Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
On 29/02/2008, Nick Reynolds-FMT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: people don't have a moral obligation to share with other if they don't want to Sure, but thats different to agreeing not to share with anyone at all, indiscriminately, because what happens after making that agreement when you do want to share with others? Then you are in a moral dilemma: break the agreement and share, or keep the agreement and don't share. Both are wrong, so you ought not to make such agreements. The BBC certainly should not require the public to make such agreements! -- Regards, Dave Personal opinion only. - 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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
On 29/02/2008, Matt Barber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course the BBC has a duty to educate. The use of proprietary protocols/formats is a direct contradiction to this duty. How can we educate people when we can not even tell them how things work. I can see where your coming from in regard to the software that runs the platforms to deliver content - but aren't we overlooking another function of the BBC here, and that's to educate everyone, not just the guys (and girls) that like to look at the code and generate the apps. It's also important to consider everyone who just likes to turn on their TV and watch something, and go on the news website and check out the top stories. I'm not saying it's bad or good to use open-source - I like the idea of open and free software, but sometimes non-free software can do a great job too. I'm sorry I didnt make this point clearer: Im not saying the BBC ought to require everyone to use GNU+Linux and a free software BIOS :) Im saying that the BBC ought to provide access to people using Windows - which does a great job, right? ;-) - But not in a way that REQUIRES Vista, and excludes GNU+Linux users. -- 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 04:30:35PM +, Dave Crossland wrote: On 29/02/2008, Matt Barber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course the BBC has a duty to educate. The use of proprietary protocols/formats is a direct contradiction to this duty. How can we educate people when we can not even tell them how things work. I can see where your coming from in regard to the software that runs the platforms to deliver content - but aren't we overlooking another function of the BBC here, and that's to educate everyone, not just the guys (and girls) that like to look at the code and generate the apps. It's also important to consider everyone who just likes to turn on their TV and watch something, and go on the news website and check out the top stories. I'm not saying it's bad or good to use open-source - I like the idea of open and free software, but sometimes non-free software can do a great job too. I'm sorry I didnt make this point clearer: Im not saying the BBC ought to require everyone to use GNU+Linux and a free software BIOS :) Im saying that the BBC ought to provide access to people using Windows - which does a great job, right? ;-) - But not in a way that REQUIRES Vista, and excludes GNU+Linux users. And not just because it excludes GNU/Linux users but it will also make life harder for them when it comes to new platforms such as mobiles etc. Hopefully the success of laptops such as the Asus EEE (and maybe Elonex ONE) should give a sizeable, measurable and visible Linux segment of the market by the end of the year and make it more difficult to go with one size fits all solutions. -- Andy Leighton = [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_ - 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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
people don't have a moral obligation to share with other if they don't want to From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Barber Sent: 28 February 2008 18:12 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds So to put this thread back on track, does anyone have any experience with Air? Developing or using? On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 28 February 2008 15:58:08 Dave Crossland wrote: Even if I choose to use a proprietary program on a open source operating system. Sorry, I'm not wrong, Sorry, you agree not to share with me, which is wrong. *plonk* Michael. - 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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
Quoting Nick Reynolds-FMT [EMAIL PROTECTED]: people don't have a moral obligation to share with other if they don't want to Nobody is saying that they do. But people should not generally be prevented from helping others, for example by sharing with them, should they wish to do so. - Rob. - 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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
Then it comes down to the individual who is entitled to choose a system that prevents sharing if they wish. It's not wrong to refuse to share with someone. As was implied earlier. However it is probably true that sharing works better than not sharing in some circumstances. People are confusing practicality with morality i.e. open systems work with this means that everything must be shared. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 29 February 2008 10:49 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds Quoting Nick Reynolds-FMT [EMAIL PROTECTED]: people don't have a moral obligation to share with other if they don't want to Nobody is saying that they do. But people should not generally be prevented from helping others, for example by sharing with them, should they wish to do so. - Rob. - 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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
On 26/02/2008, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's never bothered Dave before. Actually of all the free software advocates, Dave is certainly the least confrontational, and most friendly. *You* may disagree with his views, however your actions demonstrate your readiness to listen to other opinions and attitudes. Dave, and for that matter many people on bbc-backstage, are quite happy to point out where they disagree with your ideas one minute, but readily agree on another issue. If you don't inhabit the fantasy world that is Davetopia, you must be related to the anti-Christ. He'll a one issue troll, who'll quite happily try insult anyone who disagrees with his zealot tendencies. I don't think Dave is the monster you make him out to be. (disclaimer: I'm a Free Software supporter) -- www.dobo.urandom.co.uk If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us still has one object. If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now has two ideas. - George Bernard Shaw - 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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
I agree with Tim Dobson and welcome getting views that make me think from all parts of the thought spectrum. Consider may of posts I read to be thought provoking. If other people feel they are trolled by Dave's views, then that's their own feelings - but I welcome his comments and find the vilification of him rather feeble and self-defeating. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tim Dobson Sent: 29 February 2008 12:24 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds On 26/02/2008, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's never bothered Dave before. Actually of all the free software advocates, Dave is certainly the least confrontational, and most friendly. *You* may disagree with his views, however your actions demonstrate your readiness to listen to other opinions and attitudes. Dave, and for that matter many people on bbc-backstage, are quite happy to point out where they disagree with your ideas one minute, but readily agree on another issue. If you don't inhabit the fantasy world that is Davetopia, you must be related to the anti-Christ. He'll a one issue troll, who'll quite happily try insult anyone who disagrees with his zealot tendencies. I don't think Dave is the monster you make him out to be. (disclaimer: I'm a Free Software supporter) -- www.dobo.urandom.co.uk If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us still has one object. If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now has two ideas. - George Bernard Shaw - 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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
