RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
-Original Message- From: David Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 3:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Rob; FreeBSD Chat; Andrew Falanga Subject: RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use Don't be foolish. Microsoft would have lost the case if they had admitted the real reasons for what they did. It isn't to MS's benefit to reveal anything about the real reasons they do a thing. That's true, but that completely undercuts your argument. Giving IE away to get revenue for listing root certificates would have been a perfectly legitimate tactic. It would have had *NOTHING* to do with leveraging their Windows monopoly. If Microsoft had been motivated as you claim, saying so would have been a brilliant trial strategy. Why reveal anything if not needed? Microsoft has spend a lot of money creating the image that it is a wise and benevolent software company. It's only us renegade intellectual-property-thieving lyenuks users that are out there throwing mud. Wise and benevolent software companies give away software for the good of mankind. Not for base, grasping greedy money reasons. Not to mention as well if they say that, it undercuts the argument that they deliberately spent money to push Netscape out of business. The argument they were making is oh gee, Netscape crashed, we didn't have anything to do with it It was the other side that claimed that Microsoft's IE push was to protect Windows. Microsoft had no counter argument. The real reason MS was there on trial was - da dum - that they were price-setting the OPERATING SYSTEM prices. The argument was that MS was a legal monopoly of operating systems and acting in an anticompetitive fashion. Why the trial brought Netscape into the trial at all is likely that it was a ploy to generate sympathy. It's still an open and shut case that MS is a monopoly of PC operating system software. That's why they are currently regulated by the EC in Europe. It's why the trial found them to be a monopoly. Forcing them to untie the browser from the OS was a remedy that was dreamed up - but, it really didn't answer the root problem of removing their dominance in the OS market. The argument that somehow the Netscape browser would have evolved into an OS in the future was always highly speculative and driven by the popular press repeating the Sun mantra of write once, run anywhere it was never seriously supported by the industry. Either way that MS would have responded to the assertion that the IE push was to protect windows would have fucked them further. It's a have you stopped beating your wife question. If MS claims that IE's push was to protect windows, then they are just validating the opposition's thesis that a web browser can make a computer operating system. If they deny it, then the opposition says well then them giving away IE is illegal dumping. MS had a large campaign going to misdirect to world. Initially it was to their advantage to get the world to believe that they didn't understand the Internet. In that way, the young Internet startup companies would spend their money fighting each other rather than uniting against Microsoft. It's obvious MS knew from the beginning the importance of the Internet. How quickly you forget TCP/IP and Window for Workgroups. How quickly you forget the addition of the TCP/IP protocol to the DOS/Lanmanager MS client. Even then, MS was working to deny funding to the likes of Trumpet Winsock and suchlike by giving away the Shiva TCP/IP client in the IE for Windows 3.1 That is *my* claim. How do you think this disagrees with what I'm saying? Your claim was that MS feared the Internet. I'm telling you point blank that is total bullcrap. MS never feared the Internet, they planned from day 1 how to make money off of it, and merely regarded it as one more market to exploit. The position I dispute: Microsoft pushed IE to get revenue from root keys who pay millions to be listed. This is perfectly legal and legitimate. My position: Microsoft pushed IE because they saw Java and Netscape as a threat to their Windows monopoly. Wrong. MS pushed IE to get money. Just like every other one of their products. MS sees nothing as a threat. They are far too arrogant to feel threatened by anyone or anything. Maybe once, a couple decades ago, when they were small and weak - then yes, maybe they felt fear. But not within the memory of just about everyone working there now. And when they were small and limp, (ie: micro-and-soft) the only one who really felt fear was Bill Gates - since it was mostly his personal money on the line, and if they went down, he would have suffered the most. Ted ___ freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL
Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 11:07:46PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote: MS dumped a pile of money into development of IE7 because it gets a pile of money in return from the root certificate authorities. Just like MS dumps a pile of money into development of operating systems because they get a pile of money in return from the PC companies that sell PC's with Windows preloaded. All of this rubbish about MS positioning IE so they can take over the Internet (ie: html and browser standards) is a pile of nonsense, it is nothing more than smokescreen mostly from Microsoft, designed to keep customers from understanding how they -really- make money. Ted This is getting really tiring. Do you have such much as a shred of evidence to support this? Yes or no. If you have no evidence, go away. If you have evidence, present it. Just because there is no evidence for a conspiracy doesn't mean it's not real. As someone else pointed out, they believe OJ did it (as do I and many others) yet there is no (or little) evidence he did it. To support Ted's thesis, I'd point out that when the DOJ v MS came to court the browser war was moot, MS had already won. Yet the media concentrated on this aspect of the trial, but