known to their own programmers. A good recent example is the WININET.DLL, which, unless you violate their license and distribute it, you have to have the user install IE 5.0 or the Windows 98 "upgrade". There is no other way of using this "standard" component to write Windows internet software using the MFC contained in version 7.0 of Visual C++ (downgrading to 6.x fixes this problem, so you are advised not to use 7.0 if you are writing network aware applications for Windows, and want to offer your users the option of using Netscape or running the code on Windows 95). > As I've said before, SP1 through SP6 for NT4.0 represent tremendous > enhancements and maintenance over many years for which Microsoft > charges _nothing_. Not overt costs, anyway. But they didn't do this "tremendous" work without paying their programmers with money that came from somewhere. It was amortized into a bottom line _somewhere_, and someone _did_ pay for it. > > Then, we will also allow him and his company to shut down > > competition so we really won't have any viable alternatives. > > Show me a competitor that he has 'shut down' without having a better > product to compete with it. Show me one. Please. Banyon. Artisoft. Univel. Marc Williams Co.. To some extent, Novell. > In every case, Microsoft has 'shut down' competition by providing a > superior product. No, it did it by bundling inferior "equivalents" for their products into the OS. > Perhaps. If Bill Gates is smart enough and Microsoft dynamic enough, he can > stay on top of the next revolution too. Of course, he can only do that by > embracing the new technology. He has no power to keep it from us. Really? When you plug a new printer into your network, does a dialog box come up on your screen because of the SLP broadcasts it makes, offering to make it your default printer? Maybe this is because Microsoft has a proprietary competing protocol to SLP, and hasn't integrated it into the OS's that they ship, and which get installed on nearly all computers. > Exactly. If Microsoft can stay on top throughout more revolutions, it will > do so by offering revolutionary products. If those products are better than > the competition, and better than the previous products, people will gladly > pay to upgrade. Have you ever noticed the following relationship? H A L V M S I B M W N T Windows NT is _not_ new technology, it's technology I was using in 1983, and it still doesn't meet the same Orange Book levels as DEC's predecessor OS. > Look at the Linux scalability project. An awful lot of that work arose out > of embarassment over comparison tests between Linux and NT. Linux benefits > from that embarassment, and its users benefit from the enhancements that > came out of it. The embarrassment was a result of the Linux people putting forward unfounded claims, and Microsoft defining the playing field (SMP and Windows 95/98 instead of Windows NT Workstation/ Windows 2000 clients, etc.). In a lot of ways, it was Linux foot-in-mouth syndrome. But make no bones: on the same field, FreeBSD would do no better at this point in its life; the only difference is that the FreeBSD numbers weren't published. Does NT have superior threading? Yes. Is NT better at serving SMB clients? Yes, for some clients and for some very large server installations. Can a sinfle NT server hold a candle to the FTP load of cdrom.com? Not a chance in hell: see, FreeBSD can win too, if it's allowed to define the playing field. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 18:54:38 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from smtp05.primenet.com (smtp05.primenet.com [206.165.6.135]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D09F714E13 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 18:54:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr08.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp05.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA12716; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 19:54:10 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr08.primenet.com(206.165.6.208) via SMTP by smtp05.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAFKaqXy; Tue Nov 16 19:54:03 1999 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA05982; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 19:54:17 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199911170254.TAA05982@usr08.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" To: dscheidt@enteract.com (David Scheidt) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 02:54:17 +0000 (GMT) Cc: davids@webmaster.com, jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org, erickw@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: from "David Scheidt" at Nov 16, 99 02:24:44 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > In fact, that VHS was able to overthrow Beta, the market leader, simply > > because it was better is proof that market power can't lock us into inferior > > technologies. > > No, it only proves that market power won't necessarily "lock us into > inferior technologies" not that it can't. There is a very important > difference. You guys need to look into the relative merits of these two technologies before you argue about them. Beta is a vastly superior technology when compared to VHS, and "VHS vs. Beta" is actually _the_ standard argument put forward during "Why The Best Technology Does Not Always Win" discussions. The market _did_ in fact lock us into an inferior standard. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 19:14:32 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.6.134]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 287CA14C85 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 19:14:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr08.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp04.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA24060; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 20:13:41 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr08.primenet.com(206.165.6.208) via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAeLai9U; Tue Nov 16 20:13:38 1999 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA06918; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 20:14:24 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199911170314.UAA06918@usr08.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" To: davids@webmaster.com (David Schwartz) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 03:14:23 +0000 (GMT) Cc: dscheidt@enteract.com, jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org, erickw@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <000001bf308e$b39f8b10$021d85d1@youwant.to> from "David Schwartz" at Nov 16, 99 04:00:04 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > Sure. POTS. No monopoly telephone company has an incentive to > > install anything better. It is only when telephone companies > > face competition that they make alternatives available. Bell > > Atlantic would charge me several hundred dolalrs a month for > > ISDN, and has no plans to offer any sort of high speed data > > services in this area. Other places -- with much the same > > population density -- which have competititon from other > > telecos, or from cable companies, have lower ISDN prices, and > > BA are rolling out xDSL in these areas. > > Yes, I agree. The government can lock us into an inferior standard > for much longer than the market would normally allow. The main gating factors in telephone technology deployment at this time are (A) equipment amortization over long (technology-wise) periods, generally up to 20 years, and (B) subsidized flat rate local telephone service, as mandated by the PUC (Public Utilities Commission) tarrifs, and FCC (Federal Communication Commission) regulation or telephone availability, combine with local laws (e.g. so-called "lifeline" laws). Would I want to pay metered rates for my phone service, as they do in Europe? No, actually, I rather that all service be flat rate based on pipe size, and that the telephone companies have no way of knowing whether my packetized voice data is being delivered next door or halfway around the world. These companies compete in the markets which are most lucrative; if you diddn't have differential markets (telephone companies, even local ones, are regulated monopolies because of their ownership of the wiring infrastructure), you wouldn't have inequity between markets. One way of dealing with this would be the same answer used to unify all phone companies under Western Electric, or similarly to nationalize the American Interstate Highway system, but it would probably take another cold war to accomplish it. You declare government ownership of the infrastructure for reasons of national security, and then you either contract maintenance out to the company that used to own the most of it, or you put maintenance up to bid. You can be damn sure that if your cable plant came up for lease every two years, it would be maintained in such a way as to make at least 51% of the voting population happy with how it was being maintained. > As I said, it's expensive to stay on the trailing edge of > technology. If you choose to get the advantages of it, you > have to bear the burdens of it. Nobody else is going to > subsidize your choice by keeping compatability that has a > greater cost than benefit for the majority of consumers. It's expensive to be behind your competitor, but you are ignoring the elasticity function that comes with having captured the lions share of the market. This only becomes a problem when you get enough of the marjet that you gain the ability to wield monopolistic power (the Microsoft suit is not about monopoly, it's about monopolistic power; obviously they aren't). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 19:40: 7 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from hotmail.com (f261.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 30A4314FE1 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 19:40:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from robalama@hotmail.com) Received: (qmail 23669 invoked by uid 0); 17 Nov 1999 03:40:03 -0000 Message-ID: <19991117034003.23668.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 38.30.10.238 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 19:40:03 PST X-Originating-IP: [38.30.10.238] From: "Neill R. Robins" To: dscheidt@enteract.com Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 03:40:03 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org From: "David Schwartz" To: "David Scheidt" Cc: "Jonathon McKitrick" , "Erick White" , Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:55:20 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org >> >>It's a big deal if my desktop crashes. I don't have an hour a >>week to spend dealing with fiddly crap like that, sorry. I am >> >>currently stuck using an NT box as main desktop at work, because my >> >>FreeBSD box had a hardware failure. It sucks. I install an mp3 >>player >>and have to reboot. I change my monitor resolution, and have >> to >>reboot. And so on. So I got to waste an hour today with that. >> There >>is no reason I should have to do anything like this. > >I'm sorry you don't like it. If you don't feel the benefits outweigh >the >disadvantages, stop using it. That's a decision that you, and >everyone >else, can make at any time. > > DS > There is nothing else to use, and that is what this whole FREAKIN' case is about. The market has been tainted since MS has taken questionable action against would-be competitors. If it were a competitive market then they would use somthing else. You can pull all the economics BS that you want to for the rest of this list, but with a roommate who is a graduate student in economics, your arguments fall short. I have read my last post of this topic. Coming from a background in machine upgrading, installing, maintance and "computer question answerer" that everybody comes to, I, like many others, fight the crap that MS sells to consumers. Figuring that it comes from a $100+ billion dollar a year industry, I would expect a little more, atleast more than a free OS would provide. Good day. -Neill ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 19:43:26 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.HiWAAY.net (fly.HiWAAY.net [208.147.154.56]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A15714C5A for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 19:43:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dkelly@nospam.hiwaay.net) Received: from nospam.hiwaay.net (tnt8-216-180-15-61.dialup.HiWAAY.net [216.180.15.61]) by mail.HiWAAY.net (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id VAA21041; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 21:43:20 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nospam.hiwaay.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA17830; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 21:43:18 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from dkelly@nospam.hiwaay.net) Message-Id: <199911170343.VAA17830@nospam.hiwaay.net> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Terry Lambert Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" In-reply-to: Message from Terry Lambert of "Wed, 17 Nov 1999 03:14:23 GMT." <199911170314.UAA06918@usr08.primenet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 21:43:18 -0600 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > You can be damn sure that if your cable plant came up for lease > every two years, it would be maintained in such a way as to make > at least 51% of the voting population happy with how it was > being maintained. But if we have two choices for cable then the cable plant has to target 90% or better satisfaction. Else do the MS thing and somehow rope the customers into incompatible HDTV. -- David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@hiwaay.net ===================================================================== The human mind ordinarily operates at only ten percent of its capacity -- the rest is overhead for the operating system. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 20: 4:48 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mta3.rcsntx.swbell.net (mta3.rcsntx.swbell.net [151.164.30.27]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B28114FBE for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 20:04:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from noslenj@swbell.net) Received: from swbell.net ([207.193.44.48]) by mta3.rcsntx.swbell.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with ESMTP id <0FLB00JJHPUIT0@mta3.rcsntx.swbell.net> for chat@FreeBSD.ORG; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 22:01:33 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by swbell.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01525; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 21:42:20 -0600 (CST envelope-from noslenj@swbell.net) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 21:42:20 -0600 (CST) From: Jay Nelson Subject: Re: Support for USB floppies like Y-E Data FlashBuster-u ? In-reply-to: <38317F22.D6C9DBF9@softweyr.com> To: Wes Peters Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG, Nick Hibma Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Wes Peters wrote: >Sheldon Hearn wrote: >> >> On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:56:21 +0100, Nick Hibma wrote: >> >> > If you ask the 3 IDE disks and ethernet hub that have gone pop this >> > weekend, they would say no, but myself I was pretty firm that I was >> > going to do something about it this weekend. Bastard things, they should >> > be shot and they will be. >> >> Be careful about shooting hard drives. Specifically, get your angle >> right such that you _do_ actually fracture the casing. The alternatives >> are all unfortunate and mostly painful. >> >> We wouldn't want you hurting yourself, no matter how funny the story >> might be. :-) > >Most hard drives are made of aluminum, aren't they? Aluminum doesn't >deflect bullets, at least not the kind I shoot. ;^) Wad cutters or .22s might be a problem;) -- Jay To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 20:39:28 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4575514EB9 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 20:39:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 20:39:22 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Terry Lambert" , "David Scheidt" Cc: , , Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 20:39:22 -0800 Message-ID: <000001bf30b5$b82c5470$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <199911170254.TAA05982@usr08.primenet.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > > In fact, that VHS was able to overthrow Beta, the market > leader, simply > > > because it was better is proof that market power can't lock > us into inferior > > > technologies. > > > > No, it only proves that market power won't necessarily "lock us into > > inferior technologies" not that it can't. There is a very important > > difference. > > You guys need to look into the relative merits of these two > technologies before you argue about them. Beta is a vastly > superior technology when compared to VHS, How is it superior? Picture quality? If picture quality is so all-important, why did SuperVHS fail? Actually, VHS is far superior thanks to the larger cassette allowing longer recording times. Both VHS and Beta exceed broadcast quality. And, in fact, in comparisons of the two formats, about as many reviewers preferred Beta as preferred VHS. > and "VHS vs. Beta" > is actually _the_ standard argument put forward during "Why > The Best Technology Does Not Always Win" discussions. Yes, and amusingly, the best standard did win, despite Sony's powerful marketing and head start in the market. > The market _did_ in fact lock us into an inferior standard. Bullshit. Plain and simple bullshit. This is really an urban legend borne out of motivational speakers looking for examples. There is no actual research to back it up, and in back the research points the other way. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 22: 7: 9 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from queasy.outpost.co.nz (outpost2.inspire.net.nz [203.96.157.26]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DEB511527A for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 22:07:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from crh@outpost.co.nz) Received: (qmail 20940 invoked from network); 17 Nov 1999 06:06:58 -0000 Received: from officedonkey.outpost.co.nz (HELO officedonkey) (192.168.1.3) by outpost2.inspire.net.nz with SMTP; 17 Nov 1999 06:06:58 -0000 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Craig Harding" Organization: Outpost Digital Media Ltd To: "David Schwartz" Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 19:06:44 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Video Stupidity (was RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") Reply-To: crh@outpost.co.nz Cc: chat@freebsd.org In-reply-to: <000001bf30b5$b82c5470$021d85d1@youwant.to> References: <199911170254.TAA05982@usr08.primenet.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-Id: <19991117060702.DEB511527A@hub.freebsd.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org David Schwartz wrote: > Both VHS and Beta exceed broadcast quality. Ha ha. A piece of advice David - don't utter such mindbogglingly stupid statements in the midst of an argument you're trying to win. People who actually know about broadcast video (ie me) might start to judge the veracity of everything you're saying on the appalling ignorance of the comment above. -- C. PS I don't have the technical specs of Betamax and VHS to hand to compare them, so I'm not going to argue on technical performance, but everything I've read suggests VHS won because of (relatively) free and open licensing vs Sony's desire to control and own everything that was Betamax. Unfortunately Sony's tactics have been much more successful in the broadcast arena. PPS In my experience, SVHS lost the consumer war because the small increase in quality (can anyone here say chroma noise?) wasn't sufficient to justify the vast increase in cost, when people who wanted quality could obtain much more of it for a similar price from laserdisc. -- Craig Harding crh@outpost.co.nz "I don't know about God, I Outpost Digital Media Ltd crh@inspire.net.nz just think we're handmade" http://www.outpost.co.nz ICQ# 26701833 - Polly To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 22:29:13 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from ind.alcatel.com (postal.xylan.com [208.8.0.248]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 475BF14ECE for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 22:29:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from mailhub.xylan.com (mailhub [198.206.181.70]) by ind.alcatel.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1 (ind.alcatel.com 3.0 [OUT])) with SMTP id WAA22027; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 22:29:09 -0800 (PST) X-Origination-Site: Received: from omni.xylan.com by mailhub.xylan.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4 (mailhub 2.1 [HUB])) id WAA17432; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 22:29:08 -0800 Received: from softweyr.com ([204.68.178.39]) by omni.xylan.com (4.1/SMI-4.1 (xylan engr [SPOOL])) id AA19995; Tue, 16 Nov 99 22:29:05 PST Message-Id: <38324B30.F0BF613D@softweyr.com> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 23:29:04 -0700 From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr LLC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en Mime-Version: 1.0 To: Jay Nelson Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG, Nick Hibma Subject: Re: Support for USB floppies like Y-E Data FlashBuster-u ? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Jay Nelson wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Wes Peters wrote: > > >Sheldon Hearn wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:56:21 +0100, Nick Hibma wrote: > >> > >> > If you ask the 3 IDE disks and ethernet hub that have gone pop this > >> > weekend, they would say no, but myself I was pretty firm that I was > >> > going to do something about it this weekend. Bastard things, they should > >> > be shot and they will be. > >> > >> Be careful about shooting hard drives. Specifically, get your angle > >> right such that you _do_ actually fracture the casing. The alternatives > >> are all unfortunate and mostly painful. > >> > >> We wouldn't want you hurting yourself, no matter how funny the story > >> might be. :-) > > > >Most hard drives are made of aluminum, aren't they? Aluminum doesn't > >deflect bullets, at least not the kind I shoot. ;^) > > Wad cutters or .22s might be a problem;) Neither of them seem to fit in my .308 rifle. Even the spindle that Phil Regnauld mentioned isn't going to do much of anything to a 180-grain full metal jacket bullet travelling at 2,400 fps; these rounds go straight through hardened steel padlocks. You should see what they do to 14" Fujitsu Eagle drives. Or old VT100s. Or jackrabbits. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 23: 0:29 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 318A414FE3 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 23:00:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from mustang (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA10133; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 00:00:15 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991116235758.045a5eb0@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 00:00:09 -0700 To: David Scheidt , chat@FreeBSD.ORG From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: Support for USB floppies like Y-E Data FlashBuster-u ? In-Reply-To: References: <52073.942744346@axl.noc.iafrica.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I'd like to see support for USB laptop docking stations. These are a neat way to dock a laptop -- they have parallel and serial ports, mouse and keyboard ports, and usually a NIC and a USB hub. I haven't been tracking USB support in FreeBSD, so I'm not sure: how many of these peripherals will work now? What would it take to add support for the others? --Brett Glass At 06:57 AM 11/16/1999 -0600, David Scheidt wrote: >On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:56:21 +0100, Nick Hibma wrote: > > > > > If you ask the 3 IDE disks and ethernet hub that have gone pop this > > > weekend, they would say no, but myself I was pretty firm that I was > > > going to do something about it this weekend. Bastard things, they should > > > be shot and they will be. > > > > Be careful about shooting hard drives. Specifically, get your angle > > right such that you _do_ actually fracture the casing. The alternatives > > are all unfortunate and mostly painful. > >You sound as though you speak from experience. Personally, I have always >settled for a BFH. As fortune(6) says, you will never hit your thumb if >you hold the hammer with both hands. > >David Scheidt > > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 23: 0:53 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from funbox.demon.co.uk (funbox.demon.co.uk [158.152.85.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4F636151F8 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 23:00:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dev.null@funbox.demon.co.uk) Received: from funbox.demon.co.uk, ID 3832420C-3067, Wed, 17 Nov 1999 05:50:04 UTC To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org From: dev.null@funbox.demon.co.uk (do not use this address) X-Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 05:50:04 +0000 Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Message-ID: <3832420C.3067@funbox.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 05:50:04 +0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org David Schwartz wrote: > What truth? What are you talking about? How am I being mislead? How > has Bill Gates convinced me that my NT desktop is more useful than a > Linux desktop when I have used both extensively? I have an Irix > desktop not 6 feet from me that I could be using, but I don't. What > other facts do I need? When matters begin to get as religious as this, it may be worth remembering what Festinger wrote in his "Theory of Cognitive Dissonance", way back when. (1957, iirc) I suspect that David is not going to budge, whether he would like to or not :-) -- Tim Jackson ------------------------------------------------------------------------ please reply to: t i m . j @ f u n b o x . d e m o n . c o . u k ======================================================================== To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 23: 4: 4 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29F8A15380 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 23:04:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from mustang (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA10172; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 00:03:23 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991117000046.045a7380@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 00:03:18 -0700 To: Greg Lehey , Erick White From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: You will be assimilated (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") Cc: David Schwartz , Giorgos Keramidas , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <19991115193945.36730@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> References: <4.2.0.58.19991113091425.043ba180@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 07:39 PM 11/15/1999 -0500, Greg Lehey wrote: >Far be it from me to be of one mind with Brett (as a search of the >mail archives will show) If we have one mind, then I guess we both HAVE been assimilated. ;-) As for the bit about Klingons: I'm reminded of Mark Ovens' posting regarding Klingon programmers, circa 17 July, on this list. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 23:26:49 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA7A014C8D for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 23:26:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from mustang (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA10309; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 00:24:55 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991117002132.045a94a0@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 00:24:37 -0700 To: "David Schwartz" , "Jonathon McKitrick" From: Brett Glass Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Cc: "Erick White" , In-Reply-To: <001001bf306b$23222f20$021d85d1@youwant.to> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 11:45 AM 11/16/1999 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: >It's not a big deal if your desktop crashes. Yet another indication that you are either part of a Microsoft "astroturf" campaign or hopelessly far from reality. It *is* a big deal if desktop computers crash. Workers cannot afford to lose their output, nor can their employers afford to have it happen. --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Nov 17 4:43:41 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from ns.skylink.it (ns.skylink.it [194.177.113.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C82F14A2F for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 04:43:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from hibma@skylink.it) Received: from skylink.it (va-149.skylink.it [194.185.55.149]) by ns.skylink.it (8.9.1/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA06862; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:44:18 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by skylink.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA00523; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:35:02 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from hibma@skylink.it) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:35:02 +0100 (CET) From: Nick Hibma X-Sender: n_hibma@henny.plazza.it Reply-To: Nick Hibma To: Jay Nelson Cc: Wes Peters , chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Support for USB floppies like Y-E Data FlashBuster-u ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > >Most hard drives are made of aluminum, aren't they? Aluminum doesn't > >deflect bullets, at least not the kind I shoot. ;^) > > Wad cutters or .22s might be a problem;) Guys, hold your horses, I've found that I can much more easily pester the drives by actually still using them. The machine is the crash machine and I only need about 50Mb of disk space on it, and that is left on all of them before the first bad sector. I'll use them till they screatch to halt! I'll abuse them, pester them, make them feel sorry for their pathetic attempts at ruining my work! I'll make them work till they bleed! And _then_ I will shoot them. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Nov 17 4:45:16 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from serenity.mcc.ac.uk (serenity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.93]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88A3314BC2 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 04:45:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by serenity.mcc.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #3) for chat@freebsd.org id 11o4SX-0003aO-00; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 12:45:13 +0000 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 12:45:12 +0000 (GMT) From: Jonathon McKitrick To: freebsd-chat Subject: Re: David's comments... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I only hope there is a revolution around the corner that will be powerful enough to stop the Microsoft juggernaut. And I think it would be more gratifying if that defeat came from a better product, rather than from a government decision. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Nov 17 5:15:25 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from tankgrrl.bridget.mindriot.net (ith1-379.twcny.rr.com [24.24.11.121]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 361A414FC3 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 05:15:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cjc26@tankgrrl.bridget.mindriot.net) Received: (from cjc26@localhost) by tankgrrl.bridget.mindriot.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA24630; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 08:14:43 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from cjc26) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 08:14:42 -0500 From: Cliff Crawford To: Wes Peters Cc: Jay Nelson , chat@FreeBSD.ORG, Nick Hibma Subject: Re: Support for USB floppies like Y-E Data FlashBuster-u ? Message-ID: <19991117081442.B24471@cornell.edu> Reply-To: cjc26@cornell.edu References: <38324B30.F0BF613D@softweyr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3i In-Reply-To: <38324B30.F0BF613D@softweyr.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * Wes Peters menulis: > Jay Nelson wrote: > > > > On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Wes Peters wrote: > > > > >Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > >> > > >> On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:56:21 +0100, Nick Hibma wrote: > > >> > > >> > If you ask the 3 IDE disks and ethernet hub that have gone pop this > > >> > weekend, they would say no, but myself I was pretty firm that I was > > >> > going to do something about it this weekend. Bastard things, they should > > >> > be shot and they will be. > > >> > > >> Be careful about shooting hard drives. Specifically, get your angle > > >> right such that you _do_ actually fracture the casing. The alternatives > > >> are all unfortunate and mostly painful. > > >> > > >> We wouldn't want you hurting yourself, no matter how funny the story > > >> might be. :-) > > > > > >Most hard drives are made of aluminum, aren't they? Aluminum doesn't > > >deflect bullets, at least not the kind I shoot. ;^) > > > > Wad cutters or .22s might be a problem;) > > Neither of them seem to fit in my .308 rifle. Even the spindle that Phil > Regnauld mentioned isn't going to do much of anything to a 180-grain > full metal jacket bullet travelling at 2,400 fps; these rounds go straight > through hardened steel padlocks. > > You should see what they do to 14" Fujitsu Eagle drives. Or old VT100s. > Or jackrabbits. Or co-workers. -- cliff crawford http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/cjc26/ -><- "No! It's Java!!" -- Nikita To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Nov 17 7:31:20 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from yana.lemis.com (yana.lemis.com [192.109.197.140]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 198AD14DEA for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:31:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from grog@mojave.sitaranetworks.com) Received: from mojave.sitaranetworks.com (mojave.sitaranetworks.com [199.103.141.157]) by yana.lemis.