BBC News Under The Bonnet

diodesign writes "BBC News has revealed that Linux and Apache power its popular news website, along with a modified DNS server and machine farms in New York and London. At peak times, the site serves over 4 million users and 50 million page impressions a day. It's a pretty well explained guide to producing a regularly updated content based website that scales well." From the article: "The technology which serves the site is designed to be as simple as possible. The simpler the site, the cheaper it is to run. There are fewer elements which can malfunction on big days; and there are fewer parts which can be compromised by someone trying to gain unauthorised access."

Comments

Cool.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now perhaps the CBC will learn from this.

Re:Cool.

[temojen]

[(me)@localhost security]$ wget -S www.cbc.ca
--12:45:57-- http://www.cbc.ca/
=> `index.html.6'
Resolving www.cbc.ca... done.
Connecting to www.cbc.ca[209.249.114.35]:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response...
1 HTTP/1.0 200 OK
2 Server: Apache/1.3.31 (Unix) mod_gzip/1.3.26.1a mod_jk/1.2.5
3 Content-Type: text/html
4 Expires: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 19:45:58 GMT
5 Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 19:45:58 GMT
6 Connection: close
7 Set-Cookie: Webtrends=209.249.114.31.55231117827957965; path=/; expires=Wed, 30-Nov-05 19:45:57 GMT

[ <=> ] 40,518 238.36K/s

12:45:58 (238.36 KB/s) - `index.html.6' saved [40518]

Looks like a pretty minimally configured server to me.
Their HTMl sure could use some cleaning up though. 40K for the HTML of your homepage? oy!. Looks like most of it was assembled with SSI, though, the mod_jk is probably for processing forms or something.

Re:Cool.

[Dimpled Chad]

At least CBC offers an ogg stream. It's a lot more reliable than the real audio stream that NPR/WBUR gives. Got to give them some credit for that.

Re:Cool.

[flossie]

It's strange to see so many photos with Mac references in BBC News technical articles, when hardly anyone uses them.

... except for the BBC web page designers.

Sean Rose, Charleston, US: It's sad to see a room full of Dell computers here. I read the BBC news because I generally think it's smarter and less biased than it's American counterparts. I would think that enlightened individuals in media publishing would know the value of using Macs - at least some!
Well the kit seems OK for the journalists clattering away in our content production system - but the designers in the room next door all have Macs. OK?

whoops

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone else read that as "BBC under the botnet" ?

Re:whoops

[evilmonkey_666]

Bonnet means hood for all you Americans.

Re:whoops

[smittyoneeach]

The BBC is staffed with Amish women?

Re:whoops

[evilmonkey_666]

You can never be too careful, when I was in school in california I once asked the teacher for a rubber (eraser). She thought I wanted a condom.

Re:whoops

[freshman_a]

I remember how confused I was the first time someone asked me if I was "taking the piss" (I think that's the phrase). I didn't understand what urine had to do with our conversation at the time.

Re:whoops

[voxlator]

"I remember how confused I was..."

You can probably stop right there, if you're an American describing an event where you were listening to something that was being said by a Brit.

--#voxlator

Re:whoops

[rjshields]

An american woman in the pub was talking about her sore fanny (bottom). Everyone thought she was talking about her vagina.

Re:whoops

[Patik]

Bonnet means hood for all you Americans.

What anti-American snob modded this 'insightful'? We know what bonnets are.

Re:whoops

[th3space]

'Hood' has many meanings for Americans, rest of the world.

Re:whoops

[th3space]

Very much so...or at the very least he is a dirty, filthy football hooligan.

Re:whoops

[bismark.a]

Funny thing! Must be doing a lot of Google and other bots lately. I did read it as botnet, and then had to check again after reading your post that it was infact bo-N-net. Atleast, I am not alone ;-)

9th most popular web site

[Malc]

According to Netcraft, they're the 9th most popular site on the web. That's after several variations of Google, and toolbar.netcraft.com... so take with heaps of NaCl.

Re:9th most popular web site

[rpozz]

Interesting stats. I wonder how microsoft.com is ahead of msn.com? Or for that matter, how is microsoft.com in 3rd place?

Re:9th most popular web site

[jonbryce]

I'm surprised that microsoft.com is higher up the list than hotmail. I would have thought it would be the other way round.

Re:9th most popular web site

[Neil Blender]

how is microsoft.com in 3rd place?

Massive downloading of security fixes, I assume.

Re:9th most popular web site

[Naikrovek]

that little service that checks for updates on windowsupdate.microsoft.com probably has something to do with it.

Re:9th most popular web site

[Husgaard]

No, http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/ is number 79 in the list.

Re:9th most popular web site

[sentientbeing]

Maybe people who have had the same homepage since they bought their machine and don't know how to change it.

Re:9th most popular web site

[justforaday]

That's what I initially thought. But windowsupdate comes in at 40 and 79 on the list.

Re:9th most popular web site

[nganju]

I always check both Netcraft and Alexa to get two independent data points, just to be on the safe side.

For the record, Alexa has them at #23.
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/?url=bbc.co.uk

Re:9th most popular web site

[zootm]

Interesting stats. I wonder how microsoft.com is ahead of msn.com? Or for that matter, how is microsoft.com in 3rd place?

Try typing a URL without the : on a windows box, for example http//google.com (you'll need to paste that into a new window).

Re:9th most popular web site

[Lord Kestrel]

You can still get HPUX, Solaris/Sparc and Mac versions of it.

Re:9th most popular web site

[Daniel_Staal]

The Mac version is discontinued.

Re:9th most popular web site

[Dash-o-Salt]

Don't mind if I do. :)

Re:9th most popular web site

[Hektor_Troy]

I ended up here: http://www.http.com//google.com.

Did you perhaps mean Internet Explorer instead of Windows?

Re:9th most popular web site

[Feztaa]

Heh, I did that on firefox/linux and it took me to microsoft.com.

It just means microsoft is the first google hit for "http" because that's what firefox does when you give it an invalid URL, it googles it.

Re:9th most popular web site

[JehCt]

BBC is the 23rd most popular web site. The fact that they are running Apache is obvious and public, as is the fact that they have a bunch of coding errors in their home page.

With Firefox, the developer toolbar and Quirk SearchStatus, and you can learn all these things yourself.

Re:9th most popular web site

[zootm]

The reply to you explains it. I was using Firefox though. I had assumed it was a Windows thing!

Re:9th most popular web site

[Lord Kestrel]

Just to clarify, the AC wasn't me :)

Re:9th most popular web site

[Daniel_Staal]

I didn't think it was. :) (And I didn't think it was worth responding to him.)

