* MJ Ray:
> You have your view, but some of us do think ownership has an
> effect on editorial policy and your mud-slinging is ill-aimed.
It has, but it doesn't cover the answer to the question whether IBM's
Linux or Microsoft's Windows is better. 8-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECT
Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Tinfoil-hat? It's not as if I'm the only one questioning who owns
> > the media these days. [...]
> It's not really relevant. [...] the raving of kooks.
You have your view, but some of us do think ownership has an
effect on editorial
Dave Hornford wrote: [...]
> The 'news' was Debian shipped unready & with a security vulnerability.
If shipping without automatic detection of security updates is a
vulnerability now, there are many vulnerable systems out there.
[...]
> No one from the mainstream media will read a Debian list for
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, MJ Ray wrote:
Tinfoil-hat? It's not as if I'm the only one questioning who owns
the media these days. http://www.freepress.net/
http://www.mediatrademonitor.org/ http://www.openairwaves.org/ and so on.
I thought the "page views" bit was obvious. The ownership and ad-base
me
Mainstream media hears that Open Source is less vulnerable to security
risks & ( to the extent they hear anything about Debian) that Sarge
wouldn't ship until 'it was ready'.
The 'news' was Debian shipped unready & with a security vulnerability.
Yes it was,discovered, fixed and every probable u
Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, MJ Ray wrote:
> > ZDnet is owned by CNET Networks, which has links to Microsoft
> Well so does Bruce Perens if you read the post that started this thread :-)
Yes, and Bruce's own explanation of his questionable business
can be found linked at http://ww
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, MJ Ray wrote:
ZDnet is owned by CNET Networks, which has links to Microsoft
Well so does Bruce Perens if you read the post that started this thread :-)
A less tinfoil-hat explanation is that inflammatory stories like this
will get tons of page views from outraged Debian
Martin Schulze wrote:
> Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > I'm beginning to wonder what ZDNet have against us at this point...
> Not sure, but maybe they're just reading the "wrong" lists? Or
> we're just distributing the "wrong" content?
ZDnet is owned by CNET Networks, which has links to Microsoft
co-fo
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >Headline: Debian upgrade may 'break' systems
> >
> >Quote: "I expect around 30 percent of users will suffer serious breakage
> > that could have been avoided"
> >
> >http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/0,261733,39196419,00.htm
> >
> >The article refers to
> >htt
Joey wrote:
>
>Headline: Debian upgrade may 'break' systems
>
>Quote: "I expect around 30 percent of users will suffer serious breakage
> that could have been avoided"
>
>http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/0,261733,39196419,00.htm
>
>The article refers to
>http://lists.debian.org/debia
Martin Schulze wrote:
> Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> > This needs to be done fast, so that journalists and other interested
> > parties that want to follow up on this "news" also get our side
> > of the story. Otherwise we leave them with only the ZDnet side of
> > the story.
>
> Where is the prob
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:25:36PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> > My only proposal is to urgently bring the information of which version
> > is the current "stable" version in line on the different pages under
> > http://www.debian.org. At this moment (Friday 12:42 p
Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 07:18:04PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> > > This needs to be done fast, so that journalists and other interested
> > > parties that want to follow up on this "news" also get our side
> > > of the story. Otherwise we
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, Enrico Zini wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 06:40:09PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
I'm more concerned about user confusion than about
what ZDnet happens to be saying.
Nevertheless, a tiny press release correcting the ZDNet news would be
useful. Something along the line of:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 07:18:04PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> > This needs to be done fast, so that journalists and other interested
> > parties that want to follow up on this "news" also get our side
> > of the story. Otherwise we leave them with only the ZDnet side
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 06:40:09PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> debian-announce). I'm more concerned about user confusion than about
> what ZDnet happens to be saying.
Nevertheless, a tiny press release correcting the ZDNet news would be
useful. Something along the line of:
ZDNet misreports De
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 05:02:08PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> > For reasons of PR, I would suggest to urgently update at least
> > the main site and the News site with version 3.1 r0a (under News
> > on the main section). You might also link to a text that correctly
> > de
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 07:18:04PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> > This needs to be done fast, so that journalists and other interested
> > parties that want to follow up on this "news" also get our side
> > of the story. Otherwise we leave them with only the ZDnet side
Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> This needs to be done fast, so that journalists and other interested
> parties that want to follow up on this "news" also get our side
> of the story. Otherwise we leave them with only the ZDnet side of
> the story.
Where is the problem? We cannot correct everything a
Michael Banck wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > ZDnet are being silly.
> Sure, but they wrote it and people read it. And now they will think
> 'Ugh, sarge? Wasn't that this thing which has no security?'. There is
> obviously a problem here, and just saying that ZDnet is silly (which
> they are, of cours
Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> For reasons of PR, I would suggest to urgently update at least
> the main site and the News site with version 3.1 r0a (under News
> on the main section). You might also link to a text that correctly
> describes our view on what happened and how it was repaired.
>
> T
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 03:51:41PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > There was a devel-announce about it as soon as it was discovered.
>
> Additionally, it was sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> is visible on http://www.debian.org/CD/releases/ - had anyone
> actually had time to download, burn and sell these
> There was a devel-announce about it as soon as it was discovered.
Additionally, it was sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
is visible on http://www.debian.org/CD/releases/ - had anyone
actually had time to download, burn and sell these before the
notice was sent? (I didn't send mine yet.)
--
MJ Ray
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 03:47:47PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> > Well, Sarge == stable _did_ make it to the news now, but
> > probably not as we have hoped ... My ZDnet news agent mailed
> > me this item this morning:
> > "Debian drops ball on security updates"
>
> There
Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> Well, Sarge == stable _did_ make it to the news now, but
> probably not as we have hoped ... My ZDnet news agent mailed
> me this item this morning:
> "Debian drops ball on security updates"
[...]
> I searched this morning and found nothing about this on http://www.d
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 01:51:40PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
> So on the day sarge releases, the big news in the
> free-software world is, "Bruce Perens gets a job?"
Well, Sarge == stable _did_ make it to the news now, but
probably not as we have hoped ... My ZDnet news agent mailed
me thi
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
When I called, voice mail picked up, and I
did leave a voice message combining Peter's structure
and points with Michael's solid content. Whether the
reporter Guth phones me back, indeed whether we get any
response at all, remains to be seen;
I hig
On 6/8/05, Thaddeus H. Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter, Michael, your responses were immensely helpful.
> Thank you. When I called, voice mail picked up, and I
> did leave a voice message combining Peter's structure
> and points with Michael's solid content. Whether the
> reporter Guth p
Peter, Michael, your responses were immensely helpful.
Thank you. When I called, voice mail picked up, and I
did leave a voice message combining Peter's structure
and points with Michael's solid content. Whether the
reporter Guth phones me back, indeed whether we get any
response at all, remains
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 01:51:40PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
...
> I lack past experience in media relations. I don't
> really know what to say. I don't think that, "Get a
> clue, dude" would help. Suggestions?
* _start_ the discussion on the positive news about Sarge
and the importance
On 6/8/05, Thaddeus H. Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have obtained the reporter Guth's work phone number
> and do mean to phone him when he reaches his desk this
> morning. He's on U.S. Pacific Time (GMT minus 0700).
> Have you any suggestion as to what I should say?
Tell 'im, Debian "unst
This message goes out about 14:00 GMT. By 15:00 GMT
or so it begins partly to lose relevance, so please
reply soon if you can think of anything to say.
The topic is news media relations. The Wall Street
Journal has tried fairly hard since about 1998 to keep
up with Linux developments. However,
32 matches
Mail list logo
