[Asterisk-Users] US$200 bounty for * paging feature

Wed Apr 20 19:52:59 MST 2005

you did a great parody of him completly ignoring what I was saying and
going off on something unrelated to what I say just to get MS bashing
in.  Gotta love people who disregard what is said thinking that it has
to be all or nothing.  You say that in some way a company did something
that is good beyond themselves and all of a sudden people attack you for
saying that everything the company did is great, which was never said.

I wonder what makes people snap that way.  Is it sheer stupidity and
inability to read or do they live in a total fantasy land.

Now to make this more asterisk, I will be releasing code within a week
that is a better than festival TTS engine.  Caching support, better than
speek and spell v1.1 voice, infact the engine supports a few languages,
male and female speakers and even US & UK english dialects (as well as a
couple dialects of spanish and a few other languages).

On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 15:36 -0400, Race Vanderdecken wrote:
> Wow! What a great fight!
> 
> Let me egg you guys on.
> 
> " Furthermore, (if you knew your history) MS had been doing funny
> things with DOS / and windows to make it difficult for other windowing
> systems and DOS clones to work with MS-DOS / Windows, further cementing
> their market dominance."
> 
> As someone who worked under DOS. And by "under" I mean we loaded first,
> then loaded DOS on top of us so DOS would make the pre-NETBIOS world
> calls and file calls to us. And as one of the Original Windows 1.x, 2.x,
> 3.x, 95, 98, NT, Windows 2000, XP developers I can tell you some
> stories.
> 
> Neither DOS nor MS ever did anything funny to trick anybody. The Code
> was just poor code. Unless you actually meet and worked with Aaron, one
> of the original MS DOS guys, you have a clue.
> 
> Come on. Does anyone really think that a developer would try to cheat
> people?
> 
> It was those business clowns who lied; not the developers.
> 
> Why is it that the conspiracy guys are all lousy developers or spaceship
> probed Red Necks?
> 
> Long live Linux! Screw Apple. I hope MS goes broke. 
> 
> Race "the tyrannical ludite" Vandedecken
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com
> [mailto:asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Walt Reed
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 2:21 PM
> To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] US$200 bounty for * paging feature
> 
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 09:01:56AM -0700, trixter
> http://www.0xdecafbad.com said:
> > On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 09:36 -0400, Walt Reed wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 06:24:09PM -0700, trixter
> http://www.0xdecafbad.com said:
> > > > as a whole.  I enjoy cheap computers, if it were not for microsoft
> > > > creating windows, making computers easier to use for everyone, the
> mass
> > > > production and highly competitive hardware market would not exist.
> If
> > > > that didnt happen the $300 computer of today would likely not
> exist, and
> > > > if it did it would cost more like computers did 20 years ago,
> $2000+ for
> > > > a bare system.
> > > 
> > > <rantmode>
> > > 
> > > Um, that's total bullshit. Low computer prices and "ease of use"
> would have
> > > existed if MS was never around. You completely dismiss billions of
> man
> > > hours of hard work by those outside MS making advances in hardware
> and
> > > software around the world. To make a statement like that, you show a
> > > total lack of knowledge of the industry. 
> > > 
> > 
> > and hoiw many operating systems were so popular during the 80s and
> early
> > 90s?  What operating system shipped on almost every computer during
> that
> > period?
> 
> BTW, in the 80's, it wasn't windows - it was DOS (I know, well before
> your time.) Again, nobody could really compete with the IBM / MS /
> compaq x86 platform dominance, so the ONLY real choice on that platform
> was Dos, although there were a few specialty OS's and extensions (OS/2,
> QNX, Desqview/X, etc.) I realize you wouldn't know about them, comming
> into the game rather late. It wasn't until Windows 3.1 in the early 90's
> that there was a relativly stable (if you could call it that) windowing
> system from MS (despite that other companies had been doing it for many
> years.) Bundling and restrictive contracts made it impossible to
