Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:48:20 +0000 From: "Frank Shute" <frank@esperance-linux.co.uk> To: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> Cc: FreeBSD Chat <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>, tedm@toybox.placo.com Subject: Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use Message-ID: <20071219094820.GA36521@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKGEHHIPAC.davids@webmaster.com> References: <BMEDLGAENEKCJFGODFOCGEDMCFAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKGEHHIPAC.davids@webmaster.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 11:07:46PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote: > > > > MS dumped a pile of money into development of IE7 because it gets a > > pile of money in return from the root certificate authorities. Just > > like MS dumps a pile of money into development of operating systems > > because they get a pile of money in return from the PC companies > > that sell PC's with Windows preloaded. All of this rubbish about > > MS positioning IE so they can "take over" the Internet (ie: html and > > browser standards) is a pile of nonsense, it is nothing more than > > smokescreen mostly from Microsoft, designed to keep customers from > > understanding how they -really- make money. > > > Ted > > This is getting really tiring. Do you have such much as a shred of evidence > to support this? Yes or no. If you have no evidence, go away. If you have > evidence, present it. > Just because there is no evidence for a conspiracy doesn't mean it's not real. As someone else pointed out, they believe OJ did it (as do I and many others) yet there is no (or little) evidence he did it. To support Ted's thesis, I'd point out that when the DOJ v MS came to court the browser war was moot, MS had already won. Yet the media concentrated on this aspect of the trial, but if you read Jacksons's findings of fact, it was the general anti-competitive behaviour of MS that Jackson dwelt on, not just browsers, which is why he recommended they be broken up. Why did the media report it like so? Because MS spin doctors were telling the journalists that this was what it was all about. Journalists are lazy, incompetent and technically inept, just like most people, and they couldn't be bothered to pick their way through the findings of fact and understand why MS was presenting this as "browser wars" rather than as their sustained anti-competitive, monopoly abusing behaviour. It wouldn't surprise me one iota if this smokescreen was to cover up their scamming millions from the root certificate authorities amongst many other abuses. -- Frank Contact info: http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/misc/contact.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071219094820.GA36521>