Slashdot Mirror
BBC Backpedals On Linux Audience Figures
6031769 writes "After recently claiming that only 400 to 600 Linux users visit the BBC website, the BBC's Ashley Highfield has now admitted that they got their numbers wrong. The new estimate is between 36,600 and 97,600 according to his blog post. He stops short of describing how Auntie arrives at these two widely different sets of numbers and how their initial estimate is two orders of magnitude out."
Rack-em-up!
Most of the stuff on
They used Excel to calculate the first set of figures
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
If they really want a cross-platform solution that doesn't rely on the goodwill of browser makers to support the standards, they ought to simply implement the site using Flash. Flash is a fine technology that is portable to any device that has a Flash player, so even devices without a CSS-supporting browser (e.g. cellphones) can view the content.
If they didn't think it was worth there time to correct the numbers, they wouldn't have.
I think that media companies are going to fight until the bitter end to supress Linux users because so much of their DRM technology just doesn't work. Microsoft will play ball with DRM Media companies, Linux users are much more likely to fight.
I have a theory that even if Linux users outnumbered Windows users, Game companies and Media companies would continue to do whatever they could to make Games and Media incompatible making the majority of people criminals so that they could stay in control of their content no matter what.
Despite all the trolling that everyone says how horrible Linux is because companies produce broken hardware that don't support it, plays musical chairs with chip sets, Linux is turning into one of the greatest OSes the world has ever seen. Lets make sure 2008 is not the last year of Linux. Lets make sure Linux does not go quietly into the night,
English to metric conversion?
If they didn't think it was worth their time to correct the numbers, they wouldn't have.
It could have been angry nerds protesting and visiting bbc.co.uk sites from their linux boxes to boost the market share stats. Or maybe a bunch of BBC stories have been posted to slashdot recently (e.g. this one).
Yeah, it went from a lot less than 1% to, less than 1%.
I still don't think that makes non Windows/MacOS support a priority for them. Do you?
Also, given the Linux-unfriendly nature of the BBC's site, how many Linux users either don't visit it purely because of the Linux-unfriendly nature of the site, or set their user-agent to look like Windows?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
It's another fucking conspiracy to keep the linux world at bay, this time by two orders of magnitude even... Jebus...
~S
Yeah, it went from a lot less than 1% to, less than 1%.
... When the numbers started to approach 10%, people took notice. How things have changed, huh?
I'm reminded that in the early days of Firefox, people mouthed that same implicit argument. Too small a minority to redesign all those IE-only websites
Now, of course, the argument is that a business owner would be an idiot to write off 10% of their customer base. More important, the grander issues of healthy competition, accessibility, the destructive effects of monopoly power, etc. are brought to the forefront. Which is where they would have been if people weren't so focused on the numbers alone.
Does this have anything to do with the "Intergalactic missing mass" in the other story? Perhaps the astronomers and the BBC should get together and compare notes. Maybe they'd find enough mass to account for the formation of galaxies and locate all those missing Linux visitors in one easy step.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Maybe they counted the wide variety of Linux flavours rather than individual users.
Despite claims of "fairness", they have a huge chip on their shoulder.
Have a look at Biased BBC.
Especially the part where the BBC spends millions covering up a BBC report (!) that conclusively proves they are biased.
stops short of describing how Auntie arrives at these two widely different sets of numbers and how their initial estimate is two orders of magnitude out.
Simple, one is before being slashdotted, and one is after.
Table-ized A.I.
how many Commodore-64 visitors?
Table-ized A.I.
I have a stripped down install of Ubuntu Gutsy. With mplayer and firefox/mozilla mplayer plugin, I am listening to BBC streams right now. What, exactly, is the problem?
You sir, are an idiot. Flash is the antithesis of cross-platform solutions.
He's fucked in the next election. Done! Nope, he's done!
By that logic, how is mac a priority for anyone either?
The Farewell Tour II
I would assume that the BBC did not invent its own method of measuring web traffic, but uses some package or service. If this got the number of Linux users so drastically wrong, how many other site's estimates of Linux users incorrect too? Could a lot more people be using Linux than we are told?
