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

Re: [News] Reviwewers Still Sneeze at Windows Home Server, Incompatible with Linux

____/ Mark Kent on Wednesday 05 September 2007 11:12 : \____

> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> ____/ Mark Kent on Wednesday 05 September 2007 09:31 : \____
>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Tuesday 04 September 2007 18:35 : \____
>>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>> ____/ [H]omer on Tuesday 04 September 2007 14:22 : \____
>>>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>>>>>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Tuesday 04 September 2007 12:08 : \____
>>>>>>>>> And Ashley Highfield believes that Microsoft will write a linux
>>>>>>>>> version of the Microsoft iPlayer?
>>>>>>>> No, now he just escapes the question by saying something like "I
>>>>>>>> believe in universality, but..."
>>>>>>> "...I believe in money and corruption even more."?
>>>>>> He must have said that off line or off camera. Maybe he'd say something
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> "...but I have a wife and 3 children to feed".
>>>>>> Perfect excuse for criminals.
>>>>> As £130 Million has made its way to Microsoft, I wonder if any has been
>>>>> making it /back/ to the trustees and Mr Highfield?  Is there financial
>>>>> corruption going on here?
>>>> Probably. That's how OOXML/ISO fiasco worked as well. Microsoft sends
>>>> E-mails to third-world country asking them to E-mail ISO with a
>>>> last-minute vote on OOMXL (guess in whose favour). In return...
>>> There must be some reason why Ashley Highfield would be deliberately
>>> choosing to back a system which is never likely to work with anything
>>> other than a particular flavour of Microsoft's operating system.  We
>>> really are left with incompetence (so sack him) or corrruption (sack him
>>> and prosecute).
>> One person whom I can't name is looking into this. There's apparently a
>> broader plan.
> Good - it warrants a proper investigation.  I wonder if one of the ITV
> investigative journalistic programmes might want to take up this cause?
> Unfortunately, I have a sneaking suspicion that they've abandoned their
> flagship investigative programmes - World in Action and This Week, both
> of which were very good.
> Maybe "Which" might be interested?

I believe that ITV pulled a BBC as well.
>> Why should Brits be urged to ditch Windows 2000 to access content thet
>> have already paid for?
> The whole situation is beyond my comprehension - the same problem also
> exists at the British Library and the National Archives, which appear
> to want to sell out to a foreign company.  Can you imagine this - we'll
> have foreigners managing access to hundreds of years of Hansard... this
> is the root of our democracy, and next to the Isle of Man, the oldest
> parliament on the planet.  We are giving it to, err, well, a convicted
> monopolist to manage.  Actually, we're not giving it, we're *paying*
> them to take it away from us.

They pay us back. Well... errr... some of us... very few of us... Ashley must
be a happy puppy.

It's a similar situation with companies like Xandros. They destroy a
society/community by paying one person to screw everybody else.

                ~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz      | Windows O/S: chmod a-x internet; kill -9 internet
http://Schestowitz.com  |     GNU/Linux     |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Mem:    515500k total,   447828k used,    67672k free,      652k buffers
      http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

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