if you read Jacksons's findings of fact, it was the general anti-competitive behaviour of MS that Jackson dwelt on, not just browsers, which is why he recommended they be broken up. Why did the media report it like so? Because MS spin doctors were telling the journalists that this was what it was all about. Journalists are lazy, incompetent and technically inept, just like most people, and they couldn't be bothered to pick their way through the findings of fact and understand why MS was presenting this as browser wars rather than as their sustained anti-competitive, monopoly abusing behaviour. It wouldn't surprise me one iota if this smokescreen was to cover up their scamming millions from the root certificate authorities amongst many other abuses. -- Frank Contact info: http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/misc/contact.html ___ freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: amd64 NVIDIA support in FreeBSD 7
Sam Fourman Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Then you have not understood anything at all. The ball is not in nVidia's camp. I understand what has to be done, I just don't see why Nvidia can not donate the code (and 50% of the time) to the FreeBSD code base to make the amd64 Driver happen. They do not have the expertise required to implement those features. Those (very few) who do are busy with other things and / or not interested. I think a FreeBSD bounty Program (if there even is such a thing) is a Great idea. I can think of a bunch of things I would support 1 amd64 Nvidia support 2 better Wine support for FreeBSD, like amd64 support 3 a evdev driver for xorg (so all the buttons on my mx1000 mouse work) just to name a few. It all comes back to what I said the last time this issue came up on the lists: there is not sufficient interest in these features, with the definition of sufficient interest being that someone is interested enough to either learn the necessary skills and write the code, or put enough money on the table to hire someone who already has those skills. These features will be implemented as soon as, and not earlier than, there is sufficient interest in them, according to the definition above. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
-Original Message- From: David Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Rob; FreeBSD Chat; Andrew Falanga Subject: RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use MS dumped a pile of money into development of IE7 because it gets a pile of money in return from the root certificate authorities. Just like MS dumps a pile of money into development of operating systems because they get a pile of money in return from the PC companies that sell PC's with Windows preloaded. All of this rubbish about MS positioning IE so they can take over the Internet (ie: html and browser standards) is a pile of nonsense, it is nothing more than smokescreen mostly from Microsoft, designed to keep customers from understanding how they -really- make money. Ted This is getting really tiring. Do you have such much as a shred of evidence to support this? Yes or no. If you have no evidence, go away. If you have evidence, present it. David, this is getting really tiring. Do you have such much as a shred of evidence to support your assertion that Microsoft was really afraid of anything? Yes or no. If you have no evidence, go away. If you have evidence, present it. Ted ___ freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
-Original Message- From: David Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use I will act as an arbiter for a minute here, can I? The support for your position comes in bulk from historical data. Ted holds that the whole Netscape ordeal was manipulated to intentionally put Microsoft into vulnerable position in that respect, so as to divert attention of the court from other, far more important issues. I cannot judge how right this statement is, but I would thus say you are relying too much on those records being TRUE (a keyword here, means the kind of scientific truthfulness Feynman was lecturing about). This is a better statement of what's wrong with Ted's position than I could ever make, and I thank you. Except that I said nothing about some vast mythical conspiracy But, continue. It's facinating. Like any other conspiracy theory, you must interpret all the historical data according to the rules of the conspiracy. When some off-hand remark supports the conspiracy, it supports the conspiracy. When clear, documented statements conflict with the conspiracy, it is evidence of the conspiracy's effectiveness. If recourse to the historical record is off-limits, all that is left is speculation. The historical record, like any record, is a mixture of truth and falsehood. If we accept, as Ted does, that we can't trust any documentation to reflect any truth at all, I never said that. we will end up concluding whatever position we started with. Anything that conflicts is just evidence of how well the truth we search for was covered up. Ted can point to *no* historical evidence or evidence of any kind to support his claim that this revenue stream was a recognized at the time he claims it was Except I don't do that. or that it ever motivated anyone to do anything. He can argue that it should have and that it would be reasonable for it to have. The biggest counter-argument -- if Microsoft had a legitimate claim like this, they surely would have raised it in court when they faced the equivalent of a corporate death penalty. Microsoft never faced the equivalent of a corporate death penalty. How much do you know about anti-trust law? Apparently nothing. Anti-trust trials are not designed to kill the offending corporation. Even the most famous recent one - the breakup of the Bell system - did not have as it's goal the killing of Bell Telephone. The trials are intended to correct an abnormal market. An abnormal market is one in which a monopoly has gotten all market share worth getting. Note that it isn't important if