The Bush and Blair Corporation
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), or perhaps more aptly, the Bush and Blair Corporation, (a term coined by George Galloway in relation to the BBC's biased news reporting and, I believe, its political agenda), goes from bad to worse. Apparently they're still a public service broadcaster, paid for mainly by us license fee payers, yet they promote commercial interests which are not in the public interest.
I can't load the BBC News Player, they tell me that it is "probably because you have JavaScript turned off", then tell me how to enable it on Windows or Mac. They offer a podcast of the news. In their news headlines that tick across the top of the screen I am informed, "LATEST: Microsoft releases patch for bug in Internet Explorer two weeks early", as if that really is news. If I want to watch a video from their site I'm offered a choice of windows media player or real player.
Who are these fools?
Thu, 28th Sep 2006 7:47:51 +0200
They're "laggers", like most non-tech corporations… Still living in the 20th century with websites "Optimised for Internet Explorer" and such…
They'll be forced to change eventually, if firefox market share continues to grow… It's reaching 30% in some countries :
Usinghttp://www.xitimonitor.com/fr-.....-3-52.html
Thu, 28th Sep 2006 13:29:59 +0200
There are worse things with the BBC than its IT policies, hinted at by the title of this post. They may change their IT policies, but that would be as nothing if there were not more sweeping changes 'higher up'.
UsingMon, 29th Jan 2007 15:21:27 +0100
I'm not sure why you can't handle the fact that some companies have software that is accepted as industry standard by the majority of internet users. IT'S CORPORATE INTEREST BIG BROTHER TAKIN' OVER THE WORLD DUDES ONE WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER USER AT A TIME. Grow up.
UsingMon, 29th Jan 2007 15:31:53 +0100
Consumerist Weasel:
UsingIt has nothing to do with 'growing up'. The BBC is a public service broadcaster, it is funded by public money. By supporting open technologies they would not be excluding anyone, even those who choose to use a proprietary OS and software, but including 'everyone'. Even windoze media player can support open technologies. Wise up.
Mon, 29th Jan 2007 17:10:46 +0100
I don't see why the fact that you choose to use non-proprietary software entitles you to some sort of special compatibility agreement. They simply operate within what is accepted as the industry standard; what their IT guys know how to use, what former employees are familiar with, what most computer users have seen in the past and can operate easily, and what tech services guys worldwide are consistently trained in. Just because public money is spent to fund this service does not mean that it will be accessible or beneficial to all members of the public (few government areas of spending are). If the government had to please everyone in every action they took, nothing would ever be accomplished. The BBC is distributing information in the way that it feels it will reach the most people with the least fuss.
UsingMon, 29th Jan 2007 18:48:20 +0100
I never said that my choice of using non-proprietary software entitles me to some sort of special compatibility agreement, so I don't know where you get that idea from.
Back in April 1994 it was reported that, "Reliability and the ability to change code, rather than cost, are driving the increased use of Linux at the BBC, according to Damion Yates, team leader of internet operations at BBC Technology," and then in September 2006 we read that "BBC and Microsoft sign agreement". Before this agreement, the BBC website was more Linux-friendly, and what I describe in the post is a step backwards in compatibility. So your argument about what their IT guys know how to use, etc, doesn't hold much water.
The BBC is a semi-autonomous organisation, it is not a branch of the government, (or, at least, it is not supposed to be), so your comment that if the government had to please everyone in every action they took, nothing would ever be accomplished is a moot point. The BBC has a constitution which states that they must "determine the strategy of the Corporation in respect of the Home Services in the manner which they consider is best calculated to ensure that the Corporation's services, programmes and other activities reflect the needs and interests of the public". By inference, I was questioning whether their support for proprietary software and operating systems is actually in the best interests of the public, or is it, in contrast to their constitution, in the interests of major corporations? In my opinion, they could certainly distribute information in a better manner, that would reach more people and with the same level of ease, they certainly have the budget for it. Supporting non-proprietary, open software does not shut out users of proprietary software, as is done in the reverse - the clue is in the respective names.
As a UK resident and television set owner, and therefore a license fee payer, I feel that the BBC are, with their constitution in mind, as answerable to me as much as they are to the next UK resident who pays the license fee, and indeed any other member of the public in the UK. Probably in much the same way as your opening "I don't see why…" sentence, I don't see why a USA resident wants to be such an apologist for the BBC as you apparently want to be.
UsingMon, 29th Jan 2007 21:05:00 +0100
Mostly, they do a better job than any choice we have in just about every way possible.
UsingMon, 29th Jan 2007 22:47:15 +0100
Who is 'they'? I don't understand what your last comment means.
Using