> compete. Furthermore, (if you knew your history) MS had been doing funny
> things with DOS / and windows to make it difficult for other windowing
> systems and DOS clones to work with MS-DOS / Windows, further cementing
> their market dominance.
> 
> > I dont think I lack understanding of the industry I think that I
> > remember clearly that windows was shipped on that, I think that
> whether
> > or not it resulted in an anti-trust conviction microsoft did make it
> > easier for people to use computers and thus more sold.
> 
> Again, your lack of experience with and knowledge of other OS's shows
> otherwise.
>  
> > I am sorry that you are so bigioted to think that other operating
> > systems dominated the market during that period, and cant accept that
> > windows was the #1 operating system by a clear margin in terms of
> > installed systems.
> 
> Did I say they dominated? No. Please work on your reading comprehention.
> There was competition on the OS front, but it's hard to knock out the
> market leader, and impossible when they won't play fairly (legally.)
> 
> > > > I have worked for over 10 years in the software development
> industry and
> > > 
> > > Then you entered the industry far too late to know the real history
> of
> > > computing, have read too many MS revisionist history books, or were
> > > hiding under a rock.
> > > 
> > 
> > I started using computers in 1976.  I dont think I entered too late.
> As
> > for reading MS revisionist history books, no but I think that you have
> > been readiung too many anti-MS revisionist history books.  The
> > popularity of a personal computer in the home was not made with cp/m
> it
> > was not made with coherent (a unix for the pc before linux was
> around).
> > It was not made by os/2, it was not made by any mac.  Computers did
> not
> > fully become so incredibly popular until windows.  look at any
> > historical sales reports and see when the numbers started increasing
> > dramatically.
> 
> Again, bundling, restrictive contracts, buying and killing your
> competition, sueing your competition, not working with standardsm etc.
> These are the things that created the dominance.  You can't possible
> comprehend reality until you are willing to accept these facts. BTW, if
> you really started using computers in 76, in what capcity? Playing Pong?
>  
> > Recall all the software shops that sold software, why was it that at
> > least 90% was for windows and the remaining 10% for all other
> operating
> > systems for a great many years?  Why did all the computer shows that
> > were oh so popular during that period sell mostly for the wintel
> > platform?  
> 
> That was not always true. If you REALLY have been professionally using
> computers since 76 (or even 1990) you would realize that this was not
> true until the early 90's. 
>  
> > > For example, The Amiga for example had a wonderful OS, great
> > > multi-tasking, awesome windowing interface etc. over 10 years before
> MS
> > 
> > but it never sold as well.  You fail to understand that its sales that
> > drove the cost down.  os/2 was better than windows at multitasking
> too,
> > but again it didnt sell so well.  Granted there was evilness by
> > microsoft that resulted in antitrust convictions over some of that but
> > you just proved how clueless you are.
> 
> How many times do I have to say it? Bundling, restrictive contracts,
> unfair / illegal business practices!!! 
> 
> > You know nothing if you try to bring up the amiga when we are talking
> > about sales.  
> 
> Um, re-read my paragraph below that you had to move out of the way when
> you typed that.
> 
> > And you try to say that I dont know what I am talking
> > about?
> 
> Damn straight. Exactly. And your reading comprehention sucks.
> 
>  
> > > (some would argue longer.) Comodore didn't have a chance against the
> > > mighty combo of IBM, MS, Compaq. and other x86 hardware and software
> > > vendors in the business world (the Amiga was originally designed as
> a
> > > game machine and could never escape the stigma AND had the same
> > > bone-headed single hardware source issue that Apple has. Poor
> management
> > > / marketing also contributed to the companies death.) (Speaking of
> > > Apple, it boggles the mind that it took them over 15 years to add
> > > multi-tasking to their product line - and yes, I am dismissing their
> > > prior failed unix attempt.)
> > > 
> > You make excuses for the fact that they didnt sell as well as
> microsoft,