Quoting Nick Reynolds-FMT [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It's not wrong to refuse to share with someone. As was implied earlier. It depends on the circumstances. But what is wrong is to forbid people from being to help people regardless of the circumstances, for example by sharing with them, even if they want to. This is what proprietary software does. People are confusing practicality with morality i.e. open systems work with this means that everything must be shared. People are not confusing practicality with morality. Just because a particular piece of proprietary software provides some given functionality that doesn't excuse it from moral considerations. - Rob. - 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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
On 29/02/2008, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course the BBC has a duty to educate. The use of proprietary protocols/formats is a direct contradiction to this duty. How can we educate people when we can not even tell them how things work. It is really damaging the future of education and the BBC must not assist with it. Isn't that akin to criticising the BBC for not making sure everyone knows about how its (former) transmitters work? There's obviously a sliding scale, but the message is more important than the medium here. When learning about technology it is useful to to find out how current solutions actually work. With open protocols it is entirely possible to do this, for instance if I want to know how a particular part of IPv6 works I can read an RFC and I will have more knowledge as a result and be able to design better protocols in the future. With proprietary protocols one is prevented from learning how it operates so would need to start from scratch with less knowledge of how the problems have been tackled in the past. But for what proportion of the BBC's audience is this a concern, one that's more important than them being able to easily consume the BBC's output using something that they already have access to, that they're familiar with, and that their kids can fix when it breaks? Peter -- Peter Bowyer Email: [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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
On 29/02/2008, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't that akin to criticising the BBC for not making sure everyone knows about how its (former) transmitters work? You are entirely misinterpreting what I am saying. I didn't say the BBC should make sure everyone knows how their protocols work, they should allow the people who want to know. I gave an example, I would have thought that made it clear. I am not entirely sure what you mean by how its (former) transmitters work. I can find information for you regarding how DVB works, is that what you wanted? For that you need ETSI EN 300 744 V1.5.1 Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB);Framing structure, channel coding and modulation for digital terrestrial television Enter it into the form at: http://pda.etsi.org/pda/queryform.asp for free download. If you wanted to know about Analogue TV try: http://www.itu.int/rec/recquery_xml.asp?formName=SearchformStatus=inputsIn=Tlang=ensSeriesHidden=sRec=BT.470sWord=sArea=ALLsStatus=ANYsDocLang=ANYsDateFrom=sDateTo= You may be able to get it Free under the 3-Free scheme (you can download 3 Recommendations per year for free, see the ITU's website for details). If you want to know how transmitters in general work there are a number of books on the subject. Andy -- 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/
Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
Of course the BBC has a duty to educate. The use of proprietary protocols/formats is a direct contradiction to this duty. How can we educate people when we can not even tell them how things work. I can see where your coming from in regard to the software that runs the platforms to deliver content - but aren't we overlooking another function of the BBC here, and that's to educate everyone, not just the guys (and girls) that like to look at the code and generate the apps. It's also important to consider everyone who just likes to turn on their TV and watch something, and go on the news website and check out the top stories. I'm not saying it's bad or good to use open-source - I like the idea of open and free software, but sometimes non-free software can do a great job too. But in a wider sense - yes, the education of function is certainly more important than the function itself - if that function is to continue evolving and improving.
Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
On 28/02/2008, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the BBC publishes information in open formats/protocols that have only proprietary software implementations, it ought to be criticized and pressured to start or contribute to the development of free software implementations. Provided the formats are truly open, then it is not the BBC who should be criticised. Now if the BBC actually released all their specifications openly (i.e. had them accepted and published by the IETF for instance) then it would be the Free Software Community who is responsible if there are no free software implementations. Of course the BBC has a duty to educate. The use of proprietary protocols/formats is a direct contradiction to this duty. How can we educate people when we can not even tell them how things work. It is really damaging the future of education and the BBC must not assist with it. When learning about technology it is useful to to find out how current solutions actually work. With open protocols it is entirely possible to do this, for instance if I want to know how a particular part of IPv6 works I can read an RFC and I will have more knowledge as a result and be able to design better protocols in the future. With proprietary protocols one is prevented from learning how it operates so would need to start from scratch with less knowledge of how the problems have been tackled in the past. This certianly not good for the individuals, neither is it good for the industry as inferior technology will be produced and as such it's not good for the nation (and thus license fee payers). Thus I wouldn't consider that to be: (b) promoting education and learning; [and] (c) stimulating creativity and cultural excellence; Royal Charter for the continuation of the BBC (2006) Andy -- 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/
Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But what is wrong is to forbid people from being to help people regardless of the circumstances, for example by sharing with them, even if they want to. This is what proprietary software does. It's also what happens when railways require photocards for season tickets, since that stops people sharing them and makes them buy their own. (I can't believe I'm making arguments in favour of proprietary software here... ;-) S - 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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