Re:9th most popular web site

[stefanlasiewski]

For giggles, check out the https keyword:

https//example.com

but how does it compare

[VolciMaster]

To /.'s daily load?

Re:but how does it compare

[databyss]

I'd be willing to wager that /. has more than 2 Library of Congress's of bandwidth more usage.

Re:but how does it compare

[dascritch]

Very very very very huge. BBC has a enormous audience in UK, as every national public television service in Europe (France, where I live, is one of the rare exception as a private channel has better audience instead of a public channel) And BBC World is really famous and really more respected than, let's say CNN international or Faux News.

Re:but how does it compare

[johansalk]

BBC is many, many, many times more than slashdot.

Re:but how does it compare

[EvilMonkeySlayer]

*sniffle* Ah, it's one of the few things us British can be proud of.

The BBC is also highly popular around the world not only for BBC World but also for its radio service which it broadcasts around the world in LOTS of languages, which might also help to explain why it (BBC TV and Radio) is much more popular than say CNN or Foxnews which to my knowledge broadcast in English only.

Re:but how does it compare

[passthecrackpipe]

I detest your unit of measurement - it is *so* US-Centric. Why not use a proper unit of measurement, such as "x" Gutenbergs or something. Also, *much* more open source friendly dude....

Re:but how does it compare

[dascritch]

Euuuh ? Aren't you proud of you £ and imperial mesures ? Then join Europe !.... oh sorry, I forgot Tchatcher...

Re:but how does it compare

[Daniel_Staal]

See the comment directly above you: BBC is the world's 9th busiest site, /. is the 32nd.

Re:but how does it compare

[jacksonj04]

I'd reckon it makes /. look like some kid's blog.

The BBC is quite possibly the most respected news organisation in the world, I certainly don't know of any other which people worldwide will tune into in order to know what's happening.

I know that the BBC servers can field pretty much everything you throw at them, to the extent that during 9/11 they were given a pretty severe hammering and just kept ticking.

To say they have zero advertising revenue *anywhere*, that isn't bad going.

Re:but how does it compare

[Anonymous Coward]

The public are anti-EU, so a neutral stance would appear to the public as pro-EU to some degree. The only bias is from the public.

As an exercise, I looked at some of the photos on the BBC news articles during the referendum on the constitution in France. The photos of the 'YES' campaign usually showed smiling, often young, people, whilst the photos of the 'NO' campaign generally showed either no people or angry-looking people.

I do find it curious that you think the BBC should ignore what you call public bias. Certainly the BBC should reflect the views of the public, which is true impartiality. This follows from the same principle as the practice of giving more attention to Labour or the Tories than to fringe parties.

Re:but how does it compare

[hazee]

You'd better just hope they don't post a story with a link to slashdot...

Re:but how does it compare

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

As an exercise, I looked at some of the photos on the BBC news articles during the referendum on the constitution in France. The photos of the 'YES' campaign usually showed smiling, often young, people, whilst the photos of the 'NO' campaign generally showed either no people or angry-looking people.
But maybe "yes" people are generally happier and "no" people generally more miserable!

Re:but how does it compare

[rjshields]

Euuuh ? Aren't you proud of you £ and imperial mesures ?

Yeap, they're miles better than the metric equivalents!

Re:but how does it compare

[nzkbuk]

I'd be willing to bet that you have your numbers the wrong way around.
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/stats/topsites?s=1#1 shows that news.bbc.co.uk is the 9th most popular site with /. as 32nd.
Also most of the additional content (pictures, audio & video clips) is part of the bbc site, just served by other servers in the same netblock (aka they have servers that do most of the web page & text with others providing non-text elements). /. is only text (all pictures (ads) are served by external servers) so would serve even less in terms of BW.

Re:but how does it compare

[nzkbuk]

But maybe "yes" people are generally happier and "no" people generally more miserable!

Most probably because the "yes" people were just relaxing and following the goverment, where the "no" people had to fight against the goverment's mentality

Re:but how does it compare

[k7net]

CNN or Foxnews which to my knowledge broadcast in English only.
Well, actually, CNN broadcasts in Spanish too.

Re:but how does it compare

[databyss]

slashdot.org is #32, but that doesn't take into account all hits at the subdomains. For example apache.slashdot.org or apple.slashdot.org.

And BBC is #10 now.

I also conceed that I could be very far off in my guess since it is a... ummm... guess.

Re:but how does it compare

[nzkbuk]

yes, conceeded it doesn't take into account the subdomains, but if you look also in that list is www.bbc.co.uk at about 30

Re:but how does it compare

[databyss]

Very true... I guess the world will never know.

Much like the often pondered quandry, "how many licks does it take to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop?"

I demand solid figures from the powers that be!

I wonder how RSS plays into this...

A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[Eunuch]

I leave them on. I want to see the sites that insist on putting up pop-up ads to whoever comes by. So I will remember never to use them. BBC has never done this to me, and I use it for news even though I am a USian. Go BBC.

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[PaxTech]

Yeah, you know, I really wish the US government would take our money ($10 BILLION per year) against our will to fund an organization to tell us what to think. That would totally rock.

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[databyss]

I check bbc daily also from the US.

Although I don't find much difference from what you get on CNN which I also check daily.

BBC does have more on "football/american soccer" though, not that I care.

I really hate when BBC has a slow news day though. You get 10 of the same article, with the same exact paragraphs just in a different order.

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[doppe1]

Yes i would much rather have companies paying that money to tell me what to buy, or the government paying the newscasters to tell us what to think.

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[aslate]

Yeah, you know, I really wish the US government would take our money ($10 BILLION per year) against our will to fund an organization to tell us what to think.

Oh yes, that propaganda machine known as the BBC... Funny how all three political parties say that it's biased. Surely that means that it's as unbiased as you can possibly get in political terms?

I say that it's worth it, we get decent programming, they're actually not allowed to produce a Big-Brother equivalent, ad-free TV and a large array of other services. And the BBC is not run by the government, the BBC collects the licence fee itself.

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[shakah]

...I really wish the US government would take our money ... against our will to fund an organization...

Well, at only $750 million or so you don't quite get your wish, but maybe if you're a good boy or girl...

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[domanova]

Well, I look at my licence and see I'm paying some $20 a month for the beeb. Actually, so my kid can watch TV. Radio and web (which I use much more) do not require a licence. Add it up in (let us say) 20M households and you get to about $5 billion a year, I don't know where the 10 comes from - wikipedia quotes 2.6 billion quid in 2003. Anyway, I'd happily pay twice that not to watch Fox

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[aslate]

There is a law that you need to own a TV licence to have a TV, that's how the BBC is funded. It's a criminal offence not to have one, but that doesn't mean it's government controlled. Of course you probably know all this and are just trolling.

