Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:25:23 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> To: <tedm@toybox.placo.com> 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: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKAELPIPAC.davids@webmaster.com> In-Reply-To: <BMEDLGAENEKCJFGODFOCCEDPCFAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > This would require a kind of foresight on Gates' part that he > > simply didn't > > have. > > > > It really doesn't matter whether Bill Gates genuinely feared that the > > Internet > First it was "Microsoft feared" Now it's "Bill Gates feared" Since I made it precisely clear what I mean in both cases, what exactly is your problem? Obviously, a company can't actually feel fear. > > could topple his OS monopoly by making OS unimportant or > > if he was > > just covering his bases. The fact is, he acted to leverage his Windows > > monopoly to kill IE > Now your just so carried away that you aren't even paying attention > to what your writing. "leverage windows to kill IE?" I've tried to debate with you in good faith, but now you've proven you're just an asshole. I noticed that you put "your" instead of "you're". Perhaps I should ignore your argument because of it. > The root key issue that your so hung up on was a single example cited Because your claim on that issue is false. You made a false claim, I pointed out that it was false. The only reason I am "so hung up on" it is because you continue to defend it despite the fact that there's not one shred of evidence to support it. You added a bit of conspiracy hypothesis to your argument, you got called on it, and now you're pissed. > by me in a response to Chuck Robey's statement that Microsoft is "giving > away" IE. Go back and re-read it. Notice that I DID NOT say in that post > that this was the ONLY way that Microsoft makes money of IE. It is you > that has somehow jumped to the conclusion that I was asserting this is > the ONLY way Microsoft makes money off IE. There's plenty other ways. Nice try at rewriting history. Here's your original claim: >> Those payments are gigantic. Imagine for a second if Verisign >> told Microsoft to kiss off, they were no longer going to pay >> Microsoft for "renting" space in the IE root certificate store. >> Microsoft would simply issue a root certificate revoke in Windows >> Updates for the Verisign public key, and a few weeks later >> millions of users would start getting messages that their browser >> was no longer recognizing the SSL certificate from ebay, paypal, >> Wells Fargo, etc. etc. >> >> If by some miracle those millions of users were to manually add >> those CA public keys into their root stores, Microsoft could merely >> continue to periodically issue revokements. ;-) >> >> So now you maybe understand why Microsoft chose to crush Netscape, >> and why they hand out IE like candy? You specifically said that root key revenue was one of the motivations for Microsoft's decision to "crush Netscape" and "hand out IE like candy". You never said it was the only reason but you did say it was a significant reason. You have still have not provided one shred of evidence to support this claim. In any event, there's no point in trying to debate someone whose mind is closed and is incapable of arguing in good faith. Again, you have yet to present even the tiniest shred of evidence that possible root certificate revenue motivated Microsoft to give away IE or crush Netscape. That remains your personal conspiracy theory, and when it is challenged, you react like all conpsiracy theorists do. DS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKAELPIPAC.davids>