<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2627" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Alright, so what does this (now mangled) thread have to do with
Asterisk again?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=asterisk@linuxguy.com href="mailto:asterisk@linuxguy.com">Walt
Reed</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=asterisk-users@lists.digium.com
href="mailto:asterisk-users@lists.digium.com">Asterisk Users Mailing List -
Non-Commercial Discussion</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, April 20, 2005 2:20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Asterisk-Users] US$200
bounty for * paging feature</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 09:01:56AM -0700, trixter <A
href="http://www.0xdecafbad.com">http://www.0xdecafbad.com</A> said:<BR>>
On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 09:36 -0400, Walt Reed wrote:<BR>> > On Tue, Apr
19, 2005 at 06:24:09PM -0700, trixter <A
href="http://www.0xdecafbad.com">http://www.0xdecafbad.com</A> said:<BR>>
> > as a whole. I enjoy cheap computers, if it were not for
microsoft<BR>> > > creating windows, making computers easier to use
for everyone, the mass<BR>> > > production and highly competitive
hardware market would not exist. If<BR>> > > that didnt happen
the $300 computer of today would likely not exist, and<BR>> > > if it
did it would cost more like computers did 20 years ago, $2000+ for<BR>>
> > a bare system.<BR>> > <BR>> > <rantmode><BR>>
> <BR>> > Um, that's total bullshit. Low computer prices and "ease of
use" would have<BR>> > existed if MS was never around. You completely
dismiss billions of man<BR>> > hours of hard work by those outside MS
making advances in hardware and<BR>> > software around the world. To
make a statement like that, you show a<BR>> > total lack of knowledge of
the industry. <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> and hoiw many operating systems
were so popular during the 80s and early<BR>> 90s? What operating
system shipped on almost every computer during that<BR>>
period?<BR><BR>BTW, in the 80's, it wasn't windows - it was DOS (I know, well
before<BR>your time.) Again, nobody could really compete with the IBM / MS
/<BR>compaq x86 platform dominance, so the ONLY real choice on that
platform<BR>was Dos, although there were a few specialty OS's and extensions
(OS/2,<BR>QNX, Desqview/X, etc.) I realize you wouldn't know about them,
comming<BR>into the game rather late. It wasn't until Windows 3.1 in the early
90's<BR>that there was a relativly stable (if you could call it that)
windowing<BR>system from MS (despite that other companies had been doing it
for many<BR>years.) Bundling and restrictive contracts made it impossible
to<BR>compete. Furthermore, (if you knew your history) MS had been doing
funny<BR>things with DOS / and windows to make it difficult for other
windowing<BR>systems and DOS clones to work with MS-DOS / Windows, further
cementing<BR>their market dominance.<BR><BR>> I dont think I lack
understanding of the industry I think that I<BR>> remember clearly that
windows was shipped on that, I think that whether<BR>> or not it resulted
in an anti-trust conviction microsoft did make it<BR>> easier for people to
use computers and thus more sold.<BR><BR>Again, your lack of experience with
and knowledge of other OS's shows<BR>otherwise.<BR> <BR>> I am sorry
that you are so bigioted to think that other operating<BR>> systems
dominated the market during that period, and cant accept that<BR>> windows
was the #1 operating system by a clear margin in terms of<BR>> installed
systems.<BR><BR>Did I say they dominated? No. Please work on your reading
comprehention.<BR>There was competition on the OS front, but it's hard to
knock out the<BR>market leader, and impossible when they won't play fairly
(legally.)<BR><BR>> > > I have worked for over 10 years in the
software development industry and<BR>> > <BR>> > Then you entered
the industry far too late to know the real history of<BR>> > computing,
have read too many MS revisionist history books, or were<BR>> > hiding
under a rock.<BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> I started using computers in
1976. I dont think I entered too late. As<BR>> for reading MS
revisionist history books, no but I think that you have<BR>> been readiung
too many anti-MS revisionist history books. The<BR>> popularity of a
personal computer in the home was not made with cp/m it<BR>> was not made
with coherent (a unix for the pc before linux was around).<BR>> It was not
made by os/2, it was not made by any mac. Computers did not<BR>>
fully become so incredibly popular until windows. look at any<BR>>
historical sales reports and see when the numbers started increasing<BR>>
dramatically.<BR><BR>Again, bundling, restrictive contracts, buying and
killing your<BR>competition, sueing your competition, not working with
standardsm etc.<BR>These are the things that created the dominance. You
can't possible<BR>comprehend reality until you are willing to accept these
facts. BTW, if<BR>you really started using computers in 76, in what capcity?
Playing Pong?<BR> <BR>> Recall all the software shops that sold
software, why was it that at<BR>> least 90% was for windows and the
remaining 10% for all other operating<BR>> systems for a great many
years? Why did all the computer shows that<BR>> were oh so popular
during that period sell mostly for the wintel<BR>> platform?
