Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> ____/ Mark Kent on Wednesday 30 January 2008 11:06 : \____
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Wednesday 30 January 2008 07:42 : \____
>>>
>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>> ____/ [H]omer on Tuesday 29 January 2008 22:15 : \____
>>>>>
>>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>>>>>> ____/ [H]omer on Tuesday 29 January 2008 13:27 : \____
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I never did get a response to my complaint about them
>>>>>>>> misrepresenting the Asus Eee PC as an "XP machine", BTW.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you find the link?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Message-ID: <s7e465-pr6.ln1@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [News] MSBBC Covers UMPCs But Neglects to Mention Top Dog
>>>>>> Linux
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The article in question:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7178278.stm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here the Asus Eee PC is described only as "a lightweight machine, which
>>>>>> can run Windows XP", with no mention of Linux whatsoever, despite the
>>>>>> fact that Linux is the default OS shipped with the unit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By the way, do we still have that list of 8-9 lies from the BBC. With
>>>>>>> the Flash thingie (no DRM), I think there are 10 and we should
>>>>>>> publish those lies more widely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually is was Mark's list of 8 points of accountability, rather than
>>>>>> specifically a list of the MSBBC's lies:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Message-ID: <pmf465-jki.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [News] Linux Fury at MSBBC Claimed to be Justified
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .----
>>>>>> | 1. Paying £120 million for Silverlight/iPlayer with < 400,000 users
>>>>>> | was not a criminal waste of taxpayer money.
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | and:
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | 2. The BBC's DG should provide a watertight reason for not knowing
>>>>>> | the costs of the Silverlight/iPlayer other than "more than £20
>>>>>> | millions" when answering questions in parliament.
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | 3. The BBC's ex-Microsoft staff should demonstrate why there was
>>>>>> | never a tender for the vast sums of money being spent - this is a
>>>>>> | requiremnet by EU law, and even if the figure is closer to £20
>>>>>> | million than £100 million, the law has clearly been broken.
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | 4. The BBC should explain why it refused to comply with the
>>>>>> | requests from the OSC's representatives for multi-platform players
>>>>>> | *unless* the EU forced it to.
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | 5. The BBC should explain why the adobe-flash version of iPlayer
>>>>>> | was developed and deployed in a few weeks, at negligible cost, and
>>>>>> | has already got a much greater user-base.
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | 6. The BBC should explain why it was launching a P2P system with no
>>>>>> | means for customers to control the actions of their PCs, possibly
>>>>>> | resulting in ISPs needing to take significant action.
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | 7. The BBC should explain why its news department had *no coverage
>>>>>> | at all* of the protests regarding its Silverlight/iPlayer.
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | 8. The BBC should explain how it will seek recovery of the money
>>>>>> | spent with Microsoft.
>>>>>> `----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then in Message-ID: <6r6665-g3c.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .----
>>>>>> | 9. The BBC should explain why it is now claimed that the flash
>>>>>> | version of iPlayer was not initially part of the plan, and yet MPs
>>>>>> | were told otherwise by the DG.
>>>>>> `----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd add:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 10. The BBC should explain why their content providers "intractable"
>>>>>> demands for DRM "protection" mysteriously no longer apply, now that
>>>>>> they're using Flash streaming. For that matter, they should explain why
>>>>>> such "protection" should have been deemed mandatory anyway, when that
>>>>>> same content is already broadcast en clair.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks. I'll publish this elsewhere too. The BBC took note and posted some
>>>>> comments before.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's a good list, although it could probably use a little editing. The
>>>> words "Ex-Microsoft" don't really add anything, and I think I changed my
>>>> mind whilst I was writing that sentence, and forgot to remove that bit.
>>>> Also the bit "clearly broke the law" should be changed to "apparently"
>>>> or some such, as this is an allegation which has not been legally
>>>> tested.
>>>
>>> Oops. Well, I was in too much of a hurry when posting this. Either way, it
>>> was blunt the way it was. You have to be tough, I guess, especially when
>>> someone is screwing you. It's different if you reach out for others and need
>>> credibility..
>>>
>>
>> Ah, the posting's fine, as that is merely chatter, however, if you
>> publish these in a more formal way, then a bit more editing can be
>> valuable! I wrote the words in the first place, I wasn't blaming!
>
> Well, the BBC's editor is already responding. He could only answer one
> question. 9 more to go... he's probably asking Ashley and Erik for help.../
>
For the cash spend, I'd like to see some independent auditing, and
perhaps even some "freedom of information" on accounts, too. I'm not
sure how far I could even trust anything they're saying at the moment.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
