Stefan Nobis wrote:
>
> Dave McFadden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If MS is successful at 'embracing and extending' Java, then HTML, TCP/IP
> > and the OSS world will soon feel the suffocating arms of MS wrapped around
> > them.
How does HTML and TCP/IP depends on Java? Java will o
Dave McFadden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If MS is successful at 'embracing and extending' Java, then HTML, TCP/IP
> and the OSS world will soon feel the suffocating arms of MS wrapped around
> them.
Hey, don't forget some people even managed to decode SMB for NT in the
SAMBA project. If MS re
At 11:46 PM 11/7/98 +1100, Hamish Moffat wisely observed:
>He makes the point that IBM developed Token Ring to decommodize Ethernet.
>That may be true, but Token Ring was a better system than Ethernet. As
>MCA is/was better than ISA. Both of these lost out because they required
>licensing. Is there
On Fri, Nov 06, 1998 at 06:48:31AM -0500, John Forest wrote:
> While all this cloak and dagger stuff makes for good entertainment, I believe
> the following link sums up my feeling on this a lot better then I could.
>
> http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit19981105.html
He makes the point tha
Hi,
While all this cloak and dagger stuff makes for good entertainment, I believe
the following link sums up my feeling on this a lot better then I could.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit19981105.html
Got that from http://slashdot.org
John.
On Fri, Nov 06, 1998 at 11:14:47AM +, Jiri Baum wrote:
> Just because it's confidential doesn't mean it wasn't leaked
> intentionally... Say with a view of getting some feedback on their
> analysis from us. Perhaps unlikely, but possible.
Indeed. The memo mentions that they have list archives
On Wed, Nov 04, 1998 at 12:09:54PM +0100, Roberto Ripio wrote:
> El Wed, 04 Nov 1998, Chad A. Adlawan escribió:
> > http://www.opensource.org/halloween.html
Very interesting. I can't believe they describe Gimp 1.0 as Paintbrush.
At least they weren't stupid enough to say nasty things about Pe
Hello,
George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, Jiri Baum wrote:
... [extra level of indenting still Jiri]
> > > While this appears at first sight to be a classic play out of the
> > > Microsoft handbook, there is a subtle but very important
> > > distinction. By releasing th
Hello,
rick wrote:
> chuck asked,
>
> > Me too! I'm usually a very cautious person...How do we *know* that this
...
> There's enough in there contrary to the ms party line that it's quite
> clear that it's confidential.
Just because it's confidential doesn't mean it wasn't leaked
intentionally
>> "NEN" == Nathan E Norman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
NEN> Never assume that people, especially management, are rational.
Well, I am studying economics. I hope me and others can turn this
around sometime in the future :-)
This semester, I have lectures in decision theory. On base of rational
On Fri, Nov 06, 1998 at 12:25:27PM +1300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Also, it's unlikely that this was deliberatly "leaked" by microsoft
> (IMHO), because it's not exactly good publicity for them. Far more PR
> damage is possible because of (admittedly somewhat backhanded) admissions
> of how w
On 6 Nov 1998, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
:
: >> "A" == AJT60 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
: A> On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
:
: >> M$ had confirmed, that this document is a M$ memo. See slashdot for
: >> the pointer.
:
: A> Also, it's unlikely that this was deliber
On Thu, Nov 05, 1998 at 05:02:43PM +, Thomas Lakofski wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Nov 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Me too! I'm usually a very cautious person...How do we *know* that this
> > has even originated from MicroSoft? So there is the issue of whether or
> > not it's from MS, and if it
On Thu, Nov 05, 1998 at 09:28:45AM -0200, Vera Lucia Mazzocchi wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I was thinking if this document wasn't released purposely, that
> is, "let them know only what we want they know" and "let's see what they
> think about". Seems to me that M$ might be playing with us, releasi
Richard E. Hawkins Esq. said
> chuck asked,
>
> > Me too! I'm usually a very cautious person...How do we *know* that this
> > has even originated from MicroSoft? So there is the issue of whether or
> > not it's from MS, and if it is it it truly "confidential"?
>
> Is the Wall Street Journal a g
>> "A" == AJT60 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
A> On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
>> M$ had confirmed, that this document is a M$ memo. See slashdot for
>> the pointer.
A> Also, it's unlikely that this was deliberatly "leaked" by microsoft
A> (IMHO), because it's not exactly good p
On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
> >> "s" == stick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> s> Me too! I'm usually a very cautious person...How do we *know* that this
> s> has even originated from MicroSoft? So there is the issue of whether or
> s> not it's from MS, and if it is it it trul
>> "s" == stick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
s> Me too! I'm usually a very cautious person...How do we *know* that this
s> has even originated from MicroSoft? So there is the issue of whether or
s> not it's from MS, and if it is it it truly "confidential"?
M$ had confirmed, that this document
chuck asked,
> Me too! I'm usually a very cautious person...How do we *know* that this
> has even originated from MicroSoft? So there is the issue of whether or
> not it's from MS, and if it is it it truly "confidential"?
Is the Wall Street Journal a good enough source? :) Tuesday morning's
W
On Thu, 5 Nov 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Me too! I'm usually a very cautious person...How do we *know* that this
> has even originated from MicroSoft? So there is the issue of whether or
> not it's from MS, and if it is it it truly "confidential"?
It was confirmed by MS. See slashdot.org
Vera Lucia Mazzocchi said
>
> Hi,
>
> I was thinking if this document wasn't released purposely, that
> is, "let them know only what we want they know" and "let's see what they
> think about". Seems to me that M$ might be playing with us, releasing
> such document, or allowing somebody to
Hi,
I was thinking if this document wasn't released purposely, that
is, "let them know only what we want they know" and "let's see what they
think about". Seems to me that M$ might be playing with us, releasing
such document, or allowing somebody to have access and releasing it.
Hello,
Roberto Ripio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| El Wed, 04 Nov 1998, Chad A. Adlawan escribi¢:
...
| >This is an excellent doc that was leaked out of MS on the future
| >issue of Open Source OSes like Linux, etc. The hosting WWW site
...
| As published, the document is edited by Eric S. Raymond
El Wed, 04 Nov 1998, Chad A. Adlawan escribió:
>Hi everyone ! Anyway, i glanced on this one from David Ranch's page
>and some of you might be intersted in reading it.
>
>
>This is an excellent doc that was leaked out of MS on the future
>issue of O
24 matches
Mail list logo
