____/ [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.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Microsof(fshore)t Window(ntime)s Vista(gnating)
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
run-level 2 2008-01-24 14:06 last=
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
|
|