The Government don't choose the programs, the news stories, etc. If it was so biased, why is it one of the most respected news agencies in the world?

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[domanova]

Three-and-a-half times, that's my final offer

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[wavedeform]

I use it for news even though I am a USian

Well, living in the US we pretty much have to use BBC for news, don't we?

In the US most news sources seem to have devolved into adverganda, and faith-based reporting.

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[dascritch]

The Beeb has a "royal chart" about its independance with the government. One day I saw Tony Blair in a not consensual interview about Irak. Wow. I wish have independant public service in France (as I suppose Spain and Italy...), but instead, I do my part-time on independant associative radios http://cnra.asso.fr/> where I teach new animators what is pleasure to make good show with independent toughts.

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[PaxTech]

Anyway, I'd happily pay twice that not to watch Fox.

Did Fox ever demand your money without asking your consent, just because you own a TV? And then get the government to collect it for them?

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[jimicus]

If a mad dictator comes to power in the USA or UK, do you really think he won't be able to find you if he wants to

We already have a mad dictator in power in the UK. He's just not that dangerous to the general populace. I have no desire to make his life any easier in terms of finding me, particularly as the danger he poses may go up as well as down.

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[PaxTech]

Yes, thanks for justifying tyranny based on your personal preferences. Why is it that every time I slam the TV licence fee someone tries to rebut by telling me they think it's a good deal for them personally?

What if it was money taken from you for a purpose you didn't agree with? Would you still be so sanguine about it? Shouldn't the people who don't think it's a good deal be able to opt out, if they promise not to watch the BBC?

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[Insipid Trunculance]

I wish i wouldnt rise to obvious trolls.But i cant resist and yet i havent anything better to say than this Guy

Now you know why we love the Aunty.

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[moggie_xev]

Yup the BBC is one of the best bargains we have here.

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[kraut]

Did Fox ever give you decent, unbiased world news coverage?

I rest my case.

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[kraut]

I find a lot of the recent legislation in the UK very objectionable, although funnily not the BBC license fee.

>That level of government intrusion is, to an American, pretty goddamned objectionable. As are various Secrecy and Censorship acts that Britons and Canadians are way too comfortable with
Isn't that a case of the pot calling the kettle black? The US seems to have more than it's fair share of secrecy, censorship & oppresion acts & agencies domestically, not to mention internationally.

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[RichardX]

haha
Well said, that man.

From the blog post:
No "Crazy Frog"

That, in itself, is worth the entire license fee.
What kind of retard buys that damn thing anyway? It's like a tax on stupidity. It should have a signal embedded in it that makes your mobile explode, killing you, thus rendering the gene pool free of the tyranny of your stupidity. And another thing--*fades into the distance, ranting and raving*

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[mikael]

The UK did try using identity cards in the past; just before World War II. Unfortunately, some police officers used the inability to produce ID as an excuse for arresting people.

From: www.statewatch.org

Three main reasons were put forward by the government for passing the law in September 1939. The first was the major dislocation of the population caused by mobilisation and mass evacuation and also the wartime need for complete manpower control and planning in order to maximise the efficiency of the war economy. It may or may not have been necessary - that is a matter of dispute but it was seen as emergency, temporary legislation to cope with special circumstances.

The second main reason why the Act was passed was the likelihood of rationing. It was felt that the imminence of rationing (introduced from January 1940 onwards) entailed the need for an up-to-date system of standardised registration, so that rationing could be introduced as easily as possible.

The third main reason was that the Government needed recent statistics about the population. As the last census had been held in 1931 and the next was not due until 1941, there was little accurate data on which to base vital planning decisions. The National Register was in fact an instant census. Indeed, the National Registration Act bears a close resemblance to the 1920 Census Act in many respects.

Introducing the new law to Parliament, Health Minister Walter Elliot explained that the whole process of registration would be carried through in about three weeks and that it would form the basis for proper wartime planning.

In short, none of the three major reasons put forward for the 1939 Act could be put forward today as a reason for introducing identity cards. There is no emergency on a remotely comparable scale to that of war; there is no immediate prospect of wholesale rationing; and there is no shortage of detailed census and survey data. Equally it is worth noting that none of the reasons nowadays advanced in favour of the introduction of identity cards notably the need for control and identification of undesirables - was put forward in 1939. ...

It is unlikely that the identity card system would have been abandoned had it not been for the test case of Willcock v Muckle (1951,49 LGR 584). In this case a driver was stopped in connection with a motoring offence and asked to produce his card. On his refusal to do so, either then or subsequently,
lie was charged with an offence under Section 6(4). When the case reached appeal in the King's Bench Division, Lord Chief Justice Goddard delivered a ferocious attack upon police practice:

"Because the police have powers, it does not follow that they ought to exercise them on all occasions as a matter of routine. From what we have been told it is obvious that the police now, as a matter of routine, demand the production of a National Registration Card whenever they stop or interrogate a motorist for whatever cause ... This Act was passed for security purposes: it was never intended for the purposes for which it is now being used"

The case of Clarence Henry Willock is described at wikipedia.

On 7 December 1950, the 54 year old businessman was stopped while driving in London by a police officer who demanded that he present his Identity Card at a police station within 48 hours. He refused, was prosecuted and convicted.

Willcock appealed, in the case Willcock vs Muckle. Although he lost the appeal, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Goddard spoke out against the continued use of compulsory Identity Cards and commented that they "tend to make people resentful of the acts of the police".

Goddard's comments are thought to have influenced Winston Churchill's decision to scrap compulsory national Identity Cards in 1952.


A more detailed explanation can be found here

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[dwater]

(This used to be the case...not sure about these days)

You don't *have* to have a TV licence in order to own a TV. They have to catch you watching TV in order to prove you are guilty. They have detector vans that can tell if you're watching TV or not.

I'm sure they can tell if you're watching the BBC or non-BBC, so I'm not sure why you still have to pay if you only watch non-BBC.

Remember when computers used TVs? You didn't need to have a TV licence in order to use them on computers.

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[flossie]

Well just in case you are wondering, as a Brit who watches about 1 hour of TV a week, I am quite happy to pay the licence fee. That 1 hour is quality programming. The radio programme that I usually wake up to is informative and interesting. The news that I get from the BBC (via the web) is by far the best source of news that I have come across. I really came to realise how much respect I have for the BBC when I lived in the US for a few years. Admittedly, the US has better rock radio stations, but that is about the only broadcasting that is superior to what the BBC offers.

