[backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
http://bit.ly/4IeduN Just picked up from Twitter, Secret[] Private[] Public[x] Ian Forrester Senior Backstage Producer BBC R&D North Lab, 1st Floor Office, OB Base, New Broadcasting House, Oxford Road, Manchester, M60 1SJ - 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/
Re: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
On FF on OS X, and if I see another Chrome ad on Youtube or Google homepage I'll cry. Interested to see where this might leave Mozilla in the long run - as a matter of interest, can anyone tell me if FF's default Google homepage is whoring itself similarly? Come back IE6, all is forgiven... On 14 Dec 2009, at 12:06, Ian Forrester wrote: > http://bit.ly/4IeduN > > Just picked up from Twitter, > > Secret[] Private[] Public[x] > > Ian Forrester > Senior Backstage Producer > > BBC R&D North Lab, > 1st Floor Office, OB Base, > New Broadcasting House, Oxford Road, > Manchester, M60 1SJ > > - > 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/ Jim - 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/
Re: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
On 14-Dec-2009, at 12:21, Jim Tonge wrote: > On FF on OS X, and if I see another Chrome ad on Youtube or Google homepage > I'll cry. > > Interested to see where this might leave Mozilla in the long run - as a > matter of interest, can anyone tell me if FF's default Google homepage is > whoring itself similarly? Unlikely—The FF/Google default page is a special co-branded one. I’d check, but I can’t be bothered waiting for Firefox to load (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=533944) > Come back IE6, all is forgiven... As somebody who still has to “fix” things for IE 6 on a regular basis, all I can say is: no, it definitely isn‘t, and please don’t come back. Browser wars where the participants are all pretty much standards-compliant and pushing regular releases are A Good Thing; it’s proper competition. M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
On 14 Dec 2009, at 12:42, Mo McRoberts wrote: > As somebody who still has to “fix” things for IE 6 on a regular basis, all I > can say is: no, it definitely isn‘t, and please don’t come back. Just a joke :) - 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/
Re: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
On 14-Dec-2009, at 13:22, Jim Tonge wrote: > On 14 Dec 2009, at 12:42, Mo McRoberts wrote: > >> As somebody who still has to “fix” things for IE 6 on a regular basis, all I >> can say is: no, it definitely isn‘t, and please don’t come back. > > Just a joke :) Sorry, reading my reply back, it looked deadly serious—wasn’t meant to be: dry humour! M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
2009/12/14 Mo McRoberts : > > On 14-Dec-2009, at 13:22, Jim Tonge wrote: > >> On 14 Dec 2009, at 12:42, Mo McRoberts wrote: >> >>> As somebody who still has to “fix” things for IE 6 on a regular basis, all >>> I can say is: no, it definitely isn‘t, and please don’t come back. >> >> Just a joke :) > > Sorry, reading my reply back, it looked deadly serious—wasn’t meant to be: > dry humour! The need to support IE6 brings out that kind of reaction in me, too. Hopefully sometime next year all the internal users who bump up IE6's market share in our stats will have migrated to something made this century and we might just be able to start thinking about dropping it Peter -- Peter Bowyer Email: pe...@bowyer.org Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee - 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/
Re: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
Hopefully it'll leave Firefox well and truly in the bin where it belongs. Must admit I always preferred IE for everyday use (and advocated it very strongly for non-geek users), but I'm an absolute Chrome convert. It. Just. Works. And its Javascript engine is blisteringly quick. Cheers, Rich. > On FF on OS X, and if I see another Chrome ad on Youtube or Google homepage > I'll cry. > > Interested to see where this might leave Mozilla in the long run - as a > matter of interest, can anyone tell me if FF's default Google homepage is > whoring itself similarly? > - 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/
RE: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
> The need to support IE6 brings out that kind of reaction in me, too. > Hopefully sometime next year all the internal users who bump > up IE6's market share in our stats will have migrated to > something made this century and we might just be able to > start thinking about dropping it There's no need to support IE6. I don't even consider IE6 backward competibility when I design web sites, nor do I care if people don't like that. Even Microsoft has been pushing new browser versions at them for a few years now via Windows Update, more fool them if they don't keep their machine current. IE6 : IE7 :: NN9 : Firefox (yes I appreciate that for corporate users sometimes they're tied to IE6 - they need more clueful IT departments imho) - 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/
RE: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
