BBC iplayer for Macs in 2008, what about us? - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on BBC iplayer for Macs in 2008, what about us? - Ubuntu ; NoStop wrote: > Hadron wrote: > >> "dennis@home" writes: >> >>> "William Poaster" wrote in message >>> news:fdu585-mk3.ln1@leafnode.archimedes.eu... >>> >>> >>> Nothing of any use to anyone.. again!!!! >>> >> >> Willy, Harold, Peter etc are a waste of natural ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 202

Thread: BBC iplayer for Macs in 2008, what about us?

  1. Re: BBC iplayer for Macs in 2008, what about us?

    NoStop wrote:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> "dennis@home" writes:
    >>
    >>> "William Poaster" wrote in message
    >>> news:fdu585-mk3.ln1@leafnode.archimedes.eu...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Nothing of any use to anyone.. again!!!!
    >>>

    >>
    >> Willy, Harold, Peter etc are a waste of natural resources. I warned
    >> people. All they do is berate people, call people liars and show off
    >> their killfiles. Morons to a man.

    >
    > And you're now supporting someone with the debating "skills" of Frank?
    > Careful we don't start thinking your one of his clueless buddies. That is
    > indeed a bad reputation to get on Usenet.


    Well one of his buddies is the Flatfish troll, so it's not surprising he cosies
    up to other trolls.

    Further to my last post:
    You know why Hadron Quack is a liar? Here is one example:-

    And to think Willy is normally telling us how Linux runs on a PIII
    with 128 k of ram.

    From: Hadron
    Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
    Subject: Re: Upgraded my kit
    Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:22:49 +0100
    Message-ID:

    Now you can ask Quack, *can* he show the messages where I've *actually* said
    that? Dates, Message-IDs etc.

    --
    Free-BSD 7.0, PC-BSD 1.4
    Linux systems: PCLOS 2007, Mandrake One 2008,
    Fedora 8, Kubuntu 7.10.
    -- On 64bit systems --

  2. Re: BBC iplayer for Macs in 2008, what about us?

    Hadron wrote:

    > I do NOT support Frank. I have not supported him.


    It sounded like you did.

    > In fact I have him killfiled.


    Sensible move.

    > I am not supporting dennis necessarily.


    You shouldn't if, as you suggest, you /are/ a Linux advocate.

    > I am, however agreeing with him on the contribution of William Poaster.


    You're entirely wrong on that count!

    C.

  3. Re: BBC iplayer for Macs in 2008, what about us?



    "PeterKŲhlmann" wrote in message
    news:foqjg3$30q$00$1@news.t-online.com...


    > Well, you directly agreed with him. You supported his lunacy.


    You are the lunatic here BTW.
    >
    > You can now waffle around all you want, you can't deny that very simple
    > fact. You claim you agreed with him on "William Poaster". While at the
    > same
    > time pulling peoples names into the thread who have not even contributed a
    > *single* post to it. People who disagreed with "MD5" dennis and/or *you*
    > at
    > some time. But not /yet/ in this thread


    You still don't understand anything about the md5 thread you are so proud
    about do you you idiot.




  4. Re: BBC iplayer for Macs in 2008, what about us?

    Moog wrote:

    > But you miss the point Hadron.


    As usual.

    > They didn't actually do anything. They asked a third party software
    > developer to modify their already available product to deliver DRM
    > protected content. Unfortunately, this was "windows only". It was a
    > quick and easy solution though.


    Actually, it wasn't. It cost the BBC a fortune, and didn't work very well.

    > They have now committed to producing a linux version. Whether that
    > turns up or not, I don't know. My crsytal ball is in for a service.
    > But, when a public funded corporation *say* they are going to do
    > something, then they will almost certainly have to deliver on their
    > promise.


    I'll go along with that, but the BBC have to realise that DRM is a dead
    duck!

    >> I am dying to see just how many Linux users access it in the end. I
    >> suspect a far smaller percentage than many think (but I'll be in that
    >> %). I still see no real presence in the desktop/home arena I am afraid.


    That's changing quite quickly (though it will be denied by many posters to
    the NG with spurious claims otherwise).

    > I think most UK linux users would access the Beeb's content from their
    > boxes (fffnnaarr) should and when it occurs. I would. I know Trevor
    > would. And I would be very surprised if you wouldn't.


    I /certainly/ will!

    C.


