Slashdot Mirror
BBC "Not In Bed With Bill Gates"
whoever57 writes "The BBC's head of technology denied rumors that a secret deal with Microsoft was behind the XP-only launch of the BBC's iPlayer. According to Ashley Highfield, the reason that the player only supports Windows XP is that only a small number of Linux visitors have come to the BBC's website. Why he would expect a large number of Linux-based visitors to the site when the media downloads are Windows XP only is not clear. He also thinks that 'Launching a software service to every platform simultaneously would have been launch suicide,' despite the example of many major sites that support Linux (even if this is through the closed-source flash player)."
Why is 'a small number of linux users' a reason for going with this? What is wrong with using a format that is available everywhere (including portable players!) as a matter of course?
400-600 people on Linux use bbc.co.uk (in the UK)? I don't think so...
Someone needs to recheck their server logs.
use a file format that can be used by all Operating Systems, and use a single file format and not a mix of flash & and some other that need to work together in some obscure way, keep it simple & open...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
I can't believe that. I am a licence payer and visit the BBC website everyday on Linux. I'm sure their proprietary webstats package is just ignoring Linux. He didn't give the number of 'others'.
My little Linux and tech blog
The interesting bit here is the Beeb isn't really a commercial organization. They're a public entity which is strictly required to keep itself free of commercial and political influence.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
So management knows more about tech than the techs do?
Launching with a java or flash player would have been suicide?
Is the man a complete and utter idiot?
What can be done to force him getting fored for being incompetent so we can try and find someone that is not stupid?
These are questions that all of us want answered.
"You don't decide how big to build the bridge by counting the number of people swimming the river."
Cuz once the bridge is up, hundreds more who couldn't swim the distance will want to cross.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
...under the desk, maybe.
It should be clarified that he was talking about the root bbc.co.uk site NOT the iPlayer site, so it is clearer why the would expect Linux users to visit the site.
Because if they had, it would have been perfectly clear that by "the BBC website" he meant bbc.co.uk, as that's actually part of the referenced quote. Given that the site is one of the most popular in the UK, and is used by people from all walks of life, I'd say that their OS usage stats stand fair chance of being representative of reality...
It's official. Most of you are morons.
iPlayer is based on Kontiki (owned by Verisign). Windows only, unless you're prepared to jump through virtual hoops, AFAIK. Reading through the user agreement: it's targeting UK-based computer users. Hmmm. Shall we build a Windows, Mac or Linux player? No-brainer, really, when the P2P distribution layer is Windows only.
Why is that so hard to believe? It must be a conspiracy.
That's peculiar, given that Firefox is the default browser in most all Linux distributions and a default install includes a BBC News RSS feed I find those figures very, very strange.
A thistle is a fat salad for an ass's mouth...
The Beeb did it because it was the cheapest, easiest, but not best, option.
That said, it was a really stupid move and managed to get everybody from the smallest Linux hacker to the UK government commenting in public about the policy.
Creating an open "player" for all platforms would have taken more resources at first, but from that point on all future platforms would be supported by the people who use the platform.
Sadly, the Beeb needs closed source to implement the no-save and timed delete features forced on them by others.
Having a license entitles you to own a TV, there's nothing about being entitled to watch video over the Internet - if you're using theiPlayer there's no way it can check your license.
From what I know of the BBC, they've always prided themselves on "spreading the word" of the BBC as far and wide as possible, setting up broadcast stations in some of the most remote parts of the world to share their news, informational programming, and perhaps most importantly - the English language - with those who often have very limited resources. I can tell from personal experience - I am able to receive the BBC from midnight to 4 AM on my local public radio station here in Indiana on a nightly basis... I was able to receive the BBC loud and clear when I was on a relief trip to Honduras (though I think the programming was moderately different from that received here in Indiana) - and one of my peers reported being able to receive the BBC when he was in a remote part of Africa on a hunting expedition. For a company that claims to want to make their information accessible to everyone, I find their explanation for a Windows-only launch of their player less than satisfying.
I don't think that MS and the BBC are necessarily in bed together. The problem likely stems from hiring programmers that aren't familiar with porting software to the Linux platform. I know that the BBC is well-funded, but I have serious doubts about the influence this project's leader within the BBC has over the "uppers" who write his budget and provide his human resources. With limited resources, the idea might be to "cast the net as wide as possible." Sure, porting the player to be Linux-compatible *should* be really easy, but I can say from experience that porting multimedia software that incorporates a significant amount of network interface software to access the feeds from the internet from Windows to Linux often requires something of a "special touch" - something I, unfortunately, do not have. Those programmers they hired built the software they did, perhaps, as a "test." CNN and the NY Times have both launched major media projects that later failed - this might be the BBC testing the waters to see what demand is. Still, their excuse could be a little more realistic and honest.
When will people stop whining about iPlayer being XP only? There's no secret Microsoft alliance, and no great conspiracy.
The main reason why iPlayer uses Windows DRM is because the companies who produce content for the BBC didn't want their shows streamed without some kind of rights management, because, god forbid, it should end up on bit torrent. The cause of this is most likely ignorance on their part, because, as we all know, DRM stops piracy, saves lives, cures cancar and ends world famine.