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA23669; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:59:25 +1030 (CST) (envelope-from grog@mojave.sitaranetworks.com) Message-ID: <19991117102851.53109@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:28:51 -0500 From: Greg Lehey To: David Schwartz , Terry Lambert , David Scheidt Cc: jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org, erickw@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Marketing vs. technical superiority (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") Reply-To: Greg Lehey References: <199911170254.TAA05982@usr08.primenet.com> <000001bf30b5$b82c5470$021d85d1@youwant.to> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <000001bf30b5$b82c5470$021d85d1@youwant.to>; from David Schwartz on Tue, Nov 16, 1999 at 08:39:22PM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org [Format recovered--see http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html] On Tuesday, 16 November 1999 at 20:39:22 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: >>>> In fact, that VHS was able to overthrow Beta, the market >>>> leader, simply because it was better is proof that market power >>>> can't lock us into inferior technologies. >>> >>> No, it only proves that market power won't necessarily "lock us into >>> inferior technologies" not that it can't. There is a very important >>> difference. >> >> You guys need to look into the relative merits of these two >> technologies before you argue about them. Beta is a vastly >> superior technology when compared to VHS, > > How is it superior? Picture quality? If picture quality is so > all-important, why did SuperVHS fail? Actually, VHS is far superior thanks > to the larger cassette allowing longer recording times. Beta wasn't that much smaller. The current maximum full-quality recording time is 200 minutes. Video-8 handles 120 minutes with no trouble. A modern Beta tape could easily have handled 200 minutes or more. On the other hand, VHS cassettes are particularly bulky. I don't think anybody else thought of this as an advantage. > Both VHS and Beta exceed broadcast quality. Neither VHS nor Beta attain broadcast quality. Most recorders cheat by recording the same half frame twice; try single frame advancing a tape. > And, in fact, in comparisons of the two formats, about as many > reviewers preferred Beta as preferred VHS. References, please. >> and "VHS vs. Beta" is actually _the_ standard argument put forward >> during "Why The Best Technology Does Not Always Win" discussions. > > Yes, and amusingly, the best standard did win, despite Sony's powerful > marketing and head start in the market. Can you specify why you think it to be the best standard? Do you mean the "best-marketed" standard, the most reliable standard (figures, please), the standard with the best definition, the easiest to use standard, the most economical standard (figures please)? >> The market _did_ in fact lock us into an inferior standard. > > Bullshit. Plain and simple bullshit. This is really an urban legend borne > out of motivational speakers looking for examples. There is no actual > research to back it up, and in back the research points the other way. Your messages are rapidly becoming content free. If you really want to continue posting, could you at least bring some fact to back up your claims? Greg -- When replying to this message, please take care not to mutilate the original text. For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/email.html Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Nov 17 11:40:30 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from ind.alcatel.com (postal.xylan.com [208.8.0.248]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB71214C1B for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 11:40:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from mailhub.xylan.com (mailhub [198.206.181.70]) by ind.alcatel.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1 (ind.alcatel.com 3.0 [OUT])) with SMTP id LAA01222; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 11:39:33 -0800 (PST) X-Origination-Site: Received: from omni.xylan.com by mailhub.xylan.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4 (mailhub 2.1 [HUB])) id LAA05005; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 11:39:32 -0800 Received: from softweyr.com (dyn0.utah.xylan.com) by omni.xylan.com (4.1/SMI-4.1 (xylan engr [SPOOL])) id AA29342; Wed, 17 Nov 99 11:39:30 PST Message-Id: <38330472.6DD7A7D7@softweyr.com> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 12:39:30 -0700 From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr LLC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en Mime-Version: 1.0 To: Nick Hibma Cc: Jay Nelson , chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Support for USB floppies like Y-E Data FlashBuster-u ? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Nick Hibma wrote: > > > >Most hard drives are made of aluminum, aren't they? Aluminum doesn't > > >deflect bullets, at least not the kind I shoot. ;^) > > > > Wad cutters or .22s might be a problem;) > > Guys, hold your horses, I've found that I can much more easily pester > the drives by actually still using them. The machine is the crash > machine and I only need about 50Mb of disk space on it, and that is > left on all of them before the first bad sector. > > I'll use them till they screatch to halt! I'll abuse them, pester them, > make them feel sorry for their pathetic attempts at ruining my work! > I'll make them work till they bleed! > > And _then_ I will shoot them. This reminds me, what does a sadist say when a masochist asks him for a beating? "No." ;^) -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Nov 17 11:40:39 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from ind.alcatel.com (postal.xylan.com [208.8.0.248]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73F9914ED9 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 11:40:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from mailhub.xylan.com (mailhub [198.206.181.70]) by ind.alcatel.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1 (ind.alcatel.com 3.0 [OUT])) with SMTP id LAA01242; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 11:40:27 -0800 (PST) X-Origination-Site: Received: from omni.xylan.com by mailhub.xylan.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4 (mailhub 2.1 [HUB])) id LAA05059; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 11:40:26 -0800 Received: from softweyr.com (dyn0.utah.xylan.com) by omni.xylan.com (4.1/SMI-4.1 (xylan engr [SPOOL])) id AA29411; Wed, 17 Nov 99 11:40:24 PST Message-Id: <383304A8.EB0CE8F4@softweyr.com> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 12:40:24 -0700 From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr LLC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en Mime-Version: 1.0 To: cjc26@cornell.edu Cc: Jay Nelson , chat@FreeBSD.ORG, Nick Hibma Subject: Re: Support for USB floppies like Y-E Data FlashBuster-u ? References: <38324B30.F0BF613D@softweyr.com> <19991117081442.B24471@cornell.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Cliff Crawford wrote: > > * Wes Peters menulis: > > Jay Nelson wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Wes Peters wrote: > > > > > > >Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:56:21 +0100, Nick Hibma wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > If you ask the 3 IDE disks and ethernet hub that have gone pop this > > > >> > weekend, they would say no, but myself I was pretty firm that I was > > > >> > going to do something about it this weekend. Bastard things, they should > > > >> > be shot and they will be. > > > >> > > > >> Be careful about shooting hard drives. Specifically, get your angle > > > >> right such that you _do_ actually fracture the casing. The alternatives > > > >> are all unfortunate and mostly painful. > > > >> > > > >> We wouldn't want you hurting yourself, no matter how funny the story > > > >> might be. :-) > > > > > > > >Most hard drives are made of aluminum, aren't they? Aluminum doesn't > > > >deflect bullets, at least not the kind I shoot. ;^) > > > > > > Wad cutters or .22s might be a problem;) > > > > Neither of them seem to fit in my .308 rifle. Even the spindle that Phil > > Regnauld mentioned isn't going to do much of anything to a 180-grain > > full metal jacket bullet travelling at 2,400 fps; these rounds go straight > > through hardened steel padlocks. > > > > You should see what they do to 14" Fujitsu Eagle drives. Or old VT100s. > > Or jackrabbits. > > Or co-workers. Careful, you could get thrown out of any high school in the USA for writing that. Here, you just get a good laugh or two. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Nov 17 13: 1:19 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26D8214E6F for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:01:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:01:13 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Greg Lehey" , "Terry Lambert" , "David Scheidt" Cc: , , Subject: RE: Marketing vs. technical superiority (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:01:12 -0800 Message-ID: <000101bf313e$e16c7ca0$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <19991117102851.53109@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > [Format recovered--see http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html] > > On Tuesday, 16 November 1999 at 20:39:22 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: > > >>>> In fact, that VHS was able to overthrow Beta, the market > >>>> leader, simply because it was better is proof that market power > >>>> can't lock us into inferior technologies. > >>> > >>> No, it only proves that market power won't necessarily "lock us into > >>> inferior technologies" not that it can't. There is a very important > >>> difference. > >> > >> You guys need to look into the relative merits of these two > >> technologies before you argue about them. Beta is a vastly > >> superior technology when compared to VHS, > > > > How is it superior? Picture quality? If picture quality is so > > all-important, why did SuperVHS fail? Actually, VHS is far > superior thanks > > to the larger cassette allowing longer recording times. > > Beta wasn't that much smaller. The current maximum full-quality > recording time is 200 minutes. Video-8 handles 120 minutes with no > trouble. A modern Beta tape could easily have handled 200 minutes or > more. On the other hand, VHS cassettes are particularly bulky. I > don't think anybody else thought of this as an advantage. When Beta was one hour, VHS was two. When Beta was five hours, VHS was eight. This wasn't because of some amazing better technology in VHS, the two were nearly identical technologically. It was simply because the VHS cartridge was larger and could accomodate a longer tape. > > Both VHS and Beta exceed broadcast quality. > > Neither VHS nor Beta attain broadcast quality. Most recorders cheat > by recording the same half frame twice; try single frame advancing a > tape. Okay, let me ask you a simple question then -- if picture quality is more important than recording length, why is nearly every tape I've ever seen recorded at the lowest possible quality level supported by that particular recorder? The fact is, consumers value recording length over picture quality. Even pre-recorded tapes generally use higher speeds (and thus lower quality) just to save on the cost of tape. > > And, in fact, in comparisons of the two formats, about as many > > reviewers preferred Beta as preferred VHS. > > References, please. See pretty much every actual research paper on the subject, including Lardner(1987), Weinstein(1984), Prentis(1981), and even Consumer Reports. Klopfenstein summarizes the research as follows: "Although many held the perception that Beta VCR produced a better picture than VHS, technical experts ... have concluded that this is, in fact, not the case; periodic reviews in Consumer Reports found VHS picture quality superior twice, found Beta superior once, and found no difference in a fourth review. In conclusion, the Beta format appeared to hold no advantages over VHS other than being the first on the market, and this may be a lesson for future marketers of new media products." > >> and "VHS vs. Beta" is actually _the_ standard argument put forward > >> during "Why The Best Technology Does Not Always Win" discussions. > > > > Yes, and amusingly, the best standard did win, despite > Sony's powerful > > marketing and head start in the market. > > Can you specify why you think it to be the best standard? Do you mean > the "best-marketed" standard, the most reliable standard (figures, > please), the standard with the best definition, the easiest to use > standard, the most economical standard (figures please)? The standard that consumers actually liked best because it was the first to allow them to record a full movie, the first to allow them to record a full football game, and provided so much picture quality, that people turned the quality all the way down, and still do to this day. As for whether VHS was even marketed beter than Beta, that's always simply been assumed. I've never seen any evidence to the contrary, and all the evidence I have seen suggests that Sony put up quite a fight, both technically and in the marketing arena. > >> The market _did_ in fact lock us into an inferior standard. > > > > Bullshit. Plain and simple bullshit. This is really an > urban legend borne > > out of motivational speakers looking for examples. There is no actual > > research to back it up, and in back the research points the other way. > > Your messages are rapidly becoming content free. If you really want > to continue posting, could you at least bring some fact to back up > your claims? _My_ messages are becoming content free? Where is a single fact to back up your claims? You're just citing urban legends at me. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Nov 17 13: 9:50 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from ns.skylink.it (ns.skylink.it [194.177.113.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC83114E38 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:09:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from hibma@skylink.it) Received: from skylink.it (va-185.skylink.it [194.185.55.185]) by ns.skylink.it (8.9.1/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA11382; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 22:10:19 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by skylink.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA00686; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 22:06:16 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from hibma@skylink.it) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 22:06:16 +0100 (CET) From: Nick Hibma X-Sender: n_hibma@henny.jrc.it Reply-To: Nick Hibma To: Wes Peters Cc: cjc26@cornell.edu, Jay Nelson , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Support for USB floppies like Y-E Data FlashBuster-u ? In-Reply-To: <383304A8.EB0CE8F4@softweyr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > > You should see what they do to 14" Fujitsu Eagle drives. Or old VT100s. > > > Or jackrabbits. > > > > Or co-workers. > > Careful, you could get thrown out of any high school in the USA for writing > that. > > Here, you just get a good laugh or two. The next social event at the FreeBSD Con should be paint ball. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Nov 17 13:47:34 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B4211538C for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:47:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:47:26 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: Cc: Subject: RE: Video Stupidity (was RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:47:25 -0800 Message-ID: <000201bf3145$56474900$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: <19991117060702.DEB511527A@hub.freebsd.org> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > David Schwartz wrote: > > > Both VHS and Beta exceed broadcast quality. > > Ha ha. I can cite references, but it seems I'm just wasting my time. Let me ask you a common sense version of this -- why does everyone turn the quality all the way down on their VCRs? If we're so concerned about picture quality and recoding time doesn't matter as much, you would have to explain it by us all being under some sort of mind control. > A piece of advice David - don't utter such mindbogglingly stupid > statements in the midst of an argument you're trying to win. People > who actually know about broadcast video (ie me) might start to judge > the veracity of everything you're saying on the appalling ignorance > of the comment above. Then you tell me, why do we all set our VCRs to the fastest possible setting that provides the lowest possible quality? Are we just all mistaken? > PS I don't have the technical specs of Betamax and VHS to hand to > compare them, so I'm not going to argue on technical performance, > but everything I've read suggests VHS won because of (relatively) > free and open licensing vs Sony's desire to control and own > everything that was Betamax. Unfortunately Sony's tactics have been > much more successful in the broadcast arena. If you're saying that open standards have market advantages over closed standards, then I would agree with you. But that is not a case of lock in. For what it's worth, the evidence I have suggests that the marketing and distribution efforts for both standards were more or less equivalent. The 'closing in' of Beta to Sony simply happened as more and more companies jumped ship and realized that VHS was inevitable. > PPS In my experience, SVHS lost the consumer war because the small > increase in quality (can anyone here say chroma noise?) wasn't > sufficient to justify the vast increase in cost, when people who > wanted quality could obtain much more of it for a similar price from > laserdisc. In other words, VHS provides as much quality as consumers want. At least, it did at the time. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Nov 17 14:50: 7 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from queasy.outpost.co.nz (outpost2.inspire.net.nz [203.96.157.26]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 12FF21539B for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 14:49:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from crh@outpost.co.nz) Received: (qmail 23101 invoked from network); 17 Nov 1999 22:49:46 -0000 Received: from officedonkey.outpost.co.nz (HELO officedonkey) (192.168.1.3) by queasy.outpost.co.nz with SMTP; 17 Nov 1999 22:49:46 -0000 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Craig Harding" Organization: Outpost Digital Media Ltd To: "David Schwartz" Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:49:33 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: Video Stupidity (was RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") Reply-To: crh@outpost.co.nz Cc: In-reply-to: <000201bf3145$56474900$021d85d1@youwant.to> References: <19991117060702.DEB511527A@hub.freebsd.org> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-Id: <19991117224958.12FF21539B@hub.freebsd.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org David Schwartz wrote: > > David Schwartz wrote: > > > > > Both VHS and Beta exceed broadcast quality. > > > > Ha ha. > > I can cite references, but it seems I'm just wasting my time. Let > me ask > you a common sense version of this -- why does everyone turn the > quality all the way down on their VCRs? If we're so concerned about > picture quality and recoding time doesn't matter as much, you would > have to explain it by us all being under some sort of mind control. If you're trying to say that consumers don't care about video quality versus other considerations (in my experience they clearly don't), then I'm not arguing with you. If you're trying to say that both VHS and Betamax (please don't abbreviate to Beta as it gets us confused with Sony's professional formats Betacam, Betacam SP, Betacam SX, and Digital Betacam, the former 2 or 3 of which are also commonly abbreviated to just "Beta") have sufficient quality for off-air recording of television broadcasts for most consumers, then I'm not arguing with you. If you're still trying to say that VHS and Betamax are of a standard that exceeds broadcast quality by any measure (technical, subjective) then you're an ignorant fool and I shouldn't really bother arguing with you. -- C. -- Craig Harding crh@outpost.co.nz "I don't know about God, I Outpost Digital Media Ltd crh@inspire.net.nz just think we're handmade" http://www.outpost.co.nz ICQ# 26701833 - Polly To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Nov 17 14:50:52 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from csmd2.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (csmd2.CS.Uni-Magdeburg.De [141.44.22.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24AF714ED8 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 14:50:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jesse@mail.CS.Uni-Magdeburg.De) Received: from quitte.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (quitte-atm [141.44.30.41]) by csmd2.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA18523 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 23:41:40 +0100 (MET) Received: (from jesse@localhost) by quitte.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id XAA17810; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 23:41:31 +0100 (MET) To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Video Stupidity References: <000201bf3145$56474900$021d85d1@youwant.to> From: Roland Jesse In-Reply-To: "David Schwartz"'s message of "Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:47:25 -0800" Date: 17 Nov 1999 23:41:31 +0100 Message-ID: <0vd7t87nc4.fsf@cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Lines: 9 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.45/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "David Schwartz" writes: > Then you tell me, why do we all set our VCRs to the fastest possible > setting that provides the lowest possible quality? The people I know don't do that. It hurts our eyes. Maybe we Germans are over sensitive. ;) Roland To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Nov 17 14:54:35 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from yana.lemis.com (yana.lemis.com [192.109.197.140]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8552015091 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 14:54:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from grog@mojave.sitaranetworks.com) Received: from mojave.sitaranetworks.com (mojave.sitaranetworks.com [199.103.141.157]) by yana.lemis.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA24155; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:24:24 +1030 (CST) (envelope-from grog@mojave.sitaranetworks.com) Message-ID: <19991117175351.61875@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 17:53:51 -0500 From: Greg Lehey To: David Schwartz , crh@outpost.co.nz Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Video Stupidity (was RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") Reply-To: Greg Lehey References: <19991117060702.DEB511527A@hub.freebsd.org> <000201bf3145$56474900$021d85d1@youwant.to> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <000201bf3145$56474900$021d85d1@youwant.to>; from David Schwartz on Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 01:47:25PM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wednesday, 17 November 1999 at 13:47:25 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: > Then you tell me, why do we all set our VCRs to the fastest possible > setting that provides the lowest possible quality? Are we just all mistaken? You're mistaken on two points: first, we don't *all* do it. I never do. And secondly, you mean the slowest setting, not the fastest. If I need to explain that, we need to go back to Euclid and Newton and argue from there. Greg -- Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Nov 17 14:56:10 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from probity.mcc.ac.uk (probity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.94]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C871C14A1D for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 14:56:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by probity.mcc.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #3) id 11oDze-0007bA-00; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 22:56:02 +0000 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 22:55:58 +0000 (GMT) From: Jonathon McKitrick To: David Schwartz Cc: crh@outpost.co.nz, chat@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Video Stupidity (was RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") In-Reply-To: <000201bf3145$56474900$021d85d1@youwant.to> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Just to put my two cents in... i HATE low quality settings on VCRs. My friend always loans me tapes with about 8 hours worth of fuzzy garbled color puddles that drives me nuts. My dad is the same way... that's why we got a good 4-head VCR and why DVD will be next.. too bad it doesn't record yet... -jonathon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Nov 17 14:58:14 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us (taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us [165.29.134.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 648C814E26 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 14:58:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from erickw@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us) Received: from localhost (erickw@localhost) by taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us (8.9.0/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA03930; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 18:02:48 -0600 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 18:02:48 -0600 (CST) From: Erick White To: Brett Glass Cc: Greg Lehey , David Schwartz , Giorgos Keramidas , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: You will be assimilated (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19991117000046.045a7380@localhost> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I don't think I know about the Klingon programmer thing. I did however use to play trek sims and have always liked the klingons who hold to their honor type thing. ALways have been, but then I am a trekker, all of you can laug if you want, everyone else does! :) Your Friend: Erick On Wed, 17 Nov 1999, Brett Glass wrote: > At 07:39 PM 11/15/1999 -0500, Greg Lehey wrote: > > >Far be it from me to be of one mind with Brett (as a search of the > >mail archives will show) > > If we have one mind, then I guess we both HAVE been assimilated. ;-) > > As for the bit about Klingons: I'm reminded of Mark Ovens' posting > regarding Klingon programmers, circa 17 July, on this list. > > --Brett > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Nov 17 15:24:12 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D31BA14E52 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:24:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:24:09 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Greg Lehey" , Cc: Subject: RE: Video Stupidity (was RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:24:09 -0800 Message-ID: <000001bf3152$d9365880$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <19991117175351.61875@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > On Wednesday, 17 November 1999 at 13:47:25 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: > > Then you tell me, why do we all set our VCRs to the fastest possible > > setting that provides the lowest possible quality? Are we just > all mistaken? > > You're mistaken on two points: first, we don't *all* do it. I never > do. And secondly, you mean the slowest setting, not the fastest. If > I need to explain that, we need to go back to Euclid and Newton and > argue from there. Isn't it faster, so that relativistic affects cause time to slow down? DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Nov 17 15:24:31 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from typhoon.mail.pipex.net (typhoon.mail.pipex.net [158.43.128.27]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 309D114E52 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:24:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mark@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: (qmail 7263 invoked from network); 17 Nov 1999 23:19:47 -0000 Received: from userbg12.uk.uudial.com (HELO marder-1.) (62.188.142.132) by smtp.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 17 Nov 1999 23:19:47 -0000 Received: (from mark@localhost) by marder-1. (8.9.3/8.8.8) id XAA01647; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 23:19:46 GMT (envelope-from mark) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 23:19:45 +0000 From: Mark Ovens To: Erick White Cc: Brett Glass , Greg Lehey , David Schwartz , Giorgos Keramidas , freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: You will be assimilated (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") Message-ID: <19991117231945.A1614@marder-1> References: <4.2.0.58.19991117000046.045a7380@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i In-Reply-To: Organization: Total lack of Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 06:02:48PM -0600, Erick White wrote: > I don't think I know about the Klingon programmer thing. Top 12 things likely to be overheard if you had a Klingon Programmer 12) "Specifications are for the weak and timid!" 11) "This machine is a piece of GAGH! I need dual Pentium processors if I am to do battle with this code!" 10) "You cannot really appreciate Dilbert unless you've read it in the original Klingon." 9) "Indentation?! - I will show you how to indent when I indent your skull!" 8) "What is this talk of 'release'? Klingons do not make software 'releases'. Our software 'escapes' leaving a bloody trail of designers and quality assurance people in it's wake." 7) "Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' - they have 'arguments' -- and they ALWAYS WIN THEM." 6) "Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Our software does not coddle the weak." 5) "I have challenged the entire quality assurance team to a Bat-Leth contest. They will not concern us again." 4) "A TRUE Klingon Warrior does not comment his code!" 3) "By filing this SPR you have challenged the honor of my family. Prepare to die!" 2) "You question the worthiness of my code? I should kill you where you stand!" 1) "Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!" > I did however use to play trek sims and have always liked the > klingons who hold to their honor type thing. ALways have been, but > then I am a trekker, all of you can laug if you want, everyone else > does! :) > > > > Your Friend: Erick > > On Wed, 17 Nov 1999, Brett Glass wrote: > > > At 07:39 PM 11/15/1999 -0500, Greg Lehey wrote: > > > > >Far be it from me to be of one mind with Brett (as a search of the > > >mail archives will show) > > > > If we have one mind, then I guess we both HAVE been assimilated. ;-) > > > > As for the bit about Klingons: I'm reminded of Mark Ovens' posting > > regarding Klingon programmers, circa 17 July, on this list. > > > > --Brett > > > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message -- STATE-OF-THE-ART: Any computer you can't afford. OBSOLETE: Any computer you own. ________________________________________________________________ FreeBSD - The Power To Serve http://www.freebsd.org My Webpage http://ukug.uk.freebsd.org/~mark/ mailto:mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org http://www.radan.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Nov 17 15:56:38 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FCC114F3E for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:56:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bright@wintelcom.net) Received: from localhost (bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA17135; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:21:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:21:24 -0800 (PST) From: Alfred Perlstein To: Mark Ovens Cc: James A Wilde , chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Corruption of file attachments passing late BSD relayers In-Reply-To: <19991117210813.B316@marder-1> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 17 Nov 1999, Mark Ovens wrote: > On Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 11:40:03AM +0100, James A Wilde wrote: > > Digest: This message reports on the corruption of file attachments > > in messages passing certain BSD UNIX mail exchangers. The > > corruption affects messages sent using Microsoft Outlook and > > Outlook Express mail clients. It may affect other clients also > > The corrupted file attachments are about 30% larger than the > > non-corrupted form. A small part of the increase appears to be the > > insertion of CRLF at 76 character intervals. I have reported this > > as a bug to FreeBSD.org but one of low priority. > > > > This is not corruption. M$ proprietry files are binary so they are > being uuencoded (which maps 3 bytes into 4 so that all bytes can > be represented in printable chars). This explains the 30% increase > in size and the CR/LF's as uuencode also splits the resultant file > into fixed length lines. All you need is to uudecode(1) them. > Netscape can do this and I'm sure that even M$ mail readers can as > well; we have a mix of Unix and M$ (Outlook) systems at work and > passing binary attachments poses no problems. > > ``man 5 uuencode'' for details of the algorithm used. > > As an aside, a customer mailed me a text file the other day, that > was ~400K, as an attachment using M$ Exchange. By the time I got it > it was >800K (this file would Zip down to <100K). Seems that Exchange > embeds the fonts for RTF into the attachment that gets renamed > winmail.dat. gee, and i thought that sendmail's ">From" frobbing was a bit intrusive... lol -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Nov 17 15:57: 6 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us (taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us [165.29.134.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A864614ED8 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:57:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from erickw@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us) Received: from localhost (erickw@localhost) by taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us (8.9.0/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA04279; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 18:58:59 -0600 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 18:58:59 -0600 (CST) From: Erick White To: Mark Ovens Cc: Brett Glass , Greg Lehey , David Schwartz , Giorgos Keramidas , freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: You will be assimilated (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") In-Reply-To: <19991117231945.A1614@marder-1> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I laughed through all of it. Yep sounds like me in most instances. ALl except for a few minor details. Gagh is Klingon meal worms and is good... not bad. And the other thing... I don't think klingons would try to be like M$ on that last statement. :) Your Klingon UNIX Advocate: Erick "Gronok" On Wed, 17 Nov 1999, Mark Ovens wrote: > On Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 06:02:48PM -0600, Erick White wrote: > > I don't think I know about the Klingon programmer thing. > > > Top 12 things likely to be overheard if you had a Klingon Programmer > > 12) "Specifications are for the weak and timid!" > > 11) "This machine is a piece of GAGH! I need dual Pentium processors > if I am to do battle with this code!" > > 10) "You cannot really appreciate Dilbert unless you've read it in > the original Klingon." > > 9) "Indentation?! - I will show you how to indent when I indent your > skull!" > > 8) "What is this talk of 'release'? Klingons do not make software > 'releases'. Our software 'escapes' leaving a bloody trail of > designers and quality assurance people in it's wake." > > 7) "Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' - they have > 'arguments' -- and they ALWAYS WIN THEM." > > 6) "Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Our software does not coddle > the weak." > > 5) "I have challenged the entire quality assurance team to a > Bat-Leth contest. They will not concern us again." > > 4) "A TRUE Klingon Warrior does not comment his code!" > > 3) "By filing this SPR you have challenged the honor of my family. > Prepare to die!" > > 2) "You question the worthiness of my code? I should kill you where > you stand!" > > 1) "Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! > Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!" > > > > I did however use to play trek sims and have always liked the > > klingons who hold to their honor type thing. ALways have been, but > > then I am a trekker, all of you can laug if you want, everyone else > > does! :) > > > > > > > > > Your Friend: Erick > > > > On Wed, 17 Nov 1999, Brett Glass wrote: > > > > > At 07:39 PM 11/15/1999 -0500, Greg Lehey wrote: > > > > > > >Far be it from me to be of one mind with Brett (as a search of the > > > >mail archives will show) > > > > > > If we have one mind, then I guess we both HAVE been assimilated. ;-) > > > > > > As for the bit about Klingons: I'm reminded of Mark Ovens' posting > > > regarding Klingon programmers, circa 17 July, on this list. > > > > > > --Brett > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > > -- > STATE-OF-THE-ART: Any computer you can't afford. > OBSOLETE: Any computer you own. > ________________________________________________________________ > FreeBSD - The Power To Serve http://www.freebsd.org > My Webpage http://ukug.uk.freebsd.org/~mark/ > mailto:mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org http://www.radan.com > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Nov 17 16:32:19 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from monsoon.mail.pipex.net (monsoon.mail.pipex.net [158.43.128.69]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7FD5114ED4 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:32:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mark@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: (qmail 27473 invoked from network); 18 Nov 1999 00:15:32 -0000 Received: from userbg12.uk.uudial.com (HELO marder-1.) (62.188.142.132) by smtp.