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[Sircus]

I really wish the US government would take our money ($10 BILLION per year) against our will to fund an organization to tell us what to think.

Remind me how much of your money per *month* is being taken (perhaps not against *your* will, but certainly against the will of a lot of other Americans) to tell the Iraqis what to think?

At least six times as much per year, and you don't even get high-quality ad-free TV for it.

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[cortana]

Correction: you need to own a TV license to operate TV signal reception equipment. If you only watch DVDs, or play video games, or something then you don't need a license.

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[otis wildflower]

Isn't that a case of the pot calling the kettle black? The US seems to have more than it's fair share of secrecy, censorship & oppresion acts & agencies domestically, not to mention internationally.

The First Amendment still acts as a pretty strong disinfectant for that sort of thing: presumption of secrecy is still on the classifier, not the public. Granted, people had to fight the gov't for the FOIA and other open-government laws and policies, but when do people ever _not_ have to fight the government? Americans have more firepower (legally and literally) when it comes to contesting their government.

Frankly, I was shocked that Canadian judges could force the press to not discuss cases outside the courtroom, but then again that was as big win for USENET back in the Homolka days as it was for blogging the Gomery scandal, wasn't it?

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[otis wildflower]

At the same time, the UK and USA look a bit anarchic from a (continental) European perspective. What's wrong with things like ID cards, and registering details like there everyone lives in a central database?

This implies a level of trust and confidence in central government that is the antithesis of the existence of the US. We may get something similar because of terrorism and security fears, but not without a whole lot of kicking and screaming and watcher watching, thankfully.

If a mad dictator comes to power in the USA or UK, do you really think he won't be able to find you if he wants to? Disorganisation in society only helps the criminals, which is one reason you have so much more crime!

A mad dictator may find us, but not without a fight. We still have our guns, remember? There won't be any Darfurs here, since we can fight back.

Also, I would think twice about giving Americans grief about crime if I were you. Crime across Europe is on the rise, while crime in US cities has been plummeting for over a decade, particularly in New York, thanks to Giuliani Time...

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[aslate]

That level of government intrusion is, to an American, pretty goddamned objectionable. As are various Secrecy and Censorship acts that Britons and Canadians are way too comfortable with.

Really? I've not noticed censorship. We've had full coverage of the reports into the War on Iraq, the BBC has been attacked by the Government for saying [revealing] things that they didn't want, but they weren't stopped or censored. We got full coverage of everything. Even after complaints about it being "offensive to Christians" the BBC aired "Jerry Springer, The Opera" on TV. I also remember a live autopsy...

An example of US censorship? God, The Devil and Bob was stopped on US TV after 4 episodes, we aired the full 13.

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[JimGardner1973]

It makes me quite proud when I read things like this my USian friend. It never fails to amaze me how many non-UK residents use "our" BBC to find out about their part of the world. As you probably know the BBC is paid for though a fee, payable by anyone who plans on being within earshot of a radio or eyeline of TV set at some point during the coming year. Some say it's an information tax and should be replaced with adverts, I say anything is better than the American model of news broadcasting, no offence, but we get FOX too and BOY is it dumbed down. What's that guy, Neil Cavato? Forget about it! You should see Jeramy Paxman on Newsnight go! You can stream last night's Newsnight everyday on the bbc.co.uk/newsnight web site if you're so inclined y the way. Peace.

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[JimGardner1973]

Not wanting to watch the BBC is by far and away the best reason to start paying more attention to it, you're clearly missing the point. The BBC isn't about Fame Academy and Porridge repeats, it's about the very definition of freedom and democracy. When Nelson Mandela was in prison for being black, one of the only personal possessions he was allowed to have in his cell was a radio, which could receive the world service. He sights it as one of the few things that kept him alive, to know people not only knew who he was, all the way around the world in London, but that they where fighting to free him, and all his people, from the evil oppression he was prepared to die fighting against. How many countless thousands of people around the world are listening to the British Broadcasting Corporation at this very moment, as their only solace, in similar if not worse circumstances than that? Stop me if I sound like a flamer, but dude - wake up! The BBC is the only way WE have of telling people around the world, who hate us for Iraq, our continuing support for Israel, our support for Bush and the countless other things the government do in our name but without our support, that actually normal British people care very much about them, regardless of what they might otherwise think where it not for the voice of the BBC. Since when did Rupert Murdoch ever do something as powerful and positive as that? The day the BBC is paid for by adverts and / or a "smart card" pay TV model is the day all that ends. What if, one day, the person in that cell was you, or your son or daughter? Would you still be so sanguine about it?

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[JimGardner1973]

You're an idiot then? Well done.

Re:A good reason to leave pop-ups on

[rsynnott]

It's also worth noting that lack of ads allows them to produce programming which wouldn't be economically viable with ads, or which might even drive advertisers away. They were the first major broadcaster to depict homosexuality in a positive light, for example.

FYI

[Anonymous Coward]

Bonnet is to the British what Hood is to Americans.

See? It makes sense now.

They also have a better name for speed bumps - "sleeping policemen".

Re:FYI

[Lije Baley]

So Fonzie was often mistaken for a Bonnet then? I would have guessed the British equivalent for Hood was "Football fan".

Re:FYI

[NilObject]

The Brits have some of the best slang. I'm jealous. We get "shizzle" and "phat", they get "birds" and "geezers" and "shag" and "chippin'".

If we called speed bumps "sleeping policemen", I'd destroy my car driving over them all day.

Re:FYI

[Profane MuthaFucka]

And now we understand why the Bismark blew the HMS Bonnet out of the water so quickly. Manly ships need manly names!

Re:FYI

[shawb]

And then there's the term for the place that pedestrians cross the street, usually marked with thick white lines, or the Zebra Crossing. Wow... I thought that British comedians were joking, or at least exaggerating when they made fun of the royal bureaucratic language. These Crossing give pedestrians the right of way however they must make sure that all traffic has stopped before they use the crossing. This doesn't even get into the pelican, puffin and toucan crossings.

All this without even getting into this stuff. Try throwing some Cockney into a conversation, and you just end up with confused looks. Which I suppose is the point.

Re:FYI

[elemental23]

Just don't forget to drive on the wrong side of the road as you do it.

I'm not impressed

[awhelan]

Yeah, that looks pretty good, but just in case... here's a mirror

Re:I'm not impressed

[Zebadias]

Yes I am sure that the beeb is only seconds away from being /.ed. *rolls eyes*

Re:I'm not impressed

[awhelan]

Please RTFA, it's specifically about how many millions of hits/impressions the BBC handles, so I thought I'd make a little joke. It's supposed to be kind of sarcastic... ironic maybe? you know, a mirror to the BBC... no? you don't get it? .. ::cries offstage::
Hey, I detected your sarcasm immidately, the least you could do was return that favor.
PS: It's ok, I'm not actually crying, that part's a joke too.

