[26406] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 8577 Volume: 10
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Thu Oct 27 09:10:16 2005
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 06:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Thu, 27 Oct 2005 Volume: 10 Number: 8577
Today's topics:
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ <davids@webmaster.com>
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ <davids@webmaster.com>
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ <davids@webmaster.com>
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ <my_email_is_posted_on_my_website@munged.invalid>
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ <my_email_is_posted_on_my_website@munged.invalid>
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ <my_email_is_posted_on_my_website@munged.invalid>
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ <my_email_is_posted_on_my_website@munged.invalid>
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ <my_email_is_posted_on_my_website@munged.invalid>
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ <davids@webmaster.com>
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ <davids@webmaster.com>
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ <my_email_is_posted_on_my_website@munged.invalid>
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ <my_email_is_posted_on_my_website@munged.invalid>
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ <my_email_is_posted_on_my_website@munged.invalid>
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ <my_email_is_posted_on_my_website@munged.invalid>
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ <davids@webmaster.com>
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ <davids@webmaster.com>
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ <my_email_is_posted_on_my_website@munged.invalid>
Re: Timelocal input, post good Date filters (from - to) <matthew.garrish@sympatico.ca>
Re: Timelocal input, post good Date filters (from - to) <matthew.garrish@sympatico.ca>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:48:25 -0700
From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
Message-Id: <djq0oa$vng$1@nntp.webmaster.com>
Roedy Green wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:28:46 +0200, "Peter T. Breuer"
> <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
> said :
>> I'm a bit curious about this. If I were a business person, I would
>> simply have created two busineses (two accounts, etc.). One business
>> sells only machines with MS on and pays the MS tax on all its
>> machines. One business sells only machines without MS on and pays
>> the MS tax on none of its machines.
>>
>> What's up with that?
> Try the same thing to deal with a Mafia extortion racket.
This is precisely my point. Your premise is that a gun is no different
from a persuasive argument. You need this principle to justify responding to
arguments you don't like with guns. I reject this premise at its roots.
> We are not talking about legal agreements. We are talking junior Mafia
> style enforcement.
Can you cite any evidence of Microsoft actually using or threatening
force?
DS
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:49:27 -0700
From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
Message-Id: <djq0q8$vnh$1@nntp.webmaster.com>
Roedy Green wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:50:07 -0700, "David Schwartz"
> <davids@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
> said :
>> The Microsoft agreement is also up front. It's not "imposed" in
>> any sense except that it's one of the conditions for buying Windows
>> wholesale.
> No it was not . It was never on paper. It was not imposed until I
> had been in business for at least 5 years.
I guess I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that
Microsoft demanded you pay them per machine you sold under the table in the
absence of a written contract that said that? Or are you simply saying that
they changed the terms of your agreement when it came up for renewal?
DS
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:52:33 -0700
From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
Message-Id: <djq101$vnk$1@nntp.webmaster.com>
Roedy Green wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:50:07 -0700, "David Schwartz"
> <davids@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
> said :
>> There is no different to Microsoft beween a bare computer and one
>> preloaded with Linux or FreeBSD. One can quickly be converted to
>> other with minimal cost of effort. In the market, bare PCs really do
>> compete with Windows PCs.
> You think it is OK to force someone into a choice of committing a
> criminal act with the alternative of losing their established business
> and having to put 8 employees out of work. What religion do you belong
> to?
You often say things that just seem to have come out of the blue with no
connection whatsoever to anything else. What criminal act was someone forced
into committing? What are you talking about?
If you have a business that sells PCs only because those PCs come
preloaded with Windows, and without Windows to offer, there would be no
market, then you have a business that exists at Microsoft's pleasure. The
same thing would be the case with any piece of software by any manufacturer.
Now, not all manufacturers would use their leverage, of course. But
don't you think it would be pretty stupid of them not to? Why shouldn't they
get from you, and why aren't they entitled to, as much as the ability to
sell Windows is worth? Since, by your own admission, it's what made it
possible for you to be in business?
You say you couldn't stay in business without the ability to sell
Windows wholesale. That means that every customer you get, in some part you
owe to Microsoft. Why shouldn't you pay them their fair share of that?
