|
Home > Archive > alt.os.linux > December 2002 > Micro$oft Wants To Show It Owns The U$ Government
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Micro$oft Wants To Show It Owns The U$ Government
|
|
| -=Özzama bin KenÖbi=- 2002-12-15, 1:25 am |
| Why should this company that sells junk, hinders innovation, and
destroys businesses through ILLEGAL monopolistic tactics be protected
by the U$ government?
Microsoft Offered States a Fee Deal
Firm Would Pay Legal Expenses if Case Was Dropped
By Jonathan Krim
Washington Post / R.A.G.U.N.S.
Shortly after a [bribed] federal judge last month approved an
antitrust settlement deal between the Justice Department and Microsoft
Corp., the company's top lawyer approached the California attorney
general's office with a special offer, according to several people
familiar with the conversations.
If California and other states that had challenged the settlement
decided to appeal the judge's ruling, Microsoft would not only fight
the appeal, but also would contest how much in legal costs the states
were entitled to recover from the long-running litigation.
But if the nine states and the District of Columbia decided against an
appeal, Microsoft would cover the states' expenses and provide an
additional pot of funds for the states to help enforce the settlement
deal, the sources said.
After some deliberations, California -- which had agreed to bear most
of the states' legal costs to challenge the agreement -- decided to
accept the offer, along with six other states and the District of
Columbia. On Nov. 29, they announced that Microsoft would pay them a
total of $25 million in legal fees, plus $3.6 million for technical
experts and other resources to help ensure that the software giant
complies with the settlement's terms.
"It was apparent that Microsoft would be generous and not give us any
trouble over fees," said one attorney. "But if any one state did
appeal, the generosity wouldn't be as great, and any appealing state
would not participate in any fee payment."
Massachusetts and West Virginia decided to press on with the case and
will have to seek court costs whenever their appeal is concluded.
But some legal experts, as well as Microsoft's corporate rivals, said
the other states gave up an important opportunity to appeal the
ruling, arguing that the judge erred in not forcing Microsoft to
disgorge the fruits of its illegal practices. They worry that
Microsoft was able to use its financial resources to help persuade the
states.
"Microsoft makes $25 million in a morning's work," said Edward Black,
head of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, a trade
group that opposes Microsoft in the case.
The states that took the deal said that it was time to end litigation
and focus on enforcing the settlement, which imposed a series of
restrictions on Microsoft's business practices after it was found to
have illegally protected its monopoly Windows operating system.
"The case exposed the company's illegal practices, and now the world
looks differently at Microsoft," Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller
announced at the time. "We will be vigilant and hold the company to
compliance."
In an interview yesterday, Miller said that the issues of fees was
incidental to the states' decision.
"We had already decided to go the enforcement route" rather than
appeal, he said. "At that point, we felt they should be willing to
deal with fees, and they agreed."
Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler declined to comment on specific company
negotiations but said they were a part of the company's efforts to
"move past the adversarial role and build a more constructive
relationship with state governments."
Microsoft had made similar offers to several states throughout the
course of the case.
Williams & Connolly, the Washington, D.C., firm that handled the
state's challenge, had determined there were grounds for appeal,
according to sources. But the states had received varying legal
opinions on the chances for successful appeal, according to one state
attorney.
And states everywhere are facing severe budget crises. The costs on
continuing litigation, as well as chances for success, should always
be factored into any decision on pursuing a case, the attorney said.
In his press release announcing his decision to appeal, West Virginia
Attorney General Darrel V. McGraw made veiled reference to the
financial issues and the decision of his colleagues to drop the case.
"No reputable government should plead poverty and allow an adjudicated
lawbreaker to retain their ill-gotten gains," McGraw said.
Deborah Rhode, a professor of legal ethics at Stanford University,
said that such negotiations, while not a "pretty practice," are not
unusual in corporate litigation. She added that the U.S. Supreme Court
has affirmed the propriety of simultaneous negotiations over fees and
legal issues.
The breakdown of the $25 million in legal fees -- including how much
each state will receive -- has not been made available by the states,
which were still exchanging documents with Microsoft last night.
But state sources confirmed that the fee for Williams & Connolly was
about $10.07 million.
The firm had multiple attorneys working intensively on the case from
November 2001 through June of this year, with more than a month of
trial days.
It is not clear if the firm will handle the appeal for Massachusetts,
whose attorneys did not return calls for comment. A Williams &
Connolly attorney involved in the case had no comment.
The other $15 million in expenses by the states was incurred over
several years of the case and included payments for outside technical
and economic experts. States also can bill time for their staff
attorneys at private rates.
| |
|
| > Why should this company that sells junk, hinders innovation, and
> destroys businesses through ILLEGAL monopolistic tactics be protected
> by the U$ government?
I don't like Microsoft, but what have they done that is illegal? What
evidence is this based on?
| |
| Don Ocean 2002-12-15, 4:24 am |
| _
Mr-T wrote:
> > Why should this company that sells junk, hinders innovation, and
> > destroys businesses through ILLEGAL monopolistic tactics be protected
> > by the U$ government?
>
> I don't like Microsoft, but what have they done that is illegal? What
> evidence is this based on?
Ummm?_ I take it you have been off the planet for the last 8 years....
_
| |
| Jim Macklin 2002-12-15, 4:25 am |
| Sure is nice of MS to provide you a free forum for your rants.
"Don Ocean" <ocean@amerion.com> wrote in message
news:3DFCA3BF.4327C9DD@amerion.com...
|
|
| Mr-T wrote:
|
| > > Why should this company that sells junk, hinders innovation, and
| > > destroys businesses through ILLEGAL monopolistic tactics be protected
| > > by the U$ government?
| >
| > I don't like Microsoft, but what have they done that is illegal? What
| > evidence is this based on?
|
| Ummm? I take it you have been off the planet for the last 8 years....
|
|
| |
| Don Ocean 2002-12-15, 5:24 am |
| _
Jim Macklin wrote:
> Sure is nice of MS to provide you a free forum for your rants.
I wasn't aware that Microshaft owned the internet...When did Al gore sell out?
> _
>
> "Don Ocean" <ocean@amerion.com> wrote in message
> news:3DFCA3BF.4327C9DD@amerion.com...
> |
> |
> | Mr-T wrote:
> |
> | > > Why should this company that sells junk, hinders innovation, and
> | > > destroys businesses through ILLEGAL monopolistic tactics be protected
> | > > by the U$ government?
> | >
> | > I don't like Microsoft, but what have they done that is illegal? What
> | > evidence is this based on?
> |
> | Ummm? I take it you have been off the planet for the last 8 years....
> |
> |
| |
| Jim Macklin 2002-12-15, 6:25 am |
| The Internet was created by DARPA and others. But MS owns the servers that
carry this newsgroup.
Al Gore sold out many years ago when he started to cover for WJC sexual
activities.
