BBC Open Source launched 181
Elphin writes "The BBC today launched their BBC Open Source website, providing a home for projects such as their video codec dirac , TV-Anytime Java API and Kamaelia network testbed."
The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable. -- John Kenneth Galbraith
Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
A question for those who are in the know: How is Dirac's performance these days? i.e. Does anyone have any good comparisons to MPEG4 compression ratios, encoding times, etc.?
Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Any BBC'ers out there have some good series suggestions? I've got Little Britain, and the new Doctor Who. What else should I be looking for?
Re:Wow (Score:2, Interesting)
The League of Gentlemen, particularly the first series.
Re:Wow (Score:2)
The League of Gentlemen, particularly the first series.
IMHO, much better than Little Britain. Not that LB's less than excellent, you understand, just the LoG is even better.
As to further suggestions, it's not BBC (it's Channel 4, which often gives the Beeb a run for its money) but "Shameless" is excellent. I doubt I could descibe it without offending entire demographics, so I'll leave it to you all to Google ;-)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Also from Channel 4 was Spaced...
Can't argue with Spaced - superb comedy. Simon Pegg from Spaced, Shaun of the Dead was also in "Hippies", another very funny comedy (from the BBC? I can't remember - might be C4 also).
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
Of those in the list, I can recommend: Yes Minister; I, Claudius; Blackadder.
Re: Wow (Score:2)
For drama, I think Neverwhere deserves far more recognition.
Re: Wow (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:1, Interesting)
Casanova and Hustle are probably some of the best stuff BBC has done recently.
Re:Wow (Score:1)
Re:Wow (Score:1)
Attachments [imdb.com]
Re:Wow (Score:2)
where have you *really* been, clive ?
Re:Wow (Score:1)
The show stars Paul Merton and Ian Hislop on either side of the two-team format, and each week the teams have their own guest contender (oftentimes the subject of a roasting.)
Hilarity usually ensues.
Re:Wow (Score:1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_I_Got_News_For_
Try not to read the spoilers, though.
Re:Wow (Score:1)
Now if only we could get the same brains behind the BBC to take over the operations of another possibly doomed TV/tech venture [current.tv], maybe something good like this could happen in my own backyard!
Re:Wow (Score:2)
I think they are. They might also be thinking of putting Dirac into digital set-top boxes to increase capacity or quality when HDTV hits the UK.
While doing some very simple math seems fun... (Score:2)
and I'm thinking, wow, you could really implement some stupid stuff with that.
Some of the more asinine web templating tools available today would look like Knuth's TAoCP in comparison to the potential train wrecks.
Which is not to say that such little gadgets don't have their time and place; my point is that somebody will always take them out of context.
Re:Wow (Score:2)
It is in Ogg/Theora format and should be viewable with RealPlayer 10+, VLC, or Flumotion.
Re:Wow (Score:1)
cheers!
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
http://stream.fluendo.com/archive/6uadec/Thomas_D
Re:Wow (Score:1)
Re:Wow (Score:1)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Informative)
Its performance these days doesn't seem very encouraging [doom9.org], though it's early in development. It has some hefty competition, though - such as the Snow [doom9.org] codec, which also uses wavelets for its compression algorithms.
Overall, the promise of wavelet codecs is high, but their quality to compression ratio vs. traditional MPEG-4 solutions (like XviD and H.264), and the convenience of encodes (Dirac lacks very many useful encoding tools outside of command line) at present leaves much to be desired.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
Smart move (Score:1)
Re:Smart move (Score:1)
Re:Smart move (Score:3, Insightful)
And yes they do have competition, the BBC has created an enormous number of new channels over the last 5 years to keep up with the growing num
Three cheers! (Score:4, Interesting)
A couple questions, though. What inspired the British Broadcasting Corporation to suddenly leap into the software programming foray? Are they hoping to build some sort of new service out of all of this, or is it just going to end up as a bunch of disconnected apps?
Re:Three cheers! (Score:2)
It's hardly unique... Remember, there are more programmers working on in-house projects than on commercial software.
Basically (Score:5, Insightful)
Additionally, they think they can get better performance out of Dirac than is being got out of current codecs, which will save them bandwidth.
Re:Three cheers! (Score:5, Insightful)
Q: What inspired Bell Labs to create Multics/Unix?