DS
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:57:35 GMT
From: Roedy Green <my_email_is_posted_on_my_website@munged.invalid>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
Message-Id: <j221m1htaa0k5l2islsmtjviblpv0se0t5@4ax.com>
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:48:25 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<davids@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
>> We are not talking about legal agreements. We are talking junior Mafia
>> style enforcement.
>
> Can you cite any evidence of Microsoft actually using or threatening
>force?
YES . Have you not read a word I said.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:58:42 GMT
From: Roedy Green <my_email_is_posted_on_my_website@munged.invalid>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
Message-Id: <u321m1hsatp6cnr7ijilhotsbuoh4hko6h@4ax.com>
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:49:27 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<davids@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
> I guess I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that
>Microsoft demanded you pay them per machine you sold under the table in the
>absence of a written contract that said that? Or are you simply saying that
>they changed the terms of your agreement when it came up for renewal?
This was all under the table.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 08:09:29 GMT
From: Roedy Green <my_email_is_posted_on_my_website@munged.invalid>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
Message-Id: <ul21m1dqir60b4r450cvhkaqepi8l8lqi5@4ax.com>
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:58:42 GMT, Roedy Green
<my_email_is_posted_on_my_website@munged.invalid> wrote, quoted or
indirectly quoted someone who said :
>> I guess I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that
>>Microsoft demanded you pay them per machine you sold under the table in the
>>absence of a written contract that said that? Or are you simply saying that
>>they changed the terms of your agreement when it came up for renewal?
>
>This was all under the table.
The other thing to understand is almost no one buys straight from
Microsoft. One wholesale side there are levels of distributors.
The threat is if you don't comply and they catch you, they will see to
it none of your wholesalers will sell to you.
No contracts involved anywhere.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:13:39 GMT
From: Roedy Green <my_email_is_posted_on_my_website@munged.invalid>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
Message-Id: <ac51m11gbvthdc5rrb3ojmr41bc27ptuc2@4ax.com>
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:49:27 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<davids@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
>
> I guess I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that
>Microsoft demanded you pay them per machine you sold under the table in the
>absence of a written contract that said that? Or are you simply saying that
>they changed the terms of your agreement when it came up for renewal?
They were demanding I sell a copy of windows with every machine I
constructed, whether the customer wanted or not, even if the customer
had us install some other OS.
The threat was that I did not comply, they would put me out of
business by arranging that my wholesalers would stop selling any MS
product to me, with veiled threat of even worse strangulation.
What I don't think you understand this threat would was just as
effective in putting he out of business as threatening to sending in
goons every week to smash my shop to pieces.
I could at least have a chance of legal recourse with the vandals.
It will be very hard to prosecute MS for their crimes because they
commit them much the way the Mafia does.
No one has any paper. Everyone was terrified of MS and would never
dream of going public. I have talked about this publicly many times
because it always looked as if I were going to die in a few years
anyway.
To put this in perspective, IBM's salespeople made much nastier
threats in their heyday. Dick Toewes, head of Inland Natural Gas, was
in charge of a tender for a new mainframe to do billing. I was
working on the Univac bid at the time. He said that the IBM salesman
said to him, "We know you have an eight year old little girl. We know
she walks along X street every day on her way to school. It would be
a terrible thing if somebody hurt her."
I wrote a tender for about $1 million in computer equipment for BC
Hydro gas. There were many bidders hoping to get a foothold in a
solidly IBM shop. IBM sent a weird chap to see me, dressed as a
gangster, talking in a gangster accent, with a strange tic like Dustin
Hoffman's Ratso Rizzo in midnight cowboy. He made no specific
threats, but his act was straight out of Hollywood,"you knows what I
means" warning me about the "consequences" of picking anything but
IBM, how I might get the reputation as unreliable..."