Jeez, look, they've come and admitted their mistake - That sort of behaviour should be rewarded, not used as extra ammo for attacking them!
How many other major companies do you think would have done that?
Certainly not any I can think of!
Still not very precise are we... Good thing they are not supported by advertising. I can just imagine a pitch to the advertisrs: We have between 3m and 12m visitors a week and between 5% and 65% are located in North America and between 9% and 48% of those are your target audience ......
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
The guy doesn't have a clue. He looks at Linux as BBC's nuisance. In reality, the nuisance to everyone, BBC included, is that BBC has apparently ignored openly published industry standards. Adhere to the simple and straight-forward standards rather than locking self in to working with MS, and you're automatically compatible with viewers on [b]any[/b] operating system. Do that and you don't even have to think about that obnoxious OS created by hacker nobodies.
I've been listening to the BBC on Linux with my RealPlayer, or whatever it's been called for the past 10 years.
Whatever dark place they've pulled these stats from requires a thorough cleansing.
Apparently there is a major problem with over-staffing at the BBC. I can easily see this issue is down to having to ask several different departments what the 'scores on the doors' are, and at the first count actually only one department had replied to the inquiring email. This revised number is simply due to the numbers from several other departments being returned and accumulated into the result.
Expect the number to keep climbing for some days yet, and then actually to go up and down like some strange kind of under-damped oscillation. This tail effect is due to the various business units actually re-reading the email and responding to it with 'corrected' figures.
Remember never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity when considering the organisational structure of an juggernaut such as the BBC is really quite archaic.
threadeds blog
Don't be such a dick. It's attitudes like this that get the Linux community such a bad name. "We are clueless"? "Linux-unfriendly nature of the BBC's site"? How old are you?
He got it wrong, he was man enough to admit that he got it wrong. Why do you have to make such a big deal out of it?
And, sorry, but we have to agree that, statistically, it's still a tiny fraction of the user base. If I was developing a cross-platform application or service, commercial or otherwise, then I'd still plan on putting out the Windows version first, the Apple one second and the Linux one third.
Why? Because it just plain makes sense. If you need an explanation why then perhaps you're just not seeing the bigger picture as well as you think you are.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Now, of course, the argument is that a business owner would be an idiot to write off 10% of their customer base.
Which is made worse by the fact that the BBC receives pretty heavy funding from the tax payer. The BBC should be providing services that commercial entities don't. Every time they make a decision like this, they're just providing another reason why they should no longer exist. EastEnders was a pretty decent argument in itself.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
BBC has apparently ignored openly published industry standards.
Well, the BBC is more or less obliged at this point in time to use DRM because practically everything they produce is a labyrinth of licensing and contracts - contracts with the writer, record labels for background music, actors, directors.
So, exactly what openly published industry standard which implements DRM would you propose they choose, hmmm?
It's interesting in the interview how Highfield denys that he and the BBC is in league with the devil (his words not mine). How then do you explain press releases like "BBC and Microsoft sign memorandum of understanding as BBC seeks new strategic partnerships to underpin creative future" - http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/09_september/28/microsoft.shtml?
The BBC was actually developing its own codec called DIRAC for the iPlayer project but its demise coincided with the hiring of former senior Microsoft executives to Future Media and Technology team (e.g. Erik Huggers, the MS director responsible for Windows Media Player in Europe).
This is a classic corporate 'coup d'état' by the Monopolist. A coup that has resulted in ~£100m (~$200m) of taxpayers money going to finance a media product that deliberately excludes large numbers of the UK public and is, as it happens, horribly broken.
All this is at a time that the BBC is shedding 12% of it workforce, cutting back of its world-renowned R&D efforts and selling off its landmark buildings in west London.
As the Free Software Foundation put it, the BBC now stands for "Bill's Corrupted Corporation".
Linux is a nuisance to them, since their life would be easier if everyone would stop whining and use the OS from the company that the BBC seems to love so much.
Someone needs to take a hammer to the BBC, and get it focussed on doing something useful. Too many parts seem to just ape what the commercial broadcasters are doing. i.e. do we need a tax funded broadcaster to air Beverly Hills Cop II? I reckon there are commercial broadcasters who are just as capable of showing us that masterpiece of world cinema.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
For a huge media provider like the BBC with perhaps hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide and millions online. I think it's still not a number worth catering to.