that happened as a result of all customers choosing the company's products voluntarly or if the company engineered it. The fundamental assumption is that a monopoly hurts consumers because the lack of competition means that according to the capitalist system, consumers will be overcharged without competition in a market. Overcharging hurts consumers. The anti-trust remedy is to break the monopoly up or cause it to divest. It is not to put it out of business. killing Microsoft was never a goal of the anti-trust trial. The problem though is when it came to brass-tacks: the construction of a remedy - the judge realized that making Microsoft divest the applications division - ie: Microsoft Office - would not correct the operating system monopoly. Conversely, divesting the operating system division would not correct the office applications monopoly. In other words, divestiture did not appear to be any kind of a usable remedy. As a result the judgement was to force MS to open it's standards, ie: make it more transparent how the Windows internals work. That goal was largely accomplished. However, what wasn't forseen by the judge (understandable since the judge was an idiot) was that MS would go ahead and open the standards, then start waving the banner of intellectual property infringement about. That is why today the SAMBA project won't let anyone work on the samba code who has seen the Microsoft networking code. The MS networking code is freely available from Microsoft - you just sign a form with them and you get it. Then you will know all about how the SMB implementation on Windows works. If your a commercial software vendor this works fine since your distributing binaries - and Microsoft cannot show those compiled binaries to a judge and claim copyright or patent infringement. But if your distributing an open source implementation of the SMB networking your screwed because Microsoft can see your code, and they can take your code and their code to a judge, show the judge the signed form you signed to get their code, and claim that your infringing on their intellectual property. So in short,
RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
The real reason MS was there on trial was - da dum - that they were price-setting the OPERATING SYSTEM prices. The argument was that MS was a legal monopoly of operating systems and acting in an anticompetitive fashion. Why the trial brought Netscape into the trial at all is likely that it was a ploy to generate sympathy. That's funny because every source I have says that the Microsoft trial started because Microsoft was accused of leveraging its Windows monopoly to win the browser war. I could provide at least a dozen cites about this, including quotes from the lawyer who convinced the DOJ to bring the suit. But I know there's no point, because you'll say that even though he said X, that doesn't prove that X is really why he did it. I'll bet you don't have one shred of evidence to support the claim that the trial wasn't primarily motivated by this alleged use of leverage. It's still an open and shut case that MS is a monopoly of PC operating system software. That's why they are currently regulated by the EC in Europe. It's why the trial found them to be a monopoly. Forcing them to untie the browser from the OS was a remedy that was dreamed up - but, it really didn't answer the root problem of removing their dominance in the OS market. Why is that a problem exactly? Either way that MS would have responded to the assertion that the IE push was to protect windows would have fucked them further. It's a have you stopped beating your wife question. Please explain how responding we gave IE away so we can charge for key inclusion would have harmed Microsoft. This seems like a perfectly legitimate give away the razor and sell the blades approach. It provides an explanation other than protecting Windows, which is exactly what Microsoft would have watned. If MS claims that IE's push was to protect windows, then they are just validating the opposition's thesis that a web browser can make a computer operating system. If they deny it, then the opposition says well then them giving away IE is illegal dumping. This is a nonsensical argument. Selling a razor for less than cost to make money on the blades or a printer for less than cost to make money on ink is perfectly legitimate. Any argument that avoided a reference to their Windows monopoly would have been a huge plus for MS. They raised no such argument. You can argue that this could be because the secret was too valuable to risk, but you can't argue that it wouldn't have helped MS. The position I dispute: Microsoft pushed IE to get revenue from root keys who pay millions to be listed. This is perfectly legal and legitimate. My position: Microsoft pushed IE because they saw Java and Netscape as a threat to their Windows monopoly. Wrong. MS pushed IE to get money. Evidence? Oh right, you don't have any. (Although, of course, as stated this claim is true. The question is by what mechanism this would make money, and there's no evidence at all to support Ted's view.) It is amazing that you tie such a simple issue into such a crazy conspiracy theory. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that anyone recognized the revenue stream from root key inclusion during the browser wars. If this is true, why can't Ted find a single mention of it?! Ted is arguing not just that someone recognized this but that it actually motivated Microsoft. This despite no evidence from any source. DS ___ freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