On 27/02/2008, ST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Crossland wrote: 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. Conversely, it allows SMEs to enter market places with the knowledge that their intellectual property can gain them an income. You can gain a lucrative income with free software. The first free software business, Cygnus, was founded in 1987 and www.o-hand.com is a London (Bromley) based free software company today, and its www.clutter-project.org among others earns them _a lot_ of money. Also, please consider not using the term intellectual property, because it is so ambiguous that it is meaningless (government-granted monopolies like copyrights, trademarks, or patents have nothing in common apart from being government-granted monopolies) and because it implies you can and ought to treat intangible information like physical property. But it is a reduction in freedom! :-) Is it? You're perfectly free to choose not to install a certain software package. You're free to find an alternative consumption method. You're free to gain employment by the BBC and change it from within. You are mistaking the kind of freedom we are talking about; software freedom is tightly defined - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html - and is not about those things. But for what its worth, I do all those things. If someone running GNU+Linux uses more proprietary software tomorrow than they use today, that is not good. Why? Because you say so? Because they are giving up their freedom to understand how their computers work, which is mostly bad for them (although as Alia says, they may not care) and agreeing not to share digital information with us, which is mostly bad for us. Are all commercial software products inherently bad? Certainly not, but all proprietary software programs are. I take it you don't use any patent-encumbered software, like MPEG encoders for instance then? No, and I object to the use of encumbered formats when unencumbered formats are not used equally. I feel uncomfortably like you're avoiding thinking about ethical aspects of your profession. I don't think that an ad hominem argument helps your case. It's a very unfair comment based on your personal, biased viewpoint and should be retracted. I decline your invitation to retract it because I think in its context it is fair; Alias wrote, 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. This too is making a moral judgement about the nature of 'good' and 'bad' software, a judgment which appears to avoiding the ethical aspects of computing. For the record, I don't think that it's unethical to pay a company for a product that they have spent time creating and I don't believe we have an automatic right to do as we will with their product. Sure - I totally agree. You seem to think I'm anti-commercial or advocate breaking agreements; quite the opposite - I believe free software is better business and such agreements should not be entered into. I don't think so; software freedom increases content accessibility. In a way in which rights holders would agree for the data to be disseminated via the internet? Presumably they want it to be as ephemeral as possible, with a clause for time-shifting c.f. UHF Transmission. What rights holders agree to is a matter of negotiation, and your presumption is just that - presumptuous :-) The US music industry did not agree to distribute its works online, then abandoned that idea and agreed to distribute them only with DRM, and then abandoned that idea and agreed to distribute them without DRM. 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. Then is your argument not over simplistic too? In that it ignores such delicacies as service level agreements with third party companies who have control over technology provisions, support arrangements There are many free software support companies in the UK. The obvious ones are the big technology companies like IBM and HP, and the GNU+Linux distribution companies - Red Hat, Canonical, Novell - also have large UK offices. There is everything between them and the one-man-band support companies that blanket the UK. (presumably the developers of Gnash don't have a 24hr support service?) As I understand it, the Open Media Now! Foundation will offer a 24hr support service for Cygnal, the Gnash media server that they sponsor - as soon they are approached for providing such a service; there is nothing on their website or the Gnash website yet because the foundation has only just been set up, but I expect
Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
On 27/02/2008, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 27 February 2008 14:00:18 Richard Lockwood wrote: It's a mature way of dealing with trolls on mailing lists, yes. I tend to try ask people to accept that other people have differing views and to ask them politely not to impose their views on everyone first before dumping them in the trash. I don't think stating my views constitutes imposing them :-) To me, for me to impose my views would mean getting authorised access to the mailing list and threatening to unsubscribe people who disagree with me. Despite using usenet for over 15 years, and having been on numerous mailing lists and fora I've only ever plonked one person. (though not publically, I see little point in making a statement out of it). I don't think Dave's reached that stage for me. I'm sincere in my beliefs, and not trolling. -- 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
On 27/02/2008, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 27 February 2008 17:13:41 Dave Crossland wrote: Software freedom is very tightly defined - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Actually that is just one definition of software freedom. URLs of others? :-) http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php is the other well known definition, but is actually a derived work of some guidelines - http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html#guidelines - that are based on the GNU definition. I just checked the OpenBSD, NetBSD and FreeBSD websites and can't see any definitions there. Just because you don't agree with others doesn't mean there is only one definition. You have been around long enough to know that not everyone actually agrees with the definition you refer to above, viewing it as either too limited or too constrictive depending on the groups discussing it. I honestly haven't ever spoken to anyone who didn't agree that what constitutes software freedom is defined at that URL. There is a strong historical reason for that, I think; in the same way that the organic farming movement was launched, but all farming just prior to it was organic, many programmers before 1984 released free software (TeX is the famous example as its still going) but the GNU project launched the software freedom movement as a movement, and defined software freedom explicitly while it had just been loosely 'in the air' before. Can you recall any details (or even fish out URLs) of discussions where those groups explain how this is too limited or too constrictive? Heck there are multiple definitions of the word freedom in itself. The OED for example lists 15 main definitions of the word, and if you include the sub/alternate in each it lists 25 definitions in total. Sure; that's why that precise definition exists - not all of those freedoms are relevant for software. Other bases for ethics including for example the stoics (or neo-stoic) gives a rock solid, 100% ethical definition of freedom which when applied to software would probably give rise to a definition which would mean the BSD license is more free than the GPL license because it does not seek to exert power over the recipient. The BSD license allows middle men to exert power over recipients, so the average of freedom enjoyed by the total number of users is less. Therefore someone might say the BSD license is less free than the GPL to try and communicate this. But that would be a very confused thing to say, (no offense intended) as equally confused as the BSD license is more free than the GPL, - because both are free software licenses. Yes, the BSD leaves the recipient the ability to exert power over others, but a BSD user is explicitly waiving that option (unlike a GPL user) to exert power over others (as they should have freedom to do so). I agree, and I don't object to people using BSD licenses (since they are free software licenses) but I don't recommend them because of the middle-men problem. Also, the fact that there are still BSD licensed TCP/IP stacks after nearly 30 years, that would tend to suggest that the negative impact is less than you might expect. That a BSD licensed project of any kind can be maintained for a long time is to be expected; but because proprietary forks happen, non-copyleft projects have very slow rates of innovation. X Windows and TeX are projects that suffer from this and have similar vintages. (matching the stoic concept of dispreferred rather than that of good/evil) I suspect that the reason for that is the very simple fact that people are free to produce alternative implementations to achieve the same goals. (meaning the really preferred aspect here is openly implementable standards - which of course requires access to said standards) People are always free to produce alternative implementations (forgetting legal restrictions like patent and DRM) Anyway that's a digression - you are saying above that you use a commonly referred to definition, however it is not the only one in use. Saying that any single definition of freedom is correct, and defined as right misses the fact that it's one of the most contested concepts in history, mainly because everyone wants it for the obvious reasons. This is just my point - I'm not interested in freedom in general, because its so ill-defined and over-used by everyone and their nasty national dictator that its almost meaningless. I'm interested in software freedom, which is tightly defined, and its common to attempt to evade the issues of software freedom by venturing off into the wooly waters (er) of freedom in general. I'd like the freedom to run whatever software I like on my own machine I like for example, without people dogmatically telling me I'm wrong for doing so. Free speech rights overrule that, but er, you're free to ignore us :-) (Although I suppose you can get me busted for stalking
Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
On Thursday 28 February 2008 15:58:08 Dave Crossland wrote: Even if I choose to use a proprietary program on a open source operating system. Sorry, I'm not wrong, Sorry, you agree not to share with me, which is wrong. *plonk* Michael. - 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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
So to put this thread back on track, does anyone have any experience with Air? Developing or using? On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 28 February 2008 15:58:08 Dave Crossland wrote: Even if I choose to use a proprietary program on a open source operating system. Sorry, I'm not wrong, Sorry, you agree not to share with me, which is wrong. *plonk* Michael. - 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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
On Thursday 28 February 2008 18:11:35 Matt Barber wrote: So to put this thread back on track, does anyone have any experience with Air? Developing or using? I've applied to the closed pre-beta for Linux. No idea if I'll be accepted onto it or not. Personally I think its an interesting technology. From what I've heard from others though they seem to like it. I'd also be interested in hearing people's opinions of using developing for it. Michael. - 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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
Dave Crossland wrote: 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. Conversely, it allows SMEs to enter market places with the knowledge that their intellectual property can gain them an income. But it is a reduction in freedom! :-) Is it? You're perfectly free to choose not to install a certain software package. You're free to find an alternative consumption method. You're free to gain employment by the BBC and change it from within. If someone running GNU+Linux uses more proprietary software tomorrow than they use today, that is not good. Why? Because you say so? Are all commercial software products inherently bad? I take it you don't use any patent-encumbered software, like MPEG encoders for instance then? I feel uncomfortably like you're avoiding thinking about ethical aspects of your profession. I don't think that an ad hominem argument helps your case. It's a very unfair comment based on your personal, biased viewpoint and should be retracted. For the record, I don't think that it's unethical to pay a company for a product that they have spent time creating and I don't believe we have an automatic right to do as we will with their product. I don't think so; software freedom increases content accessibility. In a way in which rights holders would agree for the data to be disseminated via the internet? Presumably they want it to be as ephemeral as possible, with a clause for time-shifting c.f. UHF Transmission. 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. Then is your argument not over simplistic too? In that it ignores such delicacies as service level agreements with third party companies who have control over technology provisions, support arrangements (presumably the developers of Gnash don't have a 24hr support service?), licensing arrangements with people like the MPEG LA and legally enforceable guaranteed levels of service. When we cannot understand how our computers work we are faced with a grave social problem. You sure - most of the population neither knows nor cares about how their PCs work? Some of the most brilliant user interaction and interface designers I've met don't know what's happening beyond their high-level code. It's why the world has engineers. When was the last time you had the feeler guage out to re-tappet your car? -- ST [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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
Hi Rupert, I appear to have duplicated your comment on Prism. Didn't mean to ignore your message, it just got a bit lost in the noise. Have you used it at all? Or anyone else on this list for that matter. I'd be interested in an opinion. Alia Rupert Watson wrote: Ian I think it is funny that it says The current versions of the programs only work on PCs. despite the fact that earlier the article quotes your BBC man saying that the nice thing is that it is cross platform... I think that the BBC should keep an eye on Mozilla Prism as well. Rupert Watson On 25/02/2008 19:22, Ian Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So what do people think? Rupert Watson Www.root6.com +44 7787 554 801 ROOT 6 LIMITED Registered in the UK at 4 WARDOUR MEWS, LONDON W1F 8AJ Company No. 03433253 - 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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
Quoting ST [EMAIL PROTECTED]: When was the last time you had the feeler guage out to re-tappet your car? I personally wouldn't know how. But if I fill up at a petrol station and they tell me that as a result I am forbidden from hiring a mechanic to fix my car, I know that is an unreasonable restriction on me. However much or however little the petrol station may stand to make money from doing so. - Rob. - 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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
I find filtering his mail directly into trash helps. That is a mature approach to dealing with mailing lists; thanks :-) It's a mature way of dealing with trolls on mailing lists, yes. R. - 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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
On 26/02/2008, Alia Sheikh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 Andy wrote, And yet even I disagree with the statement that friendship is based on file sharing. Again, this exaggerates my position; friendship isn't based entirely on file sharing, but partially; anyone who shares files understands this. I've only ever met one person who said they honestly never shared files, and that was a senior Adobe employee. File sharing is an aspect of friendship in network society; I value it, everyone else I know values it too, and I object to the minority of powerful people who act to disrupt it. 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. Cheers :-) 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? Software freedom is very tightly defined - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html - and it is important not to talk about freedom in the abstract because its so over-used and vague as to be defacto meaningless; George Orwell famously essayed this, on the web at http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit Your comments about the freedom of the Tube and underwater swimming and lighting in a film are obviously absurd, and unrelated to software freedom. 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. As long as DRM law or patent law doesn't restrict you - and its likely that both obstruct free implementations of Air. 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 disagree; your ability to grant others access to your work depends on Adobe's conditions which you agreed to. The freedom I care about having trampled is the freedom to investigate and assess a product Can I investigate and assess Air? Only in a very simplified way :-) 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, Should the definition of best take into account the ethical implications of the solutions? In my opinion, they should. It seems in your opinion they should not. even though I suspect I agree with more of it than you think). Great :-) This is typical of people who support open source and those who support software freedom, right? :-) Its a kind of inverted schism, where we agree on methods but not motivations :-) 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. The BBC creates serious and thoughtful documentaries that don't pander to popular taste, because it is by nature a paternal and undemocratic institution; it got spanked last year for pandering to popular taste too much and not doing enough stuff the advertising supported channels won't do because they wouldn't have mass appeal, right? 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. That is a value judgment, and is, also, 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 :) Valuing software convenience above software freedom isn't good because it effects everyone else as well as them. Its nowhere near as bad as someone who wrote the proprietary software, or the person who recommended it to them, but the users of proprietary software are basically victims, and they are responsible for their complicity in the social problem. The BBC is also building prototype applications with AIR. The BBC should not require the British public to use proprietry software, so developing
Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
Alia It is on all platforms now I think; http://wiki.mozilla.org/WebRunner#Latest_version Rupert Watson Www.root6.com +44 7787 554 801 On 26/02/2008 21:43, Alia Sheikh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: windows only for the moment but open ROOT 6 LIMITED Registered in the UK at 4 WARDOUR MEWS, LONDON W1F 8AJ Company No. 03433253 - 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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
On Wednesday 27 February 2008 17:13:41 Dave Crossland wrote: Software freedom is very tightly defined - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Actually that is just one definition of software freedom. Just because you don't agree with others doesn't mean there is only one definition. You have been around long enough to know that not everyone actually agrees with the definition you refer to above, viewing it as either too limited or too constrictive depending on the groups discussing it. Heck there are multiple definitions of the word freedom in itself. The OED for example lists 15 main definitions of the word, and if you include the sub/alternate in each it lists 25 definitions in total. Furthermore, freedom itself is a philosophical concept, something that's been argued back and forth by philosophers for millenia, right back to the ancient greeks and probably before as well - that's just the earliest that generally gets discussed - the idea can be traced back to the earliest writings in Sumerian. The definition you refer to above is clearly based on Kant's ethics which are historically philosophically speaking a relatively new invention/concept. (evidence for this is in the GNU manifesto for example, since it refers to Kant's law of universaility) Other bases for ethics including for example the stoics (or neo-stoic) gives a rock solid, 100% ethical definition of freedom which when applied to software would probably give rise to a definition which would mean the BSD license is more free than the GPL license because it does not seek to exert power over the recipient. Now, just because it's 100% ethical doesn't mean it's something you agree with or have to. After all, most of the world's religions can probably make the same claim, and the chances of everyone picking the same religion (or lack thereof) are next to none. (it's a relevant comment because you could probably write an interesting essay comparing and contrasting similarities and differences of philosophical - rather than religious - points raised by the stoics and buddists for example) Yes, the BSD leaves the recipient the ability to exert power over others, but a BSD user is explicitly waiving that option (unlike a GPL user) to exert power over others (as they should have freedom to do so). Also, the fact that there are still BSD licensed TCP/IP stacks after nearly 30 years, that would tend to suggest that the negative impact is less than you might expect. (matching the stoic concept of dispreferred rather than that of good/evil) I suspect that the reason for that is the very simple fact that people are free to produce alternative implementations to achieve the same goals. (meaning the really preferred aspect here is openly implementable standards - which of course requires access to said standards) Anyway that's a digression - you are saying above that you use a commonly referred to definition, however it is not the only one in use. Saying that any single definition of freedom is correct, and defined as right misses the fact that it's one of the most contested concepts in history, mainly because everyone wants it for the obvious reasons. I'd like the freedom to run whatever software I like on my own machine I like for example, without people dogmatically telling me I'm wrong for doing so. Even if I choose to use a proprietary program on a open source operating system. Sorry, I'm not wrong, it's my choice. You don't have to make the same choices. That's a form of freedom. Heck, it's another form of software freedom - the choice to pick and choose whatever software I want to use. Furthermore, you can easily argue that there's nothing wrong with picking and choosing whatever tool is convenient and easy to prototype ideas that could be developed as services or tools, since that's what the person doing it wants the freedom to do. However I feel (note: opinion) it would be only appropriate to ship as a *service* in a form that allows for multiple reimplementations. (the simplest way of course there to be to define an open definition for access to said service which can then evolve into and open standard) Dogmatically going around *judging* other people's views on a very simplist narrow view of freedom smacks to me of not be able to have independent thought. Which is odd, because you don't normally come across that way, when you do think for yourself. Michael. -- NB: All the above is opinion and my opinion at that. Opinions do get swayed and revised, and its entirely possible that others may share these opinions, but as far as I know they're not my employer's :-) - 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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
On Wednesday 27 February 2008 14:00:18 Richard Lockwood wrote: It's a mature way of dealing with trolls on mailing lists, yes. I tend to try ask people to accept that other people have differing views and to ask them politely not to impose their views on everyone first before dumping them in the trash. Despite using usenet for over 15 years, and having been on numerous mailing lists and fora I've only ever plonked one person. (though not publically, I see little point in making a statement out of it). I don't think Dave's reached that stage for me. Michael. - 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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
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. The BBC is also building prototype applications with AIR. The BBC should not require the British public to use proprietary software, so developing these prototypes is misguided. The nice thing about it is that it works on all the different platforms - Mac, PC and eventually Linux, said John O'Donovan, chief architect in the BBC's Future Media and Technology Journalism division. So what do people think? 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. -- Regards, Dave Personal opinion only, not that of any employers past or present. - 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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
I'm so tempted to think that any software that is called Air is probably vaporware... On 26/02/2008, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. The BBC is also building prototype applications with AIR. The BBC should not require the British public to use proprietary software, so developing these prototypes is misguided. The nice thing about it is that it works on all the different platforms - Mac, PC and eventually Linux, said John O'Donovan, chief architect in the BBC's Future Media and Technology Journalism division. So what do people think? 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. -- Regards, Dave Personal opinion only, not that of any employers past or present. - 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 http://www.ukfree.tv
