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/
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/
RE: [backstage] Flash required?
Hi Andy, This is all my personal opinion. Thank you for presenting yet another The BBC isn't supporting my favorite format moan. Flash may be running at startup I don't believe it does this. If you can't see what code is doing to your machine better assume its doing something bad to it. Yes, if your completely paranoid. Javascript (needed for AJAX) is implemented differently across browser Yes, but there are ways and means of getting the % of users who can run it much, much higher than the Java plugin. Hence why the majority of webpages use javascript in some way but hardly any use Java applets. Who is responsible for these decisions? Ultimately it is probably the developer of the application, although they are bound by the Standards Guidelines [1]. In this case we are talking about the Multimedia Plugin-in Content Standards document [2]. This standard shows that Multimedia plug-in content SHOULD only be used to extend the user experience of sites on bbc.co.uk, to raise their overall appeal, or to promote the brand. and that traditional uses of Java can be achieved in JavaScript or Flash, and these SHOULD be used due to their lower user system/security requirements.. The people responsible for the standard have their names at the bottom of the document [3]. The flash player is more prevalent than a Java plugin (98.3% vs 86.9%) [4]. The Java plug-in (at least the one presented to me) is about 5.5x the size of the Flash plugin (7.1mb [5] vs 1.3mb [6]). My personal experience is that whilst they have their applications, Java applets are slow and clunky. They suffer versioning and browser implementation issues, plus load VERY slowly on the majority of user's platforms as migc63 describes. Are they actually qualified or did they pull somebody in off the street I believe the BBC's fair selection policies prevent it from doing this. You may be interested in the How do we recruit document [7]. Thanks for demeaning our jobs though. J [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/newmedia/ [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/newmedia/desed/multimedia_plugins_flash. shtml [3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/newmedia/desed/multimedia_plugins_flash. shtml#s5_about [4] http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/flashplayer/ [5] http://www.java.com/en/download/windows_xpi.jsp [6] http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=Sho ckwaveFlash [7] https://jobs.bbc.co.uk/fe/tpl_bbc01.asp?newms=info25 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Sent: 04 March 2007 22:32 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Flash required? On 04/03/07, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Switch to Ruby on Rails and AJAX over and above Java? Ruby is server side, unless I am mistaken. Thus would not need to be installed locally, so a good thing there. Javascript (needed for AJAX) is implemented differently across browser. not even sure the XMLHTTPRequest function, or whatever it is called, is standardised or if websites just pray all vendors implemented it the same way. As for Flash being faster than Java and your system freezing when loading java. Where the systems mutli-platform or did you just try Windows? An OS is supposed to allow multiple processes to run concurrently, if something hangs then either part of your program was written badly, e.g. the browser is waiting for Java to complete start up at the expense of rendering, or the OS kernel Scheduler is not doing it's job. While it is waiting for the disc to fetch jvm it should be running the other programs. Flash may be running at startup, some programs do that. It makes them look quick but you lose out in memory. And once your machine resorts to Virtual Memory your machine will crawl. I suggested Java over HTML/CSS/Javascript as Java is more versatile. Java will also run on many more platforms than Flash. You can even get embedded versions of Java. Java is a more full featured language than javascript, or I might just not know Javascript well enough. And of course security wise Flash is a no go area. If you can't see what code is doing to your machine better assume its doing something bad to it. Of course I could run flash in a VM but the overhead just to run the BBC webpage would be completely unacceptable, even with kernel level acceleration (I don't have native support for VM on my CPU, unless I upgrade). Again the BBC is taking a one-vendor approach when there are multi-vendor multi-platform alternatives. Who is responsible for these decisions? Are they actually qualified or did they pull somebody in off the street (wouldn't be the first time the BBC did that either). 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/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe
Re: [backstage] Flash required?
