Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] Another Big Win for Linux in Production Environments

____/ 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.../

-- 
                ~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz      |    while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
http://Schestowitz.com  |  Open Prospects   |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 116 total,   1 running, 115 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
      http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index