HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 3 Jan 93 01:38:42 GMT
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
: In article <1993Jan2.060223.4340@midway.uchicago.edu>, sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
: 
: |> The arguments about Microsoft not holding a gun to anyone's head are
: |> irrelevant.  That isn't the point of antitrust law.
: 
: My point isn't that Microsoft _isn't_ holding a gun to anyone's head as much
: as the FTC _is_.  The antitrust laws are unjust from an abstract moral 
: viewpoint because they are based on the premise that the ends (hacking
: Microsoft down to size) justify the means (in effect, armed robbery of
: market share by the FTC) which is bogus.

Isn't that the basis for most laws which involve punitive action?

: They are also unjust from a
: pragmatic view because they allow companies from countries like Japan to
: have an unfair competative advantage over U.S. industries--result:  we don't
: manufacure DRAM, LCD displays, Cameras, VCR's etc etc here anymore, and our
: factory workers "enjoy" a lower wage than Japanese factory workers
: do.

Surely the US could have legislation which discriminated against
imports without changing the anti-trust laws?

--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11515 comp.os.os2.misc:41024
From: tracer@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu (Roger M. Wilcox)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: U.S. Dvorak Simplified Keyboard support
Date: 4 Jan 93 01:32:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1993Jan4.013218.28184
Organization: University of Oregon Computer and Information Sciences Dept.


Long ago, I rearranged the platic key-caps on my keyboard to get a Dvorak
Simplified Keyboard layout (you know, AOEUIDHTNS), so that I could type
about 40% faster than with that (yicch) QWERTY keyboard layout.  A company
called Seasoned Systems made a Dvorak keyboard driver for MS-DOS, which I
bought and installed and which worked just fine.  Windows bypasses the DOS
keyboard I/O handlers, but versions 3.0 and 3.1 of Windows come with a
U.S. Dvorak keyboard driver.

However, not a single version of OS/2 I've tried (and I've installed 1.1,
1.3, and 2.0 already) has any driver support for the Dvorak keyboard layout.
In order to use a D.S.K. layout, I had to hack the keyboard driver file that
OS/2's CONFIG.SYS references on one of its device/kybd/whatever lines.  (I
don't remember the file's name or the CONFIG.SYS syntax.)  However, I
promptly found out that the OS/2 Presentation Manager, like Windows, bypasses
the default keyboard driver and installs its own.

Could any OS/2-ites out there tell me what keyboard driver file PM uses, how
I can finegal it into interpreting scan codes Dvorak-ly, and/or if there are
any third party keyboard drivers out there that address this deficiency?
Or if IBM has any plans for Dvorak keyboard support?

-- 
Roger *M.* Wilcox   (aka Jeff Boeing)
tracer@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu
Aleph null bottles of beer on the wall, aleph null bottles of beer, ...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:05:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.070638.15582@frog.CRDS.COM> rmk@frog.CRDS.COM (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>describe.  Other than that, though, you're right-- the system should
>>just run slower.  In my experience, this is exactly what happens with
>>Unix machines.  I find Unix crashes to be *very* rare, even running in 8
>>or 12 megs on a PC. (and BTW, I have used SCO ODT 1.1 Unix SVR3.2 on a
>>386/20 with 12megs of memory, and it performs quite well.  That's
>>running X windows, TCP/IP, and NFS too.  So if NT runs as poorly as
>>Steve describes in 8 megs, MS has their work cut out for them.)
>
>
>Just as an aside, my home system, rmkhome.UUCP, feeds news to other systems.
>One of the systems was a 386SX/16 that ran ESIX SVR4 with X-11 in 4 megs of
>memory for 9 months before the sysop upgraded to a 386DX/40 with 16 megs.
>
>The system was slow, but he was running his modem at 19,200 baud without
>dropping characters, feeding news to 5 other sites, and had 3 login terminals.
>And he never crashed.  Up for 9 months, 24 hours a day.

Yeah, I think it will be a long long time before NT is anywhere near as
stable as Unix.  Like at least a decade.  Anyone who abandons Unix for
NT deserves what they get.

