From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 19 02:33:40 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD58F16A41B for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:33:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from soralx@cydem.org) Received: from pd4mo2so.prod.shaw.ca (idcmail-mo1so.shaw.ca [24.71.223.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6BF313C448 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:33:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from soralx@cydem.org) Received: from pd3mr5so.prod.shaw.ca (pd3mr5so-qfe3.prod.shaw.ca [10.0.141.12]) by l-daemon (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JT9003SIZ2PJB50@l-daemon> for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:32:49 -0700 (MST) Received: from pn2ml9so.prod.shaw.ca ([10.0.121.7]) by pd3mr5so.prod.shaw.ca (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-7.05 (built Sep 5 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JT900IM0Z2OJD80@pd3mr5so.prod.shaw.ca> for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:32:49 -0700 (MST) Received: from soralx ([24.87.3.133]) by l-daemon (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JT900EAWZ2NAF20@l-daemon> for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:32:48 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:32:47 -0800 From: soralx@cydem.org In-reply-to: To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Message-id: <20071218183247.7b68a645@soralx> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i386-portbld-freebsd6.2) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: 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 X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:33:40 -0000 > 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