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 10:32:04PM +, Andy wrote: On 04/03/07, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Switch to Ruby on Rails and AJAX over and above Java? Ruby is server side, unless I am mistaken. Thus would not need to be installed locally, so a good thing there. Javascript (needed for AJAX) is implemented differently across browser. not even sure the XMLHTTPRequest function, or whatever it is called, is standardised or if websites just pray all vendors implemented it the same way. Javascript is pretty standard. XMLHTTPRequest is implemented slightly different across platforms however it is pretty easy to write code that wraps around the particular implementation for all the major browsers. I suggested Java over HTML/CSS/Javascript as Java is more versatile. Java will also run on many more platforms than Flash. You can even get embedded versions of Java. Java is a more full featured language than javascript, or I might just not know Javascript well enough. I've written Java on server, client and mobile. CDLC (the form of Java on mobile phones) is pretty cut down compared to JavaSE - the UI layer is completely different for example. Also I am not sure how good the phone browsers (or even Pocket IE on WindowsCE PDAs) are at running java applets. Javascript as a language is perfectly capable (although prototype based languages have typically been less well-understood). Some of its poor reputation comes down to poor implementation of the DOM and not the language at all. Also it doesn't have a wide range of general purpose libraries (IO and UI in particular) because it was designed to work wihtin a hosted environment. At the moment for most things my choice would tend to JS/CSS/HTML for portability. However I do appreciate that it can be a more tricky proposal to develop to that and likely to take a little longer than Flash. Personally I'm looking forward to a time when all desktop browsers have SVG/SMIL/XForms/XHTML/CSS3. And of course security wise Flash is a no go area. If you can't see what code is doing to your machine better assume its doing something bad to it. Of course I could run flash in a VM Technically the Flash Player is already a VM. If you want real issues with Adobe Flash the following are better issues - far more optimisation for the Windows platform. Solaris is still languishing on Flash 7. No 64bit version. -- 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?
Having been one of the first people at the BBC to try to create a 'useful' ( ;-) ) Flash app ( BBC New Iraq War Console / Celebdaq Interactive Console) I came up against so many people at work saying We can't use Flash 6!! (back in the day) , I said Rubbish! Check the stats! Sniff the plugin version!! and then they soon found out that a MASSIVE majority of users to BBC News Online had the version of Flash I needed (to save vast amounts of time parsing xml etc) So, on we went. 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 have learned and used a lot of AJAX since those early Flash days, when at the time it was the the only way you could do certain things across platforms which were meant meant to improve the user experience - no, really! ;) ) Trouble is, there aren't enough developers there at the beeb (in News, at least) who can do all these things - along with all the other great stuff they have to do. There are some amazing developers there - don't get me wrong - some are geniuses - some are not anything close. Some are great at Java, some are Flash ninjas, some do great html. Some do what they're told. Some push the boundaries. Some 'watch the clock'. Some work as long as it takes to get a job done because they love it! ;) Some do that little bit 'extra'. What can happen in editorially-driven sites like this is, when a producer/editor wants a certain 'feature', a representative of the design/dev team might a) say 'No! We can't do that!' then hopefully b) Come up with a solution / compromise which might be down to skillsets required and resources available. What I mean is, I expect Flash was chosen because when you have a Flash ninja at your disposal, it's very very easy fast and cheap to implement. And you know it's going to work across platforms. And you know it's safe - as it's in the Flash 'vm' environment/wrapper, where doing really bad things is pretty impossible actually. Hopefully a Flash dev there worth his/her salt stood up and said I can do it! ;) K ps: dont get me started on the crazy looks people gave me years ago when I suggested I use PHP and MySql on a live project. Save money?? God forbid!! ;) lol pps: I *did* end up using LAMP for that project. Using an old PC which was about to be thrown out as it was not Millennium compliant - I put Linux on it - seemed OK to me ;) hehe On 3/5/07, Andy Leighton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 10:32:04PM +, Andy wrote: On 04/03/07, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Switch to Ruby on Rails and AJAX over and above Java? Ruby is server side, unless I am mistaken. Thus would not need to be installed locally, so a good thing there. Javascript (needed for AJAX) is implemented differently across browser. not even sure the XMLHTTPRequest function, or whatever it is called, is standardised or if websites just pray all vendors implemented it the same way. Javascript is pretty standard. XMLHTTPRequest is implemented slightly different across platforms however it is pretty easy to write code that wraps around the particular implementation for all the major browsers. I suggested Java over HTML/CSS/Javascript as Java is more versatile. Java will also run on many more platforms than Flash. You can even get embedded versions of Java. Java is a more full featured language than javascript, or I might just not know Javascript well enough. I've written Java on server, client and mobile. CDLC (the form of Java on mobile phones) is pretty cut down compared to JavaSE - the UI layer is completely different for example. Also I am not sure how good the phone browsers (or even Pocket IE on WindowsCE PDAs) are at running java applets. Javascript as a language is perfectly capable (although prototype based languages have typically been less well-understood). Some of its poor reputation comes down to poor implementation of the DOM and not the language at all. Also it doesn't have a wide range of general purpose libraries (IO and UI in particular) because it was designed to work wihtin a hosted environment. At the moment for most things my choice would tend to JS/CSS/HTML for portability. However I do appreciate that it can be a more tricky proposal to develop to that and likely to take a little longer than Flash. Personally I'm looking forward to a time when all desktop browsers have SVG/SMIL/XForms/XHTML/CSS3. And of course security wise Flash is a no go area. If you can't see what code is doing to your machine better assume its doing something bad to it. Of course I could run flash in a VM Technically the Flash Player is already a VM. If you want real issues with Adobe Flash the following are better issues - far more optimisation for the Windows platform. Solaris is still languishing on Flash 7. No 64bit version. -- Andy Leighton = [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials - Robert Rankin,
Re: [backstage] Flash required?