  5. Re: BBC iplayer for Macs in 2008, what about us?

    Christopher Hunter writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> I do NOT support Frank. I have not supported him.

    >
    > It sounded like you did.
    >
    >> In fact I have him killfiled.

    >
    > Sensible move.
    >
    >> I am not supporting dennis necessarily.

    >
    > You shouldn't if, as you suggest, you /are/ a Linux advocate.
    >
    >> I am, however agreeing with him on the contribution of William Poaster.

    >
    > You're entirely wrong on that count!


    Whatever. I'm not quite sure of your agenda here yet. But I suspect most
    of what you say is tongue in cheek. The above especially.

  6. Re: BBC iplayer for Macs in 2008, what about us?

    Christopher Hunter writes:

    > Moog wrote:
    >
    >> But you miss the point Hadron.

    >
    > As usual.


    Erm, I didnt. As you agree with below. Don't be such a blind fan
    boy. You know you are better than that.

    >
    >> They didn't actually do anything. They asked a third party software
    >> developer to modify their already available product to deliver DRM
    >> protected content. Unfortunately, this was "windows only". It was a
    >> quick and easy solution though.

    >
    > Actually, it wasn't. It cost the BBC a fortune, and didn't work very well.
    >
    >> They have now committed to producing a linux version. Whether that
    >> turns up or not, I don't know. My crsytal ball is in for a service.
    >> But, when a public funded corporation *say* they are going to do
    >> something, then they will almost certainly have to deliver on their
    >> promise.

    >
    > I'll go along with that, but the BBC have to realise that DRM is a dead
    > duck!
    >
    >>> I am dying to see just how many Linux users access it in the end. I
    >>> suspect a far smaller percentage than many think (but I'll be in that
    >>> %). I still see no real presence in the desktop/home arena I am afraid.

    >
    > That's changing quite quickly (though it will be denied by many posters to
    > the NG with spurious claims otherwise).
    >
    >> I think most UK linux users would access the Beeb's content from their
    >> boxes (fffnnaarr) should and when it occurs. I would. I know Trevor
    >> would. And I would be very surprised if you wouldn't.

    >
    > I /certainly/ will!
    >
    > C.
    >


    --
    Mais vagaroso que tropeiro de lesma.

  7. Re: BBC iplayer for Macs in 2008, what about us?

    dennis@home wrote:

    >
    >
    > "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message
    > news:foqjg3$30q$00$1@news.t-online.com...
    >
    >
    >> Well, you directly agreed with him. You supported his lunacy.

    >
    > You are the lunatic here BTW.
    >>
    >> You can now waffle around all you want, you can't deny that very simple
    >> fact. You claim you agreed with him on "William Poaster". While at the
    >> same
    >> time pulling peoples names into the thread who have not even contributed
    >> a *single* post to it. People who disagreed with "MD5" dennis and/or
    >> *you* at
    >> some time. But not /yet/ in this thread

    >
    > You still don't understand anything about the md5 thread you are so proud
    > about do you you idiot.


    Poor dennis.
    You got trounced so utterly there that you should better refrain talking
    about anything even just containing the letters "M" and "D".

    Has your little sister got around that "time problem" and explained (she
    would have to use extremely simple wording, of course) the difference of
    a "collision attack" and a "preimage attack" to you?
    --
    We may not return the affection of those who like us,
    but we always respect their good judgement.


  8. Re: BBC iplayer for Macs in 2008, what about us?

    Peter KŲhlmann wrote:

    > Poor dennis.
    > You got trounced so utterly there that you should better refrain talking
    > about anything even just containing the letters "M" and "D".
    >
    > Has your little sister got around that "time problem" and explained (she
    > would have to use extremely simple wording, of course) the difference of
    > a "collision attack" and a "preimage attack" to you?


    You're wasting your time, Peter. "dennis" hasn't got the brainpower to
    understand the difference. I'm /still/ waiting to see his _proof_ of the
    flaws in MD5.

    C.

  9. Re: BBC iplayer for Macs in 2008, what about us?



    "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message
    news:foqngk$l23$02$2@news.t-online.com...
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message
    >> news:foqjg3$30q$00$1@news.t-online.com...
    >>
    >>
    >>> Well, you directly agreed with him. You supported his lunacy.