<BR><BR>That was not always true. If you REALLY have been professionally
using<BR>computers since 76 (or even 1990) you would realize that this was
not<BR>true until the early 90's. <BR> <BR>> > For example, The
Amiga for example had a wonderful OS, great<BR>> > multi-tasking,
awesome windowing interface etc. over 10 years before MS<BR>> <BR>> but
it never sold as well. You fail to understand that its sales
that<BR>> drove the cost down. os/2 was better than windows at
multitasking too,<BR>> but again it didnt sell so well. Granted there
was evilness by<BR>> microsoft that resulted in antitrust convictions over
some of that but<BR>> you just proved how clueless you are.<BR><BR>How many
times do I have to say it? Bundling, restrictive contracts,<BR>unfair /
illegal business practices!!! <BR><BR>> You know nothing if you try to
bring up the amiga when we are talking<BR>> about sales. <BR><BR>Um,
re-read my paragraph below that you had to move out of the way when<BR>you
typed that.<BR><BR>> And you try to say that I dont know what I am
talking<BR>> about?<BR><BR>Damn straight. Exactly. And your reading
comprehention sucks.<BR><BR> <BR>> > (some would argue longer.)
Comodore didn't have a chance against the<BR>> > mighty combo of IBM,
MS, Compaq. and other x86 hardware and software<BR>> > vendors in the
business world (the Amiga was originally designed as a<BR>> > game
machine and could never escape the stigma AND had the same<BR>> >
bone-headed single hardware source issue that Apple has. Poor
management<BR>> > / marketing also contributed to the companies death.)
(Speaking of<BR>> > Apple, it boggles the mind that it took them over 15
years to add<BR>> > multi-tasking to their product line - and yes, I am
dismissing their<BR>> > prior failed unix attempt.)<BR>> >
<BR>> You make excuses for the fact that they didnt sell as well as
microsoft,<BR>> and still try to insist that I dont know what I am talking
about when I<BR>> say that MS sold more units which drove the cost down (I
specifically<BR>> made that point in my previous
email).<BR> <BR>Computers would have sold in similar numbers without
Windows / DOS.<BR>Someone else would have taken their place, and it most
likely would have<BR>been a better product. That, my friend, is the reality
you refuse to<BR>accept. What you are claiming is that that nobody else could
have<BR>possibly done the same thing. That's crap. As I pointed out,
superiour<BR>technology existed YEARS yearlier. Bill just happened to be in
the right<BR>place at the right time. Go read the history of MS-DOS and
learn.<BR> <BR>> > MS has no effective competition due to their
illegal business practices,<BR>> > killing off alternatives (BeOS is a
recent example) by pressuring large ISV's<BR>> > to only write for the
Windows OS, restrictive contracts with hardware<BR>> > vendors, and
other sleezy tactics. They effectivly killed Java on the<BR>> > desktop.
They continue with a powerful FUD campaign against Linux, <BR>> > Apple,
Firefox, etc. I could go on, and on, and on.<BR>> > <BR>> Yes and you
would be proving me right and that you have no clue when you<BR>> say I am
wrong. Thanks for that.<BR><BR>I noticed that you didn't refute any of
my claims. Hmm. <BR><BR>> > publicly available documentation is a good
thing.) Unfortunately the<BR>> > reality of business means that we have
to deal with this horrible<BR>> > corporation and their aweful software.
MS and their single platform (for<BR>> > servers and desktop anyway)
means that we are still saddled with the<BR>> > horrible x86
architecture, the interrupt structure, bus, bios, etc.<BR>> >
(essentially most everything about a PC.) By the way, that
architecture<BR>> > is why it's so hard to make reliable hardware, why
we need an external<BR>> > card to get a reliable timer device,
etc.<BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> Deal with them? You started this out
by saying I was wrong that MS<BR>> wasnt that big of a coimpany. Why
would you have to deal with them.<BR><BR>Again, your reading comprehention is
horrible. You can't even remeber<BR>what you wrote above!!! I quote again:
<BR><BR> if it were not for microsoft creating windows, making computers
easier<BR> to use for everyone, the mass production and highly
competitive hardware<BR> market would not exist.<BR><BR>This is the
prime statement I am disputing. Again, it totally dismissing<BR>such basic
concepts as Moore's law, and dismisses all the work done by<BR>everyone
outside of MS. I am NOT disputing that MS is a large company.<BR>Nowhere did I
claim otherwise. You also dismissed my facts by ignoring<BR>them.<BR><BR>>
Oh I get it you are clueless and just wanted to tell me I am wrong<BR>>
becuase I said something good about MS and that affects your
religion.<BR><BR>No, it's simply because you made (and continue to make)
statements that<BR>are untrue. As for religion, I am not the one making bogus
statements<BR>that MS was the cause of all computer good.<BR><BR>> My
mistake I wont offend your religion anymore, even though as you<BR>>
pointed out MS sold more units, and it was their operating system<BR>>
(windows specifically) that made it easier for a great many people to<BR>>
use computers, and as a result more systems sold which makes hardware<BR>>
cheaper. I do love cheap hardware. <BR><BR>See above. <BR><BR>>
> Before you spout off about how great MS has been to the industry,
maybe<BR>> > you should learn a little about that industry and it's
history first,<BR>> > M-kay?<BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> I learned
from you that I am right and you are nothing more than a bigot<BR>> who
cant form a coherent argument to support his side, but can form one<BR>> to
support the person he called an idiot.<BR> <BR>Pot, meet kettle. You can
refute none of my statments, instead make<BR>personal attacks. Go home little
boy. You are way out of your league.<BR><BR>Maybe some day you will grow up
enough to stop hiding behind an alias,<BR>but then people would know just how
ignorant you really
are.<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Asterisk-Users
mailing list<BR><A
href="mailto:Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com">Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com</A><BR><A
href="http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users">http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users</A><BR>To
UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:<BR> <A
href="http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users">http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users</A><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>