Andy wrote: On 04/03/07, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Switch to Ruby on Rails and AJAX over and above Java? Ruby is server side, unless I am mistaken. Thus would not need to be installed locally, so a good thing there. Javascript (needed for AJAX) is implemented differently across browser. not even sure the XMLHTTPRequest function, or whatever it is called, is standardised or if websites just pray all vendors implemented it the same way. Generally, you would use a Javascript library to abstract XHR so that you don't need to worry what the particular browser quirks are. In Rail's case, it uses Prototype - http://prototypejs.org/. Most libraries abstract XHR so much that AJAX even works on browsers that don't support XHR (through the use of hidden IFRAMES). I suggested Java over HTML/CSS/Javascript as Java is more versatile. Java will also run on many more platforms than Flash. You can even get embedded versions of Java. Java is a more full featured language than javascript, or I might just not know Javascript well enough. Seeing as Google Web Toolkit compiles Java to Javascript, I would assume they must be fairly feature equivalent, at least at the language level (though which one's easier to program in is debatable). Java has more libraries, but how many of them are useful when using Java as a Flash replacement? From personal experience, one of the biggest problem with using Javascript/HTML/CSS as a Flash replacement is sound support which, from what I can tell, is fairly non existent (though I'm really hoping somebody can prove me wrong on this). Assuming you don't need sound support, I don't see what is gained from using Java over HTML/CSS/Javascript. DHTML/AJAX sites are often far more responsive than anything I've seen done in a Java Applet, not that there are that many Java applet sites left to compare with. While Java may be more versatile, in most cases it's going to be overkill (and not just on the client - a lot of RoR's success is due to it being a lot easier to whip up a Web 2.0 style website in RoR than in JEE). And of course security wise Flash is a no go area. If you can't see what code is doing to your machine better assume its doing something bad to it. Of course I could run flash in a VM but the overhead just to run the BBC webpage would be completely unacceptable, even with kernel level acceleration (I don't have native support for VM on my CPU, unless I upgrade). But Flash is a VM, and is sandboxed (just like Java). Looking at Adobe's page on security in Flash 8 (in particular the sandboxing) at http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flash/articles/fplayer8_security_03.html Flash's sandboxing model is strikingly similar to Java Applets. 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 Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 11:06:17AM +, blogHUD wrote: Trouble is, there aren't enough developers there at the beeb (in News, at least) who can do all these things - along with all the other great stuff they have to do. There are some amazing developers there - don't get me wrong - some are geniuses - some are not anything close. Some are great at Java, some are Flash ninjas, some do great html. Some do what they're told. Some push the boundaries. Some 'watch the clock'. Some work as long as it takes to get a job done because they love it! ;) Some do that little bit 'extra'. Pretty much like any other company. If there aren't enough developers with the requisite skills that is a problem for either recruitment and/or training. What can happen in editorially-driven sites like this is, when a producer/editor wants a certain 'feature', a representative of the design/dev team might a) say 'No! We can't do that!' then hopefully b) Come up with a solution / compromise which might be down to skillsets required and resources available. Policy of what is sensible to implement as Ajax, Java or Flash should come from the technical management, and then that policy should be followed through. At the moment your description sounds a bit like a case of Oh Fred is free but he can only do Flash is one of the main deciding factors on what technology gets used. -- 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?
Is all the discussion of AJAX here missing the point slightly? The point of AJAX is to allow the sending and recieving of data without refreshing the page, which is only one facet of the functions that flash can fulfil. While I'm personally pretty anti-flash in most cases (although stuff like sIFR shows how it can be applied in a useful and usable way - http://www.mikeindustries.com/sifr/ ) it's use as a so-called 'rich-media' interface (animation, sound, video, precise typographic control) have absolutely nothing to do with AJAX (although javascript could replace much of this functionality)? Cheers, Tim
RE: [backstage] Flash required?
