Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Apr 2007 21:29 UTC
Zeta A lot of things have happened in the past few days concerning Zeta, BeOS, and Haiku. In order to create some order in the chaos, Eugenia and I have created a rough timeline of what happened the past 6-7 years. Read on for the timeline and some more thoughts on the matter. Update: Magnusoft ceases distribution of Zeta. Update II: Access answered the questions posed in the article.
Permalink for comment 227625
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by ormandj
by ormandj on Wed 4th Apr 2007 23:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ormandj"
ormandj
Member since:
2005-10-09

I answered all your questions. That should cover what the first 90% of my post was "talking about".

As to the remaining 10%, it was simply pointing out this kind of "defense" should have waited until Bernd made his statement concerning what occurred. Read below for why I classify the post as a hastily thrown together defense.

You and I have two differing opinions on what constitutes a fact.

Eugenia does not know if these talks were ever finished, nor does she know if anything finalized got signed (although some draft contracts could have been signed).


...but we don't know what ever happened after their meeting.


These are two obvious non-factual events, as there is uncertainty involved.

In fact, the entire statement:

So. It's 2001. Be, Inc. is in talks with a German company (Koch Media, more here) to grant them distribution rights of BeOS 5 in Germany and the rest of Europe. Eugenia does not know if these talks were ever finished, nor does she know if anything finalized got signed (although some draft contracts could have been signed). Eventually, YellowTAB buys that contract from that company.


is debated further down in the comments on this story.

[Edit: http://www4.osnews.com/permalink?227608 <-- this is what I am talking about.]

I'd have been fine with a pure factual time line, but that's not what this is.

Maybe I went a bit far in calling it a defense, but if you were aiming to make a completely factual time line of events that left opinion by the wayside, you rather failed.

I have no problem with editorials "connecting the dots" and so forth, it's actually interesting to see how viewpoints have changed so drastically in two days from blind loyalty to admission of wrongdoings. I just don't understand making a "factual" time line containing "don't know" multiple times. To me, this made it seem like a slanted article, because the "don't know"'s seemed to support Bernd's side. Much like watching Fox News or watching CNN, there seems to be a slant to the writing.

That said, my original comment wasn't intended to be some "flipping out" moment, I answered the questions postulated, and that was my primary goal. My apologies if the very last paragraph upset somebody, it was merely my impression from having read the non-factual factual time line.

Edited 2007-04-04 23:25 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5