Dave Crossland wrote:
On 25/02/2008, Ian Forrester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A free download will allow users of Macs, PCs and, later this
year, Linux machines to run any Air applications.
Since Air is proprietary, that it runs on GNU+Linux is not good.
For a certain value judgement of 'good' that is?
I like Linux, except when it annoys the hell out of me. But then thats
exactly how I feel about any MS or Apple OS I've ever used.
I can absolutely see why a person would want to use an OS that is 1)
free and 2) open source, but would you really then restrict those people
to only being able to run software that is 1) free and 2) open source?
Call me crazy but I think that the fact that companies now have to
seriously consider building Linux support into their software products,
is a good thing. At the end of the day its an extra thing that your
platform can do, its not a reduction in functionality. If Adobe's press
is to be believed then Mr Joe Bloggs running Linux at home will be able
to use an app written in Air for free. I personally consider that 'good'.
The BBC is also building prototype applications with AIR.
The BBC should not require the British public to use proprietry
software, so developing these prototypes is misguided.
Now this is a bit hairy - would you be happier if the BBC required that
the public could use only non-proprietary software to access any of its
work? It feels uncomfortably like you're making a moral judgement about
the nature of 'good' and 'bad' software and asking the BBC to enforce
this. I'd like everyone to be able to access everything for free (as in
beer) and consider that a good place to start. Software freedom is the
icing on the cake for me, but its not the cake.Thats my judgement, on
what is 'good', but I wouldnt expect or want everyone to agree with it.
What you suggest might make content harder to access - and whether you
agree with them or not, a lot of people simply don't care about software
being free and open source (I'd argue that more people care about the
former than the latter, since everyone loves a freebie). Providing
content to these people is as much part of the BBC's remit as anything
else. Certainly if there is a way of doing something that is both free
and open source and doesn't keep anyone out of the playground then it
would be hard to see any point in *not* doing that. But if a
proprietary thing lets you do something in a way that meets your
requirements better, then to argue that it should not be used just
because it is proprietary seems very over simplistic. I wouldn't be
happy deciding what people should care about and enforcing it.
"The nice thing about it is that it works on all the different platforms - Mac,
PC and eventually Linux," said John O'Donovan, chief architect in the
BBC's Future Media and Technology Journalism division.
So what do people think?
John O'Donovan sounds like he must be a good engineer; sadly he seems
unaware of the social problems he is leading the BBC into when he
praises this proprietary technology.
You know 'social problems' might be over egging the lily. A bit:)
Alia
-
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/