What can happen in editorially-driven sites like this is, when a producer/editor wants a certain 'feature', a representative of the design/dev team might a) say 'No! We can't do that!' then hopefully b) Come up with a solution / compromise which might be down to skillsets required and resources available. Policy of what is sensible to implement as Ajax, Java or Flash should come from the technical management, and then that policy should be followed through. At the moment your description sounds a bit like a case of Oh Fred is free but he can only do Flash is one of the main deciding factors on what technology gets used. Policy on what should be used does come from technical management, however that policy always has to reflect the skills /currently/ available to the organisation and the cost of doing so. And ultimately the correct decision must always be based on what the editorial proposition is, and how easy it is to do that job. In other words, if it's going to take two weeks to do something in Flash, four to get it done in JavaScript and you need it in three weeks time, people would go down the Flash route. The BBC is no different to any other large organisation in that it has a wide range of skills in its staff, however the right staff are not always available at the right time for every circumstance. Funnily enough, as this conversation goes on, I'm trying to work out what my tech team will be doing for the next two weeks... And, of course, one of the things I'm doing is trying to balance out what my team of eight can do, who needs to do what, and when they need to do it for :) - 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?
Tim Cowlishaw wrote: Is all the discussion of AJAX here missing the point slightly? It depends on how you define Ajax. Ajax is now often used to mean Web 2.0 style websites, based primarily on HTML/CSS/Javascript as opposed to just Asynchronous Javascript and XML. Especially as some AJAX based site are often turning to JSON instead of XML for data transport and for a lot of sites there's just not that much in the way of Asynchronous calls. Since it's a lot easier to say AJAX than it is to say DHTML, or HTML/CSS/Javascript and all the terms are related anyway the term Ajax now has more than it's original meaning. Which sounds better: We could use HTML/CSS/Synchronous Javascript/JSON instead of Flash We could use Ajax instead of Flash While the first might be technically more correct, the second is easier to say, and you still get the gist of what sort of site you're developing. 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 05/03/07, blogHUD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: they soon found out that a MASSIVE majority of users to BBC News Online had the version of Flash I needed I was always told we needed the BBC to cater for the people who aren't in the majority. If you are only going to cater for the majority then why do we even bother with a BBC in the first place? 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. Oh and on the subject of VM, how does the flash VM protect me if I am worried about the player itself being hostile? I can not accurately determine what actions it is going to take. I am sorry but I am not skilled enough in reverse engineering to look at binary level data and determine what the code does. Quick comment about the person who said Java can be compiled to javascript, they must have the same features. Think about that for a minute. My C compiler GCC, compiles C and C++ code to Intel Machine ode, are you saying machine code and C/C++ have the same language features? 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] Flash required?
Andy wrote: On 05/03/07, blogHUD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: they soon found out that a MASSIVE majority of users to BBC News Online had the version of Flash I needed I was always told we needed the BBC to cater for the people who aren't in the majority. If you are only going to cater for the majority then why do we even bother with a BBC in the first place? I always thought BBC is mainstream and other government media companies like Channel 4 are for the minorities. 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. You can always click the links for the flash free version. No one is forcing you to look at the flash content. I reckon if you took a random sample of people from the street the vast majority would prefer the flash version. Oh and on the subject of VM, how does the flash VM protect me if I am worried about the player itself being hostile? I can not accurately determine what actions it is going to take. I am sorry but I am not skilled enough in reverse engineering to look at binary level data and determine what the code does. Blimey if your that paranoid you should start using lynx immediately. How do you know that all the images on the BBC web site haven't been infected with a virus like the WMF exploit (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS06-001.mspx), plus all that nasty javascript that is all over the web these days. Anyway i thought this was the BBC Backstage mailing list and not the BBC Bashing mailing list :-P Adam - 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 05/03/07, Adam Leach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can always click the links for the flash free version. No one is forcing you to look at the flash content. I reckon if you took a random sample of people from the street the vast majority would prefer the flash version. I pay for the flash content. They can produce said content in an open and standard compliant way, the BBC took the choice that they would force me to enter a contract with a third party. I thought the BBC was forbidden from interfering with commercial markets, maybe I should be writing to Offcom or the E.U. commission? Blimey if your that paranoid you should start using lynx immediately. How do you know that all the images on the BBC web site haven't been infected with a virus like the WMF exploit (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS06-001.mspx), plus all that nasty javascript that is all over the web these days. Why would I be worried about WMF exploit? You really think I would use that software? It takes someone with an exceptional stupidity to decide to include binary executable code in an image file! Javascript is reasonably well sand boxed. I can also disable it at a click of a button. 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? I asked the BBC this before, they refused to answer, so maybe someone would like to answer it: Why does the BBC require people to compromise system security to use their site to its full extent? Anyway i thought this was the BBC Backstage mailing list and not the BBC Bashing mailing list :-P If someone had the decency to answer my questions I would appreciate it. When they do something right I will commend the BBC, but I am still waiting for them to do something good. I suppose the BBC news RSS feed is OK. My feed reader gets the Technology feed. No interesting news really today, apart from something about one care and viruses but I saw that on slashdot already. But if and when the BBC starts using open and published standards and develops it's software cross platform I will be here to congratulate them. However on past performance I would guess that the is unlikely to happen, unless Offcom get around to enforcing the law and force the BBC to do as it is supposed to, at which point I will be congratulating Offcom. Credit where credit's due, and the BBC don't deserve much yet, they are doing all the wrong things. DRM = bad idea. Flash = bad idea. Real Player = bad idea. Windows only software = bad idea. 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] Flash required?
