On 06/03/07, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you're worried about threats to your computer, don't turn it on.
So you are saying that if I use my PC, I should not bother securing it at all?
And hey, one was even found in the email service you're using... http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=gmail+security+risk&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe =utf-8
AFAIK that attack could only have comprimised this email account, not my entire system like you are asking me to do.
As does using a PC in the first place. After all, you tend to have to buy them, "hire" one at a library etc...
But I can choose who I buy from. My point is the BBC is forcing you to enter into contracts with a specific entity (in this case Real Networks). It would be like the BBC saying that everyone must by a Dell PC, with an AMD CPU, and ATI graphics. And anyone who dared to buy a PC from a different company would be banned from sections of the BBC website.
And that's before you've got an operating system installed - even Linux isn't without its legalities (GPL etal)
GPL only applies if I copy the software. It is not a EULA, it is not a contract it merely waives certain copyrights. (IANAL) And how do you know I haven't written my own operating system? Again the BBC is preventing people from taking that action as Real Player won't run on it. If it was an open standard I could write my own media player, or port one from another platform. I asked whether you could provide a guarantee that Real Player contained no back doors. Can that guarantee be provided? Has the BBC it self actually seen the source to the whole of Real Player, how can it be so sure it's safe? Now onto George's email. I read the links. I don't understand the point about not having the resources. Can you tell me how much Johnathon Ross gets payed? And you are saying you would notice the cost of equipment for Ogg encoding compared with that? This is an old PC, it is more than capable of real time ogg encoding, and its running things like gnome at the same time. Maybe you need two in case one fails, but it still won't cost a lot. So we know it's not a cost issue. Availability of software, the BBC uses Unix (or a Unix like operating system) am I correct? (either that or your web server is sending incorrect headers out). oggenc can encode an OGG file, it's basic but what more do you need? Personnel time: Once it's setup it _should_ be fully automated, maybe you need someone to read the logs, but if you filter out anything that's not an error it should be pretty much empty. Skills: I am sure you have staff capable of this, you did it once before didn't you? If not why not ask for help! Give the public the right to re-encode it for you. That way if we succeed the BBC can say, "look we have an ogg stream". If we fail the BBC can say, "well we let them make an ogg stream but they couldn't manage it, not our fault". Win - Win. Can you actually provide a reason why it's not possible to provide a stream in a free format? Of course I use Ogg here as an example, any other free and open format is fine by me. As long as it is also sent via a standardised protocol. So far it looks to me like the BBC is intentionally trying to influence the software market to the detriment of the public. I hope I am wrong. So if you could explain _why_ the BBC is incapable of providing a stream in a free format it would be a start. You seem to be much more helpful than the person who told me I should install ActiveX from microsoft.com on my Linux machine. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A bit of trust is needed don't you think? Is it really in Adobe's interest to put "malicious code" in the flash plug-in?
Are you joking? People can create a huge amount of revenue by doing just that. Do youever get a spam email? The majority of that comes from boxes that have been taken over by someone other than the legitimate owner. If they don't get caught it is in their interest. Do you trust Sony? Google: Sony Rootkit A big company but seriously malicious code on consumers PCs. Now why should I trust Adobe? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you loathe the BBC's online content, policy and delivery methods as much as you appear to, what are you doing on a list which (in theory) is dealing with repurposing and mashing up content, specifically BBC content?
Because I thought that I might actually get an answer to the questions I ask. I was never told it was specifically for mashing up BBC content. I do not loathe the actual content. If I did it wouldn't be here. I am trying to seek an explination as to why the BBC is mandiaditing the use of specific software that could pose a security threat. Why has no one provided the simple answer to why the BBC does this, please just answer the question.
Whatever you (and various others) may think, this isn't the "Repeatedly bang on about free software and open formats / standards until blue in the face while people start deleting your emails without opening them" list.
If the BBC would actually answer the question then I could stop going on about it. The BBC refuse to do this, if they have a good reason then why don't they come out with it. Sorry for the long email, but people keep reply to my reply, so I feel I owe them a response. Andy - 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/