The core code behind iPlayer is completely cross-browser, having worked on some of it, I know that it conforms to BBC New Media guidelines, which specifically state that all HTML, JavaScript, etc must be compatible with all major browsers (we even tested major elements of it in Firefox, and quite a few of the developers worked on Mac/Linux boxes)
There has always been a plan for a Mac/Linux version of iPlayer, but the current DRM requirements being imposed on the iPlayer Core team make it somewhat difficult for them to actually get working on it
"No matter how much you guys like Linux and hate Windows (or like Windows whatever) on the business side of things it comes down to money and getting a return on your investment. With Linux you do not immediately see a return on your investment."
And that's why Google is over $700 a share now? Because Linux and Linux-support don't provide return on investment?
How did this ever get modded up?
Face it, there are tools out there that make it insanely easy to provide content to the majority of users.
Most likely they went with what some consultant said, to get up and running as quickly as possible with the minimum in costs.
Now, what would it take to come up with something in Linux that can read this data? Is it even remotely possible?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
You forget to factor in they are probably on legacy code that was built back in 1998 or so that runs on windows and was designed to work with IE etc. Also if their servers were windows servers and they were using the windows streaming video software it would require a rewrite to get it to work in something other then IE or something other then windows because that is all their servers support. We do not have all the details but I bet it came down to cost.
I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
Why is it so hard to believe there is only a small Linux desktop community that use it regularly? This seems to be a characteristic of every sub-culture, an internal self awareness that does not extend past the members of the sub-culture and the general misunderstanding the 100s of millions of Windows users actually recognize there is a small and insignificant amount of Linux desktop users.
did that make sense? haha...
They're just lying ion the sheets and holding hands.
"She" is a He.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/executives/ashleyhighfield.shtml
Erm, Ashley Highfield is a guy...
For something where the wheel has to be re-invented that's true, but this is a video site. There are dozens of examples of cross platform sites that do video, and there are several tools that are readily available to make it happen easy. Unless you're doing something decidedly non-standard, you should be able to write a website target at Windows and have Linux more or less fall into place.
He's not talking about media downloads, but the entire bbc.co.uk site which, according to Google, is about 3,310,000 pages.
From the article:
They didn't do a Linux version because only 0.0035% of users are identifying themselves as running Linux.
I'm not making any comments about whether or not this is a good idea. I'm sure others can provide good arguments for both ways.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Given that the BBC had to wrap the iPlayer videos in DRM to satisfy the rights holders, what open source equivalent could they have used? Or would they have had to write something completely from the ground up?
Highfield's (the chief of tech) argument is pretty solid actually. The BBC site (bbc.co.uk, not the media download area) has 17 million monthly visitors, out of which 600 use Linux.
It does make perfect sense to please the 99% of the users first and then cater to the specific needs of the other 1%.
Gotta love the spin. They were offering media downloads, not just streaming, so it's apple to oranges. I may not agree with the DRM, but then again it's their right to make the content available only to those who pay the tax.
Finally, so self-respecting zealot could fail to note that flash is closed-source. Obviously, if BBC would have chosen flash from the beginning, slashdotters would be now outraged for BBC ignoring Ogg...
And what's this doing in "Your Rights Online" section?
Errr. Surely that day arrived when your TV set came with buttons to select other channels? Just don't watch it. I can't imagine what you would prefer to watch given the quality of the competition, but nobody's forcing you.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
This is disingenuous and does not refute the fact that 94% of the visitors to the BBC site were using Windows before the iPlayer rollout.
Either the submitter can not read, can not think, or is a trolling fanboy. In any instance, the submission is inaccurate.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Do you know what their back end looks like? Is it a Microsoft server, or a Linux server? With windows you can get software for free that does streaming video. How hard is it for an admin to install a version that supports video for Linux. I am just saying we do not have all the details and they probably had a good reason to not support Linux. Just like a year back my friend was creating a flash site and he was on flash 8 and he wanted me to test it in Linux and it would not work (Linux only had flash 7 at the time) so he kept using flash 8 because it was the latest and greatest and had the features he wanted. He did not support Linux because very few of his users ran Linux. Why should he change to flash 7 or wait till flash 9 just to support 1% of his user base? It is throwing money out the window.
I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
The BBC don't own, and therefore can't (be seen to) give away, the content.
They have to at least pretend to make it difficult to 'hack' the player and capture the content.
If they release a Windows player and it gets hacked, no-one cares (yet another Windows hack, film at 11).
If they release a Linux player and it gets hacked they'll be roasted for loosing the content (how dumb are you? releasing a player on a platform where users can recompile the kernel to defeat your DRM?!?!).
The BBC is more than media downloads. It is the prime news site in the U.K. If the BBC isn't seeing many Linux users, it could be because there aren't many Linux users.
Bollocks... the licence money I pay FUNDS the BBC, which they are using to pay MS to produce a locked-in player that deliberately stops my using it as I do not use MS products.
This sounds like racketeering, to me.
Until it came out they had hired a former MS exec.
I think it was funny that they pooh-poohed a demonstration by a dozen people. Any number of people come out to protest a technology choice should be an eye-opener. One of the first things I learned working for public radio was that you didn't piss off opera fans. There weren't very many of them, but they were vocal and passionate. Much like Linux users. The Beeb should have more class.