On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 20:43 +, Andy wrote: snip lots of stuff Credit where credit's due, and the BBC don't deserve much yet, they are doing all the wrong things. DRM = bad idea. Flash = bad idea. Real Player = bad idea. Windows only software = bad idea. Sorry to ask, I get the rest and all, but Real player= bad why? 1) There's a free software player... apt-cache show helix-player Package: helix-player Priority: optional Section: graphics Installed-Size: 11536 Maintainer: Daniel Baumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Architecture: powerpc 2) There are plugins for most browsers (and by that I mean the mozilla-helix/ mozilla-real bit, not 'real player itself') 3) There's a non free player available in 2 clicks from real.com or via repos. 4) There's a free software server available too. 5) It runs on more archs than you can shake a stick at What's up with it? Regards George - 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 05/03/07, George Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry to ask, I get the rest and all, but Real player= bad why? I was under the impression that the Real Media formats are proprietary so only Real Networks know how to implement them. I could be wrong of course. 1) There's a free software player... apt-cache show helix-player I don't think it supports RTSP (the streaming protocol). At least last time I tried it it said I needed real player installed. 2) There are plugins for most browsers (and by that I mean the mozilla-helix/ mozilla-real bit, not 'real player itself') See above 3) There's a non free player available in 2 clicks from real.com or via repos. 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. It would auto-start every time I turned my computer on. I couldn't turn this off. In the end I had to use a security program to kick it out of the registry. It would connect to the Internet without my consent, even after turning off the check for updates and other settings. I had to configure my firewall to silently block it's connection attempts. I never did find out what it was doing or more importantly what data it was sending. It kept displaying adverts on my screen (some popup thing in the bottom right hand corner, near the tray icon). Does that look like reputable and trustworthy software to you? I don't want to risk damaging my nice Linux system with something that I know acts suspiciously, especially if I need to run it as root. (For Windows users root is like your Administer level account) If it doesn't do anything bad why is the source code hidden?! 4) There's a free software server available too. There's a free software server capable of Ogg Vorbis streaming. 5) It runs on more archs than you can shake a stick at I know where there is an Arm board, do I need to shake a stick at it? Does Real Player run on Arm? There's always someone who has an obscure piece of kit. What's up with it? As above. Of course if I am mistaken don't hesitate to correct me ;) 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] Flash required?