There were the standard tactics on $1 million contracts. Imagine the
dirty tricks for the big ones. Mind you, back then $1 million was
serious money, especially when you considered the no-bid followons
over the years.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:24:19 GMT
From: Roedy Green <my_email_is_posted_on_my_website@munged.invalid>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
Message-Id: <om61m1p2tfogeq8fvtt2mucrtstq3d5b2h@4ax.com>
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:13:39 GMT, Roedy Green
<my_email_is_posted_on_my_website@munged.invalid> wrote, quoted or
indirectly quoted someone who said :
>To put this in perspective, IBM's salespeople made much nastier
>threats in their heyday. Dick Toewes, head of Inland Natural Gas, was
>in charge of a tender for a new mainframe to do billing. I was
>working on the Univac bid at the time. He said that the IBM salesman
>said to him, "We know you have an eight year old little girl. We know
>she walks along X street every day on her way to school. It would be
>a terrible thing if somebody hurt her."
The tactic Univac/Burroughs/Prime used, at least for big sales, was
for example invite the potential customer to view some installation to
talk to a satisfied client about how they were using their gear. There
might be a convenient client in say ... Las Vegas.
The game then became to get the client to get drunk and laid and do
crazy things to help very uptight people cut loose.
On one of these trips, we ran through fields chasing fireflies.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:06:16 -0700
From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
Message-Id: <djqcb9$3r6$1@nntp.webmaster.com>
Roedy Green wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:49:27 -0700, "David Schwartz"
> <davids@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
> said :
>> I guess I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that
>> Microsoft demanded you pay them per machine you sold under the table
>> in the absence of a written contract that said that? Or are you
>> simply saying that they changed the terms of your agreement when it
>> came up for renewal?
> They were demanding I sell a copy of windows with every machine I
> constructed, whether the customer wanted or not, even if the customer
> had us install some other OS.
Right I understand that. You could have complied simply by only selling
computers with Windows preinstalled. In other words, you could have treated
this the same as a demand for franchise or exclusivity if you had wanted to.
> The threat was that I did not comply, they would put me out of
> business by arranging that my wholesalers would stop selling any MS
> product to me, with veiled threat of even worse strangulation.
Well shit, how surprising that they wouldn't want to do business with
you if you broke your agreements with them.
> What I don't think you understand this threat would was just as
> effective in putting he out of business as threatening to sending in
> goons every week to smash my shop to pieces.
I understand that it is just as effective, but that's not the issue. If
I'm hungry, a person who refuses to give me a loaf of bread for free may be
just as effective at killing me as a person who shoots me. But that doesn't
change the fact that there is no obligation to feed a person and there is an
obligation not to shoot them.
> I could at least have a chance of legal recourse with the vandals.
Only because their actions are unreasonable and Microsoft's are not.
> It will be very hard to prosecute MS for their crimes because they
> commit them much the way the Mafia does.
Right, they send gun-wielding thugs to use force against people. That's
a lot like refusing to do business with people who won't uphold their
contractual obligations.
> No one has any paper. Everyone was terrified of MS and would never
> dream of going public. I have talked about this publicly many times
> because it always looked as if I were going to die in a few years
> anyway.
I think you're starting to go off the deep end.
> To put this in perspective, IBM's salespeople made much nastier
> threats in their heyday. Dick Toewes, head of Inland Natural Gas, was
> in charge of a tender for a new mainframe to do billing. I was
> working on the Univac bid at the time. He said that the IBM salesman
> said to him, "We know you have an eight year old little girl. We know
> she walks along X street every day on her way to school. It would be
> a terrible thing if somebody hurt her."
Yep, way off the deep end.
> I wrote a tender for about $1 million in computer equipment for BC
> Hydro gas. There were many bidders hoping to get a foothold in a
> solidly IBM shop. IBM sent a weird chap to see me, dressed as a
> gangster, talking in a gangster accent, with a strange tic like Dustin
> Hoffman's Ratso Rizzo in midnight cowboy. He made no specific
> threats, but his act was straight out of Hollywood,"you knows what I
> means" warning me about the "consequences" of picking anything but
> IBM, how I might get the reputation as unreliable..."
> There were the standard tactics on $1 million contracts. Imagine the
> dirty tricks for the big ones. Mind you, back then $1 million was
> serious money, especially when you considered the no-bid followons
> over the years.
If that kind of thing ever happened (which I seriously doubt), it's
absolutely reprehensible. I find it almost possible to believe that
individuals on commission might do this kind of thing with no knowledge of
their corporate higher ups, or perhaps even that people one level up or so
might do it if they are also on commission. But I find it almost impossible
to believe that any major corporation could do this as a policy.