> > and still try to insist that I dont know what I am talking about when
> I
> > say that MS sold more units which drove the cost down (I specifically
> > made that point in my previous email).
>  
> Computers would have sold in similar numbers without Windows / DOS.
> Someone else would have taken their place, and it most likely would have
> been a better product. That, my friend, is the reality you refuse to
> accept. What you are claiming is that that nobody else could have
> possibly done the same thing. That's crap. As I pointed out, superiour
> technology existed YEARS yearlier. Bill just happened to be in the right
> place at the right time. Go read the history of MS-DOS and learn.
>  
> > > MS has no effective competition due to their illegal business
> practices,
> > > killing off alternatives (BeOS is a recent example) by pressuring
> large ISV's
> > > to only write for the Windows OS, restrictive contracts with
> hardware
> > > vendors, and other sleezy tactics. They effectivly killed Java on
> the
> > > desktop. They continue with a powerful FUD campaign against Linux, 
> > > Apple, Firefox, etc. I could go on, and on, and on.
> > > 
> > Yes and you would be proving me right and that you have no clue when
> you
> > say I am wrong.  Thanks for that.
> 
> I noticed that you didn't refute any of my claims. Hmm. 
> 
> > > publicly available documentation is a good thing.) Unfortunately the
> > > reality of business means that we have to deal with this horrible
> > > corporation and their aweful software. MS and their single platform
> (for
> > > servers and desktop anyway) means that we are still saddled with the
> > > horrible x86 architecture, the interrupt structure, bus, bios, etc.
> > > (essentially most everything about a PC.) By the way, that
> architecture
> > > is why it's so hard to make reliable hardware, why we need an
> external
> > > card to get a reliable timer device, etc.
> > > 
> > 
> > Deal with them?  You started this out by saying I was wrong that MS
> > wasnt that big of a coimpany.  Why would you have to deal with them.
> 
> Again, your reading comprehention is horrible. You can't even remeber
> what you wrote above!!! I quote again: 
> 
>   if it were not for microsoft creating windows, making computers easier
>   to use for everyone, the mass production and highly competitive
> hardware
>   market would not exist.
> 
> This is the prime statement I am disputing. Again, it totally dismissing
> such basic concepts as Moore's law, and dismisses all the work done by
> everyone outside of MS. I am NOT disputing that MS is a large company.
> Nowhere did I claim otherwise. You also dismissed my facts by ignoring
> them.
> 
> > Oh I get it you are clueless and just wanted to tell me I am wrong
> > becuase I said something good about MS and that affects your religion.
> 
> No, it's simply because you made (and continue to make) statements that
> are untrue. As for religion, I am not the one making bogus statements
> that MS was the cause of all computer good.
> 
> > My mistake I wont offend your religion anymore, even though as you
> > pointed out MS sold more units, and it was their operating system
> > (windows specifically) that made it easier for a great many people to
> > use computers, and as a result more systems sold which makes hardware
> > cheaper.  I do love cheap hardware.  
> 
> See above. 
> 
> > > Before you spout off about how great MS has been to the industry,
> maybe
> > > you should learn a little about that industry and it's history
> first,
> > > M-kay?
> > > 
> > 
> > I learned from you that I am right and you are nothing more than a
> bigot
> > who cant form a coherent argument to support his side, but can form
> one
> > to support the person he called an idiot.
>  
> Pot, meet kettle. You can refute none of my statments, instead make
> personal attacks. Go home little boy. You are way out of your league.
> 
> Maybe some day you will grow up enough to stop hiding behind an alias,
> but then people would know just how ignorant you really are.
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Users mailing list
> Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Users mailing list
> Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
-- 
Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com
UK +44 870 340 4605   Germany +49 801 777 555 3402
US +1 360 207 0479 or +1 516 687 5200
FreeWorldDialup: 635378
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20050420/e013f13d/attachment.pgp