On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 21:41 +, Andy wrote: On 05/03/07, George Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was under the impression that the Real Media formats are proprietary so only Real Networks know how to implement them. I could be wrong of course. So, your major objection to real is that it isn't free software? Now, I grant you that the Real/Helix split is confusing, but it seems odd, given that they've GPLd shed loads of it, to lump them in the same boat as Windows only programmes, or DRM, or whatever else you lumped them in with - which is why I queried it. Rest of points inline: I don't think it supports RTSP (the streaming protocol). At least last time I tried it it said I needed real player installed. From what I've seen, sometimes I've got that, sometimes not - so I imagine it depends on the implementation by the content provider - not Real/Helix's fault. 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 If it doesn't do anything bad why is the source code hidden?! A good argument. Here's some source. https://common.helixcommunity.org/2004/devdocs/quickstart https://helixcommunity.org/viewvc.cgi/player/ There's a free software server capable of Ogg Vorbis streaming. Vorbis recommend the Real stuff (http://www.vorbis.com/software/#linux) 'The Helix Player is RealNetworks's Helix Community Project's player for UNIX (Linux and BSD included). Today, it supports Ogg Vorbis and Theora (as you'd expect) as well as Real's own formats, MPEG and pretty much any other kind of audio/video media you can think of.' However, no-one uses ogg (see James Cridland's mail about Virgin's ogg), and we (the BBC) make stuff that we want people to use. We also make our own codecs, which I'm sure one day we hope people will also use. In the meantime, people do use real. I use Ogg. I'm not all people. The BBC has done ogg trials, and might do them again. It seems curious to blame real for the fact that people don't use ogg, or to ignore their implementation of a free server in favour of an ogg one - or have I got your argument the wrong way around? I know where there is an Arm board, do I need to shake a stick at it? Does Real Player run on Arm? http://www.real.com/realmobile/palmone.html Minimum Requirements 1. PalmOne OS5-based device with ARM processor Or, of course, you could build it from src https://community.helixcommunity.org/developers/#source There's always someone who has an obscure piece of kit. Yep, and real seems pretty good at running on various bits of kit What's up with it? As above. Of course if I am mistaken don't hesitate to correct me ;) Well, I think your main point seems to be 'the BBC should use ogg' - which, if correct, I wouldn't have bothered responding to (this isn't yet, /. as much as it seems like it sometimes) Other points 1) there's some source available under sane licences. 2) Real itself is probably awful on windows - but what isn't? 3) there is an arm versiion precompiled, and you could get your own one built (building helix is a pain, but hey, it's in main, so you could go nuts http://packages.qa.debian.org/h/helix-player.html ) Smiles George - 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 05/03/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 05/03/07, George Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5) It runs on more archs than you can shake a stick at I know where there is an Arm board, do I need to shake a stick at it? Does Real Player run on Arm? There's always someone who has an obscure piece of kit. Yup. :) -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. - 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 Mon, 2007-03-05 at 22:20 +, George Wright wrote: So, your major objection to real is that it isn't free software? I can't speak for Andy, but my main objection to the Real formats is that they _cannot_ be implemented in free software. It's a proprietary format, not an open standard. Even if it were documented, it is (I believe) covered by patents which would prevent freely-available implementations. Even mp3 is problematic because of the patents, although it's widely implemented anyway. Ogg would be much better. But Real does at least exist for Linux/PowerPC which is what I mostly use these days, so pragmatically speaking it isn't _quite_ as bad as it could be. 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 The Real codec libraries work quite nicely in xine and other players. They don't _look_ like anything, by themselves. However, no-one uses ogg (see James Cridland's mail about Virgin's ogg), My apologies; I haven't seen the mail in question and it doesn't leap out of the archives at me. Do you have a reference? and we (the BBC) make stuff that we want people to use. We also make our own codecs, which I'm sure one day we hope people will also use. That's a recursive argument. If the BBC made its content available in Ogg, more of the BBC's audience would use Ogg. The _important_ point, IMHO, is that Ogg is freely available, both libre and gratis. It need never be a barrier to legal listening. Operating systems don't ship with Real support either -- you have to install that too. In the meantime, people do use real. I use Ogg. I'm not all people. The BBC has done ogg trials, and might do them again. It seems curious to blame real for the fact that people don't use ogg, or to ignore their implementation of a free server in favour of an ogg one - or have I got your argument the wrong way around? I think perhaps you've missed the point. The Helix server and player are _fine_ if it's Ogg you're serving or playing. It's the Real _formats_ which are problematic. 1) there's some source available under sane licences. The important part -- and in fact I would say the only relevant part -- is the codecs. And the source for those is not available. -- 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?
