Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 12:44:54 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> To: "Brett Glass" <brett@lariat.org>, "Giorgos Keramidas" <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Message-ID: <002501bf2e17$f06946e0$021d85d1@youwant.to> In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19991112222541.0431f140@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> At 04:46 PM 11/12/1999 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: > > > Ahh, I see. Superior has nothing to do with user > experience. Superior is to > >be judged by experts according to arcane principles. That's much > better than > >letting the market decide. > > The market had no opportunity to decide, as Judge Jackson has > handily pointed out. > > I could comment on some of your other bogus assertions as well, > but I suspect > that there is no point. I've reviewed the messages you've posted > in this and other > forums during the past six months (Web search engines are VERY > handy for this!), and > they're 100% pro-NT and pro-Microsoft. In some, you make rather > lame excuses for > serious security holes in Microsoft products; in others, you bash > Linux, FreeBSD, > and other non-Microsoft OSes. Actually, I just oppose government intervention in the marketplace. If you search back further, you'll find that I've made numerous similar comments about other antitrust cases. As for the "lame excuses for security holes in Microsoft products", I can only assume that you're referring to a problem where third-party drivers created objects and didn't set their permissions. That's not even a security hole in a Microsoft product, so I question the relevancy. I do consider ActiveX overall a security hole though. Though I suppose it's no worse than downloading software over the net in general. As for the IE security holes, well, pretty much every technology has had similar security holes. The only security hole to date to appear in a Microsoft product that I consider inexcusable or indicative of a serious lack of proper design practice was the hole in 98's PWS and Microsoft's response to that. If you recall, Microsoft's response was essentially 'if you want a secure operating system for hostile networks, we offer NT'. Obviously, that's pretty inexcusable if you're promoting 98 as making the Internet easier! As for bashing Linux and FreeBSD, let me state outright that I love them, use them, and recommend them to pretty much everyone. When I do bash them, I bash specific defects in forums that mainly reach the developers who could fix those defects. My goal is solely to push them to improve. So, yes, I 'bash' FreeBSD for not having kernel threads. I 'bash' Linux for eating too much system CPU when you have tens of thousands of TCP connections. But would I like to run a production web, print, or file server on NT? Nope. Not me. I still think Windows is the best operating system for the desktop. > Folks, I think that what we have here is a "Barkto" -- a Microsoft mole. Do I get paid for that? That would be nice. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?002501bf2e17$f06946e0$021d85d1>