BBC a favorite target

[bobalu]

Ah, if I could only watch BBC news at my local bar without someone asking why I hate America!

Re:BBC a favorite target

[TruePaige]

Why don't you just read your signature to them. "The Revolution Will NOT Be Televised."

Re:BBC a favorite target

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, if I could only watch BBC news at my local bar without someone asking why I hate America!

Why do you hate America?

Re:BBC a favorite target

[awhelan]

Come on mods, flamebait? This comment is very off topic, but I really doubt it's intended to start a flame war. I'm a libertarian from Boston (Boston= quite liberal) and when I mention watching the BBC I do occasionally get responses suggesting I am anti-Bush/USA/whatever. The parent isn't saying that the BBC is anti-American propaganda, just that when he tries to watch it, other Americans tell him that it is.

Re:BBC a favorite target

[bobalu]

Part of the article discussed the security reasons why they do this. What I'm saying is you can't even watch the Beeb in some places here without finding your own security threatened, so I'm not surprised they're trying to protect their systems.

US news is pretty useless these days unless you're interested in Michael Jackson and runaway brides - witness the non-coverage of the pre-war meeting where the Brits realized they were going to war no matter what the intelligence said.

Re:BBC a favorite target

[flubbergust]

They cant understand proper English at your local bar?

server locations?

[jabella]

maybe it's just me, but i'm never putting physical addresses on ANY network map with any company i work for, especially maps that will be posted publicly.

Re:server locations?

[pegr]

maybe it's just me, but i'm never putting physical addresses on ANY network map with any company i work for, especially maps that will be posted publicly.

I had exactly the same thought. Those are street addresses for crying out loud... Perhaps the author never intended for the network map to be made public? Some suit 'prolly thought it looked pretty...

Re:server locations?

[ruud]

What's wrong with it? The addresses are all major data centers / carrier hotels, so it's not really a surprise that they are located there. It's not like you can just walk into any of these and get access to the servers.

Re:server locations?

[LiquidCoooled]

I'll hazard a guess and say your American.

Its really no big deal, if you want to find the BBC, you can get there.

They don't exactly hide, its not a government spy business, and why in the world would a terrorist or someone else want to take out a mingy data centre when theres plenty more visible glittery targets worldwide?

Re:server locations?

[teh kurisu]

Government spy businesses don't exactly hide either. Have you seen the GCHQ building?

Re:server locations?

[pegr]

What's wrong with it? The addresses are all major data centers / carrier hotels, so it's not realhurts...ly a surprise that they are located there. It's not like you can just walk into any of these and get access to the servers.

So what happened to the servers in the World Trade center? Or the Federal building in Oklahoma? I don't live by "security through obscurity" but a little obscurity never hurts...

Re:server locations?

[wfberg]

maybe it's just me, but i'm never putting physical addresses on ANY network map with any company i work for, especially maps that will be posted publicly.

I hear that the BBC even put great big 'BBC' logos on their offices! Imagine the risks! Think of the terrorists!

(On the other hand I suspect that unlike the BBC you've never been attacked by terrorists, so you might just be a bit paranoid).

Re:server locations?

[afidel]

Why, because the WTC or Oklahoma City incedents were targeting someones datacenter? I think not. Hell MAE East's location was known for years where it was literally almost half the internet, one truck bomb could have disrupted the whole thing, but it was never a problem. Some IT folks like to think that their little corner of the world is way more important than it is.

p.s.
Speaking of 9/11, the Linux/Apache powered BBC site was the only one that was consistantly up for me on 9/11.

Re:server locations?

[pegr]

Why, because the WTC or Oklahoma City incedents were targeting someones datacenter?

No, I agree the data centers were not the target in those cases (AFAIK). But if you were to target the Beeb, knowing where they operate would relieve you of figuring it out for yourself...

Speaking of 9/11, the Linux/Apache powered BBC site was the only one that was consistantly up for me on 9/11.

I had a similar experience. I thought, "Now who would have updated info but no one would actually go there..." Answer? NPR... They were up but not smashed with traffic... I can't remember if I thought to try the BBC.

Re:server locations?

[BenBenBen]

The BBC went to a text-only format around 10am EST, but did stay up fairly well. http://robots.cnn.com/ also stayed up, as it doesn't server 1% of the pages www.cnn.com does.

Re:server locations?

[timeOday]

Ohmigosh! Next the terrorists will pinpoint the exact location of the White House! That's the President's home address!!

So I guess that means..

[Weaselmancer]

...British rappers are from da Bonnet?

Re:So I guess that means..

[Thud457]

bonnet == hood == thug

So apparently, the BBC has been taken over by the mob.

Revealed?

[_pi-away]

Do we really need it revealed? It's not hard to figure out, just send a bad HTTP request:

bbc.co.uk

HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 19:07:25 GMT
Server: Apache/2.0.51 (Unix)

Re:Revealed?

[lukewarmfusion]

That's funny... my Apache servers return a Windows NT 4 message. And my Windows servers return an Apache message.

Just to screw with the kiddies.

Re:Revealed?

[hachete]

In a word: political. I may be whistling in the dark here, but you note that the article goes into depth about how the website is funded. The way the BBC is funded is reviewed occasionally by the govt. There have been a lot of complaints recently by the BBC's competitors about how the BBC is taking *their* market. So, the cheaper the solution the better, and none cheaper in the TCO stakes than linux, regardless of the MS propaganda.

I'd splash this across every linux site I could find if I was a Linux evangelist.

Re:Revealed?

[_pi-away]

Usually the real server can still be discerned by things like implemented methods and syntax of messages.

But, if its just for the script kiddies, probly work well enough.

Distro

[tehshen]

Do we know what distro the Linux servers run? Just interested...

Re:Distro

[MyLongNickName]

Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.

Shouldn't it be 'So I bit him twice'?

Hardly news

[claes]

Apache is the most common web server around. But Apache on its own does not deliver content. Apache + Linus is not news any more. Apache and web servers in general are commodities today. On top of Apache a content management system runs for sure. It would be more intresting to read how this system works, if it is proprietary or free, etc.

Re:Hardly news

[Anonymous Coward]

The CMS used by the BBC is custom-developed on top of Apple's WebObjects (http://www.apple.com/webobjects/) technology. The CMS "renders" the dynamic content to static HTML whenever anything changes, which is then shipped out via Apache+mod_include, as indicated.

