Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:24:06 -0800 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: <davids@webmaster.com>, <des@des.no> Cc: Rob <bitabyss@gmail.com>, FreeBSD Chat <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>, Andrew Falanga <af300wsm@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use Message-ID: <BMEDLGAENEKCJFGODFOCOEDMCFAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKGEFJIPAC.davids@webmaster.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: David Schwartz [mailto:davids@webmaster.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 3:26 PM > To: tedm@toybox.placo.com; des@des.no > Cc: Rob; FreeBSD Chat; Andrew Falanga > Subject: RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use >=20 >=20 >=20 > > Don't be foolish. Microsoft would have lost the case if they > > had admitted the real reasons for what they did. It isn't to > > MS's benefit to reveal anything about the real reasons they > > do a thing. >=20 > That's true, but that completely undercuts your argument. Giving=20 > IE away to get revenue for listing root certificates would have=20 > been a perfectly legitimate tactic. It would have had *NOTHING*=20 > to do with leveraging their Windows monopoly. If Microsoft had=20 > been motivated as you claim, saying so would have been a=20 > brilliant trial strategy. >=20 Why reveal anything if not needed? Microsoft has spend a lot of money creating the image that it is a wise and benevolent software company. It's only us renegade intellectual-property-thieving lyenuks users that are out there throwing mud. Wise and benevolent software companies give away software for the good of mankind. Not for base, grasping greedy money reasons. Not to mention as well if they say that, it undercuts the argument that they deliberately spent money to push Netscape out of business. The argument they were making is "oh gee, Netscape crashed, we didn't have anything to do with it" > It was the other side that claimed that Microsoft's IE push was=20 > to protect Windows. Microsoft had no counter argument. > =20 The real reason MS was there on trial was - da dum - that they were price-setting the OPERATING SYSTEM prices. The argument was that MS was a legal monopoly of operating systems and acting in an anticompetitive fashion. Why the trial brought Netscape into the trial at all is likely that it was a ploy to generate sympathy. It's still an open and shut case that MS is a monopoly of PC operating system software. That's why they are currently regulated by the EC in Europe. It's why the trial found them to be a monopoly. Forcing them to "untie" the browser from the OS was a remedy that was dreamed up - but, it really didn't answer the root problem of removing their dominance in the OS market. The argument that somehow the Netscape browser would have evolved into an OS in the future was always highly speculative and driven by the popular press repeating the Sun mantra of "write once, run anywhere" it was never seriously supported by the industry. Either way that MS would have responded to the assertion that the IE push was to protect windows would have fucked them further. It's a "have you stopped beating your wife" question. If MS claims that IE's push was to protect windows, then they are just validating the opposition's thesis that a web browser can make a computer operating system. If they deny it, then the opposition says well then them giving away IE is illegal dumping. > > MS had a large campaign going to misdirect to world. Initially > > it was to their advantage to get the world to believe that they > > didn't understand the Internet. In that way, the young Internet > > startup companies would spend their money fighting each other > > rather than uniting against Microsoft. > >=20 > > It's obvious MS knew from the beginning the importance of the > > Internet. How quickly you forget TCP/IP and Window for Workgroups. > > How quickly you forget the addition of the TCP/IP protocol to the > > DOS/Lanmanager MS client. Even then, MS was working to deny > > funding to the likes of Trumpet Winsock and suchlike by giving > > away the Shiva TCP/IP client in the IE for Windows 3.1 >=20 > That is *my* claim. How do you think this disagrees with what I'm = saying? > =20 Your claim was that MS "feared" the Internet. I'm telling you point blank that is total bullcrap. MS never feared the Internet, they planned from day 1 how to make money off of it, and merely regarded it as one more market to exploit. >=20 > The position I dispute: Microsoft pushed IE to get revenue from=20 > root keys who pay millions to be listed. This is perfectly legal=20 > and legitimate. >=20 > My position: Microsoft pushed IE because they saw Java and=20 > Netscape as a threat to their Windows monopoly. > Wrong. MS pushed IE to get money. Just like every other one of their products. MS sees nothing as a threat. They are far too arrogant to feel threatened by anyone or anything. Maybe once, a couple decades ago, when they were small and weak - then yes, maybe they felt fear. But not within the memory of just about everyone working there now. And when they were small and limp, (ie: micro-and-soft) the only one who really felt fear was Bill Gates - since it was mostly his personal money on the line, and if they went down, he would have suffered the most. Ted
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BMEDLGAENEKCJFGODFOCOEDMCFAA.tedm>