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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 > [email protected] > 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 > [email protected] > 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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
