RE: [backstage] Flash required?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think it's amusing when I see people bemoan the use of Flash for things that sure, can be done in AJAX etc. I would recommend never using Flash. By using Flash the BBC is forcing users to enter into a legal contract with a third party, just to use the BBC's site. As does using a PC in the first place. After all, you tend to have to buy them, hire one at a library etc... And that's before you've got an operating system installed - even Linux isn't without its legalities (GPL etal) Actually, you've just reminded me actually of the old days when you used to have to pay for your web browser. I'm getting too old :) - 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] Flash required?
Flash is binary code which executes directly on my CPU and has access to all the files at my privilege level (i.e. ALL my personal files). Which part of this don't you understand? It is not that a flash program on a website could be a threat, it's that the Flash Player itself could pose a security risk? Or has the BBC examined it's source code and is it willing to guarantee that this software is free from any malicious code? If you're worried about threats to your computer, don't turn it on. There's security risks everywhere. The number of updates I do to my server and home PCs is made. And hey, one was even found in the email service you're using... http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=gmail+security+riskstart=0ie=utf-8oe =utf-8 - 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] Flash required?
Back when I used to use Windows I had real security issues with Real Player. It looked an awful lot like a Trojan to me. Most things on Windows look like trojans to me. The fact that Real looked bad for you on windows doesn't make it bad for me on GNU/Linux or Sol, or whatever I've used RealPlayer on GNU/Linux for many years and it's a rather nice little app - rarely gives me any trouble unlike the Windows version. Seems to be more reliable than Totem half the time. Many Windows users refuse to believe me :) - 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] Flash required?
and here's a reason for the BBC's ogg trials ceasing (which might not be true, I don't know, it's not an offical source) http://lists.gllug.org.uk/pipermail/gllug/2004-January/041215.html I remember listening to the launch day of BBC 6music via Ogg at my desk in Bush House :) Ah, happy days. - 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] Flash required?
This is all my personal opinion. Or has the BBC examined it's source code and is it willing to guarantee that this software is free from any malicious code? For every anti-Flash zealot yelling Flash isn't Free Software, there are millions of people using flash without any problems at all. Try telling the millions of children using the CBBC site that they can't play the Shaun the Sheep game because we haven't quite finished trawling thought the source code of all the plug-in required. Why does the BBC require people to compromise system security to use their site to its full extent? Why don't you make your website a bit more interesting by using Flash? Wouldn't that map be better visualised in Flash? Why isn't the BBC spending my money wisely by making my child a flash game? A bit of trust is needed don't you think? Is it really in Adobe's interest to put malicious code in the flash plug-in? Lets extrapolate, and use the Dr Pepper question. What's the worst that could happen? You machine gets 0wn3d and you have to reinstall the OS. Big deal. J - 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] Flash required?
Andy, If you loathe the BBC's online content, policy and delivery methods as much as you appear to, what are you doing on a list which (in theory) is dealing with repurposing and mashing up content, specifically BBC content? Whatever you (and various others) may think, this isn't the Repeatedly bang on about free software and open formats / standards until blue in the face while people start deleting your emails without opening them list. Cheers, Rich. On 3/5/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I pay for the flash content. They can produce said content in an open and standard compliant way rant rant rant bleat bleat bleat... - 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] Flash required?
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 10:06 +, Jason Cartwright wrote: For every anti-Flash zealot yelling Flash isn't Free Software, there are millions of people using flash without any problems at all. Because Flash isn't Free Software, I cannot use it. Not through zealotry or paranoia, but because it just doesn't exist for the computer I'm sitting in front of right now (Linux/PPC64) or my laptop (Linux/PPC). Flash has its place -- I like the Clay Kitten Shoot as much as the next guy. But using Flash where alternative, _standard_ technologies could be used is a bad idea. And sites which make flash _mandatory_, with no alternative, are generally a bad idea (and of dubious legality in some cases, given disability legislation). Where Flash is used, making sure it works with Free Software such as gnash is a _good_ idea, although gnash isn't really ready for prime time yet. It's getting there slowly though. We're likely to ship it on the $100 laptop. -- dwmw2 - 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] Flash required?
Jason Cartwright wrote: Why isn't the BBC spending my money wisely by making my child a flash game? Because it makes Mike TechCrunch Arrington angry? We can't have that. Scot - 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] Flash required?