It still surprises me to find IE only web sites from big companies, but they're still out there. It's so rude and comes across as primitive and...last week.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
The guy who leads the iPlayer project was responsible for WMP while he was working at Microsoft Europe.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
This is 2007, they don't need a "player", that's already out there in a huge fashion, all they needed was to pick an open format, then let folks use whichever player they want. This was an artificial decision based on a "problem" that doesn't exist and that didn't need to happen.
In other news, FOX News Channel has announced that it's not in bed with the Republican Party, George W. Bush announced that he's not in bed with big oil, and every member of the U.S. Congress has announced that they aren't in bed with any lobbyists or special interest groups of any kind.
Finally, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that she's never been in bed with anybody but herself. (That one's almost believable!)
My blog
If MS and the BBC were in cahoots, don't you think there would be a Vista version? Microsoft doesn't want you buying XP any more.
Executive summary: "Management ineptitude with statistics, not conspiracy, behind stupid BBC move."
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I love the BBC
I love it when they're pissin' on me
And I love MTV
I love it when they're shittin' on me
I'm pretty sure they had a web site before they put up these media downloads, and I suspect that they probably looked at those stats before deciding that their visitors are mostly running Windows.
There must more than 600, because a "Latest BBC Headlines" bookmark comes "preinstalled" with Firefox.
(At least with the ones I've seen)
Why not just stick the files up in MPEG4 or some other open codec (or even the DIRAC codec which the BBC has/had some connection to)?
Stick it behind a login page (with only people who have TV licenses able to get access).
I'm sure Bill Gates will be happy to hear this news. Someone call him up.
Comment of the year
An Operating system, (O/S), is not the requirement to download a file that is in a certain format. All current Linux, MacIntosh, Unix, and Microsoft O/S's have the ability to Download a file. These current O/S's can all execute "Multimedia" programs. Certain programs can only execute on a limited set of O/S's; But, there are Multimedia programs that can work on ALL of the above stated O/S's, and many other O/S's not stated. Clearly, access to only a few people, was the intent of the final decision maker in this case.
I live in England, pay the License Fee, and run Ubuntu. I guess only two out of three prevents me from being part of their audience.
The really *scary* thing about this is that the BBC's HEAD OF TECHNOLOGY is still trotting out the bullshit line that this is about Linux users. It is not and never was. It's about a body that is publicly funded from MY F****NG TAXES, with a statutory duty to serve the whole UK population, choosing to use proprietary and encumbered technology. If he's too stupid to understand that he should resign.
It is not about Linux. It is not about Linux. It is not about Linux.
It's about ensuring that there is a free, open and competitive market in producing players. What annoys me is not that there is no Linux player, but that NOBODY CAN CREATE ONE from the specifications (since there aren't any).
With idiots like this in charge at the Beeb, there's no hope.
There are countless situations where looking for immediate return is not the right thing to do.
Going multiplatform and implementing standards means coding for the 100% of the prospective clients instead of the 90% or less owned by microsoft, and it's not 2x the cost of a windows only solution. I'd say the windows only solution will end up costing more just to keep up with whatever MS execs think about their new versions of the framework and the OS.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
recent surveys and sales data shows mac sales are now out numbering pc sales in major universities state side, given Europe's more progressive leanings it's pretty easy to extrapolate similar if not greater trends across the pond, not to mention bbc does have an American division.
and guess what, mac runs a posix interface. It's not that hard to make the mac version linux friendly.
In other words, this is a cop-out at best, and more likely his claims are an outright lie.
However, never attribute to malice or conscious intent what can be attributed to laziness or incompetence. The ms development platform, especially graphics development, is geared toward the lazy (think directx vs opengl in the gaming world)
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
After years of looking at Linux, wanting to use Linux, and feeling Linux just wasn't ready (all the while hating myself for using Windows, feeling like a beaten wife), I've discovered the Glory That Is Ubuntu. My God, that is some brilliant shit. I did a demo install in VMware just to see how good the latest version is. Can I say wow? Yes, yes I can. What's more, flash under firefox looks great. I can run youtube vids with full motion and sound, no lag, and it's great.
The point to this long story, why aren't they going with the flash player? I mean shit, it works so effortlessly. Very little buffering, no worries about needing to find funky codecs, etc, web video feels far more advanced than just a few years ago. Then again, BBC was running realplayer for the longest time so even a poke in the eye with a sharp stick would be an improvement, xp by comparison must seem a revelation.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
It is 10 AM ET. There have been 68 replies to the lead story on Slashdot. What does that tell you about Linux in the UK?
Linux makes up a very small percentage of desktop users, less than 1% probably.
:).
;).
HOWEVER, Mac users are a significant percentage. There are statistics that claim 16% for notebooks, and I've got my own stats that don't disagree (based on mac addresses). There's also an impression that Mac users are more willing to pay more for most things.
So the stuff we make definitely has to work with Macs. Does the BBC's "Windows XP" only stuff work on Macs running MacOS? Without too much hoop-jumping.