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 18 Nov 1999 00:15:32 -0000 Received: (from mark@localhost) by marder-1. (8.9.3/8.8.8) id AAA02490; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:15:32 GMT (envelope-from mark) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:15:32 +0000 From: Mark Ovens To: Erick White Cc: Brett Glass , Greg Lehey , David Schwartz , Giorgos Keramidas , freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: You will be assimilated (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") Message-ID: <19991118001532.C1614@marder-1> References: <19991117231945.A1614@marder-1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i In-Reply-To: Organization: Total lack of Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 06:58:59PM -0600, Erick White wrote: > I laughed through all of it. Yep sounds like me in most instances. > ALl except for a few minor details. Gagh is Klingon meal worms and is > good... not bad. And the other thing... I don't think klingons would try > to be like M$ on that last statement. :) > :-) My personal favourites are 7 & 8. > Your Klingon UNIX Advocate: Erick "Gronok" > > > On Wed, 17 Nov 1999, Mark Ovens wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 06:02:48PM -0600, Erick White wrote: > > > I don't think I know about the Klingon programmer thing. > > > > > > 12) "Specifications are for the weak and timid!" > > 11) "This machine is a piece of GAGH! I need dual Pentium processors > > if I am to do battle with this code!" > > > > 10) "You cannot really appreciate Dilbert unless you've read it in > > the original Klingon." > > > > 9) "Indentation?! - I will show you how to indent when I indent your > > skull!" > > > > 8) "What is this talk of 'release'? Klingons do not make software > > 'releases'. Our software 'escapes' leaving a bloody trail of > > designers and quality assurance people in it's wake." > > > > 7) "Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' - they have > > 'arguments' -- and they ALWAYS WIN THEM." > > > > 6) "Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Our software does not coddle > > the weak." > > > > 5) "I have challenged the entire quality assurance team to a > > Bat-Leth contest. They will not concern us again." > > > > 4) "A TRUE Klingon Warrior does not comment his code!" > > > > 3) "By filing this SPR you have challenged the honor of my family. > > Prepare to die!" > > > > 2) "You question the worthiness of my code? I should kill you where > > you stand!" > > > > 1) "Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! > > Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!" > > > > > > > I did however use to play trek sims and have always liked the > > > klingons who hold to their honor type thing. ALways have been, but > > > then I am a trekker, all of you can laug if you want, everyone else > > > does! :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your Friend: Erick > > > > > > On Wed, 17 Nov 1999, Brett Glass wrote: > > > > > > > At 07:39 PM 11/15/1999 -0500, Greg Lehey wrote: > > > > > > > > >Far be it from me to be of one mind with Brett (as a search of the > > > > >mail archives will show) > > > > > > > > If we have one mind, then I guess we both HAVE been assimilated. ;-) > > > > > > > > As for the bit about Klingons: I'm reminded of Mark Ovens' posting > > > > regarding Klingon programmers, circa 17 July, on this list. > > > > > > > > --Brett > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > > > > -- > > STATE-OF-THE-ART: Any computer you can't afford. > > OBSOLETE: Any computer you own. > > ________________________________________________________________ > > FreeBSD - The Power To Serve http://www.freebsd.org > > My Webpage http://ukug.uk.freebsd.org/~mark/ > > mailto:mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org http://www.radan.com > > > -- STATE-OF-THE-ART: Any computer you can't afford. OBSOLETE: Any computer you own. ________________________________________________________________ FreeBSD - The Power To Serve http://www.freebsd.org My Webpage http://ukug.uk.freebsd.org/~mark/ mailto:mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org http://www.radan.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Nov 17 18:13:24 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 758) id DABD314C2A; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 18:13:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9E3A1CD472; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 18:13:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kris@hub.freebsd.org) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 18:13:22 -0800 (PST) From: Kris Kennaway To: Nick Hibma Cc: Wes Peters , cjc26@cornell.edu, Jay Nelson , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Support for USB floppies like Y-E Data FlashBuster-u ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 17 Nov 1999, Nick Hibma wrote: > The next social event at the FreeBSD Con should be paint ball. And we should invite the Linux guys :-> Kris ---- Cthulhu for President! For when you're tired of choosing the _lesser_ of two evils.. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Nov 17 18:28:34 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from smtp05.primenet.com (smtp05.primenet.com [206.165.6.135]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50B1514A1D for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 18:28:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr08.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp05.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA07793; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 19:28:07 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr08.primenet.com(206.165.6.208) via SMTP by smtp05.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAnJaOgp; Wed Nov 17 19:27:59 1999 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA25734; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 19:28:08 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199911180228.TAA25734@usr08.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" To: davids@webmaster.com (David Schwartz) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 02:28:08 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, dscheidt@enteract.com, jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org, erickw@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <000001bf30b5$b82c5470$021d85d1@youwant.to> from "David Schwartz" at Nov 16, 99 08:39:22 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > You guys need to look into the relative merits of these two > > technologies before you argue about them. Beta is a vastly > > superior technology when compared to VHS, > > How is it superior? Picture quality and resolution. > Picture quality? Yes, and other factors, such as it being less likely to jam, given the tape path and load mechanism. Betamax (sic) machines that I used never "ate tapes". It's a relatively common occurance with VHS. > If picture quality is so all-important, why did SuperVHS fail? SuperVHS addressed an issue with chroma that simply did not matter in NTSC countries. In PAL countries, it was more of an issue, but since the data was modulated into an NTSC carrier between the television and the recorder in the US, and since the over-the-air and even cable broadcasts already had the chroma problems because of the NTSC standard, there was really no improvement in quality. Julian will be happy to tell you at length about PAL vs. NTSC, and why PAL countries call NTSC "Never Twice the Same Colour". > Actually, VHS is far superior thanks to the larger cassette > allowing longer recording times. Recording times are a matter of tape length, which is in turn a matter of tape thickness. In fact, VHS tapes can not be as thin as Betamax tapes, due to the poorer VHS loading mechanism. The reason Betamax recording times historically lagged behind those of VHS are a function of: 1) Variable head rates on VHS getting lower and lower over time, and those settings getting "standardized" into VCR's. 2) Betamax tape technology did not have the financial thrust behind it because of the initial lack of software making it a smaller overall machine market (much in the same way FreeBSD doesn't have FrameMaker available for it). To address your question from another posting, "why do people turn their tape speed to the slowest (sic) speed?", the answer is that they do so to get longer recording times, since the head rotation rate stays constant, and thus the scan stripes are written closer together on the slower moving tape as it sweeps past. NB: MacroVision(tm) copy protection works based on supressing the vertical blanking interval such that a tape-to-tape copy has annoying high-low-high-low brightness. This is based on an artifact of the flying VHS write head, and is the reason you can buy GenLock-like devices that fix the problem, as well as two deck spindle-synced VCRs. The reason the slower speed does not bother these people is directly attributable to how clean their source signal is; if you are recording broadcast television in the US, in which 50% of the population lives within 50 miles of a coast, and the other half lives in what is, in effect, very rural areas with few closely located, non-repeated television transmitters, then you won't really have very much less quality in your recording anyway. People with digital television (satellite or cable), or even analog cable generally get used to such high quality pictures (not ever seeing "sparklies" -- whiteout dots) that they do _not_ use such settings, because the resulting recording is unbearable to watch. > Both VHS and Beta exceed broadcast quality. They do not. Broadcast television recording has the same issues with vertical blanking interval synchronization and noise acting to suppress the effective vertical blank space that affect VHS VCR to VCR recording, without spindle sync. Even without an intentional supression of the vertical blanking as a means of "copy protection", the effect is pronounced enough for most broadcast television that one can tell the difference in the lower quality of the recordings. Even ignoring this, the rotating record head is away from the tape media for longer than the vertical blanking interval, and that means that you get a 1.5 reduction in frame rate. This reduction in frame rate is even more noticible because of horizontal retrace in PAL vs. NTSC. The result is that the 525 lines of vertical resolution are reduced to 200 for VHS, 400 for SuperVHS > And, in fact, in comparisons of the two formats, about as many > reviewers preferred Beta as preferred VHS. I can't argue this, because I don't know: 1) What reviews you were referencing 2) Whether your reviewers were average slack-jawed TV viewers, or discerning intellectuals > > and "VHS vs. Beta" is actually _the_ standard argument put > > forward during "Why The Best Technology Does Not Always Win" > discussions. > > Yes, and amusingly, the best standard did win, despite Sony's powerful > marketing and head start in the market. You have slyly changed this from "best technology" to "best standard"; one could easily argue from that point of view that VHS was a "better" standard from non-technological grounds, such as the fact that the purveyors of VHS were able to license movies for release on VHS, while at the same time prohibiting their release on BetaMax, via contract. This was technically an anticompetitive practice, such as Microsofts application division is guilty of by providing IE for HP/UX, but not for the obviously larger market segment, Linux. > > The market _did_ in fact lock us into an inferior standard. > > Bullshit. Plain and simple bullshit. This is really an urban > legend borne out of motivational speakers looking for examples. > There is no actual research to back it up, and in back the > research points the other way. See: http://www.v-i-t.com/CFM/cctv.cfm http://www.video-pro.co.uk/world.htm http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/5391/bt.html http://ww.urova.fi/home/pranta/usvidfaq.htm As for "urban legends", while I disagree that the quality is not discernable (perhaps "a recording of US broadcast TV in a poor reception area" will qualify as "a sensitive instrument" in your book?), the urban legends have been on you part, and we can start with the claim that Sony refused to license Betamax; see: http://www.urbanlegends.com/products/beta_vs_vhs.html BTW, the lack of betamax software has more to do with the chilling effect of the lawsuit by Universal and Disney against Sony. Sound familiar to any of you Linux and FreeBSD people? Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Nov 17 18:29:42 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from smtp01.primenet.com (smtp01.primenet.com [206.165.6.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7151C14A1D for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 18:29:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr08.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp01.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA13660; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 19:29:28 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr08.primenet.com(206.165.6.208) via SMTP by smtp01.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAR4aGKA; Wed Nov 17 19:29:19 1999 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA25816; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 19:29:12 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199911180229.TAA25816@usr08.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" To: dkelly@hiwaay.net (David Kelly) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 02:29:11 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199911170343.VAA17830@nospam.hiwaay.net> from "David Kelly" at Nov 16, 99 09:43:18 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Terry Lambert writes: > > You can be damn sure that if your cable plant came up for lease > > every two years, it would be maintained in such a way as to make > > at least 51% of the voting population happy with how it was > > being maintained. > > But if we have two choices for cable then the cable plant has to target > 90% or better satisfaction. Else do the MS thing and somehow rope the > customers into incompatible HDTV. Oh well, I guess the buying public gets 90% or better satisfaction. So sad. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Nov 17 20:26:55 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us (taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us [165.29.134.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 827D715089 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 20:26:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from erickw@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us) Received: from localhost (erickw@localhost) by taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us (8.9.0/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA05107; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 23:28:48 -0600 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 23:28:48 -0600 (CST) From: Erick White To: Mark Ovens Cc: Brett Glass , Greg Lehey , David Schwartz , Giorgos Keramidas , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: You will be assimilated (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") In-Reply-To: <19991118001532.C1614@marder-1> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Mark Ovens wrote: > On Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 06:58:59PM -0600, Erick White wrote: > > I laughed through all of it. Yep sounds like me in most instances. > > ALl except for a few minor details. Gagh is Klingon meal worms and is > > good... not bad. And the other thing... I don't think klingons would try > > to be like M$ on that last statement. :) > > > > :-) > > My personal favourites are 7 & 8. I particularly liked the one referring to leaving a bloody trail as well. *laughs* Your Klingon UNIX Advocate: Erick "Gronok" > > > Your Klingon UNIX Advocate: Erick "Gronok" > > > > > > On Wed, 17 Nov 1999, Mark Ovens wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 06:02:48PM -0600, Erick White wrote: > > > > I don't think I know about the Klingon programmer thing. > > > > > > > > > 12) "Specifications are for the weak and timid!" > > > > 11) "This machine is a piece of GAGH! I need dual Pentium processors > > > if I am to do battle with this code!" > > > > > > 10) "You cannot really appreciate Dilbert unless you've read it in > > > the original Klingon." > > > > > > 9) "Indentation?! - I will show you how to indent when I indent your > > > skull!" > > > > > > 8) "What is this talk of 'release'? Klingons do not make software > > > 'releases'. Our software 'escapes' leaving a bloody trail of > > > designers and quality assurance people in it's wake." > > > > > > 7) "Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' - they have > > > 'arguments' -- and they ALWAYS WIN THEM." > > > > > > 6) "Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Our software does not coddle > > > the weak." > > > > > > 5) "I have challenged the entire quality assurance team to a > > > Bat-Leth contest. They will not concern us again." > > > > > > 4) "A TRUE Klingon Warrior does not comment his code!" > > > > > > 3) "By filing this SPR you have challenged the honor of my family. > > > Prepare to die!" > > > > > > 2) "You question the worthiness of my code? I should kill you where > > > you stand!" > > > > > > 1) "Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! > > > Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!" > > > > > > > > > > I did however use to play trek sims and have always liked the > > > > klingons who hold to their honor type thing. ALways have been, but > > > > then I am a trekker, all of you can laug if you want, everyone else > > > > does! :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your Friend: Erick > > > > > > > > On Wed, 17 Nov 1999, Brett Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > > At 07:39 PM 11/15/1999 -0500, Greg Lehey wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Far be it from me to be of one mind with Brett (as a search of the > > > > > >mail archives will show) > > > > > > > > > > If we have one mind, then I guess we both HAVE been assimilated. ;-) > > > > > > > > > > As for the bit about Klingons: I'm reminded of Mark Ovens' posting > > > > > regarding Klingon programmers, circa 17 July, on this list. > > > > > > > > > > --Brett > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > > > > > > -- > > > STATE-OF-THE-ART: Any computer you can't afford. > > > OBSOLETE: Any computer you own. > > > ________________________________________________________________ > > > FreeBSD - The Power To Serve http://www.freebsd.org > > > My Webpage http://ukug.uk.freebsd.org/~mark/ > > > mailto:mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org http://www.radan.com > > > > > > > -- > STATE-OF-THE-ART: Any computer you can't afford. > OBSOLETE: Any computer you own. > ________________________________________________________________ > FreeBSD - The Power To Serve http://www.freebsd.org > My Webpage http://ukug.uk.freebsd.org/~mark/ > mailto:mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org http://www.radan.com > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Nov 17 21: 5:32 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from queasy.outpost.co.nz (outpost2.inspire.net.nz [203.96.157.26]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7618214C0D for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 21:05:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from crh@outpost.co.nz) Received: (qmail 24099 invoked from network); 18 Nov 1999 05:05:25 -0000 Received: from officedonkey.outpost.co.nz (HELO officedonkey) (192.168.1.3) by queasy.outpost.co.nz with SMTP; 18 Nov 1999 05:05:25 -0000 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Craig Harding" Organization: Outpost Digital Media Ltd To: Terry Lambert Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 18:05:12 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Reply-To: crh@outpost.co.nz Cc: chat@freebsd.org In-reply-to: <199911180228.TAA25734@usr08.primenet.com> References: <000001bf30b5$b82c5470$021d85d1@youwant.to> from "David Schwartz" at Nov 16, 99 08:39:22 pm X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-Id: <19991118050528.7618214C0D@hub.freebsd.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert wrote: > Even ignoring this, the rotating record head is away from the > tape media for longer than the vertical blanking interval, and > that means that you get a 1.5 reduction in frame rate. This > reduction in frame rate is even more noticible because of > horizontal retrace in PAL vs. NTSC. > > The result is that the 525 lines of vertical resolution are reduced > to 200 for VHS, 400 for SuperVHS Erm, actually I think you're getting a couple of things confused here Terry. Firstly, I don't know what you're trying to say about frame rate, as far as I'm aware PAL video runs at 50 fields (25 frames) per second and NTSC runs at 60 fields (30 frames) per second [1]. As for resolution, you've been confused by the terminology. PAL always displays (approximately) 625 scanlines on the screen, and NTSC always shows 525. That's actual horizontal scans by the electron gun across the width of the screen, half in each interlaced field. When we talk about the resolution of a tape format (or a camera or monitor) in video circles, we're referring to the horizontal resolution, which is loosely equivalent to the frequency response of the intensity signal of the electron beam as it sweeps across the display. The resolution is measured by the only handy unit available in pre-computer display times - screen lines. So we're talking about resolution in terms of roughly square notional pixels, which means we use the size of vertical screen lines to talk about horizontal resolution. Some camera test charts actually have a resolution grid on them, with horizontal and vertical lines drawn in an increasingly-finer gradient. When you can no longer distinguish individual lines, you've hit the resolution limit of the camera (or monitor, or whatever). VHS, as Terry mentioned, has about 200-240 lines resolution. Super VHS has theoretically close to 500, where as the broadcast format BetaSP is only 450. This leads some people to claim that Super VHS is superior to BetaSP because they are ignoring SVHS's terrible colour resolution. Modern broadcast video cameras have a horizontal resolution of about 850 lines. -- Craig Harding crh@outpost.co.nz "I don't know about God, I Outpost Digital Media Ltd crh@inspire.net.nz just think we're handmade" http://www.outpost.co.nz ICQ# 26701833 - Polly To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 2:32:17 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.ftf.dk (mail.ftf.net [129.142.64.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CC3315390 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 02:32:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from regnauld@ftf.net) Received: from ns.int.ftf.net (fw2.ftf.dk [192.168.1.2] (may be forged)) by mail.ftf.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3/gw-ftf-1.2) with ESMTP id LAA16303 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:32:03 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.ftf.dk: Host fw2.ftf.dk [192.168.1.2] (may be forged) claimed to be ns.int.ftf.net Received: (from regnauld@localhost) by ns.int.ftf.net (8.9.2/8.9.3) id LAA26515; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:45:35 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <19991118114534.26090@ns.int.ftf.net> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:45:34 +0100 From: Phil Regnauld To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Debian/FreeBSD: "They're heeeeere" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88e X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE i386 Organization: FTFnet Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org -----8<-----8<-----8<-----8<-----8<-----8<-----8<-----8<-----8<-----8<----- Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 18:24:40 +0100 (CET) From: Piotr Roszatycki To: debian-bsd@lists.debian.org Subject: Debian FreeBSD - experiment Message-ID: ftp://ftp.fnet.pl/pub/debian-freebsd/ There are 80 Debian packages for freebsd-i386 architecture. - -- -- Y et A nother RedHat buys Cygnus L inux T akeover A lliance To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 6:29:46 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from serenity.mcc.ac.uk (serenity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.93]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B8FF15139 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 06:29:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by serenity.mcc.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #3) id 11oSZB-0005jH-00; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:29:41 +0000 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:29:41 +0000 (GMT) From: Jonathon McKitrick To: Craig Harding Cc: Terry Lambert , chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" In-Reply-To: <19991118050528.7618214C0D@hub.freebsd.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Since you seem to have a clear picture (pardon the pun) of this whole debate, could you explain whether the salient points from this discussion can support the premises we have been debating? Is it possible for company to cause the adoption of lesser technology purely by business/marketing tactics? What *really* was responsible for the success of BetaMax over VHS? On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Craig Harding wrote: >Terry Lambert wrote: > >> Even ignoring this, the rotating record head is away from the >> tape media for longer than the vertical blanking interval, and >> that means that you get a 1.5 reduction in frame rate. This >> reduction in frame rate is even more noticible because of >> horizontal retrace in PAL vs. NTSC. >> >> The result is that the 525 lines of vertical resolution are reduced >> to 200 for VHS, 400 for SuperVHS > >Erm, actually I think you're getting a couple of things confused here >Terry. > >Firstly, I don't know what you're trying to say about frame rate, as >far as I'm aware PAL video runs at 50 fields (25 frames) per second >and NTSC runs at 60 fields (30 frames) per second [1]. > >As for resolution, you've been confused by the terminology. PAL >always displays (approximately) 625 scanlines on the screen, and >NTSC always shows 525. That's actual horizontal scans by the >electron gun across the width of the screen, half in each interlaced >field. > >When we talk about the resolution of a tape format (or a camera or >monitor) in video circles, we're referring to the horizontal >resolution, which is loosely equivalent to the frequency response of >the intensity signal of the electron beam as it sweeps across the >display. > >The resolution is measured by the only handy unit available in >pre-computer display times - screen lines. So we're talking about >resolution in terms of roughly square notional pixels, which means we >use the size of vertical screen lines to talk about horizontal >resolution. > >Some camera test charts actually have a resolution grid on them, with >horizontal and vertical lines drawn in an increasingly-finer >gradient. When you can no longer distinguish individual lines, you've >hit the resolution limit of the camera (or monitor, or whatever). > >VHS, as Terry mentioned, has about 200-240 lines resolution. Super >VHS has theoretically close to 500, where as the broadcast >format BetaSP is only 450. This leads some people to claim that Super >VHS is superior to BetaSP because they are ignoring SVHS's terrible >colour resolution. > >Modern broadcast video cameras have a horizontal resolution of about >850 lines. >-- >Craig Harding crh@outpost.co.nz "I don't know about God, I >Outpost Digital Media Ltd crh@inspire.net.nz just think we're handmade" >http://www.outpost.co.nz ICQ# 26701833 - Polly > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > -jonathon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 6:40:56 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from peloton.runet.edu (peloton.runet.edu [137.45.96.205]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AF231544D for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 06:40:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brett@peloton.runet.edu) Received: from localhost (brett@localhost) by peloton.runet.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA69867; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:39:46 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brett@peloton.runet.edu) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:39:46 -0500 (EST) From: Brett Taylor To: David Schwartz Cc: Greg Lehey , crh@outpost.co.nz, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: Video Stupidity (was RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") In-Reply-To: <000001bf3152$d9365880$021d85d1@youwant.to> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi, On Wed, 17 Nov 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > Isn't it faster, so that relativistic affects cause time to slow down? Only if you're recording at speeds greater than about 14% of the speed of light (and that will get you a HUGE 1% difference between the time you measure and the time the tape "measures"). This argument is getting inane. You just keep responding with more and more outlandish claims. Brett ***************************************************** Dr. Brett Taylor brett@peloton.runet.edu * Dept of Chem and Physics * Curie 39A (540) 831-6147 * Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics * Walker 234 (540) 831-5410 * ***************************************************** To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 7:14: 1 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from germanium.xtalwind.net (germanium.xtalwind.net [205.160.242.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12A891533C for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 07:13:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jack@germanium.xtalwind.net) Received: from localhost (jack@localhost) by germanium.xtalwind.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA41956; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:12:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:12:19 -0500 (EST) From: jack To: Jonathon McKitrick Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Today Jonathon McKitrick wrote: > Is it possible for company to cause the adoption of lesser > technology purely by business/marketing tactics? Yes. OS/2 2.1 was superior to Windows3.1/DOS. The "Windows tax", where OEMs were forced to license a copy of W3.1 for every system sold or pay full retail, didn't leave much room for OS/2. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jack O'Neill Systems Administrator / Systems Analyst jack@germanium.xtalwind.net Crystal Wind Communications, Inc. Finger jack@germanium.xtalwind.net for my PGP key. PGP Key fingerprint = F6 C4 E6 D4 2F 15 A7 67 FD 09 E9 3C 5F CC EB CD enriched, vcard, HTML messages > /dev/null -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 7:17:43 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from serenity.mcc.ac.uk (serenity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.93]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 118EF1541A for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 07:17:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by serenity.mcc.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #3) id 11oTJV-0007kg-00; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 15:17:33 +0000 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 15:17:33 +0000 (GMT) From: Jonathon McKitrick To: jack Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Couldn't it be argued that those OEM's had the option to choose? Maybe what happened is that *they* chose windows, not consumers, and now we get the consequences. On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, jack wrote: >Today Jonathon McKitrick wrote: > >> Is it possible for company to cause the adoption of lesser >> technology purely by business/marketing tactics? > >Yes. OS/2 2.1 was superior to Windows3.1/DOS. The "Windows >tax", where OEMs were forced to license a copy of W3.1 for every >system sold or pay full retail, didn't leave much room for OS/2. > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Jack O'Neill Systems Administrator / Systems Analyst >jack@germanium.xtalwind.net Crystal Wind Communications, Inc. > Finger jack@germanium.xtalwind.net for my PGP key. > PGP Key fingerprint = F6 C4 E6 D4 2F 15 A7 67 FD 09 E9 3C 5F CC EB CD > enriched, vcard, HTML messages > /dev/null >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -jonathon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 8:17: 8 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4191B15468 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:17:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from des@flood.ping.uio.no) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA53503; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:15:43 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from des) To: Jonathon McKitrick Cc: jack , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" References: From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 18 Nov 1999 17:15:43 +0100 In-Reply-To: Jonathon McKitrick's message of "Thu, 18 Nov 1999 15:17:33 +0000 (GMT)" Message-ID: Lines: 19 User-Agent: Gnus/5.070097 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.97) Emacs/20.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Jonathon McKitrick writes: > On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, jack wrote: > > Yes. OS/2 2.1 was superior to Windows3.1/DOS. The "Windows > > tax", where OEMs were forced to license a copy of W3.1 for every > > system sold or pay full retail, didn't leave much room for OS/2. > Couldn't it be argued that those OEM's had the option to choose? Maybe > what happened is that *they* chose windows, not consumers, and now we get > the consequences. What Microsoft did is similar to Clinton changing the electoral procedure so that whichever party gets the majority gets *all* the seats in congress, instead of just a large chunk. You could, of course, argue that the party in question is obviously superior, since a majority of electors voted for it, but still, it's hardly fair to let it take over the entire house of representatives, is it? DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 8:21:14 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from germanium.xtalwind.net (germanium.xtalwind.net [205.160.242.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A55571543A for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:21:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jack@germanium.xtalwind.net) Received: from localhost (jack@localhost) by germanium.xtalwind.