Linux / Open Standards Conference Cancelled Due to Lack of Interest !! - Linux

This is a discussion on Linux / Open Standards Conference Cancelled Due to Lack of Interest !! - Linux ; http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.p...580781&rid=-50 Wow! That's a real surprise. "The Open Standards 2008 conference scheduled to be held in Sydney this week has been cancelled due to a lack of registrations." Howard Dahdah (Computerworld) 27/10/2008 12:26:00 "A lack of interest has forced the ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Linux / Open Standards Conference Cancelled Due to Lack of Interest !!

  1. Linux / Open Standards Conference Cancelled Due to Lack of Interest !!

    http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.p...580781&rid=-50

    Wow!
    That's a real surprise.


    "The Open Standards 2008 conference scheduled to be held in Sydney this
    week has been cancelled due to a lack of registrations."

    Howard Dahdah (Computerworld) 27/10/2008 12:26:00


    "A lack of interest has forced the cancellation of this year˘s Open
    Standards 2008 conference."

    People just don't care about Linux and Open Source/Standards.
    They are too busy using their applications to give a hoot.

    Watch Schestowitz and his gang blame it on Microsoft.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  2. Re: Linux / Open Standards Conference Cancelled Due to Lack of Interest !!

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    >Nothing can replace the ability to walk up to someone and strike up a
    >conversation. You can't do that at a virtual conference.


    Or, in your case, walk up to Sweaty and sniff his ass, eh Erik?

    --
    "There is no evidence, nor has it been proven that anything Microsoft
    has done has actually prevented competition, even if their actions
    have been found to be anti-competitive." - Erik Funkenbusch

  3. Re: Linux / Open Standards Conference Cancelled Due to Lack of Interest !!


    "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote in message
    news:dbsnzm9blc8e$.1gzvvu71p2s17.dlg@40tude.net...
    > http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.p...580781&rid=-50
    >
    > Wow!
    > That's a real surprise.
    >
    >
    > "The Open Standards 2008 conference scheduled to be held in Sydney this
    > week has been cancelled due to a lack of registrations."
    >
    > Howard Dahdah (Computerworld) 27/10/2008 12:26:00
    >
    >
    > "A lack of interest has forced the cancellation of this year˘s Open
    > Standards 2008 conference."
    >
    > People just don't care about Linux and Open Source/Standards.
    > They are too busy using their applications to give a hoot.
    >
    > Watch Schestowitz and his gang blame it on Microsoft.
    >

    Well that is kind of hard on the few loyalists who might have attended. I
    bet a lot of them lose their deposits on airline and hotel reservations.
    Anyone committing ahead of time to get a good price is screwed.


  4. Re: Linux / Open Standards Conference Cancelled Due to Lack of Interest !!

    On 2008-10-27, chrisv claimed:
    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >>Nothing can replace the ability to walk up to someone and strike up a
    >>conversation. You can't do that at a virtual conference.

    >
    > Or, in your case, walk up to Sweaty and sniff his ass, eh Erik?


    "There is no evidence, nor has it been proven that anything
    Microsoft has done has actually prevented competition, even if their
    actions have been found to be anti-competitive." - Erik Funkenbusch

    Wow, I missed that one!

    --
    Windows - Where user apps destroy your OS.

  5. Re: Linux / Open Standards Conference Cancelled Due to Lack ofInterest !!

    On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:17:20 -0500, Sinister Midget wrote:

    > On 2008-10-27, chrisv claimed:
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>
    >>>Nothing can replace the ability to walk up to someone and strike up a
    >>>conversation. You can't do that at a virtual conference.

    >>
    >> Or, in your case, walk up to Sweaty and sniff his ass, eh Erik?

    >
    > "There is no evidence, nor has it been proven that anything Microsoft
    > has done has actually prevented competition,


    Apart from the 1999 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
    COLUMBIA finding of fact :-

    80. Executives at Microsoft received confirmation in early May
    1995 that Netscape was developing a version of Navigator to run on
    Windows 95, which was due to be released in a couple of months.
    Microsoft's senior executives understood that if they could prevent this
    version of Navigator from presenting alternatives to the Internet-related
    APIs in Windows 95, the technologies branded as Navigator would cease to
    present an alternative platform to developers.