> Hopefully it'll leave Firefox well and truly in the bin where > it belongs. > > Must admit I always preferred IE for everyday use (and > advocated it very strongly for non-geek users), but I'm an > absolute Chrome convert. > It. Just. Works. And its Javascript engine is blisteringly quick. I have to use a MBP at work (first gen Intel) - Chrome is FAR faster than Safari (unsurprisingly) or Firefox (which 'feels' bloated on OSX). Chrome just feels right for OSX, I'm really glad they finally pushed out a stableish beta. (Has anyone else noticed this OSX Chrome bug: click on a download link from a site like sourceforge, wait for the modal dialog prompt to display, then either click on the link again or just continue surfing in a new window. After a few seconds Chrome freezes... Download thread tieing up the other threads?) Still, Chrome > * on OSX so far. It renders faster, loads faster and has some nice little UI finishes like tabs which slide in and out of existence, cross-window drag and drop tabs, that unified search/address bar which quickly grew on me... - 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/
Re: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
On 14-Dec-2009, at 14:30, Christopher Woods wrote: > >> The need to support IE6 brings out that kind of reaction in me, too. >> Hopefully sometime next year all the internal users who bump >> up IE6's market share in our stats will have migrated to >> something made this century and we might just be able to >> start thinking about dropping it > > > There's no need to support IE6. There is when your clients see the browser stats and decide that it’s at a significant enough level that you need to support it. Even moreso when _they_ use IE6 internally and so expect a grade-A experience. Corporate IT generally mumbles something about “security”, even though IE6 doesn’t get all of the fixes that IE 7 & 8 for flaws affecting all three. Mind you, IE 7 & 8 are still as slow as molasses (I can type faster than the browser can open a new tab? in 2009? are you kidding me?), but at least they consume considerably less effort to support and I can degrade a lot of visual things gracefully for them (box & text shadows, rounded corners, gradient backgrounds, etc., etc.) > I don't even consider IE6 backward > competibility when I design web sites, nor do I care if people don't like > that. Most web developers don’t have that luxury. M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
2009/12/14 Christopher Woods : > >> The need to support IE6 brings out that kind of reaction in me, too. >> Hopefully sometime next year all the internal users who bump >> up IE6's market share in our stats will have migrated to >> something made this century and we might just be able to >> start thinking about dropping it > > > There's no need to support IE6. I don't even consider IE6 backward > competibility when I design web sites, nor do I care if people don't like > that. You wouldn't win any points round here for that attitude, I'm afraid. There isn't anyone here who *wants* to be supporting IE6, I assure you... -- Peter Bowyer Email: pe...@bowyer.org Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee - 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/
RE: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
> > There's no need to support IE6. I don't even consider IE6 backward > > competibility when I design web sites, nor do I care if > people don't > > like that. > > You wouldn't win any points round here for that attitude, I'm afraid. > There isn't anyone here who *wants* to be supporting IE6, I > assure you... Of course :) However imho as long as designers continue to meekly defer to clients and their requests to support completely obsolete browsers, the longer it takes to design a good web site, the more costly it becomes and the more complicated it is to maintain - it's really in nobody's best interests. We've collectively been far too wet behind the ears about it for a long time. The customer is not always right. (and this comes from someone who's both a web designer and, wearing his other hat, a (frustrated) client of 'professional' web designers!) - 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/
RE: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
> (I can type > faster than the browser can open a new tab? in 2009? are you > kidding me?) I found that my IE7/8 tabs started loading WAY fster as soon as I went into Accelerators/BHO options and disabled the Java Quick Start. By turning that one thing off I reduced tab load times from 5-10 seconds to around 3/4 of a second. Not perfect but a vast improvement! - 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/
Re: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
2009/12/14 Christopher Woods : > >> > There's no need to support IE6. I don't even consider IE6 backward >> > competibility when I design web sites, nor do I care if >> people don't >> > like that. >> >> You wouldn't win any points round here for that attitude, I'm afraid. >> There isn't anyone here who *wants* to be supporting IE6, I >> assure you... > > Of course :) However imho as long as designers continue to meekly defer to > clients and their requests to support completely obsolete browsers, the > longer it takes to design a good web site, the more costly it becomes and > the more complicated it is to maintain - it's really in nobody's best > interests. I'll be sure to tell the Secretary of State for Health that when he can't use the next release of www.nhs.uk on his office PC. Peter -- Peter Bowyer Email: pe...@bowyer.org Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee - 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/