On 06/03/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you're worried about threats to your computer, don't turn it on. So you are saying that if I use my PC, I should not bother securing it at all? And hey, one was even found in the email service you're using... http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=gmail+security+riskstart=0ie=utf-8oe =utf-8 AFAIK that attack could only have comprimised this email account, not my entire system like you are asking me to do. As does using a PC in the first place. After all, you tend to have to buy them, hire one at a library etc... But I can choose who I buy from. My point is the BBC is forcing you to enter into contracts with a specific entity (in this case Real Networks). It would be like the BBC saying that everyone must by a Dell PC, with an AMD CPU, and ATI graphics. And anyone who dared to buy a PC from a different company would be banned from sections of the BBC website. And that's before you've got an operating system installed - even Linux isn't without its legalities (GPL etal) GPL only applies if I copy the software. It is not a EULA, it is not a contract it merely waives certain copyrights. (IANAL) And how do you know I haven't written my own operating system? Again the BBC is preventing people from taking that action as Real Player won't run on it. If it was an open standard I could write my own media player, or port one from another platform. I asked whether you could provide a guarantee that Real Player contained no back doors. Can that guarantee be provided? Has the BBC it self actually seen the source to the whole of Real Player, how can it be so sure it's safe? Now onto George's email. I read the links. I don't understand the point about not having the resources. Can you tell me how much Johnathon Ross gets payed? And you are saying you would notice the cost of equipment for Ogg encoding compared with that? This is an old PC, it is more than capable of real time ogg encoding, and its running things like gnome at the same time. Maybe you need two in case one fails, but it still won't cost a lot. So we know it's not a cost issue. Availability of software, the BBC uses Unix (or a Unix like operating system) am I correct? (either that or your web server is sending incorrect headers out). oggenc can encode an OGG file, it's basic but what more do you need? Personnel time: Once it's setup it _should_ be fully automated, maybe you need someone to read the logs, but if you filter out anything that's not an error it should be pretty much empty. Skills: I am sure you have staff capable of this, you did it once before didn't you? If not why not ask for help! Give the public the right to re-encode it for you. That way if we succeed the BBC can say, look we have an ogg stream. If we fail the BBC can say, well we let them make an ogg stream but they couldn't manage it, not our fault. Win - Win. Can you actually provide a reason why it's not possible to provide a stream in a free format? Of course I use Ogg here as an example, any other free and open format is fine by me. As long as it is also sent via a standardised protocol. So far it looks to me like the BBC is intentionally trying to influence the software market to the detriment of the public. I hope I am wrong. So if you could explain _why_ the BBC is incapable of providing a stream in a free format it would be a start. You seem to be much more helpful than the person who told me I should install ActiveX from microsoft.com on my Linux machine. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A bit of trust is needed don't you think? Is it really in Adobe's interest to put malicious code in the flash plug-in? Are you joking? People can create a huge amount of revenue by doing just that. Do youever get a spam email? The majority of that comes from boxes that have been taken over by someone other than the legitimate owner. If they don't get caught it is in their interest. Do you trust Sony? Google: Sony Rootkit A big company but seriously malicious code on consumers PCs. Now why should I trust Adobe? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you loathe the BBC's online content, policy and delivery methods as much as you appear to, what are you doing on a list which (in theory) is dealing with repurposing and mashing up content, specifically BBC content? Because I thought that I might actually get an answer to the questions I ask. I was never told it was specifically for mashing up BBC content. I do not loathe the actual content. If I did it wouldn't be here. I am trying to seek an explination as to why the BBC is mandiaditing the use of specific software that could pose a security threat. Why has no one provided the simple answer to why the BBC does this, please just answer the question. Whatever you (and various others) may think, this isn't the Repeatedly bang on about free software and open formats / standards until blue in the face while people start deleting your emails without opening them list. If the
Re: [backstage] Flash required?
On 06/03/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And that's before you've got an operating system installed - even Linux isn't without its legalities (GPL etal) Actually, you can use GPL'd software without agreeing to the GPL; however as the GPL gives you Certain rights, the software falls back to plain old copyright law. This means you can't distribute it etc. Vijay.
Re: [backstage] Flash required?
