Re: [backstage] xmltv.radiotimes.com
www.tvplanner.co.uk - or www.uknetguide.co.uk/TV/ Cheers, Rich. On 3/29/07, Angelo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not even Safari compliant, yet. Does anyone have a better alternative with Freeview listings? On 29/03/07, John Wesley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 29/03/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone know what's happened to this? I'm getting a 404 from http://xmltv.radiotimes.com/xmltv/channels.dat and from each of the individual channel pages (eg: http://xmltv.radiotimes.com/xmltv/92.dat) - and RadioTimes.com isn't responding. Can anyone shed any light? Cheers, R. They were doing some changes the other day as the user interface stuff now required you to login with a username and password rather than just your email address. I guess they're updating more stuff, it's not exactly the most stable of sites at the best of times... jonh -- Angelo - 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] xmltv.radiotimes.com
On 3/30/07, Angelo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not even Safari compliant, yet. Does anyone have a better alternative with Freeview listings? http://www.mightyv.com/ which has even won a backstage competition, IIRC. -- cheers, Jakob. - 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] Browser Stats
Andy wrote: I can see how it got Netscape, FireFox is derived from the Netscape code base, but how it got from the word Linux into the word Mac I don't know. And this was for a user agent that was stating it's OS as Linux. Simple - Not Windows probably means Mac OS. In a tiny amount of cases it means Linux, or DOS or OS/2 etc, but even this is a tiny percentage compared to Mac OS, and anyone using such an OS is likely to be tech minded. -- From the North, this is Kirk - 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] Browser Stats
I think that it depends on what your demographic is. If you are talking about people who barely know how to switch on a computer, then you are going to get windows users. For people who actually use a computer for what it is intended, then, for instance in the scientific community, 50% of people use Macs because of the UNIX base, then 30% are Linux users and the rest use Windows. Cheers, Matt Thank you to those who donated to my rowing challenge. We managed to raise over £3000 ($6000) for Teesside Hospice. England expects that every man will do his duty - Admiral Horatio Lord Nelson, 21st October 1805 Matthew A. C. Lamont [EMAIL PROTECTED] WNSL - West, Room 309phone: (203) 432 5834 Physics Department, Yale University fax: (203) 432 8926 P.O. Box 208124 272 Whitney Avenue New Haven, CT 06520-8124, USA - On 30 Mar 2007, at 08:11, Kirk Northrop wrote: Andy wrote: I can see how it got Netscape, FireFox is derived from the Netscape code base, but how it got from the word Linux into the word Mac I don't know. And this was for a user agent that was stating it's OS as Linux. Simple - Not Windows probably means Mac OS. In a tiny amount of cases it means Linux, or DOS or OS/2 etc, but even this is a tiny percentage compared to Mac OS, and anyone using such an OS is likely to be tech minded. -- From the North, this is Kirk - 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] Browser Stats
For people who actually use a computer for what it is intended, Wow. That's quite some statement. I'd compose an elegant riposte if I didn't have to go off to IKEA post haste, because I've just noticed on their website that the chair and desk I want to set up my desktop PC is in, and I haven't played Warcraft in a month because the ergonomics on the sofa are all wrong. It means I'll be able to stream my music to the living room too, finally, and get round to editing that video of my mum making omlette and pop it up on youtube. :) - 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] Browser Stats
At 10:00 +0100 30/3/07, Jason Cartwright wrote: bbc.co.uk uses ActiveX Where? Hm, my mistake it was on a BBC site but not under the bbc.co.uk domain, I could look for other examples on bbc.co.uk but for now this will suffice. http://www.bbcworld.com/content/clickonline_archive_PC.asp?pageid=666co _pageid=1 This site now appears to be dead. bbcworld.com is run by BBC Worldwide, a commerical organisation with entirely different aims to the public service publishers of bbc.co.uk. J BBC Worldwide is wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC (a corporation established by Charter). I believe that there is a complex set of relationships, and that these are laid down for all BBC staff to follow. For example, the BBC can advertise BBC Worldwide merchandise, but not beyond a certain level. Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - 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] Browser Stats
On 29/03/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even 10% is significantly higher than 0.4% I was using 10% as an upper limit. If the true value was over 5% I would not be surprised. The next round number above 5% is 10% and over that would surprise me. No - this is not evidence. You're coming up with a series of hypotheses to fit your scenario - that a significant proportion of people use Linux as a desktop OS. This is the same arguing technique that proponants of Intelligent Design use. You can't prove otherwise, so it must be true. Maybe I should have phrased what a said differently? Will you allow me to do so now? There are possible inaccuracies associated with this metric for judging Operating System usage. This may cause the number to be inaccurate so can not be relied on as 'proof' as that would require an element of certainty. It can been seen as to suggest certain things however. There was a very interesting (and to my mind, fairly written) article in The Register yesterday about installing Linux: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/28/desktop_linux/ (cue Linux-heads bleating about how he should've used a different distro Thanks for the cue ;) PCLinuxOS is experimental, see it's download page. Experimental technology is not going to work properly. Please use a more stable system if you want to actually have any kind of meaningful comparison. In summary, you should not claim statistics as proof of something unless it can be shown that all possible failings in the metric where accounted for. You have not shown this. It suggests that the usage of Linux is very low at the time, it does not _prove_ it categorically. And I don't need to prove it to be wrong to prove it doesn't prove something. Remember not being able to prove A does not prove not A The truth is probably that know one knows for certain what the usage of any operating system is. Incidentally the BBC itself had a story that suggested a figure of 6%. (lost the link, it was about Dell planing to offer Linux boxes, was on the front page of the technology news, I will find the link if you want it) Oh and before I go you used the term significant portion, how many would be considered significant? Andy -- First they ignore you then they laugh at you then they fight you then you win. - Mohandas Gandhi - 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] Browser Stats
