Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
Peter T. Breuer wrote: > In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> Not if they abuse a monopoly position in doing so, which is where we > >> started. [snip] > O/ses on PC platforms, as determined by the courts. Thanks to their > initial agreement with IBM, and subsequent nasty tactics. So what I'm getting here is, that they abused their monopoly power to secure their initial deal with IBM. Which is what made them a monopoly. MS didn't have a monopoly before IBM, so what kind of draw did they have to make IBM sign the paper, except that they were offering something that IBM wanted, and IBM was willing to pay that much for it? Nobody made IBM sign that deal, IBM thought that it worked out OK for both parties. As for later deals with OEM manufacturers, if it's OK for MS to make that deal with IBM, then why does it suddenly become an "abuse of their power" if they're using the same business model? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure MS has done plenty of shady stuff, and I'm sure most every other sucessful company has. Just because we got a lawsuit to watch for MS doesn't mean other companies like Sony or IBM haven't done similar stuff we've never heard of. I'm just trying to figure out how offering their contract changed from OK to not OK, based purely on how well they were doing... --T Beck -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Jargons of Info Tech industry
Mike Schilling wrote:
> "Rich Teer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Mike Schilling wrote:
> >
> >> Another advantage is that evewry internet-enabled computer today already
> >> comes with an HTML renderer (AKA browser), so that a message saved to a
> >> file
> >> can be read very easily.
> >
> > I think you're missing the point: email and Usenet are, historically have
> > been, and should always be, plain text mediums.
>
> Gosh, if you say they should be, there's no point trying to have an
> intelligent discussion, is there?
Not to mention that e-mail is practically to the point where it is
{not} a plain text medium. I notice this especially in a corporate
environment (where, at least where I work, I get at least 10 times the
number of e-mails at work than I do on my private account) HTML e-mail
is the de-facto standard. I have a tendancy to send out plain text
e-mail, and I'm practically the only one, as HTML formatting is the
default for the mail client on every corporate machine at my job.
But let's not forget that most people which send me e-mail personally
also have HTML tags in e-mail... So if e-mail {is} a plain text
medium, somebody needs to tell the general public, because I think they
must've missed a memo.
If we argue that people are evolving the way e-mail is handled, and
adding entire new feature sets to something which has been around since
the earliest days of the internet, then that's perfectly feasable.
HTML itself has grown. We've also added Javascript and Shockwave. The
websites of today don't even resemble the websites of 10 years ago,
e-mail of today only remotely resembles the original, so the argument
that usenet should never change seems a little heavy-handed and
anachronistic.
--T Beck
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Jargons of Info Tech industry
John Bokma wrote: > "T Beck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If we argue that people are evolving the way e-mail is handled, and > > adding entire new feature sets to something which has been around > > since the earliest days of the internet, then that's perfectly > > feasable. HTML itself has grown. We've also added Javascript and > > Shockwave. > > They are not additions to HTML, like PNG is no addition to HTML, or wav, > mp3, etc. > [snip] Wasn't the point... I never said they were. HTML is at version 4.0(I think?) now, AND we've added extra layers of stuff you can use alongside of it. The internet is a free-flowing evolving place... to try to protect one little segment like usenet from ever evolving is just ensuring it's slow death, IMHO. That's all... --T Beck -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Jargons of Info Tech industry
John Bokma wrote: > "T Beck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > [snip] > > alongside of it. The internet is a free-flowing evolving place... to > > try to protect one little segment like usenet from ever evolving is > > just ensuring it's slow death, IMHO. > > And if so, who cares? As long as people hang out on Usenet it will stay. > Does Usenet need al those extra gimmicks? To me, it would be nice if a > small set would be available. But need? No. > > The death of Usenet has been predicted for ages. And I see only more and > more groups, and maybe more and more people on it. > > As long as people who have to say something sensible keep using it, it > will stay. > I suppose I was (as many people on the internet have a bad habit of doing) being more caustic than was strictly necessary. I don't really forsee the death of usenet anytime soon, I just don't think the idea of it evolving is necessarily bad. I don't really have alot of vested interest one way or the other, to be honest, and I'm perfectly happy with the way it is. I just think it's a naive view to presume it never will change, because change is what the internet as a whole was built on. I think I'll calmly butt out now ^_^ -- T Beck -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
