On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 23:25:41 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
> [H]omer <spam@xxxxxxx> espoused:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>> ____/ Kier on Monday 24 December 2007 09:44 : \____
>>>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 03:44:36 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>>> If they talked about Linux, would that be advertising?
>>>
>>> There are (at least) two things to consider here. Let's just use two
>>> examples:
>>>
>>> 1. BBC as an agent for a monopoly - the BBC promotes the use of
>>> Windows with iPlayer (and possibly with Silverlight to come).
>>>
>>> 2. The BBC is influenced by a collaboration that involves
>>> inter-personal relationship. As employee of one company liaise with
>>> those of another, it's expected that there will be bias and selective
>>> awareness. The BBC rarely coveres GNU/Linux, _despite_ the fact that
>>> it dominates supercomputers, devices and it is also the
>>> fastest-growing platform in servers, mainframes, and even desktops
>>> (if three independent surveys from this year are anything to judge
>>> by).
>>
>> The other thing to consider is that GNU/Linux is Free, Windows is not.
>> How can it be "advertising" to talk about something that's Free? That's
>> like saying that talking about the *air* is advertising. There's a big
>> difference between promoting a commercial product, and talking about a
>> commodity that is universally free in both the financial and political
>> sense. Surely Kier should understand that implicitly, which is why it
>> surprises me that he should even ask such a question.
>>
>
> Kier is often shockingly naive about such things. The malaise at the
No, I'm not. I'm just not paranoid.
> BBC covers a range of areas, including hiring a load of managers whose
> job it will be to sack the production workers, attempting to move the
> perfectly good production capabilities in London up to Manchester, with
> no clear picture of how the equity members will be reimbursed for all
> their travel, and no clear picture of how the more limited facilities in
> Manchester will be up to the job. There is equally no obvious route
> around the increasing imports of US television, most of which is of poor
> quality. The cuts in current affairs are due to continue for some time,
> mostly around (wait for it...) investigative journalism - the very kind
> of journalism which used to turn up the corruption around the likes of
> Ashley Highfield and the appalling and probably illegal Microsoft deals
Do you have *proof* of illegality? You keep saying this stuff. Try showing
it's true.
> with Silverlight. The millions spent on the Microsoft iPlayer would
> have been enough to cover the costs of the London-based production for
> many years.
The BBC has to keep up with the times. It's unfortunate, you might think,
but they can't afford to lag behind. That's just the way it is nowadays.
>
> If Kier really wanted to know about this, he could buy a copy of Private
> Eye every week and follow the story as it progresses. He doesn't want
> to know, rather, he would prefer to pretend all is fine at the BBC,
> whereas, in fact, it is far from fine.
Twit. I have never said it was 'all fine'. It's obvious there are some
problems at the Beeb. But very few of them are anything to do with MS.
--
Kier
|
|