"Don Ocean" <ocean@amerion.com> wrote in message
news:3DFCB750.DCC64300@amerion.com...
|
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > Sure is nice of MS to provide you a free forum for your rants.
|
| I wasn't aware that Microshaft owned the internet...When did Al gore sell
out?
|
| >
| >
| > "Don Ocean" <ocean@amerion.com> wrote in message
| > news:3DFCA3BF.4327C9DD@amerion.com...
| > |
| > |
| > | Mr-T wrote:
| > |
| > | > > Why should this company that sells junk, hinders innovation, and
| > | > > destroys businesses through ILLEGAL monopolistic tactics be
protected
| > | > > by the U$ government?
| > | >
| > | > I don't like Microsoft, but what have they done that is illegal?
What
| > | > evidence is this based on?
| > |
| > | Ummm? I take it you have been off the planet for the last 8 years....
| > |
| > |
|
| |
| David Utidjian 2002-12-15, 9:25 am |
| On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 06:22:44 -0500, Jim Macklin wrote:
> The Internet was created by DARPA and others. But MS owns the servers
> that carry this newsgroup.
>
> Al Gore sold out many years ago when he started to cover for WJC sexual
> activities.
That is completely incorrect. Your hotmail account ALLOWS YOU access to
this newsgroup. hotmail.com is only one of thousands of news servers all
over the world. Not one of those servers "owns" Usenet News. If you look
at the headers you will notice that Don was posting from amerion.com. I
don't know for sure but I doubt amerion.com is owned by MS.
Perhaps you should read: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1/
and correct your mis-understanding.
-DU-...etc...
| |
| Jim Macklin 2002-12-15, 10:24 am |
| Hotmail is owned by MS...my news server is msnews.microsoft.com and that is
a Microsoft owned domain.
I use Hotmail as a logon to the news server, but Yahoo mail would work just
as well as would netzero.
There a great deal of co-hosting of newsgroups...perhaps you are using some
other server to get the MS news groups, but at the base, MS is paying for
the space used on servers as public service.
"David Utidjian" <utidjian@nospamremarque.org> wrote in message
news an.2002.12.15.09.26.04.464690.3060@nospamremarque.org...
| On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 06:22:44 -0500, Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > The Internet was created by DARPA and others. But MS owns the servers
| > that carry this newsgroup.
| >
| > Al Gore sold out many years ago when he started to cover for WJC sexual
| > activities.
|
| That is completely incorrect. Your hotmail account ALLOWS YOU access to
| this newsgroup. hotmail.com is only one of thousands of news servers all
| over the world. Not one of those servers "owns" Usenet News. If you look
| at the headers you will notice that Don was posting from amerion.com. I
| don't know for sure but I doubt amerion.com is owned by MS.
|
| Perhaps you should read: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1/
| and correct your mis-understanding.
|
| -DU-...etc...
| |
|
| On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 09:37:47 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
<p51mustang36@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Hotmail is owned by MS...my news server is msnews.microsoft.com and that is
>a Microsoft owned domain.
>I use Hotmail as a logon to the news server, but Yahoo mail would work just
>as well as would netzero.
>
>There a great deal of co-hosting of newsgroups...perhaps you are using some
>other server to get the MS news groups, but at the base, MS is paying for
>the space used on servers as public service.
No, they are not. Every ISP has to shoulder the load for disk space
usage on its own.
You need to read that FAQ.
>"David Utidjian" <utidjian@nospamremarque.org> wrote in message
>newsan.2002.12.15.09.26.04.464690.3060@nospamremarque.org...
>| On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 06:22:44 -0500, Jim Macklin wrote:
>|
>| > The Internet was created by DARPA and others. But MS owns the servers
>| > that carry this newsgroup.
>| >
>| > Al Gore sold out many years ago when he started to cover for WJC sexual
>| > activities.
>|
>| That is completely incorrect. Your hotmail account ALLOWS YOU access to
>| this newsgroup. hotmail.com is only one of thousands of news servers all
>| over the world. Not one of those servers "owns" Usenet News. If you look
>| at the headers you will notice that Don was posting from amerion.com. I
>| don't know for sure but I doubt amerion.com is owned by MS.
>|
>| Perhaps you should read: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1/
>| and correct your mis-understanding.
>|
>| -DU-...etc...
>
| |
| Elmer Thudd 2002-12-15, 2:24 pm |
| Jim Macklin wrote:
> Hotmail is owned by MS...my news server is msnews.microsoft.com and that is
> a Microsoft owned domain.
You CHOOSE to use servers owned and operated by microsoft.
M$ does not own usenet, you have chosen to read in using M$ services.
There's a difference.
| |
| Jim Macklin 2002-12-15, 3:25 pm |
| I read the FAQ,,,this news group is microsoft.public.windowsxp. You are (or
who ever started this thread, crossposting and you didn't set a follow-up
To: newsgroup so every reply goes to one group.
Perhaps you should read proper posting procedures. Start by setting all
headers in your view.
BTW, are you embarrassed by your name?
"dc" <dc@foo.bar> wrote in message
news:baapvu89aqpekah3i09991sip
s8frev5qo@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 09:37:47 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
| <p51mustang36@hotmail.com> wrote:
|
| >Hotmail is owned by MS...my news server is msnews.microsoft.com and that
is
| >a Microsoft owned domain.
| >I use Hotmail as a logon to the news server, but Yahoo mail would work
just
| >as well as would netzero.
| >
| >There a great deal of co-hosting of newsgroups...perhaps you are using
some
| >other server to get the MS news groups, but at the base, MS is paying for
| >the space used on servers as public service.
|
| No, they are not. Every ISP has to shoulder the load for disk space
| usage on its own.
|
| You need to read that FAQ.
|
| >"David Utidjian" <utidjian@nospamremarque.org> wrote in message
| >newsan.2002.12.15.09.26.04.464690.3060@nospamremarque.org...
| >| On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 06:22:44 -0500, Jim Macklin wrote:
| >|
| >| > The Internet was created by DARPA and others. But MS owns the
servers
| >| > that carry this newsgroup.
| >| >
| >| > Al Gore sold out many years ago when he started to cover for WJC
sexual
| >| > activities.
| >|
| >| That is completely incorrect. Your hotmail account ALLOWS YOU access to
| >| this newsgroup. hotmail.com is only one of thousands of news servers
all
| >| over the world. Not one of those servers "owns" Usenet News. If you
look
| >| at the headers you will notice that Don was posting from amerion.com. I
| >| don't know for sure but I doubt amerion.com is owned by MS.
| >|
| >| Perhaps you should read:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1/
| >| and correct your mis-understanding.
| >|
| >| -DU-...etc...
| >
|
| |
| Jim Macklin 2002-12-15, 3:25 pm |
| I think what you said is in agreement with my statement. The Internet is a
giant network with millions of nodes. Judging from the name of the
newsgroup microsoft.public.windowsxp on a news server msnews.microsoft.com
places the "home" server as in a domain run, owned, operated by or for MS.