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA44802; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:19:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:19:39 -0500 (EST) From: jack To: Jonathon McKitrick Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Today Jonathon McKitrick wrote: > Couldn't it be argued that those OEM's had the option to choose? Their choice was windows on all boxes or windows on no boxes. Judge Spokin ruled that they did not have the option to choose. > Maybe what happened is that *they* chose windows, not > consumers, and now we get the consequences. There was testimony at that trial that some OEMs wanted to offer their customers a choice but didn't have that option since they would still have to pay for a windows license for each box. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jack O'Neill Systems Administrator / Systems Analyst jack@germanium.xtalwind.net Crystal Wind Communications, Inc. Finger jack@germanium.xtalwind.net for my PGP key. PGP Key fingerprint = F6 C4 E6 D4 2F 15 A7 67 FD 09 E9 3C 5F CC EB CD enriched, vcard, HTML messages > /dev/null -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 9:18:26 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from smtp01.primenet.com (smtp01.primenet.com [206.165.6.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1974C1545E for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:17:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr02.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp01.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA09569; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:17:36 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr02.primenet.com(206.165.6.202) via SMTP by smtp01.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAc0aizs; Thu Nov 18 10:16:58 1999 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA14495; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:16:58 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199911181716.KAA14495@usr02.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" To: crh@outpost.co.nz Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:16:58 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <19991118050528.7618214C0D@hub.freebsd.org> from "Craig Harding" at Nov 18, 99 06:05:12 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > Even ignoring this, the rotating record head is away from the > > tape media for longer than the vertical blanking interval, and > > that means that you get a 1.5 reduction in frame rate. This > > reduction in frame rate is even more noticible because of > > horizontal retrace in PAL vs. NTSC. > > > > The result is that the 525 lines of vertical resolution are reduced > > to 200 for VHS, 400 for SuperVHS > > Erm, actually I think you're getting a couple of things confused here > Terry. You're right, I mistyped "vertical" instead of "horizontal"; if you looked at my link references, they had the information right. > Firstly, I don't know what you're trying to say about frame rate, as > far as I'm aware PAL video runs at 50 fields (25 frames) per second > and NTSC runs at 60 fields (30 frames) per second [1]. Frame rate was referring to the number of horizontal time number of vertical display pixels (as opposed to tape pixels) per frame. When reading from a tape, you end up with fewer full frames of data a second. This is actually to be expected, or we would all be using televisions instead of computer monitors. 8-). > Some camera test charts actually have a resolution grid on them, with > horizontal and vertical lines drawn in an increasingly-finer > gradient. When you can no longer distinguish individual lines, you've > hit the resolution limit of the camera (or monitor, or whatever). Cameras are another matter entirely. Many CCD cameras did not equal television resolution for a long time, and included even vertical pixel "tweening" as a result. 8-(. > VHS, as Terry mentioned, has about 200-240 lines resolution. Super > VHS has theoretically close to 500, Actually, it's 480 for SuperVHS... but it requires a better source, or GenLock-like hardware with a standard source, or spindle-sync for tape-to-tape, to achieve. > where as the broadcast > format BetaSP is only 450. This leads some people to claim that Super > VHS is superior to BetaSP because they are ignoring SVHS's terrible > colour resolution. 8-). You PAL guys just won't let that one go, will you? > Modern broadcast video cameras have a horizontal resolution of about > 850 lines. And VHS is still limited to 200... Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 9:54:47 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from smtp01.primenet.com (smtp01.primenet.com [206.165.6.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6468A1546F for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:54:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr02.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp01.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA20622; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:54:09 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr02.primenet.com(206.165.6.202) via SMTP by smtp01.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAMtaa8N; Thu Nov 18 10:53:52 1999 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA15939; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:53:36 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199911181753.KAA15939@usr02.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" To: jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (Jonathon McKitrick) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:53:36 +0000 (GMT) Cc: crh@outpost.co.nz, tlambert@primenet.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: from "Jonathon McKitrick" at Nov 18, 99 02:29:41 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Since you seem to have a clear picture (pardon the pun) of this whole > debate, could you explain whether the salient points from this discussion > can support the premises we have been debating? I can try... > Is it possible for company to cause the adoption of lesser > technology purely by business/marketing tactics? Yes. It required the ability to wield what is called "monopolistic power" in the marketplace. If you can wield this power, you can subvert normal free-market pressures, and by subverting, ignore them. I should probably point out at this juncture that the U.S. is not entirely a free market, in the strictest sense of the word, mostly because the process is imperfect (but better than most). There was a recent ABC news special entitled "Is America Number One?", which examined the question of what it takes to be an economic superpower. America (in this case, referring to the U.S. only), has many regulatory barriers that other countries do not have, many of which are not related to the idea of the greater good (e.g. environmental law barriers are for the greater good, but business licensing and zoning restrictions aren't). The narrator was able to set up a business in New York, widely known in the U.S. as a huge bureaucracy with a high relative corruption and large special interest imposed regulations, in particular trade union politics, in four weeks. A similar experiment in India resulted in the narrator giving up after two months. In Hong Kong, the narrator was able to start a store in a mall in 24 hours. Clearly, then, regulatory barriers are important, but they are not the only barriers in the way of optimum economies; some of the other factors are: seperation of commercial and criminal justice systems, strong intellectual property laws, uniform enforcement of laws and business regulations, availability of skilled labor, the ability of foreign nationals to own property or businesses (this is a particular problem for Japan), etc.. It was also pointed out that one in every five Silicon Valley companies was started by a foreign national, and that one of every three scientists and engineers in Silicon Valley are foregin nationals. So "Is America Number One?"; "Yes" was the answer, in terms of overall opportunity for anyone, regardless of origin, to realize value through their own labor (sometimes called "sweat equity"). But part of this is the fact that the U.S. has regulatory barriers which are related to the idea of the greater good; and one of these barriers is the regulation of monopolies. People in this discussion seem to range on a luntic fringe on two sides of a spectrum, with one end labelled "all monopolies are evil" and the other labelled "monopolies are the natural result of superb capitalism, and therefore by definition good". The U.S. is not free of monopolies. They abound. But each of them are subject to stricter government regulation than other non-monopoly buisinesses, in order to _prevent_ them from unduly interfering with normal free market forces, and thus detracting from the greater good. > What *really* was responsible for the success of BetaMax over > VHS? You mean "VHS over Betamax". There are two schools fo thought. The first is the one that is currently attributed to Sony, the inventor of Betamax; it say "VHS won over Betamax because of recording times". I personally do not subscribe to this view, since recording times were an arms race, and there was never more than a six month lag between the two. I have also been unable to obtain any official confirmation of this hear-say claim that this is Sony's position in the matter. I think that it is far more likely that the Universal-Disney copyright infringement suit against Sony, which did not name either JVC or Pioneer, who were producing VHS recorders at the same time, has a chilling effect on the availability of movies for Betamax, and a concommitant chilling effect on the availability of software titles for the format. To paraphrase, I think that it was the availability of software that people wanted to run that ultimately decided the winner. Given Bill Gates press statements last night about what he was willing to do about a settlement, and what was not open to negotiation (content of Windows, opening source code to Windows, third party modification of Windows), it's pretty clear that he believes that availability of software would carry the day for the OS, as well, and that a split along OS/Application companies lines would be of least harm to him. In fact, if you follow the trade press, you will see that Microsoft has already reorganized into OS and other seperate business groups months ago. I think the only question is one of whether they will let Bill dictate that the divisions occur where he's already sewn in the zippers, should a settlement negotiation take place. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 10: 0: 5 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from smtp03.primenet.com (smtp03.primenet.com [206.165.6.133]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9649A14C39 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:59:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr02.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp03.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11584; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:59:28 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr02.primenet.com(206.165.6.202) via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAwcaOCw; Thu Nov 18 10:59:18 1999 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA16140; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:59:30 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199911181759.KAA16140@usr02.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" To: jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (Jonathon McKitrick) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:59:29 +0000 (GMT) Cc: jack@germanium.xtalwind.net, chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: from "Jonathon McKitrick" at Nov 18, 99 03:17:33 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > >> Is it possible for company to cause the adoption of lesser > >> technology purely by business/marketing tactics? > > > >Yes. OS/2 2.1 was superior to Windows3.1/DOS. The "Windows > >tax", where OEMs were forced to license a copy of W3.1 for every > >system sold or pay full retail, didn't leave much room for OS/2. > > Couldn't it be argued that those OEM's had the option to choose? Maybe > what happened is that *they* chose windows, not consumers, and now we get > the consequences. They were not permitted to divide the OS that came preinstalled on their hardware on the basis of OS marketshare. They were given a binary option on the basis of monopoly: they either paid for Windows to be installed everywhere, or they installed Windows nowhere. There was similar wrangling over the Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 transition, since the OEM contracts for Windows 3.1 did not specify a time boundary on options to renew, but the Windows 95 contracts did. This gave Microsoft leverage to force the issue of Windows 3.1 deprecation, when otherwise market forces might have caused Windows 3.1 systems to continue shipping forever, given that it was "good enough" for many veritcal markets. In fact, even today, you can purchase Windows 3.1 from some PC vendors whose primary market always has been linked to a vertical market where Windows 3.1 is "good enough". The back pages of "Computer Shopper" are littered with these people, just as OS/2 still has a huge following in the retail Point Of Sale Terminal (POST) market. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 10:16:15 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93DC914D82 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:16:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:16:02 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Jonathon McKitrick" , "Craig Harding" Cc: "Terry Lambert" , Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:16:02 -0800 Message-ID: <001301bf31f0$f8ce87a0$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-reply-to: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Since you seem to have a clear picture (pardon the pun) of this whole > debate, could you explain whether the salient points from this discussion > can support the premises we have been debating? Is it possible for > company to cause the adoption of lesser technology purely by > business/marketing tactics? What *really* was responsible for the success > of BetaMax over VHS? Personally, I don't think it's worth getting too deep into this particular example. But I think there is an important lesson about lock-in to be taken from it. Certainly, the economic theory of lock in is correct. If you accept a particular set of assumptions, the conclusion that the market can get 'locked in' to an inferior technology is inescapable. But the theory doesn't just tell us what the conclusion is, it also tells us what circumstances are necessary to find lock in. So the question becomes, how well do the assumptions correlate with actual market conditions? The better they correlate, the more cases of lock in we should be able to find. I'm of the belief that the assumptions exclude everything smart people could do to avoid lock in. And if there are no smart people who can do something avoid lock in, then lock in is not an inefficiency. (The existence of a better choice is not proof of market inefficiency any more than not picking the winning lottery numbers is 'inefficient' simply because it is thoeretically possible that you might have picked the winners.) So, if the theory is correct, where are the cases of lock in? It's interesting that _every_ alleged case of market lock in is suspicious under close analysis. That isn't to say that the outcome in every case is the absolute possible best that it could have been -- we don't live in a fantasy world. We should all be able to agree, I hope, that the case of lock in in the Betamax versus VHS case is questionable at best. Experts at the time did not universally feel that Betamax's quality was better. VHS had a longer recording time. In addition, the precursors/requirements that the lock in theory requires were not clearly present in this market. For example, many of the early purchasers of both VHS and Betamax had little intention of exchanging tapes with _anyone_, they were simply interested in building their own libraries and timeshifting. And there is no evidence of superior marketing on either side, that was a 'forced fact', invented out of whole cloth to explain a 'surprising' outcome. And, again, there is no evidence of any market inefficiency in this case. If we all benefit from having the same format, then we all _should_ have it. And if it's too much of a pain and expense for us all to throw away our VHS recorders and buy Betamaxes, then we shouldn't do so. This is not market inefficiency, this is a case of a 'superior' technology at best not really being superior when you consider the costs of adopting it. And the funny thing is, much like the standard keyboard versus the DSK keyboard, it takes the advocates of lock in about five years to admit that their example shows the opposite of what they claim it shows and find a new one. I wish them better luck this time. I can't prove the negative proposition that there are no cases of lock in that indicate market inefficiency. But if it's taken this long to find any, despite intense efforts to find one, then it must be a truly fair phenomenon, and certainly not one worth basing any public policy on. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 10:23:48 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B1221515F for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:23:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:23:28 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Terry Lambert" , "Jonathon McKitrick" Cc: , Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:23:28 -0800 Message-ID: <001e01bf31f2$02c70fb0$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-reply-to: <199911181753.KAA15939@usr02.primenet.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > Is it possible for company to cause the adoption of lesser > > technology purely by business/marketing tactics? > > Yes. It required the ability to wield what is called "monopolistic > power" in the marketplace. If you can wield this power, you can > subvert normal free-market pressures, and by subverting, ignore them. Then why is it that not one single clear example of this has ever been found? This must be some extreme usage of the word "possible". DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 10:29:19 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from probity.mcc.ac.uk (probity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.94]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47D861546B for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:29:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by probity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #3) id 11oWIk-0003yp-00; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 18:28:58 +0000 Received: from localhost (jcm@localhost) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA04382; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 18:28:57 GMT (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 18:28:57 +0000 (GMT) From: Jonathon McKitrick To: David Schwartz Cc: Terry Lambert , crh@outpost.co.nz, chat@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" In-Reply-To: <001e01bf31f2$02c70fb0$021d85d1@youwant.to> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > >> > Is it possible for company to cause the adoption of lesser >> > technology purely by business/marketing tactics? >> >> Yes. It required the ability to wield what is called "monopolistic >> power" in the marketplace. If you can wield this power, you can >> subvert normal free-market pressures, and by subverting, ignore them. > > Then why is it that not one single clear example of this has ever been >found? This must be some extreme usage of the word "possible". > Then what would you call M$ requiring all machines sold by OEMs to have Windows pre-installed, when OS/2 and DOS were viable alternatives, and OS/2 may have been superior? -jm To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 10:47:48 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBA3D154E6 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:47:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:47:38 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Jonathon McKitrick" Cc: "Terry Lambert" , , Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:47:38 -0800 Message-ID: <000001bf31f5$62ce77b0$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-reply-to: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > > > > >> > Is it possible for company to cause the adoption of lesser > >> > technology purely by business/marketing tactics? > >> > >> Yes. It required the ability to wield what is called "monopolistic > >> power" in the marketplace. If you can wield this power, you can > >> subvert normal free-market pressures, and by subverting, ignore them. > > > > Then why is it that not one single clear example of this > has ever been > >found? This must be some extreme usage of the word "possible". > > > > Then what would you call M$ requiring all machines sold by OEMs to have > Windows pre-installed, when OS/2 and DOS were viable alternatives, and > OS/2 may have been superior? > > -jm It's not an example of the adoption of a lesser technology unless OS/2 actually _is_ superior. Since it only "may have been", this is not a clear example. Read over the full thread of what I said (cited above). And this is really only logical. If OS/2 had been clearly superior, many OEMs would have refused Microsoft's terms, preferring to sell only the superior technology to the inferior one. Wouldn't you think? DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 10:55:34 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from serenity.mcc.ac.uk (serenity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.93]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC7F3154BD for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:55:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by serenity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #3) id 11oWiF-000FKB-00; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 18:55:19 +0000 Received: from localhost (jcm@localhost) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA04837; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 18:55:19 GMT (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 18:55:19 +0000 (GMT) From: Jonathon McKitrick To: David Schwartz Cc: Terry Lambert , crh@outpost.co.nz, chat@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" In-Reply-To: <000001bf31f5$62ce77b0$021d85d1@youwant.to> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > It's not an example of the adoption of a lesser technology unless OS/2 >actually _is_ superior. Since it only "may have been", this is not a clear >example. Read over the full thread of what I said (cited above). > > And this is really only logical. If OS/2 had been clearly superior, many >OEMs would have refused Microsoft's terms, preferring to sell only the >superior technology to the inferior one. Wouldn't you think? > So really, then, all this debating over whether Unix or Windows is superior is academic, since it is a matter of personal opinion, right? All that really remains of substance is whether M$ acted illegally to reserve its market status. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 11:43:20 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8628A14E12 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:43:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:43:09 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Jonathon McKitrick" Cc: Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:43:08 -0800 Message-ID: <000001bf31fd$24050960$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > > > It's not an example of the adoption of a lesser technology > unless OS/2 > >actually _is_ superior. Since it only "may have been", this is > not a clear > >example. Read over the full thread of what I said (cited above). > > > > And this is really only logical. If OS/2 had been clearly > superior, many > >OEMs would have refused Microsoft's terms, preferring to sell only the > >superior technology to the inferior one. Wouldn't you think? > > > So really, then, all this debating over whether Unix or Windows is > superior is academic, since it is a matter of personal opinion, > right? > > All that really remains of substance is whether M$ acted illegally to > reserve its market status. Yes, but if lock in (and similar affects) are nonexistent, then it's impossible for Microsoft to have acted illegally to reserve its market status. It's like asking if I stole an apple to make it rain. If humans cannot affect whether it rains or not by individual action, then no matter what I did with an apple, I could not have stolen one to make it rain. And the fact that it is raining cannot be used as evidence to show that I stole the apple. On the other hand, if there's evidence that humans can control the rain, and more damning, evidence that apple stealing can cause it, things change dramatically. Now the claim is coherent, and the evidence that it is raining can be used to show I stole the apple. And the fact that there's no other explanation for the rain is corroborating. So the question, "Can powerful marketing, tying schemes, tipping effects, and monopoly leverage create lock in or bring about suboptimal market results?" is completely relevant. Now, you might say, something like "Well, even if the antitrust laws are wrong and based upon false premises, nevertheless, they are law and so should be followed unless they are repealed. So even if Microsoft's actions did not affect its market share at all, it should still be punished for breaking the law." But this forgets entirely that an antitrust proceeding requires a positive showing of consumer harm. And not just any sort of harm -- Microsoft's release of NT4.0SP6 had a minor winsock bug. And that bug caused some consumer harm, of course. But this is not monopoly harm. Monopoly harm has to meet certain other standards, specifically, it has to be as the result of attempts at monopoly leverage and so on. So again, if there's no evidence that monopoly leverage can cause consumer harm (and there is none), the case against Microsoft collapses. So far, I've only dealt thoroughly with one claim of how monoply leverage can cause consumer harm (lock in), and I've argued that there is not one _clear_ case of it. But I guess I ignored the big picture of why that is relevant. So I hope this post fills that void. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 13:36:47 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from pebkac.owp.csus.edu (pebkac.owp.csus.edu [130.86.232.245]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EDEB1555E for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 13:36:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from joseph.scott@owp.csus.edu) Received: from owp.csus.edu (mail.owp.csus.edu [130.86.232.247]) by pebkac.owp.csus.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA54694; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 13:34:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <383470DA.54DB5A9B@owp.csus.edu> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:34:18 +0000 From: Joseph Scott X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonathon McKitrick Cc: David Schwartz , Terry Lambert , crh@outpost.co.nz, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Jonathon McKitrick wrote: > > Then what would you call M$ requiring all machines sold by OEMs to have > Windows pre-installed, when OS/2 and DOS were viable alternatives, and > OS/2 may have been superior? > OS/2 was and is still superior to Windows. May even be better than Windows 2000, but having never used 2000 I just don't know. I think the tricky part is defining superior. You can argue that OS/2 was not superior because it didn't have as many apps as windows, but I think you are then arguing about the OS/2 market, not OS/2 itself. I really liked OS/2, used with great joy, especially when my assembler programs would bomb, close the dos window and try it again. OS/2 is superior to windows. As to why then vendors didn't pick up on that, couple of ideas, one being money. They had to pay MS if a machine had windows on it or not, so to put OS/2 on there they had to pay both MS and IBM. Plus tech support for a different product. Now you may say they had to do the same thing going from Win 3.1 to 9x and you'd be right, but they did it because MS was in the drivers seat and the vendors where along for the ride because of money. -- Joseph Scott joseph.scott@owp.csus.edu Office Of Water Programs - CSU Sacramento To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 13:40:56 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from serenity.mcc.ac.uk (serenity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.93]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A489154CB for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 13:40:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by serenity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #3) id 11oZIJ-000IVz-00; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:40:43 +0000 Received: from localhost (jcm@localhost) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA08057; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:40:43 GMT (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:40:43 +0000 (GMT) From: Jonathon McKitrick To: Joseph Scott Cc: David Schwartz , Terry Lambert , crh@outpost.co.nz, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" In-Reply-To: <383470DA.54DB5A9B@owp.csus.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Joseph Scott wrote: > > OS/2 is superior to windows. As to why then vendors didn't pick up on >that, couple of ideas, one being money. They had to pay MS if a machine >had windows on it or not, so to put OS/2 on there they had to pay both >MS and IBM. Plus tech support for a different product. Now you may say >they had to do the same thing going from Win 3.1 to 9x and you'd be >right, but they did it because MS was in the drivers seat and the >vendors where along for the ride because of money. So basically, we are all in the corner the vendors painted us into. There's only one situation worse, and it hurts even more because it was gross mismanagement, no more, no less: the Amiga. Superior in every way but apps for its time.. and it went the way of the Dodo. Those of us who have them can only imagine what it would have been like today if CBM had done things right. -jm "I said he'll flip you. Flip you for real." - Fenster, The Usual Suspects To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 14: 4:25 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from yana.lemis.com (yana.lemis.com [192.109.197.140]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5179C15193 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:04:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from grog@mojave.sitaranetworks.com) Received: from mojave.sitaranetworks.com (mojave.sitaranetworks.com [199.103.141.157]) by yana.lemis.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA25375; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 08:34:06 +1030 (CST) (envelope-from grog@mojave.sitaranetworks.com) Message-ID: <19991118170326.20876@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:03:26 -0500 From: Greg Lehey To: David Schwartz , Terry Lambert , Jonathon McKitrick Cc: crh@outpost.co.nz, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Subjctive views of the world (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") Reply-To: Greg Lehey References: <199911181753.KAA15939@usr02.primenet.com> <001e01bf31f2$02c70fb0$021d85d1@youwant.to> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <001e01bf31f2$02c70fb0$021d85d1@youwant.to>; from David Schwartz on Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 10:23:28AM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thursday, 18 November 1999 at 10:23:28 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: > >>> Is it possible for company to cause the adoption of lesser >>> technology purely by business/marketing tactics? >> >> Yes. It required the ability to wield what is called "monopolistic >> power" in the marketplace. If you can wield this power, you can >> subvert normal free-market pressures, and by subverting, ignore them. > > Then why is it that not one single clear example of this has ever been > found? This must be some extreme usage of the word "possible". A good question. We've found them. When you say (paraphrased) "why has no example been found?", I have to assume you mean "why have I not seen one?". I can't answer that question. Greg -- Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 14:13:33 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DCC015504 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:13:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:13:25 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Greg Lehey" Cc: Subject: RE: Subjctive views of the world (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:13:25 -0800 Message-ID: <000001bf3212$222392a0$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: <19991118170326.20876@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > On Thursday, 18 November 1999 at 10:23:28 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: > > > >>> Is it possible for company to cause the adoption of lesser > >>> technology purely by business/marketing tactics? > >> > >> Yes. It required the ability to wield what is called "monopolistic > >> power" in the marketplace. If you can wield this power, you can > >> subvert normal free-market pressures, and by subverting, ignore them. > > > > Then why is it that not one single clear example of this > has ever been > > found? This must be some extreme usage of the word "possible". > > A good question. We've found them. When you say (paraphrased) "why > has no example been found?", I have to assume you mean "why have I not > seen one?". > > I can't answer that question. Seeing as I'm the only person in this thread who has cited even a single reference to back up his claims, this amounts to little more than whining. