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

[Walt Reed]

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.