-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 00:43:14 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
: In article <1992Dec31.223910.27015@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
: >philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
: >> In article <8239@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
: >> >No, but it does have an obligation to those who bought, for example, MSC 7 to
: >> >do OS/2 development on as an upgrade to MSC 6, which had that capability...
: >> 
: >>      Why would an OS/2 developer upgrade to MSC 7?  The product
: >> doesn't support OS/2 - such an upgrade would be silly.
: >
: >So you're saying that MS will continue to support MSC 6 indefinitely?
: >Thought not.
: 
:       Should they?  Should they still be supporting, say, that
: TRS-80 software that got released a while back?  (BTW, I think
: you can still call customer support for software that isn't
: the current release.)

Ah you are, either deliberately or otherwise, missing my point. I
would not expect *anybody* to continue to support releases of old
software indefinitely. This being the case, upgrading to a more recent
release is not 'silly' but sensible. Unless, of course, the evil
empire decides to remove support for a feature previously included -
i.e. OS/2.

You can't have it both ways.
--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 10:56:48 GMT

In article <BzMyJn.78M@news.iastate.edu>, TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:

|>      Quite the opposite, I often think that laws are very unfair.  I
|> also know that fairness of a law doesn't change the fact that the
|> law exists, and will be enforced by the government (well,
|> sometimes...).

Well folks lets use this opportunity to point out a bad law.

It prevents U.S. companies from being able to pool resources to be able to
compete in flat panel LCD displays, DRAMS and consumer electronics with the
Japanese and Koreans, both of which have nothing like our anti-trust laws.
Compare the rate of growth of the standard of living in Japan and Korea with
that of the U.S. and you'll clearly see that something has got to change.
Instead of starting a new trade war, why don't we just unhobble our companies
and let them give 'em hell?

Computer Software is of only a very few areas in which the U.S. Economy shines.
It is also one of the very few areas which hasn't been regulated to death.

Don't you all think that the U.S. Goverment and U.S. Business have a
very adversarial relationship?  Wouldn't it be better if instead of
working against our best companies the goverment would work with them?

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 23 Dec 92 04:03:09 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <BzoG15.21q@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk)
 writes:
>helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>>Ever think that Microsoft is only able to devote 27+% of its income to
>>R & D because it has such a big market share and because its products are
>>so competative?
>
>And do you know how big this market share is?  In 1991, MS received
>about 25% of the total profit of all software sold.  No other company
>is even close to this amount of profit per total market sales.

Where did you get these figures?  In 1991, IBM made slightly more than 10
billion dollars in gross revenue from software alone.  MS made apporximately 2
billion and some change.  How do you figure that MS made 25% of all profit
when they made 1/5 of what IBM did?  The only possibility that I can see is if
you were talking soley about the Intel platform.  MS is big and getting bigger
all the time, but it wasn't that big, at least not in 1991.

>
>
>                                       Todd Walk
>                                       walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
>

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 23 Dec 92 08:21:47 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <BzHuI8.Fo9@utdallas.edu> goyal@utdallas.edu (MOHIT K GOYAL) writes:
>>[stuff about FTC's impending decision against Microsoft]
>>
>>The decision and its likely form have been more than strong rumours on
>>the street for months now. Ho hum. Let's wait and see what
>>happens, the street expectation is that it won't be anything important
>>from an overall earnings impact perspective.
>>
>
>What your brain failed to recognize was that the document I reposted here
>is dated 12-18-92.  It is the most current article on the case.  Every
>previous review could only guess whether or not the FCC would even find
>MS is doing something wrong, much less what they would do.

     Go back and read the article you posted - it doesn't contain
any facts at all - it merely repeats the same old rumors.  The
fact that Business Week is spreading those rumors doesn't make
them any more factual.
     The FTC investigation is a _private_ matter.  Business Week
doesn't know what's going on.  Neither does anyone posting about
it to the net.  Hell, I haven't a clue what direction the
investigation is taking, and I work here.
     Eventually there will be some public announcement made by
the FTC or Microsoft.  Until then, all you're getting is gossip.
And not particularly creative gossip at that.

