On 4/6/06, Robert Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What you have to understand about Microsoft is they are extremely good at
> deception.
>
> Make no doubt about it, they are smart, if not in software, in market
> dynamics and legal dynamics.
>
> Trust me, I know, I've seen documents I can't discuss.
>
> They _NEVER_ let a ruling like the Lawsuit mentioned below go by so easily;
> unless there's an
> advantage.
>
> When VISTA is released and SPARKLE is released and Microsoft has not taken
> steps to hack them or
> prevent their quality as was PROVEN in the SUN JAVA case that Microsoft first
> licensed Java, then
> "hacked the code" put it in IE to make it perform poorly. This is all
> documented; and resulted in
> a $20M fine and fixing the hack that was purposely put in there as was
> concluded.
>
> The same happened to Apple QuickTime back in the 90's -- Microsoft, hacked
> certain parts of
> Windows undocumented APIs and other components to ensure QuickTime performed
> poorly. Mr. Rick
> Segal, who has since, as has been said by someone else -- not me -- has
> either "fled the country
> or was fired" spoke out about this very incident in a posting a few years
> back that I have
> documented. And in another quote "If Microsoft could get the source code to
> fix it, they would"
> speaking about the Blue Mountain v Microsoft issue where the same kind of
> deceitfulness occured
> with Outlook.
>
> There is no reason why Macromedia/Adobe should trust Microsoft -- let alone
> now with VISTA and
> SPARKLE authoring planned, and ZAM3D will assist in this.
>
> There are certain kinds of people, or companies, that you can NEVER TRUST.
> And Microsoft is one
> of them. Sure there are realities involved. But it would be wise for
> someone at Adobe/Macromedia
> to keep their eye on this issue.
>
> I'm involved in an appeal myself and I can tell you -- it's low down dirty
> stuff, and it's, in one
> case, threatening.
>
> Would you "sic" your dog on a young college graduate who came out with a
> proprietary technology.
> Would you then do things prior to "sic'ing" your dog on them that were
> downright dishonest and
> deceitful.
>
> I think that's enough picture -- I really can't say more. I only speak of
> events that are
> documented on the web already that I've collected into a large
> cross-referencing database to other
> books and public interog. gathered.
>
I'm certainly not suggesting that it's not to Microsoft's benefit to
release this patch. I was just saying that's why you see the frame
border. However, I will say that if you're a competent developer
("you're" meaning the developer community in general), you'll note
that there are several workarounds for this patch already, so it's not
like you're stuck. It's just a question of taking the time to
re-factor your code.
Regards,
Dave.
--
Flexcoders Mailing List
FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt
Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