A: Because they needed it.
BBC has been pushing more and more toward internet-based content. While they've been struggling with legal issues, it is becoming more and more clear that they are extremely serious about this and not just blowing smoke up everyone's hind quarters.
Put this stuff together:
1. A highly competitive streaming video codec.
2. A TV Listings lookup API.
3. A distributed/P2P sharing API.
While these could go together into a few different gizmos, it seems that they are all targetting the concept of showing television over the internet. Oh, that will be a happy day. I might even pay the British TV Tax just to get Dr. Who!
Oh? (Score:2)
Like their recent move to eliminate their "cult TV" website?
Re:Oh? (Score:2)
Re:Three cheers! (Score:2)
As an American, I would like to support the new Doctor Who show financially, especially since apparently all the American broadcasters/cable stations have passed on it, and of course, I've already viewed the entire first season (Season 27, to us old school fans) via the good ol' Torrents. If it can record that the money is coming from an American, I would prefer that approach than importing the Region 2 DVDs since
Re:Three cheers! (Score:3, Funny)
Well, your time has come! I'm two months behind, so I'll be happy to pass your cash on...
Re:Three cheers! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully, the BBC will be able to forge some open standards through this approach. In the past, BBC developments have shaped (or at least steered) the adoption of technology in the UK, and I think Open Source is probably the most compatible with their remit as a public service provider.
It appears that broadcasting today is driven by information technology --- and this means software. The two are inextricably linked. As the BBC is funded by the public (rightly or wrongly), it is good that it should release as much IP related to its technology back to a public domain, and not rely on proprietary technology (hence Dirac). I don't want my license fee going to Microsoft or Real, I paid the BBC!
Re:Three cheers! (Score:2)
You mean like how the majority of Europe uses PAL for analog television broadcasts?
Re:Three cheers! (Score:2)
Yeah, so I guess they owe us all big time for that!
Re:Three cheers! (Score:2)
Well I had an Amstrad CPC-464, not one of those DAMN DIRTY ACORNS.
Re:Three cheers! (Score:2)
They needed the software. Noone else was making it the way they wanted.
Same reason so many people got involved in the Apache project. Actually a lot of Open-Source projects come about this way.
Re:Three cheers! (Score:2)
Re:Three cheers! (Score:1)
Re:Three cheers! (Score:3, Informative)
You do know that this is the same BBC that released the BBC Microcomputer, right? Anyway:
Re:Three cheers! (Score:2)
Check out the page in TFS:
Apache (BBC have a large online news presence, they have seen the need to adapt the software)
Media Lounge (experimenting with multimedia)
TV Anytime (PVR stuff)
Broadcasting doesn't necessarily mean sticking to radio signal, the change to digital demonstrated further diversification of media delivery (essentially broadcasting), as does their online presence: online video
The beeb made my first computer (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Micro [wikipedia.org]
I have fond memories of my Model B
Re:The beeb made my first computer (Score:1)
Re:The beeb made my first computer (Score:2)
We opened it up sometime around '95 and fitted a harddisk, which oddly enough shows up as about 80 floppy disk drives.
Cant beat some frogger or repton3.
Re:Three cheers! (Score:3, Interesting)
What inspired the British Broadcasting Corporation to suddenly leap into the software programming foray?
I've personally thought that software should be thought of more as a broadcast medium rather than a commodity. The very nature of computers, all the way to the processor level, is to copy. A business model for applying software should take advantage of that rather than hinder it. Allowing people to copy software costs nothing in comparison to copying physical goods, and allowing it to be distributed
Re:Three cheers! (Score:2)
Uhm, they have a long historical association with computers. Look at the BBC Micro. Of course, it wasn't marketed here in the States.
Re:Three cheers! (Score:2)
Apache Modules too (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/opensource/projects/apache/ [bbc.co.uk]
Seems like extensions to mod_include to add more logic.
Good Stuff
Makes me proud to pay my TV licence (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Makes me proud to pay my TV licence (Score:1)
but.. maybe this is the bbc making a step towards a computer licence?
Tv content over internet would certainly blur the lines; enough for the goverment to warrant it anyway.
I envy you english people... (Score:1)
My hopes are dashed (Score:3, Informative)
Dirac/Theora? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dirac/Theora? (Score:4, Informative)
[mod parent up] Re:Dirac/Theora? (Score:1)
Thanks, harryk.