... have some sense when complaining about what YOU want them to do for YOU. You don't HAVE to be snobby American ego ass munchers.
However, there is no reason not to use a more open design for distributing your media, if only for long term hosting costs, but you sound like a jackass with the 'two orders of magnitude'.
That's the BBC's business you know. They are not a public service or a social program. They have the right to run or not run their businesses by statistics or if MS wants to pay them off enough money it might be clearly advantageous to not worry about the minor hit you'd take from losing media views from Linux users.
Sure the smarter thinking is WHY NOT get those viewers, but in the end most people reading the news online are not watching the streaming video and for good reason. If they wanted to watch streaming video, they'd use you tube or google video... right. Sooooooo.. the BBC just has a dated business model and is more or less behind the times online, but that's not reason to demand they 'upgrade' their systems for a very minor return.
Like I've said before. If linux user don't like it, perhaps they will offer to code a new solution for the BBC for free. Unlike American media I don't think the BBC is independantly wealthy.
The point is, in the real world of business, there are many more reason for doing things than the obvious. Chances are they just have a low budget design team, but who knows really. It's not worth whining about. The BBC is easily the most honest of the large western news/media providers so
Gee, I don't know. Maybe they could not produce a labyrinth of licensing contracts that makes it impossible to adhere to the basic standards of the system through which they are trying to deliver their product? I know, I'm crazy, even a heretic, but fuck it, that's my proposal.
If the television license inspector comes to the door demanding payment, is 'Sorry, I'm using Linux' now a reasonable excuse.
It's an absolute disgrace that license fees have to be paid by everyone and then this kind discrimination occurs.
I am outraged - and the fact that I live in Ireland and don't pay a license fee for the BBC that I've been leeching off for the past 30 years has nothing to do with it.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
Nigerian education officials are said to be delighted with the new 'Free Laptops'.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
I still don't think that makes non Windows/MacOS support a priority for them. Do you? The number still seems to be a bit small to me... But at least not by orders of magnitude.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
I've written a cross-platform application that is supported on Mac, Windows and Linux. About 7% of the downloads are of the Linux version of the application. As the application is not of a kind that is installed by default on any of those platforms (such as instant messengers, browsers etc), I choose to believe that this is a somewhat realistic representation of current market share of Linux.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
Also, given the Linux-unfriendly nature of the BBC's site, how many Linux users either don't visit it purely because of the Linux-unfriendly nature of the site, or set their user-agent to look like Windows?
I keep seeing this posted, with no explanation. What exactly is "Linux-unfriendly" about any of the BBC websites or non-iPlayer content? The one and only problem I have ever had is that the Real based video doesn't work in Firefox on Ubuntu: this is a bug with the Real Player plugin, not the BBC web site. (The audio streams (I.e. Radio1) work fine, by the way).
As far as I can tell, the BBC website is fine in almost any browser you would ever care to use. It even works nicely in ABrowse on Syllable, which is Webcore based and quite possibly the definition of "minority"!
I have to admit that I have a grudge against them. When they took the last of the English programming off of shortwave, listening to them just wasn't fun any more. I thought, screw them, I'll listen to Radio Netherlands. Being a radio listener for so long, there was just something that seems wrong about listening to a shortwave station on the internet.
Oh, and good luck if you are in some God forsaken place without internet and only speak English.
The explanation given was that this figure came from one of their estimation techniques. I don't understand why they can't get actual figures of the relative proportions of user agents. This isn't a Nielsen-family scenario like TV is; you can directly measure who's coming to your site down to the last visitor, and tools to do this given some server logs are ubiquitous. So this explanation smells of bullshit to me. As many people do, he quoted a made up figure as a real statistic, then backpedaled when people started asking questions.
Oh, look. Windows Media.
Given his department have burned £100m of licence payers money developing this iPlayer DRM monstrosity and other rubbish it's about time someone took notice and asked what they're on?
How about NO DRM? If the copyright owners want or need DRM then either it gets no airtime on BBC or it isn't included in the iPlayer stream and is paid less (since the value of the product is lessened by the restrictions placed on the paying public: the BBC is *our* BBC).
