[Asterisk-Users] Re: Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition

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

On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 13:47 -0700, Daryll Strauss wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 13:10 -0700, trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com
> wrote:
> > Look at 'big evil corporations' like apple.  They did in a year with
> > mach what the FSF/GNU wants to do with HURD and still cant (to quote
> > stallman 'its really hard' while explaining why after 10 years HURD
> > still doesnt exist).  Apple was able to do this largely because they
> > paid people to do it.  That money had to come from somewhere.  While
> > apple did release darwin (the mach microkernel+ BSD components - but no
> > mac components so largely not highly useful) under a license even the
> > FSF claims is 'free'.  Had it not been for the 'big evil corporations'
> > that would not have existed at all.
> 
> You're fairly off base with that paragraph.
you're fairly stupid.  I wasnt giving a history lesson I was talking
about the fact that both apple and FSF tried to do the same thing.
Apple did it in about a year (from the time mach actually became
available to use the way it is) and FSF is stil trying and stallman is
still whining that "its really hard" and that is why he cant get hurd
done.

You should not try to correct someone when you dont understand what is
being said.  Not to mention your 'facts' are off regarding the times
below.

But since that is the best thing you could find to pick apart on what I
said, hey more power to you.  I however suggest that this go back to
what the thread was about, not your bias towards anyone who says
something you dont understand.



> Apple released MacOS X based on NeXT's software in 2001

In 2000 apple had darwin running on both ppc and x86 so I think your
timeline is off a bit.  I think you are off by two years.


> 
> So, it's no where near Apple talking a year to do what GNU was trying to
> do. You could argue it took Apple over 20 years to develop MacOS X. They
> also took a significant amount of open source developed code (Mach, BSD,
> etc) to do so. 
> 

mach wasnt available for use this way until about 98 iirc.  Boht GNU and
apple had the same amount of time.  One did it the other is still crying
"its too hard".  And *that* was the point, one that obviously escaped
you.



> I'm a big fan of paying people to get development done in a timely
> manner, but this really doesn't make your claim.

it doesnt?  one that paid developers did it the other is crying its too
hard.  And its basically the same thing.  I think that it does make the
claim.

Thanks for 'correcting' me with incorrect facts though, that and your
taking credit for undoing xfree86 gave me quite a chuckle.


-- 
Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com     Bret McDanel
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/20050612/61a11159/attachment.pgp