__/ [ Mark Kent ] on Monday 05 March 2007 01:10 \__
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> __/ [ Linonut ] on Saturday 03 March 2007 18:20 \__
>>
>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Doug Mentohl belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>>
>>>> From bradsi; Mon Feb 10 10:50:05 1992
>>>> To: steveb
>>>> Subject: Re: the message
>>>> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 92 10:50:05 PST
>>>>
>>>> i am saying that we should either:
>>>>
>>>> b) put a kind gentle message in setup. like an incompatible tsr message,
>>>> but not everytime the user starts windows.
>>>> ..
>>>> the most sensible thing from a development standpoint is to continue to
>>>> build dependencies on msdos into windows.
>>>>
>>>> http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/010807/PLEX_3506.pdf
>>>
>>> That's some technical discussion, isn't it?
>>
>> It's technical sabotage.
>>
>
> It's great to have the proof out there, after so many years of paid
> Windows trolls denying this stuff, to have it in black and white, from
> an unimpeachable source, is fantastic.
>
> Even the snipped bit which showed the deliberate intent is very
> important. This, btw, puts a complete stop to the billwg/amicus_curious
> arguments, since this Microsoft memo can be quoted when required.
Rex used to talk a lot about these sorts of things. At the time, I took it
all with a grain of salt. HPT also mentioned something about WP
incompatibilities (DLL collisions, IIRC). Back then, suggesting its
deliberate would seem paranoid. Having read such memos and seen Vista in
action (with *gasp* a stunning collection of 800 approved application, about
100 of which from Microsoft), dirty tricks should be assumed. It's just one
among many memos used in Iowa to demonstrate this tactic.
--
~~ Best wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Partition if an operating $ysteM must be set aside
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
roy pts/4 Sun Mar 4 12:29 still logged in
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
|
|