Re: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
It isn't a case of designers meekly deferring to their clients - more a case of designers recognising that a large chunk of their audience (~15%) uses ie6 and has no choice in the matter. I strongly dislike ie6, but it isn't going anywhere. Blogged about it here: http://philwhitehouse.blogspot.com/2009/08/ie6-isnt-going-anywhere.html I'm sure some would respond that IT departments should upgrade, and we can put pressure on them through the users, but the reality is that this isn't going to happen until the cost of upgrade (including upgrading all the old systems designed for ie6 i.e. very, very expensive) are outweighed by the cost of not upgrading (pretty low, actually). So it really doesn't make sense to alienate potential users or customers in the meantime. Phil On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Christopher Woods wrote: > > > > There's no need to support IE6. I don't even consider IE6 backward > > > competibility when I design web sites, nor do I care if > > people don't > > > like that. > > > > You wouldn't win any points round here for that attitude, I'm afraid. > > There isn't anyone here who *wants* to be supporting IE6, I > > assure you... > > Of course :) However imho as long as designers continue to meekly defer to > clients and their requests to support completely obsolete browsers, the > longer it takes to design a good web site, the more costly it becomes and > the more complicated it is to maintain - it's really in nobody's best > interests. > > We've collectively been far too wet behind the ears about it for a long > time. The customer is not always right. (and this comes from someone who's > both a web designer and, wearing his other hat, a (frustrated) client of > 'professional' web designers!) > > - > 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/ > -- http://philwhitehouse.blogspot.com
RE: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
> I'll be sure to tell the Secretary of State for Health that > when he can't use the next release of www.nhs.uk on his office PC. The DoH's still using IE6?! - 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/
Re: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
2009/12/14 Christopher Woods : > >> I'll be sure to tell the Secretary of State for Health that >> when he can't use the next release of www.nhs.uk on his office PC. > > The DoH's still using IE6?! Along with many other central government departments - yes. For reasons outlined very well by Phil in his last reply. It's your money we spend. -- Peter Bowyer Email: pe...@bowyer.org Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee - 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/
Re: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
On 14-Dec-2009, at 16:09, Christopher Woods wrote: > >> I'll be sure to tell the Secretary of State for Health that >> when he can't use the next release of www.nhs.uk on his office PC. > > The DoH's still using IE6?! Last I checked, so is (much of) the BBC. I’m sure somebody here is well-placed to correct me if this is no longer the case! M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
I'm sure some would argue that saving money by staying on an old, insecure and hard to support browser is something of a false economy. Alex On 14 Dec 2009, at 16:18, Peter Bowyer wrote: > 2009/12/14 Christopher Woods : >> >>> I'll be sure to tell the Secretary of State for Health that >>> when he can't use the next release of www.nhs.uk on his office PC. >> >> The DoH's still using IE6?! > > Along with many other central government departments - yes. For > reasons outlined very well by Phil in his last reply. It's your money > we spend. > > -- > Peter Bowyer > Email: pe...@bowyer.org > Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee > - > 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/
Re: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
On 14-Dec-2009, at 16:26, Christopher Woods wrote: > >> Along with many other central government departments - yes. >> For reasons outlined very well by Phil in his last reply. >> It's your money we spend. > > Santa Claus on a motorbike! It's about time some of that money is allocated > to a sitewide browser upgrade :( Can't it just be lumped onto the Capita > spend for the central database? It seems to have a blank cheque already We can upgrade our nuclear weapons, but not a web browser, etc., etc. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - 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/
RE: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
> Along with many other central government departments - yes. > For reasons outlined very well by Phil in his last reply. > It's your money we spend. Santa Claus on a motorbike! It's about time some of that money is allocated to a sitewide browser upgrade :( Can't it just be lumped onto the Capita spend for the central database? It seems to have a blank cheque already - 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/
Re: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