David, this is getting really tiring. Do you have such much as a shred of evidence to support your assertion that Microsoft was really afraid of anything? Yes or no. If you have no evidence, go away. If you have evidence, present it. Ted Nothing would satisfy you except perhaps a video tape of Bill Gates being nervous. When we talk about a corporation being motivated by fear, we know that a corporation is not a human being and has no feelings. It can't actually be afraid of anything. However, tons of evidence from that time period suggests that Microsoft feared that the Internet could pose a threat to its Windows monopoly in various ways. Tons and tons of evidence supported this view, and the antitrust trial (which Microsoft lost) was about precisely this. I don't deny that Microsoft later found ways to profit from IE. I don't even deny that these ways may have motivated later actions. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that Microsoft saw root key inclusion as a way to profit from IE during the browser wars. There is simply not one shred of evidence to support this view. If Ted had any, he'd present it. I don't deny that it's possible. I don't deny that had Microsoft thought of that at the time, it likely would have motivated them. I simply deny that Microsoft thought of it at the time. This would require a kind of foresight on Gates' part that he simply didn't have. It really doesn't matter whether Bill Gates genuinely feared that the Internet could topple his OS monopoly by making OS unimportant or if he was just covering his bases. The fact is, he acted to leverage his Windows monopoly to kill IE and the only reason with any evidence at all to support it was that it is that this was to protect Windows. You may find some evidence to suggest that Microsoft thought that the browser might be a way to control other markets. For example, if your browser defaults to your portal, then your book selling site might have an advantage over a competitor's. It's quite possible that this also motivated Microsoft to think winning the browser wars was important. There is just no evidence that root key issues had any role in the browser wars. Ted insists they did against all evidence. DS ___ freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
-Original Message- From: David Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 8:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Rob; FreeBSD Chat; Andrew Falanga Subject: RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use The real reason MS was there on trial was - da dum - that they were price-setting the OPERATING SYSTEM prices. The argument was that MS was a legal monopoly of operating systems and acting in an anticompetitive fashion. Why the trial brought Netscape into the trial at all is likely that it was a ploy to generate sympathy. That's funny because every source I have says that the Microsoft trial started because Microsoft was accused of leveraging its Windows monopoly to win the browser war. I could provide at least a dozen cites about this, including quotes from the lawyer who convinced the DOJ to bring the suit. But I know there's no point, because you'll say that even though he said X, that doesn't prove that X is really why he did it. I'll bet you don't have one shred of evidence to support the claim that the trial wasn't primarily motivated by this alleged use of leverage. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm ...II The Relevant Market Currently there are no products, nor are there likely to be any in the near future, that a significant percentage of consumers world-wide could substitute for Intel-compatible PC OPERATING SYSTEMS... ...Therefore, in determining the level of Microsoft's market power, the relevant market is the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC OPERATING SYSTEMS... ...Section 412...Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft's actions have conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate in the computer industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's CORE PRODUCTS Now, was there a big hue and cry in the finding of fact concerning browsers? Certainly. However, the web browser was never a Microsoft core product. I will also point out that the fundamental argument in the fact finding was that Netscape was charging and Microsoft started giving away a web browser for free, forcing Netscape to give theirs away for free - all of this completely ignores that the Netscape code was originally free code, copied from NCSA, and that there were other free web browsers besides Netscape and IE available a the time. In other words, the court was bashing Microsoft for giving away a browser for free to compete against another company that simply took free open source browser AND server code and started charging money for it. That is why the fact finding DID NOT state that the most harmful was that MS misused the so-called browser market. The entire MS is bad because they pushed Netscape out of business argument only makes sense in the context of the times - when a lot of people like you were running around claiming a web browser was an operating system. The original market was NOT defined as a browser market - it was defined as an OPERATING SYSTEM market - and the most harmful actions of Microsoft to the market concerned their CORE PRODUCTS - which at the time were PC OPERATING SYSTEMS. Thomas Penfield Jackson knew at the time that a finding of fact that MS was a monopoly in the BROWSER market would not hold up. So he carefully penned a finding that WOULD hold up - one that's foundations rested on anticompetitive behavior in the OPERATING SYSTEM market - with a lot of Netscape web browser window dressing merely as evidence that MS was a nasty company. The fact of the matter is that the succeeding judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is ignorant of how the computer market works, and is merely a mouthpiece for conservatives. She didn't reverse the findings of fact since she did not have the knowledge of how the market works to understand them. Instead she just issued a remedy that did practically nothing. It's still an open and shut case that MS is a monopoly of PC operating system software. That's why they are currently regulated by the EC in Europe. It's why the trial found them to be a monopoly. Forcing them to untie the browser from the OS was a remedy that was dreamed up - but, it really didn't answer the root problem of removing their dominance in the OS market. Why is that a problem exactly? You know, at this point I'm just going to end this. If you still don't understand why a single computer operating system being the dominant PC operating system is a problem, you are a lost cause, and frankly, your statement has almost certainly killed your credibility with anyone running an operating system other than Windows. Ted ___ freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
