Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:32:47 -0800 From: soralx@cydem.org To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Cc: des@des.no, bitabyss@gmail.com, af300wsm@gmail.com, tedm@toybox.placo.com Subject: Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use Message-ID: <20071218183247.7b68a645@soralx> In-Reply-To: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKGEFJIPAC.davids@webmaster.com> References: <BMEDLGAENEKCJFGODFOCOEDLCFAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKGEFJIPAC.davids@webmaster.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> My position: Microsoft pushed IE because they saw Java and Netscape > as a threat to their Windows monopoly. > > 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. > > Which has zero to do with anything I said. I will act as an arbiter for a minute here, can I? The support for your position comes in bulk from "historical" data. Ted holds that the whole Netscape ordeal was manipulated to intentionally put Microsoft into vulnerable position in that respect, so as to divert attention of the court from other, far more important issues. I cannot judge how right this statement is, but I would thus say you are relying too much on those records being TRUE (a keyword here, means the kind of scientific truthfulness Feynman was lecturing about). So, it seems someone here tries to weasel out of the fight before it is over, no? ;-P > DS [SorAlx] ridin' VS1400
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071218183247.7b68a645>