If MS pulled the plug on the newsgroup(s) the group would not continue
unless some hoist re-routed previously established addressing. Where people
have cross posted to more than one group, those messages are certainly on
other than MS servers and they don't depend on MS...but that is like saying
my aunt would have been my uncle if she had balls.
"David Utidjian" <utidjian@nospamremarque.org> wrote in message
newsan.2002.12.15.11.55.15.1839.3060@nospamremarque.org...
| On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 10:37:47 -0500, Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > Hotmail is owned by MS...my news server is msnews.microsoft.com and
| > that is a Microsoft owned domain.
| > I use Hotmail as a logon to the news server, but Yahoo mail would work
| > just as well as would netzero.
|
| Yes this is true... but only part of it.
|
| > There a great deal of co-hosting of newsgroups...perhaps you are using
| > some other server to get the MS news groups, but at the base, MS is
| > paying for the space used on servers as public service.
|
| MS newsgroups are not "owned" by MS any more than, say, Linux newsgroups
| are owned by Linux, or that rec.humor.funny is owned by the humor company
| ofr the funny company.
|
| At the base WHERE you are accessing the newsgroup YOU are paying for the
| access. When I write this post and send it out to the wonderful world
| that is Usenet a copy of it ends up on my ISPs newserver (I pay for that)
| they in turn send it out to other news servers around the world some of
| which are publicly funded and some of them privately funded.
|
| If Microsoft were to go belly up tomorrow (unlikely but we can hope can't
| we ;-)) do you think that microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (and others)
| would just dissappear? It won't. Your access to the newsgroup via hotmail
| or any other MS owned service may dissappear but NOT the newsgroup
| itself. The newsgroup will continue to exist as long as at least one news
| server somewhere decides to continue carrying it.
|
| If this isn't making sense to you or you still feel that you are correct
| then you should read that FAQ I posted a link to earlier.
|
| -DU-...etc...
| |
| Jim Macklin 2002-12-15, 3:25 pm |
| MS hosts the microsoft news groups.
By the way, proper crossposting directs replies to one group to make
following a thread easier.
"Elmer Thudd" <wabbit@wabbit.net> wrote in message
news:lV4L9.161309$Gc.5233661@twister.austin.rr.com...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Hotmail is owned by MS...my news server is msnews.microsoft.com and
that is
| > a Microsoft owned domain.
| You CHOOSE to use servers owned and operated by microsoft.
| M$ does not own usenet, you have chosen to read in using M$ services.
| There's a difference.
|
| |
|
| On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 14:43:47 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
<p51mustang36@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I read the FAQ,,,this news group is microsoft.public.windowsxp. You are (or
>who ever started this thread, crossposting and you didn't set a follow-up
>To: newsgroup so every reply goes to one group.
That's nice, but it's completely immaterial to the discussion. MS
doesn't own this - the ISPs need to shoulder the diskspace required,
and if MS were to fold tomorrow, this NG would still exist.
>Perhaps you should read proper posting procedures. Start by setting all
>headers in your view.
Why? I want them to get this - if you cared enough to post in all of
them, my followups should do the same.
>BTW, are you embarrassed by your name?
Huh?
>
>"dc" <dc@foo.bar> wrote in message
> news:baapvu89aqpekah3i09991sip
s8frev5qo@4ax.com...
>| On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 09:37:47 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
>| <p51mustang36@hotmail.com> wrote:
>|
>| >Hotmail is owned by MS...my news server is msnews.microsoft.com and that
>is
>| >a Microsoft owned domain.
>| >I use Hotmail as a logon to the news server, but Yahoo mail would work
>just
>| >as well as would netzero.
>| >
>| >There a great deal of co-hosting of newsgroups...perhaps you are using
>some
>| >other server to get the MS news groups, but at the base, MS is paying for
>| >the space used on servers as public service.
>|
>| No, they are not. Every ISP has to shoulder the load for disk space
>| usage on its own.
>|
>| You need to read that FAQ.
>|
>| >"David Utidjian" <utidjian@nospamremarque.org> wrote in message
>| >newsan.2002.12.15.09.26.04.464690.3060@nospamremarque.org...
>| >| On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 06:22:44 -0500, Jim Macklin wrote:
>| >|
>| >| > The Internet was created by DARPA and others. But MS owns the
>servers
>| >| > that carry this newsgroup.
>| >| >
>| >| > Al Gore sold out many years ago when he started to cover for WJC
>sexual
>| >| > activities.
>| >|
>| >| That is completely incorrect. Your hotmail account ALLOWS YOU access to
>| >| this newsgroup. hotmail.com is only one of thousands of news servers
>all
>| >| over the world. Not one of those servers "owns" Usenet News. If you
>look
>| >| at the headers you will notice that Don was posting from amerion.com. I
>| >| don't know for sure but I doubt amerion.com is owned by MS.
>| >|
>| >| Perhaps you should read:
>http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1/
>| >| and correct your mis-understanding.
>| >|
>| >| -DU-...etc...
>| >
>|
>
| |
| -=Özzama bin KenÖbi=- 2002-12-16, 1:24 am |
| Mr-T <jonthorp-npsmam-@bigpond.net.au> said:
>> Why should this company that sells junk, hinders innovation, and
>> destroys businesses through ILLEGAL monopolistic tactics be protected
>> by the U$ government?
>
>I don't like Microsoft, but what have they done that is illegal? What
>evidence is this based on?
You mean what have they done illegally over the past two decades, or
what is illegal about what they're doing now?
| |
| -=Özzama bin KenÖbi=- 2002-12-16, 1:24 am |
| "Jim Macklin" <p51mustang36@hotmail.com> said:
>Sure is nice of MS to provide you a free forum for your rants.
It's the least they could have done. I mean, if they've got enough $$$
to spend on bribing U$ courts and politicians, they could at least put
up some forums where the truth can be told.
| |
| -=Özzama bin KenÖbi=- 2002-12-16, 1:25 am |
| "Jim Macklin" <p51mustang36@hotmail.com> said:
>The Internet was created by DARPA and others. But MS owns the servers that
>carry this newsgroup.
If M$ is afraid of free speech, they could always shut these servers
down.
| |
| Justin 2002-12-16, 4:25 am |
| relax pal, you need a rest guy!
| |
| Jim Macklin 2002-12-16, 9:25 am |
| Free speech does not mean that slander is OK.
"-=Özzama bin KenÖbi=-" <abuse@anarchy.gov> wrote in message
news:mhvqvu8vj0tlvnht3umi6lvr4
nddl96k3d@4ax.com...
| "Jim Macklin" <p51mustang36@hotmail.com> said:
|
| >The Internet was created by DARPA and others. But MS owns the servers
that
| >carry this newsgroup.
|
| If M$ is afraid of free speech, they could always shut these servers
| down.
| |
| Jim Macklin 2002-12-16, 9:25 am |
| Who did they bribe?