2009/12/14 Christopher Woods : > >> Along with many other central government departments - yes. >> For reasons outlined very well by Phil in his last reply. >> It's your money we spend. > > Santa Claus on a motorbike! It's about time some of that money is allocated > to a sitewide browser upgrade :( Can't it just be lumped onto the Capita > spend for the central database? It seems to have a blank cheque already You're clearly well-versed in the economics of large distributed government IT infrastructures and DH IT projects to boot. Your advice will be highly valued, I'm sure. -- Peter Bowyer Email: pe...@bowyer.org Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee - 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/
[backstage] Is this BBC "Homeplug" product legal?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0ttLGbZI7k Nice video - but it's using these http://www.homeplugs.co.uk/ "Homeplug adaptor". I can't find anywhere where it says that these Homeplug things are legal. They didn't used to be. Can someone point out where I can find where it says they are legit? A number of trolls have descended on my site saying that they are not, and I can't find a definitive answer. Thanks in advance -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Is this BBC "Homeplug" product legal?
On 14-Dec-2009, at 16:29, Brian Butterworth wrote: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0ttLGbZI7k > > Nice video - but it's using these http://www.homeplugs.co.uk/ "Homeplug > adaptor". > > I can't find anywhere where it says that these Homeplug things are legal. > They didn't used to be. They’ve been sold in the UK since the late 80s… > Can someone point out where I can find where it says they are legit? > > A number of trolls have descended on my site saying that they are not, and I > can't find a definitive answer. There’s an going dispute between the The Radio Society and Ofcom (see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/04/power_line_networking/), but kit compliant with the standards is perfectly legal. M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - 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/
RE: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
> -Original Message- > From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk > [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts > Sent: 14 December 2009 16:24 > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > Subject: Re: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded? > > > On 14-Dec-2009, at 16:09, Christopher Woods wrote: > > > > >> I'll be sure to tell the Secretary of State for Health > that when he > >> can't use the next release of www.nhs.uk on his office PC. > > > > The DoH's still using IE6?! > > Last I checked, so is (much of) the BBC. I'm sure somebody > here is well-placed to correct me if this is no longer the case! Certainly I think I could count in weeks the time I've had access to IE7. I got it for a while last year but then they rolled back one of the desktop updates and they took it away. I also use FF, but that is machine specific, and a pain in the arse to apply for (it's not a default browser), so a lot of people don't bother. > > M. > > -- > mo mcroberts > http://nevali.net > iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net > Twitter: @nevali > > Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with > DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ > > > > > > > > > > - > 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/
Re: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
2009/12/14 Mo McRoberts > > On 14-Dec-2009, at 16:26, Christopher Woods wrote: > > > We can upgrade our nuclear weapons, but not a web browser, etc., etc. > Ah, but that is the very point of the internet. The very point of IP. The very design. The net was designed to work even if nukes were dropped on the world. No central control means network survival. > > -- > mo mcroberts > http://nevali.net > iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali > > Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - > http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ > > > > > > > > > > - > 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/ > -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
RE: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
> You're clearly well-versed in the economics of large > distributed government IT infrastructures and DH IT projects > to boot. But of course, I'm Joe Public! It's My Money! > Your advice will be highly valued, I'm sure. Happy to provide it. Also available for daily on-site consultancy - my fee structure is functionally identical to the current ratecard for onsite SAP consultants ;) - 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/
Re: [backstage] Is this BBC "Homeplug" product legal?
Comments here http://www.joinfreesat.co.uk/index.php/bbc-iplayer-launches-in-december That Ofcom are reviewing interference. Paul -- Sent from my phone On 14 Dec 2009, at 16:29, Brian Butterworth wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0ttLGbZI7k Nice video - but it's using these http://www.homeplugs.co.uk/ "Homeplug adaptor". I can't find anywhere where it says that these Homeplug things are legal. They didn't used to be. Can someone point out where I can find where it says they are legit? A number of trolls have descended on my site saying that they are not, and I can't find a definitive answer. Thanks in advance -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Is this BBC "Homeplug" product legal?
