Okay all - we feel that it's really important that these kinds of debates can happen on the backstage mailing lists - but over the last month or so some of these debates have got rather heated - no bad thing of course - but that does mean that we are sometimes moving away from the intention of this list, and in some cases common decency.
To fix that I think we're going to need to do 2 things. 1 - Launch the new backstage-developer list ASAP - I'll get right onto this on Monday 2 - Ask everyone to please remember to respect others on this list. I know how easy it is for debates like this to get very heated and for people to start taking pot shots at each other - please just think before you click send that what you're saying is about the debate, not about what the person you're replying to is like at understanding things. In a little under a year we've only had to moderate on-list a handful of times... I don't want to do that at all and if we can just pull together as a community I'm sure we can avoid the fate of many 'lively' lists. m _______________________ Matthew Cashmore Development Producer BBC Future Media & Technology, Research and Innovation BC4B5, Broadcast Centre, Media Village, W12 7TS T: 020 8008 3959 (02 83959) M: 07711 913241 (072 83959) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Brian Butterworth Sent: Sun 8/19/2007 10:49 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] From the front lines... Defective By Design Protest Matt, I have to say that most of the people here are actually very, very, very supportive of the BBC, and are being critical friends. If you stop listening to people who are talking sense, logic and rationally there won't be a BBC anymore. Personally, I'm eternally grateful for the BBC Micro and the TV programmes that supported it back in the 1980s, one of the reasons there are so many people in the UK who are not just computer literate (ie can log into Windows and use Internet Explorer) but can programme, network, design, implement and so forth. Being critical is a important part of the software development process - the idea is to test each and every part of a system before the great unwashed get their hands on it - as Douglas Adams (a Mac fan as it happens) "A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof, is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools". The 4OD service is both irrelevant (this is a BBC backstage list, it would be off-topic) and is basically the original BBC iMP anyway. Please check your original beta testing on the DNA message board if you want comments about it. Channel 4, whilst a Public Corporation like BBC, is funded by advertising not the universal licence fee and whilst comparisons may be interesting, it has always been a publisher-broadcaster and never a producer-broadcaster. Also, C4 has no international presence whatsoever, whereas the every Brit knows that the BBC means we all have automatically have friends all over the world because of Auntie. I presume it's either a fit of prissiness or a three-monkeys moment that made you write your "taking your toys home with you" email, but let me just remind you that you are a public servant, and we are the public you are supposed to be serving. I think I might just copy your email to the Media Guardian, if that's OK with you. I'll assume that it is if you don't reply. On 18/08/07, Matt Hardiman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > you know, this sort of BBC bashing is what made leave the backstage list > the last time and I regret rejoining again. > > Aside from the lack of critique of other broadcaster's services like 4OD > with similar issues, do you realise just how demoralising your constant, > unhelpful rants are for staff within the BBC who are subscribed? for that > reason alone, I say goodbye and wish you all well, if you want to continue > rants / off topic bbc bashing, you could do no better than subscribing to > uk.tech.broadcast and joining in with the DAB single topic people... I > won't see your witty retort to this email... so sorry about that.... > > goodbye all - it WAS good... > > regards > > m > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Andy > *Sent:* Sat 18/08/2007 20:41 > *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > *Subject:* Re: [backstage] From the front lines... Defective By Design > Protest > > > > On 18/08/07, Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No again. The *real* way to provide a platform-independent *service* > > could involve making tactical decsions along the way to get your > > service launched on popular platforms and follow this up with an > > implementation on others. > > That last bit gives away you have no clue what your talking about! > > If you have different implementations for different platforms how are > you ever going to make anything neutral? It will always work only on > select platforms which is never neutral. > > The only way to get "neutrality" is to favour no particular platform. > The only ways are doing this is either ensuring your application runs > independent of platform specifics, or that other can generate software > for any specific platform. > > So which is it going to be? Did you not see the order from the BBC > Trust, they ordered you to develop a platform neutral solution. > > Option 1 would require you to scrap either your entire C based > implementation or develop an abstract machine and a C compiler for > such a machine and then allow such a machine to be platform neutral. > Or to release the C code (to allow compilation for any platform) and > remove any platform specific code that's in you C implementation. > Remembering that C is _only_ portable provided it was written > portably, which is why you at least needed to have considered this > from day one. You would need to remove _all_ Windows API calls, which > your entire graphics system no doubt calls. And also clean up problems > that arise from being cross chip. Many people forget that just because > a char is signed on your Windows x86 machine, it may not be on your > Linux Strong ARM chipset. > > Option 2 would require you to release the specifications for all > formats and communications protocols. This in turn would involve > scraping most of the current implementation or paying Microsoft and > Verisign to tell you how their technology works. > > So could you please explain how it is cost and time effective to > produce a huge amount of code that is no rendered useless in complying > with legal requirements? > > > > > > Fortunately, the people making these kinds of decisions at the Beeb > > seem to be able to see beyond the software-engineering issues which > > are (probably naturally) debated here. > > How precisely is ignoring the one thing that can't be changed (the law > of mathematics) a fortunate thing? > > It would be significantly wiser to disregard the rules of "rights > holders" as they are changeable, and thus must take lower priority. > > Why have you also refused to answer the simple questions: > how are you going to achieve platform neutrality? > when will you do so? > and precisely how much of iPlayer does need to be scraped to do so? > > And why has the BBC not even confirmed it's intent to comply with > orders to develop a platform neutral solution? > > > People seem to have got it into there heads that developing for 2 > platforms is like developing for one platform twice, and 3 is 3 times > the work. This is completely untrue. I can develop a Java App that > will run on many many OSes much faster than I can develop a C App that > runs on one! (And ironically I have more experience with C). > > Does no one at the BBC know the term "Write Once Run Anywhere"? > You only needed to write iPlayer once, provided you wrote it right, > you chose to completely foul it up wasting enormous amounts of public > money, I hope you are going to give this money back? > > > -- > 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/ > -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
<<winmail.dat>>