BTW, I've even seen a PS3 (based on user agent - it sends short < 300 byte DHCP packets which is RFC noncompliant on some interpretations of the RFCs, seems some older Macs do that too). We did request some game consoles for proper compatibility testing with our stuff, but somehow they haven't appeared yet. Wonder why
Come to think of it, another dept did have a game console, and it was used for playing games. How quaint
I like how the BBC was obviously trying to draft on the recognition of Apple's iNames but without the, shall we say, fucking courtesy to actually run on the Mac out of the box. Nice one, tools.
As far as I know the BBC operates on a business model similar to the German public stations: If you own a TV set you pay the fee. It doesn't matter if you watch the channel, you're paying anyway. (Yeah, that makes it even funnier when they lock out part of the userbase.)
The idea behind the mandatory fee is to keep the stations unbiased by corporate interest and market trends. It does kind of fulfill those goals, the former more than the latter. I don't think it's a bad concept per se, but it is quite annoying when you find out (for example) that you're forcedly financing a business partnership with Microsoft that has exactly zero value for your Windows-free household.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
If I find a way to produce a square tire rim and it works ok, and I have a following of about 1%-9% of car users out in the marketplace. Would I expect Goodyear to make a rubber tire to support my square rim? Fuck no I would not. You go for the majority of your users and sadly that is Microsoft. As much as you may hate it Microsoft is the majority. Just because Linux is an option does not mean you MUST support it. When you see Linux on 20-30% of the computers in the marketplace then it you need to start supporting it. Till then it is just throwing money into the wind.
I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
Either the submitter can not read, can not think, or is a trolling fanboy. In any instance, the submission is inaccurate. So what about the other 6% of users? If 94% used Windows you think they should ignore 6%? Considering it's the general public who FUND the BBC, it's pretty much the same as a company refusing to acknowledge 6% of its shareholders
if he's got them wrong.
Hell, there's more than 800 visit the BBC site from one company along (using linux).
So stats from bbc.co.uk may be representative but that doesnt mean the stats are either correct (incorrect logs) or that he's quoted the actual figures.
When I worked at the Associated Press in Manhattan a few years back, we released audio and video on our web site, but only for Internet Explorer. Which means no Linux of course. The howls of protest were drowned out only by the chatter of lame explanations by red-faced managers, citing cost, deadlines, and oh, the media-player agreement with Microsoft, as insurmountable issues. Needless to say, getting Firefox support in place became a high priority. I would image these guys will be feeling the same heat about now.
New Music!
The last time I spoke to anyone inside the BBC the backend servers for things like streaming audio (Real) were Linux. Not that it makes much different for your argument; with the volume of traffic that the BBC are encoding and streaming they're not relying on anything "free". They pay a lot of money to Real and a lot of money to Microsoft (They offer both Real & Windows Media streams) for the software to do it.
If you're interested, at least once apon-a-time, they even had a few FreeBSD machines doing some encoding and streaming.
I am just saying we do not have all the details and they probably had a good reason to not support Linux.
We do have all the details: they didn't support Linux because they needed[1] to wrap everything in DRM, and they claim that Windows Media is the only solution that allows them to do that. The problem with that argument is, well, it's crap. Flash can do cross-platform DRM'd media, for a start. Even Quicktime would have been a better choice than Windows Media[2]. So what we really appear to have is someone who chose Microsoft without any real technical evaluation, no concern for the BBCs own charter nor any oversight from anyone who cared. Now the people responsible are back-peddling and trying to make excuses for their decisions.
[1]: The requirement for blanket DRM is arguable, but not everything offered on iPlayer is wholly owned by the BBC so their hands are somewhat tied by the copyright holders.
[2]: At least Quicktime is available on Windows and OS X. Are DRM'd Windows Media files playable under OS X? I admit I don't know; I guess it's possible now I think about it. Can a Mac user confirm?
The BBC has good reason to use a DRM distribution platform. The iPlayer's eventual role is to be not only a source of broadcast programmes, but also as a store front for the BBC's commercial division, BBC Worldwide. But, what with all the OS controversy, they're keeping that quiet for the moment.
... because there are probably fifty people who access bbc.co.uk using Linux from my *department* at the University of Arizona?
All the computers run Linux, and people are always reading the news from them.
Whilst your argument would appear to be supported by the market share, you are misguided. The true reason was hinted at in the podcast and has nothing to do with user base size. It is simply ensuring the protection of owner rights. A fine example was given and I have to say that in principle I agree with the sentiment. It was also suggested that if an intelligent format could be developed allowing for real time adjustment of content (insertion of regional ads, time based or regional limitations etc) then rights owners would be more amenable to non-closed platforms. This is something that better people that I should be investigating with some haste. It has to be a solvable problem. That said, the fact remains that with any open system, rights management (read: protection) will continue to be a hurdle for all current distribution models.
Every happiness to you and yours
Exactly - they still broadcast the BBC World Service on shortwave radio, after all:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/schedules/frequencies/index.shtml
This man is clearly a small-minded idiot who the BBC should be ashamed to have on their staff. Frankly, I don't care a jot about support for Linux or Mac. That's not where I'm coming at this from. I'm coming at this from the simple tenets of the BBC's constitution, that "Nation shall speak peace unto nation". This is on the plaque outside Broadcasting House, the BBC main HQ. It's why the BBC has offices in eastern countries you've never heard of. It's why the BBC broadcasts programs for minorities. It doesn't say "Nation shall speak peace unto nation provided they're running a compatible operating system". That's like it saying, "National shall speak peace unto nations provided they have white skin", or "Nation shall speak peace unto nation provided they support the British government's war on terror". There are no bars here, for any reason, trivial or otherwise. It really is disgraceful that this man is in a position of power in the BBC. It shows how far standards have slipped in the BBC. The iPlayer project will very probably be cancelled anyway because another fuckwitt is running the BBC and has massively overstretched the organisation, so that it's now cutting back by billions of pounds. Generation X has all growed-up and they're simply not up to the job.
They're seriously talking about extending the license to anyone who owns a computer.
Yet I have only Apple Macs in my house.
I will gladly go to court and explain yes, I have a computer.
But owing to the BBC's own decisions I am not able to use their service on it.
The problem likely stems from hiring programmers that aren't familiar with porting software to the Linux platform.
There's a simple reason for that.
They don't have an IT department any more. It was outsourced some time ago - shortly before it became apparent that the Internet was likely to become if not the future of media distribution, then at least very significant.
The development process seems to have been "throw something cheap and cheerful together at the last minute". It had to include DRM because pretty much everything the BBC produces is wrapped up in all sorts of licensing. Heck, even Tuesday's episode of Eastenders used some recent commercial music in the background at one point - that would have to be licensed under specific terms, and it's exactly that kind of thing which prevents the BBC from making all their content free to all.
gnash plays media these days. Yes, it doesn't do a perfect job of emulation, however it's straightforward to stick to the parts of flash that work in both gnash and flash.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
'Launching a software service to every platform simultaneously would have been launch suicide'
...
Why is it I have no problem viewing media on other sites except the BBC, how is it Youtube has no problem launching a cross platform service. What possible technical difficulties are there in running streaming video, none
davecb5620@gmail.com
Plus there's gnash, which is an open source flash player which will play youtube videos, or at least until the next time they rev to a newer version of flash.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Let me put it in a way that your little mind can grasp: If it cost 1 million to implement iPlayer for each platform, then it would cost:
And, companies often do not do what 6% of their shareholders. I think you have forgotten that shareholders vote on many things and it is majority rule. If a vote is 49%/51%, then the 49% lose and the policy of the other 51% gets implemented.
What makes you think you and your choice of operating system is more important and deserves a bigger share of the money and resources than the other 95% of the population? What makes you think you are worth 19,400 times than 95% of the rest of the population?
Do you see the depths of your selfishness yet?
More importantly, if you had RTFA, you would have seen where they decided to support the majority of their visitors first and then add support for the rest later.
Now, stop being a self-centered asshole.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
What makes you think you and your choice of operating system is more important and deserves a bigger share of the money and resources than the other 95% of the population? What makes you think you are worth 19,400 times than 95% of the rest of the population?
Do you see the depths of your selfishness yet?
More importantly, if you had RTFA, you would have seen where they decided to support the majority of their visitors first and then add support for the rest later.
Now, stop being a self-centered asshole. Well then shouldn't Linux users be required to pay less tax so that it doesn't go to BBC? Or is that unreasonable? (yes that's a rhetorical question) Is it selfish to want to watch something you partially funded with having to go and buy Windows?
Also I don't recall anywhere stating that the BBC was aiming to make a profit, I DO recall that they aim to help make their programmes accessible to as much people as possible. Currently they're ignoring 6% of people. and the fact that it'd take £1000+ to port to Linux might make sense, except that the majority of the code would only need small changes, and they should be able to fairly easily identify the parts that need to be redone easily if they followed good design.
So really it comes down to something a bit more like £1000000 to develop for Windows, another 10-20000 to develop for Linux and Mac, unless you're suggesting they code the whole thing from scratch for each platform?
because there are probably fifty people who access bbc.co.uk using Linux from my *department* at the University of Arizona?
"We have 17.1 million users of bbc.co.uk in the UK and, as far as our server logs can make out, 5 per cent of those [use Macs] and around 400 to 600 are Linux users"
Wasn't aware there was a University of Arizona in the UK...
400 to 600 Linux users out of 17 million? I find that hard to believe...That's less than 0.003%.
Invoicing, Time Tracking, Reporting
Given the constraint that this media could not be put out in an open format (since then it could be used by non-BBC customers who were not covered by a license) I would have had to do the same thing.
I don't like windows. I'm headed towards linux (most of my apps are now OS agnostic except everquest).
But as a project manager, it would be insane to delay delivery to 95% (they claim 99%) of my customers for several months. It is probably not even profitable to try to service 1% of the customers but as a government entity they have to do a lot of things that are not profitable (like people with no children must pay school taxes).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The beeb mostly uses Linux servers running Red Hat.
That's why they generally use rtsp (for realplayer) to stream video rather than a MS Windows specific codec.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4606719.stm
"The BBC News website - under the bonnet"
"The servers themselves are running Apache web server software on either the Linux or Solaris operating system."
Out of your analogy, can you please make an example where a free software maker came out with an intentionally incompatible format with no functional advantages over a proven design? Because IMO the square wheel perfectly describes MS in his OOXML and vista GUI redesign stunts.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
About 4-5 years ago, the BBC did a trial of streaming their programs with Vorbis. One of the guys who worked at the Beeb was into Open Source and managed to convince management to use Ogg Vorbis. However, there was some issue with rights management and they had to stop doing it. To this day I don't know why. It sounded so much better than the realplayer.
http://support.bbc.co.uk/ogg/
I thought the bbc said its only for windows because linux didnt have the required DRM. Did that change?