On 3/30/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 29/03/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even 10% is significantly higher than 0.4% I was using 10% as an upper limit. If the true value was over 5% I would not be surprised. The next round number above 5% is 10% and over that would surprise me. The next round number above 0.4% is 0.5%. On a sample of visitors to BBC home page - an inflation of over 1000% (as you are suggesting now - 0.4% to 5%) is, frankly, unlikely. If you'd argued that Linux use was more likely to be 0.5% than 0.4% you'd: a) Possibly have a point b) Have been wasting everyone's time. No - this is not evidence. You're coming up with a series of hypotheses to fit your scenario - that a significant proportion of people use Linux as a desktop OS. This is the same arguing technique that proponants of Intelligent Design use. You can't prove otherwise, so it must be true. Maybe I should have phrased what a said differently? Will you allow me to do so now? There are possible inaccuracies associated with this metric for judging Operating System usage. This may cause the number to be inaccurate so can not be relied on as 'proof' as that would require an element of certainty. It can been seen as to suggest certain things however. Certainly, and you are of course quite right. However, in your previous posts, you state that as the BBC stats suggest that Linux use is only 0.4%, they are obviously wrong due to a conspiracy, and that Linux use is, in 'fact' (with no evidence), over 1000% higher than that. Possible inaccuracies do not cover that kind of imagined error margin. You're going to need to backpedal a lot more than that to get out of this one. Rich. - 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] Browser Stats
Oh and before I go you used the term significant portion, how many would be considered significant? No, I didn't. I used the phrase significant PROportion. I believe Significant Portion is either a pub rock band from Kings Lynn, or some kind of euphemism. Less frivolously, you stated that you believe that 10% of people visiting the BBC website would be using Linux (later back-pedalled to maybe 5%). I'd say for an operating system, yes, 5% is significant*. Rich. * I'm not using the word significant in its statistical sense - this is my opinion. My A level was Further Maths with Mechanics - not stats. - 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] Browser Stats
Matthew Lamont wrote: I think that it depends on what your demographic is. If you are talking about people who barely know how to switch on a computer, then you are going to get windows users. For people who actually use a computer for what it is intended, then, for instance in the scientific community, 50% of people use Macs because of the UNIX base, then 30% are Linux users and the rest use Windows. Oh yes, of course. But over the wider population it's all Windows and occasional Macs. -- From the North, this is Kirk - 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] Browser Stats
I'd take issue with that sweeping stateent - pretty much all of my student friends have laptops, some have both. I live in a house with five other people - in total there's three mac users and three windows users. Me, I'm a Windows expert, one of my housemates is a Mac expert. The other three are more 'users' than 'power users' - but whenever there's a problem with one of the Macs, they usually end up coming to me for help (and I can usually sort the problem out even though I hate macs and osx). The mac users can't make head nor tail of how the OS works - they just don't understand it. It's like watching my mum use a computer - she uses it by rote, she doesn't understand 'how' it works or how it achieves what it does. Inded, MANY of the more technically-minded people on my course either use Windows or ave both a pc and a mac - and I only use a mac because I have to (music tech and production course, we do lotsof work with DAWs and protools et al, and that's always traditionally been a mac-led industry). I often find that people I speak to who have PCs understand how they work better than the people with Macs - they're much more newbie users. Of course, there's many MANY expert Mac users out there, but to me it seems that age range of people I hang around with seem to buy macs much more for the style impact, because they look pretty, than for what they offer technology-wise. It depresses me, we need some kind of intelligence test which will bar a machine from starting up if they get it wrong, that'll weed out the people who are clueless users fast enough (and solve problems like phishing and botnets - which would then indirectly lessen the problem of spam - imho, because only people who don't know how to secure their machines fall prey to those kinds of social engineering). /elitist/rant Personaly I always prefer to remain platform-agnostic, and it really annoys me when I have to stay locked in to any one platform, whether it's windows OR mac. After using Windows for uch a long time, there are many small things which REALLY annoy me about using OSX - to the point where I can consciously feel my productivity worsening as a result. That hacks me off. -Original Message- From: Matthew Lamont [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 30 March 2007 15:03 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Browser Stats I think that it depends on what your demographic is. If you are talking about people who barely know how to switch on a computer, then you are going to get windows users. For people who actually use a computer for what it is intended, then, for instance in the scientific community, 50% of people use Macs because of the UNIX base, then 30% are Linux users and the rest use Windows. Cheers, Matt Thank you to those who donated to my rowing challenge. We managed to raise over £3000 ($6000) for Teesside Hospice. England expects that every man will do his duty - Admiral Horatio Lord Nelson, 21st October 1805 -- -- Matthew A. C. Lamont [EMAIL PROTECTED] WNSL - West, Room 309phone: (203) 432 5834 Physics Department, Yale University fax: (203) 432 8926 P.O. Box 208124 272 Whitney Avenue New Haven, CT 06520-8124, USA -- -- - On 30 Mar 2007, at 08:11, Kirk Northrop wrote: Andy wrote: I can see how it got Netscape, FireFox is derived from the Netscape code base, but how it got from the word Linux into the word Mac I don't know. And this was for a user agent that was stating it's OS as Linux. Simple - Not Windows probably means Mac OS. In a tiny amount of cases it means Linux, or DOS or OS/2 etc, but even this is a tiny percentage compared to Mac OS, and anyone using such an OS is likely to be tech minded. -- From the North, this is Kirk - 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/ - 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/