Of course, the individuals who use actual force or threats of fraud (and
blacklisting because they didn't buy from you is fraud), deserve to be
prosecuted and imprisoned.
Do you have any documentation or evidence to support these claims? Or am
I supposed to take your word for it? (Honestly, it seems like you're just
trying to mess with me.)
DS
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:07:50 -0700
From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
Message-Id: <djqce7$3r7$1@nntp.webmaster.com>
Roedy Green wrote:
> The tactic Univac/Burroughs/Prime used, at least for big sales, was
> for example invite the potential customer to view some installation to
> talk to a satisfied client about how they were using their gear. There
> might be a convenient client in say ... Las Vegas.
Yep, that's a classic. Notice that no force, fraud, or threats are
involved.
> The game then became to get the client to get drunk and laid and do
> crazy things to help very uptight people cut loose.
>
> On one of these trips, we ran through fields chasing fireflies.
That is a bit questionable, I admit. It is questionable because the
intent is pretty obviously to get the individuals more interested in being
nice to you than looking out for the interests of their employers when they
make their purchasing decisions.
On the other hand, it's a far cry from force, fraud, blacklisting,
threats of false accusations, and so on.
DS
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:11:36 GMT
From: Roedy Green <my_email_is_posted_on_my_website@munged.invalid>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
Message-Id: <5mg1m1ls1m030esk5sonu9rmncc8l4vsgm@4ax.com>
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:07:50 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<davids@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
> That is a bit questionable, I admit. It is questionable because the
>intent is pretty obviously to get the individuals more interested in being
>nice to you than looking out for the interests of their employers when they
>make their purchasing decisions.
I don't think this was as reprehensible as what MS did. For a start,
everyone could refuse the trip if they wanted without dire
consequences. They could also refuse to go out partying each night
with the salesmen. They could refrain from alcohol (as I did).
Even though I don't think in most cases the salesmen went so far as to
purchase hookers or lap dancers, they did after the evening's revelry
know something about the client that potentially could be very
embarrasing if it were revealed to a spouse, without the tiniest hint
of a threat to do so.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:13:44 GMT
From: Roedy Green <my_email_is_posted_on_my_website@munged.invalid>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
Message-Id: <g1h1m1db8vf8mn2k91fhuol97qu3i03on8@4ax.com>
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:06:16 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<davids@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
> Right, they send gun-wielding thugs to use force against people. That's
>a lot like refusing to do business with people who won't uphold their
>contractual obligations.
You stupid fuck! How many times do I have to tell you.
There was NO contract. Just a THREAT to make me do what they wanted,
to go along with their extortion racket.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:19:36 GMT
From: Roedy Green <my_email_is_posted_on_my_website@munged.invalid>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
Message-Id: <fdh1m1p0gnfb81g28edffcji1h64tg7csp@4ax.com>
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:06:16 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<davids@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
> Well shit, how surprising that they wouldn't want to do business with
>you if you broke your agreements with them.
You could have a more productive debate with a talking coke machine
than you.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:39:56 GMT
From: Roedy Green <my_email_is_posted_on_my_website@munged.invalid>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
Message-Id: <20i1m19cup3s8hb4ikqti1monvtf9nb3dv@4ax.com>
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:06:16 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<davids@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
> Well shit, how surprising that they wouldn't want to do business with
>you if you broke your agreements with them.
I am going to summarise this then drop out. My blood pressure is at a
boil.
I was a computer retailer. We built custom computers. I had 8 people
working for me. This was in the time prior to Win95 when IBM had a
clearly technically superior solution with OS/2 to MS's Windows 3.1
I had no contract of any kind with MS. I never bought anything from
them directly. I was far too small a fish. I bought the components
including software through dozens of wholesale suppliers.
MS threatened to put any retailer out of business who would not
co-operate with them in extorting money from people who had no use for
MS Windows who explicitly for various reasons did not want to buy MS
windows.
To me that is no different from a popsicle manufacturer demanding I
sell $200 popsicles with every machine I sold. The machines needed MS
Windows no more than they needed a popsicle.