    >>
    >> You are the lunatic here BTW.
    >>>
    >>> You can now waffle around all you want, you can't deny that very simple
    >>> fact. You claim you agreed with him on "William Poaster". While at the
    >>> same
    >>> time pulling peoples names into the thread who have not even contributed
    >>> a *single* post to it. People who disagreed with "MD5" dennis and/or
    >>> *you* at
    >>> some time. But not /yet/ in this thread

    >>
    >> You still don't understand anything about the md5 thread you are so proud
    >> about do you you idiot.

    >
    > Poor dennis.
    > You got trounced so utterly there that you should better refrain talking
    > about anything even just containing the letters "M" and "D".
    >
    > Has your little sister got around that "time problem" and explained (she
    > would have to use extremely simple wording, of course) the difference of
    > a "collision attack" and a "preimage attack" to you?


    Like I said I know the difference. *You* still haven't shown that you know
    what the known problem with MD5 or if it can be exploited.
    Remember all the stuff you quoted pre-dated the attack being known about.

    So as a recap.. I posted some stuff that said it was flawed.. you posted
    stuff that pre dated the *known* attack to say it was safe.
    I am still waiting for you to post anything that shows you have a clue about
    MD5, say some *maths* to prove how safe you think it is.

    Do you still think WEP is safe? I have lots of old documents to prove it is
    for you. Then you can use it with complete safety knowing that it was safe
    at one time.

    So far you are about as useful as a chocolate tea pot even as a Linux
    advocate.
    You won't understand why of course as you really are stupid.



  10. Re: BBC iplayer for Macs in 2008, what about us?



    "Christopher Hunter" wrote in message
    news:e8bsj.89698$3m6.42453@fe2.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
    > Peter KŲhlmann wrote:
    >
    >> Poor dennis.
    >> You got trounced so utterly there that you should better refrain talking
    >> about anything even just containing the letters "M" and "D".
    >>
    >> Has your little sister got around that "time problem" and explained (she
    >> would have to use extremely simple wording, of course) the difference of
    >> a "collision attack" and a "preimage attack" to you?

    >
    > You're wasting your time, Peter. "dennis" hasn't got the brainpower to
    > understand the difference. I'm /still/ waiting to see his _proof_ of the
    > flaws in MD5.


    I posted proof that MD5 was flawed, maybe you should learn to read.


  11. Re: BBC iplayer for Macs in 2008, what about us?



    "Christopher Hunter" wrote in message
    news:%05sj.78362$801.16524@fe1.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
    > Moog wrote:
    >
    >> But you miss the point Hadron.

    >
    > As usual.
    >
    >> They didn't actually do anything. They asked a third party software
    >> developer to modify their already available product to deliver DRM
    >> protected content. Unfortunately, this was "windows only". It was a
    >> quick and easy solution though.

    >
    > Actually, it wasn't. It cost the BBC a fortune, and didn't work very
    > well.
    >
    >> They have now committed to producing a linux version. Whether that
    >> turns up or not, I don't know. My crsytal ball is in for a service.
    >> But, when a public funded corporation *say* they are going to do
    >> something, then they will almost certainly have to deliver on their
    >> promise.

    >
    > I'll go along with that, but the BBC have to realise that DRM is a dead
    > duck!


    You have to realize that the BBC only has limited rights to most programs
    and can't distribute them without DRM.
    No DRM, no distribution unless someone renegotiates the rights to the
    programs to allow free distribution.
    This makes your petty few tens of millions to develop software look
    insignificant.
    Its the sort of thing Linux advocates like you do all the time.. "Linux is
    free".. *if* you ignore the costs.
    Its your sort that stops commercial development of software as there is no
    pay back, only increased costs.

    >
    >>> I am dying to see just how many Linux users access it in the end. I
    >>> suspect a far smaller percentage than many think (but I'll be in that
    >>> %). I still see no real presence in the desktop/home arena I am afraid.

    >
    > That's changing quite quickly (though it will be denied by many posters to
    > the NG with spurious claims otherwise).
    >
    >> I think most UK linux users would access the Beeb's content from their
    >> boxes (fffnnaarr) should and when it occurs. I would. I know Trevor
    >> would. And I would be very surprised if you wouldn't.

    >
    > I /certainly/ will!


    Most Linux users won't as they are running servers.
    You need to distinguish between desktop and server to get a sensible figure.
    Anyone with sense would have worked that out without the previous posts
    stating it.