    We all know what happened to Netscape don't we ?

    > even if their actions
    > have been found to be anti-competitive." - Erik Funkenbusch
    >
    > Wow, I missed that one!



    Another Wintrolls fantasy version of the Monopolists history.




    --
    Linux full time, on the desktop, since August 1997

  6. Re: Linux / Open Standards Conference Cancelled Due to Lack of Interest!!

    Terry Porter wrote:
    > Sinister Midget wrote:
    >> chrisv claimed:
    >>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Nothing can replace the ability to walk up to someone
    >>>> and strike up a conversation. You can't do that at a
    >>>> virtual conference.
    >>>
    >>> Or, in your case, walk up to Sweaty and sniff his ass, eh
    >>> Erik?

    >>
    >> "There is no evidence, nor has it been proven that anything
    >> Microsoft has done has actually prevented competition,

    >
    > Apart from the 1999 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
    > DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA finding of fact :-
    >
    > 80. Executives at Microsoft received confirmation in early May
    > 1995 that Netscape was developing a version of Navigator to
    > run on Windows 95, which was due to be released in a couple of
    > months. Microsoft's senior executives understood that if they
    > could prevent this version of Navigator from presenting
    > alternatives to the Internet-related APIs in Windows 95, the
    > technologies branded as Navigator would cease to present an
    > alternative platform to developers.
    >
    > We all know what happened to Netscape don't we ?
    >
    >> even if their actions have been found to be
    >> anti-competitive." - Erik Funkenbusch
    >>
    >> Wow, I missed that one!

    >
    > Another Wintrolls fantasy version of the Monopolists history.


    Another example:

    http://groups.google.com/group/comp....f48256f4b5f71c

    Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
    From: High Plains Thumper
    Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 10:13:46 -0600
    Subject: Re: Wait till you hear this: Guess who is complaining
    about monopoly and abuse of market power?

    DFS wrote:

    > So far I see jeering responses from four cola lusers: TV,
    > Gidget, you and Linonut.
    >
    > But apparently not a single one of you lazy idiots read the
    > actual rulings referred to TV and Gidget, because nowhere in
    > them is there evidence of a court ruling that MS is a monopoly
    > organization.
    >
    > Findings of fact:
    > http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm Conclusions
    > of law: http://usvms.gpo.gov/ms-conclusions.html
    > http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007...-monopoly.html
    > http://www.crn.com/software/26100117
    > http://news.cnet.com/South-Korea-fin...3-5985332.html
    >
    > Keep trying, lamers.


    DOJ concluded Microsoft is a monopoly:

    http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/2002/Lit11-1.pdf

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK)
    STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
    Defendant.

    MEMORANDUM OPINION

    It bears repeating that the monopoly in this case was not
    found to have been illegally acquired, see United States v.
    Microsoft, 56 F.3d 1448, 1452 (D.C. Cir. 1995),24 but only to
    have been illegally maintained.
    COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
    United States District Judge

    --
    HPT
    Quando omni flunkus moritati
    (If all else fails, play dead)
    - "Red" Green

  7. Re: Linux / Open Standards Conference Cancelled Due to Lack of Interest !!

    On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:01:12 -0500, Terry Porter wrote:

    > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:17:20 -0500, Sinister Midget wrote:
    >
    >> On 2008-10-27, chrisv claimed:
    >>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Nothing can replace the ability to walk up to someone and strike up a
    >>>>conversation. You can't do that at a virtual conference.
    >>>
    >>> Or, in your case, walk up to Sweaty and sniff his ass, eh Erik?

    >>
    >> "There is no evidence, nor has it been proven that anything Microsoft
    >> has done has actually prevented competition,

    >
    > Apart from the 1999 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
    > COLUMBIA finding of fact :-


    Geez Terry, are you really that stupid?

    Do you not understand the difference between "actually prevented
    competition" and "anti-compatitive behavior"? Hint, one is a fact, the
    other is a possibility.

    But you wouldn't be who you are if you didn't confuse possibility with
    fact.

    Netscape was sold in 1998 (3 years after your claims of prevented
    competition) for $5 *BILLION* dollars. In 1995 it wasn't even worth $500
    Million.