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 14:22:31 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mojave.sitaranetworks.com (mojave.sitaranetworks.com [199.103.141.157]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FD2A154BD for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:22:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from grog@mojave.sitaranetworks.com) Message-ID: <19991118172219.62530@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:22:19 -0500 From: Greg Lehey To: David Schwartz Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Subjctive views of the world (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") Reply-To: Greg Lehey References: <19991118170326.20876@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> <000001bf3212$222392a0$021d85d1@youwant.to> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <000001bf3212$222392a0$021d85d1@youwant.to>; from David Schwartz on Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 02:13:25PM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thursday, 18 November 1999 at 14:13:25 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: > >> On Thursday, 18 November 1999 at 10:23:28 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: >>> >>>>> Is it possible for company to cause the adoption of lesser >>>>> technology purely by business/marketing tactics? >>>> >>>> Yes. It required the ability to wield what is called "monopolistic >>>> power" in the marketplace. If you can wield this power, you can >>>> subvert normal free-market pressures, and by subverting, ignore them. >>> >>> Then why is it that not one single clear example of this >> has ever been >>> found? This must be some extreme usage of the word "possible". >> >> A good question. We've found them. When you say (paraphrased) "why >> has no example been found?", I have to assume you mean "why have I not >> seen one?". >> >> I can't answer that question. > > Seeing as I'm the only person in this thread who has cited even a single > reference to back up his claims, this amounts to little more than whining. No, it's a disparate view of the world. I have seen plenty of references to back up claims, but none of them came from you. I once did a lot of thinking about people like you. You're not certifiably crazy, and I'm the first to stand up for letting everybody have their own opinion. On the other hand, your view of the world differs so totally from that of everybody else I know that I do think there's something wrong with you. But there's a simple way of testing this: if we had a vote, what proportion would agree that no example of a monopoly has been presented, and what proportion would not? Come up with something approximating the correct answer and there's still hope. Greg -- Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 14:31:19 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79C50154B7 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:31:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:31:16 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Greg Lehey" Cc: Subject: RE: Subjctive views of the world (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:31:15 -0800 Message-ID: <000701bf3214$a03b5180$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <19991118172219.62530@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > On Thursday, 18 November 1999 at 14:13:25 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: > > > >> On Thursday, 18 November 1999 at 10:23:28 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: > >>> > >>>>> Is it possible for company to cause the adoption of lesser > >>>>> technology purely by business/marketing tactics? > >>>> > >>>> Yes. It required the ability to wield what is called "monopolistic > >>>> power" in the marketplace. If you can wield this power, you can > >>>> subvert normal free-market pressures, and by subverting, ignore them. > >>> > >>> Then why is it that not one single clear example of this > >> has ever been > >>> found? This must be some extreme usage of the word "possible". > >> > >> A good question. We've found them. When you say (paraphrased) "why > >> has no example been found?", I have to assume you mean "why have I not > >> seen one?". > >> > >> I can't answer that question. > > > > Seeing as I'm the only person in this thread who has cited > even a single > > reference to back up his claims, this amounts to little more > than whining. > > No, it's a disparate view of the world. I have seen plenty of > references to back up claims, but none of them came from you. > > I once did a lot of thinking about people like you. You're not > certifiably crazy, and I'm the first to stand up for letting everybody > have their own opinion. On the other hand, your view of the world > differs so totally from that of everybody else I know that I do think > there's something wrong with you. But there's a simple way of testing > this: if we had a vote, what proportion would agree that no example of > a monopoly has been presented, and what proportion would not? Come up > with something approximating the correct answer and there's still > hope. Eh? I never said monopolies don't exist. I'm sure they do, and for good reasons. For some things, there's a tremendous benefit to us all having similar things. Perhaps even operating systems fall into this categorty. This would mean that you would expect to see a monopoly in the operating system market. Similarly, there are advantages to people having compatible instruction architectures. This is why the '386-compatibles have held the desktop market for so long. If Intel had successfully kept the architecture all to themself, they would certainly have held a monopoly for some amount of time. Perhaps over many generations, if they could keep extending the architecture sufficiently that there was no great loss in sticking with it. Are you reading what I'm saying? Or is there a narrow slot in your mind for people who disagree with you that you are trying to pigeonhole me into? I'm sure you can find this entire thread somewhere. Please cite back to me anything I said that made you suspect that I would take the position that monopolies don't exist. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 14:48:55 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mojave.sitaranetworks.com (mojave.sitaranetworks.com [199.103.141.157]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5090154B7 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:48:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from grog@mojave.sitaranetworks.com) Message-ID: <19991118174829.00569@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:48:29 -0500 From: Greg Lehey To: David Schwartz Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Subjctive views of the world (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") Reply-To: Greg Lehey References: <19991118172219.62530@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> <000701bf3214$a03b5180$021d85d1@youwant.to> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <000701bf3214$a03b5180$021d85d1@youwant.to>; from David Schwartz on Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 02:31:15PM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org [Format recovered--see http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html] On Thursday, 18 November 1999 at 14:31:15 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: >> On Thursday, 18 November 1999 at 14:13:25 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: >>> >>>> On Thursday, 18 November 1999 at 10:23:28 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Is it possible for company to cause the adoption of lesser >>>>>>> technology purely by business/marketing tactics? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. It required the ability to wield what is called "monopolistic >>>>>> power" in the marketplace. If you can wield this power, you can >>>>>> subvert normal free-market pressures, and by subverting, ignore them. >>>>> >>>>> Then why is it that not one single clear example of this has >>>>> ever been found? This must be some extreme usage of the word >>>>> "possible". >>>> >>>> A good question. We've found them. When you say (paraphrased) "why >>>> has no example been found?", I have to assume you mean "why have I not >>>> seen one?". >>>> >>>> I can't answer that question. >>> >>> Seeing as I'm the only person in this thread who has cited >>> even a single reference to back up his claims, this amounts to >>> little more than whining. >> >> No, it's a disparate view of the world. I have seen plenty of >> references to back up claims, but none of them came from you. >> >> I once did a lot of thinking about people like you. You're not >> certifiably crazy, and I'm the first to stand up for letting everybody >> have their own opinion. On the other hand, your view of the world >> differs so totally from that of everybody else I know that I do think >> there's something wrong with you. But there's a simple way of testing >> this: if we had a vote, what proportion would agree that no example of >> a monopoly has been presented, and what proportion would not? Come up >> with something approximating the correct answer and there's still >> hope. > > Eh? I never said monopolies don't exist. I'm sure they do, and for good > reasons. > > For some things, there's a tremendous benefit to us all having similar > things. Perhaps even operating systems fall into this categorty. This would > mean that you would expect to see a monopoly in the operating system market. > > Similarly, there are advantages to people having compatible instruction > architectures. This is why the '386-compatibles have held the desktop market > for so long. If Intel had successfully kept the architecture all to > themself, they would certainly have held a monopoly for some amount of time. > Perhaps over many generations, if they could keep extending the architecture > sufficiently that there was no great loss in sticking with it. > > Are you reading what I'm saying? Or is there a narrow slot in your mind for > people who disagree with you that you are trying to pigeonhole me into? > > I'm sure you can find this entire thread somewhere. Please cite back to me > anything I said that made you suspect that I would take the position that > monopolies don't exist. I think that reply proves my point. Greg -- When replying to this message, please take care not to mutilate the original text. For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/email.html Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 14:50:49 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.ftf.dk (mail.ftf.net [129.142.64.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FA5315529 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:50:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from regnauld@ftf.net) Received: from ns.int.ftf.net (fw2.ftf.dk [192.168.1.2] (may be forged)) by mail.ftf.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3/gw-ftf-1.2) with ESMTP id XAA20948 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 23:50:37 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.ftf.dk: Host fw2.ftf.dk [192.168.1.2] (may be forged) claimed to be ns.int.ftf.net Received: (from regnauld@localhost) by ns.int.ftf.net (8.9.2/8.9.3) id AAA30841; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:04:14 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <19991119000414.60347@ns.int.ftf.net> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:04:14 +0100 From: Phil Regnauld To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Salon magazine article (RedHat) -- FreeBSD mentioned Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88e X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE i386 Organization: FTFnet Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/11/18/red_hat/index.html http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/11/18/red_hat/index1.html -- Y et A nother RedHat buys Cygnus L inux T akeover A lliance To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 15:20: 5 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.ftf.dk (mail.ftf.net [129.142.64.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B308A154F6 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 15:19:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from regnauld@ftf.net) Received: from ns.int.ftf.net (fw2.ftf.dk [192.168.1.2] (may be forged)) by mail.ftf.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3/gw-ftf-1.2) with ESMTP id AAA21210; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:19:38 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.ftf.dk: Host fw2.ftf.dk [192.168.1.2] (may be forged) claimed to be ns.int.ftf.net Received: (from regnauld@localhost) by ns.int.ftf.net (8.9.2/8.9.3) id AAA31023; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:33:15 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <19991119003314.64364@ns.int.ftf.net> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:33:14 +0100 From: Phil Regnauld To: Wes Peters Cc: Jay Nelson , chat@FreeBSD.ORG, Nick Hibma Subject: Re: Support for USB floppies like Y-E Data FlashBuster-u ? References: <38324B30.F0BF613D@softweyr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88e In-Reply-To: <38324B30.F0BF613D@softweyr.com>; from Wes Peters on Tue, Nov 16, 1999 at 11:29:04PM -0700 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE i386 Organization: FTFnet Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Wes Peters writes: > > Neither of them seem to fit in my .308 rifle. Even the spindle that Phil > Regnauld mentioned isn't going to do much of anything to a 180-grain > full metal jacket bullet travelling at 2,400 fps; these rounds go straight > through hardened steel padlocks. The spindle _is_ thick. What's the jacket made of ? Brass ? Now tungsten might do something >:-) > You should see what they do to 14" Fujitsu Eagle drives. Or old VT100s. > Or jackrabbits. You go hunting with that ? Man, you've been watching South Park too much :-) -- Y et A nother RedHat buys Cygnus L inux T akeover A lliance To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 15:34:10 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.ftf.dk (mail.ftf.net [129.142.64.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B45191553D for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 15:34:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from regnauld@ftf.net) Received: from ns.int.ftf.net (fw2.ftf.dk [192.168.1.2] (may be forged)) by mail.ftf.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3/gw-ftf-1.2) with ESMTP id AAA21376; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:33:58 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.ftf.dk: Host fw2.ftf.dk [192.168.1.2] (may be forged) claimed to be ns.int.ftf.net Received: (from regnauld@localhost) by ns.int.ftf.net (8.9.2/8.9.3) id AAA31106; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:47:36 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <19991119004735.03853@ns.int.ftf.net> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:47:35 +0100 From: Phil Regnauld To: Jonathon McKitrick Cc: freebsd-chat Subject: Re: David's comments... References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88e In-Reply-To: ; from Jonathon McKitrick on Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 12:45:12PM +0000 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE i386 Organization: FTFnet Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Jonathon McKitrick writes: > And I think it would > be more gratifying if that defeat came from a better product, rather > than from a government decision. Spoils dinner, eh ? PHK once described (quite well) that Microsoft losing is not as good as it sounds. -- Y et A nother RedHat buys Cygnus L inux T akeover A lliance To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 15:41:50 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.ftf.dk (mail.ftf.net [129.142.64.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D855F1553D for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 15:41:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from regnauld@ftf.net) Received: from ns.int.ftf.net (fw2.ftf.dk [192.168.1.2] (may be forged)) by mail.ftf.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3/gw-ftf-1.2) with ESMTP id AAA21505; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:39:58 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.ftf.dk: Host fw2.ftf.dk [192.168.1.2] (may be forged) claimed to be ns.int.ftf.net Received: (from regnauld@localhost) by ns.int.ftf.net (8.9.2/8.9.3) id AAA31154; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:53:35 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <19991119005335.00596@ns.int.ftf.net> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:53:35 +0100 From: Phil Regnauld To: David Schwartz Cc: Greg Lehey , Terry Lambert , David Scheidt , jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org, erickw@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Marketing vs. technical superiority (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") References: <19991117102851.53109@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> <000101bf313e$e16c7ca0$021d85d1@youwant.to> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88e In-Reply-To: <000101bf313e$e16c7ca0$021d85d1@youwant.to>; from David Schwartz on Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 01:01:12PM -0800 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE i386 Organization: FTFnet Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org David Schwartz writes: > > References, please. > > See pretty much every actual research paper on the subject, including > Lardner(1987), Weinstein(1984), Prentis(1981), and even Consumer Reports. > Klopfenstein summarizes the research as follows: > > "Although many held the perception that Beta VCR produced a better picture > than VHS, technical experts ... have concluded that this is, in fact, not > the case; periodic reviews in Consumer Reports found VHS picture quality > superior twice, found Beta superior once, and found no difference in a > fourth review. In conclusion, the Beta format appeared to hold no advantages > over VHS other than being the first on the market, and this may be a lesson > for future marketers of new media products." Well, whatever. Betamax gave you roughly ~400 lines, that's about 65% of Pal/Secam resolution (before that Secam was 825, that's before they switched to color) and about %75 of NTSC (Never Twice the Same Color :-). Don't know if there were any variants of NTSC Betamax, as with VHS (NTSC 3.58 & 4.43). VHS gives you roughly ~250 lines, with probably better color restitution, which might explain the consumers saying they liked the picture better. Doesn't say anything about sharpness. It's a bit like the CD vs. vinyl argument: some people say vinyls and tube amps sound better. It's a question of taste, and the fact that CDs sound too "clear" for some people, especially when they've been used to the post-master audio-spectrum compression of vinyls. -- Y et A nother RedHat buys Cygnus L inux T akeover A lliance To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 15:57:51 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7439E1516A for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 15:57:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 15:57:48 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Phil Regnauld" Cc: Subject: RE: Marketing vs. technical superiority (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 15:57:48 -0800 Message-ID: <000001bf3220$b72b8c50$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <19991119005335.00596@ns.int.ftf.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org You really have to wonder. With the proliferation of cable, digital cable, digital satellite, DVD, Laserdisc and large-screen TVs, why do we still have VCRs that look like a broadcast from the late 1970's? You can't explain it by marketing. Nobody could hold technology back that far for that long by marketing, and they would gain nothing by doing so -- the potential revenues of selling everyone new VCRs are greater than the revenues from convincing them not to. And besides, who is seriously marketing VHS today? You can't explain it by saying consumers don't care about quality. I think the success of satellite TV, digital cable, and high-quality, large screen television sets disproves that. And I think the future success of DVD will disprove it further. (Of course, Laserdisc failed, maybe consumers _still_ don't care too much about quality? Maybe you need to give them interactivity too?) You can't explain it by lock in. If lock in were the problem, SuperVHS should have caught on. Similarly, the self-recording benefit should be enough to weaken lock in. In any event, the only clearly superior recording format still targetted at the home market that exists (SuperVHS) is free from lock in. In any event, clever manufacturers could easily have come up with techniques to avoid this, as DVD did. You can't explain it entirely by economies of scale. If people really wanted a better standard, economies of scale would rapidly have brought SuperVHS prices into parity. VCR prices aren't falling anymore, and there are still several manufacturers of VCRs so the economies of scale can't be overwhelmingly great. (And, of course, if it's economies of scale, why are DVD prices falling?) Those interested in more detail should see Klopfenstein's article, "The Diffusion of the VCR in the United States", in _The_VCR_Age_. I'm reasonably sure the truth lies somewhere inbetween all of these extremes. This isn't a clear case of anything. DS >Betamax gave you roughly ~400 lines, that's about 65% of Pal/Secam >resolution (before that Secam was 825, that's before they >switched to color) >and about %75 of NTSC (Never Twice the Same Color :-). > >Don't know if there were any variants of NTSC Betamax, as with VHS >(NTSC 3.58 & 4.43). > >VHS gives you roughly ~250 lines, with probably better >color restitution, >which might explain the consumers saying they liked the >picture better. > >Doesn't say anything about sharpness. It's a bit like the >CD vs. vinyl >argument: some people say vinyls and tube amps sound better. It's >a question of taste, and the fact that CDs sound too >"clear" for some >people, especially when they've been used to the >post-master audio-spectrum >compression of vinyls. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 16:16:25 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from probity.mcc.ac.uk (probity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.94]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AE5C15547 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:16:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by probity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #3) id 11obiu-0009Xg-00; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:16:20 +0000 Received: from localhost (jcm@localhost) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA10811; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:16:19 GMT (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:16:19 +0000 (GMT) From: Jonathon McKitrick To: David Schwartz Cc: Phil Regnauld , freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Marketing vs. technical superiority (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") In-Reply-To: <000001bf3220$b72b8c50$021d85d1@youwant.to> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Just a question... you mentioned somewhere before that NT kept users on the cutting edge with service packs. I've heard admins says these are little more that bug fix kits. Can you name some of the more advanced features M$ has provided 'without cost' to its users by means of Service Packs? -jm "I said he'll flip you. Flip you for real." - Fenster, The Usual Suspects To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 16:16:41 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mta3.rcsntx.swbell.net (mta3.rcsntx.swbell.net [151.164.30.27]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C10D215580 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:16:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from noslenj@swbell.net) Received: from swbell.net ([209.184.1.193]) by mta3.rcsntx.swbell.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with ESMTP id <0FLF002IT4PN9J@mta3.rcsntx.swbell.net> for chat@FreeBSD.ORG; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 18:15:26 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by swbell.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA00901; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 18:14:43 -0600 (CST envelope-from noslenj@swbell.net) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 18:14:43 -0600 (CST) From: Jay Nelson Subject: Re: Support for USB floppies like Y-E Data FlashBuster-u ? In-reply-to: <19991119003314.64364@ns.int.ftf.net> To: Phil Regnauld Cc: Wes Peters , chat@FreeBSD.ORG, Nick Hibma Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Phil Regnauld wrote: >Wes Peters writes: >> >> Neither of them seem to fit in my .308 rifle. Even the spindle that Phil >> Regnauld mentioned isn't going to do much of anything to a 180-grain >> full metal jacket bullet travelling at 2,400 fps; these rounds go straight >> through hardened steel padlocks. > > The spindle _is_ thick. What's the jacket made of ? Brass ? > Now tungsten might do something >:-) Jackets are copper, but a few Mil surplus black tip rounds would do the trick;) Besides -- don't discount the effect of 180 grains of mass against aluminum, which is inherently brittle. I doubt the spindle would bother it much. >> You should see what they do to 14" Fujitsu Eagle drives. Or old VT100s. >> Or jackrabbits. > > You go hunting with that ? Man, you've been watching > South Park too much :-) Terminal effects are entirely different between old drives and rabbits. Don't believe everything you see on TV. -- Jay To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 16:34:31 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9369615556 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:34:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:34:26 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Jonathon McKitrick" Cc: "Phil Regnauld" , Subject: RE: Marketing vs. technical superiority (was: Judge: "Gates WasMain Culprit") Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:34:26 -0800 Message-ID: <000001bf3225$d5735f30$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Just a question... you mentioned somewhere before that NT kept users on > the cutting edge with service packs. I've heard admins says these are > little more that bug fix kits. Can you name some of the more advanced > features M$ has provided 'without cost' to its users by means of Service > Packs? DirectX, AGP support, KNI support, 3Dnow support, adaptive listen queues, large memory support, support for new processors, more efficient SMP support, support for concurrent NTFS defragmentation (though not the actual defragmentor), cryptography, message queues, synchronization with Windows 98 platform features, fibers (similar to threads, but lighter), installation enhancements (the Setup* API), smart card support, Java, and lots more. All of these things could have been charged for had Microsoft wished to do so. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 16:35:23 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.ftf.dk (mail.ftf.net [129.142.64.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF76E14CE8 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:35:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from regnauld@ftf.net) Received: from ns.int.ftf.net (fw2.ftf.dk [192.168.1.2] (may be forged)) by mail.ftf.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3/gw-ftf-1.2) with ESMTP id BAA22372; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 01:35:07 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.ftf.dk: Host fw2.ftf.dk [192.168.1.2] (may be forged) claimed to be ns.int.ftf.net Received: (from regnauld@localhost) by ns.int.ftf.net (8.9.2/8.9.3) id BAA31446; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 01:48:45 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <19991119014845.16654@ns.int.ftf.net> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 01:48:45 +0100 From: Phil Regnauld To: Jonathon McKitrick Cc: David Schwartz , freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Marketing vs. technical superiority (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") References: <000001bf3220$b72b8c50$021d85d1@youwant.to> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88e In-Reply-To: ; from Jonathon McKitrick on Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 12:16:19AM +0000 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE i386 Organization: FTFnet Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Jonathon McKitrick writes: > Just a question... you mentioned somewhere before that NT kept users on > the cutting edge with service packs. I've heard admins says these are > little more that bug fix kits. Can you name some of the more advanced > features M$ has provided 'without cost' to its users by means of Service > Packs? On the cutting edge ? Yeah, it's cutting something the users would rather keep :-) Each service pack replaces .DLLs. For example, Active Desktop + IE integration, etc... -- Y et A nother RedHat buys Cygnus L inux T akeover A lliance To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 16:58:34 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7E7314CF2 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:58:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:58:27 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Phil Regnauld" , "Jonathon McKitrick" Cc: Subject: RE: Marketing vs. technical superiority (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:58:27 -0800 Message-ID: <000001bf3229$307560b0$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: <19991119014845.16654@ns.int.ftf.net> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Jonathon McKitrick writes: > > Just a question... you mentioned somewhere before that NT kept users on > > the cutting edge with service packs. I've heard admins says these are > > little more that bug fix kits. Can you name some of the more advanced > > features M$ has provided 'without cost' to its users by means of Service > > Packs? > > On the cutting edge ? Yeah, it's cutting something the users would > rather keep :-) > > Each service pack replaces .DLLs. > > For example, Active Desktop + IE integration, etc... I'm sorry, I guess I don't understand your point. Pretty much every operating system upgrade replaces system files and libraries and adds features that users may or may not want. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 17:27: 3 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.enteract.com (mail.enteract.com [207.229.143.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F03415018 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:27:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Received: from shell-2.enteract.com (dscheidt@shell-2.enteract.com [207.229.143.41]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA57595; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 19:25:32 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 19:25:32 -0600 (CST) From: David Scheidt To: David Schwartz Cc: Phil Regnauld , Jonathon McKitrick , freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Marketing vs. technical superiority (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") In-Reply-To: <000001bf3229$307560b0$021d85d1@youwant.to> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > > Jonathon McKitrick writes: > > > > Each service pack replaces .DLLs. > > > > For example, Active Desktop + IE integration, etc... > > I'm sorry, I guess I don't understand your point. Pretty much every > operating system upgrade replaces system files and libraries and adds > features that users may or may not want. Most of them manage to do it in a more sane fashion, though. .DLLs suck. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 19:42:35 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from queasy.outpost.co.nz (outpost2.inspire.net.nz [203.96.157.26]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B8F1151CB for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 19:42:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from crh@outpost.co.nz) Received: (qmail 27525 invoked from network); 19 Nov 1999 03:42:27 -0000 Received: from officedonkey.outpost.co.nz (HELO officedonkey) (192.168.1.3) by outpost2.inspire.net.nz with SMTP; 19 Nov 1999 03:42:27 -0000 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Craig Harding" Organization: Outpost Digital Media Ltd To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:42:12 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Reply-To: crh@outpost.co.nz In-reply-to: <199911181716.KAA14495@usr02.primenet.com> References: <19991118050528.7618214C0D@hub.freebsd.org> from "Craig Harding" at Nov 18, 99 06:05:12 pm X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-Id: <19991119034232.6B8F1151CB@hub.freebsd.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert wrote: > > where as the broadcast > > format BetaSP is only 450. This leads some people to claim that > > Super VHS is superior to BetaSP because they are ignoring SVHS's > > terrible colour resolution. > > 8-). You PAL guys just won't let that one go, will you? Actually, SVHS is terrible in either standard, it's not just the poor colour reproduction accuracy in NTSC, in either format SVHS (and to a much greater degree VHS) suffer from very low spatial resolution and very low signal to noise of the colour information in a picture (chrominance). SVHS video has been likened to carefully drawing a picture in black biro (luminance) and then colouring it in with crayon (chrominance), while wearing boxing gloves. VHS replaces the biro with a magic marker, and the crayons with 4-inch house-painting brushes. > > Modern broadcast video cameras have a horizontal resolution of > > about 850 lines. > > And VHS is still limited to 200... Zigackly! Which is why the prospect of widespread adoption of DVD excites me. At last I can distribute videos to clients on a medium that won't throw away 75% of my efforts -- C. -- Craig Harding crh@outpost.co.nz "I don't know about God, I Outpost Digital Media Ltd crh@inspire.net.nz just think we're handmade" http://www.outpost.co.nz ICQ# 26701833 - Polly To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 20:13:43 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from probity.mcc.ac.uk (probity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.94]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EBD7154D4 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 20:13:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by probity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #3) for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org id 11ofQa-000CfZ-00; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 04:13:40 +0000 Received: from localhost (jcm@localhost) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA14222 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 04:13:40 GMT (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 04:13:39 +0000 (GMT) From: Jonathon McKitrick To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: comments on NT service packs... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Could someone re-send me the message about NT service pack features? I need it for my continued debate... ;-) -jm "I said he'll flip you. Flip you for real." - Fenster, The Usual Suspects To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 21: 5:35 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from modgud.nordicrecords.com (h21-168-107.nordicdms.com [207.21.168.107]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DDE0015584 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:05:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dwalton@acm.org) Received: (qmail 26041 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 1999 05:05:28 -0000 Message-ID: <19991119050528.26040.qmail@modgud.nordicrecords.com> Received: (qmail 26034 invoked from network); 19 Nov 1999 05:05:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton) (207.21.168.137) by mail.nordicdms.com with SMTP; 19 Nov 1999 05:05:28 -0000 From: "Dave Walton" To: Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:02:43 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Reply-To: dwalton@acm.org X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a) Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org David Schwartz wrote: > > All that really remains of substance is whether M$ acted > > illegally to reserve its market status. > > Yes, but if lock in (and similar affects) are nonexistent, then > it's impossible for Microsoft to have acted illegally to reserve its > market status. Monopoly leverage is illegal. If you are a monolopy, and attempt to leverage your monopoly to restrict your competition, you are acting illegally. So it is certainly not impossible, whether or not lock in exists. > It's like asking if I stole an apple to make it rain. If humans > cannot affect whether it rains or not by individual action, then no > matter what I did with an apple, I could not have stolen one to > make it rain. And the fact that it is raining cannot be used as > evidence to show that I stole the apple. But remember... Leverage is not illegal. Monopoly leverage is. To try to fit this to your analogy, imagine that apple theft is only a crime while it is raining. Judge Jackson reached the conclusion that it is raining in paragraph 33: "In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market." The remaining 379 paragraphs are spent examining the trail of apple cores. The fact that it is raining does not prove you stole an apple, but the fact that you stole apples while it was raining makes you a criminal. > Now, you might say, something like "Well, even if the > antitrust laws are wrong and based upon false premises, > nevertheless, they are law and so should be followed unless they > are repealed. So even if Microsoft's actions did not affect its > market share at all, it should still be punished for breaking the > law." Their actions DID affect their market share. In 1997, Microsoft reached this conclusion (paragraph 168): "It seems clear to me that it will be very hard to increase browser market share on the merits of IE 4 alone. It will be more important to leverage the OS asset to make people use IE instead of Navigator." They leveraged their OS monopoly by bundling IE and forbidding OEMs from replacing IE with Netscape on the desktop, among other things. It is those actions that caused the market share reversal between IE and Netscape. > But this forgets entirely that an antitrust proceeding > requires a positive showing of consumer harm. > > And not just any sort of harm -- Microsoft's release of > NT4.0SP6 had a minor winsock bug. And that bug caused some > consumer harm, of course. But this is not monopoly harm. > Monopoly harm has to meet certain other standards, specifically, > it has to be as the result of attempts at monopoly leverage and > so on. > > So again, if there's no evidence that monopoly leverage can > cause consumer harm (and there is none), the case against > Microsoft collapses. There is none? You're kidding, right? Here's one example... Intel was developed Native Signal Processing software with the intention of making it freely available to consumers and OEMs. Microsoft coerced Intel into abandoning that project, denying consumers the benefits of Intel's work. As paragraph 101 says: "Even as late as the end of 1998, though, Microsoft still had not implemented key capabilities that Intel had been poised to offer consumers in 1995." Dave ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Walton dwalton@acm.