The particular way MS threatened to put me out of business was by
threatening to arm twist all wholesalers to refuse to sell MS product
to me, which any retailer needed to survive in those days.
It was obviously quasi legal or the threats would have had paper to
back them up so I could go to court now to sue the fuckers.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 05:40:39 -0700
From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
Message-Id: <djqhs7$5ok$1@nntp.webmaster.com>
Roedy Green wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:06:16 -0700, "David Schwartz"
> <davids@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
> said :
>> Right, they send gun-wielding thugs to use force against people.
>> That's a lot like refusing to do business with people who won't
>> uphold their contractual obligations.
> You stupid fuck! How many times do I have to tell you.
> There was NO contract. Just a THREAT to make me do what they wanted,
> to go along with their extortion racket.
Getting information from you is like pulling teeth. This threat was to
do what they wanted or else .. WHAT?
DS
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 05:46:25 -0700
From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
Message-Id: <djqi72$5vc$1@nntp.webmaster.com>
Roedy Green wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:06:16 -0700, "David Schwartz"
> <davids@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
> said :
>> Well shit, how surprising that they wouldn't want to do business
>> with you if you broke your agreements with them.
> I am going to summarise this then drop out. My blood pressure is at a
> boil.
> I was a computer retailer. We built custom computers. I had 8 people
> working for me. This was in the time prior to Win95 when IBM had a
> clearly technically superior solution with OS/2 to MS's Windows 3.1
> I had no contract of any kind with MS. I never bought anything from
> them directly. I was far too small a fish. I bought the components
> including software through dozens of wholesale suppliers.
> MS threatened to put any retailer out of business who would not
> co-operate with them in extorting money from people who had no use for
> MS Windows who explicitly for various reasons did not want to buy MS
> windows.
No, MS decided only to sell Windows to essentially Windows-only shops.
> To me that is no different from a popsicle manufacturer demanding I
> sell $200 popsicles with every machine I sold. The machines needed MS
> Windows no more than they needed a popsicle.
You could have complied with their requests by selling computers only
with Windows installed. That is, by only selling Windows PCs. All Microsoft
was saying was "sell only our products or don't sell our products". This is
a perfectly, normal typical franchise arrangement.
You can't sell Whoppers and also sell any competing burgers that aren't
Burger King branded.
> The particular way MS threatened to put me out of business was by
> threatening to arm twist all wholesalers to refuse to sell MS product
> to me, which any retailer needed to survive in those days.
Right, I get that. You owed your entire business to Microsoft. Without
their products, you would have had nothing, by your own admission. The way
you repay them is by trying to screw them -- attract people who come in only
because you offer Windows and then say "here's an OS that's better and
cheaper".
> It was obviously quasi legal or the threats would have had paper to
> back them up so I could go to court now to sue the fuckers.
It's perfectly legal and normal (for non-monopoly products). What do you
have to agree to in order to purchase OSX wholesale? What do you have to
agree to in order to purchase Solaris wholesale?
Honestly, I don't understand why you're so worked up and ballistic about
a perfectly typical franchisee/authorized reseller agreement.
Microsoft could have refused to sell you Windows wholesale completely.
That would have meant no business for you at all. In exchange for making
your business possible, all they ask is you don't steer the customers you
have only because of them to their competitors.
DS
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:03:04 GMT
From: Roedy Green <my_email_is_posted_on_my_website@munged.invalid>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
Message-Id: <9bj1m11k5l9h5pq2dt4evpp5a2qbsqgfsn@4ax.com>
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:06:16 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<davids@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
> Right I understand that. You could have complied simply by only selling
>computers with Windows preinstalled. In other words, you could have treated
>this the same as a demand for franchise or exclusivity if you had wanted to.
It is obvious to everyone WHY MS did this, to maintain monopoly. But
ignore motive for a while and see what they actually did and exactly
how they intended to carry out he threat of destroying my business.
What they did is clearly criminal. The hard part is proving it. Like
any smart criminal who makes a threat, MS left no paper trail..
1. it was a threat to destroy a business -- e.g vandalise tens of
thousands of dollars of property. For all practical purpose they
threatened to steal my business. It would be roughly the same dollar
value as threatening to burn down a large house.