On 06/03/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because Flash isn't Free Software, I cannot use it. Not through zealotry or paranoia, but because it just doesn't exist for the computer I'm sitting in front of right now (Linux/PPC64) or my laptop (Linux/PPC). -- dwmw2 Have you tried Gnash? ( http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/ ) - it's a free implementation of Flash. It can do somethings but not all :) john
Re: [backstage] Flash required?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A bit of trust is needed don't you think? Is it really in Adobe's interest to put malicious code in the flash plug-in? Are you joking? People can create a huge amount of revenue by doing just that. Do youever get a spam email? The majority of that comes from boxes that have been taken over by someone other than the legitimate owner. Right - so all the spam I get is down to Adobe... Now I understand. I've seen the light. If they don't get caught it is in their interest. Do you trust Sony? Google: Sony Rootkit A big company but seriously malicious code on consumers PCs. Now why should I trust Adobe? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you loathe the BBC's online content, policy and delivery methods as much as you appear to, what are you doing on a list which (in theory) is dealing with repurposing and mashing up content, specifically BBC content? Because I thought that I might actually get an answer to the questions I ask. I was never told it was specifically for mashing up BBC content. So why didn't you read up about it before you joined? Or did you just assume it was another forum for endless rantings? Do you do that a lot? I know, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - I'll join that and spam it with my vindictive and narrow minded rants about an operating system that I may or may not have but no-one else cares about! I do not loathe the actual content. If I did it wouldn't be here. I am trying to seek an explination as to why the BBC is mandiaditing the use of specific software that could pose a security threat. It isn't. It's giving the option of broadening your experience of the BBC site by providing an option to use a browser plug-in supported by most of the browser/OS combinations in the world. Except yours, obviously. Note the word option in there. Twice. Why has no one provided the simple answer to why the BBC does this, please just answer the question. It's been answered several times - it's not mandatory. Whatever you (and various others) may think, this isn't the Repeatedly bang on about free software and open formats / standards until blue in the face while people start deleting your emails without opening them list. If the BBC would actually answer the question then I could stop going on about it. The BBC refuse to do this, if they have a good reason then why don't they come out with it. They *have* answered it. The fact that you keep banging on about it indicates to me that you're the kind of person who sees the argument was lost days ago, but keeps coming back every few hours with And another thing You just have it in your mind that there's a conspiracy against AndyOS or whatever you run your computer on. You probably believe in the extra assassins on the grassy knoll, the Loch Ness Monster, and that the Royal Family are lizards. Sorry for the long email, but people keep reply to my reply, so I feel I owe them a response. Fine - you've just added yourself to my smug filter. Rich. - 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] Flash required?
On 06/03/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are suggesting that Adobe may knowingly put code in their apps to send spam? Or are you suggesting that Adobe may knowingly put code in their apps to let other people do that? Both are ridiculous. Why is that ridiculous? I also do not know how good the Adobe QA is. Maybe one renegade coder could include dangerous code for his own profit. Is it unheard of for someone to abuse their position in a company? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe Flash has had some flaws. Ditto OpenOffice.org, Firefox, Ubuntu etc. I think you have miss understood me. I am not talking about accidental coding mistakes. I am talking about the possibility of code being included to do bad things intentionally. I can look through the source code of my OS (and I have read bits of the Linux kernel by the way), and so can others. If you are concerned, maybe you should ask Real? Tiny problem there, if I am suspecting Real's code what good is asking them? I ask the BBC because you are requiring me to use Real Player to access your service. I wouldn't ask my council which publishes content in PDF format, to re-assure me that Adobe Acrobat is safe on my machine. I'd ask Adobe. What's that got to do with anything? I use evince to read PDFs, not Adobe Acrobat Reader. PDF is an open standard, I don't need to use Acrobat. All I ask is that the BBC use an open standard, just as your council is doing by using PDF. If the BBC used an open standard I too would not be asking you these questions. So why don't you follow your councils lead and use an open standard? The BBC website uses a few different technologies but yes, Solaris is involved and they run Apache 2. There's also some Windows servers floating around (obviously as we stream content in the WMV format) Ah Solaris. Are you running the Sparcs chipset? Just curious. I heard they do context switching faster than the intel chips. Would it not be cheaper and easier to scrap WMV and switch to an open standard as then you could get rid of the Windows servers and run your servers with a consistent operating system? Can someone from the BBC actually provide a good answer to why the BBC refuses to use an Open Standard for their Audio Streaming and for the active parts of the website? I do sympathise with the BBC's use of Flash, there are some occasions where the other technologies just don't cut it. But where HTML/CSS and other standards are capable of delivering the same user experience why can they not be used? Maybe there should be a standard for something similar to flash that everyone could use. As far as I know there isn't. Correct me if I am wrong please. Maybe the BBC could create one? Or try to encourage someone else to create one. Basically my main point is: why won't the BBC use openly specified formats where they provide an adequate solution? I don't think anyone has answered that. You seem more concerned with telling me why I should ignore security or my morals and install real player, and seems the BBC is meant to be neutral that's worrying. I get the fact you like real player, you may think its excellent software, I am not trying to stop you listening to things with real player. I am just asking that I be allowed to listen with software that I trust and I like using, why is that so much to ask? It's nice to actually talk to some people from the BBC. It shows you guys will actually engage in conversation with your audience. Isn't the email great? Thanks Andy P.S. Richard Lockwood wrote: You just have it in your mind that there's a conspiracy against AndyOS or whatever you run your computer on. You probably believe in the extra assassins on the grassy knoll, the Loch Ness Monster, and that the Royal Family are lizards. I don't see what that has to do with anything. It's been answered several times - it's not mandatory. Oh I must have missed something. I would appreciate the link to where I can listen to the listen again thing in an openly specified format, thanks. I must have just misunderstood and it was there all along. And a quick link to why an open format can not be used would be good, if as you claim it has been answered. unless it hasn't been answered, I suspect it is not. - 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] Starting your Tech Biz: Bootstrapping
Hi Guys, I recently posted a blog about: Starting your Tech Biz: Bootstrappinghttp://kwiqq.com/blog/?p=25. It might be interesting for someone starting a Tech Business. I would love to hear your comments/thoughts on it (if possible on the blog :) ). Cheers, Raj -- Raj Anand Technical Director kwiqq.com raj.anand at kwiqq.com 01273 704787 / 07876 274773 Kwiqq.com Sussex Innovation Centre University of Sussex Brighton East Sussex BN1 9SB United Kingdom kwiqq.com is part of Anderstand Ltd.