"-=Özzama bin KenÖbi=-" <abuse@anarchy.gov> wrote in message
news:rfvqvuokvvt958ft1ouprbp5c
534gkq55u@4ax.com...
| "Jim Macklin" <p51mustang36@hotmail.com> said:
|
| >Sure is nice of MS to provide you a free forum for your rants.
|
| It's the least they could have done. I mean, if they've got enough $$$
| to spend on bribing U$ courts and politicians, they could at least put
| up some forums where the truth can be told.
| |
| WinMan 2002-12-16, 10:25 am |
| -=Özzama bin KenÖbi=- wrote:
> Why should this company that sells junk, hinders innovation, and
> destroys businesses through ILLEGAL monopolistic tactics be protected
> by the U$ government?
>
>
Microsoft is protected no more or no less than any other company by the US
goverment. Microsoft got where it is today by consistently striving to
market the best available software not by the bullshit "illegal" behavior.
Microsoft did not force Netscape to continually release its browser with the
same old performance problems. While Netscape did almost nothing Microsoft
continually improved Internet Explorer to have the best speed, widest
compatibility, and best stability. Netscape destroyed Netscape. Sure
Microsoft may have distributed its browser via Windows and that gave it an
initial advantage. Had Netscape worked to improve performance of its
browser the way Microsoft did things probably would have turned out
differently. The bottom line is that 95% of the time the computer user
will identify the best software out there and use it. Internet Explorer was
clearly the best browser available at that time. Why is Windows the most
popular OS? Because people have used it and prefer it over the degraded
Mac OS and the user unfriendly Linux OS. People also realize that with
Windows they will enjoy superior compatibility and software availability.
Thats why Microsoft got where it is today. By designing and continually
improving world class software.
| |
| -=Özzama bin KenÖbi=- 2002-12-16, 3:25 pm |
| "Jim Macklin" <p51mustang36@hotmail.com> said:
>Who did they bribe?
>
>
>"-=Özzama bin KenÖbi=-" <abuse@anarchy.gov> wrote in message
> news:rfvqvuokvvt958ft1ouprbp5c
534gkq55u@4ax.com...
>| "Jim Macklin" <p51mustang36@hotmail.com> said:
>|
>| >Sure is nice of MS to provide you a free forum for your rants.
>|
>| It's the least they could have done. I mean, if they've got enough $$$
>| to spend on bribing U$ courts and politicians, they could at least put
>| up some forums where the truth can be told.
>
Jim, are you really this ignorant, or are you being paid to be? M$
"donated" millions to both the Republicons and Demorats and at least
$20,000 to Ashcroft personally.
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2...20215010284.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/cti306.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/cth989.htm
"Microsoft, always ranked at the top of computer industry
contributors, has made nearly $800,000 in soft money"
http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v5/alertv5_33.asp
"According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Microsoft has
contributed $1.1 million dollars in soft money to both major political
parties this cycle -- $529,000 to the Democrats, and $607,000 to
Republicans.
The software giant gave another $700,000 to individual candidates --
and it is those numbers that tell the story behind the company's
newfound political activism."
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS...osoft.politics/
| |
| -=Özzama bin KenÖbi=- 2002-12-16, 3:25 pm |
| "Jim Macklin" <p51mustang36@hotmail.com> said:
>Free speech does not mean that slander is OK.
This isn't slander.
>"-=Özzama bin KenÖbi=-" <abuse@anarchy.gov> wrote in message
> news:mhvqvu8vj0tlvnht3umi6lvr4
nddl96k3d@4ax.com...
>| "Jim Macklin" <p51mustang36@hotmail.com> said:
>|
>| >The Internet was created by DARPA and others. But MS owns the servers
>that
>| >carry this newsgroup.
>|
>| If M$ is afraid of free speech, they could always shut these servers
>| down.
>
| |
| Andrew J. Brehm 2002-12-16, 3:25 pm |
| -=Özzama bin KenÖbi=- <abuse@anarchy.gov> wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" <p51mustang36@hotmail.com> said:
Jim, please don't top-post. It's really not fun to re-arrange what you
have written just to get back to a coherent discussion.
> >"-=Özzama bin KenÖbi=-" <abuse@anarchy.gov> wrote in message
> > news:rfvqvuokvvt958ft1ouprbp5c
534gkq55u@4ax.com...
> >| "Jim Macklin" <p51mustang36@hotmail.com> said:
> >|
> >| >Sure is nice of MS to provide you a free forum for your rants.
> >|
> >| It's the least they could have done. I mean, if they've got enough $$$
> >| to spend on bribing U$ courts and politicians, they could at least put
> >| up some forums where the truth can be told.
> >
> >
> >Who did they bribe?
> >
>
> Jim, are you really this ignorant, or are you being paid to be? M$
> "donated" millions to both the Republicons and Demorats and at least
> $20,000 to Ashcroft personally.
Did you also bribe politicians in the last few years?
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
| |
| -=Özzama bin KenÖbi=- 2002-12-16, 4:25 pm |
| "WinMan" <nospam@nospam.com> said:
>-=Özzama bin KenÖbi=- wrote:
>> Why should this company that sells junk, hinders innovation, and
>> destroys businesses through ILLEGAL monopolistic tactics be protected
>> by the U$ government?
>>
>>
>
>
>Microsoft is protected no more or no less than any other company by the US
>goverment.
Considering that the Justice Department is doing nothing to protect
the computer industry from Micro$oft's monopolistic practices that
have been proven in court, I'd say Micro$oft is protected just a bit
more than most.
>Microsoft got where it is today by consistently striving to
>market the best available software not by the bullshit "illegal" behavior.
Microsoft lost the antitrust case, I don't think it would have if it
wasn't involved in "bullshit illegal behaviour".
>Microsoft did not force Netscape to continually release its browser with the
>same old performance problems.
But Microsoft did bundle IE with Windoze, and then it further tied IE
into the OS unecessarily before the antitrust ruling, purposely making
it more difficult to seperate from the OS. There's no technical reason
for IE to have to be bundled with the OS. There's no technical reason
for media player to be bundled with the OS. There's no technical
reason for M$ messenger to be bundled with the OS. There's no
technical reason for Outlook Express to be bundled with the OS.
There's no good reason why M$ is locking out people using
Netscape/Mozilla from the windoze update site, when they can manually
download updates there.
The fact, proven in court, is that M$ has been using its shitty OS to
dump its shitty products onto the market and destroy its competition
using ILLEGAL tactics.
>While Netscape did almost nothing Microsoft
>continually improved Internet Explorer to have the best speed, widest
>compatibility, and best stability.
What do you think this is, the Home Shopping Channel?
Netscape/Mozilla/Phoenix is much more compatible with industry
standards than IE:
http://www.mozilla.org/
I don't see IE working with every major OS on the planet. I don't see
IE conforming to industry standards. IE uses proprietary M$
extensions, that does NOT qualify as "widest compatibility".
>Netscape destroyed Netscape.
http://www.mozilla.org/
>Sure
>Microsoft may have distributed its browser via Windows and that gave it an
>initial advantage. Had Netscape worked to improve performance of its
>browser the way Microsoft did things probably would have turned out
>differently.