Let's show the content producer that if nobody will buy what you're selling with the restrictions you want to put on it, how much is it worth now? (answer: bugger all).
Yes you are correct. To support Linux, they should completely change the way they do business...I mean they can't have a logical reason for doing these complex negotiations, i mean it gets in the way of Linux, it must be stupid.
These are complex issues that we face, and pretending that they are simple to get rid off is not going to solve anything.
As a few people point out on the BBC site discussion, no one is asking the BBC to support Linux. What we are asking is that they don't lock us out by selecting a closed protocol, especially one from a company openly hostile to free software.
We're quite happy to organise our own support, thank you. All we ask is that the beeb picks a format where we can do so legally. I really don't see how they can justify any other course of action.
Do you?
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
I assume at some point the BBC website will become a paid for (by the license fee) service. In which case the demographic wil be reduced to UK users. I wonder what % of them are linux users?
I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
Adhere to the simple and straightforward standards of HTML rather than locking yourself into working with some forum/wiki software, and you're automatically compatible with viewers on any browser ;D
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
No you are correct -- they should lock their entire business into using MS products and only be compatible with Windows users rather than just adhering to industry standards and being platform independent the way their successful competitors are.
The BBC is required, by it's charter, to have a significant proportion of its content produced by external providers.
These providers would charge vastly more for a lot of their product if the BBC was going to say "Hey, we're putting all your content on the web in non-protected forms.. okay?", especially those who want to sell their content to other broadcasters too. For content already in the BBC's vast archives the rules are even more difficult as we're talking contractual obligations sometimes going back pre-WW2.
At some point soon the BBC Trust (External to the BBC management structure, acting as overseers who-must-be-obeyed) would step in and point out this isn't getting value-for-money for the license fee payer, and it was cannibalising the sales of BBC DVDs and sales of BBC-owned content to foreign broadcaster which are then funnelled back into production. They would then slap the BBC silly and pull the service.
There's no way the BBC's going to be able to provide the same amount of content in the same quality and on demand without the DRM, what this now means to them continuing to develop this service isn't clear. The streaming version's one possibility, but that's unlikely to have the same video quality and won't have the on demand bit so may even be treated as 'broadcast'.
404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
one of the comments includes this link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/linux_figures_1.html/ext/_auto/-/http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/linuxbbc/signatures.html
theres about 2600 names added so far, be interesting to see how big the slashdot effect could be:)
it will go via the bbc so they should notice
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
He keeps quoting the lowest possible number. If the range is 30-90,000 and 30,000 is not insignificant then a median guess of 60,000 is twice as not insignificant.
Instead of doing this they engineered some bizarro Windows-only, IE-only, WMP-only solution consisting of server side sniffers, activex controls, 3rd party controls and proprietary JS & HTML which is not only horrifically complicated but doesn't even work properly from one Windows OS to the next, or one IE version to the next, or one WMP to the next. Use Vista? Screw you. Use XP with IE7? Screw you. Use XP with Firefox? Screw you.
Even DRM seems like a weak excuse for using WMP. Why not tie content to a TV licence by watermarking it? The user might have to register for the service and login but that's the only inconvenience. Afterwards let them do what they like with the content since its H264. It's not like the market for Eastenders episodes is massive anyway, and if by chance someone did abuse the service you can use the watermark to trace and prosecute them.
It seems like someone in the BBC is desperately trying to justify a very bad decision by marginalising the critics as unimportant. In reality the BBC ignored a great chance to develop a cross-platform solution and hopped in bed with Microsoft. Now they're wondering why nobody including the few people who got iPlayer to work are happy with piece of crap that produced.
Would it matter? Aren't british users also tax payers? Therefore aren't the Linux users paying for their site? May I also get an explanation what's stopping them from using a more accessible format?
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Every time they make a decision like this, they're just providing another reason why they should no longer exist.
But...but...without the BBC, David Attenborough would crumble into dust, and all those poor animals wouldn't know how to behave or what to mate with. It will be environmental chaos, I tell you!
