 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Ross Crawford
|
| | | (...) ...or corporations... (...) Thats vi please. VI will generally result in sh: VI: not found or something similar. As will EMACS (except if you use some inferior operating system, sold by some corporate monopoly 8?) Oh, OK, you could create a (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) With government assistance. Free market corporations can erect no such barriers. Not effective ones, anyway. QED (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | (...) anyway. I agree Larry. It was just a quip to go with the dig about M$ further down. Though M$ has had (at least temporarily) an effective monopoly on PC operating systems, it *was* only temporary, and was most likely aided along the way (at (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Horst Lehner
|
| | | | (...) Can you elaborate a bit on government assistance for, say, Microsoft, then? I really don't see them. Or would you say Microsoft has no monopoly on PC operating systems? They start to fear Linux these days, but only due to *regulations*, not (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) MS is not a monopoly. It has competitors, and effective ones at that. MS is dominant in certain market segments but since there are few or no barriers to entry other than MS competence at making good product, the net result of MS dominance (...) (23 years ago, 13-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —James Brown
|
| | | | | (...) Hmm. I'd agree with your ratios, but I'd nudge them around until there was room to add "25% over-estimating the efficiency (and under-estimating the cost) of e-business" A lot of the crash was due to assumptions about what costs were involved (...) (23 years ago, 13-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | (...) there (...) I'd re-word that "...competence at making a reasonable product and marketing it well," (...) Again, I'd say reasonable, not necessarily superior. Depends what features you're comparing, what you need to do. And they're (...) (23 years ago, 13-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Horst Lehner
|
| | | | | (...) Pardon me? Operating Systems didn't cost a cent before Microsoft entered the game ... (...) So, Windows is a better OS than others in the marketplace, Word is better than all other word processing apps, Excel is better than Lotus 1-2-3, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Did you want me to dig up a price sheet for OS/370 circa 1976? It wasn't free. It cost more than you or I make. UNIX System V wasn't free. BSD was never free (California taxpayers and DARPA paid for it) Or did you mean PC operating systems? (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Dave Low
|
| | | | (...) What about the integration between OS and applications? Different market segments right? So why should one corporation be able to leverage its products in one segment as a direct consequence of its dominance in another segment? Cf Nestlé. No (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Why not? This assertion has been made in this and other antitrust trials but has not been justified. I see nothing wrong with it. It benefits everyone to get more efficient products. There are no barriers to entry, so dominance is due to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Dave Low
|
| | | | (...) I would contend that it _is_ a barrier to entry. No other application producer has the same access to the OS. The efficiency accrues from interactions between the OS and application packages, as much as from any inherent superiority in the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Nothing is stopping anyone else from writing a better OS. Novell tried. IBM tried. Novell tried buying one from AT&T... (...) Nothing is stopping any hardware vendor from not installing it and going with a different OS, or any end consumer (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Dave Low
|
| | | | (...) Okay, another couple of points. 1. It's not about the OS, whatever the merits of DOS/Windows//NT. It's about producing the OS _and_ the application software (whatever the merits of the Office suite). By developing both the platform and the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Matthew Gerber
|
| | | | | (...) <text circumcision...snippy, snippy!> (...) Hit... (URL) run! Matt (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Fortunately, that's satire. We have to protect the rights of all religious adherents, even those as confused about cosmology and stuff as Mac users... UNFortunately, as of Monday, Know your Customer, Carnivore email spying and Sneak and peek (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | Whoops. Let me apologise in advance, the FUT was set to fun and I missed that. Sorry peeps. My bad. FUT re-set back to .debate (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Matthew Gerber
|
| | | | | | (...) <Bubba Joe-Bob> Cosmology? What's girly make-up got's ta' do wit' anahthin'? You sayin' I'm *GAY* 'er sumptin', boy? Well, are ya'? </Bubba Joe-Bob> Matt (Who once again ISN'T drawn into the Macintosh vs. Windows debate, being comfortably (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) You forget. I was *AT* NASA (posted about how I got to see the moonrocks up close and the ACRV and stuff). Some of those guys are fighting to keep ANY computer. NASA is run on a shoestring. It's amazing how much they manage to achieve with so (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | (...) Like this: (URL) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Yes, yes, yes, it does. But I'm still sort of missing how that's a bad thing. By developing both the engine and the transmission that 90% of users want, already preengineered to work together, GM, Ford, Daimler, Toyota, et al gain a massive (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Horseless carriages (was: Gotta love Oracle...) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | (...) ...and are sub-human enough to actually *want* to do *anything* with a Falcon...8?) And how many more twists is this thread gonna take???!!!??? ROSCO (fanning the flames of the Ford-Holden fire[1] after watching the Bathurst race the other (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Horseless carriages (was: Gotta love Oracle...) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) I drove one, I didn't think they were THAT bad, but I never go to drive a Holden. Generally, GM sucks compared to Ford (we're Honda/Chrysler at our place) but I'm willing to concede Holden may have gotten it right. *Somebody* likes doing stuff (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Horseless carriages (was: Gotta love Oracle...) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | (...) The Holden/Ford war has nothing to do with how bad either is. It's more like a religious war 8?) (...) Mmmmmm. Double rear axle... And roo bars don't only work for roos... (...) At least we didn't have a fad of two-tone station wagons... (...) (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Dave Low
|
| | | | (...) Or I'm missing why it's not a bad thing... ;^) (...) Huge snip, while I actually print out Larry's post and think about it (scary stuff). In the meantime, where did you pick up Holden "Commie"? Did someone from Australia actually say that or (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Indeed. Need to dig into the "why" of that, because just about everything you've posted as a disadvantage I see as an advantage! (...) I heard "commo" and "commie" a lot while I was there. Even the Holden guy at the torch relay ceremony Holden (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Dave Low
|
| | | | (...) and typically Strine too (eg brekkie=breakfast, kindie=kindergarten). I'd never heard it before: as far as I knew "commo" and "commie" exclusively referred to communist. Ross mentioned the Holden vs Ford clan rivalry -- maybe that satisfies (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) Including things like this: (URL) (23 years ago, 26-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