RE: [backstage] Flash required?
If you are concerned, maybe you should ask Real? Tiny problem there, if I am suspecting Real's code what good is asking them? Well, it might make them realise that people are onto them and that they shouldn't do it :) The BBC website uses a few different technologies but yes, Solaris is involved and they run Apache 2. There's also some Windows servers floating around (obviously as we stream content in the WMV format) Ah Solaris. Are you running the Sparcs chipset? Just curious. I heard they do context switching faster than the intel chips. To be honest, I've no idea what the hardware is inside. Would it not be cheaper and easier to scrap WMV and switch to an open standard as then you could get rid of the Windows servers and run your servers with a consistent operating system? Perhaps you might be interested in some of the debates on the Points of View messageboard. There's regularly posts by people demanding more WMV content (usually along the lines of Why do you use this RealPlayer crap? Windows Media is much better) Here's one for example. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F2131439?thread=3843045 - 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] Flash required?
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 11:08:06AM +, Andy wrote: On 06/03/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And that's before you've got an operating system installed - even Linux isn't without its legalities (GPL etal) GPL only applies if I copy the software. It is not a EULA, it is not a contract it merely waives certain copyrights. (IANAL) (A good job too). GPL does NOT waive any part of copyright. Copyright law still applies in its entirety. What GPL does is give you a licence (permission in everyday English) to make copies of the program, make changes to the source code and distribute the original and your changed version as long as you follow certain rules. And how do you know I haven't written my own operating system? Because you are running a debian based linux (according to your headers). Of course I use Ogg here as an example, any other free and open format is fine by me. As long as it is also sent via a standardised protocol. RTSP is pretty standard, is document, and has open source implementations. So far it looks to me like the BBC is intentionally trying to influence the software market to the detriment of the public. I hope I am wrong. So if you could explain _why_ the BBC is incapable of providing a stream in a free format it would be a start. A think a lot of the problem is historical. When first used there wasn't the choice we have today. I would imagine it would be quite a hard sell to get the suits to agree to replace RealAudio with OGG. That isn't to say someone shouldn't be doing it - for the reasons David Woodhouse mentions. -- 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] Flash required?
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 14:23 +, Andy Leighton wrote: A think a lot of the problem is historical. When first used there wasn't the choice we have today. I would imagine it would be quite a hard sell to get the suits to agree to replace RealAudio with OGG. That isn't to say someone shouldn't be doing it - for the reasons David Woodhouse mentions. I think the trick might be to _not_ sell it as a Real replacement. Vorbis is just another one of the multitude of codecs which the Real software, both server side and client side, supports. Hopefully it could be treated as an implementation detail which doesn't require wholesale changes to the software setup at either end. -- dwmw2 - 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/
WEB API (was Re: [backstage] Noise and Signal)
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 07:14:58PM -, Ian Forrester wrote: So I would like to remind people that the Backstage list is still a good place to talk shop about the industry, trends, the bbc and technologies. But were also a place for development and trying out some of the things discussed. Fair enough I've got some issues that could be kicked around a bit I'm currently messing about trying to do a simple web page that produces a list of books (actually all linked through to LibraryThing) featured on Book At Bedtime, Book Of The Week, Book Talk, and A Good Read. There is no semantic markup on the first three to identify the title of the book, although for Book At Bedtime the title is often the first sentence of the synopsis. For A Good Read there is nothing in the synopsis at all listing the books covered in that programme. There is a list of past (inc. the current programme) books chosen on the A Good Read micro-site - but again without any sort of markup. Would it be too difficult for someone to use something like span class=booktitleThe Rider/span by span class=authorTim Krabbe/span I could try and scrape what is there at the moment, I suppose, but it doesn't include the next programme, and is bound to have me tearing my hair out. Is there any easier way to get at this data? I know that some (many? all?) of the Radio 4 micro-sites are being rewritten. Hopefully they will follow the lead of the main bbc.co.uk homepage in having clean html which doesn't use tables for layout, but can I also beg for more semantic style markup by using class names? It would also be nice if I could somehow get at the data by using the Web API as well. -- 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/