Re:Dirac/Theora? (Score:2, Informative)
According to the Dirac FAQ [sourceforge.net] they can't do streaming yet, but they've already got better compression "performance" than Theora (not clear whether that means better compression speed or size).
Re:Dirac/Theora? (Score:2)
Re:Dirac/Theora? (Score:2)
No doubt Dirac is far better. VP3 is quite old now, and Theora hasn't made any significant improvements over VP3.
I think the horse to cheer for is snow. [doom9.org] It's developing quite nicely, unlike both Dirac and Theora, which seem to be dragging on very slowly.
The whole idea of Theora is a poor one. We had an open source VP3 codec in 2001, and instead of promoting it, adding 2-pass support, etc., they spent the past several years re-writing it, and now, when
If only they would publicize.. (Score:5, Informative)
If only they would publicize more of the open-source projects they've been doing in order to spur more development from people who would actually benifit from them.
Take for example the Betsie perl script (which the BBC use extensively on their websites, it's an open-source cgi script which can be used to translate pages on-the-fly into a text-only mode. This has been very helpful for me and for a suprisingly large number of other web developers trying to tackle the issue of accessablity.
If they keep on going in this direction with opening up more projects and providing more APIs for developers to use, then I can really see in maybe as short as 2 years down the line it could be actually be worthwile to pay for that damn TV license.
Open Source (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Open Source (Score:2)
BBC's Motives (Score:2, Interesting)
The BBC is funded by a tax that's mandated on all TV sets in the country and the collection and monitoring process is more than a little nasty--harassement and patrolling vans that can catalog not only that you or I are watching TV, but what we are watching.
The Internet threatens this model. If you can stream video from somewhere else or play DVDs on your computer, what need do you have
Re:BBC's Motives (Score:2)
Re:BBC's Motives (Score:1)
Paranoia and/or breaches of privacy notwithstanding, if what you said is really true, I do think it's absolutely correct that a public television chooses the Open Source path. It makes perfect sense.
So, IMHO, the tax is totally justified, it seems.
Re:BBC's Motives (Score:2)
Re:BBC's Motives (Score:4, Interesting)
I would very much like to see some of the license fee go to this kind of thing. Streaming media is likely to be an even more important part of the communications infrastructure in the coming century than television was in the last one. This is something far too important to be privately owned.
I wish there was more hand-holding regarding Dirac (Score:2)
They do offer some pointers, but still, stuff like wavelets is not your everyday applied math, is it? (Maybe it is, in DSP, I wouldn't know).
What do you think? Have you looked at the documentation? What's yo
Re:I wish there was more hand-holding regarding Di (Score:1)
That said, this site has explainations and code: http://www.bearcave.com/misl/misl_tech/wavelets/ [bearcave.com]
Re:I wish there was more hand-holding regarding Di (Score:2)
Nice to get some good news for a change (Score:2, Interesting)
Why doesn't the Beeb do a late night program with open source makers and shakers on the Beeb payroll telling us about themselves and getting people like Alan Cox to talk to us .
This will encourage contributers.
BBC Page? (Score:2, Informative)
It seems a little wierd to call it a page dedicated to their opensource projects. All the DIRC one serves as is link to their sourceforge project. Not too exciting.
Home page: http://dirac.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]Project page: http://sourceforge.net/projects/dirac [sourceforge.net]
To the BBC... (Score:1)
BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four, BBC Five, BBC Six, BBC Seven, BBC Heaven!
BBC, please!
(Listen to austin power soundstrack)
Dirac? (Score:3, Informative)
--grendel drago
Re:Dirac? (Score:2)
It looks like they're having trouble getting it to run fast enough to be usable - the one I tried was unusably slow on an amd64... it isn't going to replace wmv any time soon on their current performance.
It *does* look beautiful though. Very few artefacts.
Re:The same BBC... (Score:3, Insightful)
But in any case, I do respect the BBC's willingness to contribute back to society. They actively strive to promote the deployment of knowledge, rather than try to restrict and limit its dispersal. But that is most likely because their main goal is not profit. Maximizing profit
Re:The same BBC... (Score:1)
Re:The same BBC... (Score:2)
Re:The same BBC... (Score:2)
I think it is responsible of them to not refer to the perpetrators as "terrorists". These days "terrorist" is nothing more than a buzzword used by those politicians and businesspeople who participate in deceit and real-world trollery.