As someone who has been responsible for installation of enough cat5 to Why would you want to use a HomePlug? People used to have landline phones upstairs, and everyone was happy with wires for that. HomePlug is not just pointless, it is expensive and is to radio hams as light pollution is to astronomers. Is there something ... not iPlayer ... about a cat5 cable? I can understand BT doing Homeplug, because BT is a telco, but Freesat is Auntie's brand! 2009/12/14 Mo McRoberts > > On 14-Dec-2009, at 16:29, Brian Butterworth wrote: > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0ttLGbZI7k > > > > Nice video - but it's using these http://www.homeplugs.co.uk/ "Homeplug > adaptor". > > > > I can't find anywhere where it says that these Homeplug things are legal. > They didn't used to be. > > They’ve been sold in the UK since the late 80s… > > > Can someone point out where I can find where it says they are legit? > > > > A number of trolls have descended on my site saying that they are not, > and I can't find a definitive answer. > > There’s an going dispute between the The Radio Society and Ofcom (see > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/04/power_line_networking/), but kit > compliant with the standards is perfectly legal. > > M. > > -- > mo mcroberts > http://nevali.net > iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali > > Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - > http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ > > > > > > > > > > - > 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/ > -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Is this BBC "Homeplug" product legal?
2009/12/14 Brian Butterworth : > As someone who has been responsible for installation of enough cat5 to > Why would you want to use a HomePlug? Because it's easier than flood wiring the whole house. > People used to have landline phones > upstairs, and everyone was happy with wires for that. Usually one wire, singular. With HomePlug I can have ethernet wherever there is a power point, and I do move them around now and then. > HomePlug is not just > pointless, it is expensive and is to radio hams as light pollution is to > astronomers. I must say I'd never heard of the radio interference at all. Cheers, Al. - 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/
RE: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
Ah, but that is the very point of the internet. The very point of IP. The very design. The net was designed to work even if nukes were dropped on the world. No central control means network survival. ...Until one of only two core LINX routers has a senior moment or Google decides to bork its routing ;) (cf. last week's massive disruption and recent intercontinental slowness courtesy of the Almighty G) The UK still relies on a surprisingly small number of backbone carriers, and it seems that the UK internet infrastructure is still amazingly brittle. My impression is that ja.net is still more resilient than the public IP space by virtue of just how many HE nodes there are throughout the UK - and the fact that CERN also uses it for GRID). I'd put my money on the Universities having intersite connectivity longer after the public WWW going down 8)
RE: [backstage] Is this BBC "Homeplug" product legal?
> Usually one wire, singular. With HomePlug I can have ethernet > wherever there is a power point, and I do move them around > now and then. Can I cast my vote for a 20m CAT5 cable under the carpet, up the stairs, to a discreetly placed gigabit switch on the landing / in the study? You still only use one power socket, way better throughput and far less annoying to our radio ham friends =) and everyone likes ducting CAT5, right? Those flat CAT5 cables look like they could do the trick nicely, but I'm more a fan of the 'just wind it around the banister' method ;) turn your network infrastructure into additional decoration! - 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/
Re: [backstage] Is this BBC "Homeplug" product legal?