I don't know who's sleeping with whom, but it sure looks like someone's getting fucked.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
It's much more likely that the BBC are following their usual mode of operation when faced with criticism: to lie and hope nobody calls them on it.
Linux is at 0.4% - if there's 17 million visitors, then there should have been about 70,000 linux. http://www.currybet.net/articles/user_agents/2.php
Of course the parent is right. It's impossible to visit a .co.uk domain from any other country!
The Farewell Tour II
This stuff seems like it always begins to surface round the same time every year. It's now the coming onslaught of the Christmas shopping season, and Microsoft's sales of Vista loaded PC's is dwindling, and worse yet, individual upgrades to Vista. They need to prop up sales in the EU to pay for those heavy fines, so lets make sure that only Windows users can play media with news orgs. Next will come US news sites converting over to new format that only works on Windows media player because all major US news sites are only reporting .002% of users have something non-windows...
:-)
Come on people. How much more cannon fodder do you need here???
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
And what makes you think iPlayer doesn't work in Vista?
Sent from my desktop computer
CBC Radio Live Streams
Initially all Windows, but when geeks complained they threw us a bone of two ogg streams from Ontario. It has been that way for some time, with no sign of other regions being offered in ogg. Another reason to hate Toronto, I guess.
Loose lips lose spit.
Why is it unlikely that a niche operating system is used heavily in a niche company, and not everywhere else? Seems like you're getting statistics and probability confused.
For what it's worth, at one time part of my duties included analyzing logs for a heavily accessed government financial portal. We had three, yes, the number 3, total visits using Linux in a year. I'm pretty sure they were all me from a test machine, although I only remember going there twice.
Linux just isn't as popular as the people here want it to be. Instead of crowing how it must be a lie, try an figure out why, and change it.
From the website, under "Making BBC iPlayer available on Mac, Linux and other platforms":
It may work on Vista, I don't know, I don't have a copy to test it on. But it isn't supported and it's 'still under development', which I think makes any 'In bed with MS' theories less than credible.
No, Linux users are choosing to use Linux. Using Linux comes with some cost to the individual using it. Don't like, don't use Linux. Don't sit there and whine that you are not getting what you want and expect everyone to bend over backwards for you. Don't act like you are 20000 times more important than you really are.Funny, but 95% of the population seems like much of the people as reasonably possible.Then, you should, in the spirit of open source, volunteer to do the work for them.
In any case, you are just whining because the 5% that make up Mac users and the
You are a selfish brat. You want to be treated as special because of something you choose to do. If your choice should not effect what other people are required to do. Tell me, do you believe that because a few people choose to drink and drive that the rest of the population should be forced to stay off the road? Do you also believe that because a portion of the population chooses to smoke that smoking should be allowed everywhere including elementary schools, movie theaters, and hospitals?
You are not special. You do not have any special rights. No one should have to be forced to do something simply because you choose to be different.
Grow up and act like a responsible adult and live with the consequences of your decisions.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
And linux is 0.4%. So a lot higher that he says. Nearer 60,000 that 600 http://www.currybet.net/articles/user_agents/2.php
Well actually, they could offer downloads of asymmetrically encrypted vids, and offer some simple decoder apps, for anyone who has registered with them, proven their a feepayer, and gotten a keypair.
From a mental image standpoint, just be glad the headline wasn't "BBC Not in Bed With Steve Ballmer"
An incovenient truth: There really is only about thousand linux users.
No, according to TFA, there are only 12 linux users.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_step1.shtml
what's "Linux" got to do with iplayer working on XP only? I mean the reason is dumb! what about other OSs? I use MorphOS and MacOS too...
Read this if you think iPlayer is a good idea - http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071021231933899
Mark Taylor of the UK Open Source Consortium makes the point that the BBC has spent 100 million pounds on the iPlayer project. They're also going broke and will have to sell their flagship London headquarters building for - guess how much?
So, this project has already beggared the BBC. Am I too paranoid in seeing this as the first step in yet another Microsoft 'embrace and extend' play? They've had ambitions to own broadcast TV for ages. If they can prove their DRM works for a major broadcaster over the net, next step will be to DRM the broadcast TV. After that, if your TV doesn't have Windows Inside, you'll be shit out of luck.
--- Yx3 = Delilah ---
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
I also actually paid for various distributions I use. From Mandriva to SuSE Linux, so stop with your annoying stereotyping.
Feel free though to suggest exactly what work for them and don't forget to give all the specifications for it.
DRM is already supported on Linux thanks to realplayer, which runs on OS X, Windows and Linux.No. I also don't believe I should be forced to pay for a service that I cannot use because I choose to use Linux. Much like the people who choose not to drink and drive.This point doesn't make sense to me. Smoking is banned in public places and within private companies in the UK because it infringes on other people's health. These regulations are in place to protect lives. Linux users getting charged for a service that they cannot use does not protect lives.I don't drink, I don't smoke. I shouldn't be forced to consume alcohol because the majority happen to. I shouldn't be forced to breathe the air you made toxic because you and many others have a smoking addiction. I shouldn't be forced to pay for a service I cannot use.
