One Million School Children To Get Free BBC Micro:bit Computers

Mickeycaskill writes with this news from TechWeek Europe: Every Year 7 student in England and Wales, Year 8 student in Northern Ireland and S1 student in Scotland will be handed, for free, a BBC micro:bit computer specially designed to help pupils learn to code. Micro:bits, which are smaller than the size of a credit card and can be hooked up to a mobile app or accessed via the Internet, will be delivered nationwide through schools and made available to home-schooled students over the course of the next few weeks. The students are able to keep their devices as their own, meaning they can work with the device for homework, in school holidays, and use it for more applications as their grasp on coding increases. The initiative follows on from the BBC's Micro programme that was introduced in the 1980s, and sees a partnership between the BBC and some of the world's most notable technology companies such as ARM, Microsoft, and Samsung. The computer will hope to emulate the Raspberry Pi, of which more than eight million have been sold. A BBC story explains a bit about the project's ambitions, and points out a few "bumps in the road"; originally, the hardware was to be in classrooms several months sooner. The BBC's own micro:bit page features more on programming the device, as well as many sample projects.

Comments

Emulate the Raspberry Pi?

[deniable]

This seems a bit anemic in comparison. It looks like it uses another computer or a mobile for user I/O.

Re:Emulate the Raspberry Pi?

[viperidaenz]

It's a microcontroller, not a computer.
I don't understand why you're trying to compare them.

Re:Emulate the Raspberry Pi?

[deniable]

From the summary - "will be handed, for free, a BBC micro:bit computer " and "The computer will hope to emulate the Raspberry Pi". Does that help?

Re:Emulate the Raspberry Pi?

[Richard_at_work]

It means in success and adoption, rather than performance. Its not a competitor to the Pi, its aimed even more at the educational market and has been deliberately designed in such a way that there is little prospect of a secondary market (so they dont get sold off on ebay).

Re: Emulate the Raspberry Pi?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely that sort of retarded paranoia triggered someone to say "Hey, why don't we just buy a bunch of these $8 machines which have mega support and add-ons and be done with it?"

Re: Emulate the Raspberry Pi?

[Richard_at_work]

Those $8 machines which are going like hot cakes on ebay? Yeah, hand them out one day and by the end of the day half of them will have been nicked from classmates and hocked on ebay...

The Micro:bit has no secondary market, its deliberately designed in such a way that if you want to actually do something productive then its cheaper to go to another solution than work around the Micro:bits limitations.

Re:Emulate the Raspberry Pi?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more an i/o starved competitor to Arduino than it is a competitor to the RPi. I can understand why ARM is supporting this. Right now an enormous group of people is learning how to program for Atmel AVR. Better get the young kids to learn the ARM platform. Which is not bad in my opinion anyway as almost all new microcontrollers are ARM based.

Re:Emulate the Raspberry Pi?

[drinkypoo]

It's a microcontroller, not a computer.
I don't understand why you're trying to compare them.

Because the creators compared them! And they came to the wrong conclusion, that there was a purpose for what they were making. But there isn't. What is really wanted is more Pi Zeros. You can use them for the same stuff as the Micro:bit, but you don't need a host system for development. You can use them with one if you've got one, so you're not giving up anything, and you get dramatically more for your money.

Re: Emulate the Raspberry Pi?

[AmiMoJo]

Does every child really need their own computer though? It would have made more sense to buy enough RPis for a class and maybe give each kid a flash drive for their work. You need a separate PC just to program these things, unlike the Pi you can't plug in a keyboard and monitor and develop on them directly.

The Micro:bit is just such a terrible idea. The lack of a case makes it vulnerable to physical and static damage. No provision for a real display, just some LEDs and two buttons for input. It's not really a computer at all, it's a crap Arduino knock-off that can do far less. For a beginner learning software concepts and basic programming, a Pi is much better.

Re: Emulate the Raspberry Pi?

[Joce640k]

It's not really a computer at all, it's a crap Arduino

Yeah, those Arduinos are completely useless.

It's not surprising to you that they only sold a couple of dozen units, right?

Re: Emulate the Raspberry Pi?

[MightyYar]

They guy you are replying to is not denying that a Pi is "better", in terms of capability. But this has some qualities that make it "better" for the task at hand:
1. It's fairly worthless outside of it's intended environment, which means it won't be a temptation to "lose" it on eBay.
2. It's simpler. Setting up a Pi is not exactly hard, but it teaches you about setting up a computer, not electronics. You can get right to blinking lights.
3. It's cheap enough to give to the kids. Most kids will put it to the side and never play with it again. A few will dick around with it and graduate to an Arduino or Pi. Those are your target.

You want to introduce kids to stuff and see what floats their boat. Some will get the musical bug, others the art bug, and some will get the electronics bug. Sometimes they get this exposure at home, sometimes at school. If society values technical people, then technical education needs to be part of public education.

Re: Emulate the Raspberry Pi?

[AmiMoJo]

To clarify, I mean it is a crappy clone of the Arduino, which itself is a great platform but definitely not a computer or really suited to teaching children to code from scratch.

Re: Emulate the Raspberry Pi?

[Anonymous Coward]

I learned to code on a 1.8mhz, 8 bit machine with 4k of ram and progressed to writing operating systems for spacecraft. I'd pick an arduino over an rpi for teaching about how computers computers work an day.

Re: Emulate the Raspberry Pi?

[AmiMoJo]

Yes, and I was directly addressing his points. To reiterate:

"1. It's fairly worthless outside of it's intended environment, which means it won't be a temptation to "lose" it on eBay."

I suggested getting Pis for the class rather than the individual. Collect them up at the end of the lesson. To program the Microbit they will need PCs for every child anyway, which will belong to class.

"2. It's simpler. Setting up a Pi is not exactly hard, but it teaches you about setting up a computer, not electronics. You can get right to blinking lights."

Not at all. With the Pi you can throw in an SD card that boots into BASIC and then immediately start toggling LEDs connected to GPIOs. There is no reason why they couldn't provide a standard LED shield and the Javascript library code they created for the Micro:bit to run on the Pi as well.

The Pi is actually easier and more immediate as you can run individual BASIC commands from the command line. With the Micro:bit you have to compile, download over wireless and then execute with minimal debug capability. I expect the kids will end up spending a lot of time in the simulator for that reason.

Re: Emulate the Raspberry Pi?

[MightyYar]

I suggested getting Pis for the class rather than the individual. Collect them up at the end of the lesson. To program the Microbit they will need PCs for every child anyway, which will belong to class.

That solves the "selling it on eBay" problem, but then they can't take it home to diddle with it. It's a tradeoff.

Not at all. With the Pi you can throw in an SD card that boots into BASIC and then immediately start toggling LEDs connected to GPIOs. There is no reason why they couldn't provide a standard LED shield and the Javascript library code they created for the Micro:bit to run on the Pi as well.

That injects an unnecessary step and abstracts you from what the hardware is doing. If the goal is to teach a little bit of programming, then just open a web browser and forget the hardware altogether. If your goal is to teach basic electronics, then playing with more primitive hardware is beneficial. Flip this bit and the light goes on, flip it again and it goes off. Sure, you can make a Pi pretend to do this - but you can make a web browser pretend to do this as well.

The Pi is actually easier and more immediate as you can run individual BASIC commands from the command line. With the Micro:bit you have to compile, download over wireless and then execute with minimal debug capability. I expect the kids will end up spending a lot of time in the simulator for that reason.

I expect that they'll have chromebooks or tablets pre-configured with a simple programming environment. The kids will likely type a line of c code or similar and hit the "play" button. No diddling with SD cards, no waiting for it to boot, no complications at all. Unplug the microcontroller and the blinking stops. Plug it in and it starts right back up. It draws a few mA, so the kid can put a few button cells on it and wear it around.

A Pi is a cool little computer. But for blinking lights it is more complicated than it needs to be. I think giving a Pi out to kids is also a great idea - these two projects can be complimentary. Microcontrollers and full-fledged computers are both very useful and are complementary. I don't see the conflict at all.

Re:Emulate the Raspberry Pi?

[viperidaenz]

A Pi Zero can't run off a coin cell.
If you don't have a host system for development, a Pi Zero requires a keyboard and HDMI monitor, a usb hub if you want a mouse too. Students don't bring these to school. They are starting to bring laptops and tablets. Anything with Bluetooth 4 or USB can work with a Micro:bit
A Pi Zero also can't do anything by itself. This thing has 25 leds, two buttons, an accelerometer and digital compass.

It's cheaper too. The Pi Zero might cost $5, but it's an extra $5 or so to buy the micro-to-non-micro adapter cables for HDMI and USB. You've got to buy 5V power adapter too. An SD card is another $5 or more.

It's probably a lot more robust too. How is a Pi Zero going to handle being chucked in a school bag every day? One million 11 and 12 year olds aren't going observe correct anti-static handling procedures.

ps: I have nothing against the Raspberry Pi, I've got two of them at home running various things. I am a fan of using the right too for the job though.

Re: Emulate the Raspberry Pi?

