On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 09:56:49 -0600 Ed Wilts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quietly intimated:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 04:22:15AM -0600, ABrady wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 01:42:42 -0500 (EST) > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quietly intimated: > > > > > "Not off hand. But I can guarantee a little research can turn it > > > up." > > I'm going to interject in a few places because I did the challenge on > IE and standards and your overall (from my point of view) MS-bashing. > > The reason I made the request is because I felt you wouldn't be able > to back it up, especially the comment that it was intentionally broken > to further IE dominance and it was not a bug. A recent eWeek article > (March 18) covered an interoperability issue between IE and Apache. > I'll quote "After eWeek Labs alerted Microsoft to the discover, a > Microsoft spokesman state that the company has identified the issue > and will work on a fix." I don't know if this is the same issue that > started this thread, but does show that Microsoft can acknowledge > interopability issues and that they're not always evil. > > In a continuance of your MS rant, you claimed (I'm paraphrasing since > I deleted the earlier article) "want proof? see the Sun lawsuit". > This lawsuit hasn't even gone to trial yet. Anybody can sue, and a > lot of people do, without merit. The merit has *NOT* been proven just > because Sun is crying foul. Searched google, keywords "sun" "settle" "microsoft" Hit number 1: http://news.com.com/2100-1001-251401.html?legacy=cnet Hit number 2: http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2001-01/sunflash.20010123.1.html Hit number 3: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2001/jan01/01-23sunpr.asp I could go on. The search cmae up with 10 pages displayed, maybe more. Granted, not all are about the subject, but the first 3 should tell you something. You are talking about another suit. That hasn't been to court. In that one Sun claims MS is intentionally crippling XP vis a vis Java. That hasn't been to court. But, I'm confident that in the end it will result in another settlement or a finding of guilt. > > The specific question was, how could I be sure MS was deliberately > > making the browser less than functional rather than just messing it > > up by accident? My reply was the "history" part. > > Which is a totally bogus response. History does not project the > future. If this were the case, we'd all be millionares on the stock > market. We've all done some stupid or wrong things in the past - it > doesn't mean we're bad or wrong people now. I have the email. I'll paraphrase myself here. MS has a policy known as "embrace and extend." A more apt description would be "embrace and steal." They've done this numerous times throughout their history. In most instances, this means taking someone's ideas, changing them a little bit, push the product cheap or free, begin cornering the market, keep changing the standards enough that the original owner has to spend a fortune to catch up, force the original owner to drop out of business or drop the product. The most famous case was with Stac Electronics, in which Microsoft stole the technology from a small company that dealt with disk compression. They were sued and lost. Byt the time it was over, Stac didn't have any of the original business left: keywords: stacker microsoft http://www.base.com/software-patents/articles/stac.html http://www.vaxxine.com/lawyers/articles/stac.html They made deals with IBM over OS/2. They were even quoted as stating that OS/2 was the wave of the future. They then took the ideas from OS/2, abandoned the project and created what we now know as Windows (TM) (TheyWish). They were attempting to do the same with Java, they violated the license, they were sued, they saw the writing on the wall, they abandoned the project, they settled because they knew they would lose. Next case. This one is harder to document. But documentation is available if anyone wants to make more of an effort than I have here: keywords: microsoft os2 http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2Warp.html http://www.pr.uoguelph.ca/cpayne/planet.htm http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/O/OS_2.html Digital Research released DR-DOS to compete with MS. In Windows 3.1, MS intentionally introduced a bug that kept Windows 3.1 from installing on any system that didn't have MS-DOS installed. That case was settled a while back (2000) with Caldera, who bought DR-DOS from Digital Research. keywords: caldera microsoft settle http://news.com.com/2100-1001-235443.html?legacy=cnet http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/filters/zdmrc/0,14175,6020441,00.html http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,14739,00.asp There are more links there. > > needed to back up claims at a moment's notice. But, I left open the > > possibility of doing so later, if a challenge came to the content, > > which it did not in this case. > > Consider yourself challenged :-) In this instance, I'll take my words back and apologize. I hadn't researched it fully, and since the MO was identical to many things they've done in the past (which I _can_ document), it seemed all too likely that this was a deliberate attempt to move windows users away from standards by moving the MS products away. I was wrong. What I did find is that this has been a continuing problem, since 95, into 98 and affecting NT. I imagine a little more research would have found references to ME and XP (I'll take a look in one of the newsgroups I frequent for such readings). So, instead of finding evidence of deliberate intent to lead users away from other products, I found evidence of neglect of repairing the errors. This has, after all, been a problem since 95. No other browser that purports to accept the standards has a problem with this. At least, none have had a problem with this ever that has lasted this long. Instead of chicanery, we find ineptitude! Which do you prefer? And, they have "knowledgebase" pages (nice potential for an oxymoron there: microsoft knowledgebase) that explain how to work around the bugs. > > > but could it be that after following the link to download the ISO > > > that it is then being redirected to an ftp site uses as does the > > > normal public ftp.redhat.com email for a password anonymous ftp > > > access??? If so I it is more than likely running into the same > > > problem IE has with ftp.redhat.com in that the ftp server is > > > rejecting the anonymous password that IE passes which is "IEUser" > > > which is rejected by the ftp server due to the fact it is not > > > formated as an email address??? Netscape formats a "fake" email > > > address off the bat to get around this. > > So how is this actually an IE issue? I see this as an ftp server > issue. wu-ftpd has specific ftpaccess commands to deal with this > issue (man ftpaccess, look for passwd-check). Since the link mentioned is https, not ftp, the question is moot. The bug is in getting to https (secure) pages, not ftp. If it had been ftp, then my original point would have been valid. I use IE5.5 at work (unfortunately). I had to add putty to the machine so I could get files from home, or add them to the web pages I serve because I consistently have problems getting them via ftp. An alternative that works is a download manager (Fresh Download is nice and free). But, using putty I can navigate all over the files and find what I want, even to places I forgot to put into the ftp link. Yes, I know, putty isn't a secure ftp client. But it gets me in securely and it works. I could have easily used others like ws_ftp or something. But the point is, IE (at least through 5.5 and I'd be surprised if 6 was any better) sometimes has trouble with ftp. Anonymous or secure. > > > If this is the case if RH was to do away with the email for > > > password or no access clause in the ftp servers config things > > > should start working. Besides does anyone actually put a real > > > email address as their password anyways :) > > See above. I don't know which ftp server Red Hat is using, but they > have control over what they'll accept. It is not exclusively a client > issue. It wasn't ftp. The protocol was https. Why, I don't know. But there are dozens of ftp sites around and there are plenty of ftp clients that would eliminate the need for arguing over whether things are an act of deliberate destruction, or just plain poor coding and laziness. -- A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking. _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