Re:Hardly news

[CarpetShark]

I've never noticed such a bias, and I've been looking. Examples?

Eggs in two baskets?

[caluml]

they (London and New York) are far enough apart so that if there were a major disaster in either city we could continue serving web pages from the other location.

I wonder if they'll ever shake their heads and say - how did we ever think we could put all our eggs in those two high-profile terrorist target cities. I'll set up a mirror for them on my ADSL line.

Re:Eggs in two baskets?

[hazee]

Actually the amount of redundancy they appear to have allowed for is stunning - the implication of the statement you quote is that not only could they survive a disaster that takes out a whole city, but they could also survive a disaster that takes out two nearby cities.

London and New York are far enough apart...

About the only disaster on that scale I can imagine is a major asteroid strike. And it appears they plan to continue serving webpages after it happens.

Wow.

Re:Eggs in two baskets?

[cabra_nino]

Or a Mega-tsunami caused by the collapse of Grand Canaria, the ricochet would proabbly, at least, short circuit London while wiping out NY

Looks like Zeus to me

[mukund]

Response Headers (from Firefox's Web developer toolbar) - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/460671 9.stm

Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 19:20:12 GMT
Server: Zeus/4.2
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Cache-Control: max-age=0
Expires: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 19:20:12 GMT
Keep-Alive: timeout=10, max=186
Connection: Keep-Alive
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
Content-Type: text/html

200 OK

Re:Looks like Zeus to me

[jimicus]

Me too. However, I'm a Blueyonder customer and I know that Blueyonder uses Zeus a lot - and I also know that they run an invisible proxy.

Can Zeus be used as an invisible proxy?

Re:Looks like Zeus to me

[mukund]

I don't get Zeus for my servers though (which run Apache) when I go through my ISP (Nildram ADSL). I guess BBC use a mixture of Apache and Zeus in their farm then.

KISG Methodology?

[Mr. Cancelled]

The simpler the site, the cheaper it is to run. There are fewer elements which can malfunction on big days; and there are fewer parts which can be compromised by someone trying to gain unauthorised access."

They obviously subscribe to the "Keep It Simple Guv'ner" methodology at the BBC.

Re:KISG Methodology?

[Adelbert]

They obviously subscribe to the "Keep It Simple Guv'ner" methodology at the BBC.

Yes. If they're Victorian Cockney shoe-shiners. With a pragmatic attitude.

I do love those 'Content Based' websites

[spun]

Thanks to this article, now I can make a content based website, too! Maybe now people will come to my site. All I had before were blank pages.

Server side includes?

[Peter Cooper]

In the article it explains how they use SSI (Server Side Includes) to put their sidebar items into each story. Seems like a bit of an antiquated method for these days, no?

Re:Server side includes?

[poot_rootbeer]

they use SSI (Server Side Includes) to put their sidebar items into each story. Seems like a bit of an antiquated method for these days, no?

If the wheel is still round, why re-invent it?

BBC's site is not ad-driven, and content changes are infrequent enough that redeploying from their backend CMS is good enough. Their edge servers don't require a great deal of dynamicism, and SSI seems to meet their needs, so why not.

Re:Server side includes?

[Cougem]

When a site's getting that many hits, and things don't need to be dynamic (as most often with news), SSI makes a lot more sense than running PHP, which is fat more bloated when all you're going to use is include();

Re:Server side includes?

[Arimus]

php if misconfigured can be a security hole and even correctly configured is a risk (albeit minimal).

SSI works well for what the Beeb need so why change to a more complex system???

Re:Server side includes?

[jimicus]

Their news actually changes pretty frequently. But SSI is rather simpler and more processor-friendly than a database-driven system. A previous poster mentioned that their CMS is based on Apple's WebObjects, and it's set up to push static HTML onto the web servers.

the images look like....

[ivano]

....they were made with M$ Visio.

I really have nothing to say. I'll go now.

Ciao

Re:better tell IBM

[aaamr]

More to the point.... better tell IBM that the simpler the solution, the cheaper it is to run.

That should put a kink in their global services based business model...

Simple, elegant designs = less $$$ required for consulting services.

Re:9th most popular GIRL ON THE WEB

[Thud457]

Safe for Work, just NSFL (Not Safe for your Lunch). Actually, nothing horrific, just a very unflattering picture of a not too pretty person.

and there's more

[Cally]

The Beeb are heavy users of Perl, too. Back when I decided to make the move from Perl programming to info security (around the time of Code Red and Nimda, also around the time our supposedly solid & profitable employer went tits-up) several of my ex-colleagues ended up hacking Perl at the Beeb. Apparently that chunk of their IT was just out-sourced to Siemens (German conglomerate) who are hardly ever referred to as "semens". Apparently.

Re:and there's more

[chrisbtoo]

Siemens [...] who are hardly ever referred to as "semens"

Although it is true that they have an office in Staines.

"Chippin"??

[ctid]

My dear fellow, what is "chippin"?

Oy again!

[temojen]

[(me)@localhost cbc]$ wget -p www.cbc.ca
--12:55:23-- http://www.cbc.ca/
=> `www.cbc.ca/index.html'
....

FINISHED --12:55:30--
Downloaded: 175,327 bytes in 67 files

The CBC website really needs cleaning up.

IRRd-ified DNS?

[otis wildflower]

Jes' wondering if they use IRRd hooked into their DNS to provide resolution based on best service to incoming IP.. And if IRRd or something like it is part of an opensource DNS daemon..

Open Tech 2005

[Cally]

I guess this is a good time to link to Open Tech 2005 again - it's sponsored by backstage.bbc.co.uk. And the Need To Know peeps are involved as well as the UKUUG. Call for papers.

Here's the blurb from the NTK link above:

Sponsored by backstage.bbc.co.uk, Open Tech 2005 is an informal one-day conference about technologies that anyone can have a go at, from "Open Source"-style ways of working to repurposing everyday electronics hardware. So far, the line-up features: * Ted Nelson, inventor of hypertext, on where the web went wrong * The official launch of the backstage.bbc.co.uk developer network, opening up BBC content for you to play with * Plus: able to record an entire week of all Freeview TV and radio channels, probably the UK's largest (fridge-sized) PVR More speakers will be confirmed over the next few weeks - but, as the title implies, we're very much "Open" to suggestions. If you're reverse-engineering proprietary protocols, making useful information available in a way people couldn't get at before, pioneering unexpected methods of knowledge sharing - or (equally likely) doing something so cool we haven't even thought of it yet, then please get in touch via the submissions form at: http://www.ukuug.org/events/opentech2005/offer/

Re:Open Tech 2005

[mrs dogbreath]

Thanks for that! Some uber useful stuff I would never have found out about except by read /.