				-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11067 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3496
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Date: 29 Dec 1992 15:32:29 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuron.tamu.edu

In article <1992Dec29.015526.3909@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec27.191705.7069@gw.wmich.edu>, x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>
>|> 	Let's go with your logic and say that Standard Oil was not
>|> a monopoly.  Let's say it existed today and only controlled 60% of the
>|> market.  60% of a multitrillion dollar market is frightening.  
>
>What's so frightening about that?  As long as no one is forcing people
>at gunpoint to buy their products, they could be put out of business
>overnight by their customers.  
>
>|> 	Let's change the situation to be more like the Microsoft situation,
>|> let's say that not only did Standard Oil control 60% of the market but
>|> they also made all the drilling equipment that could be had.
>
>If they started charging outragious prices for drilling equiptment then 
>someone else would start making drilling equiptment and get a piece of the
>action.  The only way that I can imagine that Standard Oil could possibly
>have all of the drilling equiptment is for them to produce it cheaper than
>anyone else could, in which case who cares, or for them to use guns, either
>theirs or the goverments, to stop any competitors, in which case we've got
>a problem.

How about the situation when they charge more than the minimum for a
"reasonable" profit, but not enough for someone else to afford the R&D
costs to enter the market.  Startup costs, before you have a product
and before you have name recognition, are not negligible.  This
situation keeps prices high and the end consumer pays.

You will probably ask: What is "reasonable"?  A fair question.  But I
want you to answer that.  If someone invests $100 million, is $50
million a year profit reaonable?  $5 million?  $500 million?

Another problem that I have with the MS contract with PC vendors is
the requirement to bundle a DOS/Windows license with every PC they
sell.  I have a '286 PC in my closet that is old and virtually worth
nothing (and broken).  I have a license for DOS/Windows for it.  Why
do I have to buy a new license when I buy a new computer?
   -- Bruce
--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
                              |  Scrupulous Lawyer
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: 1993 starting with very positive feedback from Publications
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:37:15 GMT


IBM and their OS/2 received a great amount of attention from several
publications in their January issues:

January 1993, "LAN Technology" features an extensive article about
OS/2 2.0 in a LAN environment. Interesting to all users who are
planning to use OS/2 in a Local Area network.

January 1993, "PC Magazine" reviews several OS/2 2.0 related books.

January 1993, "Unix World." Article about IBM's Cannavino. Other news
about IBM as well as news about IBM's Consulting Group, the opening
of a new center and more.

January 1993, "Business Week." Beside the article "The FTC vs.
Microsoft - The software giant may be forced to change," page
32 and 33 features a look at IBM.

A good opening for IBM in 1993...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems like the "Business Week" article is among some of the
discussions here. Some staffers at the FTC are even recommeding
to breakup Microsoft. Well, page 30 and 31 have it all there.
Another interesting feature that might be overlooked. Pages 83 to
86 present a Apple advertisement. Windows is associates with
problems among other things. Apple does not include OS/2 in 
the "Aspirin" cathegory. I think we already see the start of the
Apple, IBM and Motorola alliance...Afterall, 1993 will be the
year of the first PowerPC processor based systems.

January, 1993. Dr. Dobb's journal. If you thought that porting
Windows 16-Bit code to 32-Bit was an easy task, think again.
The evidence is in the article.

*BUT HERE IS THE BIGGEST SHOCKER*

The publication "Windows and DOS User" has a review of OS/2 2.0.
Among the statement made are such things were they claim OS/2 is
more "useable" than Windows. It goes further, to "tinker" around,
the author goes on, he uses Windows 3.1. For serious work, he
states, he uses IBM's OS/2 2.0.

Interesting, OS/2 is prefered by the biggest Windows advocates.
The OS/2 version which was review was the one with Windows 3.0
support.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Best Regards,
Mark K.
From: rwb00@avon.as (Robert W Beveridge)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 23 Dec 92 00:04:52 GMT
Reply-To: rwb00@avon.as
Organization: Sun Microsystems


In article 15894@unlv.edu, slumos@unlv.edu (Steve Lumos) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.040237.14440@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>>In article <Bzn0EI.D2w@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>>I dont care what MS _might_ do. I do care about what they have
>>done. By now, with the exception of IBM (with an early help from MS),
>>nobody was able to produce as cheaply an operating system that people really 
>>_wanted_, other then MS. Just take a look at the history and you will
>>see how prices are becoming lower, and new applications that people 
>>_want_, are being written as a result of MS-Windows. 
>
>Here's a quarter, go BUY a clue. And remember that all MS is they owe
>to DR. Why? Because if DR hadn't f*cked with IBM, THEY would have been
>the company IBM hired to write the opperating system for the IBM PC.
>Bill Gates would still be in his garage fiddling with QDOS...heh.