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 21:19:34 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from smtp-hub.mail.erols.net (smtp4.erols.com [207.172.3.237]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98C2114D4B for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:19:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from smtp1.erols.com (smtp1.erols.com [207.172.3.234]) by smtp-hub.mail.erols.net (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with ESMTP id AAA22119 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:19:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (216-164-168-124.s124.tnt1.xcb.nj.dialup.rcn.com [216.164.168.124]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA13390 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:19:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3834DDDF.DCA2119A@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:19:27 -0500 From: Jonathon McKitrick X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.3-STABLE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Microsoft service packs... (was many other threads...) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Quote from a friend who is an NT admin... In response to David's comments on NT 'advances' in Service Packs.... This is nuts. Anyway, I think NT is stable when it comes to programs, but when the system goes down, it goes down hard. The other day, I installed a new server, which had nothing on it but NT4.0 and service pack 4. The company came out to install the banks software, and it crashed (bug checked) TWICE just during the FILE COPY!!! I mean, come on. How the heck can you norrow down what caused that? No, the more I use NT, the more I hate it. Even from the very limited use of win2000, I think it will be much better. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 0: 3:50 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88778150D1 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:03:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:03:46 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Jonathon McKitrick" , Subject: RE: Microsoft service packs... (was many other threads...) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:03:46 -0800 Message-ID: <000001bf3264$9ac28160$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: <3834DDDF.DCA2119A@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I'm baffled. How did the merits of NT get into this? We were never even discussing whether NT was a good or bad server operating system. DS > Quote from a friend who is an NT admin... > In response to David's comments on NT 'advances' in Service Packs.... > > > This is nuts. > > > Anyway, I think NT is stable when it comes to programs, but when the > system goes down, it goes down hard. The other day, I installed a new > server, which had nothing on it but NT4.0 and service pack 4. The > company > came out to install the banks software, and it crashed (bug checked) > TWICE > just during the FILE COPY!!! I mean, come on. How the heck can you > norrow > down what caused that? > > No, the more I use NT, the more I hate it. Even from the very limited > use > of win2000, I think it will be much better. > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 1:13:51 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.ftf.dk (mail.ftf.net [129.142.64.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B05BA1526D for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 01:13:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from regnauld@ftf.net) Received: from ns.int.ftf.net (fw2.ftf.dk [192.168.1.2] (may be forged)) by mail.ftf.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3/gw-ftf-1.2) with ESMTP id KAA03034; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 10:12:13 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.ftf.dk: Host fw2.ftf.dk [192.168.1.2] (may be forged) claimed to be ns.int.ftf.net Received: (from regnauld@localhost) by ns.int.ftf.net (8.9.2/8.9.3) id KAA33929; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 10:25:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <19991119102553.57394@ns.int.ftf.net> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 10:25:53 +0100 From: Phil Regnauld To: David Scheidt Cc: David Schwartz , Jonathon McKitrick , freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Marketing vs. technical superiority (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") References: <000001bf3229$307560b0$021d85d1@youwant.to> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88e In-Reply-To: ; from David Scheidt on Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 07:25:32PM -0600 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE i386 Organization: FTFnet Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org David Scheidt writes: > > Most of them manage to do it in a more sane fashion, though. .DLLs suck. The official way is to install the app. Lots of unofficial changes are made through hotfixes, SPs, etc... Like the MS 95 Plus Pack which also fixed a lot of problems and missing features. That's a blatant example of "pay for fixes". -- Y et A nother RedHat buys Cygnus L inux T akeover A lliance To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 2: 5:38 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CC0815206 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 02:05:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 02:05:33 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Phil Regnauld" , "David Scheidt" Cc: Subject: RE: Marketing vs. technical superiority (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 02:05:32 -0800 Message-ID: <000401bf3275$9dcc7d50$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <19991119102553.57394@ns.int.ftf.net> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > David Scheidt writes: > > > > Most of them manage to do it in a more sane fashion, though. > .DLLs suck. > > The official way is to install the app. > > Lots of unofficial changes are made through hotfixes, SPs, etc... > > Like the MS 95 Plus Pack which also fixed a lot of problems > and missing > features. That's a blatant example of "pay for fixes". Sure. Many, many software companies do that when they can get away with it. In general, people seldom purchase an upgrade just to get bug fixes. And, in fact, a newer version of a product is generally not likely to be any more stable than previous versions -- new features often mean new bugs. In any event, nobody in the software industry likes to promote their products that way. ;) Many software companies only provide free fixes for 'security' bugs. I try to deal with companies that have open, fair, and honest bugfix policies whenever possible. Microsoft has been much better in the NT market than the 95/98 market. Although in the last 2 years, they've been a lot better. Time will tell. Perhaps part of the reason Microsoft offered the NT service packs for free was that they did contain so many bug fixes. Perhaps it was too expensive to maintain two 'streams', one with just bug fixes and one with new features. Although now it seems they're committed to doing just that, with 'service' packs and 'option' packs. One suspects the option packs will not be free. But perhaps Microsoft hopes that keeping prices low will help them gain market share in the server OS market. In any event, this is a peripheral point. In general, I think Microsoft charges as much as it possibly can for its products considering its long term view. It knows that low prices hurt profits but that high prices give people incentives to look elsewhere for solutions. Once the costs of development have been paid for, prices can easily be kept low, ensuring that there isn't enough profit oppurtunity left to finance someone else's development from the ground up. What's actually puzzling is why software prices in markets dominated by one company are as low as they are. One theory is that it's too easy for a competitor to scale up very quickly and steal domination. As soon as the price rises enough, a new company could develop a competing product and sell massive numbers of copies in very short order. Keeping software prices low maximizes the amount of time market domination can be maintained. One ironic point is that Microsoft must continuously innovate to keep its position as market leader (in terms of sales). Since software does not 'decay' or need replacement, Microsoft can only sell me a word processor once. Then I have it and could keep using it forever. They have to sell me a new word processor to maintain sales, and to do that, they'll have to convince me not to keep using my old one. That will take some sort of innovation. The staple innovation has been new or combined features. And, of course, if the market leader falls too far behind what is possible, price will become irrelevant. People want products that do what they need to get done. Sometimes even entire markets become irrelevant and it no longer matters who was the former market leader. (For example, there isn't much of a word processor market anymore. Office suites have obsoleted the entire market. There isn't much of a 16-bit spreadsheet market either.) DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 2:17: 5 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.ftf.dk (mail.ftf.net [129.142.64.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43CBF151FE for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 02:16:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from regnauld@ftf.net) Received: from ns.int.ftf.net (fw2.ftf.dk [192.168.1.2] (may be forged)) by mail.ftf.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3/gw-ftf-1.2) with ESMTP id LAA07795; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:16:31 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.ftf.dk: Host fw2.ftf.dk [192.168.1.2] (may be forged) claimed to be ns.int.ftf.net Received: (from regnauld@localhost) by ns.int.ftf.net (8.9.2/8.9.3) id LAA34414; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:30:12 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <19991119113011.62880@ns.int.ftf.net> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:30:11 +0100 From: Phil Regnauld To: David Schwartz Cc: David Scheidt , freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Marketing vs. technical superiority (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") References: <19991119102553.57394@ns.int.ftf.net> <000401bf3275$9dcc7d50$021d85d1@youwant.to> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88e In-Reply-To: <000401bf3275$9dcc7d50$021d85d1@youwant.to>; from David Schwartz on Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 02:05:32AM -0800 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE i386 Organization: FTFnet Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org David Schwartz writes: [deletia] > What's actually puzzling is why software prices in markets dominated by one > company are as low as they are. One theory is that it's too easy for a As _low_ ? In Europe, Microsoft's practice has been to: - lower prices in the countries where it still had competition (WordPerfect vs. Office, for example. Or OS/2 here). - raise the prices again as soon as it had achieved market domination Win95's price != Win98 price, for example. Price is an illusion in the mass software market. > As soon as the price rises enough, a new company could develop a competing product and sell > massive numbers of copies in very short order. So where's the, uh, competition ? MS judged that $89 was the right price for 98, when all showed, marketing wise, that $69 would have worked. ... or the fact that the French Canadian edition of MS Office, which is MUCH cheaper than the French national edition, is not to be sold OR imported in France unless you want to get your ass sued. > Keeping software prices low > maximizes the amount of time market domination can be maintained. Prices for MS products are HIGH. NT Server license unlimited is MORE expensive than Solaris unlimited... > once. Then I have it and could keep using it forever. They have to sell me a > new word processor to maintain sales, and to do that, they'll have to > convince me not to keep using my old one. That will take some sort of > innovation. The staple innovation has been new or combined features. That's 1/3 of the game. The real reason is COMPATIBILITY! My mom couldn't read Word 97 documents -- so guess what happened to her word 6.0 ? 10% of the people upgrade cause they can afford it and they want the bells and whistles, and HOPE for bug fixes. The rest follow because they HAVE to to maintain the "Fax Machine" effect (as people like to call it). > And, of course, if the market leader falls too far behind what is possible, > price will become irrelevant. Price _is_ irrelevant. Software industry is the only industry where you can sell the same products N times. Shoot me if I'm wrong, but I'll stick to my observations. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 2:53: 1 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E91E015661 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 02:52:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 02:52:52 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Phil Regnauld" Cc: Subject: RE: Marketing vs. technical superiority (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 02:52:52 -0800 Message-ID: <000001bf327c$3a115090$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <19991119113011.62880@ns.int.ftf.net> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > What's actually puzzling is why software prices in markets > dominated by one > > company are as low as they are. One theory is that it's too easy for a > > As _low_ ? > > In Europe, Microsoft's practice has been to: > > - lower prices in the countries where it still had competition > (WordPerfect vs. Office, for example. Or OS/2 here). > - raise the prices again as soon as it had achieved market > domination I can't really comment on these isolated points because I haven't been able to find any rigorized analysis of pricing by country. If you know of any, I'd appreciate references. The allegations that Microsoft raises prices when it achieves market domination are clearly false, at least for the most rigorous studies of the US market to date. (See Liebowitz and Margolis, for example) Actually, once you have market domination, it makes more sense to lower the prices. This is because: 1) Due to economies of scale and the fact that you have already recovered your development cost, you can afford to, and 2) You don't want to give anyone an incentive to develop a competing product. > Win95's price != Win98 price, for example. These are two different products. Not to mention, you aren't comparing their prices in constant dollars. > Price is an illusion in the mass software market. I'm not sure what this comment means. > > As soon as the price rises enough, a new company could develop > a competing product and sell > > massive numbers of copies in very short order. > > So where's the, uh, competition ? That's the point, the prices are low enough that there isn't really much. > MS judged that $89 was the right price for 98, when all > showed, marketing > wise, that $69 would have worked. What does "all showed marketing wise" mean? And what difference does that mean? Microsoft has two angles it has to watch. First, it wants to make as much money of Windows as it can, while it has it. Second, it wants to keep Windows a dominant platform for as long as possible. These two desires pull in vastly different directions. That two groups would agree to the value that best balances these forces within 25% amazes me. Crystal balls are not very reliable. > ... or the fact that the French Canadian edition of MS > Office, which is > MUCH cheaper than the French national edition, is not to be sold OR > imported in France unless you want to get your ass sued. I would imagine that this is due to economies of scale, but I'm not sure. It may be that these prices are based upon ability to pay, but again I'm not really sure. This is pretty common in the drug market, for example. For many drugs, the American and European markets finance the development of the drugs and the third-world market gets them at a much lower prices. This makes 'diverting' big business. I'm really not qualified to comment on the legal or economical ramifications of this. But the relevance to the current Microsoft antitrust action is minimal at best. Do you have any idea why this might be so? I'm reasonably sure Microsoft set what they felt was the revenue-maximizing price over some term, perhaps long perhaps short. (What other possibility is there, really?) > > Keeping software prices low > > maximizes the amount of time market domination can be maintained. > > Prices for MS products are HIGH. NT Server license > unlimited is MORE > expensive than Solaris unlimited... This may be part of why MS is having a hard time penetrating the server market. They will have to provide a product that is at least as good, at least from some sort of price/performance perspective or they will never get anywhere. All the lock in, tying, mind control, or whatnot won't make anyone buy an inferior server operating system unless Microsoft can somehow make it worth our while. > > once. Then I have it and could keep using it forever. They have > to sell me a > > new word processor to maintain sales, and to do that, they'll have to > > convince me not to keep using my old one. That will take some sort of > > innovation. The staple innovation has been new or combined features. > > That's 1/3 of the game. The real reason is COMPATIBILITY! > My mom couldn't read Word 97 documents -- so guess what happened > to her word 6.0 ? Anecdotal evidence is interesting but not convincing. Can you point to one empirical study that has found evidence of such 'tipping' in the software market? And even if there was such tipping, it would be a beneficial market result. Again, if we all benefit from having the same word processors, then that's what we should have. Microsoft wouldn't have to do anything wrong to achieve this outcome if it's what everyone wants. > 10% of the people upgrade cause they can afford it and they want the > bells and whistles, and HOPE for bug fixes. That's me actually. > The rest follow because they HAVE to to maintain the "Fax Machine" > effect (as people like to call it). I don't believe that. Why wouldn't we all just stick with the previous generation? Shouldn't we be just as tied to it? If this was true, wouldn't this be an argument why _no_one_ would upgrade? This argument fails under a reasoned analysis and has no empirical evidence to support it. > > And, of course, if the market leader falls too far behind > what is possible, > > price will become irrelevant. > > Price _is_ irrelevant. Software industry is the only industry where > you can sell the same products N times. Actually, there are numerous similar industries. Licensing of intellectual property, for example, is similar. Endorsements are similar. Heck, even prostitution is similar. It's not entirely true for software either. It used to be largely assumed that incremental cost in the software industry was near-zero, but numerous recent studies show that this is not true. In fact, once you reach high enough volumes, incremental costs swamp development cost! While not rigorous, here's a 'seat of the pants' explanation of why this would be true: Any software product has some fixed cost associated with developing it. To convert this to a 'per-unit' cost, you divide by the number of units. So the more copies you sell, the lower this contribution to per-unit cost is. However, there is always inevitably some 'associated' cost with each unit that experiences a diseconomy of scale. For example, the more software you sell, the more technical support personnel you try to hire, the more you will have to pay them since the increased demand will drive salaries up. The more copies you sell, the more telephone calls you will get, the more bug reports you will get, and so on. The more levels of management you will need, the more it costs to just keep your doors open. The more copies you sell, the more accounting, legal, and other professional services you will need and these will generally eventually increase at a faster than linear rate. Now while these contributions are small, they go up with the number of copies sold. So even though the per-unit value of the development cost starts high, it goes down with the number of copies sold. So at some point, the two lines will cross. Past that point, costs per unit actually go up. Of course, they should still be much less than the selling price. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 3:26:18 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.ftf.dk (mail.ftf.net [129.142.64.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECB80155A0 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 03:26:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from regnauld@ftf.net) Received: from ns.int.ftf.net (fw2.ftf.dk [192.168.1.2] (may be forged)) by mail.ftf.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3/gw-ftf-1.2) with ESMTP id MAA14616; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:25:55 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.ftf.dk: Host fw2.ftf.dk [192.168.1.2] (may be forged) claimed to be ns.int.ftf.net Received: (from regnauld@localhost) by ns.int.ftf.net (8.9.2/8.9.3) id MAA34832; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:39:37 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <19991119123936.04884@ns.int.ftf.net> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:39:36 +0100 From: Phil Regnauld To: David Schwartz Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Marketing vs. technical superiority (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") References: <19991119113011.62880@ns.int.ftf.net> <000001bf327c$3a115090$021d85d1@youwant.to> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88e In-Reply-To: <000001bf327c$3a115090$021d85d1@youwant.to>; from David Schwartz on Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 02:52:52AM -0800 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE i386 Organization: FTFnet Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org David Schwartz writes: > > I can't really comment on these isolated points because I haven't been able > to find any rigorized analysis of pricing by country. If you know of any, > I'd appreciate references. This happened in Holland, and France, and Denmark. I can dig up the references (there's that anti-MS website -- can't remember the name). > The allegations that Microsoft raises prices when it achieves market > domination are clearly false, at least for the most rigorous studies of the > US market to date. (See Liebowitz and Margolis, for example) They still sets prices that are higher than what is considered reasonable -- they are NOT doing the consumer a favor. > Actually, once you have market domination, it makes more sense to lower the > prices. This is because: Of course not. When you've locked the door, you raise the prices... Man, I don't what kind of monopolies you have in the US, but you should try France Telecom, Deutsche Telekom, etc... > 1) Due to economies of scale and the fact that you have already recovered > your development cost, you can afford to, and But THEY DON'T. > 2) You don't want to give anyone an incentive to develop a competing > product. They CAN'T -- that's why THERE IS A TRIAL. > These are two different products. Not to mention, you aren't comparing > their prices in constant dollars. Argh, even with inflation on steroids you couldn't. And they are closely related -- come on! _1_ API change since 95 ? > > So where's the, uh, competition ? > > That's the point, the prices are low enough that there isn't really much. That's not right. There isn't any competition because it's too damn difficult: - technically (WINE) "source code contamination" - legally (Bristol Software, SUN Wabi) "you're getting too good -- give me back that license" > What does "all showed marketing wise" mean? And what difference does that > mean? They didn't favor the customer, when they could have -- they set the price to the limit that consumers would (their market analysts say) pay for the product. In both cases they were making clear profit, but decided to pull as much as they could on the rope. > Microsoft has two angles it has to watch. First, it wants to make as much > money of Windows as it can, while it has it. No one's disagreeing about that. > Second, it wants to keep > Windows a dominant platform for as long as possible. These two desires pull > in vastly different directions. That two groups would agree to the value > that best balances these forces within 25% amazes me. Crystal balls are not > very reliable. 25% is a lot. > > MUCH cheaper than the French national edition, is not to be sold OR > > imported in France unless you want to get your ass sued. > > I would imagine that this is due to economies of scale, but I'm not sure. They're the SAME PRODUCTS. With a maple leaf on one, and three colored bars on the other. > It may be that these prices are based upon ability to pay, but again I'm not > really sure. Yeah, sure, your average Canadian's buying power is certainly higher than that of the french citizen (me being one), so why is the price higher in France ? Population is lower in Canada too: Population: 31,006,347 (July 1999 est.) http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ca.html So the "size of market" / "buying power" means squat here. Even with my feeble economic notions it doesn't work out. Why ? Canada is home of Corel and it's damn more difficult to root them out. > This is pretty common in the drug market, for example. For many > drugs, the American and European markets finance the development of the > drugs and the third-world market gets them at a much lower prices. This > makes 'diverting' big business. Cocaine is roughly the same price street wise in Paris and New York (Hi, Echelon) -- that's ~ $150 /g. But then again I'm not a user, so my price list is outdated. Heroin had three paths of import through Europe: - NL (not anymore really) - South europe via north africa - Serbia (they had to reroute during the conflicts -- read Newsweek) The US's major point of entry is Mexico. You can't even compare, but the prices are the same. So ? But I like the comparison between Microsoft and drug dealers :-) > I'm really not qualified to comment on the legal or economical > ramifications of this. But the relevance to the current Microsoft antitrust > action is minimal at best. Oh, that's another ball of wax. I'm a bit annoyed that things have to be settled that way -- takes away the merit and thrill of "the Knights of the Free Software" kicking imperialist corporate butt, but too bad. American companies bitch when the Gvt sticks its nose in the economy (freedom of competition, blah, blah), except when they're getting whupped. Then they go crying to the DoJ and ask for Teacher to come and tell the mean bully to stop kicking them. > Do you have any idea why this might be so? I'm reasonably sure Microsoft > set what they felt was the revenue-maximizing price over some term, perhaps > long perhaps short. (What other possibility is there, really?) Of course it's a revenue maximizing price. They want money, they've never claimed otherwise. > > unlimited is MORE > > expensive than Solaris unlimited... > > This may be part of why MS is having a hard time penetrating the server > market. They're not having a hard time. They're finding it difficult to penetrate the market of high-availability, mission critical data processing. They don't scale. Intel hardware still doesn't cut it. Clustering is not really there yet, and Alpha's walking out on them. It's a question of reliability, not pricing. I mean, Lotus Notes is more expensive than Exchange (notwithstanding the fact that the 2 products are parsecs away from each other). > They will have to provide a product that is at least as good, at > least from some sort of price/performance perspective or they will never get > anywhere. All the lock in, tying, mind control, or whatnot won't make anyone > buy an inferior server operating system unless Microsoft can somehow make it > worth our while. It's not mind control (that's marketing) -- it's "emulation" -- acute lemmingitis. Gee, that looks good, what is it. -- Windows NT 3.1, sir -- Ohhh, it looks just like Windows 3.11, which is a good product, right ? -- er... Yes, sir -- so let's make it a corporate decision and switch everything to this Windows NT thing -- if it's good for the users, must be good for the servers. > > That's 1/3 of the game. The real reason is COMPATIBILITY! > > My mom couldn't read Word 97 documents -- so guess what happened > > to her word 6.0 ? > > Anecdotal evidence is interesting but not convincing. Can you point to one > empirical study that has found evidence of such 'tipping' in the software > market? Anyone, help ? Please ? I'm feeling alone here. > And even if there was such tipping, it would be a beneficial market result. Yeah, for Microsoft. > Again, if we all benefit from having the same word processors, then that's > what we should have. Microsoft wouldn't have to do anything wrong to achieve > this outcome if it's what everyone wants. They're not the SAME word processors! MS's trick is to make sure the Office market is split between those who lag behind, and those who have the newer version. Complete homogeny would ruin they Devious Plan. > > 10% of the people upgrade cause they can afford it and they want the > > bells and whistles, and HOPE for bug fixes. > > That's me actually. > > > The rest follow because they HAVE to to maintain the "Fax Machine" > > effect (as people like to call it). > > I don't believe that. Why wouldn't we all just stick with the previous > generation? YOU JUST SAID IT: "That's me actually" You buy it, your friends & colleagues will have to (or at least rip off a copy from someone else, and give cash to MS another way, like by buying "Learning Word for Pirates", by MS Press). > Shouldn't we be just as tied to it? If this was true, wouldn't > this be an argument why _no_one_ would upgrade? This argument fails under a > reasoned analysis and has no empirical evidence to support it. Sigh... > > Price _is_ irrelevant. Software industry is the only industry where > > you can sell the same products N times. > > Actually, there are numerous similar industries. Licensing of intellectual > property, for example, is similar. Endorsements are similar. Heck, even > prostitution is similar. Yeah, but with prostitution you get satisfied somewhere. And you're confusing SERVICE and PRODUCTS. Reminds me of Eric S(hotgun). Raymond saying: "Software industry is a service industry that thinks it's a product industry" end-quote. > It's not entirely true for software either. It used to be largely assumed > that incremental cost in the software industry was near-zero, but numerous > recent studies show that this is not true. In fact, once you reach high > enough volumes, incremental costs swamp development cost! Of course, mrginal cost is nilch after you've got your ROI. It costs money to cut trees, squash them, and fold them into boxes and "bleach free environmental friendly recycled paper with-little-bits-of-beavers-in-it" manuals. > While not rigorous, here's a 'seat of the pants' explanation of why this > would be true: Any software product has some fixed cost associated with > developing it. To convert this to a 'per-unit' cost, you divide by the > number of units. So the more copies you sell, the lower this contribution to > per-unit cost is. Nothing new there. > However, there is always inevitably some 'associated' cost with each unit > that experiences a diseconomy of scale. For example, the more software you > sell, the more technical support personnel you try to hire, the more you > will have to pay them since the increased demand will drive salaries up. TECH support and Microsoft ? arghhh. Man, they have a phone support, that's sure. In fact, it's more efficient than most national survey institutes. They collect data on bugs and problems, and do "red line" development: you've got your bug categories on the absciss (sp?) or X, and you've got total reported on the ordonate (that's Y for the orthogonally challenged). When bug category "Blahs when I open a file" goes above the redline for that value, notify development and have them roll out a bugfix -- redline is "annoying enough that too many people found out". That's where there resources go, and that's the way they minimize real tech-support. > The > more copies you sell, the more telephone calls you will get, the more bug > reports you will get, and so on. AND the more calls you get, the more efficiently you can shape your product and only fix the really annoying stuff -- they never really help you on the phone! Do you know the PRICE of a tech support call here in europe ? 1 call = $170! Even M. Gates said it in a Times interview: "We don't fix bugs, we add features that people want". > The more levels of management you will > need, the more it costs to just keep your doors open. The more copies you > sell, the more accounting, legal, and other professional services you will > need and these will generally eventually increase at a faster than linear > rate. Support that. This is not a company making cars. They're not even obligated to ship a product that fits the description on the box, let alone honor damage costs. Phil, the angry frenchman. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 6:43:29 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from po6.andrew.cmu.edu (PO6.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.10.106]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B237B15171 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 06:43:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tcrimi+@andrew.cmu.edu) Received: (from postman@localhost) by po6.andrew.cmu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02119; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 09:43:18 -0500 (EST) Received: via switchmail; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 09:43:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from unix13.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 09:42:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from unix13.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 09:42:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from mms.4.60.Jun.27.1996.03.02.53.sun4.51.EzMail.2.0.