Linux - NewsThis forum is for original Linux News. If you'd like to write content for LQ, feel free to contact us.
All threads in the forum need to be approved before they will appear.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
As yet there is no indicatation as to the level of Linux support but I imagine that the organisation, not famous for its Linux support will "Have plans to roll out support for Linux in the future" (My own words there).
Those reading this post, especially those who pay the annual TV licence fee, may want to visit the following site to petition the Prime Minister, of all people, to make the BBC avaliable to all.
Those reading this post, especially those who pay the annual TV licence fee, may want to visit the following site to petition the Prime Minister, of all people, to make the BBC avaliable to all.
First of all, this is nothing to do with the prime minister!
Secondly, what on earth does "should does not" (second and third lines up from bottom of "More details from petition creator") mean?
Any complaints about BBC policy should be made to the BBC Trust, as described HERE.
Not sure what 'should does not' really means, I am not the creator of the petition However, if you remove the word 'should' then the paragraph becomes easy to understand.
I have not added my name to the petition yet for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, I am uncertain as to the influence that a political office, such at that of Prime Minister, should have over a media organisation and secondly I wanted to poll peoples opinions here first as many minds help one see alternative interpretations of a viewpoint or policy decision.
It could well be that complaining directly to the BBC is the most appropriate action in the first instance but there may be no harm in registering ones opinion with policy makers too.
Originally Posted by Department for Culture Media and Sport
We strive to take account of the views and interests of the UK citizen in our decision-making as the Government Department with responsibility for the BBC Charter review, the self regulation of the press, and - jointly with Department of Trade & Industry - for digital TV switchover.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Department for Culture Media and Sport
We review the Royal Charter which governs the BBC and set the licence fee. Read our BBC and other public broadcasting page for more details.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Department for Culture Media and Sport
We are responsible for the framework for broadcasting in the UK.
We work closely with the regulators, broadcasting industry, viewers and listeners to increase viewer choice, ensure healthy competition and maintain programme standards and quality.
That's the kind of thing I was trying to say but I lack both the education and the power of expression to do so.
The link between the BBC and government is subtle. In the case of the iplayer I think it is a case of pressure on a number of fronts to work towards a goal, that being access for all to BBC output.
The same argument is used by taxpayers the world round, didn't that American chap Washington talk about "No taxation without representation".
Of course we can always do without a TV in the house...
iPlayer is, in my opinion, just another thing the government can say they have made possible - the UK has one of the highest take ups in Europe of broadband which is integral to having iPlayer.
I did see today that ITV are going to do something similar.
As a commercial orgainisation there is an argument that this is their commercial choice. When businesses start offering on demand TV to GNU/Linux users then it will show that they have made the business decision that it is worth supporting.
It would be interesting to have a handle on the development costs of porting the software over to GNU/Linux.
This does not lessen the fact that a publicly funded group should have a stronger requirement to provide its services to all.
In my view this is similar to the argument currently going on in a number of European countries about making public documents available to all without the need for proprietary software to read it.
In my opinion VoD will not have wide uptake until there is a common platform available which will allow all oD services (ITV, BBC & 4oD) present in 1 application.
Linux lends itself to this with its 'do 1 task well' strategy but DRM is the huge hurdle to overcome to see VoD on Linux. Its worth noting the BBC Trust did not say 'you mut make this available to all platforms', they simply said it 'should' be made available on all platforms and asked people to come forward with DRM schemes for alternatives platforms, (i.e. its not putting the onus on the BBC to sort it).
Anyway I'm not sure how keen I am to have a P2P system installed which I have no control over.
I'm under the impression that the bbc are already on the job with linux. The bbc trust who manage funding and policy wrote this Press Release at the end of January
Quote:
Provisional Conclusions
The Trust has reached its provisional conclusions after careful analysis of both the Market Impact Assessment (MIA) and Public Value Assessment (PVA). In doing so it has taken into account all the evidence and issues raised, including public research and submissions made by stakeholders during the earlier period for representations. The Trust's approval of the proposition is subject to a number of modifications:-
Storage window for seven-day TV catch-up over the internet should not be wholly excluded because it creates public value; but should be limited to 30 days. The BBC Executive's application proposed 13 weeks for this feature.
Series stacking: The public value of allowing access to free content needs to be balanced against the value of the BBC's secondary rights and potential for negative market impact. The Trust agrees with Ofcom that there is a need for a tighter definition of which series would be offered for stacking.
Platform-agnostic approach: As proposed, the TV catch-up service on the internet relies on Microsoft technology for the digital rights management (DRM) framework. The Trust will require the BBC Executive to adopt a platform-agnostic approach within a reasonable timeframe. "This requires the BBC to develop an alternative DRM framework to enable users of other technology, for example, Apple and Linux, to access the on-demand services."
Genres included in non-DRM audio downloads: Audio-books and classical music should be excluded from the non-DRM downloads. The public value to be created is not, in the Trust's view, sufficient to justify the potential market impact of allowing downloads of these genres.
Protection of children from unsuitable content: The Trust will require the BBC Executive to present options to ensure this.
I'm not certain how long a "reasonable timeframe" is exactly but i think they've had allot of feedback about apple and linux.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
