From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 18 07:18:09 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F1E416A417 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 07:18:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from mail1.webmaster.com (mail1.webmaster.com [216.152.64.169]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A16E13C447 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 07:18:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from however by webmaster.com (MDaemon.PRO.v8.1.3.R) with ESMTP id md50001814450.msg for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:18:37 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:17:24 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Importance: Normal X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:18:37 -0800 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:18:37 -0800 Cc: Rob , FreeBSD Chat , Andrew Falanga Subject: RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 07:18:09 -0000 > Do you really not understand it? I'll try one more time. Anyone > who writes a browser that grabs major market share has a guarenteed > stream of cash from the root certificate authorities. Netscape > figured this out first, then when MS caught on, they pushed them out > of business to grab that revenue stream. Do you have any evidence to suggest that this revenue stream motivated MS's browser push? I've cited quite a bit of evidence that supports other motivations. > > More likely, Microsoft was afraid that a portable browser could > > become the > > platform of the future, making the operating system on longer > > particularly > > important. If that was going to happen, they had better be the > > market leader > > in the browser business. > Rubbish. We have had portable browsers, we have a portable > language (Java) > and nothing has come of that "platform of the future" hogwash. Nevertheless, this is what motivated Microsoft's decision. Perhaps had Microsoft left the market alone, that would have happened. Perhaps not. But there's quite a bit of evidence to suggest that Microsoft feared that technologies such as the web and Java would make the OS irrelevent and acted to protect their cash cow. I'm not sure which of two arguments you are now making: 1) Microsoft didn't see the Netscape/Java threat to their OS at the time. 2) Microsoft did see the threat, but still acted to get root key revnue. 1 has been refuted by evidence. Many MS employees voiced precisely this fear. As for 2, do you have any evidence this motivated anyone to do anything? DS