Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Donahoe who wrote (16444)	1/20/1998 5:36:00 PM
From: Bearded One	Respond to of 24154

From John Donahoe's post: "facts are troubling things" John Donahoe, SI, 1998. "Never take seriously anyone who quotes himself." Me, 5 seconds ago.

To: John Donahoe who wrote (16444)	1/20/1998 5:45:00 PM
From: Justin Banks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

John - Can you find them Dan? Even if Dan can't, I can. See Msg. #16430 at Message 3209389 It's easy, John. MSFT doesn't want justice to know this, but it is. If you're really an engineer, and you have any software experience, you'd know this to be true, instead of supporting the outright lies (yes, I said lies) of MSFT. Fess up, your politics isn't libertarian or conservative. Shit, John, it's not moral by any stretch of the word. You don't believe in the market, in truth, or in demostrable fact. You just believe in your portfolio. Truth is, MSFT is going to get caught in a web of lies, deceit, and unbelievable statements. -justinb

To: John Donahoe who wrote (16444)	1/20/1998 5:50:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Thanks for the correction, John. Facts are stubborn things - Adams. Facts are stupid things - Reagan. Facts are troubling things - Donahoe. Any other candidates out there? As to the chosen expert witness, I imagine there was a strategic decision made not to try to get too specific. Bill's a tricky guy, you never know what little traps he might have laid. Sadly, that leaves us with the files left after that add/remove excercise as what everyone would be satisfied with, except for the middle finger crowd. I wouldn't say that's the right answer, but that's an answer. Of course, there's another answer that Microsoft brought up, which in my fashion these days I will throw into the fray for the nth time. Microsoft attorney Steven Holley asked Cole: "The court has ordered Microsoft to give OEMs [original equipment manufacturers] a version of Windows 95 without IE. What would Microsoft have to do to allow other applications to access the Web [without IE]?" Cole said: "We would have to add back some files, change install scripts, and make sure it works. So we would have to do quite a bit of work." (from news.com; So, there we have yet another answer, although it would require a truly awesome amount of work, I'm sure. Leave out that testing part, probably an engineer week or something. Far more work than the lawyer thing and the kinder, gentler offensive by the top executives. Besides, engineers at Microsoft are far more valuable, I'm sure what the lawyers and top dogs make is nothing like what one or two guys to put together this little bone of good faith would cost Microsoft. But, I'm sure you have a substantive answer for this, just as I'm sure you have a substantive answer for my take on your pleasant little IBD piece. It's always more enjoyable to sling ad hominems, though, right? Cheers, Dan.