    Yet somehow, without being able to compete for 3 years, they somehow
    multiplied their net worth by over an order of a magnitude.

    But then, terry, I suppose you wouldn't understand that either, given your
    lack of logical thinking capacity.

  8. Re: Linux / Open Standards Conference Cancelled Due to Lack ofInterest !!

    On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:38:00 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:01:12 -0500, Terry Porter wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:17:20 -0500, Sinister Midget wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-10-27, chrisv claimed:
    >>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>Nothing can replace the ability to walk up to someone and strike up a
    >>>>>conversation. You can't do that at a virtual conference.
    >>>>
    >>>> Or, in your case, walk up to Sweaty and sniff his ass, eh Erik?
    >>>
    >>> "There is no evidence, nor has it been proven that anything
    >>> Microsoft has done has actually prevented competition,

    >>
    >> Apart from the 1999 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
    >> COLUMBIA finding of fact :-

    >
    > Geez Terry, are you really that stupid?
    >




    I suggest the casual reader check out the following article to determine
    whether Microsoft has been found guilty of abusing their monopoly
    position, instead of listening to a well know Wintrolls historical
    fantasies:-


    http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm



    --
    Linux full time, on the desktop, since August 1997

  9. Re: Linux / Open Standards Conference Cancelled Due to Lack of Interest !!

    On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:55:24 -0500, Terry Porter wrote:

    > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:38:00 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:01:12 -0500, Terry Porter wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:17:20 -0500, Sinister Midget wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2008-10-27, chrisv claimed:
    >>>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Nothing can replace the ability to walk up to someone and strike up a
    >>>>>>conversation. You can't do that at a virtual conference.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Or, in your case, walk up to Sweaty and sniff his ass, eh Erik?
    >>>>
    >>>> "There is no evidence, nor has it been proven that anything
    >>>> Microsoft has done has actually prevented competition,
    >>>
    >>> Apart from the 1999 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
    >>> COLUMBIA finding of fact :-

    >>
    >> Geez Terry, are you really that stupid?
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    > I suggest the casual reader check out the following article to determine
    > whether Microsoft has been found guilty of abusing their monopoly
    > position, instead of listening to a well know Wintrolls historical
    > fantasies:-
    >
    >
    > http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm


    I suggest, Terry, that you stop twisting facts.

    So you're seriously going to pretend that it's fantasy that AOL paid $5
    Billion dollars for Netscape in 1998? Are you serious? It's fact, Terry.

    You're the one living in fantasy land.

    And again, you seem incapable of understanding simple english. I did not
    deny that Microsoft was found guilty of anti-competitive behavior. I even
    said as much that they were. My comments were about the difference between
    anti-competitive behavior and actually blocked competition.

  10. Re: Linux / Open Standards Conference Cancelled Due to Lack of Interest !!

    In article ,
    Terry Porter wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>> "There is no evidence, nor has it been proven that anything
    > >>> Microsoft has done has actually prevented competition,
    > >>
    > >> Apart from the 1999 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
    > >> COLUMBIA finding of fact :-

    > >
    > > Geez Terry, are you really that stupid?
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > I suggest the casual reader check out the following article to determine
    > whether Microsoft has been found guilty of abusing their monopoly
    > position, instead of listening to a well know Wintrolls historical
    > fantasies:-
    >
    >
    > http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm


    The answer to Erik's question is yes, Terry really is that stupid, as
    can be seen by the fact that he's citing documents he doesn't understand.

    Hint, Terry: anti-competitive behavior and *actually* *preventing*
    *competition* are not the same thing. You keep citing things in support
    of the former, which Erik is not disputing, and ignoring the later,
    which was Erik's point.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  11. Re: Linux / Open Standards Conference Cancelled Due to Lack of Interest !!

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:55:24 -0500, Terry Porter wrote:
    >> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:38:00 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Apart from the 1999 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
    >>>> COLUMBIA finding of fact :-
    >>>
    >>> Geez Terry, are you really that stupid?

