Slashdot Mirror
BBC Open Source launched
Elphin writes "The BBC today launched their BBC Open Source website, providing a home for projects such as their video codec dirac , TV-Anytime Java API and Kamaelia network testbed."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Good Lord, there's enough stuff here to create a complete, high quality TIVO system with full network/P2P support! If this is any indication, BBC is taking the concept of Internet broadcasting *very* seriously.
A question for those who are in the know: How is Dirac's performance these days? i.e. Does anyone have any good comparisons to MPEG4 compression ratios, encoding times, etc.?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I applaud the degree to which the BBC is embracing the open-source model. I just wish that some American groups would do the same.
A couple questions, though. What inspired the British Broadcasting Corporation to suddenly leap into the software programming foray? Are they hoping to build some sort of new service out of all of this, or is it just going to end up as a bunch of disconnected apps?
I am scientifically inaccurate.
They're pissed off at having to pay ripoff prices to the people (such as Microsoft and Real) whose audio codecs they use, and they're sure as hell not keen to start paying licensing fees for video codecs as well.
Additionally, they think they can get better performance out of Dirac than is being got out of current codecs, which will save them bandwidth.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
I think it is responsible of them to not refer to the perpetrators as "terrorists". These days "terrorist" is nothing more than a buzzword used by those politicians and businesspeople who participate in deceit and real-world trollery.
But in any case, I do respect the BBC's willingness to contribute back to society. They actively strive to promote the deployment of knowledge, rather than try to restrict and limit its dispersal. But that is most likely because their main goal is not profit. Maximizing profit will always be against what is best for society, as the externalities are not taken into account.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Looks like they have also released the BBC 'programming language'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/opensource/projects/apache/
Seems like extensions to mod_include to add more logic.
Good Stuff
They are not the government, the motives and objectives of the BBC are laid out in a royal charter that is approved by the secretary of state for culture. What they aim to do is approved by government, but the government does not run them, that's an important difference. BBC news is the best in the UK and arguably the least biased, they were highly critical of Iraq.
And yes they do have competition, the BBC has created an enormous number of new channels over the last 5 years to keep up with the growing number of cable, satellite and digital terestrial channels.
The BBC's guidelines state that its credibility is undermined by the "careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments".
I agree with this point of view. "Bombers" is an accurate way to describe them. They may also be "terrorists", but this does carry an emotional implication as well. It's a little quirky, but I can see the point of simply reporting events rather than making judgements. It's something the media in general seriously lacks.
How well does BBC's Dirac codec relate to Theora?
Well the didn't actually make it but they made it happen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Micro
I have fond memories of my Model B
If only they would publicize more of the open-source projects they've been doing in order to spur more development from people who would actually benifit from them.
Take for example the Betsie perl script (which the BBC use extensively on their websites, it's an open-source cgi script which can be used to translate pages on-the-fly into a text-only mode. This has been very helpful for me and for a suprisingly large number of other web developers trying to tackle the issue of accessablity.
If they keep on going in this direction with opening up more projects and providing more APIs for developers to use, then I can really see in maybe as short as 2 years down the line it could be actually be worthwile to pay for that damn TV license.
The problem is that simply using the word "bombers" carries an air of legitimacy about it--as if the attacks were no different from, for instance, allied WWII bombers.
It doesn't carry an air of legitimacy, merely of neutrality. It's up to us - me, you, other viewers - to apply our values to the circumstances.
Ideally the BBC should report the known facts. They report that the explosions occured. They report that people died. They report that such-and-such a group has claimed repsonsibility. They say that Government ministers have made a statement. And so on.
We listen. Maybe we listen to other sources too. Having heard the reports, WE draw conclusions.
Listening to the reports on this subject I don't think it's hard to make judgments about the people involved, but that isn't a reason for the news reporters to do it for us.
The BBC often falls short of those standards, they often do inject their own values into their reporting (values I mainly agree with), but that doen't mean that objective reporting that gives the viewer the information he or she needs to form their own judgments is a bad thing.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
I would very much like to see some of the license fee go to this kind of thing. Streaming media is likely to be an even more important part of the communications infrastructure in the coming century than television was in the last one. This is something far too important to be privately owned.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News