On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 22:49 +, David Woodhouse wrote: My main objection to the Real formats is that they _cannot_ be implemented in free software. It's a proprietary format, not an open standard. That makes sense. But (and bear with me, I'm trying to work out the issues) Is it the lack of (legal) ability to modify Real's source code, to do a quick (legal) apt-get/yum/whatever install to get the player, to run your own Real server, or your ability to redistribute the player, that's the problem? If your overall argument is 'the BBC should always offer AV content in at least one format that plays in free software', then that's a different question. At the moment, Real seems the best non-free AV format. To you (and maybe me with a non BBC head on) that might not be a suitable compromise. I've suggested reasons below why moving to another format might not currently be on the agenda. But Real does at least exist for Linux/PowerPC which is what I mostly use these days Me too, which might have swayed me a little bit too. so pragmatically speaking it isn't _quite_ as bad as it could be. indeed. And not as bad as DRM/ Windows only. The Real codec libraries work quite nicely in xine and other players. They don't _look_ like anything, by themselves. He was objecting to the Windows Real player - which he said looked like a trojan to him. So for you, the codec works, but you don't like the fact that it's not really legal to get it working? My apologies; I haven't seen the mail in question and it doesn't leap out of the archives at me. Do you have a reference? Here's the ref: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/msg03400.html 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 That's a recursive argument. If the BBC made its content available in Ogg, more of the BBC's audience would use Ogg We did make it available. http://support.bbc.co.uk/ogg/oldnews.shtml Operating systems don't ship with Real support either -- you have to install that too. Yes (although some do). But in the meantime, we'd have to do a lot of work on having WMV Real Ogg and with a limited resource for hardware, admin and people - something's got to give - especially when 99.99% of current listeners wouldn't see any need to change, and most wouldn't see any benefit (without getting into the quality of the codecs..) I think perhaps you've missed the point. The Helix server and player are _fine_ if it's Ogg you're serving or playing. It's the Real _formats_ which are problematic. Y..e..s, like I said, I was a little confused about that bit. There are free Real servers which serve Real content available, but I don't know if they're free-as-in-speech, or maybe even limited to x number of streams.. The important part -- and in fact I would say the only relevant part -- is the codecs. And the source for those is not available. So it's the binary blob/codec bit that's the problem? I don't like it either, tbh, but this (cross platform players, source for most of the containers available, legally pre-installed players on some platforms) is all a long way from DRM and Windows only. Again, like I said, this is why I jumped in - and now I'm talking about ogg :( George - 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 05/03/07, George Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, your major objection to real is that it isn't free software? My major objection would be the formats aren't available for other people to implement. Unless of course they are available, and they just haven't been implemented. If they are available do you know where? From what I've seen, sometimes I've got that, sometimes not - so I imagine it depends on the implementation by the content provider - not Real/Helix's fault. It's always failled when I tried the Helix plugin with the BBC site. 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 Of course, but it does increase the likelihood of it being nasty, once bitten twice shy and all that. If it doesn't do anything bad why is the source code hidden?! A good argument. Here's some source. How does some code prove that the other part isn't hostile? Give the guys some credit, if I was to write a backdoor into a program and then decide to release some of it I would make sure not to release backdoor.c (I would never actually write a backdoor into anything, but that's not my point). Vorbis recommend the Real stuff (http://www.vorbis.com/software/#linux) I'm not sure they actually recommend it, they are just listing players that support OGG. I doubt they are recommending the Real Media formats. However, no-one uses ogg You don't mean no-one ;). Because you said you used it, (further down). And I use it. (see James Cridland's mail about Virgin's ogg), Got a link? and we (the BBC) make stuff that we want people to use. You work for the BBC? You seem nicer than I imagined for a BBC employee. And appear to have a good knowledge of computing, nice to see there are some good people at the BBC. We also make our own codecs, which I'm sure one day we hope people will also use. Dirac? Why does it need to be your own codec, why not help with ogg, or is there something fundamentally different? (my knowledge of audio compression is a very basic, I know of Delta encoding, not much use though is it really ;)? In the meantime, people do use real. I use Ogg. I'm not all people. The BBC has done ogg trials, and might do them again. It seems curious to blame real for the fact that people don't use ogg, or to ignore their implementation of a free server in favour of an ogg one - or have I got your argument the wrong way around? I don't blame Real, I blame Real for not letting me listen to streams with the software I want t use. I blame the BBC for advocating a certain commercial entity at the expense of others. I actually find it amusing that DJ's have to make sure not to mutter phrases that relate to a company, yet the BBC is allowed to plaster ads for companies like Real Networks and Microsoft on its website and even require users to do business with these companies. You seem to be saying that implementing ogg would mean many people couldn't listen, I don't understand this. I can find a media player that will play an ogg stream licensed in such a way that the BBC can distribute it itself. I also never suggested only providing ogg streams. (If I gave this impression I apologise. I personally disagree with using Real Player and Windows, I don't expect the BBC to force people not to use Real Player, but I do expect the BBC to give me a choice of what I run on my machine). Incidentally is the BBC willing to acceptable responsibility for any damage incurred as a result of installing or running Real Player? http://www.real.com/realmobile/palmone.html Minimum Requirements 1. PalmOne OS5-based device with ARM processor Well I'll be damned it does run on ARM. Well, I think your main point seems to be 'the BBC should use ogg' - which, if correct, I wouldn't have bothered responding to (this isn't yet, /. as much as it seems like it sometimes) Why precisely does a suggestion of why don't you use ogg not deserve a response? I of course don't mean exclusively use OGG, just let me listen on any software I want. Of course if you know of a better format that has an open specification feel free to share it. You have yet to provide a good reason why you can't offer OGG along side Real. In fact I have never received a satisfactory response to why it must be real player formats. And don't even get me started on the use of ActiveX on the BBC site. (and I don't find being told to download ActiveX from the Microsoft website very helpful when I explicitly said I use Linux, and the BBC never bothered to respond after I told then I thought this advice was not useful). Interestingly a quick googling found a proposed standard for RTSP. I wonder why its only proposed it's been there nearly 10 years. Maybe they had problems with the 2 independent implementations issue? Andy - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit
[backstage] Flash required?
