Re: Absurd

[Christopher Pall <x97pall@wmich.edu>]

  > of course; my prediction is that Microsoft will eventually
  > re-sell a version of Linux under their brand) but it's not
  
  Ahh, that would be ethical. Take a free product that works better than
  yours, steal the intellectual property and sell it. You
  sure you worked for that Social Responsiblity group or whatever?
  
  > so bad that the market is rejecting it.  I also think Java
  
  > is mostly useless, and the Java debate irrelivant -- seriously,
  
  > the ratio of Java users to Perl users is like one to 100, so
  
  Perl is server side, Java is used primarily for client side. Perl is the
  language of choice for UNIX based servers. win-CGI is
  going to overtake Perl in no time flat over the next five years. When
  WebTV starts running NT servers you think they're going
  to use Perl? Think again. Is the Java debate irrelevant? What is the
  Java Debate? You're right, the java debate is irrelevant
  when discussing Perl because Perl and Java do not compete. Java is
  client-server ... Perl is server only. (and yes, Java is
  underused)
  
  > the whole controversy simply doesn't matter.  And as for
  > unfair trade practices, if WebTV weren't allowed to bundle
  > the web browser with the operating system our customers would
  > have to plug in PROM chips instead of downloading upgrades
  > from our servers -- so put that in your attache cases and
  > litigate it!!!
  
  Why did your company use MS? Why not Netscape? You were bought out. Your
  company,  TCI, Comcast, and the CEO's of hundreds of
  other companies like what they see when Mr. Gates purchases 15% of their
  company. Those same CEO's clap happily as their stock
  rises. They were bought off.  No other company simply buys other
  companies to win customers.
  
  > As for non-participation in the standards process, that iseven more
  absurd.
  
  > I know one of the Microsoft representatives
  > on the W3C HTML Working Group from my days at Carnegie Mellon,
  > and he has been working very hard to port IE 4 to the Mac.
  
  What does porting IE4 to the Mac have to do with participating in the
  standards process? Porting IE4 has only one important
  implication. Selling more software which relies on more MS controlled
  standards.
  
  > Furthermore, attached is a draft RFC which I submitted just
  > yesterday to solve a problem which was completely ignored when
  > I proposed it while working at Netscape.
  
  Netscape ignored your RFC? Did you work for Netscape at the time? Was
  this work you were doing on your own? How many other
  RFC's do they ignore? What did you want from them? Did MS do something
  different?
  
  --------------------------------------------------
                Christopher Pall
  Delphi Programmer & Western Michigan Student (CS)
                   ThinkBiz
                Kalamazoo MI USA
               X97PALL@WMICH.EDU
  --------------------------------------------------