On 26/02/2008, Alia Sheikh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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?
It tramples users' freedom and their friendships since we can't know how it works or redistribute it. That's not good. > I like Linux Please consider calling the system GNU+Linux or GNU/Linux. http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html explains :-) > 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. But it is a reduction in freedom! :-) > 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'. If someone running GNU+Linux uses more proprietary software tomorrow than they use today, that is not 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? You are exaggerating my position :-) I advocate the BBC requires that the public could use non-proprietary software to access any of its work. That is very different to advocating the BBC requires that the public could ONLY use 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 feel uncomfortably like you're avoiding thinking about ethical aspects of your profession. > What you suggest might make content harder to access I don't think so; software freedom increases content accessibility. > 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. Right :-) > 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. If a proprietary thing lets you do something in a way that meets your requirements better, then to argue that it should be used seems very over simplistic, since it ignores the ethical implications. > I wouldn't be happy deciding what people should care about > and enforcing it. I agree, and that's why I advocate the BBC not require proprietary software. > > 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:) When we cannot understand how our computers work we are faced with a grave social problem. -- Regards, Dave - 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/[email protected]/