Flash required? anyone care to suggest why this is in flash? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/live_stats/html/map.stm seems unhelpful at best. cheers Jonathan Chetwynd - 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 04/03/07, Jonathan Chetwynd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: anyone care to suggest why this is in flash? So they can do animation when you hover over individual continents. Also does animation for the slide out thing when clicking a story (note: clicking on the story that's already being shown should make the slide out thing slide back again). Most of that could have been achieved via standard CSS and images. It's probably because the BBC rewrites accessibility guidelines to avoid having to actually comply with the industry standard one. There policy is written based on what they are doing currently, not what is actually meant to be done! Andy (note: I would much prefer the use of Java on the BBC website instead of RealPlayer and Flash, at least Sun let people see there code to rule out Trojan back doors and let other people develop JVMs) - 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?
Jonathan Chetwynd wrote: Flash required? anyone care to suggest why this is in flash? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/live_stats/html/map.stm seems unhelpful at best. Well Jonathan you can always click on the accessible link on the page http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/live_stats/html/lowbycountry.stm I actually like the animation and the graphics as i feel it adds value to the information. Adam - 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?
At 21:10 + 4/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: note: I would much prefer the use of Java on the BBC website instead of RealPlayer and Flash, at least Sun let people see there code to rule out Trojan back doors and let other people develop JVMs I don't think a lot of users would though, Java is clunky and slow from what I have seen. You always know when it's loading, because all the machines I've been on freeze for about a second whilst it kicks in, unlike the relative seamlessness with the Real/Flash plugins. I quite like the stat-o-meter they have made on the BBC News website, and the animations add a nice touch to it. How do the guts it work though? Switch to Ruby on Rails and AJAX over and above Java? Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [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] Flash required?
On 04/03/07, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Switch to Ruby on Rails and AJAX over and above Java? Ruby is server side, unless I am mistaken. Thus would not need to be installed locally, so a good thing there. Javascript (needed for AJAX) is implemented differently across browser. not even sure the XMLHTTPRequest function, or whatever it is called, is standardised or if websites just pray all vendors implemented it the same way. As for Flash being faster than Java and your system freezing when loading java. Where the systems mutli-platform or did you just try Windows? An OS is supposed to allow multiple processes to run concurrently, if something hangs then either part of your program was written badly, e.g. the browser is waiting for Java to complete start up at the expense of rendering, or the OS kernel Scheduler is not doing it's job. While it is waiting for the disc to fetch jvm it should be running the other programs. Flash may be running at startup, some programs do that. It makes them look quick but you lose out in memory. And once your machine resorts to Virtual Memory your machine will crawl. I suggested Java over HTML/CSS/Javascript as Java is more versatile. Java will also run on many more platforms than Flash. You can even get embedded versions of Java. Java is a more full featured language than javascript, or I might just not know Javascript well enough. And of course security wise Flash is a no go area. If you can't see what code is doing to your machine better assume its doing something bad to it. Of course I could run flash in a VM but the overhead just to run the BBC webpage would be completely unacceptable, even with kernel level acceleration (I don't have native support for VM on my CPU, unless I upgrade). Again the BBC is taking a one-vendor approach when there are multi-vendor multi-platform alternatives. Who is responsible for these decisions? Are they actually qualified or did they pull somebody in off the street (wouldn't be the first time the BBC did that either). 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/