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.unix13.andrew.cmu.edu.sun4m.54 via MS.5.6.unix13.andrew.cmu.edu.sun4_51; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 09:42:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 09:42:42 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Valentino Crimi To: "Jonathon McKitrick" , "David Schwartz" Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Cc: chat@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <000001bf31fd$24050960$021d85d1@youwant.to> References: <000001bf31fd$24050960$021d85d1@youwant.to> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Excerpts from FreeBSD-Chat: 18-Nov-99 RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main .. by "David Schwartz"@webmast > > All that really remains of substance is whether M$ acted illegally to > > reserve its market status. > > Yes, but if lock in (and similar affects) are nonexistent, thenit's > impossible for Microsoft to have acted illegally to reserve its market > status. Question is: If Microsoft was hypothetically destined for 60% market share - by forcing OEMs to make an all or nothing decision it was in the OEM's best interest to go with the 60% OS than go through the effort of selling the multiple OSs which would constitute 40% of the market share. Microsoft made their mix-and-match decision trivial. I'm quite sure Microsoft was sure to gain more than 60%, lets say 95%. What tends to trouble people is: Microsoft isn't happy with 95%, they went through the effort of using their potential 95% market share to win them 100% of the consumer PC desktop market. It's the last few percentage points of the market that Microsoft is fighting to staunchly for in making it's morally questionable OEM contracts. Having gone to more than a few lectures given by Microsoft employees it has been said that the Microsoft policy in programming is to go with the 80% solution. Rightly so, you can make a very marketable product which is 80% "done", and given that it's always the last few nits that take the longest, get a fairly decent product out to market, fast. The last 20% are killers, and the last 10% may never even be done, just not worth it. I'd suggest that this is the same policy one should adopt with market share. Gaining a large share of the market of any industry is possible through honest means -- better products, better marketing. The last few percentage points, though, require the eye-gouging which is now putting people up in arms against Microsoft. I hope Microsoft pulls through this and learns that the last few points aren't worth it. That is yet to be seen, of course. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 6:47:48 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from serenity.mcc.ac.uk (serenity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.93]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3165814E7E for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 06:46:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by serenity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #3) for chat@freebsd.org id 11opIl-000CG6-00; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 14:46:15 +0000 Received: from localhost (jcm@localhost) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA23158 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 14:46:15 GMT (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 14:46:14 +0000 (GMT) From: Jonathon McKitrick To: freebsd-chat Subject: REAL force behind Internet innovation... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Does anyone know what REALLY drives innovation on the net? I was wondering about this myself and i finally found proof of my answer. It's the porn industry. Real Player was for porn, and it beat Quicktime because porn site vendors preferred it. Hardware, software, multimedia... all are at the cutting edge for this one industry. The rest of us don't need realtime video feeds.. but we are benefitting as a direct result. -jm --------- He who laughs last... obviously didn't get the joke. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 6:48:55 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from probity.mcc.ac.uk (probity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.94]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A11F15171 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 06:48:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by probity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #3) for chat@freebsd.org id 11opLE-000O4j-00; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 14:48:48 +0000 Received: from localhost (jcm@localhost) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA23189 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 14:48:48 GMT (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 14:48:48 +0000 (GMT) From: Jonathon McKitrick To: freebsd-chat Subject: other reason for innovation... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Let's not forget games... ;-) -jm --------- He who laughs last... obviously didn't get the joke. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 7:13:41 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mercury.gfit.net (ns.gfit.net [209.41.124.90]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDB8A1562C for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 07:13:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tom@embt.com) Received: from PARANOR (timembt.iinc.com [206.67.169.229]) by mercury.gfit.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA13477 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 09:18:54 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from tom@embt.com) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19991119101303.01216df8@mail.embt.com> X-Sender: tembt@mail.embt.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 10:13:03 -0500 To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG From: Tom Embt Subject: RE: Microsoft service packs... (was many other threads...) In-Reply-To: <000001bf3264$9ac28160$021d85d1@youwant.to> References: <3834DDDF.DCA2119A@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Perhaps one cannot mention NT without feeling an intense need to vent frustration. As for Win2K, I crash it constantly, but I think it's mostly a "video driver thing". Tom Embt > > I'm baffled. How did the merits of NT get into this? We were never even >discussing whether NT was a good or bad server operating system. > > DS > >> Quote from a friend who is an NT admin... >> In response to David's comments on NT 'advances' in Service Packs.... >> >> >> This is nuts. >> >> >> Anyway, I think NT is stable when it comes to programs, but when the >> system goes down, it goes down hard. The other day, I installed a new >> server, which had nothing on it but NT4.0 and service pack 4. The >> company >> came out to install the banks software, and it crashed (bug checked) >> TWICE >> just during the FILE COPY!!! I mean, come on. How the heck can you >> norrow >> down what caused that? >> >> No, the more I use NT, the more I hate it. Even from the very limited >> use >> of win2000, I think it will be much better. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 7:23:16 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from probity.mcc.ac.uk (probity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.94]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8835E156AB for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 07:23:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by probity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #3) id 11opsP-000P9F-00; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 15:23:05 +0000 Received: from localhost (jcm@localhost) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA23748; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 15:23:04 GMT (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 15:23:04 +0000 (GMT) From: Jonathon McKitrick To: Tom Embt Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Microsoft service packs... (was many other threads...) In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19991119101303.01216df8@mail.embt.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org My friend (MCSE) is on site right now.. NT is crashing left and right, with no indications why. He's swapping memory right now... Here's the scoop (as i see it): Unix excels at networking and efficiency. It tends to be a little weak in ease-of-use. Windows excels on the desktop because it shields users from complexity. But it wasn't designed from the ground up for networking, and that is its handicap. Shielding users is one thing, but sheilding admins from important info is a poor idea. All the layers in NT _seem_ to make it difficult to get an accurate picture of what is going wrong further down. On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Tom Embt wrote: >Perhaps one cannot mention NT without feeling an intense need to vent >frustration. > >As for Win2K, I crash it constantly, but I think it's mostly a "video >driver thing". > >Tom Embt -jm --------- He who laughs last... obviously didn't get the joke. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 9:14:44 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us (taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us [165.29.134.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1F7C156E4 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 09:13:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from erickw@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us) Received: from localhost (erickw@localhost) by taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us (8.9.0/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA13770; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:18:03 -0600 Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:18:03 -0600 (CST) From: Erick White To: Phil Regnauld Cc: David Schwartz , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Marketing vs. technical superiority (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") In-Reply-To: <19991119123936.04884@ns.int.ftf.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Phil Regnauld wrote: > David Schwartz writes: > > > > I can't really comment on these isolated points because I haven't been able > > to find any rigorized analysis of pricing by country. If you know of any, > > I'd appreciate references. > > This happened in Holland, and France, and Denmark. I can dig up the references > (there's that anti-MS website -- can't remember the name). > > > The allegations that Microsoft raises prices when it achieves market > > domination are clearly false, at least for the most rigorous studies of the > > US market to date. (See Liebowitz and Margolis, for example) > > They still sets prices that are higher than what is considered > reasonable -- they are NOT doing the consumer a favor. They are doing it a disfavor becouse in many cases people who would own a computer, be able to take more advantage of te hardware in whatever their running and can't afford M$ to do it. Miss out. You see. People in other countries... Let me point out something in defence of Phil. I can pretty much from my liscensed version in the United States, set it up for french, or multi level support, and I bet you I would pay less for it here than he would. I find it amazing how you can change the prices so much.. especially when you have already payed for the "Research" Payed is in question as well... anyway I digress. The fact that their should be just as much of a cost to fly it to canada.. mexico, or wherever... price variance sholdn't be as much as they are for pretty much the same DAMN product. > > Actually, once you have market domination, it makes more sense to lower the > > prices. This is because: > > Of course not. When you've locked the door, you raise the prices... > > Man, I don't what kind of monopolies you have in the US, but you should > try France Telecom, Deutsche Telekom, etc... > Phil as for this part. well I am pretty sure that the monopolies are the same or similar. However this .... Person, fials to see reason. He doesn't see facts in front of him and completely ignores your blatant showing of what it is doing in other markets and other countries. Even in this country the harm as been done. No compition, not becouse it is just so hard too, but no compitition becouse you can be strongarmed out of your company becouse of a larger financial base leverage... thus MONOPOLY LEVERAGE.. *shakes his head at certain individuals failures to actually see the points and take them to heart.* > > 1) Due to economies of scale and the fact that you have already recovered > > your development cost, you can afford to, and > > BUT THEY DON'T! True the don't. I pay as much for Win whatever here as I do for the latest. I pay almost as much for a full featured DOS if I was to buy it in the stores.... So here is the question... where is it that they lower costs? > > 2) You don't want to give anyone an incentive to develop a competing > > product. > > They CAN'T -- that's why THERE IS A TRIAL. Yes this is why there is a trial... becouse they can force the other company out of buissness, by sheer forces, and money alone. Again I state the Golden Rule of Arts and Sciences. He who has the gold makes the rules! When you can keep throwing money at a product, and strong arm their developers, or push your financial weight around by using it not for development, but in slander campeigns... then think about it people. Reason it out, when money can make something else disapear then.... Microsoft can make it disapear. > > These are two different products. Not to mention, you aren't comparing > > their prices in constant dollars. > > Argh, even with inflation on steroids you couldn't. And they are closely > related -- come on! _1_ API change since 95 ? > > > > So where's the, uh, competition ? > > > > That's the point, the prices are low enough that there isn't really much. >That's not right. There isn't any competition because it's too damn difficult: > > - technically (WINE) > "source code contamination" > - legally (Bristol Software, SUN Wabi) > "you're getting too good -- give me back that license" > > > What does "all showed marketing wise" mean? And what difference does that > > mean? > > They didn't favor the customer, when they could have -- they set the price > to the limit that consumers would (their market analysts say) pay for the > product. In both cases they were making clear profit, but decided to pull > as much as they could on the rope. > > > Microsoft has two angles it has to watch. First, it wants to make as much > > money of Windows as it can, while it has it. > > No one's disagreeing about that. > > > Second, it wants to keep > > Windows a dominant platform for as long as possible. These two desires pull > > in vastly different directions. That two groups would agree to the value > > that best balances these forces within 25% amazes me. Crystal balls are not > > very reliable. > > 25% is a lot. > > > > > MUCH cheaper than the French national edition, is not to be sold OR > > > imported in France unless you want to get your ass sued. > > > > They're the SAME PRODUCTS. With a maple leaf on one, and three colored > bars on the other. > > > It may be that these prices are based upon ability to pay, but again I'm not > > really sure. > > Yeah, sure, your average Canadian's buying power is certainly higher than > that of the french citizen (me being one), so why is the price higher in > France ? Population is lower in Canada too: > > Population: 31,006,347 (July 1999 est.) > > http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ca.html > > So the "size of market" / "buying power" means squat here. Even with my > feeble economic notions it doesn't work out. > > Why ? Canada is home of Corel and it's damn more difficult to root them out. > > > This is pretty common in the drug market, for example. For many > > drugs, the American and European markets finance the development of the > > drugs and the third-world market gets them at a much lower prices. This > > makes 'diverting' big business. > > Cocaine is roughly the same price street wise in Paris and New York > (Hi, Echelon) -- that's ~ $150 /g. But then again I'm not a user, > so my price list is outdated. > > Heroin had three paths of import through Europe: > > - NL (not anymore really) > - South europe via north africa > - Serbia (they had to reroute during the conflicts -- read Newsweek) > > The US's major point of entry is Mexico. > > You can't even compare, but the prices are the same. > > So ? > > But I like the comparison between Microsoft and drug dealers :-) > > > I'm really not qualified to comment on the legal or economical > > ramifications of this. But the relevance to the current Microsoft antitrust > > action is minimal at best. > > Oh, that's another ball of wax. I'm a bit annoyed that things > have to be settled that way -- takes away the merit and thrill > of "the Knights of the Free Software" kicking imperialist corporate > butt, but too bad. > > American companies bitch when the Gvt sticks its nose in the economy (freedom > of competition, blah, blah), except when they're getting whupped. > Then they go crying to the DoJ and ask for Teacher to come and tell > the mean bully to stop kicking them. > > > Do you have any idea why this might be so? I'm reasonably sure Microsoft > > set what they felt was the revenue-maximizing price over some term, perhaps > > long perhaps short. (What other possibility is there, really?) > > Of course it's a revenue maximizing price. They want money, they've never > claimed otherwise. > > > > unlimited is MORE > > > expensive than Solaris unlimited... > > > > This may be part of why MS is having a hard time penetrating the server > > market. > > They're not having a hard time. > > They're finding it difficult to penetrate the market of high-availability, > mission critical data processing. They don't scale. Intel hardware still > doesn't cut it. Clustering is not really there yet, and Alpha's walking > out on them. > > It's a question of reliability, not pricing. > > I mean, Lotus Notes is more expensive than Exchange (notwithstanding the > fact that the 2 products are parsecs away from each other). > > > They will have to provide a product that is at least as good, at > > least from some sort of price/performance perspective or they will never get > > anywhere. All the lock in, tying, mind control, or whatnot won't make anyone > > buy an inferior server operating system unless Microsoft can somehow make it > > worth our while. > >It's not mind control (that's marketing) -- it's "emulation" -- acute lemmingitis. > > Gee, that looks good, what is it. -- Windows NT 3.1, sir -- Ohhh, it looks > just like Windows 3.11, which is a good product, right ? -- er... Yes, sir > -- so let's make it a corporate decision and switch everything to this > Windows NT thing -- if it's good for the users, must be good for the servers. > > > > That's 1/3 of the game. The real reason is COMPATIBILITY! > > > My mom couldn't read Word 97 documents -- so guess what happened > > > to her word 6.0 ? > > > > Anecdotal evidence is interesting but not convincing. Can you point to one > > empirical study that has found evidence of such 'tipping' in the software > > market? > > Anyone, help ? Please ? I'm feeling alone here. I am sorry your feeling alone. It is not intentional, many of us have pretty muc given up on a person who refuses to see reason, and fact as you and everone else on the list pointed out. I am just furious. I figure I will have more points in talking to a brick wall then a person who blatently ignores even the most basic and potent facts. > > And even if there was such tipping, it would be a beneficial market result. > > Yeah, for Microsoft. Anyone else here noticig how he is hitting the nail on the head? > > Again, if we all benefit from having the same word processors, then that's > > what we should have. Microsoft wouldn't have to do anything wrong to achieve > > this outcome if it's what everyone wants. > > They're not the SAME word processors! MS's trick is to make sure > the Office market is split between those who lag behind, and those > who have the newer version. > > Complete homogeny would ruin they Devious Plan. > > > > 10% of the people upgrade cause they can afford it and they want the > > > bells and whistles, and HOPE for bug fixes. > > > > That's me actually. > > > > > The rest follow because they HAVE to to maintain the "Fax Machine" > > > effect (as people like to call it). > > > > I don't believe that. Why wouldn't we all just stick with the previous > > generation? > > YOU JUST SAID IT: > > "That's me actually" > > You buy it, your friends & colleagues will have to (or at least rip off > a copy from someone else, and give cash to MS another way, like by buying > "Learning Word for Pirates", by MS Press). > > > Shouldn't we be just as tied to it? If this was true, wouldn't > > this be an argument why _no_one_ would upgrade? This argument fails under a > > reasoned analysis and has no empirical evidence to support it. > > Sigh... There has been tones of evidence, he refuses to see it. I doubt that actually showing him anymore than what we already have would similarly fall upon deaf ears and blinded eyes. > > > Price _is_ irrelevant. Software industry is the only industry where > > > you can sell the same products N times. > > > > Actually, there are numerous similar industries. Licensing of intellectual > > property, for example, is similar. Endorsements are similar. Heck, even > > prostitution is similar. > > Yeah, but with prostitution you get satisfied somewhere. > > And you're confusing SERVICE and PRODUCTS. > > Reminds me of Eric S(hotgun). Raymond saying: > > "Software industry is a service industry that thinks it's a product industry" end-quote. > > > It's not entirely true for software either. It used to be largely assumed > > that incremental cost in the software industry was near-zero, but numerous > > recent studies show that this is not true. In fact, once you reach high > > enough volumes, incremental costs swamp development cost! > > Of course, mrginal cost is nilch after you've got your ROI. It costs > money to > cut trees, squash them, and fold them into boxes and "bleach free >environmental > friendly recycled paper with-little-bits-of-beavers-in-it" manuals. > > > While not rigorous, here's a 'seat of the pants' explanation of why this > > would be true: Any software product has some fixed cost associated with > > developing it. To convert this to a 'per-unit' cost, you divide by the > > number of units. So the more copies you sell, the lower this contribution to > > per-unit cost is. > > Nothing new there. > > > > However, there is always inevitably some 'associated' cost with each unit > > that experiences a diseconomy of scale. For example, the more software you > > sell, the more technical support personnel you try to hire, the more you > > will have to pay them since the increased demand will drive salaries up. > > TECH support and Microsoft ? arghhh. I happen to know that for certain services you actually pay microsoft to tell them about bugs... I don't think so. Anyway, Microsoft is often not as helpful as they may seem and after a two hour call of beating one's head against the wall with questions, all one gets is a headache. >Man, they have a phone support, that's sure. In fact, it's more efficient > than most national survey institutes. They collect data on bugs and > problems, and do "red line" development: you've got your bug categories > on the absciss (sp?) or X, and you've got total reported on the > ordonate (that's Y for the orthogonally challenged). > > When bug category "Blahs when I open a file" goes above the redline > for that value, notify development and have them roll out a bugfix -- > redline is "annoying enough that too many people found out". > > That's where there resources go, and that's the way they minimize > real tech-support. > > > The > > more copies you sell, the more telephone calls you will get, the more bug > > reports you will get, and so on. > > AND the more calls you get, the more efficiently you can shape > your product and only fix the really annoying stuff -- they never > really help you on the phone! Do you know the PRICE of a tech > support call here in europe ? 1 call = $170! > > Even M. Gates said it in a Times interview: "We don't fix bugs, we add > features that people want". > > > The more levels of management you will > > need, the more it costs to just keep your doors open. The more copies you > > sell, the more accounting, legal, and other professional services you will > > need and these will generally eventually increase at a faster than linear > > rate. > > Support that. > This is not a company making cars. > > They're not even obligated to ship a product that fits > the description on the box, let alone honor damage costs. > Same things as we all said above and spoke to this man about. We should be advancing faster... like the UNIX's do.. but in M$ you advance at their rate, at their price, for things they themselves don't develope... getting a hint here? I am still forced to use windows only becouse of apps that arn't supported on a UNIX OS yet... I use it for Games... network games.... and that is about all it is reliable for, the net... may or may not work from time to time becouse things will crash for no aparent reason. I know windows inside and out. I am a computer and Electronic Technician... anyone else find it interesting how you have to take virus protection off to instal windows... give anyone any clues? LOL Your Friendly Klingon Minded UNIX Advocate for the cleaning up amd taking out of OS treash: Erick > > Phil, the angry frenchman. > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 9:17: 8 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from po7.andrew.cmu.edu (PO7.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.10.107]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFFD214DDB for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 09:17:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tcrimi+@andrew.cmu.edu) Received: (from postman@localhost) by po7.andrew.cmu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA22922; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:16:57 -0500 (EST) Received: via switchmail; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:16:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from unix4.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:16:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from unix4.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:16:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from mms.4.60.Jun.27.1996.03.02.53.sun4.51.EzMail.2.0.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.unix4.andrew.cmu.edu.sun4m.54 via MS.5.6.unix4.andrew.cmu.edu.sun4_51; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:16:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0sBMLca00Uw80YMMU0@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:16:24 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Valentino Crimi To: "David Schwartz" Subject: Re: Marketing vs. technical superiority (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <000001bf327c$3a115090$021d85d1@youwant.to> References: <000001bf327c$3a115090$021d85d1@youwant.to> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org [ small snippit ] Excerpts from FreeBSD-Chat: 19-Nov-99 RE: Marketing vs. technical.. by "David Schwartz"@webmast > > The rest follow because they HAVE to to maintain the "Fax Machine" > > effect (as people like to call it). > > I don't believe that. Why wouldn't we all just stick with the previous > > generation? Shouldn't we be just as tied to it? If this was true, wouldn't > this be an argument why _no_one_ would upgrade? This argument fails under a > reasoned analysis and has no empirical evidence to support it. I believe there is very strong logical support, and empirical evidence wherever you go: It's one thing for me to tell my friends not to send me Word documents as attachments ("Email me another word doc and I'll email you my kernel"), but when a potential employer sends me an offer written in the file format of their choice, I do my best to find the software to read it - it's rather embarrassing to say "I'm sorry, I can't read your document, convert it to something leigible and send it again" - sometimes you have the leverage to do that, sometimes you don't. If a large part of the 10% of people who get the "wizz-bangy" new computer every year installed with the latest software in their office are the people many want to communicate with, more people upgrade, and eventually you have to match the majority or be the 'special case' in everyone's book. It wastes their time and yours. So, yes, compatibility (and therefore having similar systems) is king. And so long as someone worth doing buisiness with is upgrading, it may very often be your requirement to upgrade as well. In a perfect world, word processors would use a common file format where features would degrade gracefully (similar to HTML ignoring tags it doesn't know). Obviously, the best thing for a company to do is to make token improvements every year and make the file formats incompatible. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 10:58: 8 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from parsons.rh.rit.edu (65fndial18.ncweb.com [216.28.65.18]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D53C7156D4 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 10:58:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mfisher@csh.rit.edu) Received: from mfisher (helo=localhost) by parsons.rh.rit.edu with local-esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11otEb-0003Fz-00 for freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 13:58:13 -0500 Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 13:58:11 -0500 (EST) From: Mike Fisher X-Sender: mfisher@mfisher.fis To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: Marketing vs. technical superiority (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") In-Reply-To: <000401bf3275$9dcc7d50$021d85d1@youwant.to> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > What's actually puzzling is why software prices in markets > dominated by one company are as low as they are. One theory is that This is an interesting point. I read sometime in the last week (sorry, I couldn't find the reference) that a study has been done on prices of software recently. For the given period of time when the samples were taken, the average price of software decreased by 15%. The exception to this, however, is in markets Microsoft has entered and produced a dominating product. In these markets, the price has dropped by 65%. - -- Mike "The man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, 'Limit yourself'; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian." -- Murray Rothbard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0i Comment: Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBODWdxANoiUfuQq8NEQKotQCg44Nxbv3ZawcC9hO6IsLhVK8UjSsAn2uB B3U3ghRBAkuRZAXMSbukD3u7 =H9qH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 11: 2: 5 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mojave.sitaranetworks.com (mojave.sitaranetworks.com [199.103.141.157]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5EC3150E9 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:01:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from grog@mojave.sitaranetworks.com) Message-ID: <19991119135747.53682@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 13:57:47 -0500 From: Greg Lehey To: Jonathon McKitrick , Tom Embt Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: NT reliability (was: Microsoft service packs... (was many other threads...)) Reply-To: Greg Lehey References: <3.0.3.32.19991119101303.01216df8@mail.embt.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from Jonathon McKitrick on Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 03:23:04PM +0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Friday, 19 November 1999 at 15:23:04 +0000, Jonathon McKitrick wrote: > On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Tom Embt wrote: > >> Perhaps one cannot mention NT without feeling an intense need to vent >> frustration. >> >> As for Win2K, I crash it constantly, but I think it's mostly a "video >> driver thing". > > My friend (MCSE) is on site right now.. NT is crashing left and right, > with no indications why. He's swapping memory right now... > > Here's the scoop (as i see it): Unix excels at networking and efficiency. > It tends to be a little weak in ease-of-use. Windows excels on the > desktop because it shields users from complexity. But it wasn't designed > from the ground up for networking, and that is its handicap. Shielding > users is one thing, but sheilding admins from important info is a poor > idea. All the layers in NT _seem_ to make it difficult to get an accurate > picture of what is going wrong further down. I was witness to an amusing incident here recently. The guy in the next cube runs NT for some obscure reasons, and suddenly he couldn't access some network service. After several attempts, we discovered that the Ethernet connection was no longer functional. I discovered that there is some kind of log file in the system, but nobody was able to determine the cause. It doesn't seem to be possible to stop and start interfaces on NT; instead, you reboot. Not what I would expect of any good OS, let alone a "server" OS (whatever that means). So we rebooted. No go. Changed the Ethernet board. No go. Changed the cable. No go. Put all the old stuff back and booted PicoBSD. Go. OK, we thought, it's NT's fault. Reboot NT. Go. The only explanation we can think of is: if you have problems with NT, threaten to replace it with FreeBSD. That'll scare it into behaving. Greg -- Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 11:11:36 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from probity.mcc.ac.uk (probity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.94]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FBAD1561D for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:11:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by probity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #3) for chat@freebsd.org id 11otRN-0004ME-00; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 19:11:25 +0000 Received: from localhost (jcm@localhost) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA27809 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 19:11:25 GMT (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 19:11:25 +0000 (GMT) From: Jonathon McKitrick To: freebsd-chat Subject: M$ software costs Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Well, let's see... 65% off of software that is 80% complete when it ships? Sounds like a good deal to me... -jm --------- He who laughs last... obviously didn't get the joke. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 11:15:39 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7147114CE0 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:15:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bright@wintelcom.net) Received: from localhost (bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25199; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:40:45 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:40:45 -0800 (PST) From: Alfred Perlstein To: Jonathon McKitrick Cc: freebsd-chat Subject: Re: M$ software costs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Jonathon McKitrick wrote: > Well, let's see... > > 65% off of software that is 80% complete when it ships? Sounds like a > good deal to me... "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate... hate leads to using Li^H^H^H Windows NT in mission critical systems." -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 11:19:12 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from serenity.mcc.ac.uk (serenity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.93]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFB1114CE0 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:19:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by serenity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #3) id 11otYm-000Kle-00; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 19:19:04 +0000 Received: from localhost (jcm@localhost) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA27944; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 19:19:04 GMT (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 19:19:04 +0000 (GMT) From: Jonathon McKitrick To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: freebsd-chat Subject: Re: M$ software costs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate... hate leads to using >Li^H^H^H Windows NT in mission critical systems." Is that supposed to be 'Linux'? ;-) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 11:29:11 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.enteract.com (mail.enteract.com [207.229.143.