Interesting. MS developed Windows, Word, all those mac applications,
a mouse, trackball, soundboard - all thanks to DR ! Microsoft (and Bill
Gates) just stood there, and these products sprang forth - because of DR !

Maybe you should keep the quarter and buy yourself a clue ?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:20:59 GMT

In article <8284@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec31.034703.2036@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> >No sole sourcing isn't a vital feature of the technique, but a JIT inventory
|> >control agreement between you and a supplier does put a new upstart supplier
|> >at a "competitive disadvangage".
|> 
|> Not if it isn't a sole source agreement.

Oh indeed it does though!  Consider, you've been buying ACME screws for
10 years, and for 10 years not as single ACME screw has been out of spec.
Moreover, ACME has always delivered on time.

Not 2-Guys-Garage screws comes up to you and says "we'll sell you screws for
a tenth of a cent less than ACME screws.  You're our first customer, but
hey, trust us!

Now remember, because of your JIT agreements with ACME, even if you just order
one trial case from 2-Guys-Garage and they turn out to be defective, you're
whole line shuts down and you're factory workers cool their heels until because
you've got no stock.

No amount of federal regulation is going wipe out the tremendous competative
advantage that ACME has over 2-Guys-Garage.

|> No...sole source agreements are anticompetitive, and as such are Bad Things.
|> Suppliers who agree to reduce prices if they're the sole source are trying to
|> lock out other suppliers in the same market. There is no legitimate reason for
|> a supplier to reduce his prices just because someone agrees not to buy a part
|> from anyone else.

Other people would say that there is no legitimate reason for businesses
to be able to be open on Sunday.  Other's would say that there's no 
legitimate reason to be Homosexual.

When will the human race learn that FREEDOM WORKS.  Let people live their own
lives and make their own agreements.

|> The PC operating system arena is an especially bad place for such things
|> simply because of MS' monopoly position. They're simply trying to consolidate
|> and enforce it with their mandatory per-system license.

Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly position, and the very fact that they
are trying so hard is proof that their competitors are strong enough to
scare them.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mg@world.std.com (marcia a gulesian)
Subject: BOSTON OS/2 USERS' GROUP MEETINGS - JAN/FEB '93
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: ne
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 19:08:12 GMT


UPCOMING EVENTS: 

Boston Area OS/2 USERS' GROUP (BCS)


FREE SOFTWARE DOOR PRIZES !   REGISTRATION NOT REQUIRED !


January 12, 1993     7:00 p.m.      (Tuesday)

OS/2 DATA COMPRESSION;  OS/2 PERFORMANCE TUNING & OPTIMIZATION:

Part 1 - Theory of data compression, architecture of Stac
Electronic's STACKER  FOR OS/2, increasing the utility of
fixed disks through data compression, live demonstration.

Part 2 - Tips and techniques for matching the design of
OS/2 with that of your DOS, Windows, and OS/2 applications.
This talk will focus on the dissection of CONFIG.SYS.

Note: Vendor demonstration of new  OS/2 software for the
"power user," beginning at 6:30 pm.


February 2, 1993    7:00 p.m.      (Tuesday)

TCP/IP for OS/2;  OS/2 PERFORMANCE TUNING & OPTIMIZATION

Part 1 - Discussion and live demo of X Windows, NFS (operating
peer-to-peer), Telnet, FTP, SMTP (E-Mail), SNMP (network management, 
SLIP (TCP/IP over a serial line) etc . . . . first across a Local Area Network,
then over The Internet.

Part 2 - Tips and techniques for matching the design of OS/2 with
that of your DOS, Windows, and OS/2 applications. This talk will 
focus on strategies for partitioning the fixed disk, selection of 
a file system. etc.


GENERAL MEETING INFORMATION

LOCATION :  IBM BOSTON COMPUTER CENTER,
One Copley Place,  Boston, Mass. Near Back Bay
and Copley train stations.

DIRECTIONS : Mass. Turnpike East - Exit 22 (Copley Square
Lane) - First Left onto Dartmouth St -
Next Left onto Huntington Ave. Enter COPLEY
PLACE PARKING on left.

FREE PARKING : Free parking when you spend $5 and
have your parking ticket validated in any restaurant
or store at Copley Place, provided you enter the
garage after 5 p.m.


For more information on meetings, please telephone Marcia
Gulesian at (508) 369-3918.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy