You're offering this extremely simple use case, and I don't really feel like continuing this debate. Suffice it to say, as several other commenters on here have validated, if you want more than just a simple PBX, Asterisk won't do it out of the box.
I'm not trolling. It really happened. I didn't report it to Apple, as it was a used machine and I was looking to replace it with a Windows laptop at the time. I still have the laptop, actually, burn-marks and all. You want it?
I take it when you talk about repairs you're ignoring the software component of things. That was what undermined the company in the 1996-1999 timeframe. I doubt you'd try to seriously argue that OS8 and OS9 were quality products.
I hear what you're saying about the iPod, but I think I didn't state my point exactly the way I wanted to. Apple has problems once people catch up with it technically. In the late 90s this led to what I would characterize as "quality" issues with the software. Similarly, plenty of competitors are coming along with cheaper versions of the iPod that are basically the exact same thing. As that occurs, I predict Apple will implode. You could be right, but since it's a prediction neither of us really knows.
As I told another commenter, my issue is not that I'm a moron and can't code. My problem is that, for anything beyond a basic PBX, Asterisk can't do it without major hacking.
Believe it or not, some people want to do more with a telephony system than provide a basic PBX system (read my sig-line for an example). For more complex situations, there are things that Asterisk simply cannot do. For example, out of the box Asterisk won't allow me to grab a call back once I've dialed it out without waiting for the called party to hang up.
Asterisk's clunky programming language is *NOT* a plus. There's a reason why the world moved to functional and object-oriented programming models for user interfaces. A PBX is a user interface, and as such it should be built on an object-oriented platform. It would be great if it used Perl natively, but it doesn't. You have to shell out to Perl anytime you want to do anything.
Imagine if Asterisk's extension handling were object oriented. People could write modules that provide whole sets of functionality that you could plug into your system.
Now, go RTFA and you'll see the whole point of the IBM thing is what I'm describing - NOT just a simple PBX.
Read my sig line. I run a phone-based service using the thing. My problem is not that I need handholding. My problem is that for business-level operations, Asterisk can't get the job done without major hacks.
Now that was a cool machine. Mine caught fire in the middle of a class. Pretty embarrassing to try and explain to the professor why there's black smoke curling up from your laptop.
My global opinion of Apple is that they're extremely innovative, but repeatedly when the rubber hits the road they start to have problems. Same thing happened back in the late 1980s, again in the late 1990s, and I predict it's coming once again. Their products are beautiful and wonderful, but they never can get over that hump that other big companies surmount to being able to mass-produce a product while maintaining its greatness.
Asterisk is a good platform if you don't mind building a whole bunch of business-intelligence tools alongside it in order to get what you need done. Asterisk takes care of what I would consider to be a key, but simple, element of the equation -- converting the audio signals into bits and sending them around.
For a business to really base itself on an internet telephony platform, they need it hooked into a set of software allowing reporting, processing, etc. In its current incarnation, Asterisk provides a very simple Call Data Record output to ODBC or MySql. That's about it. Beyond that, the programmer has to invoke Perl AGI scripts along the way or make SQL queries from inside Asterisk's clunky extensions.conf configuration language.
Bottom line is that your business intelligence platform winds up being a bunch of homebrew Perl scripts. Not my idea of a fun time.
What IBM will put together is a set of tools where you can build the business intelligence platform alongside the PBX functionality that Asterisk makes in a completely integrated fashion, using object oriented tools, etc. Anyone considering building a mission-critical system on Asterisk should read over the extensions.conf file format for a little bit. It uses line numbers and Goto as its major flow control mechanisms. I thought those went out with Commodore 64 BASIC programming.
It's true that a few big companies use Asterisk. In each case they've had to tweak and rework it dramatically to make it useful. I predict this new system will blow Asterisk away.
I'm really glad they're doing this. Other virtualizations systems that I've seen/tried really can't offer the full set of APIs and functionalities that a real Microsoft product offers. For example, things like Wine can't offer the full __DllRegisterExpiryCacheDelayTwelveSeven() functionality.
Same goes for CPU-based stuff, like Virtual-PC. They just don't run Windows properly. The thing is, since Microsoft has the only operating system out there that is largely, or even majority, undocumented, it makes sense for them to provide the virtualization software. That way they can make it work on their own undocumented platform, while using other platforms' APIs to permit easy access to Linux, OSX, etc.
