Dave Crossland wrote:
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.
With regards to "friendship", haven't we been here before?:)
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/msg06204.html
I like Linux
Please consider calling the system GNU+Linux or GNU/Linux.
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html explains :-)
I've read the page and I will consider it.
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! :-)
Is it a reduction in freedom if you do not have a bicycle and I give you
a bicycle on the condition that you do not take it apart? It can be
argued that you have a restriction in your life that you didn't before.
But you also have a bicycle.
I think that it might be fair to say that many things in life trample
your freedoms, if you have an open enough definition of what you feel
you should be free to do. I am not free to use a different underground
rail network in London other than that provided by London Transport (nor
am I able to build my own), I am not free to breathe underwater without
the aid of a snorkel or air cylinder due to a basic fault in my design,
I am not free to know what the exact parameters were in the lighting
setup for my favourite current scene in my current favourite movie. I
wonder if people could be defined by which lack of freedom they choose
to care about?
I am not free to know the inner workings of Adobe Air. But I am free to
build something that does the same sort of thing. I am free to use it
to build something using Air and then let people access it to assess if
they want a service that behaves in a particular way. I am free to use
open alternatives if the excellent open source community writes them, I
am free to use them now if they exist. The freedom I care about having
trampled is the freedom to investigate and assess a product and the
freedom to find the best solution for a problem, where the definition of
'best' takes into account more than just a single opinion (and I do
think that your viewpoint is an opinion Dave, even though I suspect I
agree with more of it than you think). I would like to take into
account what the majority of the licence fee paying public care about
and which freedoms matter to them - even if I might not agree with it.
I would like to acknowledge that there is (and always has been) a more
complicated and more interesting argument here than simply 'all software
should be open'.
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.
That is a value judgement, and is, I'm afraid an opinion. This
fictional person who we are talking about may disagree with you
entirely. That piece of software may add something that had been
missing their whole life. Whether you or like it or not, it would be
their fundamental right to think that is *is* in fact 'good'. You have
every right to think it isn't 'good' for you :)
>> 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 :-)
Apologies if it came across that way, I was asking you a question that
I'm genuinely interested in your reply to and I'm glad I did since your
reply clarified your position for me.
I advocate the BBC requires that the public could use non-proprietary
software to access any of its work.
I agree actually. As long as that software exists. I don't think we
should fail to take advantage of advances in technology simply *because*
something is proprietary though. Or to put it another way, I wouldn't
tell my engineers they weren't allowed to investigate that bit of
software. I think we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we took no
notice of interesting things, whether done by Adobe, Apple, Microsoft
(God help me) or the open source community.
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.
Not at all. I'm sorry if it comes across that way. I would like to
reassure you that I think very carefully about the ethical aspects of my
profession.
What you suggest might make content harder to access
I don't think so; software freedom increases content accessibility.
To clarify: it might make content harder to access if we don't take
advantage of proprietary advancements because the open source world has
not caught up yet. The opposite holds true also - there are numerous
cases of companies being uncomfortable with open source solutions that
may be clearly better at a job, because they are percieved to come with
less support. We should investigate and use whatever is fit for purpose
and work towards making everything open and accessible and lovely.
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 :-)
Glad you agree.
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.
Exactly. You shouldn't simply do a thing because you can and you
shouldn't ignore the ethics of your situation. You should take
absolutely everything into account and then make a considered judgement
for that particular situation. You should also keep in mind that
everybody will not agree with your definition of 'ethical'.
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.
I almost agree with that. Except in the event that it is the only thing
that does the job. I certainly wouldn't be morally outraged if the BBC
built prototypes in it and I would consider it to be an omission on the
BBC's part if it didn't investigate the proprietary route alongside the
open source one, if it improved accessibility for many of its users.
> 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.
I can see your point and if you were to remove the words 'grave' and
'social' from the above then I would be in 100% in agreement with you:)
Hey, is this being talked about in the developer list at all? I should
look at the archive:)
Alia
-
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/
