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
Hi everyone ! Anyway, i glanced on this one from David Ranch's page
and some of you might be intersted in reading it.
Cheers,
Chad
This is an excellent doc that was leaked out of MS on the future
issue of Open Source OSes like Linux, etc. The hos
25 matches
Mail list logo