Don't forget Solaris

[jamesl]

"BBC News has revealed that Linux and Apache power its popular news website ... "

And Solaris.

The servers themselves are running Apache web server software on either the Linux or Solaris operating system.

RTFA! Not just Linux!

[fiddlesticks]

'The servers themselves are running Apache web server software on either the Linux or Solaris operating system'

MRTG or such for bbc.com?

[BawbBitchen]

Does anyone have any links for their bandwidth usage?

Re:MRTG or such for bbc.com?

[BawbBitchen]

Thanks. Got a username/password as they are protected? I really would like to see the internet useage.

Beeb text site

[Skiron]

I have always used the text site as it loads almost instantly - any interesting story that requires pictures I then head over to the 'graphic' site.

BBC text news

The next step is to get them to report the news unbiasedly (during the last Iraq war, BBC was known here in the UK as the 'Baghdad broadcasting Corp.'); and we all know what their technical expertise is like explaining computer issues.

Re:Beeb text site

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in the UK and no one I knew called them that. Perhaps you should check out Fox News for bias reporting, the BBC is paled by comparison.

Re:Beeb text site

[Spad]

They were labelled that by the tabloids for not towing the government line on Iraq - I don't know anyone who actually called them that.

Re:Beeb text site

[Adelbert]

The next step is to get them to report the news unbiasedly

The Beeb isn't biased. For every flagrantly left-leaning stance they take, there's also one to the right.

For example, it only took 1 news cycle for rolling news channel BBC News 24 to drop the key points of Galloway's address to the Washington representatives before they started simply saying that Galloway "denied" charges against him. Bit of a cut, n'est pas? Surely anyone watching that would think to themselves "of course he did" What's more, they were quick to stop reporting Galloway's line that he'd seen Saddam the same number of times as Rumsfelt, but only Rumsfelt sold him weapons. Presumably, this pretty key section of the speech was cut to bring the BBC into line with the Washington Post/Fox News.

Like all mainstream media, the BBC struggles to give a full, well-rounded view of events. It must be nigh-on impossible to present a report completely free of bias. However, since the BBC is not really too dependant on commercial funds, and employs newscasters and reporters from across the political spectrum, it does a far better job than some other "news" outlets.

Re:Beeb text site

[RichardX]

and we all know what their technical expertise is like explaining computer issues.

Actually..
I was watching BBC News 24 the other night, and they had their tech program on.
Some guy wrote in saying he'd spilled coffee on his laptop, and now it wouldn't start up, and asking what he should do.
The presenter basically just said "Well, it might be knackered, but you're best to get it checked out", then explained that the harddrive at least would probably be fine, and to remove it first so it wouldn't get wiped by the repairers (good advice)

Then, to my astonishment, he proceeded to dismantle a Dell laptop to show the general construction of a laptop, and how there's a plate beneath the keyboard, which should protect the insides from all but the most severe of coffee spills, and gave a whole bunch of very sound advice on rescuing a freshly-spilled-on laptop.

Not bad for a mainstream tech show. Usually from programmes like that, I expect about as much technical knowledge as you'd get from a Dixons employee.

Re:Beeb text site

[CarpetShark]

Same here. If the tabloids did indeed call them that for being the only news organisation with the guts to ask questions, then the tabloids have a very screwed up idea of journalism. If more organisations had asked more questions, we might not be sitting here wondering why our government is succeeding in blatantly lying to the people, even when evidence exists to prove that.

Telehouse...

[__aaclcg7560]

I noticed on the diagram that the location of the London and New York server farms are called "Telehouse". Is this a fancy British word for a telecommunication building or am I just a stupid American? ;)

Re:Telehouse...

[Arimus]

No comment... however see www.telehouse.net.

Re:Telehouse...

[RayAlmostAnonymous]

I think it is the physical hosting company they use:

http://www.telehouse.net/

Re:Telehouse...

[__aaclcg7560]

I'm going to go with Fat American for $200 Alex.

I just love my fans. No wonder they keep asking for nude photos. :P

Re:Telehouse...

[__aaclcg7560]

Bummer... I thought it was new word. I guess the British stopped adding new words to the English language after all. :)

Re:Telehouse...

[CarpetShark]

I noticed on the diagram that the location of the London and New York server farms are called "Telehouse". Is this a fancy British word for a telecommunication building or am I just a stupid American?

Well, they are a television broadcasting company...

not what I get

[temojen]

[(me)@localhost security]$ wget -S http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/460671 9.stm
--13:23:36-- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/460671 9.stm
=> `4606719.stm'
Resolving news.bbc.co.uk... done.
Connecting to news.bbc.co.uk[212.58.240.41]:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response...
1 HTTP/1.1 200 OK
2 Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 20:23:36 GMT
3 Server: Apache
4 Cache-Control: max-age=0
5 Expires: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 20:23:36 GMT
6 Set-Cookie: BBC-UID=1472caf04b1c04e8e9678f1ef1604aff54f48fcef0 c06003cbcac5048d522bee0Wget%2f1%2e8%2e2; expires=Tue, 02-Jun-09 20:23:36 GMT; path=/; domain=bbc.co.uk;
7 Connection: close
8 Content-Type: text/html

[ <=> ] 40,846 92.76K/s

13:23:37 (92.76 KB/s) - `4606719.stm' saved [40846]

real news and open source?

[louzerr]

And all this time, I got my news from the BBC only because news is their primary goal - not selling ad space (unlike CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, oh, hell - every "American" news source).

I'm in the wrong damn country!

Too bad Linux can't rescue the EU from itself

[Anonymous Coward]

They should really consider removing nations from the EU that don't want to ratify the new constitution.

What makes you think that?

[bobalu]

Why do you hate the rest of the world?

Really?

[BlightThePower]

I'm astounded. Theres been a long debate about the BBC over its history that will probably never go away. Both Labour and the Conservatives have decided its against them and for their foes at different times. As have the Liberals, the Greens, the Scots Nationalists, the parties in Ulster and obviously the socialists and the fascists harbour their own grievances.

I can't think of a more compelling proof that the BBC does its best to put out the truth; after all its the only type of news that could be equipotential in its power to upset politicians of starkly varying political persuasions.

But I must say I'm amazed that the Beeb is selected as "anti-Bush" and the "anti-USA" thing is outrageous. What possible grounds could one have for thinking that?

Re:Really?

[poofyhairguy82]

But I must say I'm amazed that the Beeb is selected as "anti-Bush" and the "anti-USA" thing is outrageous. What possible grounds could one have for thinking that?