Blank until
I think 36,600 and 97,600 still seems too small. I think the real figure might be about 400-600 thousand. The 400-600 quote comes from one article, and I reckon its just a slip of the tongue / misquote, and that the guy meant 400-600 [thousand].
If you read the article, he said '5% of 17 million users use Macs, and 400-600 use Linux.' Now substitute 5% of 17 million with 850 thousand, and it reads '850 thousand users use Macs, and 400-600 use Linux'. The site has millions of users, so you'd expect him to be supplied statistics no more precise than in thousands. So if he wasn't aware of that, or if he was reading from a page, in which 850 thousand had been replaced with 5% of 17 million, then you can understand how 400-600 happened.
Assuming 400-600 thousand, we have half as many Linux users as Mac users. That seems reasonable, doesn't it? 36k to 97k would be an order of magnitude fewer, which I'd find surprising.
The figure given for linux users is less accurate (hence the error range) than that for Macs, because of the greater variability in user agent strings. I think the people who calculated the 400-600 [thousand] figure were doing a good study, and that this accidental quote 400-600 has kind of ruined the thing. I've submitted a freedom of information request to the BBC about linux figures. I wouldn't be surprised to get different data again. The whole 400-600, and now 30k to 90k fiasco wouldn't be happening if people at the BBC talked to each other!
Are you sure miles are the distance if you drive them on the left, "wrong", side of the road?
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
When was the last time the BBC had to justify a stupud decision? This lack of accountability is what you get from a company guaranteed money from anyone who watches a TV.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
I dunno... how about the Andrew Gilligan/David Kelly flap? Or the recent hoo-hah over phone-in lines. Hell, right now, BBC production staff can't even override a poll to choose the name of a kitten without heads having to roll. And that's just off the top of my head.
I don't see any way in which the commercial channels are accountable to me or any other member of the public. If I don't like some decision by ITV, the answer is going to be, "you're not an advertiser, so we don't care". At least the BBC are supposed to be accountable to the British public.
Which of course is why the debate is happening at all, as opposed to us just being told to get lost, which is what would happen if this was a commercial broadcaster.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
I'm pretty sure the BBC runs a whole load of Linux boxes. Seem to remember an article ( perhaps even on /. ) that they use Linux, Apache and SSI to get a lot of their work done.
while (true != false) process_more_stupid_code();
There is no way you can spin numbers as pathetic as these and make them look impressive.
"In May 2007 bbc.co.uk was the 20th most popular English Language website in the world and the 33rd most popular overall." BBC - Internet
Well, seeing that they have a readily available closed solution that works with over 99% of their users, yes, I think they can justify it.
Please note I'm an OpenBSD user. I love truely open formats. I can just recognize that from their perspective with a fraction of 1% of users wanting it, changing to an open platform would be additional work for them with little apparent payout to them.
"He stops short of describing how Auntie arrives at these two widely different sets of numbers and how their initial estimate is two orders of magnitude out."
Simple. He invented the first set of numbers on the spot, and then had someone actually look at the logs to come up with the second set of numbers. It really wouldn't surprise me if the numbers he gave are still lower than reality.
Still, the actual numbers are a red herring. There is no extra expense with using 100% cross-platform, Free media formats which covers everyone in one fell swoop. This whole bucket of horse shit about catering to the majority needs to stop when it's just as easy (and less costly to boot!) to cater to everyone by using Free formats.
With a number like 400-600 the only answer is they pulled numbers out of
...
(thin air). I had considered using a different phrase, but decided to keep
the initial letters only.
There's no rocket science behind this, all you have to do is read the
browser string reported by each hit and the ip address. This gives you
a base to start with. You have to deal with the possibility that
one ip address may report differently due to shared ip space. This of
course still allows for under reporting of uniques users, such as
those on a network behind a router/firewall, and those masquerading
the browser string. There's plenty of code out there showing how it's done.
The only explanation for such blatant wrong numbers, which they may
still be fudging, is they did it on purpose. Perhaps at the behest of MS,
or more likely a top decision maker with an ax to grind against Linux.
I'd bet they've pulled the current bottom number out of their collective
Their entire business? Are you familiar with the story?
Speaking of accessibility, does BBC Americas have to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act? Inquiring minds want to know!