    >
    > C.
    >


  12. Re: BBC iplayer for Macs in 2008, what about us?

    dennis@home wrote:

    >
    >
    > "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message
    > news:foqngk$l23$02$2@news.t-online.com...
    >> dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message
    >>> news:foqjg3$30q$00$1@news.t-online.com...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Well, you directly agreed with him. You supported his lunacy.
    >>>
    >>> You are the lunatic here BTW.
    >>>>
    >>>> You can now waffle around all you want, you can't deny that very simple
    >>>> fact. You claim you agreed with him on "William Poaster". While at the
    >>>> same
    >>>> time pulling peoples names into the thread who have not even
    >>>> contributed a *single* post to it. People who disagreed with "MD5"
    >>>> dennis and/or *you* at
    >>>> some time. But not /yet/ in this thread
    >>>
    >>> You still don't understand anything about the md5 thread you are so
    >>> proud about do you you idiot.

    >>
    >> Poor dennis.
    >> You got trounced so utterly there that you should better refrain talking
    >> about anything even just containing the letters "M" and "D".
    >>
    >> Has your little sister got around that "time problem" and explained (she
    >> would have to use extremely simple wording, of course) the difference of
    >> a "collision attack" and a "preimage attack" to you?

    >
    > Like I said I know the difference. *You* still haven't shown that you know
    > what the known problem with MD5 or if it can be exploited.


    You blathering cretin, *I* have explained to you the difference about the
    different attack vectors on MD5
    That you are not smart enough to understand even simple explanations (I gave
    you several links) is your problem.
    Come on, moron, why do you think that you can attack a MD5 summed ISO, when
    all the security experts are telling you that there is not enough computing
    power on earth combined to do so with just *one* application, much less a
    whole ISO?
    Come, explain what a "collision attack" and a "preimage attack" is, what
    type the MD5 flaw is, and what this constitutes for your "attack vector"

    But then, you are a Vista user. It does not get any dumber than that

    < snip imbeciles rant >
    --
    Any idiot can run Vista. And usually does.


  13. Re: BBC iplayer for Macs in 2008, what about us?

    dennis@home wrote:

    >
    >
    > "Christopher Hunter" wrote in
    > message news:e8bsj.89698$3m6.42453@fe2.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
    >> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>
    >>> Poor dennis.
    >>> You got trounced so utterly there that you should better refrain talking
    >>> about anything even just containing the letters "M" and "D".
    >>>
    >>> Has your little sister got around that "time problem" and explained (she
    >>> would have to use extremely simple wording, of course) the difference of
    >>> a "collision attack" and a "preimage attack" to you?

    >>
    >> You're wasting your time, Peter. "dennis" hasn't got the brainpower to
    >> understand the difference. I'm /still/ waiting to see his _proof_ of the
    >> flaws in MD5.

    >
    > I posted proof that MD5 was flawed, maybe you should learn to read.


    Nobody actually denied that there is a flaw inMD5, there is a possibility
    for a collision attack.
    What everone with half a clue denied was that this flaw is exploiteable the
    way you were describing.
    Your "attack vector" is simply a riot. It does *not* work that way, but you
    are not smart enough to recognize it
    --
    Linux is simply a fad that has been generated by the media


  14. Re: BBC iplayer for Macs in 2008, what about us?

    Christopher Hunter wrote:

    > Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >> Poor dennis.
    >> You got trounced so utterly there that you should better refrain talking
    >> about anything even just containing the letters "M" and "D".
    >>
    >> Has your little sister got around that "time problem" and explained (she
    >> would have to use extremely simple wording, of course) the difference of
    >> a "collision attack" and a "preimage attack" to you?

    >
    > You're wasting your time, Peter. "dennis" hasn't got the brainpower to
    > understand the difference. I'm /still/ waiting to see his _proof_ of the
    > flaws in MD5.


    This has been explained to "dennis" at *least* half a dozen times, & by
    *different* people. He *still* doesn't get it, & *never* will. I agree, PK is
    just wasting his time.

    --
    Free-BSD 7.0, PC-BSD 1.4
    Linux systems: PCLOS 2007, Mandrake One 2008,
    Fedora 8, Kubuntu 7.10.
    -- On 64bit systems --

  15. Re: BBC iplayer for Macs in 2008, what about us?

    dennis@home wrote:

    > I posted proof that MD5 was flawed, maybe you should learn to
    > read.