2. it was a threat to force me to commit a criminal act -- namely
extract money from people and hand it to Microsoft and give those
people nothing of value in return. That in principle is no different
from demanding I go out an night and rob people and give MS the
proceeds. The selected victims were those who expressed a contempt
for MS products by refusing to buy or even have any need for them.
3. What MS did was theft, namely taking money from people and giving
them nothing of value in return against their will.
What if MS had simply made the threat without being specific about how
they were going to carry it off? Would you consider MS so innocent
then?
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 08:06:05 -0400
From: "Matt Garrish" <matthew.garrish@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Timelocal input, post good Date filters (from - to)
Message-Id: <Io38f.7243$ki7.483571@news20.bellglobal.com>
<robic0@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:t72ul1htar3krqf6aiflt9mr96ive71kbn@4ax.com...
>I get some weird concat warnings on print if enabled so its commented.
They aren't weird errors. You don't check if your match succeeds, so you
wind up using numbered variables that aren't intialized.
> Post any you have (or make some up).
> Here's mine ..
>
> use strict;
> #use warnings;
Always a bad idea...
>
> my @dates = ('2/30/5-7/2005', '2/5', '-3/29.2000', '4-12/05',
> '-12/01-1/03', '10/2002,8/31/2005', '1/2-asdvf');
>
> for (@dates) {
> my $date = $_;
Why?
foreach my $date (@dates)
> print '-'x40,"\n$date\n";
> $date =~ /.*/;
> $date =~
> /^(?:\/*)([0-9]+)?(?:\/*)([0-9]+)?(?:\/*)([0-9]+)?(?:\/*)([,-]*)(?:\/*)([0-9]+)?(?:\/*)([0-9]+)?(?:\/*)
> ([0-9]+)?(?:\/*)$/;
> print "date = ($1)($2)($3)($4)($5)($6)($7)\n";
This is you problem. If you look at your output you'll notice that you're
getting an equal number of unintiliazed warnings as empty value within
parentheses. This is not a coincidence. Most people will, at a minimum, test
if their regular expression even succeeded:
if ($date =~ /longregex/) {
# do something
}
else {
print "Invalid date\n";
}
> }
>
> __DATA__
>
The above is misleading. __DATA__ signifies that the data that follows is
used by your program (e.g., somewhere in your code is "while (my $line =
<__DATA__>)"). What follows, however, is your output.
Matt
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 08:15:57 -0400
From: "Matt Garrish" <matthew.garrish@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Timelocal input, post good Date filters (from - to)
Message-Id: <Yx38f.7244$ki7.483825@news20.bellglobal.com>
"Matt Garrish" <matthew.garrish@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Io38f.7243$ki7.483571@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> <robic0@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:t72ul1htar3krqf6aiflt9mr96ive71kbn@4ax.com...
>>I get some weird concat warnings on print if enabled so its commented.
>
> They aren't weird errors. You don't check if your match succeeds, so you
> wind up using numbered variables that aren't intialized.
>
That's a little misleading, on second look (since you manufactured your
dates to work). You don't require content in all your captures, so you wind
up with the unintialized warnings. It's still bad practice not to check, and
feed data that doesn't match your pattern and you will get the messages for
the above reason.
Matt
------------------------------
Date: 6 Apr 2001 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Users-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01)
Message-Id: <null>
Administrivia:
#The Perl-Users Digest is a retransmission of the USENET newsgroup
#comp.lang.perl.misc. For subscription or unsubscription requests, send
#the single line:
#
# subscribe perl-users
#or:
# unsubscribe perl-users
#
#to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
NOTE: due to the current flood of worm email banging on ruby, the smtp
server on ruby has been shut off until further notice.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
#To request back copies (available for a week or so), send your request
#to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu with the command "send perl-users x.y",
#where x is the volume number and y is the issue number.
#For other requests pertaining to the digest, send mail to
#perl-users-request@ruby.oce.orst.edu. Do not waste your time or mine
#sending perl questions to the -request address, I don't have time to
#answer them even if I did know the answer.
------------------------------
End of Perl-Users Digest V10 Issue 8577
***************************************