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
There's quite a bit more available in the way of CPU architechtures than x86 that nspluginwrapper doesn't fix.
Now, while PPC may be less relevant, ARM is very much so with the new wave of Linux smartphones. To my knowledge, there's only the player bundled with the N770 and N800 available right now.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
EXACTLY! BBC is taxpayer-supported and should be taxpayer-accessible! If they exclude people because they're not important enough, can those taxpayers also decide not to pay the BBC part of their taxes?
Government entities don't and shouldn't run by the same rules as a business.
Linked from TFA is a BBC produced podcast interview (available in Ogg Vorbis format, CC Attr-NC-SA) with Ashley Highfield which is extremely enlightening.
Rather than the very lightweight interviews I've read with him lately (I don't care if he has an iPod!), this is pretty in depth, and Mr Highfield comes across as having quite a lot of clue. It's well worth listening to.
To make a few of the points from the interview:
All in all, a very interesting listen.
psr --History is ending.
Ever TRIED Gnash? It's a promising project but very very far from a complete and reliable implementation.
Flash is a pox on the internet. Flash steals bandwith from helpless babies and your innocent grandmother. Flash stands in the way of world peace. Every time a web developer uses Flash God kills a kitten. Flash must die!
Perhaps I'm being a bit to hard on Flash, after all it is popular because it works well enough. However Flash is a pseudo-standard, the de-facto choice because it cornered the market before a proper standard could gain traction. No industry body or standards organisation has codified it as a standard and Adobe (and Macromedia before them) has never made a serious effort to push for its adoption as a standard and in fact licensing has been purposely put in place to PREVENT Flash form becoming a real standard (even Microsoft has a better track record, and that's saying something!). So, unless Adobe does a 180 and opens the specification so that projects like gnash don't have to rely on reverse-engineering and trial-and-error, I maintain that as much effort as possible should be made to kill the putrid virus that is Flash.
They have readily available open solutions that also work for over 99% of their users. I think they need a better justification for excluding tens of thousands of licence payers than "well, it was like, there, you know?"
They had an open platform using Ogg. They changed that to a closed one, albeit one with a Linux client available. Oddly enough, the work involved doesn't seem to be a barrier when it excludes free operating systems. Even so they could keep the current real system in place for exactly zero effort. Yes, there'd be some wasted effort in terms of the iPlayer, but I don't we should accept failure to plan ahead as a reason for perpetuating stupid decisions.
Now, of course, they want to change to a system that's merely closed to a closed system from a hostile corporation that doesn't offer a client at all, although we'll probably get one with limited functionality. Someday. If we're good. Any bets on how long that'll last with MS in control of the protocol?
Enough is enough.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
So Linux is losing market share at the rate of 0.1% every 2 years, thus 6 years from now Linux will disappear, which sounds about right to me
[sarcastic] To support Linux, they should completely change the way they do business
One of us is extremely confused... methinks it be you.
In order to *LOCK OUT* Linux they are currently completely changing the way they do things.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Given large budget cuts, how are they supposed to justify a large cost to serve 0.5% of people whom they're not required by law or mandate to provide for?
You're trolling. The figures are taken from news.bbc.co.uk, which is perfectly Linux-friendly. I use that site every day, accessing it from Mozilla Firefox on Linux, ELinks on Linux, lynx on Linux (the lo-fi version), Snownews (the RSS feed) on Linux. I play the videos using the Flash plugin which took a click to install on my 32-bit system with Firefox, and I listen to the audio news using the Helix Player (Real) or mplayer from the command-line, again both on Linux. The BBC News website and various other sites such as H2G2 or BBC Comedy are extraordinarily Linux-friendly (because they are standards-based and accessible). The iPlayer seems to be the only Linux-unfriendly portion of their site, but again, that is not where the statistics come from.
Those bastards in the BBC, what the heck are they thinking?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
IE isn't the only thing it sets up for you; WoW, Steam, EVE are also minimally intrusive installs... People love to say that gaming is the reason they stick to Windows... this is my way of calling BS.
Besides, I love seeing the looks on friends' faces when they realize that I'm not running Windows, when they just borrowed my Internet Explorer to check their email >:)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.