    You posted nothing but bull**** that the entire group handily
    eviscerated, and ended up backed so far into the corner all you can
    do is make a complete jackass of yourself by doing nothing but
    parroting your "I proved" imbecilities. All because you're such an
    immature cunt you just can't admit you were wrong about something.

    IOW ****wit, you self-defined with near perfection as soon as your
    dumb ass showed up and haven't deviated from that path a single
    micrometer since. You're pretty much the dumbest, most immature
    poster to ever wander aimlessly out of the men's room with toilet
    paper stuck to their shoe, and you're STILL standing in the middle
    of the dance with that blank look on your dumb face while everyone
    snickers at you.


  16. Re: BBC iplayer for Macs in 2008, what about us?



    "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message
    news:forrok$f2r$00$3@news.t-online.com...
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> "Christopher Hunter" wrote in
    >> message news:e8bsj.89698$3m6.42453@fe2.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
    >>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Poor dennis.
    >>>> You got trounced so utterly there that you should better refrain
    >>>> talking
    >>>> about anything even just containing the letters "M" and "D".
    >>>>
    >>>> Has your little sister got around that "time problem" and explained
    >>>> (she
    >>>> would have to use extremely simple wording, of course) the difference
    >>>> of
    >>>> a "collision attack" and a "preimage attack" to you?
    >>>
    >>> You're wasting your time, Peter. "dennis" hasn't got the brainpower to
    >>> understand the difference. I'm /still/ waiting to see his _proof_ of
    >>> the
    >>> flaws in MD5.

    >>
    >> I posted proof that MD5 was flawed, maybe you should learn to read.

    >
    > Nobody actually denied that there is a flaw inMD5, there is a possibility
    > for a collision attack.
    > What everone with half a clue denied was that this flaw is exploiteable
    > the
    > way you were describing.
    > Your "attack vector" is simply a riot. It does *not* work that way, but
    > you
    > are not smart enough to recognize it


    You aren't smart enough to provide any proof.
    Until you do I will treat MD5 the same as any other flawed security measure.
    The only thing that talked sensibly about pre-image attacks was the one I
    posted that proved it was possible.
    Maybe you ignored that one?


  17. Re: BBC iplayer for Macs in 2008, what about us?



    "Anonymous" wrote in message
    news:612090543899d6e09f55297521af53db@hermetix.org ...
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >> I posted proof that MD5 was flawed, maybe you should learn to
    >> read.

    >
    > You posted nothing but bull**** that the entire group handily
    > eviscerated, and ended up backed so far into the corner all you can
    > do is make a complete jackass of yourself by doing nothing but
    > parroting your "I proved" imbecilities. All because you're such an
    > immature cunt you just can't admit you were wrong about something.
    >
    > IOW ****wit, you self-defined with near perfection as soon as your
    > dumb ass showed up and haven't deviated from that path a single
    > micrometer since. You're pretty much the dumbest, most immature
    > poster to ever wander aimlessly out of the men's room with toilet
    > paper stuck to their shoe, and you're STILL standing in the middle
    > of the dance with that blank look on your dumb face while everyone
    > snickers at you.
    >


    Hi Alias.



  18. Re: BBC iplayer for Macs in 2008, what about us?



    "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message
    news:forriu$f2r$00$2@news.t-online.com...

    < snip imbeciles rant >

    > Come, explain what a "collision attack" and a "preimage attack" is, what
    > type the MD5 flaw is, and what this constitutes for your "attack vector"


    You explain it as I posted proof that you could do a pre-image attack which
    you ignored and carried on with your usual irrational rant.

    >
    > But then, you are a Vista user. It does not get any dumber than that


    You are!

    > --
    > Any idiot can run Vista. And usually does.
    >


  19. Re: BBC iplayer for Macs in 2008, what about us?

    dennis@home wrote:

    >
    >
    > "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message
    > news:forrok$f2r$00$3@news.t-online.com...
    >> dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Christopher Hunter" wrote in
    >>> message news:e8bsj.89698$3m6.42453@fe2.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
    >>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Poor dennis.
    >>>>> You got trounced so utterly there that you should better refrain
    >>>>> talking
    >>>>> about anything even just containing the letters "M" and "D".
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Has your little sister got around that "time problem" and explained
    >>>>> (she
    >>>>> would have to use extremely simple wording, of course) the difference
    >>>>> of
    >>>>> a "collision attack" and a "preimage attack" to you?
    >>>>
    >>>> You're wasting your time, Peter. "dennis" hasn't got the brainpower to
    >>>> understand the difference. I'm /still/ waiting to see his _proof_ of
    >>>> the
    >>>> flaws in MD5.
    >>>
    >>> I posted proof that MD5 was flawed, maybe you should learn to read.