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I suggest the casual reader check out the following article to determine
    >> whether Microsoft has been found guilty of abusing their monopoly
    >> position, instead of listening to a well know Wintrolls historical
    >> fantasies:-
    >>
    >> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

    >
    > I suggest, Terry, that you stop twisting facts.
    >
    > So you're seriously going to pretend that it's fantasy that AOL paid $5
    > Billion dollars for Netscape in 1998? Are you serious? It's fact, Terry.
    >
    > You're the one living in fantasy land.
    >
    > And again, you seem incapable of understanding simple english. I did not
    > deny that Microsoft was found guilty of anti-competitive behavior. I even
    > said as much that they were. My comments were about the difference between
    > anti-competitive behavior and actually blocked competition.


    Who's twisting, Erik?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscap...ns_Corporation

    America Online (AOL) on November 24, 1998 announced it would acquire
    Netscape Communications in a tax-free stock-swap valued at US$4.2 billion
    at the time of the announcement.

    I wonder why AOL wanted Netscape, anyway?

    After the Microsoft antitrust case found that Microsoft held and had
    abused monopoly power, AOL filed suit against it for damages.[16] This
    suit was settled in May 2003 when Microsoft paid US $750 million to AOL
    and agreed to share some technologies, including granting AOL a license
    to use and distribute Internet Explorer royalty-free for seven
    years.[17][18] This was considered to be the death knell for Netscape.

    On July 15, 2003, Time Warner (formerly AOL Time Warner) disbanded
    Netscape.

    --
    ((lambda (foo) (bar foo)) (baz))

  12. Re: Linux / Open Standards Conference Cancelled Due to Lack of Interest !!

    Tim Smith wrote:

    >anti-competitive behavior and *actually* *preventing*
    >*competition* are not the same thing.


    Is one better than the other, from a moral standpoint, Timmy?


  13. Re: Linux / Open Standards Conference Cancelled Due to Lack of Interest !!


    "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    news:jTCNk.48605$IB6.38809@bignews8.bellsouth.net. ..
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:55:24 -0500, Terry Porter wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:38:00 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Apart from the 1999 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
    >>>>> COLUMBIA finding of fact :-
    >>>>
    >>>> Geez Terry, are you really that stupid?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I suggest the casual reader check out the following article to determine
    >>> whether Microsoft has been found guilty of abusing their monopoly
    >>> position, instead of listening to a well know Wintrolls historical
    >>> fantasies:-
    >>>
    >>> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

    >>
    >> I suggest, Terry, that you stop twisting facts.
    >>
    >> So you're seriously going to pretend that it's fantasy that AOL paid $5
    >> Billion dollars for Netscape in 1998? Are you serious? It's fact,
    >> Terry.
    >>
    >> You're the one living in fantasy land.
    >>
    >> And again, you seem incapable of understanding simple english. I did not
    >> deny that Microsoft was found guilty of anti-competitive behavior. I
    >> even
    >> said as much that they were. My comments were about the difference
    >> between
    >> anti-competitive behavior and actually blocked competition.

    >
    > Who's twisting, Erik?
    >

    You anti-MS folk seem to relish your inability to comprehend the facts.
    Consider that the Jackson court's Finding of Fact is nothing without the
    companion Finding Of Law that intially called for the breakup of Microsoft
    and stringent conditions imposed on the resulting parts. This finding was
    totally rejected by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals and
    the case was partly reversed and partly remanded back to the district court.
    In the remand, Judge Jackson was removed from jurisdiction in the case and
    censured for unethical behavior in showing bias towards Microsoft and
    obvious pre-judgement before the litigation was completed in that he held
    numerous conversations recorded by a reporter writing a book about the case.

    In the re-trial, the plaintiffs dropped the only significant charge that
    survived the DCCOA action, i.e. the claimed illegal bundling of IE with
    Windows. Under the rules defined by the appellate court, the plaintiffs
    decided themselves that their case had no merit. What remained were a
    collection of violations of the anti-trust laws that the appellate court had
    already ruled as being non-causual in regard to monopoly maintenance. The
    meaning here is that what Microsoft did was technically illegal, but that
    none of these actions actually resulted in any unlawful damage to
    competition and so the corrective action was merely to enjoin Microsoft from
    any such practice continuing and to establish an oversight committee
    comprised of industry experts taken from Microsoft's competition to review
    all action in the future. No such violations have been found to have
    continued.

    All that Erik is saying here is that there never was any illegally blocked
    competition. Netscape lost their business due to their own ineptness.


+ Reply to Thread