OOo is slow because it's still largely impelemented using a Java VM-based architecture with bytecode and all that entails. I really think these guys should reconsider. MS is moving toward an XML-based file format which shouls be open enough for anyone. And MS Office is a client app written completely in optimized Windows assembler code. That should help with performance hemi-dramatically.
The reality is you don't have to use the analog hole. Any encryption scheme is going to have a set of keys that will be, at a minimum, susceptible to some sort of clever replay attack. Even a DVD player hooked to the internet and sharing keys with a movie studio would ultimately fall victim to this.
The whole thing is stupid. The studios will never win.
My guess is that Microsoft actually doesn't mind this one bit. ActiveX was a mistake from the get-go, with its permissions-based scheme which is dramatically more hackable than Java's sandbox-based scheme.
There are other technologies that can plug the hole. For some applications, an Ajax page could provide the same level of interactivity as ActiveX. For stuff like Flash, they can have a plugin architecture more line Firefox's.
Bottom line is Microsoft will use this to "encourage" websites to move away from ActiveX and toward their next annoying proprietary technology.
Mod parent up! This is exactly the right analysis here. Contextual relevant advertising? On a site where people gossip about the next frat party and who suzi did what to last night? Gimme a break.
I just wish Microsoft would stop with this behavior and actually work on their core products. It's been nearly 5 years since the last major revision of Windows--it's getting kind of ridiculous.
I think the best analogy for Microsoft's current situation is when Apple was struggling to come out with Copland. At that time, Apple flailed around a lot trying to figure out ways to make money. Ultimately, they concluded they needed to find a way to start all over with their OS. Microsoft will wind up doing the same, eventually.
In the meantime, let's hope their flailing won't harm Linux.
Personally I think the whole Ajax thing is overblown and will die down in the next year or two.
Are there good uses for Ajax? Sure. Google Maps is probably the single best example out there at the moment, and I would expect some more to show up soon.
BUT, will Ajax supplant the client app as the workhorse of productivity applications? Not a chance:
Ajax requires all communication be serialized using a Javascript callback scheme that requires extensible but ultimately limiting xml communication between client and server.
To get good performance, Ajax forces you to code a front-end application using JAVASCRIPT. Now I've coded some pretty complicated Javascript stuff, but it's just not the right language for writing full-featured applications. It's barely even object oriented, weak typed, etc. And debugging it is a disaster.
If instead you decide to have the server make all the UI decisions for you ("put this text here, that box there"), that's fine except you'll see lag anytime you do anything. Imagine trying to update an entire column of data in Ajax Spreadsheet. The server has to send down exactly what to put in each cell and do all the computations for you before you see anything. Google Maps has this problem - I often see white boxes, unrefreshed boxes, etc. and I'm using the latest Firefox!
The funniest thing for me about Ajax is it basically is just doing what Java Applets can do, only Java is better. WTF?!?!
Yes. Because if that happened, some of the profit from the ad would go to the person doing the search instead of Google. Google doesn't want this and therefore won't ever offer coupons on their site.
Pretty soon, two trends will effectively offer these kinds of discounts. First, Yahoo and MSN are going to start giving you discounts/prizes for searching on their sites. Second, look for companies to expand on A9's current idea of giving you a couple percent off things you buy at Amazon if you use their search engine regularly.
Bottom line is that yes this is a great idea, but Google won't do it because they care more about their gross margins and bottom line than about their users.
My guess is this is just the tip of the iceberg. It's a smart move for Google to try and resolve this stuff once and for all, but I doubt strongly this and related issues are likely to go away anytime soon.
Reasons why I'm concerned about Google's business:
The fact that it's basically impossible to ascertain how prevalent click-fraud is.
The fact that many many people accidentally click on ads. Don't believe me? Try clicking *anywhere* on the blue ad box that shows up over results. Notice that a click even way on the right of it counts.
Many businesses are still in a 'honeymoon' with Google and aren't yet seriously computing the performance of their clicks (how many clicks turn into sales).
Do you seriously believe Google can keep getting $0.11 of revenue per search done on the site? Don't believe the statistic? Read the SEC filings and compute it yourself.
I've only used Novell setups a bit, but in my experience, they don't have nearly the functionality or sophistication of some of the other Linux configurations out there.
Also, a little known fact is that NSW used NetWare up until 1999 I believe. That could have had something to do with their decision to allow switching.
Personally I think the biggest problem is users being so used to the Windows/Office environment. I know some companies such as Linspire have tried to make Linux/OOo an easier transition. I don't think they've really succeeded to the point where a company/government can make a seamless transition.
At the same time, most developers (myself included) would rather not spend hours converting Linux/OOo to look just like XP or Vista. So, the current state of affairs is unlikely to change much in the near future.
I do believe that if some enterprising group/company decided to make Linux/OOo look and feel 95%+ like Windows, getting organizations to switch would be a no-brainer.
Why is this better than just a mule? Let's see... Mules eat plants and grasses found naturally in the area. The electronic mule requires electricity. Great if you're in a city in the USA. Bad if you're in terrain thats "too tough for vehicles".
What I don't get is how you can even identify a West Antarctic ice sheet? Isn't Antarctica roughly a circle centered on the pole? So, isn't every ice sheet the West one?
There was a system that came out to do this. There are numerous problems, including differential lag times between servers and firewalls. Most importantly, unlike torrents, you need to stream media in a linear fashion. The great thing about BitTorrent is you can get, say, piece 53 from one guy and piece 173 from another guy at the same time. Here, you'd have a mad rush for pieces 1 and 2 right from the outset.
Also, I suspect it's much harder to get people to 'seed' stuff in the media world. I believe there's still some sort of system based on shoutcast that does this, though, if you want to look it up.
Slashdot Mirror
You're dumb.
You're offering this extremely simple use case, and I don't really feel like continuing this debate. Suffice it to say, as several other commenters on here have validated, if you want more than just a simple PBX, Asterisk won't do it out of the box.
I take it when you talk about repairs you're ignoring the software component of things. That was what undermined the company in the 1996-1999 timeframe. I doubt you'd try to seriously argue that OS8 and OS9 were quality products.
I hear what you're saying about the iPod, but I think I didn't state my point exactly the way I wanted to. Apple has problems once people catch up with it technically. In the late 90s this led to what I would characterize as "quality" issues with the software. Similarly, plenty of competitors are coming along with cheaper versions of the iPod that are basically the exact same thing. As that occurs, I predict Apple will implode. You could be right, but since it's a prediction neither of us really knows.
Believe it or not, some people want to do more with a telephony system than provide a basic PBX system (read my sig-line for an example). For more complex situations, there are things that Asterisk simply cannot do. For example, out of the box Asterisk won't allow me to grab a call back once I've dialed it out without waiting for the called party to hang up.
Asterisk's clunky programming language is *NOT* a plus. There's a reason why the world moved to functional and object-oriented programming models for user interfaces. A PBX is a user interface, and as such it should be built on an object-oriented platform. It would be great if it used Perl natively, but it doesn't. You have to shell out to Perl anytime you want to do anything.
Imagine if Asterisk's extension handling were object oriented. People could write modules that provide whole sets of functionality that you could plug into your system.
Now, go RTFA and you'll see the whole point of the IBM thing is what I'm describing - NOT just a simple PBX.
Read my sig line. I run a phone-based service using the thing. My problem is not that I need handholding. My problem is that for business-level operations, Asterisk can't get the job done without major hacks.
My global opinion of Apple is that they're extremely innovative, but repeatedly when the rubber hits the road they start to have problems. Same thing happened back in the late 1980s, again in the late 1990s, and I predict it's coming once again. Their products are beautiful and wonderful, but they never can get over that hump that other big companies surmount to being able to mass-produce a product while maintaining its greatness.
For a business to really base itself on an internet telephony platform, they need it hooked into a set of software allowing reporting, processing, etc. In its current incarnation, Asterisk provides a very simple Call Data Record output to ODBC or MySql. That's about it. Beyond that, the programmer has to invoke Perl AGI scripts along the way or make SQL queries from inside Asterisk's clunky extensions.conf configuration language.
Bottom line is that your business intelligence platform winds up being a bunch of homebrew Perl scripts. Not my idea of a fun time.
What IBM will put together is a set of tools where you can build the business intelligence platform alongside the PBX functionality that Asterisk makes in a completely integrated fashion, using object oriented tools, etc. Anyone considering building a mission-critical system on Asterisk should read over the extensions.conf file format for a little bit. It uses line numbers and Goto as its major flow control mechanisms. I thought those went out with Commodore 64 BASIC programming.
