Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 19:45 +, Ian Lynch wrote: On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 10:41 +, Jonathon Blake wrote: That was _one_ of the reasons they were charged with anti-trust violations. xan http://www.tbtf.com/resource/netscape-letter.html Letter listing alleged violations http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3226 Microsoft's settlement. If they were not guilty why did they pay a 750m settlement? Whatever the details, MS is a convicted monopolist and has settled other suits out of court. Its really simple enough for a child to understand. Our legal system is probabily not the most corrupt but its close. In America its sometimes cheaper to legally bribe the court than take a chance on a ruling against you. Its the same method the IRS used to force accountants to rat out their clients without any law forcing the change. So now smart rich people use Tax attorneys while the rest of us cower in fear. Why did Michael jackson pay off his first child aquiser, because he thought it would be cheaper. Unfortunately for him it wrecked his career and he could not afford a second payoff. -- Carl Spitzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
Roger Markus wrote: Well, Chad, old chap. Now we know you're guilty! One of the surest signs of deep and defenseless guilt is saying But someone else is also guilty! So - how much does Microsoft pay you to pump their spin into this list? Are you being paid by the same people who pay that druggie Rush? Say - everyone - here's another call to ban this Microsoft PR spinner from this list. He (or is it she?) doesn't belong here. Every intelligent person on the list wants him off - why is he still here? Chad is a waste of our time, at the least. But that's enough to ignore his postings. Cor -- -- | you need it - je hebt het nodig | | | | OpenOffice.org | | | | Cor Nouws, http://www.nouenoff.nl | -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
On 9 Dec 2005 at 9:12, Cor Nouws wrote: Roger Markus wrote: Well, Chad, old chap. Now we know you're guilty! One of the surest signs of deep and defenseless guilt is saying But someone else is also guilty! So - how much does Microsoft pay you to pump their spin into this list? Are you being paid by the same people who pay that druggie Rush? Say - everyone - here's another call to ban this Microsoft PR spinner from this list. He (or is it she?) doesn't belong here. Every intelligent person on the list wants him off - why is he still here? Chad is a waste of our time, at the least. But that's enough to ignore his postings. Cor I ignore Chad a lot of the time but occasionally he does raise some very good points. The biggest waste of time is dealing with all these off topic attacks on Chad interspersed into threads you are following. It is very difficult to filter them out when they are part of a legitimate thread. -- Larry I. Gusaas, Moose Jaw, Sask. http://larry-gusaas.com --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0549-4, 12/09/2005 Tested on: 12/9/2005 11:26:57 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
Hi Larry, Larry Gusaas wrote: On 9 Dec 2005 at 9:12, Cor Nouws wrote: Chad is a waste of our time, at the least. But that's enough to ignore his postings. I ignore Chad a lot of the time but occasionally he does raise some very good points. Agree The biggest waste of time is dealing with all these off topic attacks on Chad interspersed into threads you are following. It is very difficult to filter them out when they are part of a legitimate thread. It is known that I did try to both communicate and a sort of mediate. Turned out to be not succesful ;-) Cor -- -- | you need it - je hebt het nodig | | | | OpenOffice.org | | | | Cor Nouws, http://www.nouenoff.nl | -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
On 12/8/05, Jonathon Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If a vendor failed to adhere to that, then the vendor was shut down, and all assets went to Microsoft. Care to give any evidence at all that this happened? Especially the Microsoft getting all their stuff after they closed up shop. -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ Because everyone loves free software!
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
Chadf wrote: Care to give any evidence at all that this happened? Personal experience. xan jonathon
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 10:41 +, Jonathon Blake wrote: That was _one_ of the reasons they were charged with anti-trust violations. xan http://www.tbtf.com/resource/netscape-letter.html Letter listing alleged violations http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3226 Microsoft's settlement. If they were not guilty why did they pay a 750m settlement? Whatever the details, MS is a convicted monopolist and has settled other suits out of court. Its really simple enough for a child to understand. -- Ian Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] ZMS Ltd - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
Chad wrote: This is not, however, anything close to what MS did. What Microsoft did do, was go to second, third, and fourth tier vendors and say: Pay us $100 for every system you sell that does _NOT_) contain an operating system. Pay us $200 for every system you sell that contains the operating system of a competitor. If a vendor failed to adhere to that, then the vendor was shut down, and all assets went to Microsoft. Want to explain the difference between that, and paying protection money to the local mafioso? xan jonathon -- This is our sandbox and if we want to throw sand we can
[discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:43941B12.6080800 @zmsl.com: I understand that Microsoft /has/ used those methods. Though I've never heard of the website one (I can't see how that one would work). But for example, threatening to not advertise on magazines that had reviews of Netscape (cutting off a significant source of revenue) or threatening not to sell Windows to suppliers that sold competting OS's for the PC platform. These are anti-trust violations, and they were found guilty. The website one is, I agree, difficult even to imagine, let alone to prove. As for the other crimes, they are, as you say, anti-trust violations. They were crimes, that should have been punished. But they are not the methods of organised crime, which involve violence, usually or often against family members as well as the perpetrator. -- Andrew Brown The email in the header does not work. Contact details and possibly useful macros from http://www.darwinwars.com/lunatic/bugs/oo_macros.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
Andrew Brown wrote: The website one is, I agree, difficult even to imagine, let alone to prove. As for the other crimes, they are, as you say, anti-trust violations. They were crimes, that should have been punished. But they are not the methods of organised crime, which involve violence, usually or often against family members as well as the perpetrator. Not all organized crime is violent. Anti-trust violations /are/ a crime and they are also organized. Same for money-laundry and selling drugs. So comparing Microsoft to oraganized crime seems apt. Yes, they are not violent, but they are criminals, and they are organized. Cheers, Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall. / - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
On 12/6/05, Andrew Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The website one is, I agree, difficult even to imagine, let alone to prove. As for the other crimes, they are, as you say, anti-trust violations. They were crimes, that should have been punished. But they are not the methods of organised crime, which involve violence, usually or often against family members as well as the perpetrator. I believe the one method the original exaggerator was referring to was extortion. The phrase Nice website, shame if something would happen to it refers to the criminal activity known as Protection Money. Where a bully would come in, make vague threats in a backhanded way, and offer to protect the victim for a fee. This is not, however, anything close to what MS did. What MS did with IE that was unethical, (not, however illegal), was to make IE not work properly with standardized HTML. So websites would have to be written differently to work with IE. This, in turn, would make the website appear messed up, (as they actually were) on other standards-based browsers, like Netscape. This is where the 'This page best viewed in Internet Explorer comes into play. Also, with MS's proprietary IE-only ActiveX software, web designers could do things they couldn't before, unless they used Java. Java, was and still is for the most part, proprietary as well. It just isn't limited to IE or Windows. And it's a better system altogether. But since MS was bundling IE with Windows, and ActiveX with IE - there was no need for the user to download or install anything for the ActiveX websites to work. So you need up with websites that only work, or at least only work well, in Windows' Internet Explorer with ActiveX - that's three layers of control for Microsoft. Microsoft never threatened to do any harm to any one's website. They just built a broken browser, that many web designers wanted to work with, because it was so widespread. Comparing the creation of IE to a Mafia member threatening a local businessman is a large exaggeration. -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ Because everyone loves free software!