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 17:30, Brian Butterworth wrote: > > Why would you want to use a HomePlug? > To easily extend my home network. People used to have landline phones upstairs, and everyone was happy with > wires for that. > If everyone was happy with that, then DECT phone line extenders wouldn't exist. Seeing as DECT phone line extenders exist, I'm guessing not everyone was happy running wires. > HomePlug is not just pointless, it is expensive and is to radio hams as > light pollution is to astronomers. > > HomePlug isn't pointless and it's not expensive (especially compared to cost/effort of running CAT5 through a house). Maybe some Hams are getting some interference from some particular powerline devices - that doesn't mean that the powerline concept as a whole is somehow wrong or evil. Scot
Re: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
On 14 Dec 2009, at 18:10, Christopher Woods wrote: ...Until one of only two core LINX routers has a senior moment or Google decides to bork its routing ;) (cf. last week's massive disruption and recent intercontinental slowness courtesy of the Almighty G) errr LINX is a switching layer 2 fabric, not a layer three facility. Routing is carried out by the members over the switch fabrics provided by their membership organisation ie LINX. There are two separate switching fabrics, using kit from different manufacturers so that they have less chance of both failing under the same traffic conditions. Perhaps you confusing the two separate LANS/Switching Fabrics with routers? f - 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/
Re: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
2009/12/14 Christopher Woods > > > > > Ah, but that is the very point of the internet. The very point of IP. The > very design. > > The net was designed to work even if nukes were dropped on the world. No > central control means network survival. > > > > ...Until one of only two core LINX routers has a senior moment or Google > decides to bork its routing ;) (cf. last week's massive disruption and > recent intercontinental slowness courtesy of the Almighty G) > I didn't say it would work WELL if you nuked the world, but you can bomb bits of the network and it still works. Unusually for me, I'm not up for testing this as I can't see the outcome being *better *than being able to speculate on the result. > > The UK still relies on a surprisingly small number of backbone carriers, > and it seems that the UK internet infrastructure is still amazingly > brittle. My impression is that ja.net is *still* more resilient than the > public IP space by virtue of just how many HE nodes there are throughout the > UK - and the fact that CERN also uses it for GRID). I'd put my money on the > Universities having intersite connectivity longer after the public WWW going > down 8) > -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
On 14-Dec-2009, at 18:10, Christopher Woods wrote: > ...Until one of only two core LINX routers has a senior moment or Google > decides to bork its routing ;) (cf. last week's massive disruption and recent > intercontinental slowness courtesy of the Almighty G) > > The UK still relies on a surprisingly small number of backbone carriers, and > it seems that the UK internet infrastructure is still amazingly brittle. My > impression is that ja.net is still more resilient than the public IP space by > virtue of just how many HE nodes there are throughout the UK - and the fact > that CERN also uses it for GRID). I'd put my money on the Universities having > intersite connectivity longer after the public WWW going down 8) …which is why LINX has redundancy. why some providers opt not to use it (and so failover is truncated to just the first syllable) is beyond me. Well, actually, I *do* know: cost. cf. RapidSwitch being invisible to an awful lot of the world last week while an many other providers with LINX interconnects were just fine. You get what you pay for. (The number of “backbone carriers” is largely irrelevant: it’s peering points what matter and the ability of IP networks to utilise multiple paths is predicated on there being more than one; that’s why intersite connectivity between universities probably would be maintained while many cheap and nasty hostcos go to the wall). M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Is this BBC "Homeplug" product legal?
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Alan Pope wrote: 2009/12/14 Brian Butterworth : As someone who has been responsible for installation of enough cat5 to Why would you want to use a HomePlug? Because it's easier than flood wiring the whole house. Its also a good way of getting an emergency connection in when your main fibre feed to a building has been visited by Mr Rat and you've got to wait for a day or so for the contractors to find the break and splice it. Not to mention getting connections into exhibition spaces, etc that have thoughtfully had mains sockets put in floor boxes but no networking. - 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/
[backstage] What is TV?
Discuss. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] What is TV?
That's what people who haven't bought a computer yet do, isn't it pops? Where people wait to be provided what's given? Don't they use a tube or something? 2009/12/14 Mo McRoberts > Discuss. > > -- > mo mcroberts > http://nevali.net > iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali > > Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - > http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ > > > > > > > > > > - > 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/ > -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] What is TV?
On 14-Dec-2009, at 21:24, Brian Butterworth wrote: > That's what people who haven't bought a computer yet do, isn't it pops? > Where people wait to be provided what's given? Don't they use a tube or > something? That’s “a TV”, the device. what is “TV” the medium? :) -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Is this BBC "Homeplug" product legal?