Well gee, maybe if Netscape was allowed to bundle its browser with the
OS in place of IE it might run just as fast? IE loads its .dlls on
startup, Netscape has to load them each time you run the browser,
that's what makes it seem "slower".
>The bottom line is that 95% of the time the computer user
>will identify the best software out there and use it. Internet Explorer was
>clearly the best browser available at that time.
Hardly. Look, I've set up systems for computer newbies before, I know
what they think and what they know about what's available. You ask
them what they think IE is, and they'll tell you that this is what you
use to browse the WWW. They don't even know that its possible to use
3rd party products in place of M$ filth or that it's just an
application.
Micro$oft makes its $$$ by preying on ignorance and by breaking the
law. Sure, many companies do this, but M$ IS COMPLETELY OUT OF
CONTROL. It is in an unfair position and it is a detriment to the
entire computer industry and the internet.
>Why is Windows the most
>popular OS? Because people have used it and prefer it over the degraded
>Mac OS and the user unfriendly Linux OS.
No, because M$ extorted OEMs, and because M$ sabotaged its
competitors, at times even while working with them, such as the case
of IBM's OS/2. M$ has even stolen code from other developers such as
the case with STAC. I dunno, I suppose you can even mention M$'s
attempts to hijack open standards such as JAVA.
>People also realize that with
>Windows they will enjoy superior compatibility and software availability.
>Thats why Microsoft got where it is today. By designing and continually
>improving world class software.
More like being a world class con artist.
| |
| WinMan 2002-12-16, 5:25 pm |
| -=Özzama bin KenÖbi=- wrote:
> "WinMan" <nospam@nospam.com> said:
>
>> -=Özzama bin KenÖbi=- wrote:
>>> Why should this company that sells junk, hinders innovation, and
>>> destroys businesses through ILLEGAL monopolistic tactics be
>>> protected by the U$ government?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Microsoft is protected no more or no less than any other company by
>> the US goverment.
>
> Considering that the Justice Department is doing nothing to protect
> the computer industry from Micro$oft's monopolistic practices that
> have been proven in court, I'd say Micro$oft is protected just a bit
> more than most.
>
It is not the goverments job to protect the computer industry from
itself. Continual releases of shoddy products is what hurts Microsoft
competitors.
>> Microsoft got where it is today by consistently striving to
>> market the best available software not by the bullshit "illegal"
>> behavior.
>
> Microsoft lost the antitrust case, I don't think it would have if it
> wasn't involved in "bullshit illegal behaviour".
>
Microsoft lost the antitrust case because the judge was not familiar
with computers. Only one who had experienced the bumbling competitors
shoddy products was fit to judge. That person would then have known why
Microsoft was on top.
>> Microsoft did not force Netscape to continually release its browser
>> with the same old performance problems.
>
> But Microsoft did bundle IE with Windoze, and then it further tied IE
> into the OS unecessarily before the antitrust ruling, purposely making
> it more difficult to seperate from the OS. There's no technical reason
> for IE to have to be bundled with the OS. There's no technical reason
> for media player to be bundled with the OS. There's no technical
> reason for M$ messenger to be bundled with the OS. There's no
> technical reason for Outlook Express to be bundled with the OS.
> There's no good reason why M$ is locking out people using
> Netscape/Mozilla from the windoze update site, when they can manually
> download updates there.
>
Their was reason to bundle add on products with the OS. In order to
convince people to upgrade Microsoft had to provide additional features.
Simple fact of the software business.
> The fact, proven in court, is that M$ has been using its shitty OS to
> dump its shitty products onto the market and destroy its competition
> using ILLEGAL tactics.
>
>> While Netscape did almost nothing Microsoft
>> continually improved Internet Explorer to have the best speed, widest
>> compatibility, and best stability.
>
> What do you think this is, the Home Shopping Channel?
> Netscape/Mozilla/Phoenix is much more compatible with industry
> standards than IE:
>
> http://www.mozilla.org/
>
> I don't see IE working with every major OS on the planet. I don't see
> IE conforming to industry standards. IE uses proprietary M$
> extensions, that does NOT qualify as "widest compatibility".
>
The only OS on the planet that matters is Windows. Who cares about the
other shit. And that is what the competing OSs are: shit.
>> Netscape destroyed Netscape.
>
> http://www.mozilla.org/
>
>> Sure
>> Microsoft may have distributed its browser via Windows and that gave
>> it an initial advantage. Had Netscape worked to improve performance
>> of its browser the way Microsoft did things probably would have
>> turned out differently.
>
> Well gee, maybe if Netscape was allowed to bundle its browser with the
> OS in place of IE it might run just as fast? IE loads its .dlls on
> startup, Netscape has to load them each time you run the browser,
> that's what makes it seem "slower".
>
That is the obvious benefit of integrating the web browser into the OS.
The browser will start faster and provide a better user expereince.
>> The bottom line is that 95% of the time the computer user
>> will identify the best software out there and use it. Internet
>> Explorer was clearly the best browser available at that time.
>
> Hardly. Look, I've set up systems for computer newbies before, I know
> what they think and what they know about what's available. You ask
> them what they think IE is, and they'll tell you that this is what you
> use to browse the WWW. They don't even know that its possible to use
> 3rd party products in place of M$ filth or that it's just an
> application.
>
> Micro$oft makes its $$$ by preying on ignorance and by breaking the
> law. Sure, many companies do this, but M$ IS COMPLETELY OUT OF
> CONTROL. It is in an unfair position and it is a detriment to the
> entire computer industry and the internet.
>
Microsoft makes its dollars because bumbling competitors are there to
release poorer products.
| |
| James Arveson 2002-12-16, 5:25 pm |
|
"Andrew J. Brehm" <andrew@netneurotic.de> wrote in message
news:1fnb1sq. gec6lg1xkzxloN%andrew@netneuro
tic.de...
> -=Özzama bin KenÖbi=- <abuse@anarchy.gov> wrote:
>
> > "Jim Macklin" <p51mustang36@hotmail.com> said:
>
> Jim, please don't top-post. It's really not fun to re-arrange what you
> have written just to get back to a coherent discussion.
>
> > >"-=Özzama bin KenÖbi=-" <abuse@anarchy.gov> wrote in message
> > > news:rfvqvuokvvt958ft1ouprbp5c
534gkq55u@4ax.com...
> > >| "Jim Macklin" <p51mustang36@hotmail.com> said:
> > >|
> > >| >Sure is nice of MS to provide you a free forum for your rants.
> > >|
> > >| It's the least they could have done. I mean, if they've got enough
$$$[c
olor=darkred]
> > >| to spend on bribing U$ courts and politicians, they could at least[/color]
put[c
olor=darkred]
> > >| up some forums where the truth can be told.
> > >
> > >
> > >Who did they bribe?
> > >
> >
> > Jim, are you really this ignorant, or are you being paid to be? M$
> > "donated" millions to both the Republicons and Demorats and at least
> > $20,000 to Ashcroft personally.
