Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
af300wsm at gmail.com
Tue Dec 18 11:16:50 PST 2007
On Dec 18, 2007 10:06 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at toybox.placo.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Schwartz [mailto:davids at webmaster.com]
> > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 12:59 PM
> > To: des at des.no
> > Cc: Tedm at Toybox. Placo. Com; Rob; FreeBSD Chat; Andrew Falanga
> > Subject: RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
> > So you're saying that long before Microsoft saw any importance to
> > the Internet, they felt that it was important to give away IE so
> > they could extort money from companies like Verisign to get their
> > keys included? If you don't see the Internet and ecommerce as
> > important, why would you think anyone would pay millions of
> > dollars to get their key in?
> > In any event, your argument is contradicted by the historical
> > record, from US v. Microsoft:
> 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.
You know, I'd never guessed that this much could come from such a simple
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
More information about the freebsd-chat