So, are they legal outside the home? The idea of using on in a "conference space" seems crazy to me, but I only ever go to conferences full of technology... 2009/12/14 Jon Knight > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Alan Pope wrote: > >> 2009/12/14 Brian Butterworth : >> >>> As someone who has been responsible for installation of enough cat5 to >>> >>> Why would you want to use a HomePlug? >>> >> >> Because it's easier than flood wiring the whole house. >> > > Its also a good way of getting an emergency connection in when your main > fibre feed to a building has been visited by Mr Rat and you've got to wait > for a day or so for the contractors to find the break and splice it. Not to > mention getting connections into exhibition spaces, etc that have > thoughtfully had mains sockets put in floor boxes but no networking. > > - > 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/ > -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] What is TV?
Mo McRoberts wrote: > Discuss. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/TV Ends. - 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/
Re: [backstage] What is TV?
2009/12/14 Mo McRoberts > > On 14-Dec-2009, at 21:24, Brian Butterworth wrote: > > > That's what people who haven't bought a computer yet do, isn't it pops? > Where people wait to be provided what's given? Don't they use a tube or > something? > > That’s “a TV”, the device. what is “TV” the medium? > Eddie Izzard and a Ouija Board? > > :) > > -- > mo mcroberts > http://nevali.net > iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali > > Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - > http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ > > > > > > > > > > - > 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/ > -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] What is TV?
Mo McRoberts wrote: Discuss. TV is live simultaneous transmission of pictures, where you can have a large number of people over a significant distance watching one event. - 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/
Re: [backstage] What is TV?
Ian Stirling wrote: Mo McRoberts wrote: Discuss. TV is live simultaneous transmission of pictures, where you can have a large number of people over a significant distance watching one event. Or to be more accurate, simultanenous reception of a television program service licenced under the appropriate act of parlianment. (at least for some legal definitions) - 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/
Re: [backstage] What is TV?
Another way of looking at TV is that is the delivery of audio visual services using high capacity omnidirectional technology. 2009/12/15 Ian Stirling > Ian Stirling wrote: > >> Mo McRoberts wrote: >> >>> Discuss. >>> >>> >> TV is live simultaneous transmission of pictures, where you can have a >> large number of people over a significant distance watching one event. >> >> > Or to be more accurate, simultanenous reception of a television program > service licenced under the appropriate act of parlianment. > > (at least for some legal definitions) > > - > 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/ > -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] What is TV?
Compare the other international networks: - Internet - peer-to-peer, mixed bandwidth, interactive - PSTN* - one-to-one, fixed 64kbps bandwidth, switched - TV - omnidirectional, high bandwidth, broadcast - radio - omnidirectional, low bandwidth, broadcast And these depreciated networks: - telex - one-to-one, fixed ultralow bandwidth, switched - X25 - one-to-one, fixed ultralow bandwidth, switched PSTN=Public switched telephone network "cloud", POTS, Telex, mobiles, WAP, viewdata TV=TV, teletext, OpenTV, MHEG5 etc 2009/12/15 Brian Butterworth > Another way of looking at TV is that is the delivery of audio visual > services using high capacity omnidirectional technology. > > 2009/12/15 Ian Stirling > > Ian Stirling wrote: >> >>> Mo McRoberts wrote: >>> Discuss. >>> TV is live simultaneous transmission of pictures, where you can have a >>> large number of people over a significant distance watching one event. >>> >>> >> Or to be more accurate, simultanenous reception of a television program >> service licenced under the appropriate act of parlianment. >> >> (at least for some legal definitions) >> >> - >> 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/ >> > > > > -- > > Brian Butterworth > > follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist > web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover > advice, since 2002 > -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] What is TV?
2009/12/15 Ian Stirling : > Mo McRoberts wrote: >> >> Discuss. > > TV is live simultaneous transmission of pictures, I'm not sure "live" transmission is definitional; most TV isn't live, although it started off that way AIUI. > where you can have a large > number of people over a significant distance watching one event. I'm not sure broadcasting "events" is definitional. For me, TV is broadcast video, which is to say, TV is video that a mass audience watches simultaneously. To paraphrase McLuhan, as the medium of our time - computer networks - is reshaping and restructuring patterns of social interdependence and every aspect of our personal life, the way video is disseminated is changing. TV is still possible with the internet, but it is a very minor way for video to be published. Just as theatre is still going, but in a very minor way compared to the prominance it had because electric technology. - 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/