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECC6515641 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:28:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Received: from shell-2.enteract.com (dscheidt@shell-2.enteract.com [207.229.143.41]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA83682; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 13:27:14 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 13:27:14 -0600 (CST) From: David Scheidt To: Greg Lehey Cc: Jonathon McKitrick , Tom Embt , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NT reliability (was: Microsoft service packs... (was many other threads...)) In-Reply-To: <19991119135747.53682@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Greg Lehey wrote: > I was witness to an amusing incident here recently. The guy in the > next cube runs NT for some obscure reasons, and suddenly he couldn't > access some network service. After several attempts, we discovered > that the Ethernet connection was no longer functional. I discovered > that there is some kind of log file in the system, but nobody was able > to determine the cause. > > It doesn't seem to be possible to stop and start interfaces on NT; > instead, you reboot. Not what I would expect of any good OS, let > alone a "server" OS (whatever that means). So we rebooted. No go. > Changed the Ethernet board. No go. Changed the cable. No go. Put > all the old stuff back and booted PicoBSD. Go. > > OK, we thought, it's NT's fault. Reboot NT. Go. I had the same sort of thing happen to me when I first installed FreeBSD on this box (some POS of compaq). The fxp0 interface wouldn't work, unless I first booted NT. It was a bug, and had already been fixed between the -RELEASE I was installing and -STABLE. Something about PCI bus mastering, but I don't remember the details. FreeBSD was also not capable of using the CD-ROM drive on the box. Had this been my first FreeBSD esperience, I would have been very annoyed. No network, no CD= very hard to install! David Scheidt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 11:45: 7 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from norn.ca.eu.org (cr965240-b.abtsfd1.bc.wave.home.com [24.113.19.137]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0C1D156AC for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:44:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cpiazza@norn.ca.eu.org) Received: by norn.ca.eu.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1ACE8C8; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:44:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:44:45 -0800 From: Chris Piazza To: Greg Lehey Cc: Jonathon McKitrick , Tom Embt , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NT reliability (was: Microsoft service packs... (was many other threads...)) Message-ID: <19991119114445.A255@norn.ca.eu.org> References: <3.0.3.32.19991119101303.01216df8@mail.embt.com> <19991119135747.53682@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <19991119135747.53682@mojave.sitaranetworks.com>; from grog@mojave.sitaranetworks.com on Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 01:57:47PM -0500 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.0-CURRENT Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 01:57:47PM -0500, Greg Lehey wrote: > > It doesn't seem to be possible to stop and start interfaces on NT; > instead, you reboot. Not what I would expect of any good OS, let FWIW, Windows 2000 can do this fine. It only took a few years ;-). > alone a "server" OS (whatever that means). So we rebooted. No go. > Changed the Ethernet board. No go. Changed the cable. No go. Put > all the old stuff back and booted PicoBSD. Go. -Chris -- cpiazza@home.net cpiazza@FreeBSD.org Abbotsford, BC, Canada To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 11:48:55 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from probity.mcc.ac.uk (probity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.94]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7948A14BC9 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:48:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by probity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #3) id 11ou1Y-0004xQ-00; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 19:48:48 +0000 Received: from localhost (jcm@localhost) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA28411; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 19:48:48 GMT (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 19:48:48 +0000 (GMT) From: Jonathon McKitrick To: Chris Piazza Cc: Greg Lehey , Tom Embt , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NT reliability (was: Microsoft service packs... (was many other threads...)) In-Reply-To: <19991119114445.A255@norn.ca.eu.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Chris Piazza wrote: >On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 01:57:47PM -0500, Greg Lehey wrote: >> >> It doesn't seem to be possible to stop and start interfaces on NT; >> instead, you reboot. Not what I would expect of any good OS, let > >FWIW, Windows 2000 can do this fine. It only took a few years ;-). Well, then, I just can't wait ! 'Excuse me, waiter? I believe I ordered the *extra* bitter sarcasm.' ;-) > >> alone a "server" OS (whatever that means). So we rebooted. No go. >> Changed the Ethernet board. No go. Changed the cable. No go. Put >> all the old stuff back and booted PicoBSD. Go. > >-Chris >-- >cpiazza@home.net cpiazza@FreeBSD.org > Abbotsford, BC, Canada > -jm --------- He who laughs last... obviously didn't get the joke. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 13:15:50 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from germanium.xtalwind.net (germanium.xtalwind.net [205.160.242.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 905C814F3C for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 13:15:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jack@germanium.xtalwind.net) Received: from localhost (jack@localhost) by germanium.xtalwind.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA19507; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:15:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:15:24 -0500 (EST) From: jack To: Chris Piazza Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NT reliability (was: Microsoft service packs... (was many other threads...)) In-Reply-To: <19991119114445.A255@norn.ca.eu.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Today Chris Piazza wrote: > On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 01:57:47PM -0500, Greg Lehey wrote: > > > > It doesn't seem to be possible to stop and start interfaces on NT; > > instead, you reboot. Not what I would expect of any good OS, let > > FWIW, Windows 2000 can do this fine. It only took a few years ;-). Can it add and remove alias IPs on interfaces without the reboot that NT needs? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jack O'Neill Systems Administrator / Systems Analyst jack@germanium.xtalwind.net Crystal Wind Communications, Inc. Finger jack@germanium.xtalwind.net for my PGP key. PGP Key fingerprint = F6 C4 E6 D4 2F 15 A7 67 FD 09 E9 3C 5F CC EB CD enriched, vcard, HTML messages > /dev/null -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 15:59:24 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from smtp1.erols.com (smtp1.erols.com [207.172.3.234]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70D4914DF6 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 15:59:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (216-164-168-190.s190.tnt1.xcb.nj.dialup.rcn.com [216.164.168.190]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA14984 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 18:59:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3835E44A.6670C554@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 18:59:06 -0500 From: Jonathon McKitrick X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.3-STABLE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: [Fwd: General thoughts and questions on FreeBSD] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------CC1E6D2786E9BBE2775D58F2" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------CC1E6D2786E9BBE2775D58F2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------CC1E6D2786E9BBE2775D58F2 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Message-ID: <3835DD2A.5E9751AE@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 18:28:43 -0500 From: Jonathon McKitrick X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.3-STABLE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: General thoughts and questions on FreeBSD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A 'hacker' friend of mine who is quite a Unix guru and who loves Linux gave FreeBSD a try recently. These were his comments: I *really* dislike the kernel configuration -- enabling/disabling features causes the compile to crap out in different areas, so doing anything fancy becomes a time-intensive trial-and-error job. Awful. And inflexible too; I was not able to select a PCMCIA NIC and a normal NIC [yeah, I was just toying around, but what if I had a docking station?] without the compile crapping out. And the recommended FP stuff ['use GNU'] caused a kernel panic when I rebooted. The docs seem more sparse for BSD --no NAG, so LPG, no SAG-- but maybe I just never poked around enough. A lot of FreeBSD is the same as linux, of course, as linux is rather heavily influenced by the BSD camp and they use many of the same tools. I like linux better even thouhg the bsd daemon is cooler ;) Linux seems more flexible and seems to be a general unix with enhancements --like vim is to vi-- whereas FreeBSD is quirkly like the other unixes. For some reason, linux never seemed to have many 'quirks' to me [relative to other unixes that is] -- everything is straightforward, and the tendency to implement both SysV and BSD features means it will act however you expect it to. Of course I like BSD better than SysV [another factor influencing by Solaris views], but the SysV init stuff is quite nice.... Any thoughts on his kernel issues? Those seem to be the only ones that are major issues here. Is FreeBSD 'quirky' ? And what advantages/disadvantages does FreeBSD kernel configuration have compared to Linux ? -jm --------------CC1E6D2786E9BBE2775D58F2-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 16:25:14 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from tankgrrl.bridget.mindriot.net (ith1-379.twcny.rr.com [24.24.11.121]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0120B1514C for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:25:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cjc26@tankgrrl.bridget.mindriot.net) Received: (from cjc26@localhost) by tankgrrl.bridget.mindriot.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA34325; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 19:23:12 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from cjc26) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 19:23:12 -0500 From: Cliff Crawford To: Jonathon McKitrick Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [Fwd: General thoughts and questions on FreeBSD] Message-ID: <19991119192312.H33821@cornell.edu> Reply-To: cjc26@cornell.edu References: <3835E44A.6670C554@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3i In-Reply-To: <3835E44A.6670C554@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * Jonathon McKitrick menulis: > > Any thoughts on his kernel issues? Those seem to be the only ones that > are major issues here. Is FreeBSD 'quirky' ? And what > advantages/disadvantages does FreeBSD kernel configuration have compared > to Linux ? *jaw drops* Your hax0r friend has some `interesting' opinions..:) Personally, I think editing a text file to do kernel config is MUCH more straightforward then going thru Linux's menu-based gauntlet. From what I remember (the last time I compiled a Linux kernel was over a year ago), you had to be careful not to do a `make clean' else you wipe out all your settings..that got me a few times. And I think it's easier to just scroll around/search through a text file than to wade through several levels of menus just to get to the one option you want to change. Also, you have to remember to run lilo every time you install a new kernel, or else you'll boot with the old kernel. As for the quirkiness issue.."Linux isn't quirky" my ass. I find Linux needing 2 or 3 seperate partitions for itself to be pretty quirky. I'm also annoyed by the way rm is aliased to `rm -i' by default on Red Hat. And Mklinux's inability to deal with >2Gb partitions is real cute. Actually, the fact that there's so many different distributions, each with their own unique quirks, is a quirk in itself :) Finally, I despise runlevels and fourteen bazillion rc.d scripts. -- cliff crawford http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/cjc26/ -><- "No! It's Java!!" -- Nikita To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 16:34: 1 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from tankgrrl.bridget.mindriot.net (ith1-379.twcny.rr.com [24.24.11.121]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04AAF1514B for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:33:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cjc26@tankgrrl.bridget.mindriot.net) Received: (from cjc26@localhost) by tankgrrl.bridget.mindriot.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA34369; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 19:33:07 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from cjc26) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 19:33:06 -0500 From: Clifford James Crawford To: Wes Peters Cc: Jay Nelson , chat@FreeBSD.ORG, Nick Hibma Subject: Re: Support for USB floppies like Y-E Data FlashBuster-u ? Message-ID: <19991119193306.J33821@cornell.edu> Reply-To: cjc26@cornell.edu References: <38324B30.F0BF613D@softweyr.com> <19991117081442.B24471@cornell.edu> <383304A8.EB0CE8F4@softweyr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3i In-Reply-To: <383304A8.EB0CE8F4@softweyr.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * Wes Peters menulis: > > > > > > Neither of them seem to fit in my .308 rifle. Even the spindle that Phil > > > Regnauld mentioned isn't going to do much of anything to a 180-grain > > > full metal jacket bullet travelling at 2,400 fps; these rounds go straight > > > through hardened steel padlocks. > > > > > > You should see what they do to 14" Fujitsu Eagle drives. Or old VT100s. > > > Or jackrabbits. > > > > Or co-workers. > > Careful, you could get thrown out of any high school in the USA for writing > that. Actually, it's more like I'd get thrown in jail or forced into mandatory psychological treatment for saying that. Fortunately I'm not in high school anymore. :/ > Here, you just get a good laugh or two. -- cliff crawford http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/cjc26/ -><- "No! It's Java!!" -- Nikita To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 17: 8:14 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from ind.alcatel.com (postal.xylan.com [208.8.0.248]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A45B41544E for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 17:08:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from mailhub.xylan.com (mailhub [198.206.181.70]) by ind.alcatel.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1 (ind.alcatel.com 3.0 [OUT])) with SMTP id RAA12844 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 17:08:12 -0800 (PST) X-Origination-Site: Received: from omni.xylan.com by mailhub.xylan.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4 (mailhub 2.1 [HUB])) id RAA05439; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 17:08:11 -0800 Received: from softweyr.com (dyn0.utah.xylan.com) by omni.xylan.com (4.1/SMI-4.1 (xylan engr [SPOOL])) id AA16545; Fri, 19 Nov 99 17:08:10 PST Message-Id: <3835F47A.10C14605@softweyr.com> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 18:08:10 -0700 From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr LLC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en Mime-Version: 1.0 To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Have you gotten your Daily DaemonNews? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Interesting new stuff on http://daily.daemonnews.org/ today: a Lifetime Achievement Award for Bill Joy, a commercial version of picoBSD, and new and upcoming commercial software for FreeBSD. Make it your "start" page, read it daily, and finger those elusive BSD news snippets for your fellow BSD users. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 20:44:31 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B340C14E27 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 20:44:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 20:44:23 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "jack" , "Chris Piazza" Cc: Subject: RE: NT reliability (was: Microsoft service packs... (was many otherthreads...)) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 20:44:23 -0800 Message-ID: <002601bf3311$ead8a370$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Today Chris Piazza wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 01:57:47PM -0500, Greg Lehey wrote: > > > > > > It doesn't seem to be possible to stop and start interfaces on NT; > > > instead, you reboot. Not what I would expect of any good OS, let > > > > FWIW, Windows 2000 can do this fine. It only took a few years ;-). > > Can it add and remove alias IPs on interfaces without the reboot > that NT needs? I don't know if it's a new service pack thing or what, but I've noticed that more and more of my NT servers _don't_ need reboots for that. They do drop all current TCP connections, but then they're back up just fine. It's a pain to disconnect everyone who happened to be doing anything, but it's less painful than a reboot. It scares me though, because I have no idea why sometimes it works now (like the last 4 times I did it) when it never used to. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 20:44:34 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77EC814E5A for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 20:44:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 20:44:22 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Jonathon McKitrick" , "freebsd-chat" Subject: RE: REAL force behind Internet innovation... Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 20:44:22 -0800 Message-ID: <002501bf3311$ea4738e0$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Does anyone know what REALLY drives innovation on the net? I was > wondering about this myself and i finally found proof of my answer. It's > the porn industry. Real Player was for porn, and it beat Quicktime > because porn site vendors preferred it. Hardware, software, multimedia... > all are at the cutting edge for this one industry. The rest of us don't > need realtime video feeds.. but we are benefitting as a direct result. > > > -jm And what do you think virtual reality's killer app is going to be? I'll give you three guesses. Hint: It's not distance learning. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 19 20:53: 4 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6082614E6A for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 20:53:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 20:53:00 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Thomas Valentino Crimi" Cc: Subject: RE: Marketing vs. technical superiority (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 20:53:00 -0800 Message-ID: <000001bf3313$1ee4ce90$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <0sBMLca00Uw80YMMU0@andrew.cmu.edu> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org >> I don't believe that. Why wouldn't we all just stick with the previous >> generation? Shouldn't we be just as tied to it? If this was true, wouldn't >> this be an argument why _no_one_ would upgrade? This argument fails under a >> reasoned analysis and has no empirical evidence to support it. > > I believe there is very strong logical support, and empirical evidence > wherever you go: Actually, all the empricial evidence points the other way. > It's one thing for me to tell my friends not to send me Word documents > as attachments ("Email me another word doc and I'll email you my > kernel"), but when a potential employer sends me an offer written in the > file format of their choice, I do my best to find the software to read > it - it's rather embarrassing to say "I'm sorry, I can't read your > document, convert it to something leigible and send it again" - > sometimes you have the leverage to do that, sometimes you don't. If a > large part of the 10% of people who get the "wizz-bangy" new computer > every year installed with the latest software in their office are the > people many want to communicate with, more people upgrade, and > eventually you have to match the majority or be the 'special case' in > everyone's book. It wastes their time and yours. Do you understand what 'empirical evidence' is? What happened to you personally, or how your Aunt Edna feels is not empirical evidence of a market trend. I can point to just as many such arguments as to why people shouldn't upgrade. I mean, I think "do I want to be part of the 10% that gets new WhizBangy features and risk having 90% of the people being unable to open my documents?" But that isn't empirical evidence either. There have actually been several fairly through studies looking for tie in effects and tipping effects. They've not found any evidence of any in the comptuer software market. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it does mean that your anecdotal evidence should be met with suspicion. > So, yes, compatibility (and therefore having similar systems) is king. If this were true, nobody would upgrade unless the benefits were so massive it was worth losing compatability. > And so long as someone worth doing buisiness with is upgrading, it may > very often be your requirement to upgrade as well. In other words, if it's worth upgrading, it's worth upgrading. And if it's not, it's not. If the upgrade offers features people want, they'll upgrade. If not, not. This means that Microsoft has to keep innovating to keep market share. > In a perfect world, > word processors would use a common file format where features would > degrade gracefully (similar to HTML ignoring tags it doesn't know). If you believe that, why not make one and sell it? If this would allow one group to upgrade and get the new features and another group to never have to upgrade, it sounds like it would be a win all around. Microsoft will go out of its way to help you -- even Microsoft's competitors admit that Microsoft supports its developers better than pretty much anyone else around. > Obviously, the best thing for a company to do is to make token > improvements every year and make the file formats incompatible. This would just cause people to stop upgrading. Worse, it would allow a competitor who made real improvements or committed more to compatability to steal the market easily. In any event, I think this whole issue will become irrelevant in a few years. It seems like HTML/XML and friends are going to become the interchange format of choice all around. No thanks to the FreeBSD/Linux people who are doing everything they can to kill it. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Nov 20 9:35:29 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7299E14D7C for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 09:35:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from mustang (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA15882 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 10:35:13 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991120090553.0463a200@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 10:34:52 -0700 To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG From: Brett Glass Subject: FreeBSD at COMDEX Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Just got back from COMDEX, where the response to FreeBSD was very, very different compared to previous years. Here are some random observations: With few exceptions, all of the open source UNIX products and companies were relegated to a separate, "co-located" show: Linux Business Expo, in the Hilton. This had both good and bad effects. On the plus side, it gave open source a separate forum in which to strut its stuff (albeit with the Linux name hung on it). On the minus side, it segregated virtually all of the open source activity away from the mainstream. (Except for Linus, all of the keynote speakers for the Linux show were on a separate track and in smaller venues.) Companies which exhibited only in the Hilton didn't get as much attention as they would have on the main floor -- even if they had been crammed into one of the tiny "sheep stalls" which Microsoft uses to make ISVs seem small and insignificant. And those which had the financial wherewithal to exhibit in both places seemed unwilling to mention their open source activities on the main floor, where it was "Windows, Windows, Windows" all the way. FreeBSD got a small, but not insignificant, amount of attention. Red Hat CEO Robert Young even mentioned it in his keynote -- a pleasant surprise. Walnut Creek had a daemon "hostess" in the booth for the first time. ("You mean they haven't ALWAYS had one?" asked my wife, who was surprised that it hadn't been done before -- especially in Vegas. I suggested that a chorus line of female daemons -- remember the "Devil Girls" in Schmidt and Jones' classic musical "Celebration?" -- might be even more Vegas-like.) Two fellows from the NetBSD project, including Charles Hannum, were at a booth elsewhere on the floor selling CDs. They didn't seem to be getting as much interest or recognition as they deserved, alas. The timing of the show was bad for the OpenBSD project, which is currently struggling like crazy to close a bunch of open issues so that it can ship Version 2.6. Perhaps this is why I saw no mention of OpenBSD on the show floor. I noted that Digi was displaying some new serial hardware in the Red Hat booth, and asked them about BSD drivers. They said that they didn't have them, but "why don't you just port them from Linux?" (I tried to explain to them that the GPL, which is designed to monkey-wrench exactly such activities, precluded this; alas, they seemed not to understand the licensing issues. I plan to be in touch with them about getting "raw" technical specs, as I need a driver for a Digi 56K modem/channelized T1 board.) The reps from Borland/Inprise -- whose booth was directly across from Walnut Creek's -- told me that they now had a Linux command-line compiler for Borland Pascal/Delphi. (This is a fantastic Pascal dialect which I'd love to use for UNIX projects. The GPLed "Free Pascal" simply can't compete in terms of code quality.) Unfortunately, despite the fact that recompiling and relinking a command-line compiler for BSD is nearly trivial, their PR people claimed that they weren't considering an implementation for FreeBSD. (This sounds like a company that's ripe for a bit of advocacy; there is NO reason why there should not be Delphi compilers for ALL of the BSDs.) Hardware and software vendors on the main floors of COMDEX were, alas, focusing on Windows and NT. Few had driver support for any non-Microsoft operating system, and they seemed to be annoyed by the question -- as if they'd been asked quite a few times and didn't have a good answer. (Others denied ever having been asked for drivers for ANY other OS -- even Linux -- even though it's highly unlikely that this would be true.) I noted that the inkjet printer manufacturers were especially adamant about calling their printers "Windows printers," and claiming that it was impossible to run them from any other OS. Laptop vendors, when asked if their modems were "WinModems" (which I often call "lobotomodems" because they lack sufficient intelligence to work without MAJOR help from the host CPU), often couldn't provide an answer. In general, the hardware vendors -- even more than the software vendors -- seemed to wish that all of this UNIX stuff would just disappear and leave them happily dependent upon Microsoft in a one-OS world. The most extreme case of this of this phenomenon occurred when we wandered into the booth of a robotics vendor called Robix. We are working on a project for a client which will involve some robotics, and thought at first that this vendor's toolkit -- which contained a computer interface and enough servos and parts to build a complex manipulator -- might be just the thing. But when we inquired, we discovered that the included software, which ran the interface, was specific to -- you guessed it! -- Windows. Since "rolling your own" is the essence of robotics, we politely asked if we could obtain some sample code so we could adapt it to run under UNIX -- or, if not, the specifications for the interface so we could write something ourselves. We even offered to share the code we developed. But instead of welcoming our interest, the owner of the company snapped in response: "We had enough trouble developing this for Windows, and we're not going to go through the sweat and tears to rewrite it for something else! Go away!" He scowled, turned his back and refused to talk to us further. Our remark must have touched a nerve that had already been frayed by previous encounters at the show, and it was rather sad. We literally had our checkbook ready, but this one fellow was willing to throw away $500 of on-the-spot business (and that would just have been the initial order!) to avoid so much as thinking about supporting an alternative OS. Another disturbing trend was that many of the embedded systems vendors seemed to be going with NT and failing to acknowledge its continued lack of fitness for mission critical applications. One vendor which had built a PBX around NT admitted, under duress, that to keep their system even semi-reliable they had to threaten to void the warranty if ANY other application was installed on the system. (I asked them whether they were concerned about the system blue-screening due to network activity, and told them so. The vendor seemed not to fathom the notion that NT could be crashed via a network. Duh.) Other companies had tape libraries and similar systems -- many of them likely to be mission-critical -- attached to NT boxes. Scary. About the only exception I could find to this trend (at least on the main floor) was Maxtor. The company's MaxAttach dedicated file servers (a product line which they acquired when they bought Creative Design Solutions) have FreeBSD inside, and they're very proud of that. (They don't use Samba for SMB support; instead, they've written their own SMB server which seems fairly impressive. I didn't get all of the technical details, but their rep suggested that they may be doing some things in kernel space to increase performance.) Maxtor believes that FreeBSD will make their servers far more stable and reliable under load than Linux-based solutions such as the Cobalt RAQ. All in all, it seems to me that FreeBSD, and BSD UNIX in general, need a LOT more promoting and a lot more vendor support -- on the main floor, not just in the Linux "ghetto." My personal approach, were I Walnut Creek, would have been to go for a booth on the main floor at the Sands and share a smaller booth with the NetBSD folks in the Linux pavilion. It's important that FreeBSD not preach only to the converted. It should not be seen as a "niche within a niche," but rather as moving toward the mainstream. --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Nov 20 9:54:23 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from sasknow.com (h139-142-245-96.ss.fiberone.net [139.142.245.96]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8C9914D52 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 09:54:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from freebsd@sasknow.com) Received: from sasknow.com (ntstn [10.0.0.2]) by sasknow.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA98998 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:54:42 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from freebsd@sasknow.com) Message-ID: <3836E110.D8098E1B@sasknow.com> Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:57:36 -0600 From: "Ryan Thompson [FreeBSD]" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NT reliability (was: Microsoft service packs... (was many other threads...)) References: <3.0.3.32.19991119101303.01216df8@mail.embt.com> <19991119135747.53682@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Greg Lehey wrote: > > I was witness to an amusing incident here recently. The guy in the > next cube runs NT for some obscure reasons, and suddenly he couldn't > access some network service. After several attempts, we discovered > that the Ethernet connection was no longer functional. I discovered > that there is some kind of log file in the system, but nobody was able > to determine the cause. > > It doesn't seem to be possible to stop and start interfaces on NT; > instead, you reboot. Not what I would expect of any good OS, let > alone a "server" OS (whatever that means). So we rebooted. No go. > Changed the Ethernet board. No go. Changed the cable. No go. Put > all the old stuff back and booted PicoBSD. Go. > > OK, we thought, it's NT's fault. Reboot NT. Go. > > The only explanation we can think of is: if you have problems with NT, > threaten to replace it with FreeBSD. That'll scare it into behaving. > > Greg > -- > Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key > See complete headers for address and phone numbers Ha! Gawd the truth is funny, sometimes. :-) That reminds me of a not-so-long ago time when a friend of mine who (then) was about two exams away from his MCSE was idly (or not-so-idly) complaining about having problems getting his cable modem connection to work with NT. (His cable provider, like many others, uses DHCP to negotiate IPs). Basically, his problems stemmed from some errors he made when configuring NT's DHCP client (and his NIC drivers)... To make this story short and to the point (without embarassing my commercially-educated friend more than is necessary :-) After I nagged at him to try *BSD or Linux or something other than NT, he quite adamantly insisted that what he was doing was correct, and his problems would only get worse when using an "undocumented, poorly supported, and anti-user-friendly OS", further adding that if it couldn't be done in NT, it couldn't be done at all. Anti-user-friendly. I like that one :-) After he had thrashed his copy of NT (and registry) so severely that nothing short of a reinstall would get it working right again, he FINALLY relented to give FreeBSD a go. With my help, we had a fully functional network/XFree install up within a couple of hours... Rebooting only twice; once after the initial boot floppy install, again after his kernel was rebuilt. (Ok, and again to see the splash screen we installed--but that was purely for our entertainment :-) For whatever reason, he decided he didn't like FreeBSD after a week or so (probably because he missed the cute little add/remove programs dialogue), he installed Win'98 on his machine. His loss, IMHO. Small OSes amuse small minds. The really good ones amuse the rest of us :-) - Ryan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message