You must understand that we have a very fragmented news market in America. For cable news each side has it own plus some, so to a Bush fan not being Fox News is strike one against anything else.

Secondly it is not American, and anyone around here that would spout such jingoistic BS also probably dislikes it because it is not from America. Stike two.

Finally, the closet thing in America we have to the BBC is PBS and NPR. These to organizations are often called "Liberal" and the fact that tax dollars fund a small part of these organizations have created a great disliked for so called "forced on me liberal BS." Therefore the BBC is guilty by association with these two things. Strike three.

In American Baseball (honestly only Americans playing American sports really matter in the States) three strikes and you are out.

(Personally its refeshing to me to hear news about places that are not part of the USA often. But I get called some bad things as well).

Re:Really?

[BlightThePower]

Heh, well thanks for clearing that up. Bizarre indeed. If you get the chance, treat yourself to watching a current affairs show the BBC do called "Newsnight". I have no idea if its broadcast overseas but I imagine it might. Put it this way, remember George Galloway gave some American politicians a bloody nose recently? He, like every other politician on hte face of the plant, is scared of Paxman as you can see from this transcript (Note the trademark determination that his question is answered fully whatever the attempt at evasion). Its in my view the best thing they put out on the TV. Glorious stuff. What you won't get from that clip is that about ten minutes later he was doing the same thing to memebers of the (ostensibly) pro-war British cabinet, which would probably better illustrate my point about bias. Thats what politicians hate about the BBC in general, its actually their integrity thats the problem for a lot of people.

Re:Really?

[BlightThePower]

Well I didn't really want to get into that but its done both by themselves and by others like the School of Journalism in Cardiff and the Glasgow Media group. Although even then they don't always agree in their assessments (but even then its only very slight biases and depends whether you think showing footage of warfare is itself pro or anti for example).

I'll put it to you the other way: what is the sound argument for the BBC having any degree of partiality beyond its remitt to educate and entertain the British public?

Re:Really?

[BlightThePower]

I take your point. Although being pro-EU isn't as far as I can see coherent with anything to do with religious criticism; what I'm trying to say is I don't think there is a "master" agenda (as there is with, say, FOX). Certainly there are individual failings though; the Glasgow media group was very critical of coverage of the Falklands for example where the language used in reports changed starkly once operations were underway.

As regards the EU issue, I think that has a lot to do with the raw material (in terms of spokespersons and events) they had to work with. The government itself is always going to get more time because its the government, the importance of a minister saying something because he is both politician and the holder of a public office is going to be more important than when a "mere" opposition MP says something. But you have to balance that with the fact that when the government buggers something up thats also a massive story but when an opposition MP makes a wrong call its not screamed from the rooftops in the same way. Its kind of a structural problem I guess so whilst it doesn't excuse poor journalism its going to be a problem even for the most even handed 'objective' journalism because they have force balance on something that by its nature isn't really balanced in the first place.

LAMP Scales, but does your .NET application?

[v3xt0r]

most people who critisize this article are spoonfed MCSE's who really 'tinker' with the idea of a non-microsoft OS, rather than take the time to actually learn to use it (properly), or reap the rewards it can offer (when properly used).

But that's a good thing too me, I can just laugh at them when their customers come to me instead. =)

Re:LAMP Scales, but does your .NET application?

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

Although in this case its more LA rather than LAMP!

Re:and....

[mishmash]

The same team are planning to keep running them for a long time... http://support.bbc.co.uk/support/rota.shtml?Date=2 037%2F07%2F30

Performance gets way trickier than that

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC seems like a relatively simple site to optimize for heavy loads -- mostly static pages, and probably 99% of the load comes from hits to the top 20 stories.

LiveJournal has to deal with millions of user accounts and jillions of posts, plus photos and audio files. Their database, application-level caching, image/audio storage, and Web serving *all* scale horizontally -- little or no "big iron", just lots of commodity boxen. The result: lots of college kids can post "OMG LOL!1!". *That's* democratizing the Internet.

Anyway, they're a Perl/MySQL shop, and Brad Fitzpatrick gave details on their setup (more recent than his OSCON slides once posted on Slashdot): http://www.mysqluc.com/cs/mysqluc2005/view/e_sess/ 6257

I'd like to hear information about Amazon, too -- they use Perl and HTML::Mason.

CBC and open source

[leoc]

The code behind the CBC "zed" site has been open sourced as well, under the Apache license no less!

Re:and....

[TheRealDamion]

already been here 7.5 years..

Low quality content, brilliantly served

[peterpi]

It's a pity they couldn't slip a spell checker (or even better a human being) into the content management pipeline somewhere.

The BBC television and radio news are both far and away the best in the world, but the errors that routinely find their way into the online version are shocking.

Re:Low quality content, brilliantly served

[aslate]

There's a link at the bottom of all their pages to Newswatch. I've reported two things to them, one about an incorrect date (Year was wrong) and one about a thing they produced (The flash swingometer) crashing the browser. Both were fixed and they replied to me personally with details. Good on them.

More like Solaris

[daniel_mcl]

$ nmap -sS -p 80 -v -O news.bbc.co.uk

[snip]

Running: Sun Solaris 8
OS details: Sun Solaris 8
Uptime 251.064 days (since Sat Sep 25 14:50:31 2004)

[snip]

Re:More like Solaris

[nzkbuk]

So how many times did you do that ?
You think EVERY impression is served by one server without some sort of front end load balancer ?

news.bbc.co.uk is an alias for newswww.bbc.net.uk
newswww.bbc.net.uk has address 212.58.226.19
newswww.bbc.net.uk has address 212.58.226.44
newswww.bbc.net.uk has address 212.58.226.50

That's from the different DNS servers.

Re:More like Solaris

[daniel_mcl]

Nope, just objecting to the fact that the Slashdot headline is misleading. I'd be surprised if *anyone* (except maybe Microsoft) doesn't run at least some of their servers on Linux. They made it sound like that's all they were using.

BBC Links to slashdot

[dfries]

But they do link to slashdot. (although not that often from my search results.)

Not much gets past the nerds of /. org
Timing makes Google an April Fool

I may be an American...

[nsaneinside]

...but that doesn't mean I'm stupid.
And please, don't let our president influence your stereoty^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H impression of Americans.

Re:and....

[nzkbuk]

Does Jenny ever get to go home ? looks like she's working that entire week 24/7

Re:License fee

[rsynnott]

It's long been a contentious issue that in Ireland we get BBC for FREE. (That's why Ireland (Republic of) is no longer covered in the weather reports, apparently). But yep, most of the world gets the BBC World Service, the only such service of any value (ever listened to Voice of America?) And the website.