[viperidaenz]

Yeah, far less than an 8 bit Arduino with 32k flash and 2k ram

It's only a 32bit ARM Cortex-M0 with Bluetooth LE, 16k ram and 128k flash, a built in accelerometer and compass with a bunch of LED too.

Re: Emulate the Raspberry Pi?

[viperidaenz]

and graduate to an Arduino

Except this is more capable than an Arduino

Re: Emulate the Raspberry Pi?

[viperidaenz]

The Microbit plugs in to a PC via USB and shows up as a mass storage device.
You simply copy your python code to it and press reset.
There's a web based IDE as well, so you don't even need to install software. Works with Windows, Linux, Mac, Android.... Probably iPads too. Anything that supports USB mass storage and has a web browser.

Googling tablets in schools in UK, an article from 2014 says 70% of schools already have tablets for kids.

Even here in back-water New Zealand, schools are increasingly requiring kids to bring tablets or laptops to class.

Re: Emulate the Raspberry Pi?

[viperidaenz]

Flip this bit and the light goes on, flip it again and it goes off.

Bingo.
Teacher: "Write '1' to /sys/classes/gpio/blah/blah/export to enable your output, then write '1' to /sys/blahblah/value to turn it on!"
Student: "How does that actually work?"
Teacher: "I don't know, magic computer stuff?"

Congrats, you're teaching how Linux works, not how computers in general work.

Re:Emulate the Raspberry Pi?

[drinkypoo]

A Pi Zero can't run off a coin cell.

Coin cells are evil! They are as likely as not to wind up in a landfill. Much better to just go ahead and use Li-Ion. The Pi can run off a single NiMH battery if you use a commonly available and dirt cheap boost module.

but it's an extra $5 or so to buy the micro-to-non-micro adapter cables for HDMI and USB.

It's an extra $2 on eBay to buy the USB cable and you may not even need the HDMI cable. The Pi Zero does have composite video out on a header connector. Just taking a quick stab at eBay, I see composite to header for $4. I'm guessing wildly here, but I'd bet that if you poked around aliexpress for a moment and asked for a quote on 300 units of these cables you could get them for about fifty cents per unit each, since they are so very boring and mundane. The RCA cable might cost slightly more, and the USB cable probably slightly less.

A Pi Zero also can't do anything by itself. This thing has 25 leds, two buttons, an accelerometer and digital compass.

I guess I'm underwhelmed by the 25 LEDs thing. That's some Mattel Football shit.

Re: Emulate the Raspberry Pi?

[MightyYar]

Some of them, sure, but the "Arduino" moniker is no longer limited to the original 8-bit Atmel-based board. I think there is even an Arduino with the M0 chip found in this BBC thing.

Re:Emulate the Raspberry Pi?

[Megane]

It's a microcontroller, so it should be compared to the Arduino, not the RasPi. In that comparison it's not bad, with an ARM Cortex M0 vs an Atmel AVR. These days the only "cool" thing that AVR has going for it is the availability of DIP packages.

And this really isn't news until they actually get delivered, because we've already known for months that they were going to give them to school kids.

Re:Emulate the Raspberry Pi?

[viperidaenz]

Sure, the Pi that consumes 2 watts of power, you can run it from a NiMH cell, with a capacity of less than 3Wh, and lose 10% of that in the boost converter.
That's a whole hour of operation!

You can run a small 32bit micro off a coin cell for weeks. Days if you're trying to waste power. The CPU itself can only consume 2.4mA at full speed, an extra 10mA when transmitting BLE data.

The Pi Zero does not have the header attached for $5, it's an extra cost. I said $5 for the cables, you've turned around and now said $6.

Re: Emulate the Raspberry Pi?

[viperidaenz]

There's also one with a MIPS processor and WiFi running openwrt, but generally speaking Arduino is an ATMEGA328 or 2560

Re: Emulate the Raspberry Pi?

[MightyYar]

The BBC microbit should be fun to play with once it is more generally available. The pins are not very convenient, but there are plenty of them and there are already edge connectors to take care of that. The built-in accelerometer/compass and bluetooth along with the crude display give it some unique features.

Internet of Things

[kav2k]

So, it's the era of Internet of remote-accessible government-issued Things..

Re:Internet of Things

[Anonymous Coward]

BBC is not a government entity.

Re:Internet of Things

[Anonymous Coward]

"public service broadcaster" ... owned by the government, controlled by the government, funded by the government... so wtf is it if not a government entity? It even taxes the public with the "television license fee".

Re:Internet of Things

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh...
  The BBC here in the UK is NOT, repeat NOt funded by the Government. It is funded by the people through the TV license. The money goes nowhere near the government. The current license is approx £144/year per household.

The ONLY bit of the BBC that is Government funded is the World Service.

Please get your facts right.

Re:Internet of Things

[Hognoxious]

STFU, Donald.

Re:Internet of Things

[Anonymous Coward]

owned by the government

Nope.

controlled by the government

Nope.

funded by the government

Oooh, so close! But nope.

It even taxes the public with the "television license fee".

It's not a tax.

Re:Internet of Things

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never understood this knee-jerk reaction libertardians have to government. The government is, as far as the majority of its actions (i.e. those not concerned with initiating force), just a landlord which has a part proprietary interest in all land, and which collects rent on all those who choose to remain on its land. The difference between that and a private landlord is that each citizen has one unsellable share in Government Inc.

The BBC, in particular, is publicly owned, in the sense that it is a statutory corporation created by charter. Does that mean it belongs to the government, or does that mean it belongs to the people? In principle, they're equivalent - the government, after all, belongs to the people as well (any edginess along the lines of NO IT BELONGS TO THE WEALTHY/MEGALOMANIAC POLITICIANS/THE MAN means you're just not good enough at persuading people to vote the way you want them to vote). But it's technically incorrect: the BBC is run independently and controlled by a Trust. The Trust is overseen by government, but so is every organisation under a government's jurisdiction - in fact, the BBC has slightly more regulatory independence than other communications organisations, the remainder of which are all overseen by Ofcom (although the Tories, whose primary funders don't like the BBC much, might be trying to change this).

The only really interesting thing the government does wrt/ the BBC is maintain licence fee legislation. Many TV stations are paid through by advertising, which means you have to pay for them through the sponsorship cost of product purchases whether you watch those channels or not - similarly, the BBC is paid for by the licence fee, which means you have to pay for them through the licence fee whether you watch BBC channels or not. In exchange, the country gets a public service promise, which means a broadcaster providing a certain standard and range of programming, and independence from commercial interests - something that can't be done if they're subject to the business pressures that come with subscription/advertising revenue.

Social democracy - a balance of capitalistic and socialistic principles without the childish ideological extremism that comes from an attempt to create a pure form of either - is really rather good, as Northern Europe in particular has found. Try it sometime.

Re:Internet of Things

[Richard_at_work]

Meh, its a little bit of both.

The TV license funds the BBC and various other services in part - the BBC also sells its content on the secondary market for more funding (Top Gear was completely funded by its secondary market, it cost the BBC nothing for example).

The TV license is however a government backed tax, the same as other directly collected taxes such as vehicle tax - the government sets the rate and the TV Licensing authority collects it and distributes it (most of it goes to the BBC and related providers, some of it goes into a fund to subsidise broadband for rural locations).

So no, the BBC is not funded by the Government, but yes, the BBC's funding is provided by a revenue stream created, controlled and protected by the Government. Subtle difference.

Re:Internet of Things

[WarJolt]

In America federally mandated is synonymous with government run.

Look at Obama care. With the rhetorical you'd think the government is coming into our homes and sticking thermometers up or asses.

You've got to admit though, Royally chartered statutory corporations are influenced by the government.

Re: Internet of Things

[Anonymous Coward]

That's such a misnomer. There is no free TV in the UK.

Re:Internet of Things

[Anonymous Coward]

Most things are influenced by the government.

Re:Internet of Things

[Vinegar Joe]

The government is not my fucking landlord and does not own my fucking land. If you want to be a peasant with a landlord bending you over at will, have at it.

Re:Internet of Things

[Anonymous Coward]

It might as well be. It is the propaganda mouthpiece of the 'government' (the Jewish, shadow government, more accurately), hence it's constant pushing of 'multi-culturalism', 'diversity', 'gay rights', and other Bolshevik bullshit.

Re:Internet of Things

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Any government mandated fee is a tax. I'm not saying that is a bad thing. Just don't try to put lipstick on a pig.

Re:Internet of Things

[jez9999]

More like a distinction without a difference.

Re:Internet of Things

[Vulch]

If we're going to talk about getting the facts right, the World Service has been funded through the licence fee since last year with a relatively small top-up from the government announced back in November.

Re:Internet of Things

[stealth_finger]

It's not a tax.

But it is a a ripoff, which is why I don't bother with it. Forget the fact the where I live I can pick up practically no channels over the air other than the most very basic. Then they take the best channel of the air to make it "online only" (bbc3) They leave 4 online showing the same kind of stuff as 2 then they fill 1 and 2 with pure dribble for the most part. Oh gotta watch me some of that high brow bargain hunt, or shitty shitty daytime game show, or benefits saints and scroungers. The state of bbc tv is an absolute joke. All the money gets poured into the the 7pm-9pm slot and they still can only come out with shit like eastenders and downton fucking abbey. The only bbc that gets any screentime in my house and is actually worth anything to me is cbbc, and that's still nothing but repeats and cheap links, luckily for them their target audience doesn't know/care about such things. Also, anyone seen the new cbbc logo. If they spent more than £1.44 it was yet another waste of licence fee money. Fuck the BBC, they're obsolete and crap. They cling to the licence fee with tooth and nail because without it no one would voluntarily pay it for their crap and they know it.

Re:Internet of Things

[Cybertect]

So the fact that the government mandates insurance if I want to drive my car on the road means the cost of my car insurance is actually a tax?

Re:Internet of Things

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, lad - the government IS your ultimate landlord and DOES have ultimate ownership of your land. Your partial ownership rights exist and are acknowledged and well embedded in law, but they are not absolute.

The government was there before you - just like any private landlord is there before you, and you can't force them to sell - and it gets final say. I don't want to be a peasant, but - assuming you're in a developed, democratic country - we have wayyyy more rights than any feudal peasant, so stop whining. Anyway, I'm not telling you what I want to be - I'm telling you how things actually are, and always have been, and always will be outside of anarchy. But anarchy ends up with a new overlord building a government eventually - usually one rather less rights-respecting than you'd probably be comfortable with.

Re:Internet of Things

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's a Salad Mixxer!!!

                  http://www.adultswim.com/video...

Re:Internet of Things

[dywolf]

our PBS is similarly largely supported through private means, but that doesn't stop the idiots here from trying to cancel the meager sum the government does send its way.

Re:Internet of Things

[Big Hairy Ian]

"public service broadcaster" ... owned by the government, controlled by the government, funded by the government... so wtf is it if not a government entity? It even taxes the public with the "television license fee".

Actually I thought it was run by HSBC

Re:Internet of Things

[RabidReindeer]

Why do people persist in being so smugly ignorant?

You "own" your land until:

A. You fail to pay your property taxes and the government sells it to someone else for back taxes.
B. Donald Trump decides it's sitting on part of his next development and he pays, er persuades, the local government to seize it by eminent domain
C. Your wildest Libertarian child-dream comes true and the goddam gubbmint is disbanded, leaving Attila the Hun free rein to come swarming in with his hordes and take it - and your family - and you - by force and if you're lucky and you survive, maybe they'll let you work their land as a slave. Unless, of course, you can afford your own private army.

And for the pedantic, yes, I know that Libertarianism isn't "no government at all", but the "All Taxes are Theft" basement-dwellers, usurp the word "Libertarian" to mean "I want to mooch off public benefits and not have to pay for it". Rather like welfare queens, in fact.

Re:Internet of Things

[Arashi256]

No it isn't, you dumb shit.

Re:Internet of Things

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people persist in being so smugly ignorant?

You "own" your land until:

A. You fail to pay your property taxes and the government sells it to someone else for back taxes.
B. Donald Trump decides it's sitting on part of his next development and he pays, er persuades, the local government to seize it by eminent domain
C. Your wildest Libertarian child-dream comes true and the goddam gubbmint is disbanded, leaving Attila the Hun free rein to come swarming in with his hordes and take it - and your family - and you - by force and if you're lucky and you survive, maybe they'll let you work their land as a slave. Unless, of course, you can afford your own private army.

And for the pedantic, yes, I know that Libertarianism isn't "no government at all", but the "All Taxes are Theft" basement-dwellers, usurp the word "Libertarian" to mean "I want to mooch off public benefits and not have to pay for it". Rather like welfare queens, in fact.

Let the smugly ignorant individuals live in their fantasy world until the "backhand" of Scenarios A, B, or C (or all of the above) slaps them on the back of the head. I guarantee they'll be the first ones who cry, bitch, moan and complain the loudest.

Re:Internet of Things

[Anonymous Coward]

Welfare queens are way more honest than libertarians. I'm fairly wealthy and I don't even care if poor people claim a little more money than they absolutely need, ultimately coming out of the taxes I'm paying - I've been poor, I know life sucks if you're poor, and I know I've had opportunities that others don't. Basement Libertarians, otoh, think they're entitled to AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE: rather than acknowledging that their sense of entitlement is regulated by society and taking what society offers - as welfare queens do - the basis of their whole philosophy is one massive bitch that FUCK SOCIETY BUT ALSO SOCIETY OWES ME EVERYTHING, the greedy leeching cunts.

Re:Internet of Things

[FatdogHaiku]

+1

Re:Internet of Things

[MightyYar]

FYI, when talking to Brits it can get confusing when you refer to the "government". To them the Queen is not part of the government. Since the BBC is not authorized by Parliament directly, but by Royal Charter, it would be more proper to say that the TV license is an "Establishment-backed tax".

Hopefully I got that right - you can go in circles with this obscure terminology when talking across the Atlantic.

Re:Internet of Things

[MightyYar]

PBS doesn't do itself any favors by consistently targeting viewership from one side of the aisle. While that strategy does give them fervent supporters, it also gives them fervent detractors. Like it or not, those detractors do pop into political power now and again.

Re:Internet of Things

[MightyYar]

Does it matter from any point except semantics? It's money that you have to pay because the government forces you to. Where the check goes is secondary. If you have a TV in Britain, you have to pay money by force of law - do you really care if you make the check out to the BBC or "Her Royal Highness"?

Re:Internet of Things

[MightyYar]

To a Yank, the Queen is part of the government. Just pretend kav2k said "Establishment". The BBC and it's "fee" is imposed on the people of Britain from above, call it what you will.

Re:Internet of Things

[Richard_at_work]

The BBC exists under Royal Charter, but the TV license is authorised by the Communications Act 2003, not the Royal Charter, and is set by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, so the TV license most definitely is a "revenue stream created, controlled and protected by the Government".

Re:Internet of Things

[Space cowboy]

The difference is lack of control.

Any government-funded process usually has government control. The BBC is not controlled by the government, not funded by the government (although I agree they're involved with the mechanics of the funding process) and was established by royal charter.

The BBC are frequently critical of government policies (as well as shadow-cabinet policies. Try watching politicians of all walks squirm on News Night, for example - although I believe Jeremy Paxman has retired from the program now, he was a shark amongst goldfish when interviewing politicians. It'd be interesting to see a real "defend yourself and your policies" 1:1 interview like this over here on US television. I don't think any of the networks would have the balls to run it though.

The BBC aren't above lampooning important members of the government either. On "Have I got news for you?" (A topical quiz/panel entertainment show), when Roy Hattersley failed to appear for the 4 June 1993 episode — it was the third time he had cancelled at the last minute — he was replaced with a tub of lard (credited as "The Rt. Hon. Tub of Lard MP"), as it was "liable to give much the same performance and imbued with many of the same qualities". Roy was ... a little overweight...

IMHO, the BBC are rightly regarded as being as impartial as you can get with a national broadcaster, and they actually fulfill the important (to any democracy) role of the 4th estate, being critical when necessary and not shying away from controversy when its demanded. They have suffered in recent years of trying to always appear unbiased by covering both "sides" of the story when any reasonable person might conclude there's only one side really, but hey, I'd rather have it that way round than the other.

The BBC is one of, if not the, pre-eminent news organization(s) on the planet. Their funding is (IMHO) a good part of why that's the case. They truly have nothing to fear from government oversight (they do after all get to report on any overly-intrusive government actions) and they have the guaranteed resources of a national broadcaster to execute on their charter. It's all pretty good.

Re:Internet of Things

[Space cowboy]

When I was young and at college, I used to think this way. Then I grew up, moved out of the country, and realised just what a gem the BBC really is. Until you've experienced the advert-laden projectile stream of vomit of fully commercialised television without anything like the BBC to restrain it, you don't realise what you've got.

Let me put it this way. Even if I never watched any of the programs, I would gladly pay the equivalent of a license fee over here in the states just for the moderating effect the BBC would have on other channels. I can seriously watch a 40 minute show that has 10 minutes of adverts interspersed; to rub salt into the wound, they do a summary of everything they're about to show you in the next 10 minutes as the first 2 minutes of that 10 minute segment, just so there's no interest in actually watching the program; and finally to add insult to the injury, I then get TV executives complaining that I'm stealing programming if I skip through the adverts using a DVR. I have about 600 channels of shit to watch. Great.

It's a bit like the NHS. Everyone likes to moan about it, but that's because you're all basically used to having it around and have started to take it for granted. You don't really get the perspective of the true horror of not having it until it's gone, and by then it's too late. Living elsewhere can give you that experience. Try it, and I think you might change your viewpoint.

All IMHO and based on the assumption that you don't currently live outside the UK. If you do, well, I don't know what to say to you then :) I guess we just disagree.

Re: Internet of Things

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it's not mandatory. If you don't watch live TV you don't have to pay it. But you can still watch iPlayer.

Re:Internet of Things

[AmiMoJo]

Compare old episodes of Horizon (popular documentary) from the 70s and 80s to modern ones. It's incredible how dumb the modern episodes are in comparison. It's so bad that the BBC won't repeat the old ones, except in carefully edited clip shows where the old "boring" footage of people talking has been spiced up with some shitty "moments of wonder" piano music and a new, breathless voiceover.

Meanwhile, Japanese TV was showing a documentary explaining the Unix filesystem and file permissions the other evening. The BBC version would just treat the whole thing as mysterious and impossible for the viewer to comprehend, but hay look at this datacentre porn and guy with a beard telling you how it was the most revolutionary thing since the invention of the lightpen.

Re:Internet of Things

[edbob]

If the funding they get is so meager why would it matter if it were cancelled? Our local PBS station (WTTW Chicago) always claims during pledge drives that the funding they receive from government sources is very small compared to donations and sponsorships. For some reason during pledge drives they replace their normally excellent programming with special programming that, in my opinion, is mostly very low quality and I tend not to watch during those two weeks every quarter. If the government funding stopped and they quit with the special programming (except Geoffrey Baer's excellent tour shows) I would probably increase my support.

Re:Internet of Things

[Megane]

In my experience, when a PBS station puts up special programming during pledge drives, it is often programming (such as rock concerts) that you never see any other time of the year. So even if you like them, your money won't go toward more of them appearing regularly. Fortunately my MythTV will happily record the unmolested regular content that shows up at 1AM.

I still have me BBC

[serviscope_minor]

I've still got my BBC Master from last time around.

The last BBC computer education initiative worked amazingly well. Having the BBC in a classroom is what got me into programming when I realised I could make it do what I wanted.

Re:I still have me BBC

[pacman on prozac]

Do the tapes still work?

Same for me, started coding on an Acorn Electron at home and BBC in school. In between playing chuckie egg....

Re:I still have me BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

10 PRINT "STEPHEN IS GREAT! ";
20 GOTO 10
RUN

some stuff not in caps so as to avoid the filter - it's in caps because that's how it was back in them days. We couldn't afford lower case like you whipper-snappers with your Unicode, jeans showing your backside and your popular beat combos. Well not the Unicode.

Re:I still have me BBC

[DNS-and-BIND]

That's great, but computers don't come with compilers any more.

Re:I still have me BBC

[serviscope_minor]

That's great, but computers don't come with compilers any more.

Neither did the BBC. It came with a very fine BASIC interpreter with a built in and fully integrated assembler. But no compiler.

Re: I still have me BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and how many home computers actually did? C64 had Basic, like all other 8 bit machines I owned. I had to get my own c compiler on the Amiga. After that it was MPW on Mac, and later Code Warrior.

These days compilers are easy to find. I have a whole bunch of languages pre installed or installable for free. Difference these days is that the command line, and Basic, aren't really needed or visible I. The cases of most users. It's all pointy and clicky. It would be nice if they could bundle done nice learning tools, like Alice, to get people started.

Re:I still have me BBC

[RabidReindeer]

Some computers came with a BASIC Interpreter (not compiler) in ROM. That didn't include the earliest machines such as the Altair and IMSAI, just stuff like the Apple and TRS-80 machines. More advanced machines typically did not. You usually had to buy programming toolkits.

Actually, a ROM-based interpreter is more liability than an asset once you get into multi-tasking systems. It would be foolish to put a Windows-dependent ROM on a machine that might get Linux installed, and the ROM would operate independently of the OS at its peril.

Re:I still have me BBC

[Boss, Pointy Haired]

Syntax error at line 10

Re:I still have me BBC

[serviscope_minor]

Well, on those machines, the ROM was the OS, AMOS (Acorn Memory Operating System) in the case of the BBC. Strictly speaking the BASIC ROM was optional and in fact the BEEB came with a bank of several ROM slots which were all in the same address space as the BASIC interpreter.

My school had beebs with a LOGO interpreter too, so *LOGO would disable the BASIC ROM and enable the LOGO one.

The machine would boot into the MOS shell if the BASIC ROM was removed and I believe into the first active ROM if one was inserted. You could run a Beeb without BASIC at all.

Re:I still have me BBC

[Alioth]

My Raspberry Pi came with one, so did my Debian workstation. Several compilers, in fact.

Re:I still have me BBC

[MightyYar]

I'm not sure why this is a problem. They all come out-of-the-box with internet connectivity and an app store/repository, which is better than a ROM-encoded interpreter. If you can get a WiFi signal, you have access to many free interpreters and compilers, no matter what platform you have. Even if you are restricted to web sites only, there are plenty of sites to compile and run programs in-browser. Options are far better today than they were in the 80s, computers far cheaper, and, well, Google.

Re:I still have me BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing wrong with line 10, it's perfectly correct BBC BASIC. Maybe not correct for whatever dialect you used.

Re:I still have me BBC

[rossdee]

Does anyone still learn 6502 assembly?

I never had a BBC but I did have a C=64

Re:I still have me BBC

[DNS-and-BIND]

Way to split hairs. Compiler, interpreter, a way to create your own programs. Computers don't come with them and haven't for quite a while.

Re:I still have me BBC

[tlhIngan]

That's great, but computers don't come with compilers any more.

Well, they don't if you count the media that comes with it, but there are compilers available for every OS without cost.

Linux is obvious, and OS X still has free XCode downloads. Windows has Visual Studio Express.

Granted, though, Linux and OS X come with the same compilers and development environment that everyone uses - Windows requires you to pay for that.

Re:I still have me BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

While the computer hardware doesn't come with an interpreter or compiler in ROM, most operating systems include some such, either as part of the base installation or as a free optional download. Every Unix or Unix-like OS I've personally encountered has included (at minimum) a C compiler, and at least one shell that supports scripting. Microsoft includes compilers with Windows, as part of the .NET Framework, with additional free compilers available for download, plus old-style batch programming and PowerShell scripting. Users of recent versions of OS/X can download Xcode free from Apple.

Re:I still have me BBC

[Christian Smith]

Way to split hairs. Compiler, interpreter, a way to create your own programs. Computers don't come with them and haven't for quite a while.

Depends on what you consider as ways to create your own programs.

MacOS X comes with a programmable shell.

Any other Unix[like] OS also comes with at least a shell. Linux and BSDs generally come with a full programming env on the install media.

Any Open Firmware based computer has an entire forth programming environment built into the firmware.

Re:I still have me BBC

[serviscope_minor]

Way to split hairs. Compiler, interpreter, a way to create your own programs. Computers don't come with them and haven't for quite a while.

Since I'm splitting hairs... you can create your own programs now with a text editor and a web browser. AFAIK, pretty much every computer comes with both of those.

Re:I still have me BBC

[deniable]

Well, the little used Microsoft Windows comes with a couple. The scripting host does Basic of a sort. (VBScript) I prefer JScript if forced to use it. The 'absolutely part of the OS' browser does JavaScript even if you don't go for weird stuff like HTAs. PowerShell is great but GUIs take a bit of fiddling with XML.

That's out of the box. There are other options for download.

Microsoft Education

[khz6955]

The micro:bit designed to try and keep the Raspberry Pi out of UK schools. See also how Microsoft acted to sabatage the OLPC initiative. ref .. brand new millennium, same old MICROS~1 :)

Re:Microsoft Education

[viperidaenz]

If Microsoft hates the Raspberry Pi so much, why did they make a special Windows 10 build for it? It's the main supported hardware for their IoT platform https://dev.windows.com/en-us/...

Re:Microsoft Education

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you missed the comparison. Microsoft sabotaged the OLPC, not the Raspberry. The reason was to not have an entire continent think of another OS as their primary platform.
As for the Windows 10 build for Raspberry that isn't far from sabotaging either. If anyone starts out with that version because they are familiar with Windows they will end up thinking the Raspberry is crap.

Re:Microsoft Education

[hughbar]

Yes, exactly. I've worked on/off as a BBC contractor and watched the top of BBC technology swing from open-source(-ish) to Microsoft, in the time of Ashley Highfield and especially Eric Huggers: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ent....

I agree with the Guardian commentator here: http://www.theguardian.com/tec..., that calls the initiative 'hugely dickish':

This is a hugely dickish move by the BBC. The Pi is already solidly and explicitly established as the reincarnation of the ideas behind the BBC Micro, and the BBC should have just got on board and supported it. While there's a case to be made that a tiny embedded board like this doesn't compete with a Pi in hardware terms, it does compete with it for class time, attention and support.

Like most older Brits, I have a lot of affection for the BBC, but in the last 10 - 15 years, it has lost its way both for technology and TV output.

Re: Microsoft Education

[Anonymous Coward]

They lost me when they climbed aboard the women as victims bandwagon. There are any things we should do to encourage women to enter male dominated fields, but citing a bullshit UN report and scaremongering to portray women as perpetual victims is not one of them. I'm still waiting for a response three months after providing evidence of incorrect statistics, where literally their source disagrees with the BBC's claim.

Re:Microsoft Education

[thegarbz]

The micro:bit designed to try and keep the Raspberry Pi out of UK schools.

Yes by making a device that is good enough at about 1/3rd of the price.

See also how Microsoft acted to sabatage the OLPC initiative.

Why would Microsoft sabotage a wildly successful platform for which they developed a version of Windows in favour of something that doesn't run Windows?

Both your arguments fail the pub test.

Re: Microsoft Education

[Anonymous Coward]

My opinion, too. The BBC has been dummed down, ever since they changed their format.

Re: Microsoft Education

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad to hear I am not alone.

The BBC has become an organ for whinging feminists - every day brings a new story of moany outrage - and truth or balance in reporting no longer matters to them.

Re: Microsoft Education

[Anonymous Coward]

... dumbed down...

FTFY

Re:Microsoft Education

[DrXym]

Frankly that's an absurd assertion. The bit computer is an ultra simple board with a couple of buttons, an grid of lights, bluetooth and a USB power / cable. It's meant to be for teaching kids with a minimal of setup hassle - plug it into a computer or pair it with a tablet and you can program it. There is no flashing dists, or remote shells, or HDMI or network cables. Just plug it in and go.

I realise that some Pi zealots see it as a threat but really its an opportunity. Kids will learn key concepts on the bit and those skills will be transferable to the Pi in time. That's good news and certainly not some grand conspiracy.

Re:Microsoft Education

[Alioth]

Really? The micro:bit isn't even remotely like a Raspberry Pi - it's a small ARM M0 microcontroller core (running at 16MHz) with no operating system, Bluetooth and a bunch of GPIOs.

The Pi on the other hand is a complete microcomputer system and considerably more powerful (1.2GHz, built in WiFi, 3D accelerated graphics etc). It's a much more advanced and complex device.

If anything, the micro:bit will be trying to steal the Arduino's thunder.

Re:Microsoft Education

[thegarbz]

The article ignores the timeline and is written with perfect hindsight as usual.

When the BBC Micro:Bit project was conceived it Raspberry Pis (the original) were perpetually sold out and cost $35. Even when the BBC Micro:Bit was released it the cheapest Raspberry Pi was still 3 times the price.

Re:Microsoft Education

[hughbar]

Nope:
1. First, giving them is essentially destructive in that it is an anti-competitive use of public funds
2. Currently the 'micro-python' editor is only available as an .exe (that may change)
3. The Pi costs more because it's actually useful, rather than being an Arduino--
4. Actually, if they wanted 'this', they could have got behind the Arduino itself

This is a partial trojan from Microsoft, Google and some of the other cheerleaders packaged as 'generosity' and 'education'.

Re:Microsoft Education

[thegarbz]

First, giving them is essentially destructive in that it is an anti-competitive use of public funds

You do realise that the BBC is not tax payer funded right?

Currently the 'micro-python' editor is only available as an .exe (that may change)

So? There's free development platform available for the ONLY operating system used in public schools. I would see it as a waste of money to use anything else.

The Pi costs more because it's actually useful, rather than being an Arduino--

Ok found the non-embedded programmer. The Pi costs more because it's a computer rather than a low level embedded device. The Pi is also has a very different use case and isn't suitable for the age groups they are targetting for the same reason you won't get first year EEs using Pis at university either (AVR has that market too). If you can't see the difference between a RPi and the Micro:Bit then you're either accidentally or wilfully ignorant.

Actually, if they wanted 'this', they could have got behind the Arduino itself

Let's ignore for a moment the fact that the Arduino development is in constant flux, the hardware options available are constantly changing, as is the IDE, the fact that the code is written in C++ and is far more complicated than anything they have put forward, or the fact that Arduino is in effect in the process of suing itself over the Arduino name in a way that has gotten toxic enough that a genuine Ardunio purchased board was listed as in compatible with the Arduino IDE, but a second ago you were praising the RPi for it's better hardware for the higher price. Now you're praising Arduinos for worse hardware at a higher price? Have some consistency in your arguments man!

This is a partial trojan from Microsoft

Yeah because Microsoft would try and abolish and limit a device that they specifically developed an OS for, fully support development, advertise on their website, and fucking sell on their website.

While we're at it I'll have 2 of whatever you're smoking because daaaaym it must be some good stuff.

Re:Microsoft Education

[hughbar]

Actually, I give up! I'm a Brit and I volunteer in London schools. I presume that this is some form of shill? I'll cede you the Arduino points however. Have a good day!

Why not Raspberry Pi?

[fuzzyf]

Why emulate the Raspberry Pi?

It's cheap and actually produced in the UK.

Re:Why not Raspberry Pi?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one of the issues I focused on when I competed the BBC Licence Fee public consultation. There's a lot wrong with this:

1) The Raspberry Pie was already well established and well supported with he BBC announced the Mico:bit. There was simply no need to produce a competing product and this represents a shocking waste of public funds.

2) By creating a competing product the BBC is fragmenting the market. Had the BBC simply supported the Raspberry Pie it would have made things easier for schools, but now schools will have some Raspberry Pies and some Micro:bits, which will make life harder for teachers.

3) The BBC is using public funds to give away one million Micro:bits, which makes it extremely hard for Raspberry to compete. The BBC is using its position and its vast financial resources to destroy a successful UK organisation.

This represents a classic example of how the BBC operates. The BBC wants to be the soul source of information so it uses the billions it gets from the licence fee to make it impossible for small organisations to compete. Once it has taken over a market it can then use that market to spread its own unique brand of propaganda. It's BBC Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. It has embraced this technology, made own version and is giving them away to extinguish the Raspberry Pie.

This is another example of how the BBC always acts in its own interests and never in the interests of the public.

Re:Why not Raspberry Pi?

[thegarbz]

It's cheap and actually produced in the UK.

Define cheap. The cheapest RaspberryPi is 3x the cost of the Micro:Bit

Re:Why not Raspberry Pi?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that you Rupert?

The Raspberry Pi foundation is a charity. It may be competing but not commercially.

I really don't understand the BBC-hate. I listen to a lot of ad-free BBC Radio, which is brilliant. For digital catch-up services we could have a single application for BBC, ITV, Ch4 and Ch5 but Sky objected so it's fragmented despite the BBC's attempt to work in the public interest.

As for "propaganda", really? Don't remember (and I was there) the 80s BBC microcomputer project damaging the competition.

Re:Why not Raspberry Pi?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that you Rupert?

So anyone who objects to the BBC's market abuse and obscene bias has to be Rupert Murdoch? Moron.

The Raspberry Pi foundation is a charity. It may be competing but not commercially.

Yes, it's a charity, but it employs people in the UK, generates revenue for the UK and performs a valuable service. Just because it's a charity doesn't make it right that the BBC is abusing its position to destroy it.

I really don't understand the BBC-hate.

Most people on the left don't, because the BBC is telling you what you want to hear. What you're saying is like a Fox News viewer saying, "I really don't understand the Fox News-hate." The difference between the BBC and Fox News is that paying for Fox News is optional, while paying for the BBC is compulsory. How would you feel if you were forced to pay for Fox News?

Furthermore, unlike Fox News, the BBC isn't just a news channel, but it operates other initiatives. For example, the BBC announced its initiative to supply journalists to local newspapers (no doubt to ensure they're reporting the correct news and thinking in the correct way). How would you feel if Fox News were using public funds to send journalists to local newspapers?

I listen to a lot of ad-free BBC Radio, which is brilliant. For digital catch-up services we could have a single application for BBC, ITV, Ch4 and Ch5 but Sky objected so it's fragmented despite the BBC's attempt to work in the public interest.

That's the thing, we don't want a single catch-up service. What we want is competition, and the choice to pay for the services we think deserve our money. Having separate catch-up services ensures competition and therefore improvement, while having a single service would stifle development.

Don't remember (and I was there) the 80s BBC microcomputer project damaging the competition.

You don't remember Sinclair? If, instead of making the BBC Micro, the BBC had backed a Sinclair it would have given Sinclair more money. Maybe they could have used that money to develop a further products and maybe they'd still be in business today. Instead the money was spent on the BBC Micro; a computer that was uncompetitive and only sold well to the public sector.

Re:Why not Raspberry Pi?

[Zontar The Mindless]

I listen to a lot of ad-free BBC Radio, which is brilliant. For digital catch-up services we could have a single application for BBC, ITV, Ch4 and Ch5 but Sky objected so it's fragmented despite the BBC's attempt to work in the public interest.

That's the thing, we don't want a single catch-up service.

And that's not what he said he wanted, either. Nice try, though.

Re:Why not Raspberry Pi?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember Acorn? Who's to say without the BBC funding Acorn would've gone on to produce ARM? Besides, Sincalir did very well with their cheap computers - their just good enough cheapness reason enough for the BBC to back a more substantial product.

Re:Why not Raspberry Pi?

[Anonymous Coward]

Raspberry Pi Zero?

Re:Why not Raspberry Pi?

[stealth_finger]

For digital catch-up services we could have a single application for BBC, ITV, Ch4 and Ch5 but Sky objected so it's fragmented despite the BBC's attempt to work in the public interest.

The BBC would only want that so they can mandate more people having to pay TV licencse. Nothing to do with public interest.

Re:Why not Raspberry Pi?

[Anonymous Coward]

> So anyone who objects to the BBC's market abuse and obscene bias has to be Rupert Murdoch? Moron.
1. Whoosh. 2. Some things you can defend, apparently, and that's okay. Some you get called a shill. Whatever. But ad-hominen, nice! "Market abuse"? Well it does a number of things successfully. I don't think it's out to kill the Pi; it's fulfilling a public sector broadcasting remit, although not one you support. Fine. Also, the anti-BBC sentiment in the rest of the media is obscene. Some newspaper (oddly, with links to Fox) are viciously anti-BBC. The Top Gear-Argentina coverage was amusing because you could sense the paper's involved thinking Top Gear/BBC => Bad. But too critical meant being pro-Argentina...

> Most people on the left don't, because the BBC is telling you what you want to hear. What you're saying is like a Fox News viewer saying, "I really don't understand the Fox News-hate." The difference between the BBC and Fox News is that paying for Fox News is optional, while paying for the BBC is compulsory. How would you feel if you were forced to pay for Fox News?

You're assuming a lefty-bias here. Which is wrong. Oddly, despite my own bias I've found people accuse the BBC of being both heavily left-biases and heavily right-biased, which I think means they might be doing something right.

You're also assuming paying for the BBC means having to use it all. I don't. There are bits of the BBC I actively avoid. But I personally think any of the following are worth a huge chunk of the £145/year: Radio 2 (well, ish), Radio 4 (in full), Radio 6 (in full), Radio 5 live (mostly, and only for cricket coverage). That's mean very happy without spoon-feeding myself BBC news. And apparently, they do TV too. And iPlayer, which is great, talking of which...

> That's the thing, we don't want a single catch-up service.

Speak for yourself (or feel free to generalise for the entire world.) For free (okay, license fee) to air TV in the UK each channel's catch-up is separate. One would be very nice. I don't want Amazon and Netflix in there too but for broadcast TV having separate is a pain. YMMV. Single service stifling development. Well, next year is year of Linux on the desktop so... And anyway, BBC iPlayer is probably the best UK-related TV catch-up facility available.

> You don't remember Sinclair?
Yes, I do. However, I don't recall Sinclair being the nippy underdog screwed over by BBC/Acorn. I'd suggest the BBC B was a good thing and that it was a better educational device than the Spectrum. So there. So Sinclair doesn't exist now but that's nothing to do with the QL (and its issues). Or the C5. Or anything else. There are other causalities from this era too. Including Acorn...

> the BBC Micro; a computer that was uncompetitive...
Which might suggest it wasn't much of a Sinclair basher, then. Giving Sinclair cash might have helped; might not.

> How would you feel if you were forced to pay for Fox News?
BBC News != Fox News. My limited exposure to Fox News suggests it has a certain bias and not one that's contested. BBC news coverage gets bashed from all sides. If anything it may be anti-government because it challenges. It is certainly very self-critical, which I don't think is a criticism made of Fox News. Ever.

But I have to pay for BBC news because of the license. Doesn't mean I have to actually use it. It's not 1984. If I paid for Sky (being UK based) I'd not be forced to watch Fox News (assuming it's available) or Sky News.

> How would you feel if Fox News were using public funds to send journalists to local newspapers?
Some sympathy here. The BBC does local news because some people expect it to. Doing it well means it competes. Local newspaper - like nationals - are going to be damaged by the internet in general so there's more than one effect here.

Anyway, we could also argue "public funds". I pay (for my household) £145/year for the BBC. I like a lot of its output. I don't care about a lot of its output. But it's worth having. Commercial TV can be shit because it's commercial not because it has competition from a licensed body. Ad-free radio is bliss. On the whole the BBC is a good thing. YMMV.

Re:Why not Raspberry Pi?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Yes, it's a charity, but it employs people in the UK, generates revenue for the UK and performs a valuable service. Just because it's a charity doesn't make it right that the BBC is abusing its position to destroy it.

And then later you say competition is what we want! (Yes, yes, license fee, unfair, blah, blah, etc.) If not you then had the BBC decided to support the existing Pi project it would get a kicking for doing so too...

Re:Why not Raspberry Pi?

[Anonymous Coward]

"There you go, grandma. Your new smart-TV. You can use catch-up on this. Just be aware that everything channel has its own app and all the interfaces are different as are how longs programs are available. Good luck!"

Call conspiracy if you want to but it would make life easier. To be fair I understand Channel 4 (etc.) were happy to, with just Sky objecting. I know this is subject to change but if you don't receive live TV you don't have to pay the license fee. (And yes, I can imagine it's a PITA to prove but still.) Had the single platform thing worked that wouldn't have changed then either.

I do vaguely recall James Murdoch suggesting this platform and the BBC's plans were "chilling" so perhaps they were. Not quite sure what how he'd describe hacking a dead girl's phone and apparently giving her parents false hope she was still alive would be though.

Re:Why not Raspberry Pi?

[gbjbaanb]

Why not RPi?

This BBC report says why:

Mr Richards has previously taught classes using another British low-cost computer - the Raspberry Pi - but says he believes the Micro Bit is better suited for younger age groups.

"It's been designed at a lower level that allows children to understand more quickly the concepts that you are trying to get across," he explained.

"With the Raspberry Pi there are a lot of things that don't make immediate sense. So, I think the Micro Bit will make a great stepping stone that engages younger children before they want to do more serious projects that would require something like the Pi."

That's what a teacher who's been using both devices thinks. Sounds fair to me. Micro:Bit as a gateway drug to the harder stuff, leading the kids of today into doing hardcore Linux in the future.

Re:Why not Raspberry Pi?

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference between the BBC and Fox News is that paying for Fox News is optional, while paying for the BBC is compulsory. How would you feel if you were forced to pay for Fox News?

Speaking as a US cable customer, I feel I am, as my subscription fee to my cable provider INCLUDES a payment to Fox News, and I can't reduce it or eliminate it, or any of the other channels I don't watch or find disagreeable.

Furthermore, unlike Fox News, the BBC isn't just a news channel, but it operates other initiatives. For example, the BBC announced its initiative to supply journalists to local newspapers (no doubt to ensure they're reporting the correct news and thinking in the correct way). How would you feel if Fox News were using public funds to send journalists to local newspapers?

You may not realize it, but Fox News is part of a major media corporation, and in fact, until a split in 2013, was under the same umbrella as Rupert Murdoch's print services in the News Corporation. Even now, it still has entertainment products and their news and broadcast services under its 21st Century Fox group.

I'm actually uncomfortable with many of the things that that company has done, public funded or not. However, as they are not a public entity, to restrain them I must act through public entities such as the FCC, the FTC, and otherwise. But that's the sort of thing that Fox opposes.

Shocking, no? Public funded has little to do with it, and no, I have little control over their existence, as I said, I pay my cable bill and money goes to them anyway!

They wouldn't listen to me if I told them to stop doing any of the sketchy things I think they do.

That's the thing, we don't want a single catch-up service. What we want is competition, and the choice to pay for the services we think deserve our money. Having separate catch-up services ensures competition and therefore improvement, while having a single service would stifle development.

Having multiple services leads to incompatibility and inconvenience. Sometimes standards and unity are good things.

You don't remember Sinclair? If, instead of making the BBC Micro, the BBC had backed a Sinclair it would have given Sinclair more money. Maybe they could have used that money to develop a further products and maybe they'd still be in business today. Instead the money was spent on the BBC Micro; a computer that was uncompetitive and only sold well to the public sector.

Speculative prognosticating is not worth much, so many things could have been done differently throughout history that you simply can conjecture almost anything and it be worth the same.

Re:Why not Raspberry Pi?

[gsslay]

You don't remember Sinclair? If, instead of making the BBC Micro, the BBC had backed a Sinclair it would have given Sinclair more money.

Well there's the answer to your own point. Sinclair was a commercial company. Why should it get the backing, endorsement and publicity from the BBC over all other competing computer manufacturers?

Re:Why not Raspberry Pi?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Is that you Rupert?
> So anyone who objects to the BBC's market abuse and obscene bias has to be Rupert Murdoch? Moron.

I think that might have been a joke. "Obscene bias"? Citation needed... Is this perceived political bias (which can be at least partially tackled by high profile well known Tories in the organisation) or general it's-all-left-wing-agenda-tin-foil-hat-stuff because it might be seen as treating climate change as real?

Re:Why not Raspberry Pi?

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't understand the BBC-hate.

Most people on the left don't, because the BBC is telling you what you want to hear. What you're saying is like a Fox News viewer saying, "I really don't understand the Fox News-hate." The difference between the BBC and Fox News is that paying for Fox News is optional, while paying for the BBC is compulsory. How would you feel if you were forced to pay for Fox News?

That's a jump from BBC to BBC news to get to Fox News. The latter might get (and may or may not deserve) the opprobrium you suggest and you might not like BBC news but its news is only one element of its broadcasting.

Re:Why not Raspberry Pi?

[thegarbz]

Raspberry Pi Zero?

The well established Raspberry Pi Zero which was out in 2012 when the BBC:MicroBit project was started?
Is that the RaspberryPi Zero you're talking about?

Re:Why not Raspberry Pi?

[bugs2squash]

I think they mean emulate the success fo the raspberry pi in building an ecosystem. Not commercially or in terms of technology but in terms of engagement of kids.

I personally enjoy programming microcontrollers and the raspberry pi is a bit complicated to run as bare metal for my taste, the GPU gets in the way and it has too many bells and whistles compared with, say and MSP430 or a cortex M0.

This is about propelling kids toward a better low-level understanding of computing and the only thing I think they could have done significantly better would have been to include a small FPGA on the board.

Re:Why not Raspberry Pi?

[johnsie]

What's the rush? The BBC Microbit project is crap. If they had bothered working with Raspberry they could've launched in 2015 or 2016 with an actual decent product. Now it's just some lame microcontroller when it could have been a full computer.

Re:Why not Raspberry Pi?

[thegarbz]

What's the rush? The BBC Microbit project is crap. If they had bothered working with Raspberry they could've launched in 2015 or 2016 with an actual decent product.

Since cost is no object why not partner with Cray supercomputers while we're at it? I mean if we're going to go with something that is overly expensive then you may as well go all out right?

Now it's just some lame microcontroller when it could have been a full computer.

Congratulations on fundamentally missing the point. There's a lot of value in teaching people to make very constrained hardware sing and dance. I do wonder what you think a bunch of highschool kids are going to be doing though, porting quake?, 3D modelling? I've yet to see a RaspberryPi project that didn't either need full multimedia capabilities of a computer (reads: Too hard for a simple student project beyond installing some software), or that wasn't so over the top that it could be implemented on an 8bit microcontroller. And the Micro:Bit is a 32bit ARM so even that is overpowered for many cases.

But in summary: You're missing the point of what is being done, and you proposing an overpowered solution that was 3 times the cost for the 3 years the project has been running and only just parity recently. I hope you don't do front end engineering and design professionally.

Japanese kids

[Anonymous Coward]

Japanese kids are born knowing how to code, says AmiMoJo.

Figuratively emulate

[wonkey_monkey]

The computer will hope to emulate the Raspberry Pi, of which more than eight million have been sold.

Not literally, of course; not even that figuratively, either, since they're not selling any of them.

Re:Figuratively emulate

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, it is about emulating the RPis success, not its power (the BBC Micro:bit has a Cortex M0 core with 16MHz and 16kB of RAM, so it is absolutely no comparison to the RPis Broadcom processor wit A7 core and 900+ MHz).

But you are wrong on the second information: Originally, they only intended to make one batch to distribute them to the kids. But they were probably run over with requests, so they now state in their FAQ: "I would like to purchase a BBC micro:bit. Will they be commercially available? -> BBC micro:bits will become commercially available after the free distribution to Year 7 students is complete. There will be more information released about this in due course."

The price of the commercially sold devices will be higher than the price for the distributed ones, as they are supported by the chip producers (who probably hope to get a good foothold in the public with this while being tax deductible). I am absolutely no insider to this, but I expect something in the 1-2 Euro range for a commercial version,

damn.

[MancunianMaskMan]

my daughter is in year 8 not 7, so she'll miss out. and I don't get to play with it!

Re:damn.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've a daughter in year 8 plus a son and step daughter in year 6 - triple damn!

Re:damn.

[stealth_finger]

my daughter is in year 8 not 7, so she'll miss out. and I don't get to play with it!

Don't worry I'm sure she'll be able to grab one off the bus seat or wherever else these year 7s are just going to leave the things.

Tax Eaters

[Anonymous Coward]

This is simply millions (possibly billions) in tax revenue grabbed by the BBC to pretend to be 'helping the children'. These kids already have better computers at home, so why would this less capable device help them? I'd love to see how much it's costing to produce these, I bet it's eye watering.

Re:Tax Eaters

[thegarbz]

This is simply millions (possibly billions) in tax revenue grabbed by the BBC to pretend to be 'helping the children'.

Tax revenue? BBC? Careful now, your US based anti-government agenda is cropping up. Especially since you used the words tax and BBC in the same sentence it just shows your ignorance.

Free?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Well, I don't think that these things are being given away for "free". Someone paid for them. I'll take a wild guess, and think that the BBC extorts money from anyone owning a television in the UK. They paid for them.

On the other hand, I was in the UK a while back, and they did have some good documentations on the Telly. But then again, the BBC seems to have a inclination to fund Kiddie Diddlers.

Re:Free?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please do bugger off.

"Extortion"? Really? Really? Yes, if you own TV and are capable of receiving live TV you pay. Don't like that don't have an aerial and get on with your life.

And really, for £145/year if you can't find anything on BBC TV or radio worth having then I pity your lack of imagination. Its radio output alone is worth more than that.

A now deceased BBC employee was almost certainly a serial pedophile. It's inexcusable and if you were here for any period of time you'd notice quite how much the BBC is self-critical. I don't think Sky would be quite as open and hair-shirt about this. The Director General resigned over a hagiography of this individual being broadcast and possibly interfering with critical news coverage largely because he was given a really hard time on BBC Radio.

But yes, kill it all. Let's have 40 minutes of program with 20 minutes of adverts per hour everywhere. Let's have lowest common denominator radio. You'll be £145 richer but considerably worse off.

And finally, I live here. The BBC is basically awesome.

Re:Free?

[drinkypoo]

A now deceased BBC employee was almost certainly a serial pedophile. It's inexcusable and if you were here for any period of time you'd notice quite how much the BBC is self-critical.

What many of us found quite telling is that they made a huge row over Clarkson socking up his producer to get out of his contract, but they tried to hush up the reports of pederasty. If they really cared about the children, they'd have been shouting their condemnation from the hilltops.

Re:Free?

[stealth_finger]

Oh please do bugger off.

"Extortion"? Really? Really? Yes, if you own TV and are capable of receiving live TV you pay. Don't like that don't have an aerial and get on with your life.

Extortion? Basically yes. You own a TV? Pay us. You don't want to watch or partake in any of the bbcs services? Tough, you have the capability to technically be able to receive our signals, pay up! Doesn't matter there no way you can block it out and prove you don't use it. Pay the fuck up! I live here too and it's shit mate! But you enjoy your dickensons real deal, ad free. BBC already is lowest common denominator only they don't have to care if people are watching or not so they don't even make vaguely entertaining shows all they care is you pay them so they can keep doing whatever the fuck they want to do.

Re:Free?

[gbjbaanb]

and probably not even £145 richer - when you think that Google makes $70bn in advertising revenue per year, and that the advertisers have to find the money to hand over to Google to show their adverts, you'll be paying far more than than in increased costs for products. And have to watch the damn adverts too.

The BBC has its faults, typically left-wing liberals trying to set the agenda, but that doesn't mean all of it is rubbish or needs to be thrown away.

Re:Free?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fair enough. I'll concede it's possible that you might want TV but not BBC TV/Radio. It's just given the range of stuff it does I think it's difficult not to find something in all its TV/Radio output. I'd happily pay the license fee for an add-free 6 Music. Or Radio 4. Etc. Etc.

Obligatory

[jsse]

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these...

Wait a minute, may be....

Re:Seafood Platter

[Hognoxious]

As for the Windows 10 build for Raspberry that isn't far from sabotaging either.

That's a bit unfair. Why single that one out?

An ecommernce bonanza

[petes_PoV]

Micro:bits, ... will be delivered nationwide through schools and made available to home-schooled students over the course of the next few weeks

And most will end up in a drawer / in the bin or on eBay within a matter of weeks.

Re:An ecommernce bonanza

[Richard_at_work]

The plan is to force students to use them through an educational package, so if a student loses theirs (or sells it) then they will have to replace it.

Accelerometer + BTLE = listening device.

[dsmatthews9379]

Rest it on a balloon or other improvised resonator to maximise the effect.

Re:Accelerometer + BTLE = listening device.

[wonkey_monkey]

Interesting project, but perhaps not entirely practical for deployment in the field.

Now pay attention, 007...

Re:Accelerometer + BTLE = listening device.

[dsmatthews9379]

But they are just about to deploy 1 million of them.

And for extra sneaky squirrel points you have to work out how to use the multiple axis of the device to decode a full stereo audio stream.

waste

[Anonymous Coward]

It might not be in the BBC's remit, but it's only tax payers money, so who cares?

For you Americans who may not know, every UK household that wants to watch any form of live TV must pay £144/year to the BBC, even if you don't watch BBC channels. The rules are being changed to include non-live TV too.

Re:waste

[Zontar The Mindless]

It might not be in the BBC's remit, but it's only tax payers money, so who cares?

It might not? So which is it? Once you've made up your mind, we can discuss whether we should care.

For you Americans who may not know, every UK household that wants to watch any form of live TV must pay £144/year to the BBC, even if you don't watch BBC channels. The rules are being changed to include non-live TV too.

For you folks who may not know, this is the norm in lots of countries. Every one of them that I've ever lived in, at any rate--except the US. So if you don't like that arrangement, perhaps you should consider moving to the US... or throwing out your TV.

I rarely watch Swedish television, but don't mind paying the license fee (~2300 SEK/year), because I realise that it's in the country's interest to have at least some mass media that are not beholden to commercial/corporate entities.