It's true that a few big companies use Asterisk. In each case they've had to tweak and rework it dramatically to make it useful. I predict this new system will blow Asterisk away.
Same goes for CPU-based stuff, like Virtual-PC. They just don't run Windows properly. The thing is, since Microsoft has the only operating system out there that is largely, or even majority, undocumented, it makes sense for them to provide the virtualization software. That way they can make it work on their own undocumented platform, while using other platforms' APIs to permit easy access to Linux, OSX, etc.
This is a win-win-win for everyone!
Yes. I was kidding. The "should be enough for anyone" is the tipoff.
OOo is slow because it's still largely impelemented using a Java VM-based architecture with bytecode and all that entails. I really think these guys should reconsider. MS is moving toward an XML-based file format which shouls be open enough for anyone. And MS Office is a client app written completely in optimized Windows assembler code. That should help with performance hemi-dramatically.
The whole thing is stupid. The studios will never win.
There are other technologies that can plug the hole. For some applications, an Ajax page could provide the same level of interactivity as ActiveX. For stuff like Flash, they can have a plugin architecture more line Firefox's.
Bottom line is Microsoft will use this to "encourage" websites to move away from ActiveX and toward their next annoying proprietary technology.
Mod parent up! This is exactly the right analysis here. Contextual relevant advertising? On a site where people gossip about the next frat party and who suzi did what to last night? Gimme a break.
I think the best analogy for Microsoft's current situation is when Apple was struggling to come out with Copland. At that time, Apple flailed around a lot trying to figure out ways to make money. Ultimately, they concluded they needed to find a way to start all over with their OS. Microsoft will wind up doing the same, eventually.
In the meantime, let's hope their flailing won't harm Linux.
Are there good uses for Ajax? Sure. Google Maps is probably the single best example out there at the moment, and I would expect some more to show up soon.
BUT, will Ajax supplant the client app as the workhorse of productivity applications? Not a chance:
The funniest thing for me about Ajax is it basically is just doing what Java Applets can do, only Java is better. WTF?!?!
Pretty soon, two trends will effectively offer these kinds of discounts. First, Yahoo and MSN are going to start giving you discounts/prizes for searching on their sites. Second, look for companies to expand on A9's current idea of giving you a couple percent off things you buy at Amazon if you use their search engine regularly.
Bottom line is that yes this is a great idea, but Google won't do it because they care more about their gross margins and bottom line than about their users.
Reasons why I'm concerned about Google's business:
Cue Google-fanatic flamewar.
Sorry. The last I knew was 1999. If they're still using it, great!
Also, a little known fact is that NSW used NetWare up until 1999 I believe. That could have had something to do with their decision to allow switching.
Personally I think the biggest problem is users being so used to the Windows/Office environment. I know some companies such as Linspire have tried to make Linux/OOo an easier transition. I don't think they've really succeeded to the point where a company/government can make a seamless transition. At the same time, most developers (myself included) would rather not spend hours converting Linux/OOo to look just like XP or Vista. So, the current state of affairs is unlikely to change much in the near future. I do believe that if some enterprising group/company decided to make Linux/OOo look and feel 95%+ like Windows, getting organizations to switch would be a no-brainer.
Why is this better than just a mule? Let's see... Mules eat plants and grasses found naturally in the area. The electronic mule requires electricity. Great if you're in a city in the USA. Bad if you're in terrain thats "too tough for vehicles".
I thought west meant counterclockwise.
What I don't get is how you can even identify a West Antarctic ice sheet? Isn't Antarctica roughly a circle centered on the pole? So, isn't every ice sheet the West one?
I think 18 year olds are just as mature as those who are 35 or even 45 years old. Moreso in most cases.
There was a system that came out to do this. There are numerous problems, including differential lag times between servers and firewalls. Most importantly, unlike torrents, you need to stream media in a linear fashion. The great thing about BitTorrent is you can get, say, piece 53 from one guy and piece 173 from another guy at the same time. Here, you'd have a mad rush for pieces 1 and 2 right from the outset. Also, I suspect it's much harder to get people to 'seed' stuff in the media world. I believe there's still some sort of system based on shoutcast that does this, though, if you want to look it up.