-Original Message- From: David Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 8:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Rob; FreeBSD Chat; Andrew Falanga Subject: RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use When we talk about a corporation being motivated by fear, we know that a corporation is not a human being and has no feelings. It can't actually be afraid of anything. However, tons of evidence from that time period suggests that Microsoft feared Oh brother. This would require a kind of foresight on Gates' part that he simply didn't have. It really doesn't matter whether Bill Gates genuinely feared that the Internet First it was Microsoft feared Now it's Bill Gates feared could topple his OS monopoly by making OS unimportant or if he was just covering his bases. The fact is, he acted to leverage his Windows monopoly to kill IE Now your just so carried away that you aren't even paying attention to what your writing. leverage windows to kill IE? You may find some evidence to suggest that Microsoft thought that the browser might be a way to control other markets. For example, if your browser defaults to your portal, then your book selling site might have an advantage over a competitor's. It's quite possible that this also motivated Microsoft to think winning the browser wars was important. There is just no evidence that root key issues had any role in the browser wars. Ted insists they did against all evidence. The root key issue that your so hung up on was a single example cited by me in a response to Chuck Robey's statement that Microsoft is giving away IE. Go back and re-read it. Notice that I DID NOT say in that post that this was the ONLY way that Microsoft makes money of IE. It is you that has somehow jumped to the conclusion that I was asserting this is the ONLY way Microsoft makes money off IE. There's plenty other ways. Ted ___ freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
This would require a kind of foresight on Gates' part that he simply didn't have. It really doesn't matter whether Bill Gates genuinely feared that the Internet First it was Microsoft feared Now it's Bill Gates feared Since I made it precisely clear what I mean in both cases, what exactly is your problem? Obviously, a company can't actually feel fear. could topple his OS monopoly by making OS unimportant or if he was just covering his bases. The fact is, he acted to leverage his Windows monopoly to kill IE Now your just so carried away that you aren't even paying attention to what your writing. leverage windows to kill IE? I've tried to debate with you in good faith, but now you've proven you're just an asshole. I noticed that you put your instead of you're. Perhaps I should ignore your argument because of it. The root key issue that your so hung up on was a single example cited Because your claim on that issue is false. You made a false claim, I pointed out that it was false. The only reason I am so hung up on it is because you continue to defend it despite the fact that there's not one shred of evidence to support it. You added a bit of conspiracy hypothesis to your argument, you got called on it, and now you're pissed. by me in a response to Chuck Robey's statement that Microsoft is giving away IE. Go back and re-read it. Notice that I DID NOT say in that post that this was the ONLY way that Microsoft makes money of IE. It is you that has somehow jumped to the conclusion that I was asserting this is the ONLY way Microsoft makes money off IE. There's plenty other ways. Nice try at rewriting history. Here's your original claim: Those payments are gigantic. Imagine for a second if Verisign told Microsoft to kiss off, they were no longer going to pay Microsoft for renting space in the IE root certificate store. Microsoft would simply issue a root certificate revoke in Windows Updates for the Verisign public key, and a few weeks later millions of users would start getting messages that their browser was no longer recognizing the SSL certificate from ebay, paypal, Wells Fargo, etc. etc. If by some miracle those millions of users were to manually add those CA public keys into their root stores, Microsoft could merely continue to periodically issue revokements. ;-) So now you maybe understand why Microsoft chose to crush Netscape, and why they hand out IE like candy? You specifically said that root key revenue was one of the motivations for Microsoft's decision to crush Netscape and hand out IE like candy. You never said it was the only reason but you did say it was a significant reason. You have still have not provided one shred of evidence to support this claim. In any event, there's no point in trying to debate someone whose mind is closed and is incapable of arguing in good faith. Again, you have yet to present even the tiniest shred of evidence that possible root certificate revenue motivated Microsoft to give away IE or crush Netscape. That remains your personal conspiracy theory, and when it is challenged, you react like all conpsiracy theorists do. DS ___ freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Live CD
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Benjamin Adams wrote: I want to create my own live cd. I'm looking for a good tutorial. Live cd will be off version 7.0 of FreeBSD. http://www.freesbie.org/ I've only made 6.2 ones but I don't see why 7.0 wouldn't work. -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from. -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
