My Windows 95 is Dumb!

[Charles Behney <charlesaugust@theriver.com>]

  http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/121697microsoft.html
  NYTIMES
  December 16, 1997
  
  
            Microsoft to Appeal Ruling on Browser, 
            Citing 'Error' by U.S. Judge
  
            By STEVE LOHR
  
  > "Microsoft is doing what in the army is called 'dumb obedience,"' said Andrew Schulman,                    >author of "Unauthorized Windows 95," a guide to the programming features of Windows.                         >"Microsoft's alternative is to roll back the calendar on everything in the operating system,                 >whether it's Internet-related or not." 
  
  Microsoft has depended on dumb obedience from consumers, OEMs and
  businesses, since MS-DOS 2.0. Maybe if they roll back the calendar far
  enough, we can get the true 32 bit API developed for OS2, then NT,
  instead of the false, "I think I'm multitasking" API that is really
  still a 16 bit emulator on Windows 95.
  
  None of the NT pros have yet to respond to my request for information on
  the POSIX security compliance of Windows NT. Is there a C2 secured NT
  machine out there? Has anyone seen a B2, or even a C3? Would you trust a
  national security state to run on NT? SAIC is working on some NT
  networks for the military, but I have yet to hear anything positive
  about the security of NT networks. The truth is still out there.
  
  Does Vin Weber run his precious mailing lists on UNIX or NT? Since he's
  been mass mailing venom and hate since the 70s, I would assume that he
  depends on UNIX for his mailings. You can't trust a counter revolution
  to a Microsoft Exchange Server. 
  
  
  CAB