    >>
    >> Nobody actually denied that there is a flaw inMD5, there is a possibility
    >> for a collision attack.
    >> What everone with half a clue denied was that this flaw is exploiteable
    >> the
    >> way you were describing.
    >> Your "attack vector" is simply a riot. It does *not* work that way, but
    >> you
    >> are not smart enough to recognize it

    >
    > You aren't smart enough to provide any proof.


    Wrong, Oh Really Stupid One.
    I provided several links. Your problem is that you are not smart enough to
    understand them

    > Until you do I will treat MD5 the same as any other flawed security
    > measure.


    Feel free to do so. Just kindly get lost with your lunatic assumptions

    > The only thing that talked sensibly about pre-image attacks was
    > the one I posted that proved it was possible.


    Err, no. MD5 is *not* susceptible to a pre-image attack.
    It has a flaw which allows collision attacks.

    > Maybe you ignored that one?


    You never provided such "proof", you simply make up **** as you go along
    --
    Windows isn't unstable. It's spontaneous.


  20. Re: BBC iplayer for Macs in 2008, what about us?

    Hadron illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > Moog writes:
    >
    >> Hadron illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >>> Moog writes:
    >>>
    >>>> dennis@home illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >>>>
    >>>>> <...>
    >>>>> Neither do people without computers or broadband so what was your point?
    >>>>> The BBC have made iPlayer freely available to most people with computers..
    >>>>> there must be a point at which they stop supporting smaller and smaller user
    >>>>> numbers. Maybe you should consider buying windows if you want iPlayer that
    >>>>> much?
    >>>>
    >>>> Or simply use the current iplayer website that streams flash content
    >>>> perfectly to linux.
    >>>>
    >>>> If that's not enough, wait until the Beeb follow up on their promise
    >>>> of a linux version for local playback on linux boxes. It is in
    >>>> development and shouldn't take too long too appear.
    >>>> However, it will still apprently incorporate some from of DRM as in the
    >>>> windows version that is produced by Kontiki.
    >>>
    >>> As you know, I have no time for whiners going on about "blame the
    >>> manufacturer". Linux has too small a home presence for most HW guys to
    >>> acre about - and that is their business IMO. BUT in this case I am
    >>> disgusted by the BBC's short sightedness. They could have done this
    >>> right from day one using Open Standards and everything would "just work"
    >>> on all platforms.

    >>
    >> But you miss the point Hadron. They didn't actually do anything. They

    >
    > I didn't actually Moog. I agree with you guys. I said they SHOULD have
    > gone about it a different way.


    Apolgies if I misunderstood.

    >> asked a third party software developer to modify their already
    >> available product to deliver DRM protected content. Unfortunately,
    >> this was "windows only". It was a quick and easy solution though.

    >
    > And was a silly approach. Having said that, it provides a cheap and
    > reads access for the great, great majority and we shouldn't necessarily
    > knock that.


    As Christopher pointed out. It is far from cheap. Quick and
    easy...yup.

    >> They have now committed to producing a linux version. Whether that
    >> turns up or not, I don't know. My crsytal ball is in for a service.
    >> But, when a public funded corporation *say* they are going to do
    >> something, then they will almost certainly have to deliver on their
    >> promise.
    >>
    >>> I am dying to see just how many Linux users access it in the end. I
    >>> suspect a far smaller percentage than many think (but I'll be in that
    >>> %). I still see no real presence in the desktop/home arena I am afraid.

    >>
    >> I think most UK linux users would access the Beeb's content from their
    >> boxes (fffnnaarr) should and when it occurs. I would. I know Trevor
    >> would. And I would be very surprised if you wouldn't.

    >
    > You know the numbers already Moog and it aint good. The COLA morons have
    > been claiming up to 70% of desktop PCs are Linux..... The mind boggles.


    There's more to linux than just geeks behind desktops fella. As you
    well know.

    --
    Moog

    "If this is gonna be that kinda party I'm gonna stick my dick in the
    mashed potatoes"

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast