Slashdot Mirror
BBC Hails "fair" Microsoft XP SP1
Richard Bown writes "Continuing their current trend of only giving you half the story the BBC have
this article on how fair and equitable Microsoft are these days. No mention of EULA changes."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Because it doesn't bash Microsoft?
It would have been nice of the submitter to make his case instead of just linking to the article and whining how "wrong" it is.
The owls are not what they seem
Does anyone have other examples of problems with the BBC's reporting? I always thought of them as rather good, but then again I'm an American, so I'm mainly comparing them with American news... :/
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
"I think I'll link to a similar article at CNN [cnn.com]. It's a bit less biased."
Less biased in Microsoft's favor != less biased overall.
Let's not forget who owns CNN nw...
Now here's the funny part. In my opinion Windows Media Player is freaking great. It's fast, it's not bloated, and it plays crap like MPEGs wonderfully. As a result, when I install a piece of software like (shudder) RealPlayer or Quicktime or (oddly enough) the new Winamp that tries to take all this back from WMP, it annoys me quite a bit. This lets me easily switch back to WMP. Same goes for IE, though rival browsers are better about that.
Also, for those of you who have problems wherein the Sun Java VM won't run certian things that the Microsoft Java VM will and vice versa (oh, the irony...) then you'll love the feature where you can chose which Java VM to use. I wonder if this will help or hurt Java in the long run...
Schnapple
...would be that he obsesses over legalese in EULA.
I mean, under any standard EULA, they can still reformat your hard drive, install other apps, delete files, etc etc etc all under the "not responsible for anything" clause. It's all just CYA. The new stuff just there to cover their asses if you sign up for Windows Update or want Windows Media Player to automatically download codecs.
Complain about Microsoft having DRM on by default when you rip CDs. Complain about how XP bugs you to sign up for Passport all the time. Complain about all the security holes. Complain about the oppresive activation stuff.
Hell, complain about the whole concept of EULAs if you want.
There are tons of things to complain about. When Microsoft starts arbitrary installing stuff without asking, complain about that. But this Slashdot obsession with a few frickin' changes in Microsoft's EULA is the biggest sign yet that you people need to GET A LIFE!
BBC (by and large) has the best news coverage, it beats ANY news out let in US hands down.Less hype, and more complete on issues that matter to most of the world, and it's not being "LEAD AROUND BY THE NOSE" by the US Goverment like CNN and the rest of the US news media.
Well, I really believe the problem is not in simply giving out peices of software with their operating system, it is more deep.
They can give as much programs with their system as they like, but they should build it WELL. Windows lacks all these programers who give there time free to recheck the code and add to it, this is what makes Open source powerful.
Well, my main point here is, what kind of people would accept 'hiding' the software as 'not giving out' the software. This is nonesense in my opinion. Well whether they allow you to download it freely, give it to you directly, or hide it doesn't make a difference. Other compitiors should find something better in their services so people usually get to download it, and well, they usually do!
The main problem with this software is that we don't know what's there, we pay the money and we don't get but the surface. Who would accept a house built for him without knowing what substance was used to build it, nobody. We still don't know much about windows source code. We can't find the bugs they produce with their rush in building more.
Another small point I'd like to mention, the best way to fight the Microsoft syndrome isn't law (the way it's going on now), but users. If everybody still buys windows, everybody always usees it, then it's *clearly* gonna have a monopoly, but if we can use, or develop, systems that none-geeks can use, systems directed to the masses, and still NOT monopolized, then we will be able to KILL Microsoft's lust.
Well, so let's all format C: for now ;) (if we have one)
"What you 'seek' is what you get!"
I want standards too - I just dont want one company dictating them. MS visciously fights open standards in favor of proprietary ones because they want to retain their stranglehold on the industry... You may not mind severely diminished consumer choice, but others (such as myself) do.
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
This just reads like a tiny little abstract about SP1. I don't see the one-sidedness at all. It says to me 'Microsoft is being more fair than it has been'. This is true.
It doesn't try and pin a halo on Microsoft, it doesn't advocate them. It just says that they've complied with part of the DoJ bargain, and SP1 ships Sept 9th.
IMO, saying that MS is now 'more fair', reinforces that they've been completely unfair in the past. In that sense, it's a slam more than a boost.
Its just a blurb, theres not enough room to be one-sided. There's not enough to even quote.
Is it that any news item about computers that doesn't rant about 'MS world domination conspiracy theories' like a homeless schizophrenic is one-sided?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
>> "Continuing their current trend of only giving you half the story the BBC have this article on how fair and equitable Microsoft are ...
/. and use innuendo, bias, sarcasm, unsupported assertions and unverified claims to support their own agenda? The BBC report is a straight news piece containing not a single word of BBC opinion. They're reporting on the pending XP patch that responds to the mandate of the court. If you think they should do a piece on the EULA, send them an email.
What's your problem? Do you expect a professional news organization to adopt the posture of a place like
Curious to see evidence of their "trend of giving you only half the story..".
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
For that matter, who is liable if I "agree" to an EULA as part of my work duties? Is my employer going to indemnify me from a lawsuit? And if they are going to put themselves on the hook, shouldn't I run all EULA's past the legal department before I agree to them? I'm not allowed to sign contracts for the company. Why am I allowed to agree to EULA's?
And if my employer isn't going to indemnify me, isn't it reasonable for me to refuse to use software whose EULA I don't like? After all, why should I expose myself to liability? Even if I was always careful to try and follow the EULA, the mere act of defending myself against a suit would almost certainly bankrupt me. It is far from reasonable for an employer to require me to enter into contracts which expose me personally to liability instead of the corporation as a whole.
Suppose MS disappeared tomorrow and everyone moved en masse to Linux? Bingo, a new monopoly. What's the difference?
The IT world is awash with valiant but failed efforts by committees to set standards. The standards that count are the ones people really use, and that's market driven. There will always be a market leader, and everyone else will follow them, because that's where the money is.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
It's Norman Mailer. Who cares?
Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
Your first boot was slow because windows was busy replacing programs and DLLs that could not be replaced while the OS is running.
It is possible that future reboots may be slower because your HD has becomed fragged since the initial install and the replacement components are now spread out over your disk. Run the defragger and have it organise programs for quick start and you will be back in the pink.
Even a little knowledge can be used as a shining light to scare back the monsters of the unknown. Feel free to carry a candle of knowledge wherever you go.
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
" You need to be running a version of Internet Explorer 5 or higher in order to use Windows Update."(Link to Explorer 6.1)
Hypocrisy? naaaaaah!
-----
Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton