Blimey, my last reply did stir it up (which is great, exactly what I wanted to see, got some really good answers out of people.) I just *knew* that the ratio of Linux users on this list would be higher than average though :D
(incidentally, which flavours of Linux do people favour on here? When I play with Linux I'm a Ubuntu person, but I don't even have it installed on my laptop at the moment because I wiped my drives clean a while back when I was reorganising my system, and didn't bother to put Linux back on. I still have the Ubuntu sticker on the lid though because it's so deliciously ironic ;) Back on point again, The BBC's been forced to bow to commercial pressures more than once in the past; anyone remember the Jam debacle? That was the Trust telling them to stop doing what they were doing because it was inflicting losses on other commercial entities doing a similar thing. Frankly, I disagreed with their decision, if the BBC's doing it then it's obviously for a better reason other than to just push other companies out of business, it's for the education of our future generations... But hey, commercial pressures. I overlooked Java and other methods of abstraction because, well... The statistics weren't mine (hope I made that obvious) and they didn't talk about abstraction methods, only OSes. I wouldn't *want* to develop for Java though, it's such a kettle of fish and the JRE itself is such a massive piece of bloatware with some awful endemic security flaws. I've gotten a nasty virus through a Java vuln once before which was a BITCH to get rid of - and it was all because Java didn't clean itself off the machine before upgrading (so you had multiple versions, and one of the builds was the vulnerable one). It literally took me days to figure out how to get rid of that virus. I'm of the opinion that having to load an entire runtime environment (along with its associated memory and CPU footprint) BEFORE you can even run the actual program is A Bad Thing, it slows even my machine down a bit (admittedly it's not the snappiest beast in the world but it's no slouch) so imagine what it'll do to slower PCs. That's really the only reason I moved from Azureus to uTorrent... With regards to worldwide takeup, I too thought the iPlayer was a UK-only thing, but I've heard rumblings about it becoming a paid-for service outside our borders in the future (I know of no ETA though). Don't know as to the authenticity of that, maybe a BBC bod could give me the partyline on that? > -----Original Message----- > From: Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 01 August 2007 18:50 > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > Subject: Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting > > On 01/08/07, Christopher Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > maybe the BBC were just realists when it came to the > practicalities of > > development cost versus ROI from creating versions for > > (EXTREMELY) minority OSes? I mean, come on, hands up who > here on the > > list uses Linux as their primary OS. > > me as well (as if you couldn't have guessed). > > Why in your statistics did you neglect things like Java and Python? > They may not be OSes themselves but they provide an > abstraction to the OS in much the same way as OSes themselves > provide an abstraction to the hardware. > > For instance you would say develop for "Java", not "Java on > WinXP" as Java provides portable hooks into the parts of the > OS you need (which technically you can bypass and go direct > to the OS but that's going out of your way to make a non > platform neutral implementation). Only thing Java, Python and > other such systems is they don't seem to get around the > platform dependence of the OS. Luckily there is a whole lot > of people who may write the installer for you (provided you > open source the code), how helpful of them! > > Or you can develop for a standardised OS, (e.g. POSIX). Code > for POSIX then just recompile with the correct cross compiler > and it will run on any POSIX conforming OS for which you can > find a cross compiler (or you could install the OS and do a > native compile). > > Now the POSIX argument is much closer to that of PAL. POSIX > is actually a standard, many OS manufacturers implement it, > and any OS manufacturer can implement it if they choose! So > BBC choose to develop for a standard, POSIX there. > > > > Percentages speak a lot to people signing off on cheques to fund > > development lifecycles... > > The BBC was set up up so that we had a broadcaster who was > not tied to such commercial pressures, evidently the BBC is > disregarding the reason it was created! > > And as I have pointed out several times, where do you get the > idea that it costs more to develop for extra OSes? You > develop cross platform from day one. You don't have to spend > 3 times the money for 3 OSes. > > Most code in C works on all platforms, why would it have to > be written again and thus cost more? > > > And if you want maximum Return On Investment then here's an > even cheaper method to get cross-platform vendor neutral and > all the other goodness. > > Define a specification (you would normally do this anyway, > otherwise you need to have server and client teams working > too closely), make sure everything is defined and then > publish it fully. > > Write the Server side of the application, (You would have had > to do this anyway) > > Now BBC, you stop, your job is done. > > Community people can take over and build clients, people get > a choice of clients, if there is demand on a specific > platform it gets built otherwise it doesn't (nice way to work > out how much demand there really is for different platforms ;)) > > And you get the advantage of seeing all the innovative idea > people come up with. Would this appeal to the people on this > list? You could then actually "Mash Up" BBC content, putting > it in software that works the way you want it to and making > your own better software if the current offerings are not good enough. > > Currently the BBC won't let anyone even touch the way iPlayer > works, oddly they consider it "theirs", ignoring the fact > that the UK License Payer payed for it, not just BBC > employees who get the right to do what they want with it > (regardless of what your regulators, or the law tells you to do). > > > Oh and anyone got the UK statistics on Firefox usage? Is that > a small enough to be discriminated against? Precisely how > small does a group need to be before it becomes morally > justified to discriminate against it? > > Anyway consider the above idea, maybe for iPlayer, or if not > some other project, it would be an interesting experiment > would it not? > Let's get back to an innovative BBC we used to have, remember > the days when the BBC where proud to do things others didn't. > (Sorry reminiscing about Walking With Dinosaurs, truly ground > breaking when that came out, pity the BBC won't do new > innovative things any more, preferring to copy other > channels, iPlayer is not innovative in the least, it's like > 40D, only later and still in Beta). > > Andy > > PS: > Didn't find the article I _know_ I saw but this is close enough: > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070717-europeans-embrac e-firefox-in-record-numbers.html > > 18.7% Firefox usage in the UK (and that's not counting the > other browsers). > > First hit on Google I got for "uk web browser statistics" > (note: may not be first for you, google personalises > searches) provides some more > stats: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp > Appears somewhere in the region of 40% of people aren't using > IE. It's OK to discriminate against 40% of people? No one > else thinks that's wrong? > > > > -- > Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if > you open windows. > -- Adam Heath > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To > unsubscribe, please visit > http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