Remember, this is about paying licensing for a service provided by a private company, not a government tax.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
So there IS actually a deal with Microsoft. It's just not a 'secret' deal.
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
While we all say that 'the BBC should do an open platform', remember that they need the time and money to invest in these things. And with the BBC's budget considerably lower than it should be, and some utter cretins in management sending most of the money to the stars of certain late-night chat shows (who normally don't even ask for it or want it), the fact that the content creators, being the greedy gits they are, will demand ludicrously high prices if DRM isn't applied, and the Daily Mail's 'scrap the license fee!' brigade out, there's no way the BBC could have spent the money on an open platform. For the most part, it's not its fault (the small part whose fault it is lies in the corridors of power).
Nevertheless, as a Mac user (thanks to my old PC blowing up - and another one I brought in to aid it suffering the same fate) I will be incredibly happy to see the iPlayer use Flash. Mainly because it beats WMP any day, and due to the fact that Adobe has spent a bit of money making it UNIX-compatible, it will work on that ~5% of machines.
Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
Their recent article on Leopard had a poll by the side, asking who was going to install it. There were in excess of 55,336 votes (I stopped looking at that point) and the poll showed over 14% had Linux as their preferred OS. That means AT LEAST 7,500 users.
:v)
I have a screenshot of the page if anyone gives a damn.
Vik
...bbc.co.uk in the UK and...
I don't suppose you're aware that ip ranges are handed out to various folks? That someone can generally tell where a surfer is from due to their IP?
When they specifically say "in the UK" yes - I'll dismiss someone saying they're from Arizona. As bbc is a tax-funded group they've an interest in seeing how many of the people actually paying for are using it. Not that hard to do too, so hey. And I fully sympathize if they want to weigh more heavily the impact things will have on those who are actually paying for the bbc, versus those (in Arizona, among other places) who are not.
barely worth mentioning, but I'll mention it anyway.
5 people is not 8% of 400-600. It is approx 1%.
Wouldn't giving the stats in such detail make you easy to identify?
It's not eye-player its eye-pee-layer. You know, the DRM layer that protects your Intellectual Property. It's only supposed to be playable for 30 days after download.
platform agnostic, no ifs. ands, buts, or excuses.
If the BBC CTO can't figure out how to do what millions of webmasters have figured out (I mean, if he'd just gone with Flash, that's everything including Macs and Linux boxes) he needs to be replaced by somebody competent. At least competent enough to figure out how to make a deal with YouTube.
Of course, perhaps the technical arguments for XP-only were made by MS in GBP, Euros, or unmarked US $100 bills.
Tech Public Policy stuff
I live in the UK, use Linux & visit BBC everyday.
With a UK population of approx 60m; an approx Linux market penetration of 1%; assuming 1 in 10 use the BBC regularly (which sounds low & ignores the ROW!) figures in the 60,000 range would seem plausible - he's claiming 1% of that. Some kind of "statistical" or data collection? error.
We need to get some verifiable statistics - is there somewhere to securely host data collection of verifiable details? (won't need to be big if it's only 400)
Also Firefox in the UK has reportedly 11% penetration - I am sure people who actively went to the effort of moving from MS - must be grateful to be forced back into the fold (with WMP)!
if "Faith" could be proved with facts - would it still be faith? So why does "Faith" try to present beliefs as fact? -
100 MILLION POUNDS!!!
Sorry - seems I didn't make my point strongly enough. People keep saying the BBC couldn't afford to develop an open solution. They've spent 100 million pounds on this. That's 100,000,000 GBP.
Does anyone seriously think that pouring a tenth of that funding into an non-proprietary solution wouldn't have delivered the goods? The Miro project would be a great starting point. The addition of one of the FOSS DRM initiatives would have covered them for those programmes where rights protection was deemed necessary.
The BBC had a chance to develop a de-facto standard and license it around the world. Instead, they have climbed into bed with Microsoft and blown the housekeeping money on a pile of crap.
It would be interesting to submit a Freedom of Information request to the BBC and find out how rigorous the procurement process was.
--- Yx3 = Delilah ---
After digging around, this is the best stat I can find - In March 2004, there were 24.5 million licences in force. So the iPlayer has cost every licence holder over 5 pounds - and that includes the huge majority who will never use iPlayer. Let's be optimistic and imagine a takeup of 100,000. That means the iPlayer has a per seat cost of 1,000 pounds. So, two questions: would you pay 1,000 pounds for a copy of this piece of software? And is it fair that non-users are subsidising you to the tune of 995 pounds?
Yet another Freedom of Information request worth making: ask the BBC to break down the money spent on this.
If we knew the facts, I truly believe arrests would be made
--- Yx3 = Delilah ---
This is exactly why Linux is not as widely used at it should be. Because companies refuse to support it. It's a continuous, unbreaking loop. Companies don't write software for Linux, so no one uses it. Because no one uses it, people don't see any point in writing software for it. See my point?
No, dumb-ass. You make choices you live with the consequences. One of the consequences of using a third tier, server-centric operating system is that one does not get a lot of support and that support tends to be crappy. Stop putting words in my mouth, fanboy.
