On 07/11/2007, Noah Slater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 07/11/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 07/11/2007, Noah Slater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > 1. Google OS (windows platform) 53.9%
> > >
> > > What's a windows platform?
>
> Last time I checked, it was an OS.
Noah Slater wrote:
What's a windows platform?
Last time I checked, it was an OS. My question was really, how do you
run an OS on top of another OS. Or rather, why would you want to.
For the heck of it, perhaps? (This post brought to you by Nexenta*
running under VMWare Server on Ubuntu 7.10).
On 07/11/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 07/11/2007, Noah Slater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 1. Google OS (windows platform) 53.9%
> >
> > What's a windows platform?
Last time I checked, it was an OS. My question was really, how do you
run an OS on top of another OS. O
On 07/11/2007, Noah Slater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 1. Google OS (windows platform) 53.9%
>
> What's a windows platform?
It's the thing that stops PUTs on the Jubilee Line extension?
-
> Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
> visit http://backstage.
> 1. Google OS (windows platform) 53.9%
What's a windows platform?
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
I had a wierd dream last night.
It was a sneak preview at the OS visitor breakdown for bbc website
access in 2014.
1. Google OS (windows platform) 53.9%
2. Google OS (Baidu PC platform) 30.9%
3. Google OS (NATO implant platform) 8.7%
3. Google OS (Nokia platform) 2,1%
4. Google OS (Apple Mac plat
NEVAR JOKE! TEH INTRAWEBS ARE SERIOUS F**KING BUSINESS.
On 07/11/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought I was reponding to "do not top post" by top posting. It was
> supposed to be a joke. Sorry, if seemed otherwise.
>
>
>
> On 07/11/2007, Matthew Cashmore <[EMAIL PROTECT
On 07/11/2007, Noah Slater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> NEVAR JOKE! TEH INTRAWEBS ARE SERIOUS F**KING BUSINESS.
And here I was thinking that they were just an ordinary series of tubes...
On 07/11/2007, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 07 November 2007 06:03, Brian Butterworth wrote:
> > On 07/11/2007, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 06/11/2007, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > It's not quite as simple as
I thought I was reponding to "do not top post" by top posting. It was
supposed to be a joke. Sorry, if seemed otherwise.
On 07/11/2007, Matthew Cashmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't think it would do us any harm to be a little politer on here to
> each other sometimes But that's j
I don¹t think it would do us any harm to be a little politer on here to each
other sometimes But that¹s just me.
In fact I¹m also of the opinion we should go back to signing all our letters
with...
Your obedient servant,
m
On 7/11/07 10:29, "Brian Butterworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 07 November 2007 06:03, Brian Butterworth wrote:
> On 07/11/2007, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 06/11/2007, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > > It's not quite as simple as that. It's not to do with receiving
> >
> > broadcast
> >
> > > televis
LOL
On 07/11/2007, Noah Slater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 07/11/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The rules for this discussion forum is "deploy filters". If you are
> > offended, please stop reading. There is no need to consider flaming.
>
> That's not an excuse for
On 07/11/2007, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Brian Butterworth
> On 06/11/2007, Fearghas McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > At 16:12 + 6/11/07, Brian Butterworth wro
On 07/11/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The rules for this discussion forum is "deploy filters". If you are
> offended, please stop reading. There is no need to consider flaming.
That's not an excuse for Ad Hominem attacks - which could easily get
you kicked if someone comp
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth
On 06/11/2007, Fearghas McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 16:12 + 6/11/07, Brian Butterworth wrote:
On 7 Nov 2007, at 06:00, Brian Butterworth wrote:
On 06/11/2007, Fearghas McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 16:12 + 6/11/07, Brian Butterworth wrote:
If the TV Licence was changed to a BBC Licence, it could be
collected by the Internet ISPs on top of their monthly charges,
which wou
On 07/11/2007, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 06/11/2007, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> > It's not quite as simple as that. It's not to do with receiving
> broadcast
> > television anymore, its spec'd as being a television service. A computer
> > with an intern
On 06/11/2007, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 06/11/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > To my mind, the whole Linux-users debate is a clever way of missing the
> > whole blooming point.
