Mark Kent wrote:
> William Poaster <wp@xxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> [H]omer wrote:
>>
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>>> ____/ Kier on Wednesday 24 October 2007 11:09 : \____
>>>
>>>>> It's time to stop blaming MS for everything
>>>
>>> Another fine post from Kier the "Linux advocate", who spends his time
>>> feeding the Trolls, and apologising for Microsoft and its supporters.
>>>
>>> Well congratulations, you are no longer simply a Troll feeder IMO, you
>>> are now an actual Troll. If you are so in love with Sweaty Ballmer and
>>> his violently destructive company, then why don't you piss off to
>>> Windows la-la land, and stop criticising every damn word that anyone
>>> dares to use against the Microsoft crime syndicate?
>>>
>>> Go on, let's hear some more apologies and excuses for Microsoft. It's
>>> what you're good at.
>>>
>>>> Again, first-class corruption. Microsoft is part of a phenomenon and
>>>> a pattern. It is not *the* problem, but /part/ of the problem. Being
>>>> part of the problem is still being a problem, no matter how you think
>>>> about it.
>>>
>>> £130 Million pounds of taxpayers' money wasted on unnecessary Microsoft
>>> technology, and hiring senior ex-Microsoft employees to pervert the BBC
>>> media infrastructure, would be major contributing factors.
>>
>> Twice that amount, I believe. It would seem that at *least* £280million
>> has been handed to M$, for one thing or another.
>> Put into context, the annual BBC3 budget is £93.4 million, & BBC4 is
>> £46.8 million. Just imagine the programs they could have made for BBC1 &
>> 2 with that £280 million they squandered.
>>
>> According to 2006 figures, the BBC had a £4.5 billion budget from licence
>> fees *alone*. In 2007 it's estimated to be £4.68 billion. It *also* gets
>> revenue from its commercial subsidiary BBC Worldwide.
>>
>>
> How anyone, even Kier, could possibly argue that passing £280 Millions
> of our licence-fee cash would not result in layoffs in an environment of
> capped licence-fee increases is quite beyond me.
Quite amazing isn't it.
> That the BBC are trying to blame the licence-fee cap for this shows just
> how completely dishonest and corrupt that organisation has become -
> they've fully embraced the Microsoft Integrity Model.
Including getting more bloated too, IMO. They seem to think that they have
a "captured audience" in the licence fee payer, who is a bottomless pit to
finance every whim that some brainless idiot thinks up. IMO they should
just concentrate on *broadcasting* radio & tv.
Just as an aside, with even more repeats now being shown on the BBC, who the
hell would want an iPlayer *anyway* to see something which is repeated
again & again, & again? I don't, but that's just my 2p worth. ;-)
> I feel very sorry indeed for the 2,500 people who are now going to be
> looking for another job, whilst £280 million of our cash is lounging
> around in Microsoft bank accounts, for the delivery, of, well, *nothing at
> all*. The BBC owns *nothing* from its investment of £280 millions of our
> money.
Nope, not a penny.
> Kier - please, these are *real people* who've lost their jobs, in order
> to feed the Redmond machine. They have families, mortgages, spouses,
> children, elderly parents, gas, leccy bills, cars and food bills all to
> support. This isn't something for you to apologise for, this is *real*.
>
> Furthermore, it's your money and my money which is being sent to Mr
> Ballmer, and Microsoft is delivering, err, it's player which it was
> delivering anyway. In binary. Nothing for the BBC to own. No source
> code, no possibility of going to another vendor.
No, & in effect they're "locked-in" to M$'s merry-go-round. And when M$
decide to update their iPlayer to a new version, they could charge the BBC
even *more* for using it.
> No possibility to change integrator. Licensing (rtu) fee to pay each time
> anyone even views something with the "silverlight" player, pay to whom?
> Yes, to Microsoft. So the £280 millions is going to rise rapidly, as
> Microsoft own more and more of our licence-fee money.
And they won't be able to afford to make new programs, so more repeats &
probably more production staff losses....& so on....& so on..
> What will you say when the last technical people at the BBC are given
> their P.45s?
--
Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2, PC-BSD 1.4,
Testing: FreeBSD 7.0
Linux systems: Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007,
Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy"
|
|