So the misuse or misunderstanding of a word should negate its existence or appropriate use? If one did that, he might soon have a niggardly [reference.com] vocabulary full of politically-correct buzzwords, signifying nothing.
So I guess we shouldn't call one who robs at sea or plunders
Re:The same BBC... (Score:2)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terroris t [reference.com]
terrorist
n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism [reference.com]
terrorism
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property
Re:The same BBC... (Score:2)
To me, a terrorist is a thug is a thug is a thug, regardless of their ideological bent or their legitimization at law. Whether it's some brainwashed religious zealot blowing themselves up on a bus, some politician deciding to invade a country for no good reason, or if it's some mafia boss. IMHO, they are all thugs, and are driven by nothing but greed.
Re:The same BBC... (Score:5, Informative)
The BBC's guidelines state that its credibility is undermined by the "careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments".
I agree with this point of view. "Bombers" is an accurate way to describe them. They may also be "terrorists", but this does carry an emotional implication as well. It's a little quirky, but I can see the point of simply reporting events rather than making judgements. It's something the media in general seriously lacks.
Re:The same BBC... (Score:2)
I agree with this point of view. "Bombers" is an accurate way to describe them. They may also be "terrorists", but this does carry an emotional implication as well. It's a little quirky, but I can see the point of simply reporting events rather than making judgements. It's something the media in general seriously lacks.
The problem is that simply using the word "bombers" carries an air of legitimacy about it--as if the attacks were no different from, for instance, allied WWII bombers.
This time is one
Re:The same BBC... (Score:1, Interesting)
It's all about perspective. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter after all.
Re:The same BBC... (Score:2)
I'm sure if you were sitting at home in Berlin between 1939 and 1945 you wouldn't have regarded the bombs raining down on your house as legitimate.
Sure I would. I may not like it, but, in this instance, my country would have declared war on them. Moreover, they would be flying according to the generally accepted rules of war--in uniform (marked aircraft), targeting militarily-valuable targets* and under a command structure which is accountable to another society. How isn't that legitimate?
It's al
Re:The same BBC... (Score:4, Interesting)
It doesn't carry an air of legitimacy, merely of neutrality. It's up to us - me, you, other viewers - to apply our values to the circumstances.
Ideally the BBC should report the known facts. They report that the explosions occured. They report that people died. They report that such-and-such a group has claimed repsonsibility. They say that Government ministers have made a statement. And so on.
We listen. Maybe we listen to other sources too. Having heard the reports, WE draw conclusions.
Listening to the reports on this subject I don't think it's hard to make judgments about the people involved, but that isn't a reason for the news reporters to do it for us.
The BBC often falls short of those standards, they often do inject their own values into their reporting (values I mainly agree with), but that doen't mean that objective reporting that gives the viewer the information he or she needs to form their own judgments is a bad thing.
Re:The same BBC... (Score:2)
It doesn't carry an air of legitimacy, merely of neutrality. It's up to us - me, you, other viewers - to apply our values to the circumstances.
What kind of value judgment is being made here? The acts were unquestionably terrorism at its very definition. All I'm saying is that we call it that rather than use some politically-correct (oh, sorry, "neutral") placeholder. That says nothing of whether the terrorist acts were right or wrong.
If this extreme interpretation of journalistic integrity were su
Re:licensing (Score:2)
But they almost changed it! See the FAQ here [bbc.co.uk].
Re:Dirac? (Score:2)
Nope. Daleks are fascists. They wouldn't be suitable for a collaborative effort. They'd operate like Microsoft's mantra, but instead of "embrace," it would be "exterminate and extend."
The Cybermen would be the better thing to reference, since they are the nightmare parable for socialism/communism. Calling the project "Mondas" (after the Cyber race's home planet, the twin planet of Earth, sorta like the Annunaki myths) would be more appropriate.
Granted, it would be mu
Re:Dirac? (Score:1)
Don't you mean, "embrace, extend, and EX-TER-MIN-ATE!"?
Re:Dirac? (Score:1)
Re:Dear god... (Score:2)
HTH.
Re:Dear god... (Score:1)