[Sussex] Heres a Question. not linux but open source related.

[Andrew Guard]

nik butler wrote:
>> If you've signed a contract detailing exactly what is and isn't a 
>> function of the product, then I don't think it matters - as long as 
>> the TV section is working, it is 'fit for purpose'.
> 
> Except. They advertise a service and features as part of the package. So 
> its back to AdvertisingStandards. IIRC Ive not signed anything with SKY 
> they just took a phone order for the SKY+ Upgrade.
> 
>>
>> I'm guessing if Sky got taken to court though, they'd lose - if it 
>> weren't for the fact they Mr. Murdock has more money than [probably] 
>> any of us on this list ;)
> 
> Actually im trying to get Sky to publish a service status page , similar 
> to ISP pages in order to help inform end users. Tnen im trying to get 
> them to refund the additional £10 i pay a month for SKY+ which is sold 
> as Pause, Rewind and Record.

Get in touch with Ofcom/DTI see if they could get Sky to do something.

SKY+ HD has some serious problems, the only way I have found to get that 
HD to work correctly is by turn off the Auto recorder feature. 
Reformating is total waste of time, it so much bs!

Which sucks.

> 
>>
>>>>
>>>>> 2] Should Sky realease the code ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would people know what to do with it if they did?
>>>
>>>
>>> no ... but if that statement is true why bother with any open source ?
>>
>>
>> Good answer :)
>>
>> I'm not sure of the hardware specs of any of the Sky boxes, but I 
>> would imagine people have looked at hacking them (esp. the Sky+ boxes) 
>> and found it too difficult. Why not just get a TiVo? :)
> 
> Hmmm i think your thinking of reasons for releasing the code which are 
> different to my reasons for releasing the code. Im not suggesting they 
> release hardware documentation . just the raw code. dont LinkSys and 
> Netgear do this and yet they dont fully document howto build their 
> routers and base stations ?

Linksys / Netgear uses a lot of open source code.  Long story behind it 
but they where forced to do it.  Also they don't released eeverything!

> 
> Likewise Sky( or their subsiduary ) could release the code. Theres a 
> fair chance a developer might be interested enough to inspect it and 
> spot a potential issue ?

I can not rember now which firm did write software for Sky+ box's.  But 
if memory serves me correctly they are base in northern England.

It a real shame Sky isn't owned by UK government like BBC or Channel 4 
as we could of used Freedom of Information Act.  For private business 
this law doesn't apply.
> 
> The current code obscurity is reducing the chance of someone locating 
> and fixing an issue is it not ?

Like they really care, they have your money.  The only why for things to 
change is Sky in class action over problems with Sky+.