>
> Did you also bribe politicians in the last few years?[/color]
Some characterize these political donations as bribery by the donors. A more
accurate characterization would be extortion by the political parties.
Microsoft was well knon for their arrogance toward Washington. The didn't
have a lobby office in DC and they didn't make political donations. Well,
along came the Clinton administration, and did they teach them a thing or
two about proper humility toward politicians. Stimulated by big donations
from Mcneally, Ellison, Case, et al, Clinton fired the head of the
Anti-Trust div. of DOJ and replaced him with his personal lawyer. He charged
up a new effort on the MS case, and the rest is history. MS learned their
lesson, and now make donations, the same as their competitors.
James
>
> --
> Andrew J. Brehm
> Fan of Woody Allen
> PowerPC User
> Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
| |
| Andrew J. Brehm 2002-12-16, 6:24 pm |
| James Arveson <JA@spam.net> wrote:
[colo
r=darkred]
> > > >
> > > >Who did they bribe?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Jim, are you really this ignorant, or are you being paid to be? M$
> > > "donated" millions to both the Republicons and Demorats and at least
> > > $20,000 to Ashcroft personally.
> >
> > Did you also bribe politicians in the last few years?
>
> Some characterize these political donations as bribery by the donors.[/color]
That was what I was getting at.
> A more accurate characterization would be extortion by the political
> parties.
I believe that both characterizations are biased. The truth is that
political donations are really neccessary because candidacies are
expensive and we don't want only the rich to be able to run.
> Microsoft was well known for their arrogance toward Washington. The didn't
> have a lobby office in DC and they didn't make political donations. Well,
> along came the Clinton administration, and did they teach them a thing or
> two about proper humility toward politicians. Stimulated by big donations
> from Mcneally, Ellison, Case, et al, Clinton fired the head of the
> Anti-Trust div. of DOJ and replaced him with his personal lawyer. He
> charged up a new effort on the MS case, and the rest is history. MS
> learned their lesson, and now make donations, the same as their
> competitors.
>
I didn't really want to take sides in this discussion except on the
issue of donations. There is a tendency among some to refer to donations
made from certain people they don't like as "bribes", which is really a
logical fallacy.
Whether one refers to "Microsoft donating to both Republicans and
Democrats" or to "Microsoft bribing both Republicons and Demonrats"
doesn't affect the truth that we hopefully try to find in an argument.
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
| |
| Elmer Thudd 2002-12-16, 8:24 pm |
| WinMan wrote:
> The bottom line is that 95% of the time the computer user
> will identify the best software out there and use it.
Bull.
95+% of the time the user will use whatever is already there rather than
even consider downloading-installing another package.
| |
| -=Özzama bin KenÖbi=- 2002-12-17, 11:25 pm |
| "James Arveson" <JA@spam.net> said:
>>
>> Did you also bribe politicians in the last few years?
>
>Some characterize these political donations as bribery by the donors. A more
>accurate characterization would be extortion by the political parties.
>Microsoft was well knon for their arrogance toward Washington. The didn't
>have a lobby office in DC and they didn't make political donations. Well,
>along came the Clinton administration, and did they teach them a thing or
>two about proper humility toward politicians. Stimulated by big donations
>from Mcneally, Ellison, Case, et al, Clinton fired the head of the
>Anti-Trust div. of DOJ and replaced him with his personal lawyer. He charged
>up a new effort on the MS case, and the rest is history. MS learned their
>lesson, and now make donations, the same as their competitors.
It doesn't matter what it took to get it done, M$ deserved every bit
of it. Now Bu$h has been paid off and M$ is back to its old evil ways.
| |
| Gene Hora 2002-12-17, 11:25 pm |
| Darn! Where did I put that can of Raid?
"-=Özzama bin KenÖbi=-" <abuse@anarchy.gov> wrote in message
news:08rvvug603fnfj05ibsc5u16i
323elrcte@4ax.com...
> "James Arveson" <JA@spam.net> said:
>
> >>
> >> Did you also bribe politicians in the last few years?
> >
> >Some characterize these political donations as bribery by the donors. A
more
> >accurate characterization would be extortion by the political parties.
> >Microsoft was well knon for their arrogance toward Washington. The didn't
> >have a lobby office in DC and they didn't make political donations. Well,
> >along came the Clinton administration, and did they teach them a thing or
> >two about proper humility toward politicians. Stimulated by big donations
> >from Mcneally, Ellison, Case, et al, Clinton fired the head of the
> >Anti-Trust div. of DOJ and replaced him with his personal lawyer. He
charged
> >up a new effort on the MS case, and the rest is history. MS learned their
> >lesson, and now make donations, the same as their competitors.
>
> It doesn't matter what it took to get it done, M$ deserved every bit
> of it. Now Bu$h has been paid off and M$ is back to its old evil ways.
| |
| -=Özzama bin KenÖbi=- 2002-12-17, 11:25 pm |
| andrew@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) said:
>Whether one refers to "Microsoft donating to both Republicans and
>Democrats" or to "Microsoft bribing both Republicons and Demonrats"
>doesn't affect the truth that we hopefully try to find in an argument.
The truth is that M$ got away without punishment and continue to be a
dangerous, anti-capitalist, predatory monopoly. This is really the
main issue here. Bribing politicians and judges is just one method it
uses to maintain its illegal empire and subvert honest, law-abiding
competitors.
| |
| -=Özzama bin KenÖbi=- 2002-12-17, 11:25 pm |
| >It is not the goverments job to protect the computer industry from
>itself. Continual releases of shoddy products is what hurts Microsoft
>competitors.
What shoddy products? How can they compete when M$ won't give them
fair access to Windoze? How can they use open standards when M$
poisons those standards with proprietary evil?
M$ is using the Windoze platform to unfairly influence the entire
industry. It has been found guilty of this, but the paid-off judges
and politicians have made sure it wasn't punished by anything more
than a slap on the wrist. M$ must be reigned in, or we will continue
to be plagued by shoddy products that must conform to M$'s shoddy and
insecure standards.
[colo
r=darkred]
>>> Microsoft got where it is today by consistently striving to
>>> market the best available software not by the bullshit "illegal"
>>> behavior.
>>
>> Microsoft lost the antitrust case, I don't think it would have if it
>> wasn't involved in "bullshit illegal behaviour".
>>
>
>Microsoft lost the antitrust case because the judge was not familiar
>with computers. Only one who had experienced the bumbling competitors
>shoddy products was fit to judge. That person would then have known why
>Microsoft was on top.[/color]
Yes, I suppose all the industry experts that assisted him (both pro
and anti-monopolists) were also not familiar with computers?
It's more likely that the judge took one look at windoze and began
convulsing and screaming for the electric chair for Gate$.
"Gaaaates! Kiiillll him!!!! Gaaaaaates! AOWOAOAOWOAOAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!"
>Their was reason to bundle add on products with the OS. In order to
>convince people to upgrade Microsoft had to provide additional features.