>
> I broadly agree, although I think the point is that popularity is
> unim
On 06/11/2007, Fearghas McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 16:12 + 6/11/07, Brian Butterworth wrote:
> If the TV Licence was changed to a BBC Licence, it could be collected by
> the Internet ISPs on top of their monthly charges, which would reduce the
> collection costs.
>
>
> No it would
Tim,
The rules for this discussion forum is "deploy filters". If you are
offended, please stop reading. There is no need to consider flaming.
On 06/11/2007, Tim Dobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 06/11/2007, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Oh please. Don't try and dis
At 01:36 + 7/11/07, Michael Sparks wrote:
>Has there been a later act/amendment?
If the apparatus is not installed or used to receive television programme
service then no licence is required.
Unplugging the aerial and detuning the set are sufficient to render the
apparatus un-installed and u
On 06/11/2007, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> It's not quite as simple as that. It's not to do with receiving broadcast
> television anymore, its spec'd as being a television service. A computer
> with an internet connection picking up the multicast streams from the BBC
> would req
On 06/11/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To my mind, the whole Linux-users debate is a clever way of missing the
> whole blooming point.
I broadly agree, although I think the point is that popularity is
unimportant while principle - ie, the principle that software
developers o
Title: Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks
again
At 16:12 + 6/11/07, Brian Butterworth wrote:
If the TV Licence was changed to a BBC Licence, it could be
collected by the Internet ISPs on top of their monthly charges, which
would reduce the collection costs.
No it would just move the
On 06/11/2007, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Oh please. Don't try and dismiss the point by picking up on one obviously
> illustrative statistic. Of course you never mentioned 30%. But you're
> claiming that the actual figures for Linux use are much higher than the
> evidence sho
On 06/11/2007, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 06 November 2007 15:42, Kevin Hinde wrote:
> > The license fee gives you a license to own equipment capable of
> > receiving broadcast television.
> >
> > If all you have in your house is a computer (no TV card) and an internet
On Tuesday 06 November 2007 15:42, Kevin Hinde wrote:
> The license fee gives you a license to own equipment capable of
> receiving broadcast television.
>
> If all you have in your house is a computer (no TV card) and an internet
> connection, then you don't have to pay a license fee.
It's not qu
Brian Butterworth said
> * Everyone currently has to pay the licenece fee, as long as
they have equipment capable of receiving television broadcasts (from
analogue terrestrial, Freeview, Sky/Freesat, cable or IPTV). Mr
Highfield, as the BBC's representative, is breaking the trust of the
Lice
To my mind, the whole Linux-users debate is a clever way of missing the
whole blooming point.
It matters not exactly what the current percentage is because:
* The BBC Charter is a ten-year commitment, and the BBC does not and cannot
dictate which computers and operating systems licence fee payers
> This always makes me laugh, whether it's Firefox users or Linux users.
> "Because you *can* change the UA in my favourite software, it
> automatically follows that 30% of reported visitors *are* faking it."
I sometimes wonder what these sites are that still need spoofing cos I haven't
been visi
On 11/6/07, Tim Dobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 05/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
> wrote:
> >
> > This always makes me laugh, whether it's Firefox users or Linux users.
> >
> > "Because you *can* change the UA in my favourite software, it
> > automatically follows that 30
On 05/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> This always makes me laugh, whether it's Firefox users or Linux users.
>
> "Because you *can* change the UA in my favourite software, it
> automatically follows that 30% of reported visitors *are* faking it."
>
> (Sounds of straws bein
> My question to Kevin Hinde would be, how many users are we unsure of their
> Operating system? Where are they classed?
> For example, I have a small blog and I have some visitor statistics (using
> bbclone) on that.
> The 3rd most popular operating system is "?" ie unrecognised.
> for an example
This always makes me laugh, whether it's Firefox users or Linux users.
