Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 21 Nov 1999 18:48:37 -0700
From:      Brett Glass <>
To:        "David Schwartz" <>
Cc:        <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit"
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <000001bf3488$4e7573a0$>
References:  <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
At 05:24 PM 11/21/1999 -0800, David Schwartz wrote:

> > Stac doesn't do disk compression for Windows 98, so the above
> > is absurd.
>         Err, right. That's why Stac is out of the market. If they provided a
>superior product for the operating systems that people wanted to use, they'd
>still be here.

Bull. They were killed by predatory pricing. Technological superiority
makes little difference when an inferior product is free -- as we've
seen in the cases of Netscape, Stac, Quarterdeck, and others.

> > Again, a disingenuous comparison. QEMM did not do the same sort of
> > memory management as Windows 98.
>         Right. That's exactly my point.

In that case, you've mysteriously changed your "point" since your
previous message. 

> > Microsoft's EMM386 -- the correct
> > program to which one should compare QEMM -- was markedly inferior,
> > and supplanted QEMM only because it was free.
>         Right, but QEMM still survived, because it was superior. 

QEMM was still sold for awhile, but not in sufficient volume to sustain
the company. Its empty shell was bought by Symantec. Microsoft drove
Quarterdeck out of business.

> > Microsoft likewise
> > bundled Helix's optimizer for free so as to kill Quarterdeck's
> > best-selling product and thus prevent DESQview and DESQview/X from
> > ever challenging Windows.
>         I don't understand this argument. Sometimes leverage is bad, sometimes it's

Non sequitur.

>And you change off how it suits you. If Microsoft using Windows to
>leverage IE is bad, why is Quarterdeck using QEMM to leverage DESQview good?

Netscape eventually expected to make a profit from DESQview. Microsoft
simply wanted to put Netscape out of business. And Microsoft was
(and is!) a monopoly. Monopoly leverage is illegal.

 >> Not so, especially from a security standpoint. IE is riddled with
> > DANGEROUS security problems.
>         You are the only one who thinks this. 

Geeze, now I *really* wonder what you've been smoking. If there was
previously any doubt that you are being paid by Microsoft to natter
in and disrupt this forum, the above surely removes it.

> > Alas, Netscape was shut down by Microsoft's predatory tactics. The
> > shell of the company was bought by AOL, primarily for its portal
> > and peripherally so that AOL could avoid total dependence on
> > Microsoft's browser by keeping Navigator barely alive.
>         Umm, it had nothing to do with any predatory tactics. It had everything to
>do with IE being a better browser. 

Utter nonsense. Again, read the judge's Findings of Fact.

>And as I explained, using predatory
>tactics to replace a superior product with an inferior one gains nothing.

Bull. In Microsoft's case, it preserved the applications barrier to entry.

>The onlything a predator has to gain is the difference in value between the
>two products. 

Utter nonsense, again. What Microsoft had to gain was the maintenance of its
monopoly and of barriers to entry in the OS market.

>         You are the master of ad hominem, Brett. If you'd like, write out any sort
>of statement that says that Microsoft has never paid for me any public
>statement I have made. Mail it to:
>         David Schwartz
>         1455-E Foxworth Avenue, PMB 118
>         San Jose, CA 95118
>         I will sign it, notorize it, and mail it back to you.

I wouldn't believe you even if you did this.

>         I would also suggest you stop the slander here. In my capacity as Director
>of Software Development for WebMaster, Incorporated, I sometimes have to
>recommend various platforms to my customers. If people believed your
>nonsense, that could compromise my ability to do that. And it wouldn't
>surprise me if investigation into legal action would follow.
>         So if you wish to continue to raise this allegation, I strongly suggest you
>back it up with evidence.

People will always judge for themselves, of course. But I'd say that you're making 
a far better case, via your own postings, than I ever POSSIBLY could. It's you
who are irreparably damaging your reputation, not me.

--Brett Glass

To Unsubscribe: send mail to
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>