RE: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
I'm so tempted to think that any software that is called Air is probably vaporware... Duke Nukem ForAirver anyone? Anyone? gets coat - 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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
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? I like Linux, except when it annoys the hell out of me. But then thats exactly how I feel about any MS or Apple OS I've ever used. I can absolutely see why a person would want to use an OS that is 1) free and 2) open source, but would you really then restrict those people to only being able to run software that is 1) free and 2) open source? 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. 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'. 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? 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'd like everyone to be able to access everything for free (as in beer) and consider that a good place to start. Software freedom is the icing on the cake for me, but its not the cake.Thats my judgement, on what is 'good', but I wouldnt expect or want everyone to agree with it. What you suggest might make content harder to access - and whether you agree with them or not, a lot of people simply don't care about software being free and open source (I'd argue that more people care about the former than the latter, since everyone loves a freebie). Providing content to these people is as much part of the BBC's remit as anything else. 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. 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. I wouldn't be happy deciding what people should care about and enforcing it. The nice thing about it is that it works on all the different platforms - Mac, PC and eventually Linux, said John O'Donovan, chief architect in the BBC's Future Media and Technology Journalism division. So what do people think? 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:) 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/
Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
On 26/02/2008, Alia Sheikh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? I doubt that it what Dave is saying. It should make it's content available via a standard way (see: http://www.ietf.org , http://www.w3c.org , http://www.iso.org ). That way it can be viewed in both proprietary and Open Source software. See everyone's happy. And if you are unhappy using Open Standards then you can't use HTTP, or TCP/IP for that matter so how are you going to access the BBC website in the first place? 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. No one is asking the BBC to enforce ANYTHING. The entire opposite, we are asking the BBC to allow *any* software to be used. I wouldn't be happy deciding what people should care about and enforcing it. That's what the BBC is doing and you have been defending. It is saying we believe Adobe's software is what everyone should use so we only permit their users access to our content. Andy -- 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/
Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
Hey, I never said anything about being unhappy with open standards, please do not implicitly misquote me like that:) What I said was that as far as possible things should be open but that that should not be the only value judgement that is made. I also said positive and fluffy things about how nice it would be if everyone could access everything and that that was ideally how things should be. I don't think the BBC *have* said we believe Adobe's software is what everyone should use so we only permit their users access to our content. and I don't think that is what I am defending. I am defending the right to investigate whether that particular bit of software is useful. As I would (and have in the past) for open source software. I think that it woud have been good to have had a discussion on what Air can and can't do. It would have been fantastic to have had a discussion about open source alternatives that can do the same job or a better job. It would have been useful to talk about things that aren't the same but a bit like it or find out about some open source projects that haven't produced anything useful so far but that might be good to keep an eye out for. It would have been interesting to know whether, if a piece of content was made available via Air or via something more open, what people's opinions would be about who would use which and why. It would be interesting to know what people like the osflash.org guys think of all this (I don't know if any of you are on this list?). This is not a forum that exists simply for the purpose of telling the BBC that it is Wrong. It would have been good to talk. Alia Andy wrote: On 26/02/2008, Alia Sheikh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? I doubt that it what Dave is saying. It should make it's content available via a standard way (see: http://www.ietf.org , http://www.w3c.org , http://www.iso.org ). That way it can be viewed in both proprietary and Open Source software. See everyone's happy. And if you are unhappy using Open Standards then you can't use HTTP, or TCP/IP for that matter so how are you going to access the BBC website in the first place? 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. No one is asking the BBC to enforce ANYTHING. The entire opposite, we are asking the BBC to allow *any* software to be used. I wouldn't be happy deciding what people should care about and enforcing it. That's what the BBC is doing and you have been defending. It is saying we believe Adobe's software is what everyone should use so we only permit their users access to our content. 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/
Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
don't know if this has already been discussed here, but: http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/site/Home On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Alia Sheikh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, I never said anything about being unhappy with open standards, please do not implicitly misquote me like that:) What I said was that as far as possible things should be open but that that should not be the only value judgement that is made. I also said positive and fluffy things about how nice it would be if everyone could access everything and that that was ideally how things should be. I don't think the BBC *have* said we believe Adobe's software is what everyone should use so we only permit their users access to our content. and I don't think that is what I am defending. I am defending the right to investigate whether that particular bit of software is useful. As I would (and have in the past) for open source software. I think that it woud have been good to have had a discussion on what Air can and can't do. It would have been fantastic to have had a discussion about open source alternatives that can do the same job or a better job. It would have been useful to talk about things that aren't the same but a bit like it or find out about some open source projects that haven't produced anything useful so far but that might be good to keep an eye out for. It would have been interesting to know whether, if a piece of content was made available via Air or via something more open, what people's opinions would be about who would use which and why. It would be interesting to know what people like the osflash.org guys think of all this (I don't know if any of you are on this list?). This is not a forum that exists simply for the purpose of telling the BBC that it is Wrong. It would have been good to talk. Alia Andy wrote: On 26/02/2008, Alia Sheikh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? I doubt that it what Dave is saying. It should make it's content available via a standard way (see: http://www.ietf.org , http://www.w3c.org , http://www.iso.org ). That way it can be viewed in both proprietary and Open Source software. See everyone's happy. And if you are unhappy using Open Standards then you can't use HTTP, or TCP/IP for that matter so how are you going to access the BBC website in the first place? 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. No one is asking the BBC to enforce ANYTHING. The entire opposite, we are asking the BBC to allow *any* software to be used. I wouldn't be happy deciding what people should care about and enforcing it. That's what the BBC is doing and you have been defending. It is saying we believe Adobe's software is what everyone should use so we only permit their users access to our content. 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/
Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
for whatever it's worth: http://osflash.org/ http://osflash.org/mtasc are also useful simon wrote: don't know if this has already been discussed here, but: http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/site/Home On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Alia Sheikh [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, I never said anything about being unhappy with open standards, please do not implicitly misquote me like that:) What I said was that as far as possible things should be open but that that should not be the only value judgement that is made. I also said positive and fluffy things about how nice it would be if everyone could access everything and that that was ideally how things should be. I don't think the BBC *have* said we believe Adobe's software is what everyone should use so we only permit their users access to our content. and I don't think that is what I am defending. I am defending the right to investigate whether that particular bit of software is useful. As I would (and have in the past) for open source software. I think that it woud have been good to have had a discussion on what Air can and can't do. It would have been fantastic to have had a discussion about open source alternatives that can do the same job or a better job. It would have been useful to talk about things that aren't the same but a bit like it or find out about some open source projects that haven't produced anything useful so far but that might be good to keep an eye out for. It would have been interesting to know whether, if a piece of content was made available via Air or via something more open, what people's opinions would be about who would use which and why. It would be interesting to know what people like the osflash.org http://osflash.org guys think of all this (I don't know if any of you are on this list?). This is not a forum that exists simply for the purpose of telling the BBC that it is Wrong. It would have been good to talk. Alia Andy wrote: On 26/02/2008, Alia Sheikh [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? I doubt that it what Dave is saying. It should make it's content available via a standard way (see: http://www.ietf.org , http://www.w3c.org , http://www.iso.org ). That way it can be viewed in both proprietary and Open Source software. See everyone's happy. And if you are unhappy using Open Standards then you can't use HTTP, or TCP/IP for that matter so how are you going to access the BBC website in the first place? 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. No one is asking the BBC to enforce ANYTHING. The entire opposite, we are asking the BBC to allow *any* software to be used. I wouldn't be happy deciding what people should care about and enforcing it. That's what the BBC is doing and you have been defending. It is saying we believe Adobe's software is what everyone should use so we only permit their users access to our content. Andy - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk http://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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
On 26/02/2008, simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: don't know if this has already been discussed here, but: http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/site/Home Its amusing that the website is run on Confluence, proprietary wiki software :-) -- 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
On Tuesday 26 February 2008 15:24:05 Dave Crossland wrote: It feel uncomfortably like you're avoiding thinking about ethical aspects of your profession. I think that's an incredibly unfair thing to say. Just because someone doesn't share your personal views doesn't mean that they don't think about the ethical aspects of their work. Michael. - 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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
That's never bothered Dave before. If you don't inhabit the fantasy world that is Davetopia, you must be related to the anti-Christ. He'll a one issue troll, who'll quite happily try insult anyone who disagrees with his zealot tendencies. I find filtering his mail directly into trash helps. Rich. On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 26 February 2008 15:24:05 Dave Crossland wrote: It feel uncomfortably like you're avoiding thinking about ethical aspects of your profession. I think that's an incredibly unfair thing to say. Just because someone doesn't share your personal views doesn't mean that they don't think about the ethical aspects of their work. Michael. - 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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
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
Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
On 26 Feb 2008, at 14:11, Andy wrote: I doubt that it what Dave is saying. It should make it's content available via a standard way (see: http://www.ietf.org , http://www.w3c.org , http://www.iso.org ). That way it can be viewed in both proprietary and Open Source software. See everyone's happy. Only the IETF has an open standards process that anyone can participate in for free and as an individual. The latter two are expensive corporate Standard Setting Organisations and can be regarded as proprietary and closed if you are outside the club. f - 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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
There's also something called Mozilla Prism which seems to have many of the same goals: http://labs.mozilla.com/2007/10/prism/ windows only for the moment but open An article comparing it to air: http://www.openparenthesis.org/2007/11/10/prism-vs-air Need to do some more digging to see how if at all they differ in practice. Here's a question - platform and whatnot aside, it would be interesting to find out what sort of apps people would like to see built. Especially, I guess, with regards to BBC content. simon wrote: don't know if this has already been discussed here, but: http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/site/Home On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Alia Sheikh [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, I never said anything about being unhappy with open standards, please do not implicitly misquote me like that:) What I said was that as far as possible things should be open but that that should not be the only value judgement that is made. I also said positive and fluffy things about how nice it would be if everyone could access everything and that that was ideally how things should be. I don't think the BBC *have* said we believe Adobe's software is what everyone should use so we only permit their users access to our content. and I don't think that is what I am defending. I am defending the right to investigate whether that particular bit of software is useful. As I would (and have in the past) for open source software. I think that it woud have been good to have had a discussion on what Air can and can't do. It would have been fantastic to have had a discussion about open source alternatives that can do the same job or a better job. It would have been useful to talk about things that aren't the same but a bit like it or find out about some open source projects that haven't produced anything useful so far but that might be good to keep an eye out for. It would have been interesting to know whether, if a piece of content was made available via Air or via something more open, what people's opinions would be about who would use which and why. It would be interesting to know what people like the osflash.org http://osflash.org guys think of all this (I don't know if any of you are on this list?). This is not a forum that exists simply for the purpose of telling the BBC that it is Wrong. It would have been good to talk. Alia Andy wrote: On 26/02/2008, Alia Sheikh [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? I doubt that it what Dave is saying. It should make it's content available via a standard way (see: http://www.ietf.org , http://www.w3c.org , http://www.iso.org ). That way it can be viewed in both proprietary and Open Source software. See everyone's happy. And if you are unhappy using Open Standards then you can't use HTTP, or TCP/IP for that matter so how are you going to access the BBC website in the first place? 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. No one is asking the BBC to enforce ANYTHING. The entire opposite, we are asking the BBC to allow *any* software to be used. I wouldn't be happy deciding what people should care about and enforcing it. That's what the BBC is doing and you have been defending. It is saying we believe Adobe's software is what everyone should use so we only permit their users access to our content. Andy - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk http://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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
