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

[trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com]

On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 14:20 -0400, Walt Reed wrote:

> > 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

stupid feeble attack aside, windows started in 1983, windows 1.0 was 85
windows 2.0 was 87.  Windows 3.0 was may 1990.  Does that not fit into
my 80s and 90s comment?  I think it does.  

> 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 never claimed that MS was not doing stuff, infact I specifically
mentioned their anti-trust conviction for the games they played in the
80s (they have had at least 17 cases for antitrust violations over the
years).  I also specifically mentioned os/2 yet you imply that I wouldnt
know about that because coming into computers in 1976 I came in late.  I
question when you came into the game given how many false things you
have said to support your theory that if you say anything good at all
about microsoft you are inherently evil.

You need to stop trying to start a flame war over this.  Accept the fact
that while you may not agree with the company, what it does or even its
product, it did help sell a ton of computers.  That increase in sales
did help lower prices.  And that that is all I said not the other things
that you are trying to bring into this.


> > 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.
>  
http://www.computerhope.com/history/windows.htm

perhaps your lack of knowledge makes you think that you somehow know
something that you dont.  Nothing I said was untrue, much of what you
said is untrue.  I also never said that I agreed with microsoft 100% on
everything, however you implied that I did.  Such a shame that you cant
read what you are replying to.



> > 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 never said they played legal, I said they made computers easier to
use, and they did do that.  I said they sold a bunch of units, which
they did do that.  I also said that the volume of computer sales pushed
prices down, which it did.  

You brought up operating systems (some of which I brought up before you)
that did not sell so well, and as such they could not have had the
impact that microsoft products did.

You played the what if game.  Saying that due to MS being unfair these
other companies didnt have a chance.  That doesnt change the fact that
they didnt sell as well, regardless of the reasons.  

Your bigotry over this issue is really sad.  You have my pity.


> > > > 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?
>  
That is only a valid argument to say MS did things that are evil, not to
say that they didnt move a bunch of product.  You appear to be trying to
say that if MS hadnt done those things then it would all be different,
and that very well may be true, but that isnt what happened, you cant
rewrite history simply by stating that a company did illegal things to
get ahead.  The fact remains they did get ahead and they did help to
sell a bunch more units, which drove the per unit cost down, and I like
cheap computers, something microsoft had a big hand in doing.  

Could someone else have done that?  Perhaps.  But they did not.
Regardless of reasons, regardless of emotion and bigotry the fact still
remains that MS did.  

As for using computers in 76 I used a z80 with s100 bus running cp/m to
do trivial tasks.  My dad made most of it my mom made a little bit of
it.  By made I dont mean from a kit or prefab boards either.  In 1979 I
started using prime computers and started programming in dartmouth
basic, coincidentally that is the year I started playing with worldwide
networks (prime had their own internal one).  But since I was only going
to work with my father (who did education for prime) I did not
professionally do anything.  Thus my comments about being in the
industry professional for over 10 years still holds.  That does not mean
that I only used computers for 10 years.


> > 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. 
>  
Again your inability to read shows itself.  I never said I used
computers professionally since 76.  You really should take remedial
reading courses so you can make coherent arguments instead of responding
to stuff that was never said.

As for early 90s, no.  In the late 80s there were many computer stores
(most also did hardware at that time) that sold x86 clones.  I got my
first x86 box from such a shop in the mid 80s.  There were several
within 10-15 miles from my house at that point. Most of them went
bankrupt when the price wars started becuase they had inventory which
they couldnt move for what they paid, but they were there before the
90s.


> > > 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!!! 
> 

How many times do I have to say it that doesnt change the fact that it
didnt sell!  You cant rewrite history by saying they were there and its
MSs fault they couldnt sell.  The fact remains they didnt sell.  


> > 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.
> 

See above for yuor inability to read and understand even the basic of
concepts.  I however have been able to not only read what you say but
point out where you were inable to read.  As such you have proven yet
again your iq must be at least 3 points below a rock.



> 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.
>  

That is a guess and not supported by fact.  Anyone can guess what would
have happened, the only sure thing is what did happen.  And that is what
I have been saying, what *did* happen.  You keep bringing up all these
points that have nothing to do with what I said and then claim I cant
read.  Why dont you stick to what the conversation was over.  Let me
make it really simple for you, yet again.

1. low computer prices are in large part due to high volume sales
(competition)
2. people en masse got computers in their homes initially because they
were easier to use
3. microsoft was the operating system that many people got
4. 2 & 3 are inextricibly intertwined.  

That doesnt change regardless of how 3 came to be, that doesnt change if
you play the what if game and pretend MS never existed.  The *fact* is
that they did exist, they did sell their product, and they did help spur
computer sales.


> > > 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. 
> 

Are you that blind?  I actually did.  You like to pretend that MS doesnt
exist, I am now thinking that you like to pretend that I didnt respond
to you.  Maybe you just like to live in a whole makebelieve world where
everything you say is gospel and anyone who disagrees really didnt do
that.

You should seek help for that, it may be the sign of a moreserious
mental condition.

> > 
> > 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.
> 

I bet you dont even know moores law.  You prolly know the incorrect
media version but not what Moore actually said.

Every 18 months the number of transistors will double.  He did not say
the speed will double, which most people think.  Later when asked about
that he did not deny it but never admitted that is what he meant.  And
until the pentium series the speed doubling held, however about the time
of the pentium or pentium II they started doubling faster than every 18
months (instruction optimization, better caching and realted
technologies), however the transistors still doubled about only ever 18
months.  

As for MS putting the software on I said that if they didnt do what they
did the hardware people wouldnt have been able to do what they did.
That doesnt go against the work of others outside of MS it states
clearly that MS helped them do what they do.  

I refuse to play makebelieve and pretend MS didnt exist and what would
have happened if someone else tried.  os/2 wouldnt have existed if not
for microsoft (IBM really hasnt written an OS themselves, even AIX was
written by contractors largely from pencom).  Microsoft also did a lot
of work for xenix (why solaris /bin/login code in 2.5.1 had copyright
microsoft in the comments).   All of that as an aside, had MS not done
what they did people would not have bought computers the way they did.
Perhaps someone would have done something in their place, perhaps not.
It is really hard to say because I dont have a time machine and dont
believe that I can go back in time and rewrite history.


> > 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.
> 
I never said that they were the cause of all good, I speciufically
talked about their antitrust convictions in previous emails, why didnt
you pick up on that?  I also said that how they did what they did doesnt
matter when looking at the fact that they *did* sell a lot of units, and
that helped the competition in the hardware market which made computers
cheaper.

Why are you having such a problem with this?  You act again like I have
offended your religion by saying that microsoft did something good, that
your whole makebelieve world is going to come crashing down.  And
perhaps given your previous statements this is the case, that if you
actually take your head out of your ass and stop pretending that stuff
was said that wasnt and that stuff that did happen didnt then you would
see that its all different from how the voices in your head tell you it
is.


> 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.
> 
you refuse to read when I refute your statements instead everytime I
refute your statement you make some off the wall not even discussing the
same thing comment proving your inability to read.  Or perhaps you go
into the land of makebelieve and pretend that everything is different
from reality.

> 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.

My name is on my webpage, my address in my whois info.  Hardly hiding.
And I am glad to see that you proved once again that you are quite
clueless.  I suggest aol for you, it seems more your speed.

-- 
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/20050420/26f5a013/attachment.pgp