"Because you *can* change the UA in my favourite software, it
automatically follows that 30% of reported visitors *are* faking it."
(Sounds of straws being grasped)
Cheers,
Rich.
On 11/5/07, Tim Dobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
Considering, Ashley's recent interview on backstage podcast, in which he
tries to dispel some of the displease aimed at the iPlayer from the Free
Software and Open Source Communities, it is quite unfortunate that he has
made such a public mistake at their expense, in the past few days.
Considering
!)
>
> Anyway, where's the Windows community in all this ;)
>
> --
> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Richard Lockwood
> *Sent:* 05 November 2007 14:50
> *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> *Subject:* Re
.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
And it appears the Linux community has managed to ignore
what he has to say and has organised a "let's shout him down louder and
louder unti
Windows community in all this ;)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Lockwood
Sent: 05 November 2007 14:50
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
And it appears the Linux community has managed to ignore what he has to say
and has organised a "let's shout him down louder and louder until someone
takes some notice of us" party.
No positive suggestions, just "bleat bleat bleat we hate you..." As ever.
Cheers,
R.
Ashley has posted an update
I said:
> I'll see if I can get Linux stats for you.
Ashley has posted an update:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/linux_figures_1.html
Here's what you get from Sage if you ask for a report on OS Type (as announced
in the User-Agent string) and User numbers, over the month of Sept
>Whether it was deliberately misleading I couldn't say. I suppose my opinion
>will
>depend on whether he corrects himself or lets the misunderstanding stand. It
>was certainly a derogatory remark to make about the size and implied
>importance/relevance of the linux community.
Ashley now contri
Matt Hammond wrote:
> If the usage profile of those linux users is broadly
> comparable to those of the other platforms you're probably right.
>
> One other thought: Ashley Highfield's comments may only
> relate to the main www.bbc.co.uk site - excluding BBC news.
> Historically the news have r
Matt Hammond wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:54:03 -, David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> Matt Hammond wrote:
>>> The statements attributes to Ashley Highfield seem to talk about *users*
>>> (eg. measured as unique cookies) whereas the other numbers we're
>>> comparing against here
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:54:03 -, David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Matt Hammond wrote:
The statements attributes to Ashley Highfield seem to talk about *users*
(eg. measured as unique cookies) whereas the other numbers we're
comparing against here are being described as "usage" and
Matt Hammond wrote:
> The statements attributes to Ashley Highfield seem to talk about *users*
> (eg. measured as unique cookies) whereas the other numbers we're
> comparing against here are being described as "usage" and "hits".
>
> Just thought I'd point it out before we get in a mess :-)
Still
That said, I also reckon 400-600 sounds far too low!
Matt
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:52:54 -, Matt Hammond
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The statements attributes to Ashley Highfield seem to talk about *users*
(eg. measured as unique cookies) whereas the other numbers we're
comparing again
The statements attributes to Ashley Highfield seem to talk about *users*
(eg. measured as unique cookies) whereas the other numbers we're comparing
against here are being described as "usage" and "hits".
Just thought I'd point it out before we get in a mess :-)
Matt
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:
Thanks for that, I was pretty certain there was a mistake somewhere as I
said, I'd expect for a site as big as bbc.co.uk to get more than 4-600 hits
from people on their mobile phones (I have a low-tech Nokia 60-70, and even
it's capable of viewing the beebs site, add opera mini and most of the web
On Thursday 01 November 2007 17:01, Andrew Bowden wrote:
> I've been discussing this in the office, so I did some sums
>
> Having a look at various (non-BBC) site stats I have access to, I'm
> seeing a 3-4% market share. Now on some of them, I know I'm counting
> towards those stats, but one partic
I've been discussing this in the office, so I did some sums
Having a look at various (non-BBC) site stats I have access to, I'm
seeing a 3-4% market share. Now on some of them, I know I'm counting
towards those stats, but one particular site (with a 3.6% Linux usage) I
don't look at regularly (I
51 matches
Mail list logo