On 26/02/2008, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's never bothered Dave before. If you don't inhabit the fantasy world that is Davetopia, you must be related to the anti-Christ. You are exaggerating my position. When I say that having total power over other people's computers can be abused in an evil way, I don't mean in a religious way, I mean in a simple power-abuse way. If you modify the software on your phone, and then your phone vendor bricks you phone, how is that not evil? :-) He'll a one issue troll, who'll quite happily try insult anyone who disagrees with his zealot tendencies. I don't intend to be rude, just matter-of-fact. I find filtering his mail directly into trash helps. That is a mature approach to dealing with mailing lists; thanks :-) -- 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
On 26/02/2008, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 26 February 2008 15:24:05 Dave Crossland wrote: It feel uncomfortably like you're avoiding thinking about ethical aspects of your profession. I think that's an incredibly unfair thing to say. Just because someone doesn't share your personal views doesn't mean that they don't think about the ethical aspects of their work. Alia, I'm sorry if I offended you; you said valuing software freedom was very overly simplistic and this suggests to me that you are avoiding thinking about the ethical aspect. I don't mean to be rude, just matter-of-fact. You said it is ethical to require users not to share software. Please explain why this is the case :-) -- 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7254436.stm Adobe Air allows developers to build tools that still have some functionality even when a computer is no longer connected to the net. A free download will allow users of Macs, PCs and, later this year, Linux machines to run any Air applications. The BBC is also building prototype applications with AIR. The nice thing about it is that it works on all the different platforms - Mac, PC and eventually Linux, said John O'Donovan, chief architect in the BBC's Future Media and Technology Journalism division. So what do people think? Ian Forrester This e-mail is: [x] private; [] ask first; [] bloggable Senior Producer, BBC Backstage BC5 C3, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TP email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] work: +44 (0)2080083965 mob: +44 (0)7711913293 - 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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
Google Gears for Flash? Seemed inevitable to me. On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Ian Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7254436.stm Adobe Air allows developers to build tools that still have some functionality even when a computer is no longer connected to the net. A free download will allow users of Macs, PCs and, later this year, Linux machines to run any Air applications. The BBC is also building prototype applications with AIR. The nice thing about it is that it works on all the different platforms - Mac, PC and eventually Linux, said John O'Donovan, chief architect in the BBC's Future Media and Technology Journalism division. So what do people think? Ian Forrester This e-mail is: [x] private; [] ask first; [] bloggable Senior Producer, BBC Backstage BC5 C3, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TP email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] work: +44 (0)2080083965 mob: +44 (0)7711913293 - 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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
Ian I think it is funny that it says The current versions of the programs only work on PCs. despite the fact that earlier the article quotes your BBC man saying that the nice thing is that it is cross platform... I think that the BBC should keep an eye on Mozilla Prism as well. Rupert Watson On 25/02/2008 19:22, Ian Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So what do people think? Rupert Watson Www.root6.com +44 7787 554 801 ROOT 6 LIMITED Registered in the UK at 4 WARDOUR MEWS, LONDON W1F 8AJ Company No. 03433253 - 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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Ian Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7254436.stm Adobe Air allows developers to build tools that still have some functionality even when a computer is no longer connected to the net. A free download will allow users of Macs, PCs and, later this year, Linux machines to run any Air applications. The BBC is also building prototype applications with AIR. The nice thing about it is that it works on all the different platforms - Mac, PC and eventually Linux, said John O'Donovan, chief architect in the BBC's Future Media and Technology Journalism division. So what do people think? I saw this at FOWA last year, at the time I saw it as a bit of a backwards step as far as encouraging fully blown webapps - but looking at it now it could have it's advantages. Be nice to have a gMail that works offline but without a client, for example - but I wonder how much 'client' one has to download to get an air app to work. I have a trial CD around somewhere, if I get a spare few hours I will have a look at it.
Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
It's been around for quite a while now. It's good in that it's fairly easy to port existing stuff too, it runs a webkit browser with a few extensions for access to local files data storage and extra ui control. You can host a pure js/html app, use frames to load webpages or just standard ajax. It's good for bridging the gap between your web app and the desktop, the most common use for it seems to be making twitter clients! The biggest downside is the memory footprint, its huge! Makes it quite unusable for things like twitter clients. It's also potentially a lot of work to make things function fully offline (like gears) but then it can be a lot of work to get gears working. Idea: an abstraction library for using google gears, local storage via air or flash and any other method that comes along! Ian Forrester wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7254436.stm Adobe Air allows developers to build tools that still have some functionality even when a computer is no longer connected to the net. A free download will allow users of Macs, PCs and, later this year, Linux machines to run any Air applications. The BBC is also building prototype applications with AIR. The nice thing about it is that it works on all the different platforms - Mac, PC and eventually Linux, said John O'Donovan, chief architect in the BBC's Future Media and Technology Journalism division. So what do people think? Ian Forrester This e-mail is: [x] private; [] ask first; [] bloggable Senior Producer, BBC Backstage BC5 C3, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TP email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] work: +44 (0)2080083965 mob: +44 (0)7711913293 - 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/ -- *** OPEN COFFEE 8 - http://upcoming.yahoo.com/event/421269/ *** Glow New Media t: 0151 707 9770 m: 07730 987 574 www.glow-internet.com Suite 712 Gostins Building 32-36 Hanover Street Liverpool L1 4LN Map: http://tinyurl.com/2f5nxd - 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/