>Simple fact of the software business.
I don't know of anyone who upgraded because of M$'s cheap knockoff
add-on products. People upgraded because M$ claimed to have improved
the OS. Even worse is that software developers had already created all
these products before M$, M$ simply took them, made knockoffs and
bundled them into the OS so they couldn't be removed even if you
wanted to remove this filth.
>> http://www.mozilla.org/
>>
>> I don't see IE working with every major OS on the planet. I don't see
>> IE conforming to industry standards. IE uses proprietary M$
>> extensions, that does NOT qualify as "widest compatibility".
>>
>
>
>The only OS on the planet that matters is Windows. Who cares about the
>other shit. And that is what the competing OSs are: shit.
Oh, I see, you're a pathetic twat. Ok, I won't bother trying to have a
serious discussion with you. Bye, bye shithead, enjoy Gate$ cock in
your mother's XXX.
| |
| -=Özzama bin KenÖbi=- 2002-12-17, 11:26 pm |
| Elmer Thudd <wabbit@wabbit.net> said:
>WinMan wrote:
>> The bottom line is that 95% of the time the computer user
>> will identify the best software out there and use it.
>
>Bull.
>95+% of the time the user will use whatever is already there rather than
>even consider downloading-installing another package.
No, most of the time they don't even know it exists. Ask the average
computer user what they think Windoze Media Player is, and they'll
tell you that it's the part of the operating system that plays videos
and music. They don't even know that it's just an application. Hell,
they don't even know that even the GUI/shell can be changed, they
think this is the way "computers" are and that there's nothing better.
Like I said, M$ preys on ignorance. The majority of its products are
basically a bloated knock-offs of things other companies have done
better.
| |
| Robert Newson 2002-12-17, 11:26 pm |
| >Their was reason to bundle add on products with the OS. In order to
>>convince people to upgrade Microsoft had to provide additional features.
>>Simple fact of the software business.
>
> I don't know of anyone who upgraded because of M$'s cheap knockoff
> add-on products. People upgraded because M$ claimed to have improved
> the OS. Even worse is that software developers had already created all
> these products before M$, M$ simply took them, made knockoffs and
> bundled them into the OS so they couldn't be removed even if you
> wanted to remove this filth.
Just to let you know I HAD to downgrade from Win3.1 to Win98 to use some of
the new (and useful) features of a s/ware package I use. I didn't want to
(as 3.1 runs fine - yes I DO still use it on one of my machines: 95 would
snail on that 486 which also runs Unix [and X] without problems), just the
package no longer ran on 3.1.
| |
| James Arveson 2002-12-17, 11:26 pm |
|
"-=Özzama bin KenÖbi=-" <abuse@anarchy.gov> wrote in message
news:gbrvvusr16s50foug295fhfi3
rbfvl1bir@4ax.com...
> andrew@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) said:
>
> >Whether one refers to "Microsoft donating to both Republicans and
> >Democrats" or to "Microsoft bribing both Republicons and Demonrats"
> >doesn't affect the truth that we hopefully try to find in an argument.
>
> The truth is that M$ got away without punishment and continue to be a
> dangerous, anti-capitalist, predatory monopoly. This is really the
> main issue here. Bribing politicians and judges is just one method it
> uses to maintain its illegal empire and subvert honest, law-abiding
> competitors.
They didn't bribe the judge, unless you have information not available to
the rest of us.
They didn't bribe any politicians. They merely paid the extortion fee that
the politicians felt was due them.
These law-abiding competitors were the first in line with their "donations".
That is why there was a anti-trust suit in the first place.
James
| |
| Andy Clayton 2002-12-18, 12:25 am |
| -=3D=D6zzama bin Ken=D6bi=3D- wrote:
> The truth is that M$ got away without punishment and continue to be a=
> dangerous, anti-capitalist, predatory monopoly. This is really the
> main issue here. Bribing politicians and judges is just one method it=
> uses to maintain its illegal empire and subvert honest, law-abiding
> competitors.
More dangerous is the power Microsoft has on the economy by controller =
the=20
computers ...
Looks like the government doesn't realize this yet...
| |
| Andy Clayton 2002-12-18, 12:25 am |
| James Arveson wrote:
> They didn't bribe any politicians. They merely paid the extortion fee that
> the politicians felt was due them.
Yeah but they get "do what you want" in return so... it's a kind of bribe
because they never contributed before.
| |
| sir krustin 2002-12-18, 9:25 pm |
| "Jim Macklin" <p51mustang36@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:uTJ5gBFpCHA.1968@TK2MSFTNGP10:
> Hotmail is owned by MS...my news server is msnews.microsoft.com and
> that is a Microsoft owned domain.
> I use Hotmail as a logon to the news server, but Yahoo mail would work
> just as well as would netzero.
>
> There a great deal of co-hosting of newsgroups...perhaps you are using
> some other server to get the MS news groups, but at the base, MS is
> paying for the space used on servers as public service.
Get a clue-by-four. usenet news is stored on multiple servers across the
usenet domain. Micro$haft could drop these newsgroups from it's servers
today, and the rest of the internet would carry on without a hiccup, and
could care less.
| |
| Jim Macklin 2002-12-19, 12:25 am |
| The news groups would continue, but that was not or ever was my point or the
question I answered. This newsgroup began on a Microsoft server as a public
service to users of Microsoft products and Microsoft owns and pays for their
servers, which other may mirror.
Hotmail is a service offered my MSN, which is owned by Microsoft. It is
offered at no charge to any Internet user.
If MS pulled the plug and some other carrier wanted to foot the bill, yes,
this newsgroup could and would continue.
I am well aware of the structure of the Internet and the newsgroups. But
you seem to be adamantly objecting to the simple fact that MS is providing
you a forum on Microsoft.com...
The other crossposted newsgroups are not on Microsoft.com and they are not
part of it.
If you hate MS, use Linux...but don't waste the time of everybody who
happens to find the Windows system useful.
"sir krustin" <sirkrustin@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Xns92E8DB6A73C86sirkrusti
n@216.221.81.119...
| "Jim Macklin" <p51mustang36@hotmail.com> wrote in
| news:uTJ5gBFpCHA.1968@TK2MSFTNGP10:
|
| > Hotmail is owned by MS...my news server is msnews.microsoft.com and
| > that is a Microsoft owned domain.
| > I use Hotmail as a logon to the news server, but Yahoo mail would work
| > just as well as would netzero.
| >
| > There a great deal of co-hosting of newsgroups...perhaps you are using
| > some other server to get the MS news groups, but at the base, MS is
| > paying for the space used on servers as public service.
|
| Get a clue-by-four. usenet news is stored on multiple servers across the
| usenet domain. Micro$haft could drop these newsgroups from it's servers
| today, and the rest of the internet would carry on without a hiccup, and
| could care less.
| |
| Sybren Stuvel 2002-12-19, 5:25 am |
| In alt.os.linux Jim Macklin enlightened us with:
> I am well aware of the structure of the Internet and the newsgroups.
> But you seem to be adamantly objecting to the simple fact that MS is
> providing you a forum on Microsoft.com...
Since when is the MS newsgroup you posted to on a microsoft server? As
far as I can see, it's still on my newsserver here in Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.
> The other crossposted newsgroups are not on Microsoft.com and they are
> not part of it.
The other newsgroups are on my ISP's newsserver as well. For all users
of that server at least. That's the nice thing about newsgroups: they
are distributed without a central storage.
> If you hate MS, use Linux...but don't waste the time of everybody who
> happens to find the Windows system useful.
Your time isn't wasted, it's being put to good use converting you to a
proper OS. Just kidding, use whatever you want to use.
Sybren
-- [colo
r=darkred]
>>> RUNNING A MICROSOFT GAME USING WINE <<<[/color]
sybren@sybren:Mechwarrior Mercenaries$ wine MW4Mercs.exe
INSTR_IDT_Emulate Evil attempt to exploit win9x system security flaws detected
INSTR_IDT_Emulate UNIX system security is too strong, can't emulate properly
| |
|
| Mr-T <jonthorp-npsmam-@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>> Why should this company that sells junk, hinders innovation, and
>> destroys businesses through ILLEGAL monopolistic tactics be protected
>> by the U$ government?
>
>I don't like Microsoft, but what have they done that is illegal? What
>evidence is this based on?
Good point. I don't like MS either, but I question the whole idea
of there being a monopoly. Did someone nuke Apple? Is Redhat no
longer shipping product?
Microsoft has the same sort of monopoly that Wordperfect and
Lotus 123 had, and will end up as they ended up.
Oh, and may I make a request? We really don't need to be
crossposting this and related threads to soc.culture.yugoslavia
or alt.journalism, do we? A bit of trimming seems to be called for.
| |
| Sybren Stuvel 2002-12-19, 7:25 am |
| begin _@_._ enlightened us with:
> Good point. I don't like MS either, but I question the whole idea
> of there being a monopoly. Did someone nuke Apple? Is Redhat no
> longer shipping product?
Read this page, and you'll know:
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
Sybren
-- [colo
r=darkred]
>>> RUNNING A MICROSOFT GAME USING WINE <<<[/color]
sybren@sybren:Mechwarrior Mercenaries$ wine MW4Mercs.exe
INSTR_IDT_Emulate Evil attempt to exploit win9x system security flaws detected
INSTR_IDT_Emulate UNIX system security is too strong, can't emulate properly
| |
|
| Sybren Stuvel <sybrenUSE@YOURthirdtower.imagination.com> wrote:
> _@_._ enlightened us with:
>> Good point. I don't like MS either, but I question the whole idea
>> of there being a monopoly. Did someone nuke Apple? Is Redhat no
>> longer shipping product?
>
>Read this page, and you'll know:
>http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
O.K. I read it.
Plenty of Bad Things MS has done.
Plenty of attempts by MS to attain a monopoly.
Zero evidence that MS has actually *attained* a monopoly.
The dictionary defines a monopoly as "a commodity controlled
by one party." Did someone nuke Apple? Is Redhat no
longer shipping product?
| |
| John Hasler 2002-12-19, 12:25 pm |
| NNTP-Posting-Host: p-535.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: toncho.dhh.gt.org
Xref: nntp3.aus1.giganews.com alt.os.linux:281526
@ writes:
> The dictionary defines a monopoly as "a commodity controlled by one
> party."
The law defines it slightly differently. Look it up.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
| |
| Alan Baker 2002-12-21, 8:24 pm |
| In article <OVSOGyHpCHA.2772@TK2MSFTNGP09>,
"Jim Macklin" <p51mustang36@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I read the FAQ,,,this news group is microsoft.public.windowsxp. You are (or
> who ever started this thread, crossposting and you didn't set a follow-up
> To: newsgroup so every reply goes to one group.
Friend, you are *completely wrong* about this stuff.
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general is a newsgroup *about* Microsoft's XP
OS. It is not server only by Microsoft servers.
I read the message off a server called news.telus.net that my ISP --
Telus -- owns and operates. The messages that people post are propogated
from server to server so that they *collectively* provide the newsgroups
content to all of the different people who want to participate.
For example:
In the post to which I'm replying -- <
The "Path:" header tells you how this message went from you (the
original poster) to me, thus:
"news1.telusplanet.net!newsfeed.telusplanet.net!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!newshub
..northeast.verio.net!verio!newsfeed.mathworks.com!intgwlon.nntp.telstra.n
et!news.telstra.net!vicpull2.telstra.net!202.12.162.100.MISMATCH!mws-stat
-syd.cdn.telstra.com. au!newsx!TK2MSFTNGP08!TK2MSFTN
GP09"
I don't pretend to completely understand the format and syntax of the
Path header, but basically, each item between the "!"s represents a step
in the travel of the message from the server you used to the server I
used.
>
> Perhaps you should read proper posting procedures. Start by setting all
> headers in your view.
Sorry, dude. There is no shame in being ignorant and in this case, you
are.
>
> BTW, are you embarrassed by your name?
>
>
> "dc" <dc@foo.bar> wrote in message
> news:baapvu89aqpekah3i09991sip
s8frev5qo@4ax.com...
> | On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 09:37:47 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
> | <p51mustang36@hotmail.com> wrote:
> |
> | >Hotmail is owned by MS...my news server is msnews.microsoft.com and that
> is
> | >a Microsoft owned domain.
> | >I use Hotmail as a logon to the news server, but Yahoo mail would work
> just
> | >as well as would netzero.
> | >
> | >There a great deal of co-hosting of newsgroups...perhaps you are using
> some
> | >other server to get the MS news groups, but at the base, MS is paying for
> | >the space used on servers as public service.
> |
> | No, they are not. Every ISP has to shoulder the load for disk space
> | usage on its own.
> |
> | You need to read that FAQ.
> |
> | >"David Utidjian" <utidjian@nospamremarque.org> wrote in message
> | >newsan.2002.12.15.09.26.04.464690.3060@nospamremarque.org...
> | >| On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 06:22:44 -0500, Jim Macklin wrote:
> | >|
> | >| > The Internet was created by DARPA and others. But MS owns the
> servers
> | >| > that carry this newsgroup.
> | >| >
> | >| > Al Gore sold out many years ago when he started to cover for WJC
> sexual
> | >| > activities.
> | >|
> | >| That is completely incorrect. Your hotmail account ALLOWS YOU access to
> | >| this newsgroup. hotmail.com is only one of thousands of news servers
> all
> | >| over the world. Not one of those servers "owns" Usenet News. If you
> look
> | >| at the headers you will notice that Don was posting from amerion.com. I
> | >| don't know for sure but I doubt amerion.com is owned by MS.
> | >|
> | >| Perhaps you should read:
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1/
> | >| and correct your mis-understanding.
> | >|
> | >| -DU-...etc...
> | >
> |
>
>
|
|
|
|
|