I really don't give a damn why you use it or what distro's you have used. I have used everything from Slackware back in the mid 90s to CygWin and SuSE today (I use it on my home server and dual boot my two windows boxes, plus I have an NSLU-2 running Unslung as a mail server). It is not stereotyping to suggest that one give back to the community instead of whining about someone not supporting their precious O/S.
No, dumb-ass, most people do not drink and drive and most people use Windows. You choose to use Linux, much like some people choose to drink and drive. And speaking of being forces to pay for a service that one can not use, I can not use welfare or the schools because I have a good job and no children. Does that mean you believe I should not have to pay taxes to support those items?
Here, let me educate you. In both instances, a group of people, who make up a minority of the whole, engage in an activity that the majority does not. In both instances, the minority wish to impose upon others so that they may both engage in their activity and suffer no consequences to their choice. You and your ilk wish to force the expenditure of resources, resources that could be better used, to support your platform, even if it is not cost effective. Smokers wish to smoke anywhere and everywhere they want, even if it disturbs or harms others. In both instances, the minority group is being self-centered assholes.First off, I do not smoke and I rarely drink, so you can climb down off your high horse. Second, while you "shouldn't be forced to consume alcohol because the majority happen to", you also don't get to complain you didn't get a free beverage on "Free Beer" night, and that is exactly what you are doing.
You, in your ignorance, are taking instances where the majority (society) imposed it's will on the minority(smokers, drunk drivers) and equating it to a minority(Linux users) trying to impose it's will. Choosing to use Linux does not make you special and it does not mean that anyone has to think of you before Windows users, or even think of you and your operating system at all.
Get it through your thick skull: You are a self-created minority (a tiny minority at that) and you can stop being in the minority at any time. No one owes you anything because you choose to be in the minority. Quit bitching when people don't go out of there way to make things simple or even available to you.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Where I work at least 10 people in my *department* use Linux regularly.
This is one department of around 100 people in a company that does not support Linux desktop (i.e. these people surf from home).
I simply do not believe those numbers.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The amount of people from ethnic minorities in the UK is around 8%.
If you think any UK government institution could get away from servicing this people in the base of cost, then you would be deluded.
They can try ignore Linux users because it will not make any headlines and they believe they can get away with it, not because the size of the minority we represent and the cost of serving us Linux users (if they can't serve me then they should give me my license money back).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I really don't care that much for support of Linux as much as being forced to pay for a service I cannot use.
You fail to address that over and over. Instead you imply that my major point is that I want Linux support, no it isn't. There should be two options:
- Support the people you're forcing to pay you.
Or- Exempt people you do not care to support.
Instead, you're still being forced to pay for a service you do not and cannot use. This service isn't even part of the government. I have a big problem with this.This wasn't a assumption on my part, this was just a theoretical fact created for argument sakes which you have failed to address.Again, this isn't about something free, I am being forced to pay for a service I cannot use. Get it through your head.Using your own logic and examples.. Choosing to drink and drive is not special because there are majority that don't and therefore there shouldn't be any concern about it.Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
An institution mandated and paid to service all its audience can't griggle away of its responsibilities towards *all* the people paying money for those services.
There are widely available tools to make content available in all major computing platforms, Linux is a mainstream OS now, well understood and used by enough people in order to justify the effort. We are not talking about an arcane OS like OS2, Amiga or something of the sort. We are talking about Linux, which no matter how much you disparage about it, is perfectly supportable by any company willing to do so.
If a private company can't support my choice of computer then they will not charge me for their services and we will part ways. That is not an option for a public company. It is akin to the department in charge of roads to stop VW Beetles from driving on the streets after charing them all the relevant taxes.
You talk lots of rubbish about taking responsibility for our choices, you forget (or don't know) that the license fee that pays the BBC is *compulsory* and that people can go to jail for not paying. SO it is not entirely our choice to pay for a service which later on is not delivered for a mainstream computing platform, if it was solely a matter of choice I would never bother to go to the BBC iPlayer service, but I have paid and now I demand to be served as any other paying license fee payer.
No service? Fine, my license fee should be reduced then. If we are forced to pay then we should not be forced to pedal MS products in top of that, last time I checked the BBC is not an agent or distributor of MS software...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
What is stopping them to hire production companies as contractors for content whose copyright would belong to the BBC?
Unless there is something very specific on the BBC charter it seems to me like the buddies in the BBC do not want to harm the business of their buddies in the producing companies.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... but the claim that there are only 600 UK Linux users visiting the BBC website is ludicrous. I almost feel like using the freedom of information act to find out.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I visited the site as I had read the story on slashdot and elsewhere, then I signed the petition. You would have thought that the BBC's long use of Linux in key areas would have been enough to warrant a Linux version. Furthermore, Linux was not mentioned in their announcement and if there was that intention, it would have been stated in the release.
That we have already paid for the service.
As a project manager I would fire you for ignoring 5% (or 1%) of our paying costumers. That is a consideration to be done *before* not after a license fee is levied.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The BBC spend 100 million pounds on this nonsense (mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, I have seen it mentioned elsewhere).
....
You are jesting surely by suggesting that such amount of money would have not been enough to develop an open solution
IANAL but write like a drunk one.