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.
Thread beginning with comment 227559
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by ormandj
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 4th Apr 2007 21:52 UTC in reply to "Comment by ormandj"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

What the hell are you talking about? This is just listing the FACTS.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by ormandj
by Beta on Wed 4th Apr 2007 22:29 in reply to "RE: Comment by ormandj"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Didn't you miss the bit about yT employees still waiting for owed monies? It's a fact however ugly.

"On 23rd March this year, Bernd Korz and his team part ways with Magnussoft."
I thought Magnussoft did the parting. It's the same thing, but paints a different picture.

I share David's viewpoint, this does seem more like Bernd's version of events. It's boggling that you need to remind people how things happened, OSNews.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by ormandj
by ormandj on Wed 4th Apr 2007 23:19 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

RE[3]: Comment by ormandj
by Eugenia on Wed 4th Apr 2007 23:23 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ormandj"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

No, the article does not take the side of anyone. This is clear when we say that the Koch contract was only about BeOS 5 and not Zeta and so forth. We simply layed out what we know about the case. Nothing more, nothing less.

>is debated further down in the comments on this story.

YellowTAB *did* buy the contract from Koch. The question is only if Zeta could be sold under that contract or not.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by ormandj
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 5th Apr 2007 09:06 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ormandj"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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.


What? This is 100% factual! It would be non-factual if we had started to speculate about what happened during the meeting-- but since we do not know, we just said, "we don't know". THAT is factual.

ormandj, you seem hell-bent on attacking Zeta, yT, and Bernd. This is fine by me, we live in a free world, but pleae do not force YOUR biased ideas on to Eugenia and I, who are just trying to be as close to the facts as possible.

Edited 2007-04-05 09:07

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by ormandj
by jmansion on Thu 5th Apr 2007 12:35 in reply to "RE: Comment by ormandj"
jmansion Member since:
2006-02-20

Thom,

FACTS don't have question marks at the end.

Sadly the timeline you present presents little of value because you don't actually know and facts about the various contracts that may or may not exist.

I don't know why those questions were there, in that form. Given the prior statement from Access regarding the lack of upside to compensate the costs of press releases, legal actions etc, they seem out of place and bizarrely oriented toward conspiracy theory.

James

Reply Parent Score: 4