Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:06:40 -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: <BMEDLGAENEKCJFGODFOCOEDLCFAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKCELOIOAC.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: Monday, December 17, 2007 12:59 PM > To: des@des.no > Cc: Tedm@Toybox. Placo. Com; Rob; FreeBSD Chat; Andrew Falanga > Subject: RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use >=20 >=20 > So you're saying that long before Microsoft saw any importance to=20 > the Internet, they felt that it was important to give away IE so=20 > they could extort money from companies like Verisign to get their=20 > keys included? If you don't see the Internet and ecommerce as=20 > important, why would you think anyone would pay millions of=20 > dollars to get their key in? >=20 > In any event, your argument is contradicted by the historical=20 > record, from US v. Microsoft: >=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. 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. 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 Later on it became obvious to even a monkey that the Internet was important, so it wouldn't have been believable to maintain that campaign. So they changed gears and started using Internet as a red herring. MS did NOT want the attention focused on how they managed to engineer the Offie Applications market to become a monopoly. Nor did they want attention focused on how they managed to arm-twist all PC manufacturers into selling PC's with Windows preloaded. As a result, the court didn't really address those issues. Even today look at what goes on in the PC market. It is almost impossible to buy a low-end PC WITHOUT windows on it. Your paying for that copy of Windows even if you immediately take the machine home and wipe it. The anti-trust court should have banned the practice of forcing the consumer to pay for Windows, they should have mandated that ALL pc sales listed Windows as an optional line item the customer could choose to not pay for. It would have been simple to do. You walk into the computer store, and when you buy the PC if you say you want Windows an extra $50 or whatever is slapped onto the purchase price, and you get a serial number you key into the PC when you start it up. If you say no, you don't get the serial number and when you start the PC if you don't install the number, the system deletes Windows. Microsoft was very worried that the trial would focus on this and they would end up with this as a ruling. So, they engineered the focus on their destruction of Netscape. Everyone followed along and forgot about the preload situation. Ted
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BMEDLGAENEKCJFGODFOCOEDLCFAA.tedm>