Re:waste

[Anonymous Coward]

It is worth it just to not have Adverts every few minutes.
American TV is basically adverts interrupted by programs.
We have a TV Channel on FreeSat (Free to air Satellite) that shows US programming as it is shown in the US. I tried t owatch a film on it the other week. There was an Ad break every 9 minutes.
Impossible to watch.
It is little wonder that I never turn on the TV when I am travelling in the US...
I don't mind paying NOT to have adverts. None of them are aimed at 60+ men. We don't have endless ads for pharma products that have so many side effects that then thinking about taking them would give you a heart attack.

sometimes, I think the world would be a better place if the USA simply disappeared off the map.

Re:waste

[andrewbaldwin]

I also pay for multiple commercial channels that I never watch.

They do not work for nothing so they get paid for by advertisers.

Advertisers are also not benificent charities and they get paid for by their customers (eg supermarkets, car companies...)

The companies get their money from the end customer - ie individuals like me.

So ... I end up paying more in my daily purchases to fund multiple levels of payments (each of which is abstracting their own profits).

Personally I think the BBC is good value for money and the fact that it doesn't need to worry about dancing to the tune of corporate bosses is worth the licence fee alone. As it is also attacked from both sides of the political spectrum it is also doing a fair job of balance (unlike the worst of the right wing press that seeks to destroy the most competent competitor)

Gentle introduction

[itamblyn]

As someone who has worked with young students, high school teachers, university students, and university faculty getting Pi's into the classroom (e.g. http://clean.energyscience.ca/..., http://rpi.science.uoit.ca/ I can say that the micro:bit may be a better starting point for really young kids and their tech phobic teachers than the Pi. From what I can tell, the micro:bit isn't really a computer (unlike the RaspberryPi), but rather a peripheral that enables some physical computing.

There are some ugly sides to the Pi for the uninitiated. I'm not saying one is better than the other (I really like the Pi), but I do think the micro:bit could be a welcome addition to the ecosystem.

I'm disappointed that BBC isn't making them available to the general community from the get go (or even before release to schools). We have a way better chance and troubleshooting (and populating stackoverflow) issues than they do. Despite the fact that this is intended to be plug-and-play, things never are (especially when they involve locked-down machines like those present at most schools).

In any case, I'm looking forward to getting one of these things!

Not sure I understand the Bit vs Pi attitude

[DrXym]

The complaints about Bit vs Pi are like complaining that a Year 1 maths book somehow competes with a Year 2 maths book.

The bit device is meant to be a simple board that a kid can plug into a PC and run little experiments that teach them the fundamentals of computing. Unlike the Pi it doesn't require teachers or parents to screw around flashing an SD card, or hooking up a network, display, keyboards or whatever to get it working.

And at the end of the day kids who learn the fundamentals on a bit are far better placed continue learning on the Pi or a computer. So I'd see their place in the world as being complementary to each other rather than competitive. But then again I'm looking at this rationally. I suspect some Pi owners have developed some kind of siege mentality and see other boards as a personal threat.

Re:Not sure I understand the Bit vs Pi attitude

[drinkypoo]

Unlike the Pi it doesn't require teachers or parents to screw around flashing an SD card, or hooking up a network, display, keyboards or whatever to get it working.

Your imagination has atrophied. You can get preloaded memory cards, and the Pi could be configured to accept a serial connection so that you could use it just like the Micro:bit if that's all you wanted.

Re:Not sure I understand the Bit vs Pi attitude

[DrXym]

No, my imagination is just fine. I know precisely what's involved in setting up a Pi and it is far more work than one of these bit boards. Especially when multiplied by the number of students in the class.

Re:Not sure I understand the Bit vs Pi attitude

[Alioth]

But unlike a Raspberry Pi, the Bit requires another computer to program it. The Pi is a standalone computer. The thing programming the micro:bit might end up in many cases being a Raspberry Pi. The ARM M0 development kit for more advanced users is just an apt-get install away on any Debian-based system.

But I'm not actually disagreeing with you here. The micro:bit is a microcontroller board, more akin to an Arduino than a computer. It doesn't run an operating system. It's a 16MHz ARM M0 microcontroller. Comparing the micro:bit to the Raspberry Pi is comparing apples to elephants.

Re:Not sure I understand the Bit vs Pi attitude

[itsdapead]

But unlike a Raspberry Pi, the Bit requires another computer to program it.

...but you won't get far programming a Pi without a mouse, a keyboard and a display etc. In the typical school, you might, maybe, get a class set of Pis, but no teacher is going to lug 30 HDMI monitors, keyboards and mice into their classroom - they're going to book the PC lab. As all the displays in the PC lab already come with PCs attached, why not use them? Or, if the school's been kitted out in the last 10 years, it'll have a laptop or iPad trolley, which won't be much use with a Pi.

Bottom line: the Pi is a great little system for computer geeks, makers and school clubs, but the "teach all kids to code" line has never held water. There's no practical reason why you can't teach kids to program with the PCs or tablets that schools already have. There are kid-friendly programming environments (Scratch etc.), free virtual machine software (like VirtualBox) if you want to give them a sandbox to safely wreck, and there are robotics systems like Lego Mindstorms.

However, the Pi does seem to have captured peoples' imagination so maybe this isn't all about boring practicality. What the microbit does, really, is give kids an 'artefact' that they can program with their variation on "chaser lights", keep, take home and, figuratively, stick on the fridge, even if they don't get to play on the family PC. The Pi may be incredibly cheap for a "complete" computer but its not cheap enough to give away to schoolkids and, even when programmed, doesn't "do anything" without extra circuitry, "hats" or external i/o.

Re:Not sure I understand the Bit vs Pi attitude

[DrXym]

It doesn't need another computer. You can program it from a tablet or phone over bluetooth. The software runs off the website and you can even run the software from a browser on a phone if you want. There is even an emulator so it can be program in the absence of the device. I guess that means kids and teachers have a lot of flexibility in how they do assignments.

I don't know what it runs as an OS but I guess for teaching kids it really doesn't matter what runs underneath. What matters is it's easy to use and and easy to learn from. One interesting thing about the bit is it has a GPIO edge connector so I could even it being plugged into other things like robots, weather stations etc. Lots of interesting scenarios.

Re:Not sure I understand the Bit vs Pi attitude

[Alioth]

In a typical school, certainly here, the PCs are locked down so hard you can't even open a command prompt, let alone program on them. School PCs can be used for little more than learning Microsoft Office skills.

The Pi was needed so there was a cheap way of getting a programmable computer that wasn't locked down hard.

Re:Not sure I understand the Bit vs Pi attitude

[Alioth]

It doesn't run an OS, it's a microcontroller. The code runs on the bare metal. At most you'll have a library of functions that can poke at the microcontroller's peripherals. The ARM M0 doesn't even implement a supervisor mode, let alone an MMU. Typically when you deploy code on these devices, it's literally just the code you wrote plus the C runtime (and in the case of python, there will obviously have to be a python runtime, python effectively becoming "the operating system").

Programming one from a tablet without a keyboard would be fairly painful, I imagine. Practically, you're going to need a computer even if you use the online IDE that's available on ARM's website.

What idiot came up with this

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't put kids - who have grown up on desktop PCs - in front of Notepad and Ruby to teach them how to code, then how the hell will this little device help? It's the same sham and stupid lie that the Raspberry Pi marketed itself with.

In addition

[Anonymous Coward]

Will the cluster run systemd?

With tiny computers down to $5...why not?

[sbaker]

Clearly the price of the hardware is now irrelevant - there can't be many places in the world where a one-time $5 per-child expense is unattainable.

The only limiting factor now is whether kids have the course materials to learn - and whether they have access to a machine with display and keyboard to write their programs on. The coursework isn't going to be cheap - but if done right - and OpenSourced - then the cost can be amortised down to nearly $0. So the one remaining problem is whether these kids will have access to something to type, edit, compile and download their code on...and there's the problem.

If you already have access to that kind of hardware (an OLPC, at a minimum) - then why not learn to program on THAT? Why do you need to learn on an embedded system - which is harder to debug, more easily damaged, etc, etc? I think the answer is that there has to be a REASON to write programs - or programming classes will be as hard to get kids excited about as (say) Math classes. Programming a robotics project - or even just getting some push-buttons and LED's working - is quite compelling when compared to the dross that's taught in Java Programming 101 in US schools and colleges...I've helped two people through that kind of course - and you'd think they were teaching someone to write accounting software...urgh!

IMHO, teaching kids to write games would be a better approach - but embedded computing works too.

Where I think these things may really help is in teaching about electronics. Simple stuff like how to interface a switch, a potentiometer, an LED or an R/C servo to an I/O bit on a microprocessor is a useful introduction - and programming it to do something interesting is also useful.

It's all going to be down to the courseware.

Code should be free!

[Anonymous Coward]

The best way to ensure this is making coding knowledge worthless!
"Why should I pay you, an excellent programmer, good money when there are five hundred people in line for the Job?"

Coding, the MacDonald job of the future? "U want source with that?"